Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-21 Peer Review * tkORTH .4 0 0 SAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT Community Development Division MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #4 TO: Planning Board FROM: Lincoln Daley,Town Planner RE: RCG North Andover Mills, LLC Preliminary Plan Approval for Planned Development District(PDD) Special Perinit for the redevelopment of"65,000 s.f. of existing buildings to 50 1-and 2-bedroom apartments, renovation of 50,000 s.f. of existing space for commercial uses allowed in the PDD district, construction of 137 new residential units, and associated improvements to parking areas and landscaping. DATE: 2 nd Review—December 14, 2007 1" Review-November 27, 2007 Proposal: The applicant, RCG North Andover Mills, LJX, is seeking Preliminary Plan Approval for a Planned Developnient District(PDD) Special Permit to redevelop 65,000 s.f. of existing buildings to 50 1-and 2- bedroom apartments, renovation of 50,000 s.f. of existing space for commercial Uses allowed in the PDD district, C01IStRICti011 of 137 new residential units,and associated improvements to parking areas and landscaping. The proposal represents the second phase of a multi-phased mixed used development. Please refer to the Menioranch.1111 in Snpport of Application,Tab E for a detailed breakdown of the proposal. The parcel area consists of approximately 22.65 acres of land, known and rinnibered as 21 High Street (formerly known as One High Street). 21 High Street currently consists of a total of approximately 235,000 sf of existing and R&D space, The site is located at the corner of High and Water Street and designated on the Assessor's Maps as Map 69, Parcel 0001. The project is located in the Indnstrial, S Zoning District, The lot Fronts both Water Street and High Street with 412 linear feet and 789 linear feet of frontage respectively, Background: This is the second public hearing for the preliminary plan approval. 'File Applicant was last before the Planning Board on December 4, 2007 to begin disetissing the preliminary design. The primary concerns/issues of the proposal involved the COnStrUCti011 of the 98-unit:5 story residential building that directly abuts established neighborhoods in the R4 and R5 Zoning Districts, More specifically, the concerns and questions raised were the following: __........................ 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.towriolnorthanclover,corn 1. Architectural design and massing of building. 2. Architectural elevations and visual impact of the building in relationship to the site, Machine Shop Village, and abutting neighbor-hoods. 3. 1984 Zoning Board Special Permit restricting the height of the parking facility to two-stories. The purpose of this meeting is for the Planning Board to provide preliminary recommendations to be incorporated into the Definitive Plan Design. My review of the Preliminary Plan is based on the following information submitted by the applicant: Application & Memorandum for Pr-elirninuy Planned Development District Special Permit, November-9, 2007; Attachments A —J, and the Preliminary TrafficImpact Analysis titled "East Mill North Andover,November 2007" received December- 11,2007. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Section 11.3(2) Submission of Preliminary Plans: a. Planned Development Boundaries, north point,(late,scale,legend,and title "Preliminary Plan: Planned Development: the name or names of applicants,and engineer or designer. The plant tilled "Prelilninarj,Plan:Planned Development RCG North Andover.Allills, LLC"and dated November 9, 2007 correctly disI)Iajs the Planned Develol.nnew Boundaries, north point, dale, scale, legend, title, name of applicants, and engineer or designer. (I?qfel-to Tab C Ql'the Application) The application isfin-ther supported by the plan entitled "blaster Plan Planned Development dated November 8, 2007, andprel)ared h),RCG, Burt, Hill Landworks %tdio, hic. (Refer to Tab D of the Application) b. Names of all abutters,land uses,and approximate location and width of all adjacent streets. The Irian filled "A L TAIA C,%t Land Title Survey, Illater Street and High Street, North Andover, MA"daledJanuary 8, 2007, and prepared by Coneco,Inc. correctly displays the names of all abutters, land uses, and aplwoximale location and width re f all adjacent streets The application isfin-ther supported by the plan entitled "Master Plan Planned Development dated November 8, 2007, and prepared by RCG, Burt, Hill Landworks Studio, Inc. (Refer to Tab D(,?I'Ihe Application) c. In a general manner,the existing and proposed fines of streets,ways,easements, and of any public areas within or next to the Planned Development. The plan tilled "Preliminary Plan: Planned Development RCG North Andover Mills, LLC"and dated November 9, 2007 correctly displays the lines oj'slreets, ways, easements, and of aiq public areas within or next to the Planned Development. (Refer to Tab C of the Application) The application is further supported b),the plan entitled "Master Plan Planned Development dated November 8, 2007, and prepared b))RCG, Burt, [fill Landworks Studio, Inc. (Refer to Tab D of the Application) d. The approximate boundary lines of existing and proposed lots with approximate areas and dimensions. The plan tilled "Preliminary Plan: Planned Develolnnew RCG North Andover Alills, LLC"and dated November 9, 2007 correctly displays the approximate boundary lines of existing and proposed lots with approximate areas and dimensions. (Refer to Tab C Qf the Application) ............... ..................... 1600 Osgood Street,North Aridover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fax 978,688.9542 Web www.towriofriorIhondover.(oni The application isfin-1her supported ley the plan tilled "ALT411ICSAII Land Title Survey, T17ater Street and High Street, North Andover, AIM"dated January 8, 2007, and prepared by Coneco Inc. that correctly displays the al)I)roximale boundary lines of existing lots wish aliln-oximate areas and dimensions. (Refer to Tab B qflhe Application) e. The proposed system of drainage,including adjacent existing natural waterways and the topography of the land in a general manner. The Plan tilled "Preliminary Plan:Planned Development RCG North Andover Mills, LLC"and dated November 9, 2007 details the prqj)osedsyystem q1'ch-ainage, including drainage and stormislater management improvements to the culiert connectionfi-om the mill pond to the existing slormwaler systems. The intent of the project is to utilize the mcyorilj7 of the existing drainage and sloii)iit)(ilei,i)i(iiicigei)ieiils,Y.Vlei)is on site. The Planning Board should inquire about the specific details of the proposed drainage and slormwaler management plan. (Refer to Tab C of the Application) Existing and proposed buildings,significant structures and propose(] open space in a general manner. The plan titled "Preliminary Plan: Planned Development RCG North Andover Mills, LLC"and dated November 9, 2007 correctly displays existing and proposed buildings and significant structures relatil?e to the project. (Refer to Tab C()f the Al.qVicalion) g. An analysis of the natural features of the site, including wetlands, floodplains,slopes over 12%,soil conditions,and other features requested by the Planning Board. The proposal will not significantly impact the pond, but will involve work in wellands or adjacent Inn(I,fer zones as defined under State Wetlands Protection Act and the North Andover protection bylaw. The pr°ojeci ia,ill hasxe a positive irnnparcl orn the condition of the mill pond by erihancirrg slormwater management (in terms of quality), atid in protecting the .Y community,our potential r flooding iny)actsfi-om storm events. The Planning Board should inquire if the construction of the proposed buildings, drainage improvements,parking expansions, and grading and landscaping work will impact past cleanup q,Ybris ofcontalninotion on site. Tine clllicciitshorticlpioiicic?cibrief history of contamination issues and the remediation eff orts undertaken in accordance with Mass. DEP and Federal regulations. It. A description of the neighborhood in which the tract lies,including utilities and other public facilities and the general impact of the proposed PDD upon thein. The prqject will have a positive impact and dramatically inqw-ow the neighborhood,public access, and will confiwin to the recently approved design slandards of the Historic Conservation District. The design Ql'allphases associated With the prqject Will preserve and enhance the existing arch ilecturalfeatures of the mill and natural environment, increase the value qj' neighboring properties, and improve pedestrian and vehicular movements along High and Water Street. The al)lVicont submitted conceptual renderings of the residential 39-unit 98-unit residential buildings. (Refer to Tabs T'and G) The architectural elevations, height, location, and massing are purely conceptual and represent a beginning point QI'discussion. In speaking with the applicant, they met with the Machine Shop Village residents to discuss the project and received generally,favorable responses. Further, RCG will continue to work with the neighborhood groups to design a residential building that addresses their concerns and creates archileclural elements and' a 1� lures that fit Within the visual landscape of the downlown, Machine Shop Village, and the abutting neighborhoods. 