PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

and a Planning Commission hearing hearing on June 22, 2006, which was continued to this hearing. He displayed the site plan and described its layout and features, including the streetscapes from various perspectives. He described the changes to architectural Public and Institutional features of the home, including the porch, roof pitch, and massing. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the homes would be sprinklered, Mr. Townsend replied that it would be up to Planning staff and added that the homes were under the 5,000-square- foot threshold. Ms. Decker confirmed that the Fire Marshal did not require these homes to be sprinklered. Mr. Samuelian noted that this facility was one of about 15 facilities that Generations Healthcare managed. He described the business plan of the company and noted that the company excelled in picking up older facilities and upgrading them to today’s standards. He observed that the Commissioners may recall what the facility used to look like. He described how the proposed project was not particularly the highest and best use of the front portion of the property but felt that the development of beautiful single-family homes reflecting the charm and architecture of the Downtown was a better fit than an expansion of the existing facility. He noted that the area being considered as “required open space” was in fact not required. He noted that the upper portion fronting Neal Street was not used by the facility; by staff, or by the residents. He added that they would be bringing in a sign design for Lot A for the facility. He also noted there was a consideration to hey had a signage street plan and that they would like to widen the driveway if possible, but that was would be part of a different future proposal. Mr. Townsend described the architecture and noted that although this lot did not fall within the historical Downtown zone, they tried to follow those design guidelines. He noted that the architectural details were very traditional and compatible with the Downtown area, for example the sunburst detailing on the gable ends. He also noted that the homes had been reduced a “skosh” per the Planning Commission direction and, therefore, reduced in floor area. . In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the area with the park bench would be eliminated, Mr. Samuelian replied that they referred to the applicants who sat on the green lawn “escapees” and that they planned to eliminate that area to allow residents going outside to be contained within the courtyard with adequate supervision. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that the applicant’s facility in Modesto had an open space adjacent to the facility and inquired why that could not be included in this plan. Mr. Samuelian replied that the residents did not go out to the park and were encouraged to stay within the courtyards. They had designed the courtyards so they were very comfortable for the residents and their family members; he added that all of their residents required full-time care, and it would be a dangerousnot be desirable for them to venture situation if they went out on their own without an aide. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 12 of 23