Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo by Justin Lucas(~irE IDIAN~-- Memo February 6, 2014 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Lucas, Planning Supervisor Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Charlie Rountree David Zaremba RE: Modifications to Conditional Use Permits for Multi-Family Development Amenities Purpose Staff is seeking Commission direction regarding developer requests to modify amenities within a multi-fa-nily development that has received Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision making body for CUP's and multi-family developments require CUP approval in the R-15, R-40, C-C, and C-G zoning districts. Background UDC 1 1-4-3-27D outlines the type and number of amenities that are required within multi- family developments. Required amenities fall into three categories: 1) Quality of life; 2) Open space; and 3) Recreation. The number and type of amenities required directly correlates to the number of units proposed in the development. During the application process the applicant proposes an amenity package that is reviewed for conformance with UDC requirements. In some instances after the Commission has approved a CUP for amulti-family development the applicant makes a request to modify the amenity package that was included in the application. The Unified Development Code (UDC) contains provisions that allow an applicant to -•equest a -nodification to an approved CUP. With regards to open space and amenities the UDC states that the Director may approve or deny "mirror changes to the recreation area or open space design, but riot elimination or reduction in area " (UDC l 1-SB-6G). If a proposed change is the subject of review during the public hearing, has adverse impacts on adjacent properties, or is not considered a minor change (as described above) the Commission must consider the modification at a public hearing. Commission Direction As staff works with applicants to process cha-Iges to the amenity packages there is some judgment required to determine if a proposed modification is a `'minor chan~Te" as described in the UDC. Staff is seeking direction from the Commission on this issue to ensure that requests to modify amenities within multi-family developments are processed correctly. The following scenarios will be presented at the February 6t' hearing and are intended to gage the Commissions comfort level with proposed changes to amenities. Scenario Examples Original Proposal Proposed Change Assumptions and Staff Comment/Questions small plaza and gazebo replace with community garden Both are approved open space amenities. Staff typically would consider this a minor change and a rove at the staff level clubhouse (Commissioner replace with outdoor fitness Both are approved mentioned they liked design stations quality of life amenities. at the public hearing) The Commissioner made a comment but did not explicitly require the clubhouse. Is this as a minor change? pool replace with half basketball court Both are approved recreation amenities. The pool was not explicitly required by the Commission and no public testimony was received. Is this a minor change? Staff will provide more detail at the February 6, 2014 hearing on this topic and facilitate a discussion to determine Commission direction on this issue.