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

Home Browse Search

Answer: Stc/ff'#Tdicated that they would honor the 1980 #todification. t-Zoweve~; xtc~f h~dicated that there mt? be issues related to the criteria of aPProval that couM prechtde c~Provol of the apfl[ication. 1.4 Are there other hctors related to parking that Facilities should consider at this point in time given their mission to sell the Annex prope~? .4ns,~,er: There 'is creativi~ through'the Cb~ process to address parking. Spec~caHy, applicant shoz~M ~gc~ the uses w~d occupancies of the building and request an interpretation regarding the (equired number of spaces. : Non-profits do not meet the definition ora communiq center; t~y woztM meet'the definition of a neighborhood center. . 2. Parking Parking has been a primary, issue.for the KaUfman Center over the years. Given existing site constraints, providing significant on-site parking is an undesirable option. Specifically, additional parking would eliminate all or part of the existing gardens that make'up the center's grounds; it would result in a significant financial burden on the city. for construction; and it would have a significant impact on the residential feelof file neighborhood. Given these factors and considering the City's desire to sell. the Annex, the extent to which the parking' requirement for the Kaufinan Center can be reduced or eliminated in this case'is critical to the sale of the Kaufman Annex. The following questions are posed'to establish how Land Use and Planning staff would determine the need for Parking during review ora new CUP or modification to an existing CUP as needed to allow for sale of the Annex property. 2.1 Given that the Land Use Code does not define assembly area, on what basis will the city calculate the parking requirement for the Senior Center? ,~nswer: Staff ~,ill calculate parking based on the operath,g characteristics, OCCupancy,. and areas usedJbr assembly, b, other words, the uxe will determine the parMng needs in this case. Staff recommended phexenting a parking proposalJbr review and requesting a formal :. b~terpretation ~om staff 2.2 Would the ciW suppo~ an argument that tho center meets any oFthe following use definitions for the purpose of calCulating paring: Government? Day Care? Meal Se~ice? Office? .~nsw,er: The -use dq/inition ~.~,ouM need to he based on the allowable uses in the code. Given/he existing use, the aboYe use d{/initions i. vouM not.fit. 2.2 If the senior center installed a limited number of fixed seats, would the ciW calculate the parffing requirement based on the total number of seats only or would they also include "assembly area" without tixed seats? ..-ln.¥Wer: The city could m'e /he /~oremia/../br '.Jixed.¥eats " ~ts /)art q/'/he rational ~.~,hen c& velopin,~ the l;~l~'ki~,~ ]9ro[9o,¥~1) 2.4 Would the ciW consider the thc/that the center has operated tbr over ~enW years with limited off-street parkin~ as .justification to reduce or eliminate the parkin'~ requirement th rough the CUP process? 71