Council takes Burkett site‑plan under review after numerical discrepancies and neighbor concerns

Planning staff presented zoning case 25‑101 for the Burkett property at 10 Saddleback Road, saying the application requests multiple variances, a conditional use permit for accessory structures over 200 square feet and import of 136 cubic yards of soil. The project includes a proposed detached 786‑square‑foot three‑car garage, an ~800‑square‑foot pool house and expanded decking; staff said the lot is in the RAS‑1 zone and is about 0.84 acres.

The presentation said the property ‘‘is already all disturbed’’ and staff recommended the council receive the Planning Commission record and materials for council consideration. Planning staff told council the development table numbers were used in the resolution but acknowledged some figures needed accuracy updates: ‘‘we are working on that, and and it's not perfected at this point,’’ staff said during the presentation.

Council members pressed for technical clarifications on set‑backs, pad coverage and how the pool and pool house were counted in pad and lot coverage calculations. Architect Richie Braden explained how the code defines pad coverage and why, in the project’s calculations, Pad 2’s percentage appears unusually high: the pool and portions of the pad lie in setback or easement areas that are treated differently under the code. Braden said the design team had discussed the calculations with staff and the homeowners association and ‘‘we did spend a lot of time to try to make sure that this was a really good application.’’

The presiding council member raised specific concerns about numbers in the Planning Commission resolution that read as requirements (use of ‘‘shall’’) yet appeared to show the project exceeding code limits — for example, combined structural and flatwork listed at 35.94% where the code’s maximum is 35%. The city attorney said council could vote to take the matter under council review if numeric corrections were required. The attorney also noted staff had discussed historical practices and that a formal rounding rule could be adopted if council desired.

After public comment concluded with no speakers on this item, council considered motions. A motion to ‘‘receive and file’’ lacked a second and failed; a subsequent motion to take the item under submission for further review, corrections to the record, and a field visit passed by voice vote. Council directed staff to arrange a site visit and return with corrected, verifiable lot‑coverage and disturbance calculations and any legal clarifications before final action.

Next steps: the council took the item under submission and scheduled follow‑up inspections and staff analysis rather than approve the variances tonight.