HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-19 Civil Peer Review ry
HANCOCK,
ASSOCIATES
February 23,2012
Ms. Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01.845
Subject: Peer Review Summary
26 Main 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.
I. Proposed Site Plan 26 Main Street, prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc., dated
January 19, 2012, containing four shcets, stamped by James S. Fairweather II, PE
and Peter D. Goodwin PLS.
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan for 26 Main Street, prepared by Huntress Associates,
Iile. dated February 6 2012 stamped by Christian C. Huntress, RLA
3. Community Impact Statement for(not dated, unsigned)
4. Traffic Memorandum prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, dated February 6,
2012.
5. Architectural Elevation Proposed Office Building, prepared by Paul Davies&
Associates, dated January 6, 2012..
The following was used to assist in our review:
1. Zoning Bylaw of Town ofNorth 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
Marlboroucth, MA Danvers, MA
315 Eini Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassocsates.corn
Review Comments:
1. The applicant has not provided any details on proposed signs for the project. Any
sign must be in conformance with Zoning Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting
Regulations.
2. Zoning Section 7.2 and Table 2 require 50,000 square feet of lot area and 150'
feet of frontage in an Industrial S zone. Rear Lot LLC received variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 10, 2009 for both these items. A
Variance runs with the land and therefore could be utilized by the current
applicant. However, Hancock is not in receipt of an extension to the variance.
Under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act the variance was extended for two
years from the expiration of the variance. The original expiration was February
17, 2010 with extension to February 17, 2012. Notwithstanding this fact, the
variance specifically refers to a plan dated November 25, 2008 and revised
through January 8, 2009. This plan called for the construction of a self-storage
facility. Hancock believes given the specific reference to a plan,the Applicant is
required to modify the prior decision of the Zoning Board for the current project.
The Board should seek input from Town Counsel to verify the validity of the
variance to the current project.
3. Zoning Section 7.2.1 requires street access across the frontage. This property
does not have frontage on a street. This Zoning section was not specifically
varied in the 2009 Zoning Board decision. The Applicant should address this
issue.
4. Zoning Section 7.3 requires a side setback of 20 feet. The Zoning Board of
Appeals granted a variance from this requirement to 6.2 feet on February 17, 2009
(see discussion above).Notwithstanding the variance,the Planning Board now
has power to waive side setback requirements tinder Section 18 of the Zoning
Bylaws. The Board should determine if this new process takes precedence over a
grant or request for grant of variance from the ZBA, The Applicant should
provide information to support such a waiver.
5. Zoning Section 7.6 requires a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.The Zoning Board
of Appeals granted a variance from this requirement on February 17, 2009 (see
discussion above).The current application does not state the proposed floor area
ratio. The proposal appears to exceed 0.50.
6. The applicant should dimension the proposed parking spaces to demonstrate
compliance with Section 8.5 of the Zoning By1rnv.
7. The applicant should demonstrate compliance with Section 8.5.c Entrance and
Exit Di-ive»vay, which states, "For facilities containing five (5) or more stalls,
such di- ves shall be a mininnun of twelve (12)feet wide for one-way trse and
t)Venty(20)feet wide foi-lwo-way use. The minimum curb radius shall be fifteen
(15)feet". The applicant should demonstrate that adequate access exists for
emergency vehicles on the lot and within the existing easements on the abutting
properties. In addition existing parking areas and other pertinent site features on
the abutting properties should be shown on the plan to determine if they interfere
with access to the site. To prevent future parking and access issues Hancock
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www,hancockassociates.com
recommends that the Board require pavement striping, in accordance with Zoning
Section 8.5.c1, be provided to designate parking areas and travel routes on the
abutting properties. The Board should also investigate the need to review the two
abutting properties under a formal Site Plan Review process if modification to the
parking layout and access drives is required.
8. Zoning Section 8.5.d states "Design standards and specifications for parking
surfacing, drainage and curbing shall be those set forth in the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Town of North Andover,
as amended, unless waived or modified by the Planning Board in accordance with
Section 8.1.8."The Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision ofLand in
North Andover Section 6.8.1 Table 1A require a minimum centerline slope of 1%.
The grading shown on the plan appears to be at less than '/2 a percent. This lack
of slope is extremely difficult to construct and will likely create areas of ponding
and freezing. The applicant should revise the grading to a minimum of a 1%
slope. Hancock defers to Lisa Eggleston for other stormwater management related
issues.
9. The applicant has not provided any information on how they intend to light the
parking area, Zoning Section 8.5.f.
10. Zoning Section 8.5.eJ—NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP states "A north arroly
and a location luau shoving surrounding 1•oad►vays and land 11ses adjacent to the
site (I"=15009. Location Map should show at least one intersection of two,
existing To►vn voad►vays."The `Locus Plan' contained within the Proposed Site
Plan, is at a scale of 1"=800'. The locus map is too large a scale to provide the
Board with the required context.
11. Zoning Section 8.5.e.v—TOPOGRAPHY states"The present and proposed
topography of the site, utilizing two 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.
12. Zoning Section 8.5.e.vi ZONING INFORMATION states"All applicable Zoning
Bylaw 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
review of the site plan by the Town Planner and Planning Board." The table with
the required information is not shown on the plans.
13. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xii--LOCATION OF 97ALLS/SIGNS states"Identification of
the location, height and materials to be used for all retaining walls 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 whether
signs are proposed and if they comply with the Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0—Signs
and Outdoor Lighting Regulations.
14. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xiv—OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAYAREAS states
"Identification of the location and type of outdoor storage and display areas on the
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
site." It is not clear from the submitted plans whether outdoor storage or display
areas are proposed.
15. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xv—LANDSCAPING PLAN states "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 showing 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.
16. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xvi—REFUSE AREAS states"Identification of the location
of each outdoor refuse storage area, including the method of storage and
screening. All refuse areas must be fully enclosed." The method of refuse storage
and area screening are not detailed on the submitted plans.
17.Zoning Section 8.5.e.xvii—LIGHTING FACILITIES states"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 front 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.
18. Zoning Section 18.4.3 Pedlestridrn and/Bicycle Circulation states"Provision for
safe and convenient pedestrian access shall be incorporated into plans for new
construction of buildings and parking areas, and should be designed in concert
with landscaping plans noted below. New construction should improve pedestrian
access to buildings, sidewalks and parking areas, and should be completed with
consideration of safety, handicapped access and visual quality. Where
appropriate, applicants are encouraged to provide pedestrian and/or bicycle paths
connecting their site with abutting areas in order to promote pedestrian and
bicycle circulation and safety. When parking is located in the rear, pedestrian
access via a pedestrian-oriented alley or walkway through to the primary street is
encouraged."The applicant has not indicated any provisions for pedestrian or
bicycle circulation on the plans.
19. Zoning Section 18.5.4 Orientation states"Buildings shall be oriented parallel with
the front setback line to establish and preserve a consistent building line, with
primary entrances oriented toward the street. The front faradc of a principal
building shall face onto a public street and not towards a parking lot." The
proposed building does not have it primary entrances oriented toward the street.
20. The fire chief should be consulted as to adequacy of the emergency vehicle access
and the proposed hydrant locations. The application also does not indicate of the
buildings are to be sprinklered or not.
21. The applicant should indicate areas of snow storage on the plan.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
i
22. The landscaping plan should show all underground utilities to ensure that no
conflicts exist. Note 4 should be corrected to remove the reference to "athletic
fields"
23. Under the Downtown Overlay District Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaw,the
Planning Board is tasked to review the project with regard to urban design
features, architectural features, on-site and off-site improvernents, building
orientation, articulation, transparency and location of door and entrances to meet
the intent of the section; "to pr•vride goods, sei-i,ices and housing in a inoiv
compact enilh-onnient; to encowwge,redevelopment; and, to create a i4bi-ant,
walkable,pedestrian and bicycle friendly eniiionnient". As this charge is more a
subjective a review, Hancock defers to the judgment of tile Board in review of the
project's cornpliance with these goals.
