SITE REVIEW TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 4, 2001
MUNICIPAL
COMPLEX, 1 JUNKINS AVENUE
PORTSMOUTH,
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MEMBERS PRESENT: David M. Holden, Planning Director, Chairman;
John Burke, PE;
David
Allen, Deputy Public Works Director; David Desfosses,
Engineering Technician; Charlie Jones, Fire Marshal; Michael
Magnant, Deputy Police Chief; Tom Richter, Engineering Technician; and, Alan
Sturgis, Chairman of the Conservation Commission
ALSO PRESENT: Lucy
E. Tillman, Planner I
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
A. The
application of Raymond Ramsey for
property located off Kearsarge Way
wherein site plan approval is requested for the construction of a 63’ x 231’
four-story, 100 room hotel with related paving, utilities, landscaping,
drainage and associated site improvements.
Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 218 as Lot 22 and lies within a
General Business district. Said
property was formerly shown on Assessor Plan 218 as Lots 22, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38 and 39. (This application was tabled at the
Committee’s October 30, 2001, meeting.)
Mr.
Desfosses moved to take the application off the table. Mr. Allen seconded the motion. It was so voted on a unanimous vote.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Attorney Charles A. Griffin addressed the Committee stating that he was representing the applicant and the owners. He informed the Committee that John Chagnon, the site engineer, was present together with Marcel Beaudin, architect, and Dermot Kelly, traffic engineer. Attorney Griffin stated that in November, 1998, the Rockingham County Superior Court granted a petition to rezone the property in question from residential to business for a hotel use. He went on to state that his client, Ray Ramsey, has 22 years experience in the hotel field pointing out that he owns the Anchorage Inn in York, Maine, and a hotel in Vermont.
Attorney
Griffin stated that meetings have been held with the City to see if a plan
could be designed in such a way that the hotel would be sited as far away as
possible from the residences on Kearsarge Way.
Subsequently, the City discontinued a portion of old Kearsarge Way and,
in turn, Mr. Ramsey conveyed some two acres of land to the City in the form of
a conservation easement. The buffer for
several existing residences along Kearsarge Way has been maximized as much as
possible and still allow the hotel to be developed. Some 30% of the property will forever remain undeveloped.
The
applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment recently and received certain
Variances principally having to do with setbacks. Sheet C-1 of the site plan contains the stipulations. A rendering of what the hotel might look
like (a four story hotel) was shown to the Committee. Attorney Griffin explained that Mr. Ramsey is still negotiating
with a number of franchises and no final decision has been made as yet.
The
traffic study, according to Attorney Griffin, indicates that there will be no
change in the Level of Service at the Kearsarge Way/Market Street intersection
and that there would be minimum impact during the morning and p.m. peak hours
at the I-95 interchange. Attorney
Griffin noted that they had made a presentation to the Atlantic Heights
Neighborhood Organization.
John Chagnon of Ambit Engineering reviewed the site plan package with the Committee. With regard to the lighting plan (Sheet C-6) Mr. Chagnon commented that the proposed lighting would not leave the project site. The light will shine on the parking lot and not on the abutting properties.
He
commented that a drainage analysis had been submitted. He went on to state that in an effort to
move the hotel as far away from the residences as is possible, the bulk of the
impervious area is located on the westerly side of the site. The stormwater runoff runs northwesterly,
easterly and southerly from the high point of the site. A closed pipe collection system will handle
the runoff from most of the parking lot and will discharge to a 100’ treatment
swale before entering an existing wetland area which, in actuality, is an
existing drainage ditch constructed in the 70s. It was Mr. Chagnon’s opinion that the area was a manmade wetland
and, therefore, would not fall under the protection of Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the parking lot is at least
100’ from the edge of wet.
Mr.
Chagnon continued on by stating that a weir would be constructed at the
easterly end of the wetland area to control the peak rate of runoff in that
direction; that some excess storage would be created behind it to assist in
their mitigation. Some 300 s.f. of
wetland will be filled where the weir will be located.
Sewer
will be brought in on the southerly side of the building and will tie into
Market Street. Water will be brought in
from Kearsarge Way on the left side of the building. Electric will be brought in underground.
Mr.
Sturgis commented that wetland area referred to by Mr. Chagnon does not fall
under the definition of a manmade wetland.
Mr. Sturgis read from the Zoning
Ordinance; specifically, Article VI to make his point. Mr. Chagnon responded by stating that the
area is a drainage swale. Mr. Sturgis
urged Mr. Chagnon to call it a drainage swale in his presentation and not a
manmade wetland. Mr. Chagnon referred
to a report submitted to the City by Patrick Seakamp.
Marcel
Beaudin, architect, presented a generic view of the hotel to the
Committee. He reiterated that the
franchise had not yet been selected. He
stated that indigenous materials would be used; such as clapboards/shingles so
that the building would look like those in New England and not in Texas –
something that belongs here and has been here.
Dermot
Kelly, traffic engineer for the project, addressed the Committee. He referred to the study done for the
proposed GreenPages project in December of 1997. A traffic study was completed by Mr. Kelly in March of this year
which has been updated and adjusted for the July peak summer conditions. He used a power point program to illustrate
traffic volumes. It was Mr. Kelly’s
opinion that hotel traffic would only add five cars to the left turn lane
during the evening peak hour with the hotel fully occupied. This figure was based on information gleamed
from the ITE manual.
Mr.
Burke interjected that one of the reasons the City did not accept the traffic
study was that particular movement. He
spoke to the factoring of traffic from March to July using State averages and
stated that he was looking for a study that truly represents what happens in
Portsmouth during the month of July. He
commented that Mr. Kelly would be going back out in
December
to obtain more traffic counts. He (Mr.
Burke) did not feel that the submitted traffic study represents what truly
happens at 4:30 P.M. – 5:00 P.M. The
fine tuning of signals was discussed.
Mr.
Allen asked if the recent improvements to Commerce Way and Dovekie Way were
considered when the traffic study was done.
Mr. Kelly replied that they were not factored in. Mr. Burke spoke to existing features and
actual levels of service and left queuing levels; commenting that Market Street
can be blocked almost to Portsmouth Boulevard during the month of December as
it is a retail corridor.
Mr.
Kelly felt that the generation of traffic for the hotel during the morning peak
hour would be 34 vehicles entering and 24 vehicles leaving; that during the
evening peak hour, there would be 37 vehicles entering and 25 vehicles
leaving. Discussion ensued about the
Levels of Service currently and at full buildout. It was Mr. Kelly’s opinion that left queuing was a separate
issue. Again, Mr. Burke commented that if one wanted to make a left turn, one might
be tied up in traffic out by Spinnaker Point.
Mr.
Burke inquired if Mr. Kelly had met with the NH Department of Transportation
with the response being that the traffic study had not been sent to them.
Tom
Belmont, Chairperson of the Atlantic Heights Neighborhood Association,
addressed the Committee and reported that Attorney Griffin and Mr. Ramsey had
met with the neighborhood association and had presented their plans adding that
the neighborhood association had also met with the folks from the City.
Mr.
Belmont stated that initially he was very concerned about the safety of the
residents of Atlantic Heights as they leave Atlantic Heights. He spoke to the fuel trucks from Irving Oil
and Furman Lumber leaving Atlantic Heights at peak operating times adding that
the grade on Kearsarge Way is a very dangerous grade. It was his opinion that accidents would happen as people leave
the hotel site at different times of the day; that trucks would be hitting cars
mentioning the slippery slope in the wintertime compounded by the fact that
there are speeding problems in the Heights.
He felt that if something was done about the speeding, that the element
of danger might be mitigated.
Mr.
Belmont seriously questioned the fact that the drainage swale was manmade. He urged the Committee to look into it.
Attorney
Tom Keane addressed the Committee and stated that he represents several of the
abutters in the neighborhood; approximately ten of them. He stated that he could speak from personal
knowledge about traffic concerns as his office is situated at 1000 Market
Street which is across the street from Kearsarge Way. He spoke to a recent seven car pileup. He did not feel that the graphics accurately depicted the
everyday situation with the intersection with I-95 north which he felt was a
very hazardous situation. He stated
that his foremost concern is with traffic and safety and urged the Committee to
closely examine the traffic study and ask questions about the traffic study.
Attorney
Keane referred to Attorney Griffin’s reference to the Court decision regarding
the use of the property for a hotel.
Attorney Keane spoke to the recent Board of Adjustment action wherein
the Board felt that the Superior Court had ordered a hotel to be placed on the
property; thus, the Board would give its approval to the requested
Variances. He urged the Committee to
look at all land use requirements; specifically, pertaining to the safety of
surrounding abutters.
Ken
West, a resident of Atlantic Heights, addressed the Committee and questioned
the affect on utilities as a result of the construction of the hotel
particularly water and sewer. He spoke
to water pressure and sewer problems what with basements flooding. He expressed his desire that the hotel be
properly designed. He also looked for
assurances that the hotel would be the last commercial building built in the
area. It was his thinking that some
abutters would be asking the zoning board for relief.
The
Chair made three calls for speakers.
Seeing none, he stated that he still would keep the Public Hearing open.
With
regard to the water pressure, Dave Allen commented that John Chagnon would be
working with Tom Cravens of the Water Department on the issue of pressure and
that testing would be done. With regard
to the sewer system, Mr. Allen stated that he was not aware of any sewer
problems in the area pointing out that the connection would be well downstream
of the neighborhood. He further felt
that the stormwater runoff would not impact any of the neighbors and should not
be contributing to any basement flooding.
Regarding
the subject of creeping commercialism, Mr. Holden inquired of Attorney Griffin
if he anticipated going back to the Board of Adjustment for further
relief. Attorney Griffin responded by
stating not at this time. Mr. Holden
asked if such could be precluded as being a possibility. Attorney Griffin replied that the Superior
Court decision indicated that as long as Mr. Ramsey could satisfy the
requirements of the Board of Adjustment, he could not be precluded.
For
the third and final time, the Chair made a call for speakers. There being none, he declared the Public
Hearing closed adding that at the wish of the Committee, the Public Hearing
could be re-opened.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr.
Desfosses had questions about the finish floor of the first floor. Mr. Chagnon pointed out that the hotel would
have a basement area. Discussion ensued
on pedestrian walkways.
Ms.
Tillman pointed out that on the Existing Conditions plan, reference is made to
the lots to be combined. She noted that
lots 26 and 27 were included and that those lots are actually owned by others
than Mr. Ramsey. She asked that a note
reflecting such be added to the plan.
Mr.
Burke moved to table the application due to the discrepancy in traffic
studies. He noted that the NH
Department of Transportation (NHDOT) is a partner in this application and must
agree to any traffic mitigation. He
urged the applicant to schedule a meeting with NHDOT. He further asked that the plan be reviewed by the Traffic/Safety
Committee at its meeting in January.
Mr. Sturgis seconded the motion.
Discussion
ensued on the internal sidewalks as to whether it would be best to wait for the
final design of the building or whether to include them in the proposal at this
time. It was decided that the
pedestrian walkways should be included at this time.
Stipulations:
1. That
the discrepancies in the traffic studies be resolved;
2. That the plan be reviewed by the Traffic/Safety Committee with a report back to the Committee;
3. That
a joint meeting (City and applicant) be held with the New Hampshire Department
of Transportation (NHDOT);
4. That
the water issue be resolved; that is, that flow tests be done;
5. That
the site plan indicate internal sidewalks and an area for a transit pullover;
6. That
the landscaping plan be shared with the neighborhood and be approved by the
Planning Department;
7. That
the water main being capped near a residential driveway be brought back to
Kearsarge Way; and,
8. That
a meeting shall be held with Charlie Jones, Fire Marshal regarding a master
fire alarm box and fire hydrant locations.
The
motion was to table to the January 2nd meeting of the
Committee. It was so voted on a
unanimous vote.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Let the record show that John Burke left the meeting at this time.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
A. The
request of Coventry Assets Ltd. for
property located at 755 Banfield Road
wherein an amendment to an approved site plan is requested. The changes involve the reduction of the
building footprint from 25,276 s.f. to 22,440 s.f. and the relocation of the
driveway entrance from Constitution Avenue to the place where the driveway now
exists with associated site improvements.
Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 274 as Lot 1D and lies within an
Office Research district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
A. Robert Thoresen, a principal of Coventry
Assets, Ltd., the owner of the property, addressed the Committee. He explained that a previous approval was
granted to GGA Properties in March of 2,000.
A one year extension of the approval was granted in December of
2,000. The approval will now lapse in
March of 2002.
The proposal before the Committee calls for the relocation of the entrance driveway back to the existing driveway; otherwise, a large stand of mature trees would have to be taken down.
