TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SITE REVIEW

Minutes

2:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 5, 2002
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, 1 JUNKINS AVENUE
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

MEMBERS PRESENT: David M. Holden, Planning Director, Chairman;
David Allen, Deputy Public Works Director;
John Burke, Transportation Engineer;
Michael Magnant, Deputy Police Chief;
Charlie Jones, Fire Marshal;
Alanson Sturgis, Chairman of the Conservation Commission;
Tom Cravens, Engineering Technician; and,
David Desfosses, Engineering Technician

ALSO PRESENT: Lucy E. Tillman, Planner 1

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

The Chair announced that items C and D under Old Business were not ready to come back before the Committee and should be tabled. Mr. Desfosses moved that the applications be tabled to the April 2, 2002, meeting of the Committee. Mr. Sturgis seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I. OLD BUSINESS

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, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38 and 39. (This application was tabled at the Committee’s February 5, 2002, meeting to this meeting.)

SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:

The Chair read the notice. Mr. Sturgis moved to take the application off the table. Mr. Desfosses seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote. Attorney Charles A. Griffin stated that he was present to address the application and to update the Committee on the progress that has been made over the past month. He referred to the Letter of Decision from the February meeting of the Committee.

With regard to the water model, he stated that it was his belief that such had been done and he would have John Chagnon of Ambit Engineering speak to that subject. He (Attorney Griffin) went on to state that the Traffic/Safety Committee did not have a meeting in February; that the application is scheduled for this month’s meeting. With regard to the permit from the NH Department of Environmental Services, Attorney Griffin commented that it is pending one or two final items; such as a planting plan and a Conservation Easement.

With regard to the transit pullover, Attorney Griffin stated that he, John Burke, the City’s Transportation Engineer and Mr. Ramsey met with COAST who reiterated that they would prefer to see a transit pullover on the opposite side of Kearsarge Way on the other side of the traffic light which would allow buses to pull in to the transit area and pull out onto the Market Street intersection. Furthermore, COAST was concerned with the number of tanker trucks that use that entrance to Kearsarge Way and the possibility that the trucks would pull out into the second lane.

Attorney Griffin went on to state that he realized that a portion of the land proposed for the transit pullover is City Conservation land. However, it was his opinion that the transit pullover area could be constructed without having to intrude on City Conservation land.

With regard to the review of the site plan by other utilities, Attorney Griffin thought that such was being done.

With regard to the issue of utilizing water-saving fixtures, Attorney Griffin stated that he would let Mr. Chagnon speak to that issue.

Attorney Griffin informed the Committee that the Planning Board issued a Conditional Use Permit a couple of weeks ago.

At this time in the proceedings, John Chagnon of Ambit Engineering addressed the Committee and stated that he had met with John Lanoie, the Plumbing Inspector, Dave Allen, Tom Cravens, and Rick Hopley regarding the issue of water-saving fixtures. Mr. Chagnon pointed out that the existing Plumbing Code covers water-saving fixtures. Mention was made of using additional measures in the public restrooms to save water.

Mr. Chagnon went on to state that a gentleman from the architect’s office provided some information to Tom Cravens to start the water model. Mr. Cravens stated that he did not receive enough information adding that he needed data on peak flow figures – when and how much. Mr. Chagnon indicated that a peak flow problem should occur, that mitigating measures would be taken; such as, providing a reserve tank that could be drawn down so that there would be no impact to the surrounding network.

Regarding the State permit, Mr. Chagnon informed the Committee that the Wetlands Board had reviewed the application and have asked that the applicant consider some additional wetland enhancing plantings for the detention pond. Mr. Chagnon commented that the area will come back; however, some plantings would encourage the area to redevelop in a quicker fashion.

Mr. Chagnon spoke to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning Board and the fact that the Permit has a buffer zone stipulation attached to it. It was his opinion that the State would also want a document like that (conservation easement).

With regard to the Sewer Discharge Permit, Mr. Chagnon stated that the City would not sign off until the project has been fully approved. Mr. Allen indicated that such (the issuance of a Sewer Discharge Permit) would not be a problem.

Mr. Chagnon reported that work orders have been placed with PSNH with regard to the electrical utilities and that there have been discussions with the other utilities regarding services. Mr. Chagnon did not anticipate any problems.

