Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 2004 C/C Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 54 of 70 Kirkpatrick: Okay, I wanted to go ahead and add -- we have determined -- we can go ahead and under special considerations, these following three considerations we can add as conditions on the plat. The first one refers to parking, entitled future parking. The second is entitled trash container, referring to the trash container and the irrigation district easement. And the third, building setback. Those three conditions or considerations can all be added as conditions of the preliminary plat. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: And I also wanted to go ahead and clarify on the existing park it was added -- it was added after the -- the previous -- or the -- after the property owner had finished their approvals for the previous subdivision, so it was all done voluntarily by the applicant, but we are encouraging them to go ahead and provide another park. It was not a condition of the previous plat done voluntarily by the applicant. Zaremba: I noticed that and I appreciated that. The applicant went above and beyond. That's appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-032. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-032, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with the following change: On page five, which are the conditions of the preliminary plat, we will add a paragraph 15 that says the special considerations on page three, referring to future parking, and on page four, referring to trash container and building setbacks, are made conditions of this approval. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-037 Request to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) approval for the construction of a 96- unit apartment complex to a 65-unit assisted living retirement facility in an R-40 zone for Devon Park II (Fairview Lakes) by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 55 of 70 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Our last item CUP 04-037, request to modify existing Conditional Use Permit for a 96 unit assisted living center in Devon Park, Fairview Lakes. Like to open this hearing and start with the report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. application before you -- The Zaremba: Excuse me. Thank you, Wendy. We will miss you. I'm sorry. Hawkins-Clark: No. That's fine. This Conditional Use Permit is before you mainly because they are modifying an existing conditional use and I won't spend too much time going over the property itself, since I think all the members of the Commission have seen it a few times, but it is under construction. The property, as you can see -- actually, it doesn't reflect, there are three zones on the property. This corner here has a -- I believe it's a CoN. The northern third of the property or so is R-40 and that is the location of the application tonight. The aerial photo, the one thing I would point out that is addressed in the staff report, is the Jackson Drain, which you can kind of make out on this photo, which Guts across diagonally the north part of that R-40 zoned property and I'll touch on that in just a minute. This slide shows the entire concept for the 24 acres or so, with the new site plan overlaid here on the north portion. The current approved use for that northern portion is an apartment complex and this shows the proposed retirement center slash assisted living facility in the center, along with the independent living units on the east and a future use building on the west. And, then, here is the more detailed site plan blown up for that northern area. There is a proposed 40,000 square foot building here in the center that is proposed to have 65 assisted living units. The site plan came in showing two future phases. This was the detailed portion was this center as you can see, there is two real nice common open areas in the center with their main entry drop off point here. They did show this independent living area as future, as well as this building as future, but as I mentioned in the staff report, since we do have elevations and floor plans for this independent living area over here, we are recommending that that be a part of this detailed approval and, then, the other -- anything else would be conceptual and come back to you later on. The schedule of use control in the zoning ordinance does list nursing homes as prohibited in the R-40 and I think I mentioned that in the staff report. I was faxed over today some language out of Idaho Administrative Law, Title 3, Chapter 22 and Title 3, Chapter 2, and this Idaho administrative rule does talk about how the state defines an assisted living facility and what Mr. Tamura, who is representing the applicant, who sent this over, what they are arguing is, basically that -- that this is not, technically, an assisted living, it's more of a retirement center. There will not be professional health care providers 24 hours on the site, it will be -- all the residents will be capable of self preservation, meaning that they can -- they are ambulatory, unlike a situation where some of them may -- may need assistance to evacuate the building in the case of an emergency, so -- and I think based on -- based on what I received -- I understand the Commission didn't receive it -- we can get more information on that from Mr. Tamura, but based on what staff has read and as long as that is, indeed, the tenant -- the type of resident that will live there, we are comfortable with -- you know, with this not being classified as an assisted living, rather