PC 012804 - Laserfiche WebLink

building. He noted that if the tower element were unacceptable to the Commission, he would need specific direction to fit in with the rest of the design. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox, Ms. Murphy replied that this was the second design and was the response to specific requests by staff to follow the fire station's design elements. Commissioner Maas felt that the design was a good start and has some relationship to McDonald's. She asked if the design could be more creative, whereupon Mr. Halbert advised that the building must be commercially viable, which would drive the cost of the building itself. He noted that the elevation facing Stanley Boulevard contained significant architectural elements and added that the trellis and archways would be a good visual design facing Stanley Boulevard. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Halbert replied that some uses they were considering included a coffee shop, a sandwich shop, and service-oriented retail for the surrounding businesses and passing residents. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Halbert replied that McDonald's asked them not to sell hamburgers but that other food service would be acceptable, including a Starbucks or Noah's Bagels. Kent Pryor, 3425 Bernal Avenue, noted that he was the nearest residential neighbor to the project site. He requested that the City restrict the uses and/or design to avoid auto repair or roll-up doors. He noted that the west side of the building would face some extension of the alley off of Utah Street. He expressed concern about the visual impact of the building on the alley and would not want to see roll-up doors. He noted that auto repair businesses were not excluded from the allowed uses and added that it was aparking-intensive business. He noted that the surrounding streets were already crowded because of existing auto-related businesses in the neighborhood. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson confirmed that auto uses were permitted under the PUD. He noted that because the PUD was the controlling instrument for the site, any change to the permitted uses would be addressed through a PUD modification. He advised that the Commission could include a condition during the design review that roll-up doors would not be allowed. Mr. Halbert noted that there were no auto-related uses proposed for this site and added that they would not apply for a PUD modification. Ms. Nerland advised that a condition stating "no roll-up doors" would effectively preclude an automotive use. If the Commission felt strongly about prohibiting automotive uses, the Commission could initiate the process to amend the PUD to accomplish that. Commissioner Maas advised that could be initiated through the design review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 2004 Page 8 of 17