Agenda - 06-27-2002-10b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 MEMORANDUM June 19, 2002 Page 2 Issue 1 — Request that developer meet "end of 2002" deadline for pool and clubhouse availability ' The SUP Condition #27 (see attached) sets forth the recreation requirements which are primarily active and passive dedications do not specify the requirement of a clubhouse. The pool fence is noted under 27g and would be built later as part of the multi-family project (Phase 2b) but has been approved by staff to be moved up in the project to a site within Phase 2a where the approximately 15 acres of recreation land is centrally located. A concept site plan for the active recreation area has been informally submitted. There is not a requirement for a clubhouse and no timeframe on building the pool except that it must occur before Phase III single family. The county cannot force but only prompt the developer to proceed in sequence to build the pool in Phase 2 within the time period for the 2nd — 25% of units/2 %2 year period which extends to January, 2005. Issue 2—Request that type and number of multi-housing units be identified The quantity of multi-family units is a maximum 216 units. The density is approximately 7.5 dwelling units an acre on approximately 29 acres. There is no site plan for this area at this time, only a concept plan (see Concept Plan 1) submitted in 1986 which roughly reflects a town home product. The SUP does not dictate bedroom number or price range, nor can our site plan requirements. Staff has informally discussed the need to have a mix of 'reasonable cost' housing which can more easily occur in a town home product. Issue 3 — Request that the clubhouse and pool be of solid construction The SUP does not mention the type of pool construction. During the building permit stage, staff would ensure the design meets state standards which offer a variety of acceptable construction methods. The.construction design is a product of initial cost and long-term maintenance and is the developer's choice unless included in approved Homeowners Association documents. Issue 4— Request that no membership be sold outside our community The only zoning limitation on outside pool memberships that the county can regulate is the threshold between a private community pool and a commercial public pool. That threshold is liberal for private pool purposes because a membership system can invoke the private pool guidelines. The ratio of internal to external memberships is not written into the code but a reasonable standard could be 80% internal. From a Health Department standpoint, whether there is any ratio of internal to external is a moot subject, any'collective use' is determined to be a public pool health standard. The county (through letter #1) explained the process to make amendment to the SUP conditions but also noted that other planning areas of current interest would likely be folded into a current day reanalysis and processing through the Board of Commissioners. a:%admin laakAoortasDUinkldiurtongrome&19.02Wa