Planning Board

Minutes

February 11, 2010

Official as of march 11, 2010

Chairman Bob Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Bob Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Roger LeClerc, Alternates Rick Wolf and Pat Bell, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.  Victoria Parmele arrives at 7:05; Selectman Representative Scott Bryer arrives at 7:20 p.m. 

VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Herb Johnson, Roger LeClerc, Rick Wolf, and Pat Bell. Victoria Parmele - 7:05 p.m., Scott Bryer - 7:20 p.m.

ABSENT: Deborah Couch, and Alternate Scott Campbell. 

PUBLIC: Geoff Aleva and another representative from Civil Consultants; Jim Colburn Coe Brown Trustee, Brian and Marcia Severance; Scott and Kayla Severance; Derek Severance; Tim Colby; and Babette Morrill.

MINUTES:
January 14, 2010
Herb Johnson makes a motion to accept the January 14, 2010, minutes, as written. Bob Strobel seconds. Motion passes; 5/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

OLD CASES:
CASE 09-08: Coe Brown Northwood Academy, 907 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lots 65 and 66; Dana and Cindy Davidson, 35 Bow Lake Road, Map 218; Lot 1. Applicants are seeking site plan approval to add an educational facility with proposed 1,500 +/- sq. ft.; to expand athletic fields; and to create access onto Bow Lake Road. Application accepted as complete on 7/23/09; 65-day 9/26/09. Continued to 2/11/10.

Rick Wolf has recused himself from this case and leaves the table.

Mr. Aleva, Civil Consultants, is present representing Coe Brown Northwood Academy (CBNA).

Mr. Aleva states that NHDES Wetlands Bureau would like CBNA to prepare a mitigation plan for previously approved and after-the-fact activities from the 1990’s to early 2000’s. As a result of that meeting on Monday, they are looking at ways to address the mitigation plan. Mr. Aleva explains that some of the CBNA property may be included in a conservation easement and suggests some land that the academy owns near the state park. He states the applicant is in the process of looking at properties to come up with the mitigation plan.

Mr. Aleva refers to the newly submitted plans and states that they have added street lighting to the plan. He notes that there is a timer noted on the plan and he would like to keep the timer and propose to have the light turn off in the middle of night; perhaps midnight to sunrise. This will also help to reduce light pollution.

Mr. Aleva states that at the request of TEPP, signage has been added indicating that there is a school ahead. A new plan also indicates necessary striping as well.

Ms. Planchet asks if the state gave Coe Brown a deadline for the mitigation plan. Mr. Aleva responded that they hoped to get it to the Wetlands Bureau by April 1st. He states that if NHDES approves the proposal, there will be no changes to the proposed plan. There may be impacts to the back portion of the property or to another parcel of land CBNA owns that is not in a conservation easement. He adds that the parcel will be at least a 3-5 acre parcel. He notes that CBNA is looking into parcels that are beyond the 3-5 acres and this will be determined as they move forward in the process.

Scott Bryer arrives at 7:20

Ms. Planchet provides a brief summary of the project and refers the board to a status report that she has prepared dated February 11. Mr. Strobel guides discussion and questions the applicant using this document.

Mr. Strobel notes that there are still two outstanding waiver requests, one for drainage and one for the lighting plan. 

Waiver Request for Lighting Plan
Mr. Strobel asks if details had been provided for the maintenance building lighting and the proposed streetlight at the intersection of the proposed access road with Bow Lake Road. Mr. Aleva states they have not been provided at this time; however, they will be placed on the plan.

Bob Strobel makes a motion, second by Herb Johnson, to grant the waiver request for a lighting plan with the condition that lighting as shown on the current plan, street lighting at Bow Lake Rd., the exterior lighting on the maintenance building, and specification sheets for the lighting be provided on the plan. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Drainage
Mr. Aleva reviews the memo dated February 3 from his office, which provides a description of what has occurred with the drainage since the project began as well as the

February 5 memo that provides a breakdown for the ordinances where they feel they meet the requirement and where they are requesting waivers. He explains that the existing culvert at the access way has been changed to an 8’ wide concrete box culvert to help change the crossing into something that is friendlier to the turtles and that follows the more natural water course. He states that by changing this orifice, this increases the flow due to improvements in the ecology by replacing the culvert with something that doesn’t restrict animal traffic up and down the corridor. Mr. Aleva states that as a result, they have changed the waiver request.

Mr. Aleva states that the volumes of stormwater in post development is at or slightly larger or smaller than the volume in the pre development. He states that this is an indicator of flooding downstream, which is why NHDES suggested we create a gravel wetland to create stormwater treatment. This will not be a detriment of the ecology or abutters. 

Further discussion is held regarding the memo provided regarding the ordinances and drainage and calculation. Ms. Parmele states that since there was less impervious coverage, then the calculations were not necessary. Mr. Aleva replies that is correct.

Mr. Aleva states that as far as natural watercourses, that this has been met as the project is different than a subdivision. He explains that the property is maintaining a wooded buffer and a management plan is being created.

Additional explanation is provided regarding the water course, drainage issues, and more impacts for a detention pond. Mr. Aleva states that he believes that the alteration permit was granted based on the improvements proposed to the site. 

Mr. Strobel expresses concern with not having the easement in that it has been mentioned about the possibility of a new arts building or a new building at the existing soccer field. He states that this is more impervious area that will need to be detained and could affect flows. Mr. Aleva agrees and adds that it will be important that when that comes through it would have to go through the town and state. He notes that in keeping the campus centralized, this is the only area to add another building.

Mr. Bell asks who the easement would be granted to as CBNA cannot have an easement to themselves. Mr. Aleva states that there will be no volume increase just flow increase. He states that the water depth will be increased by less than 2” in a 50 year storm.

Mr. Colby asks about salting and sanding in the winter months. Mr. Strobel states that NHDES requires CBNA to have an operations and maintenance plan.

Ms. Parmele states that she feels that drainage presentation has been done.

Waivers
Mr. Strobel reviews the waivers.

Mr. Strobel motions to grant a waiver for section IX.D.2.b.2, 2 year post development flow. Ms. Parmele seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Bryer, to grant the waiver for IX.D.2.b.3. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Mr. Strobel motion to grant a waiver for IX.D.2.c. Mr. Johnson seconds. VOTE: 6/0, motion carries.

Additional Items
The board reviews the planner’s status sheet dated 2/11/10.
• Mr. Aleva indicates that the LLS stamp will be provided prior to approval
• Parking area: Mr. Aleva states that comments have been adjusted regarding turnarounds and striping changes. He states that the standards have been met. Ms. Planchet states that the exact number of spaces should be provided to ensure that there is an adequate number. Mr. Aleva states that they are above the threshold. He adds that he will provide additional information regarding the sizing and number of cars. 

Mr. Strobel asks for the amount of people who are expected to park including students, seniors, and faculty.

Additional discussion is held regarding the overflow parking for special events. Mr. Aleva states that this would be for town events, graduation, etc. This would need to be filled up to have any impact to the wetlands. Mr. Colburn indicates this would likely only occur once a year, for graduation.

Steve Roy’s e-mail is read into the record regarding the intention to use the field and parking and a recommendation for a 75 foot buffer for parking near the wetland.  Mr. Aleva states that he does not feel that the one day event warrants a buffer restriction. Mr. Strobel suggests that for graduation, orange cones or something be put out. Mr. Bell states that 75’ is good but for one day for one event for a few hours, parking on the field would be fine.

Setbacks
A discussion is held regarding structures and whether a field is a structure. Ms. Planchet notes that there is a conflict with the definition in the ordinances and the site plan regulations. Discussion ensues regarding meeting with the zoning board for a variance. Mr. Aleva states that this is not a structure and based on that they did not feel it was necessary to file to the ZBA. Mr. Strobel reads that a structure is anything constructed. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Bell, that a field is not a structure. Motion carries unanimously; 6/0. Further discussion is held regarding a fence being a structure. Again it is noted in the development ordinances and the site plan regulations. Ms. Planchet asks what the purpose of the fence is and Mr. Aleva replies to retain any balls from entering the woods. Mr. Bell references the development ordinance on p. 33 and notes that fences are exempt from setback issues.

Traffic
Ms. Parmele refers to a letter dated January 25 from residents and notes that there is a request of the board to restrict any future school traffic volume.

Ms. Severance states that there have been a couple of occasions where there were drug activities witnessed. She explains that she feels that keeping the access road open 24 hours a day could cause an escalation of this activity and this is not welcomed activity in the neighborhood. She adds that with the access road this will make it much more convenient.

Ms. Severance refers to another letter that came in that should have been read at the December meeting but was overlooked. Mr. Strobel reads the letter received December 14 from Doris Entwisle. Mr. Strobel comments on the letter and states that the intent of the letter is appreciated. He notes that both engineering studies from the town and the applicant have stated that there is not enough volume for a traffic light by a significant extent.

A discussion is held regarding adding a gate. Mr. Aleva states that they have not come to any conclusions yet and they are still in discussions if there will be a gate. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Ms. Parmele, to require installation of a gate on the access road at Bow Lake Rd. Discussion ensues as to the need for a gate. Mr. Bell asks why anyone would want a gate in this area. Mr. Johnson states that this will prevent traffic in the area at night. Mr. Bryer notes that there is a gate at the back end of the elementary school. Mr. Wolf states that the gate is never closed. Mr. Strobel adds that there is a gate at the Northwood Meadows. Ms. Parmele asks why the applicant would not want a gate and Mr. Aleva states that he does not think a high demand of traffic there at night now. Mr. Aleva adds that there are currently infrared cameras and they will add more to cover the parking area. He adds that the gate is a maintenance issue too. He asks if the gate is left open who will get the complaints; the town or CBNA. He states that other entrances are not gated and access could be obtained through these areas. Mr. Bryer states that a gate will give residents a little comfort. Mr. Johnson agrees and adds that overall it is better for the residents. Mr. Bryer states that this is a preventative measure. Mr. LeClerc asks if there was a gate installed, could access be achieved by going around it. Mr. Aleva replies that access would not be achieved by driving; however, people could walk around it.

Mr. Aleva states that there is a headlight pole where the location of a gate would be added.

Motion passes; 5/1. Pat Bell is opposed.

Mr. Strobel states that other public comments have been related to speed. Mr. Bryer states that the speed limit is 25 MPH. Mr. Strobel states that engineers have not come up with anything to lower actual speeds. Mr. Bryer suggests a caution sign. Discussion is held regarding Coe Brown’s previous suggestion to move the school zone sign to the east side of Bow Lake Rd. Mr. Aleva adds that there will be school caution signs added, within 250’-300’ away from the intersection and on both sides of the access road. He adds that this is being done in combination with striping. He notes that they are proposing a double yellow line to the road along with painting white edges which slows traffic down too. Mr. Bryer asks who will maintain the painting maintenance. Mr. Aleva replies that this would be added into a renewable escrow account for the town as this is a town road.

Ms. Parmele states that one of the comments from TEPP is that the monitoring should occur and she feels that speeds could be monitored as well. Mr. Aleva states that the NHDOT representative had been shown revisions to striping.

Further discussion is held regarding the driveway permit. Mr. Aleva states that they are currently in the process of obtaining a driveway permit and he would like the board to review NHDOT comments before agreeing to anything.  Ms. Planchet asks about the driveway permit. Mr. Aleva replies that NHDOT has now indicated to Coe Brown that they will require them to go through the driveway permit process to address DOT concerns with striping, etc.
Additional discussion is held regarding the proposed turning lanes. Mr. Strobel asks how long the lanes are and Mr. Aleva replies 60’. He states that the existing lanes are 35’ with a stacking of 5-6 cars. He explains that there is enough right of way for 60 feet and that anything over 60 ft would require adding pavement but it is within the right of way. Ms. Planchet states that the town’s engineer recommended 100 feet lanes.  Mr. Aleva stated it is because of the cost of extending the pavement that Coe Brown prefers 60 ft. lanes.  Discussion ensues regarding costs and queuing distances for 60 foot and 100 ft lanes.  Mr. LeClerc suggests having the lanes somewhere between 60 ft and 100 ft.  Ms. Parmele mentions the possibility of monitoring the situation with 60 ft to see if 100 ft would be needed. 

Ms. Severance asks if the future volume of traffic should increase a good deal, how that would affect this situation. Mr. Strobel states that future buildings or changes to Coe Brown could be addressed in their master plan and that any future buildings would require Coe Brown to go through the planning board and DOT could also require additional studies at that time.

Discussion continues on types of school zone signs, referencing TEPP’s report. 

Mr. Johnson motions that we use S4=5a w/25 mph school zone ahead; seconded by Mr. Bell. Motion carries, 6/0.

Ms. Parmele asks if Coe Brown plans to prepare a school routing plan as referenced in TEPP’s report.  Mr. Aleva states that would be addressed shen future building comes about and that at that time, Coe Brown would be back here and then to DOT as well.

Mr. Strobel refers to Staff’s status sheet and asks about a voluntary merger.  Mr. Aleva indicates Coe Brown will do the voluntary merger of the two lots.

A discussion is held regarding the hours to be posted on the plan for the gate. Mr. Aleva states he will let the board know what Coe Brown decides.

Discussion ensues re: #13 on the status sheet for the board to consider setting a cap on daytime trip generation to address abutter concerns with increased traffic amounts.  Mr. Strobel suggests a time limit. Mr. Aleva disagrees and states that this is hard to quantify. He states that this analysis would come out of a review and the next logical time to review this would be an increase and when there’s a building change. He suggests that perhaps this could be addressed with monitoring.

Mr. Strobel mentions #14, bonding; Staff will review this further and Mr. Aleva indicated he would speak with Staff on this matter. Mr. Strobel notes that the escrow for striping (#15) has been discussed and would be a condition. Mr. Aleva indicates that the cost associated with the signage is minimal and would not have to be included in escrow (#16). Mr. Aleva states that the intention for CBNA is to do this now and he feels that 12 months would be sufficient. Mr. Aleva states that there is no construction phasing. He states that CBNA will work with staff to provide the As Built requirement.

Mr. Johnson makes a motion to continue this case to March 25. Mr. Strobel seconds. Motion passes; 6/0

Rick Wolf returns to the board.

Motion to adjourn is made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. LeClerc. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0 at 10:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary