PC 012605 - Laserfiche WebLink

"shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director." He inquired whether any changes in the future to Coonditions No. 2-7 would be considered. by stati'or by the Planning Commission. Ms. Nerland replied that typically, the rule in statutory construction is that the more specific would govern over the more general_ She added that the Commission would consider any publicly visible changes but that the subsequent conditions of approval that were approved the same night would allow a certain degree of change within the parameters to be made by the Planning Director. Commissioner Arkin would like the Commission to receive notit-ication if any drastic changes were planned. Ms. Nerland noted that the color of the main building would come before the Commission, and if the Commission did not wish to give the Planning Director discretion over the trim and accent colors <Condition No. 3J, the conditions of approval should be revisited _ Mr. Pavan noted that he appreciated the Commission's intentions and noted that G'ondition No. 7 addressed specific construction details; they must conform to the design guidelines being considered by the Commission. Ms. Nerland added that the conditions of approval already include the language "prior to the issuance of a building permit" In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether outdoor dining was approved For the front of the building, Mr. Pavan replied the tables and chairs were to provide an aZ fresco look and that there would not be dining in the front of the building. He added that outdoor dining was approved at the staff level, in conformance with the outdoor dining ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the expansion of the building into the sidewalk area, Mr. Pavan confirmed that was previously approved by the Planning Commission at the previous application hearing. This item was meant to consider exterior design changes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bob Byrd, applicant, 205 Neal Street, noted that the most recent changes were made to improve the building operation. He noted that the breezeway was private property and would not be closed off except in the evenings for security reasons. He noted that the dining tables and chairs were included because his brother believed it would be an attractive addition to the drawing. He emphasized that they would not ask for approval for outdoor dining in the front of the building. He noted that they removed a door from the side of the old plan and added that there were no openings at the side of the building which would leak noise. He added that the flags were already approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tanuary 26, 2005 Page 6 of 17