Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 102 PETERS STREET 1/25/2012 " .) "K,. r a.. rE January 25, 2012 Ms. Judy Tymon, Planner North Andover Planning Board 1.600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 Subject: Peer Review Summary 102 Peters Street,North.Andover Proposed Site Plan Dear Ms. Tymon: Hancock has completed a review of the documents submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed Site Plan at 102 Peters Street. The following documents were reviewed. 1. Proposed Site Plan 102 Peters Street,prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc., dated December 13, 2011, containing three sheets, stamped by James S. Fairweather II,PE. 2. Conceptual.Landscape Plan for 102 Peters Road, prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2011,. revised January 4, 2012, stamped by Christian C. Huntress, RLA 3. Community Impact Statement for 102 Peters Street(not dated) 4. Traffic Memorandum for 102 Peters Street prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, dated December 28, 2011. 5. Architectural Elevation Proposed Office Building 1.02 Peters Street, prepared by Maclaren Associates, LLC last revised July 21,2011. 6. North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals Variance and Special Permit granted October 11, 2011. 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 9/30/1.0 4. General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover 11/09 Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 1£35 Centre Street www.liaricoci<associates.com General Commentary 1. Section 8.1—Off Street Parking: The parking calculations, as provided, do not adhere to the off street parking bylaw for Offices and Medical Offices and Research Facilities. The minimum spaces required are as follows: Use Minimum Spaces Required Offices 1 space per 300 square feet of GFA. Medical Offices and Research facilities 3 Spaces per 1000 square feet GFA plus one space per employee. 2. Section. 8.14—One (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided for every twenty (2 0)parking spaces provided on site. The handicapped space shall be 12'x 20'and be indicated by a ground mounted sign and pavement inarkings. The handicapped parking space does not conform to the dimensional requirements set forth in this section. 3. Section 8.5.c—All site plans shall be prepared by a certified architect, landscape architect, and/or a civil engineer registered in the Con7momvealth of Massachusetts. All landscape plans shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect registered in the Connnonlvealth of Massachusetts. All building elevations shall be prepared by a certified architect registered in the Commomvealth of Massachusetts.All plans shall be signed and stamped; The 11"x17"Front Elevation prepared for Dundee Properties, LLC by Maclaren Associates, LLC, dated 07/21/2011 does not contain the requisite signature and stamp. 4. Section 8.5.e.i—NORTHARROW/LOCATION MAP:A north arroiv and a location map shoiving surrounding roadways and land uses adjacent to the site (I"=15009. Location Map should show at least one intersection of tivo existing Town roadways. The `Locus Plan' contained within the Proposed Site Plan,dated 12/13/2011 is at a scale of 1"=800' and does not adhere to the requisite scale of 1"=1500' set forth in this section. 5. Section 8.5.e.v—TOPOGRAPHY.- The present and proposed topography of the site, utilizing hvo foot(2) contour intervals. The contours shall extend at least fifty (50) feet beyond the site boundaries by estimation of the professional submitting the plan. The present and proposed topography do not extend fifty(50) feet beyond the boundaries of the site as required by this section. 6. Section 8.5.e.vi—ZONING INFORMATION:All applicable Zoning Bylmv information shall be provided regarding the site's development. This information shall be placed in a table and list all parking, setbacks,percent of lot coverage,floor- area-ratio, number of dwelling units, total amount of square feet, size of signs and any other applicable zoning information necessary for the proper reviely of the site plan by the To1vn Planner and Planning Board It is not clear from the submitted plans whether signs are proposed and if they comply with the Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations. 7. Section 8.5.e.xii—LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS:Identification of the location, height and materials to be used for all retaining ivalls and signs located on the site. Signs hill be revietived using the guidelines set forth in Section 6.7(H) of the Zoning Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com Bylaw. It is not clear from the submitted plans whether signs are proposed and if they comply with the Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations. 8. Section 8.5.e.xiv—OUTDOOR STORAGEIDISPLAYAREAS:Identification of the location and type of outdoor•storage and display areas on the site. It is not clear from the submitted plans whether outdoor storage or display areas are proposed. 