HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-15 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (28)Watershed Special Permit Determination – Summary of L. Eggleston’s review:
Additional test pits show a clearer picture of ESWGW. Infil. #1 should be okay. Infil #2 bottom is several
ft. below ESWGW. Lisa questions whether any subsurface system can effectively recharge or treat GW flow.
The proposed plan attenuates the rate of runoff but not volume. The volume
discharged to Osgood St. would be 2X existing conditions.
Proposed system does not provide TSS removal.
Options: capture roof runoff with drip trenches, shallow rain garden.
Parking
area – some pervious pavement and rain gardens.
Civil Review – Summary of Hancock Review:
Parking: Applicant requests a reduction in parking from required 27 spaces to 19. Requesting
relief under section 8.1.8.g, which allow for reduction in parking under certain circumstances, where it can be demonstrated that a use needs lesser number of spaces, i.e., housing for
people with disabilities, low vehicle ownership. Section f addresses Land Bank Parking. Reviewer recommends that section f. should apply. Applicant has provided information from other
sites: NA 12 spaces; Salem 13 spaces and Methuen 17 spaces. Applicant is also being asked to reduce impervious cover due to Watershed.
Fiscal Impact and Community Impact – the applicant
is requesting a waiver and should provide a basis for that request.
Traffic Review – Summary
Queuing at exit driveway from drive-thru is not adequate – plan show 10 spaces. Potential
for vehicle backup on the site. Applicant has provided data from other locations: NA max is 11. Also has designated 2 spaces as employee parking and I accessible parking that would
be blocked by longer queues.
Sight Distance: Applicant has proposed vegetation clearing near exit. Reviewer requesting a slight change in grade at entrance.
Trip generation Applicant
provided data from current NA site: 236 actual trip during weekday peak vs. 255 predicted in study. 160 actual during Saturday peak vs. 194 in study.
Sidewalks. The proximity of the
site to adjacent strip malls will encourage foot traffic. Proposed plan does not allow for pedestrian access. Pedestrians would use the driveway – unsafe. Sidewalks would create more
impervious cover.
Truck circulation; two deliveries a week using WB-50: they park in bypass lane for 5 – 10 minutes per trip. Would not need to use drive-thru lane. Daily deliveries
are done with box trucks between 5 – 6 AM.
Fire: waiting for comments.
Lighting plan needs revision
Elevations should have architect stamp
Sewer: has been referred to DPW