We believe the Applicant should address the issues raised prior tot the Board finalizes
their deliberation of the matter. Should you have any questions or comments, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Hancock Associates
kPI,
6)'Oseph D�Z-znola, PE
Principal
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.corn
HANCOCK",-
April 3,2012
Ms.Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street- Bldg.20 Suite 2-36
Not th Andover,MA 01845
Subject: 2"d Peer Review Summary
26 Main 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 26 Main Street,prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc.,dated
January 19,2012, containing four sheets, stamped by James S. Fairweather II,PE
and Peter D. Goodwin PLS revised 3-13-12.
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan for 26 Main Street,prepared by Huntress Associates,
Inc. dated February 6 2012 stamped by Christian C. Huntress,RLA revised,date
not legible.
3. Community Impact Statement for(not dated,unsigned)
4. Traffic Memorandum prepared by Dermot J.Kelly Associates,.dated February 6,
2012.
5. Architectural Elevation Proposed Office Building,prepared by Paul Davies&
Associates, dated January 6,2012.
6. Notice of Decision: Year 2012 North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals, Petition
2009-014 granting modification of prior decision.
The following was 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
(aa'9P orough, Yid Danvers, NAA
316 Dal ; try,eat 1£"3 f::;c,:tltre; stie et
Review Comments:
1. The applicant has not provided any details on proposed-signs for the project. Any
sign must be in conformance with Zoning Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting
Regulations.
Applicant response:No signs for the project are proposed.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that any decision be conditioned
that all signs meet the required regulations.
2. Zoning Section 7.2 and Table 2 require 50,000 square feet of lot area and 150'
feet of frontage in an Industrial S zone. Rear Lot LLC received variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 10,2009 for both these items. A
Variance runs with the land and therefore could be utilized by the current
applicant. However,Hancock is not in receipt of an extension to the variance.
Under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act the variance was extended for two
years from the expiration of the variance.The original expiration was February
17,2010 with extension to February 17,2012.Notwithstanding this fact, the
variance specifically refers to a plan dated November 25,2005 and revised
through January 8,2009. This plan called for the construction of a self-storage
facility. Hancock believes given the specific reference to a plan,the Applicant is
required to modify the prior decision of the Zoning Board for the current project.
The Board should seek input from Town Counsel to verify the validity of the
variance to the current project.
Applicant Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its
February 14, 2012 meeting to address all issues related to zoning.
Hancock Response: The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals modified
their prior decision on February 14,2012 for the current proposal. This item has
been adequately addressed.
3. Zoning Section 7.2.1 requires street access across the frontage. This property
does not have frontage on a street. This Zoning section was not specifically
varied in the 2009 Zoning Board decision.The Applicant should address this
issue.
Applicant Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its
February 14, 2012 meeting to address all issues related to zoning.
Hancock Response: The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals modified
their prior decision on February 14,2012 for the current proposal.This item has
been adequately addressed.
Wj,arfborough; MA Darivers, NIA
315 EIrii Street 185 Centre Street
'rl{VVW.�1ct�'1GCl(�I<ciSSCJL'f�-1'L(3.a.CC1t]1
4. Zoning Section 7.3 requires a side setback of 20 feet. The Zoning Board of
Appeals granted a variance from this requirement to 6.2 feet on February 17,2009
(see discussion above).Notwithstanding the variance, the Planning Board now
has power to waive side setback requirements under Section 18 of the Zoning
Bylaws. The Board should determine if this new process takes precedence over a
grant or request for grant of variance from the ZBA. The Applicant should
provide information to support such a waiver.
Applicant Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its
Februwy 14, 2012 meeting to address all issues related to zoning.
Hancock Response: The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals modified
their prior decision on February 14,2012 for the current proposal. This item has
been adequately addressed.
