HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-02 Civil Peer Review SPR J
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD DEG J o 2004
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SPECIAL PERMIT SITE
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
NOITR I ANDOW-TI
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Pi_ANNji,4(.1 110i_'N'r
Site Plan Title., Fftht.Craft-HAnger VHB No.: 06716.97
Site Plan Location: Lawrence Municipal Airport,492 Sutton Street
Applicant: Dale Gross,P.O.Box 785,Middleton,MA
Applicant's Engineer- Andover Consultants,Inc., I East River Place,Methuen,MA
Orig.Plan Datet November 18,2004 Orig.Review Date: 12-13.04
Rev.Plan Date: November 18,2004 2nd Review Date. 12-29-04
The revised plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last
amended December 2002). The Applicant has submitted the following Information for VHB's second
review-,
• Cover letter from Andover Consultant dated December 20,2004
• Site Details sheet dated December 21,2004
• Partial Drainage,Report undated
VHB's original comments are shown below in normal font. VHB's second round of comments are shown
in bold font immediately following the original comment.
Section 8.3—Zoning By-law
8.3.5.e,ii VHB understands that the parcel is a leased lot from the Airport-,however,the
Applicant should request a waiver for this section. VHS agrees that leased land on
the airport Is a unique situation and would likely be the basis for the Planning
Board to grant a waiver. As with other projects on the airport that VHB has
reviewed,VHB recommends that the Applicant request a waiver.
8.3.5.e.iv The Applicant should verify that there are no easements or other legal encumbrances
related to the physical development of this area of the Airport. The Applicant has
adequately responded to our comment.
8.3.5.c.vii Runoff Ca.1culations show an increase in flows at Design Point I for all three storm
events. The Applicant states that stormwater is mitigated to the greatest extent
practical. However,the Zoning Bylaw states that stormwater(runoff)shall be
mitigated to zero for the 2,10,and 100 year storm event. Since the Applicant has
not met this requirement,a waiver should he requested or the design should be
revised to mitigate the runoff to zero,
8.3.5.e.ix A drawing of the exterior of the building(front view)was not provided. While the
elevation plan was not submitted to VHB,the Applicant states that it was
submitted to the Planning Board. VHB has no further comment,
8.3.5.c.xvii Lighting plans were not provided. The site plans Indicate that wall mounted lights
are proposed on the airplane hanger. This section of the Bylaw requires that the
direction and the degree of illumination be shown,
\\\.Ma wat r N ieN 0671(07\dx*\memos\0671697-Sped APen n 1JPr6ew-fWtpw u 1�I 229DI.d
1
8.3.5.e.xviii See Drainage Comments below. Please note that the Applicant appears to have
modified most of the drainage report,yet only submitted the pages that changed.
It would be easier for all interested parties if a complete revised drainage report
with a revision date was submitted.
Drainage Comments
I. Calculations and paths for the Times of Concentration were not provided for either the pipe
calculations or drainage report. As a result,VHB was not able to completely review the drainage
design. The Applicant has adequately responded to our Comment.
2. Weighted C values(CA)in the pipe calculations table do not appear to have been calculated
correctly. The,CA value in the chart is not an average,but an addition. However,the correct CA
value seems to have been used to calculate the Required Capacity(Qd). While VHB disagrees
with the Applicant's method of calculation,we recognize that the final calculations are
correct. No further action is required.
3. It is unclear what the Sum CA value is used for. The Required Capacity for each pipe should be
the runoff of the sub-catchment area for the speeitic basin,added to the flow of the preceding pipe.
The Required Capacity for EXIST CB-t appears to be correct,however the Required Capacity for
EXIST CB-2 appears to be low. The Applicant should verify these calculations. The Applicant
has adequately responded to our comment.
4. The Concrete Catch Basin detail does not show a hood,as discussed in the Drainage Report The
Applicant has adequately responded to our comment.
5. Although the Applicant is got required to adhere to DEP Stormwater Management Guidelines,
VIIB has noticed that there are several discrepancies between the DEP's Water Quality Inlet detail
and the Applicant's 1500 Gallon Sediment&Oil Separator detail:
• a minimum four foot sump is not provided;
• the opening of the baffle wall is not a minimum three feet below the 2"a chamber's permanent
pool(Le.the invert of the outlet pipe);
• a trash rack or screen has not been provided to prevent floatables to reach the 2 d chamber.
VHB suggests that the Applicant justify these discrepancies. The Applicant Is not required to
meet the DEP 5tormwater Management Guidelines and therefore does not have to comply
with DEP's construction details. No further action is required.
6. Hydrocad models should typically have a time span that covers the entire storm duration(zero
discharge to peak discharge and back down to zero discharge). The Applicant should consider
increasing the model's time span from 5-20 hours to at least 0-24 hours. The Applicant has
adjusted the existing conditions model time span to 0.20 hours and did not change the time
span for the proposed conditions model. VHB agrees that the change in time span will not
significantly affect the HydroCAD results. No further action IS required.
7. The drainage report mentions that the swale along the taxi way is able to handle overflows from
the I00-yr storm event,however no calculations were provided to verify this. The Applicant has
adequately responded to our comment.
General Comments
I. Why is there a water gate shown on the existing electric line in the north-west section of tite plant
The Applicant has adequately responded to our comment.
2. If the purpose of the access road on the north side of the hangar is to provide access to emergency
vehicles,the Applicant should verify that ten feet is adequatc. The Applicant has adequately
responded to our comment,
2
\\\Mawair\ie\06716.97\docs\memos\0671697SpedxlPermliReviewdnllosvtt Z29W.doc
3. Vllli assumes that the proposed hangar will not impede the view of the taxiways and runways from
the control tower. The Applicant should verify. The Applicant has adequately responded to
our cormmnt.
4. A pavement detail was not provided. Will the high water table affect the pavement design? Are
there any measures being considered(such as sub drains)in the pavement design given the
apparent high ground water table? The Applicant has adequately responded to our comment.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by;
Dater
Ross Morrow
Civil Engineer--Highway and Municipal
VanasseHangen Brusil in,Inc. 7�
Reviewed by-. '; r~ ' ' l Date. L=; ''
klyi
Timothy B.Wintosh,P.B.
Project Manager I Senior Project Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
3
\\�faw•atr\fe\p6716.971doi�\me,cos\0671b97SpeciUP¢rmitRerlaw-follarwupt229Qt.Jpc
ro E
Nanry
Town of North Andover
Office of the Conservation Department
ment and Services Division
Community Develop � .
27 Charles Street
��ar�cK 9 c
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Telephone (978)688-9530
Alison E, McKay Fax (978)688-9542
Conservation Administrator
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 14, 2004
TO: Mary Ippolito
CC: Jacki Byerley, Planning Consultant
Heidi Griffin,Community Development Director
FROM: Alison McKay, Conservation Administrate
SUBJECT: Planning Board Project Comments
The Conservation Department offers the following comments as it pertains to referenced
projects as listed below:
1060 Osgood Street- Pizza Parlor(Kotsironis
See attached e-mail
492 Sutton Street-LMA-Aircraft Ha er Gross
No wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed work. No filing required with Conservation.
Willow Street(-,,Chha!Lgd e).
The wetland boundaries were recently re-confirmed by the North Andover
Conservation Commission(NACC) on 1/29/04 (DEP File #242-1235).
The project as proposed was first heard by the Conservation Commission at their
meeting of October 13, 2004 and is still being reviewed by the Commission at this time.
All conservation setbacks appear to be met as proposed.
Only preliminary comments have been made thus far by the Commission, as drainage
of the site has not been reviewed (Le- the site is extremely tight and the Commission
will most likely require special snow storage requirements).
The applicant has just recently set up an escrow account for the outside drainage
review with the Commission's consultant, Lisa Eggleston.
The Commission's next meeting will be held on 12/22/04, where I expect the first
round of drainage comments to be presented and discussed.
• I noted the following in my recommendations to the Commission on this project:
➢ Project> than 1 acre in size, must meet federal NPDES (National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System) policy/standards.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
t%ORTH
Town of North Andover
Office of the Planning Department 0 `"v 0
ooCommunity Development and Services Division 11 ' i
11 -9 1
400 Osgood Street G
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 C kIS-
httZ.1/www.Lownof.northandover,com
P (978)688-9535
F (978)688-9542
0 1?
MEMORANDUM
4-1
TO: North Andover Planning Board
FROM:Jacki Byerley,Planning Consultant"10
RE: Special Permit Site Plan Review- 492 Sutton Street, Lawrence Municipal Airport, Flight Craft
Hangar
DATE-. December 17,2004
. .........-
The applicant is requesting to construct a one story metal aircraft hanger of approximately 12,000s.f for the
storage of aircrafts, The hangers will be located on a 35,045 s,f lease area. A dimensional variance was granted
for the north,west and south side of the building copy of decision is attached.
My review is as follows:
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: This has been provided on the plan.
SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: The lease area is displayed on the plan, The applicant has not included a
boundary survey of the airport property.
iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: This has been provided in the title block and a review is located
in the application narrative.
iv. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: The site will be leased from the Lawrence Municipal Airport.
Leased area is 35,045 s,f.
