pages: PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-07-22 | 7 | Staff Member Thomas said that there was not as much space on the northern edge, adding that the area had to also accommodate the storm water treatment needs of the project. President Curtis said that a wire fence may not turn out well and that the wall option may be more desirable. Board Member Teague asked if the landscape wall would have gaps for wildlife to traverse the area. Staff Member Thomas said that the condition is written to include holes at the bottom specifically to allow wildlife to move across the space. Board Member Cavanaugh asked if building a landscape barrier for the neighbors was raised as an issue when the adjacent property to the south was developed. Staff Member Thomas said that issue was not raised in connection with the McGuire and Hester project. He added that the difference was that it was an office building, so there was not the same concern with light intrusion from vehicles at all hours in the way that the hotel would have. Board Member Teague received clarification from Staff Attorney Chen that the footprint, height, use, and parking plan are all approved already, so the only items being focused on are specific design and landscaping aspects called out in the previous meeting. President Curtis opened the public hearing. Ed Sing said the residents have agreed on the landscaping and lighting plan. He said the color option renderings were promised and not provided. He said you can't tell from the imagery provided how the different color option would look and asked that the promised renderings be provided to the community. He said the public expects that the project information be, complete, accurate, and consistent with a transparent rationale. He said the drawings and landscaping features do not match the landscaping plan. He said the items should not be approved as conditions, but should be in the plans that the public can look at now and in the future. He said the Board approved a 35 foot setback, not a 40 foot setback. He said the 25 foot increase in footprint between the December and May approvals was not explained during the May meeting. He said the conference room space has been significantly reduced. He added that the coffee shop and restaurant should not be up for approval because the dimensions, designs, and colors have not been discussed with the community. Brian Tremper said the trees in the plan will be bent and blown over and leafless. He said the appeal was made because information is conflicting and the community does not know Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 11 July 22, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf |