Welcome everyone to the Planning Commission meeting for 10 of Essex, October 11th, 2018. We do have a sign-in sheet and I'd like to make sure everyone signs in at some point that's sitting there on that table. We do have a pretty big consent agenda, not consent, a pretty full agenda this evening. Thank you. I'll get there. New words are new to me. So, I'd like just a reminder to folks as we're talking, bringing up questions and so forth to try to be as concise as you can so that we can try to get through everything. We do stop at a certain point because people run out of steam and run out of gas. So I just want to keep that sort of an awareness factor. So to begin with, I'm going to start with amendments to the agenda, which the only minute is that Channel 17 has agreed to cover both of our October meetings. Big, thank you. For public comment section, I'm going to go out of line tonight and I'm going to ask for folks to stand and swear in. I'm going to swear everybody in at once. And then once we open up for public comment, it will also be the place where we discuss items on our consent agenda, whether there are questions from the audience or questions from commissioners. That is the time we bring them up before we go to move on the consent agenda. So if everyone here could please rise, I'd like to swear you in. Do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? Thank you. Painless. So on to the second item on our agenda, which is the public comments. This is a spot for folks to provide commentary to the Planning Commission on any item that's on the consent agenda or anything in general that you want to speak to us about for items that are not on the agenda. So with regards to items on the consent agenda, does anyone have any questions or comments? One is a proposal to reapprove an expired commercial industrial approval for the realty group in the Allen, at 30 Allen Martin Drive in the RPDI, and the other is a boundary line adjustment for Linda Leclerc and Jean Jordan, which is a proposal to convey half an acre from 39 Discovery Road, 239 Discovery Road, Sharon? 239. Okay. Are there any questions or commentary on the consent agenda? I have a question on the boundary line adjustment. Does that resolve that well? That was a question last time they were in that somebody's well was on somebody else's property. Is that what this is? That did not address that well at all. All right. So this is something different. Welcome, Commissioner Schumacher. Thank you. Are there any comments on any items that are not on the agenda? Moving on. Consent agenda. Do I have a motion from the board to approve the consent agenda? I move we approve the consent agenda. By Josh, seconded by Ned. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Next item on our agenda is a conceptual discussion from Mansfield Industrial Associates, proposing two site plan options, both consisting of approximately 35,000 square feet commercial building with truck docks and associated site improvements for property located at one Allen Martin Drive. Darren, can you speak to this at all before we turn to the applicants? Sure. So you will see that there are two proposed concepts for a parking facility at the corner of Allen Martin Drive and Sand Hill Road. This property was subdivided from the property now at 7 Allen Martin Drive. When that was done, there was a shared access easement from the existing access off Allen Martin Drive when we point to it. So it's a shared access easement going from this driveway. One concept, which is I believe the preferred concept by the applicant is to have a new access off Sand Hill Road in order to allow for better site distances for these trucks that are entering and exiting because if they were to use this access drive here, there wouldn't be as good site distances and there would have to be more of a shared access and more impact on those driveways. It does cross through the 200 foot buffer along Sand Hill Road as prescribed in the RPDI's district standards so it's pretty clearly stated there that no access drives shall be allowed in that buffer zone, at least from the staff opinion. The other concept would go through what is technically a 100 foot buffer on Allen Martin Drive and it's right at the intersection of Sand Hill Road which is where that would transition from a 200 foot buffer to a 50 or 100 foot buffer. There would still be shared access with the existing site but it would not have to go through the 200 foot buffer. Thank you. Any questions for Steph? Who is going to be speaking to this? So Mansfield Industrial Group, they have the two lots, as Darren mentioned this lot previously was sold and they have a 6.778 block that remains so they've had a fair amount of interest on and off on the lot recently. The problem they run into is the access is an issue, you know the question of whether or not public works would allow another access and this board would allow another access in and so we've had a lot of plans that have kind of started, they've gone to the conceptual stage and the applicant or the interested party has basically backed out and said well there's too many unknowns on this parcel, well you know we're going to go someplace else. So to try to make this parcel a little bit more marketable we talked to staff and staff suggested that we come in and present you with some conceptual plans because we get some staff feedback and more importantly we get public works feedback on whether they would support an additional access. So on the plan we're showing what we think would be a typical use of 35,000 square foot combination commercial warehouse building as the board knows most of the buildings built lately along Alamarton Drive and you know the general vicinity tend to be this type of use obviously we have a similar use across the street just down the road where Mr. Miller's property is as you go down Thompson Drive Mr. Seneca was typically building a similar use you know truck docks building somewhere in the 20 to 60,000 square foot range. So we did a couple conceptual plans one one with the access coming in along this property line and another with an access that kind of lined up with the intersection here. We don't really have a preference one over the other we thought that public works would prefer this option and they came back stating that they did like this better they suggested maybe we'd realign this a little bit so it didn't shine right into the windows of this residential house there but it's only a conceptual plan we don't have a client we don't have a tenant we just basically want to get to the point where if someone comes and is interested in this property we can say well we have a conceptual plan it appears that the Planning Commission and Public Works will support an additional access in. The problem with the easement that they have is you know it comes in and the swing is so tight that comes across you essentially can't get you know any larger truck traffic you know pedestrian or you know regular car traffic in and out is certainly acceptable through there but truck traffic just doesn't work. Both plans show you know continuing to have a connection to the easement across there so so car traffic small vehicles traffic could come and go in either direction out. So we're essentially just here to get your comments on what you think about the two concept plans. Yeah I mean it makes much more sense to me to come in off the sand hill road but I'm sensitive to the fact that it's through the 200 foot buffer and I think that the I think it's numbered to the proposals the one that comes into the 100 foot buffer is that doesn't seem very ideal for a truck anyway. Yeah so yeah it's all I have for a comment right now I can say I've been trying to do this one for the last couple of days so okay see what I do. Anything with the with the proposed use or anything like that? No I'm fine with that. Josh. Pretty much identical to what he said I think coming off of sand hill is a lot better with sight distances and everything but the 200 foot buffer is not a precedent I really want to open up. Ned? Yeah I think I agree I don't know what your reaction is I think one of the things that Public Works said is that instead of the straight shot out the sand hill you throw a little curve in there so it's not like going straight ahead to hit the residential I don't know if that's a factor or not but I think it's something to be considered when you come back with a plan to look at it. Which on this on the plan that's on display now? Yeah this but this shows it's straight out and I think one of the notes that Dennis put in there is maybe put a little curve in there just to keep it from running straight on. And that's through the 200 foot buffer you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah and in 200 foot buffer. I think Public Works is referring to this plan this proposal where they would instead shift it over a little bit rather than the one that's going straight into the T intersection with Sand Hill Road. If you go to Sand Hill Road though you'd be pretty much nicking that 200 foot buffer it's not really clear where they mesh together you know half the road is going to be in the 200 foot buffer half the road might be in the 100 foot buffer it just depends on how you interpret the sidelines of the road. So I guess my comment would be that I consider the 200 foot buffer absolute period and if that means that that use or structure doesn't work in there because of that then that's what it means. I don't see that that's a wiggle period from my perspective on that. Well do we have the option of putting a public road to the 200 foot buffer? The only item that I know of that can go through the 200 foot buffer is an easement for utilities. Utilities. Utilities. That's it. And we've held to that and all other development that I've participated in, all the reviews we've held to it. I mean there's been some significant infrastructure but it has been consistent with allowing only for those uses. Yeah and what would be your comment on the public road? I mean it talks about drives can't go through there but a public road is a different entity than a drive. I mean we could build a public road to the 200 foot buffer and put a cul-de-sac on it and would that be a proof of that? Assuming public road would accept a public road, although it's other kind of hurdles. So the language regarding the 200 foot buffer does not specifically call out public road that says parking areas, access drives, and components of stormwater management systems may not be located within the 200 foot buffer, although underground utilities and crossings are permitted. It does say later the planning commission may not waive buffer requirements in the 200 foot buffer. So it's not specifically called out but all the language in that section is pretty clear that the purpose of this buffer is to maintain it. What does it say? Maintained in an undisturbed, vegetated state, no tree clearing or removal of vegetation shall be allowed with the exception of such activities authorized person to a forest management plan. I doubt that public works would even accept a public road, that's not sure, and in that location, and I don't want to speak for them but I think it would be a very big hurdle if it were legally possible. So without trying to discuss what public works might do. It seems to me that the ordinance is very specific about what can't go in there. It's very specific, read it again. It says exactly what can go in the 200 foot buffer and what can't. It certainly does not say that a public road can't be constructed within the 200 foot buffer. I would say that it doesn't say that it can either. When you're specific as to what can't go in the buffer, that's basically being specific about what can go in the buffer. I don't agree with that. It does say what can go in the buffer, underground utility. Right, it gives you the exception of underground utility. So from my perspective and the way we have applied and interpreted this to date has been that it's not usable for anything other than utilities. And we had that similar discussion, I believe, on one Allen Martin drive when we were talking about utilities and access there as well. Is it one Allen or was there another one that we had recently where they were talking about that? And it was a utility easement only. So