MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Cliff Slicer, Micheal Sullivan, Bart Pacekonis, Louise Evans, Suzanne Choate.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski, Chris Lariviere, David Sorenson.
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning and Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Patrick Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Bazzano read the legal as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on June 2, 2006 and June 8, 2006.
1. Appl 06-29P, Nation Interior Lot- request for special exception to 4.6.1 and subdivision to create one new building lot on property located at 250 Smith Street, RR zone
Karen Isherwood, Project Manager of Design Professionals presented the application.
The site is a 3.8 acre parcel located south of the Gateway development zone also known as Evergreen Walk. The site previously had a house on it. Current conditions of the site offer gentle slopes with ½ of the site wooded. Two single family house lots are proposed. Lot 1 is a frontage lot meeting all zoning criteria except for the width requirement. Lot 2 would be an interior lot which meets all zoning requirements. Isherwood discussed sizes of lots. Access to the lots will be through a shared driveway.
Parcel A will be deeded to the property owners to the south. Public water is available on Smith Street and will be provided for both lots. Four bedroom septic systems will be provided for each home. A storm water management report has been submitted with the application and reflects no increase in peak run-off from the site post development.
The street easement needs to be shown on the plot plan. The right of way consist of an 18 inch and 24 inch Chestnut trees that will remain. Karl Riechle is requesting two additional trees within the easement. Additional plantings are proposed for screening between the lots.
There is no property value impacts due to the two new homes proposed and the home taken down that was in disrepair.
Isherwood addressed comments made by Doolittle, Town Engineer concerning the wells, the foundations drains, the driveway and the permit required for street excavation. IWA/CC approval has been granted.
Banach gave the following planning report:
Request for approval of a Special Exception to create one interior lot and subdivision for property located at 250 Smith Street, RR zone. There was an existing house (recently demolished) on an existing lot of record, and the applicant is proposing create a new interior lot in addition to the existing lot of record.
The requirements for the interior lot in the RR zone include: 80,000 sf minimum lot size and 262.5 feet minimum lot width. The proposed interior lot would be approximately 2.5 acres in size (exclusive of the access area) with a width of 367 feet, leaving the 40,369 sq ft conventional lot with frontage on Smith Street.
Access to the interior lot and conventional lot is proposed to be by an 18’ wide shared paved drive on the westerly side of the lot. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed driveway and notes concern with the existing 21” hemlock that is located near the angle of the driveway about halfway up. At the least, the tree will need to have any branches that may overhang the driveway cleared to allow fire equipment to pass underneath.
Septic systems will service both the frontage lot and the interior lot. The final septic system design is subject to the approval of the Town Sanitarian. Public water is available to these lots.
There are regulated wetlands on the new lot, and the house has been placed to the westerly side of the lot so that no activity will take place in the upland review area. The application is has received IWA/CC approval with no unusual approval conditions. There is no 100-year floodplain.
This property is adjacent to the Buckland Gateway zone to the north and across the street from the Design Commercial zone to the south; therefore a 50’ buffer is required along the frontage of Smith Street and along the northerly edge of the new lot. The applicant has provided a buffer plan and the required cross sections in accordance with section 10.4 of the zoning regulations.
A street tree easement has been provided along the front of the lot, however no street trees have been proposed. Karl Reichle, Sup’t of Parks and Grounds has requested that the applicant add two chestnut trees.
The criteria for approval of interior lots include:
the subject area’s boundary configurations, topography, soils or other natural resource characteristics;
proximity to neighboring properties and dwelling units;
restriction of existing views;
proposed buffering/screening;
potential drainage, traffic & environmental impacts
driveway locations, slopes & sight lines
utility service capabilities
property value impacts; and
future land use alternatives.
Town staff has some concerns with this interior lot application as it would create another residential lot abutting the Gateway Zone and Evergreen Walk development which, as you are well aware, is experiencing significant commercial growth. Interior lots were added as special exception uses rather than as of right uses in recognition that they are not necessarily appropriate for every piece of land. The attrition that has already begun on Smith Street, with several residential lots already in the hands of the owners of commercial property (for example, the lot directly to the east of the subject property is owned by Evergreen Walk LLC; and the house at 367 Smith Street is owned by Downeast Associates, the owners of the 50 acres of DC zone across Smith Street.) The Commission will want
to give due consideration to criteria i., future land use alternatives, during your deliberations on this application.
