PC 061406 - Laserfiche WebLink

!~ c. PUD-51. Generations Healthcare Application for PUD rezoning of a 0.49-acre open azea from P (Public and Institutional) District to PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development -Medium Density Residential) District and for development plan approval for atwo-lot single-family residential project to be located in the front of the existing Ms. Decker presented the project and detailed the process that the project had gone through, including the workshop held at the Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 2006. She outlined the neighborhood concerns related to the issue of open space. As discussed at the workshop, the question as to whether the front portion of the lot was required to remain in open space in perpetuity was interpreted to indicate that it was not. She noted that the staff report from the workshop also discussed the issue about landscaping the site and that it is a standard requirement to have the landscaping designed and implemented per the approved plan. She elaborated that this requirement did not create a situation of perpetuity of an open space requirement. She also outlined the comments taken from the Planning Commission related to the issues of perceived mass and bulk and described the modifications that had been done related to those comments: the roof for Lot A had been reduced in height and the wrap azound porch was reconfigured to be only at the front elevation. Ms. Decker noted that although this project is not subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines, the design of the house reflects City objectives and goals which have been ~ created for the Downtown district. She indicated that the site plan was developed through discussions between staff and the applicants, and the homes and gazages were positioned to provide sufficient setbacks from the property lines, street frontages, and neighboring homes, while maximizing the usability of the private yazd areas. Ms. Decker stated that the site plan is acceptable in terms of floor azea ratios and the size and shape of the lots. The proposed development of two single-family homes would generate a negligible increase in traffic; the traffic volumes and levels of service would not be significantly affected, and no traffic mitigations would be required. She stated that the proposed grading and drainage plan contained a sufficient number of stormwater runoff measures and noted that the applicant had prepared a green building checklist. Ms. Decker noted that the surrounding neighbors had expressed concern about the visibility of the existing convalescent home, especially at night. Since there is no signage at the driveway on Neal Street, non-regular visitors may miss the entrance and use the neighboring driveway to make a U-turn. To address this issue, a condition has been added requiring the facility management to install a sign at the entrance on Neal Street to direct visitors. Ms. Decker recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions recommending that the Council approve the Negative Declazation and the project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether this site, which borders the historic Downtown district, was subject to its regulations, Ms. Decker replied PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2006 Page 13 of 18