conceptually the use, the building design so forth, I don't hear that there's any concerns. It really is the access. That was the primary point of contention or discussion when you came in as well. So maybe the question is, are we okay with this plan? Yeah, we're okay with it. And so I'm reluctantly okay with it. I don't like that intersection, but I wouldn't say no. That would be the intersection is problematic, but I'm not an engineer so it's hard to say. It seems like it would be problematic. So we're saying the connection to the intersection is okay? I think we're saying that the option to go through the 100 foot buffer exists, the option to go through the 200 foot buffer, I'm not hearing that there's support from the commission that that's an option. So whether or not it's workable, that's I think more of an engineering exercise, whether or not there's site distance speed and so forth that could allow that to work. But that seems to fall within the work that you guys have submitted to us in the past that at this posted speed limit you have this site distance and it seems to be much more of a mathematical process. Any further? I think that's probably as much as we're going to get on that today. That's what we're looking for. Okay. Moving on then to the next item on the agenda, which is a boundary line adjustment site plan. This is a public hearing for Patco properties. At 6 David Drive proposes to purchase 2.01 acres from Essex Mini Storage located at 15 Morris Drive. This is also a public hearing for a site plan for the same property. So what can we, Darren, I'm looking to you for, so who did somebody come in after we swore in? Do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? I do. Thank you. And have you signed in on the clipboard? Perfect. We got them covered. Thank you, Sharon. Darren. So looking at the project between 15 Morris Drive and 6 David Drive, it's a boundary adjustment. It does cross the industrial and residential business district line, which goes through here. Transferring approximately 2 acres to 6 David Drive to allow them to construct a 7,200 square foot storage building for the light manufacturing use that's permitted on that property. There is a plateau here that has a little space that currently belongs to the 15 Morris Drive property that Patco is looking to use for the new building. In terms of other site elements, fairly straightforward, just a little more pavement to provide access to that. Stormwater treatment will be up to the current standards. We did speak with the applicant originally. This building had gone on to these steep slopes, but we were able to work out a plan where they were not on those slopes. Fire department has requested that this truck drive here, which is 14 feet wide, be designated as a fire lane. No parking be allowed there so that they can access this rear property. I'm going to check my notes, make sure I'm not missing anything else. There is a pedestrian easement to the town of Essex from the 6 David Drive from the sidewalk here running along the northern property line. This is shown in the town plan as a connection to Morris Drive. Right now it only goes to the edge essentially of this ravine and we go down into a wetland and a stream area. Staff, including Parks and Recreation Director, felt that although this is shown in the town plan, there's not a particular use for this pedestrian easement at this time. It would be really difficult to put a trail through here because of the wetland and the steep slopes, but I believe someone from the Conservation and Trails Committee is here to speak to that. We have both a, we have two staff reports, so let's just kind of looking at this as one process. Do we have anything in each staff report that needs to be called out beyond what you've just spoken about? Nothing beyond what I've talked about. The pedestrian easement would be part of the boundary adjustment. As a subdivision, it falls under that provision of the subdivision regulations that they provide that easement. Everything else would be in the site plan. This is a little different than we've normally done. We don't normally look at two at the same time. We usually will have them condensed into one document or do them completely separate, so we're just going to make sure we keep everything clean. We tried to set that up so that it was separate. It's kind of hard for a project like this, but we don't want to hold the boundary adjustment lot to the conditions of a site plan on the other one, which is why we're just setting it up. You guys made the choice on how to do this, so this is good. Questions for staff? John? Are we going one at a time? I think right now we're kind of doing everything together. Do you want to do this one at a time? Staff, what's your perspective on this? If you're not changing any conditions, if everything looks good, if you want to tweak something. Let's see where we're going. If we need to split them, we can. Tom? Okay, I'm still curious what plan was. Yes. So where is the repair? Is there a repairing buffer on this, or is it just not on a wetland? So there is technically a small stream that runs through here, but the stream and its 50-foot buffer are completely encompassed by the wetland in its buffer, so it's not shown. The wetland would be the more restrictive. That's the only question I had so far. So who's presenting for the applicant on this? I believe it's not the staff. Yes, I understand that. Did you even sign in? You came in late, you didn't swear in, you didn't sign in. If you can get all the car parts out of the middle of there, we'll be right back. Do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will choose you for the best of your ability? I got staff telling me they didn't come in late, and somebody else saying they didn't sign in. It's like everybody's just bombarding me tonight. Poor Dusty. Let's hold that thought. Thank you, smaller. Yeah, not a viola, just a little clown violins. The wind-up ones. Excellent. Sir, you have the floor for now. For now.  I'm just a troublemaker, Normie. Somebody's taking the pressure off me, that's all. Doug Hansen from Lameron, Dickinson, speaking on behalf of Lawrence Mechanical Patco. We don't really have any comments about their staff report other than, as I think you've just heard about with this easement, trying to continue a trail from there on up to Morse Drive. Well, from a planning standpoint, it may be a great idea from an environmental standpoint, I don't know. It is a good idea. As Dennis Lutz mentioned in his memo, there are portions of this wetland that are considered an impaired waterway by the state regulations as stormwater. Wetland regulations may change stormwater regulations may change, but in my experience, they all get tougher. So I just don't see the need or the feasibility of doing anything as far as the trail there. I think that's it. You're good with both staff reports as written? Yeah. Let's open both of these up for public hearings. So I'd like a motion to include two public hearings in one motion. I move we open two public hearings at once. Well, you want the public hearing for the boundary adjustment site? Yeah, boundary adjustment and the site plan. Do you mean you have to second it twice? Second second. By Josh, seconded by Shu. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Public hearing is open. So somebody from Trails, I think, do you have commentary for us? We just thought we would like to keep that easement in there as part of the town plan. I know that we understand that it might be difficult to build that, but it's just something that we would like to maintain as an option in the future. Okay. Do you want to continue through the new area? We didn't talk about that as part of the committee, but I mean, it's in the town plan, so I'm assuming someone thought of that at some point. But we're just reluctant to give that up. Would it be feasible to have that be noted as an easement but yet recognize that it may have to float or move? I mean, we've done that before in some of the parcels off from Thompson Drive, which we noted that there is an easement, but the exact location would be determined if there was ever a desire to build or an intention to actually make a connectivity. We did that also off from Indian Brook Road for one of the other ones we're looking at, recognizing that it was a desire for connectivity, but we couldn't do it now. I don't, but it was... I mean, we've done it a couple of times, and the one I'm thinking of was... What's the... No, the block. The place next to Reinhardt. Reinhardt? No, the... The bottom heart? The bottom heart. We had an acknowledgement that there was an easement, but that it would move... that it could move. Even without that, we could move these ones. Yeah. Is that something you could consider in the future if it came back to an amendment, make a finding that you're not going to ask for it at this time, but if the block should develop further, would any consideration be given to them? Is this the try and see? But is it... I mean, it's hard to put it back in... I mean, is it there now? Well, it's halfway now, right? It's up to the existing problems. This stretch of it exists right now. Yeah. And we're looking to try to extend... Only the easement exists, right? Right. Correct. Thoughts, commissioners? I'm okay with saying that, you know, in the future development, we would want to work it out with an easement, or just put a draw line and then have it move when reality comes. Josh? So put it as a finding, you're saying? That was your own suggestion. I think that's a good one. Yeah. So then it would be a trigger for when another application came in. Yeah, I like that. Put it in a finding. Stating what? Well, just for any further amendments to the development on the property will require a, you know, a new determination if a trail is appropriate at that time. So we would be retaining the existing easement and then declaring that there would be an evaluation for the connectivity if there's any future development on that lot? That's applied at both lots because there are two in question here. And the trail in the town plan is shown coming from here up through this property to Morse Drive. So even after the boundary adjustment it would still supposedly go through both 15 Morse Drive and 6 David Drive. Is that an easement on the other boundary? There are some easements on the Morse Drive property. This is a stormwater easement. We looked at that when this came in for boundary adjustment insight plan. There's a stormwater pipe there. This is a shared access easement between these two properties, not in the town of Essex. Same applies to this easement. The other option is just take easement, you know, just get it on paper and we do nothing with it and it sits there. Yeah, what's your thought? My thought is I don't think we want to give it away and I have to go back and try to get it. So I don't think we just need to phrase but we can still do it down the line if it comes up. It doesn't sound like it will be all that feasible in the future but who knows. John? Yeah, I think we ought to get some language in there. Just keep it as is. Maybe address it later if we need to. Keep the option open, I guess. It's there, let's keep it. I don't think we need to make a trail at this point in time. But if it's there, let's grab it. So let's go back to the app event and stuff right now. I think the idea is that we don't want to necessarily walk away from the thought of the easement but we definitely don't want to have anything that may be wrong but we're not looking for anything to be built in at this point. There's no expectation of connectivity at this point but we're looking to try to secure that connectivity in the future if the option presents and I think that means we want to have that easement now with an acknowledgement that it may move on the parcel or parcels. So what you've got something you want to? I'm just trying to figure out how to phrase it. I don't think I would be in favor of drawing a line on a plan because then that's where it is. I would be more in favor of you putting a condition or a stipulation that the applicant understands that in the future should permit in and so on be agreeable to it at that time they would be required to convey these but to put an easement in an arbitrary location. So