Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 17, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 41 of 71 O'Brien: That's what Iwas --okay. Moe: I think that would be fine. So, yes, I'm in agreement with that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 08-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with the following modification to the conditions of approval -- I don't have what condition number that was. Bill, do you have that condition number? Or can I just make the modifications to -- Parsons: Just a moment, please. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Condition of approval 1.1, bullet point two, strike that the applicant shall replace the six foot chain link fence along the northern property boundary with a six foot nonscalable fence with the statement that the applicant will place plantings and/or shrubs to deter students from scaling the fence. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-014 as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Did I need to make comment that it was going to be separated planter beds? Rohm: I think that -- Moe: I think you're fine. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Everyone knows what the purpose of the change in the motion was. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 08-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 5 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Redmont Health Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 W. Cherry Lane: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 42 of 71 Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 08-015 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Facility consisting of 2 residential treatment buildings and 1 administrative building in a proposed R-8 zone for Redmont Health Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 W. Cherry Lane: Moe: You're fine. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015 for the Redmont Health Service. Start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are the annexation and zoning of five acres from R-1, Ada County, to R-8, medium density residential. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct and operate a residential care facility, consisting of two 9,000 square foot buildings and one 6,000 square foot administrative building. If you look here up at the zoning map here you can kind of see there is a point of -- where the point of contiguity is from the Incline Village Subdivision located in the northwest comer from the site. Surrounding the property is, again, rural residences, all zoned R-1 or RUT in Ada County. There is an existing building on the site. The applicant is proposing to remove that building and the outbuildings to make way for this development. One other note. If you look on -- if you can focus in that aerial photo, you will see there are quite a few trees on the site that the applicant has been conditioned to mitigate for. On their submitted landscape plan they showed caliper inches totaling 354 to be removed or mitigated for. It's my understanding that the applicant has been in contact with Elroy. Staff has not received a staff report based on the mitigation plan, but has conditioned it in the DA that they supply that with CZC submittal. We kind of combine the landscape and site plan in one. I know there is a lot going on on this plan, so I figure for this purpose it would be easier just to have one slide and go through each one of them separately. Get the pointer out. Again, looking -- if you look on the site here, you will see that -- they are showing five pad sites. The applicant at this time is really only proposing to do the southern half. Again, here is the administrative building. Six thousand square feet and the two residential buildings. They are proposing to take access from West Cheny Lane and come into the site. Basically, a common driveway, but fire, staff, and police department has requested -- or required the applicant to submit a private street application for addressing purposes for these rear buildings. In addition, staff is also asking that they provide cross-access to the western property and cross- access to the eastern property for future connectivity. Amenities for the site include some roped course here. It's more of a challenge course to kind of add to the treatment of this. Here is some open space, some gardening area, and, then, a walking path as well. The applicant does state that there will be roughly 65 percent of landscaping on the site, so they want to keep some kind of a private campus feel, you know, to make the people feel comfortable that are getting treatment there. All of the landscaping and parking lot landscaping and the parking stalls are all to dimensional standards. One thing that staff had concern with is in their narrative the applicant has mentioned outpatient care and based on the UDC, outpatient care is now an allowed use within the R-8 zoning district. It is in our code the term, basically, health or social services and that's not a permitted use in the R-8 zoning district. That's more of your -- your office use, your L-O zoning districts, that would have that type of use. So, staff has asked the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 43 of 71 applicant to kind of clarify and speak to what their intent was for the outpatient care on the property. And, again, you can see all the -- here the landscape plan. UDC requires them to have that 25 foot buffer there. The applicant has shown on the landscape plan they are going to have that, but they don't show all the plantings that are necessary to go in there. One other clarification I'd like to clear up tonight for the applicant, too, is when I reviewed the multi-use or the master pathways plan, it was very vague on where the location of that pathway would be. There was a mention of it going along the northern boundary and also preferred location that would go along the southern boundary and after I spoke with the parks director and got some clarification, they don't feel there is a need for it on this side. Their intent was, really, to have it on the opposite side of West Cherry Lane. So, staff is -- is okay with that requirement of just going down to a five foot detached sidewalk, rather than a ten foot multi-use pathway. Also, because this site is off of Cheny Lane, reading through ACHD's staff report and based on our code and the landscaping requirement, since they are not within the five year work program to put in those requirements or those road improvements, the additional right of way that -- that they have to dedicate, will have to be landscaped as well with a ten foot gravel curve and either sod and additional plantings. So, staff has conditioned them and to clean that up and to submit a new landscape plan to CZC submittal. Here are the elevations the applicant is proposing at this