9. Section 8.5,e.xv—LANDSCAPING PLAN:Identification of the location and landscape schedule of all perimeter and interior landscaping, including but not limited to proposed paving materials for walkways,fences, stonewalls and all planting materials to be placed on the site. In addition, all existing trees over 12 inches DBH, to be saved or removed shall be shown on the site plan.Any landscaping required by the Town Bylaws shall be indicated on the site plan in tabular form shoiving the amount required and the amount provided It is unclear from the submitted plans whether there are existing trees over 12"in diameter and if they are to be saved or removed. The"Plant List"located on the Conceptual Landscape Plan does not contain the amount of plantings required by the Town Bylaws. 10. Section 8.5.e.xvi—REFUSE AREAS:Identification of the location of each outdoor refuse storage area, including the method ofstorage and screening.All refuse areas must be fidly enclosed. The method of refuse storage and area screening are not detailed on the submitted plans. Additionally,the location of the dumpster pad may make refuse removal problematic during normal business hours depending on the type of container proposed. The Applicant should demonstrate that an SU-30 vehicle can access the dumpster at this location. 11. Section 8.5.e.xvii—LIGHTING FACILITIES:Identification of the proposed illumination, indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the proposed lighting facilities, including an example of the light fixture to be used It is unclear from the submitted plans whether any illumination is proposed and if the type, direction and degree of illumination conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw. 12. Section 8.5.e.xxi— UTILITIES:All utilities, including water line locations, sewer line locations and profiles, and storm drainage systems; It is the opinion of this office that a sewer line profile,when considering the proposed length, should not be required. However, details identifying all inverts, cleanouts and manholes are not adequate for construction as shown on the submitted plan set and should be updated accordingly. 13. Section 6a.iii.d—Electric, telephone, cable t.v., and other such lines and equipment must be placed underground Underground utilities have not been specified or their proposed locations shown on the submitted plan set. 14. Hancock understands Lisa Eggleston is reviewing the design of the stormwater management system. We differ to Ms. Eggleston's regarding this matter. 15. Section 8.5.e.xix—TRAFFIC IMPACT STUD Y.-Identification of existing traffic levels, along lvith the expected traffic impacts to occur based upon the proposed project. Projects which access state highii ays, a traffic impact study shall be filed with MEPA concurrently tivith the Planning Board reviely.A copy of the MEPA study shall be filed ivith the application to the Planning Board. The Applicant should report to the Board regarding the applicability of this section and the status of filing for the Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com � Highway Access Permit with 2NoxaI)()T, }�u000ck understands M�nms[)()Tdesign roundings mo state controlled roadways. The plans ooU for 15-foot radii. lh. The Traffic Memorandum from DJK states that tile site distance mbnu|d be enhanced through the control of vegetation within a triangle defined b« n point oo the proposed access drive 14.5 feet back from the travel way and extending 360 feet westerly down yc1era Street(Haverhill Street in Andover). ltio unclear from the plan ustowhether this triangle crosses private properties and therefore not within the control of the Applicant.I)JK should expand upon tile sight distance discussion addressing this issue, whether clearing easements are proposed and io the absence of permission to keep this area clear, the resulting sight distance and its adequacy. 17. The Traffic Memorandum does not speak to the site drive proximity to the signalized intersection of Peters Street and Turnpike Street and the interaction o[vehicle noovsozsutn with vehicles queued at the intersection. The Peters Street eastbound roadway configuration features two lanes with a dedicated left turn lane, a rumble ob' and striped transition area.Tile site plans do not depict these icoffiocontrol features.IJDKshould expand the memorandum commenting on the safety ofall turning movements into and out o{the site relative tothese issues. lD. The proposed building is shown less than one foot from nu excising sewer casement. � � It is unclear from the plans if the intent is for the building to be at 15 feet from the property line or if the dimension shown is labeling the easement width. Hancock is concerned that building footings would suoronub into the omeornont . � 19. Sewer connection for o commercial property should be made via omanhole structure � to allow North Andover Sewer Department access and sampling. Installation of a manhole a1 this location given the proposed building location will bcdifficult. Hancock recommends the building size bodecreased by two feet 10 accommodate this � 0000cnn ay well uo that Outlined iu the comment above. Additionally, where the / enmoouonU is a7[ovvo of North Andover cuneuzuoL the Sewer Department should provide comment regarding adequate protection of the sewer line. � 20. Shrubs and two trees are proposed within the Sewer Easement. The Applicant's � Landscape Architect should noufiomthese plantings would have no adverse impact to the uuvvcr]iuu or relocate the plantings. 2\. The architectural plans depicts o hip roof. The site plan shows o single roof leader � exiting the rear of the building in the center. The Applicant's Architect and Bngiucuc should confirm how roof runoff would get\o this pipe. We buUc*#dhc Applicant should address the issues raised prior tot the Board Oou|izou their deliberation of the matter. Should you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate tn contact our office. � Sincerely, Hancock Associates / ~~4muupnu. ruzuo/o^ rE Principal N1mr|bomugh. K8A Danvers, MA 315 BmGtnewt 185 Centre Street wvmm.han000kaaaociatea.00m � flANICOICK, ASSOCIATES February 22, 2012 Ms. Judy Tymon,Planner North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 Subject: Peer Review Summary—2"`r Review 102 Peters Street,North Andover Proposed Site Plan Dear Ms.Tymon: Hancock has completed a second review of the documents submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed Site Plan at 102 Peters Street. The following documents were reviewed. The following information from the Applicant's Team has been reviewed; updated items appear in bold: 1. Proposed Site Plan 102 Peters Street, prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc., dated December 13, 2011, revised February 2,2012, containing three sheets, stamped by James S. Fairweather II, PE. 2. Conceptual Landscape Plan for 102 Peters Road, prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2011, revised February 1,2012, stamped by Christian C. Huntress,RLA 3. Traffic Memorandum for 102 Peters Street prepared by Dermot J.Kelly Associates, dated December 28, 2011. 4. Architectural Elevation Proposed Office Building 1.02 Peters Street, prepared by Maclaren Associates, LLC last revised July 29, 2011, stamped by George J. Nammoth,RA. 5. Reduced `sketch' Proposed Site Plan 102 Peters Street,prepared by Andover Consultants,Inc., dated December 13,2011, revised February 2,2012, containing one 11"x17" sheet,stamped by James S. Fairweather II,PE. 6. Letter from Andover Consultants Inc. to the North Andover Planning hoard dated February 6,2012. The following were used to assist in our review: 1. Zoning Bylaw of Town of North Andover last amended September 13,2010 2. Town of North Andover Zoning Map August 2010 3. Special Permit Site Plan Review Instructions 9/30/10 Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 EIn7 Street 135 Centre; Street www.tiancockassociates.corn 4. General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover 11/09 This review tracks our original comments in italics,the Applicant's response and our comment on each response in bold. General Commentary 1. Section 8.1 —Off Street Parking: The parking calculations, as provided, do not adhere to the off street parking bylatii,for Offices and Medical Offices and Research Facilities. The minimum spaces required are as follows: Use Minimum Spaces Required Offices I space per 300 square feet of GFA. Medical Offices and Research 3 Spaces per 1000 square feet GFA plus one facilities space per employee. Andover Consultants' Response: The parking calculations depicted on the plan complies with Section 8.1.4 a) of the September 13, 2010 Zoning Bylaw. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 2. Section. 8.14—One (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided for evefy hventy (20)parking spaces provided on site. The handicapped space shall be 12'x 20'and be indicated by a ground mounted sign and pavement markings. The handicapped parking space does not conform to the dimensional requirements set forth in this section. Andover Consultants' Response: The accessible space and aisle dimensions comply with Section 8.1.4 b) of the September 13, 2010 Zoning Bylaw. This section requires compliance with the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board(AAB), 512 CMR. The space is 9 feet wide with an adjacent aisle of 9 feet which exceeds the required 8 foot wide space and 8 foot aisle required by the AAB for a van accessible space. The length is 18 feet,the same as the standard spaces, also per the AAB regulations 521 CMR 23. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 3. Section 8.5.c—All site plans shall be prepared by a certified architect, landscape architect, and/or a civil engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachuisetts. 411 landscape plans shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect registered in the Conmtomvealth of Massachusetts.411 building elevations shall be prepared by a certified architect registered in the Conunonivealth of Massachutsetts.411 plans shall be signed and stamped; The 11"x17"Front Elevation prepared for Dundee Properties, LLC by Maclaren Associates, LLC, dated 0712112011 does not contain the requisite signature and stamp. Andover Consultants' Response: The architect has provided a stamped and signed copy. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com Hancock Response: Hancock is in receipt of a stamped and signed copy of the Front Elevation plan by Maclaren Associates LLC. last revised June 29, 2011.Hancock is satisfied with this response. 4. Section 8.5.e.i—NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP:A north arrow and a location map showing surrounding roadways and land uses adjacent to the site (I"=15009. Location Map should shoiv at least one intersection of tivo existing Town roadivays. The 'Locus Plan'contained within the Proposed Site Plan, dated 12/13/2011 is at a scale of I"=800'and does not adhere to the requisite scale of 1"=1500'set forth in this section. Andover Consultants' Response: The locus scale of 1"=800 feet is larger than the required 1"= 1500 feet making the locus easier to read which is more appropriate for the small project proposed. Hancock Response: The Location Map still does not conform to the required scale of 1'=1,500'. The intent of the locus scale is to see the project site within the context of the surrounding area. The Board should decide if given the location,they need to see more of the surrounding area within the locus map. The Applicant should request a waiver from this submission requirement. 5. Section 8.5.e.v—TOPOGRAPHY.- The present and proposed topography of the site, utilizing tivo foot(2) contour intervals. The contours shall extend at least fifty (50) feet beyond the site boundaries by estimation of the professional submitting the plan. The present and proposed topography do not extend frfty(50)feet beyond the boundaries of the site as required by this section. Andover Consultants' Response: By our estimation,the topography of offsite areas is appropriately accounted for this small project. Hancock Response: While the plan does not conform to the requirements for the extent of topography shown,Hancock believes that suitable information is provided to complete our review. The Applicant should request a waiver from this submission requirement. 6. Section 8.5.e.vi—ZONING INFORMATION:All applicable Zoning Bylmv information shall be provided regarding the site's development. This information shall be placed in a table and list all parking, setbacks,percent of lot coverage,floor- area-ratio, number of dtivelling units, total amount of square feet, size of signs and any other applicable zoning information necessary for the proper review of the site plan by the Town Planner and Planning Board It is not clear from the submitted plans whether signs are proposed and if they comply with the Zoning Bylmv Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations. Andover Consultants' Response:There are no specific tenant(s) for the project at this time. Signs will be provided per the tenant's requirements. Signs will be in compliance Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 135 Centre Street www,hancockassociates.com with the zoning bylaw and the appropriate permits filed for when the sign design has been determined. Hancock Response: The plans still do not depict the size, location and style of proposed signage.The Board should specify within any decision that signage has not been reviewed or approved for the site. 7. Section 8.5.e.xii—LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS:Identification of the location, height and materials to be used for all retaining~Palls and signs located on the site. Signs will be reviewed using the guidelines set forth in Section 6.7(H) of the Zoning Bylaw. It is not clear from the submitted plans ia'hether signs are proposed and if they comply lvith the Zoning Bylmi,Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations. Andover Consultants' Response: See response above. Hancock Response: The plans still do not depict the size,location and style of proposed signage.The Board should specify within any decision that signage has not been reviewed or approved for the site. 8. Section 8.5.e.xiv—OUTDOOR STORAGEIDISPLAYAREAS.•Identification of the location and type of outdoor storage and display areas on the site. It is not clear from the submitted plans tivhether outdoor storage or display areas are proposed. Andover Consultants' Response: There will be no outdoor storage or display areas for this business office/medical office. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 9. Section 8.5.e.xv—LANDSCAPING PLAN:Identification of the location and landscape schedule of all perimeter and interior landscaping, including but not limited to proposed paving materials for tivalkivays,fences, stonewalls and all planting materials to be placed on the site. In addition, all existing trees over 12 inches DBH, to be saved or removed shall be shown on the site plan.Any landscaping required by the Town Bylmvs shall be indicated on the site plan in tabular form shotiPing the amount required and the amount provided It is unclear from the submitted plans whether there are existing trees over 12" in diameter and if they are to be saved or removed. The "Plant List"located on the Conceptual Landscape Plan does not contain the amount of plantings required by the Town Bylativs. Andover Consultants' Response: There are no existing trees on the lot that will be retained. The landscaping plan, attached,has been revised to reflect this. In addition, new plantings will be provided consisting of native species to replace the invasive species removed. The additional plantings at the rear of the lot are being provided at the request of the Conservation Commission. The landscaping plan lists the quantity of each plant. Hancock Response: The plan entitled Conceptual Landscape Plan by Huntress Associates,Inc. dated August 4,2011 revised February 1,2012 depicts a region of existing trees to remain at the southern property line. The plan does not speak to the required identification of existing trees 12 inches in diameter or large. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com The Plan also does not include a tabular list containing the amount of required plantings. 10.Section 8.5.e.xvi—REFUSE AREAS:Identification of the location of each outdoor refuse storage area, including the method of storage and screening. All refuse areas must be fidly enclosed The method of refuse storage and area screening are not detailed on the submitted plans. Additionally, the location of the dumpster pad may make refuse removal problematic during normal business hours depending on the type of container proposed. The Applicant should demonstrate that an SU-30 vehicle can access the dumpster at this location. Andover Consultants' Response: The dumpster and pad have been removed. Because the project is small, a dumpster will not be needed. Hancock Response: Hancock is in agreement that the size of the project may not require a dumpster. However, refuse generated from the proposed business or medical office will require some sort of storage and the plan does not address its type, location or required screening. 11. Section 8.5.e.xvii—LIGHTING FACILITIES:Identification of the proposed illumination, indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the proposed lighting facilities, including an example of the light fixture to be used It is unclear from the submitted plans ivhether any illumination is proposed and if the type, direction and degree of illumination conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Bylmv. Andover Consultants' Response: No lighting for the parking lot is proposed. The architect's final plans will include details of any lighting located on the exterior of the building. A cut sheet of a typical wall mounted light proposed for use is attached for your review. Hancock Response: The plans still do not depict the direction and degree of illumination proposed. 12. Section 8.5.e.xxi— UTILITIES:All utilities, including water line locations, server line locations and profiles, and storm drainage systems;It is the opinion of this office that a sewer line profile, u hen considering the proposed length, should not be required However, details identifying all inverts, cleanouts and manholes are not adequate for construction as shotian on the submitted plan set and should be updated accordingly. Andover Consultants' Response: The sewer connection inverts and size information has been added to the plan. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 13. Section 6a.iii.d—Electric, telephone, cable t.v., and other such lines and equipment must be placed underground Underground utilities have not been specified or their proposed locations shown on the submitted plan set. Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com Andover Consultants' Response: The underground electric, telephone and cable utilities will be installed below grade and are now shown on the plan. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 14. Hancock understands Lisa Eggleston is reviewing the design of the stormlvater management system. We differ to Ms. Eggleston's regarding this matter. Andover Consultants' Response: No response needed. Hancock Response: No further comment required. 15. Section 8.5.e.xix—TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY:Identification of existing traffic levels, along ivith the expected traffic impacts to occur based upon the proposed project. Projects which access state highways, a traffic impact study shall be filed with MEPA concurrently ivith the Planning Board review.A copy of the MEPA study shall be filed ivith the application to the Planning Board. The Applicant should report to the Board regarding the applicability of this section and the status of filing for the Highlvay Access Permit with MassDOT Hancock understands MassDOT design guidelines call for 30 foot radius roundings on state controlled roadivays. The plans call for 15 foot radii. Andover Consultants' Response: The project does not need an Access Permit from Mass Highway as Peters Street is a County Layout under local control, nor is a filing with MEPA required. The driveway entrance/exit design complies with section 8.1.5. c)of the zoning bylaw. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. 