PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox, Mr. Theobald replied that they had not _ investigated using a bulb that was more to the muted yellow color scale rather than the bright bluish-white color scale. Chairperson Roberts advised that the bulb hangs below the gooseneck lamp shade and believed that a muted bulb would help a great deal. Commissioner Maas noted that her neighbors on Foothill Road were very complimentary about the project. She was very pleased with the project and the developers' willingness to work with the neighbors. She would like to see less intrusive and glaring bulbs in the drive-through lane and believed that could be accomplished. Commissioner Arkin noted that he had visited the store and felt that it was all the developer claimed it would be. He noted that the product selection and design were very well done. Chairperson Roberts noted that the Commission had wanted a Starbucks on the site and noted that the coffee selection was very good. Commissioner Arkin complimented Mr. Theobald on the design of the building. Theresa Moore, 1693 East Gate Way, thanked Mr. Theobald for visiting their home vrd complimented him on the design of the building. She noted that she had a clear view of the car wash and the canopy and did not object to the canopy. She expressed concern about the glare - coming from the gooseneck lamps. She noted that in addition to the building lights, there was considerable glare from the operating lights, the car wash, and the menu lighting. She did not believe a mesh fence would address the issue of lighting. She noted that they could also hear the soundbox at the drive-through and noted that the trash bins were being moved late at night, which disturbed the quiet of their neighborhood. She was very concerned about the safety of a car wash being located so close to a residential neighborhood with many children. She expressed concern that the lack of a sound wall would negatively impact the value of their homes and would like the City to consider a sound wall in order to mitigate safety concerns as well as sound and light issues. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson noted that the Commission's action at this meeting should be limited to the signage and whatever staff could act on administratively. He advised that the sound wall and fence issues would be heard at a later time. Commissioner Arkin moved to make the finding that the modification substantially conforms to PUD-02-4M and to approve PUD-02-6M, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. He clarified that the new condition would read that any change in signage on the site would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 6 of 22