Laserfiche WebLink
she thinks there would be significantly more traffic with a pharmacy drive - through than <br /> with a service station. <br /> Mr. Pack stated that he agrees with Commissioner Pearce's statement but that those <br /> two were not an either /or situation. He indicated that staff looked at the full phase of the <br /> gas station, then looked at a Phase I with the gas station still there and also with the <br /> pharmacy with the drive - through. He noted that the pharmacy with a drive - through has <br /> similar trip rates and there is not a significant difference between the two. He added <br /> that overall, the trips were reviewed and staff found that there are significantly lower <br /> trips, not only from the original full phase, but also from the original application with the <br /> 700,000 square feet. <br /> Commissioner Pearce referred to the trip - generating rate table and PM peak -hour trips <br /> with the assumption that different uses would have different AM and PM peak -hour <br /> trips. She inquired how taking out the service station and adding a fast -food or <br /> restaurant type of drive - through would specifically affect the PM peak -hour trip rates. <br /> She noted that from the Fehr and Peers study, it looks like there are significantly more <br /> PM peak -hour trips generated with a pharmacy drive - through than with a service <br /> station. <br /> Mr. Pack stated that when staff looked at the gas station with the eight service pumps, <br /> they also looked at the pharmacy. He indicated that now the applicant has replaced the <br /> gas station with a drive - through fast food, and the difference between the drive - through <br /> fast food and the gas station are not significantly different. He noted that what the <br /> Commission is seeing is fewer trips than what is actually shown in the study, and as a <br /> result, mitigations remain the same. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that it looks like Fehr and Peers analyzed the parking on <br /> page 25 of the study. She indicated that she assumed this was done at the same time <br /> that transportation impacts were analyzed. She inquired if there was a new analysis of <br /> parking in regard to the new pharmacy and fast food. <br /> Mr. Pavan replied that this was looked at carefully and a determination was made that <br /> the parking demand analysis done by Fehr and Peers was comparable. He indicated <br /> that this project, as now proposed and even with the drive - through fast food, is still <br /> over - parked according to the traffic consultant. <br /> Commissioner Narum inquired if it would be considered a major modification if, after <br /> PUD approval, someone wants to lease the building on Pad 4 and wants it to look <br /> different than what is shown in the drawings. <br /> Mr. Pavan replied that this would be considered a major modification. He added that <br /> the condition specifically states that no franchise, thematic, and comparable architecture <br /> would be presented to the Commission. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 5 of 14 <br />