PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD-85-09, Sunrise Senior Living Review of the Planning and Community Development Director's determination on substantial conformance of the Sunrise Senior Living facility with the approved PUD-85-09 located at 5700 Pleasant Hill Road. Zoning for the property is PUD-C-O (Planned United Development - Commercial-Office) District. Ms. Giffin summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. She presented a PowerPoint presentation which compared some of the aspects of the 1985 approval to the current plan submittal. Commissioner O'Connor noted that Ms. Giffin stated that the artist's rendering did not show the trash enclosure in the front left corner. He noted that the staff report noted that garbage was being placed underneath the building and requested clarification. Ms. Giffin replied that a different plan was proposed in 2007 when the applicants came in with a PUD modification. She added that the 2007 major modification plan was athree-story proposal with underground parking and that under the current proposal, which instead seeks to achieve substantial conformance with the 1985 approval, the trash enclosure is currently proposed for the same general location outside as approved in 1985. Mr. Dolan indicated that, as had been spelled out in the staff report but bears repeating, the merits of the project is not what is before the Commission, which includes some of the issues the neighbors have understandably been most concerned about such as compatibility with the neighborhood and traffic. He reiterated the scope of what was before the Commission for action, which is a very narrow scope to make a determination of the proposed project matches up with what was approved in 1985. He added that Ms. Giffin had described what should be considered when determining whether or not the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the 1985 project, which really gets down to appearance and operations. Mr. Dolan stated that the manner he would think about this is if this project were built and five years went by, would anyone necessarily notice the differences between the proposed project and the 1985 approved plan. He noted that as staff went through the tables in the staff report and broke it down into several issues as objectively as possible, staff determined that while there were differences, it was a fairly easy determination that it was in substantial conformance. He stated that staff also looked at some other issues that have been raised, which are really related to the original approval, and evaluated them one by one in an objective and professional manner and concluded that the responses to those concerns were consistent with the determination of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 5 of 28