HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 11-05 PCP PL�,NiN!NG CESSION AGENDA
STUDY MEETING
November S. 1973
I. Call. to Ordert 5:00 P.M. {in Library--Conference Room)
2. Roll Calls
3. Ap proval of minutes : October 25,, 1973
November 1, 1973
4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory
body. One of the commission's funetio"
is to hold Public Hearings. in the
matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes ree(weendatiohs to the
City Council. The City Council makes
all final decisions on these matters.
• S. Darrel, Parr Development 71025
Propcssed use, other than general office,
for )3rookdale Touers Office Building.
6. COntinued Review of Comprehensive Plan
(!,:,,ring Work copies)
7. Discussion items:
a. Proposed Field Trip/Tour of City
b. council Moratorium of Multi--residential
det%el.opment. interim study of ordinance
provisions.
C. Land Use Policies in S.W. Neighborhood
8. other Business:
9. Ad j ourmaent a
a s
PLANNING CCHMISSION INFORMATION SHEET'
Regarding: Barrel Farr Development Corp. proposal for change
in use for portion of Brookdale Tower Office Building
,on July 26, 1971 the Council granted final approval of site and
building plans for the office building at County Road 10 and
Shingle Creek Parkway JApplication No. 71025) ..
One of %'he conditions of approval., recommended by the Commission
Wass
That should the general office use
change and a new use require addi-
tional parking, the plan will be
subject to review by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
The developer is now proposing to lease some of the space to
one or more ophthamologists or doctors of optometry.
The preinance provides specifically for "Hedical and Dental
• Clinics"s
Three spaces for each doctor or dentist,
.Lus. cane space for every two employees
oa one space for each 150 square feet
of gross :door area, whichever requirement
is the greater.
Compared to the 1-space-per-200 sq. ft. of-gross-floor-area re-
gvireme;,zt for general c.",:rnmercial. Cofficep uses, the medical use
requirement is more restrictive.
in other words# for the same amount of floor area, a medical use
would require more parking than an office use. For example, if
5000 sq. _ft. were to be converted:
1) 25 . spaces 45000 sq. ft./200 sq. ft. per space) would
be available;
2) One doctor would generate a need for 3 of those; leaving
22 spaces;
• 3) The result of 5000 sq. ft./150 sq. ft. per space, is a
need for 33 spaces -- which obviously is 11 more then
the 22 available.
Thus, for the unlikely situation of one doctor in 5000 $q. ft. of
office urea, a variance would be required three additional parking
v,
Brookdale Tower Office Bldg. Cont'd.
Page 2
spaces vioul-d be regu iced for each additional doctor.
The "solution" to this need would seem to be crediting "excess"
parking spaces which are sometimes designed into a site.
This is not the case with the subject building.
Approved revised plans for this site and building show;
329 spaces rzred fo.: 650862 sg. ft;
333 spaces indicated as provided on the plan. However,
the applicant has submitted an "actual" count of 330
spaces.
in short, there are few, if any, excess parking spaces, and
a variance'would be necessr!.Ky in order to provide for medical
• uses.
This prospect apparently vas considered at the Planning Commission
review of the application, and resulted in the above stated con-
dition of approval (see a,;tacked minutes) .
The issue before the Cor Assion, then, is to determine the feasibility
of requesting a variance, based upon the review of the applicant's
general proposal and thy, actual amount of parking available.
Any eventual variance action would be based upon a request to con--
Vert a specific amount of, space, resulting in the need for a
variance for a saecifi.c amount of parking space. in addition, it
would be incurabant upaci the applicant to demonstrate compliance with,
the standards •::or a variance.
This process or compliance would entail more than showing a "hardship".
Factual docsamentation, indicating that the proposed use "conversion"
would not overburden available space, would be essential.
Based urcu site size, spaces available for parking and the size of
the N. P,_Ii gig, it is doubtful such a variance could be recommended.
With apT�roximately 60% o.ccupvncy, the building`s tenants are making
an obvioas substantial demand upon the parking.