The size of the building will be reduced from 24,580 s.f. to 22,440 s.f. The approved plan mapped out the size of the available footprint. Subsequently, an architect has been hired and the building has been designed. The parking requirement has been reduced to 102 spaces with 106 spaces being proposed. The amount of open space has been increased. Pavement area has been reduced.
The Chair made three calls for speakers. Seeing no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr. Desfosses pointed out that several things had happened since the time of the original approval; such as, the installation of a 20” water main around the property. He noted that the plans should be changed to indicate that water line. His second concern was the application of a finish coat on Banfield Road in the Spring. He asked that all utilities be in place prior to the application of the finish coat.
It was noted that if the pump station is situated in the same spot, that trees would have to be cut down. It was further noted that the force main is about 2’ from the 20” water main.
Mr. Desfosses moved to approve with stipulations. Mr. Sturgis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously:
Stipulations:
1. That
all utilities be stubbed prior to the City’s placement of a finish coat on
Banfield Road next Spring (April, 2002).
Of specific concern is the underground electrical which will be going
across Banfield Road;
2. That
the site plan indicate the appropriate grade lines at the rear of the building;
3. That
a note be added to the site plan that a warning tape will be placed on the
sewer force main;
4. That
a recommendation was made that the applicant’s engineer check the roof drain
that comes off the right corner of the building to see whether a catch basin
would be appropriate;
5. That
the site plan shall indicate the new existing utilities; such as, the new 20”
water main;
6. That
a recommendation was made that the applicant’s engineer look at any possible
conflicts with the water main running right alongside the sewer manhole (see
sewer manhole detail on sheet 5);
7. That
the pump station shall be relocated in an attempt to save a stand of mature
trees; and,
8. That
the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B. The
application of Natick Portsmouth Realty
Corp. d/b/a BJ’s Wholesale Club for property located at 1801 Woodbury Avenue wherein site plan
approval is requested for the widening of an accessway to provide for an
additional exiting lane with associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 215
as Lot 14 and lies within a General Business district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Attorney
Bernard W. Pelech addressed the Committee representing BJ's Wholesale
Club. The proposal is essentially the
widening of the exiting structure of BJ's on Woodbury Avenue. Attorney Pelech informed the Committee that the
plan has been reviewed extensively by John Burke, the City's Transportation
Engineer, and he has indicated that he has not problem with the proposal.
Jeff
Dirk, Senior Project Manager of Vanasse Associates in the State of New Hampshire, addressed the Committee
explaining that basically there are two lanes exiting, a dedicated through lane
and a dedicated right-turn lane. He
commented that the operations at BJ's have been very successful with the
associated increase in traffic demands.
The proposal is to add an additional left-turn lane. The stacking distance is some 130' to
150'. It was Mr. Dirk's opinion that by
adding the left-turn lane, queuing would be reduced thus eliminating the
blockage of traffic which has resulted at the front of that store. The median strip will be cut into to provide
for the left turn lane. Access for
emergency vehicles will be maintained.
The
Chair made three calls for speakers.
There being none, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr.
Desfosses moved to recommend approval of the site plan subject to
stipulations. Mr. Jones seconded the
motion.
Stipulations:
1. That
approval be received from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation
(NHDOT);
2. That
all pavement markings meet with the approval of the Public Works Director;
3. That
approval be received from the Traffic/Safety Committee;
4. That
any changes to signal timing be at the expense of the applicant;
5. That
a plot plan be submitted to the Planning Department indicating the possible
relocation of the evergreen shrubs and/or any additional landscaping.
Mr.
Allen commented that the corridor had just been retimed. He inquired if the proposal would have an
impact. The response from Mr. Dirk was
in the negative pointing out that capacity would be increased. However, he added that if timing changes
were necessary, they would make them.
The
Chair asked if any landscaping would be eliminated. The response was that at the apex of the driveway, two large
evergreen shrubs would be removed as they would affect sight line. The Chair asked that a plot plan be
provided showing where the shrubs would
be replaced on site or any additional landscaping.
The
question was asked as to the finish service of the new island with the response
being that it would be concrete.
