Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ATTACHMENT 7 <br /> <br />PCUP-165/PDR-529/PUD-81-25-7M, Regencv Centers (Don MacKenzie and Pete <br />Knoedler)/Home Depot <br />Application for a PUD major modification, conditional use permit, and design review <br />approval to allow the construction of 193,481 square feet of commercial area, including a <br />Home Depot building supply store and garden center, a Long's Drugs pharmacy with <br />drive-through, and miscellaneous neighborhood retail stores including one drive-through, <br />on an approximately 16-acre parcel located at the Valley Avenue/Bernal Avenue/Stanley <br />Boulevard intersection, in the Stanley Business Park. Zoning for the property is PUD-C <br />(Planned Unit Development - Commercial) District. <br /> <br />Also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker nated that staff recammended that the Planning Cammissian review the pro.ject, <br />co.nsider the merits o.fthe project, make the co.nditio.nal use permit findings, and reeo.mmend <br />approval to. the City Cauncil. <br /> <br />In respo.nse to. an inquiry by Acting Chairperso.n Fax whether this was a legislative act. She also. <br />asked if the praject cauld then be referended. Ms. Decker replied that it was. <br /> <br />Ms. I larryman nated that the PlJD madificatian was cansidered a rezane, and, therefore, a <br />legislative act, and that it cauld be referended. <br /> <br />Marian Pavan presented the staflrepart and described the background, layaut, and scape af this <br />propased praject. <br /> <br />Co.mmissio.ner Blank camplimented staff an the graphic representatian af the natificatian far this <br />item. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan noted that the project had been peer reviewed by Larry Cannon. He noted that a large <br />number afco.nditians had been added to. this project to. deal with the issues aftraffic, as well as <br />campatibility with surrounding uses. The haurs af aperatian wauld be 6:00 a.m. to. 10:00 p.m., and <br />staffunderstaad that specific neighbars wauld prefer further limitatio.ns o.n the hours. Staff <br />recommended approval of this pro.ject, follo.wing the metho.do.lo.gy described in the Staff <br />Reco.mmendations sectio.n o.f the staff rep0l1, subject to. the eonditio.ns of approval. <br /> <br />In respo.nse to. an inquiry by Co.mmissio.ner Olso.n regarding the circumstances under which a <br />liquo.r sto.re could be permitted an this site, Mr. Pavan replied that it wo.uld have to. be reviewed <br />by the Planning Co.mmissio.n under an applicatio.n I'DI' a co.nditional use permit with additional <br />co.nditio.ns 0.1' approval. He believed the CN district did allow liquor sto.res as a co.nditio.nal use. <br />If the Planning Commissio.n did no.t believed that was an appro.priate use for this site, then it may <br />reco.mmend that use be stricken fi'o.m the recommended list o.f uses. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Co.mmissioner Olso.n regarding whether the building wo.uld no.t have <br />any orange freight doors, Mr. Pavan confirmed it had been madc clear to. the applicant that no. <br />o.range doors be included in the design. Ms. Decker noted that specific language prohibiting <br />orange freight do.ors co.uld be included in the conditio.ns. <br /> <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Deccmber 13,2006 <br /> <br />Pagc 1 of 16 <br />