Planning Board

NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD March 18, 2010 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Nashua City Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:00 PM in the auditorium at City Hall. Members Present: Jody Wilbert, Mayor’s Rep Ken Dufour, Chair William Slivinski, Vice Chair Steve Dookran, City Engineer Bob Canaway Muriel Corcoran Sandra Belknap, Alternate Also Present: Roger L. Houston, Planning Director Matt Taylor, Deputy Planning Manager Chris Sullivan, Planner II Mr. Dufour said Mrs. Belknap will be participating and voting this evening. Approval of Minutes February 18, 2010 MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert to approve the minutes of February 18, 2010, waive the reading and place on file with the correction that Mr. Slivinski is the vice-chair, not Mr. Canaway. SECONDED by Mr. Slivinski MOTION CARRIED 5 to 0 (Mrs. Corcoran and Mrs. Belknap abstained) COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Houston went over the following items that were received after the mailing went out: • Revised Planning Board Agenda • Referral from Board of Alderman Location Map • 38 East Hollis Street Discussion Item • Notice regarding annual Planning Board Training NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 2 REPORT OF CHAIR, COMMITTEE & LIASON None PROCEDURES OF THE MEETING Mr. Dufour went into the procedure of the meeting as follows: After the legal notice of each conditional, special use permit, site plan or subdivision plan is read by the Chair, the Board will determine if that the application is complete and ready for the Board to take jurisdiction. The public hearing will begin at which time the applicant or representative will be given time to present an overview and description of their project. The applicant shall speak to whether or not they agree with recommended staff stipulations. The Board will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or staff. The Chair will then ask for testimony from the audience. First anyone wishing to speak in opposition or with concern to the plan may speak. Please come forward to the microphone, state their name and address for the record. This would be the time to ask questions they may have regarding the plan. Next public testimony will come from anyone wishing to speak in favor of the plan. The applicant will then be allowed a rebuttal period at which time they shall speak to any issues or concerns raised by prior public testimony. One public member will then be granted an opportunity to speak to those issues brought by the applicant during their rebuttal period. The Board will then ask any relevant follow-up questions of the applicant if need be. After this is completed the public hearing will end and the Board will resume the public meeting at which time the Board will deliberate and vote on the application before us. The Board asks that both sides keep their remarks to the subject at hand and try not to repeat what has already been said. Above all, the Board wants to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented and all applicable approval criteria established in the Nashua Revised Ordinances for conditional, special use permits, site plans and subdivisions. Thank you for your interest and courteous attention. Please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL / SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1. SNHS Management Corp and Boston & Maine Corp (Owners) – Application and acceptance of proposed conditional use permit for the reconfiguration and expansion of a parking lot with associated site improvements. Property is located at 134 Allds Street. Sheet 28, Lots 10 & 58. Zoned RB-Urban Residence and GB-General Business. Ward 7. [TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010] MOTION by Mrs. Belknap to remove from the table. SECONDED by Mrs. Wilbert MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mrs. Corcoran that the application is complete and the Planning Board takes jurisdiction of the application. SECONDED by Mrs. Wilbert MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Together with OLD BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS 2. SNHS Management Corp and Boston & Maine Corp (Owners) – Application and acceptance of proposed subdivision to relocate a lot line and transfer 25,739 sf from Lot 28-58 to Lot 28-10. Property is located at 134 Allds Street. Sheet 28, Lots 10 & 58. Zoned RB – Urban Residence and GB – General Business. Ward 7. [TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010] MOTION by Mr. Corcoran to remove from the table. SECONDED by Mrs. Wilbert MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mr. Slivinski that the application is complete and the Planning Board takes jurisdiction of the application. SECONDED by Mrs. Wilbert MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Together with NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS – SITE PLANS 3. SNHS Management Corp and Boston & Maine Corp (Owners) – Application and acceptance of proposed amendment to Site Plan #NR1245 to permit the reconfiguration and expansion of a parking lot with associated site improvements. Property is located at 134 Allds Street. Sheet 28, Lots 10 & 58. Zoned RB – Urban Residence and GB – General Business. Ward 7. [TABLED FROM THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010] MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert to remove from the table. SECONDED by Mr. Slivinski MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert that the application is complete and the Planning Board takes jurisdiction of the application. SECONDED by Mr. Slivinski MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Deb Brewster, TF Moran Ms. Brewster said they are proposing to consolidate the Pan Am Railroad piece. We are located on Allds Street. To the north is the Spartan lot. To the south is the existing Southern New Hampshire Services (SNHS) lot. We are proposing to purchase the Pan Am corridor. Once that is taken it is being proposed to be subdivided into two pieces. The majority will be consolidated with the existing SNHS lot. The small piece is about .06 acres is being proposed to be consolidated into the Hess property, which is an existing gas station. We are also proposing a 10 foot Class B trail easement. This is on the north side and it would hook into an existing easement or an easement the city is working with on an abutting piece. This is to facilitate part of the master plan. Once these 2 pieces are merged with the abutting lots we then have an existing piece on 2.7 acres would go to about 3.1 acres and with the additional land the goal is to provide site plan improvements, which is added parking. Currently SNHS has an agreement with an abutting lot owner to park many of their employees. This proposal will allow all the parking on their site. We are looking to add 57 more spaces. Nothing on the building is being proposed to change. No use is being proposed to change. This is a charitable, non-profit group that offers community services. This is strictly a parking improvement. The new site plan application is proposing to bring in the access drive, take the NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 5 railroad piece and expand the parking along the railroad side. We are adding more pavement, a little over 2.2 acres. With that we are proposing to mitigate that pavement and stormwater using four rain gardens and underground stormwater system. We are proposing to grade off of that pavement into the rain gardens. Those stormwater improvements will mitigate the stormwater in the increased parking. The walking trail will be implemented as part of the site plan improvement. The trail easement has been submitted to the city and they are reviewing it. The Traffic Department would like us to add interior signage. We are looking for some waivers. The first on the subdivision plan is we are asking for relief of showing existing conditions within one thousand feet of the site. On the site plan we are asking for a waiver of parking dimension from 20 feet to 18 feet. We are only asking for relief along the northern part of the site plan. All the other parking spaces are the traditional 9 x 20 feet. We are asking for the relief to 18 feet so we can promote the trail easement. The other waiver is for curbing surrounding paved areas for just a portion of the site in just two locations. One is around the building. This is an existing condition. We can’t adjust the finished floor or pavement because they are existing conditions. There is no foundation wall in the building. The second are we are asking for relief of curbing is just in the areas to promote positive drainage to the rain gardens. Another waiver is for 5 foot landscape area buffer. Not around the whole site, but around the north side adjacent to the parking spaces to facilite the trail easement. All the other areas we have provided buffer. The last waiver is for the 30 foot landscape buffer that is required between a residential and nonresidential district. This is a nonresidential use but sits in a residential zone. This buffer doesn’t exist today and it won’t exist tomorrow. We are not in the position to provide it but it does meet the intent of the ordinance because it is a nonresidential use abutting a nonresidential use. We have submitted an operation and maintenance manual for the rain gardens and the underground stormwater system and have been asked to record that. That is not an issue. The CUP is to allow these parking lot improvements for this use which is permissible in the residential zone by CUP. It was permitted by variance back in 2001. Since then charities and non-profit groups are allowed in the residential zone by CUP. We are asking to amend that CUP use. Mr. Dufour asked if the use was changing. Ms. Brewster said no. The CUP is technically for site plan improvements for a use that is allowed by CUP. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Taylor said it was approved previously by special exception. The site plan triggers the conditional use permit under the current ordinance. Mr. Dookran said this is an area that has some drainage issues. The rain gardens are only successful if they are done properly and conditions are right and the maintenance is followed. What are the soil conditions? Ms. Brewster said she has done soil testing and test pits. We have worked with the existing conditions as they lie on the site. Right now you see a low area with no positive relief. Stormwater goes to the grass area and eventually infiltrates. We are scraping off the top layer and put in a sandy special mixture. The material being provided allows infiltration but allow for the planting to mature. Mr. Dookran asked how is the underground storage going to function. Ms. Brewster said the underground storage in this case we are doing both storage and infiltration. We did test pits and took some perk rates. We did design it for storage so in the event we had a high water table the storage will take over. Other then some local ponding in the landscaped areas we haven’t observed any substantial flooding. Mr. Dookran said when the trail is done it will be a usable trail. What is the eventual plan for this trail? Mr. Taylor said this does connect with the trail easement that was approved for the 26 Marshall Street project. It will connect Marshall and Allds Street and is recommended in the East Hollis Street Master Plan. It is a way for pedestrians to get between the two streets. Ms. Brewster said just to clarify; the trail is not being built as part of this project. An easement will be granted to facilitate that in the future. We are proposing a fence so the trail will remain on its own without access into the parking facility. Mrs. Wilbert asked what kind of maintenance is required and will there be funding for it. Ms. Brewster said what you are looking at is a lower depression with special soil and plantings. The maintenance of that would be to clean the surface twice a year. You also maintain evasive species to make sure they are not taking over the rain gardens. The