The Chair called for speakers. There being none, he felt that the Committee could continue its deliberations.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:

It was the Chair’s opinion that there was sufficient information so that a motion to approve could be made adding that such a motion could be tabled for outstanding matters; such as, the water model. Mr. Cravens commented that he would just have to work with the assumptions he has; that the applicant may possibly have to put in a 10"main from Mangrove to the project area in order to have little or no affect on adjoining properties. The Chair inquired of Mr. Chagnon if the information could be provided prior to the Planning Board meeting in March, and Mr. Chagnon replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cravens stated that he had asked the owner to provide information based on his other hotels as to when the peak periods were with Mr. Cravens adding that he is using the hours between 6:00 and 9:00 in the morning. It was Mr. Chagnon’s opinion that probably 40% of the daily flow occurred during that time period.

The Committee then turned its attention to the COAST issue. Mr. Sturgis commented that he had gone out and looked at the area. It was his opinion that a bus pullout could not be placed there without intruding into Conservation land adding that a transit pullover is not one of the permitted uses of Conservation land. Mr. Burke interjected that he did not think COAST would accept any other location. It was his opinion that there was not much of an option. The suggestion was made that the issue of a transit pullover be reviewed by the Traffic/Safety Committee with the idea that the pullover would be entirely in the City’s right-of-way.

The Chair stated his assumption that there was a process in place regarding the use of water-saving fixtures. It was stated that catalogue cutouts would be part of the process. Mr. Chagnon interjected that the applicant cannot get a Building Permit until the Plumbing Inspector is satisfied. The Chair commented that water saving requirement has been put into place due to the grant funding requirements of the State.

Mr. Cravens inquired as to the size of the domestic water service with Mr. Chagnon responding, after checking the plan, that the domestic water size would be 4". Mr. Cravens asked if such was sized by an architect or mechanical engineer with Mr. Chagnon responding in the affirmative.

The Chair commented that it was his perspective that most of the site details were complete with the exception of the review by the Traffic/Safety Committee. Mr. Burke interjected that it was his opinion that the application was previously tabled until a review had been had by the Traffic/Safety Committee adding that, it was his opinion, that traffic problems have not been identified nor has any mitigation been proposed.

Mr. Allen stated that there are two large issues outstanding; those being, traffic and water. Thus, he made a motion to table the application to the April 2, 2002, meeting of the Committee. Mr. Sturgis seconded the motion.

In speaking to his motion, Mr. Allen stated that complete water data was needed in order to make a determination if a 10" line or a holding tank would be required or both. Furthermore, he preferred to wait to have the results of the review of the Traffic/Safety Committee prior to sending the plan on to the Planning Board.

The Chair asked if the parking lot would accommodate passenger cars only with Mr. Chagnon responding that he did not think that the market for the hotel would be truck traffic. The Chair asked that a note be shown on the plan for signage on the islands to indicate automobile parking only.

Mr. Chagnon asked if he could speak to the tabling motion. The Chair replied in the negative, but upon asking if the Committee would like to hear from Mr. Chagnon, allowed Mr. Chagnon to speak.

Mr. Chagnon stated that he disagreed with Mr. Burke’s comment about no mitigation plan adding that there was a difference between the suggested mitigation plan and the mitigation plan the City would like to see the applicant put into place. The Chair interjected that there would be three agencies in the City looking at the mitigation plan – the Traffic/Safety Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee with a recommendation to the Planning Board adding that a fair amount hinges on the mitigation plan.

Mr. Burke referred to a queuing problem pointing out that the project would be adding to that problem and wondered how the applicant planned to mitigate that condition. It was Mr. Burke’s contention that the City has not received an answer to that question. Attorney Griffin appeared irritated by that comment and stated that such was news to him; that the traffic study had called for the coordination of three signals and the widening of the off ramp to I-95. Mr. Burke inquired as to what was physically going to be done to make this work. Attorney Griffin stated that he had responded back in February and that he had been waiting to hear back adding that frankly, as far as he was concerned, the ball is in a court other than theirs (the applicant’s). He stated that he felt like he was getting the run around.