time. This is the admin building. There are very -- varying materials for the building. There is a mixture of stone, three different wood siding materials. You have your lap siding, your board and batten and, then, you also have your cedar shake siding and all accented with stone. Modulating roof design here. If the buildings aren't to exceed 30 feet, I would believe they are roughly about 29 feet in height to this point here. They are all proposed to be one story. Both -- here is our resident building. Again, same building materials. Staff believes these are high quality building materials and have conditioned the project as such to construct those buildings as proposed. Excuse me. The applicant has submitted a letter regarding the staff report and, again, they want to discuss that issue of the private streets. The possibility -- one other thing I'd bring up. If I can go back here really quick. One of the requirements for fire is -- I'm going to do my best to explain this. I'm not a fire marshal, but they are not supposed to -- from this point of the planter to the end of this street they are not to exceed 150 feet without putting in an approved tumaround. So, the applicant -- staff wanted to work with the applicant and not necessarily make -- and fire did, too. They were in agreement with this, but they just placed some bollards in this location, so that they wouldn't be -- have that requirement placed on them to have that temporary tumaround. I know in the applicant's letter he states that their trash enclosure is located here, if you look at the site plan. If we have those bollards there, their point of contention is they will have -- SEC will have a hard time getting to that and getting services. So, I mean they can technically relocate that trash enclosure on the site. I will let the applicant elaborate more on that. Again, staff is recommending approval of the project and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission has. Moe: Thank. you, Bill. Any questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 44 of 71 Russell: Mr. Chair, if I may approach and hand you -- my name is Doug Russell with The Land Group, Incorporated. I'm at 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And we are representing the applicant this evening. And, then, at the end of my quick presentation, we have one other person on our team, Robin Hinkle, who will come up and just talk to you very briefly about Redmont Health Services and how this facility is intended to operate and she will also cover this out-patient issue that staff brought up in his presentation, so -- Moe: Now, that's great. Keep in mind you guys got 15 minutes. Russell: Absolutely. No problem. Bill, if you wouldn't mind just kind of moving forward to the enlarged site plan, about two to three slides in. Great. I'd like to touch real quickly on just some of the issues that Bill mentioned in his report and maybe bring a little bit of light to a couple of things. First of all, I'd just like to talk about the private street issue and, basically, we don't -- we are not opposed to the private streets, we just have a couple of concems. First of all, it's our understanding that one of the reasons why -- why staff and emergency services is requesting a private street is they -- they feel that that might make it a little bit easier to identify where an emergency might be in case of one, based on the addressing. I think our original intent was that there would be an address off of Cherry Lane and the buildings within this development would be suites or units or things of that nature. In the scenario that we are talking about here with private streets, obviously, we are going to have two private streets. We are going to have the street that would enter in from Cherry Lane and, then, we are going to have the street that runs east and west. Because there are parking stalls and all this type of thing that are adjacent to these possible private streets, we have a little bit of a concern of how those might be designed within the development, you know, and there is going to be, you know, a north private street and an east-west private street on either side of the north-south -- you know, as far as street names go. Not sure if that makes sense to you, but we are a little bit concerned about it. It's not a deal breaker for us by any means and if the city determines it's going private streets is the best -- the best thing, then, we are fine with that, but just wanted to bring that concern up to you. To us it seems a little bit more straight forward if there is one address off of Cherry Lane and, then, suite numbers once you're within the development. But, again, like Bill mentioned, I'm not a fire marshal either and they may have some -- some special idea in their mind that we are not thinking of, but we thought we'd bring that up. The other issue that he brought up was the issue of the trash enclosure and the 150 foot turnaround requirement. When we originally laid out this master plan we had the trash enclosure over here at the west end of the site just off the edge of this pavement here. When we went to our neighborhood meeting there were a couple of neighbors that had concems about that, because they were on the property that was just to the west. So, what we did is we sat down and tried to find an alternative location for that trash enclosure and because this road is going to have across-access agreement or easement on it for future development to the east, we had to kind of sit it down here at an angle, because we wanted to make sure that the waste truck could get in there, pull in, grab that dumpster, dump it, and get out of there with relative ease. And so that's why we located it where we did. Now, this brings up the problem that Bill mentioned where we are Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 45 of 71 exceeding our 100 foot length along this drive aisle here. We feel like there is not a whole lot of options as far as where that trash enclosure can go and we are hoping that maybe you would consider waiving the bollard issues, so that we can maintain this little area here, so the truck can get in there. Now, obviously, that does exceed the 150 foot distance the fire department requires for their tum around. However, we were thinking possibly in lieu of bollards that may be we would stripe this area -- this paved area right in here in a yellow or red type striping that visibly said no parking, those sorts of things. And, then, the fire truck, Iguess -- the driver of that truck would know to stop at that line or something along those lines. It's just -- we are talking about ten feet here at the most and, I don't know, kind of personal opinion, I understand why the guideline is there, you don't want these trucks to get in and get stuck somewhere and have to back too far to get out of it. However, we are only talking