underground storage unit monitors the sediment. It gets NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 7 measured twice a year. If the sediment is above a certain level then they are required to jet vac that system and clean it out. SNHS maintenance crew cleans their sites. Mrs. Wilbert asked what stays and goes for the mature trees. Ms. Brewster said it is a mature line of trees. The trees are on the slope and we are not getting into that slope. Mrs. Belknap asked if there will be signage for the smaller parking spaces for compact cars. Ms. Brewster said they are 18 feet. An SUV is 16 feet long. We don’t see the need for it. In many communities 18 feet is the standard. Mr. Slivinski asked how many of the parking spaces will be taken on a normal day. Ms. Brewster said their understanding is that the goal of this improvement was to have the employees park along the north side and allow the other spaces for the guests. Mr. Slivinski asked if there was going to be increased activity to the center. Ms. Brewster said no. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN Brian LaBate, 112 Allds Street Mr. LaBate said his concern was whether they would be touching the mature trees and Ms. Brewster answered that question. SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN No one Mr. Dufour said this concludes the public hearing on this application. We will now carry the deliberations into our public meeting. The Board reserves the right to recall any party to this case for clarification. MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert to approve Old Business #1 – Conditional Use Permit, 134 Allds Street. It conforms to NRO 190-133(F) with no stipulations and waivers: SECONDED by Mrs. Belknap NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 8 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mr. Slivinski to approve Old Business #2 – Subdivision, 134 Allds Street. It conforms to NRO 190-38(G) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. The request for a waiver of 190-282(B)(9), which requires that the plan includes existing conditions within one thousand feet of the site is granted, finding that strict conformity poses an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. 2. Prior to the plan being recorded, all easement documents shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel and recorded with the plan. 3. A Voluntary Merger of Parcel B and Lot 28-1 shall be filed with the Planning Department and recorded with the plan. 4. An application for a minor amendment to a site plan for Lot 28- 1, incorporating Parcel B into the site, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recording the plan. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert to approve Old Business #3 – Site Plan, 134 Allds Street. It conforms to NRO 190-146(D) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. The request for a waiver of 190-193(A), which require a parking space length of twenty feet, is granted, finding that that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 2. The request for a waiver of 190-184(B)(1), which requires curbing for landscape islands, is granted, finding that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 3. The request for a waiver of 190-184(C), which requires a five foot landscape buffer around parking lots, is finding that granting it will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 4. The request for a waiver of 190-181(B)(1), which requires a thirty foot landscape buffer between residential and nonresidential districts, is granted, finding that it will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 5. Prior to commencing site work, minor drafting changes shall be made to the plan. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 9 6. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a plan for on-site traffic signs to the City Traffic Department for review, and the applicant shall make changes to the plan, as recommended 7. Prior to commencing site work, the stormwater operation and maintenance plan shall be recorded. 8. Prior to commencing site work, the subdivision plan shall be recorded. 9. Prior to use of any of the new site improvements, all site work required by this plan shall be completed. Prior to use, the applicant shall notify the Planning Department, and staff will conduct an inspection to verify that all site work has been completed. SECONDED by Mrs. Belknap NEW BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS None NEW BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS 4. Fitform, Inc. (Owner) – Application and acceptance of proposed subdivision to relocate lot lines, transferring 42,843 sf from Lot 30 to Lot 38. Property is located at 37 Bridge Street. Sheet 39, Lots 30 & 38. Zoned GI-General Industrial. Ward 7. MOTION by Mr. Slivinski that the application is complete and the Planning Board takes jurisdiction of the application. SECONDED by Mr. Canaway MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Richard Maynard, Maynard & Paquette Mr. Maynard said this site is on Bridge Street. It is an existing storage yard. The triangular shaped lot has no activity at this time. This lot line relocation will make these lots more conforming and useable. For the moment, none of the uses are changing on this site. That is why there is a stipulation that a site plan will eventually be required. There are no changes to the site except moving lines on paper. Potentially down the road they can be sold and developed through a site plan. There are two waivers. One for existing conditions such as utilities, which are not changing. There are no structures on this lot. The other is NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 10 for contouring and grading. Stipulation 3 talks about storm water operation and maintenance plan. There is nothing happening with the site and that is not really applicable in this case. When they come with their site plan that is applicable then. Mr. Dufour asked about the waivers. Mr. Maynard said one is for existing utilities and the other is for grading