Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-14~N H.P. NELSON D/redvr BUILDING CONSERVATION PLANNING Town of NORTH ANDOVER DMsIoN OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 Main Street, 01845 (508) 682-6483 Planning Board Agenda November 14, 1991 7:30 p.m. Discussions Oakwood Subdivision - Easements Marbleridge Estates Brickstone Properties Coventry Estates Approval Not Required Form A Plans Public Bonds Scott Circle - Lot Line Change Lacy Street - Creating 1 Lot Bradford Street - Creating 1 Lot Hearings Phillips Common - Definitive Subdivision Phillips Common - Special Pea,nit - PRD Hidden Court - Sign Fofms Cranberry Lane - Bond Release English Circle - Bond Release Comments Planning Board, Public Hearing 11/14/91 Phillips Common: - Definitive Subdivision Special Permit, PRD John Simons read the legal notice to open both the public hearing for the Special Permit and the Definitive Subdivision requested by PhillipsCommon Realty Trust. This Special permit is specifically requested for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) of 26 additional single family homes, in the R-3 zoning District. George Perna asked Christian Huntress if staff had anything to report with regard to these applications. Mr. Huntress stated that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) had met with regard to both applications and has recommended the following: Ail houses constructed within this project shall have residential fire sprinklers installed, as per NAFD. All property located along Osgood street shall have restrictive covenants in place for perpetual conservation/preservation. This shall include the parcel around the Thomas mansion. - An open space barrier shall be placed around the perimeter of the property. Division of Public Works letter from Bill Hmurciak, dated November 14, 1991 should be read into the record and made part of the file. The Conservation Commission has issued a negative determination for this project. As such, the applicant will not be required to file a Notice of Intent for any work shown on the plans. A letter from the applicant dated, November 14, 1991, offers the total open space associated with the PRD to the town as a gift of land. Ail easements for roadway, utility, drainage, open space, conservation and preservation should be prepared and presented to staff for review. The Board of Health has asked the applicant to provide proof that the existing Manse is tied into the sewer located within Osgood Street. - Details of all proposed lighting should be submitted for review. This includes lighting proposed at the entry. John Simons read a letter from William Hmurciak, NADPW, dated November 14, 1991 listing ten (10) issues which the applicant should be asked to address. Richard Nardella questioned Mr. Huntress on the recommendation of the Division of Public Works that the roadway width be 26 feet. Mr. Huntress stated the roadway as shown on the plans is 22 feet wide, and is in conformance with the Planning Board's Rules and Requlations Governina the Subdivision of Land. Mr. Huntress went on to say that the Town Manager had met with the Planning Department and the Division of Public Works on this issue and supported the recommendation from a majority of the Technical Review Committee that the roadway be designed at 22' pavement width. Mr. Huntress then asked that the applicant's engineer, Steve Stapinski, of Merrimack Engineering Services, present the detailed plans to the board. Mr. Stapinski introduced himself, Mr. Jonathan Woodman of Woodman Associates, Architects, and the trustees of Phillips Common Realty Trust. Mr. Stapinski then presented a Site Plan which showed the 26 new dwellings and reviewed other issues of roadway width, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and distance to abutters. John Simons questioned the need for two detention ponds when prior applications on this property had only shown one. Mr. Stapinski responded by stating that ground water elevations were found to be much higher than originally shown on previous plans, and that a tremendous amount of fill would be required to accommodate all drainage with only one detention pond. Mr. Huntress said that he had also raised this concern at the TRC meeting, and had walked the site with Mr. Stapinski and Mr. Thomas Laudani, project manager. Mr. Stapinski then completed review of the drainage plans with the board. John Draper asked what the distance was from the proposed construction to homes located along Phillips Brook Road. Mr. Stapinski stated that all new construction was at least 100' feet from the property line abutting Phillips Brook Road. George Perna suggested that a no-cut line be placed along the rear of all lots which abut Phillips Brook Road and Osgood Street and that more screening should be provided along the rear of the lots which abut Massachusetts Ave. The material used should be evergreen trees of the same type used in other areas on the property. Mr. Stapinski said that would not be a problem. John Simons then asked why the plans had been drawn to eliminate the Thomas Mansion from the proposed construction, and questioned whether the "Manse" was to be considered as part of this project. Mr. Stapinski said that with the property of the Manse included in the open space calculations the percent open was 42-43 %. Mr. Simons continued to question how the Manse was being treated and stated that he felt it should be looked at as a 27th lot. George Perna felt that the 27th lot was an issue from the start, and that it was unclear from preliminary discussions with the Board as to whether this would be allowed under the PRD regulations. Mr. Perna then asked Mr. Huntress to have counsel review the PRD bylaw and specifically the allowed density calculations to see if it is within the Planning Board's authority to approve a PRD plan which exceeds the number of lots shown on a conventional subdivision plan. Mr. Stapinski asked that Mr. Jonathan Woodman be allowed to present his architectural plans for the dwelling units. Mr. Woodman explained to the board that all dwellings would be constructed from one of the four detail sketches presented for their review. All colors are