Chandler Goodwin presented.
- Blu Line has provided a traffic study through Hales Engineering. Peak traffic is 7am-9am. Level of service was studied for intersections in that area. Current rating for those intersections are at A or B rating. With proposed facility and increase in traffic, levels of service don't change. Each intersection will have wait time of 20 seconds or less. States the traffic impact is negligible.
- Hales looked at other congregate care facilities and recommends parking ratio of 1 stall per unit. There are an additional 294 stalls in the neighborhood retail zone for the three proposed commercial buildings. Feels parking will not be an issue.
- Height of building is 29 feet, which is under the 30 feet limit allowed in code. Setback of 30 feet is required. Setback for this building is 90-100 feet.
- Looked at utilities. Sewer capacity is available and water rights will be obtained and provided to the city to provide culinary water to the facility.
- Open space has been changed so that open space is visible from sides of the building and pedestrians, not just residents of the facility.
- Lighting plan show that light is contained on the property and should not impact homes to the south of the facility.
David Driggs asked what kind of an impact it will have on culinary system. Chandler explained capacity is just based on pipe size and ability to deliver water to the facility. The city wouldn't need to upsize pipes to the area. For water supply, the developer would need to give to the city water rights to supply the facility. This is part of the development agreement. Driggs asked if there is enough water in the aquifer to supply to the facility and Chandler said yes. Residents will use mostly culinary water, but not much PI water.
LoriAnne Spear asked about the lighting and wants to know if the plan is going to be contained, similar to Walmart and the adjoining neighborhood there. Chandler said light will not spill over into the yards to the south of the facility. Developer will follow city requirements.
Driggs asked about the traffic study and wants to know if it was done under the assumption that this is an assisted living center, or 55+ housing. Chandler said it was performed for a congregate care facility with 291 units. Current plan shows 294 units with space for an additional 3 units.
Driggs asked if a landscape plan is required at this stage. Chandler indicated that it's not, but developer did provide one. Developer meets the 30% requirement for landscaping.
For the developer, Cory Shupe presented. Gave his perspective on the history of this process. Says Smarts have owned this property since 1987 and are anxious to move forward. Based on last discussion with Planning Commission, they opened up the building so landscaping can be viewed by pedestrians and those driving by.
Here are some photos of what has been presented tonight:
Light green area is the Mixed Use Office/Retail zone. Says their building is completely within the zone where assisted living is allowed. Dark green is Neighborhood Retail zone, so there is no portion of the congregate care facility in that zone. There are three commercial buildings planned, but nothing has been solidified. They won't build these buildings until they have tenants, and then will custom build for those tenants.
Open areas has a pickleball court, BBQ area, outdoor gathering areas, putting greens, and a garden area.
There will be a buffer fence installed on the south side of the building to reduce headlight glare. Will also have landscaping along that border.
Developer showed pictures of some examples of what could be done with the commercial buildings. Those photos weren't provided in our packet so I can't post them here. He also showed some artistic renderings of what the building can look like, but those also weren't provided to us electronically. Here are portions of the drawings that were provided:
Developer feels they have met all of our requirements and addressed concerns that have been expressed. Says they are totally and completely within our guidelines. They are hoping to receive approval to bring plans to the City Council.
John Dredge asked if 4700 West will be built before the commercial buildings are built, and developer answered yes. This is the road that will be to the south of the Walmart entrance/exit.
Spear asked if retail pads will be three stories high (as soon in the pictures he displayed on the projector), but developer said no, it doesn't need to be three stories. It will be dependent upon who wants to move into those buildings.
Don Steele asked if 4600 West will continue down to road by Harts. Developer said they have already spoken with those property owners and road will be completed to that portion.
Glenn Dodge asked if additional dormers will be placed to breakup the roof line. Developer said those are additional details that can be worked through at a later time.
Driggs asked if there is a sidewalk along the south side. Developer said they can incorporate a walk through there, if wanted. After discussion it was determined this wasn't desired.
