Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR ACTION <br />fiver <br />'~O ITEM NUMBER <br />Ci Council 5.4. <br />AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY <br />Plannin Se tember 20, 2010 erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By <br />Request by Phoenix Enterprises for Conditional Use Permit to <br />Amend Hillside Crossing II PUD Agreement to Allow REVIEWED BY <br />Institutional Uses, Case No. CU 10-18 -Public Hearing <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />Staff and the Planning Commission recommend Conditional Use Permit approval amending the Planned <br />Unit Development Agreement to allow institutional uses as a conditional use in parcels in the <br />Northbound Crossings governed by the Hillside Crossing II PUD agreement. <br />BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION <br />The current property is governed by the Hillside Crossing II Planned Unit Development Agreement. <br />This agreement was approved in 1996. Outlot A of Hillside Crossing II was replatted as Northbound <br />Crossings in 1999. <br />At the time, the property owner adopted the permitted uses of the C-4 zoning districts, and named a <br />number of conditional uses. These conditional uses did not include "institutional uses". The property <br />owner has now requested an amendment that would permit them as a conditional use. Staff is supporting <br />this as an interim use. <br />This is a policy discussion regarding whether or not it is appropriate to open up the limited commercial <br />areas for non-commercial development. Staff supports the request because: <br />1. Institutional uses are deemed appropriate in standard commercial zoning districts. <br />2. The standards of a conditional use permit review address negative impacts to orderly <br />development and neighboring properties„ <br />3. The existing infrastructure developed for commercial uses can accommodate institutional uses. <br />4. There is little negative impact expected on adjacent uses. <br />Planning Commission Discussion <br />Planning Commissioners reviewed the item at their meeting on September 14, 2010. They did not have <br />concerns over the general amendment; their comments were specific to the proposed church. The <br />Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously, 6-0 (Commissioner Scott was absent). <br />Public Comment <br />Staff has received no comment fox or against the proposal before the meeting. No one commented <br />during the public hearing. <br />