HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 6/10/2010
I
'. ~ - .....
.
.
MILLER Liz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
DONOVAN James
Monday, June 14, 20109:46 AM
MILLER Liz; CASTILE Robert
FW: Almeida Res. Care Facility - 275 So. 70th
FYI my friends, I want to huddle before I respond,
JD
From: Great House Design [mailto:Tim@GreatHouseDesignNW.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:21 PM
To: DONOVAN James
Subject: Almeida Res. Care Facility - 275 50. 70th
hello, sir:
I am drawing up the plans for a re-designation and change of use for an exist. adult 5 bed facility,
converted/approvedflicensed (State and City) in 2005 from a Daycare to:
I. Foster Home
2. Boarding and Rooming House
3. Residential Facility
4. Residential Home
(All these terms have described this place in various documents since then). All was well until the
owner/operator Grace Almeida decided to upgrade in 2009 to a 15 bed Adult Residential Care Facility
(ARCF)to better utilize the bldg. and its uses. Zoning, etc. supports this change, but the bldg. reqd. various
upgrades.
Land Use then decided to re-review it for compliance and wanted to impose MDS rqmts. that only apply in part
or to some of the four designations listed above, even though they had not been reqd. previously during the
review and approval process. It was, and is State, V A & ADA compliant.
See Review and application COM 2005-00564 and Spfld. comments for the approved "Residential Home",
Article 16, not requiring Site Review, etc.
The subcontractors and I are almost done with the final/revison ofthe design / dwgs., sprinkler,
electrical calculations/designs and bldg. code rqmts., and anticipate re-submitting next week with all City
comments / rqmts. fulfilled. We anticipate construction to be completed within 2 months. We are requesting a
minor time extention until the City Permit Approval for the ARCF (2 weeks?) to avoid the retroactive MDS
rqmts. being imposed that are wholly non-applicable under the new category.
Hazel Lefler (503) 945-6459 at the State is being very lenient, has relaxed it's time rqmt. and has now stated that
she does not require anv current or immediate City letter or approval for the current operating condition. or even
to complete this new Use upgrade. Hazel is willing to wait the 1-2 months until construction is complete and
for Springfield's final inspections. They will then come down and conduct their own final inspection and at
THAT time request the final compliance letter from the City. Then we are done.
This is all so Grace can avoid all the expensive and needless MDS improvements that the new designa~on
not require during this intermediate and temporary period. Also we do not lmt tQ+vict the~~ 5 gu~ft<#
1 . lit /"(ecelvea.
. Planner: LM
",.
rooms for several weeks while all the complications are worked out, and Hazel will not enforce the July I
date per this discussion.
.
.
Grace is currently finishing all the State paperwork for this new Use. (These homeless Vets deserve the nice
place Grace makes for them, so I hope we can all make this a reality).
I assumed Liz is not in the sole position of making such a decision, and she believed she could not give Hazel a
letter NOW stating that Grace is in current compliance, though all records indicate she is, and even ifthere are
new code technicalities Grace soon WILL be with this new designation. Again, Hazel is not asking for a letter
NOW regarding the current Use, etc. She only wants the final one associated with the ARCF.
Liz is out til Monday, and we are rushing to get this done for you, so that's why I'm appealing to you to ok it for
Liz.
Your team has been more than great to work with on this complicated situation, and we seem to just need vour
approval on this little extension to avoid these non-applicable costs in the face of other expensive code-
compliance upgrade rgmts. that Grace must install.
Please advise or call if any quetions. Thanks so much, and sorry for the imposition!
Tim Belleville
Great House Design
cell: 912-5875
pate~~
Planner: LM . "
()
c
2