to be "earth tones" and all perimeter lots shall have a low fence to the front of the lot and lighting at each driveway. Mr. Woodman went on to say that all interior lots shall be landscaped with low stone walls and "subtle berms" so as to define each lot in a traditional "New England village style". In discussing the architectural style of the dwellings, Mr. Woodman stated that the design is considered an expandable cape, with architectural shingles on the roof and wood, clapboard and brick as an exterior facade material. Mr. Woodman commented that the need for a 22' wide roadway was driven by the desire to create a village atmosphere. With the construction of sidewalks, berms, fences and common open space a sense of community and pedestrian scale can be established. John Simons asked that the architectural drawings be revised so as to list all material used in construction of the dwellings. Particularly the material used in construction of the roof, facade, windows and lighting. Richard Nardella then questioned the configuration of Lot Y, which surrounds the Thomas Manse. Specifically, why could Lot Y not be drawn so as to include the open space and gardens associated with the historic nature of the Thomas property. Further, should the Town accept a grant of land including the open space, would there be a liability issue associated with an existing garage on Town property and what would the yearly tax on that open space amount to. Mr. Huntress stated that he had advised the applicant to comply with the 35% open space requirement, and that should Lot Y be enlarged the total open space would fall below 35%. Mr. Nardella stated that if Lot Y is to be protected by a historic preservation restriction and a conservation restriction then it should be considered as open space even if not included in the land to be gifted to the Town. Mr. Stapinski added that if Lot Y is included in the open space calculations then at total of 42-43% would be attained. Rick Nardella asked that the applicant redraw the property line of Lot Y so as to include the historic garden and meadow. George Perna asked Mr. Huntress if the Historical society had been contacted with regard to this project. Mr. Huntress stated that they had and Atty. Michael Morris and Mr. Davis Cherrington were both present on their behalf to speak to the board. Atty. Michael Morris then introduced himself and Davis Cherrington to the board and stated that he felt the project to be a good one and that the developers, specifically Thomas Laudani, had been very accommodating and helpful throughout the negotiation process. Atty. Morris then reviewed the draft preservation/conservation restrictions which the Historical Society had prepared. Richard Nardella asked what the construction schedule for openings within Massachusetts Avenue and Osgood Street would be. Mr. Laudani stated that the street openings would be permitted by the DPW. Mr. Nardella asked that a schedule be presented at the next meeting. George Perna then asked the Board when they could schedule a site walk to review the property. The board agreed on the walk for 8:00 am Saturday, November 16, and asked that the engineer have the approximate edge of roadway staked out at that time. Mr. Laudani then asked the Board to consider closing the public hearing due to the developers need to initiate construction before the winter sets in. John Simons stated that he felt it improper to close the public hearing before the site walk and that additional information had been requested which will still have be reviewed while the public hearing is open. George Perna asked Christian Huntress if he could send a letter to the applicant listing all concerns which were raised this evening and prepare a draft set of conditions for both the Definitive Subdivision application and the Special Permit. Mr. Huntress responded that he could have the letter by the site walk on Saturday, and a draft set of conditions by the next meeting scheduled for November 21, 1991. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Richard Nardella, to continue both the Public Hearing for the Definitive Subdivision and Special Permit to the next regularly scheduled Meeting of November 21, and direct staff to draft a letter to the applicant listing all concerns raised. John Simons Unanimous Planning Board, Public Hearing 11/21/91 Phillips Common: - Definitive Subdivision Special Permit, PRD Christian Huntress reminded the Board that this was a continued public hearing for both the Special Permit (PRD), and the Definitive Subdivision applications presented by Phillips Common Realty Trust. George Perna spoke briefly on the issues discussed during the site walk of November 16, 1991. Mr. Huntress then asked John Simons to read a letter, dated Nov. 15, 1991 sent to the applicant listing all concerns raised at the last hearing. The letter listed 18 issues which the applicant was asked to address. The issues were as follows: A No-Cut Line shall be established along the back of all lots which abut Phillips Brook Road, Chickering Road, Osgood Street and the residential dwellings along the southern most boundary of the property. The Planning Board considers Lot Y to be an integral part of the proposal, as such all development plans should show that parcel as part of the project. Lot Y should be reconfigured so as to include the existing garage on the property of the Phillips Manse. It is my understanding that this may be accomplished while still retaining the 35% open space requirement of the North Andover Zoning bylaw. The Planning Board is in receipt of your letter dated November 14, 1991 which offers the 5.5 acres of open space to the Town of North Andover. I have asked Town Counsel to review the liability issues involved with acceptance of this parcel as public land. The Planning Board is encouraged by your efforts to cooperate with the North Andover Historical society. Please present draft copies of any Preservation/Conservation restrictions which are currently being negotiated. Please prepare and present for staff review any necessary easements for roadway/utility conveyance and drainage, sewer or water line easements located on individual lots. All easement on individual lots must be recorded prior to endorsement of the record plans. Please provide documentation to the Board of Health and the Planning Department that the existing Phillips Manse is currently tied into the sewer line located in Osgood Street. Please provide an approximate schedule for construction in Massachusetts Avenue. This should include the sewer and drainage lines and all utilities which will require openings in the roadway for tie-ins. The Planning Board will place restrictions on the number of openings and length of time for construction within Massachusetts Avenue. More screening should be provided along the rear of the lots which abut Massachusetts Ave. The material used should be evergreen trees of the same type used in other areas on the property. 