HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-15 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (40)
1018 Osgood St. Review January 15, 2013
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
1