HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 315 TURNPIKE STREET 9/2/2011 11,ANCQCK
ASS(
i
September 2,2011
Ms. Judy Tymon,Platuier
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Merrimack College—Volpe Center Expansion
Dear Ms.Tymon:
Hancock has completed a review of the documents submitted to the Planning Board for
the expansion of the Volpe Center. The following documents were reviewed.
1. Letter from Merrimack College to Judy Tymon dated August 5,2011 containing
Fiscal Impact Statement and Community Impact Statement
2. Site Plan Approval Application
3. Site Plans prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. dated 8-5-11 containing
twelve(12)sheets.
4. Traffic Impact and Access memorandum prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin
Inc.dated 8-5-11
5. Stormwater memorandum prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. dated 8-5-11
6. Utilities memorandum prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. dated 8-5-11
7. Abutter list dated 8-1-11
The following was used to assist in our review:
1. Zoning Bylaw of Town of North Andover last amended July 10,2006
2. Town of North Andover Zoning Map August 2010
3. Special Permit Site Plan Review Instructions 9/30/10
4. General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover 11/09
The submission documents comply with the requirements of Zoning Bylaw Section 8,3.5
"Information Required"except sub-section xvi Refuse Areas as no dumpster is shown on
the plans.
The Planning Board is charged to review the submission within the Review
Criteria/Design Guidelines put forth in the Section 8.3.6. The following is offered to
assist the Board in their review of these requirments.
General
a)Conformance with all appropriate provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.
c1 I'MA1J1 111yc�ia�c�l�f,1 t M._ ......_.� �._�_�
F d If UVIS G RC), 1xIA W_f:la✓i, Ni
F:4n 1,o ce! P;;-1,ick for S[r'a e r Suite 7 P0.C3ox 201)
l acarav=.a',,
MA 011) 3 N/1, uonoCVgh,k/lA Of 757 Cf"ier irsf,-ml, AMA 01 c3?11 S ak.nI, N;1,0-0 79
I h rw f9 t;)777-301)0 ('h( o: (1,(N,')1,30.1 1 1 1 Phon(-,:(9785 210-01 10 PI'iorvti�: (603)RIK',17(I
I'- ,: I;7;S) 774 7f31(1 F,� 1`��5,,1 1("0 1 121 F,o, (978)2 ql 1 I_'I3 F,ix (603(/6515 ),!3K)
„crtnf'1f.lt vIl t„lti::%C,= S'.tCdr1.C1 ,Y"tjPV`i
Hancock believes the submission complies with the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.
However, the Applicant should complete the record with additional information related
to zoning compliance given the zero rear setback to other property of the college. The
Applicant should also state any intentions for new signage or modification to existing
center signage to allow for confirmation of compliance with zoning.
b)Protection of abutting properties from detrimental site characteristics.
Hancock believes sufficient mitigation measures are provided to protect abutting
properties from detrimental effects.
Environmental
a)Protection of unique or important natural,historic or scenic features.
Hancock believes given the expansion of the building and parking area on prior
developed areas of the campus,this requirement is met.
b)Adequacy of proposed methods of refuse disposal.
The Applicant has not provided information regarding refuse disposal.It appears the
striping of additional spaces in the existing north parking lot eliminates the current
dumpster location. A suitable area should be provided.
c)Ability of proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems within and adjacent to
the site to serve the proposed use.
The proposal calls for modification of the existing sewer connection to the sewer line
in Cullen Avenue. The Applicantpresents accurate anticipated sewer and water flows
from the expansion but does not comment on the adequacy of the local and overall
town systems to absorb this increased demand.
d)Adequacy of the proposed drainage system within and adjacent to the site to handle the
increased runoff resulting from the development.
Hancock defers to stormwater review being performed for the town by Lisa Eggleston.
e)Provision of adequate landscaping,including the screening of adjacent residential uses,
provision of street trees,landscape islands in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along
the street frontage.
Hancock believes this requirement is met per the comprehensive Landscape Plan
presented as well as the retention of the mature trees along Turnpike Street, which
effectively screens the center from adjacent sites.
f)Adequacy of the soil erosion plan and any plan for protection of steep slopes,both
during and after construction.
No steep slopes are proposed within the project. The construction of the expansion is
occurring within landscaped areas proximate to the existing building. The areas to the
left and right of the front entrance currently are depressions with yard drains. These
drains will be remover.As fill is placed in theses areas to bring grades to frnish floor
runoff will be directed to Cullen Ave. The plans adequately calls for protection of the
existing catch basins.Runofffrom the area of the north entrance will enter the
drainage system at the existing catch basin in the southwest corner. This basin is also
being protected per the plan. Silt fence is proposed along the entire east and south sides
of the construction site to protect the adjacent wetland.Hancock trusts the
Conservation Commission will opine on the adequacy of the protection of the wetlands.
Hancock recommends a provision for a small temporary sediment basin in the area of
the existing 10"CMP near the southeast corner of the building be added to the plans.
g)Protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting, including
parking lot and building exterior lighting.
Zoning Bylaw Section 81.S.f requires that all artificial lighting used to specifically
illuminate any parking space, loading bay, maneuvering space, or driveway shall be so
arranged that all direct rays from such lighting fall entirely within the parking or
loading area and shall be shielded so as not to shire upon abutting properties or
streets. The level of illumination of lightingforparking and loading areas shall be low
so as to reduce the,flow of ambient lighting perceptible at nearby properties or streets.
The Applicant is proposing to light the new south parking lot with the installation of
three 30 foot high light poles each having 130 watt LED luminaries. The Applicant has
provided light intensity mapping depicting light levels within the south parking lot and
demonstrating light levels fall off to zero within the lot. Hancock believes this criterion
is met. The Board might inquire as to the existing lighting within the north parking lot
and whether any modifications could be made to reduce light intrusion and light
pollution.
h)The proposed development must not present a demonstrable adverse impact on the
surrounding area resulting from excessive noise, dust, smoke, or vibration,which are
higher than levels now experienced from uses permitted in the surrounding area.
The Applicant has not addressed this criterion. The Applicant should discuss the
location and noise levels of proposed chillers or condensers for the new ice sheet and
whether noise levels will be acceptable or if not how noise may be mitigated to reduce
impacts to the surroundings.Hancock does not believe dust,smoke or vibration will be
an issue.
Design
a)Buildings shall be located with respect to setbacks placement of parking landscaping
and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development.
Notwithstanding the rear setback issue raised above,the placement of the expansion
appears appropriate providing suitable access from the north paring, the proposed
south parking and for pedestrian access from the campus via the existing central
access that is being retained
b)The buildings shall relate harmoniously to each other in architectural style,the location
and building exits and entrances.
Hancock defers to the Board and its expertise for review of the building architecture as
it relates to other campus buildings.
c) Screening shall be provided for storage areas,loading docks,dumpsters,rooftop
equipment,utility buildings and similar features.
Loading and ice storage will continue to occupy the area to the northeast of the
existing building with access from the north parking. This area is screened by the
building and the existing mature trees along Turnpike Street. The proposed dumpster
area is not delineated on the plans. The architectural elevations depict "architectural
screening"for roof top mechanical equipment but do not specify the type of screening.
The Applicant should describe the rooftop screening material intended.
d)Electric,telephone,cable t.v., and other such lines and equipment must be placed
underground.
It appears from a review of the project plans, that all proposed utilities are
underground
e)Demonstrate that the scale,massing and detailing of buildings are compatible with
those prevalent in the surrounding area.
Hancock defers to the Board and its expertise for review of the building architecture as
it relates to other campus buildings.
Traffic/Parking
a)The location and number of curb cuts shall be minimized to reduce turning
movements, and hazardous exits and entrances.
One curb cut and six:on street parking spaces are being eliminated from Cullen
Avenue. The south parking lot will have two curb cuts providing appropriate
circulation through the lot.
b) Provision for access to adjoining properties shall be provided as appropriate.
No developable area adjacent to the Volpe Center exists that could benefit from shared
access.
c)Driveways shall be located opposite each other wherever possible.
There are no drives opposite the proposed entrances to the south parking lot.
d)Joint access driveways between adjoining properties shall be encouraged.
Not applicable
e)Internal circulation and egress shall provide for traffic safety, and access to and from
minor streets servicing one family dwellings shall be minimized.
Not applicable
Additional Comments
1. Plans mislabel Walsh Way as Cullen Avenue to the north of the existing parking
lot.
2. Plans misspell Cullen Avenue as Cullan.
3. Six spaces on Cullen Avenue to the left of the existing accessible parking lot are
not labeled on the existing conditions plans. These spaces are however considered
in the overall total parking count as being lost in the proposed conditions.
4. The saw cut delineated around the proposed handicapped parking at the new
entrance to the Volpe Center should be expanded to insure ADA grading is
achieved while maintaining positive drainage across the parking lot.
5. Utilities under the proposed building expansion are not adequately labeled as
being removed.
6. The new curb line on Cullen Avenue in the area of the existing accessible parking
lot will have almost no slope trapping water along the curb. The Applicant should
investigate additional pavement removal and regrading or the addition of a new
catch basin in the area tied to the existing system.
7. Spot grades should be added to proposed handicapped ramp system at new
entrance to insure compliance with ADA and MABB requirements.
8. Several drainpipes are not labeled.
9. The configuration of the existing north parking lot is not compliant with current
zoning requiring 18-foot long parking spaces and a 25-foot wide aisle. The spaces
are 17 feet and the aisles are 25 and 26 feet. The proposal calls for the saw cutting
of the pavement proximate to the building. The Applicant should explore the
possibility of adding 2 feet of overall width to the parking lot and re-stripping the
lot in compliance with the current requirements.
10. The interior property line is not shown on the Site Plans.
11. Although the requirements of Zoning Bylaw Section 8.4 do not appear to apply to
the project as it is located in a Residential District,the Applicant appears to
comply with the interior landscape requirements except the trees should be
planted at 3 1/2"caliper versus 3"caliper as noted on the Planting Plan. The
exterior planting requirements appear to be satisfied by the mature trees in the
adjacent wetland area.
12. The Applicant's Traffic Study presents a change in Level of Service from C to D
at the Walsh Way entrance on weekday evenings in the 2016 Build condition.
This degradation does not occur in the 2016 No-Build condition. The drop in LOS
is attributed to a two second increase in the delay. The Applicant's Traffic
Engineer does not comment on the acceptability of this degradation or if there are
any mitigation measures-which might improve the situation.
Hancock would be happy to meet with the Board, staff and/or the Applicant's team to
further discuss our findings. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you have
any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Han Associ
C. 7z es,
� Jose D.Pe mola,
Prin,i I—Br c�
M ager Marlborough