The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-03-15 Planning Board Minutes North Andover Planning Board Unapproved Minutes March 15,2004 Regular Meeting Members Present: Alberto Angles,Chair,George White,Vice Chair,John Simons James Phinney,Associate Member,Felipe Schwarz,Clerk Rick Nardella Stoff Present: Julie Parrino,Town Planner,Debbie Wilson,Planning Assistant The Chair called the meeting to order: Informal Discussions: ANR plan reviews: 215 & 225 Old Cart Way-Approved Merrimack College-Approved Bradford Street-Denied Falcon Air Bond Release Applicant has submitted request for a bond release. As-built plans have been submitted stamped by a P.E. Decision issued April 3,2002 for construction of a metal hanger building 5,920 s.f in size. A$1,000 bond was posted. Site has been reviewed and all work is completed. Recommend release of the$1,000 bond. Town Meeting Article Discussion(Updates) • Residential Adaptive Re-Use Special Permit • Phased Development Bylaw • Flood Plain District • R4 Zoning Amendment for 2 Family Dwellings • Definition article Approval of the Minutes Continued Public Hearings: 80 Saile Way-Watershed Special Permit-(Cont. from February 3,2004) At the last hearing the applicant submitted calculations from the engineer stating the installed infiltration systems have been over sized and the percentage of groundwater recharge is approximately 89%. It appeared that the impervious area from the pool was not being infiltrated. We requested either an additional infiltration system be added or the pool runoff somehow be tied into the existing infiltration system which appears adequate to handle the additional water. Revised plans have been submitted showing a drip line around the edge of the pool. V14B has reviewed the revised plans and calculations submitted by the applicant at the last hearing. VBB has submitted a final review letter with one outstanding comment to display a perforated pipe on the plan. Comments forwarded to applicant. If Board is satisfied, I recommend we close the public hearing, 17$9 Great Pond Road-Arnone(Cont. from 1/6104) Summary: Applicant submitted an application for a Watershed Special Permit on August 18, 2003 for construction of a new single family house located across the street from Lake Cochichewick within the Non-Discharge Zone and Non-Disturbance Zone. The existing lot was to be serviced from an existing common driveway,however, late into the permitting process it was discovered that the common driveway already serviced two existing homes. The Bylaw does not allow a common driveway to service more than three lots. The applicant was instructed to file for a variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals for access off the existing common driveway. In lieu of filing with ZBA,the applicant has resubmitted a plan proposing a completely separate driveway off Great Pond Road. The plan was forwarded over to VHB for final review and the following comments were highlighted in their March 11, 2004 letter: • Plan should be stamped(progress print was submitted); • The driveway slope ranges from 15%to 12%.The Zoning Bylaw does not have design criteria for driveways, however MHD allows driveway vertical profiles ranging from 10%to 15%. A driveway slope of 15% is not desirable but is acceptable by MHD. • VHB feels given the horizontal curvature of the proposed driveway in combination with the steep driveway slope, negotiating the driveway will be difficult, especially in winter months. • The plan indicates the driveway will be cut into the existing hill. Surface water will runoff onto the driveway surface and cause a potential ice condition in the winter. Has driveway side treatments,ditches, swales, subdrains been considered. • Applicant should determined site distance along Great Pond Road at the proposed driveway location. • VHB recommends the clap pipes to the west and east of the proposed catch basin be replaced with 12-inch reinforced pipes. Upon discussions with DPW,in order to obtain a DPW driveway access permit,the driveway entrance will have to be regraded(length from roadway to property boundary, approximately 7')so that the pitch does not exceed 3%. Currently approximately 20%pitch. Comments have been forwarded to the applicant. CV5 (continued from]march 2,2004) VHB submitted revised plans dated March 9,2004. Sidewalks have been shown on the plan along the route 114 and Peters Street property boundaries. Sidewalks are located outside of the Mass Highway Right of Way on the CVS property,therefore the walls and landscaping have been moved. VAI submitted a letter dated March 11, 2004 with final comments. Comments and outstanding issues are as follows: • At the intersection of Salem Turnpike at Peters Street and Haverhill Street, improvement measures have been identified to alleviate impacts with queuing at the site driveway on Peters Street.VHB Concept 1 plan, dated 2/5/04 indicates that additional pavement markings should be included to channelize traffic flow into a single lane as it enters Peters Street from Turnpike or Haverhill Street. Review of the latest Concept 1, shows additional striping to channelize flow into Peters Street • The Concept plan shows a minor widening of Peters Street at the intersection with Turnpike Street,yet the site plans do not reflect any changes in curb geometry. This needs to be rectified. • The sidewalk along Peters Street, from the proposed site driveway to Turnpike Street, needs to be adjusted. The Concept Plan shows this curb line being slightly moved,yet the site plans show the sidewalk against the existing edge of road. If the sidewalk is to be against the edge of road, vertical granite curbing should be used in lieu of sloped granite edging. • It is not clear,when comparing the Concept Plan to the site plans as to the limit of curb work along Turnpike Street, from Peters Street to the proposed Turnpike Street driveway. This should be clarified. MI:V submitted a review letter dated March 11, 2004 in response to the revisedplans submitted from VHB. No memorandum addressing the previous outstanding issues was submitted. The following outstanding issues were addressers in the memorandum: • Many outstanding issues have not even been attempted to be addressed; • The Floor Plan should be re-included into the Site Plan Sheet; ® Signage: Two proposed monument signs are shown at entrance,no details are provided;are they directional in nature,will they have external illumination? The applicant should address if any freestanding site signs are proposed. • Wall signage needs specification for colors, areas,confirmation on projection dimensional limits, - and materials. • The maximum number of signs allowed is one primary and one secondary,which are both assumed to be two wall signs. Free standing signs must be addressed. o Parking: The Peters Street driveway is not provided with an adequate leveling platform. Distance of 20 feet with 2%slope should be provided. • Supplementary regulations: Construction easement for the wall needs to be verified by the abutter via an easement deed reference on the plan.Include this in the conditions. • Possible conflicts between the wall-pak building light mounting heights and locations should be shown on the building elevations. • MHD application permit should be filed with the State. This is a requirement and no proof has been submitted to date, a SMH 2 Rim will be raised up out of the pavement by about 6 inches. This has not been addressed by showing grading on the sewer design plan. • Consideration should be made to extending the landscape island near DMH-AS to the north for visual screening and safety reasons. Upon receipt of these comments,VHB submitted a response memo stating how each concern would be resolved. Final changes will be applied on the mylar plans and I recommend we condition several of the items. If Board is satisfied,I recommend we close the public hearing. New Public Hearings Brooks School The applicant, Brooks School, is filing a Watershed Special Permit under Section 4.136 of the Zoning Bylaw for construction of two single family faculty structures and associated site work and utility connections located in the Non-Discharge Zone.Each building is intended as a residence for a faculty member or his or her family. Each dwelling will be two stories with attached two-car garages, full basement with bulkhead and on-grade rear patio. Best Management practices have been proposed and include the construction of drainage swales,catch basins and groundwater recharge systems for roof runoff.VHB has reviewed the project and has provided comments. See detailed review. Decisions: 80 Saile Way 492 Sutton Street