Laserfiche WebLink
b00!;.. FAGE <br />commercial districts. In staff's opinion, the current PRO <br />district use limitations are consistent with the district's <br />purpose and the residential land use designation of all the <br />sites currently zoned PRO. <br />In regard to use intensity, as measured by traffic <br />generation/traffic parameters, banks are the most intense use <br />per square foot of building area except for drive-in <br />restaurants and convenience stores. The "commercial" uses <br />currently allowed in the PRO district generate between 16.3 <br />and 86.8 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area (general <br />office and post office uses) compared to 190-276.7 trips per <br />1,000 square feet for banks (see attachment #9). Thus, <br />allowing banks in the PRO district, would allow a <br />significantly more intense use than the currently allowable <br />range of uses. In staff's opinion, allowing an intense use <br />such as a bank within the PRO district would be contrary to <br />the PRO district's purpose and intent and would "open the <br />door" for other, inappropriate and more intense uses. In <br />addition, it is staff's opinion that allowing such uses in the <br />PRO district could result in furthering a "strip commercial" <br />effect along arterial roadways, whereas development of <br />professional offices in PRO districts (currently allowed) <br />would not have the same effect. Therefore, in staff's <br />opinion, it is not appropriate to allow banks and financial <br />uses in the PRO district. <br />PSAC Recommendation: At its February 27, 1997 meeting, the <br />PSAC voted 5-1 to recommend that the Board deIIy the proposal <br />to allow banks in the PRO district. <br />PZC Recommendation: At its April 24, 1997 meeting, the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend <br />that the Board demy the proposal to allow banks in the PRO <br />district. <br />Each of the 4 amendments has been incorporated into a single <br />proposed ordinance (see attachment #1). Amendments 2 and 3 <br />(see Parts 2 and 3 of attachment #1) are the type of LDR <br />modifications that can be adopted at a single hearing. Thus, <br />the Board could adopt one or both of these amendments at the <br />June 10th hearing. However, amendments 1 and 4 (see Parts 1 <br />and 4 of attachment #1) involve a change in allowable uses <br />within a zoning district and can be adopted or denied only <br />after a second hearing. Therefore, a second hearing is <br />scheduled for the Board's June 24, 1997 regular meeting, <br />beginning at 9:05 a.m. in the Commission Chambers. In staff's <br />opinion, the Board, at the June 10th hearing, should direct <br />staff on each of the 4 proposed amendments to adopt, modify, <br />or delete the proposal. Then, at its June 24th meeting, the <br />Board can adopt the amendments that it wishes to adopt, with <br />any modifications it has directed staff to make. <br />Staff recommends that the Board: <br />1. Indicate its intention to adopt proposed amendments 1, 2, and <br />3 at its June 24, 1997 public hearing; and <br />2. Direct staff to delete amendment 4 (to allow banks in the PRO <br />district) from the proposed ordinance and indicate its <br />intention to deny the proposed amendment 4 request at its June <br />24, 1997 public hearing. <br />26 <br />June 10, 1997 <br />M M M <br />