PC 062409 - Laserfiche WebLink

time. He noted they are looking at a number of alternatives to PV, such as power purchase agreements, third party ownership, and other strategies that would keep costs down. He expressed concern with the initial cost of PV installation which becomes fixed overhead. He agreed that it would lighten utility costs but that there is a 15-20-year payback on it. Commissioner O’Connor clarified that the Commissioner is actually talking about prep work and not the actual installation of a PV system. Mr. Tye stated that there is an additional cost for prep work as the structure of the roof would need to be increased to take the load of panels, conduit must be run up, and there must be room prepared for housing converters as well as ancillary equipment. He added that the issue of LEED for car dealerships is difficult to meet and that they have not determined how they are going to approach the energy issue. He indicated that they would find a creative way to do it but do not want to be pushed at this time into one solution that may not be the best solution. Commissioner Narum stated that the applicant could add another 31,000 square feet of building and asked Mr. Tye if they had any plan on how to accomplish this. Mr. Tye replied that the service operation in auto dealerships is what typically gets expanded. He noted that showroom areas built as office areas are typically adequate for long periods of time; but eventually, more cars will be sold or repaired, there will be a greater demand, and the manufacturer will require more service bays for customers. He indicated that the buildings are sited in a way to accommodate potential future additions. Commissioner Narum inquired if the buildings would be located away from Stoneridge Drive. Mr. Tye replied that the buildings would be parallel to Stoneridge Drive; none of them would face Stoneridge Drive. Commissioner Narum referred to the eight-foot wide landscape buffer between Hendrick and the park on page 17 of the staff report. She inquired if this buffer would be four feet on each side of the wall that would be landscaped. Ms. Giffin replied that the buffer on the neighborhood park side will likely be wider than four feet. She stated that the tentative map plans, which would include the Neighborhood Park, have not yet been submitted but that she believed the buffer would most likely be about ten feet on the Neighborhood Park side. She indicated that the applicant had requested that the landscape buffer on its side be reduced in size in large part because they are proposing only trees right now and not a substantial number of shrubs. She added that staff believes this is fine as long as the trees can still be accommodated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2009 Page 9 of 22