Planning Board - Regular Meeting

e e and our audio is on our recording is in progress perfect so it is 5:30 we might as well start the pre-meeting um we do have one application returning today uh for planboard application 24-0 which is the Dollar General on a proposed Dollar General on us Avenue um report staff gets into uh I guess summary of where we are today we do have one specific about this application in the sense that the board tabled this application several months ago because it was not reintroduced we do have a few Roberts rules of orders type things to address with the application in the sense that it's considered dead on the floor at the moment we would have to uh if the board so chooses

uh decides a motion to revive the application once once we get into uh just a brief administrative outline I guess staff does have new information for the application so yeah okay um and then just um the rest of the agenda outside of the application um we have provided additional copies of the bylaws and acknowledgement forms just to do an annual review of that and certification and then we gave you guys copies of see those um last meeting it was a little too early last meeting and we haven't met since so um you have your official copies of the calendar um and then for the planning board application um 248 General us a new construction 2024 the last time um that the board met for review of this was September 17th 2024 um and there were quite a few uh conditions that weren't fully satisfied um within the staff comments and then additional board conditions but the major one that stood out was the request for the applicant to complete a Swift and then have a third uh have that referred to a third party engineer um consultant for review and approval um and that a slip was created it referred out um to P

Associates um and has received a satisfactory report back um in addition to that um the applicant has been in correspondence um and have regular exchanges with New York State Department of Transportation and um so in in your packet you you'll have you'll find a few 11 by or eight and a half by 11 copies um that includes the staff report the updated staff report it includes a copy of the C satisfactory letter and then um fdale Associates which Aaron Jarvis who is applicant representative and here with us this evening that's the consultant who he works for um their course their response back and then um their submission um for comment to Department of Transportation and Do's comments back on the most recent revisions to the sites plan dated um the site plan dated February 3rd and then subsequent revisions from their comments resulted in the February 11 site plan revisions um so there's still ongoing foration with do mostly around some minor um update requests to the site plan um you'll see that in general comments and then they've detailed out on their letter um specific comments per sheet are you finding this Carly um okay yeah I am okay yeah okay

um so in the do letter um you'll see sheet c100 sheet C 101 so they have specific comments detailed um that they'd like to have uh revisions come through um and then their major comment um and reiteration from the beginning of the letter States as previously mentioned these comments are being provided as If This Were A New York state do project there will be a need for a New York State DOT Highway work permit since some of the work some of the work Zone traffic control will extend into part of us9 that is under New York State DOT M jurisdiction so they're recognizing that portion of the project that nears the near and crosses the Town Line is there stick um and so they've provided fairly substantial comments for the storm water management and offsite flows um and have re requested um hydraulic modeling um in association with those flows um and which Tisdale Associates has provided um in the last week and is waiting on response back from do um you'll see a storm Water Analysis Highway work permit review attached um to that um and then further on in the 8 by 11 packet is just a a another um a review of the

Dollar General signage proposed signage proposed lighting details follow that um these are review materials the signage in the lighting are and then you'll have your full plan sets either 11 by7 between 4 24 by 36 um there you'll have a site plan a full site plan set which goes from t00 to E100 um so E100 is the updated lighting plan and I this has the most revisions to it for the majority of the site plan set the last time you review this set it includes the lighting picture schedule and called out um the two uh proposed like fixtures it does not contain um as the board previously has requested for other applicants it doesn't contain copies of the liting detail sheets um and it doesn't specify um proposed shielding for cut offs in that thatle the we do have the detail sheet on the 8 and a half by 11s so yep so you're saying that they've typically been requested in the 11 by 17 pre yeah in the previous stime rev for a separate applicant the board did request that got it

um and then the um photo um SK the lumire schedule and then um the the photo layout as well is included um the next set of of plans is includes the um Landscaping plan which has also been updated to have a planting schedule andos species and showing the proposed layout of those plantings throughout the property um essentially to vegetate the um the retention Pond area on the east side of the property near the entrance as well as to provide buffer um Provisions um around the parking the dumpster the proposed dumpster area and um pedestrian um separation from the entrance in the entrance walkway the Drive Entrance in the entrance walkway um and then you have a REV or a review um elevation plan to show the colors and proposed building materials nothing has changed in this since the September meeting this is just for review um two sheets of that showing all size of the propos building and then a