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnortliandover.(om i. A summary of environmental concerns relating to the PDD. The applicant ij,i//be required to summarize the environmental conditions of the site relating to the PDD. Qf1jar7icitlar concern im,oh,espast reme(liation eff orts oil site and the(Iraino'ge slormimiter management improi�ements to the mill pond ZONING BYLAW: Section 11.4 Minimum Requirements 1. The project is consistent with the purposes set out in Section 2. The project as Proposed meets the requirements of Section 2. The proposed uses are pei-iltilled render the I-DD provisions of the Zoning Aylait,, and it,il/serve to provide ink v oj'uses consistent 11,ith the Machine Shop Village, area. The proposed uses will trlher provide for peclestrian amenities to complement the surrounding uses. Third, the prqjecl will enhance the aesthetics of the properly with neiv streetscape amenities, landscaping and screening. T'ourlh, the project will return a largely vacant and unused property back into productive use and will provide an important source of/a'V reminte.for the loun. L(ivtly, lhel)i,ojeci brill sei-i,elo provide(i(l(lilioli(ildoit,i7loit�i7ciclil,ityconsistent u4th the Toiins ef forts ,forts to reinvigorate the(loit7niou7n area. 2. If more than twenty-five percent(25%) of the PDD is located within a residential district,at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the building area and accessory facilities in the PDD shall be used for residential purposes. A portion of the property fall within a resi(lenlial district. According to the Tmi,n Zoning map/information, the IS Zoning District ends(it the rear of the parking facility. Hoit,emr, the proposed use that woulcl./all within this residential area complies with this requirement. 3. Ingress and egress for traffic flow is designed properly so that there will be no serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Existing access points to the property are adequate to serie the proposed uses. The applicant is currently conchicting a lrqffic study based oil the discussions that occurred(hiring the Public Hearings for Phase I and recent discussions with the Town's independent revie)i,consithant, VIJB. As part of their proposal, the applicant has agreed to make street improvements that are elesigile(l to minimize the potential for hazards to vehicles and pedestrians in acijacent public itajs and oil the Properly. 4. Adequate parking facilities are provided for each use and structure in the development. The proposal provicles aclepale parking facilities for the proposed uses. It is recommended that the applicant speak with the Inspector of Builtlings and receive io-illen verification that the propose parking complies ii,ilh Section 8.1 ql'the Zoning Bylaii,. 5. Major facilities or functions which require citing within scenic areas are designed to be visually compatible with the natural or historical characteristics. The buildings proposed are general41,compatible with the natural and historic character of the Machine Shop Village District, The proposal calls for the construction of a 5-story residential structure andparkingfiacilit),in close proximity to residential homes. Serious consicleration 11111sl be ina(le to mitigate some the 14stia/impact of this structure. Given the massing and height, the applicant will neea'to provi(le siff,ficient natural and man ma(le bqf.pring. Planning Staff o I it C1 strongly recommend having the applicant proi,i(le alternative clesigns and summarize the coii7i)ieiitsli-eco,)ii)ieii(Icitioiis.ft-oi?i the recent meeting with the Machine Shop Village residents and stakeholders. In addition, PlanniligSlqf,f recommends that the applicant provide a 3-D rendering of the Master Plan to alloit,the Planning Board better unclerstand the massing of the buildings and visual impact oil the neighborhoocl. ------—------ ------------ 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Mosso(huseits 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fax 978,688.9542 Web www.to%vnofiiorthaiidover.coni 6. The project does not adversely affect the natural environment to the detriment of community character and public health and safety. The project will improve the condition of millpond by enhancing slormlvatel*management and in protecting the community and businesses frompotential flooding impacts and storm events. GENERAL COMMENTS: I. In 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a Special Permit Under Section 4.11(3) limiting the parking structure to two levels. To modify the ZBA Special Permit decision and allow the 5-story residential building to proceed, the applicant would be required to appear before the ZBA. The other option the applicant is currently considering would be to appeal-before Town Meeting to modify the IS district and extend the zoning boundary to the edge of the property boundary. Currently the IS zoning boundary extend to the real-of the parking Structure. The remainder of the property is located within the Residential 4 Zoning District. The applicant and their legal representatives are strategizing to determine the best course of action to move forward with this phase of the project. Upon the approval of the preliminary design, the applicant will proceed with the definitive plan design application with a modified phasing plan. RCG will focus their efforts on the current mill buildings and the 38-unit residential building. The construction of the proposed 98-unit residential Structure Will occur(pending the outcome of special permit modification or town meeting vote) as one of the final stages of the Master Plan. During the definitive plan design stage, RCG will Continue to work with the neighborhood groups to design a residential building that addresses their concerns and creates architectural elements and features that fit within the visual landscape of the downtown, Machine Shop Village,and the abutting neighborhoods. 2. Planning Staff would strongly recommend further discussions occur involving the design, massing, and location of tile proposed residential and commercial buildings. Planning Staff would recommend that the applicant provide a 3-D rendering(computer simulation) of the Master Plan during the Definitive Plan public hearing process to better Understand how the project will impact the site and neighborhood. 3. The applicant submitted a preliminary traffic impact analysis study dated November 2007. The study concluded that the project would generate an estimated 181 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, 240 in the PM peak hour and 2,566 trips daily. The study further states that due to the relatively low traffic volumes involved, the site generated peak hour trips will have a minimal impact on the surrounding roadways and intersections. The only significant change in Level of Service resulting from the new site traffic is the High/Sutton/Chadwick intersection, which will operate at LOS E/F during the peak hours. This is a typical condition for side streets intersecting heavily traveled roadways such as Sutton Street that otherwise do not have sufficient volumes to warrant installation of a traffic signal. The study concludes that the proposed mixed-Use development results in a reduction of traffic impact in comparison to full occupancy of the existing office use. 4. The Town is seeking to coordinate efforts with the Applicant to improve portions of Elm Street in accordance with the Machine Shop Village Master Plan. Planning Staff has been asked to determine their level of commitment. 1600 Osgood Street,Nortli Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fax 978,688.9542 Web wwwAomofriortliandover.com . ' . Phunimg Staff Dndndns the P,o|imiuury9lao mubnzisakxi meets tile noininmum requircmmotoo[Bec(kxl ] l uud 10.3. As Socb, P|onui»g Staff would reoommmid that the P|nnuiugBounduondidonoi|vupp,ovcthe Pra|inninoryPinu. Cc: /\ppUcno1 Eiigirieci- DPW FireDcpadmmd I)oiN' --------------- 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Mossa(husetts 01845 � %AO R T}I p � aF o ��Ssacw ISE��h PLANNING DEPARTMENT Community Development Division MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #3 TO: Planning Board rROM: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner RE: RCG,21 High Street-Map 069.0 & 068.0 Lot 0001 & 0010. Site Plan Review Special Permit and Definitive Plan Approval for Planned Development District Special Permit for Phase 2,which shall include the renovation and conversion of approximately 65,000 s.f. of existing vacant space and total of fifty(50)residential, loft-style, one&two bedroom residential units located within the second and fourth floors of Building#3A and the fourth and fifth floors of Building No.l the conversion of other space within the existing building to commercial uses along with parking and other improvements on the premises in the I-S zoning district. DATE: 4tn Review—May 2, 2008 3r1 Review—April 8, 2008 2nd Review—March 28, 2008 Proposal: The applicant,RCG North Andover Mills, LLC, is seeking Preliminary Plan Approval for a Planned Development District(PDD) Special Permit to redevelop 65,000 s.f. of existing vacant space and total of fifty residential, loft-style, one&two bedroom residential units located within the second and fourth floors of Building#3A and the fourth and fifth floors of Building No.1 the conversion of other space within the existing building to commercial uses along with parking and other improvements on the premises in the I-S zoning district. The parcel area consists of approximately 22.65 acres of land,known and numbered as 21 High Street (formerly known as One High Street). 