In an extensive discussion about the architectural modifications, the board examined changes to the building facade, including pre-cast concrete panels, a metal cap and canopy on the roof, and a thin brick veneer for Suites B and C. These adjustments aim to match the visual aesthetic with the Starbucks located across the street. The placement of HVAC units was confirmed to be roof-mounted.

Stormwater management emerged as a issue, particularly concerning the type of storm sewer pipe to be used. Clarification confirmed that HDPE pipe was the intended choice. However, the absence of calculations for the proposed roof drains tied into the storm drainage system was highlighted, necessitating confirmation from the construction official to ensure proper slope and size for effective drainage. The board emphasized the necessity of an operation and maintenance manual for stormwater management, with the suggestion that referencing a previously recorded manual might suffice if applicable.

Traffic concerns were another point of discussion, particularly the layout of the service entrance. A member raised questions about the access easement and its appropriateness for daily use as a service entrance, which was confirmed to allow such use without limitations. The hours of operation for the service road were also discussed, with deliveries expected primarily in the morning hours, particularly from Chipotle’s delivery vehicle.

The board addressed the redesign of the outdoor seating area, focusing on the protection and fencing around it. It was confirmed that the redesigned area would feature a landscaped buffer between the fence and the curb instead of a solid fence, with the fencing being industrial-grade aluminum. Concerns were raised about the visibility of the HVAC and mechanical equipment from nearby residential buildings, with assurances that the equipment would be similar in color to the roof.

Further, the board scrutinized parking space calculations, including provisions for outdoor seating and the differentiation between spaces for online pickups and drive-thru services. The solid waste storage area, particularly its proximity to North Village and Route 15, was a point of concern, prompting discussion about the fencing and vegetation that would obscure its view. High-end enclosures and spruce trees were proposed to help blend the area into the surroundings.

The topic of signage was also raised, with confirmation that any future signage for the business would return to the planning board for approval. The proposed Chipotle sign was characterized as a box-type sign that would be internally lit, similar to the Starbucks signage. The board also discussed the need for directional signs for drivers entering the lot, with a suggestion that intuitive design would be sufficient for guiding drivers without excessive signage.

The board addressed the need for larger shade trees to mitigate heat island effects and suggested that smaller trees be replaced accordingly. It was also noted that a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer was required between the parking lot and the right-of-way, with existing trees along North Village Boulevard to be augmented with additional plantings.

Public comments further highlighted the urgency of addressing traffic safety and congestion issues before moving forward with the development proposal. A participant expressed concerns regarding the traffic implications of the proposed development, stating that the primary issue was not aesthetics but rather traffic congestion. The intersection of Market Street and North Village Boulevard was identified as a significant congestion point, with concerns that the addition of more businesses would exacerbate existing traffic issues.

Another participant noted the dangers of navigating in and out of the nearby Starbucks and urged the board to consider the safety of the intersection seriously. They expressed frustration that despite the acknowledgment of problems, no effective solutions appeared to be on the table.

The meeting also involved a discussion regarding an application for the revitalization and renovation of a building located at Pine Cone Plaza and Hunters Lane. The applicant’s representative confirmed that significant alterations to the plans were made in response to previous concerns. The discussion included specific site plan modifications.

The board also discussed the need for a waiver concerning the interior parking lot landscaping and the depth of parking spaces. The motion to approve the application incorporated these waivers.