Loading...
36 Hampden Site Plan Review Supplementary Information36 Hampden Site Plan Review Supplementary Information (Response to PB Comments) 6/5/2020 1. You have not addressed the required incremental traffic impact of this project. As required in 11.6b, you need to address the 3 additional peak hour trips generated by this expanded use. You could either make improvements to the network or make a payment in lieu of this incremental impact as described in the zoning. Response: We will make a payment in lieu of improvements, in the amount of $3,000. This has been added to the updated Zoning & Site Plan Review Assessment. 2. Sheet 3 is missing. I do not know what that is. Response: Sheet 3 was the Wetland Delineation sheet that was submitted to the Conservation Commission. It is now included in the revised plan set. 3. There is no planting plan or tree protection plan. Response: Tree protection has now been added for the two trees just off the site beyond the existing garage. Since the original submission, we had a Certified Arborist examine the 29” Black Locust that was previously showed to be preserved, and he recommended that the tree be removed as it is likely to fall in the near future due to its age, progressing rot, shallow roots and a significant lean on a steep hill. The site plan notes the tree line (“approx. line of existing woodland”) at the back of the site; these trees are at a distance from the new construction so no tree protection measures are required. A planting plan is now included but note that no new plantings are proposed. We propose providing new planting areas (beds and planters) for gardening by future residents, as shown. The proposed site plan leaves a large portion of the site including all of the existing woodland area untouched. We are not proposing any new trees on the site, as possible locations for new trees would interfere with solar access (see Zoning Assessment), snow storage and views. What species, size and where are you proposing plantings along the northerly lot line as alluded in the text. Response: Note that those proposed plantings are now no longer shown on the site plan as they would be on the neighbors’ properties, not the subject property, if desired by the neighbors. We are planning to offer smaller tree species (<20’ mature height) from the Northampton Tree List (we will suggest Cornus mas 2” caliper or Cercis Canadensis 2” caliper) to the two indicated neighbors at 32 Hampden St. and 2 Reed St., along the lot lines, if they would like them. Alternatively, these neighbors may select evergreen shrubs or small evergreen trees that offer more screening. The placement of new trees/shrubs on the neighbors’ properties is not definite, as they may decline them, and their exact placement would be selected by the neighboring property owner. We are planning an installed budget of approximately $2,400 for this portion of the project (based on the installed cost of six 2” caliper trees or equivalent evergreen shrubs). If this budget is not spent in entirety, we will plan to donate the remainder to the city tree fund. 4. How will you protect the 29" locust at the back when construction equipment will need to come right up to the tree to remove the garage and grade for the parking and new buildings? Response: We are now proposing to remove the 29” black locust upon the recommendation of a Certified Arborist who examined the tree. Note that the garage is on top of a concrete pad that we are proposing to keep - Equipment will be kept on top of the existing pad to the maximum extent possible. What about tree protection for the two trees just off the site beyond the existing garage? Response: This has been added to the plans. If you do plan to keep the locust, you will need a certified arborist to provide recommendations about how to protect the tree during construction including details of how this will be overseen. The report should identify the health and size of the tree. Response: As described, a Certified Arborist examined the tree and determined that it is in poor health and should be taken down. 5. I do not see a lighting plan? Response: No general site lighting is proposed. Each townhome will have a manually operated wall sconce at the front door as well as at the upper and lower back decks. These fall under the following exception within §350-12.2: “Lights or luminaires without cutoffs may be used on or around residential structures if bulbs used do not exceed one-hundred-watt incandescent or the equivalent fluorescent (not to exceed twenty-five-watt) or other type bulb and light glare will not be directed off site.” We have included these individual lights for your review. 6. There are no details for what appear to be infiltration notes (font is too small to read description). Separate details are required to show the profile/sections/materials/dimensions of the permeable pavers, soils, viewing port, etc. A separate detail for the bike racks should also be provided. Tree protection details are required. Response: Tree protection measures have been added to the plans, as previously discussed. See amended plans. Note that permeable pavers have been removed from the plan and replaced with asphalt. After lengthy discussions with city and state officials, it was determined that no stormwater management credit is given for permeable pavers (a runoff coefficient of .98 – similar to pavement - is required to be used in spite of the infiltration function of permeable pavers). In addition, upon further site investigation, it was determined that permeable pavers are inadvisable in the previously proposed locations (adjacent and uphill to the buildings), as additional water infiltration in those locations would increase water pressure against the foundation walls. 7. Were test pits done to determine that permeable pavers will work? Response: Yes, however, as previously described, permeable pavers are no longer proposed. 8. What does "existing private basin replaced" mean? What kind of basin? Is it there and a new one will be installed? Is there a detail for this? Response: Existing private basin means a private basin exists on the property and is owned by the property owner not by the City. It is proposed to be replaced with a new basin and a new stormwater system. Details are on the new Stormwater Pages 4 and 5. 9. The text indicates that 8 parking spaces will be provided. It is not clear where these are. I see 3 in front of the existing building and I think there are 3 at the back of the site, but there are too many lines to decipher. Please clearly indicate where these spaces are and their dimensions? Response: See revised site plan. Yes, 3 in front of the existing building, 3 at the back of the site, and 2 (stacked) next to the existing building, where the driveway continues as an extension of Hampden St. All spaces are 8.5’ x 18’. 10. The half hammerhead at the end of the drive is very close to the 35' no disturb area. To prevent intrusion into this area, there should be vertical granite curb and granite bollards to prevent snow from being plowed into this area? Response: See revised site plan. We are proposing rails for this purpose, to prevent snow from being plowed into this area. Proposed rails are steel post bolted to a wood rail, a simple, low profile solution in keeping with the overall common driveway design. See detail on revised plan set. 11. The plans attempt to include too many items and descriptions on single pages and make it very difficult to interpret. For revised plans please make sure that layout of proposed area is separated from grading and drainage, landscaping is separate for these as well and that the font size of the text is legible - at least 11 pt. An existing conditions plan should show clearly which trees are to remain and which are to be removed separately from contours, sewer lines, easements, etc. There are some details that do not need to be on every sheet. For example, 2 ft contours do not need to show up on all plans. You can put in 5 ft contours if necessary. Also the historic "parcel or lot identifiers" are not necessary ('lot 11, 12, 13, 14) . These have all been merged for zoning purposes and the numbers make it harder to read other important details? Response: See revised plans.