21 High Street currently consists of a total of approximately 235,000 s.f. of existing and R&D space. The site is located at the corner of High and Water Street and designated on the Assessor's Maps as Map 69, Parcel 0001. The project is located in the Industrial S Zoning District. The lot fronts both Water Street and High Street with 412 linear feet and 789 linear feet of frontage respectively. The purpose of this meeting is to apprise the Planning Board of the project to date and address VHB's most recent review dated May 5, 2008. My review of the Definitive Plan is based on the following information submitted by the applicant: 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Mossuchuseits 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.iomohorthondover.corn ■ Application&Memorandum for Definitive Planned Development District Special Permit& Site Plan Review Special Permit dated January 18, 2008, Attachments A—J, Revised April 8, 2008, 5/6/08. ■ Drainage Report for East Mill Phase IIA, dated February 3, 2008, Revised 4/8/08, 5/6/08, ZONING BYLAW,SECTION 11. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT REVIEW: The following addresses areas of non-compliance with Section 11.3(3) Submission of Definitive Plans of the Zoning Bylaw. 1. Section 11.3.3.1 - Percent of the lot coverage noted on plans. 2. Section 11.3.3.q—The total number of parking spaces should be noted on the plans. A comparison of required versus provided spaces should also be provided. 3. Section 11.3.3.t----The total square feet of floor space of all landscape and recreation areas and depiction of materials to be used (grass, 5-foot shrubs, etc.) should be shown on the plans. The following address the areas of compliance in accordance with Section 11.4 Minimum Requirements. Planning Development District: 1. The project is consistent with the purposes set out in Section 2. The project as proposed meets the requirements of Section 2. The proposed uses are pei nritted under lire PDD provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, and will serve to provide mix of rises consistent with the Machine Shop Village area. The proposed uses will f rrther provide for pedestrian amenities to complement the surrounding uses. Third, the project will enhance the aesthetics of the property with new streetscape amenities, landscaping and screening. Fourth, the project will return a largely vacant and unused property back into productive use and will provide an important source of tax:revenue far•the town. Lastly, the project will serve to provide additional downtown activity consistent with the Towrr's efforts to reinvigorate the downtown area. 2. If more than twenty-five percent(25%) of the PDD is located within a residential district, at least fifty-one percent(51%) of the building area and accessory facilities in the PDD shall be used for residential purposes. A portion of the property_falls within a residential district. According to the Town Zoning nrap/in formation, the IS Zoning District ends at the rear of the parking facility. The proposal for Phase II does not include the expansion or reconstruction ofparkingfacility at this time. As the Board is aware any expansion or reconstruction of the parlcingfacilh)i would require a modification to the Special Permit issued by the Board of Appeals or Town Meeting approval to rezone said property. 3. Ingress and egress for traffic flow is designed properly so that there will be no serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Existing access points to the property are adequate to serve the proposed uses. The applicant submitted a traffic analysisfor Phase H. The traffic analysis was reviewed by the Tort=n's traffic consultant, VHB. VHB issued a final review letter on March 12, 2008. As part of their proposal, 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978,688.9535 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.towndnorthandover.com the applicant has agreed to drake street improvements that are designed to minindze the potential for hazards to vehicles and pedestrians in adjacent public hays and on the property. 4. Adequate parking facilities are provided for each use and structure in the development. The proposal provides adequate parldng facilities for the proposed uses. As stated above, even though the number of new spaces has been indicated on the plans, a calculation for the required amount of spaces for the site was not. VHB suggests adding a table on the plans that compares the required and provided spaces. 5. Major facilities or functions which require citing within scenic areas are designed to be visually compatible with the natural or historical characteristics. The buildings proposed are generally compatible with the natural and historic character of the Machine Shop Village District. The proposal calls,for the renovation and conversion of existing buildings for conmrercial and residential use. The Master Plan and elevations presented as part of the application will preserve the existing character and visual integrity of the mill buildings and Machine.Shop Village. 6. The project does not adversely affect the natural environment to the detriment of community character and public health and safety. The project will improve the condition of mill pond by enhancing stormrvater-ntanagement and in protecting the connnunity and businesses from potential flooding impacts and storm events. VHB submitted their final review of the drainage and stormwater nranagernent plan for compliance with Mass. DEP and local regulations. Please see 4110108 and 512108 reviews. ZONING BYLAW, SECTION 8.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMIT REVIEW i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: This has been provided on the plan. Addressed. ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: The parcel area is displayed in Exhibit A Existing Conditions Survey on the plan,titled"ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey,Water St. &High St.,North Andover,MA", sheet 1,prepared by Timothy Bodah,P.L.S.,Coneco, 4 First Street,Bridgewater, Massachusetts 02324, and dated January 8, 2007. Addressed. iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: This has been provided in the title block of the plan labeled"Submission of Definitive Plan Phase IIA, East Mill,High Street,North Andover, MA', sheets Cover Sheet& C4 through C-9,prepared by Design Consultants, Inc. 265 Medford Street, Somerville, MA 02143, dated April 8,2008, Revised 5/6/08 and a review of the project is described within the Site Plan Review Application. (Refer Site Plan Review Application,received 1/18/08). Addressed. iv. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: An easement exists along the western portion of the leased property running parallel to the garage facility and is shown on Survey Plan of the submitted as Exhibit A.Addressed. v. TOPOGRAPHY: This has been provided on the Site Plan(sheet C-1) and grading and drainage plan (sheets C-1 through C-9) of site plan at one-foot intervals and various spot grades. Addressed. vi. ZONING INFORMATION: A zoning chart has been included on the Survey Plan submitted as part of the application materials.Addressed. 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fax 978.688.9542 Weir www.townofnorthandover.com vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE:A stormwater analysis for the pre-and post-development conditions for the site has been performed by the applicant and has been reviewed�v the independent revie►v corrstrltarrt. VHB is satisfed and has issued their final review of the project dated 5105108. Addresser) viii.BUILDING LOCATION: The location of the existing and proposed parking modifications.for the project are correctly shown on the submitted plan set(sheets GI through C-4). Addressed. ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: The applicant provided Exhibit F Unit Plans for Residential Uirits showing the interior layout of the 50 units. Although no exterior alterations are shown, the Applicant should clarfy of certain buildings elements will be moduf ed during the conversion to residential(ie. window treatments). Addressed. x. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: The applicant is proposing 159 new parking spaces related to the conversion of the 65,DOD s f. and proposed uses. The proposed parking design satisfies the zoning requirements,for the proposed uses and allows for sufficient i ehicular and pedestrian movements to and withal the Site. Addressed. xi. LOCATION OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT: The submitted site plan correctly displays wetland resources areas on the property. The applicant filed with the Consm ation Commission for a Notice of.Intent and is currently being revrelved by their outside consultant. xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: Partially Addressed. The applicant will be required to submit a signage plan that complies with Section 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. A note on Sheet C-2 shows the location of a relocated sign on Water Street. The applicant should provided additional information to explain the reason for the relocation and any/all details describing said sign. xiii.LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES:Addresser)..Access to the site will be from the existing eurbetits off of High and Water Street. Further, the plans correctly identify the Water and High Street. xiv.OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: N/A xhv LANDSCAPING PLAN: Partially Addressed, The proposed landscape plan is shown as part of Supplemental Information, Exhibit EMaster Plan and as labeled on Sheet C-2 of the Site Plans as indii�idual details/notes. The level and detail provided is insufficient. Many of the plan details state "retain existing landscape. The applicant should explain what landscaping plan the notes are referencing to (ie. existing or a function of Phase 1). The applicant should explain in detail the landscaping improvements of Phase IIA and update the plans accordingly. xvi.REFUSE AREAS: Not Addressed. The applicant should explain the method ofstoring and disposing of trash from the residential units. xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: Partially Addressed. The applicant should provide additional information to the plan detailing the style and height of the lighting labeled"typical lights". xviii. DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: Addressed xix. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY:Addressed xx. EROSION CONTROLS:Addressed 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorlhandover.com xxi. COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: Not Addressed The applicant did not provide such review. A waiver will be incorporated into the final decision. xxii. UTILITIES: The site will be serviced by municipal services.Addressed xxiii. FISCAL IMPACT: Addressed xxiv. COMMUNITY IMPACT: Addressed RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Staff finds that the majority of issues/concerns have been addressed. The remaining concerns involve adding minor details to the plan set. If the Planning Board finds that their concerns have been addressed and that Staff comments could be incorporated into final revised plans,Planning Staff recommends closing the public hearing and directing Staff to draft a decision. Cc: Applicant Engineer DPW Fire Department Building Department 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9535 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthondover.com Transportation Land Development Environmental S e r v I c e S 101 Walnut Street P.O.Box 9151 Watertown,MA 02471-9151 617 924 1770 FAX 617 924 2286 Memorandum To: Mr. Lincoln Daley Date: February 27,2008 Town Plammer Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 Project No.: 09280.37 From Joseph G.Quitter,P.E. Re: Review of Traffic Impact Assessment Senior Transportation Engineer Proposed East Mill Development North Andover,Massachusetts Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Iiic. (VHS)has performed a professional and independent technical review of the traffic impact assessment prepared by Design Consultants,Inc. (DCI)for the proposed mixed- use development project,Iocated on the northeast quadrant of the High Street and Water Street intersection in North Andover,Massachusetts. This project includes the redevelopment of the currently vacant Mill office buildings to approximately 207 residential units,a 3,000-square foot(so restaurant,15,000 sf of specialty retail space,and 50,000 sf of office space. The site would utilize the existing site driveways off of High Street and Water Street,and include improved pedestrian crossings of High Street. This review included an analysis of the information presented in the document and the site plan that were submitted on behalf of the Applicant. Submission Materials As part of the technical analysis for the Town of North Andover,VHB reviewed the following report and set of plans submitted by the Applicant: ■ Traffic Impact Assessment, East Mill, North Andover,Massachusetts;Prepared by Design Consultants,Inc.;November 2007. ■ Preliminary Plan,Planned Development,North Andover,Massachusetts;Prepared by RCG North Andover Mills,LLC;June 14,2007. ■ Landscaping and Street Iniproveinent Plain -East Mill, North Andover,Massachusetts;Prepared by Design Consultants,Inc.;January 18,2008. This information has been considered in the preparation of this memorandum. Other various sources of information were also referenced,as needed,and are footnoted in the memorandum. Overview The traffic report and accompanying plans have been prepared in a manner consistent with transportation engineering standards. There are a few areas,however,where VHB believes some additional information and/or clarification is required. The following includes the Applicant s proposed mitigation measures and an itemized list of the recommendations to which the Applicant should respond. C.\Documents and Settings\mippoht\Local Settings\Temporary Interne[Pile9\0LK2\Tra(Fic_re0ow_2008.01.18doc Date: February 27,2008 2 Project No.: 09280.37 The Applicant has made a commitment to construct streetscape improvements along High Street, including curb extensions and unproved pedestrian crossings. In addition to this mitigation measure,VHB recommends that the following issues be addressed: 1. The trips estimated for the office and residential uses account for the majority of the overall site-generated trips. To provide a more accurate assignment of site-generated trips to the roadway network,the Applicant may consider using journey-to-work census data for distributing the trips generated by these components rather than existing travel patterns on study area roadways. 2. The impact on vehicle queuing due to site-generated trips is not quantified in the study. It is recommended that the Applicant summarize the expected No-Build and Build queuing at the site driveways and at the signalized intersection. 3. Intersection sight distance triangles should be added to the site plan and any objects (vegetation or signage,for example)should be modified or removed so that safe sight lines can be provided. 4. The number of pedestrians crossing High Street is likely to increase,possibly creating a future need to re-evaluate the operations and safety at the intersection of High Street at Water Street. It is recommended that the Applicant commit to monitoring this intersection and implementing four-way stop control if it is warranted. The following is a general review of the submission materials,which include additional detail related to the comments above. Traffic Impact Assessment Review In general,the study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a traffic impact and access study. Introduction The object of the report was stated and the location of the site matches what is shown on the locus map. Methodology The methodology used in this traffic assessment was based on procedures established by the Institute of Traiisportatioti Engineers(ITE)r. This is an accepted practice in the traffic engineering industry. Proposed Development The description of the proposed project and existing site were presented in a clear manner and match what is shown on the site plan. The proposed access plan appears reasonable. Study Area The study area appears reasonable for a project of this size,considering the roadway network in the area of the site. Street Network The description of the existing roadway network was presented in a clear manner and appears to be accurate. t Transportation Impact Anal uses for Site Develo uteni Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE);Washington,DC;2006. C:\Ducurnents and Settings\ntippolM Local Se€tings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Traffic_revieW_,2008.01.I8.doc Date: February 27,2008 3 Project No.: 09280.37 Traffic Volumes The study notes traffic volumes were collected mechanically along High and Water streets adjacent to the site and manually at the study intersections in October 2007. As traffic counted in October represents above-average seasonal conditions according to MassHighway data,these volumes appear to be acceptable for use in this traffic impact assessment. Existing Traffic Operations Traffic operation analysis for the study intersections was determined using procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM 2000)2. The results of this analysis indicate that the signalized study intersection operates at an overall LOS B during both peak hours,while the nearly all of the minor approaches at the unsignalized study intersections operate at LOS C or above during both peak hours. This is standard practice and the analysis results appear to be reasonable. Accident Data Crash data for the most recent three-year period was obtained from the North Andover Police Department. These crashes and the counted traffic volumes were used to calculate crash rates according to the methodology defined by the Massachusetts Highway Department(MassHighway). The results of this procedure dispel any concern of existing safety issues at the study intersections. This is standard practice and the analysis results appear to be reasonable. Future Traffic Volumes It is noted that a background growth rate of one percent was used to account for future developments that may have a traffic impact on study intersections. As no specific projects were identified by the Town,this growth rate appears to be reasonable for use in this traffic impact assessment. Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation for the proposed site was estimated using data established by the hisfitilte of Tratisyortation Enghteers(ITE)3. This is an accepted practice in the traffic engineering industry. The Applicant noted that no reduction for pass-by trips was applied to the trip generation estimate, which represents a more conservative traffic impact analysis. Site-generated trips were distributed according to existing travel patterns on study area roadways. While this is reasonable for the trips generated by the retail component of this site,the Applicant may consider using journey-to-work census data for distributing the trips generated by the office and residential components. Since the trips estimated for the office and residential uses account for approximately 94 and 77 percent of the overall site-generated trips during the morning and evening peak hours,respectively,an adjustment to the distribution of trips could have an effect on projected traffic operations. Traffic Impacts The results of the future condition traffic operation analysis indicate that the signalized study intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B and LOS C during the morning and evening peak hours,respectively. Nearly all of the minor approaches at the unsignalized study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or above during both peak hours. The study notes that"long vehicle queues will not develop due to the relatively low traffic volumes involved." In reviewing the traffic operation analysis output in the Appendix,it was unclear that z Highway Capacity Manual(HCM 2000) Transportation Research Board;Washington,DC;2000. a Tri Generation Seventh Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers([TE);Washington,DC,2003. C:\Documents and Settings\mippulit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Traffic_review_2008.01.18.dar I TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISCTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Definitive Plan: Planned Development VHB No.: 09280.37 Site Plan Location: 21 High Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: RCG East Mills LLC, 17 Ivaloo Street,Somerville,MA Applicant's Engineer: Design Consultants,Inc.,265 Medford Street,Somerville,MA Plan Date: February 15,2008 Review Date: 3-27-08 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended July 10,2006). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review: • Drainage Report dated February,2007,and revised on March 3,2008, • DRAFT NPDES and SWPPP booklet,dated February 2008, • Definitive Plan: Planned Development(Phase IIA-6 sheets)dated February 15,2008 and revised on March 7,2008. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's reconunendations/suggestions. Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw 1. -Section 11.3.3.1—The percent of lot coverage should be noted on the plans,as required by this section. 2. Section 11.3.3.q--The number of parking spaces should be noted on the plans. A comparison of required versus provided spaces should also be included. General Comments 3. In the South Lot,the existing lot is being regraded and repaved,therefore all parking spaces should be shown as proposed(new pavement markings). 4. The Applicant should explain the van accessible space in the South Lot. It appears that an extra long space is provided in front of the stairway to the 2"d level. 5. Limits of paving should be clearly indicated on the plans. 6. Will the existing vegetation outside of the existing 2-level parking garage be affected by the construction? Notes or labels should be added.to indicate protection/removal/replacement of any existing trees on site. 7. Several existing features are within the proposed paved parking areas(hydrants,light poles,guard rail, signs). The relocation/removal/resetting of these features should be clearly indicated on the plans. 8. Parking lot aisle widths should be indicated on the plans. RECEIVED T:\09280.37\dacs\memos\0928037-21HiphSt-2.doc l MAR 2 e zoos NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9. The limits.of the parking lot extensions at the south-western side of the site do not meet the existing lot lines. The Applicant should revise for consistency. 10. The Applicant should verify that contour elevations are shown for all proposed contour lines. These should appear on each cut sheet. Drainage Comments The Applicant should note that the Massachusetts DEP has issued a revised Stormwater Handbook, Issued on I/2/2008. 11. The Applicant should verify that the drainage manhole near the van accessible space in the South Lot is constructible. It appears that two of the inlet pipes are in conflict. 12. Drainage plans depicting catchment areas and critical paths for times of concentration should be provided to aid in the review of the hydrologic model. 13. The number of StormTech 740 units should be indicated on the plans,with dimensions of the overall underground system. 14. The Detention Pond Outlet Control Structure detail should provide more information,such as materials,dimensions,inlet and outlet inverts,wall thickness,etc. 15. The Outlet Control Structure's weir is at elevation 98. Based on proposed contours, it appears that the detention pond would overflow before the weir elevation is attained. 16. Erosion controls(sedimentation fence,haybales)should be shown on the plans. 17. TSS removal rates for infiltration trenches and pre.-treatment BMPs(deep sump catch basins,sediment forebays)cannot be counted separately. The TSS removal rate for the infiltration trench includes any pre-treatment BMPs(see DEP Policy). 18. Per DIP Policy,the TSS removal rate for grassed channels is 50%and requires the use of a sedimentation forebay. The Applicant should verify that the TSS calculations accurately reflect the latest DEP policy. 19. Maintenance criteria for BMPs should be revised per DEP policy(4 times per year for deep sump catch basins,once per year for grassed swales,etc). 20. A plan locating all BMPs on site should be included as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan,as required by DEP policy. 21. An estimated budget is required as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan,as required by DEP policy. 22. A Stormceptor sizing calculation should be provided,indicating the calculated TSS removal rate for the site. 23. Form 2 of the Operation and Maintenance plan references the Town of Winthrop. The Applicant should verify that the contact information is accurate. 24. It does not appear that the groundwater recharge calculations were done properly. A total required volume of recharged groundwater should be calculated based on increased impervious area and hydrologic soil group multipliers. The required volume should then be compared with provided recharged volumes from detention ponds and infiltration trenches. 25. Water quality volume calculations were not provided. The detention pond and infiltration trenches should be sized to treat the"first flush"(first inch of rainfall over the impervious area). 2 T:\09280-37\does\memos\D92W37-2n1 i g hS t-2.d oe r It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein, Reviewed by: T Date: Darry aIV t,P.E. Civil Reviewer Reviewed by: r,��JAr' � Date: 3 U27 Timothy clntosh,P.E. Project Manager--Highway and Municipal 3 T:\09280.37\docs\memos\O428037-2lHighSt-2.doc I North Andover Planning onrd TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLA NINGnI��RD'`--��i`�a ENGINEERING REVIE Aftnda PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISCTRIC SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WI TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Definitive Plan: Planned Development VHB No.: 09280.37 Site Plan Location: 21 High Street,North Andover,MA I Applicant: RCG East Mills LLC, 17 Ivaloo Street,Somerville,MA Applicant's Engineer: Design Consultants,Inc.,265 Medford Street,Somerville,MA Plan Date: February 15,2008 Review Date: 3-27-08 2"d Review Date: 4-10-08 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(Iast amended July 10,2006). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's 2"d review: • Response to comments letter, • Drainage Report dated February,2008,and revised through April 8,2008, • Definitive Plan. Planned Development(Phase IIA-6 sheets)dated February 15,2008 and revised through April 8,2008. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Original comments are shown in regular font,with follow-up comments immediately after in bold. Town of North Andover Zonin2 Bylaw I. Section 11.3.3.1—The percent of lot coverage should be noted on the plans,as required by this section. Not addressed. The Applicant states in his response that the lot coverage has been noted on the plans,however it does not appear that it was. 2. Section 11.3.3.q—The number of parking spaces should be noted on the plans. A comparison of required versus provided spaces should also be included. Partially addressed. The number of new spaces has been indicated on the plans,however a calculation for the required amount of spaces for the site was not, VHB suggests adding a table on the plans that compares the required and provided spaces. General Comments 3. In the South Lot,the existing lot is being regraded and repaved,therefore all parking spaces should be shown as proposed(new pavement markings). Addressed. 