PC 012804 - Laserfiche WebLink

_. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox, Mr. Iserson confirmed that mixed uses within one building would be possible if allowed by the district's zoning. He believed that it would be good to ask the applicant if she would consider demising the building in that manner. Chairperson Roberts advised that a large service door would be required. She noted that she did not care for buildings that were angled on the lot. Mr. Iserson noted that the applicant could be asked to square the building on the lot. Chairperson Roberts inquired about the shared driveway. Mr. Iserson displayed the driveway on the overhead screen and pointed out the vacant lot and potential landscaping on the lot. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson confirmed that a parts or automotive store would be appropriate for the business park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Noushin Murphy, project architect, 637 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, noted that Jeff Halbert of United Growth was in attendance to answer questions about the project. She noted that this building was currently a shell, with the intent of having occupants fill it at a later date. She noted that the purpose of designing the exits to face McDonald's was to allow equal access to the tenants. She noted that any change would depend on the use and whether it would make business sense to make the change. ` In response to Ms. Murphy's question about the applicant's responsibility with respect to the bioswale, Mr. Iserson replied that staff would work with the applicant to determine the drainage patterns. He added that the applicant must also provide a drainage plan, which would be dependent on the current grading of the site. Staff would ask the applicant to provide a bioswale if it was a feasible option for the site and would assist the applicant in its design and implementation. Ms. Murphy advised that the size, style, and color of the signage would be unclear at this point, not knowing who the tenants would be. Mr. Iserson advised that the design review would be conditioned for a comprehensive sign program. The applicant would present a program that detailed general sign parameters as to the size, height, type of lettering, type of illumination, etc. that would be general enough to accommodate their potential tenants while still providing a theme and regularity to the signage. Chairperson Roberts advised that an entirely different sign for each tenant would not be appropriate. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts, Jeff Halbert replied that they generally supported staff's recommendations and added that the tower element on the corner of the building would provide a visual element and distinction with respect to the height of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 2004 Page 7 of 17