PC 092519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown referenced page 3 of the COAs, which talk about other options such as veterinary offices and dance facilities of up to 20 students, which creates additional traffic. Chair Allen referred to page 3 of 19 of the memo and asked if they anticipate any potential changes. She referred to "grocery market" because in terms of usage, she was not sure they would want one in that location. They explicitly stated earlier they did not want a convenience market in that location, so the grocery market is similar in terms of usage. She asked if the applicant was opposed to removing "grocery market" because of the risk it might pose to traffic. Applicant Mash said he has already made accommodations per what the Planning Department has requested and advised, and he was not comfortable in removing this from the allowed proposed uses. Chair Allen asked if grocery market was allowed in C-F or C-C. Commissioner Brown said he continues to have concerns surrounding traffic in this location and the future timing of traffic improvements, especially given present day Johnson Court. He said by only doing a median improvement, it will force everybody on Johnson Court to then loop around. He was struggling with the general approval of the project but did not want to continually say "no" given their right to develop or redevelop because it desperately needs redevelopment; this is the reason for his questions, which he doesn't feel he's received clarity on. He continued by saying he didn't know whether approving the project as proposed and leaving it in its straight zoning, if the project would worsen the existing traffic issue. It is not clear that the project, as proposed, results in more traffic versus not approving the project, and he would hate to do that after 20 re-designs, but this is his position. He agrees with the other comments regarding articulation, design and the quality of the architecture, etc. He was just struggling with whether he wanted to make a bad situation worse for an extended period of time before the other traffic improvements are in place around that piece of property. He asked whether, if not approved, future development would be limited to the maximum number shown in Table 4 under `Daily Trips.' Chair Allen asked if they were to condition the timing of construction such that at least the right turn lane, as planned for next summer, and some other short-term improvements being mitigated were implemented prior to the project being constructed or occupancy being approved, whether that would begin to mitigate some of Commissioner Brown's concerns. Commissioner Brown said possibly, as he has spent enough time in that area, and currently the traffic is terrible. He was trying to figure out if they were giving something by doing the rezoning or not, and this is not clear to him. Chair Allen asked for a response from staff on this. If the Commission said "no" to the PUD, she asked what the applicant could come forward with. Ms. Clark noted that the current zoning would allow a 40-percent FAR, which based on the size of the site would allow for a 14,000 square foot building. Realistically, however, the Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 September 25, 2019 anning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 September 25, 2019 dout of the improvements, Mr. Tassano stated they are currently at LOS D. One issue is that the eastbound and westbound movements at Hopyard Road and Owens Drive run independently. All westbound traffic moves, then all eastbound traffic moves. They need to separate those movements out so the left turn is activated, which is a heavier movement, and then the through Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 September 25, 2019 was in full support of the proposed project with Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 September 25, 2019