4. The Applicant should explain the van accessible space in the South Lot. It appears that an extra long space is provided in front of the stainvay to the 2"d level. Addressed. 1 T.\09290.37\does\memos\OM037-21 HighSt-3.doc S. Limits of paving should be clearly indicated on the plans. Addressed. 6. Will the existing vegetation outside of the existing 2-level parking garage be affected by the construction? Notes or labels should be added to indicate protection/removal/replacement of any existing trees on site. Addressed. 7. Several existing features are within the proposed paved parking areas(hydrants,light poles,guard rail, signs). The relocation/removal/resetting of these features should be clearly indicated on the plans. Addressed. 8. Parking lot aisle widths should be indicated on the plans. Addressed. 9. The limits of the parking lot extensions at the south-western side of the site do not meet the existing lot lines. The Applicant should revise for consistency. Addressed. 10. The Applicant should verify that contour elevations are shown for all proposed contour lines. These should appear on each cut sheet. Addressed. Drainasre Comments„ The Applicant should note that the Massachusetts DEP has issued a revised Stormwater Handbook, issued on 1/2/2008. 11. The Applicant should verify that the drainage manhole near the van accessible space in the South Lot is constructible. It appears that two of the inlet pipes are in conflict. Addressed. 12. Drainage plans depicting catchment areas and critical paths for times of concentration should be provided to aid in the review of the hydrologic model. Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the catchment area plans: a) Drainage plans should be scalable and show existing and proposed features and contours to help in reviewing the area delineation and Hydrocad model. Plans should be sized so that all the existing and proposed features are legible. b) The areas shown in the watershed sheets are not consistent with the catchment areas used in the Hydrocad model. c) For clarity,the Applicant should consider having the Hydrocad catchment area names be consistent with the names used in the names used in the Watershed area plans. For example, "Area 2"from the plans is"Subeatchment P-1-Parking to CBs BLDG 4411 in the Hydrocad model. d) Does any roof or parking garage runoff enter the drainage systems? e) The catchment area plan does not include the area flowing to the catch basin near the east entrance to the parking garage. f) The catchment area plan does not include the area"to CB at Dentist". Also,it is not clear which catch basin this is referring too. 2 Tl..\09280.37\dots\memos\0928037-21 HighSt-3.doc 13. The number of StormTech 740 units should be indicated on the plans,with dimensions of the overall underground system. Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the Stormtech systems: a) It is not clear where the"105 StormTech 740s" are located. Should Pond P4 be included in the Hydrocad model? b) It is not clear how the Emergency Storage volumes(10,000,000 cubic feet)were calculated for each StormTech system. c) It does not appear that the multiplication for the number of StormTech units was applied in the correct location in the Hydrocad model. For example, at Pond 2P, Volume 01 should be multiplied by 28. Typically,volume#2 is calculated by using the entire stone volume(approximately 20' x 35'in this case)or the stone void volume can be calculated per StormTech unit and also multiplied. The Applicant should revise the StormTech system Hydrocad models. 14. The Detention Pond Outlet Control Structure detail should provide more information,such as materials,dimensions,inlet and outlet inverts,wall thickness,etc. Addressed. 15. The Outlet Control Structure's weir is at elevation 98. Based on proposed contours,it appears that the detention pond would overflow before the weir elevation is attained. Addressed. 16. Erosion controls(sedimentation fence,haybales)should be shown on the plans. Addressed. 17. TSS removal rates for infiltration trenches and pre-treatment BMPs.(deep sump catch basins,sediment forebays)cannot be counted separately. The TSS removal rate for the infiltration trench includes any pre-treatment BMPs(see DEP Policy). Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the TSS removal calculations: 1. In the South Lot TSS removal calculation,it appears that the first BMP in the chart should be Deep Sump Catch Basins,not the Sediment Forebay. The Applicant should revise. 2. A detail/typical section of the Infiltration Basin should be provided,indicating materials and specifying minimum separation from the seasonal high groundwater. 3. A test pit was not dug in the area of the proposed infiltration basin. The bottom of the basin is 4 feet lower than existing ground(existing contour at 981,basin bottom at 941). The Applicant should verify that there is adequate separation from groundwater. 4. TSS removal calculations for the areas other than the South Lot have not been provided. The Applicant should note that full credit for the infiltration trenches cannot be assumed without adequate pre-treatment,as directed by the DEP Guidelines. 18. Per DEP Policy,the TSS removal rate for grassed channels is 50%and requires the use of a sedimentation forebay. The Applicant should verify that the TSS calculations accurately reflect the latest DEP policy. See above comments. 3 7:\09280.3T\dots\memos\0928037-21 Hi ghSt-3.doc 19. Maintenance criteria for BMPs should be revised per DEP policy(4 times per year for deep sump catch basins,once per year for grassed swales,etc), Partially addressed. The plans and drainage report are inconsistent as to the BMP at the outlet of the South Lot(Infiltration Basin vs Detention Basin). The Applicant should determine which it is,based on Volume 2,Chapter 2 of the DEP Guidelines and use the appropriate TSS Removal credit and maintenance criteria for the O&M Plan. 20. A plan locating all BMPs on site should be included as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan,as required by DEP policy, Partially addressed. The Applicant states in his response that a plan is to be provided as an appendix to the drainage report,however the plan was not included with this submission. 21. An estimated budget is required as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan,as required by DEP policy. Not addressed. It does not appear that a budget was added to the O&M Plan. 22. A Stormeeptor sizing calculation should be provided,indicating the calculated TSS removal rate for the site. Not addressed. Although a Stormeeptor manual and detail have been provided,a sizing calculation has not. The Applicant should obtain a sizing calculation from the manufacturer. 23. Form 2 of the Operation and Maintenance plan references the Town of Winthrop. The Applicant should verify that the contact information is accurate. Addressed. 24. It does not appear that the groundwater recharge calculations were done properly. A total required volume of recharged groundwater should be calculated based on increased impervious area and hydrologic soil group multipliers. The required volume should then be compared with provided recharged volumes from detention ponds and infiltration trenches. Addressed. 25. Water quality volume calculations were not provided. The detention pond and infiltration trenches should be sized to treat the"first flush"(first inch of rainfall over the impervious area). Not addressed. Water quality volume calculations are found by multiplying the impervious area by either 0.5"or 1",depending on the location of the site. The Applicant should determine the required water quality volumes and verify that the proposed BMPs are sized adequately,per DEP Guidelines. VHB_o..ffers the following additional comments: 26. Pipe information should be provided on the plans,indicating materials,size and length. Pipe capacity calculations should also be provided as part of the drainage report. 27. The Applicant should note that several pipes currently are shown with approximately 1 foot or less of cover. For example,the CB at the west end of the South Lot has a rim elevation of 103.00 and an invert out of 101.00. Assuming a 12"RCP,this leaves about 10"of cover for the pipe. The Applicant should verify that all pipes have adequate cover based on their location (parking area,grassed area). 28, The Applicant should verify the eonstructability of the manhole near the proposed Stormeeptor. It appears two of the inlet pipes may overlap. 4 T.\09280.37\darn\memos\Q928037�21 MghSt-3.d nc 29, The drainage manhole and Stormceptor should be separated to provide adequate space for backfill. It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein, Reviewed by: Date: Darryl G ant,P.E. Civil Reviewer ,,�� J / Reviewed by: "B. / tl�C/ Date: Tish,P.E. Project Manager—Highway and Municipal 5 T,\09280.37\does\me mos\0928037-21 HighSt-3.d oe TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISCTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Definitive Plan: Planned Development VHB No.: 09280.37 Site Plan Location: 21 High Street,North Andover,MA Applicant; RCG East Mills LLC, 17 lvaloo Street, Somerville,MA Applicant's Engineer: Design Consultants,Inc.,265 Medford Street,Somerville,MA Plan Date: February 15,2008 Review Date: 3-27-08 2"Review Date: 4-10-08 3rd Review Date: 4-29-08 4'h Review Date: 5-5-08 The Applicant has adequately addressed VHB's comments and no further engineering review is required at this time. Please refer to the final report below for additional details. The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended July 10,2006). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's 2nd review: • Response to comments letter dated May 5,2008, • Drainage Report dated February,2008,and revised through May 5,2008. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Original comments are shown in regular font,with follow-up comments immediately after in italic and bold. Drainage Comments The Applicant should note that the Massachusetts DEP has issued a revised Slormwater Handbook,issued on 1/2/2008.' 12. Drainage plans depicting catchment areas and critical paths for times of concentration should be provided to aid in the review of the hydrologic model. Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the catchment area plans: a) Drainage plans should be scalable and show existing and pr oposed features and contours to help in reviewing the area delineation and Hydrocad model. Plans should be sized so that all the existing and proposed features are legible. Addressed. The Applicant should note that the previous 8%x 11 plans are not consistent ivith the full-scale plans provided ivith this submission. VHB suggests removing these from the report or revising them for consistency. Addressed. l T:\09280.37\does\memos\0928037-21 K gh5t-5,doe I d) Does any roof or parking garage runoff enter the drainage systems? Addressed VHB suggests that at a minimum, the Applicant verify that roof runoff does not outlet onto/into the proposed closed systems. This would increase the flows in the pipe system and affect the pipe capacity calculations. Addressed. The Applicant states in his response that the proposed system will not be subjected to flows from the adjacent roofs, 17. TSS removal rates for infiltration trenches and pre-treatment BMPs(deep sump catch basins,sediment forebays)cannot be counted separately. The TSS removal rate for the infiltration trench includes any pre-treatment BMPs(see DEP Policy). Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the TSS removal calculations: I. In the South Lot TSS removal calculation, it appears that the first BMP in the chart should be Deep Sump Catch Basins, not the Sediment Forebay, The Applicant should revise. Not addressed The calculation has not been revised. Addressed. 2. A detail/typical section of the Infiltration Basin should be provided, indicating materials and specifying minimum separation from the seasonal high groundwater. Partially addressed VHB suggests listing the elevations of the various storms on the detail. Addressed. The Applicant states that the elevations have been added to the detail, however revised plans were not provided with this submission. No further review required.. 3. A test pit isras not dug in the area of the proposed infiltration basin. The bottom of the basin is 4 feet lower than existing ground(existing contour at 98', basin bottom at 94). The Applicant should verb that there is adequate separation from groundwater. Partially addressed The Applicant has requested that this comment be remanded to the North Andover Conservation Commission. Addressed. 4. TSS removal calculations far the areas other than the South Lot have not been provided. The Applicant should note that fill credit for the infiltration trenches cannot be assumed without adequate pre-treatment, as directed by the DEP Guidelines. Partially addressed. VHB offers the following comments regarding the TSS calculations for the south lot., a) For the "North Lot Infiltration Field#I"calculation, it appears the second BMP should be a Storrnceptor, not an Isolator Row. b) For both North Lot calculations,per DEP guidelines, the 80%removal used for the Infiltration trench is meant for the trench and the pretreatment BMP. Therefore, fire TrenchAvolator Row and the Trench/Storynceptor combinations can only claim 80% total. Addressed. 19. Maintenance criteria for BMPs should be revised per DEP policy(4 times per year for deep sump catch basins, once per year for grassed swales,etc). Partially addressed The plans and drainage report are inconsistent as to the BMP at the outlet of the South.Lot(Infiltration Basin vs Detention Basin). The Applicant should determine which it is, based on Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the DEP Guidelines, and use the appropriate TSS Removal credit and maintenance criteria for the O&M Plan. 2 T.\09290.37\does\memos\tOZW37-21 HigMt-5.doc Partially addressed. The threshold criteria listed in the O&Mplan does not appear consistent with the DEP guidelines(see volume 2,chapter 2,page 87). The budget should reflect any modifications. Addressed. 20. A plan locating all BMPs on site should be included as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan,as required by DEP policy. Partially addressed The Applicant states in his response that a plan is to be provided as an appendix to the drainage report, however the plan was not included with this submission. Not addressed It does not appear the plan has been included in this submission. Addressed. A plan was provided with the water quality calculations. 25. Water quality volume calculations were not provided. The detention pond and infiltration trenches should be sized to treat the"first flush"(first inch of rainfall over the impervious area). Not addressed. Water quality volume caleulations are found by multiplying the impervious area by either 0.5"or 1", depending on the location of the site. The Applicant shordd deterrrtirte the required water quality volumes and verb that the proposed BMPs are sized adequately,per DEP Guidelines. Not addressed. It does not appear that the Water Quality Calculations have been included with this submission. Addressed. 26. Pipe information should be-provided-on the plans, indicating materials,size and length. Pipe capacity calculations should also be provided as part of the drainage report. Partially addressed Pipe information has been added to the plans, howeverpipe capacity calculations have not been included in this submission. The Applicant.should provide calculations for the "Capacity"and `25Yr Flow"values that are listed in the drainage charts. VHB offers the following comments regarding pipe capacity calculations: a. All pipes in the system, existing and proposed,should be included in the calculations. b. In addition to the information already provided in the plans,pipe calculation charts . should include all information necesswy to review the designed system flows and their theoretical capacities, including the following: i. Upstream and downsh eam shwetures and inverts, ii. C or CN values, iiL Intensity, iv. Catchment areas, v. Time of concentration vi. Time of travel through the pipe, vii. Manning',s factor vifi. Cumulative tunes of concentration and flows of pipes along the system. 3 T:\D9280.37\dos\memos\0928037-21ffighS€-5.doc c. Velocities should also be calculated to verify that rrninimunl "self cleaning"velocities are achieved and that high erosion-causing velocities are avoided. d The Applicant should clarify which method is used(rational or SCS)for the calculations. Addressed. 27. The Applicant should note that several pipes currently are shown ivith approximately 1 foot or less of cover. For example, the CB at the west end of the South Lot has a rim elevation of 103.00 and an invert out of 101.00. Assuming a 12"RCP, this leaves about 10"of cover far the pipe. The Applicant should verb that all pipes have adequate cover based on their location(parking area,grassed area). Partially addressed The Applicant.should consider ductile iron instead of cast iron. Are large trucks/vehicles expected to use the proposed parking lots? Addressed. The Applicant states in his response that cast iron pipes have been revised to ductile iron,however revised plans have not been provided for review. 30. Pre-and Post-development peak rates should be compared at each location where runoff leaves the site. It appears that this site has 4 design points: Mill Pond, west end of the south lot, and 2 sepal ate structures in the existing High Street drainage system adjacent to the north lot. Addressed. -Pre-and post-development peak runoff rates have been provided for the 4 suggested design points. Slight increases in runoff are shown,however(0.1 to 0.3 efs). The Applicant should verify that these are acceptable to the Town. 31. Thne of concentration and peak runoff rate calculations should take into account that file area behind the existing parking garage is wooded, not grassed. Addressed. 32. The Hydrocad nnodel for infiltration trench I is inconsistent with the information provided on sheet C- 3. The inverts should be revised. Addressed. Inverts in the Hydocad model have not been revised. VHB assumes the inverts shown-on the plans have been revised to match the Hydrocad calculations,however revised plans have not been provided for review. 4 T.