Meeting Minutes-P&Z – Prescott
January 5, 2011
Page 1
7.Use Permit; APN: 103-14-035E; HA# H10104
THESE MINUTES CONTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT
Owner:Robert & JeanenneTemple
Agent:Peter Bourgois for BMA Architects
Request:Consideration of a Use Permit to allow for the construction and operation of an assisted living facility consisting of 3 primary dwellings with no more than 10 residents per dwelling; each primary dwelling with a guest house that is proposed for independent living/short term rental on an approximate 6½acre parcel in an RCU-2A (Residential; Rural; 2 acre minimum) zoning district. The property is located on Onyx Drive off State Route 69, approximately 1,300 feet east of the SR69/Onyx Dr intersection in the Diamond Valley Area. S28T14N R01W G&SRB&M Staff: Nicole Russell
Nicole Russell, Planner, opened the Staff presentation by showing the location of the subject parcel and the surrounding zoning. She said this parcel could be spilt twice with a family residence on each and the applicant could also split the parcel into three parcels each with a primary residence and a guest house. She said a State licensed facility with no more than 10 may be allowed as matter of right in residential zoning without any County approval. The request is for a Use Permit to allow for the construction and operation of an assisted living facility consisting of 3 primary dwellings with no more than 10 residents in two other dwellings; each primary dwelling with a guest house that is proposed for independent living/short term rental for relatives of the residents. The applicant indicated that the property would be developed in phases, the first would be the residence of the owner, Casa Vista, and would be converted in the final phase to assisted living housing. The second phase is to turn the existing residence into a socializing center for the residents, as well as a caregiver’s apartment, a large kitchen, an administrative office, storage and laundry, and would not house proposed facility residents. Phase 3 would include construction of a new residence (Blue Bird) to house 10 residents, the construction of the guest houses to be used as independent living for residents or short-term guest facilities for visiting guests and relatives of the proposed assisted living facility. She said the applicant indicated that if financing is available the proposed facility may be built at one time, in lieu of phasing, in an effort to maximize cost efficiency and to limit disruption to the neighboring residents. Once this facility is in operation there would be a maximum of 23 residents, they would employ 4-6 daytime staff and 2-3 nighttime staff. There would be no delivery trucks for supplies or food as the applicant would be providing these services. Staff understands that oxygen might be delivered 2-3 times per week by a small truck. The applicant indicated the intent of this proposal was to follow the Sections 441 and 442 of the Ordinance regarding clustering and sustainability. The applicant indicated that gray water and active solar would be in use at the facility. She presented photos of the proposed structures. Ms. Russell said the applicant was also requesting an entrance sign at the main entrance, placed on a stone or stucco base. The proposed sign would be approximately 2.5 ft. x 4 ft wide. There would be small directional signs within the property as well as signs that identify the primary residences and guest homes which were signs required by CYFD for emergency purposes. She said the applicants indicated that the surrounding property owners within a 1,000 ft. had been notified. She stated the applicants had held an open house to answer concerns of the neighbors and 6 people attended. She said at the time of writing the staff report they had received one letter of opposition, but since then staff had received an additional letter and a petition of opposition, which was provided to the Commission this morning. There was a meeting with a neighbor in opposition, the applicant and staff to discuss issues. She said the applicant had worked with the one adjacent neighbor to address her concerns regarding the view shed, traffic, phasing and lighting. The applicant indicated based on the input from the neighbors that the proposed project had addressed the concerns. There were no technical concerns from reviewing agents. If approved this project would have to meet all codes and ordinances. The proposed Use Permit would void out the original Use Permit for Palisades vacation rental approved in 2004. The applicant agreed that the 15 year timeframe was reasonable. She presented photos of the proposed facility, a citizen participation map showing where the opposition was coming from, and of the current residence. She concluded her presentationstating that there were stipulations being offered should the Commission choose to recommend approval.
Chairman Stewart opened the discussion to the Commission.
Commissioner McClelland said there would be 10 residents in each building and 6 residents in the primary building, and asked if that were correct.
Ms. Russell replied no that had changed, the existing residence would have an administrative office, kitchen, storage and laundry and no assisted residents.
Commissioner Kerkman said the Use Permit was for 6.5 acres and asked if that excluded any future development on the 4 acres not under development with this Use Permit.
