HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 10/08/2014 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7
October 8,2014
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Stuart W. Ivimey, Chairman
Clark H. Brewer,Vice Chairman
Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk
Michael Dickey
David Drinan
Brian Frazier,Associate Member
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Planning Board Administrator
Meeting called to order at: 7:05 P.M.
7:05 P.M. 140 BORDER STREET — FORM A APPLICATION CONT'D — APPL./OWNER:
KUPPERSTEIN
In attendance to represent this agenda item: John Allen,Bank of America
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office):
• Form A Application and Planning Board Statement of Litigation Policy, date stamped: 09/19/14
• Plan of Land prepared by Merrimack Engineering Services, dated 08/29/14
This Form A Plan is not a subdivision as it has not created any new buildable lots. Reason for plan is to create a
description for amendment to the mortgage on the property.
MOTION: By Member Drinan to endorse the Form A plan as presented with the stipulation that "Not a
Buildable Lot" is on the plan.
SECOND: Member Dickey
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Ivimey had not yet arrived at meeting)
Board endorsed plan.
7:10 P.M. SCOTT MICCILE, TOLL BROS. - BOND REDUCTION
In attendance to represent this agenda item: David Buckley, Toll Bros.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office):
• 09/30/14 Scott Miccile letter requesting bond reduction
• 10/07/14 Civil Designs memo re: Bond reduction figures for Phases 1, 1B and 2
MOTION: By Member Samuelson to reduce bonds as recommended in Modzelewski's 10/07/14 memo
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Ivimey had not yet arrived at meeting)
Administrator to send letter of reduction to Scott Miccile,Town Clerk and Town Collector
7:20 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION — S.BJORKLUND — BEECHWOOD COMMON DRIVEWAY
In attendance to represent this agenda item: Steve Bjorklund
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office
• Form A file#540
Common Driveway in existence since late 70's and constructed to 1979 standards but might need to be
upgraded to current standards. Accesses at 376 Beechwood and services 6 houses. Bjorklund purchased
10 acres at the end of the common drive and purchased rights to access from Rob Dennis. A water line is
now being put in. Bjorklund indicated that there can be up to 8 homes on a common drive (6,7 and 8
homes require the same road width). He is willing to widen the drive now while water line is going in, to
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 7
October 8,2014
make it safer—has not measured it yet but it is either 12 or 15 ft. wide. There is a fire turn around which
he will also improve if necessary. Common area of the drive is about 750 ft. long. Biggest concern is the
entrance at Beechwood which is narrowest point - he spoke to Capt. Trask who indicated ladder truck
will not make it up the initial incline —but overall the PFD is reasonably happy with the road. Bjorklund
will come back to Board with modification to existing driveway as opposed to a whole new filing.
7:25 P.M. ADMINISTRATION (Member Ivimey arrived at meeting).
- VOTE TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 24,2014 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the September 24,2014 minutes
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 5, 2014
MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the payroll for period ending October 5,2014
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES:
-CDI INV.#352 MANOR WAY CIRCLE $2,867.50
-CDI INV.#353 MANOR WAY CIRCLE $310
-CDI INV.#354 RED LION INN $1,860
-CDI INV.#355 100 POND ST.MODIFICATION $310
-CDI INV.#356 ESTATES AT COHASSET $3,680
-CDI INV.#357 8 JAMES LANE $1,085
MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey signature on above cited invoices
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:30 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE, VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: JAMES LANE PARTNERS
In attendance to represent application: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Applicant Michael Roberts; Project
Consultant Paul Sullivan; Architect Chris DeOrsay; Scott Henderson, McKenzie Engineering.