\09280.37\docs\memos\0928037.21 High5t-5.doc W]� Authorization . ©Nov Conttaet Date: March t9,2008 ®Amendment No 2 ProjeetT,o 09280.37 Vanasye Flangen)3tusllin,Inc. Post Office Box 9151 Project Name: 21 high Street,North Andover;MA ll'atertown,AIA 02471-9151 Planned Development District Special Per mit Review (617)924-1770 FAX(617)924.2286 Iransportation To: Lincoln Daley,Town Planner Cost Estimate: Land 1Jevelopntent Community Development&Services Environmental Services Town of North Andover Amendment Contract Iota] 1600 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 tabor S 2,480 Expenses S I50 As Requested By: 1 incoln Daley ❑ Fixed Fee ® 1 ime&Expenses ❑ Cost+Fixed lee ❑ Other Date: March 19,2008 Estimated Date of Completion: Tune 19,2008 This Client Arithorization is part oftlieAgreementfor Professional Services between Vanasse Hangerr Brrrstlirr,Inc,and the Toner of North Andaver,doted August 31,1999, and shall conform to the Ternis&Conditions that Agreement, Hourly rates shall ronfotm to VHII's cast proposal dated September 1 2004. Scope of Services Refet to Appendix A foi a complete description of the scope of'work Compensation The estimated compensation fot petforming the Scope of Services is summarized as follows: DESCRIPIION LABOR FEE 1- Plan Review (12 His x$70/Hi) $ 840 2. Drainage Review (1611rs x$80/Hi) $1,280 3.. Project Management(4 His x$90/11r) $ 360 IOTAL,ESTIMATED LABOR FEE $2,480 ESTIMATED DIRECT'EXPFNSES $ 150 IOIAL ESIIMAIED COMPENSAIION $2,630 Prepared By: Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Department Approval: Ihomas Jackmin,P.E. Pleuse execute this Client Authorization for Vanasse Hangen Drusilin,Inc to proceed with the above scope of'services at the stated estimated costs No services will he provided until it is signed and reituned to VHB ❑ Subject to the attached terms&eondi€inns ® Subject to terms&conditions in our original agreement dated August 31,1999 VanasseHangenBrustlin,Inc.Authnrizatlon Client Authorization(Ptease sign otiginar and roum) By By Title Iitle T>n � Date Date ob du 71vo originals of this Arthorization need to be ereculed (Dare ar lginal needs to bE forwarded 10 Accaaarling Cbartrrrcl Files, T•109280 001docslcw:p-act109280-Clttt Aaifltl37-ChrtAutlt-21 High 91•anrend2 doc VHS Ptoj..No., 09280.37 AMENDMENT NO..2 Definitive Plan Review—21 High Street North Andover-,MA APPENDIX A Scope of Services VHB understands that our engineering review services will be funded by the Applicant and that the Client has procured these funds prior to authorizing VHB to proceed_ The scope of services consists of the engineering review of the Definitive Plan for the East Mill Phase IIA project. VHS has previously reviewed Preliminary Planned Development plans and a Traffic Impact Assessment Note that only an initial review of the Preliminary Plans was completed, a follow-up submission was not made prior to this submission of Definitive Plans. The major tasks are listed below: l Plan Review: Review the Definitive Plans for conformance to the current Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. Prepare one (1) engineering review report listing written comments.. Provide one (1) `follow-up' letter that addresses the Applicant's responses to the engineering report. 2. Drainage Review: Review the drainage layout and design for conformance to the Zoning Bylaw,DEP's Stornrwater Management Policy(if'applicable) and standard engineering practice,Written comments will be included in the engineering review report.. 3. Project Management: Provide a preliminary review of the plan submission for the purpose of establishing a detailed budget with upset limits for engineering services for the scope of services contained herein Plan,monitor and coordinate the review efforts Services Not Included The following additional services are not provided in this scope of'work: 1. Pollutant loading review. 2. Structural review. 3.. Geotechnical review 4.. Review of architectural plans. 5.. Review of'mechanical design.. 6. Construction inspection. 7_ Attendance at meetings. Should services be required in these areas,or areas not previously described,the ENGINEER will prepare a proposal or amendment,that contains the Scope of'Services, Compensation,and Schedule to complete the additional services. Tiro originals of thrs Arrtlrorizatlon need to be ereurletl. Oxe arlginu!ne�di to 6c forwarded to ficcnunttr:g Contract files T.ip9280(1(lidocskontrat110928�-Glut Ar<t{r137-CLriAutlr-2!IfrgG SY-arnerrd2 doe Transportation Land Development Environmental North€ndovor Pinning Board S e r v i c e s .M4�"IIt1E� ��4tit;;..-.T.,,�•�.::....p,,-�„�.�,,.. ...., `.. 1 Walnut Street �gFlt %1 �: ..,...<- ..., .�. .��. P.O.Box 9151 v MA 02471-9151 617 924 1770 FAX 617 924 2286 Memorandum To: Mr. Lincoln Daley Date: March 12,2008 Town Planner Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 Project No.: 09280.37 From: Joseph G.Quitter,P.E. Re: Review of Response to Comments Senior Transportation Engineer Proposed East Mill Development North Andover,Massachusetts Vauasse Hangen Brustlin,Iiic. (VHB)has performed a professional and independent technical review of the response to comments memorandum prepared by Design Consultants,Inc. (DCI). This response was in regard to traffic engineering review comments on the traffic impact assessment that DCI prepared for the proposed mixed-use development project,located on the northeast quadrant of the High Street and Water Street intersection in North Andover,Massachusetts. Submission Materials As part of the technical analysis for the Town of North Andover,VHB reviewed the following report and set of plans submitted by the Applicant: ■ Response to Peer Reviezv(Traffic),Proposed.East Mill Development,North Andover,Massachusetts; Prepared by Design Consultants,Inc.;March 11,2008, This information has been considered in the preparation of this memorandum. Summary and Recommendation The applicant has sufficiently addressed all of VHB's traffic engineering review comments to date. No further traffic review is required at this time. cc: Timothy B.McIntosh,P,E.-VHB \\Aiawatr\te\09280.37\docs\memos\Traf fw-acceptance_2008.03.12.doc 'VHB Client Authorization (M New Contract Date: July 25,2007 Vanasse Hungen 8,usthn,Inc Amendment No. Project No 0928037 Post Office Box 9151 Project Name: 21 High Street,North Andover-,MA Watertown,UA 02471-9151 (617)924-1770 Preliminary Planned Development Disti let Special FAX(617)924-2286 Permit Review Transportation To: Lincoln Daley,Town Planner Cost Estimate: Land Development Community Development&Services Ftivironmental Services Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Street Amendment Contract Total North Andover,MA 01845 Labor $ 1,580 Expenses $ 120 As Requested By: I Incoln Daley El Fixed Fee 0 lime&Expenses E) Cost+Fixed Fee El Other Date: July 25,2007 Estimated Date of Completion: November 25,2007 This Client Authorization is part ofthe Agreement for Professional Services beliveen Vanasse HangenBrustlin,Inc,and the Town ofNor1b Andover,dated August 31,1999, and shall conform to the Terna A Conditions lhotAgreernsent Hourly rates shall conform to VHB's Bost proposal dared September 1,2004. Scope of Services Refer to Appendix A for a complete description Of the scope Of work Compensation The estimated compensation for performing the Scope of SerVices,is summarized as follows: DESCRIPTION LABOR FEE L Plan Review (20 His x$7011ir) $ 1400 2. Project Management(2 Hrs x$90/Hr) $ 180 TOTAL ESTIMATED LABOR FEE $ 1,580 ESTIMATED DIRECI EXPENSES $ 12 1071AL ESTIMATED COMPENSATION $1,700 Prepared By: Timothy Il.McIntosh,P.E. Department Approval: John J.Bechard,P.E. Please execute this Client Authorization for Vanasse Ilangen Brustlin,Inc to proceed with the above scope of services at the stated estimated casts No services will be provided until it is signed and returned to VHB, F1 Subject to the attached terms&conditions. [0 Subject to terms&conditions in our original agreement dated August 31,1999 Vanasse Hangen Btustlin,Inc.Authorization Client Authorization(Please sign original and re(urni By ��� BY Title j0ivo Date Date nvo originals of this Authorization need to be executed One original needi to be forwarded to Accounting Contract Files T109280,OOWocstc-antrartIO9280-Cin(Aullj[37-CIntAitth-2]High Ytdoc P ' I ' VHB Proj.No., 09280.37 Site Plan Special Permit Review—21 High Street--North Andover,MA APPENDIX A Scope of Services The scope of"services consists of the engineering review of the site plan and special permit. The major tasks are listed below: 1. Plan Review: Review the plans for conformance to the current Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. Prepare one (1) engineering review report listing written comments. Provide one (1) `follow- up' letter that addresses the Applicant's responses to the engineering report.. 2. Project Management. Provide a preliminary review of the plan submission for the purpose of establishing a detailed budget with upset limits for engineering services for the scope of services contained herein.Plan,monitor and coordinate the review efforts Services Not Included The following additional services are not provided in this scope of work: 1 Traffic review 2. Structural review. 3. Geotechnical review 4. Review ofarchitectural plans 5 Review of mechanical design. b. Construction inspection. 7_ Attendance at meetings. Should services be required in these at cas, or,areas not previously described, the ENGINEER will prepare a proposal or,amendment,that contains the Scope of Services,Compensation,and Schedule to complete the additional services. Two originals of this Authotiration need to be executed One original needs to be forwarded to Accounting Contract Fibs T 109280 00ldovAcontract109280-Clot AathW-Clntkith-21 High St doe