Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pack stated that when staff looked at the gas station with the eight service pumps, <br />they also looked at the pharmacy. He indicated that now the applicant has replaced the <br />gas station with a drive-through fast food, and the difference between the drive-through <br />fast food and the gas station are not significantly different. He noted that what the <br />Commission is seeing is fewer trips than what is actually shown in the study, and as a <br />result, mitigations remain the same. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that it looks like Fehr and Peers analyzed the parking on <br />page 25 of the study. She indicated that she assumed this was done at the same time <br />that transportation impacts were analyzed. She inquired if there was a new analysis of <br />parking in regard to the new pharmacy and fast food. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that this was looked at carefully and a determination was made that <br />the parking demand analysis done by Fehr and Peers was comparable. He indicated <br />that this project, as now proposed and even with the drive-through fast food, is still <br />over-parked according to the traffic consultant. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if it would be considered a major modification if, after <br />PUD approval, someone wants to lease the building on Pad 4 and wants it to look <br />different than what is shown in the drawings. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that this would be considered a major modification. He added that <br />the condition specifically states that no franchise, thematic, and comparable architecture <br />would be presented to the Commission. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if changing the paint colors would be considered a major <br />modification. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that he would look at the color palette for the project and if the <br />change in color is comparable and attractive, he would be inclined to consider this a <br />minor change. He noted, however, that if a change to the building volume, roofline, or <br />something comparable is proposed, this would push it into something more significant <br />and would be considered major. He confirmed that this would also apply to the other <br />pads as well. <br />Mr. Dolan added said it is a judgment call and that staff has a strong sense of <br />self-preservation such that if staff believes it will be controversial, they would make it a <br />major modification. <br />Chair Olson referred to Condition No. 44 and noted that No. 22 under Permitted <br />Uses/Retail indicates “Drugstores or prescription pharmacies, no drive-through” and <br />suggested that “no drive-through” be struck. <br />Mr. Pavan stated that if a pharmacy were to come in with no drive-through, it would be a <br />permitted use; however, if the pharmacy includes a drive-through, it becomes a <br />conditional use. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 29 of 38 <br /> <br />