5. Zoning Section 7.6 requires a maximum floor area ratio of O.S. The Zoning Board
of Appeals granted a variance from this requirement on February 17, 2009(see
discussion above). The current application does not state the proposed floor area
ratio. The proposal appears to exceed 0.50.
Applicant Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its
February 14, 2012 meeting to address all issues related to zoning.
Hancock Response: The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals modified
their prior decision on February 14,2012 for the current proposal.This item has
been adequately addressed.
6. The applicant should dimension the proposed parking spaces to demonstrate
compliance with Section 8.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Applicant Response: The driveways have been dimensioned as suggested.
Hancock Response: This item has been resolved,
7. The applicant should demonstrate compliance with Section 8.5.c Entrance and
Exit Driveway, which states, "For facilities containing five (5) or more stalls,
such drives shall be a minimum of twelve (12)feet wide for one-way use and
twenty(20)feet wide for two-way use. The minimum curb radius shall be fifteen
(15)feet". The applicant should demonstrate that adequate access exists for
emergency vehicles on the lot and within the existing easements on the abutting
properties. In addition existing parking areas and other pertinent site features on
the abutting properties should be shown on the plan to determine if they interfere
with access to the site. To prevent future parking and access issues Hancock
recommends that the Board require pavement striping, in accordance with Zoning
Section 8.5.d, be provided to designate parking areas and travel routes on the
MarlbofOUqh, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elie Stroet 185 Centre: ;street
Wl�rl�J.r3c]11C0{�IC'cleuSL�Cle3�C.ri.i�ofY1
abutting properties. The Board should also investigate the need to review the two
abutting properties under a formal Site Plan Review process if modification to the
parking layout and access drives is required.
Applicant Response: The parcel has existing deeded access easements with deeded
1.
rights to overflow parking on the frontlots. Striping to delineate the access drives is
not necessary, but can be provided ifso directed by the Board.
Hancock Response: This office is not questioning if access exists rather if
adequate access exists to protect the safety and well being of the public now and
in the future. This item has not been adequately addressed. Additional detail on
the abutting lots must be added to demonstrate adequate access exists for the
intended use.
8. Zoning Section 8.5.d states "Design standards and specifications for parking
surfacing,drainage and curbing sliall be those set forth in the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Town of North Andover,
as amended, unless waived or modified by the Planning Board in accordance with
Section 8.1.8."The-Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in
North Andover Section 6 8.1 Table M require a minimum centerline slope of I%.
The grading shown on the plan appears to be at less than V2a percent. This lack
of slope is extremely difficult to construct and will likely create areas of ponding
and freezing. The applicant should revise the grading to a minimum of a 1%
slope. Hancock defers to Lisa Eggleston for other stormwater management related
issues.
Applicant Response: The proposed longitudinal grade of'the proposed drive is 0.5yo,
matching the existing grade.- On behalf of the Applicant we request that the Planning
Board waive the I%slope requirement as the slope is on a private driveway with low
maneuvering speeds.
Mancock Response: The applicant has now requested a waiver. The Applicant
has not submitted information supporting the request demonstrating that the
requirements of Section 8.1.8 are met. Hancock would actually recommend
against the waiver.Paving companies will not guarantee any slope less than 1%.
This will lead to puddling and winter icing creating hazards for the residents
and premature failure of the pavement.
9. The applicant has not provided any information on how they intend to light the
parking area,Zoning Section 8.5f
Applicant Response: No site lights are proposed. The front entry of each unit will
have a wall light. There may also be a wall mounted light over the deck of each unit.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that the parking area be fit in
Marlk)OMLI(111, MA Darivei's, MA
315 Bi,i Sti,eet '181") cellti,ci strewt
accordance with the regulations for public safety.Otherwise the Applicant
should provide photometric information for the proposed unit lighting
demonstrating adequate-light levels-are provided:
10. Zoning Section 8.5.e.i—NOR THARROW/LOCATION MAP states"A north arrow
and a location map showing surrounding roadways and land uses adjacent to the
site (1"=1500}. Location Map should show at least one intersection of two
existing Town roadways."The `Locus Plan' contained within the Proposed Site
Plan,is at a scale of 1"=800'. The locus map is too large a scale to provide the
Board with the required context.
Applicant Response: We believe that the larger scale depicted is easier to read and
conveys the necessary information intended by a locus plan. However, on behalf of
the Applicant, we request that the Planning Board waive this requirement.
Hancock Response: The applicant should submit a formal waiver request
demonstrating that the requirements of Section 8.1.8 are met. The intent of the
locus scale requirement is to see the site in context to the town and surrounding
neighborhoods,
11. Zoning Section 8.5.e.v—TOPOGRAPHY states"The present and proposed
topography of the site, utilizing two 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.
Applicant Response: Offsite topography contributing to the property from the south
was estimated using aerial information (Google Earth)supplemented with afield
inspection. Offsite topography to the north does not slope to the property as depicted
on the plans and as verified by afield inspection. The offsite tributary areas are
depicted in the drainage report and were included in the pre vs post developed runoff
calculations. On behalf of the Applicant, we request that the Planning Board waive
the requirement of depicting offsite topography SO feet beyond the limits of the parcel,
on the plan, as it is accurately accounted for where needed.
Hancock Response: The applicant should submit a formal waiver request
demonstrating that the requirements of Section 8.1.8 are met.
12. Zoning Section 8.5.e.vi—ZONING INFORMATION states"All applicable Zoning
Bylaw 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
review of the site plan by the Town Planner and Planning Board." The table with
the required information is not shown on the plans.
Marlborough, MA Daiivess, MA
315 Elm 5twet C eiifre Street
vravw.I�ancac,E<<�s�orlates.Uc�rr
Applicant Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its
February 14, 2012 meeting to address all issues related to zoning. The zoning table
has been added to sheet 2 of 4.
Hancock Response: This item has been resolved.
13.Zoning Section 8.5.e.xii—LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS states"Identification of
the location,height and materials to be used for all retaining walls 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 whether
signs are proposed and if they comply with the Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0—Signs
and Outdoor Lighting Regulations.
Applicant Response: No signs or retaining walls are proposed.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that any decision be conditioned
that all signs meet the required regulations.
14. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xiv—OUTDOOR STORA GEIDISPLA Y AREAS states
"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.
Applicant Response: No outside storage or display areas are proposed for this
residential project.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that any decision be conditioned
that no outside storage or display areas be allowed.
15.Zoning Section 8.5,e.xv—LANDSCAPING PLAN states"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 showing 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.
Applicant Response: There are no trees with a diameter at breast height of 12"or
more within the limit of pr oposed work
Hancock Response: This item has been resolved.
Madborough, MA full;
31:i ID11 Street '185 Centre Street
wwjv. corn
16. Zoning Section 8.5,e,xvi—REFUSE AREAS states"Identification of the location
of each outdoor refuse storage area, including the method of storage and
screening. All refuse areas must be fully enclosed." The method of refuse storage
and area screening are not detailed on the submitted plans.
Applicant Response: Trash will be stored in trash barrels within the garages of each
unit. A private trash removal contractor will remove the trash weekly.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that any decision be conditioned
that trash be stored within the garage units except on the day of collection.
17. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xvii—LIGHTING FACILITIES states"Identification of the
proposed illumination,indicating the direction and the degree of illumination
offered by the proposed Iighting 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.
Applicant Response: No site lights are proposed The front entry of each unit will
have a wall light. There may also be a wall mounted light over the deck of each unit.
Hancock Response: This office recommends that the parking area be lit in
accordance with the regulations for public safety.
