May 5, 2021 Adopted Planning Board Minutes

- Inregard to lighting and the proposed lighting, the foot-candle limit that has been established by the ordinance. On the side of the building, which is adjacent to residential, you can see that the .5 exceed that the little bit over one. So the plan is to put shields on the wall mounted light fixtures. On North side. Side with a townhouse development and where we experience is in the parking area, so we would like to request this week as they are because it will also help with enjoying properties to provide safety in that part in there with a shield on light as well for the limit for light. -In regards to the landscape plan, there are foundation plantings along the side of the building North side of the building. As I stated before, this entire property is too rounded by 6, with the vinyl fence so they will be resizing the building. The lighting won’t be visible from any of the neighbors? Because this is an affordable housing project, and trying to limit the amount of maintenance and cost which is why there is a fence up on one of the recommendations within the add trees and it in the North West corner in the Southwest corner. There is room to see previous that if those two trees are added that would be the limit of leadership. Any species put in there will be using native and or well adapted species through the variances requesting related to testimony, the maximum building coverage allowed is 40% and applicant is proposing 45.3% and the maximurn block coverage for 55% maximum was allowed where this application is at 57.9 for the building problems with that applicant is required to have 17 units in this building. Rather than having side yard guarantee, it may be better deployed with the side yard setback so that isn’t an impact. But the minimum size of the building, the minimum size of unit for 17 units requires to have a building this size and causing the building. It’s really not a significant change only 5% over and then the rock property of only 2.9% over. It's more of a safety activities with the problem than anything else with the rear set back that the minimum under the ordinance being 30 feet. BOARD QUESTIONS -Mr. Jerry Guarino asked about the waste removal from this property, but will this be a private contractor or municipal waste? Mr. Erickson deferted to the architect. -Vice Chairman, Wilkes asked about the ability to walk through the

waste removal from this property, but will this be a private contractor or municipal waste? Mr. Erickson deferted to the architect. -Vice Chairman, Wilkes asked about the ability to walk through the building and other entrance. Mr. Erickson answered that he’s very familiar with the outside areas of the building. The architect should be able to answer that question for you about the inside of building. All those entrances will reqtiire keep the cost to get into the building then deferred to the architect. -Councilwoman McCartney asked about the handicapped parking spaces. She then opined to say that she thinks before approaching the Council about designating a new space, can we find out it theories already a space on Tompkins St that is designated parking will be tight. Well, they're saying that they have enough parking. Off site for this site, the only thing we need is for handicap. So if there's two handicapped people in the building, they'll have to apply for two on street handicap spaces, and my question was, is there one already there? Mr. Erickson said that he doesn’t know. Again, that would be for anybody on Tompkins and doesn’t know whether the planner who did this survey will know the answer to that or not either. Councilwoman also asked