HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Engineer Review II SPR WITHDRAWN TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Foster Farm Elementary School VHB No.: 06716.75
Location, Boxford Street
Owner: North Andover School Department
Applicant: DiNisco Design Partnership,Ltd., 87 Summer Street,Boston,MA 02110
Applicant's Engineer: Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc., 1071 Worcester St.Framingham,MA 01701
Plan Date: July 15,2003 Review Date: October 6,2003
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has been retained by the Town of North Andover to provide a second
engineering review of the Site Plan Special Permit for the Foster Farm School. This review is conducted in accordance
with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the following
drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans dated July 15,2003,revised September 19,2003
• Letter from DiNisco Design Partnership dated September 24,2003
• Letter from Schofield Brothers dated September 22,2003
• Letter from RSW dated September 19,2003
• Letter from Moriece&Gary dated September 24,2003
• Letter from Bruce Campbell&Associates dated September 12,2003
• Letter from Thompson Engineering dated September 23,2003
• Foster Farms Elementary School Stormwater Management Report dated September 23, 2003
• Soil Test Report from Schofield Brothers dated September 17,2003
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections,construetability issues and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
Section,6:-Signs..and Sign Lighting Regulations
Thd ground sign swn on sheet 1.1.12 is not consistent with the description provided in the Application for site plan
s ec'M, ern ' •suction 6.1). The sign in the drawings exceeds the 10 square feet listed in the application and exceeds
the 2 square feet listed in section 6,6.of the Zoning regulations. The sign does not appear to conform to section 6.6
of the zoning regulations, which require the sign to be set back a minimum of 10' from the property line. The
applicant should provide a detail for the wall sign described in the application,and discuss any illumination of these
signs? The applicant has addressed there comments and requested waivers front sections 3.2, 3.3,3.4 to avoid
rn.akitg revisions to certain items until the applicant re-submits the construction drawings to the Planning Board.
1
CAWINDOW5\Temporary Internet r1IesWLK6310\0671675 foster farm school 20031003.doc
Section 7: Dimensional Requirements
7.4 Building Heights
Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws,defines the maximum building height as 35 feet. On the application for Site Plan
Special Permit submitted by the applicant, the proposed building height is listed at 39'. The Applicant should
request a waiver or revise the building height. The applicant has addressed this comment.
Section 8: Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
1. The applicant has requested the Building Inspector determine the parking requirements because schools are not
listed in the North Andover Zoning By-law. VHB defers comment on required number of parking spaces to the
Building Inspector,but suggests the applicant consider providing data from similar size schools. The applicant /
has provided parking data from other similar schools for discussion with the Planning Board. Front the data
presented, the proposed parking to student ratio exceeds the same ratio far similar schools.
2. The plan should show the width and length of the proposed parking stalls. The plan submitted shores both ../
length and Ividth of the propose parking spaces.
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 Information Required
c) Several sheets have been stamped by a registered mechanical engineer. Section 8.3.5.c requires.,.---,''�•;
plans to be stamped by architects,landscape architects and/or civil engineers. A civil engines:
i should stamp these sheets to conform with this section. The applicant rvill have a Mechanical
Engineer as allowed for by the State Board of Registration." The applicant should request a
ivaiver rorn this section because the section specifically lists civil en ineer.
e)v) The topography shown on the grading plan,is not consistent with the grading shown on the
stormwater drainage plan. The civil engineer responsible for the site drainage and for the other
utilities should stamp all drawings that could be relevant to the utilities,including construction
details and grading plans. The applicant has addressed this comment.
e)vii) Stormwater drainage has been shown. Please see comments under the Drainage Comments
section. The applicant has addressed this comment.
