Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-24 Planning Board Minutes Planning Board Meeting APPROVED 8/07101 July 24, 2001 Members Present: John Simons, Chairman (7:20 p.m.) Alberto Angles, Vice Chairman Richard Nardella, Clerk (7:25 p.m.) Alison Lescarbeau Richard Rowen Staff Present: Heidi Griffin, Planning Director Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board Meeting of July 24, 2001 was called to order at 7:07 p.m. Minutes: Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Planning Board minutes of July 10, 2001, 2"d by Ms. Lescarbeau, voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. Discussions: Thistle Road-Abbott Village-Lot Releases Mr. Ben Osgood explained to the Planning Board that the purpose of two lot release forms was to release the original approved lots 1-44 and to release the Iots created through the ANR plan for lots 24B, 47, 48, 49 and 50. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all lots in the Abbott Village Subdivision, 2'd by Ms. Lescarbeau, voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. Lawrence Airport-Kin sg berry Building Tech Inc-Site Bond Release Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that a site visit had been performed and an as- built is on file. Ms. Lescarbeau motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from Lawrence Airport-Kingsberry Building Tech hie-Site Bond, 2°d by Mr. Rowen, voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. Evergreen Estates-Partial Bond Release Ms. Lescarbeau motioned to RELEASE$31,000.00 leaving a remainder of $14,000.00 from Evergreen Estates, 2' by Mr. Angles voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Simons questioned Ms. Griffin if there were upcoming projects that the board should be aware of. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she had been in contact with the Town Manager and that Mr. O'Neill the engineer for Foxwood Subdivision would be coming before the Planning Board on August 21, 2001 to discuss improvements that could be made without a public hearing. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that Mark Rees wanted a meeting with the abutters before Foxwood was placed on the Planning Board agenda. Ms. Griffin stated that at a previous meeting between the town and the Foxwood developer it was discussed that field changes could be made instead of filing a modification. Mr. Griffin informed the Planning Board that a tour of Wheelabrator should be set to give the Board a chance to see the retrofit. Ms. Lescarbeau suggested that concerned citizens be invited to the tour. Ms. Griffin was going to look into a date. Ms. Griffin stated she was currently working on the Community Development Plan, which would require the town to spend $30,000 on Economic Development. Ms. Griffin stated that normally the money would have to been used to create a Master Plan or an Open Space Plan but with the town already having them in place the money needed to be used other places. Mr. Angles stated that he would be willing to help her with the follow through of the money. Mr. Griffin informed the board that she was meeting with Lou Minicucci of Terra Properties LLC who has recently filed a Comprehensive Permit with the ZBA, Robert Nicetta, the ZBA Chairman, and the Town Manager to discuss possible conditions of an approval. Public Hearings: Turnpike Street lot 4N-Merrimack Buildin Site Plan Special Permit Ms. Griffin gave a brief history of the site stating that the site was zoned for Village Residential at which time the applicant filed a comprehensive permit with the ZBA. Mr. Hingorani trustee of One Hundred Fourteen Trust withdrew the comprehensive permit application with the stipulation that the site be rezoned from Village Residential to Business 4. The rezoning passed at May 2000 Town Meeting. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that the applicant had received a variance for parking; the three lots in the rear of the site were to be deeded over to conservation. Mr. Patrick Garner, engineer for the applicant, stated when the applicant had come before the board for informal discussion it was original discussed to place more parking on the three lots that our now designated as conservation land but they would have to cross over wetlands to do so. Conservation Department would not allow the cross over, so the applicant received a variance for the required parking of 223 spaces down to 189. a f Mr. Nardella questioned if more parking were need later would there be the possible of adding more? Mr. Garner stated that the site was at its maximum now. Mr. Garner informed the board that 100% of the site was to be for office use. Mr. Nardella suggested that the planning board restrict retail use and place a covenant on the property to restrict anything from going in to require more than 223 parking spaces. Mr. Dermot Kelly, traffic engineer for the applicant stated that he would address VHB's comments for the next meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that a comment VHB had made regarding the opening was something that he would like to do but Mass Highway is saying a standard opening should be done. Mr. Kelly was going to try again with Mass Highway using VHB's recommendations. Mr. Nardella questioned the placement of Forestveiw's opening in comparison to the site? Mr. Kelly stated 24 ft. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know the site distance? Mr. Kelly stated it was over 550 ft. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether there would be problems with taking a left onto Route 114 from the site? Mr. Simons suggested looking into making a one way out. Mr. Simons asked that the applicant speak with the Fire Chief regarding the 25 ft of paving around the building. Mr. Patrick Garner stated that the front 18 parking spaces would be utilized, as guest parking while the back and underneath the building would be used as employee. Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board wasn't overly concerned with the mandating of the parking and that is something they could post on there own. Mr. Nardella questioned whether the parking was for compact cars? Mr. Garner answered they were for full sized cars; there were no compact car spaces. Mr. Garner stated that he would be answering VHB's concerns with handicapped parking. Mr. Simons wanted to know whether there would be problems taking a left from the site onto Route 114? Mr. Kelly stated that it was considered a level service D with cars queuing 40 cars per hoar using a 5-year projection. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned whether the traffic study was conducted with rush hour calculations? Mr. Kelly stated that the study was performed from February 20, 2001 through March 6, 2001 and the total was used based on the average peak hour. Mr. Kelly stated that this was one of VHB's concerns and he would be responding to them. Mr. Jasbir Singh Gandhi, architect for the applicant, informed the Planning Board that the project was a 5 story building with the first level being utilized for parking. The face of the building was to be alternating between masonry and siding with a colonial look. Mr. Nardella questioned the roof height? Mr. Gandhi stated 60 feet. Mr. Nardella commented that the Fire Chief should be made aware of the height were it will be the tallest building in North Andover. y3 Mr. Rowen wanted to know what material would be used for the roof? Mr. Gandhi stated it would be a sloping roof with a parapet and the material would be asphalt. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned the noise level of the HVAC's on the roof and whether the parapet wall would hide the mechanicals on the roof? Ms. Lescarbeau requested that the applicant look into possibly placing the mechanical inside the building for aesthetics and noise reduction. Mr. Simons wanted to know what the lower parking level would look like and where the entrance and egress were? Mr. Gandhi stated that the lower level would be masonry with a possible different shade than the upper levels. The entrance and egress would be from the front of the building and back. Mr. Simons stated that with the sides being open possible placing low walls or fencing to prevent the cars trying to use them. Mr. Simons requested information on the landscaping and lighting plan. Mr. Garner stated that the plan showed what particular light fixture would be used. Mr. Nardella asked what the angle degree would the light be down cast? Mr. Garner stated there would be a 45-degree angle of down cast lighting. Ms. Lescarbeau requested a sample of the light fixture. Mr. Simons questioned the buffering of the building from Route 114 and Berry Street? Mr. Garner stated that the area located by Berry Street was heavily wooded and would be staying that way with the land being deeded to Conservation. Mr. Garner stated he would look into landscaping the front 18 parking spaces more. Ms. Griffin instructed the applicant to create a more specific landscaping plan. Ms. Griffin asked what the average tree height was at Berry Street? Mr. Garner stated that they would be able to see the top of the building; it would not be completed buffered. Ms. Lescarbeau instructed the applicant to provide a cross section of Berry Street. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know what the drainage would be? Mr. Garner stated that infiltrators are presently proposed. Ms. Griffin stated that VHB was questioning the use of catch basin to catch basin. Mr. Garner said that if it wasn't an issue with Conservation they could change it to manhole to manhole if needed. Ms. Lescarbeau wanted to know what the provisions for snow removal were? Mr. Garner stated that fewer parking spaces were proposed because some areas are designated for the snow. If needed they would have the snow removed from the site. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned whether the dumpster would be large enough to accommodate the building? Mr. Hingorani stated that if the building stayed office use the dumpster would be sufficient with them being picked up twice a week. Ms. Tran a potential abutter to the property wanted to know whether a traffic signal would be placed at the site? Mr. Garner answered that the state is not requiring a traffic 3 q �� signal. Ms. Tran wanted to know what the construction schedule would be? Mr. Garner stated that the start of construction would some time in spring 2002. Mr. Feori an abutter stated his concerns were with the lights, the noise, and the green belt, which the Planning Board are addressing. Mr. Jim asked whether bus service would be provided to the site? Ms. Griffin informed him that before the MVRTA could provide service the offices would need to be staffed to know whether it would be worth the cost of providing bus service. Ms. Griffin instructed the applicant to provide answers to the Planning Board's concerns along with providing a locus map, the building material that will be used and the style of lamp. Ms. Griffin also suggested a site visit to another of the buildings that the applicant owns. Mr. Hingorani requested that the Planning Board continue their hearing until August 21, 2001 to give them more time to answer their concerns. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Turnpike St/Berry Street-Merrimack Building Site Plan Special Permit until August 21, 2001, 2nd by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Continue Public Hearings: 55 South Bradford Street-Watershed Special Permit Mr. Humphrey engineer for the applicant provided new plans to the board with the requested changes. Mr. Simons requested that the applicant look into the construction of the pool and how the back flow could affect the water. Mr. Rowen instructed the engineer to look at the elevation that was showing for the sport court; presently it is showing at a different grade. The Planning Board instructed the applicant to provide the revised plans to Ms. Griffin a week before the next Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board instructed Ms. Griffin to revue a decision made for Greg Maclin of Marbleridge Road for reference when drafting this one. Mr. Nardella motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for 55 South Bradford Street until August 7, 2001, 2`1 by Mr. Rowen, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Decisions: Red Gate Pasture-Court Remand Mr. Howard Speicher attorney for the applicant questioned 2a of the draft approval drawn up by Ms. Griffin. Mr. Speicher didn't understand what a site opening bond was for. Mr. Nardella informed the attorney that the bond money could be rolled over into the security bond of 5c but the Planning Board was ensuring that the applicant would continue with I the work was clearing began. Mr. Speicher requested that the wording be changed to reflect that the site-opening bond will be released upon the posting of the security in Sc. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the Definitive Subdivision for Redgate Pasture, 2°d by Mr. Nardella; voted 2-3 the motion is defeated. Mr. Speicher accused the Planning Board of leading them down the primrose path. Mr. Speicher stated that the applicant had responded to all of the Coler & Colantonio's concerns with the project. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she had never given any indication that she was completely satisfied with the project. Mr. Osgood claimed that Ms. Lescarbeau had given no indication of disapproval with the proposal. Mr. Speicher stated that the proposal met all the requirements of the rules and regulations. Mr. Osgood stated that he had a right to develop his land. Mr. Angles stated that the vote had been made and the discussions with the project are over. Mr. Rowen motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting of July 24, 2001 at 9:20 p.m., 2`1 by Mr. Nardella, voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. SIG