There is no screening proposed between the existing house and the two proposed interior lots. Most of the existing tree vegetation in that area is proposed to be removed. If this application is approved, the Commission may want to consider the addition of plantings between the new lots to provide screening.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the street tree easement be added to the pot plan.
Doolittle stated that Isherwood addressed concerns that had been given as the following:
1. What will be the disposition of the several (3) existing wells on this property? One well is close to the proposed septic system on Lot 1
2. The foundation drain for lot 1 needs to be routed around the septic system, including the reserve area and be tight pipe within 25 feet of the septic system or as specified in the state health code.
3. The foundation drain for lot 2 needs to be directed to the wetlands in the back of this lot, not toward the neighboring lot to the west.
4. The driveway needs to conform to the Town of South Windsor standards for grading and have a pull-off area as it appears the slope is greater than 10%.
5. A street excavation permit is required to reconstruct the driveway and to install water to these two proposed lots.
Comments were made by the public as follows:
Karen Johnson, 236 Smith Street: Concerns have been discussed with Karen Isherwood of Design Professionals. The main concern is with the trees staying in tact. The proposed driveway location would eliminate established trees between properties. The driveway could be put deeper into the property in order to maintain existing trees. We would also like to continue using the well.
Discussion ensued among the commission: (Responses will be in italics)
Slicer wanted clarification of the driveway plans. Isherwood handed out Exhibit A which shows the location of the new driveway.
Evans: Have the hemlocks been looked at to determine their health? Isherwood: A professional has not been out to look at the trees. They appear to be healthy at this time.
Evans received clarification from Banach that the property to the east of the site is owned by the Johnson family.
Isherwood discussed that the applicant approached owners of Evergreen Walk and they were not interested in purchasing the property.
Sullivan: With the new driveway plan in Exhibit A will there be more trees preserved? Yes and it will be on revised plans.
Kennedy: The parcel owned by Evergreen Walk on Smith Street was purchased from The Buckland Mall due to a settlement. Should we be concerned that there will be non residential development in the future for this site? Banach: At this point it would be purely speculation.
The public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.
2. Appl 06-22P, Buckland Road Retail, LLC – request for site plan approval for 88,095of retail shopping center, to be known as The Shops at Evergreen Walk Phase III, for property located on the southwesterly corner of Tamarack Ave and Buckland Road, GD zone
Poag & McEwen, BL Companies and KA Architects presented the application.
Chris Wickmann of Poag & McEwen: This application is a continuation of Evergreen Walk. LLBean will be the anchor store. Only two will be built in the next year, and this will be one of them. LLBean park will be included in the plans that will have an interactive fountain and a fire pit.
Craig Wasserman of KA Architects: Presented the Site plan of the application and discussed the exact location and the surrounding roads. Buildings are labeled as A, B, C, D, E and F. Wassereman discussed the view as the public drives into Phase III which will be LLBean as the centerpiece. LLBean park will include outdoor events. LLBean displays outside the building and uses the façade of the building for display as well.
Employee parking will be reserved in the back of the buildings along the perimeter. Red areas on the plans will be dumpsters enclosed with cedar.
Paving will be colored and stamped. Perspectives and elevations from several angles were shown.
Rooftop units have been a concern with the previous phases. A slide show presentation was given in order to show the view from the road and continue the view as you drive into Evergreen Walk and then into Phase III. Screenwalls will be used to block the view of the mechanics on the rooftop.
Samples of the stone, brick and other materials used on the façade of the buildings were shown.
Brett Poi of BL Companies presented the landscaping for Phase III. It will be similar to Phase I and has been adapted to the land conditions. Rain gardens in the parking lot are proposed. Evergreens will be used around the site perimeter.
Pending approval, building will start in September of 2006.
