Response LetterAugust 15, 2019
Carolyn Misch, AICP
Senior Land Use Planner/Permits Manager
City of Northampton Office of Planning & Sustainability
210 Main Street, Room 11
Northampton, MA 01060
Re: Proposed Mixed-Use Redevelopment – 303 King Street
Dear Ms. Misch:
The following is offer in response to City staff site plan review comments provided in your May 10, 2019 email:
Design Criteria. See item # 4 Building Design Criteria and item # 9 Traffic below
Front Buffer. The existing 9’ tree belt has been increased to 10’ and the existing 5’ street front sidewalk will be removed and replaced with a 6’ sidewalk. The spacing and species
for the required street trees conforms to City standards. The layout and selection of trees and plant materials in the 12’ landscape buffer behind the sidewalk will also accommodate
required rain gardens for stormwater infiltration. The former Papa Gino’s parcel is not part of this development plan.
Sidewalk Standard. The two buildings proposed are interconnected by an 8’ wide sidewalk flanked by two 6’ landscaped buffers extending to the street front sidewalk.
Building Design Criteria:
Building 1
Section 2. “Entrances and Entryways”
The Street/ buffer orientated facades of any building abutting the street/ front buffer shall have at least one customer entrance on that façade, or a pedestrian arcade that brings pedestrians
around the building to the entrance.
Response: This building does not contain a customer entrance facing King Street; therefore, a pedestrian arcade is provided on the north side of the building, leading pedestrians around
the building to the entrance.
The arcade is constructed of masonry half walls with a decorative stone base and cap. A trellis-like structure constructed of wood columns and rafters completes the arcade, with a sloped,
fabric covered roof.
The arcade covers the entire sidewalk area and has a clear width of 6’-0” between the masonry piers and the wall. The masonry piers also provide protection from the adjacent vehicular
traffic.
Each Building and/ or each store within a building must have at least one clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance, featuring no fewer than three of the required design elements:
Response: The building contains 5 unique customer entrances opposite the King Street side, facing the parking lot.
The centered customer entrance includes a prominent gable (peaked roof form), centered in the building’s façade,
Each of the customer entrances are recessed into the façade,
Each of the customer entrances contain canopies,
Each of the customer entrances have windows in their doors, and are flanked by display windows.
The façade facing King Street includes all of the above elements, except the windows in the doors and the door recesses in the façade.
Section 3. Facades and Exterior Walls
A. Patterns: Facades must include a repeating pattern that shall include color, texture, and material changes. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements
shall repeat at no more than 30’-0”, either horizontally or vertically. Patterns can include architectural structural bays through a change in plane no less than 12” in width, such
as an offset, reveal or projecting rib.
Response: The façade includes a repeating pattern that includes color, texture and material changes. A horizontal band in the shiplap style siding repeats horizontally both as a ‘water
table’ element at the windowsills and at the window header, which also continue along the side elevations of the building. Additional repetitive elements include the brick pilasters
that are 4’-6” in width and repeat at 28’-0” intervals along the front façade of the building, and also anchor the corners of the building on the side facades. Additional patterns
within the façade include the board and batten finishes between the brick pilasters at the sign band.
B. Facades visible from a public way greater than 100’ in length, measured horizontally shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3% of the length
or incorporate other types of articulation, facades, displays, or texture which meets the above standard without forcing structural changes to the core building.
Response: The building total length is 129’-6”, and therefore incorporates additional articulation to support the above standards, including:
Brick pilasters that are projected off the face of the façade, varying in depth from 8” to 2’-0”,
Doors and windows (articulation) that break up the length of the façade, while providing an architectural rhythm and scale,
Canopies that overhang the windows and doors that project out beyond the face of the façade by 4’-0” (over 3% of the façade length),
A variety of textures and features that also break up the length of the façade, including brick, shiplap siding, board and batten siding, architectural banding and a detailed cornice.
C. Ground Floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along no less than 60% of their horizontal length.
Response: The building incorporates windows, entry areas, awnings, and other features (brick pilasters, horizontal banding, a detailed cornice line, and a variety of siding types) along
the entire façade that faces the public street.