Ms. Russell replied if approved as presented they would only be allowed to do what was approved, so if they wanted to build more they would have to come back before the Commission and Board.
Commissioner Kerkman said with the 6.5 acres and the amount of people that could live there if they were to build three single family residences was sort of a trade off between developing the whole site or just a part of it in terms of occupancy and traffic generated. He asked if excluding the other acreage from further development as long as this Use Permit was in place would minimize some of the objections.
Ms. Russell said that staff understood that part of the reason for modeling the development to Section 441 and 442 of the Ordinance was to would allow for clustering and not allow sprawl.
Commissioner Lindner asked if staff had discussed with the applicant in lieu of the recent opposition possibly going back to the group and sell this project a little more.
Ms. Russell said this petition was only given to staff yesterday afternoon so the applicant received it at the same time.
Commissioner Garner said in one of the letters in the packet dated July 2010, it was mentioned that they would like to use the assisted living homes as vacation rentals, although in the letter of intent there was no mention of using the homes as vacation rentals, with that said he had concerns with that being an issue. He had a hard time with putting commercial in a residential neighborhood with this much opposition.
Commissioner Reilly noted that raised a very good point that the CountyAttorney might want to address; when a Use Permit allowed for an assisted living facility did it need to exclude all other uses or were they excluded as this was the only use approved.
Randy Schurr, Deputy County Attorney, said the Use Permit only allowed additional uses to what was already allowed in a zoning district.
Commissioner Reilly asked if they chose to expand from assisted living to a vacation rental could they do that without coming before the Commission and Board.
Attorney Schurr replied no, it would vacate the existing Use Permit and would allow owner occupied use but not vacation rentals.
Commissioner Garner said this was zoned residential and so would not allow vacation rentals but what would preclude them from renting out on a 30 day basis as the residential uses would still apply to the property.
Attorney Schurr said that was correct, residential did not have to be owner occupied and could be a short term rental. If the site plan encompassed the entire parcel, there would not be room for residential uses.
Boyce Macdonald, Land Use Manager, said the density had already been met for this size of parcel so they could not have any additional homes on it. If they wanted to modify they would have to come back before the Commission and Board.
Commissioner Jackson asked if they wanted to build a home on that additional acreage is there a provision for assisted living homes that as a matter of right they could have up to 10 people in their home without any additional approval.
Ms. Russell said that was correct, but with a Use Permit they would only be allowed to have what was approved. The definition of a family changed in 2006 to allow for 10 people, it could be allowed as a matter of right without County approval but since they were proposing having more than one home, they needed the Use Permit.
Commissioner McClelland said a guest house could only be used to house a non paying or non reimbursing relative or non paying guest and asked if that definition had changed. She asked if this would not be considered a commercial use for assisted living.
Mr. Macdonald clarified what was on the site plan in comparison to assisted living and single family residential zoning with up to 10 people. They were looking at an assisted living center with the guest house as an accessory use to the living center being used by relatives of those in the assisted living residence. Basically a 6 acre parcel within a residential type atmosphere assisted living center with the guest homes as an accessory to the assisted living.
Commissioner McClelland asked if there would be income from the guest homes.
Mr. Macdonald replied no, if you wanted to visit then you would have accommodations.
Ms. Russell said the applicant indicated this was not a vacation rental situation; the guest homes were for relatives to come visit residents at the assisted living facility.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Stewart opened the floor to public participation.
Peter Bourgois, Agent for BMA Architects, took the floor to answer any questions or provide additional information concerning the application. Mr. Bourgois said the vacation rentals don’t exist, the guest houses were provided as a service to the assisted living folks for family members to stay there. He said there was some discussion between himself and Temples using them as independent living for those not quite ready for assisted living, but their main use was for family members who were visiting. He wanted to address the concern of getting together with those who voiced their opposition yesterday. He did a quick chronology of what they had done during past years and the Temples were open to discuss with neighbors at all times. The Temples lived there year round and their door was always open. He gave Ms. Russell an updated public participation report that morning; there had been a meeting with the closest neighbor, Ms. Shrum, at the Development Services office to discuss her concerns, and the Temples had talked to some of those in opposition to discuss their concerns. Regarding Commissioner McClelland’s question about income from the guest homes, if they were used for independent living (there would be no kitchen in the homes) then, yes, there would income as a resident of the assisted living. That might be something they would be wiling to give up and just use the guest homes as a convenience for those visiting relatives in the assisted living.