and contours. We are not changing anything and it is a flat site. Mr. Dufour said it would be acceptable for us to eliminate #3 all together and renumber the rest. Mr. Sullivan said yes. Mr. Dookran asked why it is fine. Is it fine for just this plan? Mr. Sullivan said for this particular plan. It is just a lot line relocation. Mr. Dufour said once they improve the site they will have to come back to us and it seems to me it wouldn’t make sense to require this of them at this time. Mr. Maynard said until the site plan comes and somebody proposes some real uses there are not storm management facilities that we can anticipate. We are not changing the stormwater runoff with this proposal. Mr. Slivinski asked why would you do that now without any plans. Why are you coming in with a plan like this. Mr. Maynard said because it creates two viable sites. Mr. Slivinski said but somebody might want to buy it and it could be divided differently. Mr. Maynard said hopefully this makes it easier to find a buyer for at least one of the lots. Mr. Canaway said you would have to come in for the lot being improved. Mr. Maynard said whenever you change the lot line on an existing site you are suppose to come in with an amended site plan. There is a stipulation for both lots. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 11 Mr. Canaway said both lots will have to be addressed for drainage if one of them is going to come before the board? Mr. Maynard said you would have two separate drainage plans coordinated. Mr. Dufour asked where on the staff report does it say that once one gets developed the drainage on both will be addressed. Mr. Maynard said that is a requirement of site plans themselves. Every site plan requires drainage be addressed. Not subdivisions or lot line relocations. Mr. Dookran asked what the spirit and intent of the ordinance regarding stipulation 7. Mr. Maynard said the spirit and intent of that for contouring is to understand the site is too steep, it has shallow places. We already have a site plan on record. We are not changing any of the contouring. We are not doing any grading. We are not changing the site. There is nothing unusual about the site. It is a straight contour. It serves no purpose in regards to moving some lot lines when you are not doing anything with the site. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN No one SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN No one Mr. Dufour said this concludes the public hearing on this application. We will now carry the deliberations into our public meeting. The Board reserves the right to recall any party to this case for clarification. MOTION by Mr. Canaway to approve New Business #4 – Lot Line Relocation, 37 Bridge Street and L Bridge Street. It conforms to NRO 190-138(G) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. Prior to recording the plan, a note shall be added stating the date the iron bounds were set and date set. 2. Prior to recording the subdivision plan, an amended site plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Board or administratively reviewed as determined by staff at the time of submittal. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 12 3. Prior to recording the plan, any minor drafting corrections shall be completed. 4. All current Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Board past conditions of approval are incorporated herein and made part of this approval. 5. The request for the waiver of existing conditions within the site, Section 190-281D(10) is granted finding that the waiver is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 6. The request for the waiver of, contouring and grading Section 190-281D(17)subdivision plans is granted finding that the waiver is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. SECONDED by Mrs. Belknap MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS None OTHER BUSINESS 1. Review of tentative agenda to determine proposals of regional impact. None MOTION by Mr. Slivinski that there are no issues of regional impact. SECONDED by Mr. Canaway MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Referral of the FY 2011 Capital Improvements Program from the Capital Improvements Committee to the Nashua City Planning Board. Mr. Dufour said we need a favorable or unfavorable recommendation for these ratings and they will then move on to the Mayor and the Board of Alderman MOTION by Mr. Slivinski to make a favorable recommendation on the referral of the FY 2011 Capital Improvements Program to the Alderman. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 13 SECONDED by Mr. Canaway MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3. Referral from the Board of Alderman on Proposed R-10-10, authorizing the purchase of land and improvements at 40 Pine Street, Tax Lot 83-80 for the sum of $225,800. Mr. Houston said in your packet tonight there is a map overview. This was referred to the Planning Board pursuant to the city charter for comment. This is a critical acquisition at that intersection to make that intersection work. It does conform to the Planning Board’s adopted master plan. This is one of the steps leading to the completion of the Broad Street Parkway. This has to be acted on tonight. There is a decision that the Board of Alderman needs to make next week. Mr. Canaway asked if this will allow the city to include enough lanes to make the Broad Street Parkway function with the extra traffic that will come in. Mr. Houston said yes. That type of improvement could improve the movement and blind spots at that intersection today. MOTION by Mrs. Wilbert for a favorable recommendation on R-10-10 to the Board of Alderman. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED 6 to 1 4. Referral from the Board of Alderman on proposed O-10-13, amending the “Land Use Code” by adding provisions regarding drug replacement therapy facilities. Mr. Taylor said you have received a copy of the ordinance. Planning Staff did review the Land Use Code to see how this would fit in and reviewed the zoning map as well. What this would do is permit it within two zone districts, the highway business and general business but it couldn’t be within 1,000 feet from a school or day care or other uses that are listed in the ordinance. Under this ordinance the only two locations that would fit are in the extreme southeastern corner of the city along Daniel Webster Highway or in the northwestern corner on Amherst Street. Any type of facility whether in an existing building or new building would require a site plan and conditional use permit. It would also require a facilities management plan. The Mayor is sponsoring this proposal and it is going to the Board of Alderman on April 6, 2010 NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 14 and they are looking for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. Staff supports this proposal. Mr. Dookran asked if there was any opposition to this. Mr. Taylor said he wasn’t aware of any. MOTION by Mr. Slivinski for a favorable recommendation on O-10-13 to the Board of Alderman. SECONDED by Mrs. Wilbert MOTION CARRIED 6 TO 0 (Mrs. Belknap abstained) DISCUSSION ITEM 1. 233 Main Dunstable Rd., Woody & Michael Realty Investment – RV Business. Gerald Prunier, Esq., Prunier & Prolman Atty Prunier said he is representing the owner. There have been discussions with staff regarding some of their concerns to the site plan. There were some things that staff wanted such as location of the flag pole. The building department wanted some plans for the flag pole and those were taken care of. All of the issues that were outstanding as far as I know have been taken care of. The remaining issue is the parking. Mr. Taylor said the Planning Board received a memo describing the changes. There was a discussion regarding how many RVs would be on the site. You have the minutes in the packet. The parking doesn’t seem to conform to the approved site plan. That is the primary issue. Atty Prunier said we see it as takes care of the needs of the facility. We don’t understand what doesn’t conform. Mr. Slivinski said I understand Atty Prunier wasn’t part of the original site plan when it came in. At the time the application came in, it was represented to us that it was going to be a facility that was going to rehab vans for handicapped. We went around the place and they stated that there was room for 23 spaces for trailers waiting to be made handicapped. They agreed that was what the facility was going to be. I can’t tell you how long it was after the plan was approved that there were trailers, vans, and campers all over the place. I went out there and counted 47 NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 15 trailers out there. A fire truck couldn’t have begun to get around that circle. It wasn’t represented to us as what they were using it for. Atty. Prunier said he is here to try and fix what was said or what we have to do to fix the site. This site does just not fix vans for handicapped. A lot of it is the modification if you want special facilities, special electronics, and we make modifications of all size. Mr. Dufour said it was not represented that it was solely for handicapped but one would walk away from that meeting that was the bulk of their work. That was clearly the perception. What can you do to fix the situation? You should comply with the approval that we gave this when they first came before us. There are times that I have gone there that it looks like an auction house. We approved this with these dedicated spots for that use and that is what we expect. Mrs. Wilbert asked if there are actual site plan violations. Mr. Taylor said my opinion is yes. The parking layout use is not conforming. There have been changes to the site plan, the addition of a flag pole, a fence, and a few other things. The site plan hasn’t been amended. Those were added in violation to the approved plan. We did discuss this when we met with Gerry and the representatives of this property and we did discuss the ramifications of this. At the time the applicant and staff agreed if they wanted to come before the Planning Board to discuss this, we could set that up. There are violations. Mrs. Wilbert said the minutes from the April 10, 2008 meeting, Mr. Dufour asked if they are limited as to how many they can have there. Ms. Brewster said they are limited to the size of the display and storage on the site and showed on the plan the areas and parking. I look at that and am assuming vehicles can be in those slots and cannot be all over the place. Atty Prunier said they have to come back with a plan to show the modifications to make the business work. The purpose of this meeting is to let the Planning Board tell me what your problems so I can see if I can fix them. Mr. Slivinski said when they came before us, and it is in the minutes, I specifically noted there was going to be 23 maximum spaces for trailers. I went up there a couple of days ago and there were 47 on the property. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 16 Atty Prunier said from what I understand they don’t have an area to put a 40 foot van that comes in to be modified. So they put it along the fence in the back. I think I understand what I have to do. Mr. Dufour asked if the flag pole was on their property. Mr. Taylor said it is on their property. Mr. Dufour said I think the record will show that when this was in here the last time we has some concerns about them utilizing this area that is defined as boulder type, we had issues with them using that as parking space. There solution will be to come in here and want to use that area for parking spaces they could be faced with some opposition. Mr. Slivinski said to make sure the fire department gets up there. Atty Prunier said we will make sure that we have a report from them. Mr. Dookran said the minutes reflect that I questioned the boulders and I asked why no trees. Ms. Brewster said they were trying to make a deal with an abutter. Were you the project attorney at the meeting on February 26th with staff and the owner? Atty Prunier said no. Mr. Taylor said we had a meeting with the owner and Deb Brewster the engineer, and Atty Prunier was at the meeting. Mr. Dookran asked what more did you get beyond that meeting three weeks ago tonight? Atty Prunier said he didn’t remember that meeting. Mr. Dookran said he wants to see some progress. You met with staff, the engineer, and the owner. They explained the problem that Mr. Slivinski has been having since day one. Between that point and this point I would like to see that something has happening. Mr. Dufour said enough time has gone by that there should be some feel as to whether they are expanding on the back lot or not. Maybe it is time to consider Mr. Dookran’s comments about trees. We are happy to have them as a business in town. We just want them to run their business the way they told us they were going to run it. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 17 Deb Brewster, TF Moran Ms. Brewster said she would like some more clarification from the board and comment on some of the items. The plan you see before you, you indicated that 23 spaces were approved along the northwest side. The plan I have shows 24 spaces for display area. When we presented the plan the operation was established. Part of the discussion we had that evening was the selling of RV vehicles. They did not want this to be a sales facility. Mr. Canaway said it can’t be. It is listed here as an accessory use that can’t be more then 10%. Ms. Brewster if you take this area over the three acres that exist, that is less then 10%. That is how we developed that area. The intent is we don’t have RVs all over the area. Mrs. Wilbert asked if those spots are only for those vehicles for sale? Ms. Brewster said that is how we intended it for. What I am hearing tonight is it was intended for all spaces. Mrs. Wilbert asked where were the other ones being rehabbed suppose to be? Ms. Brewster said what we have shown on this plan in addition is the 19 spaces. We didn’t represent parking in this area. It has evolved through the operation and they are using it as a staging area for the manufacturing of the facilities that go in and out. We were under the impression that the 19 spaces were allowed for the principle use. The principle use was allowed 100%, it is the manufactured component. What we didn’t represent that night was the staging area that is being used. This is an operation that has evolved. We did get the concern from Staff about fire and circulation of the building. We immediately contact the fire marshal’s office and had them review the site circulation and safety aspects. They did say they were fine with the vehicles as they were parked on the site. This business is trying to survive. It is a unique business. Mrs. Wilbert asked what is the total number of spaces there. Ms. Brewster said 24 plus 19. Mrs. Wilbert asked if the fire marshal came out and did a random inspection or did you call them? NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 18 Ms. Brewster said no the staff had relayed the concern of the site circulation so we called them. Mrs. Wilbert asked if the circulation was cleaned up so he could see it? I am hearing people on this board saying they have been watching this site for 2 years. You are saying when the fire marshal came out he didn’t find a problem with circulation. Ms. Brewster said she didn’t think vehicles were moved. Mr. Dufour said you have used the word evolved a few times and the representation has been it has been approved for this but needs change and we have adapted to those needs. When they evolved, they almost evolved the next day after this plan was approved. To present this like it is something that happened over time, that is not the case. Mr. Canaway said you look at the five RV spaces on the southwest corner what does the bubble say. Ms. Brewster said storage area. Mr. Canaway asked if that is being used for sales or storage currently? Ms. Brewster said as display area. Mr. Canaway said when I read the notes, it says provide 29 parking spaces, this site is required to have between 9 and 46 parking spaces for cars, not RVs. When I look at this site plan you could almost say they are going to use the RV spaces for storage or for sales. There was nothing down here that gives me the indication that these car parking spaces were going to be used for anything but car vehicles, not for RVs. The way that it is positioned it looks like that is RV storage and sales. I think there was a discussion where the boulders are, not putting a fence because someone was afraid that the RVs wouldn’t be able to maneuver out of the drive bays into the drive aisle. Where there RVs parked next to the boulders? Ms. Brewster said the RVs that are parked here aren’t for storage, they are for staging. An RV comes in, it gets gutted, they have to order parts, and it gets moved and staged. Parts come in, they go back to service. It was discussed that the boulders were not looked on favorably and the applicant to put in a fence so the fence did go in. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 19 Mr. Canaway asked if there are RVs parked against the fence. Ms. Brewster said there are RVs parked and staged there now. It was not discussed that evening. When they need that swing room they do remove those. Mr. Canaway said they store/stage RVs along there. They aren’t just parking them there for 5 minutes. It could be days. Mr. Dufour said if that was the intent of that, it should have been on the plan that came before us. Mrs. Wilbert said they have to be moved to allow the entry and egress from the bays, doesn’t that say to us that is too tight a use for this. Ms. Brewster said it is an unique site. It is a building that exists. It use to service buses so it makes sense for it to service these RVs. Mr. Slivinski said when you came in you said you operated facilities all over the place and you had many years of experience in doing something like this. Ms. Brewster said the owner did say that. He has 14 businesses. Mr. Slivinski said he is well aware of how a business like that operates and how much space is needed and what the time delay