Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-30; Design Review Board; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: April 30, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \\\A\ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Adjourned Regular Meeting) CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Rombotis called the Meeting to order at 5:Ol p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Rombotis, Members Hall, Holmes and McCoy. Absent: Member Schlehuber. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Community Redevelopment Manager Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director DEPARTMENTAL: 1. MEDICAL OFFICES IN PR03ECTS APPROVED FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE. Chris Salomone stated staff was directed to bring a report to the Design Review Board and schedule this special meeting. Mr. Salomone stated he wanted to propose six remedial steps to deal with this issue. He has asked Brian Hunter to give the staff report from a planning standpoint and a history of the problem. A transparency will be used to show the existing process the applicant goes through from beginning to end and how that system will be impacted with the recommended steps. Then the subject will be open for discussion by the Board. Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner, stated the parking requirement for medical offices is one space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area, while general office uses are required to have one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. The Ordinance documented in the staff report talks about professional office parking in the Village Redevelopment Area. To the private sector, the general use of professional offices could be confused as being a doctor's office. Staff felt the ordinance could easily be confused. The revised Parking Ordinance in front of Council May 6, 1986, has been rewritten to clarify that and to simplify the matter. Medical and office use has been delineated and can be understood. Staff felt it would also be necessary to add a standard condition to point out that at the discretionary permit level, a building designated strictly office building has parking required just for that title, there should not be medical uses in that building. The problem is, the way the zoning is at the present time, a doctor can go into any office area and nothing catches the plan checker's eye. Another recommendation is to change the business licence procedure. Staff recommends changing this to include staff determination whether or not the parking is adequate. Mr. Hunter stated the next recommendation would be to notify the Board of Realtors and/or leasing agents that there are new rules and explain those rules to them. MINUTES April 30, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 2 DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) The next recommendation would be to change the counter procedures. revise the way the plan check procedure is done for tenants. doctor's office, that may consist of adding a sink in each office. It is difficult at staff level to immediately react to that as a doctor's office. For example, if the applicant has sent in someone else, a runner, you cannot tell what the plumbing revision consists of, so the Building Department will have the plan check staff do a follow-up to make certain what the use will be. will not be issued. tenant approvals have gone in. Staff believes it would be wise to take the direction provided by the Design Review Board, and that is to require those people to make contributions to a parking district. The Building Department has been advised to When someone comes in with an approval for a Permits The existing problem is where the Chairman Rombotis suggested a revision be made in the Village Design Manual to indicate the requirements for professional and medical offices. This is not clearly delineated in the Design Manual. He stated this could be in the form of a footnote rather than revising the entire Manual. Member McCoy stated he has a problem where the original permit is issued, and before the final completion, someone adds plumbing. He wondered how this could be stopped. Chris Salomone stated staff's approach at this point is to revise the counter procedures and direct the contract plan checker to follow up on any office improvement and get a waiver for clarification that they are not a medical office. They would have to clarify what the office was, and have the applicant sign off. work with staff in devising the proper method.for doing this. The City Attorney would Member McCoy stated he felt it must be specified on the plan that it is not a medical office. Member McCoy called attention to Item No. IO, and stated it was clear to him, but he thought if anyone read the Ordinance through, it also says medical and dental, one for every 200 square feet. Member McCoy asked what is medical, and how is that defined? There was a discussion on the different types of offices that are not truly medical, but have the same type of patient traffic. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, stated there are several different categories of professional people that are actually medical, but not truly doctors per se. He felt this was something that would have to be defined and determined by the Planning Director. In the Redevelopment area, the Community Redevelopment Manager would be authorized to determine the category for the proposed use. Member Holmes stated that, by the same token, the same parking requirements as a medical doctor would be required by some of these other professionals. The issue is the parking. The City is trying to find a solution to the parking problem. MINUTES April 30, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 3 MEMBERS DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) Member McCoy stated he felt the titles should be defined. Member Holmes stated he felt there was no point in differentiating between the different titles, as they are all doctors and operating on a 15 to 20 minute cycle for their patients. Member McCoy stated if it was possible in the new Ordinance, it would be a good idea to define the titles. Member Holmes stated he felt it was a two-fold problem. First, is the existing buildings that were designed for professional use and there was a change in occupancy. Second, the medical building permit. He stated he had met with Marty Arthur, and they are in the process of redoing the business license form. They would like some input from this Board. with the signing off by the Planning, Building, Enforcement Officer, or anyone else designated. Member Holmes continued, stating he thought this was a licensing problem. He gave as an example, a doctor comes in for a permit and the application is sent to Planning, etc,. Along the way, they either have a copy of the permit, site plan, or whatever and it is either issued for a medical building or professional building. He should be told he cannot rent to medical offices in a professional building. In the Redevelopment Area, he should be given the opportunity to join a parking district. The tentative changes would have to do Chairman Rombotis asked how they would treat those that are in the pipeline, and Chris Salomone stated from here on out this would be the attitude of staff to follow the recommendations made tonight. to go back, and review, and find instances where it has happened in the past. There has been no history of complaints, but in the Redevelopment Area there is a potential in the future for that to