Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Plarming & Zoning Commission JWy 1, 2004 Page 25 of 35 Borup: Well, yeah, that's true. So, that wouldn't even be -that wouldn't be any change there. Zaremba: Simplify it. We'll just leave it alone. In that case, Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we forward to the City Councl recommending approval of AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning 99.7 acres from RUT to R~ zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, inc., south of West Ustidc Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MDTIflN CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, l move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 03-012, request for preliminary plat approval for 81 building lots and 19 other lots on 99.7 acres in a propose R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustidc Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favoY? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, i move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-096, request fora Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes, arxi bbdc Ier~ths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R~ zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include aB staff comments of their memo for the hearing date July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 04014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-0 za~e of Meadowlake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC -south of East Franklin Road and east of North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission JWy 9, 2004 Page 2fi of 35 Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Wearing CUP 04-014, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-O zone of Meadow Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center. Like to open the hearing at this time arui start with the staff report Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is for the project piled the Contir+~ing Care Retiremen# Center or CCRC is often haw it's referred to in shorthand. It is part of the Meadow Lake Village project, which you know is on the south side of Franldin Road, between it and the freeway, near St. Luke's. You can see tits vidnity map on the wall. This is an earlier aerial photo. There has since been constriction of the first phase of Tuscany Lakes - or Tuscany Lakes. I'm sorry. Meadow Lakes Village down in this portion of the project. I have put in here the approved conceptual planned development plan for the entire project. You can see in the center this complex of buildings is what is known as the CCRC or Continuing Care Retirement Center. It is just south of the golf course and is surrounded on the south and east by the phase one building lots. Bads in about 2000 the first phase of the CCRC was approved with this plan- This is the plan that went through for approval. They are modifying it somewhat and so given the revised buildings, new seffiadcs, and more refined building heights and things, we felt it appropriate to come bads through this body- So, that was the original. This is the current pr~osal. What we have is on a multi-building, multi-story project. This area is surrounded by a loop road tha# completely surrounds the project. Within that road the site is approximately 13 acxes. The CCRC is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase would consist of 34 units of assisted living. The assisted living is down in the soutla central portion of the project. It would have two senior apartment buildings. The one on the east and the one on the west. Each of those buildings have about 60 to 70 units each or 120 to '140 apartments total for phase one. And, then, finally, in the center, the building that connects them all, is the lodge, which is a commons area for the residents. Phrase two, then, adds the remaining two buildings for senior apartments, with another 60 to 70 uni#s each and an additional 30 of assisted living down in the south area. The items that staff feels need discussron are identfied under the special considerations on page five, the first being build height. We thought it would just be good to darify this for the record. I will show you the proposed elevations for the project. They are pretty nice buildings we believe. But this is an L-0 zone and just for the record, the maximum height in the L-0 zone is 35 feet. I have spelled out on page five both the save height anti the peak height for the -for all of the proposed buildings. Technically, the project just does not require a waiver or variance, although we can go through this -because it is a planned development. The top of the building walls in all cases, except for the actual dodo tower, which you see on the right there, the top of the building walls is below the 35 feet height, but the peak height is sometimes much taller than that, because of the steep sloped roofs and things. So, when they get to building permits, the UBC defines building Might different than our plann~g and zoning code does and goes to the mid point of the roof. The mid point of the roof does exceed 35 feet, so we Meridian Phanning & Zoning Commi~lon Jtdy 7, 2004 Page 27 ot'35 are proposing approval of the building heights as proposed and are simply stating so and darifying that in the staff report. Moe: I'm just curious. We are going off the UBC, not the International? Siddoway: Oh, it's Intema6onal Building Code now. I'm sorry. Moe: Okay. Siddoway. I did put t-BC in my report, but it is International Building Code. Thank you. Moe:.Dust wanted to make sure. Siddoway: The second item is fire lanes. You can see - we have got the lope road all the way around and, then, parking areas