16. The Traffic Memorandum from DJK states that the site distance should be enhanced through the control of vegetation within a triangle defined by a point on the proposed access drive 14.5 feet backfrom the travel way and extending 360 feet westerly down Peters Street(Haverhill Street in Andover). It is unclear from the play as to whether this triangle crosses private properties and therefore not ivithin the control of the Applicant. DJK should expand upon the sight distance discussion addressing this issue, ii7hether clearing easements are proposed and in the absence of periuission to keep this area clear, the resulting sight distance and its adequacy. Andover Consultants' Response: The proposed plantings on the lot were adjusted to be outside of the described sight triangles. The sight lines are depicted on the attached sketch. There is no sight line obstruction on the abutting private lot looking east. Minor trimming of existing vegetation in the right of way looking west is necessary. Hancock Response: The `sketch' that was provided is not to scale and does not depict the full extension of the sight line on Peters Street. The DJK Memorandum was not updated to specifically address any action required to enhance sight distance. The landscape plan identifies two(2) red maple trees located on both sides of the entrance. From the `sketch' provided,the sight lines appear to Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com conflict with both of these plantings. Hancock recommends that the full sight distance lines be shown on all plans and clearly identify any measures that will be taken to enhance sight distance on the subject property and abutting parcels. 17. The Traffic Memorandum does not speak to the site drive proximity to the signalized intersection of Peters Street and Turnpike Street and the interaction of vehicle movements with vehicles quezzed at the intersection. The Peters Street eastbound roadway configuration features res tivo lanes with a dedicated left turn lane, a rumble strip and striped transition area. The site plans do not depict these traffic control features. DJK should expand the memorandum commenting on the safety of all turning movements into and out of the site relative to these issues. Andover Consultants' Response: Dermot J. Kelly,PE,PTOE has provided the following response to this comment: "During the morning peak hour, the proposed project ivill generate behveen 4 to S vehicle-trips per hour(vph) with 3 to 4 vph entering the site depending on lvhat portion of the project is medical office compared to general commercial office space. Additionally, the entering traffic ivill be split ivith some traffic entering fi°om the right lvith the remaining traffic entering front the left. Consequently, it can be assumed that there ivill be only 1 or 2 vph entering the site as a ivestbound left turn. If a lvestbound left turning vehicle has to ivait to enter the site due to a quezze of eastbound vehicles backing up from the Route 114 traffic signal, this will not create a significant ivestbound queue which would in turn cause traffic to back up onto Route 114. Similarly, during the evening peak hour, the proposed project hill generate behveen 4 to 7 vph with only I vph entering the site. Again, a single vehicle lvould not cause traffic to back up onto Route 114." Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. The existing pavement markings and rumble strip were not added to the plan as requested. Given Mr. Kelly's position stated above,these details may not be required. 18. The proposed building is shown less than one foot from an excising server easement. It is unclean°from the plans if the intent is for the building to be at I5 feet from the property line or if the dimension shown is labeling the easement width. Hancock is concerned that building footings ivould encroach into the easement. Andover Consultants' Response: The building will be constructed outside of the easement. Hancock Response: It remains unclear from the details provided how the building structure below grade would not encroach into the sewer easement. Standard construction details have footings extending beyond the face of the structure. 19. Sewer connection for a commercial property should be made via a manhole structure to allow North Andover Sewer Department access and sampling. Installation of a Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street www.hancockassociates.com nxxnho/o at this/mcx/ix,given the proposed building location milYbe Hancock reconnnends the building size he decreased by tivoJeet to accommodate this concern as ivell cis that outlined in the comment above. Additionally, ivhere the easement is a Toivn ofNorth Andover easement, the &iver Department should provide comment regarding adequate protection of the senerline. Andover Consultants' Response: VVm called Mr. Timothy Willett, DPW Operations Manager of the North Andover DPW water and Sewer Department to determine if a manhole would be;squired. Y8r, Willett stated that u sampling manhole is not required. Hancock Response: Hancock recommends that the Board request Mr.Wi0ottn provide his opinion to the Board in writing. 