a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 56 of 70 retirement center. A retirement center under Meridian code is, actually, allowed in the R-40 with a Conditional Use Permit. So, that would be up for discussion. As this report is written tonight, there is a condition that says they have to rezone the property before they actually can get a building permit. Obviously, they are opposed to that, since it does take another three months for them and that's the reason for them submitting this Idaho statute. On page -- well, I guess I just mentioned that. On page three of the staff report is where some of that discussion that I just mentioned took place. There are two other findings that the Commission has to make in order to approve this application that I wanted to mention. The first one is on page four, paragraph E, and that's just the fact that -- that you do have to find that the Sanitary Service Company and solid waste services can adequately be provided, but the information that we received in the application is insufficient for us to make that finding, so we are asking for that to be clarified tonight, since trash pickup is somewhat of an uncertainty right now. And, then, the second finding that I wanted to point out that you need to make is I, Finding I on page five, and that finding states that the proposed use will not result in the destruction or loss of a natural scenic feature considered to be of major importance and since they are proposing to eliminate the Jackson Drain as an open amenity, we just wanted to have that as part of the record, that that is a new proposal that is a change from the current Conditional Use Permit, which, actually, proposed to leave the Jackson Drain open and use it as more of an amenity. The big question there is is it of major importance and it is piped further to the east already, as I mentioned in the staff report. So, those are the two findings that we wanted to be sure were addressed tonight by the Commission before you can approve it. The two special considerations that I mentioned on page five, the first one is the construction phasing and we are just asking the applicant to clarify which part of this plan that they are showing us is proposed to be constructed with the 65 unit facility. And, then, the second special consideration on page five is the realignment of the pathway. I'm just going to go back a slide here. There is a -- in the Comprehensive Plan a regional multi-use pathway that is shown basically to get people through this property. As it's currently approved it comes up off of Fairview to this public street right here and, then, comes along the north side of this public street and along the backsides of these residential units here and, then, it was shown to go along the Jackson Drain and, then, connect up to Trailway Subdivision, which is constructing the pathway right now. As a conditional use, it is -- the whole site is eligible for discussion tonight and we just wanted to see if the Commission was in support of relocating that pathway, instead of jogging over to the east, just continuing it to head straight north, be more a direct shot for the pedestrian and, then, they would pick it up and still end up at the corner there. So, that would be a change of an alignment to the pathway and we just wanted to make sure that that was dealt with in a Public Hearing. And I think that ends staff comments. Number three is the site-specific condition about the rezone that if -- if the Commission is agreeable to the retirement center definition, then, you could strike that. That's all we have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 57 of 70 Moe: Yes. Craig, the letter -- are you --- the letter you received in regards to the explanation, you say that you are in agreement to the letter that it would be more suited as a retirement center? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yes. It's a little bit of a question -- and maybe Mr. Nary can speak to that, but, you know, I mean there is -- the city ordinance as it defines a nursing home, is -- could certainly include what they are proposing here. I mean it's basically a place where residential facilities are provided for either the chronically ill or the -- or seniors. But I think the argument that there is a distinction in state law between a retirement center and an assisted living facility is a fair one, it's just our code doesn't make that distinction, so -- Zaremba: Would we want to clarify that as a part of the CUP, make the condition that all residents must be ambulatory? That seems to be the distinction. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Commissioner. conditions already. Actually, it's one of the fire department's Zaremba: Okay. I missed that. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It's item number -- condition 12 on page eight. The fire department is saying that all patients must be capable of self-preservation. Zaremba: That works for me. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: If I may ask a question on the multi-use pathway. I'm losing track of how many iterations this has gone through. We have seen this several times on different things and sometimes it's been improvements and sometimes I wonder, but my recollection is that at least in this area where they were using sidewalks as the multi-use pathway, didn't we require that they actually have a wider sidewalk than standard and would we not -- if we go along with this ending up being the new pathway, would we not want to continue the wider sidewalk requirement? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Thank you. That is a good point. It is ten feet in width of hard surface is what we want to see on those and if we could ask the applicant to address how they are going to handle that. There have been situations where the city has approved segments of the regional pathway at six feet, only because in order to get through a residential subdivision, to put a ten foot wide path in somebody's front yard just hasn't been considered reasonable, so we have let it go down to six feet in some locations, like Saguaro Canyon and Lochsa Falls. In a commercial setting like this, you know, obviously, the preference is to keep the tenant to keep it consistent where ever possible, but we -- I think since we haven't seen detail submitted with this application on that it would be good to clarify that. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 58 of 70 Zaremba: Okay. The second question on the same subject, since this pathway is going to go through a commercial development, I wonder if it might be a good idea to have signage. I don't remember requiring signage on any other portion of the pathway, but they are usually pretty evident, because it goes along a drain, as this originally did. I mean there isn't much question about where the pathway is going, but this is going to be sidewalk among other sidewalks and is there a way in the ordinance that we can request signage? Would we have standing to ask for that? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Well, certainly as part of the Conditional Use Permit I think that it could be something that the Commission and Council could do. The master pathway agreement that the city has with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, which granted us -- with them it's only going to be along their facilities, but it does say that the city parks and rec department is the one that's going to be doing most of those signage -- you know, the signs, because for -- just for consistency sake, you know, to have a consistent sign at these pathways, so that you can make your way through the regional system and it all looks the same as recommended, of course, just for the ease of the user, so -- and since the parks department doesn't have a standard sign at this point, I guess that's the main question that comes to my mind, we may be better off to let the parks department sign this system when they come up with a standard size and what they want to say on these signs. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I think, also, just the fact that it's a ten foot wide pathway differentiates it from a standard sidewalk. If we keep the wider width that does set it apart. Rohm: I just had one question of Brad. On item 12 of the Meridian fire department's comments, it says all patients. If there is not an assisted living or a nursing home, can we change that to residents? I think that would be a better designation. If you don't have any problem with that. Hawkins-Clark: Sounds like a good move. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tamura, you have got some things you'd like to add in our ongoing saga here. Tamura: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I'm one of the owners and developers of Fairview Lakes. Kind of an overview of where we are at -- I don't know if you have been by there, but the Hastings just opened up the last week or so, we are completing our signage, we have got pretty much the Fairview landscaping in, we are just -- we are just getting -- Brad, can you put up the overall site plan? Yeah. We are just completing the office infrastructure here and we are planning on having the rest of the street frontage completed this fall. We have got our streetlights, our landscaping and, then, we have got two of the office buildings, we are getting ready to build another three offices buildings in here and in this next application we are going to submit for another large tenant in here and a bank on this Meridian Piannlng & Zoning October 7,2004 Page 59 of 70 location here. So, we are hoping by next spring we will have this next phase completed in here. One of the issues that I was going to visit with you is this pedestrian path. One of the things -- with the city's policy it was going to follow the Jackson Drain, but one of the things they discussed with staff is that when the Jackson Drain crosses under Fairview, the only really logical place to cross would be at this stoplight. So, we thought it made more sense to bring the pedestrians down here, cross across Fairview, bring them up here, and, then, we built a ten foot sidewalk that goes along here, crosses here, and comes across here. Well, we got ready to start building this sidewalk in here and the neighbors just came unglued that that pedestrian walkway was going to be on the other side of that fence and so I talked to Planning and Zone and I said, well, you know, just from the neighborhood opposition, would it make sense for us to resubmit a concept back to Planning and Zoning and City Council. The other thing that happened is that we already installed all the infrastructure of both Carol and North Lakes Place up to this cul-de-sac here, so we have got ten foot sidewalks here, we have got ten foot sidewalks where, and we have got five foot sidewalks that wrap around this cul-de-sac. We are just putting in this infrastructure, so I called Planning and Zoning and I said, well, the logical place of where we should put this sidewalk would be where it just follows this North Lakes Place all the way up to the retirement center, cross across here, and, then, tie back into the Jackson Drain drainage. When we put in the infrastructure for our office complex, we went ahead and