April 1, 2015

were placed parallel for ample ability to make the right turn (to rear) of property; the spaces were 23 ft. long, they met RSIS (Residential Site Improvement Standards). Mr. Staigar acknowledged Mr. Russo’s parking plan for eight spaces was good, but opined there was better circulation with seven spaces; the mixed-use property allowed for shared parking; it was his opinion there would be ample parking; the proposal was much better than the current conditions. Mr. Staigar said that unless a private trash hauler had a pickup truck, curbside collection was required because a large garbage truck would not fit on site. Large trucks would be not be able to circulate around the building. Mr. Lester asked for clarification regarding the size of delivery trucks; Mr. Staigar said delivery vehicles would not be much larger than a passenger car; the retail stores were small; a UPS truck could park on street on Shepard Terrace for deliveries. Vice Chairman Weston said the Board had previously indicated they would like to see a reduction in asphalt and maximized area landscaping. He asked if the Applicant would support the idea of reducing the number of parking spaces to two in the rear, and increase the landscaping. Would the site be able to accommodate a total of six parking spaces. Mr. Staigar said it would be possible; there was sufficient on street parking and nearby lots for resident parking. Mr. Wilkes asked for clarification regarding the angled parking plan for eight spaces; he voiced concern regarding access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Staigar said the plan for eight spaces had been suggested by Mr. Russo (Tech Review meeting 2/11/15); the Applicant had opted for the plan with seven spaces; there was better circulation. Mr. Gurland asked if the ordinance required designated parking spaces for residents; and for an explanation of the shared parking should the retail businesses have late hours. He opined there were too many parking spaces on site; he was concerned the dimensions of the spaces were quite narrow; there was the potential for accidents. He recommended eliminating three parking spaces. Mr. Staigar said designated spaces were not required for residents; he opined the retailers would not be open late at night; the Applicant would agree to eliminate three spaces if conditioned by the Board. Chairman Heller asked if there were a designated handicap

ts; he opined the retailers would not be open late at night; the Applicant would agree to eliminate three spaces if conditioned by the Board. Chairman Heller asked if there were a designated handicap space, where would it be located and how would it affect the continuation of curbing and landscaping from Main Street. Mr. Staigar identified the space closest to Main Street; 16 ft. would be required edge-to-edge. Mr. Eben said he concurred with eliminating three parking spaces as recommended by Mr. Gurland. He suggested the Applicant secure additional parking spaces from the parking lot across the street (Main Street), or utilize on-street parking. Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the length of the parallel parking spaces; Mr. Staigar said the aggregate length of each space was 23 ft. — an 18 ft. car space and 5 ft. striped area for maneuverability. When asked to clarify his testimony regarding the design of the parking stalls along the southern side of the property, Mr. Staigar told Mr. Russo the stalls were angled 45 degrees, “approximately”; however, a full-sized vehicle template confirmed maneuverability. Mr. Russo responded the (proposed) stalls were not ordinance compliant; Chairman Heller asked for clarification regarding the back-up requirements; Mr. Russo said 45-degree angles would require 13 ft. back up space. Mr.