recognizing that the environmental concerns for connectivity at this point in time the Planning Commission would require that the applicant agree to providing an easement if conditions change in the future to allow that connectivity. How's that? Does that sound good? Dave's not even here to craft that. I could not repeat it so I hope you'll be in favor. What are you phrasing? Is the environmental conditions changing not necessarily future development? Well I think isn't that that sounds to me like the issue is that the environmental conditions the hard watershed the slopes everything that seems to be more the limiter than the development. Absolutely. I mean from the trails person would you concur from your knowledge of the area? Is it trailable today? Probably not but I mean I'm also an engineer so anything is possible. Throw enough money at it and anything can be fixed. I mean this do we have agreement here from the commission? We want to retain the potential. I think whatever your wording was it would capture not take it. And that meets from the applicant point of view there's no building requirements at this point but there is an acknowledgement and we can put that into our finding section that we recognize that it's not feasible at this point in time that it be considered if I think we have that in our planning commission fines and then a stipulation that if environmental regulations allow for connectivity whatever the right phrasing is for environmental regulations change in the future that would allow that connectivity it will need to be, an easement will be required. Now as you said environmental conditions frequently get more stringent than less so so this the probably never going to see it but it sounds good we've captured it. John so this current location of this easement has everything to do with this storm pipe right? They are overlapping but separate. Okay. So from a boundary line adjustment do we have any concerns boundary line adjustment any concerns questions on that from the what's the other one site plan site plan we want to add the one condition to referring to the easement for the potential of a trail connection if whichever one is appropriate I'm looking to you guys this is the challenge of doing quite like this so pick whatever one we need on the boundary adjustment more likely to go back to a site plan file holder is there any negativity in putting that language in both because we don't have anything else to put in public comment is still open public hearing still opens anyone have any commentary questions they would like to offer on this then I would take a motion to close both public hearings. So moved by shoe seconded by net all those in favor aye opposed motion carries 5-0 is there any additional comments or questions that anyone has of staff or applicant or John makes a motion hearing none John you're up I heard you volunteer right? Thank you Mr. Billmere I move we approve the boundary line adjustments in site plan public hearing and public hearing site plan for Pacco properties LSE at 6 David Drive and when they're purchasing 2 acres from Essex mini storage located 15 Morse Drive and the business design control district and the industrial zoning districts tax map 4753 parcels 494 15 and that includes the proposal to construct a 7200 square foot commercial building on property located 6 David Drive staff report has written along with the language addressing the pedestrian easement and giving us the flexibility to use it in the future captured on tape because I don't remember the wording it's really good though but it was awesome David would be proud so if you're good with getting off the tape that's my motion and that would go ahead Sharon I think there's an error so you have business design control and that's really the B-1 oh yeah I'm sorry we'll just fix that and the finding should be recorded in our planning commission comment section and the stipulation to go along with that correct is anybody second John? seconded any additional comments? all those in favor? aye aye aye captain aye aye aye all those opposed? motions carry 5050 thank you next item on our agenda is a site plan amendment master plan amendment public hearing Peter Edelman doing business as your west partners proposing to amend the master plan by adding green space at the center of the parcel Peter you came in late you swear that any test you present will be truthful to the best of your ability thank you Paul you started first go ahead why not you jumped not too much here on the master plan if you recall we ran a couple months ago with quite a bit of different master plan where we had reconfigured this whole section and everybody liked the additional green space and the additional recreational amenities but in general we were losing the future grid street connection up to old sage road down through both's parcel was seen as a negative by staff and most of the planning commission members and public works weighed in so we've come back with a much simpler plan this time than before and so what we're looking at is the green space and maybe if you go to that bigger scale plan it might be a little bit better doesn't really matter too much so in the light green is what exists today for green space and this is where Peter's been holding his events if you've been out there on Thursday nights and other times and so we've always had a lot of parking we've had that discussion many times before so what we're proposing to do now is the darker green areas are existing parking if you come out to the parking lane here you basically can go straight across the parking lane and then there's 22 parking spaces through here so we're proposing to get rid of that drive lane and get rid of 22 parking spaces there and it almost doubles the amount of green space that we have in that center that center area so we think it makes a green area quite a bit more viable than what it is now it makes for better pedestrian connections across through now instead of just having all asphalt here you actually have a green section at the end make pedestrian connections across a little bit more pleasant as we come down through so relatively minor change gives us a lot more green space as Peter goes forward and tries to get some of the other elements we've been talking about in play as you know another portion of it is the brew pub which got zoning board approval and is moving forward there's also a distillery involved with that so we're pretty excited about that hopefully starting sometime in the spring and coming forward that's basically it for the master plan the other comment is we're losing 22 spaces here on the master plan but if you go back to the bigger plan you can see we're picking up the new street where it comes down through the building we're picking up a number of diagonal spaces through here so picking up 40 some odd additional spaces so we actually have a net gain of about you know 20 spaces but yeah looks pretty good the other part of it is we're asking for site plan approval to add an outdoor patio at this intersection and so we're approved for 48 seats out there to go with the brew pub have some comments from the fire chief some comments from public works we're okay with the staff notes as written with one exception there's a condition that that we stop control this intersection we'll call it T intersection you know for lack of a better description but as we know we've all been out there the road in the back you know has relatively you know small amount of traffic and currently there's no control here there's no stop signs or anything and you know the predominant movement is you come through the parking lot you make this left you know and you head out or you come through you make the left and as we all know there's a lot of cut through traffic a lot of folks like to come in and cut the corner and go through there it's a slow speed intersection certainly nobody's going around that corner 40 miles an hour it's relatively slow so I'm certainly okay with putting a stop sign on on this back road because it is it is one way traffic that comes in and can go out so I'm okay with the stop sign here I'm a little weary about making this into a three way stop there's too many opportunities to cut the corner and I think then you're just you know adding a little more you know speed into the factor and as we know there are some individuals out there will do about anything to avoid a stop sign or stop light and so I'm okay with a single stop sign I'm not I'm not too keen about making it a three way stop okay and certainly be glad to hear what the board's opinion is I'm just yep just my personal opinion there so okay Darren thoughts in general the plan the master plan amendment and the site plan both are very much in line with the town the town center master plan the proposed DTC plan so we're very excited to see all of that and excited to see the expansion of green space as far as that intersection I had written the condition saying the applicant shall install traffic control signs at the T intersection here it's intentionally vague as to whatever traffic control needs to be in place there I think a stop sign from the one way would make the most sense as Paul has explained so that is fine by staff the only other thing we will mention is that there is a concern by I think the fire chiefs that there will be some pedestrian traffic in this zone here between the brew pub and the Hanover parking lot because it's closer than some of the other parking or if there's a lot of parking used for other uses that we might see some of that there's not a great way to put any sort of pedestrian safety in that area because there's it's not a funneled spot but fire chief had mentioned that so I think what we're kind of expecting is that that outdoor patio will be fenced off and so if you're trying to enter the brew pub you can't you gotta go around you have to go into the building to get to the patio anyway wouldn't you so if you would any crosswalk would be farther up that road to get in there it would seem to me as far as traffic control at the intersection we're certainly fine with a condition that says should it become a problem we need to come back to the board and address the issue we just don't think it's going to be a problem at this point commissioners anything else Darren commissioners thoughts questions a couple of places where you're showing crossovers to the green space would there be some kind of would there be anything for pedestrian control or something we're not proposing anything there's a stop sign here as you come in for the traffic coming through but this is relatively uncontrolled here so we're not proposing a flash and beacon or anything like that at this point it's existing crossing I'm wondering though but one of the changes that's going to be right there is if we're proposing more parking along that extension the 40 new spots or the 20 net new we're looking at potentially more traffic going through there because of the extra use of the parking I think when the connection happens and that gets that park gets built out then I think yes it may certainly be appropriate that point in time to have a flashing beacon or something that also might be something we put in as a condition to revisit if there are complaints or challenges that it might need to become a good lighted crosswalk it would be a real nice problem for us to have that much pedestrian traffic but we need a flashing beacon so if it comes to that we'll gladly put a beacon in there that'll be two-way traffic on the north-south leg so that one intersection at times for a very short period of time it's not going to be wall day every day obviously I agree if you're right that's a direct connection to the whole stage start time today there'll be a fair amount of traffic coming and going if you're coming to a whole stage that's certainly the most direct way to get to Hanifurt get right in I would love there to be enough traffic that we require something there anything that gets that gets that going I like the overall idea of the more green space I like that we're doing things here I'm good single stop signs John we have a public hearing so I'd like to get a motion to open the public hearing public hearing moved by Ned, seconded by Josh all those in favor? aye, opposed? motion carries 5-0 public hearing is open