PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

including the addition of residents with dementia. He requested a safety evaluation by the Parks and Recreation Department. He inquired why the setback should push the building more towards the neighborhood rather than toward Stoneridge Drive. He inquired whether the clock would start again due to the changes and restrictions. Mike Weidel noted that he had lived in the neighborhood since 1995 and was approximately six houses from the Pleasant Hill Road intersection but did not receive a notice of the project. He stated that he did not disagree with the need for senior living but was very concerned with the height of the building that would block his view of the hill from his back yard. He was also concerned about traffic impacts, safety, impacts to the park, parking, and noise. He also expressed concern about cut-through traffic from Foothill Road and Stoneridge Drive. He noted that hundreds of people used the park every day. He stated that he counted 21 trees in the area and inquired where the eight trees to be removed were located; he hoped they would not be removed from the Gold Creek area, which was very special to them. He inquired whether the Commission believed the Negative Declaration took future changes in the area into account. Ron Williamson gave the Commissioners a handout, which was a comparison of the 1985 and current projects as it relates to conformance. He noted that the residents added items that he felt were overlooked or not included in the staff's spreadsheet. He complimented Ms. Giffin on the work that she did. He noted that they wished to add more color and other items. He added that with respect to the architecture, the 1985 plan clearly stated that a Colonial design would be used and that this design was clearly different from a Colonial design; he noted that it should be re-examined. He noted that neighbors on all sides of the site were concerned about the many nonconformities of the current plan. He stated that staff has referred to this site as an issue lot since 1985 and that the 1985 documentation was so inconsistent; he noted that the gray area of conformance should be very narrow and limited to the legally binding documents as those signed and ratified by the City in order to deem whether or not it was in substantial conformance. He stated that he and his wife did not oppose senior living but were opposed to the cumulative effects of these nonconformities and the size of the structure. He said that the structure had been approved for two to three stories and that because of the cumulative effect, the impact on the neighborhood would be far greater than what could have been contemplated in 1985. He stated that he believed that if this proposal were to be approved, it would dramatically affect the quality of life and property values. He expressed concern that Sunrise had not approached them since May 2007 to discuss this proposal and that they had objected to this project in 2007 because it was a three-story box with no step-back from Pleasant Hill Road. He noted that he became more concerned when the applicants proposed afour-story building. He likewise expressed concern about the ordinance and the lapse of approval. He stated that he did not have confirmation that the building diagram was Exhibit A because it was not labeled as such. He indicated that the legally binding, factual, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 18 of 28