north and south and, then, some fire lanes that weave between the buildings here. Because of the height of the buildings, the fre department does require that all free lanes be 26 feet wide and not just a 20-foot wide fire Dane. The plan does show 26--foot wide fire lanes, but the fire marshal may require that these internal ones swing a little loser to the buildings to meet his needs for access to the buildings should a fire happen. There is a condition of approval that requires them to meet with the fire marshal to make such finer adjus#ments prior to final approval, but I don't see it as an issue that would significantly alter the layout. I just bring it up, because it is something that does need refined. The third item is parking. I have provided a detailed parking analysis under anatysis item A on -beginning on page two- In short, staff does support the parking as proposed. Since it does not tie directly to our parking requirements per Dole, we have asked the applicant to address for the recd their antidpated panting needs based on their experience with these projects in other areas. The final item is setbacks. Since they are modrfying the setbacks from what was originally proposed, they have shown on their plan the minimum setbacks the face of every building and we are proposing approval of the setbadk as proposed on the site plan and I believe that's all I have. I would show on the landscape plan, which is the next one, you can see it brings out the buildings that are specifically part of phase one. Again, phase two would add on the second wing of the assisted living fadGty and, then, the apartments on the two edges. So, what you see here will be phase one and, then, at ultimate build out it would look like this. And I will stand for any questions. Bonup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Rotom: I do have a question. The phase one of this overall project, is it pretty well built out? Siddoway: The residential portion, yes. And when they came through for the -when they came through for ~ planned development last year that modified -they also got approval to continue forward with future phases of residential without requiring additional CtJPs. Originally, every phase had to have it's own Conditional Use Permit. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission JWy 1, 2004 Page 28 of 35 Currerrtly they are proceeding with additional residential phases without the conditional use process, but all of the commercial and non-residential uses are going through this conditional use process. Rohm: Where I was going with that question is were all tlhe property owners in that phase one, then, noticed for this application or just those within 30~ foot of this phase? Siddoway: I don't believe the individual homeowners within the project were noticed by the dty, because we go off of the ownership of the assessor's data, which would be - and Meadow Lake Village technically owns the land. They have held neighbofiood meetings, however, and we can let the applicants share that information with you. Rohm: And that's ultimately where I was going with this and 1 thank the applicant appears to be ready to address that, so - Siddoway: ThaYs good. Borup: But I think that is correct. Doesn't Meadow Lake keep ownership of the property and they are leased - Siddoway: They did keep ownership of the property and, actually, our noticing was based on the full - I can't rerr~mber if it was the full project. or this lot. Either way, it was noticed through to even these lots all the way out into - I believe it's Edgeview Estates and I know when they did their neighbofiood meetings, they also inducted the folks an Montvue Subdivision. So, they went far beyond the actual 13-acre site. Borup: Okay. Yeah. We do have some clarification. They -that purple outline was what they used as the 3®0 feet line. So, tfiey went dear to the neaghbofiood there to the right and all around. Siddoway: Yeah. Bonup: So - Rohm: Thank you. Borup: They went way beyond what we are looking at tonight. Okay. Would the applicant - is there anything they'd like to add to the presentation? Billing: Good evening. My name is Joseph Billing, I'm the vice resident of architecture for Touchmar"k and just would be happy to address any of the s~mments from -nice to see you again. It's been a few years since we have been here last. So, I guess a couple c~carns I heard. One was on the height issue and I guess our thinking on here is that these are larger buildings and what we are crying to do is really -maybe if we could go bads to the site plan. Realty, in the center of this community here we feel we can step the height up in scale without really affecting the residential scale around here. Meridian PYarming & Zorring Comm~slon JWy 9,2004 Page 29 oF35 We are a two story building here and we are stepping the ends of these buildings back down to two stories. But, essentially, iNs land of a function of trying to get some of the density on there fo satisfy the project and so that leads to the three story building and ultimately same - Borup: So, the building and peak heights as stated in the staff report, that works for what you proposed, doesn't it? Billing: Right. Right. Yeah. Borup: Okay. Billing: And, then, the -certainly the issue on the fire lanes, we will be talking with fhe fire department on that and the architects that are working on this have .had conversations with them as well and I think the only other issue, maybe, is on the parking. Borup: Yes. Billing: And what we have found in the communities is that even though we are targeting - trying to get a more active adult, younger crowd, typically, the average age in these communities is about 83 and espeaalty