HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-05 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (42)Watershed Special Permit Determination – Summary of L. Eggleston’s review:
Applicant provided data from additional test pits. Also raised the elevation of infiltration system #2, so
that it has the 2’ separation from ESHGWT
Storage volume has been increased to treat the ½” water quality volume within the infiltration systems, however it does not meet the standards.
If the systems do not overflow into the wetlands in the back of the property, they could overflow into the drainage in Osgood St. and it is not clear that there is not an obstruction
to the flow. The increased flow could become a problem.
.
Civil Review – Summary of Hancock Review:
Parking: Applicant requests a reduction in parking from required 27 spaces to
19. Requesting relief under section 8.1.8.g, which allow for reduction in parking under certain circumstances, where it can be demonstrated that a use needs lesser number of spaces,
i.e., housing for people with disabilities, low vehicle ownership. Section f addresses Land Bank Parking. Reviewer recommends that section f. should apply.
The applicant asserts
that the proposed 19 spaces will be sufficient for peak usage based on actual traffic counts performed at the existing DD location and at a stand-alone location in Methuen.
Applicant
submitted data for two locations (existing Osgood St. location, stand-alone Methuen DD) including peak time parking for both locations:
Osgood St. – Lot contains 19 spaces. Peak time
usage observed was 12
Methuen stand-alone DD: 13 and 16 peak time usage. Lot contains 31 spaces.
Applicant also submitted information on other DD establishments. No traffic counts, just
total spaces: Salem NH: total spaces 13; Methuen (Route 97) 17 total spaces and Windham NH, total spaces 17.
The peer reviewer does not agree that 19 spaces is sufficient, since the
observed peak at Methuen is 16.
Methuen (Route 97) contains 48 spaces. There are multiple uses at this site.
Dracut and Middleton both have more than 30 spaces.
New store will have
more seats, larger store.
Other installations have over 30 spaces.
Existing Osgood St. has spaces in the back that may not be conveniently accessed.
I think the applicant has provided
enough detailed information to justify the 19 spaces. There are similar stand-alone sites with fewer total spaces and similar sites with more spaces. The Board did discuss at the last
meeting the “human behavior” factor – will customers pass by a site that has a long queue and no visible empty parking spaces? Also, the applicant is being asked to reduce impervious
cover due to Watershed restrictions.
Fiscal Impact and Community Impact – the applicant is requesting a waiver and should provide a basis for that request.
Traffic Review – Summary
Queuing at exit driveway from drive-thru: Reviewer maintains that a 13 car queue is possible and would impact more parking spaces than the employee and accessible
spaces. Again, as with parking, the applicant has provided information to support the maximum 11 vehicle queue. The Board did discuss this issue at length at the last meeting
Sight
Distance: Issues have been resolved.
Trip generation Issues resolved.
Sidewalks. Discussed possibility of a path to connect to the adjacent strip mall..
Truck circulation; two deliveries
a week using WB-50.
The Fire Dept. has given me a verbal OK for Fire Truck Plan. They will put that approval in writing before the meeting.
Revised lighting plan needs provided
Elevations
have architect stamp, but architect is from NY. Building plans will be stamped by a MA architect.
New plans reflect comments provided by DPW – sewer stub provided.