about ten additional feet, maybe we can make a -- you know, allow us to just kind of go this route, stripe this, eliminate the bollards, and leave it the way it is, knowing that eventually one of these days this road is to punch through and, then, the truck will be able to drive through without any issue at all. So, we are hoping that you will consider that and consider it in your motion. Let's see here. The other issue that I'd like to talk about is the issue of the multi-use pathway. I'm glad that Bill brought it up, because that was definitely something we wanted to bring up and, hopefully, that you could take a look at your conditions tonight when we get to the point you will be making a motion. But, originally, when we met with staff -- like you mentioned, there was a ten foot regional pathway requirement on the north end of our property. After meeting with the parks they said, no, that's going in a different location. So, we would like to revert back to the original recommendation from ACHD and put in that five foot detached sidewalk. Let's see here. And, then, the last issue that -- I'll let Mrs. Hinkle elaborate on it a little bit more on this outpatient issue. I'd just like to say just real quickly that the intent here is not that this is an out-patient facility that -- where they have out-patient programs, it's more of people who are in the facility and get through the residential treatment program, they will return every so often for after-care treatment and that's how that's going to operate. So, with that I'll just turn the floor over to Mrs. Hinkle to elaborate a little bit on how Redmont facilities tend to operate and, then, stand for any questions prior to that, if you have any. Marshall: I do have a quick one. The 150 feet, did that cut off any of the stalls here at the end? Russell: It does not. Marshall: It does not. So, that actually -- after the last stall, that's where the 150 feet is. Russell: That's correct. Marshall: Thank you. Russell: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 46 of 71 Hinkle: Good evening. I'm Robin Hinkle. I'm the president of Redmont Health Services. I'm from Birmingham, Alabama. My address is 1500 1st Avenue North, Birmingham. 35203. Redmont's commission is to provide affordable long-term substance abuse treatment to individuals and their families. Could you put up slide one, please? I'd like to start with the alcoholism and addiction, as many of you all probably already know, is a disease that affects approximately 22 million Americans. This is a disease that does not discriminate. It goes across socio-economic borders. It affects the very, very rich and the very, very poor across the board. The key these days is trying to find long-term effective treatment programs to help families through this -- through this disease and through the issues that surround it. And that is what we are proposing to bring to Boise. We are -- have been working with the state. Part of the -- the folks that we will be treating at this residential facility -- we are going to have two facilities in the city. This is the residential facility. We have a separate outpatient clinic that is at a medical office site. Now, this on this facility, it is a 24 hour facility that will treat both adults and adolescents. It is not a lock down facility. There is also no medical detox that goes on here. If anybody comes to the -- to the facility, they will either have detoxed before they got -- they have gotten to us or if they come to us and they need to be detoxed, we will take them to one of the local hospitals or other acute care facilities so they can be properly detoxed before they come back to us. What goes on at this facility is -- basically it's counseling. It's group counseling, individual counseling, and family counseling. The -- if you'd go to slide number three. This is the standard treatment plan. It will vary a bit for individuals, depending on what their needs are. But, generally, the standard plan is that they would have 30 days of residential care at this facility, which would -- they would, then, follow with continuing care for individual counseling, group counseling, and family counseling. Basically, it will be 30 days every day residential, and, then, they would come back for 60 days, continuing care of 14 hours a week and, then, step it down, so -- but the only people at this facility - - the only people that would be coming to this facility are folks that went through the residential program. There is a separate out-patient program that those clients will be handled at that medical office facility. It is in the best interest of the clients here and in their treatment program to continue care with their counselors with whom they set up a relationship at this facility and to also continue on with the group therapy and the family therapy that they need. The people that will be -- that we are -- that we will be serving are, generally, the middle income group. There is treatment available. We will also be handling state referrals with -- through the Business Vitality Associates, who act as the state's substance abuse referral service. So, we will be working with the state -- with state referrals with employer's assistants referrals and with drug court referral. But this -- let me emphasize this is not a lock down facility. This is for -- the only folks that would be able to go through a drug court referral are the folks like a they are non -- they are nonviolent offenders. Basically, like a DUI stop or something like that. Those type of folks where -- if he's not the nonviolent crime or anything like that. It is with the state and found -- is that it's better to treat these people than incarcerate them and once they go through the whole program, a long term program -- you have -- the recidivism rates go down. They gain employment and there are all the -- when you're treating the family all those good sides for treating both the individual and family are recognized in the community. So, as we said, there is a Rhodes course on site. Basically, what that is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 47 of 71 it's like a wooden little area where they go and they do specifically challenge course types of therapy at each little station. It will look like an adult playground, basically, with just little stations there. There also will be a -- the primary focus -- the primary staff are licensed counselors and, then, also supported by masters of social work counselors. There will be full time staff -- night counselors for the 24 hour staffing and this will be a licensed facility. There also will be a nurse on site who will monitor physical health and if somebody needs a referral or to be taken to a hospital for whatever reason, medical reason, detox reason, she will be there to assist that -- to assist that client. So, we are here on this residential facility and I appreciate you all taking the time to hear our case. If there is any questions I'm happy to take them. Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. First one on the list here is a Don Clower. Clower: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Don Clower. I live at 5103 West Chevy Lane. We are adjacent to this proposed facility. We are right next door to it. My wife and I are sort of neutral on the facility. We could do worse for neighbors. It could be better, but we could certainly do worse. So, we are not opposed to the proposed project. There are some things in the staff report that deeply upset me, though, and one is the sewer stub. I see that the private road is being proposed to allow access to the east and west properties, but they are going to bring the sewer out into the middle of the -- about 40 feet from the property line and stub. When I went to see the city engineer -- he's got a map with a red line on it that shows the sewer going from the north. Well, there is no sewer to the north. Incline Village, which is the subdivision across the street, doesn't exist. Their permit has expired. You got 20 acres of weeds. No ditch. It's a mess. Ten Mile Creek and Eight Mile Creek border all our properties. There is no way to get sewer across these deep creeks. So, the only way you can bring sewer into the property up to Ten Mile Creek is you have to come off Black Cat. The Mormon church -- the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which are brand new facilities, they got their sewer all there. Incline Village was going to get their sewer off Black Cat, because we came to those hearings here about two years ago. So, I will bet you a dime to a donut if they had exceeded in buying my property, which they tried to get the whole 20 acres there on the end, that sewer connection would run all the way to our property, but because we decided we didn't want to sell, we wanted to stay there -- we like living there, we have been there for 30 years, the sewer stub came up a little bit short. I don't know whose fault that is, but if you don't allow that sewer stub to come up to our property line, you have just isolated our acreage out there. There is no way that we could ever develop or sell the place, because there is no way to get sewer. The second thing is pressurized irrigation. I was the head of the ditch association out there. We all flood irrigate. We have got headgates. We flood for 12 hours to 24 hours, depending on the amount of property you have. I don't see any way that a piece of property that's served by Settlers, not Meridian Irrigation District, can pressurize when they only get 12 hours a week to irrigate. The rest of the time belongs to somebody else on the ditch, because we all pull ditches -- pull gates to flood irrigate. And these trees you talk about like on the property line, they are old poplars. They are rotten, full of worms, the wind blows them down. Two of them are a safety hazard. I wouldn't build a building within Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 48 of 71 80 feet of any of these trees, because the next big windstorm I can promise you they are down on the ground. Huge limbs like this have already broken off due to wind storms and have fallen across the fence. Haven't done anything with it, because we are waiting to see what they were going to do. I thank you for your time. I see my red light's on, so thank you for your time. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Clower, I have a question. So, on the trees you're recommending that they take them down and not replace them? Clower: Oh, yes. Well, I don't care if they replace them, but these are 80, 90 foot poplar trees, four foot base. They are so wormy because we had one down there and it collapsed and I tried to cut it for firewood and every time you run the chain saw through you -- it was just like -- the trees are rotted. They are old -- 25, 30 years old. They are shot. If anybody went to look at them and he claims he wants to save them, he doesn't know anything about trees. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Fair enough. Moe: Doug Russell. That's what I thought. Well, that was all on that was on the list. Anyone else want to come up and speak? Do you want to come up and respond? Russell: Just a few key points there. Nothing major. First of all, I'd like to say that on the sewer issue that this gentleman brings up is that we did meet with Public Works on the sewer and, basically, kind of followed their lead on what it was that we needed to do to connect into the sewer system in Black Cat. Fortunately, the developer of this property does have control of the two parcels that are to the east of -- of this parcel that we are talking about tonight. Otherwise, we would be in a real pickle ourselves in tying into Black Cat. But I understand the concerns the gentleman has and we have just been told by Public Works that to go any further to the west with our sewer stub is going to be quite difficult for them in maintaining it and making it work in the future and it doesn't really work with the overall sewer plan. So, again, it's something that, you know, we are kind of at the mercy of Public Works and if they kind of decide that maybe there is a way to possibly make it work, then, honestly, we are all ears, but today what we have before you is what they have basically asked us to do and there is definitely no malicious reason or cost reasons why we haven't taken the sewer stub to the property line. It's my understanding also there may be some issues on the elevations that the manhole has in Black Cat is not very deep and, therefore, it's pretty difficult to keep that line specified or the necessary depth the further you get away from it to the west. As far as the PI goes, we know the issues that we are facing on the property with PI and the 12 hour watering windows and those sorts of things. I would just like to add that we do have some -- some wells on the property that are there for -- for irrigating purposes and we plan to utilize those and work through the process with the imgation districts when we get to that point, hopefully very soon after we get through this process. On the trees, as Bill mentioned in his staff report, there are 354 inches of trees that we have denoted on the plan to be removed. We had a little bit of a problem in coordinating with Elroy Huff in the parks department, he's been extremely busy and he was having quite Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 49 of 71 the time to get out there and take a look at the trees on the site, but he did just recently I believe about a week or so ago get out to the site and took a look at it and of the 354 inches of trees that we are proposing to remove, only 96 inches of that amount has he suggested that we need to mitigate for. So, we will make sure that we get that