11-16-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Silverview Plaza Report Nov 16, 2005 Page 2 be adequately parked to accommodate the requested zoning, parking at multi-tenant strip centers typically “self correct”. If a tenant has a high demand for parking, that tenant will likely not lease at a location where parking is already in short supply. Similarly, the leasing agent for a property would not likely recruit a tenant that would demand more parking than that available. Staff would generally agree regarding the self-policing aspect of tenant parking demands. Public Feedback Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of Silverview Plaza alerting them to this proposed rezoning and inviting them to attend the Planning Commission’s meeting on the matter. We have received two letters thus far from residents which are included in your report. (Any letters received subsequent to delivering the packet will be provided at the meeting.) Both residents expressed concern in response to the proposed rezoning, citing issues such as traffic, noise, pedestrian safety, limited parking availability, uncertainly over the potential tenants, all of which are valid concerns to the residents who live directly south of Silverview Plaza. Summary For the Commission to support the requested rezoning, it must find that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not cause or tend to cause or create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. In the first case, it has already been established that the request would in fact be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As for the second prong, the adverse impact test, it may or may not comply. The residents who expressed their concerns in writing also list traffic and parking among their concerns, as did staff. The applicant had indicated perhaps a willingness to conduct a traffic study to determine the present flow of traffic, upon which a traffic model could be prepared to ascertain traffic flow at full occupancy with uses that may be permitted under the B-3 designation. Keep in mind that certain specific B-3 uses such as a gas station, fast food establishment, car wash or an auto repair facility would all necessitate conditional use permits. These businesses which typically generate higher traffic demands or may tend to generate noise or other impacts would likely not meet the threshold of CUP approval. Recommendation After seeking any public input and discussing this request with the applicant, the Planning Commission may determine that the evidence presented does not support a recommendation of rezoning approval. If that is the case, the Commission may act on Resolution 820-05, a resolution recommending denial of the requested rezoning from B-2 to B-3. If the Planning Commission is unsure and would desire additional information such as the referenced traffic study, the request may be tabled subject to the applicant’s agreement to conduct such a study. (Reluctance or unwillingness on the part of the applicant to conduct such a study should cause the Commission to recommend denial.) If the Commission is satisfied that the parking is adequate and that the conditional use permit provisions offer adequate protection against any potential adverse effects, a resolution recommending approval would be prepared for your action on December 21, 2005.