V. TOPOGRAPHY: This has been provided on the site plan at two foot intervals.
vi. ZONING INFORMATION: A zoning chart has not been included on the site plan.The site is located in
an 12 district. Within the proposed lease area the building does not meet the required setback
requirements for the district. Avariance has been granted,
vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: A drainage report was submitted please see VHB's comments dated 12-
13-04.
viii. BUILDING LOCATION: The location of building is shown on the plans. Detail of how many aircrafts
are going to be stored inside the hangar should be provided along with whether any are proposed to be
stored outside.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BLTILDING688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HFALTH688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
1
ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: The building is proposed to be no higher than 32' in height. Conforms with
zoning height restriction for 12.
X. LOCATION OF PARKINGIWALKWAYS: No walkways proposed but should be further reviewed the
area allowed between the buildings does not allow for maneuverability. The applicant should also depict
the entrance way for employees and visitors. Parking spaces for 8 cars are shown on the site plan one of
which is marked handicapped accessible. The plan does not demonstrate that the parking area has
sufficient control of the area around the parking spaces to allow for proper use of the spaces. The required
number ofparking spaces is not clear. This will need to be verified by the Building Department.
A. LOCATION OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT: Application states no wetlands exist within
200 feet of the proposed lease area.
xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: No walls or signs proposed.
xiii. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: No new roads or drives are proposed. Access to the site will
be from existing airport roads. The applicant should received confirmation from the Fire Department that
the proposal will have adequate access for safety vehicles. A fence is proposed along the proposed service
access,detail of this fence along with an explanation of why the fence is necessary should be provided.
xiv. OUTDOOR STORAGEIDISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed.
xv, LANDSCAPING PLAN: No landscaping being proposed.
xvi. REFUSE AREAS: No dumpsters are proposed.
xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: Wall mounted lights are proposed to be installed, additional detail of the
proposed lighting should be provided.
xviii. DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: A drainage report has been submitted please see VHB's memo dated 12-
13-04.
xix. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: No study conducted.
xx. EROSION CONTROLS:None proposed.
xxi. COMMONWEALTH REVIEW:No reports filed with any State Agency in support of this project.
xiii. UTILITIES: New water and sewer services are proposed,confirmation from DPW should be received for
placement of lines. Underground electric and telephone are proposed.
xxiii. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact study has been completed.
xxiv. COMMUNITY IMPACT: No community impact study has been completed.
Cc: applicant
Engineer
DPW
Fire Department
Building Department
VHB
Message Page 1 of 1
Byerley, Jackie
From: McIntosh, Timothy [TMclntosh@VHB.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:19 PM
To: mippoTito@townofnorthandover.com;jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com
Cc: hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com
Subject: Sutton Street-Airport Hangar- Dale Gross
H i All,
I received a phone message from Andover Engineering (Joe Burke) regarding the above project. Joe stated that
no new information would be submitted to VHB. It appears that they want to address these issues at the Feb. 1
planning board meeting directly with the Planning Board.
As you know, VHS has performed 2 reviews. In our last review, there was 3 outstanding issues. Normally, the
applicant would respond in writing to resolve these remaining issues. VHB will defer to the Planning Board. The
three issues are listed below for your convenience:
8.3.5.e.ii VHB understands that the parcel is a leased lot from the Airport;however,the Applicant should request a
waiver for this section. VHB agrees that leased land on the airport is a unique situation and would
likely be the basis for the]Planning Board to grant a waiver. As with other projects on the airport
that VHB has reviewed,VHB recommends that the Applicant request a waiver.
8.3.5.e.vii Runoff Calculations show an increase in flows at Design Point 1 for all three storm events. The
Applicant states that stormwater is mitigated to the greatest extent practical. However,the Zoning
Bylaw states that stormwater(runoff)shall be mitigated to zero for the 2,10,and 100 year storm
event. Since the Applicant has not met this requirement,a waiver should be requested or the
design should be revised to mitigate the runoff to zero.
8.3.5.e.xvii Lighting plans were not provided. The site plans indicate that wall mounted lights are proposed on
the airplane hangar. This section of the Bylaw requires that the direction and the degree of
illumination be shown:
Please call me if you require any additional information.
Tirn
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9151
Watertown, MA 02471-9151
617-924-1770 Phone
617-924-2286 Fax
tn-icintosh@yhb.coni
This communication is confidential and Intended only for the recipient(s).
Any other use,dissemination,copying,or disclosure of this communication
is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify
us and destroy it immediately.Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.Is not responsible
for any undetectable alteration,transmission error,conversion,media
degradation,software error,or Interference with this transmission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. 101 Walnut St
Watertown,MA 02472
617-924-1770
1/31/05
Message n Page 1 of 2
Lk��L
Ippolito, Mary
From. Ippolito, Mary x
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:56 PM
To: McIntosh, Timothy
Cc: Griffin, Heidi; Ippolito, Mary
Subject: RE: Sutton Street-Airport Hangar-Dale Gross
Mary Ippolito
Planning Department assistant Town of North Andover
community Development & Services
27 Charles Street.
North_ln dover. MA 01845
Tel: 978-688-9537
Fax: 9744688-9542
m ippol it oqa t.ow nofn orthandover.corn
n-svr,,•.to3v nofnort h an dover.copra
-----Original Message--
From: McIntosh,Timothy [mailto:TMclnt3osh@VHB.com]
Sent: Tuesday,January 25, 2005 12:19 PM
To: mippolito@townofnorthandover.com;jbyerley@townofnorthandover.00m
Cc: hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com
Subject: Sutton Street-Airport Hangar- Dale Gross
Hi All,
I received a phone message from Andover Engineering (Joe Burke) regarding the above project. Joe stated that no new information would be
submitted to VHB. It appears that they want to address these issues at the Feb. 1 planning board meeting directly with the Planning Board,
As you know,VHB has performed 2 reviews. In our last review,there was 3 outstanding issues. Normally,the applicant would respond in writing to
resolve these remaining issues. VHB will defer to the Planning Board. The three issues are listed below for your convenience:
1/25/05
Message Page 2 of 2
8.3.5.e.ii VHB understands that the parcel is a teased lot from the Airport;however,the Applicant should request a waiver for this section. VM agrees
that leased land on the airport is a unique situation and would likely be the basis for the Planning Board to grant a waiver. As with
other projects on the airport that VHB has reviewed,VHB recommends that the Applicant request a waiver.
8.3.5.e.vii Runoff Calculations show an increase in flows at Design Point 1 for all three storm events. The Applicant states that stormwater is
mitigated to the greatest extent practical. However,the Zoning Bylaw states that stormwater(runoff shall be mitigated to zero for
the 2,10,and 100 year storm event. Since the Applicant has not met this requirement,a waiver should be requested or the design
should be revised to mitigate the runoff to zero.
8.3.5.e.xvii Lighting plans were not provided. The site plans indicate that wall mounted lights are proposed on the airplane hangar. This section of
the Bylaw requires that the direction and the degree of illumination be shown_
Please call me if you require any additional information.
777m
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9151
Watertown, MA 02471-9151
617-924-1770 Phone
617-924-2286 Fax y
gVh
This communication is confidential and intended only for the mcipient(s).
Any other use,dissemination,copying,or disclosure of this communication
is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify
us and destroy it immediately.Vanasse Hangen Brustiln.Inc is not responsible
far any undetectable alteration,transmission error,conversion,media
degradation,software error,or interference with this transmission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.101 Walnut St
Watertown,MA 02472
617-924-1770
1125105
Message Page 1 of 1
Ak
Byerley, Jackie
... _.. _ .. _ ... ......
From: McIntosh, Timothy [TMcintosh@VHB.com]
Seat: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:31 AM
To: jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com
Cc: Gallant, Darryl
Subject: Airport Hangar- Sutton Street
Hi Jackie,
As we discussed on the phone,the proposed development shows an increase in runoff for the 2, 10 and 100 year
storm events for one out of three of their design points (Design Point 1). The applicant's engineer states that it Is
not practical to construct underground or above ground detention or retention facilities in order to mitigate the
runoff to zero. They also state that the lease area limits their ability to construct any retention or detention
facilities(Can the lease are be increased?), Finally, they state that the estimated groundwater is high and will
likely prevent infiltration. VHB agrees that all of these factors makes mitigation of runoff to zero difficult (and
maybe impossible).
The runoff is directed to an existing wetland area to the south. From and engineering perspective, VHB would
request that the applicant determine whether this existing wetland area could handle the increase in runoff. Will
there be any flooding downstream of or around the existing wetland resulting from the runoff increase? If the
applicant can demonstrate that the increase will not cause downstream flooding,then a waiver could be
considered.
Finally,the Town must consider whether a precedent will be set for future projects if a waiver is granted. I hope
this information is helpful
Tim
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9161
Watertown, MA 02471-9151
617-924-1770 Phone
617-924-2286 Fax
tindntosh&1hb.c__o.m
This communication is confidential and intended only for the reciplent(s).
Any other use,dissemination,copying,or disclosure of this communication
Is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication In error,please notify
us and destroy it immediately.Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.is not responsible
for any undetectable alteration,transmission error,conversion,media
degradation,software error,or Interference with this transmission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. 101 Walnut 5t
Watertown,MA 02472
617-924-1770
1/31/05