Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-05 Planning Board Minutes (4)Present: J. Simons, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry, R. Rowen Absent: M. Colantoni Staff Present: J. Tymon, J. Enright Meeting began at 7:00pm. BOND RELEASE 358 Dale Street: Stephen Smolak requests release of a $4,000 performance bond. J. Tymon: This was a new single family home that received a Watershed Special Permit. The project is complete and an as-built plan has been provided. There are no open issues. MOTION A motion was made by D. Kellogg to release the remaining bond funds including interest for 358 Dale Street. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for Site Plan Review-Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and associated site amenities including drive-thru lane and twenty five (25) parking spaces. In addition, applicant has filed for a Request of Determination of Applicability of Watershed Protection District Requirements. NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for a Watershed Special Permit and Parking Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and associated site amenities including drive-thru lane. J. Tymon: Tonight opens the public hearing for the Watershed Special Permit hearing and the public hearing for the Special Permit for reduced parking. Parking and queuing were discussed previously. The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking spaces from the required 27 to 19 spaces. Peak parking and queuing data has been submitted for two Dunkin’ Donut locations, one located on Osgood St. in North Andover and one in Methuen, Ma. Based on those peak numbers the peer reviewer, MDM Transportation Consultants, is recommending more spaces be provided than the proposed 19 spaces. The peer reviewer is also recommending 13 queuing spaces as opposed to the proposed 11 queuing spaces. Stated that, based on the discussion at the last meeting, her opinion was that the 19 parking spaces and the 11 queuing spaces are enough. It is the Board’s decision as to whether there are enough spaces based on all of the information provided. R. Rowen: If we are wrong about the number of spaces needed there is room for cars to circle around the building and leave the property. It is not going to cause a problem for the Town or a problem with traffic. Mark Gross, MHF Design Consultants: Explained that the national study for the parking space and queuing analysis used by the peer reviewer was for Starbucks. Starbucks offers a different variety of coffee product than Dunkin’ Donuts. A queuing analysis done specifically for Dunkin’ Donuts yielded the 11 queuing spaces. In addition to the queuing analysis that was done specifically for Dunkin’ Donuts counts have been performed at two site locations and an 11 vehicle queue is more than adequate for this site. If a customer arrives and feels the queue is too long they will either park or leave the site. J. Simons: Are the peak queuing numbers and the peak parking numbers during the same time period? M. Gross: No, they occur at different time intervals. J. Simons: It does not seem that there is any possibility that the queuing would back into the street which would be a safety issue. J. Tymon: The traffic peer reviewer also commented that, in their experience, January is typically a below average season for Dunkin’ Donuts and that the queue storage is typically designed for a 95th percentile queue length under peak season conditions. M. Gross: That is an assumption that is not correct. Transaction data for the 982 Osgood Street store shows that each month’s total sales are within 1% or 2% of each other. J. Tymon: The site distance issue has been resolved. There are no issues with the trip generation data. The Fire Department has submitted an approval letter stating they do not see any issues. A revised lighting plan has been submitted. The elevations are stamped by an architect from New York. The building plans will be stamped by a Mass. architect. The applicant has addressed all of the Sewer Department comments. The outstanding issues are related to stormwater. These issues will require further conversation with Lisa Eggleston, peer reviewer. Based on test pit data it is possible that the bottom of the drainage system designed for the front of the building is in the seasonal high water table. M. Gross: Additional test pits have been conducted and this information probably was not presented on the plan as clearly as it should have been for L. Eggleston’s review. L. Eggleston has also raised the issue of volume. Typically only rate is of concern because you want the rate pre and post development to be the same. L. Eggleston’s interpretation of local drainage requirements is that you have to mitigate volume too. This requires more storage of water on site. Since the infiltration rate is not great one or more of these systems will have to be made larger in order to accommodate more runoff. The plans will be revised and re-submitted to L. Eggleston for review. The issues can be resolved. J. Simons: This can be held over until the next meeting. NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 108 Campion Road: Application for a Watershed Special Permit. Applicant proposes to re-grade a portion of back yard, remove