In attendance to represent Planning Board: Town Counsel Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs,Inc.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office
• Landscape Plan 1 of 1,prepared by Love Albrecht Howard, revision date: 09/24/14
• Plans C-1, C-2, CD-1, CD-2, CD-3 prepared by McKenzie Engineering, revision date; 09/24/14
• Drainage Calculations,prepared by McKenzie Engineering Group, revision date: 09/24/14
• Vehicle Maneuvering plans 1-23,prepared by McKenzie Engineering Group, revision date 09/24/14
• Architectural Plans 1-10, prepared by Campbel Smith, revision date: 09/24/14
• Michael Roberts narrative, dataed 09/23/14
• Exhibit B—"rules&Regulations of the Homes of Choasset Village Condominium, date stamped: 09/25/14
• Zoning Opinion prepared by Charles Humphreys, dated 09/23/14
• CDI preliminary response and comments to 09/24/14 submission, email dated: 10/08/14
• CDI final response and comments to 09/24/14 submission, dated: 10/08/14
• McKenzie Engineering Group response to CDI comments, dated: 10/08/14
• Michael Roberts response to CDI comments, dated: 10/08/14
• Traffic Study summary chart, date stamped: 10/09/14
Henderson: reviewed engineering changes outlined in McKenzie Engineering memos:
• LF bldg. further back from road(17.1 ft. from frontage line rather than 15 1/2 ft. previous)
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 7
October 8,2014
• Revised entrance to commercial unit to be at ADA compliant ground level—slab elevation is higher
• RF and RR bldgs. combined into one single bldg.—rear setback is further from lot line
• Upgraded drainage pipes to Pleasant St. from 15"to 18"to mitigate increase in flow
• Added dimensions for bldgs. on the layout plan
• Revised maneuvering figures with both a 15'9"four door sedan vehicle and a 19' full sized pickup truck exiting
all spaces on site which shows no difficulty in maneuvering out of those spaces.
• Driveway width is 22 ft.—guidelines recommend 18 ft. for a not heavily traveled site with 2-way traffic
• Applicant is willing to upgrade upper James Lane to 18 ft. (currently 12-14 ft. of pavement width) with sidewalk
and curb and removal of trees on abutting property that obstruct sight lines and are in the right-of-way
• Reviewed Civil Designs 10/08/14 comment letter and their responses
o James Lane Private right of way will be discontinued(it is a fee simple right of way)
o A/C units—open to relocating them as suggested and will be shown on plan
o RR bldg.parking is stacked—2 exterior spaces will be assigned to applicable unit they are parked in front of.
o James Brook drainage—agreement to work in abutting property is pending—there is an alternate connection
if needed
o Additional drainage information submitted late 10/08/14 (existing condition is greater than proposed)
o Trees on landscape plan shown on abutting property will be removed from plan
o Traffic counts for site have been provided but no analysis — letter sent today, 10/08/14 included a traffic
generation analysis—using Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual and the use code
that applies to this development, average trip generation for site (usual is 5.6 trips/unit per day) — with 7
units on this site, there are 3.08 vehicle trips caused by this development in morning for peak traffic and
3.64 trips in the afternoon—considered diminimous by standard traffic analysis practice
o Proposed trees—too close to retaining wall will be either shifted away from the wall or removed
o Alternative to pavement near entrance to site provided by Civil Designs —applicant believes there is benefit
to this change and will implement in the plan
o Basement access is being removed on LF and LR
o Shared vehicle and pedestrian access on site — will provide alternate paver colors to indicate pedestrian
maneuvering on the site—sight lines and slow traffic do not pose danger to pedestrians
o Parking spaces adjacent to bldg. RF—applicant believes these are benefit to project and wants to keep them
o Catch basin to catch basin connection directed to treatment unit—more than adequate volume in basins
o Detail for fence will be provided
o Grate capacity calculations for 100 yr. storm—can provide detailed calculations
o Landscape plan will be revised to show all that has been discussed
o Silt beds will be supplemented with hay bales — ConComm will require construction phase best
management practices plan
o Emergency contact name and information to be provided in operations maintenance plan
o Conservation will most likely prohibit pesticides and operations plan will be revised as such
o Parking units—no response yet
o Notes on C 1 and C2 have not been changed(Modzelewski wants to be notified if they do change)
o At no point does retaining wall exceed 3 ft. in height
Humphreys:
• Have submitted proposed condo master deed and rules & regs. which includes a requirement that any vehicle
over 16 ft. in length cannot park on site overnight- must park in a municipal lot overnight
• Filing requires two waivers:
o LF front yard setback is 17.1 ft. (20 ft. is required)
o RF Unit 7 deck side yard setback is 6.8 ft. and Unit 5 deck side yard setback is 7.2 ft - 10 ft. required
Modzelewski: most of his comments are outlined in his memos
• Engineer referred to Modzeleski sketch of narrowing driveway to decrease pavement — that is for Board to
review — Ivimey, Brewer and Frazier thought the sketch is a better arrangement than that proposed by
applicant and,sets off the entrance more.