mitigated as we move through the CZC process. Just want to let you know that just as the gentleman mentioned, the majority of those trees out there just aren't in very good condition and are more of a health hazard than anything else. The last thing that I'd like to go over just real quick -- maybe just plant a couple of ideas in your mind as far as these conditions go. Just a couple that I'd like to point out in particular are 1.1.26. We would just ask that you consider rewording that condition to read something along the lines of -- that you will allow continuing care for the patients who go through residential treatment in this facility. Again, we feel pretty strongly that this is not out-patient care in the true sense. Out-patient care being if somebody wants care, but not in a residential facility, then, they would just drive there on a daily basis and utilize that. This is more of a situation where in order to come to this facility you have to be admitted and go through the residential care plan. Only those folks who go through that process are we asking for them to be able to come back for what we are calling continuing care. So, we would respectfully request that you --that you change that condition. The other one that I'd ask you to take a particular look at is 1.1.2G and that's just -- again, the issue of the private streets. Not a deal killer in our mind, we would just like to hear your opinion on that and if you agree with us, great. And if you agree with staff, great. We will move forward one way or another. But we'd just like to maybe hear the Commission's take on that. And, then, finally, is in reference to the multi-use pathway, conditions of approval 1.1.2S and 1.2.13. We just ask that we go back to ACHD's original request of a five foot detached sidewalk, since parks is in support of that. With that I would stand for any final questions and be seated. Moe: What was that last condition you said? Russell: The number? Moe: Yeah. Russell: 1.2.13. I believe that was associated with the conditional use. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The pathway. Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Russell: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 50 of 71 Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate to ask for some other terminology that isn't outpatient to describe what it is. Is it just counseling? Continuing care? Marshall: And I would like to note that what is the distinct difference between continuing care and outpatient care and how does the city define outpatient care. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I concur with Commissioner Marshall. Bill, do you make a distinction in the UDC on those? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, as I stated in the staff report, when you go to our code section -- you go to our definitions in our code it specifically -- when you look up the definition of health and social services, it specifically says outpatient care. It doesn't say anything about continuing care. But in our mind, at least from stafFs perspective, it's the same thing. So, that's why we made that distinction in the staff report. Now, with the residential care facility, obviously, nursing and residential care facilities allows for drug and treatment facilities as a part of that definition in code. So, that's why with the CUP they are allowed to do that use, but we are stretching it with that outpatient care portion of it and that's why we wanted to highlight that in the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: If we -- we can't allow one and not the other based on their business model that was explained just tonight. Am I making a stretch there? Hood: And Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't think you are. I mean if they came in individually, you're right, with the zoning -- and that's what I want to talk about. Their zoning is a residential zone and a residential zone, if you live there you can receive those types of care. That's what -- Alzheimer's patients, these types of facilities are for -- to people that live there. They are associated with them living there. Is there counseling or therapy or whatever and with all of those types of uses. But if it's -- you graduated from not living there anymore, you're onto the next step, that second step, a 60 day ongoing counseling with your family and coworkers or whatever. It's up to you. We just wanted to call it out, because in their application it wasn't clear how much of that was going on. If there is a visit or two after the fact, it's probably not going to upset the neighborhood. If it's 60 percent of the business plan, which they didn't have percentages up there, but only 30 days most people are going to be living there, but they had 60 and 90 days in phase two and three where they could be coming to the facility, you know, for various hours of the day. But that's where you get to some -- some sticky situations in an R zone, do you really want to have professional offices, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 51 of 71 because that's really what's going to be operating out of that admin office and some of those counseling rooms. So, I think you probably could allow it, it's just the strict interpretation of the code, staff -- we can't. It's a residential zone and that use is not associated with housing. I don't know if that helps or not. Newton-Huckabay: It helps a ton. That was great. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: This potentially is the wrong zoning for this type of business. Hood: And I guess, Mr. Chair, if I can, I'm going to step way back, because we talked to them three, four, five months ago and this was a way to not have to do a comp plan amendment in a residential zone. We do allow these assisted care or these treatment facilities in an R zone. We didn't fully know all the details of what that entailed for them, what their business plan was, those types of things. So, again, if it's a -- if it's a smaller portion, if it's until another facility is up and running where they can have phase two and three be off site in an L-O zone or a C-N zone, I would certainly encourage that. Again, we just couldn't outright permit those things. I don't -- I don't think what we want to see, though, is zoning this to a commercial district, because, then, there is a trickle down effect to the adjacent properties and now you're looking they are going to want commercial and -- and that's not what the Comp Plan is looking for in this area. It is residential. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Morrell: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm with Redmont as a -- Jeff Morrell. I'm sorry. 