20. Shrxbsondhvo trees are proposed iv/th/n the SeirorEasement. The Applicant's Landscape Architect should oonfin//these plantings n'onld have no adverse impact A? the xoi,ur line or relocate the plantings. Andover Consultants' Response: The landscaping plan has been revised <omove � some of the plants away from the sewer. The sewer depth is approximately 7 feet deep along the side of the lot. The remaining Inkberry shrub screening line,within the easement and along the easterly property line, won't affect the sewer. A revised � � landscaping plan dated February l, 2Ol2im attached for your review. � Hancock Response: Hancock im not io receipt mf comments from the Applicant's Landscape Architect attesting that the plantings iu the sewer easement � will not adversely impact the sewer line. � 2i. The architectural plans depicts ohip roof The site plan sho`mo single roof leader � exiting the rear»f the building/n the center. The Applicant's Architect and Eng/noer � should confirm hox/roof rxnn/Fn'oxld get k/ this pipe. � Andover Consultants' Response: The plan has been revised b>depict perimeter drains � to pick upthe downspouts which drain to the dryv/cO. � Hancock Response: The plans do not clearly identify the perimeter drain,there are no elevations nr slopes identified and the size and type ofmaterial have not been specified. / We believe the Applicant should address the remaining open issues prior tn the Board finalizing their deliberation of the matter. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our offiuo. Sincerely, Hancocktsatates 4s::�. Peznola, PE Principal Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA 315 Bm Street 185 Centre Street wvmw.hanomnkaaaocietea.00m r ASsoaArES March 5,2012 Ms.Judy Tymon,Planner North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street—Bldg.20 Suite 2-36 North Andover,MA 01845 Subject: Peer Review Summary—3rd Review 102 Peters Street,North Andover Proposed Site Plan Dear Ms. Tymon: Hancock has completed a third review of the documents submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed Site Plan at 102 Peters Street. The following documents,were reviewed. The following information from the Applicant's Team has been reviewed;updated items appear in bold: 1. Proposed Site Plan 102 Peters Street,prepared by Andover Consultants,Inc., dated December 13,2011,revised February 27,2012,containing three sheets, stamped by James S. Fairweather II,PE. 2. Conceptual Landscape Plan for 102 Peters Road,prepared by Huntress Associates,Inc.dated August 4,2011,. revised February 29,2012, stamped by Christian C.Huntress,RLA. 3. Traffic Memorandum for 102 Peters Street prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates,dated December 28,2011. 4. Architectural Elevation Proposed Office Building 102 Peters Street,prepared by Maclaren Associates,LLC last revised July 29,2011,stamped by George J. Nammoth, RA. 5. Reduced `sketch' Proposed Site Plan 102 Peters Street;prepared by Andover Consultants,Inc.,dated December 13,2011,revised February 2,2012, containing one 11"x17"sheet, stamped by James S. Fairweather 1I, PE. 6. Letter from Andover Consultants Inc.to the North Andover Planning Board dated February 6,2012. 7. Letter from Andover Consultants Inc.to the North Andover Planning Board dated February 28,2012« The following were used to assist in our review: 1. Zoning Bylaw of Town of North Andover last amended September 13,2010 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 This review tracks our original comments in italics, the Applicant's response and our comment on each response in bold. General Commentary Comment 4: The Location map still does not conform to the required scale of I"=1500'. The intent of the locus scale is to seethe project site within the context of the surrounding area. The Board should decide ifgiven the location, they need to see more of the surrounding area within the locus map. The Applicant should request a waiver from this submission requirement. Andover Consultants' Response: We believe that the intent of the Locus has been satisfied. However;on behalf of the Applicant,Dundee Properties,we respectfully request that the Board waive the scale requirement of 1"=1500' and accept the submitted locus scale of 1"=800'. Hancock Response: No response required. Comment 5: While the plan does not conform to the requirements for the extent of topography shown, Hancock believes that suitable information is provided to complete our review, the Applicant should request a waiver from this submission requirement. Andover Consultants' Response: As previously noted,we believe that the offsite topography for this small project as appropriately accounted for. However,on behalf of the Applicant,we respectfully request that the Board waive the requirement of depicting offsite topography for 50 feet beyond the project boundary. Hancock Response: No response required. Comment 9: The plan entitled Conceptual Landscape Plan by Huntress Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2011, revised February 1, 2012 depicts a region of existing trees to remain at the southern property line. The plan does not speak to the required identification of existing trees 12 inches in diameter or larger. The plan also does not include a tabular list containing the amount of re uired plantings. Andover Consultants' Response: The landscaping plan is being revised to coordinate with the comments from the DPW to remove trees from the sewer easement and to account for the proposed stone trench in the northwest corner of the lot. There are no existing trees of 12"diameter or larger that will remain at the southern end of the lot. Per Section 8.4 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw,"Screening and Landscaping Requirements for Off-Street Commercial and Industrial Districts",the revised plan conforms to this section as there is no quantity of required plantings for a project this small. The revised Landscaping Plan will be forwarded when completed. Hancock Response: The Board should review the revised Landscape Plan when received and determine if additional information is needed. Comment 10:Hancock is in agreement that the size of the project may not require a 1A �"!J i f3'il Cr E;; 185 Gerd re.. Street 5:;11�c'll+.E:c'fli;iiGl:eiS;!