HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-06 Engineer Review SPR TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Airplane Hangar Construction VHB No.: 06716.95
Location: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Owner: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Applicant: Donald Gianquitto
Applicant's Engineer: Christiansen&Sergi,Inc.
Plan hate: June 3,2004 Review Date: July 28,2004
Christiansen and Sergi,Inc,submitted plans and documents to VHB for review. VHB received the
following information:
D Applicadon for Site Plan Special Permit dated June 3,2004
Site Plan for Special permit dated June 3,1004
The site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of the 1972 Town of
North Andover Zoning Bylaw,amended in December 2002. The following comments note non-
conformance with specific sections and que-stions/comments on the proposed design.
l) Section 6: It does not appear that this site plan includes any signage or lighting. Therefore,this
section does not appear to be applicable to this project.
2) Section&L The site plan shows nine(9)parking spaces And the application indicates that eight(8)
additional parking spaces will be available within the buildings for a total of seventeen(17)parking
spaces. Airport hangar,as a use,does not appear to be identified in this section. This section requires
that the Building Inspector and possibly the Board of Appeals make a determination for sufficient
quantity of spaces. Please note that the variance that the Applicant obtained does not address parking.
3) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHB offers the following comments:
• SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: A boundary survey of the airport property is not included with
this application as required by this section. The development is clearly within the.property limits
of the Lawrence Municipal Airport, As such,VHB suggests that a waiver be granted.
• EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS; The Variance issued by the Town of North Andover
includes*°condition"that the airplane-hangar-heights-not:exceed thirty(30)feet. The application
indicates that the building heights are thirty four(34)feet, The zoning requirements for this
district appear to allow heights up to fifty five(SS)feet. The Applicant should clarify this
discrepancy.
• STORMWATER DRAINAGE 1 DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comments below.
l
\\\.11awatr\1e10b716\does\reports\site-revfewal[}wtl hanger(95).doc
i.
• LANDSCAPING PLAN: The Applicant is not proposing any landscaping for this project. i
• REFUSE AREAS: The Applicant is not proposing any refuse area for this site,
• TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: A traffic impact study was not submitted. The Applicant states
that traffic resulting from this development will be minimal. VHB would agree with the
Applicant's statement. As such,VHB suggests that a waiver be granted.
4) DRAINAGE REVIEW: Drainage calculations have not been submitted. The Applicant states that
existing drainage will be maintained and that runoff from the area will sheet flow to an existing
drainage system, VHB suggests that the Applicant prepare drainage calculations and offers the
following comments regarding drainage design:
• Based on our area calculations,there appears to be approximately 35,000 square teet.of
impervious area including roof and pavement areas. VHB suggests that this imper"A Sstrea;is.
large;anoughtn warrant drainttgc ctticutations;: ..
• The proposed grading indicates that the stormwater.runoff:is directed:to,an.existing.swaie along
the east edge of the.ac cess areas. :The Applicant should provide additional contours.in the,access
area to demonstrate that stormwater.runoff is directed.toward this Swale. The Applicant should
also verify.the.capacity of the existing Swale,
• The stormwater.runoff outlets at an existing 1.2-inch CAP to the north.of the proposed hangers.
The Applicant should verify that the size of this existing pipe is adequate to accommodate the
additional runoff from this development.
• The Applicant may wish to consider infiltration. If this is the case,soil tests should be performed
to verify the soil properties.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed : Date:b JGt�' • ` ''� �W'"t kiLo�
Y
Timothy B, clntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
2
\\\Matvalr\te\Ob7E6\dos\reports\slSe•ravlew•airpark hanger{4i).da
I
I
Transportation f U
Land Development
Environmental
Services
lmiaiMktlOR innavaboin j energy 4rcaling results for our clients and lm a-fits for our cnmmtmitl"
September 1,2004 vanaze Hangen Brwtlin, Inc.
Ref: O6716,95
Julie Vondrak
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Community Development&Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Drainage Review
Dear Julie:
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc,(VHS)received a letter from Christiansen&Sergi to Mr.
William Derry dated 8-16-04 and drainage calculations(4 pages). Please note that VHB has
not received written responses from the Applicant on our July 28,2004 engineering review
report. VHD has reviewed the information submitted and offers the following comments:
1. The Applicant's Runoff Area(31301 so appears to be low. VHB calculates
approximately 35,000 square feet of new impervious area;however the existing
contours indicate that there are also pervious areas contributing to the existing
drainage Swale. The Applicant should update the Hydrocad model and clearly
Identify design points of analysis, VHB would suggest design point locations at the
existing 12-inch outlet(beginning of Swale)and at the existing 12-inch culvert inlet
(northern edge of plan). The model should include all contributing catchment areas
draining to the swale and culvert,including the paved Access Areas adjacent to the
swale if necessary.
2. VHB cannot properly review the Time of Concentration(Tc)or CN values used in
the Hydrocad model. The Applicant should provide plans showing catchment
areas and the travel path for the Te. It would also be helpful for the Applicant to
provide the Hydrocad model's summary,which would include the calculations for
the Te and weighed CN value.
3. The slope(2.5%)entered in the Channel Calculator appears to be high.. VHB
calculates a slope of less than 19/6,having 110 ft between the 121'and 120'contours
at the bottom of the swale.
4. Based on the Mass Highway Design Manual,the Manning coefficient used in the
Channel Calculator(0.0175)is valid for a clean,recently completed earth channel
with a uniform section. The Applicant should verify that this is the case or raise
this value if needed.
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
6IZ9243770 .FAX 6IZ924.22"
\\Mawa€r\k\Ob73693\dao\lstlen\lelairlwrthanWrRa1n&VRev1ew.doc email; (nfa@vhb.eorn
www.vhb,com
i
Julie Vondrak
Project No.: 0671&95
September 1, 2004
Page 2 1
fi
5, VHB is not clear on what the abbreviation CPP stands for. The Manning
coefficients used for the Pipe Calculator and for the Culvert Calculator are
different,yet both are labeled as being CPP. The Applicant should clarify what
type of pipes these are and update their Manning values to be consistent.
6. Inverts for the existing catch basins located within the paved parking area and for
the existing culvert outlet are not shown on the plans. Therefore,VHB cannot
verify existing pipe slopes that have been included in the pipe and culvert
calculations.
7. The flowrate entered in the Culvert Calculator is 8.44 cfs,which is the calculated
flow from the Pipe Calculator. The Applicant should update the value to include
the runoff from the Hydrocad model.
8. VHB had previously suggested that the Applicant consider infiltration, The
Applicant has not responded to this comment. If infiltration is considered by the
Applicant,soil tests should be performed to verify the soil properties.
VHB recommends that the Applicant provide written responses to the continents listed above. In
addition,the Applicant should provide written responses to our original review report.
If you have questions or comments,please contact me at 617-924-1770.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN/�jBRUSTUN,INC.
Timothy B, clntosh,P.B.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
dlg/TBM
cr: Darryl Gallant,VHB
\\MBwaU\to\t}6716.9i1data\I el lur\lek-el rpot Ihangsr•Drainageklrv)ew,doc
i
VHB Pro3. No. 06716.95
Engineering Review of Site Plan
Proposed Hangar Construction—Lawrence Airport North Andover, MA
1
APPENDIX A
Scope of Services
The Scope of services consists of the engineering review of the site plan and permit application. The major tasks are
listed below:
1. Plan Review., Review the plans for conformance to Zoning Bylaw (2000) and standard engineering
g
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 design, as applicable, for conformance to the Zoning Bylaw
(2000), DEP's Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering practice. Whitten comments
will be included in the engineering review report.
3. Project Management, Provide a preliminary review of the site plan submission for the purpose of
establishing a detailed budget with upset limit 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. Review of Architectural plans.
2. Review of lighting design.
3. Review of sprinkler system design or any mechanical engineering design.
4. Review of any structural design.
5. Review of any environmental permit.
6. Review of traffic report.
7. Attendance at project or public meetings or hearings,
8. Review of major drainage studies.
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.
