My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 09242024
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2024
>
CC PACKET 09242024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2024 4:48:25 PM
Creation date
9/19/2024 4:47:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
September 24th, 2024 <br />Page 4 <br />original application, the request was clearly outside of the PUD land use ordinance that controls <br />the site. Changing the eligible uses was a policy decision that the City should make, and staff <br />offered reasons that the City might both approve such a change, or reject it. <br />However, the August review included a change in the proposed principal land use (thus <br />resetting the applicable timelines for City consideration of the matter). The new use was best <br />described as a religious institution, with ancillary accessory uses. As a religious institution, it is <br />an acceptable land use in a residential district. In this case, the R-4, multi-family district <br />underlies the PUD overlay. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed use is appropriate <br />under the current PUD designation (the PUD Ordinance incorporates the uses of the R-4 <br />District). Thus, staff’s recommendation changed to approval. <br />Under this land use scenario, the primary issues in the PUD become the building and site <br />alterations, since the PUD ordinance also adopts the site plan approved for the prior multi- <br />family proposal. Staff’s recommendation included a series of conditions related to site <br />conditions, and requesting verification of aspects of the use. <br />Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment, with <br />changed conditions from those of staff. Staff continues to recommend incorporation of the <br />original conditions as with any PUD, flexibility in site use and other aspects of development <br />from the City’s standard zoning requirements is to be offset by site improvements and project <br />amenities that result in a project that furthers the City’s land use goals and objectives. Without <br />the site improvements suggested by staff (and originally conceptually offered by the <br />applicants), the site would remain in a condition that is not consistent with the City’s standards. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br />In the initial application, the issue for the City was whether the PUD zoning and the <br />Development Agreement governing the land use on the site should be amended to incorporate <br />a use that was not contemplated by the original PUD approval. <br />The amended application expands the proposed use of the site, and – while it varies from the <br />original PUD – the principal use is within realm of the uses written in to the Kenzie Terrace PUD <br />District. Staff believes that the proposed land uses on the site are consistent with the <br />underlying land use planning for this area, and subject to site plan notes and appropriate <br />amendments to the zoning district, allowable under the PUD Zoning. <br />While the applicants have added additional clarity to the proposed use and provided a concept <br />site plan that suggests additional green space on the mostly-impervious site, there are a <br />number of modifications or supplemental elements that should be incorporated into any <br />recommendation for the PUD amendment. Those modifications include the following: <br />1.Provide information on staffing during religious services in the multi-purpose room, and <br />scale the capacity of the assembly to match the remaining available parking on the site, <br />at the rate of 2.5 persons per parking space. <br />48
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.