%e)xii) The applicant should provide a details for the proposed wall sign. The applicant has requested'a
tvatver from this requirement.
c)xiii) The applicant should provide a typical cross section for the access drive. The proposed drive cross
slope is listed as 0.5%. 1.5%-2%is nhor•e commonly found to aid in channeling runoff and
preventing ice build up during the winter. The typical cross section should also show the cross
slopes and Ividtlis forgrass plot, sidelvalks and maximum sideslopes.
e)xv) Have all trees over 12"DBH been shown? The applicant has addressed this comment.
e)xvi) The applicant should provide a detail for the dumpster screening. The applicant has addressed �
this comment.
e-xvii) The lighting facilities have been shown,however there appears to be some light escaping the -
property labeled map 104D lot 57. The applicant has addressed this continent.
e-xviii) Drainage Basin Study: See Drainage Comments. The applicant has addressed this comment.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study: See comments on Traffic in the section labeled Traffic Comments The
applicant has addressed these comments.
e)xxi) The applicant has shown proposed utilities,however the following should be addressed:
2
CAWINDDWSWemporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0671675 Foster farm school 20031003.doc
II
• The survey points should not print on(lie utility drawings. The points make the drawing
difficult to read.
• Station and offset infornyition should beI�rovided in the plan and profile views. The �
applicant has requested,' waiver to avoid1 providing station and offset itnfo nrnatiaa until "
the final construction doc riiei ts'ire prepared.
• Utility appurtenances-should be referred to ill terms of station and offset. The applicant
has requested
doca<eltts��Ltt a
ver tov q�O prr�ovriding station and offset information until the final
P pe
• The applicants engineer should review all utilities for vertical conflicts such as on sheet
13.7 in the plan blow up of(fie planted rock area, The 8"pvc and the 18"pvc pipes .
appear to have a vertical conflict. The applicant has addressed this comment.
8.3.6.a.ii,b There appears to be only one dumpster located within an enclosure on the north easterly side of the
main access road. The applicant should consider trash receptacles in the parking areas and along
the access road to prevent trash from vehicles and pedestrians,including vehicles using the night
program spaces,from collecting on the property and from blowing into abutting locations. The
applicant should also demonstrate that the single dumpster proposed will meet the needs of the
school. The design engineer has shown what appears to be trash receptacles, however the
symbol on the drawings do not match the symbol on the legend.
8. 3.6.a.ii.c. Sanitary Sewer
The applicant should provide a copy of the sewer extension permit to be filed with the State,to the
Town. A narrative description of the system and the design calculations for the pump system
should also be provided so that the reviewer can review and comment on the sanitary system. Of
primary concern is the daily volume of wastewater entering the system,capacity of the existing
system,pump station storage capacity,back up power,cycle time,v9,1 u> e of wastewater held in
the force main,and possible odor issues. The applicant has requeste l a waiver for th connpleti n"
of the state selves extension permit until such One as the frnal plartsx'or corn.strntcttoxr retraetiv ar
submitted.
Please provide a detail for the force main connection into the gravity system. The applicant has--,,-
addressed this comment,
Generally, 8 inch plastic pipes are designed to be installed at a minimum slope of 0.004 ft/ft to
maintain self cleaning velocities and to allow some construction tolerance during the installation.
The applicant should explain why the sewer system is designed at 0.0035 ft/ft. The applicant has"-"
addressed this comment,
Will the sewer extension be made available to abutters on Boxford Street? If so, the calculations
should reflect those volumes. There appears to sections of Boxford Road with limited cover
material over the ledge. This could be a controlling factor in the design and function of private
septic systems. Has the applicant queried the Town and/or the abutters about the need for sanitary
service? Given the ledge restrictions in the force main section,it will be difficult to install a
gravity line after the force main is installed without damaging the force main. The applicant has
addressed this comment.