if anyone has any questions or comments about this application now's the time I'll take a motion to close the public hearing moved by Josh, seconded by Ned all those in favor? aye, opposed? I'm not really hearing anything about this that anybody has any big concerns over I think the stop sign coming out from behind the existing structure onto that I mean if that's going to be used more I think putting a stop sign there is not as appropriate I don't see a need to regulate the rest of it unless it proves to be problematic going forward and again if that should be done anyways then we would expect the landowner to be responsible and make it safe and I'm glad I was going to ask you about the outdoor area because if that was open to people walking across the street we get an issue so I think we maybe just note that should traffic become an issue should return to the PC and then the conditional B shell return and I think we should also note that this has acknowledged that the outdoor seating area would be fenced off so that pedestrian traffic will not be encouraged at that spot and the fire chief wanted to gain if there was a fence, a real fence is that okay with you guys? is it already in there with his comments? it's in the comments I don't think it would be too limited look at 4-4 fence although for most guys with big boys 4-4 fence might be a challenge in the PC finding if the outdoor seating is closed off and a fence be installed emergency access gate I'll just follow it just emergency access gate as requested by the fire chief and the applicant doesn't seem to have an issue with that that's number 9 yeah and commission 8 rent change signs to sign why don't we say what it is that we're asking the applicant to install a stop sign at the road coming from behind on the one-way road it can't be a one-way road it's just an access road it's two-way if you enter by the cinema it's only one way in there so what would you call that for a road? just be precise about it sounds like a B movie a stop sign at the road behind building 2 where it intersects with the main access road we're behind the whatever how do we want to phrase that I've got it we're behind building 2 um are there any questions okay thank you commissioners thoughts questions beyond what we've already touched on I think in our findings I think we should acknowledge that there's an appreciation for the increased green space yes and then as Joss mentioned the overall improvement is welcome yes too much traffic is a problem we would love to have you don't have to say that in there not verbatim you know what I mean that was hyperbole go ahead with that motion I move that we approve the site plan amendment master plan amendment or Peter Edelman doing business with zero west partners the property located at 21 and 25 Essex Way in the mixed use development planned unit development, business design control overlay district, tax map 92 and parcel 1 with the fore said tweaks and findings as previously noted and that includes the planning commission findings and the additional stipulations yes any further you're seconding it Ned moved by Josh seconded by Ned any further discussion on this anybody want anything else no all those in favor aye, opposed, motion carries 5-0 okay we're moving too fast we're going to slow this down now oh you didn't tell me you wanted to it was an easy listening channel yeah you didn't put Ned and I together the next item on the agenda is the site plan public hearing for I don't know how to pronounce that a block of trust proposing to construct a 2200 and 7 square foot drive through restaurant and a 4,680 square foot retail building and other site properties, other site improvements on property located at 2 Suzy Wilson Road who Darren are you presenting on this for the staff give me a rundown please, or give us a rundown please so as noted, there are two proposed buildings on a site that currently has the People's United Bank near below it's all on the same property the applicants can clarify some of the legal aspects of this, but there's a lease slot on the southern portion of this site roughly enclosed by that gray area the drive through restaurant would be a coffee shop the main issues so far this project has been traffic and traffic impact due to the congestion on Suzy Wilson Road in Route 15, but the applicants have been working with staff and public work specifically for a long time to find a way to resolve those issues with signal upgrades that the applicant has proposed to all of the intersections along Suzy Wilson Road that will help mitigate some of the traffic impacts of this development other issues just to note there is a 400 foot easement or restricted area as noted on the plat which I'm having trouble pulling up so this so this blue dotted line that goes across the Lowe's property is the restricted area as noted in the easement the applicants are working with and it's in benefit of the adjoining landowner to the west the applicants are working with that landowner to resolve the issue that basically would not allow this development to happen but it sounds like that's been worked towards other things to note on the property are that the the applicants have done a good job avoiding impacts to water and sewer lines which feed the water lines feed this entire part of town so we appreciate that a grease trap and a modified sewer connection are conditioned as required by Public Works we did modify the incoming intersection originally there was more of a bull bout on the curbing here we had the applicants get shot into the site we could revert back to the original if that's a more favorable traffic condition and then the fire department was concerned about being able to access the drive-thru area because there was a 10 foot high canopy that would not allow them to pass through as well as a clearance bar warning you before you enter the drive-thru the compromise with the applicants is that the clearance bar will allow for trucks to pass through with a swinging bar showing where the actual height of that canopy is so you can actually approach the canopy and then back out if needed that's all the staff has to offer questions for staff the menu boards they're oriented so they shine onto the open space they're not let me pull up the site here so there's a menu board here yes shining towards the open space in the direction of the west corner of Lowe's but it wouldn't reach that far towards that small parking lot south of the access drive there's a smaller one or two smaller menu boards as you approach do we have an elevation the backside of that building what it's going to look like for Route 15 that's probably one of my major concerns it's a real gateway I don't want people to think they're driving in looking at the back of a building someone in there bear with me someone in there note made a comment that they're going to build an attractive building so someone's got these guys to prove to us that it's attractive there's a lot of views of what I may feel is attractive and what you feel is attractive but this is a real gateway into both the town and the village and looking at the backside of a bunch of commercial buildings it just doesn't cut it I'd rather see it even turn the other way so that the backside faces Lowe's in the bank yep this is the elevation facing Route 15 this would be the elevation facing Susie Wilson Road can you blow up that backside which is the long one leave it alone John, leave it alone I mean this is what you see driving in the town and I just I don't like it at all if I can jump in there will be some landscaping along the Route 15 side but this isn't exactly what you would see I'm old, I may not be there before that landscape gets big enough to hide it excuse me anyway that's my initial thoughts I think it's probably a good use of the corner or everything else but I'm really concerned about how it's going to sit on there and what it's going to look like visually that's got a good point I'm not sure where to go with it but Josh's thoughts yeah I might have missed it, I'm looking again in the report do we know what's the current level of service at the Susie Wilson 15 intersection versus what it would be expected to be before all the improvements are made but with this development do we have that it's in the traffic report so that's in the attachments it's buried in there somewhere it may not be in the I was looking in the staff report that was my problem but the engineer might be able to address that the level of service letter would not change as a result of this development with the improvements I should have also noted there are significant upgrades planned along Susie Wilson Road you said the level of service won't change with the improvements but Josh's questions are what would happen before the improvements it said five years would be but all the improvements would there's two sets of improvements one would be upgrades to the signals which are essentially a condition of this approval that the applicants would pay into it, they would be done at the time of development and then there's the states plans to redo the Route 15 and Susie Wilson corridor second left lane, right? I don't know if the level of service has been analyzed for that major roadway improvement that's separate from this application Dennis might know Ned does have a good point about the architecture whether or not that's pleasing to somebody it's a good point I do think plantings and some of the berms and things will probably break that up and make it not as bad but it is a good question I don't know what you would do differently other than turn the building or change the way it's set up other than that I'm good with that but it doesn't change the traffic with that then please who's going to present for the applicant on this? if you can just state your name for the recording my name is Todd Finard and my family developed the original shopping center way back when I became involved when it was in Ames and a fashion bug and some other miscellaneous stores and I've sort of followed this through and when we brought Lowe's in it was part sort of enliven a site that was otherwise sort of on its way to the doldrums and the store's done well and I think it's been a good neighbor I finally have sort of found the opportunity we've done a lot of work with staff who've done a terrific job just guiding us through traffic issues and access issues and so on and so forth and I think we've been at it for a couple years now but what we've come up with I think is a really thoughtful not over improved but it adds some uses and some vitality to this part of the site that we've been looking forward to doing for some time the architects will kind of address the building just as probably better than I can but I will tell you that I think when this is landscaped I think it's we've carried the full material package through around the building so it's not that image gives it this look of sort of like the split blocks in the back and the good stuffs in the front that's not the case so the material package has been thought of quite a bit and with landscaping I think it would look much nicer the intent is I think this would be a vibrant area where people will drive up and get their coffee and off they'll go or they'll hang out in the couches and chairs and free wifi and so on and so forth I'm happy to talk about what we might do to look how that building ought to look or can look when landscaped but I want to leave some time obviously and not take too much so that the architects and engineers can comment as well do you want to take a shot? Mike Manchu performing place architects I think how it's correct we did try to address all four sides of the building with a 60 degree presentation because of how it's oriented so as Todd was suggesting these finishes are the same finishes that you see on all the other sides this wood finish is the same wood that's over here to try to make sure that it feels like it's the same presentation all the way around the challenge that we have as an architect is I can't do class every day there has to be some back of house for the tenant and having class that looks out on the drive through lane is usually not a good presentation so we do end up with a wall here that doesn't have a lot of storefront in it again this tenant was looking for their presentation