D. Glazing: The street level façade built at the public sidewalk shall be transparent between the height of 3’-0” and 8’-0” above the walkway grade for no less than 60% of the horizontal
length of the building façade. Building setbacks beyond the required 12’ buffer may have 40% glazing in this area.
Response: The building is located beyond the 12’ of buffer and contains exactly 41% glazing between the height of 3’-0” and 8’-0” above the walkway grade, based on the overall length
of the building façade of 129’-6”.
E. Glazing (Continued): Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters or other such forms of framing.
Response: Windows are framed and contain an extended sill and header, as well as a window awning that adds prominence and color at each of the window locations.
Section 4. Roofs and Eaves – Include no less than two of the following features:
A. Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15% of the supporting wall, and such
parapets shall not exceed 1/3 the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment.
Response: The average height of the building parapet is 2’-0” above the roof deck, and the average height of the building is 20’-0”, meaning that the height of the parapet is 10% of
the supporting wall. The highest point of the parapet (at the central gable) is 6’-6” or less than 1/3 the height of the supporting wall, which is 24’-6” at the peak of the central
gable. The parapets include a three-dimensional cornice treatment.
B. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than three feet past the supporting walls.
Response: The building façade includes canopies that extend 4’-0” past the supporting walls. Additionally, the public entrances of the building are recessed 3’-0” beyond the supporting
walls.
C. Sloping Roof that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to one foot of vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal
run and less than or equal to one foot of vertical rise for every one foot of horizontal rise.
D. Three or more roof slope planes.
Response: The building contains sloped roof elements on the central gable, sloped roof planes on the building arcade and sloped roof planes on the building canopies.
Section 4. Materials
Predominate exterior materials shall be durable, high quality materials and include, but not be limited to, brick, wood, native stone, tinted, textured and concrete masonry units. Façade
colors shall be low reflectance.
Response: The building materials include brick, limestone banding, wood shiplap style siding and wood board and batten style siding, as well as fabric wrapped canopies. All of the façade
colors used will be low reflectance.
Building 2
Section 2. “Entrances and Entryways”
The Street/ buffer orientated facades of any building abutting the street/ front buffer shall have at least one customer entrance on that façade, or a pedestrian arcade that brings pedestrians
around the building to the entrance.
Response: This building has three customer entrances along the front façade, facing the street.
Each Building and/or each store within a building must have at least one clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance, featuring no fewer than three of the required design elements:
Response: The building contains 3 unique customer entrances facing the parking lot.
The centered customer entrance includes a prominent gable (peaked roof form), centered in the building’s façade,
The centered customer entrance includes canopies at the upper band of windows,
Each of the customer entrances has a connecting arcade along the sidewalk,
Each of the customer entrances have windows in their doors and are flanked by display windows.
Section 3. Facades and Exterior Walls
A. Patterns: Facades must include a repeating pattern that shall include color, texture, and material changes. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements
shall repeat at no more than 30’-0”, either horizontally or vertically. Patterns can include architectural structural bays through a change in plane no less than 12” in width, such
as an offset, reveal or projecting rib.
Response: The façade includes a repeating pattern that incorporates color, texture and material changes. A horizontal band above the central area of the arcade connects the central
gable area with the adjacent ‘trellis style’ metal roof areas that flank the gable. Additional repetitive elements include the pilasters that vary from 2’-0” to 6’-8” in width, and
repeat at 10’-0” to 14’-0” intervals along the front façade of the building, and also anchor the corners of the building at the ends of the front facade. Additional patterns within
the façade include the board and batten finishes between the brick pilasters at the central element, brick work on the end elements and the ribs of the metal roof.
B. Facades visible from a public way greater than 100’ in length, measured horizontally shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least 3% of the length
or incorporate other types of articulation, facades, displays, or texture which meets the above standard without forcing structural changes to the core building.
Response: The building’s total façade length, visible from a public way, is 207’-4”. The façade therefore incorporates additional articulation to support the above standards, including
projections that are at least 6’-2” in depth (3% based on the façade length of 207’-4”).
An arcade along the front of the building, that projects 6’-4” off the front façade, that includes a variety of roof forms and canopies,
Doors and windows (articulation) that break up the length of the façade, while providing an architectural rhythm and scale,
Canopies that overhang the arcade openings that project out an additional 2’-6” beyond the 6’-4” arcade,
A variety of textures and features that also break up the length of the façade, including brick, board and batten siding, architectural banding and a detailed cornice.
C. Ground Floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings, or other such features along no less than 60% of their horizontal length.
Response: The building incorporates windows, entry areas, an arcade, and other features (brick pilasters, horizontal banding, a detailed cornice line, and a variety of siding types)
along the entire façade that faces the public street.
D. Glazing: The street level façade built at the public sidewalk shall be transparent between the height of 3’-0” and 8’-0” above the walkway grade for no less than 60% of the horizontal
length of the building façade. Building setbacks beyond the required 12’ buffer may have 40% glazing in this area.
Response: The building is located beyond the 12’ of buffer and contains exactly 75% glazing between the height of 3’-0” and 8’-0” above the walkway grade, based on the overall length
of the building façade of 207’-4”.
E. Glazing (Continued): Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters or other such forms of framing.
Response: Windows are framed and most are located behind the entry arcade. Those windows in the same plane as the arcade contain window awning that adds prominence and color at each
of these window locations.
Section 4. Roofs and Eaves – Include no less than two of the following features:
A. Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15% of the supporting wall, and such
parapets shall not exceed 1/3 the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment.
Response: The average height of the building parapet is 2’-0” above the roof deck and the average height of the building is 22’-0”, meaning that the height of the parapet is 10% of the
supporting wall. The parapets include a three-dimensional cornice treatment.
B. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than three feet past the supporting walls.
Response: The building façade includes roof eaves that extend 6’-4” past the supporting walls. Additionally, the front arcade of the building creates roof forms that extend 6’-8” beyond
the supporting walls.
C. Sloping Roof that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to one foot of vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal
run and less than or equal to one foot of vertical rise for every one foot of horizontal rise.
D. Three or more roof slope planes.
Response: The building contains sloped roof elements on the central gable, sloped roof planes on the building arcade and sloped roof planes on the building canopies.
Section 4. Materials
Predominate exterior materials shall be durable, high quality materials and include, but not be limited to, brick, wood, native stone, tinted, textured and concrete masonry units. Façade
colors shall be low reflectance.
Response: The building materials include brick, limestone banding, wood trellis structure (over sections of the arcade) and wood board and batten style siding, as well as fabric wrapped
canopies. All of the façade colors used will be low reflectance.
Design Criteria. Responses consolidated in Building Design Criteria above.
Lighting. Cut sheets for proposed exterior lighting fixtures are attached. All fixtures will be full cutoff down lights.
Solar Ready. The structural design of both buildings will accommodate future solar panels. A chase and conduit, for solar related wiring, will be provided in both buildings.
Bicycle Parking Standards. Parking for 20 bicycles, with a total of four bike racks, is provided on site. The Papa Gino’s parcel is not part of this development plan.
Traffic.
a. Traffic Study marginally discusses retail marijuana use and incorporates conclusions about the “Build” analysis suggesting that this use will access the signalized intersection
via shared parking and access. It
assumes allocation of all movements through that driveway. However, the site plan does not show narrowing or restrictions of the existing driveway that served the former Papa Gino’s
building.
Response: A retail marijuana use for the Papa Gino’s property is no longer under consideration.
The Papa Gino’s parcel is not part of this plan of development.
The reference to that potential project within the current TIAS was solely as a potential background development project independent of the currently proposed Project. As such, no analysis
was done for the existing 301 King Street driveway, which may be reused for that potential adjacent development. However, all the anticipated site-generated traffic for the former dispensary
proposal was included at the 303 King Street Project Site signalized driveway. This was done to evaluate a “worst-case” condition of the cross-easement impact on the signalized driveway
operation during the future Build scenario. It is likely that some portion of the remaining 301 King Street traffic instead would have utilized the existing 301 King Street driveway.
Following City of Northampton standards, the former 301 King Street proposal was estimated to generate 40 total vehicle trips (20 entering/20 exiting) during the critical peak hours
studied. With the dispensary no longer under consideration, the resulting impacts on the operation of the King Street signalized Site driveway are somewhat overstated. While this results
in an overly conservative analysis, not including this level of background trip generation (translating to less than one vehicle per minute) in the analysis would not significantly
change the findings of the TIAS.
