Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-16 Review Correspondence SPR WITHDRAWN Town of North Andover Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division 400 Osgood Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 hft-//www.townofnorthandover,con-t P (978)688-9535 P (978) 688-9542 January 21,2005 Dr. Sudarshan Chatterjee 55 South Bradford Street North Andover,MA 01845 Re: Site Plan Application Lot 4 Willow Street Dear Dr,Chatterjee, The North Andover Planning Board received an application for site plan review special permit to construct a three- story office building off Willow Street on November 19,2004. As such a public hearing was scheduled for December 21,2004. At that meeting the comments were raised in regards to the project along with requests for additional information. A review by the Board's consulting engineer also needs to be addressed. Since that time continuances have been requested to allow your engineer time to revise the plans and address issues raised at that meeting. As of today January 21,2005 no new information has been submitted. The board's consulting engineer needs to receive revised plans a minimum of two weeks prior to a meeting date because of this time line no new information will be able to be discussed at the February 1,2005 Planning Board meeting. A continuance request is required. To be heard at the February 15,2005 meeting new plans and information must be submitted a minimum of two weeks prior to the meeting date. Should this information not be received within the specified time frame by this office and the board's consulting engineer a recommendation for denial will be made to the Planning Board. Should you feel that this is not enough time to put together the required information you have the right to request to withdraw without prejudice and file a new application when you have everything put together. If you should have any questions please contact the Planning Office at(978)688-9535• Sincerely, i ekf Byerle fanning Consultant Cc; CAQ Engineering Associates,Inc Planning Board Heidi Griffin,Community Development Director Tim Mcintosh,VHB BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 B TILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 r Ib TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Willow Street—Map 25,Parcel 4 VHB No.: 06716.98 Site Plan Location: Willow Street Applicant: Dr. Sudarshan Chatterjee,55 South Bedford Street,North Andover,MA Applicant's Engineer: CAQ Engineering Associates,Inc.,236 Pleasant Street,Methuen,MA Plan Date: September 24,2004 Review Date: 12-16-04 Revised November 8,2004 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended December 2002),the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations(NAWPR)and standard engineering practice. The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review; • Technical Supplement to Site Plan Application Notice of Intent dated September 27,2004 • Site Development Plans dated September 24,2004 and Revised November 8,2004 • Wetland Replication Plan dated November 16,2004 The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw,NAWPR and questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Section 4.1—District Use Regulations 4.125 Although the application for Site Plan Special Permit indicates that the proposed site is in a General Business zone,it appears that,by comparing the Site Plan and the Town of North Andover Zoning Map,the site is actually in a Residential District 6 zone. The Applicant should provide sufficient information(i.e. updated zoning snap, more accurate locus map,addition of zoning division lines to the site plans)to indicate what zone the site is in. The proposed office building would not be permitted in a Residential District 6 zone. Section 8.3—Site Plan Review 8.3.5.o.ii VHB suggests using a different line type to depict the property lines. 8.3.5.e.iv -It appears that 25' and 50' Wetland Buffer Zone lines are shown,however they are not clearly labeled; -The Applicant should matte it clear on the plans that the entire site is within the 100' Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland; -Are there any easements relative to the existing drainage ditch and replication area that would affect the development on the proposed site? 8.3.5.e.v Contours at 2' intervals are not provided on the plan. Furthermore,there appears to be a limited number of spot grades within the construction area. The Applicant should verify that the contours accurately reflect the topography of the site. 8.3.5.e.vii See drainage comment below. 1 0\WIND0W9\TEMP\%71698-Willow Me Revkw-121504,doc 8.3.5.e.xiii A driveway is proposed,however it is not clear if any curb is proposed. A driveway detail should be provided that identifies the materials and dimensions proposed. 8.3.5.e.xv -There appears to be a slight discrepancy between the plan and planting schedule regarding the number of proposed trees/shrubs; -Are there any existing trees on the site that are larger that 12"diameter than can be saved? Are there any that need to be removed? These should be indicated on the plan; -Materials are not specified on the plans;it is unclear what areas are asphalt,concrete, loam and seed or other. The Applicant should label all necessary areas. 8.3.5.e.xvi -It is unclear whether the 8' chain link fence is proposed all the way around the dumpster or only on one side. This section specifies that the outdoor refuse storage area be fully enclosed; -The fence should be§hown on the Layout and Utilities Plan; -A gate should be proposed to access the dumpster area, A detail of this gate should be added to the plans. 8.3.5.e.xvii Light fixtures are proposed,however a detailed lighting plan was not included in this submission. 8.3.5.e.xviii See drainage comments below. 8.3.5.e.xix A traffic impact study was not included in this submission. 8.3.5.e.xx A profile of the proposed sewer litre was not provided. VUB also requests a detail for the connection of the proposed sewer line to the existing sewer line under Willow Street, 8.3.5.e.xii A fiscal impact study was not included in this submission. 8.3.5.e.xiii A community impact analysis was not included in this submission. General Comments 1. The Applicant should verify that all information provided in the Application,Plans and any Technical Supplements is consistent. (For example,the plans indicate that the Proposed Compensatory Wetland area is 1207 SF,however WPA Form 3 section C,6 indicates that an area of 1130 SF is being replaced.) 2. The Locus Plan on the cover sheet is difficult to read,the Applicant should consider making the plan clearer. 3. The proposed retaining wall label refers to S-2,however the Retaining Wall detail is on sheet S- 4. 4. It is not clear whether curb is proposed at the edge of parking lot. The Applicant should clarify by labeling as Proposed Curb or Edge of Pavement. 5. The Applicant should verify the existing sewer line information. The sewer manhole(SMH) with a rim elevation of 98.3' is within 15 feet of a spot grade indicating an elevation of 102.64'. 6. The Applicant should add a Wheelchair Ramp detail. 7. The Applicant should add a Sidewalk detail(VHB assumes hatched areas on north and south ends of the proposed building are sidewalk). 8. A Curb Installation detail should be added if curb is in fact being proposed. 9. It is unclear what the ingress/egress lines are indicating, The Applicant should clarify. 2 C:\W ENVOWS\TE3MP\0671699-W Eltow Site Review-121504.doc 10. What is the 81x20' steel plate for? The Applicant should clarify. 11. Note that the flont building setback dimension for the General Business zone is 25',not 20'. The Applicant should correct the plan. 12. If the Applicant is proposing curb at the driveway entrance,the Paved Water Way should be moved further past the end of the proposed curb,or curb transition pieces should be proposed on the plans. 13. All water and sewer pipe sizes and lengths should be labeled on the plans. 14. All water connections and gates should be labeled on the plans. 15. Section 23.2.2 of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(MAAB)regulations states that one in every eight accessible spaces,but not less than one,shall be van accessible". The Applicant should verify that a van accessible space is provided and should ensure that the dimensions of the space meet the requirements of MAAB. 16, The Site Location appears to be indicated inaccurately on the soils map provided in the NOI application. Although it appears that the correct site is the same soil group as the one described in the report,VHB suggests modifying the soils map to accurately indicate the proposed site. 17. The Applicant should verify that standing water against the proposed retaining wall will not affect the structural integrity of the wall. Drainage Comments l. The System Design Overview section of the NOI Technical Supplement states that a Drainage Swale,Detention Basin and a Constructed Wetland are used to mitigate impacts,however only a vegetated wet pond with a sediment forebay,as defined by the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook,is used. 2. Where does water flow once it leaves the driveway? What direction is Willow Street sloping? Does Willow Street have a normal crown? 3. Does the runoff fi`om the proposed driveway flow to the existing drainage system on Willow Street? If so,the Applicant should verify that the existing drainage system on Willow Street has enough capacity to accommodate the added flow. 4. Upon review of the plan,it appears that the Proposed Compensatory Wetland is actually only 600 SF in size,not 1207 SF as indicated on the plans. 