existing tress and existing landscaping in order to re-landscape back yard, remove a portion of existing abutting driveway with encroaches onto the lot, and reconstruct a stonewall. J. Tymon: There has been some clearing of vegetation and re-grading on the property. The property is in the Watershed Protection District and the area that this work took place in is in the Non-Disturb Zone. The Board did ask that the applicant apply for a Watershed Special Permit and the application fee was waived. We do not have a plan of the prior conditions. The applicant’s engineer will review a plan of what currently exists and a planting plan. There have been extensive conversations with the Conservation Agent, Jennifer Hughes, regarding native species. All of the proposed plants are native species. There is a lawn area also being proposed. In an area where there had been a certain grading and trees there will now be lawn. There is a difference in how the environment and how the water works when there is a lawn area verses trees. Typically we try to stay away from lawn in the watershed and within the Non-Disturb area. The Board may want to constrict this lawn area. Displayed an aerial view of the property prior to the clearing and re-grading. Bill Macleod, Andover Consultants, Inc.: Barbara Montopoli has owned the house for 25 years. She went to the Building Department to discuss putting a gazebo in the backyard. The Building Inspector sketched on a plan where the gazebo could be located on the property and advised her to come in and get a building permit for the gazebo when she was ready to build it. There was no mention of Conservation or Planning. The yard was cleared. The wetlands were not altered. Reviewed the disturbed area on the lot and where the lawn area is proposed. Barbara Montopoli, 108 Campion Road: Described where there the lawn area on the property was prior to the disturbance. R. Rowen: Were the trees there when you moved in or did you plant them? B. Montopoli: Some were there and some were planted. When the house was purchased there was existing path on the property that was being used by a lot of people and there were motorized vehicles traveling over it to the lake. A landscape designer helped to make it a usable yard and to cut down on people cutting across the driveway and people driving trucks and motorcycles down to the lake. Because the path is being used by others the insurance company has advised us that we need to maintain the area. If there are hazards we need to remove them because we will be held responsible from a liability standpoint. B. Macleod: When Conservation told B. Montopoli to stop the work and file a Notice of Intent she did. The area has been stabilized. The wetland is not on the Montopoli property. It is on the Brooks School property. They want to plant new plants and shrubs and seed it. The lawn area will actually be less than what was there previously. Conservation would like the Planning Board’s answer before they finalize theirs. J. Tymon: Showed photographs of the cleared area. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to close the public hearing for 108 Campion Road. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. A draft Decision was reviewed. MOTION A motion was made by R. Rowen to approve the Watershed Special Permit for 108 Campion Road as amended. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. DISCUSSION Release of accumulated interest on performance bonds. J. Tymon: There are two bonds that have been filed in perpetuity. One is for the property at 1025 Osgood Street and the other at 1003 Osgood Street. Usually when a bond is closed out it is released with the accumulated interest. Does the Board want to establish a process for releasing interest from a bond that is held in perpetuity? R. Rowen: The cost of performing, if needed, could potentially increase at a faster rate than the interest. J. Simons: This is effectively an insurance policy against future work. The Board did not want to establish a procedure for interest release. Requests will continue to be handled on a case by case basis. MEETING MINUTES: Approval of January 15, 2013 meeting minutes. MOTION A motion was made by L. Rudnicki to approve the January 15, 2013 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by R. Rowen to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:55pm. MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda, 1018 Osgood Street: summary of reviewer comments prepared by J. Tymon dated 1/15/13 and 1/30/13, Traffic Peer Review Response letter #3 dated 1/25/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Site Plan Review Response #3 letter dated 1/25/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Response to Eggleston Environmental Review Comments letter dated 1/28/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Grading and Drainage Plan dated 1/23/13, Transportation Peer Review Comments Letter #5 dated 1/30/13 from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc, Final Peer Review Summary dated 1/30/13 from Hancock Associates, 108 Campion Road: Landscape Plan by Judy Wright, Notice of Intent Plan #108 Campion Road dated 12/13/12, Four aerial photos 108 Campion Road, Draft Decision 108 Campion Road, draft 01/15/13 meeting minutes.