proposed floor plan um with the use areas so um rather than 10,600 square foot now open um store plan it it has broken it down to the receiving area a bathroom and then a sales area which essentially if the applicant chooses assist in um revising the parking calculations because that's less retail space so they need less parking spots as yeah as the code reads um it's the code for um this type of use the code requires um one parking space per square fet of public space so um depending on how those calculations work out and um confirmation by the building inspector's office it could potentially reduce the total required number of parking spaces but they could have what they have if they want like they can have more than what's required um so in the in my staff comments I've Ed that um I I've tried to bold updated comments while retaining previous comments so you can of TR the progression find yeah um and I hope that it's it's lengthly but I hope this format works for you all no it is helpful okay good um so under the building inspector section I think there's actually it's not and that it's under planning staff comments

um I was working in the PowerPoint today so I don't know exactly where it is um it would be comment number three 3.1 I think applicant has listed the total number of required fing spaces in the table and the revised plan dated to 25 required number is um set at 43 um for the zoning table and they're proposing to provide quity so there would be a deficiency in three paring spaces and if that deficiency remains then um a variance would be required okay is that a variance that for us or for zvs that it would it would be recommended for the planning board to reverse zba okay or have the applicant apply directly okay thank you yes um would you all do you want to digest the stock from for a little bit and all your other materials that yeah that I'm fine with that yeah let stop talking are there any comments you specifically want us but think they more important to focus on um so the ones most all appear to be satisfied

um I have referred this out to shipo to get better clarification on the archaeological area which through um identification through interactive mathing um in the chis system have found that that's an archaeological blocker area um I don't expect it is going to um produce significant comments if any and the greatest I expect is just um a requested condition that if any archaeological effects are found during excavation the processes are halted and was um notified um but given that there were underground tanks on site and the site had to go through extensive remediation I'm not terribly concerned about it um and then in addition to that this is one of the last vacant Parcels undeveloped Parcels in this area um and so um I think if if there was going to be um any major findings we would have heard about them by now okay so I think it's um just a A Relic from the the old base okay um so the other um New York state do um it's recommended that their comments and permitting be satisfied um

I mentioned the revised lighting plan um and for shut off thing um and the shut off the shield on the cut offs um it appears that the applicant is proposing a shield it is not clear whether or not that is proposed for both types of lighting fixtures um it would be important that that proposal and those detail that the detailed information get carried through to the lighting plan um they did add stop a Stop Bar um I believe Curry requested that La meeting so that's at the Drive Entrance um and um comment number 19 is actually a new comment um and this just um basically bullet points a few revisions that are recommended for the site plan um they're just there fairly minor adits in the whole scheme of things that should um be addressed prior to the board's approval of anything um most specifically uh a discrepancy in the northern property boundary is now showing up on the site plan whereas previously there was a single Northern property line and I think that's just a Nuance that's been introduced through the thought pattern of a proposed subdivision to cure the encroachment

North from the neighboring property um the there is a call out for um a side the sidewalk detail that's depicted um and it indicates that the sidewalk is approximately 3 to six feet wide but the um the scaling doesn't seem to factor out correctly seems like the the walkway is actually much wider in that area so just um recommended that the applicant check into that detail um confirming that the ownership information for tax that parel 22120 that's one that correct that's the that's actually the city own parcel and I don't believe that has changed hands that the site plan indicates that it has um adding walkway hatch um also the truck maneuverability for deliveries has vanish from the S plan and it's recommended that that be brought back in that um there's a minor shift in in the entrance Drive um it's um more of a parallel um perpendicular alignment to the right of leg instead of a FL entrance I don't think it will be a major issue but just confirmation that maneuverability can be achieved right right so I don't think it's a major issue but just having that carry through sorry they requested the removal of the flare of the the flare driveway or

yeah of SL okay got okay thank you thank you yes have any specific other specific questions comments staff before the before the meeting we obviously have plenty of time to review during the meeting further uh to clarify with staff the recommendation letter uh for review at the end outlines what would be a boilerplate recommendation but does not really represent what we're looking at per say tonight it's not what is recommended for tonight but for the the end um and vote for the review so tonight we're looking to review the information today allow the applicant to make further presentation um establish that we provided sufficient comments or additional any additional comments we have to the applicant and then establish a uh next meeting for a public hearing which we were not able to do at this

meeting that we were not able to establish public hearing tonight because the application is still that on the floor table to I guess I have a a question about the application being dead and table we really haven't had um an actual submission of the application for for us to make that determination what we've had is recommendation meetings as I remember um because if we had a formal submission of the application then we have a an obligation to render that decision within 62 days so I I as I recall we've just been working with um the applicant the engineer just to get through the process so that we had a that was um when when we did receive for formal uh approval then we were on the same page and we had an approvable plan at that point so I as I re and believe me my memory could be off but what I what I want to know is is it has it been formally received or are we working on recommendation right yes so um the board reviewed the sketch plan phase correct in the August meeting and then the September meeting was towards the detailed review um and it was a continuation of conditions to be satisfied for that entailed

