15 - Laserfiche WebLink

clients would be dropped-off in the back of the facility, but the main handicap is located in the front entrance, and the staff report states that some people will be brought in and visiting through the front entrance. He pointed out that they, as co-owners of the building, would have conditional liabilities if there were any slip-and-fall problem, disruption, or any similar occurrences. Mr. Rudick stated that parking is also an issue. He noted that eight to ten vehicles coming in on a daily basis might not be too bad, but other people could be dropping-off clients throughout the day, as stated in the staff report. He added that as mentioned earlier, noise is definitely another concern they have. Mr. Rudick noted that no one from the City or SVS ever contacted them prior to the notice they received and added that it would have been nice as a tenant and also as an owner of the building to have been notified at that point. He stated that he is not presenting all these issues because of the type of facility, as he would say the same thing if it were a day care or other type of training center. He noted that he used to be located on Rheem Drive and the training center approved at that location was a real problem. He reiterated that he thinks SVS is doing a wonderful job, but as a business owner and owner of the building, he opposes its location in this building. Gary Gibson stated that he is co-owner of the building at 6602 Owens Drive. He concurred with Mr. Rudick's comments, particularly those referring to the safety issues. He noted that the facility will have 13 employees and 8 vans, and inquired how the 13 people are going to get to work because they said they will have only 10 cars. He added that the people who get to work will have to park somewhere, and 13 employees looking after 30 clients, plus 8 vans is a lot more than what they were told. He echoed Mr. Rudick's statement that driving through their area is very dangerous and that there was an accident there recently with vehicles cutting through their parking lot. He added that both he and Mr. Rudick operate an insurance business, and they have a lot of in- and-out traffic in the area. He expressed concern about the safety of the handicapped people who would be going into the facility. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Balch stated that he assumed the parking issue that was raised concerned cut-through traffic because this is private property. He inquired if the owners of the private property would have to mitigate this themselves. Mr. Weinstein said yes. He stated that the property owners have indicated this was an issue, and it probably is an issue with many corner properties in the City. He indicated that this was not something staff observed, and although staff did not doubt that this may have occurred sporadically or intermittently, staff has determined that this is certainly not something that this project is going to exacerbate or contribute to. Commissioner Balch inquired if the proposed use is compatible, in terms of the parking ratios, with the "Office" use the building is zoned for. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 3 of 8