Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-20 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (16)1018 Osgood St Reviews: Watershed Special Permit Determination – Summary of L. Eggleston’s review: Based on topography, SW portion of the lot drains in a southerly direction towards Osgood St. and the lake. Applicant did submit detail that addresses drainage on the site to the wetlands on the rear of the property but did not address drainage on the site as a whole. With more information, she would agree that the rear of the lot drains to the wetlands that are outside of the Watershed Protection District. SW portion is in the watershed topographically. Groundwater most likely drains to the lake because groundwater follows topography and the Watershed Zoning is designed to also protect groundwater. Also, large storm events that exceed the capacity of any drainage system that is built for the site will also drain towards Osgood St. Civil Review – Summary of Hancock Review: Parking: Applicant requests a reduction in parking from required 27 spaces to 25. Applicant should provide substantiating information for this request and possibly, empirical data from the existing DD facility. Fiscal Impact and Community Impact – the applicant is requesting a waiver and should provide a basis for that request. Parking – the plan does not provide buffering required by section 8.4. Accessible spaces should be located nearest to the entrance. Two-way aisle widths should be 25 ft. No loading area has been designated and the proposed sign does not meet the bylaw. Utilities are proposed underground but plans show a utility pole on site. Grade of entrance exceeds 8%. Could be a problem for vehicles entering Osgood St. Should consider inclusion of grease trap – required by BOH? Light levels are too low. Block wall too close to rear property line and too close to proposed drainage system. Traffic Review – Summary Should conduct traffic counts when school is in session. Use empirical data from existing DD for traffic counts and parking requirements Crash data should be expanded to more accurately reflect conditions. – type of crash, time of day, etc. Should provide trip tracing data Collect empirical trip generation data and queuing data from existing DD. Redesign access - One exit, one entrance and allow for delivery and emergency vehicle access. Allow for access for a WB-50 truck. Existing design does not allow for adequate access.. Queuing at exit driveway from drive-thru is not adequate. Potential for vehicle backup on the site. Stormwater Management - Summary of L. Eggleston Review Runoff analysis – needs to be recalculated. A higher infiltration rate was used than what is associated with “C” soils. Total volume of runoff would not be mitigated. There is a loss of re-charge on the entire site and a diversion of runoff from the wetlands to Osgood St. Groundwater recharge for entire sites goes to infiltration system in the northeast corner, thus representing a net loss of groundwater recharge to the Watershed. Proposed system cannot provide the total recharge volume required. Infiltra tion systems should have a setback of 50 Ft. from a wetland. Problems with mounding analysis – needs to be re-done. The TSS removal calculation for Stormceptor is closer to 50%, not 70%. Also Stormceptor should be located upgradient of the septic system. Need calculations to determine if Stormceptor and oil/grit separators provided required treatment Consider alternative for overflow line to detention system. Roof runoff is unnecessarily diverted into the oil/grit separator. O&M plan should address maintenance of Stormceptor LTPPP should cite the fact that the site is within the Watershed. Should also determine if the parcel is within the Zone A. Snow storage not addressed.