HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-21 Peer Review SPR TOWN OF NORTH I` PLANNIN("J'f BOARD
ENGINEE IN REVIE W OF SITE PLAN I SPECIAL 11ERMI'll'
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NO11TH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW & STANDARD ENGINEMING PIZAcucl?"
Site Plan.Title: Route 114 Car Wash V1113 No.: 06716.32
Location: 740 Turlipike Street
Owner: Atlantic Real ty'Irust, 23 1. Sutton Sti- W, No. Andover, MA 01
Applicant- No. Andover Building Corporation, 200 Sutton Street, No, Andover., A.
01845
Appilicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering, 66 Park Street, Andover, MA 01810
Original Plan Date, 03-23-01 Review Date: 04-26-0 1
The Applicant submitted plans and doctimen.ts to VHB for review On April, 2,,2001, The site
plan submission was reviewed for conformance to,the appropriatiesections,of the J972'Town of
NoilhAndove,r Zoning Bylaw amended in May 2000 and, standard eng,ineering:practice, The
following comments note, non-conform.,ance. wi(h specific sections and questions/comments on.
the proposed design,,
1) "I'he following information is reqpired.by Section 8.15 and Vr HB offers the following
comiments'.
a) E,A5FMT3NT/LE I..CON,DITION& VHB assumes that there are no ease.mients,of
legal encumbrance on the property that rnay prevent or place conditions on the proposed
developm,ent, The Appticant shouki verily this.
b) BUIELDING LOCATION: '"The gross,floor area in square feet for 11ieproposed structure
should be shown on the plans.
c) LOCATION OF WETLAND/NOTICE OF INITENT, It appears that an Order of
Conditions has been issued by the North Andover Conservation Commission (NA CC) on
October 20, 1999, It appears tba,t NACC has also issued subsequent amendments relative
to the modifications or chan gcsfrom 2-stury office to ciar wash facility.
d) LANDSCAPING PLAM No landscape plan hag, been provided in this subrnittal.
e) LIGMING FACILITIES-, While the plan show s;propos,M light pole locations,the
direction and degree of i'lluniination of these lights has not been shown. VHB
recommends that (lie Applicant consider providing it lighting plan showin:g the direction
and the degree Of iflUlnination of the proposed fighting tacifities.
f) TRAFFICIMPAcr s'rUDY:.Thissection requires that a traffic finpact study be
conducted to assess the expected traffic impacts based upon the proposed developplent,
It appears that no traffic impact study report has been pro,vided in this submittal,The
APPlicantshould addrqss t1lis issue by cither submitting the traffic impact study report or
requesting a waiver from this,requirernent.,
TAMY t602%*,K,5'%reponsV19016;9-xeview telvd[dix.
g) COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: A State Highway Access Permit is required from.the
Mass,achusats Highway Departinent(MHD�) since proposed, work will be performed,
within the State Mghw,ay Layout of Route 114.The Applicant should chtrify whether the
State Higtiway Access Permit has been subrnitted to MH1)for approval,.
4) DRAINAGE REVIEW: VH.B has reviewed the drainage design and calculations,. The
proposed,drainage design is a closed drainage systeni that includes catch basins,drain
man ho les, stornicepturs, swate s,and u n&rground food storage a nd dee n ti on facility® V H B
offers the following comments regarding standard engineering practices and consIructabifity
of the proposed drainage design.
a) The 15-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RC.P) frarn DMH #3 to Detention Facility ticil
appears to conflict with (lie 10-inch Cement Lined Ductile Iron Pipe (CLDI). The
Applicant should verify (fiat the clearance for each utility crossing is adequate and
reso I ve the conflict noted above.
b) The 6-inch CLDI pipe from the recharge. facility to DMH#2 should be rerouted to DMIJ
#3 to avoid fight deflection "angle inside the manhole.
c) The inven-out elevation of the stormceptor(231.70),appears to be as mistake as the outlet
invert at theretainin:g wall, is 231,88, The Applicant should revise the drainage design
accordingly.
d), The function of the second flood storage, facility "A" located on the:east side of the
building is not clear as there is no inlet pipe coin I inginto,the stiwture,
c) The proposed 2.5 ruinutes tirne of concentration for subcatch=ntazea 12 tributary to tile
detention facilities should,be revised to,as minimum of 5 rruinutes for impervious surfaoc
drainage area,
f) VHBreeornnic.nds that (lie drainege pipe cal.3acity calculations be provided "along with
the site drainage,calculations in order to verify the proposed pipes are property sized and
have.adequate capacity to,hendle the peak flow rate.
S) The; ininiTnum depth (12") shown on the typicalswale detail doe's not refiect the
proposed condition of the swale based on, the contour lines,shown on the utilities plan.
V11B recommends that bottom elevations of the grass swale be idenlified to reflect the
actual depth of the swale.,
h) VHB, reviewed the drainage design for confornianQe with the Department of
Environinental. Protection's (DEP) Stoirnwater Management Ilolicy. In general. , all, owl"the
requirements have bi en met with the exception of the following:
St,andard 4; 90%, TSS Removal
TSS removal calciAzition has not been submitted.