installed this section of sidewalk at ten feet. You know, I guess the question mark is, you know, can we live with a little section in here of five feet, since all that infrastructure is in place, both landscape and sidewalk. So, that's what we have infrastructure wise. In regards to the trash, maybe -- show them the retirement center and I'll show the -- this area right here is the kitchen facility, so this would be kind of a large gathering activity room. This is the dining room and, then, this is the commercial kitchen right here. So, this dotted area here is designated for both delivery and trash, so we got kind of a special trash designation that probably wasn't pointed out. I can get that clarified and we can work out the dimensions with the trash as far as our location on that. As far as our phasing, the other thing that we are planning on doing that I didn't provide Brad is that -- one is there is a -- there is like a retirement center boom right now of this kind of -- you know, I don't know, four or five years ago there was a big push on retirement housing, but I think it was before the wave and, then, what happened was after 9/11 the financing for these retirement centers kind of dried up, but the thing that's happened is that all these baby boom kids and their parents and stuff are all aging where there is definitely a demand in this valley for retirement housing, you're starting to see that this housing is coming and so one of the things that's critical or important for us is to be able to get our project under construction. The other thing is the phasing of this is that marketingwise is we need to have our facility completed by next fall. You knoW, you get in this kind of holiday black hole as far as fill up once you start getting into that kind of October, November. So, our goal is -- it takes us eight months to build one of these facilities and so we'd like to be able to start construction sometime the middle of this winter in January, so that we could have the project completed by next fall. As far as our phasing, one of the things that we are looking at -- and, again, I will show you our -- I didn't -- I didn't show this to Brad, because I didn't know if it was going to make it too complicated, but one of the concerns that we have is I think Meridian in the next six Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 60 of 70 months is probably going to see two or three applications on retirement centers. I know there is one that's approved on Meridian Road right now and I believe there is a couple others that are potentially going to be coming in. One of the things that we thought we would do to kind of cut our exposure on this would be only to build, you know, two-thirds of our main phase and so approximately around four units we would construct there. The other thing that we are going to submit, along with our shopping center this next application, is we are going to go ahead and submit a conditional use for this facility here and so we will have a clear picture what it is, but what we would like to do is press ahead to get our approval on this -- the first assisted living facility and, then, again, submit for building permits this winter and start construction. We concur with staff's conditions of approval and the only exception that we had was the issue over the nursing home versus retirement center and in the city ordinance they have got a matrix that outlines what uses are allowed under what zones. A nursing home is allowed under an R-8 or an R-15 zone -- or R-8, R-15, or L-O zone, which are, actually, less than dense uses than an R-40. A retirement center, for some reason, is allowed in an R-40, but not in an R-8 or R-15. My partner Linda Hines is -- she's the operations person of our group and so what I will have her do is get up and explain what an assisted living facility is. One of the thoughts that I had is -- is one is our facility, potentially, would have non-ambulatory people, just like an apartment complex, there is potential that you're going to have people in a wheelchair, but one of the ways I think we could get around that is that when we come in for this second facility, if it's deemed necessary, we could go ahead and down zone our whole property to the R-15, that would make it compliant. So, as a condition of approval now, I could see that we could go ahead and have it so that we have all ambulatory people as a requirement of what we are going to build and, then, we will build it to a higher standard and, then, we will go ahead and do the rezone, you know, that will follow behind. So, I don't know if that's too complicated for what I was trying to explain to you. But what we'd like to do is have the ability to go ahead and submit for building permits, start construction and, then, we will go ahead and do a rezone that would allow us to do a -- you know, potentially a higher use. But I'll have Linda talk to you about the difference of how the state looks at nursing home versus retirement centers. Borup: And, Doug, so you would anticipate that as the needs arise a patient could be moved from -- to another building with more intensive care or is that not what you were saying? Tamura: Well, I think potentially what we'd like to do is if we can get the approval to go ahead and submit and issue permits as a retirement center and, then, in the meantime we will go ahead and down zone the property to an R-15 that would allow for a nursing home. It's technically not a nursing home with what we are building, but we potentially could have non-ambulatory tenants that would live there. Borup: And they would just stay in their unit they were in? Tamura: Yeah. And so, you know, knowing that we might have those types of tenants, the majority of the people are all ambulatory that, you know, hopefully, will be able to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 61 of 70 walk down to Hastings, go out for coffee, those kind of things, but at the same time there is the possibility that we may have non-ambulatory patients -- Borup: Are you saying as the years go by some of the people may be getting older? Tamura: Yeah. You know -- and that's part of the process of what we are doing is that we want to have a facility that we can accommodate their aging process through the whole process and so if part of that is going to require a rezone to do that, we'd like to accommodate that. But, at the same time for our phasing and timing of construction, we'd like to do that as we are building it, so -- let me have Linda kind of explain to you the differences. Hines: Hello. My name is Linda Hines, I live at 4356 North Nines Ridge, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I have some definitions for all of you. The first page has your definition of a nursing home, which is to care for the chronically ill and the second page has the legal definition of an assisted living. These are taken out of the state licensing facility standards law for assisted living and nursing homes. So, basically, in the first page a legal definition is -- in the assisted living is we are supposed to protect house safety and individual rights by assuring adequate nutrition, supervision, and basic activities. So, basically, it's a custodial type care and in the nursing home, which is the next two pages, it's actually -- they actually have 24 hour nursing -- skilled nursing care and -- on a 24 hour basis and they are actually providing rehab and nursing to a patient. So, basically, the regulations say -- and you don't have all the regulations for assisted living, but all that's really required in an assisted living facility is to have a nurse, like an LPN, come in once a month and do an assessment, their blood pressure, their heart, just make sure everything is okay. So, basically, we are providing custodial type assistance to somebody to just kind of keep their activities of daily living going, as far as bathing, you know, maybe some help with showering, maybe helping them take their own medications -- it's assisting. We do not like give them or dispense medications. In a nursing home it's -- actually, a licensed nurse is there 24 hours a day and they are providing skilled nursing procedures 24 hours a day. And as far as the ambulatory, the assisted living will have some people in wheelchairs -- I mean it's just -- it could actually be somebody that could walk to the dining room, but chose -- and they can walk around in their apartment, but they could choose to be -- wheel themselves down to the dining room, because they are insecure about falling. For different reasons we will have a small population that could actually be in a wheelchair or a walker, but if you go into any retirement facility around the whole county or across the country that's not an assisted living, that is congregate retirement, you will see wheelchairs and walkers in those. It would be unreasonable to think that there would be a population of elderly of any sort that would not ever have a wheelchair or a walker in that population and that's not really what differentiates retirement for assisted living and from a nursing home, it has nothing to do with whether they have the ability to have a wheelchair or not. It really boils down to the nurse -- and whether they need skilled nursing procedures and require a nurse to evaluate them or to give them treatment or do they just need somebody to help them maybe in and out of the shower or, you know, help with dressing or whatever, which is a custodial more assist. I know I'm rambling at this point. So, I'm open for questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 62 of 70 Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Rohm: I don't know, but it sounds to me like this assisted living or this residential development at some point in time may transition into a nursing home type situation down the road and what you're doing - and it just sounds like you're trying to get your construction permits and, then, you will make your zoning change, so that you can convert it to a nursing home down the road; is that -- Hines: No. We will never get a nursing home license ever. In order -- I have built assisted living now for the last -- I have built -- this is my 10th facility and they are all licensed assisted living with the state of Idaho. I will never get a nursing home license with the state of Idaho. I mean that -- you're dealing with the state and federal and you're dealing with nurses, physical therapists, you're dealing with -- you know and all assisted living is -- all that we are required is we have CNAs or care givers that come in and a nurse has to come in once a month. I will never apply for a nursing -- or a nursing home license with the state of Idaho. Rohm: Does the assisted living have the same zoning requirements as regular residential development? Hines: Usually in the past in all the other facilities I have done, we have been able to come in with anything above an R-1, like even an R-2, like duplexes, apartments, anything like that we have been approved for, we have looked at more of a congregation care zoning and we have never been put in a nursing home or commercial zoning before. Rohm: And I guess what I was confused about the R-40 to the R-15 and the -- moving away from the R-40 to the 15 for the type of development that you're putting in, what's -- what's in the R-40 that -- that's not allowed -- maybe that's a better question for Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The R-15 would allow the nursing home assisted living with a Conditional Use Permit, whereas in the R-40 it's prohibited. Rohm: The assisted living is also prohibited in the R-40, is that what you're saying? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Hines: I thought you said retirement was okay in the R-40. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The retirement is. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 63 of 70 Hines: Okay. So, we are seen more as a retirement facility, R-40 is okay? If we are seen as a nursing home, we down zone our zoning to -- Rohm: Okay. Then, let me modify my concerns, then, from -- it sounds like you really want an assisted living facility, so you want to get started on your construction process now as a residential development, but ultimately it will transition to an assisted living once you have made your application for a rezone to R-15. Hines: Yeah. I mean -- and we can do that with restrictions. If you want us to just deem this as a retirement home with those restrictions until we down zone, that's fine. We just want to get going with our -- with our building permit at this point. I mean you can see the discrepancy with the lot here, you want us to down zone for something that, you know, it's just -- it's more of a zoning issue than -- Tamura: You know, as a clarification, I think the only -- the only condition that throws us off is the fire department's item number 12 of ambulatory versus non-ambulatory patients. Because, technically, we are a retirement center, but at the same time we potentially could have non-ambulatory tenants and as a house cleaning procedure, if we moved it to an R-15 zone, then, it potentially would give us the ability to have non- ambulatory people under that zone, as far as, you know, even though we are down to nursing home, you could give us a nursing classification versus retirement. Zaremba: So, let me interpret. You're comfortable with having that requirement exist now -- Tamura: Yeah. Zaremba: - and you will comply with it now. Tamura: Yeah. Zaremba: -- while you get your ducks in a row to change the zoning. Tamura: Yeah. Just make that a condition of approval that if we are going to have non- ambulatory people, that we down zone to an R-15 and we could live with that condition. Zaremba: Well, the condition is that you can't have -- Rohm: Until you do. Tamura: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Zaremba: They must all be ambulatory and, then, you - it's up to you to take the action to change the -- Tamura: Yeah. No. That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 64 of 70 Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know that this will be of any assistance to the Commission, but on condition number 12 that Tamura has pointed out by the fire department, they haven't cited -- and I haven't had an opportunity to look -- if they have cited a specific Uniform Fire Code provision for that, because I would be very concerned at having a condition that might also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and these people couldn't provide a facility for -- on a public facility to a patient -- or a resident who may be temporarily disabled, because of that condition. And I don't know -- I mean there may be a Uniform Fire Code provision, I'm not aware of it, but that would concern me as the city placing that condition upon -- on this particular development and that wouldn't allow certain types of people to access the facility. Rohm: I think that the issue is not the ambu -- ambu -- I can't even say that. That's not the issue. The issue is the services that are going to be provided at the facility on an ongoing basis once it's been built out and it sounds to me like in the short run this is going to be a residential development until the application has gone through for a zoning change to an to R-15 and once that has taken place, then, they will be able to utilize it as they fully expect as an assisted living facility and it really doesn't have anything to do with an individual resident's ability to get around on their own. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe that our fire marshal's comments are coming from code issues in the construction design, egress points, number of egress points, type of construction, the ability for people -- Newton-Huckabay: Not handicapped accessible. Freckleton: Well, it's, really, to get the people out. I think that -- I mean I can kind of see the direction that they are wanting to go, but I guess my concern would be that if we move forward with trying to get a building underway that -- and, then, with the intent of trying to go a different direction with a rezone, that you may have kind of got yourself into a corner because of building code. So, the fire department needs to be consulted on this for clarification on their comment to make sure that their points are touched on. Rohm: Well, they would not be able to get their -- I don't know, is there a license for an assisted living? Wouldn't get licensed if, in fact, it was constructed to those standards, which would also be in concurrence with your fire marshal. Tamura: You know, as a clarification on Commissioner Rohm's comment, one is even if -- you know, even with the assisted living we would never be considered a nursing home. We won't provide medical care for the patients. The only issue is the ambulatory, non-ambulatory. We are just