Loading...
7-2-20 36 Hampden Site Plan Review Supplementary Information1 36 Hampden Site Plan Review Supplementary Information 2 (Response to Comments) 7/2/2020 Responses in Bold 1. Do you have any information about the "private drain" at the edge of the property? See page 4 "Existing Stormwater" plan upper left of the page. What area does it drain? Is it only this parcel? The neighboring parcel above the drain, and the front yard of 36 Hampden drain into this drain. The outfall is at the same outfall as the municipal pipe outfall in the wetland. See Page 4 of 5 Existing and Proposed. When it is replaced with the new drain will it continue to drain the same area? It will drain the same area, and it will be combined with municipal storm drain flow. Is there an outlet from the underground detention area? Where does it outlet? The proposed drain and detention/filter treatment system connects to the existing municipal pipe at location DC01, see page 4 of 5 Proposed Stormwater Plan. The existing municipal pipe outfalls into the wetland just below the road at the bottom of the slope. See Proposed Stormwater Plan. This drainage concept has been preliminarily discussed with DPW. 2. We will need a detail of the new proposed drain - unless it is there and I missed it? See page 4 of 5, and page 5 of 5 for drawings. See the Notice of Intent for full explanation, narrative, and of drainage system maintenance details and other pertinent information. 3. What is the maintenance schedule for this drain as well as the infiltration system? Maintenance will be a required condition of the permit. See the Notice of Intent for full explanation and of drainage maintenance Details. Note: There is no infiltration system. See Notice of intent for explanation. 4. What is the "OS" on the abutter's property at the edge of your construction? OS is a shrub on the neighbor’s property – Actually, two shrubs are in this location, as indicated on the revised plan (attached). One is a Rose of Sharon and the other is a Privet. Is this the tall shrub at the corner of the abutter's porch? No, that shrub is a different one, and is now indicated on the revised plan (attached). How big, species, how will it be protected? 8” multi-stemmed Yew. As indicated on the revised plan, all three shrubs will be protected – See Fencing Detail. 5. I have significant concerns about the way the streetscape will be affected and whether the Board will be able to approve the project based on the drawings you have submitted. Accommodating parking in this area has been an issue from the beginning of your concepts. From the perspective of Hamden and Reed, all you will see is continuous asphalt and 5 cars wrapping the 2-family unit. This is not consistent with the existing neighborhood and is a dramatic change from the existing conditions. I would strongly urge you to look at ways to "store" cars behind this unit. I realize this may require you to drop units or decrease the footprint and/or build a taller structure, but I do not think it makes sense to go in front of the Board with this configuration. 2 The goal of infill is to ensure that it is done in a way that adds to the character of the neighborhood and design is a critical piece of this. If the Board does not consider these issues, it will add to the criticism of the concept of building sustainably within and on existing infrastructure and add to the voices of those who are opposed to any changes within existing neighborhoods. I understand the concerns you are expressing, but I think the issue here is that the plan view of the site is misleading. I believe this proposal is an excellent example of small infill development that tucks into a neighborhood and is consistent with the overall neighborhood character. We are proposing to create just three small additional housing units (on a property that currently also has a two-family home on it), within walking distance of downtown, that are affordable to households making the area’s median income. The view of cars from the street will be similar to the current situation, as tenants of the two existing units typically park several cars right in front of and next to the building. Please see the attached picture showing the view of the property from the public street intersection at the corner of Hampden and Reed. You can see that the property, and the parking, is set back significantly from the intersection, and is not all that visible from this intersection (the tail end of Hampden St really functions as a private driveway). As a result, the proposed changes would have a minimal overall impact to the public streetscape. If anything, the site will now look much better from the street, as we are making some façade and siding improvements, and because the current chaotic parking situation (dirt/muddy drive, with parking occurring haphazardly all over the place) will be replaced with a less messy-looking (asphalt) driveway and a more orderly parking arrangement. It IS possible to move one of the parking spaces that is in public view - for example, the nearest diagonal space (which would be in partial public view in the attached picture, in front of the existing right side unit front window). This space could be moved back further on the site, to be in front of the first modular unit instead, but this would sacrifice the community garden area, which is an important element of the site design, and it would also block the view of the immediate neighbor (at 32 Hampden Street). We are trying to keep that center area (between the two buildings) clear of cars both to have a shared open space for the development and to preserve that immediate neighbor’s view through the buildings to the wetland. In response to your suggestion, storing cars behind the units, we cannot tuck parking behind the buildings due to the grade conditions. The buildings are right on the edge of the bank. In order to place parking behind the existing two-family building, we would need to remove at least one of the existing decks, and the lower (walk-out) bedroom(s) would then look/walk directly out to a car instead of a patio. Even then, we would not be able to fit in a turnaround (again, due to the edge of the bank), and snow plowing without getting snow in the wetland area would become an issue. Behind the units is a significant grade change with poor soil; fitting parking into this location would require radical regrading, retainage and drainage, and we would also need to significantly increase the total paved area on the site in order to be able to access this parking. You also suggested that we consider decreasing the building footprints, building a taller structure, or dropping units. We have carefully considered all of these options during the 3 design process. The footprint of the new proposed townhomes is already quite small (~15.5’ x 32’, ~496 sq. ft.) and cannot be reduced much, and certainly not in a way that would accommodate more parking. Yes, dropping a unit would allow additional parking to move to the back of the property, but then in order for the project to work financially, it would force the new townhomes to go up by one story. This would impact the 2nd story view from the neighbor’s property at 32 Hampden Street, and, perhaps more importantly, this would result in two large high-end condo units that would need to sell at close to $500,000 instead of three modestly sided condo units targeted to the median area income (selling in the mid-$300,000s). In keeping with the goals of the Sustainability Plan, we are trying to build smaller and more affordable units rather than large units targeted at the top of the market. This infill proposal adds three small, cute, very low profile townhomes to the neighborhood, tucked into a relatively invisible location that impacts very few other properties. We believe this development will add positively to the character of the neighborhood. It is about the smallest viable multi-family infill project that can be built that has smaller and more affordable units (versus large, top of the market units). We have taken advantage of the grade change, putting the bedrooms in the walk-out basements, to keep these new units very low profile and to minimize their overall impact to the neighbors. And, we’ve tried to maintain somewhat of a view through to the wetland for at least the immediate neighbor at 32 Hampden, who is the most impacted by the project. (Related to this, we’ve had several conversations with this immediate neighbor, and I have sat in her living room and seen the view myself that we are trying to preserve. We also did a 2nd floor view study to assess the visual impact to her of dropping our original two-story concept down to one-story. These discussions with this neighbor helped guide our design decisions, specifically the reduction from two-stories to one-story). We realize that infill of any scale has an impact on a neighborhood – At the very least, new units come with more cars. However, it would be difficult to accomplish a smaller multi-family infill project than this, and with less impact to the neighborhood. As previously noted, the development adds just three small units to the neighborhood – all affordable to households around the median income level for our area. We believe the plan we are proposing here adds to the character of the neighborhood and will be really nice. We’ve taken great care to put together a site plan that we think minimizes the impacts while providing the best possible living experience for the future residents of the site. The development includes a traditional design on the new construction, façade improvements to the existing construction, and softening elements including front porches/porticos, single story new construction and rhythmic detail using building step backs. Also, please note, pursuant to our phone conversation, that the attached revised Landscaping Plan now also proposes a new tree, a Cornelian Cherry Dogwood, between the two parking areas in front of the existing building, to achieve further softening of the view of the property from the public streets, as well as the neighboring property at 2 Reed Street. A small tree was selected in order to retain long-term solar access for PVs at the roof level of the existing building.