• Table of parking should be revised to take stacked parking into consideration — they have more than the
necessary parking requirement
• Dimension ofgarage interior should be added to plans
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 7
October 8,2014
• Stairs to attic level should be addressed by architect
• Civil Designs is comfortable with the drainage
Henderson: review of drainage
Existing:
• Water flows off the site in 3 directions —to MBTA property; 40% of site flows to wel lfields; offsite towards
abutting property towards James Lane and through various points,makes its way into the James Brook Culvert—
there is no closed system on James Lane at this point, so it just flows overland
Proposed: Trying to maintain flow to those 3 directions
• Catchment to MBTA property is minimal —just the rear of the site — it is only grass and non-impervious area
that is draining in that area
• Proposed pavement for development and 2 bldg. roofs flow into closed drainage that is located partially on-site
and partially in James Lane right-of-way—that water is treated before entering James Brook Culvert to remove
suspended solids — closed drainage runs down James Lane, flows to catch basins to closed system then to
manholes and catch basins then discharged to the culvert.
• Flow to well field—ground system that flows to well fields is either grass or roof runoff from RF and RR bldgs.
— water is collected via closed drainage system and discharged to flow towards well field. Discussions with
water dept. indicate they are not opposed to an increase as long as water is clean —there is a slight increase in
volume to the well field as result of the development but, if requested, it can be rerouted to the James Brook
Culvert — the two impervious parking spaces at entrance drain to the James Brook Culvert. Modzelewski
suggested ifpavers are just set in sand, there is potential that something could get into the ground—suggested
the team look at a detail of putting about an inch of asphalt or bituminous concrete down which makes it
waterproof, then put sand on top which the paver is set into which makes it pervious but still looks nice —
Henderson agrees that this is a good idea and they will do it that way.
D'Orsay: Architecturals changes—reviewed all plans
• Have made effort to make bldgs. fit Cohasset, have improved look of the location,have an appealing project.
• Combined RR and RF into one bldg. with a shared common wall— each condo about 1485 sq.ft. Staggered the
bldgs. and added new architectural designs to break up the massing of the bldgs.
• Bldg. LF has 2 non-residential units (ground and garden level) and 1 residential unit. Bldg. LR has 2
residential units.
• Garage dimensions will be provided—(approx. 12 x 22)
• Attic now has pull down stairs—stairs to attic are being taken out completely
Humphrey reviewing 09/23/14 narrative
• Clients have tried to respond to Board's concerns and modify plans to all of Board's comments
o Reduced units from 8 to 7
o Reduced number of buildings from 4 to 2
o Reduced Floor Area Ration (FAR) to .61 — bylaw allows 1.3 (bylaw makes compactness in a VBD
intentional)—this proposal is much more attractive than row house density of The Shipyard in Hingham
o Downsized units so they are all now less than 1,500 sq.ft.
o Added commercial component
o Provides double the required parking
o Widened James Lane access road to 20 ft.
o Restricted vehicles greater than 16 ft. length from onsite overnight parking
o Traffic study showed diminimous impact
o ADA access issues have been resolved
• Under bylaw,to grant a VBD special permit,board must find:
o Public benefits —they will reconstruct James Lane, add sidewalks, street lights, improve drainage system,
install new water mains including to neighbors, road widening, and, will create pedestrian traffic to the
Village and,will increase tax base to Town. Buildings are designed to meet stretch code. Better visibility.