in the more apartments style homes we end up with a lot of single folks and usually single women who tend to out live us, so by that time, usually, they are -they are down to one car and oftentimes they find that after being there for about a year they, in fact, give up the car that they do have, finding that we do provide transportation to shopping or doctor's offices and those kinds of things and kind of being aself - a setf~oratained community there, really, you know, have the beauty shop and the dining and sort of all the needs there, so they kind of find that they really don't end up driving as much as they thought they did. !n the lodge homes, the - kind of our apartment style homes, right now we submitted a range of - I think it might have been as high as 60 fo ~ on thane - ty0 to 70 per building. Borup: The staff report says 60 spaces - Billing: The number of apartments homes. Siddoway: Yeah. Sixty to seventy units par building. Billing: Right. So, where we are right now in the design process is we are at 60 and we have about 70 spaces underneath the building, so we are at about 1.25 per unit and we have found that works pretty well for us. i mean, obviously, you know, we want to attract our rresidents and if we carat provide parking, that's a marketing concern. So, we do address that. But in typically all our communities we find anywhere from 1.25 to 1.5 and that 9.5 on the higher end would address guests and staff and so I'm kind of addressing my concerns mae for just what's directly under the building as parking for those units as right now to 9.25 per un;t ratio. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1,2004 Page 30 of 35 Rohm: What's the standard for an apartment complex outside of this type of development? Just the standard - Siddoway: The standard apartment complex would require finvo spaces per unit. Billing: And, then, I think serf of the other end of that is the nursing home standard is one per five units on - Borup: Per five bads. Billings: Yes. Siddoway: One per five beds. I think that's right. Billing: lt's hard to know exactly where we are. We are independent, but, then, we also have the assisted and so i# is sort of a blend there. Rohm: Well -and your comment about your own marketing, if you don't provide enough parking, ifs going to be harder to - Billing: Yeah. We don't want to shoot ourself in the foot. And I think the other thing we can do, too, is as we bring in the future phases there is room to adjust that, so if we did need to expand some underground parking either further out or under some of that courtyard space - it gets a little bit more expensive for us, but if we found, hey, we rearily need to have, you know, 1.5 spaces, we could accommodate that. Rohm: You mentioned something about staff parking. Billing: Uh-huh. Rohm: What's the number of staff do you anticipate for this when ii's fully built out? Billing: Yeah. I# depends a little bit on the function. These buildings here ac#ually don't have any staff, other than some housekeeping, and the lodge building will have some administrative staff. We do have a parking area back here, I think about ten spaces. I think we have about 70 some up front here. t can't remember off the top of my head, but I think there is about 70 up here. There will probably be about 15 staff members working at peak capacity in this lode and that may be - arml, of course, we have some dining service, those kinds of things. In the assisted we probably for this 60 ultimate beds that we will have there, we will probably have -probably about 20 staff on the full shift there and what we are proposing - so we do have parking up here, tnJt we also have off-site over here we have an area that's designated for the maintenance yard and RY storage and we are also thinking that we would have some staff parking over there if we needed that as well. Meridian Plaming 8 Zoning Commission JWy 1,2004 Page 31 of 35 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can clarify those numbers. The senior apartments, like he said, are a# an approximate rate ~ one per unit of !guess one per - 1.25 per unit. The staff report proposes a minimum of at least one per unit. The assisted loving facility, which is in the rear, has 41 spaces adjacent to it in the rear eight down in here and, then, the lodge itself has 60 spaces in the front and an additional six spaces at the service entrance. Billing: And the -typically, most of these assisted residents will not drive at all, so that 40 spaces we feel pretty well would handle staff and guests as well. We also, Steve, 1 think have parking along the perimeter right there, but I don't know that count off the top of nay head, but I'm - Siddoway: Yeah. I haven't figured that. I did make those counts into some ratios. The 49 spaces that serve the assisted living facility come out to be about one space for every one and a half units. If you compare that to our nursing home type use, we only would require one space for every five beds in that situation. So, that does seem tine. And, then, the lodge has one space for every 450 square feet, approximately. Billing: One thing if I could add, too, that kind of drove some of the rethinking on this design here was really trying to get the parking underneath these buildings, having a nice boulevard, tree-lined entry drive up front here, some parking back here, but, really, not tom these courtyard areas onto parking lots and that was kind of an important design feature, that we wanted to really maintain these as green spaces, open spaces, and not turn those into parking. So, we tried to do float Zaremba: I have a question that's a little bit sideways from this same subject. The other day in the Idaho