DIR2010-00002 i.t2 ?C! — cOOO Z
g fir�5.us''i. t
1i
" : ® T'
14
l DIREC®R'S INTERPRETATION
DATE: July 20, 2010
CODE CHAPTER: 18.360.050
TOPIC: Major /Minor Modifications(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development
LOCATION: Citywide
1. INTRODUCTION
Section 18.360.050.8 provides eleven evaluation criteria to determine whether a proposed
development action results in a minor or major modification of an existing development. Criterion
#3, regarding "a change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765,"
has been problematic. A strict reading of the code could require a relatively minor modification,
associated with a change of use, to apply a Type II procedure (SDR) that has a much higher
application fee, requires notice, and takes substantially longer than a Type I procedure (MMD). In
the interest of applying a procedure proportional to the impacts of a development proposal, staff
has interpreted the criterion such that if a proposed development could accommodate the required
increase in parking (within limits) on the subject property and complies with the other criteria for a
minor modification, then a Type T procedure should apply. The Director's Interpretation can
provide clear and objective criteria to establish appropriate limits.
II. ANALYSIS
Proposed development involving a change of use, depending on the relative parking requirements
for the existing use and the proposed use, may require additional on -site parking per Table 18.765.2.
If additional parking is required, then tug additional parking requires a Type 11 procedure. In some
cases, where the proposed development is essentially a tenant improvement within an existing
structure, but the change of use requires additional parking, the Type II procedure involves higher
application fees, notice, and a higher level of review which are not proportional to the impacts of
development. A Director's Interpretation is necessary to address cases such as this. The City desires
to promote business opportunities and job creation associated with adaptive reuse of existing
buildings..
1 f low impact (no off -site impacts) cases requiring additional parking can be defined with clear and
objective approval criteria, which don't otherwise meet any other of the ten criteria, then a
proportional Type I procedure could be used. This criterion should be amended in a subsequent
code amendment.
III. INTERPRETATION
Major /Minor Modifications(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development Page 1
•
•
In the interest of applying a proportional procedure, with regard to fees and tune to review, to a
proposed development requiring additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765, a
• Type 1 procedure (MMD) may apply when:
1) All proposed improvements are within an existing structure (no increase in building square
footage). •
• 2) The additional parking can be accommodated on the subject site through a) existing spaces, b) •
restriping, or c) conversion of standard to compact spaces not to exceed 50 "
• 3) No other criterion in Section 18.360.050.13 is met requiring a major modification.
4) Pursuant to Section 18.360.060.C.1, the proposed development is in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this tide.
•
•
•
•
Ronald B. Bunch, Community Development Director
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Major /Minor Modifications(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development Page 2