Laserfiche WebLink
Dan said the lawns are a concern shared by the environmentalists. <br /> �e said the areas close to the main entry will be cultivated and of course <br /> the athletic fields . The rest will be native , wooded areas . <br /> Merry Sue said during night functions , people will not use the parking <br /> lots, they will park along the road , the lots are too far away. <br /> Dan asked if they should provide for on street parking along the entry <br /> drive for visitor parking? <br /> Dr . DeMoura asked how far away the parking lot is from the building? <br /> Dan said at the student parking lot , the closest point of the building to <br /> the closest space is 200 feet, 400 feet from the furthest space. <br /> Bill Jones shares Janice ' s concerns about maintenance and would like to see <br /> a preliminary maintenance and landscaping budget . <br /> Dan said they will make every effort to make this a low maintenance site. <br /> Ed said they hear what the Committee is saying , they want it more compact, <br /> make the travel distances between parking lots and building more compact <br /> and maintenance costs . <br /> Tom Fudala said compactness is an issue . The west side of the site has <br /> wasted space. The main road runs between the student parking lot and the <br /> building , it would be safer to have it on the outside of the parking . At <br /> the last meeting the Committee voted to move the site no closer to the <br /> river, yet this plan shows it closer to the river . The meeting with the <br /> environmental groups saw a plan where everything was 100 feet further away . <br /> There is parking added next to the tennis courts and it is not necessary. <br /> Oan said they have tried to maintain the 500-600 feet buffer from the <br /> river. <br /> Steve Greelish and Tom Fudala debated which regulations are applicable to <br /> river buffer . They disagreed on how far do we have to be from the river . <br /> Peter asked if we now encroach on 100 feet from the top of the bank? <br /> Dan said it varies from 100-350 feet. <br /> Paul asked Tom if he is saying we are now in violation? <br /> Tom said the architects presented a plan to the environmental groups and <br /> now you went back on that by moving closer to the river . <br /> Steve said that was only an input process , we are still in the planning <br /> process . <br /> Peter explained there is a question in Tom' s mind that this incorporates <br /> the 100 foot move to the east requested by the PAC . <br /> Dan explained the site plans have been revised each week . He would have to <br /> review the records to see if it has moved to the east. There is no <br /> intentional shift to the east. <br /> Ed asked the Committee if 500-600 feet from the river is sufficient? <br /> The Committee agreed it is . <br /> ** Paul made a motion that there be no more move to the east than is <br /> shown on this plan (6/21 /94) . Steve seconded the motion . <br /> Discussion: <br /> Merry Sue added that we ask the architect to look at moving to the west . <br /> Peter added we should direct the architect to maintain a 500-600 foot <br /> buffer from the river . <br /> ie asked Tom is he would agree we are now 500-600 feet from the river? <br /> 5 <br />