Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />4.0 PROPOSAL REVIEW: <br />.-. <br />4.1 Rosedale Commons Shopping Center has a Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning <br />map designation of SC, Shopping Center. The Address Map Book distributed by the <br />Community Development Department indicates the property is zoned Planned Unit <br />Development, however Planning Staff review of historical documents concludes that the <br />property is incorrectly identified and is actually zoned Shopping Center District <br />(February 1 l, 1985, Ordinance No. 967). <br />4.2 The property owner, Rosedale Commons LP, seeks approval for a"pet and pet supply <br />store" within Rosedale Commons Shopping Center. Comp USA has or will be vacating <br />their tenant space within the Center and PetSmart desires to occupy the 25,870 sq. ft. <br />space and operate a facility which would include a pet and pet supply retail area, <br />veterinary health area, pet hotel/doggie day care, grooming area and training area. <br />5.0 REVIEW of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: <br />5.1 Section 1013.01 requires the City to consider the following criteria when reviewing a <br />Conditional Use Permit: <br />a. Impact on traffic <br />b. Impacts on parks, streets and other public facilities <br />c. Compatibility of the site plan, internal circulation, landscaping and structure with <br />contiguous properties <br />d. Impact of the use on market value of contiguous properties <br />e. Impact on the general public health, safety and welfare <br />f. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan <br />5.2 Because the subject site is an existing retail center with ample parking, established <br />ingress/egress, and other site improvements required when the Center was initially <br />approved by the City (January 14, 1985) and because no site improvements are requested <br />nor required for PetSmart to occupy the premises, the City Planner has determined that <br />review of such a request is unique in the context of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />criteria. Further, the potential impacts of the Center far outweigh those of a single use <br />such as PetSmart. That being said, staff has reviewed/analyzed the proposal utilizing the <br />criteria of Section 1013.01 of the City Code. <br />5.3 Traffic. The DRC has concluded that the impacts created by a change in use (computer <br />store to a pet store) would be negligible. Our experience is that these uses (former and <br />proposed) generate similar volumes and peak hour movements. That being said the 2004, <br />Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on County Road B2 was 18,100 and on Fairview Avenue it <br />was 15,500. <br />PF07-026_RPCA_060607.doc Page 2 of 4 <br />