Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-21 Draft Decision Notes MEMORANDUM TO: North Andover Planning Board FROM: Heidi Griffin, Community Development& Services Director RE: 530 Turnpike Street—Office Building DATE: January 15, 2003; 30, 2003 As the Planning Board has viewed this application at the last hearing, I will briefly summarize outstanding issues on the plan: 1. EASEMENTS/LE GAL CONDITIONS: A parking casement is provided to the rear of the abutting lot where the applicant proposes to place 25 parking spaces. The Planning Board should request an easement providing for the authorization of such parking as these spaces are proposed to be on a lot contiguous to the property. The applicani has provided the necesstary egasement which demonstrates that authorization of 11tis parking is allowed. 2. ZONING INFORMATION: Numerous zoning issues exist on the revised plan as proposed. Evidently, the applicant's attorney, Howard Speicher, has indicated he will be applying to the Zoning Board for variances. I am enclosing the Building Commissioner's zoning denial for relative to this application. It appears that the items mostly in debate relate to the required amount of parking spaces, the required 25' unobstructed driveway lane, and the inability to determine the amount of parking spaces required due to the fact that one of the buildings does not have a specified use. Also, there are numerous parking spaces proposed within the first 100' of Route 114. The zoning bylaw requires that the first 50' of this 100' shall be utilized as an effective visual buffer and no parking shall be permitted. This plan blatantly violates this requirement of the Zoning Bylaw. Furthermore, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not that parking would be needed as the remainder of the intended use of the medical building is not specified. The proposed medical use will not occupy the entire building. However, as the Planning Board is unaware of what the remainder of the intended use of the building will be, it makes it difficult for a thorough review to be completed. From a practical standpoint, parking calculations are difficult to estimate — for example, even if we were to calculate the most intensive use allowed on the site, othel• questions arise such as "Will the use require a loading area/dock? Will the use realistically result in overcrowding of the site and/or is ample parking really being provided? What will the building's hours of operation be and what impact will that have on the utilization of the parking as it relates to the remainder of the site? As you can see, evaluation of the site plan as a whole becomes more complicated with this unknown use. '['he applicant has applied for the above required necessary varMiaances from the Zonin�,,, Board of Appeals- any decision would need to be conditioned subject to receipt of these variances. 3. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: The applicant revised the plans but did not send them to the Town's consulting engineer. I called the applicant's engineer today and requested he send them; he was under the impression the Planning Department would send them, so the Planning Board won't have a review from VHB until the February 4, 2003 meeting. 4. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: At the last Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider a walkway to connect between this property and the property in the rear. I do not see provisions for this walkway on the revised plans, the applicant should specify their intentions to do so. not see provisions foi. 81101 is Walkway Oil the Plans as Of ye 5. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The parking lot contains a mixture of two- way and one-way travel lanes, most of which are the required 25'. However, the one- way travel lane to the right of the property only contains 13.5 feet of pavement for travel as the remainder of that lane is utilized for parking spaces. I am enclosing a copy of a memorandum from the Fire Department dated January 9, 2003 stating that this proposed width is unacceptable and they require a turning radius and/or minimum of 25'. The plans need to be revised to accommodate this required 25' travel lane. "Fite applicant has applied for a variance from the Zoning Board of'Appelals. 6. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed. Howev6r, I do not see a location for snow storage and this should be provided. The site does not provide for a large amount of room due to the numerous parking spaces required to meet the uses. Snow storage must be indicated. The applicant has added as nole to the plans indiedalilig that "Snow rettim'dal Will be stored on site all available islands '111d perimeter of"site for S111,111 Storms; "loderate to large storms the excess vv,flf be removed to aij alternate foeatioll". 7. LANDSCAPING PLAN: The landscaping and fighting plan on Sheet C-2 notes that "new landscaping planting beds with plant and ground cover (size and species varies) are being proposed. There is no way to ascertain whether or not these proposed varying size and species of plan and ground cover comply with the zoning bylaw. How can the Planning Board determine if the plantings will be four feet high at the time of planting and will be expected to form a year round impervious screen at least five feet high within three years if the plantings are not identified? The applicant needs to specify the types of plantings being proposed in order to determine conformance with the zoning bylaw. The applicant has Specified the size, types and species of plantings on the re0sed plans. 'I"'hey are proposing 4-5" arbori,itaes with autunin blaze niaples. 8. REFUSE AREAS: The dumpsters are located behind the 510 Turnpike Street building and are enclosed. The Planning Board should verify if these dumpsters will he enough to accommodate refuse for both buildings. The applicant has indicated the Board stated the dumpsters provided were adequate. 9. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: Enclosed please find a memorandum dated 1/14/03 from the Lieutenant John Carney of the Police Department requesting that a traffic impact study be performed. The Police Department is particularly concerned with exiting left out of this complex. I would recommend that the applicant submit a traffic impact study directly to VHB for their review. I believe (lie 11141nning floard has indic,ated that the applicant need not submit ,a traffic inip"'Id Study. COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: VHB has pointed out that since the applicant is altering the existing driveway on Route 114, the applicant should secure a State Highway Access Permit prior to construction.