Planning Board

NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD September 1, 2011 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Nashua City Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM in the auditorium at City Hall. Members Present: Ken Dufour, Chair William Slivinski, Vice Chair Thomas Ireland, Secretary Steve Dookran Muriel Corcoran Dan Kelly, Alt Mr. Dufour: In the absence of Mr. Latham Mr. Kelly will be participating and voting. Also Present: Roger Houston, Planning Director Matt Taylor, Deputy Manager Approval of Minutes August 4, 2011 MOTION by Mr. Ireland to approve the minutes of August 4, 2011, waive the reading and place on file with the corrections on page 1 should read Dan Kelly, not Tom Kelly and clean up motion on page 5. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED 6 to 0 COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Houston went over the following items that were received after the mailing went out: • Revised agenda with New Business #2 • 3 communications pertaining to case #4 • 2 maps showing proposed acquisition related to New Business #2 REPORT OF CHAIR, COMMITTEE & LIASON NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 2 Mr. Slivinski: We just sent a mailing out to all property owners in the Historic District Commission. We are trying to set up a community meeting in the late fall in the Hunt Building. Mr. Dufour: I have had some appearances before the Board of Alderman requesting that they look at Concord Street and possibly tightening up some of the zoning issues. 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 NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 3 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. OLD BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS None OLD BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS None OLD BUSINESS – SITE PLANS None NEW BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1. Gary E. & Kathleen H. Nelson (Owners) World Academy Applicant) – Application and acceptance of proposed conditional use permit for a school to allow building additions totaling 25,798 square feet with associated site improvements. Property is located at 138 Spit Brook Road. Sheet B, Lot 76. Zoned R18-Suburban Residence. Ward 8. MOTION by Mr. Ireland that the application is complete the board is ready to take jurisdiction. SECONDED by Mr. Kelly MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Together with NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS 3. Gary E. & Kathleen H. Nelson (Owners) World Academy (Applicant) – Application and acceptance of proposed site plan amendment for building additions totaling 25,798 square feet with associated site improvements. Property is located at 138 Spit Brook Road. Sheet B, Lot 76. Zoned R18-Suburban Residence. Ward 8. MOTION by Mr. Ireland that the application is complete the board is ready to take jurisdiction. SECONDED by Mr. Kelly NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 4 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Jim Petropulos, Hayner/Swanson, Inc. Mr. Petropulos: We are seeking a conditional use permit and site plan approval. The school was constructed in 1993 and over the years there have been additions. What is being proposed is to expand the school by adding building additions to the front of the site. We will be doubling the size of the square footage of the building space. We have a shared access with Grace Lutheran Church that will remain. The discharge from the site is a curb cut on the west edge of the property. That will move about 60 feet further to the west. We are creating a new loop road behind the school. We will be adding about 20 parking spaces as a result of the project. New sidewalks will be located in the front. We are proposing to construct a new rectangle play field. It measures 160’ x 190’. No PA system or lighting to be associated with the playfield. The site currently drains in to 3 locations, back to Spit Brook Road, to the wetland to the west and to the rear of the site. The new development will maintain those patterns but we will have 3 new stormwater elements. In the parking on the southwest part of the site we will install a recharge infiltration basin. The new parking lot will have porous pavement that will promote recharge. In the north part of the property we will have a stormwater surface detention basin. There will be new landscaping and lighting across the front of the property. We met with the Huntington and they have asked for additional buffering. It is a combination of white pine and birch buffer. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project. It did not meet the threshold. We are asking for 2 waivers for building design standards and lighting. In 1993 schools were allowed in every zone in the city. In 2006 the Land Use Code said they were allowed but by conditional use. We submitted a letter dated July 22, 2011 that outlined the 9 criteria. We expect construction to begin and last about 9 to 10 months. We have met with our most direct abutters and believe they are satisfied with this proposal. The conditions set forth in the staff report are acceptable to us. Mr. Dufour: Is there much more room for expansion? Mr. Petropulos: I believe this will be the last significant improvement that could be done here. Mr. Dufour: Will there be a lot of equipment on the roof top? I am concerned about noise as far as the abutters are concerned? NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Dookran: This property is at the beginning of Old Maids Brook and we have been having a lot of issues overtopping on Shelly Drive and Browning Avenue. You said you would be using porous pavement. What is your success with using porous pavement? Mr. Petropulos: It is a newer technology. The best example is right next door at the Huntington. Very similar size parking. It seems to be working just fine. Mr. Slivinski: How close will the exit point be to Kent Lane? Mr. Petropulos: Normally if it was 2 directions I would think it is getting too close but it is a discharge only. It is about 50 to 60 feet. Site distance is good. Rebecca Brown, TEC, Inc. Ms. Brown: We prepared a traffic memo for this project. There will be a small increase in traffic relative