is on vehicles. Ms. Brewster said those other facilities are sales and service. This is manufacturing of special customized needs. It is new and different. He doesn’t do this at any other facility then here. Mrs. Corcoran said she was out there today at 4:00. There were 2 RVs parked in the driveway. When I pulled in my first impression was this is an aero stream dealer because the silver streams were there and those are the modifications he is doing. They were all displayed beautiful because they are very unique RVs. This is more repair of what I understood it and doing these for handicapped and knowing it is very difficult to do handicapped in one of the aero streams. It just didn’t jive with what I personally saw. It was cleaned up and I could get around it but I was shocked by seeing and reading. They are on display. Today I was in there with a Saab going around I could see fire apparatus could have a problem. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 20 Ms. Brewster said when we came out of the meeting with staff we were under the impression that these spaces were going to be permitted for the allowed principle use that operation. Mr. Slivinski said those spaces look like spaces for automobiles and I think they were represented to us as this is where the people who work for the place will be parking and for customers. They look like spaces for automobiles. Ms. Brewster said we labeled them as 19 spaces. Mr. Slivinski asked how the RVs parked in the parking spaces. Are they parked straight in? Ms. Brewster said when she went they were backed in. Mrs. Wilbert asked if they fit? Those spaces are considerably smaller then the display spaces. Ms. Brewster said when she went out there they had the smaller units there. Some were greater then 20 feet, which the spaces are 20 feet. That is some of the discussions with staff. Mrs. Wilbert said wouldn’t it be logical for staff to work with applicant. Mr. Canaway said now that they are matured they should have a good sense of how much parking they will be using. Mrs. Wilbert asked where do employees and customer park their cars. Ms. Brewster said it is a small specialized crew. As far as the public, there are customers that come in but it is a manufacturing use. Mr. Taylor said the parking requirements are identified on the plan. We did have this discussion. There is a distinction made on the plan between display and storage of RVs with adequate space provided for RVs and customer parking. On the plan that was approved under note 14 there is a parking calculation showing it meets the ordinance. The ordinance requires between 9 and 46 spaces. Mrs. Wilbert asked if we talking car spaces? Non-storage, non- display available to people who come and go? NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 21 Mr. Taylor said exactly. Mrs. Wilbert asked if they have that there today? Ms. Brewster said there are individual spaces around the building. Mrs. Wilbert said Mr. Slivinski said he saw 47 RVs. You don’t have 9 car spaces. Ms. Brewster said I think where the breakdown is happening we felt this was permissible for 100% allowed use of the manufacturing of the RV. We did not represent that we would be using these areas for staging, that has just evolved. Mr. Slivinski said you have looked at these things many more times then I would. To be surprised that we would be upset it is just not the way it works. I think you need to work with the Planning Staff under the 9 spaces for automobiles, minimum of 9 spaces for automobiles and the rest of the spaces that you can outline exactly where you are going to park the rest of the RVs and come back before us with that plan. Mrs. Wilbert said if there are more then those trailers or RVs on this site then that is a violation of the site plan. Atty Prunier said he misinterpreted what was said before. I was at that meeting with Staff. Mr. Dookran said it would be good if the engineer can re-arrange the parking needs within the required standards but if they can utilize that eastern edge it that is essential and meet the criteria, I think they should be allowed to do so. Mr. Slivinski said the reason we had no parking on the right was they couldn’t make that swing into the bays. They are the ones that said they couldn’t make it into the bays, but I agree with you. 2. 38 East Hollis Street – Proposed Site Plan Richard Maynard, Maynard & Paquette Mr. Maynard said the site is formerly known as the Lincoln Mercury site. It is proposed to be converted to a retail use. The existing building on a separate which has the car repair lifts is not part of this application. It is on its own lot, but will have some cross access and cross parking and shared elements. We have a perspective retail tenant if we can get passed this process in a timely manner. This portion of the building is significantly lower NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 22 then the other portion of the building. This is in the downtown uses. This is a transition area. Our downtown ordinance, D1 zone requires 2-stories in appearance. That will be raised in height to meet that criteria. Mrs. Wilbert asked if you anticipate two users there. Mr. Maynard said yes. It could be divided into one major and 2 little smaller retail type shops. Right now it will all be retail. There is a sidewalk. We will bump it in so we can put parallel parking along East Hollis Street just like on Main Street. The spaces will be a little extra in length. The national standard is a 22 foot long space. These will be 24 feet. The curb cut that exists will be taken out and a new entrance will be off of Mason Street. There will be one curb cut to provide access. We also have the lot in the rear, which is the railroad lot. That railroad is going to be incorporated into the lot. It will have a Class A walking trail. Right now we think it will be 8 feet wide. A Class A trail allows occasional vehicular traffic. We need to have a loading zone back there and dumpsters. We need to be able to go in and out of this area. I guess we would have one to two deliveries a