5. It is unclear how the Applicant calculated the 600 Sli of filled wetland. The Applicant should clearly indicate this area on the plan. 6. The Applicant should clearly label the wetland limit lines, 7. Do the flags labeled with"C"delineate the wetland associated with the existing drainage ditch? If so,what is the delineation on the opposite side of the ditch? The Applicant should clarify, especially in the area of the proposed driveway,what areas are considered wetlands. 8. Has a culvert analysis been done for the proposed box culvert at the driveway? Will the capacity of the existing drainage ditch be affected by the proposed culvert? 9. The Applicant is proposing a Precast Concrete Box Culvert in an existing drainage ditch in order to access the site. VHB offers the following comments: • The construction detail provided should be more detailed. The Applicant should indicate existing and proposed ground elevations,water,sewer and other utility crossings. The Applicant should explain the 8'x20' steel plate. • The detail should identify the proposed material that will be used for the bedding of the culvert and the backfill. 3 0\W1ND0W5\TBMP\0671698-W 01ow Site Review-121504.doc a As vehicles will traverse the culvert,it should be designed to accommodate HS-20 loading. i Will guard rail be required to protect errant vehicles from entering the ditch? e It appears that this proposed culvert will be located within the roadway layout and presumably on Town property. The proposed culvert design should be review by the Town Engineer and the Department of Public Works, Future maintenance and liability will be the responsibility of the Town, 10, The Concrete Outlet Control Structure detail does not indicate the length of the 12"RCP or its slope. 11. Length and size of proposed drainage pipes should be shown on the Layout and Utilities Plan, 12, The Applicant should provide capacity calculations to demonstrate that the 12"RCP outlet pipe is adequately sized. 13. An emergency spillway has not been provided for the Wet Pond,as rewired by the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook. The emergency spillway's bottom elevation should be higher than the top of the galvanized steel grating of the outlet control structure. 14. The Applicant should also provide calculations to demonstrate that the emergency spillway is sized to take the entire 100-yr storm (assuming that the outlet structure completely fails). 15. The Wet Pond Design section of the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook calls for a minimum 10' wide maintenance access to the outlet structure without crossing the emergency spillway. 16. The invert of the 12"RCP pipe is indicated as 98.75',however a proposed 100' contour is shown at the end of the pipe. The Applicant should verify if the pipe needs to be lengthened. 17. It appears that the proposed grades at the bottom of the proposed wet pond are lower than some of the existing spot grades near the site, Have any test pits been taken to verify ground water elevation, infiltration rates,etc...? If the proposed wet pond will contain standing water,the Hydrocad model must take this into account. 18, A detail of the proposed wet pond should be provided,including a crass-section. 19. A detail of the proposed Rip-Rap areas should be provided in the plans. Does water run directly off the pavement to the sediment forebay7 The Applicant should verify that the proposed rip-rap stones are adequate to prevent erosion. 20. The sediment forebay appears to be too small. DEP Stormwater Management Handbook calls for 0.1 inch over the impervious area of the proposed catchment area(in this case; 0,939AC x 0.1 in =0.0393AC.in= 145CF). It appears the Applicant has provided less than 50 CF. 21. Pre-and Post-development total areas are inconsistent. There is a difference of0,63 AC,or over 2700 SF. The Applicant should verify. 22, The Existing and Proposed Watershed plans are not to scale and do not indicate the critical paths used for calculating the times of concentration(Tc). They also do not indicate any contours. VHB was not able to properly review the catchment areas or Te's. 23. The Applicant used a time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero discharge (beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time span of 0-24 hours, 24. The labels IS and 2S appear to have been mixed up in the Proposed Watershed plan. 25. Areas 1 S and 2S do not appear to have been delineated correctly. The Applicant should review these areas,and take into consideration Comment no.26. 4 C.\W0MWS\TEMP\06716984Vi1tow Site Review-121504,dac f 26. Although there are a limited number of spot grades on the site, it appears that an existing high point may exist across the proposed site. If this is the case,2 design points, one at the northern tip of the site(proposed wet pond area)and one at the southern tip(downstream of existing drainage ditch)are required. The Applicant should verify the topography of the site and make any necessary adjustments to the Hydrocad model. 27. In the Applicant's Stormwater Management Program,the Drainage Analysis section compares total runoff fi•om the site. The correct procedure would be to compare runoff at separate design points. Post-development runoff for all storms,2-yr, 10-yr and 100-yr would have to match or be lower than pre-development flows. Assuming that the Applicant's Hydrocad model and Catchment areas are correct,the Applicant would show a net decrease in runoff at the northern tip of the site(outlet of the wet pond),however there would be a net increase in runoff at the southern end(edge of proposed driveway). VHB suggests taking into account all previous comments to modify the catchment areas,tithes of concentration,detention basin(wet pond) dimensions and rerun calculations. DEP Stotrmwater Management Standards Standard#1 l. It is unclear how much reveal(if any)is provided by the wall or possible proposed curb. All runoff from the parking lot must be contained and flow to the detention basin for treatment before reaching the wetland. Please clarify. 2. The above comment also applies to the driveway runoff. The Applicant must justify that the runoff is treated before reaching a wetland. Standard#2 1. See Drainage comment 27. Standard#3 I. It is unclear how the Applicant calculated the volume to be recharged. The total impervious area of the site is 18,687 SF and the recharge rate for C soils is 0.1 in, for a volume of 156 CF. 2. The Applicant states that the Constructed Wetland will provide infiltration to meet Standard#3. However,as questioned in Drainage Comment 17,there is the possibility of high ground water levels which would prohibit infiltration. Test pits should be taken to verify the ground water elevation. Standard#4 1. The Applicant is claiming an 80%TSS removal rate.The detention basin/wet pond doesn't have a forebay.Without a forebay,it can't be claimed as a wet pond(70°/o),only as a sediment trap (25%).As of now,the sediment trap and the pavement sweeping equal a 32.5%TSS removal rate. tand rd#9 1. The Applicant should identify the stormwater management system's owner and the party or parties responsible for operation and maintenance,as stated in Standard#9. Environmental Comments Site Plans In addition to the comments provided under Section 8.3—Site Plan Review,according to North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,the site plans should also provide the following; 5 C-.\W1M)OW9\1E&1P\0671698-Wfflow Site Review-121504,doc l. No existing conditions plan has been provided by the Applicant. 2. The entire property with property boundaries as well as abutting properties should be shown on plans. 3. Existing features such as ledge,trees,paths,utilities,and drainage are not shown of the plans. 4. There are no sequencing details or species listed for the replication area. 5. it appears that the entire project lies within the 100-1oot buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. This should be stated on plans. Notice of Intent Narrative 1. The Narrative states that the Applicant is filing the Notice of Intent due to filling wetlands on the site. However,the Applicant must file anyway due to work in the 100-foot buffer zone. 2. The Applicant states that the site does not lie within the FEMA 100-year floodplain zone. Documentation should be provided to verify this claim.Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Town of North Andover,Community Panel Number 250098 0006C,dated June 1993,it does appear that the site is very close to or within the 100-year flood zone. 3. The Applicant states that this project is a limited project.Documentation as to the limited project status of the project under the Wetlands Protection Act,and its implementing regulations 310 CMR 10.53 3.(c)should be provided. 4. According to the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,the Applicant should show clearly that proposed work in the buffer zone will not adversely impact the said interests of the Wetlands Protection Act or the interests identified in Section 178.1 of the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw. 5. The Applicant should state the amount of work proposed within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone and the 50-foot No Build Zone. 6. The Applicant states that the wetland replication area is at a 2:1 ratio.On the WPA Form 3, Section C,the area of Bordering Vegetated Wetland altered is 600 square feet.The replacement area is 1,130 square feet.On the site plans,the replacement area is listed as 1,207 square feet, There needs to be uniformity in the amount of area replaced, 7. Would the fill area at the drainage ditch be considered Bank impacts rather than BVW impacts? The Applicant should verify. 