to be from this side anyway in terms of where the pedestrians and their non drive through customers are coming from with outdoor seating and that kind of stuff on this side so that's why there's a focus on the class being on these two sides but again we did really try to address the presentation from Route 15 so that it doesn't look like you're looking at the backside of the building what is the name of the wall? this material here is not 100% determined yet we've looked at a number of different materials anything from the cementitious panel type stuff which is actually used on this building to EFIS to these are brick some of these others are repurposed lumber material as is this here what color? this here it would be this it's the same this particular tenant has a number of different prototypes one of which is a gray with a re-sawed lumber that's kind of a charcoal color and then another accent wood the canopies are envisioned to be black so to follow up on Ned's point of view recognizing that continuing some of the accent work it's still from Route 15 which is the majority of the traffic that's a big gray wall with a color scheme of there so from Route 15 you can see the building is set back much more than the 50 foot set back so you've got quite a distance to Route 15 and then once you get beyond the property line there's a sidewalk and additional grid space beyond the property line so from here it's a minimum of 50 feet as far as orientation of the building it doesn't really work to have the building facing Route 15 you want your pedestrians to be able to move freely between the various buildings on the site to be able to park and walk into the front of the building the front we're here you end up with either parking up close to Route 15 ideally aesthetically but also for the function of the site to have the drive-thru lane going around the backside of the building because you won't have pedestrians moving on foot and conflicting with car traffic on this backside of the building from a landscaping standpoint we have proposed landscaping all along the back of that building which you're looking at the architectural plans you're looking at the building itself but if you see here there's quite a bit of planting all along this entire strip and that's on the north side of the drive-thru then there's additional planting out here all around the stormwater area and so that will also provide a lot of diverse landscaping at various depths and levels and various types of everything from trees to shrubs to grasses so we've really tried to incorporate quite a variety of landscaping which will you know sort of break up that view of the building from all from a distance topographically what's the elevation change between Route 15 and that building I could ask you to pull up the grading and utility plans okay thank you for blowing that up so out at Route 15 we're at 3 I want to say that's 318 319 right here and the building is at 317 318 so it's pretty much level from Route 15 to the building I believe the sidewalk rises a little bit from where you sit in the road but then it would go down again into the stormwater pond and up again but lower still mostly concerned with if we've had a number of sites where the elevation of the road is higher than the site even if you had trees unless the trees were huge you'd be looking down at it so it's this at least makes the plantings more effective because it's straight on it's at approximately the same level I'll also point out that the plantings they're using within the stormwater pond are native Joe Highweed and I forget the other one so it will actually look a lot like a little meadow most food service places have some kind of dumpsters and whatever to haul their trash where is that going to be located on this site it'll be an entirely enclosed fenced enclosure so you won't see it at all from the site but it is located at sort of the far right-hand side of the front of the building and that way it will be accessible to trucks as needed to access this area and accessible from pedestrian door for employees on the rear elevation according to the sketch you had there are no access into the building at all from that rear elevation is that correct how about signage is there going to be signage what's going to tell the passerby that that's what this is what are the signs going to look like are they up on the roof are they on the building we do have signage areas shown on the architectural plans we've blocked out the area to show you where it would be located and the maximum size that it would be so there are signs being proposed on the building facade here which is the same as this one nothing on the rear elevation there is nothing on the signage here I believe there's likely to be signage at the drive through a small like blade type as well as another one a small one do we know what those signs look like or anything we have not seen them one question before we get too far into so forth let's make sure that we're actually discussing items that we have purview over building design signage are those applicable to this discussion this is not within the business design control overlay district so we do not have any the building are regulated to the extent we would in the town center for instance so we have access and control over lighting landscaping we just need to keep that in mind we may want and I think it's appropriate to call out the concerns but we have some limits as to what we can work with so my memory with Lowe's they talked about signage because I think they were looking for a waiver on the size of the lettering maybe the L and they also wanted some additional directional signage and that's how the planning commission landed there but Lowe's was also bringing forth LED so it was a whole new type of signage right so technically all signage would be approved through administratively by the zoning administrator so with that in mind let's talk about the landscaping I want to get to the lighting before we're done because I think that's still a big concern but landscaping layout so forth let's you know building orientation landscaping I'm glad to see that the dumpsters and stuff is not as you called out it's not sitting out there you know exposed to route 15 and so forth is still within the appropriate area what else do we have in this talking about this folks traffic closed well kept up because you know sometimes these haulers trash haulers aren't very gentle with them and they break the gates and stuff and so if we had it helps to require it to always be a working and aesthetically pleasing working in a you know maybe working is where we have a teeth working order in fairness in fairness to every owner I think it's a great use of the corner and the property well for that I just want to get something that isn't village ugly you know we have a architectural wasteland around here with a lot of stuff that gets built and I don't want to see trying not to see that happen and so you know this is a key spot you know we built some other stuff on the grand entrances into town and they're not very attractive and I just you know I'm fully certain that well we don't have a lot of ways to play the wall I think in terms of whether it's through coloring through materials I think that wall can first and foremost I think if it is landscaped correctly screened correctly with everything that Sheila has described it's lit correctly it's signed correctly this is a I mean the name is on the thing so we can refer to it as starbucks and it's a very accessible model across the country and we're falling in line with sort of what they would like but we have the ability to push and prod as well they don't want the trash I don't want the trash I want it screened regardless at the front door the wood that we end up using will sort of tie into the building so that it has an architectural look to it and we want to be proud of this too so I get it I don't disagree with it one bit it's a thoughtful configuration so that we don't have the 1970s parking in front building in back kind of thing going on but I would tell you that when we do address sort of how is this site lit is it ambient does it it's not glowing up into the sky but it sort of has that soft glow to it I think a lot of these issues are when done and presented right will be first classes you'd like it to be lady you guys okay we're going to talk about lady thank you so the there's one area that's for snow storage it's off of that small parking lot is that right that's the only spot correct originally the applicants had proposed snow storage on this side of sort of before you go into the drive through the issue there is there's actually a 10 inch water main that runs all the way up here and that's the feeder land for this part of town plus the fire department and asked for a fire hydrant in this location so given those two we recognize that putting snow storage there is not there in terms of being able to access that infrastructure so the applicants relocated it to that side parking lot that's technically part of Lowe's there's a lot of open space that's part of the Gerro Brothers property here but there's adequate storage for snow in that location as well the shrugs that are the back where exactly right between the corner and the pick up window okay so these ones along the side of the building the south side of the building right there yeah so they're like this is Anthony Wood and so Spira again you see in Meadows a lot it's probably about four feet high I don't know what the pot shrubs actually got to but it will be four or five feet high box one so let's go to lighting let's suck lighting pick in the staff report can you bring up is there a lighting plan because I didn't see one in my packet I missed it but that's okay I miss a lot of things show me where you call it in the staff report you've got 9.5 foot candles I think it's close to one of the building I can see I see 6.6 6.0 there's some GMP poles right but you can see that for the most part that photometric grid is very low level it dissipates really quickly within 5 feet what are the GMP lights the GMP lights the ones on Pearl Street the ones in that area Susie Wilson if you scroll down just a little bit those right there right where your cursor is it's a green mount power light pole so here's where we get to go back to showing the canopy if you can go back to where the canopy is here's where we go back to bringing up Ned's comments also we've got 5.4 light right there and this is where the screening becomes extremely important because that means it is completely visible from route 15 if it's not shielded if it's not whatever and we've run into this before even though the light spill drops to 0.1 and so forth at ground those lights if they're at all visible are still a beacon driving by in route 15 so again we're getting into the design of the backside of the building and so forth I'm personally less concerned with the entrance I mean 6 is really to say about that and the rest of it looks pretty reasonable and that's closer that's in the direction of that's towards Susie Wilson as soon as we start getting in now is that because it's the green mount power pole there's a couple of lights right here so BT5 BT5 if you scroll down just a few parts of the grid right there so the BT5 I mean so why do we have the peak there I believe that's their outdoor seating area so again why do we have a peak there yep they're right down by the ground they're just down by the ground and that's to illuminate both for the vehicles coming out and also for the sidewalk for the thing sidewalk ties in we do have lighting cut sheets they're down like bollards they're basically shining down that's why they're so bright but we've had those before and we've had those in other places we've had those in banks we've had a number of places like that where we have required that they be downsized so that we don't get that bright light even if it's one spot it's that bright light instead of more uniformity across the lot we've had folks that have talked about that for safety and stuff and I don't I'm not thinking that we've been convinced of the need for single bright lights this is just site plan you could add a couple of lights that have a little less intensity I think would probably be a better choice get a little more uniformity out of it