18. Zoning Section 18.4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation states"Provision for
safe and convenient pedestrian access shall be incorporated into plans for new
construction of buildings and parking areas, and should be designed in concert
with landscaping plans noted below.New construction should improve pedestrian
access to buildings, sidewalks and parking areas,and should be completed with
consideration of safety,handicapped access and visual quality. Where
appropriate,applicants are encouraged to provide pedestrian and/or bicycle paths
connecting their site with abutting areas in order to promote pedestrian and
bicycle circulation and safety. When parking is located in the rear,pedestrian
access via a pedestrian-oriented alley or walkway through to the primary street is
encouraged."The applicant has not indicated any provisions for pedestrian or
bicycle circulation on the plans.
Applicant Response:No obstructions of existing walkways or bicycle routes are
proposed.
Hancock Response: The regulations indicate that the applicant"shall"
incorporate provisions into the plans and requires the applicant to"improve"
access. The applicant has not incorporated any pedestrian access features into
the design or improved any of the existing access. Safe pedestrian access from
Marlborough, MA C)aiwers, MA
�1fi 'Ir�� St€c1Ht 185 Cc.c*a Street
vrvt�v.i�;�rrcoc�assaci�ltes.co«�
the project to the existing sidewalk on Main Street should be provided. This
item has not been adequately addressed. Again,we call for the addition of the
existing details on the abutting lots-to understand both vehicular and pedestrian
access.
19.Zoning Section 18.5.4 Orientation states"Buildings shall be oriented parallel with
the front setback line to establish and preserve a consistent building line,with
primary entrances oriented toward the street. The front fagade of a principal
building shall face onto a public street and not towards a parking lot." The
proposed building does not have it primary entrances oriented toward the street.
Applicant Response: This requirement is far an alignment on-an existing street so as
to preserve a consistent building line with adjacent properties. This particular
requirement is not applicable far the proposed structure which is located behind the
existing structures.
Hancock Response: This office is in disagreement with the applicant and
recommends that the Board review the regulation for their interpretation.
20. The fire chief should be consulted as to adequacy of the emergency vehicle access
and the proposed hydrant locations. The application also does not indicate of the
buildings are to be sprinklered or not.
Applicant Response: The building is required to be sprinklered and it will be.
Hancock Response: This item has been resolved assuming that the fire chief has
been consulted.
21. The applicant should indicate areas of snow storage on the plan.
Applicant Response: There is ample area far snow storage along the perimeter of the
proposed drive. An area along the southerly side of the drive has been added
indicating this.
Hancock Response: This item has been resolved.
22.The landscaping plan should show all underground utilities to ensure that no
conflicts exist. Note 4 should be corrected to remove the reference to"athletic
fields"
Applicant Response: The appropriate revisions to the Landscaping Plan have been
made.
Hancock Response: The proposed waterline has not been added to the
landscape plan and appears to pass directly under a proposed tree labeled "PG".
Marboioltgh, MA Danvers, MA
315 Eini Street 185 Centre Street
www.h a mof,kassoc,irates.corn
No tree VG" is found in the legend. The proposed gas line appears to pass
under a Red Maple tree. The Landscape Architect should comment on the
potential impact the tree roots-on these utility lines and if.the offsets are
sufficient to meet the standards of both utility providers.
23. Under the Downtown Overlay District Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaw,the
Planning Board is tasked to review the project with regard to urban design
features, architectural features,on-site and off-site improvements,building
orientation, articulation,transparency and location of door and entrances to.meet
the intent of the section; "to provide goods, services and housing in a more
compact environment; to encourage redevelopment; and, to create a vibrant,
walkable,pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment". As this charge is more a
subjective a review, Hancock defers to the judgment of the Board in review of the
project's compliance with these goals.
Applicant Response. No response required.
We believe the Applicant should resolve the remaining unresolved issues prior to the
Board completing their deliberations on the matter. In addition based on outstanding
items listed above this office cannot determine compliance with By-Law
requirements at this time. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
J
ck Associates
D. Peznola, PEal
MadborMgh, MA oatwers, NOS
315 Eiffl Street 185 Ceiiti,e Sti,eet
wr, w.hancackassociat,s.coiii