8. The North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations Section 5.1 states that the Commission may require an alternatives analysis for any work within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone(the entrance roadway), Drainage Calculations 1, The claim of using constructed wetlands as any TSS removal should be disallowed, It should only be used as a replicated wetland. 2. Infiltration cannot occur within the constructed wetland,The mitigation area(wetland replication)cannot be used for water quality improvements. Operations and Maintenance Plan 1. The Operations and Maintenance Plan does not provide enough detail for the future site manager. 2. VHB recommends that the proposed pavement sweeping be done more than once per year. 6 0\WIND9WS\nMPN0671698-Willow Site Review-121504.doc 3. There are no provisions for recording maintenance events. 4. Tile Plan doesn't specify any ongoing monitoring of replicated wetland. According to the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,Section 6.1,the replacement area should be monitored 2 times per year. 5, The site appears to be maximized and has been designed to fit within the surrounding wetland area, As a result,the site is `tight' and there is little room for error. VHB recommends that the Applicant retain a surveyor to layout the proposed haybale/silt fence to ensure that these are constructed as shown on the design plans. Further,VHB recommends that the Town verify the location of the haybale/silt fence prior to construction. It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. Reviewed by: Date: Darryl Gallant Civil Engineer--Highway and Municipal Reviewed by: Date: Susan McArthur Environmental Group Reviewed by: Date: Timothy 13. McIntosh,P. E. Project Manager—Highway and Municipal 7 C:\WtNV0WS\nMP\0671698-W111ow Site Revlew-121504.du Town of North Andover �p �y Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street ��gacsacss Alison E. WKay North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Telephone one 978 688-9,10 Conservation f1t3i.1t.inistrator Fax(978)688-95,12 MtMORANDUM DATE: December 27, 2004 TO: Mary Ippolito CC: Jacki Byerley, Planning Consultant Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director FROM: Alison McKay, Conservation Administrat rD SUBJECT: Methuen Avenue - Proposed Roadway Improvements Application & Plan (Giovanni) The Conservation Department offers the following comments as it pertains to the above referenced project: Upon the request of the applicant's engineer, Robert Daley of Merrimack Engineering Services, I conducted site inspections on December 16, 2004 and again on December 20, 2004 with Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services to review the delineated wetland resource area to the north of the subject property as depicted on the submitted plans dated December 2, 2004. Upon these reviews, I observed that the noted"centerline of swale" was not flagged as a resource area. It is in my opinion that this"swale" is a resource area (specifically intermittent stream and associated bank)jurisdictional under both the Wetlands Protection Act and the focal Wetlands Bylaw. It appears that there is no Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) associated with this resource area. Therefore, the edge of bank needs to be delineated in the field and surveyed on the plan. In addition, all associated buffer zones (100-foot, 50- foot No-Build Zone, and 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone)need to be added to the plan. A Notice of Intent(NOI) filing with the Conservation Commission will be required, as work is now proposed within the 100-foot buffer zone to this additional resource area. Mr. Daley has been notified and will be submitting a NOI filing with the Conservation Department in the next few weeks. Once the NOI is submitted, I will re-conduct a site review to verify resource area boundaries and conduct further plan review. Please let me know if you need further information in regards to the site plan review prior to the Conservation filing submission. BOARD OIL APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HRALTI1688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 /0 Town of North Andover NaRTh Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division ^� 4 27 Charles Street c►+us°ias North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Telephone(978)688-9330 Alison E. MrKuy 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 Administrates 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 Motsironi� See attached e-mail 492 Sutton Street—LMA--Aircraft Hanger{Gross No wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed work. No filing required with Conservation. Willow Street(Chatte__ ee • 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 (i.e- 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 688-954 L BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 Town of North Andover Q, �°Irk Office of the Planning Department o? 21 F Community Development and Services Division 400 Osgood Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 RssRCHUg�i httpj/www.townofnorthandover.com P (978)688-9535 F (978)688-9542 MEMORANDUM TO: North Andover Planning Board FROM: Jacki Byerley, Planning Consultant RE: Special Permit Site Plan Review- Willow Street-Map 25 Parcel 4 DATE: December 17, 2004 The applicant is requesting to construct a three story office building within the GB Zoning District. The application was submitted as a combination site plan special permit and Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission. Emphasis seems to have been placed with the Notice of Intent. The site plan special permit application is lacking in information in regards to the proposal along with incorrect information in the"Required Lot(as required by Zoning Bylaw)" and "Proposed Building" sections. Information from the proposed building differs from what is stated on the plan. My review is as follows: SITE PLAN REVIEW: i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: A locus map has been provided, the north arrow is not on the title page, the plan is missing a signature block for the planning board. ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: The area to be constructed is shown on the plans but the boundary of the whole lot is not. Abutting property and their uses should be identified on the plan. iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: name of project has been provided. iv. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: No easements or legal conditions are shown. V. , TOPOGRAPHY: Spot grading has been shown, the existing conditions are not provided. BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-954© PLANNING 688-9535 vi. ZONING INFORMATION: A zoning chart has not been included on the site plan. Incorrect required zoning information is shown and differing information from the application has been provided. The sife is located in the GB district. vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: A storm water management report has been submitted and to be reviewed by VHB. viii. BUILDING LOCATION: The location of building is shown on the plans. ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: Elevation plans have been submitted. X. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: No walkways proposed but should be, a clear delineation of the walkways for the handicapped parking and other parking areas should be defined. The applicant should also depict the entry way for employees and patients on all sheets. The parking calculations provided are using square footage area while the bylaw requires the calculations for Gross Floor Area, the applicant should revise this. The Zoning Enforcement Office has expressed concerns regarding the placement and amount of parking spaces and the required 25' access area please see his printed email(attached). A. LOCATION OF WETLANDSINOTICE OF INTENT: Location of wetlands are depicted on the plan, the Conservation Administrator has written a memo dated December 14, 2004 regarding the project (attached). xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: No walls or signs shown on the plan with the type of.business and use of the building signs would be utilized the applicant should provide detail of the placement and type of sign proposed. xiii. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The proposal is showing an access drive off of Willow Street please see Zoning Enforcement Officers comments regarding the drive area. xiv. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed. xv. LANDSCAPING PLAN: Minimal landscaping is proposed. The applicant has not provided information on the existing tree size. A chart of the required and proposed landscaping on a separate landscape plan should be provided. xvi. REFUSE AREAS: A dumpster is proposed with an 8' high chain link fence with green PVC infills. xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: Wall mounted lights are proposed, additional lighting of the parking area should be provided along with a detail of the proposal. xviii, DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: Drainage calculations have been submitted and will be reviewed by VHB. xix. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: No study has been conducted but should be with the amount of offices proposed. xx. EROSION CONTROLS: Erosion control has been shown around the pavement area, the applicant should demonstrate how they will construct the parking lot without destroying the erosion control. xxi, COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: No reports filed with any State Agency in support of this project. xxii. UTILITIES: Sewer and water lines are shown. The applicant needs to provide information regarding the placement of electric and telephone lines and detail that they will be underground. xxiii. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact study has been completed. xxiv. COMMUNITY IMPACT: No community impact study has been completed. Additional Comments: • Snow storage or removal has not been shown. • Additional detail of the steel plate and placement of such on sheet S-1 should be provided. Cc: applicant Engineer DPW Fire Department Building Department VHB Nicetta, Robert To: Byeriey, Jackie Cc: Griffin, Heidi Subject: Sudarshan Chattedee,MD My plan was given to Chief Dolan for review and his comments. As such, following are concerns of Building/Zoning. The parallel parking along the right line of the pavement will reduce the width of the ZBA required 25 foot corridor. It is Impossible for parking vehicles to park exactly S feet from the edge of the pavement and not infringe on the 25 foot width of the condor. The left rear comer of the building and the rear end of the car in the left parking space reduce the corridor to 20 feet. Fire apparatus require a minimum of 25 feet to make the turn the comer. 14 office and 12 reception areas are indicated on the floor plans. The applicant indicates that 34 parking spaces are sufficient for these areas. The parking will be insufficient with patients in each of the offices and the reception rooms filled to capacity with waiting patients. Additionally,no office space is shown. I use, as an example, 'The Evergreen Office Complex", located in the near vicinity,which does not have enough parking. The building department receives many complaints from abutters and people doing business in the"Complex"concerning the lack of parking. I 1 Town of North Andover Na oT►e Office of the Conservation Department _ h 7 Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street saKC L,IL`y North Andover, Massachusetts 01M Alison E. Mc Kay Told l'hone (978)688-9530 Conservation Administrator Fax(978)ti88-9542 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Mary Ippolito CC: Jacki Byerley, Planning Consultant Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director FROM: Alison McKay, Conservation Administrato(�t� SUBJECT: Planning Board Project Comments The Conservation Department offers the following comments as it pertains to referenced projects as listed below: 1.060 Osgood Street- Pizza Parlor Kotsironis See attached e-mail - craft Haneer(Gross) 492 Sutton Street-LMA Aircraft No wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed work. No filing required with Conservation. Willow Street(ChatterjeeJ • 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 (i.e- 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 688.954 L BUILDIN0 6M9545 CONSERVATION 6W9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 ➢ Must comply with state and local Stormwater Management Policies (amta impervious on site to be infiltrated - 17, 350 s.f.) ➢ The stormwater management system consists of a wet detention basin with a vegetated wet bottom to the sear (north) of the site. BMP's proposed include the detention basin, drainage swales, and a constructed wetland. Plans do not clearly define these areas in detail. Stormwater structures should be clearly marked on the plans. Please let me know if I can provide further information in this regard. Town of North Andover °, a°NT„ ` 'do 161rya Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division 400 Osgood Street RRTIP a North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �ss,cwu e�y htip://www.townofnorthandover.com P (978)6W9535 F (978)6W95V MEMORANDUM TO: North Andover Planning Board FROM: Jacki Byerley, Planning Consultant, RE: Special Permit Site Plan Review-Willow Street-Map 15 Parcel 4 DATE: December 17,2004/February 11, 2005 2"t Review The applicant is requesting to construct a three story office building within the GB Zoning District. The application was submitted as a combination site plan special permit and Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission. Emphasis seems to have been placed with the Notice of Intent. The site plan special permit application is lacking in information in regards to the proposal along with incorrect information in the"Required Lot(as required by Zoning Bylaw)" and "Proposed Building" sections. Information from the proposed building differs from what is stated on the plan, My review is as follows: SITE PLAN REVIEW: i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: A: locus map has been provided, the north arrow is not on the title page, the plan is missing a signature block for the planning board. The signature block has been provided. ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: The area to be constructed is shown on the plans but the boundary of the whole lot is not. Abutting property and their uses should be identified on the plan. The applicant has provided a plan of land for the boundary lines but it is labeled proposed lot lines. The recorded plan of the lot lines needs to be provided along with the uses of the abutting properties. iii. NAMEIDECRIPTION OF PROJECT: name of project has been provided. BOARD OF APPEALS 688-954I BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 < , legal i shown �v. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: No .easements or ega conditions are In the comments addressed to Tim McIntosh dated January 27, 2005 it has been stated that there are no easements on the parcel. V. TOPOGRAPHY: Spot grading has been shown, the existing conditions are not provided. The applicant states that the site relief change does not allow for two foot contours. A waiver request to this requirement should be made. vi. ZONING INFORMATION: A zoning chart has not been included on the site plan. Incorrect required zoning information is shown and differing information from the application has been provided. The site is located in the GB district. Dimensional Requirements has been adjusted on the plan. vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: A storm water management report has been submitted and to be reviewed by VHB. Please see VHB's second review. Also Jack Sullivan of DPW has not received plans and needs to review and comment. viii. BUILDING LOCATION: The location of building is shown on the plans. ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: Elevation plans have been submitted. X. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: No walkways proposed but should be, a clear delineation'of the walkways for the handicapped parking and other parking areas should be defined. The applicant should also depict the entry way for employees and patients on all sheets. The parking calculations provided are using square footage area while the bylaw requires the calculations for Gross Floor Area, the applicant should revise this. The Zoning Enforcement Office has expressed concerns regarding the placement and amount of parking spaces and the required 25' access area please see his printed email (attached). These items have not been addressed. The plans state that 24 spaces are required for the 7200SF of office space and 28 spaces are required for 7200SF of medical office. The applicant is only proposing 34 spaces. xi. LOCATION OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT: Location of wetlands are depicted on the plan, the Conservation Administrator has written a memo dated December 14, 2004 regarding the project (attached). The applicant's Notice of Intent is still in front of the Conservation Commission. xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: No walls or signs shown on the plan with the type of business and use of the building signs would be utilized the applicant should provide detail of the placement and type of sign proposed. A retaining wall is proposed around the parking area. No information regarding signs has been submitted. xiii. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The proposal is showing an access drive off of Willow Street please see Zoning Enforcement Officers comments regarding the drive area. This has not been addressed. xiv. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed. xv. LANDSCAPING PLAN: Minimal landscaping is proposed. The applicant has not provided information on the existing tree size. A chart of the required and proposed landscaping on a separate landscape plan should be provided. This has not been provided. xvi. REFUSE AREAS: A dumpster is proposed with an 8' high chain link fence with green PVC infills. xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: Wall mounted lights are proposed, additional lighting of the parking area should be provided along with a detail of the proposal. The applicant has stated that a separate lightingplan will be submitted. xviii. DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: Drainage calculations have been submitted and will be reviewed by VHB. Please see VHB's second review. xix. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: No study has been conducted but should be with the amount of offices proposed. This has not been provided. xx. EROSION CONTROLS: Erosion control has been shown around the pavement area, the applicant should demonstrate how they will construct the parking lot without destroying the erosion control. This has not been provided. xxi. COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: No reports filed with any State Agency in support of this project. This has not been provided. xxii. UTILITIES: Sewer and water lines are shown. The applicant needs to provide information regarding the placement of electric and telephone lines and detail that they will be underground. This has not been provided. xxiii. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact study has been completed. This has not been provided. xxiv. COMMUNITY IMPACT: No community impact study has been completed. This has not been provided. Additional Comments: • Snow storage or removal has not been shown. This has not been provided. • Additional detail of the steel plate and placement of such on sheet S-1 should be provided. The applicant has explained that this plate was from a previous Notice Of Intent submittal. Cc: applicant Fire Department Engineer Building Department DPW VHB TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Willow Street—Map 25,Parcel 4 VHII No.: 06716.98 Site Plan Location: Willow Street Applicant: Dr.Sudarshan Chatterjee,55 South Bedford Street,North Andover,MA Applicant's Engineer: CAQ Engineering Associates,Inc.,236 Pleasant Street,Methuen,MA Plan Date: September 24,2004,Rev Nov 8,2004 Original Review Date: 12-16-04 Revised Plan Date: January 27,2005 2°d Review Date: 02-10.2005 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended December 2002),the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations(NAWPR)and standard engineering practice. The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's second review: • Technical Supplement to Site Plan Application Notice of Intent revised January 27,2005 • Site Development Plans revised January 27,2005 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 4.1—District Use Regulations 4.125 Although the application for Site Plan Special Permit indicates that the proposed site is in a General Business zone,it appears that,by comparing the Site Plan and the Town of North Andover Zoning Map,the site is actually in a Residential District 6 zone. The Applicant should provide sufficient information(i.e.updated zoning map,more accurate locus map,addition of zoning division lines to the site plans)to indicate what zone the site is in. The proposed office building would not be permitted in a Residential District 6 zone. Addressed. Section 8.3--Site Plan Review 8.3.5.e.1i VHB suggests using a different line type to depict the property lines. Addressed. 8.3,5.e.iv -It appears that 25'and 50'Wetland Huffer Zone lines arc shown,however they are not clearly labeled; Addressed. -The Applicant should make it clear on the plans that the entire site is within the 100' Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland; Not Addressed. It is not rioted on the plans that the site is completely within the 100'Buffer Zone to BVW. 1 %lMawalr\te\06716.98\dots\rremos\06l1693-w1€law Site Review•Fdiowup-02m.doc '.. -Are there any easements relative to the existing drainage ditch and replication area that would affect the development on the proposed site? Addressed. 8.3.5.e.v Contours at 2' intervals are not provided on the plan. Furthermore,there appears to be a limited number of spot grades within the construction area. The Applicant should verify that the contours accurately reflect the topography of the site. Addressed. 8.3.5.e.vil See drainage comment below. 8.3.5.e.xiii A driveway is proposed,however it is not clear if any curb is proposed. A driveway detail should be provided that identifies the materials and dimensions proposed. Partially addressed. The Applicant has stated In his response that Modified Bituminous Berm and Guardrail are proposed at the driveway,however no driveway detail or driveway pavement detail has been provided. The Applicant should also clearly label the linilts of guardrail on the plans. 8.3.5.e.xv -There appears to be a slight discrepancy between the plan and planting schedule regarding the number of proposed treeslshrubs; Addressed, -Are there any existing trees on the site that are larger that 12"diameter than can be saved? Are there any that need to be removed? These should be indicated on the plan; Not Addressed. Existing trees with a 12"or higher diameter do not appear on the plans. -Materials are not specified on the plans;it is unclear what areas are asphalt,concrete, loam and seed or other. The Applicant should label all necessary areas. Partially addressed. The Applicant has stated in his response that the site would completely consist of asphalt pavement;however no labels were added to the plans. 8.3.5.e.xvi -It is unclear whether the 8'chain link fence is proposed all the way around the dumpster or only on one side. This section specifies that the outdoor refuse storage area be fully enclosed; Addressed. -The Pence should be shown on the Layout and Utilities Plan; Addressed. -A gate should be proposed to access the dumpster area. A detail of this gate should be added to the plans. Addressed. 8.3.5.e.xvii Light fixtures are proposed,however a detailed lighting plan was not included in this submission. Addressed, A separate lighting plan is forthcoming. 8.3.5.e.xviii See drainage comments below, 8.3.5.e.x1x A traffic impact study was not included in this submission. Partially addressed, The Applicant should elaborate by providing a narrative comparing current and projected traffic volumes,using a ntinknum of weekday daily and weekday morning and evening peak hour(adjacent street traffic) 2 \1Mawalr\le\06716.98\,toes\memos\4b7l698•Willow Slle Rev1ew•Fn11nwUp-OXM3.d1W i i volumes.The effects that the increase In vehicle trips will have on surrounding roadways should be summarized in tabular form and discussed, 8.3.5.e.xx A profile of the proposed sewer line was not provided, V14B also requests a detail for the connection of the proposed sewer line to the existing sewer line under Willow Street. Addressed. 8.3.5.c.xii A fiscal impact study was not included in this submission. Not Addressed, A Fiscal Impact Study was not found in the technical supplement. 8,3.5.e.xiii A community impact analysis was not included in this submission. Not Addressed. A Community Impact Analysis was not found in the technical supplement. General Comments 1. The,Applicant should verify that all information provided in the Application,Plans and any 'technical Supplements is consistent, (For example,the plans indicate that the Proposed Compensatory Wetland area is 1207 SF,however WPA Form 3 section C.6 indicates that an area of I t30 SF is being replaced.) Addressed. 2. The Locus Plan on the cover sheet is difficult to read,the Applicant should consider making the plan clearer. Addressed. 3. The proposed retaining wall label refers to S-2,however the Retaining Wall detail is on sheet S-4. Addressed. 4. It is not clear whether curb is proposed at the edge of parking lot. The Applicant should clarify by labeling as Proposed Curb or Edge of Pavement. Addressed. 5. The Applicant should verify the existing sewer line information. The sewer manhole(SMH)with a rim elevation of 98.3'is within 15 feet of a spot grade indicating an elevation of 10164'. Addressed. 6. The Applicant should add a Wheelchair Ramp detail. Addressed. 7. The Applicant should add a Sidewalk detail(VHB assumes hatched areas on north and south ends of the proposed building are sidewalk). Not Addressed. A sidewalk detail,including materials used,is not provided. 8. .A Curb Installation detail should be added if curb is in fact being proposed. Addressed. 9. It is unclear what the ingresslegress lines are indicating. The Applicant should clarify. Addressed. 10. What is the 8'X20'steel plate far? The Applicant should clarify. Addressed. 3 \\�Eawakr4e\pb71b991Eacs\memos\(1(,71f,9R willmv siie Review-Fonowup4U1 ms.doc I i I I. Note that the front building setback dimension for the General Business zone is 25%not 20'. The Applicant should correct the plan. Addressed. 12. If the Applicant is proposing curb at the driveway entrance,the Paved Water Way should be moved further past the end of the proposed curb,or curb transition pieces should be proposed on the plans. Addressed. 13, All water and sewer pipe sizes and lengths should he labeled on the plans. Not addressed. The pipe lengths do not appear on the plans. 14. All water connections and gates should be labeled on the plans. Not Addressed. The connections(TEEs,bends,etc...)are not labeled on the plans. 15. Section 23.2.2 of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(MAAB)regulations states that one in every eight accessible spaces,but not less than one,shall be van accessible". The Applicant should verify that a van accessible space is provided and should ensure that the dimensions of the space meet the requirements of MAAB. Addressed. 16. The Site Location appears to be indicated inaccurately on the soils map provided in the NOI application. Although it appears that the correct site is the same soil group as the one described in the report,VHB suggests modifying the soils map to accurately indicate the proposed site. Not addressed. So€Is map was not adjusted. 17. The Applicant should verify that standing water against the proposed retaining wall will not affect the structural integrity of the wall. Partially addressed. The Applicant acknowledges that there will be standing water against the retaining wall during storms;however does not address the question of whether that water will affect the integrity of the wall. Drainage Comments I. The System Design Overview section of the NOI Technical Supplement states that a Drainage Swale,Detention Basin and a Constructed Wetland are used to mitigate impacts,however only a vegetated wet pond with a sediment forebay,as defined by the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook,is used. Not Addressed. This section was not changed, 2. Where does water flow once it leaves the driveway? What direction is Willow Street sloping? Does Willow Street have a normal crown? Addressed. 3. does the runoff from the proposed driveway flow to the existing drainage system on Willow Street? if so,the Applicant should verify that the existing drainage system on Willow Street has enough capacity to accommodate the added flow. Addressed. However has the Applicant ver€tied that the swate has the capacity to take the additional now from the driveway? 4. Upon review of the plan,it appears that the Proposed Compensatory Wetland is actually only 600 SF in size,not 1207 SE as indicated on the plans. Addressed, 4 \\h walr\te\06716.98\dots\memos%0671698-Willow Silo Review-FAIkK ltr,p21kW1%drr '.. 5. it is unclear how the Applicant calculated the 600 SF of filled wetland. The Applicant should clearly indicate this area on the plan. Addressed, 6. The Applicant should clearly label the wetland limit lines. Addressed. 7. Do the flags labeled with"C"delineale the wetland associated with the existing drainage ditch? If so,what is the delineation on the opposite side of the ditch? The Applicant should clarify, especially in the area of the proposed driveway,what areas are considered wetlands. Addressed. 8. Has a culvert analysis been done for the proposed box culvert at the driveway? Will the capacity of the existing drainage ditch be affected by the proposed culvert? Partially addressed. The Applicant should provide the calculations in the Technical Supplement. 9, The Applicant is proposing a Precast Concrete Box Culvert in an existing drainage ditch in order to access the site. Vl1B offers the following comments: • The construction detail provided should be more detailed. The Applicant should indicate existing and proposed ground elevations,water,sewer and other utility crossings. The Applicant should explain the 8'x20'steel plate. Partially addressed. The Applicant has provided a sewer line profile,which shows the culvert section,however this section should include the proposed water line location,and the existing ground elevation. + The detail should identify the proposed material that will be used for the bedding of the culvert and the backtill. Partially addressed. Fill naterial has not been provided. • As vehicles will traverse the culvert,it should be designed to accommodate HS-20 loading. Addressed. Will guard rail be required to protect errant vehicles from entering the ditch? Addressed. • It appears that this proposed culvert will be located within the roadway layout and presumably on Town property. The proposed culvert design should he review by the Town Engineer and the Department of Public Works. Future maintenance and liability will be the responsibility of the.Town. Addressed. Applicant awaits DPW comments. 10, The Concrete Outlet Control Structure detail does not indicate the length of the 12"RCP or its slope. Not Addressed. Slope and length were not added. t 1. Length and sire of proposed drainage pipes should be shown on the Layout and Utilities Plan. Not addressed. Lengths were not added. 12. The Applicant should provide capacity calculations to demonstrate that the 12"RCP outlet pipe is adequately sized. Partially addressed. Although the 12"pipe will only handle the flow through the 4"and 5" orifices,the Applicant should provide a complete set of pipe capacity calculations in the technical supplement. This would also include the 6"PVC pipe from the curb Inlet. 5 \\�lawatr\tc10h71&98\does\memos\U67169&SY}I,onS StleRevlew-rol:asetj-020&05.doc 13. An emergency spil Tway has not been provided for the Wet Pond,as required by the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook. The emergency spillway's bottom elevation should be higher than the top of the galvanized steel grating of the outlet control structure. Addressed. 14. The Applicant should also provide calculations to demonstrate that the emergency spillway is sized to take the entire 100-yr storm(assuming that the outlet structure completely fails). Not addressed. The calculations should be provided in the technical supplement, 15. The Wet Pond Design section of the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook calls for a minimum 10' wide maintenance access to the outlet structure without crossing the emergency spillway. Addressed. 16. The invert of the 12"RCP pipe is indicated as 98.75',however a proposed 100'contour is shown at the end of the pipe. The Applicant should verify if the pipe needs to be lengthened. Addressed. 17. It appears that the proposed grades at the bottom of the proposed wet pond are lower than some of the existing spot grades near the site. Have any test pits been taken to verity ground water elevation,infiltration rates,etc...? If the proposed wet pond will contain standing water,the Hydrocad model must take this into account. Not addressed. The Applicant should verify ground water elevation to know whether the bottom of the detention basin is above it or not. 18. A detail of the proposed wet pond should be provided,including a cross-section. Partially addressed. A section of the detention basin was provided,however It does not clearly indicate cut areas,fill materials,tap of berm width,overflow spillway dimensions, proposed slopes,types of plantings,erosion control locations,etc... 19. A detail of the proposed Rip-Rap areas should be provided in the plans. Does water run directly off the pavement to the sediment forebay? The Applicant should verify that the proposed rip-rap stones are adequate to.prevent erosion. Addressed. 20. The sediment forebay appears to be too small. DEP Stormwater Management handbook calls for 0.1 inch over the impervious area of the proposed catchment area(in this case: 0.393AC x O.Iin= 0.0393AC.in= 145CF), it appears the Applicant has provided less than 50 CI~. Addressed. 21. Pre-and Post-development total areas are inconsistent. There is a difference of 0.63 AC,orover 2700 SF. The Applicant should verify. Not addressed. The driveway is included In both sub-catchment plans,therefore the total pre-and post-sub-catchment areas should be the same(I=1S+2S), 22. The Existing and Proposed Watershed plans are not to scale and do not indicate the critical paths used for calculating the times of concentration(Tc). They also do not indicate any contours. VHB was not able to properly review the catchment areas or Te's. Partially addressed. VHB now has the following cornments: • Although there is very limited information on the existing watershed plan,VHB assumes that the critical path for the time of concentration will not travel from wetland to wetland across a dry area. VHB suggests that the critical path would go from a high 6 \\Mawatr\te\06714.'kf\das\memos\Ob7364R-W3aaw Site&%dew•Fo11u,aUp-020805.dOC point at the center of the dry area toward the wetland(in any direction). This would indicate a travel length of 120'maximum. • The critical path for Area 2S's time of concentration should be shown graphically from the corner of the parking lot marked with elevation 103.5,since this appears to be the highest and furthest point from the gutter inlet. • The length of the critical path for Area 2S's tune of concentration appears to be closer to 2301,the Applicant should verify. • Both watershed plans remain not to scale(close to 40 scale,one is labeled at 20 scale and the other as Not To Scale). 23. The Applicant used it time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero discharge (beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time span of 0-24 hours. Partially addressed. The time span was not adjusted for the pre-development model. 24. The labels IS and 2S appear to have been mixed up in the Proposed Watershed plan. Addressed. 25, Areas 1S and 2S do not appear to have peen delineated correctly. The Applicant should review these areas,and take into consideration Comment no,26, Not addressed. The areas have not been adjusted. 26. Although there are a limited number of spot grades on the site,it appears that an existing high point may exist across the proposed site. If this is the case,2 design points,one at the northern tip of the site(proposed wet pond area)and one at the southern tip(downstream of existing drainage ditch)are required. The Applicant should verify the topography of the site and make any necessary adjustments to the Hydrocad model. Partially addressed. Easing the"wetland system"as the only design point is acceptable, however areas IS and 2S must still be adjusted. Area 2S should consist of the area that flows into the gutter inlet and detention basin. Area 1S should consist of the rest of the total sub- catchment area that flows directly Into the"wetland system7l. Runoff from IS and outflow from pond 1P would then need to be added together using a I'dummy"reach. The resulting value would finally be compared to the pre-development runoff of area 1. 27. In the Applicant's Stormwater Management Program,the Drainage Analysis section compares total runoff from the site. The correct procedure would be to compare runoff at separate design points. Post-development runoff for all slorms,2-yr, 10-yr and 100-yr would have to snatch or be lower than pre-development flows. Assuming that the Applicant's Hydrocad model and Catchment areas are correct,the Applicant would show a net decrease in runoff at the northern tip of the site(outlet of the wet pond),however there would be a net increase in runoff at the southern end(edge of proposed driveway). VHB suggests taking into account all previous comments to modify the catchment areas,tithes of concentration,detention basin(wet pond)dimensions and re- run calculations. See continent 26. DEP Stormwater Management Standards Standard#1 1. It is unclear how much reveal(if any)is provided by the wall or possible proposed curb. All runoff from the parking lot must be contained and flow to the detention basin for treatment before reaching the wetland. Please clarify. Addressed. 7 \\Mawast\te\06716.98\does\memos\0671698•Wiitow Re Review.Fa1lowUF-020B05.doc 2. The above comment also applies to the driveway runoff, The Applicant must justify that the runoff is treated before reaching a wetland. Partially addressed. The rip rap apron will protect against erosion;however it doesn't appear that the runoff is pre-treated before leaving the driveway. Standard#2 1. See Drainage comment 27. Standard#3 1. It is unclear how the Applicant calculated the volume to be recharged, The total impervious area of the site is 18,687 SF and the recharge rate for C soils is 0.1 in,for a volume of 156 CF. Partially addressed. The area stated in Appendix C should he 18,687 SF(the driveway area needs to be recharged as well). Recharge volume calculations should also be provided in the technical supplement. A detail of the leaching trench should be provided. 2. The Applicant states that the Constructed Wetland will provide infiltration to meet Standard#3. However,as questioned in Drainage Comment 17,there is the possibility of high ground water Ievels which would prohibit infiltration. Test pits should be taken to verify the ground water elevation. Addressed. A leaching trench is being proposed. Standard#4 1. The Applicant is claiming an 80%TSS removal rate.The detention basin/wet pond doesn't have a forehay.Withont a fnrebay,it can't be claimed as a wet pond(70%),only as a sediment trap (251k),As of now,the sediment trap and the pavement sweeping equal a 32,5%TSS removal rate. Not addressed. As stated in VHH's initial comment,the Applicant cannot claim the 70% TSS removal rate for the detention basin unless it has a sediment trap,therefore Appendix C should be revised to only claim 25%. The Applicant should also provide the manufacturer's sizing chart in the technical supplement,showing TSS removal rates for the proposed impervious area. Standard i#9 1. The Applicant should identify the stormwater management system's owner and the party or parties responsible for operation and maintenance,as stated in Standard#9. Addressed. Environmental Comments Site Plans In addition to the comments provided under Section 8.3—Site flan Review,according to North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,the site plans should also provide the following: 1, No existing conditions plan has been provided by the Applicant. Addressed. 2. The entire property with property boundaries as well as abutting properties should be.shown on plans. Addressed, 3. Existing features such as ledge,trees,paths,utilities,and drainage are not shown of the plans. Partially addressed. Existing trees with a diameter of 12"or more do not appear on the plans. 8 \\I.lawalr\le\06716.98\dmi\memos\067169&Wii'tAv Sile Review-PoltowUp-020805.doe 4. There are no sequencing details or species listed for the replication area. Partially addressed. VHB suggests adding the planting chart and notes for the replieation area to the plans, 5. It appears that the entire project lies within the 100-foot buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands,This should be stated on plans. Not addressed. A note should be added to the plans. Notice of Intent Narrative 1. The Narrative states that the Applicant is filing the Notice of Intent due to filling wetlands on the site. However,the Applicant must file anyway due to work in the 100-foot buffer zone. Addressed. 2, The Applicant states that the site does not lie within the FEMA 100-year floodplain zone, Documentation should be provided to verify this claim.Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Town of North Andover,Community Panel Number 250098 0006C,dated June 1993,it does appear that the site is very close to or within the 100-year flood zone. Partially addressed. Further information to be provided. 3. The Applicant states that this project is a limited project.Documentation as to the limited project status of the project under the Wetlands Protection Act,and its implementing regulations 310 CMR 10.53 3.(c)should he provided. Addressed. 4. According to the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,the Applicant should show clearly that proposed work in the buffer zone will not adversely impact the said interests of the Wetlands Protection Act or the interests identified in Section 178.1 of the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw. Addressed. 5, The Applicant should state the amount of work proposed within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone and the 50-foot No Build Zone. Addressed. 6. The Applicant slates that the wetland replication area is at a 2;1 ratio.On the WPA Form 3, Section C,the area of Bordering Vegetated Wetland altered is 600 square feet.The replacement area is 1,130 square feet.On the site plans,the replacement area is listed as 1,207 square feet. There needs to be uniformity in the amount of area replaced. Addressed. 7. Would the fill area at the drainage ditch be considered Bank impacts rather than BVW impacts? The Applicant should verify. Partially addressed, If there are impacts to Bank,the Impacts appear to total less than 50 feel,Also,the Proponent is replicating at a 2:1 ratio to mitigate for impacts. S. The North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations Section 5,1 states that the Commission may require an alternatives analysis for any work within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone(the entrance roadway). Partially addressed. The alternatives analysis doesn't necessarily refer to site access.It can refer to the building program size and work within the locally regulated 25-foot No Disturb Zone at the site,etc.., 9 1\Ma+v,lr\le\11F71h.y3\das\mrmos\R671648.W;tlow Site Review•Fnilnwll"2fMi.doe DrainaZc Cdculations 1. The claim of using constructed wetlands as any TSS removal should be disallowed.It should only be used as it replicated wetland. Addressed. 2. Infiltration cannot occur within the constructed wetland.The mitigation area(wetland replication) cannot be used for water quality improvements. Addressed. Operations and Maintenance Plan L The Operations and Maintenance Plan does not provide enough detail for the future site manager. Addressed. 2. VHB recommends that the proposed pavement sweeping be done more than once per year. Addressed. 3. There are no provisions for recording maintenance events. Not addressed. In the Operations and Maintenance Plan,the Maintenance Schedule is referred to.An actual maintenance schedule form should be included In the NOI for the site manager to use during inspections. 4. The Plan doesn't specify any ongoing monitoring of replicated wetland.According to the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations,Section 6.1,the replacement area should be monitored 2 times per year. Not addressed. As stated in the initial comment. The Plan does not specify any monitoring of the replicated wetland. 5. The site appears to be maximized and has been designed to fit within the surrounding wetland area. Asa result,the site is'tight' and there is little room for error. VHB recommends that the Applicant retain a surveyor to layout the proposed baybale/silt fence to ensure that these are constructed as shown on the design plans. Further,VHB recommends that the Town verify the location of the haybale/silt fence prior to construction. Addressed. New comments for Zoe review f. VHB questions the use of a curb inlet with a 6"PVC pipe to drain the parking lot. VHB suggests a catch basin with a four foot sump with a 12"reinforced concrete pipe. 2. V HI3 suggests using transition pieces to transition from bit berm to vertical granite curb. Details of transition pieces should be added to the plans. 3. A rim elevation is not provided for the Storruceptor unit. 4. Is the Applicant proposing any type of protection(i.e.concrete encasement or steel sleeve) for the proposed water and sewer services in the event that there Is settling underneath the culvert? 5. In section A-A,there are 2"land Replication Area"labels,however there is only one wetland replication area proposed on the site. 10 \\Mawar\1e\Q6716.98\docs\memos\0671698-WillowSkeReview-Follow1110 Mdoc I It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. / 1 Reviewed by: Date: Darryl Gallant Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal Reviewed by: to _ Date: Susan McArthur Environmental Group Checked by: r! �' __ f�1�4 '(i l �' Date: Timolhy B�Mclntosh,P.E. Project Manager—Highway and Municipal 11 \W3wal+\Ee\D671698Mdots\memos\0671648•WIllowShe Revlew-pollowl.IOM 5Jae Message Page 1 of 2 Ippolito, Mary From: McIntosh, Timothy [TMclntosh@VHB.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:21 AM To: mippolito@townofnorthandover.com Cc: Ippolito, Mary; Byerley, Jackie Subject: RE:VHB responses Hi Mary, Affer.see'rching my in-basket; l see that the Applicnnt for'Lhe Xrpo-�t Hangar(Dale Gross) has submitted a revised playa andwritten responses- I wi'l try to reviev this €tea eiia_ t 3 have not recekied anything for Lot#4 Willow Street. Therefore, l will not be able to issue any additional comments until I receive this information from the Applicant. Pease III with any questions or concerns_ 2_1m 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 i avintoshrd)Khb.c m -----Original Message From., Mary Ippolito[mailto:mippolito@townofnorthandover.com] Sent;Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:48 PM To: McIntosh,Timothy Cc: Ippolito, Mary; Byerley,Jackie Subject: VH13 responses Hi Tim, At last week's Planning Board meeting the Board stated that they are waiting for VHB's responses in time for the next scheduled Planning Board meeting of Jan 4, 2005. Please send your responses regarding the following two petitions: 492 Sutton Street{airport hangar of 12,000 s.f. ), and Lot##4, Willow Street(7200 s_f. office building). Call me at 978-688-9535 if you have any concerns. 