to the increase in population that would occur with this school. It doesn’t meet thresholds for doing a full traffic study. We were asked to prepare the trip generation analysis to determine if it would meet the threshold as well as look at access to the site to identify any issues. Site lines are more then adequate. Mr. Dookran: The new trips are minimal based on your calculations? Ms. Brown: Yes. Mr. Dookran: Will there be an increase in traffic? Ms. Brown: There will be a small increase in traffic. There are roughly 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour. Mr. Dookran: That is a total for new students as well as improved services? Ms. Brown: The services are intended for the students that are already there on the site. There may be occasional after school activities but those wouldn’t be on a regular basis. Mr. Ireland: How many more trips would you need to make it a threshold problem? Ms Brown: We would need 55 more trips, roughly 60 students. They could have 300 students before they would meet the threshold for an analysis. NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Slivinski: Has anyone been out to the site? What is it like during drop off and pick up of kids. Mr. Dufour: I am down that road quite often and it seems rather orderly. The only time there seems to be chaos is when there are special activities. How many students are there now? Mr. Petropulos: 220. Their projections are 240. They might go into the 260-270 range as the maximum. There are no buses here. The hours are 6:30 am to 6:00 pm. On the gymnasium and classroom additions there are 2 air condition units on both building additions. They are in the rear third of those buildings. We have an ordinance that says you can’t exceed 45 decibels. Our testimony would be that they would comply with that ordinance. Mr. Dookran: If this doesn’t go forward do we have substandard services there based on state requirements? Mr. Petropulos: No. They comply with all laws to a private school. Mr. Dufour: 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. Mr. Slivinski: What would happen if they did reach the 300 threshold? What happens to the traffic? Mr. Taylor: I suppose if the board wanted to limit a maximum number of students if that was a concern that would be an option. There has been testimony on what the maximum would be. Mr. Dufour: They are there and are successful because they offer a great product. If it becomes substandard through expansion then they will hear through their clientele. MOTION by Mr. Slivinski to open up the public hearing for the purpose of listening to Mr. Nelson talk about the traffic. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Slivinski: Are there traffic problems out there now? Gary Nelson, 97 Irene Drive, Hollis, NH NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Nelson: I am there frequently and with the very rare exception there is never a parking problem that I have seen. Occasionally Roby Park will create a problem because they will have an event. The church has been a great problem in working with that. We never have a back up problem on Spit Book Road. Mrs. Corcoran: There are 220 students. Do you have a waiting list? Are you capping attendance? Mr. Nelson: There is a cap to the classrooms. We are becoming a private school. We are changing our format from a daycare. There has been a shift. The curriculum has changed. Mr. Dufour: We are approving this plan based on how it is presented this evening. We are concerned about traffic. If it became an issue we would have to have a conversation. Mr. Nelson: Understood. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN No one SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN No one Mr. Dufour: 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. Slivinski to approve New Business – Conditional/Special Use Permits #1. It conforms to 190-133(F) with no stipulations or waivers. SECONDED by Mr. Ireland MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Mr. Mr. Slivinski to approve New Business – Site Plans #3. It conforms to 190-146(D) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. The request for a waiver from 190-172, which sets building design standards, is granted, finding that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 8 2. The request for a waiver from 190-89, which sets specific standards for site lighting, is granted, finding that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all issues noted in an email from R. Wood dated 8/1/2011 shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all issues noted in a memo from K. Rutter dated 8/17/2011 shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all site improvements shall be completed. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS 2. Absolute Broadcasting, LLC (Applicant) Paul & Scott Levesque (Owner) – Application and acceptance of proposed third one year extension to approved site plan for the construction of 3 AM radio tower antennas and a 12 x 20 transmitter building with improved access. 1081 West Hollis Street, Sheet D-Lot 68, Zoned R30-Suburban Residence. Ward 5. MOTION by Mr. Ireland that the application is complete the board is ready to take jurisdiction. SECONDED by Mr. Kelly MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Jim Petropulos, Hayner/Swanson, Inc. Mr. Petropulos: We are asking for an extension because the FCC permitting has yet to be obtained. Yesterday my client called and said the FCC permit was finally received after 18 months. We could begin as early as this fall, but more likely is a spring of next year project. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN No one SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 9 No one Mr. Dufour: 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. Ireland to approve New Business – Site Plans #3. It conforms to 190-146(D) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. With approval of this site plan of June 5, 2008 all prior of approval are incorporated herein and made a part of this plan, unless otherwise determined by the Planning Board. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS 4. Katherine Sweeney (Owner) Rais-Prol, LLC (Applicant) – Application and acceptance of proposed residential site plan for six-single family units and a duplex, with associated site improvements. Property is located at 3-5 Wellman Avenue. Sheet 58-Lot 14. Zoned “RA” Urban Residence. Ward 2. MOTION by Mr. Ireland that the application is complete and the board is ready to SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Richard Maynard, Maynard & Paquette Mr. Maynard: On the site is a single family house that will be demolished and an existing duplex that will remain and become part of the project. Six new detached single family houses are being proposed. In July we went to the Zoning Board and received a variance. We have worked with the abutters to work out a mutually acceptable site. There will be a landscaped rain garden which is a form of stormwater treatment and detention infiltration in the center of the cul-de-sac. The backyards and the abutting commercial properties drain into our site. We propose a stone trench with a 12” pipe running down to it to provide a method of collection. In the stormwater management calcs you will see 100% NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 10 of the 10 year storm will be contained on site. Anything larger then the 10 year storm will overflow to an easement to Watson Street to a 36” city drain. In the upper corner is where utilities will come to the site. They will all be underground. This is a private driveway. We will not have any city maintenance, snowplowing, or trash pick-up. This is presented as a site plan but will likely go condo. They may be rentals for awhile. We have had discussions with Planning Staff and Engineering about what is the difference between a private common shared driveways versus private city street. Our regulations are gray on that. We feel this is private common drive but Staff and Engineering feel it should be called a private city street under the ordinance. If it is called a city street there are numerous requirements that need to be met to construct a city street. We will use the same pavement standards but the pavement will be 24’ as opposed to 28’. On Wellman Ave the pavement is 20’ wide or less. We don’t have curbing on the inside of the circle where the rain garden landscaped area is and that is a requirement. We don’t have interior sidewalks. We don’t feel they are needed and would add to the impervious area. The ordinance calls for driveways to be 90 degrees to the street. Our driveways are slightly off. All of these items are outlined in Atty Westgate’s letter dated September 1, 2011. We are asking for a waiver of the sidewalk on Wellman Ave. There are 2 gaps in the sidewalk across from our site. It is about 90’ and we are offering to contribute in lieu of construction of the sidewalk $4500. The neighborhood is not in favor of the sidewalks. Extensive landscaping will be provided to the site. Mr. Dufour: You say they may be rentals for awhile but may be condos. Wouldn’t they have to be condos or continued to be rentals? Mr. Maynard: If you condo them, you have the choice of the owner renting it or occupying it. It will never be a subdivision. Mr. Kelly: Your drainage summary paper assumes 2 acres. Mr. Maynard: Because part of the drainage area are 2 commercial lots on Amherst Street that drain on to our site. Even though we are 1 ½ acres, the commercial sites to drain on to our property and we have to handle that. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN No one NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 11 SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN No one Mr. Taylor: You did get a memo with a set of replacement staff recommendations. You also got a letter from an abutter with some concerns. There is also a new waiver letter from the applicant with some correspondence from Kristen Rutter and she is satisfied with the design of the road. Rick Wood is also fine with the plan. Mr. Maynard: In Mr. Quimby’s letter he has 3 items. The first has to do with drainage. He is asking that the drainage be allowed to drain from Amherst Street through his site and on to ours. That is not appropriate but we will accommodate it. In the past he has told us he does not want a fence and he wants to be able to change his mind in the future. That is a private matter. The surface water coming down Wellman Ave and on to his property, we have nothing to do with that. That is between him and city. Mr. Slivinski: What are you going to do with the snow? Mr. Maynard: Plow it to the side of the road. Mr. Slivinski: With the driveways and tight circle you have room? Mr. Maynard: Yes. We have a radius of 50’ and the city is 60’. There is room to accommodate the snow or they would truck it off site. Mr. Dufour: 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. Ireland to approve New Business – Site Plan #4. It conforms to 190-146(D) with the following stipulations and waivers: 1. The request for a waiver 190-212(A) (1), which requires that a sidewalk be located on at least one side of the street, is granted, finding that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. The owner has agreed to make a contribution in the amount of $4,500 in lieu of sidewalk construction, payment to be made prior to issuance of the first building permit. NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 12 2. The request for a waiver of 190-211(B), which requires that private streets meet the same standards as public streets is granted, finding that the waiver will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. 3. All Zoning Board of Adjustment conditions of approval are incorporated herein and made a part of this approval. 4. Prior to a building permit being issued, a utility easement shall be submitted to and approved by Corporation Counsel and the Planning Department and recorded by the City at the applicant’s expense. 5. Prior to the building permit being issued, the applicant shall resolve any outstanding issues with the Engineering Department as outlined in an email from Kristen Rutter, P.E. dated July 29, 2011. 6. The owner shall provide satisfactory inspection reports during construction to the City Department of Engineering as specified in a letter from Kristen Rutter dated August 31, 2011. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the two issues noted in an email from R. Wood dated 8/31/2011 shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall complete the road improvements to the base course of pavement and provide a guarantee for the remaining site improvements, including final pavement, drainage infrastructure, site landscaping, and sanitary sewer infrastructure. The applicant’s professional engineer shall provide an estimate of the costs of such on-site improvements for review by the City Engineer who shall determine the guarantee amount. The guarantee shall be in a form acceptable to the City’s Corporation Counsel. Reductions in the guarantee (bond, letter of credit or other form of guarantee) shall be processed, from time to time, in the customary manner. 9. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, documents establishing maintenance responsibilities for property in common ownership shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel for review and shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds by the City at the applicant’s expense. 10. Prior to 75 % occupancy, all guaranteed improvements shall be substantially completed; provided, that paving may be completed to base course and landscaping may be completed as seasonally permitted. NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 13 11. Prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the development, an as-built plan locating all roads, driveways, units, other buildings, utilities and site landscaping shall be completed by a professional engineer and submitted to the Planning Department. The as-built plan shall include a statement that all construction was generally completed in accordance with the approved site plan and applicable local regulations. Road and sidewalk construction shall be to base course, with final course pavement remaining bonded until completion. SECONDED by Mr. Kelly MOTION CARRIED 4 to 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS None OTHER BUSINESS 1. Review of tentative agenda to determine proposals of regional impact. MOTION by Mr. Slivinski that there are no issues of regional impact. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Proposed referral from the Board of Alderman for recommendation on the purchase of land (approximately 4000 sq ft) from Boston and Maine Corp railroad for the purpose of continuing the Riverwalk trail from Jackson Falls Condominiums to Margaritas Restaurant. Roger Houston, Planning Director Mr. Houston: There are 2 items in your packet. The first one is the Nashua Riverwalk. It has been in the citywide master plan. It is also in the downtown master plan. If you look at the second drawing there is a shaded pink area. We had to shift the trail to the north and curve it back towards the river. The railroad has offered that area in pink we are hoping to acquire with the introduction of the resolution. We are working with the City Engineering Office with the technical issues on the surveying. We NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 14 are trying to get the P&S taken care of while the railroad has this as an offer and we would like the board to make a favorable recommendation. Normally we would wait and take this at your second meeting, but you don’t have any further meetings till October and that would push us a little close to getting the P&S getting taken care of. Mr. Dufour: You are asking us for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation and then it would go to the Board of Alderman and they would accept this or not so it can move forward in a timely manner. Mr. Houston: That is correct. Mr. Kelly: What kind of money are we talking about? Mr. Houston: The offer on the table is $20,000. We have also had discussions with Margaritas. We will be putting a Class A trail easement along the entire width, including their property and then the trail would be constructed. Mr. Slivinski: They have no intention of selling their land? Mr. Houston: There is no need if they are willing to give us the easement. Mr. Slivinski: It would be nice to have the trail completed all the way down to Margaritas. Mr. Houston: We want to see it complete all the way down to the bridge. That is what we have been working on, based on your master plans you have adopted over the years. Mr. Dookran: Is this land considered railroad right-of-way? Mr. Houston: It is. It’s part of their active line. Mr. Dookran: What about asking for an easement? Mr. Houston: We have asked that question. They do not want an easement. They want to sell it. Mr. Dookran: You always have to worry about whether it is contaminated or not. Would it matter if it is going to be used as a trail? Mr. Houston: Not as much. We will still do our due diligence. NCPB September 1, 2011 Page 15 MOTION by Mr. Ireland for a favorable recommendation SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Dookran: The units on Wellman Avenue, can they change it in the future and make them two apartment units? Mr. Houston: No. They are building single family homes, not duplexes. They are required to get building permits and they wouldn’t be issued it they subdivide them into further units. Mr. Taylor: It was approved with the assumption that it will go to condominiums. One of the stipulations is they have to submit documents for maintenance of the road. They also have to post guarantees to protect prospective buyers. The owner of the property could retain ownership of all the buildings, but in reality it could be a condominium development and the protections are there. If they wanted to add additional units they would have to come back to the board. Mr. Houston: This does provide for more of workforce housing type for families that want to live in a single home but can’t afford to buy or rent a full single family home. MOTION to adjourn at 9:07 pm. APPROVED: ______________________________________________________ Ken Dufour, Chair, Nashua Planning Board DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS OR CAN BE ACCESSED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. DIGITAL COPY OF AUDIO OF THE MEETING MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON 48 HOURS ADVANCED NOTICE AND PAYMENT OF THE FEE. ______________________________________________________ Prepared by: Linda Panny Taped Meeting