Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Steve Page noted that he supported the project. <br /> <br />Mark Hirsch noted that they had worked with staff extensively to mitigate the noise of <br />the jet drier and added that the type of system would determine the decibel level. He <br />noted that Blythe Wilson was examining some systems that were quieter than the older <br />systems. He noted that new system designs were released every month. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Pavan replied that the issue of <br />construction debris recycling was addressed in the PUD section. Condition 18 on page 23 <br />stated, "The plan shall include the estimated composition and quantities of waste to be <br />generated and how the project developer intends to recycle at least fifty percent (50%) off <br />the total job site construction and demolition waste measured by weight or volume." <br /> <br />r- <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin noted that his opinion ofthis project had completely changed since <br />the last time he saw it. He had met with the applicant several times and requested that <br />they design it so it did not look like a carwash. He complimented the applicants on a <br />phenomenal job with the architecture and was very pleased with the result. He strongly <br />supported this project. If the color scheme did change, he would like the matter to come <br />back to the Planning Commission. He requested staff to address the temporary window <br />signage and would like the City to have some control over the coverage. He believed that <br />the applicant was strongly committed to a high quality product. He would like some <br />assurance that if a new owner came in, the level of quality would be maintained. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan advised that the conditions for the McDonald's project did not allow any <br />window signage on the play area, and that no more than 25% of the window area could <br />have signage, which reflects the City's ordinance. He added that the Commission could <br />be more restrictive, which meant that if someone in the future misbehaved, an <br />enforcement action would result. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin moved to approve PUD-02-03M and PCUP-61 as <br />recommended by staff, with the additional conditions that any color changes be <br />brought before the Planning Commission; that a maximum 25% coverage for <br />signage be allowed; that in camouflaging the venting, that the latticework be <br />avoided; and that staff's four recommendations be added to the conditions of <br />approval. Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin asked that the carwash noise issue be pursued by staff and the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny noted that Condition lOon page 34 addressed the carwash noise <br />Issue. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, City Attorney Michael Roush replied <br />that if the noise became a problem for the neighbors, the matter could be brought before <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />August 14, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br />