The
motion passed unanimously.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
C. The application of Wren’s Nest Motel Corp. for property located at 3548 Lafayette Road wherein site plan
approval is requested for the construction of a 180’ x 50’ parking area to
accommodate twenty-eight spaces in conjunction with a proposed 60 seat
restaurant with a bar area and dance floor within an existing building with
associated site improvements. Said
property is shown on Assessor Plan 297 as Lot 6 and lies within a Single
Residence A district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Gary Bowmar of the Wren’s Nest Motel addressed the Committee explaining that his proposal would meet all setback requirements; that the proposal was for a pretty basic parking lot. Discussion ensued regarding hydrants. Mr. Bowmar stated that there are none on the property; that there is one on adjacent property southerly on Route 1. He commented that the need for additional parking spaces is as a result of a change in use of part of the building to that of a restaurant. Mr. Bowmar further explained that he intended to lease out the restaurant use.
Ms.
Tillman interjected that the Board of Adjustment had granted approval for the
restaurant use; that the restaurant use brings with it associated parking. She went on to explain that building
approval was received a few years ago and an indoor pool was constructed with
recreational areas on the first floor and motel units upstairs. The City is now being asked to issue
approval for a restaurant/bar/dance area.
Discussion
ensued on the need for a fire hydrant for a 60 seat restaurant. It was stated that the type of fire system
does not fall under the purview of this Committee. The suggestion was made that the applicant meet with Fire Marshal
Charlie Jones so that a determination could be made on whether a fire hydrant
would be required.
The
question was asked if a grease trap was existing with the reply being in the
affirmative and that it had been inspected by John Lanoie.
The
question was asked as to the grades and lighting in the area with Mr. Bowmar
responding that the grade is pretty level.
A catch basin exists in the parking area with underground drains to the
back of the property. This system ties
to two other catch basins.
Mr.
Allen returned to the question of grades.
Mr. Bowmar responded by stating that he is not planning on paving at
this moment; that the parking area would be gravel.
Ms.
Tillman inquired as to whether the trailer out back was removed. Mr. Bowmar responded that it had been
removed as of this date and not to another area in Portsmouth.
The
Chair stated that, frankly, he had concerns with the quality of the plans
themselves and that he could not support sending the plan forward to the
Planning Board; that the plans need to be brought up another level. He suggested that the application be tabled
and Planning Department staff would work with him to improve the plans.
Some
of the items that need to be addressed on the plan are: gravel or paved; size of each space; water
table; interior roadway from Lafayette Road to parking area. The Chair stated that all the details needed
to move the plan on were not present.
He commented that drainage issues need to be reviewed and a
determination needs to be made as whether a hydrant is needed.
It
was also stated that lighting is needed for every 20’ and that the lighting
should be oriented not to shine on abutting properties.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr.
Allen moved to table to the January 2, 2002, meeting of the Committee. Mr. Desfosses seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The tabling motion was made to allow for:
1. The
applicant to meet with Charlie Jones, the City’s Fire Marshal, for a
determination as to fire hydrant location; and for
2. The
applicant and the applicant’s engineer to meet with Planning Department staff
to discuss the submittal of appropriate site plan. Some of the outstanding issues are grading, drainage, lighting;
gravel or paved parking area; size of each parking space, and the accessway
from Lafayette Road to the parking area.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
D. The
request of David Hancock, Trustee of
Pheasant Lane Realty Trust, for property located off Hoover Drive wherein an amendment to an approved site plan for a
planned unit development is requested to incorporate an amended drainage
plan. Said property is shown on
Assessor Plan 268 as Lot 99 and lies within a Single Residence B district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Dennis Moulton of Millette, Sprague &
Colwell addressed the Committee. David
Desfosses recused himself from sitting on this application. The Chair noted that a quorum was still
sitting. Mr. Moulton spoke to a Planned
Unit Development off Hoover Drive. The
issue before the Board is that as the project was developed, the proposed
swales were never built. The question
has been asked as to whether the swales were really needed. It was Mr. Moulton’s opinion that post
development flows were almost equal to pre-development flows.
The question was asked if any of the drainage
patterns of development since 1997 along Lafayette Road had been looked at with
the response from Mr. Moulton being in the negative.
The question was asked as to why the amendment
was being proposed. The response was
that people who bought units do not like the appearance of the drainage swale
and detention pond; in other words, the aesthetics of providing that type of
mitigation.