Commissioner Lindner asked in regard to accessory use for guest houses and possible being rented, you indicated you would talk to the applicant and that might be changed to not have any rental income from those and he encouraged that. He suggested one way to mitigate the opposition that surfaced recently, might be to defer this, would he consider a deferral and maybe come back as a PAD as a matter of right, and that would be looked at differently as a Use Permit in a residential zoned. He had concerns with this application and the amount of opposition.
Mr. Bourgois said they had worked with the applicant for almost a year and the concept is a way to offer an appropriate dignified way of aging. This was a way to offer this in a rural home like setting, and also doing it in a non institutional way, this was a contribution to the community. He said last February, they considered all 27.5 acres that the Temples own, and this was a way to maintain that rural like setting and that was when they began talking to the neighbors. The proposal at that time was much larger; it included the entire acreage and not the 6.5 acres being considered today and involved as many as 13-14 homes. As time progressed they scaled it back and decided to develop more in line with Ordinance Sections 441 and 442, clustered to be consistent and a more efficient use. A lot of the discussion with the closest neighbor had opened their eyes regarding noise, traffic and what they could do to make this work. They were surprised with the opposition received yesterday as their door had always been open to discuss any concerns.
There being no further public comment, the floor was closed to public participation and returned to the Commission for further discussion and/or a motion.
Mary Jo Shrum, 5468 E Onyx Drive, said while letters and notifications were mailed out by the Temples they were excluded from those, and only found out about this project when they needed a waiver to allow a setback from the road and then found out later they no longer needed the waiver. They only found out about this proposal a few weeks before Christmas. The Temples did have a public meeting however the Shrums did not know about it. She went to the Development Services office to discuss what was being developed with staff. Their major concern was with traffic, they live on cul-de-sac and there was a narrow road with one way in and out, there were only two houses there and they liked the peaceful atmosphere. She asked the Commission to consider the impact of the commercial use to neighbors.
Commissioner Kerkman asked staff what were the public notification requirements. Ms. Russell replied within a 1000 ft. Ms. Shrum replied she did receive notification from the County but not from the Temples. She is in opposition to this proposal.
Darren Moll, 5670 E Onyx Drive, said he was out of town in July when the Temples had their first meeting but he did meet with them later and they were going to scale back with one house per acre. His opposition was to the rural living, they want to provide this for assisted living which is a great idea but it was taking away from the current residents. He said he just received a site plan yesterday from the Temples and he had concerns with the septic smell and a decrease in property values. He was in opposition to this proposal.
Michael Barber, 869 Cliff Haven, said he did attend initial meeting and expressed his concerns at that time and the Temples explained why his concerns were not valid. His property was currently bare land but in the future he hoped to develop it into high value homes and he did not want to see commercial in this area.He was in opposition to this proposal.
Commissioner Jackson felt this type of facility was needed, they were well regulated, they were licensed, and he had experience with a number of them and the hospital would like to have some of these to recommend. These have always upgraded instead of degraded property values. You very seldom have ambulances coming and going, this proposal seemed well thought out.
Action #2. Commissioner Jackson made a motion to recommend approval of the Use Permit, HA#H10104, with the stipulations as presented on the overhead. Commissioner Kerkman seconded the motion.
Commissioner McClelland reiterated the guest homes must not have any income ever!
Commissioner Kerkman felt they should get the consensus of the Commission regarding the income from guest homes as he was not concerned with this issue. The concerns he heard expressed were to the traffic, noise and the view shed.
Commissioner Garner said there was no public present in favor and if he was one of those neighbors in opposition and the Commission told him what was best for him then he would be more than a little upset. He said if there was support in sufficient amount the Commission would have seen this, this expansion of use of what was a matter of right offends those in opposition.
CommissionerProvince said he could not support this application with the amount of opposition.
Commissioner Reilly said part of him agreed with Commissioner Garner, but part of him thought as Commissioner Jackson that there was a need for these facilities. If the Temples built on their entire property they could do so as matter of right and not come before this Commission. This was done with sensitivity to the environment by clustering buildings and with sensitivity to sustainability, he said he would vote against the motion due to the opposition but at the same time he felt it was a darn shame.