review more of the sketch plan than of the the formal application it it was so I've begun the formal application begins at essentially at the sketch plan stage and we get iterative revisions um and so the first meeting is sketch plan the next meeting is typically the detailed review so that was the intent of the September meeting yeah I I had actually two of the applicants you know address their application to me um and I'm saying that you know being on the record because we've agreed to do that people contact us then we openly discuss it um and they wanted to know you know they thought that they they already had a normal approval and said that's not the case because there were a number of months that we we didn't even meet on this application well this correct that this has not been we have not met in consecutive months since August on this application there was a period of time where the application wasn't even on the table I just want to make certain that we when we render the decision that it's a decision that will uphold challenge if it were ever to be challenged that's the point bringing this about okay um so I personally don't think that we've gone to the point and in the fact that as Jim mentioned the public the public comment

period really is that that last decision that leads us into the final formal approval of it and I think that that's that brings us to a compliant stage with the progress of the application and that makes sense and and given the number of revisions provided and staff comments and which the board accepted as as recommendations for revision and and conditions of approval I would say that the application should should be at the point for the board to vote next meeting um however a public hearing would need to occur ahead of that I agree totally okay and and the last meeting just to be clear it w this application was specifically tabled there was a motion and a vote um so it was officially tabled we had um one meeting one regularly scheduled meeting we didn't um we didn't hold and then we held the November meeting and didn't bring this back up and have missed several other meetings just because we didn't have any other agenda items to review or discuss so um I don't think um it stops opinion that having this have been tabled for so many months has been at the detriment to the applicant the applicant has had plenty to work on and this meeting should be seen as kind of

um a review as well to reorient to what this application is all about and how close it is to achieving the the detailed requirements perfect that's what I is okay thank you you're welcome okay thank you uh it is 6 o' sood that you didn't so we're not we're not voting on this application toight no you're not voting on it you you and Jim will lead the vote um you'll have to remove it from the floor if you're going to formally discuss it even though we've been discussing it in work session okay okay the imaginary place we put it got to take it further offline with you okay so it is 6 o'clock uh we're still recording we are still Rec okay so I'll move to open the official planning board meeting for Monday February 24th 2025 um we can all rise for the pledge of allegiancy to the of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation God indivisible withy roll call Jim abdala Yes Rick Perry R Abby M her yes Tom costro here Carly Larry yes thank you um I'd also like to welcome a new alternate member Emily Reinhard so uh we might as well we have one

application item uh on the agenda this is a return item planning board application 24-8 uh it's the Dollar General us Avenue new construction or proposed construction for 2024 2025 hold the phone yes um so uh again as in the pre- meeting we discussed that the board had tabled this several months ago U since it has sat for a while um it became dead on the floor you want to call it so we would need or I would need a motion from someone on the board to revive the application so we can formally review new new conditions I'll make a motion to revive the application and remove roll call Jim abdella Yes Rick Perry yes Abby muser yes Tom cro yes Carly liry yes thank you so with that said staff does have some additional information and a updated report yes you do um so just this out of my way um oh and just checking in with Aon J is Matt planning to call in he said he was looking for the link to get on he didn't make it in person okay um that was at the top of the agenda um I don't see him on right now I'm I'm the only participant right now um so do you want to I don't want to leave him out

and um the beginning of this is going to be mostly review anyway good if that's okay with everybody um so again as um Jim abdella had um covered this is 24-8 site plan review um this is leading up to the detailed decision um for Kalo Development Group site plan 202 for us a request to build a 10,640 ft single story retail store with on-site parking located at us a tax map number is here the parcel is zoned B2 the current owners are Peter whiteb whiteback John Murphy and trade Road Properties LLC however there is a notice of pering Rights um in place with kedo Development Group LLC um and the signatur representatives there are Gary and Matt valo and the plan comparers is here with us this evening that's Aaron Jarvis of of Tisdale Associates um as a review this is the undeveloped site um in the orange perimeter boundary there's a little cutout um along us a which is an independent parel owned by the city of Cl for utility purposes again the site is zoned B2 um and is located directly adjacent and slightly over the town border with the town of platsburg um so there is adjacent um zoning within the town that the board has um considered and made recommendations to ensure

