12/17/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Conway voiced that the Architectural Review Board should make a recommendation if a fence should be used and Planning Commission will determine height restrictions do to adverse impact. 1dIr. Zergott felt that instead of a fence three or four islands could be put in place with Pine trees and other landscaping to create buffering. He strongly recommended that the applicants work with the abutting neighbors to come up with a way to buffer the site and satisfy everyone. 1VIr. Sturgeon questioned what would happen if landscaping is used for buffering and the trees start dying again. He questioned if the City would require the owners to replace the trees if they die or are the neighbors just out of luck and end up with no buffering at all. 10'Ir. Conway believed that legislation had passed which requires owners to have irrigation systems in their landscaping beds to make sure they are properly maintained. Mrs. Bowman questioned if the west side landscaped beds would be elevated. She is concerned that if the beds are not elevated the lights will shine directly into her home. A concern was voiced about the outdoor sitting area on the west side of the building. Mr. Sturgeon voiced that there should be a right turn only out of the site. Mr. Conway voiced that that issue would be a Planning Commission and Safety issue not an the Architectural Review Board issue. J. Crook motion Dunkin Donuts/ Baslcin Robbins elevations be modified to bring the sandcastle brick all the way doevvn to the pavement. That the site plan be modified such that on tlae south side additional evergreens and mounding be added with additional attention brought to the fence by Planning Commission to extend to the east property line and with either planting, mounding or fencing complete screening of car, lights. The final landscaping plan is to be submitted to the chairman for review. Discussion during the motion: 1VIe-. Conway asked for clarification if a new sign location was being proposed. He asked if the mound by the driveway was for a new sign, or would the existing sign be used. Ms. Caserta suggested that currently a new ground sign was being discussed with CVS. Mr. Conway suggested that as the applicants are not sure about the ground sign the board will have to disregard the mounded area, leave it mute until the applicants determine what is going on with the ground sign. It will be hard for the applicants to mound the entrance area along the west side due to visibility issues. Mr. Sturgeon questioned if the neighbors would have an input on what is put in place or would it be done behind the seen with the chairman only. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the way it works is the applicant hears what the chairman requests such as more pine trees, and fewer azaleas making recommendations on their plantings and the condition that the recommendation upon as far as mounding, and extension of the landscaping. It is up to the applicant to put the landscaping plan together. The chairman has indicated that he would look at it without making it return before the board, the condition stands as written and the final landscaping plans reinain part of the development package that goes to the Planning Commission and Council. The Architectural Review Board is a recommending body as is the Planning Commission. Mr. Crook strongly suggested that the applicants speak directly with the neighbors outside a meeting form to work out a plan that would work for everyone. Mr. Zergott assured the residents that when the applicants submit a landscaping plan he will make sure the abutting neighbors are buffered and the plan will work for everyone. B. Zergott seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. The clerk advised that the applicants would go before the Planning Commission on December 23, 2003 and notices were sent out earlier that day. 3