Is it possible that the design of the pressure system could be such that low pressure connections
from abutting properties could be made at a later date? The applicant has addressed this
comment, %
The Site Utilities plan—South is not consistent with the Sani(ary Sewer plans. (e.g. location of the
pump chamber) The applicant has addressed this comment,
Type and specification for all utility lines should be provided on the plans. There appears to be a
condition of low cover from 22+00—25+00 the design engineer should show that the type of pipe
3
CAWINDOWSWemporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0671675 foster farm school 2003I003.doc
specified is adequate for the bury conditions and will not deflect excessively, and cause damage to
the pavement structure. Prior to the approval for construction, the design engineer should
r l� provide calculations showing that the specified pipe as sufficient structural capacity at the depth
i� of cover shown.
The applicant should show the sill elevations of the houses on Boxford Street on the profile
drawing of the sewer. This comment is only valid if abutting properties on Boxford Street may
have access to the sewer system in the future. The applicant has addressed this comment, and will
provide the requested information on the conustruction.draivings to be subinitted for review at a
later date.
It is standard practice that sanitary sewer drawings are stamped by a civil or sanitary engineer.
From a professional standpoint the reviewer does not have objection to the Mechanical Engineer
stamping the drawings. The sanitary design is well presented. The Tpivii regitlatioins however
specify acceptable registration. Please submit a.,!vquest or a waiver t� comply with section
8.3.5.e. This comment is not meant to reflect on the design ehgineer's capabilities or
qualifications, but solely on strict conformance with the above quoted section.
8.3.6A Drainage system. See comments labeled Drainage Comments. The applicant has addressed thi
comment.
8.3.6.f. The applicant should provide details on the plan that match the slope stabilization methods
PP P P P
referred to in the Notice of Intent. The applicant has addressed this comment.
8.3.6.g. The lighting plan indicates light will reach property map 104D parcel 57. Can the lighting be
adjusted? The applicant has addressed this comment.
8.3.6.h. The applicant should provide a narrative description of noises expected to come from the site. The
applicant has addressed this comment.
Geiteral Comments:
G1. The applicant should provide a profile drawing of the site drive. The applicant's engineer has stated that the
profile is riot standard practice fora project of this scale. VHB recommends the profile is provided because the
length of the drive and to determine if there will be any potential site distance concerns,
2. The applicant has made an outstanding effort to provide the required information. The applicant should review
and coordinate the work from each consultant to provide consistent grading and utility plans. It appears as
though in several instances revisions have been made that were not changed on every plan. (e.g. pump chamber
location and grading at the entrance at Boxford Street.) The applicant should review the sub* and confirm
the consistency between the various consultants. The applicant has addressed this comment.
3. The drawings should be cleaned up to reduce clutter. Individual survey points do not need to be been pit-the
plan and make it difficult to read design information. The applicant has addressed this convnent.
4. Some spot grades may be helpful in areas where the contour interval does not allow accurate representation of
the conditions,but every spot grade on the site does not need to be shown. The applicant has addressed this '
comment.
5. The access drive should be stationed and all utility manholes labeled with station and offset values. In most
'\ baseline driven civil engineering projects, such as during the construction of a road or'way, station and offset
information is provided. VHB recommends the Planning Board require station and offset information for the
' construction submittal.
6. The Site Utilities plans should show all utilities(water, gas,sewer,drainage,electrical and cable.) The Utilities
should be laid out in a consistent manner to avoid crossing where possible. All plans in the set should show
4
CAWINDOWSWemporacy Internet McAOLK6310\6671675 faster farm school 20D31M.doc
consistent utility layout, DDP has responded that they prefer not to show all utilities to avoid coordination
problems with the sub-consultants. VHB understands the liability concerns involved with.showing other
consultant's work on the drawings, however,from the review perspective, it is the applicant's responsibility to
show drat all the proposed utilities and work will be constructible. That will require someone to produce fully
coordinated drawings. These drawings are not needed until the resubmission for construction approval.
7. Wheel chair ramps should be provided at the limits of the sidewalk, both oil the site and on Boxford Road. The
applicant has addressed this continent, hoivevef'an`additional rain should be provided across front the
dumpster location at the service drive, "
8. The detail of Handicap parking spaces is not consistent with the spaces shown on the plan. In this case, thei /
Handicap spaces and access routes oil the site plan should be listed with dimensions. The applicant has
addressed this continent.