. b. The recommendations from the traffic engineer do not meet the standard in 11.5(3) for reduction in trips. How will you guarantee a tenant will abide by alternating shifts?
How can you encourage bike ridership when there is no covered storage and there are no showers (in at least 1 building that is accessible to employees on the site)? See also bike storage
in 7 above.
Response: The Proposed Trip Reduction Plan (designed to meet the standard in 11.5(3) of the City of Northampton Zoning Code) is detailed on pages 19 through 23 of the TIAS that was
prepared for the Project. The Proponent is meeting the requirements of a 35% reduction in traffic primarily through standard 11. (3)(b)[4] which states “Provision of integrated land
uses, including on-site services, retail, and housing.” The anticipated “pass-by”, or “impulse”, trips (page 21) that were discussed and documented in accordance with industry guidelines
and standards are calculated to provide a 27% reduction in weekday evening peak hour trips (shown in Table 4, page 23 of TIAS). The Proponent has proposed on-site retail uses which
also encourage pass-by trips and, in turn, help to meet the Zoning Code’s criteria of trip reduction on the adjacent roadways. In addition to pass-by trips, the Site also is expected
to experience a reduction in trips through the proposed “Integrated Land Uses” (otherwise known as multi-purpose trips, as discussed on page 22 of the TIAS). The anticipated Integrated
Land Use Trip reduction was discussed and documented in accordance with industry guidelines and standards and was calculated as providing a 28% reduction in weekday evening peak hour
trips (Table 4, page 23 of the TIAS). Combining the Integrated Land Use Trip reduction with the Pass-By Trip reduction shows that the proposed Project is expected to experience a 55%
reduction in traffic, thereby meeting the City of Northampton’s Zoning Code requirements for a 35% reduction in traffic.
As discussed on page 19, Traffic Demand Management (TDM) techniques also will be encouraged at the Project Site. Industry research has been conducted on the overall effectiveness of
such programs, which
shows that an approximately 1% to 3% trip reduction (as shown on page 20 of the TIAS) may be experienced when these techniques are implemented. Page 21 of the TIAS also details the specific
TDM techniques that will be encouraged on site. However, to provide a conservative estimation of the overall Trip Reduction Plan (Table 4, page 23 of the TIAS), no credit was applied
for the TDM techniques due to the uncertainty of their effectiveness, which may be dependent on the characteristics of individual tenants. This results in a conservative evaluation
of Project impacts as there are Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) and Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) bus lines which run past the Project Site on King Street, which
may be attractive to the employees and patrons of the various commercial uses within the Site.
c. Peak Hour trip generation. Page 22 asserts that we should just assume that ITE general office and basic restaurant numbers for trip generation could be used instead of what
our zoning and ITE state are different for medical office specifically and take out restaurant. There is no viable rationale for that. Starbucks is based on generating more drive-in
traffic and trip generation than your typical coffee or take out restaurant. This needs to be corrected.
Response: What is referenced above as ITE calculations on Page 22 were solely for the purpose of using industry standards and rationale to calculate the anticipated Trip Reduction percentages
as detailed in our response to item (c.) above. As discussed, and documented on page 18 of the TIAS, the City of Northampton’s Zoning Code was followed when calculating the anticipated
site generated traffic for the development. These calculations are summarized in Table 3 on page 18 of the TIAS.
For general reference, VHB also has attached a comparison of the estimated Project trip generation that would result from using standard ITE data, as opposed to the required trip generation
rates specified by the City. As shown in the attached Table 1, estimating trip generation based on ITE data would result in considerably less peak-hour traffic than that estimated based
on the City-required data. The ITE data for Medical/Dental Office Buildings, land use code (LUC) 720, are based on between 44 and 65 studies for weekday peak hour conditions. Similarly,
the weekday peak-hour ITE retail trip generation (ITE LUC 820) is based on studies of between 84 to 261 sites, while ITE data for Coffee Shops with Drive-Through Windows (ITE LUC 937)
are based on between 26 and 61 weekday peak hour studies. Regardless, the base trip generation estimates in the TIAS all were developed using the City-required trip generation rates,
resulting in an overly conservative analysis.
d. Peak Hour Trip reductions should focus on Northampton PM peak hour. For providing any rationale for reductions. That would clarify your total off site mitigation requirements
as well.
Response: Agreed. As discussed in our response to item (c.) above, the anticipated weekday evening peak hour trip reduction is anticipated to be approximately 55% as shown in Table 4
of the TIAS. This leaves an anticipated 220 Total Net New Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips to calculate the off-site mitigation requirements, as shown in Table 4 on page 23 of the TIAS.
e. Table 4 on page 23 seems to have an error and is not clear where the reduction numbers come from. Please have VHB review and clarify.
Response: As explained in item (c.) above, Table 4 summarizes the proposed Trip Reduction Plan that is discussed and documented on pages 19 through 22 of the TIAS. Table 4 presents the
anticipated trip reduction percentages during the peak hours, and the resulting Total Net New Peak Hour Trips.
f. Peak hour trip reduction through multi-purpose and pass by- ITE and our zoning assume some of these reductions. However, given the information provided on pg 21 of the report,
staff is willing to accept a 25% reduction in trips for pass by but not more than that. So the 27% and 29% (with no rationale given for these) must be reduced.
Response: VHB utilized accepted industry standards and rationale to calculate the anticipated reduction in peak hour trips. As these estimates were based on nationally accepted ITE data,
they should be appropriate for use on this Project without any further reduction.
g. The traffic summary states that the appendix contains the calculations used for the multi-purpose trip reduction. I could not find this. A small reduction may be appropriate
for occasional cross-over use, however there does not seem to be rational for daily reductions of any significance on top of pass-by reductions.
Response: Appendix D “Trip Generation & Distribution” contained a detailed spreadsheet that showed the calculations for Peak Hour trip reduction. Industry standards and rationale for
the Integrated Land Use trips were discussed and documented on page 22 of the TIAS.
h. Total trip generation for retail seems to be slightly off. It appears it should be 237 trips instead of 240.
Response: Agreed. It is standard practice to round the calculated Trip Generation numbers to the nearest 5 or 10 vehicle trips to acknowledge that traffic generation and adjacent street
volumes will vary by at least that amount from day to day. If the City prefers that raw numbers be reported, Tables 3 and 4 can be updated as needed, though that rounding should not
alter the findings of the TIAS.
Due to LOS F in the driveway, this signal would need to have a video camera installed to improve movements through the intersection.
Response: Overall, with the Proposed Mitigation implemented (page 37 of the TIAS) the existing King Street/Barrett Street/Project Site driveway signalized intersection is expected to
operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) C during both the weekday morning and evening peak hours, as well as the Saturday midday peak hour, as shown on pages 37 through 39 of
the TIAS. While longer delays may be experienced at the Site driveway, those delays are expected to remain internal to the Project Site without adversely affecting King Street traffic
flow. The method of vehicle detection used should not have a bearing on the LOS at a signalized intersection. The current mode of vehicular detection provided along all approaches at
the existing signalized intersection is magnetic loop detectors. When the proposed Site driveway is reconstructed to provide two lanes exiting the Site, the existing signal plan will
be updated to show new magnetic loop detectors along the Site driveway approaches. Maintaining the same type of vehicle detection for each approach is recommended for general maintenance
and controller operation. The signal plan also will refine the intersection timing to optimize operations and minimize delay along all intersection approaches.
j. The ped signal must be upgraded to current standards.
Response: Agreed. To accompany the Proposed Mitigation that was discussed on page 37 of the TIAS, the existing signal plan will need to be modified for City approval. During this process
the existing pedestrian signal heads will be evaluated for location and operation and will be upgraded to current standards.
k. Why didn’t VHB look at coordinating left signal simultaneously between north and south bound turning movements? Signal timing must be reevaluated to address LOS. We’ll need
updated phasing diagram and signal timing plan prior to construction.
Response: A variety of signal phasing and timing plans were evaluated as part of the preparation of the TIAS. The existing lane use along King Street in the northbound and southbound
directions (one shared left-/through lane and one shared through-/right lane) does not allow for the northbound and southbound exclusive left turn movements to operate simultaneously.
