02/12/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

potentially being "grandfathered" in. It was noted that if parking spaces were further reduced, a variance might be required. He advised the commission to consider reviewing potential adverse impacts and suggested tabling the proposal if needed, especially if a variance or other administrative components (like photometrics or stamped surveys) were not resolved. It was also emphasized the importance of cooperation between the applicant and administrative staff to address outstanding issues. The applicant addressed the commission, explaining that they had worked to submit a complete package in time for the meeting, despite challenges with timing. He acknowledged the concerns raised by staff, particularly regarding the photometric plan. Although they created the plan, the short timeframe prevented them from submitting it on a signed and sealed 24x36 sheet. He also clarified that they were willing to plant trees in the right-of-way if required, but raised concerns about maintenance, as there was no existing irrigation system. The speaker clarified that while the project might be seen as an expansion, the building's square footage and parking lot were not changing. The planned work involved exterior upgrades for safety, ADA accessibility, and a small drop-off area. They addressed concerns about loading areas, explaining that the current loading zones worked well, with minimal disruption from short-term customer drop-offs. Regarding parking, they noted a deficiency in required spaces, but the existing parking appeared sufficient. They expressed openness to suggestions and emphasized that the project would not impact traffic flow. Additionally, they offered to provide further documentation or signage if needed. The speaker, a construction manager for Savers, explained the operations of the central donation area (CDC). They clarified that the drop-off process typically takes two to three minutes, with staff assisting donors to keep the flow moving. For larger vehicles, the staff would pull them off to the side to unload without blocking the area. They emphasized that the area is regularly cleaned, with cameras, lighting, and signage to discourage after-hours dumping. The goal is to ensure safety for both donors and employees. The commission discussed whether the application was being reviewed under the new or old code, with it being determined that the old code applied due to the application being in the pipeline before the zoning change. There was uncertainty about the completeness of the application, as the development plan did not include necessary materials like a lighting plan, signage plan, landscaping plan, or photometric plans. The Director confirmed that the application was incomplete, but it had been docketed to proceed through the process. The discussion revolved around safety concerns regarding traffic, particularly with overlapping customer and truck traffic in a narrow alley. Questions were raised about whether emergency vehicles, including ambulances, could safely navigate the area, especially since the building was being repurposed for a new use, unlike the previous one. There was concern about the new traffic patterns and potential hazards. The idea of a traffic engineering study was suggested to evaluate the situation more thoroughly. The applicant estimated 40 to 50 cars per day would drop off materials at the side door, and the need for a traffic flow study was emphasized due to potential congestion. Tabling the discussion for further review was considered.