because it is a bright I mean that is I'm glad you found it John but everything else around it is a whole lot less so those are going to stand out we haven't had a good lighting discussion in a while sorry maybe you rest in peace lighting has always been an illuminating subject to talk about I know it bad I know I know but anyways I'm not in favor of seeing the bright points I'd like to see more uniformity across and we've got it almost everywhere else across the parking lot what is on display there we've got uniformity except we've got a couple really bright spots and those are going to be potentially visible from Susie Wilson in Route 15 so that gives me concern I do want to point out that in the staff report I said the maximum would be 9.5 I am looking at the plans that I originally got and the revised ones I think that it changed from one to the other so I'm not seeing the 9.5 anymore but the 7s are obviously still there and I think part of that is the limitations of the types of follower lights that are available and that getting not having a whole lot of selection of follower type lights that the lighting engineer on this worked pretty hard to find aesthetically pleasing lights but also that one that met the town regulations but I do think there were some limitations there as to what other options there were I think that we could probably also look at even for those pictures even if you look at the BT5 that's towards the bottom of the page it's only coming out 5.8 4.0 compared to the BT5 that's a 7.4 and 7.2 to know if they're on yeah on the time and I guess I would say that I would encourage that they are on because those could be pretty bright well this is 24.7 what's the hours of operation that's pretty no it's not intended to be a 24 hour operation early in the morning and my guess is that it's going until 8 o'clock or so in the evening we could do something where you could require that the exterior lights be turned off an hour after closing or a half hour after closing something to that effect I just ask a question about lighting because I want to understand all the places where we're talking about is from our standpoint I think it's more than anything not a matter of lighting the site for the world to see it's a matter of safety at a drive up window and people feeling safe and then obviously the ballards in a seating area where traffic or cars are sort of coming around is there a methodology that you prefer understanding that explain what do you mean by methodology meaning where the source of the light is hidden but the effect of the light is present so you're not seeing in the canopy the light is up and into the canopy you're not seeing the pole but you're seeing the 5.4 that's casting down onto the window and then the ground level below it is the issue in the case of the drive through the visible light more like the housing a good example of that is some of the gas station canopies the ones that have the light down exposed you can see them forever the ones that are up where they're fully recessed you can't see the bulb you have the effect of the light and it's much more contained and I ask because I think that we're far more tricky if I'm wrong but our condition is the latter these are recessed into the canopy so with regards to the one on the canopy you know great if it's if you can't see the light if you can't see the light source which is really what I think one of the driving things we're trying to prevent is being we'll see the light source look at price chopper the downcast lights they've got there they're shielded so you can't see the light source you see the light but you can't see the light source and if that's the case then I have no real concern about that I'm really just worried about the drive-bys and having a light bulb invisible that's a different that's a different conversation and the drive through window is probably of more concern for me and actually I mean per the regulation you're at 5.4 we're looking for 7 so you're still there it's just we're looking at the visibility of the light source and I think it's yeah we're there is this the baller that you guys are using? yes so it doesn't look like it so it's shining down but it's not shielded so the the LEDs are in that top portion there and I'll try to pull them up here for you if I need to but there are little LEDs from that metal bit on the top that shine down into what would have in more classic designs would be like rounded, bold but so it is downcast not necessarily I was thinking that there be louvers metal on the top of that right I don't know so the light at the drive through window what within the window within the window you mean or at the window at the pickup window so if you were just to make sure you're talking about the lights from the window the canopy the drive through window so the windows back here so the canopy extends out over to give a some cover so the canopy extends out there's two fixtures that are recessed down to illuminate the surface right here okay thanks so let's since we've got the picture of the light right now we're looking at this and it's come up and to me it looks like a lantern even though the light source is in the top piece it doesn't look as if there's any shielding around it so it looks like it's a 360 you know visibility which means we've got a beacon in the middle of whatever and that's going to be let's wait till you get there so that's what I'm looking at there I'm looking at that top piece there's no there's no material yes that's what I'm referring to that's what I'm referring to as being a lantern normally the bollards that we have that we've seen and approved and so forth that have illuminated walkways and even drives have been visible from one side only and they've had a shield over them and they've been directed down I'm thinking like the golf course that we approved a few years ago the bollards are not an open light source even though the light source itself is not on display the actual light effect is my sort of defense if you will is that up in there as you pointed out the light is there it will cast the light down onto these two arms and then, am I doing that? sorry sorry it'll look blue like that but it will cast the light onto the ground and onto the arms but to say that it's a lantern is to say that there's a lit component well the best way to look at that is to take any sort of lantern like that and hold it up go the other side of them hold it up you see the light it may be casting down but it's not limited you know the visit go to CVS the indoor lights are there but you can still see them it doesn't go beyond the measurement but you're driving by on route 15 and you can clearly see the light so the light itself is still going to be visible and that's the concern I have from the viewpoint of Sissy Wilson Road and from route 15 if they're completely shielded from both of those roads so you don't have any visibility that's possibly a different story but how high are they? 42 inches 42 inches again I'm more looking at this from seeing it from the roads and so forth and that's where I'm looking at I'm less concerned about the light for the person driving by in the parking lot than I am about the person driving by on the street and that's where we're going to look at the plantings all the way around and I which sheet? S1 the main one the pictures are shown on the site plan so you can see that there's a bollard here and if you move that up a little bit just to look at the where that is in relation to traffic there's one here at the crosswalk and one here and then you've got quite a bit of distance between here and actually Sissy Wilson Road so that's the sidewalk edge of pavement as far as cars having interference from the bollards they're quite a distance away I think that is the closest one is at the crosswalk and there's a stop condition there for cars so they want it to be well illuminated also along here again this is all landscaped this strip right here so in the vegetation that's proposed is about the same height as the bollard so it's not like it's going to be just a clear shot out to route 15 there's going to be landscaping through here and there's going to be additional landscaping all here so again not looking at it in a vacuum it's going on there and the other side is still there as well so I don't think as far as interference with vehicles or cars that's going to really be much of a concern because it is quite a distance away well I will disagree with the one that's by the stop condition because that's an elevated platform compared to the road so that will be visible from the road and it will be a bright light from the road even if the light spill on the ground is not there it will be visible from Susie Wilson Road and traffic going along there so again to me that's the point where we have a visible light and I understand that the LED generator whatever the LED electronics is up and you can't see that but you don't have a shielded light it's down I don't know how this would work administratively but if it was something that you could get comfortable here where it's enclosed in a landscape but this was a problem could we come back with another option for that raised I would love to see all of the light be 7 or less period so then there's no question there's no challenge we can perhaps work with staff to demonstrate that it is less than 7 it's generally something that we can work to staff if the commissioners are dealing with that it's hard to and I'm speaking from my personal opinion right now it's very challenging to give an allowance on light here and not an allowance on light at a bank where we have walkways and there is significant pedestrian traffic all the time also and given that this is Vermont you're going to need lights in a couple weeks you're going to need them all day so I'd rather not set a precedent where we allow lights to creep up on a site plan and I'm not really I don't 100% support the concept that you can't find a ballard that works because we've had a lot of applications come through we've had a lot of ballards that do work so you know I think we can I would be willing to support a condition that allows staff to make that judgment but I would like it to be from my own point of view I'd like it to be you know 7 or under and not have to negotiate whether or not there's a bush in front of it or not because that I think eliminates you guys having to be quite so concerned about is that bush thick enough or whatever yes you know they cooperated because their internal lighting was a begin out to route 15 and probably the way the road in the elevation was but so they agreed to put up some shades I believe it was well I do think that the design of this building that we questioned is actually going to be a benefit because there won't be internal lights visible from route 15 right so I mean I think there actually is a benefit from this layout so very good as we're trying to work through this so that I mean this is where we're back and forth on this so lighting I think we found it seems like we've got some agreement on traffic do we have anything that we need to worry about with traffic as long as you agree with public works assessment I think staff is completely comfortable with the conditions of the staff report regarding traffic as commissioners have any challenges or anything they want to discuss on this I found the attachment that I was looking for about service staying the same so I am now convinced and content we have to open a public hearing I think we bounced this we opened the public hearing by shoe seconded by Josh all those in favor I posed motion carries 5-0 public hearings open I knew you were waiting I knew you wouldn't get out of here please in terms of the appearance of the building I agree with Ned as far as it being rather factoring looking and not the not his words but a big blank wall and certainly there are things that you can do architecturally to make that side of the building more interesting also I think you need to take into account what also is on 15 as people are coming from the west to the east they are passing 40th and Allen with all of the historic brick buildings and then you have the brick bank right there and given the displeasure of many people many residents in Essex about some of what's gone on in the past 10 or 15 years I think