�5,'f�?�c'S.CQiTI dumpster. However, refuse generated from the proposed business or medical office will require some sort of storage and the plan does not address its type, location or required screening. Andover Consultants' Response: The trash will be stored inside the janitor's closet internal to the building until trash day at which time it will be brought to the curb for pickup. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response and recommends that The Board specify within any decision that refuse areas have not been reviewed or approved for the site. Comment 11: The plans still do not depict the direction and degree of illumination proposed. Andover Consultants' Response: Site lighting will consist of wall packs mounted on the structure as previously stated. A copy of the proposed fixture was also previously submitted. Additional information concerning the lighting is included in the attached email prepared by the project architect,Maclaren Associates,LLC,dated February 28, 2012. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. Comment 16: The "sketch"that was provide is not to scale and does not depict the fill extension of the sight line on Peters Street. The WKMemorandum was not updated to specifically address any action to enhance sight distance. The landscape plan identifies two (2)red maple trees located on both sides of the entrance. From the "sketch"provided, the sight lines appear to conflict with both of these plantings. Hancock recommends that the full sight distance lines be shown on all plans and clearly identify any measures that will be taken to enhance sight distance on the subject property and abutting parcels. Andover Consultants' Response: The sight line issues discussed in the DJK Memorandum were intended as project recommendations to coordinate with proposed site landscaping. It is not necessary to depict the full extent of the sight lines as they are very conservative for this stop controlled parking lot and because the intent of coordination has been met. See the attached Landscaping Plan which depicts the sight lines referenced. A note has also been added to the site plan noting to remove vegetation within the right-of-way that may interfere with exiting vehicles looking west. Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. Comment 18:It remains unclear from the details provided holy the building structure below grade would not encroach into the sewer easement. Standard construction details have footings extending beyond the face of the structure. Andover Consultants' Response: The building wall is located about 10 inches from the sewer easement. See the attached email from Maclaren Associates, LLC addressing the extension of the footing beyond the east wall. Hancock Response: George Nammour,AIA of Mclaren Associates gave the following response via email on February 28,2012: ,.a E it i rC e,t 1 3 Cein, re cirea "If the soil conditions permit,a spread footing will be used, which extends no more than 6"froin the face of the foundation and will not encroach into the easement." Hancock remains concerned that the footing will encroach into the easement if soil conditions do not permit a spread footing. We recommend that standard construction details will be required to obtain a Building permit. The Board should condition any approval on receipt of these details and after construction receipt of a certification from a Professional Land Surveyor that all the foundation (including footings)have been installed outside the Town's Sewer Easement. Comment 20:11ancock is not in receipt of comments the Applicant's Landscape Architect attesting that the plantings in the sewer easement will not adversely impact the sewer line. Andover Consultants' Response: At a meeting with Mr. Gene Willis,PE,Director of Engineering of the North Andover Public Works Department, Mr. Willis requested that all trees be removed from the easement. The trees have been removed from the easement. When asked if shrubs were o.k.,Mr. Willis stated that shrubs were o.k. Hancock Response: There are no plantings depicted within the easement on the revised Landscape Plans. Hancock is satisfied with this response. Comment 21: The plans do not clearly identify the perimeter drain, there are no elevations or slopes identified and the size and fjVe of material have not been specified Andover Consultants' Response: The perimeter roof drain information has been added to the plans. The roof drains are 6-inch diameter, schedule 40 PVC pipes with a slope of 0.5%(0.005). Hancock Response: Hancock is satisfied with this response. We believe the Applicant should address the remaining open issues can be addressed by the Board through further review and discussion at the hearing and through conditions of approval. Should you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Han k)Gociates (Jose , D.Peznola,PE PriQpal .............