Twu ori,�lnufs uJ'l8fr Aruhariuufvn nerdlu be C.rerlNcd, Orte vrlgtrxrl nerdy rn beJnnrurrled ur hr<nuntin�Crultrurl FYles,
\1Murs'trrr\te1D67161r1ors�cnrurucACfn tAuth-Alrpnr!Hungrer{93),dnr
i
µORTN
o ..•a , r 4a
Town of North AndoverImp
Office of the Planning Department
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street �S3AcHUyei
North Andover,Massachusetts 02845
Town Planner. http://www.townof-northandover.com P (978)688-9535
Julie Vo ndrak jK011LI ra k1.i A0 A t1061011110110ovt F (978)688-9542
To: / From: Julie Vondrak
Fax: �), 3 7z y6 Pages:�'5 ,including coversheet
Phone: Date:
Re: CC:
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
is Comments: 3
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS TRANSMISSION ARE INTENDED FOR THE RECIPIENT TO
WHOM IT 1S ADDREESED. IT MAY BE PRIVILIGED AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROTECTED AS AN
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE
NOTIFY(978)688-9535 AND DESTROY THE DOCUMENTS YOU RECEIVED IN ERROR.
o q;,,t;_,
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
S e r v i c e s NOflTil AJI€.}r',ti'c:
PLANNING Gii�1/tii 11 ivtt'i•t1
0
P
10 imagination I rnnovatton energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
September 1,2004 —Vangwse Ha n,_�2?c`
Ref: 06716.95
Julie Vondrak
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Community Development&Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover,NIA 01845
Re: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Drainage Review
Dear Julie:
Vanasse Hangen Brustl rt,Inc. (VHB)received a letter from Christiansen&Sergi to Mr.
William Derry dated 8-16-04 and drainage calculations (4 pages). Please note that VHB has
not received written responses from the Applicant on our July 28,2004 engineering review
report. VHB has reviewed the information submitted and offers the following comments:
1. The Applicant's Runoff Area(31301 so appears to be low. VHB calculates
approximately 35,000 square feet of new impervious area;however the existing
contours indicate that there are also pervious areas contributing to the existing
drainage swale. The Applicant should update the Hydrocad model and clearly
identify design points of analysis. VHB would suggest design point locations at the
existing 12-inch outlet(beginning of swale)and at the existing 12-inch culvert inlet
(northern edge of plan). The model should include all contributing catchment areas
draining to the swale and culvert,including the paved Access Areas adjacent to the
swale if necessary.
2. VHB cannot properly review the Time of Concentration(Tc)or CN values used in
the Hydrocad model. The Applicant should provide plans showing catchment
areas and-the travel path for the Tc. It would also be helpful for the Applicant to
provide the Hydrocad model's summary,which would include the calculations for
the Tc and weighed CN value.
3. The slope(25%)entered in the Channel Calculator appears to be high. VHB
calculates a slope of less than 1%,having 110 ft between the 121'and 120'contours
at the bottom of the Swale.
4. Based on the Mass Highway Design Manual, the Manning coefficient used in the
Channel Calculator(0.0175) is valid for a clears,recently completed earth channel
with a uniform section. The Applicant should verify that this is the case or raise
this value if needed:
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
617.924.1770 a FAX 617.924.2286
\\Mawatr\te\U6716.95\docs\letters\lei.�irpor€hanger-6ralnageReview.doc emall' info(o0b.conn
www.vhb.com
Julie Vondrak
Project No,: 06716.95
September 1, 2004
Page 2
5. VHB is not clear on what-the abbreviation CPP stands for. The Manning
coefficients used for the Pipe Calculator and for the Culvert Calculator are
different,yet both are labeled as being CPP. The Applicant should clarify what
type of pipes these are and update their Manning values to be consistent.
6. Inverts for the existing catch basins located within the paved parking area and for
the existing culvert outlet are not shown on the plans. Therefore,VHB cannot
verify existing pipe slopes that have been included in the pipe and culvert
calculations.
7. The flowrate entered in the Culvert Calculator is 8.44 cfs,which is the calculated
flow from the Pipe Calculator. The Applicant should update the value to include
the runoff from the Hydrocad model.
8. VHB had previously suggested that the Applicant consider infiltration. The
Applicant has not-responded to this comment. If infiltration is considered by the
Applicant,soil tests should be performed to verify the soil properties.