building a facility in Nampa right now and we have worked real closely with Nampa's fire department, but what we will do is the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 65 of 70 design of the structure as far as both alarms, corridors, sprinklers, all of that will be designed around a non-ambulatory facility that -- you know, that some of these people may need aid in exiting the building. So as far as the fire department's concerns, we will go ahead and meet those higher standards of construction that will satisfy the fire department. And, again, I think the ADA issues will come up as far as, you know, how we handle that, but I think that's something that we can work out with the fire department as far as what we submit for construction, because we will go ahead and design it at the highest standard building permit wise, so that won't become a conflict. Rohm: Okay. Rohm: And the only thing that I'd say to that is when you're discussing that, it can't be as a condition of approval for the type of residence it is today, it's what it may be down the road and -- Tamura: Yeah. Zaremba: Well, nothing prevents you from overbuilding it -- Tamura: Yeah. That's exactly what we will do. Zaremba: The temporary restriction is that they must be ambulatory. You're going to overbuild it for your future intended use and, then, have the zoning paperwork catch up with that. I don't have a problem with that. Rohm: I don't either. Moe: But just -- I want to clear -- Brad, can you clear something up for me here? We are still in an R-4 zone right now -- Zaremba: Forty. Moe: Forty. Excuse me. And we still have to do something about that, if, in fact, we are going to call this an assisted living facility right now, do we not? Rohm: Well, we are not going to call it an assisted living now, because they are all going to be ambulatory. Zaremba: It's a retirement community for the moment. Rohm: Yeah. It's a retirement community. Hawkins-Clark: Bruce is turning the mike off here. If you make the finding that this is a retirement -- you feel that the definition of what you have heard tonight on the public record is -- you're comfortable with that, I don't think there is any need to rezone the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 66 of 70 Rohm: Well, I don't even think we can address that. If the application is for a residential development, then, that's what we are going to move forward to City Council with. If, in fact, they want to build it to other standards and at a later date make an application for assisted living via a zone change, then, everything follows its own paper route and we don't address something that mayor may not happen in the future. Newton-Huckabay: What's the definition of retirement home under code? Hines: In my mind a retirement -- it's not like -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I was asking Brad. Hines: Oh. Sorry. Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to hear the Meridian code. Zaremba: The city code. Newton-Huckabay: City code. Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, there is no definition in our code. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, undefined. Tamura: You know, maybe one easy solution is -- maybe it makes more sense just that we amend our application so it reads that we are applying for a 65 unit retirement center and that we eliminate the assisted living at this point when it goes to City Council and I think that may clarify it. Borup: Okay. I mean it doesn't sound like there is any objection on, really, any of the concepts from the Commission, is there? Rohm: No, I just -- I agree with what Doug just said, that as long as they eliminate the reference to assisted living in the application, then, it's just a residential installation and if they want to construct to a different standard, so be it. Moe: I guess I'm a little bit confused when you talk about residential, as opposed to retirement. Rohm: Well, no, I'm -- they are synonymous in my comments, resident and retirement. The definition changes -- Borup: Well -- and maybe that's where some work needs to be done is some definitions and things could be changed in our ordinance as it is. We do have one person I think -- you have been patient here all night, so we would like to hear from you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 67 of 70 Bernard: Good evening. My name is John Bernard, I live at 946 Clarine Street. When this thing got going I believe it was three stories, 196, and most all the neighborhood didn't like that and, then, it went down to a 98 or whatever apartment deal and that made everybody's mood better, but everybody likes this idea that I have talked to and the mention of the pathway down along those people's fences, I know that ruffled some feathers, so I'm sure all of them would like to see it down the middle. And there was a comment on the scenic ditch or drainage, whatever -- well, that's never been scenic, so anything will help that. So, it's a go for everybody I know around there. They like this idea more than anything in the past, so that's alii got. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: He brings up some things that I was going to comment on. I remember a lengthy discussion about whether -- if the pathway was there should it be up on a berm or not up on a berm, should there be a fence on one side or the other side, also the issues long this back property line, if they were going to be three story buildings, then, there was going to be carports, then, driveways, then, maybe more carports, but, anyhow, the buildings were going to be a long way away. These being one story, it looks like they are just the standard setback and those are all changes that I -- Borup: Yeah. I think everybody agrees this a less intensive use, no matter how you look at it -- Moe: Oh, absolutely. Borup: -- as far as traffic and -- Zaremba: Appreciate hearing from the neighbor. Borup: Have you got a comment, Mr. Rohm? Rohm: Oh, I was just asking about the notice here. It's a CUP for a 65 unit assisted living and if, as a motion recommending approval, we just read the whole thing, less the assisted living retirement -- or assisted living, then, that would eliminate the concerns over whether this is a -- whether it's assisted living or not. Zaremba: Call it a retirement -- Rohm: We are just going to call it a retirement facility. Zaremba: I think the applicant agreed to modify the application in that manner for now. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 68 of 70 Rohm: And I was just asking counsel if we can actually make that change without it being re-noticed. That was my question, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: What was the answer? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: The answer is I think you can do it without re-notice, because it's -- because it's a use that is -- I guess -- and you can make the decision that the use is less of an impact than what the assisted unit would have been. You can also -- I would recommend if you're going to do that, though, that you also include as findings some of the suggestions Mr. Hawkins-Clark made in relating the state code and what the state code looks at in these types of facilities to be able to have some better findings to be able to show what your reasons were in supporting Mr. Tamura's request to simply delete that assisted living at this juncture until they were able to get some other -- other, I guess, information together, but I don't believe you need to re-notice it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Boy, until you said you had to include the reasons for it, I was all with you. Nary: You always have to have a reason for what you do. Rohm: I was right there. Canning: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Canning: I just -- the only problem is that staff made the determination that an assisted living facility was a nursing home. It just seems to be infinitely more clear if the Planning Commission just makes a finding that, no, an assisted living facility is a retirement center and, then, our notices are good and, then, the staff report is good, it's- - it just seems a lot more clear to me to do it that way. It's just staff made an incorrect interpretation based on lack of knowledge is all it was. We have been given more knowledge tonight, so it just seems a lot cleaner, then, there is not the question -- just from the conversation tonight it really sounds like you're not approving the assisted living facility, because you want to take it out of the description and I'm just afraid that as the record goes on that ten years from now no one will have an idea that -- knowing this piece of property. Sorry, Doug. Zaremba: I personally think that what we are trying to do is be supportive of them breaking ground and getting building without breaking any current law. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 69 of 70 Borup: I think the director's comments handle that and I don't think it's maybe necessary lack of knowledge; it's lack of information in the zoning ordinance, isn't it? There is no definitions and it's just not addressed either way, so -- Zaremba: Do we need to add that to the new one? Borup: Yeah. That's what I would recommend. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Canning has raised a different way of interpreting it and that's certainly fine. I mean either one of those situations you could do. As I said, I don't believe you have to re-notice it either way. But, certainly, if you do it the way Mrs. Canning suggested, it's clean and you can move it onto the City Council that way. Rohm: Fair enough. Newton-Huckabay: And it's a lot easier for your motion. Rohm: What makes you think I'm going to make the motion? Zaremba: I have made virtually every other motion this evening. I'm going to be silent. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing be closed on Item Public Hearing CUP 04-037. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. So, maybe just -- maybe a recommendation how to include that in on the motion? And I'm not sure what point that should be, but it sounds like just that we would interpret that assisted living is not considered a nursing home. That would be -- Rohm: Yeah. Anna, could you give me some direction as to where that should be inserted? Canning: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, it's not a condition of approval, you will just state that you're making that finding, I believe, and then -- in your motion. That's all you need to do. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-037, including all staff comments for the hearing date October 7,2004, transmittal date October 4th, 2004, with the following change: On page eight, item 12, change patients to residents, and further note for the record that we Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 70 of 70 do not construe an assisted living facility as one and the same as a nursing home. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. One more motion. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:53. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:53 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN _I_I- DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK