Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-15 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (19) December 30, 2012 Ms. Judy Tymon, Planner North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street – Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 Subject: 2nd Peer Review Summary 1018 Osgood Street Proposed Site Plan Dear Ms. Tymon: Hancock has completed a review of the response letter from MHF received by the Planning Office on December 12, 2012 and revised documents submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed Site Plan at 1018 Osgood Street. The following documents were reviewed. A review of the Traffic Study will be sent under separate cover from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1. Proposed Site Development Plans, Proposed Donut Shop, prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc., dated October 19, 2012, containing twelve (12) sheets including sign plan, stamped by Frank C. Monteiro, PE. Revised 12/7/12. 2. Proposed Architectural Elevations for Proposed Donut Shop, prepared by James D. Smith, AIA, dated July 13, 2011, stamped by James D. Smith State of New York Registered Architect. 3. Lighting Plan for Dunks in Andover, prepared by LSI Industries, dated August 17, 2012. 4. Application for Site Plan Approval Packet dated October 19, 2012, signed by Mark S. Goss, PE. 5. Letter dated October 19, 2012 (errant date) received by NAPD 12/12/12 from MHF Design Consultants to the Planning Department. The following was used to assist in our review: 1. Zoning Bylaw of Town of North Andover last amended October 15, 2012 2. Town of North Andover Zoning Map October 2012 3. Warrant Article 36 from June 12, 2012 Town Meeting. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com 4. Special Permit Site Plan Review Instructions 9/30/10 5. General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover 6. North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Amended through Dec.2002 Parcel/Zoning Comments: 1. The deed for the property (Book 12798 Pg 255) describes the parcel as having dimensions of 150’ by 202.12’ with 29,760 square feet. The Existing Conditions Plan submitted has a lot with dimensions of 149.53 by 187.32’ with 28,127 square feet. The Applicant should explain the source and timing on the differences and whether the timing affects the application of any grandfathered protection being claimed. MHF Response: The deed is from 1950 and describes the property at that time. In 1061 there was a highway taking along Route 125, hence the difference in the plan versus the deed. This has no affect on the grandfathering issues for the project. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 2. The Zoning for the parcel was changed at the June 12, 2012 Town Meeting from Industrial 2 to Business 2. The property has B2 zoned parcels to the east and west. The airport parcel to the north remains I-2 zone. This zone line should be reflected on the project plans. MHF Response: The plan has been revised Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 3. It appears the project is compliant with use and basic dimensional requirements of the North Andover Zoning By-Law. Comment acknowledged. 4. The Applicant has requested a Site Plan Special Permit under Section 8.3. Comment acknowledged. 5. The Applicant has requested a Special Permit under Section 8.1 for reduction in parking. The Applicant’s reference to Section 8.1.8.h appears incorrect and should be Section 8.1.8.g “Reduction in Parking”. The Board should review the applicability of this section, as the use does not seem to align with the uses described in this section. The section speaks to uses such as those for persons with disabilities, low rate of vehicle ownership or the availability of transportation demand management alternatives. The Board may wish to explore the application of Section 8.1.8.f in this case; “Land Banked Parking” as being more appropriate to the use given the Applicant’s arguments. Additionally, the Applicant has miscalculated the number of spaces required. In accordance with Section 8.1.4 (note 4 of Table of Off-Street Parking), “where uses are open-air type not enclosed in a structure, each foot of lot devoted to such use shall be considered to be equivalent to one fifth of one square foot”. The 25’ x 30’outdoor seating area requires an additional two spaces. MHF Response: An additional Special Permit is being requested. Hancock Comment: The parking as been further reduced to 19 spaces. Again, Hancock believes that the Applicant should utilize Section 8.1.8.f. In this Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com manner, should parking demand exceed the supply, the Town could require the Applicant build the land banked parking. The additional parking demand study performed by the Applicant on a site in Methuen found the parking demand to be 17 spaces, fairly close to the 19 provided. 6. The Applicant has requested waivers from Section 8.3.5.e requiring the submission of a Fiscal Impact Study and a Community Impact Analysis. The Applicant argues that the project is minor in nature. The Bylaw has provisions defining minor projects (less than 2,000 s.f.). The Board should instruct the Applicant to provide the required study and analysis. MHF Response: We stand by our request for waivers from these items. Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to the Board regarding this matter. 7. The Applicant has requested that the Board make a Determination of Applicability and/or grant a waiver in accordance with eth provisions of Section 4.136 Watershed Protection. Section 4.136.2.c states “In the event the SPGA determines, on the basis of credible evidence before it, that there exists a significant doubt or dispute concerning the proper location of the boundaries of the Watershed Protection District on any individual lot or lots, the SPGA shall, at the request of the owner of such lot or lots, engage a Registered Professional Engineer to advise it in determining such boundaries”. We see this process as separate and distinct from the Applications before the Board and that the report and decision of the Board precedes any action by the Board on the application at hand. We understand the Board has engaged Lisa Eggleston as the Registered Engineer advising the Board. Hancock has reviewed the Existing Conditions Plan and letter from Epsilon and note that assertion with regard to drainage patterns are not clearly depicted on the Plan. Drain lines shown on the plan are incomplete. A review of the Existing Conditions Plan prepared by MHF Consultants for the 1003 Osgood Street Project do not support the detail outlined in the Epsilon letter. The Existing Conditions plan should be updated to reflect this detail. MHF Response: A separate Watershed Special permit application has been filed for a portion of the property based on our meeting with the Town’s Environmental Consultant. Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to Ms. Eggleston and the Board regarding this matter. 8. The plan does not appear to comply with the buffering requirements of Section 8.4 with regard to planting and/or fencing along the east property line and the number of tress per linear foot of parking. MHF Response: A 6-foot high stockade fence has been shown on the Landscape and Lighting Plan. Hancock Comment: The plan now complies with Section 8.4 of the By-law. 9. The plan does not comply with the requirement of Section 8.1.4.b calling for handicapped spaces located nearest the door. MHF Response: The plan shows handicap spaces which will provide equal access to the front door as well as the rear door of the facility which is primarily for the employees. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 10. The plan does not meet he requirements of Section 8.1.5.a calling for a 25’ parking aisle; 24’ is proposed. MHF Response: The plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: The plan now complies with Section 8.1.5 of the By-law. 11. No loading area (12’x25’x14’) is proposed as required by Section 8.1.5.e. MHF Response: An additional Special Permit has been requested. Hancock Comment: Hancock believes there is sufficient space to the south of the dumpster where the edge of pavement has a radius of 45 feet (assumedly for truck turning) that could be slightly expanded and squared off to accommodate a single box truck. We understand box trucks are used for daily delivery of donuts from regional bakeries. Any other location for trucks to park would impede the one-way circulation regardless of it being off-peak hours. 12. The freestanding sign depicted on the architectural elevation does not comply with Section 6.6.D. It exceeds 25 square feet and is higher than 8 feet above the ground. A Board of Appeals Special permit would be required. MHF Response: Comment Acknowledged. Section 8.3.5 Additional Information Required: 1. Zoning Section 8.35.d requires that an Architect registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stamped all building elevations. An Architect Registered in New York stamps the elevations submitted. MHF Response: Building Plans will be submitted to the North Andover Building Department and will be stamped by a Registered Architect in Massachusetts. Hancock Comment: The By-law requirement pertains to submission to the Planning Board. This is an open item. 2. Section 8.5.e.i –LOCATION MAP: states, “A location map showing surrounding roadways and land uses adjacent to the site (1”=1500’). Location Map should show at least one intersection of two existing Town roadways.” The ‘Locus Plan’ contained within the Proposed Site Plan, is at a scale of 1”=300’ and does not adhere to the requisite scale of 1”=1500’ set forth in this section. MHF Response: Plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 3. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xvii – LIGHTING FACILITIES states “Identification of the proposed illumination, indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the proposed lighting facilities, including an example of the light fixture to be used.” It is unclear from the submitted plans whether the type, direction and degree of illumination conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.0 – Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw. MHF Response: A lighting plan showing lighting levels, direction of lighting and lighting fixtures have been submitted. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 4. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi – UTILITIES: states “All utilities, including water line locations, sewer line locations and profiles, and storm drainage systems.” A Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com profile of the proposed sewer line running 248 feet within Osgood Street should be provided. As stated earlier missing information regarding the drainage along this route should be obtained. The Applicant should consider a “dog-house” style manhole at the existing sewer line to allow for continued flow during construction. The Applicant should also provide copies of the easement documents for this sewer line as it enters private property on the south side of Osgood Street. Lastly, the Town Engineer should be consulted with regard to construction specifications for work within Osgood Street. MHF Response: The plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. General Engineering Review Comments 1. Hancock understands Lisa Eggleston is reviewing the design of the stormwater management system. We defer to Ms. Eggleston’s regarding this matter. MHF Response: Comment Acknowledged. 2. The applicant should indicate areas of snow storage on the plan. MHF Response: The plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 3. The landscaping plan should show all proposed underground utilities to ensure that no conflicts exist. MHF Response: No conflicts exist. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 4. The Applicant should investigate consolidation of the two proposed curb cuts into a single curb cut. Additionally, the slope of the entrance exceeds 8%. The Applicant should also investigate softening these grades given the nature of Osgood Street and the anticipated speed of vehicles turning into the site. MHF Response: The curb cuts have been revised to have an entrance and exit and the grade on the driveways has been reduced to 5% at the entrance and 6.5% at the exit. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response and change to the plan. 5. The curb radii should be a minimum of 30’ to support right turns into the site and right turns out of the site. MHF Response: The plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 6. The Applicant should investigate providing parking for patrons leaving the drive- through for instances of order problems or delays. MHF Response: Parking for patrons of the drive thru is not necessary for this type of facility. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 7. Queuing should be adjusted to provide 20’ per vehicle. Queuing for only four to five vehicles is provided from the order board back prior to impacting parking spaces. The Applicant should consider designating several impacted spaces as employee parking. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com MHF Response: The queuing has been verified by the traffic consultant and we will designate the spaces at the end of the drive thru queue as employee spaces. Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to MDM Transportation for review of the additional information submitted by the Applicant regarding the queuing. 8. Soil testing in support of the stormwater management system should be added to the plans. MHF Response: The plan has been revised. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 9. The Applicant should consider the inclusion of a grease trap given the proposed restaurant use. Hancock understands the proposed shop’s current practice limits food preparation on site, however this is subject to change. Given the restaurant use, the Board of Health should be consulted with regard to the inclusion of a grease trap. MHF Response: Dunkin Donuts uses an internal grease trap for this type of facility and will adhere to whatever requirements that the Board for health dictates for this type of facility. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 10. The Applicant is proposing a segmental block wall requiring geo-grid reinforcement in close proximity to a proposed infiltration system. The Applicant should confirm there are no conflicts. Similarly, a retaining wall is proposed at the back of the proposed dumpster area within 3’ of the property line. The Applicant should confirm the geo-grid (if required) can be installed within the property limits. MHF Response: The proposed retaining walls for the site will be a landscape type block. All the walls are less than four feet in height and therefore will not require any type of geo-grid reinforcement. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 11. The detail of the trash enclosure needs to be coordinated with the retaining wall mentioned above. MHF Response: A detail of the retaining wall trash enclosure typical section has been included. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 12. Regarding the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, the stockpile area should be relocated out of the buffer zone to the wetlands and protection from over- compaction of soils within the proposed infiltration area should be provided. Catch basins in Osgood Street within the area of the proposed sewer should be noted to receive Siltsacks. MHF Response: The stockpile area has been relocated out of the buffer zone. A note regarding the addition of silt sacks in the basins along Osgood Street has been added to the Construction sequence. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 13. Light levels on the sidewalk at the proposed appear too low. It is recommended at least 1.0 foot-candle is provided within pedestrian areas. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com MHF Response: The lighting plan is sufficient for the use and does not take into account the lighting coming from inside the store which provides additional lighting in the sidewalk areas. Hancock Comment: Hancock believes the area of low light is far enough from the building such that internal lighting may not be sufficient to address the issue. A sidewalk bollard light may be necessary to address the issue. Review Criteria/Design Guidelines 1. The Applicant states that the project will be connected to municipal sewer and water as evidence that the municipal system has the ability to serve the project. More detail with regard to available system capacity and actual project demands should be provided. MHF Response: A typical Dunkin Donuts of this size will generate 380 gpd. The flow rate can be accommodated by the existing 8” sewer line in Osgood Street. Hancock Comment: The Applicant should verify that there are no existing issues with the sewer in the area. 2. The Applicant states that the architectural style is in harmony within the context of the surrounding businesses and that the scale of the building is consistent with that of surrounding buildings but provides no support. MHF Response: The building style of the proposed Dunkin Donuts is New England Colonial Style which is consistent with the architectural design of the Treadwell’s site across and north of this site and with the proposed development located directly across form the site. Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to the Planning Board with regard to this response. The Applicant now complies with the information submission requirement. 3. The Applicant states that electric, telephone and cable utilizes will be placed underground but shows proposed overhead lines crossing Osgood Street to a proposed pole on site. MHF Response: The power company will require overhead lines from the existing pole line to the site and the will go underground from there. Typically the power company will not place service lines underground across public streets. Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response. 4. As discussed earlier the Applicant is proposing two curb cuts. The Applicant is required to minimize curb cuts to reduce turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. See previous discussion. We believe the Applicant has addressed the majority of our prior concerns related to the review of site related issues. A letter commenting on the response to the Traffic Study response will be sent under separate cover. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com Sincerely, Hancock Associates Joseph D. Peznola, PE Principal Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com