The Poway City Council approved a plan to expand the Parkview Gardens senior care facility and a separate request to subdivide a vacant 43-acre property into two single-family residential parcels.
Parkview Gardens at 14203 Midland Road was converted from a single-family home to a residential care facility for the elderly in 2011.
The council on May 20 approved a conditional use permit that will allow Parkview Gardens to expand its 3,054-square-foot facility from five bedrooms to 11 bedrooms. The project includes a 1,299-square-foot residential addition and a 792-square-foot garage conversion into livable space, according to a city staff report.
Terry Wery, owner of the property, said at the meeting that his parents had been in the senior care business since 1999. Their previous facility was destroyed in the 2007 Witch Creek fire so the family bought the property across from Old Poway Park in 2011 and converted it to Parkview Gardens.
The demand for senior care is expected to grow, Wery told the council
“We want to expand to help community care for their loved ones,” he said.
The design of the project complies with the Old Poway Specific Plan and matches the building’s pioneer farmhouse style, Chris Velasco, assistant city planner, said. The city requires that clear and unobstructed views of the historic Victorian house at 13624 Aubrey St., known as the Plaisted House, should be maintained, Velasco said.
Once the addition and conversion are completed, the facility can serve up to 15 seniors, the staff report said.
Architect Nasrin Barbee, who is working on the project, said the renovations are designed to flow smoothly with the existing facility.
“This is an important facility for the aging population,” Barbee said to the council . “We will be creating a welcoming courtyard and new entrance.”
Councilmember Tony Blain said as a family physician he s the project. Affordable senior care facilities are in short supply, he said.
“It’s super important that we get more of these in San Diego County,” he said before the council unanimously approved the project.
In a separate item, Poway council voted twice on a proposal to subdivide a 43.14-acre vacant parcel at 15095 Misty Meadow Road into two single-family residential parcels. Grading and building construction is underway for a single-family residence on one of the parcels, according to a staff report.
The property is located north of Poway Road and west of state Route 67.
Todd Wiersum, the property’s owner, told council that no archeological artifacts have been found on the land and the development complies with Poway Municipal Code and General Plan requirements.
Preserve Wild Poway President Jeff Schmidt asked council to table the item for future consideration to ensure the project’s compliance with the city’s Sub-area Habitat Conservation Plan.
The project compromises habitat and wildlife corridors for the construction of two homes, Schmidt said. He also questioned whether the proposed projects comply with the Municipal Code and General Plan.
“The property falls in the proposed resource protection area which is an area that has been designated as important habitat,” he said after the meeting. “The city is supposed to buy those properties to build up their habitat reserves.
“If I had known this property was at risk before, I would have pushed for a purchase of the property,” Schmidt added. “The city is supposed to build up habitat reserves by buying property with mitigation funds and they haven’t bought anything for years.”
Julie Procopio, director of Development Services, said that 88 percent of the property is being preserved.
Blain said he wanted more information about Schmidt’s concerns and made a motion to table the topic to a future meeting. The motion failed with Blain and Councilmember Jenny Maeda in favor and Council Christopher Pikus, Peter De Hoff and Mayor Steve Vaus opposed.
Vaus then made a motion to adopt the resolution and approve the subdivision request. That motion was approved with Blain opposed, Maeda abstaining, and Pikus, De Hoff and Vaus in favor.
A neighborhood meeting for the project was held on March 25, the staff report said. Eight people attended in addition to the property owner and city staff.
“No adverse comments or questions from the neighborhood meeting have been received at this time,” the report states.