VHB recommends that the Applicant provide written responses to the comments listed above. In
addition,the Applicant should provide written responses to our original review report.
If you have questions or comments,please contact me at 617-924-1770.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B, cIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
dlg/TBM
cc: Darryl Gallant,VHB
\\Mawa lr\le\Ob71 G.95\d oc s\1 e 11 ers\1 e t-ai rpor th anger-Dr ai nageAe v i e w.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental '
•
imngonation ,nnovat+on energy : r.,,c. •,.,, ,,
October 1,2004 {'(1111155[' 11angenBr;odi'111
Ref: 06716.95
Heidi Griffin,Director
Town of North Andover
Community Development&Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Drainage Review
Dear Heidi,,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)received calculations from Christiansen and Sergi
dated 9-20-04(via fax)for the above referenced project. According to the information
submitted,the Applicant is proposing pervious pavement as a means of keeping the post
condition stormwater runoff below the existing condition runoff. This change renders our
previous drainage comments mute. Please note that VHB has not received revised plans.
The Applicant should consider the following with regard to the use of pervious pavement:
• The cost of pervious pavement is high compare to typical pavement costs.
• Ensuring the quality of the construction is a challenge.
• Maintenance of.pervious pavement is a`concern if the pervious pavement is not maintained,
then runoff will not infiltrate. This may result in ponding around the existing 12-inch outlet
pipe at the end of the swale. Ultimately,this could be a maintenance issue for the Applicant
or the Airport. It does not appear to be a maintenance issue for the Town,
No further engineering review is required as VHB's concerns have been addressed. If you have ,
questions or comments,please contact me at 617-924-1770,
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANCENN BRUr3ST`LIN,INC.
I �' ` '�C., fGtlli�
Timothy B.Mclntosh,P.T,
Project Manager--Highway&Municipal Engineering
%\MAwal¢11e\pGT16.951Sas1]a,teWEebAl1porlhangcrdtnaf.doc 617.924.1710 FAX r>17.924.2Z86
d
October 5,2004
Ref: 06716.95
Heidi Griffin,Director
Office of Community Development
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Airplane Hangar Development
Drainage Review
Dear Heidi,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received a letter from Christiansen&Sergi dated
October 4,2004 for the above referenced project. This letter requests that VHB comment on
the two design approaches for the drainage design. The first approach which is currently
before the Planning Board for approval includes construction of pervious pavement to
ensure that there will be no increase in stormwater runoff during the post-condition. The
second approach includes the construction of traditional pavement(impervious). This
approach would require the Applicant to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of
Approval to allow an increase of peak flow from the site'
As indicated in our letter to you dated October 1,2004, the pervious pavement design
approach negates VHB's previous comment letter dated September 15t,2004. We also
assume that the existing drainage system(12-huh pipe) is currently handling the flows
from the site.
Regarding the second design approach,VHB recommends that the Applicant's engineer
revise previous drainage calculations dated August 16,2004 per VHB's letter dated
September 1,2004. VHB's concern is the capacity of the 12-inch pipe(located at the
northern end of the site)and the potential for flooding of this area. VHB would expect that
the Applicant prepare an updated HydroCad model which would show whether the
increased runoff would cause flooding on the upstream side of the 12-inch pipe(water level
raised past elevation 123'), Once calculations are submitted that address the pipe capacity
issue and determine the level of flooding at this location,the Town will be better positioned
to decide whether a variance to the Zoning Bylaw should be considered,
C;\W INDOIVS\TEMPstet-a[rRorthanger•RrainagcAeview-IM-09.doc
Heidi Griffin
Project No.: 06716.95
October 5, 2004
Page 2
If you have any questions of required additional information,please call me,
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B. McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager-Highway&Municipal Engineering
C,\WINDOIVS\'I'Ekily\let-airporthanger-Draina&eRevic!w.10-04-04,doc
.... ........ . ... . . ..