Driggs asked about existing power lines. Developer went to power company and is suggesting those lines be buried. Hoping to have a conversation with AFCU (coming soon) to see if they will also bury their lines at the same time. Trees in that area are already being cut to accommodate power lines, so feels those lines should be buried soon.
Driggs asked about coordinating with UTA about possible bus stops for this facility. Developer said working with UTA is another 2.5 year process. Says demand will drive their decision. Until then, UTA won't give them the time of day. They will offer a shuttle service as an amenity.
Driggs asked if any of the parking will be reserved. Developer stated parking in the light green area (above) is for the building itself. Dark green area is for commercial buildings. Stalls for the facility are numbered and will be assigned to units, based on need. There are some parking stalls available for visitors. There are 294 parking stalls for the facility, with 291 planned units. Developer feels they have more stalls than necessary.
Driggs asked about the commercial pads and asked if these are part of the plans. Developer stated they are asking for approval for location of buildings, but not architectural renderings. Buildings won't be built until a tenant is ready to move in.
Driggs asked if a list of services they intend to provide were submitted with plans. Developer stated this isn't a requirement for preliminary plans, so did not. Driggs stated that without knowing what they are committed to provide with regards to services, they can be viewed as a residential facility instead of substantially the same as an assisted living center. Clement said that the City Council already made a finding of fact determining that it is the same, which means they no longer have to prove that they are. Clement feels that decision already has been made. Developer stated that their definition was read and agreed upon by Council as part of the finding of fact made in December. Clement read the developers definition of congregate care.
Spear asked if the services will be provided onsite or through outside vendors, and will it be an additional cost to residents. Developer said it will be a combination of services provided onsite and offsite, based on best price. They will have a kitchen and dining common area.
Driggs asked if they know what services will be delivered onsite. Developer said they have a plan, but tonight they are just looking for preliminary approval of the congregate care facility.
Clement said development agreement can spell out many of the details as this is a conditional use and needs a conditional use permit.
Driggs said he have asked for a list of services provided as part of the application and has yet to receive one. Though it isn't required, in the spirit of full disclosure he would like to see it. Developer says they have provided this and will again.
Clement says he went through Design Guidelines again once he received these preliminary plans. Says some things are suggested, but not expressly prohibited or required.
Driggs said vision of city is that this area is commercial and intended to generate sales tax revenue. Clement said this is then contradicted later on in description for mixed use/office detail. Clement says this building can be viewed as less intense than retail. Clement feels that laws favor property owner and that the job of the Planning Commission is to make sure the development meets the codes and ordinances of the city. He feels case law rules in favor of the property owner where there are ambiguities. He says he can't find anything in the preliminary plans that aren't in compliance with city code. Driggs says he's struggling with the lack of commercial activity. Clement says an exception was given to Walmart, which is in the mixed-use zone though clearly retail.
Driggs read from the Design Guidelines with regards to residential units. Clement said the definition for residential doesn't apply to assisted living, which is what this building needs to be viewed as after the Council's finding of fact.
Driggs stated he doesn't care for what is being presented. Doesn't know how motivated the developer is to build the commercial buildings. Developer said what they are paying for the land drives the desire to get the commercial going.
Driggs brought up fact that 20% of units could be rented to those under the age of 55. Nearby elementary school may feel some impact. Developer said nobody under the age of 19 would be allowed to live in the building.
Developer again stated they feel they are in 100% compliance with their preliminary plans.
Steele said there are commissioners who live near that property and should state, in full disclosure, where they live. They must base decision on laws and ordinances. Council can deal with the political aspects of it. Feels they have been diligent in reviewing these plans and doesn't like that some claim they rubber stamp these projects.
Motion was made by Jeff Dodge to recommend to the City Council the preliminary plans for consideration. Seconded by Steele. Vote was 4-1, with only Driggs voting nay. This will now move forward to the City Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment