Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 14, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />Brauneis stated that it might also be unfair to the applicant to change that requirement <br />on the fly. <br />Ritchie stated that there were no plans for signage in the PUD, which therefore <br />assumed that they would come in with signs based on Sign Code with no waivers or <br />exceptions. She noted the monument signs on either side of the private drives. <br />Ritchie added that the fill to make the site level with the roadway should have been <br />done in the overall grading but at this point having different levels on the site would be <br />complicated. <br />Josh Cooperman, 216 Griffith Street, stated that the applicant had answered his <br />question about water recycling and he asked whether the roof would be black or have a <br />reflective material, stating that a roof reflecting as much sunlight as possible would be <br />better. He suggested planting more trees so that every parking spot provided shade to <br />prevent the tarmac from absorbing more sunlight and asked if there could be trees <br />between the lanes to allow for shading there. <br />Brauneis asked if there was any asphalt on site or if there would be concrete. <br />Brazee replied that it would be all concrete. <br />Brauneis asked if the flat roof would be white TPO. <br />Brazee confirmed. <br />Brauneis asked if the standing -seam aspects would be over a conditioned space, as he <br />understood that the heat sink effect would be diminished if those aspects were not over <br />conditioned spaces. <br />Brazee replied that the larger -pitched roof was not over occupied space, but the shed <br />roof was over the office and the dog washes. It was a small roof but it would heat up. <br />Brauneis asked the design team to take that into account. <br />Villa summarized that their application met guidelines and was within protocols and <br />added that they were receptive to comments. <br />Ritchie summarized by requesting comments on staff's recommended condition and <br />noting that the continuity of the streetscape mattered and there were additional <br />screening requirements for stacking lanes in the Code. <br />Moline stated that he was supportive overall and agreed about making changes to <br />landscaping, but he didn't feel comfortable with too much specificity because there were <br />many moving parts. To give staff specificity, he suggested that they could we look at <br />placing the evergreens closer to the stacking lanes or reorienting them closer to the <br />stacking lanes. <br />7 <br />