• This project is the essence and spirit of the VBD bylaw—if this project cannot be permitted, there probably is
not a project that can be permitted in the VBD.
• Asks Board to rule favorably
Modzelewski: there are 2 issues that need to be discussed:
• How to calculate the 1500 sq.ft. gross floor area and FAR calculations
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 7
October 8,2014
• Site area
o Parking circulation—he believes—is adequate in terms of getting cars in and out
o Lack of separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic is not an optimum design even if traffic is
slow—the lack of separation appears to have been driven by the need for unit density—Board has to figure
this out. Submission of similar examples from other developments would be helpful.
Humphreys: this is much safer and much better than the municipal parking lot where there is no separation
between pedestrian and vehicular traffic
Brewer: does not think pedestrian-vehicular situation on-site is a problem.
Modzeleweski: he thinks of children in this scenario, where he does not think of children playing in the
municipal parking lot
Humphreys: reviewed his 09/24/14 zoning opinion letter
• Bylaw reads gross floor area so Board naturally uses gross floor area as defined in bylaw. But gross floor area
is really total floor area contained within exterior walls of a building including space for heating and utilities.
An apartment by nature does not have exterior walls — so that definition does not work because it does not
define what they are proposing (assuming for purposes of this discussion that apartments and condos are the
same thing). Residential Gross Floor area (RGFA) is a free standing thought in bylaw— it is very appropriate,
but does not connect to this. Cited minutes of former 8 James Lane filing which allowed former applicants to
come back before Board for permits because of smaller RGFA—they reduced size of units and used RGFA.
FAR is the controlling term here—the ZBL states that FAR is the ratio of the sum of the gross floor area of the
bldg. to the total area provided the calculation shall exclude basements, attics, cellars and areas with ceiling
heights of less than 7 ft. Most essential concept of the VBD bylaw was FAR and when writing the bylaw, the
FAR was reduced from 1.5 to 1.3 and excluded basements and attics—non habitable space (minutes provided).
Board voted 5-0 to have this only apply to residences in the VBD which gives the Board the ability to really
talk about habitable spaces. The whole concept of 700 to 1500 sq.ft. came out of the LIP for comprehensive
permits under the States 40B statute and,those measurements were for habitable space. For this bylaw to make
any sense it has to be looked at in terms of habitable floor area—to do otherwise,you would end up with 300 or
400 sq.ft. apts. Asks Board to look at this proposal in that way and not include garages etc. in the calculation.
OPEN TO PUBLIC:
John Denehy, Attorney for abutter Cochran LLC
• Asks that trees they cite as located in town right of way be relocated,not cut down
• Blasting—curious about length and time hammering will go on. A: a month or longer
Joseph Rosano, 2 Pleasant St. (Cochrane LLC:
• Should allow blasting—its quick, easy and better for everyone including patrons of his tenant's restaurant
next door.
o Ivimey: Water Dept. does not want blasting because of the wellfields
o Giesteby(Water Commissioner): have not received an engineering report about blasting
o Henderson: after meeting with hydrogeologist who has knowledge about this wellfield, the applicant
decided that blasting was not the way to go — rather than have a long engineering study done, the
applicant decided to go with hammering.
o Roberts: all evidence is that this is done all the time and that it is unlikely it would affect the wellfield
but no one other than God can say what will happen and they could not get an answer that was satisfactory
so they decided to hammer. While blasting makes the most sense, if everyone is willing to put the
neighbors through hammering,they are willing to do it.
Capt. Trask: asked what is being done to improve the water main coming into this area?
o Henderson: buildings will be sprinklered now that they are attached. They are installing an 8 inch water
main from Pleasant St. to the curve of James Lane with hydrant. Water pressure of flow studies show
more than adequate flow and flow rate for fire suppression from that hydrant.
o Capt. Trask: flow studies look appropriate—he takes what engineer says at face value—sounds adequate.
Rolf Gjesteby,Water Commissioner:
o Water Dept has issue with the way they have configured the water pipes — they need the pipes looped
through to the well field along James lane to Pleasant St. so it is a through system, not a deadend, so there
is not stagnant water. (Trask added that a connected loop is the best practice — stagnant water in
deadends creates problems. Town is full of deadends and it is only pure luck that they have not had a
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 7
October 8,2014
major issue caused by the stagnant water in deadend areas—this is opportunity to make sure another one is
not created. Also provides additional water capacity for fire dept.).
o Drainage into well fields from the RF parking spots — where does the plowed snow go? When snow
melts,the melt, oil, salt will flow into the well fields.
Modzelewski: snow can be piled to east and can be moved to other spots. On plan C-1, there is an area
next to MBTA tracks identified as area for snow piling —which would not flow to the well fields. Snow
from those two parking spots can be moved,but it is probably unrealistic to think someone will do it.
Henderson: snow would have to be trucked off site. Could also have more significant, defined grading
to better direct snow melt flow away from well fields and towards the closed drainage system and,
retaining wall can be extended to prevent snow from being piled— control and snow removal can be
added to homeowners'association.
George McCleave, 9 James Lane:
• Will there be limitations on what can go into commercial Units? Ivimey: any permitted use. Stevens: intent
is that it would be restricted to professional office use enforced through the Homeowners' Association.
• Will units be required to be owner occupied? Roberts: there will not be restrictions on that.
Humphrey regarding looping—applicant is increasing size of pipe, increasing the number of users both of which
will improve water quality. Nothing in bylaw requires them to pay for improving a municipal system. They
absolutely have to have an adequate system for their particular project, but, this request by the water dept. is trying
to make the Planning Board do something that the Water Dept. cannot do themselves. Additional cost to loop is
$20-25,000 without ledge costs and this street sis located on ledge.
Sullivan: believes the reason the main was never brought down there was because of the ledge and does not think
hammering for a long time right next to the well fields to put in the main is a good idea.
Capt. Trask: believes there is an 8" main running from Cushing Rd. as far as the entry way to the wellfield —that
entire meadow is a mud field and does not think there is ledge until the corner—coming in from Pleasant St., they
are probably going to be in the same mud field for the first 100 - 150 ft. until they get to where the ledge rises on
their corner. They are going to be in their ledge anyway. Sullivan responded that it will be a significant increase.
Modzelewski: is not sure if a one inch is enough to solve the stagnation issue—water is going to flow through there
—it will take the easiest path.
Dickey: Is still troubled by language in bylaw. He has been convinced that bylaw is probably wrong,but it is what
it is and not sure bylaw gives wiggle room. Even if bylaw is wrong, he does not think the word"shall" can be
ignored. Perhaps bylaw should be amended at future town meeting to make it more practical and to make it work.
Wahlstein: Using bylaw's definition of gross floor area there is no way a measurement can be taken - calculation
does not work—gross floor area talks about ext.walls of buildings—these units are not make up of 4 ext. walls.
Roberts: from a commercial standpoint, gross floor area is specifically to measure amount of square footage in a
building — in this case, we are talking about gross floor area of an apartment — apartments have interior walls
therefore what was really meant is — the 1500 referred to gross floor area of an apartment — it is referencing a
description which is gross floor area and it only makes sense if you read it that way — we are focusing on a very
specific thing that makes no sense when what does makes sense is what is right in front of us —the 700 and the
1500 ft. measurements come from the LIP regulations (which measures the gross floor area of an apartment at
either 700 or 1500) —you do not have to ignore or violate the bylaw,you have to do what town meeting told you to
do -they took the definition out of the LIP bylaw—the definitions were put in there so you could measure the size
of an apartment and meet the LIP regulations. Gross Floor area makes no sense when applied to apartments so it
should not be used there is no way anything can be built and if nothing can be built using this bylaw, the
applicants should not have been coming to all these hearings.
Dickey: Town meeting told us what to do with the word"shall"-there is no discretion on this point.
Hucksam: in his opinion, there is no leeway in the bylaw to give a waiver from this requirement — he does not
think there is any lack of clarity in this provision—it is very clear and it uses a defined term"total gross floor area"
and, the FAR provision specifically says "that for the purposes of calculating Floor Area Ratio ..." it limits itself.