The Chair commented that he recalled that when
the original proposal went through the review process, the abutters across
Hoover Drive were concerned about sheet flow across Hoover Drive. He inquired as to what affect the amended
plan would have on that. Mr. Moulton
felt that there would be no positive affect on that situation; that there would
be no decrease in the amount of flow the utility structure sees at Taft Road;
in other words, the flow would be the same pre and post development.
Mr. Allen inquired, in a system like this, where
the flow is essentially being time released from a detention pond, is it
possible that such a system could make the Hoover Drive problem worse. Mr. Allen also asked if Mr. Moulton had been
out to the site during a significant rainfall with the response being in the
negative. The Chair asked, as he put
it, in his technical terms, whether the delay would be good or bad for Hoover
Drive. Mr. Moulton responded by stating
that in this case, the delay is good; that the storm water runoff would have
time to drain slowly resulting in less water flow out.
Discussion was had on whether there was an alternative which would preserve open space but still afford a comfortable level of integrity in the control of storm water flows. Mr. Moulton responded by referring to some sort of closed drainage system.
Mr. Allen inquired as to the water level at the
culvert that crosses under Hoover Drive during a 10 year storm. Mr. Moulton responded that he didn’t know.
Bob Brookhouse, President of the Pheasant Lane
Homeowner’s Association, addressed the Committee and stated that currently
there are seven residences in the development.
He submitted a letter in favor of the revised site plan.
He pointed out that the detention pond that was
constructed has never been filled with any water even in a significant
rainfall -- only that which was rained
into it. He noted that a small amount of
water in the detention pond contributes to a severe mosquito problem. The appearance of the proposed structure is
undesirable. It was his opinion that
the Planned Unit Development has no unusual drainage problems. The installation of the drainage swale would
involve the removal of a large amount of trees in the development.
He commented that he understood that the
original plans were designed in good faith to correct flooding problems of
abutting properties. He wondered if it
would be possible to have a drainage system that would minimize the removal of
trees on the property and would allow a detention pond to be built in such a
manner that is pleasing and easily maintainable. He spoke to an open area that could be grassed in and maintained
easily and perhaps could even be used.
Mr. Holden asked if Mr. Brookhouse represented
all the homeowners. Mr. Brookhouse
replied that the letter is not signed by everybody but he has informed all of
them of the situation at hand. The
Chair commented that the approved site plan could be built at any time. Mr. Brookhouse stated that they would
respectfully request that such not be done.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr. Allen thought there were enough outstanding issues to table the application; that the Committee needed to look at surrounding areas.
Mr.
Allen moved to table the application to the January 2, 2002, meeting of the
Committee. Mr. Richter seconded the
motion. The tabling action was taken to
allow for:
1. a
meeting with the City’s Engineering Department, if appropriate;
2. for
the amended plan to include development on adjacent sites;
3. for
a report of any impact on Hoover Drive; and,
4. for
all members of the condo association to sign off on an amended plan
Mr. Desfosses suggested that the study be done
as if this were an entire drainage basin looking at impacts down to the culvert
on Hoover Drive and impacts, in general, on Hoover Drive. The study should also take into
consideration the configuration of all abutting lots and what the levels are
for a 10 year storm.
The Chair commented that the approved plans
could be built; that the applicant is working in good faith with the City to
secure bonding to July 31st.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
E. The application of John Bosa for property located at 248 Peverly Hill Road wherein site plan approval is requested for
the creation of a three lot subdivision with related paving, utilities,
landscaping, drainage and associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 243
as Lots 54 and 23 and lies within a Single Residence B district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Attorney Bernard W. Pelech addressed the
Committee and explained that the original plan called for a four lot
subdivision. The plan has been
downsized. Preliminary Approval was
received from the Planning Board in November.
Chris Ogden, principal civil engineer with the
Maguire Group, addressed the Committee and spoke to the proposed 200’ paved
cul-de-sac. Water and sewer lines will
be extended from existing lines.
Electric, telephone and cable will be installed underground. The drainage system will be a closed
drainage system. The stormwater runoff
will discharge into a large, vast wetland.
