SR 06:034 - Laserfiche WebLink

ompanson 0 C R D1ts and TVDica uti-Family Residential Units Feature/Characteristic Proposed Typical MF Differeuce Between No. Units Counted CCRC Residential CCRC and Typical against the Cap if DeveloDment Residential Difference is ADDlied Number oflndividuals I .25/ per unit 2.03/ per unit 38% less than typical 428 units Residing In a Unit residential (38% fewer units) Parking Spaces Per 100 100 166 40% less parking spaces 414 units Units (40% fewer units) PM Peak Hour Traffic Trips 172 427 60% less trips 276 Units (60% fewer units) Gallons of Water Used Per 31.5 147 79 % less water 149 units Day/Per Unit (79% fewer units) lmoact on Schools 0 .37/unit 100% less imoact o units Impact on City Parks Minimal Moderate 75% less (Based on 173 Units observation) 175% fewer units) A verag" 240 units c f C CU . IMI Based on the above, it could be determined that 240 units would count against the cap. Note portions of the data for PM peak hour traffic, residents per unit and water usage was provided by the developer based on its experience and, as such, the actual differences may ultimately be different. Also, the impact on parks is an estimate based on staff observation. Actual parking requirements may be less that those noted above based on the characteristics and location of the apartment. In addition, the percent differences would most likely be less if compared to senior independent units. However, some of the above data was unavailable for senior units and therefore, a comparison was made with typical multi-family residential apartment projects. Clearly, there are many indicators that could be used to reflect impacts and even more ways to generate and interpret the data such as using a weighted average for impacts. However, the indicators used above are not intended to represent a precise methodology and staffs goal is to provide some information that provides a general comparison between two developments. While the average is provided for general information, the Council may well look at individual indicators as being most pertinent to this discussion. Option 3: Count the 65 attached home-style Villa units (out ofthe 690 total) as residential units toward the cap. This option is based on the fact that the villa units are built with a full kitchen and garage, would house relatively independent seniors who may, for the first few years, live similarly to residents of a senior housing complex. Further, architecturally, these units clearly resemble residential units. Option 4: Count 0 units against the cap. This option is based on the fact that the primary focus of a CCRC is to provide various levels of care/service rather than housing and as a result, none of the units are intended for "independent" living in the truest sense. All residents receive prepared meals in a central dining location, linen and laundry services, 24 hour a day supervision, transportation, and security which, collectively, do not equate to independent living. Further, the only difference between the above services and an assisted living facility, which is not subject to the cap, is an assisted living project provides assistance with medications and assistance with SR 06:034 Page 7 of8