compatibility oops and here a few photos of the existing Frontage when it was less snower so um a lot of existing vegetation on site but mostly undeveloped field um in some utilities so um I have links to the um most recent recently revised site plan um dated February 11 2025 um and what I'm going to do okay do you does the board want me to flip through each sheet or how how would you like me to do it I've got each sheet of the site plan embedded in this PowerPoint so I can go through um the first sheet c00 is the existing Demolition and site plan so calling out existing utilities um and elements that are to be removed and potentially some of them replaced at a later date um and it has the full Legend also you'll see the legend is broken up between existing and proposed elements on the right hand side and then um the zoning information table is at the bottom right as well and that's where you'll see um the proposed um parking and the required number of parking spots um this sheet c101 is the full site plan layout and this has a lot of information contained on it so you will see gradings and topography information you'll see the retail supposed retail store footprint

the parking footprint and all of the parking spaces delineated as well as pedestrian walkway sidewalk uh pedestrian sidewalk leading from the right of way to on site um sidewalk detail along the right of way as well as um Entrance Drive details um on the the difference between the site plan um and the previous revision that the board reviewed was that the the this um Drive Entrance is more of a perpendicular approach from the right of way than a tapered approach and that's her request by New York state do to to make that change so this is a a straighter design a straighter entrance I'd just like to ask why would the do want to make that to it's kind of their standards now so we previously had it with the large radiuses yeah but what they like I believe is mostly for plowing purposes is when you come up your curbs come in uh to the entrance they flare down so when that plow is coming around it just tops up over if they're ver banging hard into a vertical Bas a cur so that's their standard now in their right way Ur right yeah it's interesting because it's the City plow set it's an interesting concern but that's good they speak for all the plowing I yes

so um another element to this revision is you'll see a a variation in the northern property line um and there's a stock recommendation that that be better clarified because currently it appears that there are two Northern property property lines um now actually the hatched area is standing um so there could be an additional note that the applicant provides to this area um but it would be recommended more clarification be provided for what the intent is in this section just respond that so why don't we make it through staff review first and then you'll have chance to presentation okay answer questions yep um and then there's you know some hatching it's fairly obvious what the hatching is but not all of the the associated hatching is called out in the SE um so and then the layout plan so the driveway the minimum distance that the driveway is from the property line has increase from 5 feet to six feet so it's further within the um setback area required setback area by um I don't believe there were any major changes on the enlarg grading plan so this is the Eastern side of the property this is the western side of the property so back of this the store the other one was front of the

store um and then these are the engineering details that would go be associated with water sanitary um and entrance construction um soil and erosion and sentiment control plan and then the det Associated details to go along with that additional construction details do signage and then the lighting plan so you've got the photog grammatic layout now included in this this plan as well as the lighting um fixture schedule and as mentioned earlier the the fixture schedule is missing details for proposed shield and um it's it's recommended that the board request the applicant to clarify if the proposed Shield would be carried across the of the proposed ligh pictures and then these are the detail the associated detail sheets that were actually provided back in September so the lighting is proposed to be mcra Edison and then the shield um detail is is withs and is in oops forgot program I'm in um it's it's highlighted in this orange circle

is for accessory details and has its own ordered code number and then we have the landscape plan with the planting schedule and species list and the layout of of species across the and then area of impact delineated as well this sheet is um review to confirm the colors the proposed colors and materials have not changed since the September meeting and in the September meeting the board was satisfied um with the colors and materials and design and then this is the interior layout which now includes approximately 1300 square feet for the receiving area and then which is assumed not to be open to the public and then the bathroom and sales area which about 90 9300 Square ft in take regarding that uh it mentions that the one parking spot per 250 square fet of open to the public and spaces so you're saying the receiving area is the only area that's excluded from that it's my understanding okay thanks [Music]

and then um this is a picture provided back in September to show what the proposed colors and material scheme looks like in real life just again just for review sake and then these are the proposed sign details again provided in the past for review s or yeah um and most all of the department comments appear to have been satisfied um DPW went on to respond to a comment that New York state do had um regarding um whether or not that they had plans to update utilities within the right of way in you know in the near future and they responded that they do not have any plans at this point in time um MLD low calculations have been provided um and they say the only outstanding item is um to understand where the electrical service will be positioned on the building and the connection point of the property and routing to the building so essentially um everything is seems to be satisfied on their end for the site plan purposes and they're pointing to the next phase building permit um building inspector um has not had a lot of comments um they were most concerned with the existing vegetation saying the Pres preservation of the tree line and providing screening from the proposed parking area on the North northeast side of the property um and then um a conversation I had with building today um was the that may want