To accompany the Proposed Mitigation that was discussed on page 37 of the TIAS, the existing signal plan will need to be modified for City approval. The signal plan also will refine
the intersection timing to optimize operations and minimize delay along all intersection approaches. As part of this evaluation, VHB will make provisions so that this signal is operating
properly in its intended coordinated system along King Street. Updates to adjacent signalized intersections that are in coordination with the Site driveway intersection may require
minor updates within the signal controllers at those locations as well.
l. The signalized driveway is not wide enough to accommodate the recommended left turn lane.
Response: Agreed. Plans have been modified and will be provided by the Proponent as part of this current submittal.
m. Off-site mitigation- You have not addressed how you will meet the standards in 11.6(2) for the 490 peak hour trips that this site will generate (less whatever the final reduction
is) that is created. There is a clear formula in the zoning that requires improvements to address each project’s own impacts. Nearly 500 peak trips to generate from a site is a significant
impact.
Response: As discussed in our response to item (c.) above, the anticipated weekday evening peak-hour trip reduction is anticipated to be approximately 55% as shown in Table 4 of the
TIAS. This leaves an anticipated 220 total net new weekday evening peak hour trip to calculate the off-site mitigation requirements, as detailed in the City of Northampton Zoning Code
section 11.6(B).
As detailed on provided Site Plans, the Proponent is providing sufficient bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Site, including modifying a portion of the existing King Street sidewalk
adjacent to the Site. The Project also involves land uses that naturally reduce adjacent roadway impacts through Pass-By Trips and Integrated Land Use reduction factors. As part of
the Proposed Mitigation that was discussed on page 37 of the TIAS, the existing signal plan will need to be modified for City approval. This will include updating the intersection timing
to optimize operations and minimize delay along all intersection approaches, new detection along the Project Site driveway approach, new signal heads as required for the revised phasing,
updates as needed to the pedestrian accommodations to meet current standards, and possible updates to the coordination plan for adjacent intersections. As no traffic currently is utilizing
the existing Project Site driveway, it is expected that the addition of any amount of traffic along the approach would impact the LOS. However, through the refinement of the proposed
Site plan, and the modifications proposed to the signal plan (including bringing pedestrian accommodations up to current standards) the proposed development will meet the Approval Criteria
identified in the City of Northampton Zoning Code section 11.6(B).
Landscaping. The Elm trees have been replaced by a by a species from the City’s approved list of trees for under power lines
New trees are shown in the entire buffer
A patio detail is sown on sheet 8, Construction Notes & Details
Stormwater.
Green infrastructure has been added in the form of rain garden bioretention in the lawn areas and pervious pavement where landscape islands are insufficient in width for bioretention.
Drainage outlet from the rear basin has been revised to discharge toward the RR tracks, consistent with historical records.
The detention pipe has been increased to 18” diameter.
This was discussed with Doug McDonald and after further review he agreed with our analysis of the existing watershed. We have revised the Drainage Area Map to show the historical contours
from City records.
Contours have been added to the plan. A separate erosion control plan is provided on sheet 4A.
A revised O&M plan was prepared by the Site Engineer and is attached
The front detention system is a level pipe system with access manholes at each end. As indicated in the O&M Plan, the manholes will be inspected bi-annually and the pipes cleaned with
a jet-vac system when sediment is observed.
This property is under separate ownership and is not a part of this application. The ability to obtain the necessary cross access easements for the parking lot and basin construction
in the rear has been reserved.
Utilities.
The utility locations have been updated based on information provided by DPW. Sewer connection was corrected.
The existing water service is an unused lateral that was left for future use. It formerly both domestic and fire service for a grocery store in the adjacent property. The line will be
tested for volume and capacity prior to start of construction. If it is inadequate, a new service connection will be provided.
The mapping reflects available water mapping provided by DPW and the owner.
Both buildings on the development site will be serviced from the reserved lateral. The buildings on the adjacent 325-327 King Street property have their own water services and fire
lines.
Isolation valves have been added to the Utility Plan, shown on sheet 6.
Cleanouts have been added as requested, shown on sheet 6.
National Grid is the local electric service provider. That typo has been corrected.
Should you have questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Peter La Pointe