PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

a. PUD-51, Generations Healthcare, Inc. Application for PUD rezoning of a 0.49-acre open area from P (Public and Institutional) District to PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development – Medium Density Residential) District and for development plan approval for a two-lot single-family residential project to be located in the front of the existing convalescent facility located at 300 Neal Street. Also consider a Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Ms. Decker noted that a workshop had been held in January before a different Commission and noted that she would present the project in its entirety for the benefit of the new Commissioners. She summarized the staff report and detailed the background, scope, and layout of the project. She noted that the proposed project was consistent with the General Plan land use designation which was a range of two to eight dwelling units; this project would provide four dwelling units per acre. She described the process to evaluate a project to determine if a traffic study would be necessary. The City Traffic Engineer had evaluated this project; because it encompassed only two single-family dwelling units, it was considered a negligible increase in terms of traffic. No traffic study was required, and the project would not affect the LOS of this area. The Planning Commission had previously requested that a streetscape be provided, displayed on an illustration board. Ms. Decker noted that the buildings would be required to meet the green building ordinance. She also described that during the neighborhood outreach along with comments from the Planning Commission, comments had been received that no one would be able to find the convalescent care facility. She noted that a condition of approval required that a sign would be placed along the driveway for the facility’s use. A design review must be provided, and Lot A would probably provide a sign on the corner, directing visitors to the facility. She noted that other comments indicated that the loss of “open space” was a major concern raised during the community outreach meetings. She noted that the Commission had requested minutes of the neighborhood meeting; she advised that there were no minutes, but a description of the meeting had been included in the Planning Commission’s previous packets. The Commission had also requested staff provide the backup record information of the 1970s approval, which was also provided, as were emails of neighbors’ comments. The Commission further requested a list of what would be allowed in the P District, which was also brought back as an attachment. Most uses were not particularly encouraged, but if they were financially feasible, they could potentially expand the site consistent with those uses. Staff referenced the streetscape, showing how the homes would fit in, and how the applicant had reduced the square footage and front porch area. Staff had answered the Commission’s previous question regarding the front area determined or conditioned to be open space in perpetuity in some form and believed there was not such a determination or condition. Staff believed the seven findings could be made: 1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 9 of 23