Mr. Ogden then referred to a letter from David
Desfosses dated June 28th and supplied the following information:
With regard to the water table in the area of
the proposed cul-de-sac, Mr. Ogden stated that the water table is at 18”;
Assurances were given that no stormwater runoff
would overflow the swale; that the runoff would enter the ground;
The plan now reflects a filter fabric bed for
the cul-de-sac in the water table problem areas;
1% grades will be provided near the cul-de-sac
A note regarding the water main is on the plan
Tom Cravens will be contacted shortly regarding
the details for moving the hydrant;
Plan now reflects sloped granite curbing in
accord with NHDOT standards
A note has been added to the plan (#8) that an
engineering firm, a local contractor, will be hired to monitor construction
Silt fences are now shown on the plan
The road meets sight visibility standards. The sight line along Peverly Hill Road meets
current NHDOT standards for intersection sight distance. 265.7’ provided
Drainage easements for the culvert have been
added to the plan
It was Mr. Ogden’s opinion that a light at the
end of the cul-de-sac would be overkill but that he would respect the opinion
of the Committee
Note #7 on the plan indicates that 4” of loam
and seed will be added to all disturbed areas
The materials for the proposed storm drain have
been changed to pvc
Mr. Desfosses inquired as to cross sections and
the average pavement above ground. He
stated that he did not want to see water squishing up underneath the
pavement. He inquired if there was an
underdrain in that section. The Chair
interjected that he believed that one of the requirements is the submission of
profile cross sections for the Planning Board.
Discussion ensued on the sewer connection with
Deputy Pubic Works Director Allen concurring with the method of the proposed
installation.
The Chair inquired as to any tree plantings
along the cul-de-sac, it being his opinion that there was still plenty of room
to get a tree in. Mr. Jones inquired if
the cul-de-sac would be a City street with the response being in the
affirmative. The Chair interjected that
it made sense to keep the name of the street as Moffatt and Attorney Pelech
concurred.
The Chair made three calls for speakers. There being none, the Chair declared the
Public Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr. Desfosses moved to recommend approval with
stipulations. Mr. Allen seconded the
motion.
Stipulations:
1. That
the proposed street lighting be PSNH approved lighting;
2. That
an under drain be run from station 1+50 to station 2+50 and be tied into the
one proposed catch basin;
3. That
Department of Transportation numbers be added to the details;
4. That
the site plan contain driveway cross sections;
5. That
the site plan indicate 1” service, type K, going into the shut off;
6. That
the site plan indicate the location of the fire hydrant outside of the loop;
7. That
the drainage easement to the City be approved by the City Attorney as to
content and form;
8. That
the site plan contain a note that in the event the proposed street is extended
to serve other lots, then sidewalks would be brought in along the right-of-way;
9. That
an easement be given to the City for property within 30’ of the center line of
Peverly Hill Road for a future extra lane, if needed, and a sidewalk with such
easement being approved by the City Attorney as to content and form;
10. That
the site plan indicate the planting of trees along the right-of-way; and,
11. That
the application receive the approval of the Traffic/Safety Committee.
There was considerable discussion on the possible installation of a sidewalk; however, the Deputy Public Works Director felt it would be too difficult to fit one in at the present time as the property lies skewed to the road. It was felt that it would be better to obtain an easement for one sometime in the future.
Attorney Pelech expressed surprise at being
asked to obtain Traffic/Safety approval; however, Deputy Police Chief Magnant
asked that the application be reviewed by Traffic/Safety as the proposal calls
for a City street.
The motion passed unanimously.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
F. The application of Lafayette Partners of Michigan, LP, owner, and Margaritas Management
Group, applicant, for property located at 775 Lafayette Road wherein site plan approval is requested for the
construction of three additions to the existing Margaritas Restaurant. The proposal calls for a 456 s.f. addition
on the easterly side, a 1,188 s.f. addition to the northerly side and a 420
s.f. addition on the westerly side with associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 245
as Lot 1 and lies within a General Business district.
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Attorney Bernard W. Pelech addressed the
Committee and stated that he was representing the applicant as well as the
owners. The proposal involves additions
to the existing Margaritas Restaurant for use as kitchen space, office space
and additional seating. The proposal
also calls for the construction of an accessible handicapped bathroom.
Attorney Pelech advised the Committee that Skip
Bagdoyan of Ambit Engineering and Lisa DeStefano, architect, were present to
answer any questions the Committee might have.
