PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

which would be picking up their clients throughout the community and then dropped off at various businesses and facilities for training. Mr. Rudick stated that he then received the notice in the mail last week indicating that this business was completely opposite of what they were told, and when he saw the staff report on Friday of last week, he sent out the email to staff opposing the proposal. He reiterated that he was not opposing the operation but the location. He indicated that the units have fairly thin walls, and they had a noise issue with the prior tenant who had about 15 people, as opposed to the proposed 30 and up to 60 clients of this proposed facility. Mr. Rudick stated that as a business owner, his number one concern is safety. He indicated that as insurance brokers, they have insured a lot of types of facilities like this one, and in the process, they get some background on the type of people they would be serving, such as if they have any violent behavior or criminal backgrounds that would signal concerns about the safety of the employees and the other tenants and their employees. Mr. Rudick stated that the liability and insurance as a co -owner of the building is another major concern for him as well. He indicated that they have been in this building for ten years now and noted that the corner of Johnson and Owens Drives happens to be a spot where people use their parking lot in the morning to cut through, almost on a daily basis, to get to either Home Depot or some of the other operations there. He stated that they had approached the police several months ago inquiring if anything could be done about this, and they were told that there was absolutely nothing they could do because it was private property. He expressed concern about the proposed facility dropping -off clients at this location. He noted that the applicant had indicated that the tenants and 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 5 of 46