5748 Becliffe Court, Boise, Idaho. And I'm with Redmont as a local consultant and I'm also the clinician and I think we are getting a little bit caught up in semantics and I think I might be able to help this. A residential care treatment facility as part of its initial treatment plan incorporates an initial assessment of those people, active treatment, be that 15 days, 30 days, 60 days, whatever. At closure of that initial treatment planning session -- so, those 30 days -- part of the continuation of care -- what we have been talking about is having those same individuals coming back to that original program at that original facility as part of a group process that may not be intensive outpatient patients. So, in other words, if there is intensive outpatient at facility A and a residential treatment center at facility B, some of those patients may not go through intensive outpatient facility A, they may only do the residential treatment facility at B. So, in order to continue that care, to close that loop for these folks, they need to have an alumni group. An alumni group may last three month, six months, a year and what that does it shows all the other individuals in that residential treatment center that the treatment program works and they can stay clean and sober and work their program. It's not intensive outpatient. That's a totally different program. And that's going to be an off-site program somewhere else besides where this Conditional Use Permit is being approved. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 52 of 71 Hinkle: Could I just add to that? The alumni -- the reason they are coming back -one of the reasons is to help the folks that are currently in residential treatment. So, it's part of -- that's the group that -- the reason they are coming back is to help the residential people. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Ms. Hinkle, I don't disagree or dispute any -- you guys are the professionals at what you do. But what -- the concern I have about this is -- it's an R-4 zone -- it's R-4 -- R-8. And it's -- in a residential area and having people live there for 30 days makes it residential, similar to a group home for developmentally disabled people. But having people come back, even though the treatment's valid and good and all that, still is like coming back to a counseling center or getting treatment and maybe that's not appropriate in a residential zone is what I'm trying to understand. I agree that what you do is -all that is appropriate, but is it in a residential zone is the question on the table forme. Hinkle: I think if I may answer that particular question. When -- because the zoning we are looking at is appropriate for residential substance abuse treatment, what we are describing here is standard residential substance abuse treatment. Newton-Huckabay: Best practice in your industry. Hinkle: Yes. What we are talking about is residential treatment. There is a whole other -- only maybe roughly ten percent of the folks that get treatment go through a residential program. Everybody else goes through what's called outpatient and there is all different levels for outpatient treatment and that's covered at a different facility, at a medical office building. So, what it is zoned for is residential substance abuse treatment and standard residential substance abuse treatment includes group therapy, which includes alumni. Newton-Huckabay. Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Marshall: I guess -- and I don't question any of the therapy. It sounds very wise. I don't know, but I guess one of my biggest concerns is how much trip generation is this creating? How much traffic? How many people are coming and going daily. Part of the zoning and trying to watch this is we are trying to watch and control traffic patterns and make sure that streets are up to par to be able to handle traffic and things like that and that's why this area has been planned for an R-8 and logically we project an R-8 develops so much traffic, but outpatient -- when people are coming and going daily, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 53 of 71 could generate significantly more and how much more is that I guess is some of the concerns. Morrell: Mr. Commissioner, if I could answer that. It's not a -- it's not a daily trip. Alumni groups usually meet biweekly, every two weeks, or every 30 days only. And, typically, it lasts about two to three hours maximum. Again, they are trying to pull the folks that are working their program back into the facility and it's usually a one time or two time a month type of deal. It's not a daily thing. If it was daily it would be considered intensive outpatient. Marshall: But your -- your first 60 days out was suggesting 14 to 16 hours a week on two hour sessions. Hickle: That's if they have the intensive outpatient -- Morrell: That's the intensive outpatient off facility. Marshall: Off facility. That's not at this facility. Okay. Morrell: That's correct. Marshall: Got you. That helps. Russell: Mr. Chairman, Doug Russell again. Just if I might, just in case you didn't have a chance to pour through the many, many pieces of paper I'm sure that you have to read in a -- on a monthly basis. You know, we went over this with ACHD as well and their estimate is an additional 114 trips from the facility and they were aware of - Newton-Huckabay: A day? Russell: Yes. I might add also that the roadway here is better than C in performance, which is a pretty good grade from ACHD, so - Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just -- if what Redmont Health Services is proposing and if this is for residential substance abuse treatment, this type of follow-up treatment is standard and you're going to see that -- see that type of revisit, if you will, back to the facility, then, I would have to believe, then -- in my mind that -- I'm okay with that being residential care and appropriate in an R-8 under that determination, if that's -- that's generally accepted business practice in that profession, so when it says -- to me when it says you can have a residential substance abuse in an R-8, it would encompass what is generally accepted as practice in that industry. Does that make sense? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 54 of 71 Moe: Commissioner Marshall, do you have comments? Marshall: I have got a quick question, though. Maybe if we could get back to the site plan right here. I don't know what staff would think of this, but if 150 is up right here at this edge, we are not losing any parking right here, I guess, either way. Is there any way to take the dumpster and place it out here in the center, so that you block this off with bollards and, then, the dumpster sat here on the end? I know that kind of temporarily blocks the extension of that, but the dumpster still seems to be available. It sits on the east side, rather than up against the residences on the west side, and still it could be paved area -- I don't know -- I'm looking for some kind of -- Moe: What are you going to do if you -- well, if they were to develop the other property to the east? That would have to be relocated as well and it's going to have the access, too. Marshall: But wouldn't the accesses, then, be extended through well beyond the 150 -- because it would have a second access back to Cherry and you wouldn't need the stub with the bollards and the dumpster could be moved back into its original position. Moe: In a motion something of that would be noted. Marshall: I'm just wondering if staff would find that acceptable or -- Moe: Do you find it acceptable? We don't have to agree with -- remember, that's why we are up here. Marshall: Okay. Just trying to find a workable solution. Rohm: And I guess the thing that l would add to that is is it acceptable to the applicant to relocate the dumpster to -- to the middle of the end of the drive aisle. Russell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to make sure I understand exactly what you're stating here, but it sounds like rather than having the dumpster here kind of being accessed from an angle, we would just move it around to the - so that you would, basically -- if you were driving down there you would run right into it. The main reason we didn't do that is because we knew that we had to provide this cross-access agreement to the east and we knew there was going to be a connection there maybe one day and we really hated to put the money into screening it with a screen wall and all those sorts of things. If the Commission maybe could make as part of the condition that we have to create a pad and maybe just screen it with some landscaping temporarily, then, that would make it I guess more cost effective for us, but if we are required to build a CMU wall, put big heavy metal gates on it and those sorts of things and we had to tear it down and rebuild it, you know, those things can cost you anywhere from 15 to 20 thousand dollars to build. So, it's -- you really hate to flush those kinds of dollars, but if we could do some type of -- I guess that perceived temporary trash enclosure at the end Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 55 of 71 of the street, then, we are more than open to do that. It's kind of your call, I guess, on that one. We are willing to do it if it's more of a temporary facility. Rohm: I guess, then, the question is back to staff is -- as opposed to bollards, do you have any objection to the striping where it's, obviously, no longer part of the drive aisle and that they are no longer exceeding the 150 and -- because the 150 isn't exceeded until you get passed the last parking stall. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, staff is okay with the striping. I would encourage the applicant to speak with Joe Silva in the fire department to see if he would be okay with that. Rohm: That just seems reasonable. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Okay. I have nothing. Moe: I happen to think it's a very nice project. Rohm: I'll make the first motion. Are you done? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman -- no, I'm not done. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes. Newton-Huckabay: I have one other note here on the private street, signing and addressing it. I thought that the applicant made a pretty compelling argument against the private street potentially, so I -- but I would hesitate to supercede the fire marshal. He knows more about that kind of stuff than I do. Moe: I would rather keep the private streets in. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: And the applicant did say that they could live with that. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Okay. Rohm: Okay. All right. Newton-Huckabay: That is all I have. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015. O'Brien: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 56 of 71 Marshall: Second. Moe: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I actually have one other thing here. We didn't have any discussion on Mr. Glower's comment on the sewer stub. Rohm: I think we can still talk to staff about that. Newton-Huckabay: It think we just need a statement for -- Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if I could give you probably more about Public Works than you really want to know at this time. Okay. We have an independent study with JUB for our serviceability areas for sewer and water. If you look at the map here, basically, our Black Cat lift station, everything from about where my shaky hand goes over to the right, all sewers to the Black Cat lift station. Now, those flows and that capacity is determined off of your serviceability area. In this case the applicant worked with myself and the city engineer to discuss this piece of property right here and they provided us with fixture counts for the proposed buildings that they are going to put in there. What we used that to do was to average out the development of this property and this property, which they own, flowing back into the Black Cat lift station. Currently we have a sewer manhole right about there. With the depths that we have provided, the applicant has actually done some engineering for us and provided that they are going to bring a sewer line across the two pieces of property they own and bring it to their property, ending it right there. One of the problems is that the depth of this manhole right here, running it out a minimum grade to be able to service this piece of property, we, unfortunately, run out of grade being able to service this piece of property right here, which is Mr. Glower's. This piece of property and Mr. Glower's are intended to go to the Can-Ada lift station, which would be -- all the way over here. Sorry. Unfortunately, that's a developer driven lift station. We currently don't have any funds or availability to construct that at this time. That's pretty much where we are at. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Just a follow up on that. It sounds like that property of Mr. Glower's is going to go the other way anyway. Steckline: It will. As the developments go through, unfortunately, it is the very last piece on the line. As the development spurs that will be picked up, sewer and water. Also, another piece for Mr. Glower. Their water line, basically, ends right here. If we could by some means do engineering to get your property to sewer we still would be requiring yourself to construct a water line at Cherry Lane all the way to about right Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 57 of 71 here. I don't know if that's very cost effective for you at this time. As that development comes through, the way that we intend from the Can-Ada lift station, that's probably going to be a requirement that's going to be picked up by another developer down the way from you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. You will have to take that up, Mr. Clower. We did want to address it here, so -- Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: You and Commissioner O'Brien have to make motions yet tonight. Marshall: Oh. Why? You were doing so well. Let me see. I don't know what 1.12S and 1.2.13 -- those had to do with the sidewalk; is that correct? 