In addressing the Committee, Mr. Bagdoyan stated
that the information on the site plan is pretty much self-explanatory. Parking will be re-organized to get a better
flow in the area. No change in
impervious area is proposed. Existing
utility connections for gas and water would remain the same. The electrical service to the rear of the
building would be reconfigured. The
sewer connection is part of the private sewer that services the entire
mall. Mr. Bagdoyan spoke to a sewer
connection from the kitchen to the grease trap. The bathrooms will connect to the same sewer service. Mr. Bagdoyan reiterated as much of the
existing utilities as possible will be left intact.
Mr. Allen commented that the Committee would
like to see the utilities identified on the plan adding that the sewer service
for the kitchen would have to accommodate a 1,000 gallon external grease
trap. Mr. Bagdoyan stated that it was
his understanding that a 1,000 gallon grease trap already exists. He was asked to verify that on the plan and
to show where the lines are running.
Mr. Cravens felt that the lines would be located under the proposed
additions.
Deputy Police Chief Magnant spoke to the walkway
for pedestrians located in front of the building. Lisa DeStefano, architect for the project, addressed the
Committee and spoke to the proposed addition on the base of the existing
sidewalk. She spoke to the circulation
pattern of a free-standing building and the parking associated with the building
adding that Margarita’s is not a storefront.
The Chair commented that he had concerns with
the proposed addition occurring over an area where the public presently
walks. He asked what allowances were
being made for that occurrence.
Attorney Pelech responded that the plan does not show any sidewalk. The Chair asked what would be done to show a
sidewalk adding that he was concerned about pedestrian safety.
Shawn Joyce, President of Margarita’s since
1991, stated that the whole area is concrete; that the kids from Ledgewood hang
out in the area in question. The Chair
asked if the proposed work is part of a larger development with the response
being in the affirmative. The Chair
pointed out that sidewalks are fundamental and that to occupy a sidewalk to
expand a business is not the best approach.
The Chair felt that there were ample opportunities for a better site
plan.
The question was asked as to increased seating
with the response being that 65 additional seats are proposed. The comment was made that the Zoning Ordinance regulates noise
(external).
Deputy Police Chief Magnant inquired if the
expansion would be for the main dining room or for the lunch crowd with the
response being 40 seats for the restaurant and 25 for lunch. It was felt that the increased lunch
capacity would have an impact on foot operation. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the major reason for the proposal is
that people have to walk through the bar to use the bathroom referring more
specifically to kids and families.
Deputy Police Chief Magnant inquired if Mr.
Joyce wanted to be in the bar business accommodating college age children or in
the family restaurant business. Deputy
Police Chief Magnant inquired if there would be any change in the deck at all
with the response being in the negative.
Deputy Police Chief Magnant wondered how long the Rolling Rock beer
bottle would remain in the stockade fence.
That being said, it was the consensus of the
Committee that the site plan should be revisited.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr. Allen moved to table the application to the
Committee’s January 2, 2002, meeting.
Mr. Desfosses seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
G. The application of Aphrodite Georgopoulos Revocable Trust, owner, and 1900 Lafayette Road,
LLC, applicant, for property located at 1900 Lafayette Road wherein site plan approval is requested for the
construction of three (3), three-story office buildings with each building
having a footprint of 5,504 s.f. with related paving, utilities, landscaping,
drainage and associated site improvements.
Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 267 as Lot 8 and lies within an
Office Research district. (The Planning Board granted site plan
approval at its September 21, 2000, meeting; however, the approval has since
lapsed.)
SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:
Greg Whalen, a managing member of 1900 Lafayette Road LLC, addressed the Committee explaining that the Planning Board had approved the site plan in September of 2,000. The approval lapsed due to no purposeful reason other than it getting lost in the shuffle. Thus the process was restarted in the hopes of getting the approval extended for one more year. Mr. Whalen indicated that there were no changes to the approved plan whatsoever.
Mr.
Holden reviewed the stipulations from the previous approval with Mr. Whalen
indicating compliance. It was noted
that the only significant change to the area is that the improvements to the
Peverly Hill Road intersection have now been completed; however, nothing site
specific had changed.
The
Chair made three calls for speakers.
Seeing none, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:
Mr. Allen moved to recommend re-approval of the site plan subject to the former stipulations and a new stipulation that a valve be indicated for the 4” water service. Mr. Desfosses seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
III.
ADJOURNMENT was had at approximately 5:00 p.m.
These minutes were taken and transcribed by Barbara Driscoll, Administrative Assistant in the Planning Department.