November 6, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Objective 13: improve and maintain existing residential neighborhoods. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Guarino asked if there is anything from this project that could be seen as a negative that you have not been able to mitigate adequately. Ms. Clark answered that in an ideal version of the world, we might have a slightly different amount of breathing room of setback of lower residential behind us and that is driven from a design perspective to try to get close to our parking ratio. To accommodate the most reasonable parking configuration on the site would necessitate a bigger building footprint. Mayor McCartney asked if it is possible to swap the entrance and exits of the building itself where people would just be able to exit on the left instead of the right and have to go up and around the street. Mr. Wine said there is a safety concern about switching the entrance and exits. You wouldn’t want cars slowing down to turn into a 90 degree turn into a parking garage on Main Street. Given there is a property next to the site, they can’t exit onto their property. Mr. Rutherford asked how would the 10 parking spaces across the street impact the existing permit parking in that lot. Mr. Wine answered that they have confirmed the 10 spaces they would be looking for would have no conflict with any other arrangement the church may have on their site. Mr. Rutherford asked are we aware of the lighting for the people that may be crossing the street to the church. Ms. Clark answered that directly across the property there is a series of billboards and there are streetlights in front of those billboards. A couple of feet south of the intersection, there is another streetlight if you were to walk across Park Drive North and then cross directly from there. Ms. Clark states there is substantial lighting in the evening for pedestrians. Mr. Rutherford asked have you considered how police officers in a foot chase or any investigations around the rear of the building or particularly on the south eastern corner have visibility or lighting challenges and also make access to the rear of the building for firefighters a little more challenging. Ms. Clark said there is substantial ability for emergency services to access all sides of the property. Mr. Alper asked on the Edison and Central Valley redevelopment projects, the properties adjoining them, were there any existing single-family

r emergency services to access all sides of the property. Mr. Alper asked on the Edison and Central Valley redevelopment projects, the properties adjoining them, were there any existing single-family homes. Ms. Clark said she can’t definitely say there are single family in that zone. Mr. Alper stated that, on the front side yard on Park Drive North, you said there was a 5- foot setback but there is a planning review memo that said it was a 25-foot setback. Ms. Clark said that the 10-foot setback is for the side yard, which is the southern side of the property that would be happening along main street. The front side yard is what fronts onto Park Drive North and that is the 25-fot setback requirement. Mr. Alper asked what is the percentage of improvement of implementing a green roof. Ms. Clark said it’s 65% improvement of storm water managing on a site Mr. Alper asked from a permeable surface coverage perspective does that allow you to change the percentage that is covered. Ms. Clark said no due to the code not contemplating green infrastructure meeting the coverage requirement so it doesn’t change what we are required to do. Mr. Alper asked is the use of the parking either at the church or municipal lot mandatory for people that have a vehicle that don’t have a space for in the building. Mr. Wine said in the lease for the proposed tenants, it would allow every unit one parking space and if they have a second vehicle, they are required to let management know and they would coordinate another space either at the municipal lot or across the street at the church.