A site walk was held on the following application:
Application for site plan, requested by Newmarket Community Development Corporation/Fraternal Order of Eagles/Town of Newmarket/Newmarket Mills, LLC, at Main Street, Tax Map U2, Lots 365, 366, 367, M-1 Zone and Tax Map U-2, Lots 56C, 60A, 60B, 61, B-1 Zone. The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Newmarket mill buildings to include residential units at each of the two mill buildings, as well as space for public and non-residential uses. Parking will be provided on-site and at lots on the west side of Main Street.
A site walk was held by the Planning Board regarding the application of the Newmarket Mills LLC. The following Planning Board members were present: George Willant, Peter Roy, Rick McMenimen, Val Shelton, Eric Botterman, Adam Schroadter, Eric Weston, and Diane Hardy, Town Planner. Also in attendance were Jeff Clifford of Altus Engineering and Eric Chinburg representing the Newmarket Mills LLC. The following members of the public were present: Ron Phillips, Bruce Gardener, Martha Dana, Sylvia Von Aulock, Scott Landry, James R. Wibel, Brett Johnson, Bill Zerker, Penny Haslin, and Mark Herold.
The Newmarket Planning Board met at Lot U2-56C (mill Main Street parking lot). The applicant reviewed proposed re-development Lots U2-56C and U2-61 parking lots prior to crossing Main Street at the current cross-walk proposed as the designated pedestrian access to the site. The applicant then reviewed the proposed re-development of lot U2-365 site (Eagles). The site walk continued to the northerly access drive and proceeded in a clockwise fashion through the courtyard between the two mill buildings, down to the river’s edge of Lots U2-366 and U2-367 and then through the abutting Lot U2-368 (Rivermoor Landing property), westward to Main Street, and then northward along the easterly side of Main Street to Lot U2-366 N-Building, and ending at the starting point.
The following summarizes the comments.
It was asked if there would be blasting for the garage, given the ledge that was present. Mr. Chinburg acknowledged that if a garage was constructed that would be under a different site plan than what is proposed. The blasting company would be responsible to notify the appropriate parties and would be responsible for any damage.
On the westerly side of Main Street it was noted that better pedestrian linkages were necessary to connect the existing sidewalk with the proposed parking area. It was suggested that a staircase be provided at the southwest corner of the parking area and Main Street. It was noted that there had been one, but it was removed. Mr. Chinburg suggested that a sidewalk be added along the northerly boundary of U2-56C if he could obtain from the Town a pedestrian easement across its property in the vicinity of the electrical boxes on Lot U2-57 (Riverdale). It was noted the proposed grades of the parking lot would be similar to what they are now.
It was suggested that the Planning Board require a buffer between the proposed parking lot and the adjacent residential properties on Spring Street and that any light that would spill over onto the adjacent properties be looked at.
The Planning Board requested the applicant to provide an elevation plan, cross section, or architectural rendering of the proposed upper patio and public overlook of the courtyard, which will be located where the Eagles is currently.
The Planning Board viewed the northerly access to Route 108. As proposed, the traffic could go directly across Main Street to and from Elm Street. It was questioned whether that would be allowed by NH DOT. Attendees were informed that the Highway Public Safety Committee would be reviewing the “sidewalk to nowhere” situation at the intersection of Main and Elm.
6. It was noted that the topography on the mill side of the street at this location was very steep and that a complete reconfiguration of the intersection where the northerly access is proposed would be problematic due to the topography, space constraints, the elevation of Main Street, and the location of the bridge.
It was noted the plan did not show granite curbing as required by Newmarket’s Site Plan Regulations. Mr. Clifford stated the curbing details needs to be put on the plan. He also stated they are proposing bituminous curbing for the parking lot across the street due to the goal of redeveloping that area. He was informed a waiver would be needed as the M-1 and M-2 districts required curbing to be granite.
It was stated the driveway leading to the north would be widened to 20 feet: however, the plan shows only 18 feet. A clarification is needed.
Bill Zerker, owner of the abutting parcel U2-364 (Durham Book Exchange) was present. Mr. Clifford provided an overview of the access to his building. Mr. Zerker stated his concerns regarding their need for large freight trucks that pick up and make deliveries: during the summer four or five deliveries per month, pick-ups at a minimum of five (5) a month on average, and more during the season before school starts. They also have a delivery cargo van that is used daily. He questions whether it is possible with the three car parking area proposed at the north of the building. The Planning Board asked for a copy of his easements and rights-of-way deeds. Mr. Clifford agreed to prepare a plan showing how large trucks would be able to access the building. The traffic engineer will check to see if there is adequate room for large WB 60 trucks to turn around. Mr. Zerker also mentioned during their peak season, their employees (up to 10) also need to have parking.
Mr. Chinburg addressed the request to describe the public courtyard area and redevelopment of the Eagles site. It was asked if any utilities such as underground propane tanks would be located in this area. Mr. Chinburg felt it should be looked into, given the constraints of the milliard and his desire to use underground propane tanks.
Mr. Chinburg was asked about the above ground red oil tank. He stated it would be removed. The plan is to use buried propane tanks, but they are still working on feasible locations. The existing 6” pressure valve from the old sprinkler system will be removed.
The Planning Board looked at the area where proposed access to the parking garage under the building is located. There was discussion as to whether the boiler house structure and the adjacent building would remain or be demolished. Mr. Chinburg and the Rivermoor representatives stated they are working together along with the leaseholder, Lou Gargiulo, on this issue. The loading dock at the rear of N-1 Building will remain to accommodate residential moves and possibly small commercial deliveries.
The Planning Board viewed the public waterfront space, which is approximately 60 X 30 feet in size. The area would be available for fishing and may include a dock and it will be landscaped. Mr. Chinburg indicated the area along the building was intended to be private. It was noted this area was used by the fishermen. Mr. Chinburg stated he would review this area again relative to accommodating fishing. Since it is adjacent to the garage and not residential units he thought something could be worked out. The Planning Board would like to see a more detailed plan of the public access locations.
The Planning Board then viewed the area adjacent to Rivermoor condominium complex. The residents noted that traffic travels at fast speeds at that location, especially in the wider section of the driveway. It was suggested that “speed humps” could be installed to slow the traffic down. The current driveway is proposed to be used for two-way traffic. It was noted the driveway was very narrow at the southeasterly corner of the site. It was stated the driveway at that point could be widened to 16 feet in width, which would be enough for two-way traffic, by narrowing the parking spaces. Mr. Chinburg noted he has hired a landscape architect who has provided a traffic-calming plan, which shows two bollards and a gateway to define the entrance to the rear driveway. It was noted the traffic engineer hired by the Town felt the area was tight for two way traffic and parking. He will be looking at it closer as well as checking the area for turning radius. There will be no truck traffic here because of a five-ton weight limit. The residents expressed some concern about the increase in traffic volume in this area, which would directly impact their property. The residents have not been formally consulted about the idea of one-way traffic. They also wanted the Board to consider vehicles and pedestrians using the lower level parking garage as well as the traffic flow associated with commercial businesses located in the front of the building. The Rivermoor representatives would like to maintain the current pattern, which allows their commercial uses and residents to turn right onto their driveway to exit the site directly to Main Street without having to go through the mill yard and exiting the site at the northerly driveway. As a general rule, they are interested in not having the general public pass through the area in back of their building or using it as a cut through. It would be desirous that the rear driveway be restricted to residents only with no commercial access.
15. The Board then looked at the exit through the Rivermoor property. The driveway going up the hill was very wide and steep at its intersection with Route 108. It was noted the driveway could be made narrower. Also, a pedestrian walkway could be provided. It was noted the side (southerly) doorway emptied out into the driveway without any pedestrian safe zone. A Planning Board member mentioned she always believed the roadway between the Rivermoor Building and the parking garage was public, because it isn’t defined as private space. Also, it was noted the pull off area for the bus is not long enough, which causes the bus to pull over in front of the driveway and restrict traffic flow. There was a recommendation another option for consideration would be for the traffic behind the Rivermoor building to flow straight through the property of Serbagi (Joyce’s Kitchen) and via Water Street. This option could be looked at by the traffic engineer and should include a review of any public access easements through the Serbagi property.
16. With regard to the entrance to N-1 Building, the Planning Board noted an ADA ramp might be necessary at the building entrance, which fronts Main Street. A question was raised whether the crosswalk should be re-located at that location.
The site walk ended at 7:15 p.m.
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD SITE WALK
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
6:00 p.m.
A site walk was held on the following application:
Application for site plan, requested by Newmarket Community Development Corporation/Fraternal Order of Eagles/Town of Newmarket/Newmarket Mills, LLC, at Main Street, Tax Map U2, Lots 365, 366, 367, M-1 Zone and Tax Map U-2, Lots 56C, 60A, 60B, 61, B-1 Zone. The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Newmarket mill buildings to include residential units at each of the two mill buildings, as well as space for public and non-residential uses. Parking will be provided on-site and at lots on the west side of Main Street.
A site walk was held by the Planning Board regarding the application of the Newmarket Mills LLC. The following Planning Board members were present: George Willant, Peter Roy, Rick McMenimen, Val Shelton, Eric Botterman, Adam Schroadter, Eric Weston, and Diane Hardy, Town Planner. Also in attendance were Jeff Clifford of Altus Engineering and Eric Chinburg representing the Newmarket Mills LLC. The following members of the public were present: Ron Phillips, Bruce Gardener, Martha Dana, Sylvia Von Aulock, Scott Landry, James R. Wibel, Brett Johnson, Bill Zerker, Penny Haslin, and Mark Herold.
The Newmarket Planning Board met at Lot U2-56C (mill Main Street parking lot). The applicant reviewed proposed re-development Lots U2-56C and U2-61 parking lots prior to crossing Main Street at the current cross-walk proposed as the designated pedestrian access to the site. The applicant then reviewed the proposed re-development of lot U2-365 site (Eagles). The site walk continued to the northerly access drive and proceeded in a clockwise fashion through the courtyard between the two mill buildings, down to the river’s edge of Lots U2-366 and U2-367 and then through the abutting Lot U2-368 (Rivermoor Landing property), westward to Main Street, and then northward along the easterly side of Main Street to Lot U2-366 N-Building, and ending at the starting point.
The following summarizes the comments.
It was asked if there would be blasting for the garage, given the ledge that was present. Mr. Chinburg acknowledged that if a garage was constructed that would be under a different site plan than what is proposed. The blasting company would be responsible to notify the appropriate parties and would be responsible for any damage.
On the westerly side of Main Street it was noted that better pedestrian linkages were necessary to connect the existing sidewalk with the proposed parking area. It was suggested that a staircase be provided at the southwest corner of the parking area and Main Street. It was noted that there had been one, but it was removed. Mr. Chinburg suggested that a sidewalk be added along the northerly boundary of U2-56C if he could obtain from the Town a pedestrian easement across its property in the vicinity of the electrical boxes on Lot U2-57 (Riverdale). It was noted the proposed grades of the parking lot would be similar to what they are now.
It was suggested that the Planning Board require a buffer between the proposed parking lot and the adjacent residential properties on Spring Street and that any light that would spill over onto the adjacent properties be looked at.
The Planning Board requested the applicant to provide an elevation plan, cross section, or architectural rendering of the proposed upper patio and public overlook of the courtyard, which will be located where the Eagles is currently.
The Planning Board viewed the northerly access to Route 108. As proposed, the traffic could go directly across Main Street to and from Elm Street. It was questioned whether that would be allowed by NH DOT. Attendees were informed that the Highway Public Safety Committee would be reviewing the “sidewalk to nowhere” situation at the intersection of Main and Elm.
6. It was noted that the topography on the mill side of the street at this location was very steep and that a complete reconfiguration of the intersection where the northerly access is proposed would be problematic due to the topography, space constraints, the elevation of Main Street, and the location of the bridge.
It was noted the plan did not show granite curbing as required by Newmarket’s Site Plan Regulations. Mr. Clifford stated the curbing details needs to be put on the plan. He also stated they are proposing bituminous curbing for the parking lot across the street due to the goal of redeveloping that area. He was informed a waiver would be needed as the M-1 and M-2 districts required curbing to be granite.
It was stated the driveway leading to the north would be widened to 20 feet: however, the plan shows only 18 feet. A clarification is needed.
Bill Zerker, owner of the abutting parcel U2-364 (Durham Book Exchange) was present. Mr. Clifford provided an overview of the access to his building. Mr. Zerker stated his concerns regarding their need for large freight trucks that pick up and make deliveries: during the summer four or five deliveries per month, pick-ups at a minimum of five (5) a month on average, and more during the season before school starts. They also have a delivery cargo van that is used daily. He questions whether it is possible with the three car parking area proposed at the north of the building. The Planning Board asked for a copy of his easements and rights-of-way deeds. Mr. Clifford agreed to prepare a plan showing how large trucks would be able to access the building. The traffic engineer will check to see if there is adequate room for large WB 60 trucks to turn around. Mr. Zerker also mentioned during their peak season, their employees (up to 10) also need to have parking.
Mr. Chinburg addressed the request to describe the public courtyard area and redevelopment of the Eagles site. It was asked if any utilities such as underground propane tanks would be located in this area. Mr. Chinburg felt it should be looked into, given the constraints of the milliard and his desire to use underground propane tanks.
Mr. Chinburg was asked about the above ground red oil tank. He stated it would be removed. The plan is to use buried propane tanks, but they are still working on feasible locations. The existing 6” pressure valve from the old sprinkler system will be removed.
The Planning Board looked at the area where proposed access to the parking garage under the building is located. There was discussion as to whether the boiler house structure and the adjacent building would remain or be demolished. Mr. Chinburg and the Rivermoor representatives stated they are working together along with the leaseholder, Lou Gargiulo, on this issue. The loading dock at the rear of N-1 Building will remain to accommodate residential moves and possibly small commercial deliveries.
The Planning Board viewed the public waterfront space, which is approximately 60 X 30 feet in size. The area would be available for fishing and may include a dock and it will be landscaped. Mr. Chinburg indicated the area along the building was intended to be private. It was noted this area was used by the fishermen. Mr. Chinburg stated he would review this area again relative to accommodating fishing. Since it is adjacent to the garage and not residential units he thought something could be worked out. The Planning Board would like to see a more detailed plan of the public access locations.
The Planning Board then viewed the area adjacent to Rivermoor condominium complex. The residents noted that traffic travels at fast speeds at that location, especially in the wider section of the driveway. It was suggested that “speed humps” could be installed to slow the traffic down. The current driveway is proposed to be used for two-way traffic. It was noted the driveway was very narrow at the southeasterly corner of the site. It was stated the driveway at that point could be widened to 16 feet in width, which would be enough for two-way traffic, by narrowing the parking spaces. Mr. Chinburg noted he has hired a landscape architect who has provided a traffic-calming plan, which shows two bollards and a gateway to define the entrance to the rear driveway. It was noted the traffic engineer hired by the Town felt the area was tight for two way traffic and parking. He will be looking at it closer as well as checking the area for turning radius. There will be no truck traffic here because of a five-ton weight limit. The residents expressed some concern about the increase in traffic volume in this area, which would directly impact their property. The residents have not been formally consulted about the idea of one-way traffic. They also wanted the Board to consider vehicles and pedestrians using the lower level parking garage as well as the traffic flow associated with commercial businesses located in the front of the building. The Rivermoor representatives would like to maintain the current pattern, which allows their commercial uses and residents to turn right onto their driveway to exit the site directly to Main Street without having to go through the mill yard and exiting the site at the northerly driveway. As a general rule, they are interested in not having the general public pass through the area in back of their building or using it as a cut through. It would be desirous that the rear driveway be restricted to residents only with no commercial access.
15. The Board then looked at the exit through the Rivermoor property. The driveway going up the hill was very wide and steep at its intersection with Route 108. It was noted the driveway could be made narrower. Also, a pedestrian walkway could be provided. It was noted the side (southerly) doorway emptied out into the driveway without any pedestrian safe zone. A Planning Board member mentioned she always believed the roadway between the Rivermoor Building and the parking garage was public, because it isn’t defined as private space. Also, it was noted the pull off area for the bus is not long enough, which causes the bus to pull over in front of the driveway and restrict traffic flow. There was a recommendation another option for consideration would be for the traffic behind the Rivermoor building to flow straight through the property of Serbagi (Joyce’s Kitchen) and via Water Street. This option could be looked at by the traffic engineer and should include a review of any public access easements through the Serbagi property.
16. With regard to the entrance to N-1 Building, the Planning Board noted an ADA ramp might be necessary at the building entrance, which fronts Main Street. A question was raised whether the crosswalk should be re-located at that location.