Standard% OperittionfMaintenance Plan
No operation and maintenance plan has been submitted. The undeigound structure will
evennaally collect silt sediment and will need to be removed by either Mechanic-al or
hand niethods. Has underground detention structure rnaintenance,issue been addressed in
the Operation and Maintenaace,Plan',? If not,V1113 recommends that the Applicant
modify the Opmfion and Maintenance Plan accordingly,
2
5") STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE. VHB has reviewed the site plans fo.r
conformance to standard engincering practices. The purpose is to docurtient the eng,I Ineertng
and potential construction issues asso,ciiaied with (lie Project. VHB offer's the following
coniments'.
a) The Applicant has included a Typical Bumper Pipe (Bollard) detail oil sheet 6. It is not
clear where the bollards are proposed in (lie site,The Applicant should clarify th'is,
h) The Applicant hits,included aTypical Section — Unreinforczd Retaining Wall at Wetland
Edge on sheet 6, It is not clear where the wall is proposed, in the site. The Applicant
,,should Writify the location of this type of wall on the planN.
handicap parking space has been.provid!M in the site. According to Architectural
Access Board fAAD) swtiori 212.1,at least one (1) handicap,parking space must be
provided in the parkitig area.Please refdr to, AAB section 23.2 for more deoils.
It is recom the waled tbat the applicant provide WRrrrE,N RE—SPONSES to the iSSUeN and
cotmen,ts contained hercin.
— A
Reviewed hy. )Auk �A, Date:
V 0—�
Danny H. Wong,, I.T.
Civil Engi.neer -Highway and Municipal Engineering
- " I V,
Checked by:
Tirnothy .B. McIntosh,Pl,.
Project Manager— Highway and Municipal Engineering
Land Development
vliror"rrrreeni-t l
S c° a i c e
ali rq"YAOJI YIIIZWU GFaY i tit l0gda'R lie;0rd 02Itli 1L'V��pr CiKIl.lu7�,cee.Sw1uS fi,"ui Nidnu w"Im0i"U4S ipoi NvwtiMwfil�,(NhYY x:'rni 4"fH5'7m'mYa.1 i"inl wn^,�
May 18, 2001
Ref: 07I6.432
Ms. Heidi A. Griffin - Town Planner
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover
7 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01.8I5
Re: Route ]III Carr Wash
orlh Andover,MA
Dear Fleici ,
Vaiias e Haar en Brustlin, l.`rwc, (VH has received Merrimack Engincerhag Serviccs,.Inc.'s
written,rc'sp nsc t tter(darted, May 16,2001) to our engineering review for the above
referenced Irrr:jectw In rteral,All raf V1-iB'h cOrrrrrueulbi have been addres.wed with the
exceptions noted below.
1. 3"he p i.czuit revised the drainage design hi carder to a,ddress VH13's drailkage
c:a rrurrveruts, Upon review of the revised design,the invert-oust elevation for CB
(23 89) appears lower than the invert-in'n elevation.of the downstream structure(DWI
)„ Also,,the invert elevation of 23 .,2,should be deleted from D H#2 since the 64rich
CLDI pipe hairs been rerouted to DM:H#3m
, The Applicant has submitted ai"Traffic Impact Study Rep trt Ia epared by Dermot Kelly
for wrur review. "I"his re port was refxived yeiterday. As such,a thorough traffic review
could not be accomplished. VFIB w'iIll review the traffic report and forward corm eats
arr der,au separate never,.
If you have, any questions or concerns,please cal I,mesa at your convcviei,-Ice-
''ery t.ruly ours,
A SE H NGEN 13R11_IS,T LIN, INC:
J'imu otfry B: l'wlclrrtosh, P-E.
Project Manager r—Highway hway Iw±'iu:urwieipap Iirw irweerisl
ce: Robert C.Daley,Merriaoraac.k Engineering Services
�1�05�� ,+�wld^amll��ardu��r
Rost OfficeRox 9153
N MAawAI Mile%W11 �,�rath�a�w �u�rs+,����-�r�i n� �Mi�er.;�u7aru;dac-, 61492 4.117 70, m FA,X 617.924,.2,286
Transportation
Land Development
Environrnental
o f V i c o
0 IIIIIi!Iftialtoll I"ItIN°1ovat,ton cll'w.r(yy i rearing re.slifts l r Our c'V'riellls and Ong:°WWHI'n IOr OUT a:r��oirrsn��ikiu�ra
lief: t16 f6.32
s. 1 lekli k Gu offuta -Town ltlai:.uner F.4
.P
Coinalunity Developineutt erviees
Town of North An uver
7(.'har•les Street MAY 2 5 �
V R T" I'A r^
Re: Route IIel Car Wash ,:�,f�� �l;,'a;A�r.r��r 1 J 1r:tmi"�'
North Andover,MCA
Dear l 14L id i,
Vanunasse Himwa. eun Brustliti, 'l ic, (V .l) lnas rercived the Traffic Impact Sttila-My Kepo rt.
pi°rl-arcd by Du^rmot,J. Ke ly= Associates, Inc. (dated May tins 2001) fin-flie above ve refeveliced
PraajecIt. A tl-orouglu tratfic revieuw has,been,a_aru'uClua.°ted and V"IIB fiends rio significant issues
A'ilth this re�10f L VI ll "S cOanceruns in this run.aatter are satisfied and no further eungiun+:,eni i,g
re rie r is rcqUired al this time,
If y o uu have any questions 0r eu.uncerous, please call me at your euro't"'a'enieinu e.
"Irby truly yti:ra rS,
I
N SE H.A NC.EN ltRt:5T -T N, lNt...
�iuunuthya B. 2Illtosh,P.E.
rroject Manager—Highway Municipal Eun irncew°iIa
i
Dfn-nicut Kelly, DJK As.,,odale s Inc,
Gw.obei-t C. Daley, Merrimack l.rugioueerio'u .3erviiee;
l oln Walnut Street
1°ruwl Office, Kox 91�11
Watertown, Mass achusetts 0,7471.9151
T.".I J i fa'h;.".9,an�x, 'Maaamatr.°V,mom,7gr�rtira ab�4i,��tl Y,.�i � el'l aiL into o—2m 4"I"11 .co,n
ww w.wd1NI>.. ,K)I°n