09 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

catch water, but otherwise, there are area drains in the backyard that convey the drainage to the front of the property. He noted that the slope bank is maybe five feet deep on the rear of the lot. Commissioner Narum questioned if this was the same for Lots 32-40 and 44-51. Mr. Otto replied that along the northern and eastern portion, there would be retaining walls up to 3.5 feet in height, and on top of this would be a seven-foot tall masonry wall. He noted that having up to a 10.5-foot tall wall would be somewhat overbearing to those lots. He stated that since the wall was not required for noise mitigation, staff felt it would be nice to open it up or lower it to minimize its height. Commissioner Narum referred to the changes to the Mediterranean style house on page 14 and confirmed they were included in Condition of Approval No. 18.b. Commissioner Fox stated that square footage for the homes at 1,900 to 3,000 seemed large for seniors with aone- ortwo-person household. Mr. Otto said there are various types of senior houses; some are small and some are larger, single family homes. He added that the developer typically will conduct market analysis, and staff looks at the lots, floor area ration (FAR), and setbacks for the homes and found their sizes to be acceptable and similar to other home sizes approved in the City. Commissioner Fox questioned if they compared to any other senior housing the City has approved in the past, and Ms. Decker said the actual sizing of the homes was not related to any particular standard that has been established as far as minimums or maximums for senior housing. She noted that the idea behind this development is that it is more age-restricted and not necessarily size-restricted. She stated that a senior may have a desire to have a larger home just as in any other market place. She added that the State has not provided any standard for size maximums, nor has the City adopted any size maximums or minimums for this particular use. Commissioner Fox inquired if a caretaker who is a relative of the senior who happens to have a child would be allowed to live in the residence. Mr. Otto replied that the applicant is proposing to follow the State Civil Code with respect to the age limitations of the project, which is included in the staff report; however, a health care provider could live with the senior without a restriction on age. He added that if that provider has a child or children, they could also stay. Commissioner Fox referred to the mitigated Negative Declaration and noted that under Land Use Planning, Items A and B are checked as having no impact. She questioned why, given this is a gated community and the General Plan discourages gated communities, staff did not check this as an impact. Mr. Otto replied that the project is at the edge of the City, and staff felt a gated community at that location would not physically divide the City. He noted that the road into the site, if not gated, would dead- end inside the project. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 2 of 20