tying it in architecturally between 40th and Allen and the bank which is in very close proximity to it would make people happy so using brick and maybe enhancing the roof 15 side of the rather blank wall by especially if you're doing brick it's relatively easy to do brick pilasters on that just to give it some interest and relying completely on landscaping to solve the problem I think is copping out anything else Paul? I just I mean people prefer more traditional kinds of buildings and I think that this is not that but to tie it in with what else is attractive about that roof 15 corridor especially down along the 40th and Allen and then also having it bear some relationship to the existing building that's there that is also one that people find pleasing would make a great deal of sense Thank you Anyone else have any comments or questions? staff Sharon you got something I can winding up I was just curious as we haven't talked about the commercial building at all and what that was my question Well the same ones the what's the lighting proposed there what is that going to look like it's kind of tucked in between the two so it clearly I'm thinking that I mean this is one application so when I'm talking lighting I wouldn't be talking about it was specifically just regards to this I would be looking to have a limit of observing the seven foot candles across the for the whole application To be clear this is an application for both buildings so you're saying in response to Sharon's question about whether or not we address the building my comment about the lighting would be across the whole thing period just nothing more than seven there's an 8.7 on the commercial building so I think if if we just blanket say seven is the upper limit and applicant needs to come back to approval of staff if you can't come back with something that hits seven then you got to come back to us for additional review I mean I as far as lighting that's that really would be I think an easy easy an easy target consistent target put it that way thoughts Ned, Tom, Josh well one question on the commercial building it's oriented towards Susie Wilson and earlier you were saying you didn't want it oriented towards the road you wanted it oriented towards the parking lot so I'm curious why that is I would tell you this building doesn't really have a back it's exposed everywhere so I want to pull up the elevation in a commercial building it could be glassed all the way around correct I mean it could be have open practically speaking there's going to have to be back of house somewhere but we have we have tried to tie in the pallet of materials that we're using for the Starbucks building to bring it into this building as well do you want to talk through the just the where there's to address the first question I get here see in a retail building what the tenants all care about is where their signage is where where their presentation is so if we want the building this way you don't get great visibility from 15 because of the Starbucks building so I think the determination is maybe this is where you want the front of that building so the tenants get good presentation to one of the streets so we tried to get as much glass facing that way as we can with some presentation on both sides this although again as Todd said kind of 360 degrees of architecture but we do need to have some kind of back house area so again a closed trash container back here for tenants to take their deliveries and not have to bring their trash up the front door and around and again sort of the same pallet of materials trying to play off the stuff in the other building so that there's some consistency canopies we were indicating some sconce lights that are really just intended to shine on the wall again we can look at what those fixtures are if there's a concern that they're too visible but again trying to create identities individual identities for each of the right now it's a vision that there could be up to three tenants in that building so trying to create architecture that allows for some identity for each of the tenants and allows for a place for their science also from a site planning standpoint very early on we looked at this project as being something that is a little more neighborhood oriented than say the Lowe's currently is so we were looking to put a smaller building with smaller tenants that really are something good for the neighborhood so that you have a lot more residential use now along Suzy Wilson Road we tried to make it very walkable and very appealing to be able to access it from the sidewalk as well as from the bank and from Starbucks so it was something we tried to have a presence of almost like a street front style development as opposed to a small building oriented towards a parking lot it's really meant to be something much more pedestrian level focused is there a sidewalk leading to Suzy Wilson? yes there are a sidewalk there's two sidewalks proposed one directly to Starbucks and one directly to the retail building that's an existing one I would think that even though it's not within our purview to enforce it here I would think the recommendation to any of those large walls on both buildings could be designed with elements as similar to what Paula maybe recommended designed so that they're all going to have visibility so don't make it look like the dock space where the trucks are coming in out of only would be a request I think at this point because it's not a purview of ours but I think as far as being well accepted into the neighborhood community it would be who of us to ask you to try to design that so it's just not a blank wall and I think Paula would be willing to work with you I'm coming up with designs so staff additional thoughts, comments based on the discussions we've had so far traffic we're good with public works it sounds like anybody have any concerns about that lighting I think we request or require a consistent standard across the whole development building design is recommended other thoughts any things that we've missed this is a sign the regulation for internally lit signs is only in the business control internally we don't have any internally lit I'm sorry inside the building I thought the menu boards so yes we have halo or reverse channeling which is what's only been allowed alright and that's what these are I don't know if that's what these are the menu boards how are they in there so that might be something that if they are what we've already previously approved there's no concern they can be approved by staff but if they're not they would have to come back that sound reasonable so for example McDonald's was approved with some menu boards internally then they came back and asked for switch out which weren't internally lit which they never did so they're still internally lit and those are lit all the time I don't know what their hours are because it's been so dark and dreary this past week or so I've been up there at like 10 o'clock in the morning and that's like wow these lights are pretty bright for many months not sure how we got that we would not have concerns if they are you said halo lighting or other external light sources but if it's an internally lit it would have to come back and they aren't like we said earlier they're facing away from everything well we could just leave it completely within the staff period and let staff decide if it needs to come back to us or not I don't like the precedent the precedent for allowing it okay so simply put if there's any internal lighting proposed it needs to come back to the planning commission thoughts, staff perspective so I can tell you right now that we've already have a precedent going with McDonald's and I'm actively working with them because they want to change out some lighting again and they want the same thing they don't want to make any change to their lighting they just want to change the menu board so this isn't McDonald's I know but if we're talking precedent and if it's hidden and I'll just say if it does come back internally lit I'm probably okay with it but we'll just write a very strict exception why we're okay with it correct me if I'm wrong Sharon but I'm pretty sure that internally lit is not allowed within the sign regulations that we have so I don't know if McDonald's got approved before those were written but when they come in for a sign permit they have to follow the regulations so I don't want to talk too much about McDonald's tonight to be honest with you and I'm being serious on that and I know we're talking precedent and so forth but McDonald's is not before us so I'd like to keep it to this application and I'm told if they want to change the precedent the only lighting that's not the only signage that we would be concerned with is if it's internally lit is that a valid statement so that would be one of our conditions the signage is internally lit it needs to come back for planning commission review John do you guys have anything that we haven't covered that you want to bring to us or of any other thoughts that we haven't touched on or that you're not that you'd like us to reevaluate or anything anybody from the audience one last round then I would ask a motion to close the public hearing moved by Shoe seconded by Josh all those in favor motion carries 5-0 public hearing is closed so I'm not really finding a lot to contest with this to be honest with you I think we've some simple points you guys all help chime in here but I'm really hearing that getting uniform lighting that meets our standards is a must across the across the whole application enclosing the trash those enclosures not just maintaining the trash bins but actually maintaining the enclosures and the signage we're agreement and actually with the lighting plan we would support staff you know letting staff approve the lighting as long as the it meets the expected standards and doesn't exceed the limit and do you want a different design well I would actually leave that under staff's purview for a design that meets the requirements I think they've heard that we don't want I personally don't want it to be above 7 and I think it's not above 7 we don't have a whole lot to say about it I do respect that it's I don't want it to be a beacon I think an open light source even those it's downcast it's still visible you can see it if you can't see it that's fine if you can only see it from the lot yeah so I think staff knows this and I think staff can rule on this I think that I feel that's more of an administrative follow up if we've set that level and the signage again we would leave that within staff because we have a sign ordinance or sign requirements and as long as it is within that we don't need to see it so this would be direction for staff if internally what signage is proposed it has to come back to us and I think that would be that would be normal anyways isn't that correct I mean so we can leave that in our finding we don't need a stipulation for that I think with the exception of the lighting everything else is the trash enclosures are the only stipulations that we need to add and everything else is within our finding concerns with that somebody want to take a whack at that Tom we approve the site plan master plan amendment pardon oh sorry next one site plan public hearing as warned property and Susie Wilson with the condition that they work with staff to get a new lighting plan approved they maintain the dumpster enclosures and the findings the sign and talk about our expectations for the lighting and the findings so in the findings we were concerned about the ballards or light source point light sources that would cause glare specifically from Susie Wilson or 15 right from Susie Wilson that's it and you want to tweak that before we second it do we want anything in the findings about the sort of the facade that's facing 15 it's really out of our purview so I don't know if we want to say anything there or not yeah I think that's a good idea so we're concerned about the design of the Starbucks building facing roots 15 it would like to see more interest and attractiveness what else can I say we have a condition after it's in and the landscaping if it's not out of the way that's something you want to entertain how much more landscaping can you put that's right that's going out backwards well I know build something