There is a general principal that you only look at this kind of legislative intent if there is a lack of clarity or
ambiguity and, this provision is very clear in his opinion.
Humphreys: at the bylaw hearings, the Board made sure this applied to the VBD only because the Chair of the
ZBA was concerned that this applied to all districts. How do you get around the fact that in original bylaw,
concept of gross floor area is exterior measurement of a building and related totally to parking regulations of the
town? Under the use he Board is applying,the definition cannot be applied to the four corners of an apartment.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 7
October 8,2014
Brewer: agrees there is a mistake in the bylaw—the term"gross" in Section 1, subsection b should be replaced by
"net" — it was never the intent to include a parking spot in the area calculation of the 700-1500. He would be
inclined to put this `Net-Gross" area in the same category as setback waives. He does not think the parking spot or
the oversized utility area constitutes habitable space.
Hucksam: the authority to grant waivers on setbacks is clearly stated in the VBD bylaw and that clearly stated
authority is needed to grant waivers but there is no authority to do so in regards to this.
Roberts: could classify attics, basements and garages as common space and have owners rent those spaces. Condo
association would have authority over who gets what — that would be outside the Board's authority. Question is
whether Board wants to approve this project or not -if they do,there are many ways this project can be approved.
Brewer: Sounds convoluted, but there are common areas in apartments buildings and it would not be far fetched to
classify these as common areas but we have a problem with"gross"or"net" in the bylaw.
Roberts: If you reject, you have to be able to say the square footages of what was presented—you can't do it in
applying gross floor area because gross floor area requires the use of external walls so you can't reject this project
and legally win—there is no basis for saying this project is over or under.
Humphreys: wants to avoid litigation. Should add amendment to master deed removing these areas from units.
Hucksam: would like to review Humphreys' opinion letter- he will study for the continued hearing.
Frazier:
• square footage is a sticky point for him — he thinks garages are part of the units — basically they are "car
closets"within the unit and are increasing the massing of the building and causing the problems with parking.
These units exceed the 1500 sq.ft. In his mind,the gross square footage includes the garages.
• What is the reason for encroaching on the setbacks — why can't the buildings be designed to conform to the
setbacks. What is the hardship for the waivers? He does not see a good reason.
• Pedestrian circulation - walkways in front of garages — is that a good idea? The driveway becomes a fancy
alleyway—that is the view this provides to the people living on James Lane! Why is it not possible to have
sidewalks here .... Because the building are too big! Whenever possible, there should be sidewalks —it is not
possible here because the buildings are too big.
• Site is too tight. Project is pushing the boundaries—number of units and square footage are pushing the bounds.
• Conceptually, landscape plan is fancy but not practical - the trees are not going to fit on this site and will never
be planted—there are trees on walls, and off the site—they will never be planted..
Brewer: would like to see a painted crosswalk across Pleasant St.
Drinan: ZBL issue troubles him given history of decisions that have been made and interpretations that have been
used particularly when it is a measure that cannot be applied to a project like this. He thinks Humphreys presented
a good picture of the historical confusion over this. Project is close to getting to approval in his mind. He is not
particularly troubled by the garages and the nature of the parking — it requires caution on the part of all the
inhabitants. It has been tweaked and retweaked—we are wasting a lot of people's time if the Board cannot decide
if they are on board with it or not and, if not,why? Have to resolve what the Board is empowered to do.
Samuelson: Better than it was 6 months ago—applicant has done a lot of work to address the Board's issues. Issue
for him is still square footage—not sure how to get around that. Board has to come to some agreement on that
Dickey: Tightness and pedestrian/vehicle blend is not as troubling to him as it is to Frazier. Total gross floor area
just does not give Board any discretion, but if a work around can be figured out the project is not perfect but it is
something that is good enough
MOTION: By Member Samuelson to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2014 at 7:30 PM with all
new documents submitted by October 15,2014
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 10:00 P.M.
SECOND: Member Dickey
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2014 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON, CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 22,2014