Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit B_219 E Durant_Insubstantial Amendment_PD ApprovalExhibit B: 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 deck area on the north façade of the existing building does not change or reshape the use or character of the Chart House development. At the conclusion of the outdoor deck changes, the use and character of the development will remain the same. 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 deck area on the north façade of the building is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project’s original approval. The 2006 Plat (Book 77 Page 51) calls out the area as a “public plaza area (to include seating and other public amendments)”. Staff and the applicant believes that “amendments” was an error and was meant to say “public amenities”. The proposed change is requested to memorialize the area as an outdoor seating and dining area. Staff believes that the omission of the retaining wall is due to unforeseen issues with the Cottonwood tree located adjacent to the patio/deck area and find it represents an insubstantial change. 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 outdoor deck and seating area will 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 Chart House PUD (Ordinance 32 Series of 2005) calls out a 10ft setback on the Durant Ave side. The Land Use Code does not allow for a greater than 6” patio in the setback. However, when the patio was considered in the original 2006 Chart House PD approval it showed a retaining wall next to a tree on the East Durant side of the building. The applicant worked with the Parks Department to reduce the Exhibit B: Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria disturbance to the tree roots, thereby avoiding impact to the tree. The biggest concerns for the Parks Department were that there wouldn’t be allowed any changes in grade within the dripline of the Cottonwood tree and that no excavation would be allowed within 6’ of the trunk of the Cottonwood tree. The revised patio responds to the concerns by the Parks Department and creates a patio that is flush with the exterior door elevation and compliant with ADA accessibility requirements. Staff believes the change from a retaining wall to a design that impacts the tree less to be an insubstantial change. 5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending Staff Finding: Not applicable.