to revisit the required parking calculations based on the proposed use area of the building and verify and then verify with the building department that their calculations are are sound um right now the there is um a deficiency proposed in a number of parking spes um town of platsburg comments have appear to have been satisfied um 911 office and addressing um did suggest in the past that the address be um changed to 4761 R9 versus post address of6 regarded and that's based on where they identify route nine starting and stopping essentially um so fairly minor um I provided a copy of the Cass uh third party review of this with um there's not a lot of details in that just saying that they were satisfied with the version supplied on oh gosh I think it was December 3rd um 2024 and then New York state do comments I have truncated here you have the the more full letter in your packets but the general comments are that us have is considered us 9 not New York State Route n they request a hydraulic analysis for both pre and post development satisfactorily Dem demonstrating no impacts is required and it um they provided a hydraulic guideline for the

applicant to use um the Swip line the Swip plan provided did not satisfy the requirements um the applicant had provided a revised Swip um to try and satisfy this request February 3rd I believe um so that this comment is in response to that um an engineering Earth restraining system will need to be designed and provided for review for all utility connections that require excavation within 10t of the roadway and then um they said c attached engineering restraining system notes Etc um and then provided a list of recommended revisions on specified land sheets but the biggest part of this is um that New York State DOT Highway work permit is required um since some of the work is um work Zone traffic control will extend into part of the us I that is under your state do jurisdiction and then um we did go over the highlights of the staff review um and and and continue comments but um mostly it appears that the staff depart that the department comments have been satisfied um staff recommends continued coordination with do um towards um addressing their comments and revision requests and and um obtaining a work permit as required um staff recommends updating the lir schedule and the lighting plan and providing um Shield details or or cut off details in association with the lighting fixtures um staff recommends uh depicting the delivery location and access um for depiction of delivery and

access that the maneuverability um be readded to the plan um mostly pedestrian and bicycle access has been depicted um in I believe previous conversations the board may have asked that a pight be located on site um I did not actually find that in in sta notes but um it it's an element of this PowerPoint so it may be something just question back to the board is that um was that a previous request and future inent um and then minor edits to planning verify the St details um can you go back to sorry one um so it seems like the do and 911 are requesting different things for the address it says us a is considered us9 not New York State Route 9 but then 911 is saying the number should be 4761 root9 not use usav very true thank you for picking that up um and I can Circle back to 911 addressing to let them know and and try and get a clarification on that um 911 ad they mostly it's for emergency response purposes obviously um so there was a a conversation I had with them that they're like well if if the city provides a a basically entrance sign a specific spot stating where our jurisdiction starts we would be fine with that um but since there's not a sign and a

codification then we're requesting this right now but I can I can iron that out Carl um and that's the end of my presentation anybody has questions or back to you J thank you we do have applicant here tonight um you have the opportunity to make for the presentation um oh I think we seen a couple times in the past the best way to approach this is just kind of address comments comments in trying to everything a great job joining and I'm I'm happy to bring up the site plan in a larger form on Scream if that we we could go to your one that had the staff comments basically or maybe the do one start there um you wanted to stck up the mic I don't if you saw this a Le or not but before I left drive here I sent an email to Mike Burgess who's the DT engineer respond so just want to sure I got this right I'm essentially there it's they don't anticipate issuing a permit for the highway entrance they think they're just providing comments for the city to use their review and then the only permit they think they need is potentially for the

work that kind of spreads out into the town part so any of the traffic control and sidewalk I thought during our discussion we decided the OT would provide comments as if it were one of our projects leave it up to the planning board planning board City to decideed they're going to incorporate into the site review process approval technically I'm not sure if we would be the on approving the per work outs of our jurisdiction so basically what they're doing is they're saying here's our comments on if it was in our jurisdiction and if we meet their comments that means standards that the only permits we really should use for from the do is just the lane closure shoulder closure Dage and cones and everything to do with a little bit of sidewalk expends out into the town so I guess we're going to have to just confirm that that's what he's he's said so this is as of 45 so I think it's probably appropriate for you to coordinate with staff on do and their and their directive I mean the last letter we have is as previously mentioned these comments are being provided as if there were a New York state do project there will be a need for a New York state D do Highway work permit since some of the work Zone traffic control will extend into part of US Route 9 that is under New York State DOT maintenance shur ition that town versus City so he's going to clarify that statement and indicate that it's like

email it's too fresh to been able to incorporate I just make sure we can all wrap our head around that one we're on that border between the city and the town and then the do jurisdiction we're in both jurisdictions and it's kind of like do wants to be involved but yet they don't want to issue to per the entrance CC so with all that said that clarification I guess in addition to clarifying the statement at the end of do I'd also like to clarify all these other attachments that they threw in to their letter where where well they they've even gone so far as indicating that they want the applicant to provide a engineer of record to specially the work with in the RightWay for pedestrian facilities so I think again getting clarification is I mean that's right you you don't always see that so it's an attachment to their letter I think they need to clarify that uh engineered Earth restraining system wellon have connection um I think the big one though was that inspection component just clarifying how ins talking what the requirement is and so you know for the applicant's benefit addressing that start Corporation more

