Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses applicant to restrict outdoor storage, clarify parking and snow-storage plans
Summary
Members raised concerns that the new site plan lacks clear accessory storage, could encourage 'mission creep' of outside materials, and asked for specific snow-storage and guardrail measures to avoid bypassing stormwater controls.
Several board members expressed concern that the proposed contractor’s base did not clearly allocate space for outdoor materials or snow storage and could lead to the gradual expansion of outside storage on slopes and near detention areas.
"I would actually say we need the guardrails are a good idea because I'm afraid there'll be creep of storage materials unless we're gonna get a commitment that everything's gonna be stored inside," one board member said, asking the applicant to show specific accessory-storage areas. Sam Boyse suggested a tucked, out-of-sight trailer/truck area behind the building and proposed a gravel or grass storage area that would pitch back into the stormwater pond to limit runoff.
Board members also questioned parking calculations (the applicant showed 23 spaces but estimated the building might need 10–12), and asked the applicant to show where snow will be stored so meltwater does not bypass treatment basins. The board suggested physical 'guardrails' (such as boulders) or explicit plan notes and inspection conditions to prevent unauthorized stockpiling on slopes.