1.12 and 1.1.26. So -- Rohm: We can have a little discussion before -- Marshall: Are we going to be able to go with continuing care, as opposed to outpatient care? Rohm: Right. Marshall: Is that correct? Newton-Huckabay: I think -- Marshall: You think? Newton-Huckabay: I think that if we make the distinction that we believe that residential substance abuse treatment includes the follow-up visits for treatment -- do you agree with that, Tom? You didn't say -- O'Brien: Well, yeah, Ijust -- the wording is a little strange. Follow up treatment, I don't know -- it seems like the -- it seems like follow up treatment is the treatment for the people that come back, it's more that they are the people that provide re-enforcement of the program than patients themselves, even though they have been, but they -- maybe they were residents prior to that, but they are just re-enforcement and I think that's what they are talking about, is that they come back once or twice a month and visit with the people that are there to re-enforce the program. Marshall: I kind of assumed it was two-fold, as opposed to -- O'Brien: You did. I think that -- everybody benefits, but the reason they come back is to help reenforce the people that are there, not specifically for themselves. Rohm: The point is still they are still part of the residential program. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 58 of 71 O'Brien: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I, actually, have all of these conditions of approval up on my screen. Okay. Parsons: Commissioner -- excuse me. Chairman, Commissioners, if you, in fact, are going to change that requirement for the bollards, there are some additional conditions that should be modified, if we go with the striping, rather than the bollards at the 150 foot length. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Parsons: In particular, that is with Conditional Use Permit 1.2.1, the fourth bullet point. It makes mention of signs and bollards on the east leg. We are still going to want the signs stating the road to be extended in the future, but if you want to strike that condition for the bollards and put in there striping at the 150 foot mark. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Parsons: And, then, part of the development agreement provisions, number O, same thing, it mentions the bollards, too. So, take a look at that and change that appropriate, too, please. Newton-Huckabay: What page of the staff report is the DA on? Parsons: I just have it -- I just have it as Exhibit B, page one and two, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you have it? O? All right. Here. Okay. Leave that open. Okay. Please. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: In the development agreement, 1.1.2, bullet point B will be changed to read: Treatment on this site -- counseling, therapy, et cetera, shall be limited to the residents on the site. Outpatient services shall be prohibited. That portion of it needs to be removed. Outpatient services shall be prohibited. The continuing care of residential patients is allowed. Bullet point G, submit an application for private streets within the development, we are keeping that one. O. The sentence that says: Due to the length and lack of turnaround for the east leg, place bollards in the asphalt at 150 feet. That needs to be removed and replaced with striping at the 150 foot mark. S needs to be removed. The applicant shall construct a ten foot pathway along the northern boundary of the property as proposed. They will, actually, be constructing a five foot detached sidewalk. That was determined sufficient by the Parks Department. 1.2.1, the fourth bullet, reads: Signs and bollards. Remove bollards and replace with striping. 1.2.13, the applicant shall work with the Parks Department to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 59 of 71 determine the appropriate location of the proposed multi-use pathway. That can be stricken -- deleted completely. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move on to City Council approving AZ 08- 008 and CUP 08-015, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The HUB Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation -north side of E. Broadway Avenue between E. 2nd Street and E. 3~d Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue): Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 08-020 for The HUB parking facility and have the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, this is The HUB project, Item No. 14 on the agenda tonight. If you look at the zoning map up here you can see all applicable lots with this application. Really, the surface parking is to be located on these three lots here. A building is proposed for this site and staff has issued a CZC for that -- phase one of that HUB project. All the parcels are zoned Old Town. Surrounding the site is the Boys and Girls Club and Centennial Park to the north, zoned Old Town. Single family residential along the east boundary, zoned R-15. The old Idaho Trust site, a vacant lot right now, with some dilapidated buildings, zoned Old Town. And to the west are some other run down buildings, zoned Old Town. Staff has also approved a CZC on that site for some redevelopment on this comer. Here is the aerial. It kind of tells the story. You can see the existing buildings on the site. Again, these will be removed to make way for redevelopment of that half block section. Because this is in the Old Town area, CUP approval is required to do a parking facility in the Old Town district. Also, as you're aware, there are some design guidelines in place for that zoning district as well and that's the other reason why the applicant is applying for the CUP tonight. Basically, in the Old Town design guidelines it states that parking has to be located at the rear of the facility and you can clearly see that with the phase one of this project, the parking will be located along -- in front along the street. So, that's why we are here tonight. Also, there is a streetscape design manual currently that MDC coordinates, which is the applicant on this project. That requires this streetscape per their plan and also with the downtown design guidelines that requirement has the applicant placing some shrubs or fencing here to buffer the parking area and block -- kind of screen that area. Staff has reviewed that and kind of feels that the applicant complies with that requirement. Based on the size of this building, the future building, it is roughly 26,000 square feet and based on the parking calculations,