typical so we'll leave that in your court and you'll coordinate with staff to address the record um in addition to the do pance they wanted hydraulic analysis we did send it to them again on Friday last week so actually proba Florida anounce back he didn't see it he did look at it today he's telling me he's missing something again but I saw it on there think saw it so we have a table that's got pre-existing conditions and poos conditions he says it's not there I'll time now as far as the the Basin in the front of the site is there an anticipated water depth in that or is it going to be anticipated be dry I think good share soils for US based on is is is water table below 142 okay yeah once again I just my bigger my the biggest question really was the um coordination between the landscape plan and this plan it looks like the Run of tree plantings they have are halfway up the base uh greed so just seeing an overlay of

that of how the plantings incorporate into the Basin itself would be great those River BRS are like wetness I know about all the others I don't know about the others and they seem to be like down in down so I guess we just see how they incorporate together that yeah you can see you can see they're ways away from the from the uh the light B so I'm assuming they're down but I mean if they're tolerant if the plants are tolerant of it it'd be great to have something in there rather than just like an empty hole but yeah yeah um I said while we're just looking at the sine itself one comment it looks like the uh ramped corner it's not on this on see 101 um the ramp oh were you finish your comments I'm sorry that's fine okay yeah it looks like it kind of drops people off at the inter intersecting with the corner of a a stall top left corner of the yeah right there so there's kind of a conflict there if you're coming out and someone's parked there so but I I think Alicia's comment about you know if they recalculate the required spaces based on inhabitable space I think they're going to find their counts go down the minimum so maybe

uh based on my numbers youing area and in the front corner there's also private office private office we use all that square footage it brings the actual public space down to about 917 yeah so might be able to lose one if you need to fix the and then yeah I I I I'm pretty sure we um had asked for bik here so I'll tell you another mov ask to I figured for clarity yeah yeah sure as much get but this looks this looks much more um act like accessible and inviting for cyclists and you know parents to the stroller or whatnot so I think that's really nice that's been red So within the I guess stay in the Landscaping real a little bit I know noticed your detail was for vinyl fencing along it looks like the side of the parking lot and then vinyl fencing around the dumpster you have an alternative option other than I mean typically once again we've seen a number of different things that maybe complemented the building around a dumpster

just don't know how long a final depending what Final Fence how long that'll last that that's I feel like we did talk about this before we did on the building um the new part of oh about fencing materials yeah but you're right it was for that again just that detail I mean solid vinyl section a section of vinyl fence under a dumpster condition I don't know how long well that look after a year so Jim I recall you wondering if it could be a more durable material yeah leaving it a little open to the applicant to consider that's a question then again the board in the past has had some uh more formal I don't know if anybody has a formal opinion it was maybe something that complemented the building construction I'm not necessarily suggesting bricks but something that that's th would would you would you anticipate that would be carried over for the fence talking consistent consistent correct albe it I will say on the dumpster enclosure I could see something separate and if the landscape architect came up with something that complemented the plantings I could see something that could be

different it's intentional right so if I'm considering you correctly or understanding it correctly it would be acceptable to have a a durable fing material to contain any any debris that may get Ms within that enclosure area and then a vegetative screening around the F or Aesthetics something more aesthetically pleasing that would compl that barrier on the from the parking to from the residential okay as as a potential solution yeah yes um would snow removal be pushed off of the end of that parking lot ideally or would it be pulled back you know sometimes snow removal they'll just plow it straight off the end if they can right now there's the fence and the lens keeping at the end yeah have back yeah so we talked about parking we talked about the do coordination process um lighting plan so the current

lighting plan has the picture model number and everything called out it dark it's serious what detailing that that's been doing it for 40 years and you never had any he said I there actual and I missed the statement where it was dark sky compant yeah that wasn't standing out to me so I apologize for being obuse is the the model number of the exact light included in your photometric plan yes I saw it is it I mean in my mind that's sufficient I think that's fine this just supplements it right can see it it does show an adjustable light have I take it that the scale that you provided is based on a 90 Dee angle for that light I would assume so that's what it looked like to me it was because the area the area light on the right is the wall mounted right and

the pole mounted is the one on the left so they both be basic straight downward so those would be dark sky compliant you wouldn't need a shield so it's not first the Ida yeah Ida comp I see the one on the right at worked too much I do know that that one was too so there was uh some brief discussion about the parking calculation i' recommend that coordinate further with the building tomart to get that yeah yeah to make sure that it doesn't present us with information that technically would require variance yeah um the other item going down that billing department coordination uh there was a little bit of presentation in regards to the property to the north you have a little more yeah mention yeah so the my client was contacted RS they have done a subdivision plan they've done a Seeker like everybody else they went South for Christmas holiday waiting on signature which we should have this week application as a separate project for that I have a I have a Subdivision map it's not St it preliminary I have that is that is

that we don't have a copy of it yet this property over to this corner that's what my drawing shows but I shouldn't say we have a label this proposed so it would be the property line when subdivision I guess our question this is does the subdivision really actually impact the approval of site plan because somebody built over your property line property line was there before the house was so is is this is this B1 or B2 B2 so that's not that's not allowed juice in a B2 the residence right no it's I have not looked into this but my guess it would probably be legal nonconforming this is B2 so what's that um well yes it it could residential uses could be allowed by special permanent nb2 um but my guess is this structure may be legal nonconforming pre-existing so so special you use uses required special use permit residential uses in B1 districts so B2 isn't then you're

correct okay so the only question I get into is you know I'm not sure how to I'm not sure the thought process in terms of addressing that I mean ultimately we're in the process of doing yet I just don't know if that needs to hold site it just depends on how long now we don't want to hold up the site line approval say for next month because the subdivision might take two months you know what I'm saying and does the subdivision actually have any authority over approving the site application guess that's what we're what we're asking I think that's a a question for Council a little bit in terms of I mean doesn't this get into the same subdivision questions that we got into a couple months ago about the expansion of the non-conforming use with a subdivision we expanding the use technically for the apartment building that review yeah I think that was a little bit different because they didn't have enough room on site for the proposed and required parking um so they needed to acquire additional property to complete that provision and this this is the opposite um yeah but if I mean it would be prudent to ensure that the proposed development doesn't adversely affect the existing development neighboring development um and it may just come down to a private property

matter um I'll leave it to the board for further discussion that whole stretch of road there is there's a number of other residences in that B2 Zone that's not the only house that's there if that stretches all the way up to the propane business I think the biggest thing was within our planning advise not to make sure and got our eyes and cross our tees there's you know we put a site plan approval out there and the African steel won't go forward until subdivision has to come back in front of us eventually right I'm assuming it would be good today it would be good to know that you know whether you would accept it without the same uh the approval the applicant the applicant would certainly approve it without it they're just doing this basically yeah to make for the city's benefit and for the land owner's benefit yeah so which I think makes sense right I mean it makes sense to do it it just doesn't make sense to hold up a site plan approval for this to occur that's all it just leaves a lot of stuff that potentially needs to be approved down the road to keep it moving you might have a site plan approval sitting there and then people on a subdivision and they have to go back in front board and then if for some reason there was a determination that a variance was needed need a variance before it can come back here again and then you've got a cing approval sitting there it's sitting there but why couldn't take seed Building without even giving that person the property could they just ignore it

and let it go well that's where you get into the Private Matter a little bit right that's the way I look at it I think it's more of a A Private Matter than site plan but I guess in September you guys talked about wanting it subdivided so that's why this process started I think I think we ought to check with legal counsel a little bit about that again it is it is a priv matter until the Private Matter came resolve it and needs the subdivision now it's back into our court and now we've considered a site plan and then yes the subdivision by right but then we're we're being pushed quite frankly this you know I mean our self-division process and isn't the one meeting process it's like a multie process so now it further exacerbates well ask I guess that's where we look at it as just okay now if we have to wait for site plan approval for three meetings for a subdivision approval where are we okay [Music] Che that knowing that they're is a likely subdivision in this regard associated with the S plan I would be happy too any you said the subdivision is being held up by one signature right now yeah they're supposed to have it this week the person was out of town last week got it okay so that's why they're not proceeding in parallel with this review well and the other thing I'd recommend too is confirming with the building department that there is no zoning question or yeah about the subdivision in

advance subdivision so okay yep all good thank you and the the one last item I would also uh point out we did have I see that there's like a sign package you know looks like for general information for us I'd also recommend including that with the building cment I mean ultimately they're going to be the ones issuing the building permit right you know I noticed like one section I don't know why you know it says the sign bottom so be 7 feet above finished grade that one that sign right there though that's your buing mounted sign no no no I'm was looking at this side well and I don't and once again I don't know what the interpretation of that that is one of the section items but that's usually a building permit y so I did have a conversation with the building office regarding that today good and um essentially through the site plan process the planning board can't approve the all of the sign details it goes to the building perm process that's right so um perhaps with um as a condition of approval or an emphasis of approval if the planning board for this in future proposed signs emphasizes that uh an approval by the site plan doesn't approve all all details that we require for building