happen. taking the approach that this remedial action will prevent this in the futuer. It would be very difficult Staff is now Member McCoy said he did not feel the business license procedure would do a thing to correct this. they have the license, or if they already have a license, they only move and it would already be too late. By the time Member McCoy stated that could be prevented if they were checked at the plancheck stage. Chairman Rombotis stated he felt the City needs to get out to the major property owners in the area and tell them the problem and inform the Board of Realtors. Members would go to breakfast meetings and give presentations and really get the word out to property owners and people who do the renting, and let them know what the intent is and what the new rules are with regard to the parking for medical offices. He felt it should be possible to eliminate hard feelings such as exists when people go as far as signing a lease. Domino's Pizza did this recently, and then found that they were not wanted in that area. Chairman Rombotis further stated that he felt the property owners should be aware of the goals of the Redevelopment Area. MINUTES April 30, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 4 DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) Chris Salomone said he was willing to do a mailer, if the Board thought that was necessary. He stated if these procedures were acceptable to the Design Review Board, he would return to the Board with a memorandum to the effect that those actions had taken place. He further stated Domino's Pizza checked the zoning, and they would have been in compliance with the zoning with their proposal. They had no way of know what the goals for that certain area happened to be. Member McCoy stated the building at 3efferson and Grand is what triggered this investigation. taken out any permits for extra plumbing. Chris Salomone stated he had checked with the applicant today, and the Building Department does not have a record. He asked the applicant to produce those records, but this has not been done at the present time. He asked if they had Member McCoy stated it gets back to basically whether it is a medical office or something else. Chairman Rombotis stated applicants submit a plan, or a plan check, and it would have to be done prior to the final. As far as the building at 3efferson and Grand, the staff does not know the present status of that situation. Charles Rowe, 3138 Roosevelt, contractor on the job, stated the tenant improvements were totally drawn out except for submittal, and they have not be submitted as yet. He stated they were unaware there was a parking ordinance for medical on that site, and it was never their intention to try to sneak anything through. He stated there was an optometrist and a local GP on the first floor. He added he was willing to answer any questions. Chris Salomone said if the Design Review Board directed him, he would begin these procedures at once and come back with evidence that they had been acted upon. If, in working with the Building and Planning Department a better way was devised for this procedure, that would be done. He stated he would like a week to implement these changes and come back with a report for discussion on any way to close any loopholes that might exist. Member Holmes commented, if the Board was going to wait a couple of weeks, he felt at the same time this was submitted, the new license forms could be part of that package. The Board could go over the entire package at one time. In the meantime, in the Redevelopment zone, they should have an option of paying into a parking district and getting on with the project. Chairman Rombotis stated he liked the procedures as recommended and believed they were fair for the City and the developers. MINUTES April 30, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 5 1 MEMBERS DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) The Assistant City Attorney commented that in Recommendation No. 5, which is the parking district option for existing buildings, he did not believe staff was suggesting the City find all existing buildings with medical use and get them to pay when there is a change of use, In the Redevelopment Area, it does require a Redevelopment and Occupancy Permit, and if there is a need to increase parking, you either deny the Occupancy Permit or deny the Redevelopment Permit into a parking district, or if there was not adequate parking available, the applicant could find adequate parking close to the building and the permit would be allowed. The Redevelopment Manager would decide Recommendation No. 5, parking district option, on a case- by-case basis. The determination would have to be made on a basis of some sort of a judgment whether all medical uses generate the same types of parking requirements. The term "medical" conjures a certain conception, and that may not include the whole spectrum of health services as such. The person could pay Member McCoy stated he would like to add a condition on the gefferson and Grand building, and asked whether a public hearing would have to be held. Attorney stated one of the problems was that project had a Redevelopment Permit and had vested rights. They have extended a substantial sum of money in compliance with that permit, and he doubted whether the new actions could be retroactive. adequate parking, as a whole, depending on the complete roster of different types of offices that finally rent in the building. The Assistant City That building in question may have Member McCoy stated the parking was very tight when that permit was issued and was based on a one space for every 400 square feet of office space. The Assistant City Attorney stated that had already been changed to one space for every 300 square feet in the Redev5lopment Area. He further stated if the current tenants are over the limit on parking permitted by the Redevelopment Permit, it would be a use change, and perhaps they could be made to bring their parking up to standards. Chairman Rombotis stated the five actions with the added provision to have the Village Design Manual changed, and the clarification for No. 5 would probably solve the problem. He did feel there should be a clarification brought back on Item No. 5, the parking district option for existing buildings. Member McCoy stated he felt something needed to be done as far as the building in question. building should be left hanging without a decision being made. He did not think that MINUTES April 30, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 6 DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) Member Holmes stated the building in question is actually an existing building, or at least, almost an existing building. the added parking needed for medical occupancy. the only alternative at this time would be to ask them to sign a parking district agreement. stated he did not feel this violation had been done intentionally. It is unfortunate that someone was not aware of He felt Chairman Rombotis Design Review Board approved the following proposed actions: 1. Revise the parking ordinance. 2. 3. Revise business license procedure. 4. 5. 6. Change counter procedures. 7. Revise Village Design Manual. Add a standard condition to discretionary permits. Notify Board of Realtors and other interested parties (leasing agents). A parking district option for existing buildings. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 30, 1986, was adjourned at 5:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk HB: tc MEMBERS \r Rombotis Hal 1 Holmes McCoy X X X X