Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit D - Insubstantial Amendment_PD_Review CriteriaExhibit C: Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria 26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below. Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure most-applicable to the requested amendment. A. Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria: 1. The request does not change the use or character of the development. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments do not change or reshape the use or character of the Burlingame Affordable Housing Subdivision and Planned Development (PD). The proposed amendments are a result of project refinement and feedback and improvements made as a result of the development of the previous two phases at Burlingame. At the conclusion of the proposed changes, the use and character of the project will remain the same and Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with the conditions and representations in the project’s original approval. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2011 provided direction on alterations that could be approved administratively, and all change are include in the amendments subject to administrative review. The changes are minor in nature, are requested in an effort to further refine the scope of the approved development and meet the basic intent of the original development application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not grant any variation from the project’s permitted allowed uses and will not increase height or floor area for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Staff Finding: The majority of the proposed amendments comply with the approved dimensional limitations. Minor amendments to allowed projections to setback requirements are included in the request, and include: 1. Boulder retaining walls, and potentially gabion walls, required for retainage to accommodate topography and approved site work may exceed 30” within a setback. These areas currently exceeding 30” are identified in the Notice of Approval. Any additional walls that are required and exceed 30” may be reviewed and approved during building permit review. 2. The revised water entry room for building 8 encroaches into the setback by 4’. The water entry rooms were originally designed to be on the interior of the building above living space. The same design was utilized in previous phases and there have been operational issues and water damage the have resulted from that location. The water entry room relocation for all buildings Exhibit C: Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria was a response to previous experience and is considered a technical design issue that could not have been foreseen during the original approval of the PD. The Land Use Code allows utilities within a setback but there is no discussion of structures enclosing utility service. It’s staff’s position that this code allowance provides direction that utility service, and associated infrastructure, is appropriate within the setback. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2011 provides additional flexibility for amendments for changes that are minor in nature. There is specific direction providing flexibility in that section regarding minor adjustment to lot lines. Although no alteration to the lot line is proposed, there was acknowledgement during the project review that minor changes to property boundaries and building orientations may be required as the projects progress through the design phase. Staff has found the proposed encroachment to the setbacks for roof overhangs, retaining walls, and the water entry room to be design changes that are technical in nature, could not have been foreseen during the project review, are minor in nature, are consistent with allowed projections into setbacks in the Land Use Code, and are consistent with the conditions included in Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2011. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending Staff Finding: Not applicable.