Mr. Burke commented that no specific improvement had been identified. Mr. Chagnon responded that Dermot Kelly, the applicant’s traffic engineer, had identified a Level of Service. Mr. Burke countered by stating that the problem is not Level of Service; that the identified problem is queuing; that there is not enough stacking room between two intersections. Mr. Chagnon responded that Mr. Kelly had identified the project as having no impact. Mr. Burke stated that it was impossible to have no impact when the project would be adding some 50 odd trips to a problem.

The Chair commented that the mitigation issue may certainly be providing the rationale for this project to go to Traffic/Safety adding that the Technical Advisory Committee would need an opportunity to look at the project again. Mr. Burke commented that a traffic engineer usually looks at an existing problem, anticipates the impact of a project to an existing problem and offers a solution. He felt that such had not been done with this project.

The motion to table passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

B. 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. (This application was tabled at the Committee’s February 5, 2002, meeting to this meeting.)

SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:

The Chair read the notice. Mr. Sturgis moved to take the application off the table. Mr. Magnant seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

Mr. Gary Bowmar addressed the Committee commenting that the site plans before the Committee are much clearer than a previous submittal. The Chair applauded the submission of significantly better plans.

Mr. Desfosses commented that plans submitted to the Committee are usually stamped by a professional. The Chair asked that the stamped plans submitted for Planning Board review.

Mr. Desfosses inquired to where the drainage would be headed. Mr. Bowmar replied that it goes to the rear of the property. Mr. Desfosses asked how Mr. Bowmar knew that the existing drainage structures could handle the parking lot. Mr. Bowmar responded that they had been handling the drainage for years.

Mr. Desfosses inquired as to what exactly was out there and how were they built. Mr. Bowmar replied that they were concrete with a grate on the top with 6" or 8" PVC going to the rear of the property adding that the structures are like catch basins. Mr. Desfosses asked who designed the system with Mr. Bowmar replying that he had. Mr. Desfosses inquired as to the type of soil out there with Mr. Bowmar replying that it is sandy with some ledge.

Mr. Desfosses then commented that some of the accessway aisles did not conform with the requirements of the Site Review ordinance adding that the minimum aisle width for two-way traffic is 24’. Mr. Bowmar replied that the 19’ width is existing; that there is a Maple tree that he would really hate to take out adding that if he had to, he could take it out to provide the required width. It was pointed out that other areas have ample width. Mr. Bowmar explained that he had the space so he made the aisles wider.

The question was asked if he could meet the minimum width. Mr. Bowmar responded that he could but aesthetically, he would rather not; that the site had been like that since the 1930s and there had been no problems. Mr. Desfosses pointed out that he (Mr. Bowmar) is considering a change to the property. Mr. Bowmar commented that a "use is a use". Mr. Bowmar was advised that if the plan could not meet the minimum aisle widths, that Board of Adjustment approval would be required.

Mr. Desfosses then broached the subject of fire protection. He stated that he did not think it was a good idea to have a restaurant in operation so far away from a fire hydrant that is located on the other side of the road. Mr. Bowmar was asked if he considered placing a fire hydrant on his property. Charlie Jones, Fire Marshal, commented that he did not have enough information to make a determination on a hydrant adding that it would be a benefit to have a hydrant on the property in question. Mr. Bowmar pointed out that there is no water on his side of the street; that the 8" line is on the other side of Lafayette Road. Mr. Desfosses offered the suggestion that Mr. Bowmar could "jack" underneath the road.

Mr. Holden inquired if there was a way to see if code would require a hydrant. He was informed that a hydrant should be within 500’.

Mr. Magnant expressed his concern in understanding the one and two-way traffic flows. After further discussion concerning the travel aisles, Mr. Bowmar reiterated that he would take the Maple tree down. The Chair pointed out that Maple trees are rather prolific in this climate. The Chair asked Mr. Bowmar if he had ever considered using a site planner explaining that Mr. Bowmar may be creating more pavement areas than are necessary to accomplish his goal. Mr. Bowmar commented that he hates to cut down anything; that he wanted to try to keep some of the older trees.

The Chair spoke to the design of a hammerhead or some type of turn-around as access to the cabins, parking area and restaurant which would result in the reduction of runoff and would help the existing drainage facilities. The Chair added that Mr. Bowmar is really putting on a rather significant change of use; that the site really hasn’t gone through the process before which was making the present process difficult for Mr. Bowmar and difficult for the Committee.

