PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

that the drains be adequate to handle a storm if the Adams' were out of the area. She noted that the tree report stated that Trees 681, 682, 685, 688 and 693 would be retained and hoped that the roots were retained and not damaged during construction if possible. She was very concerned about the noise from the HVAC units. Mr. Adams noted that the tennis court was designed so that light neither got in nor out. He noted that they did not produce additional digital pictures because they were extremely expensive, costing between $5,000 and $10,000 for only a few more views. He determined that they had reached the point of diminishing returns since the Commissioners had walked the lot. With respect to the reflection from the solar panels, they would bring the placement to staff for approval. He had requested that some work be available on an exception basis for the weekends so that quiet work could be done, thereby expediting the construction process. He preferred that the solar panels be placed in the roof wells but that their placement, as well as that of the HVAC units, had not been engineered at this point. He noted that they were agreeable to the parking being placed on the safer portion of the road leading to their house. He noted that the noise readings of the tennis court were taken from outside the playing court and that readings inside the rest of the building would be more accurate. He noted that they had demonstrated a willingness to work with the neighbors, and if there were additional areas of concern, he would like to hear about them as well. He also noted that he would like consideration of modifying the construction hours for at least interior works. Mr. Townsend noted that they typically placed orange fencing around the identified trees to protect them and that the proposed grading was not in the direct boundary of the trees in order to preserve them. He noted that was stated in the mitigation measures of the tree report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding where the HVAC units were to be located, Mr. Pavan replied that their locations had not been specified at this time. He noted that the outdoor compressors would be located at various areas of the building to minimize the plumbing runs from the compressor to the heat exchanger inside the building. He noted that would maximize the cooling efficiency of the equipment, which would also minimize the amount of time the compressor would run and contribute to lower noise generation. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether compressors could be soundproofed, Mr. Pavan replied that there were several compressors by Carrier and/or Crane that had a noise level of 62-64 dB. He noted that as the noise-generating level of the compressor declined, the energy efficiency also declined as the compressor did not move as much air through the cooling coils. He noted that an acoustical blanket had been suggested as well and added that noise mitigation measures were a balancing act between the efficiency of the compressor versus the operating time of the compressor. Ms. Decker noted that many single-family residences had condensing units placed within the six-foot wide side yard setbacks less than a foot from the fencing. The newer models were designed to reduce noise and the fencing appeared to reduce the required 60 dB. In this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 13 of 22