Banach gave the following planning report:
Request for site plan approval to construct a new Phase III extension to the existing Shops at Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center on the west side of Buckland Road, Gateway zone. Phase I includes all of the shopping center from Tamarack Avenue to Hemlock Avenue. Phase II consists of the Highland Park Market building and the Old Navy building.
The Phase III site was approved for a single big-box user, Expo Design center, in February 2003. The Expo building was 90,250 square feet, with 358 parking spaces to be constructed and 30 reserve spaces, for a total of 388 spaces. At its closest point, the Expo building was 115’ away from Smith Street and 146 feet away from the closest residential property to the west. The proposed Phase III has 88,095 sq ft of buildings, with 398 spaces proposed. The buildings are 145 feet away from Smith Street at their closest point, and 130 feet away from the closest residential property to the west.
Proposed maximum building height is 42.5 feet; 60 feet allowed. All parking is located outside of the 65’ front yard setback.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%. In the Gateway zone, the entire project is treated as one lot for development purposes, so the cumulative impervious coverage on the entire 230-acre site will be about 22% including all approved site plans. The Gateway zone requires that “Areas reserved for open space and set aside to meet impervious coverage requirements shall be distributed throughout the site in such a manner that the land is visible (from public streets) and /or useable (e.g., for pedestrian circulation, outdoor entertainment and cultural events, band shell, or arts/crafts shows). The Commission should review the plans to determine whether this standard is met.
The State Traffic Commission permit issued for the entire Evergreen Walk site includes the amount of retail contained in Phase III, thus no STC action is required. All Buckland Road widening and traffic signal installation was constructed during the Phase I & II construction, so there are no additional traffic improvements to be done on external public streets.
There is a sidewalk shown on Buckland Road and Tamarack Avenue. The previously-approved Expo plan included a walkway from Smith Street for the convenience of the Smith Street neighborhood. If there are residents from Smith Street at this hearing, the Commission may want to try to ascertain whether the residents would like to have a walkway into the Evergreen Walk site.
The Phase III plan continues the traffic calming patterns established in Phases I and II with the use of stamped concrete crosswalks. There is a large amount of typical gray concrete walkways, some with a different scoring pattern; however, in the tradition of the Phase I and II sites, some of the gray scored concrete should be colored stamped concrete that matches the stamped concrete in the previous phases. Staff is also looking for a way to break up the expanse of parking in the middle. We have suggested use of stamped concrete down the middle aisle, but that ends up looking too much like a walkway and may confuse traffic flow. Jeff Doolittle has suggested a central island design that would improve the appearance of the parking lot. Another alternative is the use of stamped concrete
within the parking lot aisles in such a way that it does not confuse drivers.
We note that outdoor storage is prohibited in the Gateway Zone, and that all business must be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. There are exceptions to this regulation for village-style shopping centers where outside merchandise display, such as kiosks or market carts, is an integral part of the theme and thus enhances the appearance of the site. The regulation is clear that this provision is not intended to allow outside display of merchandise typically sold inside retail stores in conventional shopping areas; rather, it is intended to encourage true pedestrian-oriented areas in a village atmosphere. As we point this out, we note to the Commission that LL Bean may be displaying kayaks, canoes and other outdoor recreational equipment on the outside of their
building.
Architectural elevations have been submitted for all sides of all buildings. ADRC reviewed the plan on June 1 and was generally satisfied with the plan. ADRC did note that they have a big concern about rooftop screening and that all RTU’s need to be strictly located inside the designated RTU areas on the plans. If there are to be any variations from this, the applicant must return to ADRC prior to installing any RTU outside the designated areas. ADRC noted that there would be confusion if the entire middle aisle in the central parking area is treated with stamped concrete. Finally, ADRC noted that the landscape plan, especially the tree line and existing trees, needs to be accurate.
The applicant has carried through some of the architectural elements from Phase I, in particular the tower elements. Staff note that buildings A and F in particular are essentially 4-sided buildings, in that you will have a clear view of all four sides as they front on Tamarack Avenue, open into the center parking area, and will probably be at least partially visible from Buckland Road. There is a fair amount of EIFS surface on the side and rear elevations as shown, and it is not clear how much glass we can expect on the sides and rear of these buildings. I am concerned that the first impression of these buildings from Tamarack Avenue will be that they are the backs of buildings. We also need to find a better way to disguise downspouts, scuppers, and utility services and meters, which
usually do not appear until construction drawings are completed. If these items are not addressed in advance, then there is a strong likelihood that the back of the buildings as seen from Tamarack Avenue will be similar to the backs of the existing Phase I and II buildings, only much closer and more visible from the street. Commissioners should review all sides of all buildings for adequacy of appearance.
Some rooftops will be visible from Buckland Road. Given the extensive issues we have had with rooftop screening on Phase I, this is an area that needs to be fully addressed and locked up tightly prior to approval.
Site lighting design duplicates the existing fixtures of Phase I and II. There is only one light pole located behind the buildings closest to Smith Street, and that pole is at the cul-de-sac end where there are no residences. All other lighting on the Smith Street side will be full cut-off building lights.
The requirement for parking lot landscaping is 12% within Buckland Road lots, and 10% for landscaping of interior parking lots. The details of landscaping within the center lot are still being explored.
The landscaping plan for Phase I included pedestrian amenities such as street furniture and directories. I can’t determine from the landscaping plans whether the same attention to pedestrian amenities will be part of Phase III.
There are 4 service areas proposed, two of which are in out-of-the-way places, and two of which are located along Tamarack Avenue. One is behind a 5-foot retaining wall; the other will be fully visible from Tamarack. The dumpster enclosure will be the same cedar enclosure that is currently being used in Phases I and II. The cedar enclosure is very attractive when new; the enclosures will need to be maintained well over time to keep their attractive appearance.
There are regulated wetlands on this site. This application was approved by the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission on June 7, with a bond in the amount of $20,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures and a bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure installation of the storm water structures. Also, the applicant is required by IWA/CC to retrofit the sediment chamber west of Tamarack Drive with a plan to be approved by the Town Engineer, prior to breaking ground for Phase III.
South Windsor Police Department has reviewed the site plans. Their only comment was that they would have preferred angle parking in the style of Evergreen Walk.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has requested an additional hydrant located on the courtyard between buildings D and E by the curb to the parking lot. Also, the driveway behind building 300 needs to be marked with “Fire Lane—No Parking” signs and markings.
Public sewer and water are available in Evergreen Way.
A Site Engineering Report was submitted with the application. The report includes an Operations and Management Plan, which we have duplicated and provided to the Commission. There is no shopping cart management plan included at this time. Ideally, a shopping cart management plan would be included in the O&M plan, which would be provided to all tenants in advance of building occupancy. If the O&M plan is not revised to include a shopping cart management plan, any future tenant that has shopping carts that are used outside of the building, will require a shopping cart management plan in accordance with the regulations.
I have requested that the site engineer revised the O&M plan to clarify that trash collection can only be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. We have had an issue with this item in Phase I and II; and it was only by the diligent efforts of a resident on Smith Street with an early-morning camera, followed by an early-morning site visit by the Evergreen Walk general manager, that finally put an end to 4:30-5:00 a.m. trash collection.
The Town of Manchester was notified of this pending application as required by State statute.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept would like to see above-noted modifications finalized as thoroughly as possible prior to Commission action on the application. Also, the detail for parking space striping will need to be revised to hairpin striping as required by the Gateway zone requirements for 9’ x 18’ parking.
Doolittle had the following engineering comments:
1. Will one of the two driveways to this site from Tamarack Avenue be marked for delivery truck access?
2. On the Site layout plan, Note 26 is not applicable and notes 37 and 38 need to include a Town road as Buckland Road is a Town road.
3. The guardrail along Buckland Road needs to be completed where there are gaps in front of this parcel and be extended south to Smith Street.