The Chair suggested that a session be scheduled for the next time the Committee sits informally to look at applications. Mr. Bowmar again spoke to taking the Maple tree down and providing 24’ wide aisles from front to back.

The Chair commented that the Committee would work with Mr. Bowmar on April 2<sup>nd</sup> at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room. Mr. Desfosses stated that he would like to go on site and take a look around regarding the drainage issue adding that if the soils are sandy, it may very well be fine. Mr. Desfosses added that the only substantial issue he has is fire protection which he felt was just not adequate for a restaurant use. It was Mr. Desfosses’ opinion that Mr. Bowmar would have a tough time making the 500’ requirement with the hydrant on the other side of the street pointing out that the restaurant is back off a ways.

Mr. Bowmar inquired as to who gives permission to dig up Lafayette Road with the response being that permission would be required from the NH Department of Transportation. Mr. Allen mumbled something to the effect that it was not likely that NHDOT would give permission to dig up a portion of Route 1. Mr. Desfosses expressed the opinion that it would be worth a phone call.

The Chair commented that, with all due respect, he felt the Committee’s was wasting its time in dealing with conjecture.

DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE:

Mr. Sturgis moved that the application be tabled to April 2, 2002. Mr. Desfosses seconded the motion. The Chair clarified that a meeting would be held on April 2<sup>nd</sup> and asked Mr. Bowmar to bring his engineer (adding that the engineer should bring his stamp) to go over what the Committee needs to grant a conditional recommendation to the Planning Board. The stipulation was made that the application be reviewed by the Traffic/Safety Committee. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

C. 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 97 and lies within a Single Residence B district. (This application was tabled at the Committee’s February 5, 2002, meeting to this meeting.)

This application was re-tabled to the Committee’s April 2, 2002, meeting.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

D. 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 an 1,838 s.f. addition to the existing Margaritas Restaurant with associated site improvements. This request amends the previous request for three additions to the existing restaurant. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 245 as Lot 1 and lies within a General Business district. (This application was tabled at the Committee’s February 5, 2002, meeting to this meeting.)

This application was re-tabled to the Committee’s April 2, 2002, meeting.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

II. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. The application of the City of Portsmouth School Department, owner, and Philip Ross, Director, Exchange City, applicant, for property located at 25 Granite Street (the former Wentworth Acres School) wherein site plan approval is requested for the construction of a 3,691 s.f. one-story addition with associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 217 as Lot 5 and lies within a Municipal district.

SPEAKING TO THE APPLICATION:

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing. John Chagnon of Ambit Engineering addressed the Committee stating that Philip Ross, the applicant, Dan Batting, architect, and Peter Torrey from the School Department were present to answer any questions the Committee might have. Mr. Chagnon went on to state that the project involves the construction of three separate additions to an existing building at the rear section of the facility to accommodate the Exchange City program. Mr. Chagnon commented that Dan Batting had prepared a model of the interior of the gymnasium for the Committee’s viewing. Mr. Chagnon went on to explain that the additions are going to be in the form of store fronts.

Mr. Chagnon informed the Committee that some of the paving would be re-arranged to accommodate the proposed use. Some will be returned to grass while some existing grassed areas will be paved. He spoke to a "U" shaped pattern that would allow buses to pull up and unload. He also spoke to the proposed sidewalk that would lead to the facility, the required handicapped spaces, and landscaped islands.

Mr. Chagnon commented that the drainage currently drains from the northwest to the southeast entering catch basins. He spoke to a wetland area to the south located on adjacent property with runoff flowing though the site in question. Some existing catch basins are located under the

addition. Those drainage systems will be relocated with no impact on any of the functions. He assured the Committee that the drainage that comes off the adjacent property would flow across the site as it presently does. It was Mr. Chagnon’s opinion that the impervious area post development would be less than pre development reiterating that they are not anticipating any impacts to the drainage system as a result of the proposed project.

Mr. Chagnon went on to state that the proposed paving and parking meets requirements; that the use of the rest of the facility is up in the air adding that the School Department has some long range plans to utilize that space for a training facility. It was Mr. Chagnon’s opinion that there was plenty of room to create parking for that use in the front of the facility.

