Responses to Comments - 40-R - 82 Bridge StSergeant House Expansion Project – 40-R Permit Application – 82 Bridge Street
Responses to Comments from Planning Department and DPW 8.2.17
Comment: There are several trees that are slated to be saved that are very close to the construction area and the general notes for tree protection are not detailed enough. Because
each tree is different and construction with the vicinity varies, it may be appropriate to have different protections spelled out per tree. These are the two along the westerly lot
line near the entrance (apple and an undefined) as well as a spruce just beyond the foundation of the addition and the pine trees along the rear easterly lot line.
Similar comment from DPW: DPW also raised the concern about the two trees in the rear that are slated for protection and how they could possibly survive with the foundation construction
and the infiltration chamber construction. It is likely they will have to be added to the list of significant trees to be removed and replaced.
Response: Please see revised Site Demolition Plan L-101 which shows additional trees, including those trees in closest proximity to the proposed new construction, being removed. Of
these, two (2) other significant trees will be removed, a 46” Pine Tree and 24” Spruce Tree located on the west side of the property. Total reimbursement for the demolition of significant
tree will be as follows:
26”+30”+46”+24”= 126”/2= 63” DBH to be replaced. This comes to (32) 2” caliper trees at $500 each (cost + delivery + Pre Wage install) = $16,000
The Northampton Tree Ordinance requires the applicant to protect any significant trees to be retained where demolition and/or construction activity is planned. The requirements require
the trees to be protected in an area shown on the approved site plan and should follow American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards for tree care practices. Because the
Northampton Tree Ordinance requires that the protected area has to exceed both the critical root zone and drip-line of each significant tree, and our site conditions do not allow us
to protect this area because it is currently paved and will be repaved as part of the project, the applicant is proposing an alternate maintenance and tree protection plan that will
be submitted by a certified arborist (as required by the bylaw). The applicant requests that the tree protection plan by licensed arborist be considered as a condition to approve the
project, and will be provided after approval of the project but before any building permits is issued.
Comment: I see the exterior photometric plan, but I didn't see any light spec for the fixtures that will be installed on the exterior of the building and their illumination level /bulb
type. Please provide.
Response: Please see attached cut sheets for proposed light fixtures attached along with a plan showing fixture locations.
Comment: We will need a detail of the covered bike storage area. (What does the structure look like?)
Response: Please see attached plans for the bike shed.
Comment: For traffic mitigation, your engineer knows from previous filings that the zoning requires that every incremental increase in trip generation has to be mitigated. The mitigation
is not based on an opinion of statistical significance. We also do not rely on ITE trip generation, but the zoning itself has
built in numbers based on data that has been collected on uses with some combination of ITE. The zoning allows ITE use when there isn't a category in the zoning itself. We have residential
classification with assumed trips which are assumed to generate 1 peak hour trip per unit. We also have a "congregate care" category that assumes .6 trips per unit based on concept
that many such residents might not have vehicles. this category is probably closer to your use than standard residential or apartment residential. However, based on the fact that
you have data that show 25% car ownership by your tenants, a .5 factor is probably appropriate. What that means then would be we would assume instead of 16 new trips generated by the
addition of 16 units, we would recommend that the Planning Board approve 50% of that with an assumption of 8 new trips. This accounts for services and on site activity coming to the
site as opposed to just resident driven trips. 8 is fewer than the 9 assumed by Berkshire Design for PM peak trips. Based on the zoning, this would require either off-site improvements
worth $8,000 dollars (mitigation) or payment in to traffic mitigation fund of $8,000- one-time. Alternatively, this payment could be made toward the regional bike share program to
help fund memberships for low-income riders OR you could pledge to buy memberships for your tenants for so many years based on this value.
Response: Please see revised Traffic Report attached.
Comment: For the hearing, we'll need a revised rendering or photoshop that eliminates the tree in the front and eliminates the picture of the pick up truck in front of the building.
That rendering on the cover sheet does not match the planting and layout plan which shows parking one space back and tree removal. Also it would be helpful to see a rendering that
zooms out a bit to show the addition in the context of the abutting parcel.
Response: Two additional renderings are attached: (1) shows a similar view that is zoomed out to show more of the neighboring property and has the pick-up truck and tree in the front
of the building eliminated; (2) shows an alternate view as seen from the rear of the Historic Northampton campus and shows the new addition in the context of several neighboring buildings.
Longer street views of the site don’t add much value, as the existing building is hidden behind the two evergreen trees in the front lawn and the addition is so far to the rear of the
property that it will not be visible unless a viewer is standing at the edge of the existing driveway (the view in our first rendering). If one is travelling down Bridge Street, and
passing this site, the house will look essentially as it used to look prior to the application of wide aluminum siding and prior to the growth of the evergreens that block the front
of the house.
Comment: There was no information about water and sewer connection or increase demands or how/where the sewer will be tied in. Will you be connecting to existing lines? Do they have
capacity? If not where will new lines be located and tapped?
Response: The project will need to replace the existing 4” PVC sewer main with a new 6” PVC sewer main. Also the project will need to replace the 1” domestic service pipe with a new
2 ½” domestic service pipe. These connections are shown on the revised plans attached. The project engineer is in the process of coordinating with DPW in regards to these new connections
to verify their location and the capacity of the mains.
Comment: Though the stormwater calculations account for a stormwater trench on site, it is not located on the site plan. Also the maintenance plan should include some measure for checking
and cleaning organic material from the yard drains due to pine needles and other tree leaves that are likely to get into the system from the roof leaders.
Response: The drainage plans and details have been revised to show the storm water trench. Language has been added to the drainage report management plan that leaves and needles will
be cleaned out of yard drains twice yearly, after the fall and after the spring.
Comment: The Berkshire Plans have the North arrow in the wrong direction. All plan sheets that are to be revised should have this element revised too.
Response: Revised plans have the North arrow corrected.
Comment: The turnaround movement for the packer truck should be shown on the plans so that it is clear the truck can get in and back out.
Response: Attached plan L 201A shows the movement of the packer truck. This is similar to existing conditions relative to existing dumpsters which are similarly located at the end
of the existing driveway.
Comment: There is one extra parking spot. This should probably be eliminated (the front one is the preferred one to be eliminated so that parking starts at the corner of the building
but not in front. This will also create more snow storage).
Response: This has been revised in the revised layout plan L 200 as suggested.