Item 4 - PH/Ord. on Kaufman Hse - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'!11. OPTIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES As we understand it. there are three general scenarios tile city is considering for tile Kaufinan Senior Center and Annex at this point in time. In order of priority the scenarios are to: (I) sell tile Annex propem,, alone and retain ownership of tile Senior Center, (2) sell botll properties together, and (3) sell rile properties separately. Based on.our resear~:h and conversations w/th cit'5,,' staff, any significant change in tile current use of either the Senior Center or Annex would constitute a change in use of the "development site" .thereby impacting the validity of the-existing CUP: Upon cessation of the existihg CUP (CU 72- 45), the Kaufman Annex site. because it is less than 3,500 square feet and is currently developed. , .could be utilized as a single-hmily dwelling without modification (per EC 9.2751(1)(a)). Additionally, the Annex could be remodeled/redeveloped subject to tile outright or conditionally permitted use requirements'in the R-2 zoning d/strict. Conversely, because it.does not meet the exemption criteria in EC 9.2751 (1)(a), the Kaufman Senior Center site could not be maintained as a single family dwelling. Instead, the Senior Center site will need to establish a new outright or condkionally permit-ted use per.the use lists in the R-2/R-3 zoning districts; when the ex/sting use is altered, planning or redevelopment action Mil be required in order to establish a new use and bring the Sen/or Center into compliance With current land-use regulations. Regardless of which of the three scenarios is ultimately carried out by the ci~', there are generally four plannin~development alternatives that could be pursued to faci}itate establishing new uses on the Annex and Senior Center sites. They are: (1) modi~ tile existing CUP, (2) apply for a new CUP, (_3) request a change in zone. or (4) upgrade the site ro ineet the outright permitted use/development standards. Each alternative is discussed below with the pros and coils of each. A. Modify existing CUP Ill order to allow for sale of the Annex and continued use of'tile Senior Cezlter parcel in that capacity,, the applicant.must ensure that the change ill use is allowed.. One way to accomplish this would be to modiO' the ex/sting conditional use permit as provided for ill EC 9.8110. Procedurally, the modification process could be initiated: however ci,ty staffhave indicated it is unlikely that a modification would receive a positive, recommendation due to tile difficulty of meeting tile criteria of approval. Specifically, staff indicated that it would very, likely be difficult to demonstrate consistency with the original conditions of approval. Pros: This opt/on could be initiated under the Type II application procedures and as such would not require a public hearing, Tile application processwould be relatively straightforward and inexpensive. Furthermore, because tile request would be to modi~' all existing use. tile res/dent/al. densitY requirements of the code would not app(v. Cons: Tile requirement that tile modif'ication not be mater/ally inconsistent with tile original cdnclitions of approval causes d if¥~c u I~, in demonsrrating corn p liance with th is criterion. SpeciFmally. prior conclitions related to parking w(.)uld likely be di Fficult to arldress without tile improvement of'parking on the site. Furthermore. moclific;~tion oF the existing CUP. if approved. would unly allow Ibr continued use ()f'the senior center under its current operating characteristics. 64 I;:l~C () J?(:J')rtl;Iry. 2{)(~.'~ J{LILllillall ?;Clli(')r ( ',.zll