10. Details of all proposed lighting should be submitted for review. This includes lighting ProPosed at the entry. 11. The Planning Board considers "lot Y" to be a 27th lot. With that in mind the Board is reviewing the details of the project and the PRD bylaw to determine whether this is an appropriate calculation of allowed lots. 12. A site walk has been scheduled for 8:00 am Saturday, November 16, 1991. Please have approximate location of the roadway located on site for Planning Board inspection. The Division of Public Works has submitted a letter dated November 14, 1991. The Planning Board would like you to address the following as listed in that letter: 13. In general the depth of sewer is not acceptable as designed. The sewer should be lowered to avoid conflicts in elevation between the water main and sewer services. 14. Provide a profile of the cross-country sewer to Mass Ave. 15. Calculations must be provided to determine the adequate sizing of water services to accommodate residential fire sprinklers. 16. Drain manholes at station 3+84 and 11+60 may be eliminated and the drain pipe should be connected to the adjacent catch basins. Other drain manholes within the project should be located off pavement wherever possible. 17. Permits for connection to Town utilities will not be granted until a complete set of endorsed plans with up-to-date revisions is on file in the office of the Division of Public Works. 18. A Sewer System Extension Permit from D.W.P.C. of the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection must be obtained prior to the issuance of a sewer extension permit by the North Andover Division of Public Works. The local permit, in accordance with N.A.D.P.W. policy, will require 2:1 mitigation of existing infiltration/inflow from the receiving system. The receiving system, known as the West Side Interceptor, has been determined to be over capacity due to infiltration/inflow. George Perna asked Mr. Thomas Laudani if he could respond to each concern individually. Mr. Laudani presented a written response and then proceeded to review each item with the Board. Mr. Laudani showed that items # 1-3 had been changed on the plans. Mr. Huntress addressed item #4, taxes on the 5.5. acres would amount to approximately $ 324.06 per year, figured at the current tax rate. Also, the benefit to all properties surrounded by open space may prove to exceed that which is given up by accepting the property as a gift of land. On the issue of liability, Mr. Huntress stated that Town Manager James Gordon had reviewed the Town's liability coverage and was comfortable with acceptance of this property by Town Meeting. Mr. Laudani and Mr. Stapinski then reviewed with the board the property lines surrounding the Manse and to the rear of lots 5 & 6. George Perna stated that the stone wall to the rear of Lots 5 & 6 should be relocated to coincide with the 200' Historic District line, this wall shall then become the rear property line of lots 5 & 6. John Draper noted that if the dwelling on lot 5 is changed to a style A or B then less impact will be seen or felt on the historic areas. Further, that the dwelling on lot 4 should be shifted as close possible to the lot line shared with lot 3. George Perna then stated that he would feel comfortable in entertaining a motion to close both public hearings and have staff make the necessary changes to the draft approval. John Simons felt that it was too soon to close a public hearing for a special permit PRD in such a sensitive area of Town, and that the Board should consider keeping this matter open for at least another hearing. Joe Mahoney disagreed with John Simons and stated that if the issues have been thoroughly reviewed then the board should not postpone action. The following motions were then made: MOTION: Joseph V Mahoney, To close the public hearing of the Special Permit PRD application of Phillips Common Realty Trust. SECOND: VOTE: John Simons Unanimous MOTION: John Draper, To close the public hearing of the Definitive Subdivision application of Phillips Common Realty Trust. SECOND: VOTE: Richard Nardella Unanimous MOTION: John Draper, To approve the Special Permit PRD application of Phillips Common Realty Trust, Dated October 24, 1991 for construction of 26 single family homes in accordance with the draft decision prepared by staff and amended by the Planning Board this evening. SECOND: Joseph V. Mahoney AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: John Simons, That condition # 4 of the Special Permit approval drafted by staff be removed from the final decision, and that lot # 6 be eliminated, allowing for a total of no more than 25 new dwellings. There was no second, the amendment to the motion then died and the Board was now to vote on the original motion made by Mr. Draper to approve the Special Permit PRD. ****************** VOTE: Unanimous John Simons asked that the record minutes reflect his concern with closing of the public hearing so quickly, and that he was of the opinion that no more than 25 single family dwelling be constructed on this site. Duly noted. MOTION: John Draper, To approve the Definitive Subdivision application of Phillips Common Realty Trust, Dated October 24, 1991 for construction of 26 single family homes in accordance with the draft decision prepared by staff and amended by the Planning Board this evening. SECOND: Joseph V. Mahoney VOTE: Unanimous