Mr. Ross, director of Exchange City, spoke to the program that would be coming into Portsmouth. Fifth or sixth graders would learn about different business offices and enterprises that make up the core of the City. Four or five children per business would run the City. Prior to coming to the Wentworth School, children would have six weeks of classroom instruction in their school. Mr. Ross went on to state that the program would start at 8:00 a.m. with the children remaining until 3:00 p.m. He informed the committee that over the course of the day, they would expect to see about 60 to 120 students participating in the program. He anticipated 14 teachers and parents, one for each business, and their own staff of three. The program would take off in October of each year and run through December picking up again in January through the end of the school year. Mr. Ross stated that there are no plans at this point to run the program over the summer months.

Mr. Holden asked if most of the students would be bused with the answer being in the affirmative. Mr. Holden inquired as to how many buses would be utilized with the response being that depending on capacity, two to three buses per day.

Dan Batting, architect, spoke to the stage fronts for each of the businesses. The structure will have a flat roof and would be of brick construction. The existing cafeteria will be a restaurant; however, the students will bring their own lunch.

Attorney Jack McGee addressed the Committee explaining that he represents the Heritage Hill condos that abut the property in question to the southeast. He spoke to the drainage concerns of the Condo Association explaining that a drainage easement exists over the property in question that dates back to the 1940s. He went on to state that he has expressed his concerns to various City officials to make them aware of the drainage easement so that the pipes would not get closed off during construction.

The Chair asked if there was a problem at this time with Attorney McGee responding that they are being proactive explaining that the water level has been much lower over the past few years than in the 60s, 70s, and 80s; that it was his thinking that when Heritage Hill was constructed the pond was dammed up more than it was before. However, having said that, should the water level rise for any reason, he wanted people to be aware. He spoke to the history of the Flynn and McGee easement.

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 approve. Mr. Sturgis seconded the motion.

The question was asked as to what would happen if ledge was encountered in the rerouting of the drain line. Mr. Chagnon responded by stating that they would have to blast.

The Chair asked for an explanation as to how the buses would sit. Mr. Chagnon responded that typically two buses would be utilized. It was felt that the Traffic/Safety Committee should review the bus parking area. Discussion was had on how three buses would find room to maneuver and park.

The Chair spoke to safety lighting with the suggestion that lights be considered for the sidewalk area. The question arose as to whether the building itself had any lighting. It was stipulated that the site plan indicate existing and/or proposed lighting and that such be coordinated with Lucy Tillman of the Planning Department.

Mr. Burke inquired as to turning templates for the Granite Street/Woodbury Avenue intersection regarding the ability for buses to make turning movements.

The Chair brought up the subject of the 45 car parking lot. Peter Torrey from the School Department addressed the Committee and explained that the rest of the building would be retained by the School Department for in-service training. The remodeling itself would be done by the applicant. He spoke to meeting rooms for staff development – a low impact use.

The Chair asked if Mr. Torrey wanted to have the parking lot approved now or in the future. At first, Mr. Torrey responded that now would be an asset to the whole project. However, the Committee brought up the subject of drainage and felt that the parking area should not be any bigger than what it needs to be. Mr. Torrey then responded that Phase 1 should be facilitated with Exchange City clearly getting a "go"; that he could "keep" on the other part.

The Chair clarified that the Committee was not dealing with a future parking lot at this time. He offered some suggestions for when the parking lot does come before the Committee; such as draining, vehicle maneuverability, plantings and lighting.

Mr. Allen inquired if the relocation of the drain lines would affect capacity with Mr. Chagnon reviewing the slight slope changes. Mr. Allen offered some suggestions in the layout of the lines. Mr. Allen spoke to the drain line which circles the building noting that it is not sized. Mr. Chagnon explained that it was on an old plan that the City had. Mr. Allen wondered if the line showed up at the lower catch basin near Market Street Extension. Mr. Chagnon responded by stating that he would have to check that in the field.

Charlie Jones, Fire Marshal, stated that he wanted to caution the applicant that as the project involves a school, the NH Fire Marshal’s office would review the plans as well as the City.

Deputy Police Chief Magnant inquired if there would be any outdoor recreational facilities with the response being in the negative. The question was asked if there would be any field trips with the response being in the negative. Caution was also expressed as to any buses idling in the early evening.

The motion to approve passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

III. ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment was had at approximately 3:30 p.m.

These minutes were taken and transcribed by Barbara Driscoll, Administrative Assistant in the Planning Department.