Loading...
Comments for Planning Board HearingComments from Abutters and Near Neighbors 39 Day Avenue Development These comments are supported by the following abutters and near neighbors Definite support Nancy Mihevc – 51 Day Ave Sarah and Adam Byrne – 21 Glenwood Ave Gretchen Scholl and Enrique McDonald – 28 Sherman Ave Erinn Ervin – 20 Glenwood Ave Jeremey Church – 4 Glenwood Ave Andrea Murray – 56B Day Ave Adeline Murray – 56A Day Ave Amy Fleig – 50 Day Ave Lisa Brown – 27 Day Ave Jackie and Kerrigan Baron – 35 Day Ave Initial support – waiting to hear re: final support Tamlyn Maginnis -- 15 Day Ave Caitlin Barry-King – owner of 22 Sherman Ave Steve and Carol Cahillane – owner of 7 Glenwood Ave We understand that this hearing is a technical permit and that the Board must determine if the standards for site plan approval have been met. As a result the majority of our comments relate to whether or not the plan, in its current form, meets the standards for site plan approval. We feel that it does not. Mass, Scale, Open Space and required distance between units – not meeting the spirit, and sometimes, the letter of the code. (Nancy 1) The developer plans to put six 34’ tall buildings in an area approximately 30’ x 160’ (less than ½ the width of city hall and less than the distance from the front if city hall to the municipal building). We feel this violates the intent of two sections of code that address design features Code 350 Attachment 7:3-3 “For new buildings, setback, scale, massing should fit within the block face.” 350-11.6.A. “The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses. If applicable, this shall include provision for . . . preservation of views . . . [and] light . . “ Although the height of the buildings is within the range of some other buildings in the neighborhood, we feel that the height, number and spacing of the buildings creates a sense of mass that is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. Reducing the number of units would address this They violate 350 attachment 7:1 which requires 40% open space The developer did not calculate open space correctly – it excluded areas occupied by sheds, transformer pad, rain barrels, curbs(?) and one or more retaining walls. If those areas are excluded, open space is reduced to 37% or less. If you take a closer look at units 3 and 4 and units 5 and 6 – we argue that the definition of these as duplexes is a serious stretch and that they are duplexes in name only. Take units 3 and 4 – they are a duplex because of the “covered courtyard patio” The patio in question clearly belongs to unit 4 – there is no direct access to the patio from unit 3. And if it is shared it means that unit 3 and 5 have one private patio and one shared patio while units 4 and 6 have only one shared patio. It appears to us that they take unit 4 move it within 5.5’ of unit 3, and nail on the patio roof and call it a duplex They are doing this so that the units can be closer together and not subject to 350-6.8.A “Principal structures on the same lot shall be located at least 10 feet apart.” If you reject the duplex definition, the buildings need to be moved further apart which moves unit 6 9’ into the driveway. If they compensate by jogging the driveway to the right rather than the left, it pushes unit 9 back so that it violates the 20’ setback rule. We contend that the duplex definition is spurious and should be reject – which would reduce the number of allowable buildings. Stormwater – There is too much missing or incorrect information to allow us to determine if their system meets code. (Gretchen) Welcome to Lake Sheldon (pic) and the Day Ave River (pic) –The first picture is from the Saturday rainfall and the second is from today’s. We are very concerned that the proposed development will worsen an already bad situation. At least two sections of code relate to this issue 350-11.6.A. “The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses. If applicable, this shall include provision for surface water drainage. . . “ Chapter 290:28-B.2 specifies that “post-development peak discharge rates for stormwater management systems shall not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.” The evidence presented by the developers does not allow us to conclude that their system will meet these requirements They misrepresent the amount of permeable area in the HydroCAD calculations – they do not include area used by sheds, rain barrels, and retaining wall(s). They did not answer our question as to whether there is a retaining wall on the eastern border as apparently shown in page 2 of the revised site plan. They will add about 1500 cubic yards of fill to the land, but they do not specify the type of soil to be added. Type of soil has an impact on the calculations. The experience of 29 Sherman Ave creates doubt about the ability of systems to manage run-off The Stormwater report for 29 Sherman states: “Overall, the proposed stormwater management system will provide a significant improvement over existing conditions by providing . . . stormwater storage and peak rate discharge reduction not currently available on site.” – yet street flooding is worse now than pre-construction. While the stormwater drainage systems at Sherman and Day are different, we think it casts doubt on the methods of calculating runoff and the efficacy of these systems Rain barrels will supposedly provide some relief but unfortunately they will overflow when rainfall exceeds .155” – that happened XX times between March and Dec of 2023 If, in fact, there is additional run-off from 39 Day, it will enter the drainage pipe on Day Ave and Sherman increasing the amount of rain on Sherman and Day and will result in multiple harms to community members and to the city. Safety concerns for vehicles and pedestrians – hydroplaning, slipping on ice Increased need for road maintenance since water on streets degrades the pavement. The DPW has already been called to deal with degraded pavement only a year or two after construction. Setbacks, sidewalks, the transformer, fencing, and prices (Jackie) Code 350 Attachment 7:1 Setback of accessory structure – 4 feet from side line 2 new sheds associated with existing building are on property line with 35 Day Building permit for changes in existing building does not mention sheds and so they must be part of the current plan We would like them moved 350-11.6.F.2.a In all residential zoning districts, sidewalks shall be at least five feet in width. Although no dimensions are provided on the site plan, it appears that the sidewalks are less than 5’ resulting in access issues for people with disabilities 290-36 All sidewalks shall be handicapped-accessible from the roadway at all intersections. Wheelchair ramps to accomplish the above shall be designed in accordance with MassDOT's Standard Construction Details and constructed according to the Standard Specifications. Plans do not show this Location of transformer at Glenwood entrance to driveway – we are aware that this is a DPW issue, but if the transformer needs to be relocated, it could have an impact on open space which is already inadequate.) Car can park less than 3’ from transformer How far should a transformer be from water and sewer lines (we believe 10 feet is required) Fencing All abutters have requested or will request fencing. All fencing should be installed so that the finished side faces the abutter. Each abutter will specify the dimensions they would like. Dimensions vary between 6’ and 8’ depending on location. In the staff report, Carolyn states: “In addition, this type of units provide opportunities for those who might not be eligible for subsidized housing, but cannot afford other homes on individual lots that are coming on the market.” And “In general, this project provides a great opportunity for new energy efficient units that would be market-rate accessible.” We think these comments assume that these units would condos that would be sold. However, the developer told us they will be rental units - and we have some doubts if they would be market-rate accessible. Based on other properties the developer currently rents, we think 2 bedroom units will go for $2,100/month (227 South Street and smaller and rent for this). When average cost of electricity and internet ($250/month) are added the annual housing cost is $28,200. Using the housing as 30% of annual income standard, households with incomes of $94,000 could afford to live here. We can’t estimate 1 bedroom units costs since we don’t have comparable rents. But we expect they would be higher than market rate. Parking (Kerrigan) Current configuration has 10 cars parallel parked along the driveway and 1 car parked next to the transformer at Glenwood Ave – so it meets the letter of the law of 350 Attachment 7:4-4 “Parking for more than 5 cars shall be distributed on the site to minimize impact to the neighborhood character, which shall be accomplished by . . . parallel parking along a narrow driveway” However, we think it violates other sections of code: 350-11.6 “The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site.” For tenants in units 7, 8, and 9 we think there is a safety issue. If they arrive after dark and need to park in the queue of parallel parking, to get to their unit they must walk down the driveway that is not lit until they reach the sidewalk in front of the back units – up to 200 feet. 350 6-11-C-3-a-6 “The Planning Board may issue a special permit for alternative parking configurations when: the proposed design maintains an equal level of safety and no more than four cars will be visible from a public way.” And 350 Attachment 7:7-A.1 Parking shall be located behind buildings or designed otherwise to minimize view from the public street. All 10 cars in parallel parking area would be visible from Day Ave Practical question of 10 cars parallel parked in smallest allowable space parking is just too tight Difficult to do, cars will likely be outside of lines potentially reducing number of spaces and posing a safety hazard Realistically there is parking for 8-9 cars onsite which means on street parking will be necessary. Assuming 1.5 cars/household the development will have 14 cars and need to park 5 to 6 on Day Ave or Glenwood Ave – streets that already have substantial on street parking If tenants have guests that will further increase on street parking creating a problem for current residents of Day and Glenwood Ave. Cut-through and traffic (Sarah) Curb-cut 350-8.8.G “The Planning Board may only issue a second curb cut if the applicant can show that there is something unique about the property that would otherwise render flow to and from the property unsafe and unmanageable. (they have not done this) If the Board finds that more than one curb cut is necessary for traffic safety purposes, then additional off-site traffic mitigation may be required by the Planning Board to address pedestrian safety within the abutting street network. In all other districts, the Planning Board may, as part of site plan approval, allow additional driveways/curb cuts if, and only if, such permit will promote and improve safe and efficient traffic circulation“ (you don’t need to read the whole thing – just the number and the bolded section) The plan calls for two curb cuts with a private driveway going from Glenwood to Day. We feel this would not promote and improve safe and efficient traffic circulation. It would increase traffic on surrounding streets (Day Ave) beyond that anticipated by the developer It would become a cut-through for people who currently come down Glenwood, realize it is a dead end, and now turn around in someone’s driveway. With proposed driveway starting at the end of Glenwood, these people would now cut through. It is a significant number now and would increase over time as word got out. Sarah’s count of number of turn-arounds via door whatever For residents who park on Glenwood, walking from car to unit through unlit driveway could be quite dangerous. To quote from Planning Board hearing on Mar 14 regarding special permit for a curb-cut “I wouldn’t want the roads to be connected, to be like a cut-through. I’d want there to be something to stop a cut-through from happening. . . “ and ““You know, Sam, your question about setting a precedent and all. We may see this more and more. “ Curb cut was approved with the condition that “the new curb cut not connect to the existing curb cut” - while we understand that this was not a major project hearing, we feel that the sense