Statesman there was an article, essentially, about baby boomers, but it mentioned that many seniors are beginning to look at small electric cars. The example they gave was similar to a fancy golf cart. Are you thinking of having any accommodation for people that would not have a, quote, real, unquote, vehicle, but would have those and possibly need to have a way to charge them? Billing: Right. Right now -and I'm going to let somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we had outlined in the original that we would not have golf cart traffic and I don't know if that's curretrtly still our thinking, but, yeah, certainly as gas prices go up and these gem cars are becoming more popular, I think that's something that, you know, we probably -probably would not include or provide for in the first phase, other than they do get one parking spot with their units, so iF they wattled to park that electric car there. Borup: But where would tliey charge it, I guess, would be the queskion. Billing: Right. Right. We would have to have those provisions. I mean - Idewkon-tiudcabay: An extension crord to the living room. Meritlian Planning 8 Zoning Commission JWy 1, 2004 Page 32 of 35 Billing: Yeah. I mean, again, it's kind of the thing that we really, you know, because we build these ourselves and, then, own and operate them and are in it for the long haul, you know, if that's what they tell us they want, then, yeah, we will figure out some way to accommodate that. It's ~ interesting question and maybe something that we do want to talk to the electrical engineer about, saying what would that do to our service capadty if we did want to provide that Zaremba: Think bout for ties future. Billing: Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? I think it's a wondertul project. It's nice to see it moviirg along. Billing: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Unless we had -unless there is anything else anyone wanted to add. Question any of the Commissioners may want answered? Okay. ,Let's continue on. Zaremba: No other testin~ny, then, I guess. Mr. Chairman - Borup: Yeah. Everyone here was with the project. Okay. I didn't think we had any other public testimony. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Imove the Public Hearing be dosed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to dose tree hearing. All in fravor'? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Before making a motion I would make two comments. One is that we regularly hope for and ask for appligrrts to bring us variety and one of the things that I include in that variety is height. I not only have no problem, but 1 appreciate the elevations that you have provided. I do a~ee that when we go over our stated height limits it should go through the CUP process, but - to give us a little design review on tall buildings, but I apprecate that you are doing that and I tiaink this is an appropriate place to do it and apprecate the elevations. The other is I think the staff report mentioned that the original approval was a conceptiaal project and we have encouraged the staff to ask for c~r~cepts and help us by seeing the concepts to be able to see whether the zoning that's being asked for is c~r-ect and so forth. So, in support of applicants providing concept plans, we also have to know that it doesn't carry the weight of plat or a CUP, treat when it's presented as a Pt we have to allow flexiibility, othenaise, in the future applicants are going to resist presenting concepts. So, my concept - my comment an that this is I apprecate that you originally presented the concept, to me this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Juy 1, 2004 Page 33 of 35 is not materially different, you're proposing a different configuration, but you're not proposing that, instead, you have an airport or an auto mechanic shop, you're proposing, essentially, the same thing as the concept, just a different configuration and that being said, my personal opinion would be to appreda#e that, and move it forward. Rohm: Well said. Zaremba: In that case I'll make a mo#ion. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Counal recommending approval of CUP 04-014, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for mod cation of an existing CUP in an L-0 zone of Meadow Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center, CCRC, by Touchmartc of the Treasure Valley, LLC, south of East Franklin Road and east of the North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of thear memo for the hearing date July 1, 2004, received by the ctity dark June 24, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: iMotion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARIRIED: ALL AYES. Bonap: Thank you. Would any of this help anybody or could you use that again? Newton-Fludcabay: It was a lo# of paper to sort through. I really did, actually. I thought it was a great presentation. Borup: Commissioners, anything else we need to - Zaremba: Gee, Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder 'if we ought to take a break before we deal with item 94. Item 14: Public Hearing: AP 04-001 Requesting an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the fence waiver of Christine Close by Steven Christensen /Kent Scott -3425 North Coad3man Avenue: Borup: It might be a good idea. Yeah, I guess we do have Item 14. That could have been -probably do need to mention that Item 14 has been withdrawn. The applicants - Zaremba: Do we need a motion to acxept their withdrawal or is that automatic? Sortap: Lets go ahead and do it, then, we are - Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the applicanCs request to withdraw AP 04-001. Rohm: Second.