PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

footage so that the reduction would be visible from Foothill Road and the house would not appear so massive. Mr. Patel stated that staffs recommendation is to reduce the currently designed 4,956 square foot home, and then redesign the original 4,500 square foot design to pull the second story back to make the home appear even smaller. Mr. Iserson agreed with this statement. Bhulabhai Patel, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he has a lazge extended family who will live in his home. He stated that he also understood from Mr. Plucker that there would be no problem with adding the squaze footage. He confirmed the statements made by Karitk Patel that the addition would not be visible from Foothill Road. He asked for the Commission's help in approving the modification. Chair Cooper asked Mr. Bhulabhai Patel whether he is in agreement with the other conditions. He stated that he has already done everything that staff has asked, including removing a swimming pool, a greenhouse, waterfalls and other landscaping features, and he is willing to compromise even further on the other conditions. However, his main concern is receiving approval for the additional space. Commissioner Wright asked Karitk Patel when he first contacted Mr. Plucker and when he actually filed for the PUD modification, noting that the staff report indicates that it would be very difficult to get the added squaze footage approved and, therefore, the applicant subsequently filed the PUD major modification. Mr. Patel stated that the origina14,500 square foot design was submitted for preliminary review in October, 1997, before the original PUD application was even submitted. Staff contacted him with recommendations which were incorporated into the design. At that time, the applicant realized they needed additional space. Therefore, on the advice of Mr. Plucker, the applicant submitted the major PUD modification in November, 1997. In response to an additional question by Commissioner Wright, Mr. Patel confirmed that he and the applicants were awaze of the 4,500 squaze foot restriction at the time of the original application in October, 1997. He also stated that if the modification is denied, the applicant will build the 4,500 square foot home. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Iserson whether any of the other property owners restricted to 4,500 square feet have requested an increase in square footage. He noted that this is the first for this particulaz PUD, except for that requested by the developer of Moller Ranch. Commissioner Barker feels that if the Planning Commission recommends approval for one person, then it will have to make the same concession for others. She also noted that the Commission voiced the same concern in previous situations. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chair Cooper noted that he likes the architectural design and that since the modification is less than a 10%squaze footage increase, he would approve the additional squaze footage. Commissioner Bazker stated that if the Commission approves this application, then the other property owners should be notified and given the same approval. Chair Cooper disagreed, noting that these types of applications aze approved on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Kumazan noted that he visited the site and he could not understand what the visual impact could be. He feels that the applicants should be able to build a home that meets their family's needs. He will, therefore, support the increased squaze footage, especially since it will not significantly change the appearance of the home and will not cause a significant visual impact. Chair Cooper agreed. Planning Commission Page 22 March 25, 1998