Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-05 Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM Present: J. Simons, D. Kellogg, L. Rudnicki. L. McSherry, R. Rowen 1 Absent: M. Colantoni 2 Staff Present: J. Tymon, J. Enright 3 4 Meeting began at 7:00pm. 5 6 BOND RELEASE 7 358 Dale Street: Stephen Smolak requests release of a $4,000 performance bond. 8 J. Tymon: This was a new single family home that received a Watershed Special Permit. The 9 project is complete and an as-built plan has been provided. There are no open issues. 10 MOTION 11 A motion was made by D. Kellogg to release the remaining bond funds including interest for 358 12 Dale Street. The motion was seconded by R. Rowen. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. 13 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS 15 16 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for Site Plan Review- 17 Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru and 18 associated site amenities including drive-thru lane and twenty five (25) parking spaces. In 19 addition, applicant has filed for a Request of Determination of Applicability of Watershed 20 Protection District Requirements. 21 22 NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 1018 Osgood Street: Application for a Watershed Special Permit 23 and Parking Special Permit for proposed construction of a 2,250 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive- 24 thru and associated site amenities including drive-thru lane. 25 J. Tymon: Tonight opens the public hearing for the Watershed Special Permit hearing and the 26 public hearing for the Special Permit for reduced parking. Parking and queuing were discussed 27 previously. The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking spaces from the required 27 to 19 28 spaces. Peak parking and queuing data has been submitted for two Dunkin’ Donut locations, one 29 located on Osgood St. in North Andover and one in Methuen, Ma. Based on those peak numbers 30 the peer reviewer, MDM Transportation Consultants, is recommending more spaces be provided 31 than the proposed 19 spaces. The peer reviewer is also recommending 13 queuing spaces as 32 opposed to the proposed 11 queuing spaces. Stated that, based on the discussion at the last 33 meeting, her opinion was that the 19 parking spaces and the 11 queuing spaces are enough. It is 34 the Board’s decision as to whether there are enough spaces based on all of the information 35 provided. 36 R. Rowen: If we are wrong about the number of spaces needed there is room for cars to circle 37 around the building and leave the property. It is not going to cause a problem for the Town or a 38 problem with traffic. 39 Mark Gross, MHF Design Consultants: Explained that the national study for the parking space 40 and queuing analysis used by the peer reviewer was for Starbucks. Starbucks offers a different 41 variety of coffee product than Dunkin’ Donuts. A queuing analysis done specifically for 42 Dunkin’ Donuts yielded the 11 queuing spaces. In addition to the queuing analysis that was 43 1 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM done specifically for Dunkin’ Donuts counts have been performed at two site locations and an 11 44 vehicle queue is more than adequate for this site. If a customer arrives and feels the queue is too 45 long they will either park or leave the site. 46 J. Simons: Are the peak queuing numbers and the peak parking numbers during the same time 47 period? 48 M. Gross: No, they occur at different time intervals. 49 J. Simons: It does not seem that there is any possibility that the queuing would back into the 50 street which would be a safety issue. 51 J. Tymon: The traffic peer reviewer also commented that, in their experience, January is 52 typically a below average season for Dunkin’ Donuts and that the queue storage is typically 53 th designed for a 95 percentile queue length under peak season conditions. 54 M. Gross: That is an assumption that is not correct. Transaction data for the 982 Osgood Street 55 store shows that each month’s total sales are within 1% or 2% of each other. 56 J. Tymon: The site distance issue has been resolved. There are no issues with the trip generation 57 data. The Fire Department has submitted an approval letter stating they do not see any issues. A 58 revised lighting plan has been submitted. The elevations are stamped by an architect from New 59 York. The building plans will be stamped by a Mass. architect. The applicant has addressed all of 60 the Sewer Department comments. The outstanding issues are related to stormwater. These issues 61 will require further conversation with Lisa Eggleston, peer reviewer. Based on test pit data it is 62 possible that the bottom of the drainage system designed for the front of the building is in the 63 seasonal high water table. 64 M. Gross: Additional test pits have been conducted and this information probably was not 65 presented on the plan as clearly as it should have been for L. Eggleston’s review. L. Eggleston 66 has also raised the issue of volume. Typically only rate is of concern because you want the rate 67 pre and post development to be the same. L. Eggleston’s interpretation of local drainage 68 requirements is that you have to mitigate volume too. This requires more storage of water on 69 site. Since the infiltration rate is not great one or more of these systems will have to be made 70 larger in order to accommodate more runoff. The plans will be revised and re-submitted to L. 71 Eggleston for review. The issues can be resolved. 72 J. Simons: This can be held over until the next meeting. 73 74 NEW PUBLIC HEARING, 108 Campion Road: Application for a Watershed Special Permit. 