Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Narum added that she could not support the addition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank suggested the following modification: “The stucco finish will <br />be utilized on two elevations of the building, and slumpstone, with color, quality, <br />and finish, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, shall be on side <br />elevations of the building.” <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox proposed to modify Condition No. 30 to include support posts or <br />the addition of vines on columns to provide flexibility. <br /> <br />Commissioners Blank, Narum, and Pearce advised they could not support that addition. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox proposed to modify Condition No. 43 to indicate that the <br />restaurant tenant will be able to have a business that complies with the conditions <br />for PAP-76/UP-88-17, but any changes will require obtaining a conditional use <br />permit for those changes as required by the Municipal Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank believed that would be redundant because the conditional use <br />permit went with the land. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox noted that was the boilerplate for an applicant wishing to serve alcohol <br />past 10:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman suggested that the condition be struck as this was an application for design <br />review approval. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox would like to add a condition to allow construction on Saturdays <br />as the site is not near a residential area. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor noted that it would allow the construction to be completed <br />sooner. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox proposed the deletion of Condition No. 71 regarding the <br />installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system as the building is less than <br />8,000 square feet, and the applicant indicated it would be cost an additional <br />$100,000. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that he would not support that proposal for the following <br />reasons: there were no data regarding the applicant’s statement regarding the cost of <br />water damage versus saving a structure; the applicant’s data contradicted the data <br />received during the consideration of the Fire Sprinkler Ordinance; the Planning <br />Commission requested the Sprinkler Ordinance to be prioritized by the City Council on <br />their work plan; it was suggested that the Planning Commission condition sprinklers in <br />lieu of the ordinance; and he believed it was terribly unfair and inconsistent to not <br />condition certain projects. He noted further that the Commission had conditioned all <br />residential projects and commercial buildings, regardless of size, with sprinklers. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 30, 2007 Page 7 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />