The URL can be used to link to this page

06-064 (3) { HERITAGE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers 241 College Hwy & Clark St, P O Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073-0001 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone(413) 527-3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT& VT Facsimile(413) 527-8280 E-mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com June 14, 2007 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street—City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Special Permit with Site Plan Application Revised Cluster Development Plan & Site Plan Evergreen Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923-980831 Dear Planning Board Members: On behalf of our clients/owners/developers, John J. Hanley, Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, c/o Patrick J. Melnik, and in accordance with the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, we are submitting • Sixteen(16) full scale sets • Two (2) full scale sets with original blue signatures • Seven(7)reduced size 11"x 17" sets o Of the Revised prints of Cluster Development Plan & Site Plan for Zoning Special Permit & Site Plan Approval, Sheets 1 -4 dated June 14, 2007, General Site Plan (sheet 1), Site Grading/Tree Clearing Plan (sheets 2 & 3), Site Development Plan for Townhouse Bldgs. (sheet 4). The Special Permit with Site Plan Application was prepared by Patrick J. Melnik and is dated January 25, 2007 and was filed with the Board. As stated within Mr. Melnik letter addressed to the Chairman and Members of the Northampton Planning Board, dated June 5, 2007, "If the Planning Board does not grant the subdivision waivers requested, I am still requesting that the site plan approval/cluster special permit application I have filed be granted." We would appreciate you directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, Z Mark P cc: Northampton City Clerk Patrick J.Melnik William A Canon Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\3923 BEAVERBROOK\3923filing2007\3923specialpermitrevplans.DOC i �� i �� ,. � � � �z, �� i �� f= � � .� 4y F � 'ft K ^ Y t � `�` a b ,4 ! "�' �` ,� � _ �`�' �� .� ,rte . �' ��;� � ++p ,��'�,, r � � , �,�_ � � � -_. . ,-E � *'�+� w t . '� A .. y� m ,y� �. _ ,.,. . ;� �' `. s� ,; * ., ,$. �. �� -s}� :� �. � �. �f �� "� „<� _._ �. P- i` � 'rt '3�R � � �� z.. ti i y� � ,n�.r� ° '®ice n t',�"uw. ,�^:� �r'Y a y'; �:` ''� �+` N 4 � "k p �� / ,k �' 4 �F. � F�: 4 y � ',:a g; y 4 € w ^:, � '� ``' �'y. "� � +q i �1 f t: I �'`� `' ?� i � i �. ��'; � �, �' °`. >�� F' a.t, y . . . . . . . � �. 2\\ ±/« . � \\ �\ 2 � \�/� � ��\\. � � \ \y\�} �\��\\may\��\\ \�! �� ». \�} ƒ�� « ��y w \� /� � . z 2 \ � - /)�» , . :�}K � ` y �{ » � � ��: y m \y ( �\ � ya : . � » / ƒ\��\��`� � § �� , . . . � \\� / \. ,a . � \ . �\� Z ! % � �\�:��/< �: � »2 : > . � . . . _. � , : . , . , >/ <}y\�\�/ y x: : , �. e � ¥ \/\: \< a \ \ � < \ � \< � « \�y �\�� / ?\% \�\: �\ � \©\ ? y � � ~� �� . \© � > :��\ © �� , � . . » < >y : ©» � ._��k2»t � ^~ �\�� ^� tK«. . . a=.�, y d\ . ��\�»w% « \. . � yw <. _ ° `�2, ��< . �. > � m � � � .�: � . < � . � _�:- >�y»w y. : ° . pe � . a ^ �� 2> » « . . z : . : < « . .��y�� : s , v� , - . , - � �� ,. w«��¥�m. a a . \,��<« . � . .:r.a�+ . ,.. a w��« � «©«\%<��t<��3»«.« . . . � �»� � y, �. _ : , . . . . , . . «» <�3222« . . � . � way © . , x � , «w��? « «»? g . ' �» d �%\« « 2 � y . ��v « 1:\� \ �� . - � %/ -\ ^�� /^ © . � , »` . w . .y �.x Fri y xYS'3w dot � TWA low A C N •' drt f"ya 9+ °P z� k� f S[ .n, 41 A 44 t 41" t CA 7 r. it imp a fly I �., 1M, ,r s '� z ._ . F x � u ` rt @ N. m' v , t C9` too��rlay G2:�b r s Lopk x`i ��: �� fvlet>E7ocial3'�'k WriRit K ;5wrfl27dR,� w 02007 Google-Map data 9)2007 NAV TRAFFIC ANAI..Y".315 , Warner Hill Estates 20 Bridge Road January 7, 2005 Page 2 Traffic Safety - Geometry The project is essentially designed as a subdivision road, and as such, provides simplistic ability for all vehicles to maneuver within the project, similar to any conventional subdivision. Given the nature of the project, this traffic study is limited to examining the geometry and safety of intersection of the new road and Bridge Road. The proposed driveway access to the project is designed. to be built in accordance with the City of Northampton's Subdivision regulations, and as such, the intersection complies with the City's standards for design. The pavement will be 24 feet wide, the curb radius will be 25 feet, and the profile will have a2% landing area adjacent to Bridge Road. The drive to the JFK Middle School is located in excess of 550 feet away, and the intersection of Juniper Street on the south side of Bridge road is over 300 feet away. The Northampton Subdivision Regulations, (Section 7.01-4-d&e), require subdivision road intersections to be no closer than 150 feet from other intersections, so this proposed intersection greatly exceeds than minimum requirement The width of pavement and curb radius provide ample geometry for emergency apparatus to enter into the project site. The sight distance at Bridge Road from the proposed drive looking to the west is totally unobstructed to the intersection of Bridge Road and Route: 9, (approximately 320 feet). The sight distance looking to the east is well over 800 ft. Bridge Road is relatively flat with no vertical curves to affect stopping sight distance. As such, the intersection of the Proposed drive with Bridge Road has a totally unobstructed view of oncoming traffic. It is our understanding the City is proposing alterations to the intersection of Bridge Road and Route 9 that will involve modifying Bridge Road. Based upon a review of the reconstruction plan concept, the planned alteration of Bridge Road will not detrimentally ;affect the sight distance at the proposed drive., Summary The proposed project will generate: a very small quantity of traffic which will have an insignificant impact on the Level of Service or capacity of Bridge Road. The intersection of the proposed drive at Bridge Road will meet or exceed the City's requirements for a subdivision road, even though this is a private drive to a private facility. The location of the proposed drive as it intersects Bridge Road has adequate and safe stopping sight distance. The proposed intersection will still have thosc saute safe conditions should Bridge Road be reconstructed in accordance with the City's current plans. The BD . r �sro tp, Inc. ' Mark B. Darriold, P.E. mail b 4 Allen Place ' Northampton,Nlassachuscus 01060 Telephone(413)582-7000 Fax(413)582-7005 " L dg @berkshiredesign.com �mn:nmmmmrev n..mrnrmmnnenwmm��^°^'°^°'""'"• — The r� - Design Group, Inc . TRAFFIC STUDY Warner Hill Estates 20 Bridge Road January 7, 2005 This proposed residential development will be compromised of 46 residential units, (2 existing homes plus 44 new three bedroom homes). Three of the homes will have direct access onto Bridge Road and will not utilize the proposed project roadways. The .residential homes within the complex are slated to be age restricted to "over 55" and will be deeded accordingly. As such, it is anticipated that the development will be primarily occupied by couples with no children, and although the units are proposed to be three bedroom units, it is reasonable to assume that the units will only house two people. Traffic Generation According to ITE,Trip Generation Oh Edition, Land Use code 251 Elderly Housing—Detached: Average Vehicle Trip ends per Dwelling Unit on a Weekday, peal: Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m., 36%v entering, 64°10 exiting, Average rate = 0.21 vehicle trips hour (0.21 vph/unit x 46 units = 9.66 vph,4 entering, 6 exiting) Average Vehicle Trip ends per Dwelling Unit on a Weekday, peak: hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One .Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m., 64% entering, 36% exiting, Average rate = 0.23 vehicle trips per hour (0.23 vph/unit x. 46 units= 10.58 vph, 6 entering,4 exiting) The project will generate approximately 10 vehicle trip ends per hour during the morning and afternoon rush hour with roughly 4 to 6 cars entering the site and 4 to 6 vehicles exiting the site during those periods. Given the low, number of anticipated traffic to be generated by this project, it is reasonable to assume that there will be no significant traffic capacity impacts associated with the development of this project, and that a more extensive or detailed traffic impact analysis which examines the capacity and level of service on the adjacent Bridge Road would not provide any significant findings. 4 Allen Placc " Northampton.N1 as sac husetts 01060 m Telephone(413)562-7000 w Fax(413)562-7005 " E-mail bdg@herkshi redesign.corn .. Rpp�,q�INAIfiIf�MARmhANrtlmmnmurf 1 4 4 r AA 410 yI I"'i W1 V, V7 C5 O. 40 CIL 11 MUN 13:44 4'AA 41rl 06t 1Z04 �09 estimaced 110 gal lons/day/N-droq1in sepsis;.,e (ftoin- the DEP regulations);, tesultirig in 10,340 01 f,�tofj,s septic systen-, frorr, this project. Wo know of 110 ,,rfflons/day infi-.) the City of 1\ Fl�l d 10-117ff li-n,lil-�Itions in this sy,,.; 'would rf, the additii.on of 10:,340 90orls/ChlY to r0sult to Erom,this -leration f(--)r this Tra-Mo Study — The table on the following page smimanzes trafflo gei. project_ The da t� is based' on. single-fimiily detached housing on individual lots. The trip goric"Tation for US ym-)Posod use, based on flie.TTE Tx-jp GQllezatioia Sixth Edition indicates a weekday Pf,-A of 9.57 trips, 7T50 trips ' - Satorday peak is 10,09 trips, with a total of 192.62 trips. ol),(J a weekday total of 2 1"lle The Sunday peak is 8,78 trips, with a total of 254.62 trips. Peak generator hours are 7:019 AM to 9M 1-lighway Department traffic rind 4:00 PM to 6-00 PM on Weekdays- Based on Massa .1 total daily trAk was 2,300 ct)unts taken in 1998 oil ]hurts Pit Road, west of' Flomaoe Road, the 1. td,Licles per day. Using these-, numbers, the contribution of the proposed site devel opment will be. , 1 thm 5.0% of the traffic, on the roadway. 'Based ou Nfazsarlyusetts 1-jighway Depaitnent traffic c I affic-ww; 3,900 vehicles per or),mults take,,, in 2000 oja Route 66, west of Grove �trtet, the total. daily ti of the proposed site de:velol-,iment will be less than 2.9% t,rsing these numbers, the conth -, of traffic on, the roadway, This qssiun.es that the traffic is equally distribnte et hl tween Burks Pit iind, Route 66. This, tridicates RAM (11(, j.)rQp(:)Sod ti.;Ifric for ffic will lies insigdtfilmat. (See table,below) I. L. ii FLyorl doc i Ara xt t� S•h( •�Fz"�•�'(F,�18 � n tYnt`.u �,- r+tG�'?S�t}5'v y3ir..x•�•�c j(3�r�,�k�� fy r z L}� � '[F�'�•.��t1."A�7'A ft ��T III +ATSt''. }kI,Irp,. A. pi VGM 4'y¢�Yl'(�. �J�/� .�'�� 3A 1TRy�'�II;f c}•- �y,��+F�� FF.•1 �31 J L t,��, +�.-s Y..amiF c.'f t� � ',Ft l� �� _ °c•# '" s 'i4.415 L �'i,�L 71,'yg�aW. N pig �e"+''k, _ �F ✓�.Y _ - • _ �F� � t J�� + �, A f-t 4 t a r'L a ti A[�S�t�q� ','n5 fir?.,rk�i J - 4� y'>: '�M[ F�+�• �H u y�+�i y��} OR GAL _.!'2'--rr s. •�y� T_cl{ A!f'N�r•A I--I- -`— ' ,CHs. I i • • ' �K��=�',I�F �_�=. mss — e L ec1.X t IL The applicant must conforin to all other requireme-nts in the subdivision rules and regulations. 12. The Planning Board reserves the right to impose other conditions during the definitive subdivision review based on evaluation of more detailed drawings and analysis presented with any such definitive subdivision filing. 13. The applicant must indicate on the Definitive Plans provisions for future collllectlol7. off of cul-de-sac. 2 ATTACHMENT A Beaver Brook Estates, Preliminary Subdivision, Leeds Denied by the Northampton Planning Board on May 8,2003 The Northamptori Maturing Board denied the above-.refere:iaced subdivision because the subdivision does not conform to all sections of the zoning ordinance that pertain to cluster d.evelopuient as required by the Rules and Regulations Govel7ntnng the Subdivision_ of Land in Northampton §3.08, including the cluster pro)risions within §10.5 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. This .requires a cotnnectiotn to the proposed open space fro.nl the proposed extension of Chestrint Avenue. Specifically, §10.5 and 510.5(10) require that the open space in a cluster Have a functional relationship to each lot. If all the open space is not connected to this project:then it 17nust meet provision of 510.5(9) for off-site open space. Final plans must show compliance with the subdivision rules and regulations and the following information iniust be included in the Definitive Plan: 1. The subdivision lots must conform to all sections of the zoning ordinance per subdivision rule §3.08, Including the cluster provislons within 510.5. This requires a connection to the proposed open space Fiona the propose.cl extension of Chestlnut Avenue. This may not be done with. 10' wide public access easements 2. The Definitive Flans nnust show calculations for total laud within the floodplain, steep slopes over 8% and wetland area. The dedicated open space roust not be comprised of more than 25 11'0 of such areas. 3. The applicant shall define conservation easetmetnt area D. 4. The applicant shall submit/show what is planned for rennaltung area between the cul-de-sac and the conservation easetnnent area. 5. Itn accordance with §3.02, 7:01 (1-C), & 7:01 (1-G) of the subdivision rules, in- lieu of creating a. througli-street connection, the applicant shall provide a bike/ped connection fronn the cul-de-sac to the end of Grove Avenue. 6. Because a,large portion of the open space is being rnet off-site, the open space shall meet the needs of the City as required iii,the zoning ordinance. Thus, the area shown on.the plans along the future bike path is a desirable nTieaus of achieving this. 7. A list of requested waivers nnlst be submitted. 8. The paved road width shall not exceed.24' throughout the subdivision. 9. All maintenance and ownership responsibilities for infrastructure and other open land identified in.the subdivision.must be clearly documented in a covenant to be approved by the City. 10. A habitat analysis shall be conducted to ensure that this development is not infringing upon the upland area that is iiihabi.ted by rare and c dari€;ered species of Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. Such study should be consistent with Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program standards. 1 ' 1 T�l�T T�Tt. � l" J) DL r � T T Y l0�1 >�)I�TH�11 �'TOI T City halt• 21(1 Nlairt street,Room 11 • Nort(jamploly NIA.01 060-3198 1413)587-1266 Fax:587.1'64 ic v. °. Wd� l lelilell Direcfol" I�d Pf flail r' �1101't:�'l tilit 7Cp11 l7�[11f1i1!l 1.D)"n IN}V)V,hIUTClJa111�7L017 j1(a 111'1117�.0 F� Q a„ [oucn� 1 du,nn FORM F NORTHAMPTON, MA May 8, 2003 Date NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DE:NIA- VVITI-il CONDITIONS (ATTACHMENT A) To: City Clerk The Planning Board on May 8, 2003 by_5:0 Date vote DENIED the following subdivision plan: Name or description Beaver Brook Estates New street games No new street are p!0 Osed (extension of Chestnut Avenue) Submitted by Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (John J. Hanley) Address 1725 York Avenue Apt27C, Nev York, NY 10128 On March 21, 2003 with recuested extensions pending termination of the statutory twenty day appeal period. Signed Chair, Nort ampto'j� Planning Board This vote of the Planning Board is d�r,ly recorded in 'the minutes of their meeting. C.G. Applicant Police D.eArtment Building Inspector �Boarcrof Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department File Board of Health Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if approved, will be transmitted to: Applicant-- 1 mylar Register of Voters-- 1 print City Engineer-- 1 mylar Police Department--1 print Assessors-- '1 print Fire Department-- -1 print Bldg. Inspector-- 1 print File-- 1 print Filed'.in. the City Clerk' s office on: May 21, 2003. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 64 il(anrtin�borrrd corr5crv:tLiortctni�irrissiort zorriitg6orn'dofa)lilenls •half,01gpr�ntrrersljirr• recleve(o(lrrtel�tairtForit� •nort(jaln)ltonG15 ecorlorllicrlevei0lnllerlt commit lit,7rfeveiopnlent . (.lisror if.riistrict Coll nlliasiou -(7istorira(cuo,miss iora-celTtralb�lsil�essaa'cG�itectcne ofigina(III ill[er)fill lrcuderlt+nper ED 5 N 4A ED 52 AM CNN,ill O Pm ....... Ry (L M z I ------------ log, A; I lei; 7 ------- ION Aid d log p pA CD Willi Ld I a fit I I go'l N% 01 pip 9 Planning Board - Db6sion City of Northampton Hearing No.: PLN-2004-0055 Date: January 12, 2004 , f, Carolyn 591sch,as agent to the Planning Board, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Cleric on January 12,2004 I certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the Owner-and Applicant TGeoTMS02004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,InC. P➢annhig Board - Decision City ®f Northarnpt®n !-Fearing Aso.: PLN-2004-0055 Date: January 12, 2004. A. The requested use, for a common driveway and access over a side lot protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because it minimizes the number of driveways. in addition, the applicant has made adequate provisions for surface water drainage,sound and sight buffers,and preservation of views as depicted on plans and information submitted to the Office of Planning& Development. The access across lot fines other than the frontage eliminates wetland crossings, allows wooded views to be preserved along Route 9, and avoids the need for potentially dangerous access from Route 9. 13. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacenf streets,rnfnrntfze traffic impacts on the streets and roads fn the area because the proposed driveway wilireduce the potential conflicts that could be created by accessing the property from the Route 9 frontage. No new curb cuts on Route 9 will be created and only one driveway will be created from Grove Avenue. C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because the driveway will follow the contours of the land and fhe preservation of the natural landscape vegetation will be maximized. The site consists of large lots that will allow 37+acres to be permanently preserved as undeveloped land with a conservation restriction. D. The requested use will not overload,and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's resources Including4he effect on the City's water supply and distribution system,sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, t<re protection,streets and.schools because the driveway drainage will be directed on site an not onto the street and adequate provisions in accordance with section 5.2 have been made for emergency vehicle turnouts and passing areas. E. The requested use meets all the special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance as listed in Sections 5.2 for common driveways including width,grade,and driveway turnouts. Adequate street addressing at the end of Grove Avenue shall be located to cleary identify access to the proposed house lots far emergency vehicles. PThe Planning Board found that the application complied with the fallowing technical performance standards: 1. Curb Cut`s will be minimized since a single cut will he used to serve three lots. 2. Pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle traffic are separated on-site to the extent possible. Through its action, the Board made no determination as to public waster availability and evade no representation as to requirements that might be necessary under other-boards or jurisdictions including EPA for National Pollutant Discharge E lhOination System Permits. The Planning Board voted 5:2 to Grant the waivers as requested in fire application. COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE: HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY: APPEAL DATE: 1211812003 11112004 112212004 _ REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HFARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE: 1212512003 212112004 11812004 11812004 _- 21112004 FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: -'DECISION 1212512003 11812004 _ 11812004 111212004 _ SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: I-IEARING TIME: VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE. 11112004 7:25 PM 41712004 41712004 MEMBERS PRESENT: VOTE: William Letendre votes to Grant Paul Voss votes to Deny Francis Johnson votes to Grant Keith Wilson votes to Grant Paul Dienrand votes to Grant Kenneth Jodde votes to Grant David Wilensky votes to Deny MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT; DECISION: William Letendre Paul Dlemand 2-5 _I Approved with Conditions MINUTES OF MEETING: Available in the Office of Planning&Development GPoTMS e0 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,JIM �� TRIgpR�Clll!®ROAII[RI�dC616ER®I�PISIOR � Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton Hearing No.: PLN-2004-0055 Date: January 12, 2004 , APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE:-� PS intermediate Site Plan 1211812003 Applicants Name: _ Owner's Name: Surveyor's Name: NAME. NAME: COMPANY NAME: Robert Jeffway,Jr. HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE _ ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: 37 Front Street 110 KING ST TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: ' STATE: ZIP CODE: Leeds, MA i 01053 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 _ PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO, FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: STPEFT NO.: SITE ZONING: HAYDENVILLE RD SR /URA TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01050 Section 5.2:Table of Use Regulations _— MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: 06 0261 OD1 Approved With Condifions Oook: Page: 3103 NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Common driveway access from other than a front lot line to three house sites. Maps listed are Map 5 parcels 6, 7, 12 and Map 6 parcels 18-21 &58- Use allowed under Northampton.Zoning through site plan approval. Use is not subject to special permit. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1.Prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the lots, the applicant shall submit DRAFT Conservation Restriction(CR)Documents for review by the Office of Planning&Development and approval by the Conservation Commission and the City Council. The CR shall cover all of the area shown on the plans submitted with this application.Language shall not prohibit the improvement of the rail right-of-way for use as the future bike path or,the area of the future blke path shall be excluded from file CR entirely. The CR must be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. 2. Final Plans shall show only one access to Lot 1 from the common driveway. 3.Prior to issuance of a building permit for either-lot 1,2,or 3,proof of recording of an easement document showing joint maintenance responsibilities for the driveway and all utilities within the easement area shall be provided to the Office of Planning&Development, Maintenance shall include clearing snow to provide passably?access by emergency venrcres. The applicant rtay provide a turn around on the property for the City snow plow trucks. if the applicant does provide such a tunr around,then easement documents shall include language granting such permission and which also indemnifies the City for its use and access. If;R turnaround is not provided,the applicant/owners association Ls responsible for clearing all snow that may be plowed by the City at the driveway entrance off of Grove Avenue. 4. Prior,to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,for any of the lots, the applicant shall submit an as- built plan showing that driveway construction is substantially in compliance with the approved plan. The Planning Board Approved the Site Plan based am the following plans and information submitted with the application: "Jeffway Residence at Grove Avenue General Site Plan, Common Driveway Site Plarr"Sheets No. L-100 and L-101,prepared by William Canon, dated December 17,2003. In Granting the Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found that this driveway provides access from Grove Avenue,which is a way on Which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information front the City Solicitor. In addition,the Board determined that: _ ^GeoTMSO 2004 Des I-auders Municipal SOIUtiONS,Inc. r i - I• it ;y IN ,� tN�` w�11 lryy i MINE, V ,\\�� :>♦8, ��w `� t3��a�`��i'�I ail!� '�\3�.��3� � �`: 1 mdy. rllSIN MIN,F 'm Ali 1A I�I toil, Or* the 0- y 1- SWAP 51,41, CT A�r 00, V.1 I 70 "1 .19 vim FIA HIM 151- Pas RMS In V.11. "I P, > 13.Speed limit signs and Pedestrian crossing signs should be placed on Grove Avenue at Evergreen Street. 14.The request for 20% reduction of cul-de-sac frontage for lots on Grove and Hanley Grove was approved. 15.Applicant should replace the street suffix to Hanley "Grove" . Use either "street", "road" or "place" in order to avoid confusion with Grove Avenue. DETENTION PONDS & OPEN SPACE 16. The calculation for Open Space should not include the portion-of detention ponds that require regular maintenance. 17. The reserved open space should be dedicated to the City. The City reserves the right to take this in fee or-through a right-of-way or conservation restriction. 18. The amount and configuration of open space-should fully comply with the cluster provisions in the Zoning Ordinance §10.5, including the trail system. 19. Detention areas must be designed and located outside the 50' wetland buffer,-and outside the 100' buffer wherever-possible. 20. The detention ponds should be designed for easy enforcement of maintenance and the covenants. WETLANDS 21. If feasible, the wetland crossing from Route 9 into the subdivision should be constructed with a bridge. Otherwise, oversized culverts, with cantilevered sidewalks should be constructed. 22. A 100' buffer line should be drawn around ail-Vernal Pools located within the vicinity of the site. No disturbance should occur within this 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. Permanent no build" bounds should be placed along the 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. 23. All building envelopes for house construction should be outside the 100' buffer. Lawn area should not encroach within the 50' buffer of wetlands. 24. All lots that have property boundaries that fall within the '100' buffer should contain language in the deeds indicating that no disturbance is allowed within 100' of wetlands or Riverfront Area without permits from the Conservation Commission. 25. The curve of Grove Avenue (at lots 34 and 35) should be redesigned so that no portion of this road, sidewalk or landscaping falls within 100' of the wetlands buffer or Vernal Pool buffer. OTHER 26. Additional Department of Public Works requirements must be satisfied 27. The other land owned by the applicant on the south westerly edge of 1:11e project, along Grove Avenue Should be incorporated into the subdivision and the overall calculations for open space and total buildable lots. 28. All maintenance and ownership responsibilities for infrastructure and other open land identified in the subdivision must be clearly documented in a c:overiant to be approved by the City. The Planning Board may alter the above conditions if the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and/or Conservation Commission under local or stale law promulgate additional applicable requirements. 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Conditions of Approval Beaver Brook Estates, Preliminary Subdivision, Leeds As Approved by the Northampton Planning Board February 8, 2001 1. Lot#12 must meet the 80' frontage requirement. 2. The Planning Board agreed to approve the waiver request for road radius on Hanley Grove provided that three (3) of the proposed lots be dedicated for affordable housing. These lots may either be given to the City or the City's designee for affordable housing or otherwise developed in a way that is acceptable to the City. TRAFFIC& PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 3. Sidewalks must be extended along the project boundary on Haydenville Road south to Leonard Street and north to Beaver Brook. If the sidewalk is to be located on Haydenville Road right-of-way, the applicant must obtain permission from Massachusetts Highway. Department. If accepted, these sidewalks must be 6' wide. If the sidewalks are not acceptable on Massachusetts Highway Department right-of-way, these sidewalks should be located within the boundary of the applicant's property, subject to Conservation Commission approval and may be 4' wide. 4. Sidewalks must be extended along the existing portion of Grove Avenue from the entrance to the subdivision to the intersection of Front Street, where the current sidewalk ends. 5. A sidewalk should be placed along the easement line extending from the end of Hanley Grove cul-de-sac and connect to Grove Avenue. 6. The sidewalk on Hanley Grove should be relocated to the sough side of the cul-de-sac. 7. Snow removal on sidewalks within the subdivision that abut open space will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association. Snow removal on all sidewalks abuting individual building lots will be the responsibility of individual owners or the Association, whichever is determined by the applicant. 8. Maintenance and removal of snow on the Haydenville Road sidewalk and in the easement from Hanley to Grove Avenue (across country) must be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association- 9. The paved road width should not exceed 24' throughout the subdivision. 10. Grove Avenue extension should have a 20' paved width (or equal to the existing paved width of the Grove Avenue stub) starting at the Grove Avenue entrance and extending for at least 300' north into the subdivision. At this point, it should widen to 24'. 11.Maximum design speed for streets within the subdivision should be 25 miles per hour. 12. Street design must include traffic calming devices throughout the subdivision and beyond. The design must ensure that drivers traveling eastbound from the intersection of Grove and Hanley Grove, on average, can reach Leeds Elementary School more quickly than if traveling westbound along Grove Avenue. Such measures should include a speed table at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Hanley Grove, a speed table at the entrance of the subdivision at the Grove Avenue Extension, and speed tables at intersections on Grove to Front Street. Other measures may be appropriate. A speed table should be located on Leonard Street at Evergreen to mitigate the incremental impact of traffic that the subdivision will have on Leonard Street. The City would be willing to work with the applicant to review cost-sharing for this speed table t 0j), FORM F NORTHAMPTON, MA _February 9, 2001 Date NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL To,: City Clerk The Planning Board on February 8, 2001 by Date vote APPROVED with.Cptidxtion (see attachment)the following subdivision plan: Name or description:_Beaver Brook Estates New street names: Hanley Grove, Grove Avenue Submitted by: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust—John Hanley Address: 150 West 56th Street, Apartment 5905, New York, NY 10019 On December 13, 2000 pending termination of the statutory twenty day appeall period. Date Signed Chair, Northampton Planning Board This vote of the Planning Board is duly recorded in the minutes of their meeting. C.C. Applicant Police Department Building Inspector Board of Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department File Board of Health Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if approved,will be transmitted to: Applicant-- 1 mylar Register of Voters-- 1 print City Engineer-- 1 mylar Police Department--1 print Assessors-- 1 print Fire Department-- 1 print Bldg_ Inspector-- 1 print File-- 1 print L L .L L Q. I- w LL �' � � � Lil wOwL,� w0000000 Q: Q Q Q [r YC� LD SUJCri 0.a A➢ � \� I \ \\ pp //// /'i� jr%Ir II 1� �1� I � � 1� I+�I I'•1 41 1 ry I P ills+� I I I � �1•��•1. iy� ''�q $. ya t'i �i��IIl Il51i IV AMR�P �i'11 I•� / N c 111 1 I+ 1t -� I I J � I 1'• � lI I�' Q 8 �u o Uj EJ Ir 0 [„-] o � Ltd l — 1 \ I o lot`\ ane�nr anono ri �i b mind < DL W I - C) co w ONO Al fSi2`a:'"+ ifs.:# •.•.«; l6! . NN d® ` j A Y j co (D _ 1 I'D T (D p 0Z W - m ♦a C ' w �. ;O 3 Q• O; CD 0: c) ss� �- q (n' 7 sy a (-D O , An CL o _r.,� W (D q) l� psis u1 N @. . n C3 CID CD @ =� -.r.0CD CD. En (gyp N . 1 G O Co. ':(D ID S CSC @ (D p CD o . natural speed bump and any widening that would increase the speed of vehicles using the street would be counter-productive. Likewise, the :residents could petition the City to prohibit on street parking if they find cars parked in the street to be a traffic problem. However, cars parked in the street may have the incidental effect of slowing traffic. In any event, none of the cars from the new development will be parking on the street as there will be ample on-site parking. You also cannot expect me to be the one to decide whose property is affected by wider streets or new sidewalks. If you do earmark my traffic contribution for street improvements on Yankees Hill I would request that you make these funds available to DPW to use as it sees fit to improve the traffic in the Yankee Hill Community. I still request the funds be used for bike path improvements as I have already agreed to and negotiated this issue with Planning Staff. I might also add that this community previously had sidewalks built on Evergreen, Grove and Upland Road, in addition to the existing sidewalk on Front Street. There is still a small remnant of the sidewalk that exists on Upland Road. Why or how these sidewalks were abandoned is not in my personal memory, but if sidewalks were important to the community to maintain they would still exist today. Putting them back, I would suggest, is not what the community really wants. The neighbors have shown, by their opposition to the Jeffway plan for only 3 houses, that what they really want is no new :housing at all so they can continue to use this land as if it was their own property. Thank you for taking the time to either make a personal site visit to the community or reading this memorandum of my own perspectives. I think I have made a genuine effort to address all environmental, traffic and planning issues. This plan will offer a stock of new decent housing and still protect the essential fabric of this neighborhood and have two thirds of the land permanently protected from future development. This is the final "build out" of this area of Northampton and this definitive plan addresses all the issues as it was approved preliminarily by your Board last fall. r y, trick J. Melnik beaverbrookplanningmemo TRAFFIC MITIGATION: I have offered to pay the $50,000 traffic mitigation fee for the new number of units from this project towards bike path construction costs, in addition to the bike path spur that I will build at my own expense that is part of my new development, if the subdivision road is approved and built. As indicated in the VHB traffic study, the bike path creates the opportunity for minimizing traffic and increasing pedestrian safety for the whole community. I also understand from both the subdivision rules and the Cluster Special Permit criteria that offering bike path routes is an acceptable traffic mitigation solution. I cannot promise that this path will be used during the winter, or that the residents will take advantage of the path. I can tell you that if the current residents of Yankee Hill, and the new residents, want to make use of the path, they will have a safe pedestrian route to Leeds School, JFK, Look Park, Florence and Downtown Northampton that will be available for them and their children. If utilized, this will have a genuine positive effect on minimizing traffic, not only in the community, but throughout the city. I got the impression from the Planning Board Members that they might rather see these funds spent on sidewalks, or other road improvements in the Yankee Hill street community. I have also attached copies of photos of street scenes of the streets on Yankee Hill so you can get a better picture of the community, in the event you cannot make a personal site visit. (Attachment 11) These scenes, in order, are Leonard Street looking South, Evergreen looking West, East Center looking East, Chestnut looking North and two pictures of Grove Looking North. The main thing I want the Board to understand is that this community is an established community, and the homeowners have used and occupied the land abutting their homes that are in the street right of way as their own yard land, and have landscaped this area accordingly. There are century old trees that would have to be moved, utility poles, fences, ornamental trees and shrubs that would be dislocated if sidewalks were put in. If the DPW were to put in sidewalks, the neighbors on the side of the street where the sidewalk was placed would be furious. Not everyone in this community was at the hearing on my proposal and, before Planning imposes a condition that the funds I am offering be used for sidewalk improvement, you should be sure that this is really what the neighborhood wants. I know for a fact that many residents do not want sidewalks and they have told me so. The streets are not long and they can all be walked in a few minutes. Therefore, on a typical walk, it would be unlikely that even a single car from the new development would travel on the same street used by a pedestrian while he or she walks any particular street or, at most, they would encounter only one car. Likewise, the funds could be used to widen East Center street, or make other street improvements to make traffic flow easier, and I would suggest faster. Again, I think the residents of East Center Street, no matter how much they complain about the narrowness of their street, would be enraged if this street were widened. The narrow street serves as a while Florence Street carries approximately 2,700. After review this information, the existing community could be generating less traffic per unit than similar residences published by ITE. This means that the traffic study that was prepared by VHB is most likely conservative and overestimating future traffic generated by my project. Furthermore, peak hour traffic volumes entering/exiting the Community total 105 vehicles during the morning peak and 92 vehicles during evening peak hours. Using ITE we would have expected the actual count to be 168 and 128 vehicle trips during each of the peak hours respectively. Furthermore, using the characteristics of the existing data collected as a basis to generate traffic for my project, we could expect 16 vehicle traps in the morning and 14 vehicle trips in the evening. This indicates that VHB"s report could be very conservative and overestimating traffic counts by 62% in the morning and 114% in the evening. Using the conservative ITE rates, if you consider the normal day use of the community to be a total of 15 waking hours, that works out to 18 trips an hour generated from this project. With three major points for dispersion of traffic, this would mean on average 6 additional cars per hour at each dispersion intersection, on top of the current 36 cars per hour we would expect at these intersections from existing traffic conditions. That means, on average, we would have 1 additional car every 10 minutes at each dispersion intersection. During the peals hour in the morning we would expect one additional car every 3-20 minutes at dispersion intersections depending on which intersection is being observed. At Leonard there would be 1 additional car every 20 minutes, East Center Street every 3-4 minutes and Front Street every 7-8 minutes. I would request that the members of the Planning Board spend a half an hour or more observing existing traffic conditions in the morning or evening peak hours. Spend a few minutes touring the entire community and then stop at the East Center Street intersection and Leonard Street intersection for 15 minutes each. Bring a wristwatch and observe the number of cars that currently use these intersections and then watch the intersection for 3-20 minutes to give yourself an understanding of what 1 additional car during this 3-20 minute time frame means to existing traffic conditions at each of these intersections. If you cannot find the time in your schedule to make a personal site visit to Yankee Hill, I would ask that you sit with your watch on your own street for 3-20 minutes to get a sense of how much traffic is generated by one car traveling down your own street in the 3-20 minute time span. I believe that if you take the time to do this simple observation for yourself, you will conclude that any increase in traffic to be expected from this project does not have a significant negative impact on the community, and that the traffic study we have presented has sufficiently documented the accuracy of this conclusion. 8 and 9) While I am sure that the engineers who did these reports are: fine civil engineers, I don't think they specialize in traffic study. If you compare the quality and content of these reports with the study undertaken by VHB for my project, I think you will agree that the study done for me was done thoroughly and addresses all the traffic issues, including pedestrian issues. (Anecdotally, I was present at the Warner Hill Estates hearing when it was approved. Not only is this project adjacent to JFK Jr. High School, with all the student foot traffic to be concerned with, it is adjacent to one of the most complex: and busy intersections in the city near the entrance to Look Park where traffic is often backed up on Bridge Road for long distances. The Planning Board Chair asked Mr. Chakalos at this hearing if he would make a voluntary $2000.00 per unit mitigation payment for the offsite traffic impact of his project. His answer was simply "No" and his project was approved the same night it was presented. ) I am not asking the Planning Board for any special favors or consideration with respect to the quality of the engineering that has been done for my project, but I am asking you to fairly assess whether my engineers have properly addressed traffic issues based on the same criteria for studies you have required for other similar sized projects. To give a clearer picture of the community surrounding this project, I am appending a map print out of Yankee Hill that show the interconnection of the streets and the three access/egress points to main traffic arteries (Attachment 10). If ou cannot make a personal site visit to the community, I am hopeful that the map will be If assistance to visualize this area. There are currently approximately 160 housing units in the Yankee Hill area, which includes the Yankee Hill Condos. The total number of new units from my project will be 25 new housing units or an increase of approximately 15%. Using the same trip generation criteria that my traffic engineers used in the traffic study submitted to the board, the current traffic volumes on all the streets in the Community should currently be about 1,600 vehicle trips per day (one car entering and one car exiting the Community equals one trip). We could expect an increase in trips for the 25 new units to be about 274 vehicle trips per day (or a 15-17% increase). These numbers are based on the industries standards set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, it should be noted that traffic observations made during the preparation of this traffic study indicate that the Community is currently generating approximately 1,100 vehicle trip ends per day. The break out of this daily traffic on the three access/egress roadways looks like this: -Leonard Street: 314 daily trips; - Front Street: 356 daily trips; and - East Center: Street 430 daily trips. Compared to traffic generated by the adjacent roadways, this is a. small amount of traffic. For your reference Route 9 currently carries, approximately 10,500 vehicles per day, Board last fall. In its preliminary approval the Planning Board, in its decision, requested that I address several concerns, including the requirement that a traffic study be done. This final definitive plan that I am now asking for approval addresses each and every one of the conditions imposed by the Board when it gave me preliminary approval last fall. In reliance on the preliminary approval given to me by this Board, I have already granted to the City the permanent Conservation Restriction protecting 41 acres of this site from ever being developed in the future. We had previously given to the City, without cost, the right to build the bike path on the old rail bed of the Mill River. We also recently gave to the City the right and easement to build the bike path connector from Grove Avenue, again without cost. I believe I have lived up to my promises and have given the City everything it requested of me. If the subdivision approval is granted I will also convey to the City the 27 acre site that abuts the Mill River and Beaver Brook for public recreational use. If the Planning Board does not grant the subdivision waivers requested, I am still requesting that the site plan approval/cluster special permit application I have filed be granted. I have requested no waivers and have complied with all the site plan/cluster• approval criteria under zoning. I am proposing only half of the number of units that are allowed under the cluster/open space ordinance based on the density of development allowed for this site. Whether the subdivision road is approved, or not, I am still seeking the option to develop the property as a private single lot cluster development with the road being retained as a private road and not a subdivision road. TRAFFIC ISSUES: With respect to the technical concerns to the plan, and the storm detention issues that were raised by Planning members and staff, I am asking Heritage Surveys to address these items. With respect to the traffic issues that were raised by the neighbors, and particularly Mr. Wilson, I am asking my traffic engineer to be present at the next meeting to address Planning concerns. However, I would like to address these concerns now for the Planning Board Members to consider before the next meeting: When Mr. Wilson requested that a full traffic study be done as, part of the Preliminary Plan approval, I had my engineers hire Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) to develop this study as they are reputed to be the most qualified professional traffic engineers in the state and have engineers on staff who deal exclusively with traffic issues. I did not want to hire an engineer that did not have traffic expertise to make a cursory review of the project and submit a perfunctory report that you would find deficient. I had, before making this decision, taken a look at prior traffic studies done by various engineering firms for projects of similar scope in the city. I am appending copies of the "traffic studies" done for the 29 unit Wzorek property and the recent 46 unit project on Bridge Road that was approved by this Planning Board for Warner Hill Estates. (attachment house sites on the upland portion of the property with the remainder to be protected by a conservation restriction. (Attachment 4) Jeffway, who lives on Front Street and is himself a member of the Yankee Hill Community, was intending to build a new home for himself with the possibility of two homes in the future for his children. At the Planning Board hearing on the Jeffway plan, 30 or more of his neighbors, many being the same people who were present at the last May 10 hearing, voiced strident opposition to Jeffway's proposal. The gist of the opposition was that the neighbors did not want large estate lots on this property that were not in character with the smaller lot sizes that now exist in the Yankee Hill community. These neighbors again requested that a development be put forward that would be integrated into the fabric of the existing community. The DPW, for reasons that have never been clear to me, also refused to allow Jeffway access to the municipal water supply that abuts this site. Jeffway decided that he did not want to drill a well on the site and was turned off by the neighborhood opposition to his plan and had objection to certain Planning Board approval conditions were onerous to him. Jeffway abandoned his plan and decided not to purchase the property. It was at this point that I decided to complete a proposal to develop this property on my own. My brother in law had lost interest and I acquired the right of access to the upland property by purchasing the Evergreen parcel in my own interest. My first plan was to scale down the scope of the development. I reduced the number of proposed lots from 47 to 25. I also eliminated the loop road to Grove Avenue and proposed that 3 of the lots be accessed by Common Driveway from Grove Avenue. (Attachment 5) This plan was denied by Planning in 2003 because the Planning Board determined that the proposed 3 lots off of Grove Ave would prevent access to the open space parcel from the lots on the cut de sac. (Attachment 6) I revised this plan further to allow connectivity to the open space parcel for all the lots by moving the location of the 3 north side building lots to the East and proposing a bike path connection to the rail bed of the Mill River. This plan was objected to by Mr. Jodrie who felt that the 3 north side building lots "spiked" too near the conservation parcel and, on his recommendation, the preliminary plan for this proposal was denied.(Attachment 7) Since that time I have worked with the Conservation Commission and Planning Staff to fine tune this proposal so that everyone would be satisfied. I agreed to address the objection of Mr. Jodrie to the location of the most northerly 3 house sites by pulling them to the south, in a location that is now supported by the Conservation Commission. This location is even more restrictive than the requirements of the Natural Heritage program to protect the salamanders on this site. I also agreed with Planning Staff and the Conservation Commission to remove the "lot lines" from Route 9 to the 6 back lots and to eliminate the subdivision spur off the cut de sac road to the other 2 back lots. These 8 house sites will now be one single lot with frontage on Route 9. All these changes were put forward in the preliminary plan that was approved by this HISTORY OF THE SITE: The project site was originally earmarked as one of the areas for new residential development under the guidance of the "Vision 2020" comprehensive development plan adopted by the Northampton Planning Board on June 10, 1999. (See Attachment 1) The Planning map that was created as part of the Vision 2020 plan indicated that the same area proposed by myself and my brother in law, Jack Hanley, for development was proposed by Planning to be encouraged for residential housing, with the area to be restricted by us to remain in open space. The initial plan proposed was a limited development on 30 acres with a cul de sac off of Route 9 that would not connect with the rest of the streets on Yankee Hill. This plan was objected to by many of the same residents of Yankee Hill that oppose: the current plan under consideration. These, and other neighbors, filed a petition with Planning seeking denial of the original plan, since it did not connect with the rest of Yankee Hill streets and would be an isolated island community. They requested that any development of the area be integrated into the existing neighborhood. Hanley then acquired an additional 30 acres of land that abutted the Yankee Hill Community and proposed a connecting through street from Route 9 to Grove Avenue. This plan of 33 conventional lots was approved by Northampton Planning on February 8, 2001. (Attachment 2) However, before the definitive plan was filed, Jefferson salamanders (a species that is not endangered but that is "of concern") were located in a vernal pool on an abutter's property and in one vernal pool near the Mill River on the subject property. As a result of this discovery, the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program personnel objected to Hanley's proposal to cross the wetland area adjacent to Route 9. Hanley then acquired the right to additional property that would allow the development of the "upland" portion of his property adjacent to Evergreen Road, without the need to cross any wetland, or impact any conservation resource area. Hanley proposed a loop road connecting his property on Evergreen with a through street to Grove Avenue. It was his understanding from the Subdivision Rules that connecting streets were to be encouraged where possible. This plan, with 47 "cluster" lots, was recommended for approval by the Conservation Commission and Planning Staff in 2002. (Attachment 3) However, there was a large amount of neighborhood opposition to this plan with the main complaint that it was too intense a development of the property, even though it complied with all the subdivision rules and met all the cluster density criteria. Hanley determined he would not pursue this plan in the face of this neighborhood opposition and entered into an agreement with Robert Jeffway to sell to Jeffway his entire property, with the exception of the small upland portion on Route 9 that Hanley intended to retain. Jeffway applied for site plan approval for a common driveway to access 3 potential 1 11 1111 MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik,Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net June 5, 2007 Chairman and Members of the Northampton Planning Board 210 Main St. Northampton, Ma. 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Subdivision and Cluster plan Dear Mr. Chairman and Members: As a follow-up to the issues raised by the members of the public and the Members of the Planning Board at the meeting held on May 10, I would like to offer the following comments. It is apparent to me that there are some members of the Planning Board who may not be familiar with all the planning that has gone on with this site to date, and there may be some members of the Planning Board who are not familiar with the Yankee Hill community. I would ask that the members of the Board who have not had to benefit of knowing the history of this project to read the information and attachments to this memorandum. I would also request that all the members of the board take a half hour of their time prior to the next meeting to tour the neighborhood and sit at one of the three intersections where traffic will egress from the site to assess the traffic conditions in person during one of the peak traffic hours. If you cannot make a personal visit to the area yourself, I would request that you read my following traffic perspective and the attachments to this memorandum before the next meeting and listen to the reports of the planning staff and members of the board who are able to make a personal site visit. I ask that you not rely on my engineers' reports, or the testimony of the neighbors, about traffic issues, but rely on your own observations and common sense. A half hour of your time spent at this site will be more valuable to you than three hours of continued hearing time and reviewing plans and reading written reports. I am also hopeful to have demonstration video of existing and future traffic conditions available at the June 28 meeting to play to demonstrate how traffic from this project will impact the neighborhood. 2 (the traffic study projected 26 and 30 vehicle trips respectively).That means,on average,one additional car every 10 minutes could be generated on each of the three roadways.Focusing on the peak hours,the morning could expect one additional car every 20 minutes on Leonard Street,one additional vehicle every 3 to 4 minutes on East Center Street and one additional vehicle every 7 to 8 minutes on Front Street. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS From a pedestrian perspective,while sidewalks may be desirable by the community,adding such accommodations would require a significant amount of tree removal and potential land takings to provide a sidewalk within the City's right-of-way.While no exact figure exists,generally roads below 2,000 vehicles per day and with an operating speed of less than 45 MPH can safely be considered"low volume roadways"where vehicles and pedestrian can coexist.With one vehicle traveling along these roadways(on average)every three to seven minutes,pedestrians and vehicles can share the roadway provided that pedestrians walk along the edge of the paved roadway. It can also be assumed that roadways with traffic volumes higher than 2,000 vehicles per day could require a paved shoulder or sidewalk for additional safety. For traffic in this area to exceed 2,000 vehicles per day,approximately 1,600 additional vehicle trips would need to be added to each of these roadways.This is equivalent to the construction of approximately 160 homes for each street or approximately 480 homes in the neighborhood. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY DESIGN With respect to the alignment of the driveway and the centerline radius, the proposed driveway is expected to line up directly across from Chestnut Avenue creating a 4-way unsignalized intersection. The driveway is proposed to have a 100 foot centerline radius while the City requires a 125 foot radius.It should first be noted that in the traffic study,dated January 9,2007,sight distance at this proposed intersection was measured.As the study indicates,the requirements for stopping sight distance and the minimum intersection sight distance would be met,and this intersection would have enhanced sight distance. It should also be noted that to design for the 125 foot radius the existing apartment building on-site would be impacted.To accommodate the 125 foot radius,the driveway would need to be shifted slightly to the east.This shift would require offsetting the intersection which could compromise safety by making turning movements more complicated.With the proposed alignment and anticipated low traffic volumes and speeds,it is expected that vehicles will be able to turn in and out of the proposed driveway safely.Lastly,the proposed centerline radius could act as a traffic calming method for vehicles exiting and entering the site as this configuration necessitates slower vehicle speeds.Adequate signage could be considered on-site to enhance this area. P.110006.00IdocslmemoslAdditional Traffic Information June 2007.doc Transportation Land Development Environmental S e r v i c e s One Federal Street yL?.Z.GIS.S('�X�1?�JC'12 �'1"Zl.StlZ�2. 121L _ Building 103-3N Springfield,MA 01105 413 747-7113 FAX 413 747-0916 Memorandum To: Pat Melnik Date: June 12,2007 110 King Street Northampton,MA 01060 Project No.: 10006.00 From: Matthew J.Chase,PE Re: Beaver Brook Estates Transportation Project Manager Northampton,MA Additional Traffic Information The following memorandum has been prepared to provide additional traffic information as it relates to the Beaver Brook Estates project located in the Yankee Hill Neighborhood in Northampton, Massachusetts.The three topics of this memorandum include summarizing;the existing daily traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways(Leonard Street,Front Street and East Center Street),existing pedestrian accommodations and the alignment of the proposed driveway with Evergreen Road. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic observations were made during the preparation of the traffic study for this project,which when combined with ITE data indicate that the neighborhood is currently generating approximately 1,100 vehicle trips per day on the three roadways intersecting Florence Street and Route 9.This trip number was derived using the existing peak hour traffic counts and data provided by ITE to estimate the amount of daily traffic generated by this development during the peak hours.Based on these data,peak hour traffic at the development ranged from 9.5 to 10.9 percent of the total daily volume. Based on existing traffic counts the daily volumes on the three roadways are approximately: • Leonard Street: 314 daily trips; • Front Street: 356 daily trips;and • East Center Street: Street 430 daily trips. Compared to traffic generated by the adjacent roadways,this is a very small amount of traffic.For reference,Route 9 currently carries approximately 10,500 vehicles per day,while Florence Street carries approximately 2,700. After reviewing this information,it appears that the neighborhood could be generating less traffic per residential unit than what has been published by ITE.This means that the traffic study is most likely conservative in estimating future traffic generated by this development.For reference,274 daily trips were projected in the traffic study.Furthermore,traffic volumes entering and exiting the neighborhood during the peak hours currently total 105 vehicles during the morning and 92 vehicles during evening. Using ITE methodology,the neighborhood would generate approximately 168 and 128 vehicle trips during the morning and evening peak hours,respectively. Using the characteristics of the existing data collected as a basis to generate traffic for this project,we could expect 16 additional vehicle trips in the morning and 14 additional vehicle trips in the evening P:110006.001docslmemoslAddilional Traffic Information June 2007.doc NORTHAMPTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT To: Pat Melnick 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 From: Joy Winnie, Transportation Supervisor Northampton Public Schools 212 Main Street RM 200 Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Melnick, This letter is in response to our phone conversation on May 24, 2007 concerning a request from the Northampton Planning Board to locate a bus shelter/stop in your proposed development in the Evergreen Road area in Leeds. As I indicated in our conversation we do not presently have a bus stop servicing the students of Northampton Public Schools in that area of the City. Students who attend Leeds Elementary School walk to the school from that area of the City. Students who attend John F. Kennedy Middle School and Northampton High School presently get the bus at the park across from Leeds Elementary School. If you would like any more information concerning the routing of the Northampton Public Schools buses please feel free to contact me at 587-1337. Sincerely, Joy Winnie, Transportation Supervisor Northampton Public Schools Cc: Susan Wright, Business Manager MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net b. This is now complied with by note on the plan. C. They do not actually intersect and are only close. Heritage Surveys will make this clearer on the revised plans. 5. Waivers a. No comment needed. b. No comment needed. C. This item again was part of the Preliminary Plan approval. Planning requested that the plan saving the existing building be pursued. You cannot pursue this plan without some waivers being granted because the geometry of the site prohibits following all the rules to save the building. The issue here is sight distance for traffic safety. Matt Chase, my traffic engineer, has indicated that this waiver will not affect traffic safety. I am asking Matt Chase to address this issue further if necessary. d. We will reduce the paved width as requested to eliminate this waiver. e. Again, it is not productive to put a school bus waiting area where there are no buses and in an area where no buses are ever likely to travel. See my comment above. Sin f' ly, Patrick J. Melnik planningresponse MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net hearing by the neighbors that there is school bus service in the area was a false statement. If Planning requests, and if DPW will designate a school bus waiting area across from the Elementary 'School, I would request that some of my traffic mitigation funds be used to have a school bus waiting area constructed in the area approved by DPW. S. A plan will be submitted. t. This is now complied with. 3. Storm System a. Stormwater permit is pending before DPW and hopefully will be approved by June 14. b. This is in process and should be approved by June 14. C. Driveways will be graded to require that they not discharge on to the street. We are treating all on site run off as required by law. d. There is a high point at a hill to make a crown of the road. Water running to the South will be 347 feet from the crown to the drain catch basin, and water to the North will be 250 feet from the crown to the catch basin. We have substantially complied with the subdivision requirements on this issue based on good engineering practice. There is no engineering benefit to putting a catch basin at the crown of the hill as there will be no run off to catch. e. This is now complied with. 4. Sewer System a. This is now complied with. MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik,Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr.,Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net g. This issue was not raised as an item to address at the Preliminary plan stage. However, I am asking Heritage Surveys to revise the plans to show less pavement and meet the 40 foot rule to eliminate this waiver. h. This is a City Council decision and needs no comment.. i. This is addressed in item (e) above. j. This is a Planning Board decision to make. k. This is now complied with. 1. This is now complied with. M. This is now complied with. n. At any point where bedrock is located during construction, if it is located at all, it will be manually scraped to allow for utility construction and, if a scraper cannot do the job, a hammer machine to break up ledge will be used. No blasting is expected to be necessary. o. The homeowner's association. p. This is now complied with. q. If it is required by Planning to have the cul de sac one way, it will be done, but I see no requirement for this in the subdivision rules. r. There is no school bus service along Evergreen or anywhere on any street on Yankee Hill. All the children walk to Leeds Elementary School, including the Junior High School and High School bus riders. They are picked up at one location at the park across the street from the Elementary School. The comment made at the Planning Board MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton,Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net 2. Street Connection/Layout a. We did request this waiver and if we did not, but this letter I am requesting this waiver. This waiver is necessary because the Planning Board approved my preliminary plan that saved the existing building, instead of tearing it down. We cannot comply with Planning Board request to save the building, meet zoning setback requirements, and give the city the full 60 foot layout at the same time. `We cannot go up and down at the same time. b. The easement will be deeded to be 30 feet as specified above, once the location of the lines is approved. Form of easement will grant to the City an easement for all water, sewer and drain utilities and access on 15 feet of each side of center line of all such utilities as these utilities are finally approved and constructed. C. Turnouts are provided for by the driveways that are spaced along the private drive. There is no reason to believe that homeowners will not follow traffic signs in this location any more than they would not follow one way signs throughout the City. Peer pressure alone will make them comply. d. This will be removed during construction. It is the existing clean out for the sewer line but this line will be relocated when the road is built. e. Gas and Electric lines will be engineered and shown on plans after the definitive plan is approved. This is provided for under 290-25 C (e) of the subdivision rules. Gas and Electric company does not engineer utilities until the subdivision is approved and their plan is part of the final plan endorsed. f. This is proposed to be done as required by the rules. MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton,Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net utilities. No part of the 15 acres proposed to be developed has any restrictions as to where utilities are located. f. I have addressed this above. DPW cannot require the water line to be in the easement area, as they seem to in comment (a), and at the same time require the water line to be in the street. This does not make any sense and seems to be inconsistent. g. Water line is allowed to cross bike path by virtue of the Deed of easement we gave to the city. This right was specifically reserved. Nevertheless, Heritage Surveys is revising the plan to comply with this request from DPW. h. This is now complied with. i. This is now complied with. j. This is now complied with. k. This is now complied with. 1. This is now complied with. Plans are being revised to show new location. M. This is now complied with. There will be a note on the plan. n. This will be moved to comply with the subdivision rules. o. This is now complied with. p. This is now complied with. MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton,Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net adequate domestic water supply for this project and there will be no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As to fire flow, the fire flow is marginal but does meet the 500 gallon a minute criteria for fire flow at every point in the subdivision, with only one junction point showing a de minimus pressure drop below the 20 psi residual required. Notwithstanding that finding, I have agreed with the fire chief, and he has approved, that ISO standards can be met with sprinklers. The DPW provides a public water supply and I do not believe they have the authority to refuse public water availability when there is demonstrated domestic supply available. They have also approved, at least for the Habitat Project on Route 66, water availability for Townhouses of more than 2 units when water pressure problems were below acceptable limits. This project, along with Bear Hill, was approved by DPW and Planning with sprinklers. I do not think that DPW can grant water access to selective members of the public and deny water access to