PC 061103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr_ Bachofner advised that other items peripherally related to the site included transportation management, and a minimum amount of onsite parking_ This would encourage other types of transportation to the site, as well as providing specially marked carpool and vanpool parking, and bike racks_ He noted that the green building technologies went f~ii-ther in the use of a steel panel system, which minimized construction waste by an order of magnitude_ He noted that steel was the single most recyclable material on earth, that tilt-up buildings typically did not have high insulative qualities, and that the steel panels had a very high R-value_ He noted that there was a significant acoustical dampening benefit with this type of building_ He noted that auto painting was not ahigh-noise activity, but that the building was designed to minimize potential noise generation by future uses_ Mr_ Bachofner advised that between 15-17 skylights were used extensively throughout the building, which reduced the need for daytime lighting_ He noted that the skylights and low-E windows were glazed to reduce interior heat. He noted that the peer reviewer suggested individual chaimel letters for the signage; their response was that it was attractive, but it did not meet the Miracle corporate branding standard. Miracle Auto Painting used a corporate shield, and the proposed signage was Fairly small= two 43.8 square foot signs for a total of 87 square feet of signage_ Since the zoning is Planned Unit Development, there did not seem to be a specific signage standard, and that the Commission decided what was appropriate. He believed a reasonable place to get guidance from the Code would be the C-S zone, which allowed up to 300 square feet of signage_ Mr. Bachofner displayed Alternate A Larry Cannon's design, and described the tower features. He noted that Stanley Business Park has a 70 foot setback requirement in its CCBr.Rs, which was not taken into consideration during their discussions with staff He noted that they had already requested two feet from the neighbors, which was given very begrudgingly. He noted that they had lost approximately 390 square feet on the side of the building, and he did not wish to ask for more from the neighbors because of their concern about sigl-itlines_ Mr_ Bachofner noted that the stone facing, when applied to the entire tower, looked a bit heavy. He also believed that it obscured the signage because of the detail in the stone. He noted that at 40'6", the tower was more than twice the maximum height of the adjacent building, which was approximately 16 feet tall. He believed that it might overpower the adjacent building. He believed that this alternative would be too costly for the applicant to go forward with the project. He realized that the Commission could not make a decision solely based on cost, but noted that the additional cost of $55,000-80,000 was a reality of the prof ect_ Because of those concerns, his design team developed Alternate A1, which took the same basic tower element and applied stone just to the corners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2003 Page 4