9. The site drive and Boxford Street should be stationed along the centerline, and the geometry should be shown on
the drawing. VHB would like to see stationing provided on the plan set submitted for review at the time of
construction
10. The applicant should show a typical cross section for the driveway. This should list cross slope
ny` and,width
information. The applicant has addressed this continent.
Traffic Comments:
1. VHS recommends a more detailed sight distance review be completed for the main driveway on the site. Th ��
applicant has addressed this comment.
2. Circulation throughout the site appears to be reasonable. VHB suggests that the Applicant check the parking
numbers to make sure they are adequate to support the number of teachers and users of the soccer facility.
Although it does not appear to be a problem, the applicant should verify. The applicant has addressed
cont.rnent. s
1 Traffic Generation and distribution appears reasonable. The applicant has addressed this contnteA_1
4. VHB recommends that[lie applicant give additional attention to the intersection of Salem Street/Boxford
Street/Foster Street. This intersection is projected to operate at Level of Service(LOS)li in the future. The
applicant should consider developing solutions to the projected poor operating levels as this will be the ajo
route for busses into and out of the new school. The applicant appears to have addressed this comment� F" �~�
Drainage Comments:
The applicant has provided a very thorough report. VHB suggests that the design engineer confirm that all the plans
in the plan set submitted match the other sheets in the set,and all assumptions and calculations in the drainage report,
and in the Notice of Intent.
1. Please list the C values used in the computation of infiltration values in attachment 6. It appears as though 100
has been used for most calculations,but simply listing the value will avoid con(usion. Some of the implied
values appear very high. The applicant has addressed this comment.
2. Generally pipe calculations and inlet capacities are determined using the rational method. Tile applicant should
discuss why the SCS method was used for the 25 year pipe design. The applicant should also provide inlet
0 capacity calculations showing depth of runoff at the curb,width of spread and amount of bypass flow. The
applicant has addressed the f rst par of this continent. The design engineer shoftdd be aware that a cross slope
of 0.5%is sh.oivn.foa•the standard cross section of the drive. The design engineer's calculations are based ort
2%cross slope. The cross slope should be consistent between the plan and the drainage calculations.
5
C:\4VINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\01,1<010\0671675 foster farm school20031003.doc
3. There is no formal culvert under the cart path to the athletic facilities. If the sto]ips clogged,what would happen
to the hydrology in the area. The applicant has addressed this convne�ttt:-___1_
4. Is there any expected impact from the minor 0.5 efs increase to the main wetland to mosquito brook during the
10 year storm? Please have the applicant express the increase in terms-of total flow to the wetland from the
entire basin. The applicant has addressed this comment.
5. If the roof cistern is full at the start of the storm,where does the overflow go and how does it get there. The
applicant has addressed this comment.
6. Three(3)of the proposed catch basins will not have deep sumps. The applicant should address how this will
effect the TSS removal. According to the Notice of Intent(NOI) the applicant is taking the full 25%for TSS,
removal even though not all the basins will have the deep sumps. The applicant has addressed this comment-----__
7. The applicant should consider the use of filter fabric or material around the outside of the leaching basins,
particularly in the sandier and gravel soils. The applicant has addressed this co»lmentk_
8. VHB recommends the surface ponds are equipped with a method to measure the amount of sediment collected
in the pond. The device will serve as an indication of maintenance needs and-will also prevent excessive
excavation during maintenance. The applicant has addressed this comment.
.9. Please provide calculations for the.sixing for the rip-rap at the outlets of the drainage system. The applicant has
addressed this comment,
10. The applicant should list estimated ground water-elevations,in the area of infiltration,on the plan. The
applicant has addressed this comment.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: Date-
William J. Cotter,PE
Project Engineer-Highway and Municipal Engineering
6
CAWINDOW51Temporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0671675 foster farm school 20031003.doc