others. Public water is a public utility, not a private one. If for some reason DPW will not allow access to domestic water for any or all of these units I would plan to provide domestic water with on site wells approved by the board of health. C. Heritage Surveys is complying with this request. d. I can find no requirement that all municipal utilities must be placed within the roadway layout. In fact subdivision rules (290-30) allow for municipal utilities to be installed within easement areas and this is what DPW is requiring for the water line that goes overland towards Grove Ave. I do not understand this objection. Nevertheless, Heritage Surveys is revising the plans to show an easement to be granted to the City for the utilities in this location. e. The water main does not encroach into the conservation area and is therefore not subject to the Conservation Restriction. The Conservation Permit allows for the proposed development and all MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton,Ma. 01060 Telephone(413) 584-6750 Fax(413)584-6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. email:pmelnik @verizon.net Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. patmelnikjr @verizon.net May 22, 2007 Northampton Planning Board 210 Main St. Northampton Ma. 01060 Re: Beaverbrook Subdivision Plan-City Engineer memo dated May 18, 2007 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to address the items set forth in the memo of the City ]Engineer to your office May 18, 2007. I will respond to the items in the order listed. Some of the items will be addressed by my engineers. 1. Water a. The easement line for the water line, as well as all other municipal utilities as allowed under Sec. 290-30 will be 15 feet on each side of the centerline of the water line, sewer line and drain line at each location such municipal utility does not coincide with the street right of way, said easement to be determined when the final location of these utilities is approved by Planning and DPW. A deed of easement will be prepared granting the City these easements. b. I think I have given adequate information to evaluate the water issues. I was required by DPW to use their own engineering firm (Dewberry) to evaluate the water conditions on Yankee Hill. I was required to pay DPW $1500.00 before I could even hire Dewberry as DPW will not let anyone use their public water pressure information without paying an access fee. I also had to pay Dewberry separately for the engineering work that they did to evaluate water availability. The Dewberry report is very clear that there is no reduction in domestic wager pressure or supply that will exist after Beaverbrook is built. There is more than June 14, 2007 Page 3 of 3 p. The detail for the Typical Cross Section has been revised to show a 2" base coat and top coat, see sheet 17 of 19. q. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. r. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. s. An additional plan has been added to the set of Definitive Subdivision Plans, see sheet 12 of 19 entitled, Street Tree Planting Plan. t. A typical street sign detail has been added to sheet 17 of 19. 3. Stormwater System: a. Revised drainage calculations for the enlarged basin on Parcel D-1 and drainage calculations for the basins on Parcel C for the Common Driveway portion of the project are enclosed with this letter to be reviewed and approved by the DPW. b. Stormwater Facility Maintenance Schedules have been prepared see enclosed Attachment A. c. A note has been added to the Site Grading Plan pertaining to driveway grading. d. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. e. All proposed drain lines have been revised on the plans to show them as being RCP and not PVC as originally proposed. 4. Sewer System: a. A sewer line has been added to the common driveway portion of the project on sheet 8 of 19. b. A note has been added to the plan to address the sewer cleanouts. c. The plans have been revised so that the catch basin connection to the DMH located within the cul-de-sac has been raised by 0.85 to insure that this pipe will not intersect the proposed sewer line. 5. Proposed Waivers: a. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. b. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. c. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. d. The plans have been revised to show an island radius of 40 feet as requested by the DPW. e. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22:, 2007. In accordance with the Procedures for the Submission and Approval of Definitive Plans, we are submitting one revised plan and accompanying documents to the Northampton City Clerk. We would appreciate you directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, ark P. Reed cc: Department of Public Works(with 3 copies of enclosures) Northampton City Clerk(with 1 copy of enclosures) Patrick J.Melnik(with 1 copy of enclosures) William A Canon(with 1 copy of enclosures) Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\3923 BEAVERBROOK\3923fthng2007\3923defsubrevDPW.DOC N Omni June 14, 2007 Page 2 of 3 1. Water: a. Easement lines addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. b. Water issues addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. c. The plans have been revised to include shut-offs and gate valves as well as individual service ties to each lot. d. The plans have been revised to show that lot 1B is open space and utility easement. e. The CR is addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. f. Easement lines addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. g. The water main has been relocated within the revised plans to address,DPW comments. h. The Construction Plans have been revised to better shown the proposed water line. i. The water service connections for the buildings have been added the revised plans. j. Additional notes have been added to the plans to address DPW comments. k. Additional notes have been added to the plans to address DPW comments. 1. The plans have been revised to show the new water service line. m. Additional notes have been added to the plans to address DPW comments. n. The hydrant on the cul-de-sac has been relocated on the revised plans. o. The proposed water main has been revised to address DPW comments. p. A note has been added to the Detention Basin Plan (sheet 14) to specify the separation between the drainage pipe and water main. 2. Street Construction/Layout: a. The cul-de-sac center island has been revised to a 40-foot radius. b. Easement lines addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. c. Turnouts are addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. d. The existing sewer cleanout is addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. e. Gas and electric lines are addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. f. The cul-de-sac island maintenance will be addressed within the homeowners association document. g. The center of the proposed cul-de-sac has been revised on the plans to have a 40-foot radius. h. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. i. Gas and electric lines are addressed within letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007 see enclosed letter. j. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. k. The plans have been revised to show curb cuts for driveway access points. 1. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. m. A detail has been added to sheet 10 of 19 showing the 10 foot minimum requirement between water service taps. n. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. o. See enclosed letter prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., dated May 22, 2007. Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\3923 BEAVERBROOK\3923filing2007\3923defsubrevDPW.DOC a � -�� HERITAGE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers 241 College Hwy & Clark St, P O Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073-0001 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone(413) 527-3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT& VT Facsimile(413) 527-8280 E-mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com June 14,2007 Pagel of 3 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street—City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Definitive Subdivision Submission Plan Revisions/Based on DPW Comments Evergreen Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923-980831 Dear Planning Board Members: On behalf of our clients/owners/developers, John J. Hanley, Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, c/o Patrick J. Melnik, and in accordance with the Northampton Subdivision of Land Chapter 290, we are submitting • Sixteen (16) full scale sets • Two (2) full scale sets with original blue signatures • Seven(7) reduced size 11"x 17" sets o Of the Revised prints of Definitive Subdivision Plans of Beaver Brook Estates, revision dated June 14, 2007, Sheets 1-19 (Index Sheet (sheet 1), Overall Subdivision Plan (sheet 2), Definitive Subdivision Plans (sheets 3 & 4)), Topographical Plans (sheets 5 & 6), Site Grading/Tree Clearing Plan (sheets 7 & 8), Townhouse Site Development Plan (sheet 9), Construction Plans (sheet 10 &11), Street Tree Planting Plan (sheet 12) Proposed Bike Path Connector Profile (sheet 13), Detention Basin Plan (sheet 14), Water Main Connection Plan to Grove Ave(sheet 15), Paving Plan(sheet 16), Detail Sheets (sheets 17, 18, & 19). • Two (2) copies of Revised Drainage Calculations —Beaver Brook Estates, revision dated June 14, 2007 • Two (2) copies of Drainage Calculations — Common Driveway Project — Parcel C, dated June 14, 2007. The revisions to the plans are based comments from the Department of Public Works (DPW), dated May 18, 2007 the following changes have been made to the plans or addressed within an enclosed letter(sixteen(16) copies)prepared by Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. dated May 22, 2007: Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\3923 BEAVERBROOK\3923filing2007\3923defsubrevDPW.DOC