awful and then try to hide it let's rather try to build something nice first right and they got that message I think we add in this the building design I would actually call out both buildings because the commercial building has a larger front that is fronting more on the low side that you talked about I think it was the I forgot one of the elevations is more open it was more for the delivery aspect to support the delivery aspect with the other sides maybe it was the Starbucks side Susie Wilson side no Susie Wilson side is more signage yeah so I just think in the other side it's the one up from the second up from the bottom this is this faces lows this faces so the westerly direction then I would ask that we have sensitivity to the building design for those sides that are both on both buildings that are you know larger scale and what was the phrase you used a back side of a building so for the back of house portions of the buildings have be constructed with sensitivity to other areas architectural interest I like those words and the side facing and that's in the finance because we can't make a stipulation just want to make sure I think Sharon if you guys want to craft that a little bit basically would you agree Tom we're looking for sensitivity to those backside of buildings that are visible either from route 15 or from the westerly exposure I'll second Tom's motion okay we have a motion Tom seconded by shoe Ned you've got additional discussion I'm still sort of troubled to the fact that we're building a glass and deepest building on that corner that's all you know given the whole stretch of you know brick and you know sort of the New England touch you know we're building but correct me if I think I'm looking to staff on this and we don't have purview for that design that's why I'm frustrated yeah so but I mean we've called it out you move away from me and I start to talk is it fair to say that you folks have heard that there's a big concern and again we want community acceptance we want you know so I think we've she wants it with me sitting next to me is no better usually so yeah we have a motion we've tweaked it Sharon you know we're looking for you guys to sort of wordsmith that a little bit before the final presentation anything else I'd be really interested to see how you guys do with the snow in that one little spot snow stores so do you want to do you want to is public works okay with that proposal storage it's like a big field there it's not just that little spot but they do have to truck you know carry it around no I don't really want I don't need to add anything okay so let's let's just a comment okay I will call all those in favor of the motion as randomly presented all those in favor of the motion I posed motion carries five zero thank you thank you what everybody leaves hey I'm just getting started ready Sharon can I get a motion for the minutes of September 27 I move we approve the minutes of September 27 by shoes seconded by Ned are there any amendments to the minutes that anyone wants to offer all those in favor of the minutes as presented I'm opposed motion carries five zero minutes are approved okay let's let's do a real quick discussion on the ETC next the use of the time in these meetings as follow up or preparation for the next meetings I would like sort of a standard approach if we can follow a standard approach on these nights excuse me number one for commissioners and our staff to bring up questions they may have had that came up based on the last one new questions on the last weeks of the last the last sometimes you think about something after you walk away this is the time to bring those up staff can get them to the consultant so we can knock it back and forth here secondly I'd like to review what the anything that might have come back or at least acknowledge if stuff did come back from the consultants we may not get into it tonight or at this meeting but at least staff can let us know that yes we've got some comments here's some high level overview or follow the questions whatever right right so in the other piece I think I had four items but I don't remember what the next one is just just prepare for the next meeting it's just a reminder I'm sure you guys are better at it than I am but I'm with everything else going on I don't always remember to look at stuff you know ahead and if we have this reminder that the next meeting we're going to be talking about section X and X, section Y then we can be looking at that even ahead of staff telling us the Friday before that that's what we're talking about that's helpful and then oh I know what the other piece was was just in general an opportunity to adjust the process do we feel we need another meeting do we feel we want to change the way we're doing this do we feel that we want to have a work session on something so I want to use this period in our application meetings to sort of stage or react to stuff from the planning meetings my idea being that the planning meetings stay pretty well focused on what's on the agenda and if we need to dig into something that we set up a separate meeting if we feel we want to follow up and take something that we really want to dig into it more let's set up a separate work session for it unless staff feels that we are going to have a lot of time because the next two sections are going to be easier minimal or whatever but that's where we use this time to sort of map that out I really want to I want to try to stay on focus or within scope of the planning meetings because I think we owe it to staff to number one to recognize the effort they're putting in and for ourselves we've got to keep our eyes on what we're trying to get so if we wander too much on those meetings we're never going to get anywhere Dana does that sound reasonable I mean Ned I agree last meeting was pretty straightforward I'm sure down the line we're going to have some others that are going to be a little more more involved than we may need to do whatever we have to do that so do you want to have a parking lot of these kinds of issues that go outstanding the bike rack we can keep the parking lot list going and if necessary schedule an extra meeting I think that's kind of what we I mean we get this going and if there's something that we really feel we need to get into and we don't want to wait you know if we've got the bandwidth and I'm not I know staff is busy a lot but I think it's also do we have the bandwidth to dig into something maybe we don't this month maybe we do next month our bike rack is getting big so let's set up a work session to knock off a few of those bullet items and we do a separate work session for it I think that's where we use this time to sort of set that map does that sound reasonable I mean I hate to say it but I don't want to use our planning meetings I don't want to get out of scope on that because we won't and we do have a plan I mean I think whether it's aggressive or not aggressive we have a plan for those planning meetings and we're going to be effective we're going to be more effective if we stick to it and use this for follow up and we may find that some of these questions are answered during follow up during the other sessions so I have on your number one bring up questions that might have popped in your head and I didn't mention it at the meeting but I still have some reservations about the names of some of the districts such as open space because we already have a conservation zoning district and we already have an open space so when people fling these these terms around there are they thinking West Leapy Hollow Road it's a conservation I just wanted to follow that I think naming so naming convention is our bike rack I don't have an issue with that I'm not too worried about the naming yet until it goes to print proposal we didn't even come up with it what do we call that a police track this also gives I mean if you guys find that you've got time this gives you something to work on and add to and just work on independent of the straight structure published schedule and we can bring it up I mean if we get to the planning meetings if we've got time if it takes us an hour to go through the stuff let's pull out the bike rack well I didn't want to put it on the rack if you guys were comfortable with what it is the bike rack should probably be set up a little differently there's a lot of questions here we should just keep line items questions when it was raised and another line to when we've closed it instead of just having open you know got to have something that keeps track of so we know we don't want to get to the end and say damn we never answered this so we want to be able to close these things somehow and it may take two meetings it may take three or just all of a sudden that was meaningful then but it's not now that's a format and a structure and that's something we can easily layer in and Karen can do something with that Josh you had in the interest of closing something out actually the question should it include Gateway at Sand Hill Jericho intersection I know I was one of the advocates for that with respect to the historic district and I realize that the concept of the Gateway doesn't require the historic district boundary brought there so that can be dropped unless anyone else is still on that but I could see it the Gateway the signage everything whereas the historic district boundary can still be back to where it is on the map at Alderbrook I'm fine with keeping it there the yeah yeah the right with regards to the historic district yeah historic district would where the consultants had proposed at Alder at Alderbrook meeting right I brought up the issue of what if we extend it to Sand Hill but I really wanted the concept of the entry point Gateway to be at that intersection but that doesn't mean the zoning needs to be you're saying just the Sand Hill road what about that what about the Jericho road where we're talking about the school as well that's that's Browns Hill Browns River sorry that's so that that's I mean the question but expansion of the historic district is still valid I'm just saying that particular bullet can be struck that particular bullet I didn't so we narrowed the scope of that discussion yeah thank you I do it again while we're talking about that we'll also point out that we've shared that link to the online interactive map where you can actually look at some of that information it's not fully functional yet but we'll get it there it does have information on where the historic properties are where the state designated historic district is so we can look at that at some point when we come back to Justice I play with that I didn't see the historic properties they're scrolled way you have to scroll all the way down on the layer list and then you have to zoom into the Essex Center area to see them and they're in Browns so they're hard to see but I can work with them so it would be nice also just I think as we go through this is to keep the consultant surprised of our bike list bike rack we're not necessarily asking them to do anything with it yet but I mean they should be aware especially if we make changes because they may suggest something goes on there or they may look at that and say hey it's covered in here or you guys what I would recommend is that Darren does some kind of spreadsheet that addresses Nets you guys deal with that internally we'll share that with the consultant make it pretty, make it functional just do it I think it's just it's going to be a living document so it's going to change and it's going to be something that we can use go do if we have time and not absolutely any other on the topic of the spreadsheet if we're going to do that we should probably have like a next step what's the next thing to happen hopefully I mean from my point of view we're not trying to layer a lot of extra work we're trying to keep the scope of the planning meetings focused and not lose sight of those other items that we want to dig into more or differently anything else on that okay and again this I see this process being able to evolve every time if we need to just let it let it be as long as we keep the focus on you know getting getting the main objectives get or done other business I take a motion I move we adjourn I'll second it all those in favor we are adjourned 846 p.m. that tool is awesome