4. The sidewalk along Buckland Road needs to be moved back 6 feet from the existing curb and labeled as such.
5. What is the separating distance between the sidewalks going down Tamarack Ave and this road? This should be at least 4 feet for a grass snow shelf, and needs to be a minimum of 2 feet with hard surface (stamped concrete) between the walk and curb. Label this on the plans
6. Handicap ramps need to be shown at all intersections and crossings on Buckland Road, Tamarack Ave, and within this site.
7. Show a pavement cut/match line where the driveway intersects Tamarack.
8. The size and model of the Vortechs storm water treatment unit needs to be specified on the plans and details.
9. Is the dark, heavy line along both sides of the main site entrance drive and on the west side of Building A, a wall? Label these lines and if they are walls show the top and bottom elevations.
10. Show the top and bottom elevations of the wall on the west side of the site.
11. Show the overflow drains and/or underdrains from the rain gardens?
12. Are the soils and groundwater condition on this site suitable to rain gardens and the infiltration area? The rain garden detail has specific minimum depths to groundwater and ledge. What are the soils criteria for the infiltration units? Include soils test pit information to verify these conditions can be met.
13. Include some more spot elevations on the grading plan, especially at high and low points. Check the spot elevations by CB-8.
14. There needs to be a sidewalk connecting this site to Smith Street.
15. On the Storm Structure Information Chart show line O into MH-3
16. On the Utility Plan, continue the 8” sewer lines to buildings D and E and provide for at least two 6” laterals into these buildings. What are the expected sewer flows from these buildings? Will minimum cleansing velocities of 2.5 fps be achieved?
17. Where will possible outside grease traps be located for restaurants?
18. The Anti-tracking pad detail should show only a 50 foot long pad.
19. The plans need to include an operations and maintenance plan for the storm water system and structures once the site is completed and open.
20. Check the landscape plan for conflicts with the site utilities. One island in the parking lot has a catch basin, rain garden and two trees. This is a lot for a small island.
21. The parking lot should be broken up with more landscape islands. (see my sketch)
22. The line striping for the parking spaces needs to be detailed as “hair pin” striping.
23. Should the underground infiltration system detail show a thicker stone layer on top and between the pipes? This system needs to be specified for H-20 loading.
24. Detailed plans signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed in Connecticut will need to be submitted for any retaining walls requiring a building permit.
25. On Sheet DN-3 there are two details for cleanout in paved areas. Which sanitary manholes will have an inside drop? The Town WPCA has not been in favor of these because of access and maintenance difficulties.
26. The concrete crosswalks on site need to be stamped, colored concrete similar to the rest of Evergreen Walk.
27. Show the patterns and colors for the stamped, colored concrete areas.
28. WPCA review and approval is required for this site plan.
29. I need to receive a final drainage report to complete my review of the site storm water drainage.
Comments from the public were as follows:
Aaron Johnson, 236 Smith Street: The walkway from Smith Street to Phase III would be nice to upgrade from woodchips. Directly to the west of the proposed site is the residential zone. What will be done about a buffer? The existing berm needs a maintenance plan. The lighting needs to be neighborhood friendly.
Branda Fraser, 340 Smith Street: The berm is a concern. With music events and outdoor events at LLBean park, the berm and buffer will be important. Please consider the residents in the area.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Sullivan wanted answers for the concerns regarding the buffer. Evergreens will be used along the buffer with 9 full size shade trees. The existing berm will be maintained. The tall lighting poles have been eliminated and light has been measured as zero to the Smith Street side.
Sullivan wanted clarification of driveways and what residential neighbors can expect for traffic noise? John Iennaco of BL Companies: The berm height is 15 feet higher than smith Street. There isn’t a berm on the west side between the parking and the residents.
Sullivan received clarification from Doolittle on the plans for drainage into a sediment pond and covered issues such as location of dumpsters, roof top screening, glass on the buildings, the front of building vs. the back of the buildings, sidewalks and the revision of architectural details revised.
Pacekonis had the following concerns: The slide show should give a view from the sidewalk, rather than the center of the road, of the roof top units. Connecticut Transit should be allowed to drop off people on Tamarack Road to avoid them from having to walk down from Buckland Road. Another concern is the efface of the buildings. Dumpsters in an area where there is going to be a park is a concern. The existing berm has not been maintained. Finally, garbage pick up should be addressed as to pick up times.