Message Page 1 of 1
Ippolito, Mary
From: Griffin, Heidi
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:28 PM
To: Angles,Alberto'; 'Felipe Schwarz'; 'Richard Nardella (E-mail); 'George White(E-mail)'; 'James Phinney(E-mail)'; 'John.Simons@fmr.com'
Cc: Ippolito, Mary;Vondrak, Julie
Subject: FW:Airport Hanger
I spoke with Mr. Derry [applicant].
I informed hire approval of Plan A [pervious pavement]was likely.
Approval of flan B was not Iikely given he still had NOT[see below] had his engineer submit calculatons as well as the fact a variance from ZBA is
required as the project will require a potential greater than zero rate of runoff.
After beating it through his head over a Ralf hour conversation, he is seeking approval of Plan A and this is ok w/myself and VHS_
I told him if he brings up Option B l would need to recommend denial as the original issues of September V�t still have not been addressed.
Thanks,
Heidi
-----Original Message-----
From; McIntosh,Timothy [mailto:TMcIntosh@VHB.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:01 PM
10/4/04
Ia t l + rA/� i}
To: North Andover Planning Board 4 P004
From: Curly Customs William Dery H r I H nND(WFA z
I l_h,NINING Ula'I�#i
Date October 04, 2004
I should like to added to the agenda to address the board on Tuesday Oct 5th.
I will ask the board to approve the porous pavement plan reviewed by VHB. I will also
ask the board for tentative approval to a plan that will utilize the existing drainage, as
preyjopsly statp4 to the last meetirig, This also has been reviewed by VHB and the
Engineering aspect has been blessed. However there is a problem with a bi-law with the
Zoning bq , I s� Id like t�}s�entativp gproyal to be cgptipgegt op the subsegr ept
4pprovai of t�e Z13A, I will b�vq all Wintef to perspq�i-,the ZBA. The porous paverppgt
design is expensive and we would certainly like to avoid additional costs. If the ZBA
refuses this request than the porous pavement Plan be will be instituted.
Thank You
lam Dery
Message Page 1 of 1
Ippolito, Mary
From: Griffin, Heidi
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:12 PM
To: Ippolito, Mary
Cc: Vondrak, Julie
Subject: FW:Airport Hanger
Hi Mary,
Can you please call the applicant for 492 Sutton Street and confirms if he wishes to proceed with the alternative `tiraith paving". IF so, we will be removing
hire from the agenda per John Simons below.
IF he wishes to proceed with the pervious surface fi-e_ no paving] he can remain on the agenda and can be closed out that evening pursuant to FIB
approval as he has already secured VHB approval with that option.
He never submitted the pavement option to VHB as you see from Tim McIntosh below.
Thanks! 7+
Fleidi //f
----original Message----- �' 1
From: Simons,John [mailto:John.Simons@FMR.COM] `o
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:08 PM
AL 14
5�
� f
10/4/04
:� / �: �r
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental •
•
imagination innovatto".energy N ...... h 111-.1
October 1,2004 1-imease
Ref: 06716.95
Heidi Griffin,Director
Town of North Andover
Community Development&Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Lawrence Municipal Airport
Drainage Review
Dear Heidi:
Vanasse Hangen Brustfin,Inc.(VHB)received calculations from Christiansen and Sergi
dated 9-20-04(via fax)for the above referenced project. According to the information
submitted,the Applicant is proposing pervious pavement as a means of keeping the post
condition stormwater runoff below the existing condition runoff. This change renders our
previous drainage comments mute. Please note that VHB has not received revised plans.
The Applicant should consider the following with regard to the use of pervious pavement:
• The cost of pervious pavement Is high compare to typical pavement costs.
• Ensuring the quality of the construction is a challenge.
• Maintenance of pervious pavement is a concern. If the pervious pavement is not maintained,
then runoff will not infiltrate, This may result in ponding around the existing 12-inch outlet
pipe at the end of the swale. Ultimately,this could be a maintenance issue for the Applicant
or the Airport, It does not appear to be a maintenance issue for the Town,
No further engineering review Is required as VHB's concerns have been addressed. If you have
questions or comments,please contact me at 617-924-1770.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC,
A Timothy y B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
N1 awair Me\(16716.95\d ocs letter I le t-M 1porthany r-ri n a 1.4 fil;1,1124 MO FAA 617.9242186