day. Mrs. Wilbert asked what retail use will be in there. Mr. Maynard said Family Dollar Store. Mr. Slivinski asked how wide is the distance from the back of the building. Mr. Maynard said 23 plus feet. Mr. Dufour said when Downtown Lincoln Mercury bought that rail bed so now it’s their property. The fact that they are considering allowing us to use 8 feet of it, then don’t have to give us anything in reality. Mr. Houston said as shown on your master plan since the early 90’s and that is a requirement of your site plan criteria. In order to approve a site plan on this you have to find it in conformance to your master plan. If it doesn’t, it isn’t in conformance. Mr. Dufour said where was that argument when the city knowingly lost that rail bed to the owner of the property. Mr. Houston said I believe the railroad forced them to buy it because they were storing parts on it and parking on it and they had paved a part of it. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 23 Mr. Dufour said the city is supposed to have first dibs on any rail bed. Mr. Houston said the city didn’t have the money at the time and only has a 30 day window to make a decision. Mrs. Wilbert said the Class A trail allows occasional vehicular use. What they are talking about doesn’t sound like occasional use. Either it’s a trail or it’s a road. Mr. Houston said it would be a situation where it would be shared. You don’t have an option. Once the store is fully stocked they will probably have only one or two deliveries. Mr. Maynard said probably four or five. Mr. Houston said that isn’t a real heavy use. Mrs. Wilbert asked who owns the piece of the rail bed behind the other existing building. Mr. Maynard said it is one continuous lot. Mr. Dufour said the potential for the enticing of traffic to cut behind there. At the very least you would have to strip it or Do Not Enter Delivery Vehicles Only. Mr. Maynard said they would have signage and try and enforce it. Mrs. Wilbert said she was not comfortable with parallel parking along East Hollis Street and not particularly wide. Mr. Maynard said this is part of downtown. Main Street has parallel parking everywhere The zoning of Main Street has been extended to this section of East Hollis and part of the look of downtown is parallel parking along the street. Parking is not prohibited. There is not a sign on East Hollis Street that says you can’t park. You can parallel park there today. Mrs. Wilbert said Main Street is four lanes all the way so you aren’t blocking the entire flow of traffic. Mr. Dookran said you have two lanes full of traffic on Main Street. Mr. Maynard said all the bays back out onto the street. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 24 Mr. Slivinski asked if that is a deal breaker if you don’t parking out front. Mr. Canaway asked if you will have enough spaces. Mr. Maynard said we won’t have enough spaces. They have already made that a part of their requirements. If we can’t do that they are moving on. Mr. Slivinski asked when the Broad Street Parkway goes in will that increase the traffic on East Hollis Street? Mr. Dookran said the Broad Street Parkway did not do analysis down on East Hollis. They did take some intersections like Medical Drive and Kinsley. That intersection was done and I think it showed some increase of that intersection. Mr. Taylor said they did have some concerns about parallel parking. We had some discussions on how this site doesn’t fit well into the downtown district, but part of the parallel parking is on site. They are proposing an easement for a sidewalk as well as the parking. There will be essentially a widening of the street to accommodate it. We are not decreasing the width of the travel lane. Mr. Houston said the peak flows are in the morning and they indicated that the store won’t be open until 10:00 am. Mr. Taylor said in the downtown master plan it says on street parking should be introduced where ever is possible. It is something that is recommended in the downtown master plan. Ms. Belknap said aren’t there some parking spaces by CVS and the Thai restaurant? Mr. Maynard said yes there are. Ms. Belknap asked if there will be meters. Mr. Maynard said they are dedicated to the city, the parking and sidewalk. It is public parking. Mr. Houston said he didn’t know if it would be metered. Mr. Dufour said the spaces are long enough so people could pull into the spots. There are a lot of gains here. The front will be an enhancement. We have a defined sidewalk. We have parking spaces, landscaping. On the north side we get an eight to ten foot Class A trail easement. NCPB March 18, 2010 Page 25 Mr. Maynard said there is a left turn pocket. We are considering extending that so that they don’t block the traffic. There is a big wall also back there that belongs to the foundry. The face of it is the property line. We are trying to work with them and see if we can get a fence to screen that from East Hollis Street. We are attempting to work that out. We will have some lighting in the back which will shine down, but because of the wall it won’t go over the property line. We want to provide some night time security. Mr. Dufour asked if there was any contamination. Mr. Maynard said no. There are monitoring walls but because of the foundry. Mr. Dookran asked when this plan goes before Mr. Lebrun will you be talking about drainage? Mr. Maynard said they will see what they can do. It is a tough drainage area. There is no where to put it. We might dig a test pit. There is no public drainage in this general area. Mr. Houston said they have a tenant looking to moving in quickly they wanted to come before the board to get a consensus. MOTION TO ADJOURN by Mrs. Wilbert at 9:50 pm APPROVED: ______________________________________________________ Ken Dufour, Chair, Nashua Planning Board TAPES OF THIS MEETING ARE AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS. COPIES OF TAPES MAYBE MADE AVAILABLE UPON 48 HOURS ADVANCED NOTICE AND PAYMENT OF THE FEE. ______________________________________________________ Prepared by: Linda Panny Taped Meeting