Chaote expressed the following concerns: The rain garden overflows, the lack of a berm on the west side and the outdoor display for LLBean. Banach: The style that LLBean displays is who they are.
Bazzano: Expressed concerns regarding busses coming down into Evergreen Walk. He also wanted clarification of materials to be used on the façade of the buildings. Adding the displays on the outside of the LLBean building to the plans will show the creative look it will have. The colors on the plans are not exact.
Bazzano expressed concerns regarding roof top screening with prior Evergreen Walk phases. Is there a way to move all the mechanicals to one side? This would throw off the proportion. The front of LLBean is 170 feet.
Evans discussed employee parking, how far will shoppers walk and sidewalks. Tying the two phases together is important. Evans wanted clarification on events at LLBean park.
Choate wanted details on the drainage system. The drainage system will be internal. Storm water will drain into an underground system that will drain to a tank at the end of Tamarack Avenue. An elongated grass swale planted with heavy growth will be built. This water will enter the storm drain system.
Choate: Outlet structures should be sized to what exists and not for what might be built.
LLBean has given an exception to the number of parking spaces they usual have if the park will be named LLBean park.
Kennedy discussed the path from Smith Street to Evergreen Walk with residents. Parking on the street to take the path is a concern. Also, because there are no backs to the buildings and they can be seen from all sides, there should be more features to building A.
Sullivan opened discussion pertaining to busses driving into Evergreen Walk. Connecticut Transit is asking to drop off employees and shoppers at the bottom of Tamarack only. They can not make it down Evergreen Way.
It would be much safer and friendlier for employees and residents to shop.
Kennedy: Has anyone considered an internal shuttle? This is a mid sized development and shuttles tend to not be utilized with this size.
Sullivan made a motion to keep the public hearing open for Appl 06-22P, Buckland Road Retail, LLC. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
The public hearing was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 10:00 p.m.
Choate made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appl 06-29P, Nation Interior Lot- request for special exception to 4.6.1 and subdivision to create one new building lot on property located at 250 Smith Street, RR zone
Choate made a motion to waive the rules and vote on Appl 06-29P. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Choate made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl 06-29P, Nation Interior Lot.
Drainage and construction for this lot is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
Septic system final design must be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Health Officer prior to filing of mylars and issuance of building permits.
Water shall be supplied to this lot by public water.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands agency/Conservation Commission.
Fire Marshal’s approval is required for driveway configuration.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in connection with the approval of this lot, must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits.
Footing drains are required for the house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1" = 40', shall be submitted, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains. No building permit will be issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer.
If, for any reason, finished grading and other site work is not completed, the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 4.13.10 of the zoning regulations.
Engineering comments dated 6/13/06 must be addressed to the Town Engineers satisfaction.
The street trees easement must be shown on the plot plan.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Banach had the following comments regarding the bond for rooftop screening for Appl 03-28P, Shops at Evergreen Walk: There is a need for more landscaping to be done on the south side of the site. The release of the $200,000 is recommended based on the $50,000 landscaping bond we are still holding.
Sullivan: How was the white PVC fencing decided on for screening? Banach: It was meant to stick out and draw your eye away from the rooftop units. Kevin McCann and Tim Wentzell tested a section and felt it was the best choice.
Choate made a motion to release a rooftop screening bond of $200,000 for Appl 03-28P, Shops at Evergreen Walk. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Doolittle was contacted by the attorney for the developers of Forest Village Subdivision. A bond of $70,000 is being held. It is recommended that the bond be reduced by $30,000 leaving a balance of $40,000 based on the work completed with a stipulation that the attorney put in writing a plan for the remaining work.
Sullivan: Once the plan is submitted in writing a reduction could be made.
Doolittle: It will be conveyed to their attorney that the plan must be submitted before the commission will consider the reduction.
MINUTES:
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORT:
ADJOURNMENT:
Choate made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Barbara Messino, Recording Secretary
| 