inspector um and and permit review um that could Safeguard planning board um and then allow the other details to move forward um but the the building inspector seem to be okay with that height my experience on signs is not provided to the planning board Just for information purposes but like you said it's the it's in the there's typically a sign permit that's issued and you go through the process of a lot of places it's a whole separate building of the sign okay I was going to say then because it was in the packet I don't want any confusion on no we don't yes so maybe if we include some clarifying language that we're not approving all of the sign details can we have the place is that large enough for you or because I could maybe even go bar no right um I thought in our last meeting we had a conversation about an emergency exit door in the Well from this picture the top right is that an emergency exit May liit that door okay and this okay this service so that your trucks are coming in this side yes and accessing access I guess the same question will

apply to that door when I look had the lighting plan there's minimal Lighting in that area is that adequate to provide save continuous erress to a public way this yes okay that's like I said that's typically a access for not for the public it's for a Tru dri well it's for yeah but it's also for any occupant in the building to have an emergency eress and still required to convey people like sidewalk show to open public so are you suggesting if that other door was to remain there would be a sidewalk yes yeah but they eliminated I think is that that's something you'll you'll update all so even though that one drive kind of still shows it the floor plan doesn't change they just move where the door I I was going to say all actually all of your all of the building plans show that door so they can update that if that's what happens great I'll try yeah that's a whole different actually the land architect underlay still shows it over there have to that just the want them to have missed other stuff you know changes one tells me doesn't tell his AR does teller

[Music] turning we talked about that that all was turning back on and then as far as delivery times after Star hours so you want me to put a note on there that all iies we made outside of retail hours um if that is the intent um the earlier comment was um when the maneuverability was depicted it appeared that the truck um would have to back up across or block some parking stalls and um so it was an obvious concern that if deliveries were made store hours then that would impact the the access the customer access and parking and potentially ADR safety um so if that's the intent staff would recommend that um and but it would ultimately be up to the board uh okay that's all on list if there anything else popped up for me but I think the lighting and uh the parking were the good things that I had yeah the Landscaping there also note that is recommended that the

pled own okay anybody else have any other questions comments with the with the DT changing the the access is there adequate um maneuvering room for a truck if they were going south on group N to to get in this we like I said put theity back on the drawings know I'm talking about the public way onto the property it looks like that creates a pretty significant angle truck yeah I know it's kind of hard to see you're this is more like a w coming out this way okay that wasn't the do well this is it's just hard to see

one3 see 103 a little bit yeah any other board questions or comments if not do we need a motion for establish not really um it I mean I would just need a kind of a sentiment from the board um to let me know if you felt that this be ready enough to hold a public hearing next month um staff typically will advertise automatically um that that stage of reviewbody feel that wouldn't be ready for holding here next month sounds like then we'll plan on it then plan on that and then obviously we will have also standard draft flip resolutions for Seeker potential conditional approval work towards it and I think will work towards it as well okay well thank you thank you very much you too safe travel so item number two on uh the agenda is copies of bylaws acknowledgement

forms which are provided in the packs yes so the byla theop of the by is your copy ex and our my request um is that the acknowledgement forms um get filled out tonight and give them back Tom before you leave see if I've got that crch bar yes please read them all first and then we also have the uh finished uh 2025 calendar our next meeting is March 24th okay it does sound like on March 24th we may have a couple of potential conflicts to coordinate in terms of schedules okay I wasn't aware of that no they're brand new wasn't at the agenda here so just to make staff aware we coordinate that see how that turns out that would be

appreciated probably the sooner the better so we can get an idea um if you're not um we may have site application that's the one I sent out that they were just basically okay yeah so that'll probably be a few months okay and [Music] then one other update is we have a full zoning update the public is welcome to sign on and listen in to that um there's a virtual link provided on the city's um website under the upcoming meetings um and then um other full pack members we look forward to seeing um we're going to be hopefully reviewing subdivision the subdivision regulations I believe recapping on um the design guidelines proposed sign requirement updates and potentially Landscaping but probably won't get to that tomorrow so we're getting a lot closer to having a a fully completed draft it's narrowing in but we still have some new to tie up so it's been a process those are 5 5

p.m can you make it okay you that's I think that's all I have for now okay um you have we do have a few moments and did you want to say anything public comment no okay um that said any anything more the board wanted to discuss or no okay motion to adjourn I'll make the okay I'll second it all in favor hi hi thank you everyone thank you than thank you awesome thank you