75 Applicant proposes to re-grade a portion of back yard, remove existing tress and existing 76 landscaping in order to re-landscape back yard, remove a portion of existing abutting driveway 77 with encroaches onto the lot, and reconstruct a stonewall. 78 J. Tymon: There has been some clearing of vegetation and re-grading on the property. The 79 property is in the Watershed Protection District and the area that this work took place in is in the 80 Non-Disturb Zone. The Board did ask that the applicant apply for a Watershed Special Permit 81 and the application fee was waived. We do not have a plan of the prior conditions. The 82 applicant’s engineer will review a plan of what currently exists and a planting plan. There have 83 been extensive conversations with the Conservation Agent, Jennifer Hughes, regarding native 84 species. All of the proposed plants are native species. There is a lawn area also being proposed. 85 In an area where there had been a certain grading and trees there will now be lawn. There is a 86 2 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM difference in how the environment and how the water works when there is a lawn area verses 87 trees. Typically we try to stay away from lawn in the watershed and within the Non-Disturb 88 area. The Board may want to constrict this lawn area. Displayed an aerial view of the property 89 prior to the clearing and re-grading. 90 Bill Macleod, Andover Consultants, Inc.: Barbara Montopoli has owned the house for 25 years. 91 She went to the Building Department to discuss putting a gazebo in the backyard. The Building 92 Inspector sketched on a plan where the gazebo could be located on the property and advised her 93 to come in and get a building permit for the gazebo when she was ready to build it. There was 94 no mention of Conservation or Planning. The yard was cleared. The wetlands were not altered. 95 Reviewed the disturbed area on the lot and where the lawn area is proposed. 96 Barbara Montopoli, 108 Campion Road: Described where there the lawn area on the property 97 was prior to the disturbance. 98 R. Rowen: Were the trees there when you moved in or did you plant them? 99 B. Montopoli: Some were there and some were planted. When the house was purchased there 100 was existing path on the property that was being used by a lot of people and there were 101 motorized vehicles traveling over it to the lake. A landscape designer helped to make it a usable 102 yard and to cut down on people cutting across the driveway and people driving trucks and 103 motorcycles down to the lake. Because the path is being used by others the insurance company 104 has advised us that we need to maintain the area. If there are hazards we need to remove them 105 because we will be held responsible from a liability standpoint. 106 B. Macleod: When Conservation told B. Montopoli to stop the work and file a Notice of Intent 107 she did. The area has been stabilized. The wetland is not on the Montopoli property. It is on the 108 Brooks School property. They want to plant new plants and shrubs and seed it. The lawn area 109 will actually be less than what was there previously. Conservation would like the Planning 110 Board’s answer before they finalize theirs. 111 J. Tymon: Showed photographs of the cleared area. 112 MOTION 113 A motion was made by R. Rowen to close the public hearing for 108 Campion Road. The 114 motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. 115 A draft Decision was reviewed. 116 MOTION 117 A motion was made by R. Rowen to approve the Watershed Special Permit for 108 118 Campion Road as amended. The motion was seconded by L. McSherry. The vote was 119 unanimous, 5-0. 120 121 DISCUSSION 122 Release of accumulated interest on performance bonds. 123 J. Tymon: There are two bonds that have been filed in perpetuity. One is for the property at 124 1025 Osgood Street and the other at 1003 Osgood Street. Usually when a bond is closed out it is 125 released with the accumulated interest. Does the Board want to establish a process for releasing 126 interest from a bond that is held in perpetuity? 127 R. Rowen: The cost of performing, if needed, could potentially increase at a faster rate than the 128 interest. 129 3 PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Town Hall, 120 Main Street 7:00 PM J. Simons: This is effectively an insurance policy against future work. 130 The Board did not want to establish a procedure for interest release. Requests will continue to be 131 handled on a case by case basis. 132 133 : MEETING MINUTES Approval of January 15, 2013 meeting minutes. 134 MOTION 135 A motion was made by L. Rudnicki to approve the January 15, 2013 meeting minutes. The 136 motion was seconded by D. Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. 137 138 ADJOURNMENT 139 MOTION: 140 A motion was made by R. Rowen to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by D. 141 Kellogg. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. 142 143 The meeting adjourned at 7:55pm. 144 145 MEETING MATERIALS: Agenda, 1018 Osgood Street: summary of reviewer comments 146 prepared by J. Tymon dated 1/15/13 and 1/30/13, Traffic Peer Review Response letter #3 147 dated 1/25/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Site Plan Review Response #3 letter 148 dated 1/25/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Response to Eggleston Environmental 149 Review Comments letter dated 1/28/13 from MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Grading and 150 Drainage Plan dated 1/23/13, Transportation Peer Review Comments Letter #5 dated 151 1/30/13 from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc, Final Peer Review Summary dated 152 1/30/13 from Hancock Associates, 108 Campion Road: Landscape Plan by Judy Wright, 153 Notice of Intent Plan #108 Campion Road dated 12/13/12, Four aerial photos 108 154 Campion Road, Draft Decision 108 Campion Road, draft 01/15/13 meeting minutes. 155 4