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

Home Browse Search

APpendix A- Limited Consultation Q & A The fbllowing issues were identified by Satre o.r Facilities as barriers to the sale of~he Annex. Th~se issues were addressed in a Limited Consultation meeting with city staff (Jean Hahn, Land Use Analyst and Gabe Flock. Associate Planner)on January 6. ~.00~. Each issue category is described below ;with.th~ questions we asked (in bold) and answers given by staff(in italics) following each. '1. New Conditional Use Permit vs. Modification of existing CUI ? In prior correspondence with Land 'Use and ?lanning Staff. Facilities has been told that a new 'conditional use permit, rather'than a modification, would be required for the Senior Centei' in the event that the city wished to sell the Annex parcel based on the argument that selling the Annex would constitute a significant change to the original CUP. The rationale for this interpretation is not reflected in EC 9.8080 (Applicability), which says "Conditional use permits apply to the initiation or expco~sion of a use listed as being subject to the conditional use permit review process in this land use code" (emphasis added). Sale of the Annex would not result in the initiation or expansion of the community center. Further. EC 9.8110 (Modifications· to Approved Conditional Use Pi~rmit) allows for the approval of CUP Modifications subject to findings that: (1) The proposed modification is not materially inconsistent w/th the conditions of original approval, and that (2) the-proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the development,, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties. Amending the existing CUP to remove the Annex ~vould not., 'in and of itself, result in significant c'hanges to the physical appearance of the development (flue structures already exist), use of the site (the senior center could continue to operate as such), nor impact on the surrounding properties (there would be little change to the overall operation of the center). Given the above analysis, and assuming the applicant could show that the modification was materially consistent with the c~onditions of original approval, please respond to the following questions. The issue of parking is discussed in more detail in the next section. Would the city, accept an application for a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit to reduce the overall use and area of the site? Ans,~,em P/'ocedurally., tt~e ciO~ coul. d /nove fom.~,c//'d with a modification. Pzrowever, staff ¥i,ouM not/'ecommend'it because qf potential clifficuln.~ meeting the criteria of approval. 1.2 If not, please provide a ratiOnale, particularly given that such a change w.ould not meet the applicability standards set out' in EC 9.8080 for initiation or expansion of the conditional use. .~n.s'we/.: The issue i.s' no!/'elated to applicabitio.'. .4~' noted above. 72rocedu/'aIly a modification i~. l)os,~'ible. That said, there ca'e i,s'sz/e,~' /'elated t'o comp/ia/we with criteria, [2a/'ticular].v material con.s'i, rtcnc3: ~l,ilh [he o/'tlgina/ criteria o.~'approval. 1.3 [n the event that the Ci~ were to accept a CUP Modification, please confirm th.at no addJtiomfl parking would' be required at this time given the 1980 modification approval by the FIearings Official that eliminated the requirement for a 15 space parkin~ lot and given that a second hearing was never requested per Condition 5 of the 1980 approval. 70