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

Home Browse Search

Ifa user wished to significantly change tile operating characteristics, a modification to the CUP · would not be all appropriate planning option. Finally, any future change itl use Would require a new CUP or modification of tile site to meet the d. evelopment standards in the code. Conclusion Based on the.fbedback receivecl fi'om ,¥tcff.~ Same ,4s,¥ociates wo'uk[ not recommend that the c. itv pursue a modificcttion to the existing conditional use permit. B. Apply for a new CUP In order to avoid Jssties related to demonstrating compliance with tile original conditions of approval described above, the cib' (or future owner df the property) could choose to apply for a new CUP in accordance with the criteria of approval!in EC 9.8090. A new CUP would forrnalize a new conditional use on the senior center site indepelndent'ofthe annex~. The CUP could ' effectively allow the existing Senior Center use to co. ntinue as it exists today (separate from the Annex), or could establish a new conditional use (a school use, for example) with different operating characteristics. . A new CUP would provide a clean slate for the property., eliminating the confusing land use history for the site.. That said, it will be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of approval and standards contained in the existing land-use code. For example, the applicant will need to establish Vehicular and bicycle parking calculations based on the operating characteristics of the proposed use and request, a formal interpretation from the city." regarding its acceptability (given the requirement for one vehicular parking space for eveo' 28 feet of assembly area, it is likely that some amount of additional parking would be required irrespective of required parking associated with any residential use). Furthenuore, under a new CUP, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the density requirements for R-2/Ro3 as required per EC Table 9.2740. For the record, communiW and neighborhood centers are not required to meet the density requirements when permitted as a conditio, nal use in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. This is also true for other uses including, but not limited to, school uses, bed and breakfast facilities, residential treatment centers, and day care facilities. In other, cases such as churches, clubs and lodges, and hospitals, said uses are required to meet the minirnum and maximum d. ensiLy requirements unless granted a modification to the density, requirement through the CUP as allowed under EC 9.8090(8)(d). Satre notes that neither the Senior Center nor the Annex were considered avai;lable for residential development in the most recent residential land inventory'. Given the nature of the existing use, some of the developzT~e'nt standards (particularly with regard to pa~king) do not necessarily fit with the specific Operating characteristics of the Senior Center.i As such, complying with the criteria and standards may prove difficult without significant impa"c~s to the site. Pros: Establislfing a new CUP woulcl allow tile city tO establish a new use with similar or different operating characteristics than currently exist under the Senior Center. Si nilarly, a new CUP would alloxv the city or other user to argue tbr ne{¢ parking standards based 0n the operating characteristics of the proposed clSe. FinallY. a nexv CUP would eliminate reliance on past decisions and conditions and would alloxv ~br a "fi'esh start" in continuing tile senior center use. ~ Satre staff note that under'a new CI.IP. Ihe senio' center could continue to ~perate under public or private ownership ;.ts ti "Neighborhood Center" tinder the definition in' the code. 65 , I~al. lllllglll ;;elliOt ~ 'clltrgl' I"~.:bFIl~Jl'V. -(J )_. ]);l~c 1()