of the board was the cut-throughs are not desirable. (Sarah – I think this is a critical piece to include) 350-8.8.P “No portion of individual, private driveways shall exceed a slope of 10% with switchbacks and turns reasonable for emergency vehicle access.” The entrance to the driveway is 10 feet wide because of the transformer and widens to about 22 ft. There is a sharp left turn approximately 40’ in Is this configuration reasonable for emergency vehicle access? We’ve been told that fire equipment would not need to go into the driveway – that it could fight the fire from the street. But, how many pieces of fire equipment can fit at the end of Glenwood Ave? What happens if there is a multiple alarm fire when even more equipment is needed? Traffic – the only traffic analysis presented is a one sentence statement regarding peak-hour traffic flows. We believe they need to provide a much more comprehensive analysis that includes areas covered in 350-11.5.B (see notes for details) We feel their analysis must account for additional traffic resulting from the cut-through nature of the driveway or from guests entering and leaving Day Ave already has more than double the traffic count than nearby streets and this development would only increase the numbers. Our figures are taken from a 2013 study available through Pioneer Valley Planning Day 1960 Lincoln 927 Orchard 770 Elizabeth 302 Day Ave residents have submitted a traffic calming study request that would speak to whether traffic mitigation measures can be undertaken on Day. We urge the board to ask the TPC to expedite the study per recommendation of Alex Jarrett who sits on the TPC. Developer is planning to contribute $7000 to traffic mitigation fund We think it should be $8000 to take into account additional traffic coming from new unit in existing building Is there any guarantee that the money will be spent on Day Ave and Glenwood Ave? If not, there is no traffic mitigation. Park, Design Features, Missing material, and Summary (Nancy 2) 350 Attachment 7:8-C.1) All projects shall include a park/common area fully designed and constructed to be integrated into the project, which area shall be easily accessible and available for residents of the project. At a minimum, this space shall be 300 square feet or 30 square feet per dwelling unit of buildable land area, whichever is greater. How addressed – “Also adjacent to Day Avenue, we will preserve the existing dwarfed cherry tree and create a shared outdoor area (i.e. a “parklet”) around it with several benches.” We contend that this meets code in letter only Anyone who has lived on Day Ave knows that virtually no one sits on their front porch or front lawn – it is an unpleasant place to spend time because of traffic including 18 wheelers, speeding cars, multiple loud motorcycles. It may be available, but will it function as intended? While technically accessible and available for residents, it is unlikely to be used by those in the 2-bedroom duplexes – so not functionally shared Design Features The tall end of each building is a 34’ tall 24’ or 30’ wide blank wall – which is visually unappealing to say the least. They would be visible from Sherman Ave and to those of us who spend time in our backyards a good part of the year. We ask that some design measures be taken to improve this. Material required by various sections of 350-11 are missing, incomplete, or inaccurate 350-11.5.B.2.e Existing and proposed topography at two-foot contour intervals, showing wetlands, streams, surface water bodies, drainage swales, floodplains, and unique natural land features; proposed topography – impacts stormwater drainage 350-11.5.B.2.g Location and description of all stormwater drainage facilities (including stormwater detention facilities, water quality structures, drainage calculations where applicable, and drainage easements), potential water quality impacts, planned best management practices (BMPs) during the construction phase, and the planned BMPs to be used to manage runoff created after development – incomplete and inaccurate in parts 350-11.5.B.2.i.3 Landscape plans must be designed and stamped by a certified landscape architect or arborist. An adequate schedule for maintenance, during the first two years, must be specified on the plans – not stamped and no apparent maintenance schedule for first two years 350-11.5.B.2.l An erosion control plan (for major projects only) and any other measures taken to protect natural resources and water supplies – missing 350-11.5.B.3 Estimated daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed use, traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. In addition, major projects, as defined above, shall prepare a traffic impact statement including the following information: 350-11.5.B.3.c A detailed assessment of the traffic safety impacts of the proposed project or use on the carrying capacity of any adjacent highway or road, including the projected number of motor vehicle trips to enter or depart from the site for daily-hour and peak-hour traffic levels, road capacities, and impacts on intersections. missing 350-11.5.B.3.e Safe and adequate pedestrian access, including provisions for sidewalks and/or bike paths to provide access to adjacent properties and adjacent residential neighborhoods, as applicable, and between individual businesses within a development- missing Summary As a group, we are not opposed to a development at 39 Day. We know there is a housing shortage and that infill development is a key to addressing it. However we do oppose the development in its current configuration. We think the lot could easily support two duplexes with a two-way driveway coming from Day Ave and parking distributed behind the existing building and closer to the duplex units. This would increase the amount of open space, fit better with the mass and scale of the neighborhood, move parking away from public view, and be more harmonious with structures and open space in the neighborhood. We strongly urge the board to continue the public hearing until the developer has responded to code violations, requests for missing information, and other concerns. We are concerned that approving with conditions would remove the remainder of the process from public scrutiny.