12/29/04 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVE R Firc Department Central Fire Headquarters DEC 2004 124 MAIN sn;LE-ET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 William V. Dolan Telephone(978)698-9593 Chief(?I'Deparftnenl FAX (978) 688-9594 William P. Martineau Deputy Chief To: Jacki Byerley,Planning Consultant From: Fire Chief Dolan Date, 17 December 2004 Re: Willow St. —Map 25 Parcel 4—Dr. Chatterjec I have reviewed the Site Development Plans for the proposed three-story office building on Willow St. This building will be required to have an automatic sprinkler system under the provisions of MGL Chapter 148 Section 26 G and because of the parking located under the structure. A fire hydrant should be located on the site for fire department use. The exact location can be determined when review of the fire protection systems with the fire department occur. The back rear left corner does not provide the twenty-five foot radius he fire department needs for turning. On page S-5 there is a section for"Telephone& Fire Alarm Notes" there is no mention in these notes regarding fire alarm. I have called CAQ Engineering to request that they meet with me to clarify the above issues. Please contact me if you have any questions. William V. Dolan Fire Chief Cc: Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner CAQ Engineering Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 1 1ppolito, Mary From: Byerley, Jackie Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:28 PM To: { 1itcssh}°Ttrtrsth]r;Stillivanr Jack"' Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: Lot 4 Willow Street Can you please let me know whether you received the revised.plan arrd.comments for Lot 41 illow Sit. If you have can you please let me know whether you will have comments back for the next meeting on February 15, 2005. Thanks, Jacki 2/4/05 ___ Page 1 of I 1ppolito, Mary From: Sullivan, Jack Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:27 AM To: Byerley, Jackie; 'McIntosh, Timothy' Cc: 1ppolito, Mary Subject: RE: Lot 4 Willow Street -----Original Message----- From: Byerley,Jackie Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:28 PM To: McIntosh,Timothy; Sullivan,Jack Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: Lot 4 Willow Street Can you please let me know whether you received the revised plan and comments for Lot 4 Willow Street. If you have can you please let me know whether you will have comments back for the next meeting on February 15, 2005. Thanks, Jacki 2/9/05 Page 1 of l Ippolito, Mary From: Ippolito, Mary Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:00 PM To: Tim McIntosh (E-mail) Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: 2009 Salem St. Hi Tim, I have not heard back from your regarding your initial review for the project at 2009 Salem St., it's a PRD and Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision. It's on the PI Bd. agenda for this Tuesday night(2/15/06) Plse. advise. sagt PaF$0,% e raqaffds. Mary Mary Ippolito,Planning Assistant Planning Department Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 e-mail:-J - Phone: 978-688-9535 Fax: 978-688-9542 2/9/05 Page 1 of 2 Ippolito, Mary From: Ippolito, Mary Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:54 PM To: Byerley, Jackie Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: update Hi Jacki, Here's an update for Tuesday's agenda. I spoke w/Jack Hassham today, and advised that someone would need to be present to speak to the Board regarding the Johnson Circle proposed addition. Jack said that Gene Willis will attend the meeting. I contacted Neve Associates office and left a message for Joan, she still has not gotten backto me. I met w/the Engineer for Frank Terranova, and gave him the plans that Frank dropped off this week, naturally the plans were not what the Board wanted, the Engineer promised me the revised plans in one hour so that I can mail them to the Board. I spoke w/Chris Huntress and asked him to submit the conventional plan to the Board this Tuesday, he said he would I spoke w/Bob Daley and he is mailing his revised plans to VHB today, He'll drop off copies for the Board on Monday. He also requested a continuance until the March 1, Pl Bd mtg. Carlos dropped off his revised plan (only one copy) and submitted a copy to VHB for their review. I have not heard back from VHB as of yet. I received a phone call from the engineer for Treadwell's project. He seems to think that he is supposed to submit a site plan review for the ice cream parlor. It was my understanding that the site plan review was to be submitted only for the proposed office building. I e-mailed this question to Heidi, but I haven't heard back yet. I requested to take the day off tomorrow,yearly mammogram at the Lahey_ I may not take the time off if it snows heavy early in the day. I'll play it by ear. Mary Nkar Mary Ippolito,Planning Assistant 2/9/05 Page 1 of 2 Ippolito, Mary From: Ippolito, Mary Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:28 PM To: Ippolito, Mary; Byerley, Jackie Subject: RE: update avy Mary Ippolito,Planning Assistant Planning Department Torun of North Andover 4-00 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 e-mail: Phone: 978-588-9535 Fax: 97M88-9542 -----Original Message---- From., Ippolito, Mary Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:54 PM To: Byerley, Jackie Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: update Hi Jacki, Here's an update for Tuesday's agenda. 2/9/05 Page 1 of 1 Ippolito, Mary From: Byerley, Jackie Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:31 PM To. Lianne Cristaldi Cc: Griffin, Heidi; Ippolito, Mary Subject: Forestview Lianne, I understand you are looking to obtain adoiiw :To do so you would need to contact Tim McIntosh of VHB. VHB set the original bond amount and would need to go out on site and review any asbuilt plans. After which he will put it writing his recommendation; whether to release the full amount or partial. Once that is received by the Planning Office it will go on the neat available agenda. Since the board is holding surety agreements for Forestview a new agreement will need to be drawn up and approved by the Planning Board for the reduced amount. VHB's address and number are: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 101 Walnut St Watertown, MA 02472 617-924-1770 If you have any other question please let me know. Jacki Byerley 2/4/05 Message Page 1 of 1 i Byeriey, Jackie From: jack sullivan [jsullivan@townofnorthandover.cam] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11.18 AM To: 'McIntosh, Timothy', mippolito@townofnorthandover,cam;jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com Cc: hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com;jsullivan@townofnorthandover.com; cagea@aol.com Subject: RE: Lot 4 Willow Street-Site Review#2 Everyone, I have riot hearth from anyone regarding Drainage Issue #9 in VH 's review. Tho design engineer needs to contact rye to discuss. Jack -----Original Message----- From: McIntosh,Timothy [mailto:TMclntosh@VHB.com] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:17 AM To: mippolito@townofnorthandover.com; jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com Cc: hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com; jsullivan@townofnort,tandover.com; cagea@aol.com Subject: Lot 4 Willow Street - Site Review # 2 Hi Al I, Here is VHB's second review. Tint Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E. Vanasse Hangen Brustiin, Inc. 101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02471-9151 617-924-1770 Phone 617-924-2286 Fax tmcintos a vht3.com 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 Brustiln,Inc.is not responsible for any undetectable alteration,transmission error,conversion,media degradation,software error,or interference with this transmission, Vanasse Hangen Brustlln,Inc.101 Walnut St Watertown,MA 02472 617-924-1770 2/11/05 1 3 Message Page 1 of 2 l Ippolito, Mary C From: jack sullivan (jsullivan@townofnorthandover.cam] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:16 PM To: 'McIntosh, Timothy'; mippolito@townofnorthandover.com;jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com Cc: hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com;jsullivan@townofnorthandover.com; cagea@aoLcom; Daley, Lincoln; McKay, Alison Subject. RE: Lot 4 Willow Street-Site Review#2 —a all r .1 , i it' S 'i.S ,, o n 6?snt o n Lot n Sri{i S`' e, Co r-e c i W3t�1 L.a: CS �..'rltai "i�S r?lor i�� to i e�1i W �:. Sub S'-,. i�e�s'..�vp a ahi ..,.5.,-. 1IlV � Pil: - r?tS arc- �,S �, Ov(S: aS\ as Cee rest" tlOn he t?�uae all t £ r' SE IV �1. ,;va to the proposed bn C;'`sVe`r (i^ t� e Ia1'^ 66, of n l'pin( street 'Vlv� tQ S a --tl?% a31V and all future i"2ir.€_ernancer're[]ai7s to t�--c cu'kvert be the iesDor7S'vsISty of the .prropery Qlnllei. !S lanouaae S 0 '''r also ap'cear In e Stoif7water 'vVenElOr P0 _.9ci: Plan L.7'd11 © TJ,:'1 C'a'JrSe^ may Ieed to Via11' , iB larigilcgC v ins that tr e T01n,", 1S p�otec ed. aS'.<SCi that= t a5? 'iaS I1Lo� p�a c� .the e trai^? irn to n1Qri e it'/1 1 r �- h i^ -a .. �a^ n uae= Tn ( ^c t c a� to So: o c S.. i•'St0.Rl3 Nt N;jici :J Cur. r proposed to sh i,.,w ;o17? _^E S'te CIlSeC lti' Sti ae The a': hcS!ii cc--,' nv!ltle a rio--ap Gp;'OP, G.'. la?e wa ?' r cr , e to ov 1e d*It . n.e deS , G�a' 7eefs 0 shover de'aii fa- _ @5 µTea ='je `'rint'rhi , e-. alb L'_t anal ma' e -it pair c T 8 -...._.ai Ie. . ack Sullivan �ii�.tt`31 of`ilolll?G�'i?'`„ Jack- -----Original Message----- From: McIntosh,Timothy [mailto:TMdntosh@VHB.comj Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:17 AM To: mippolito@townofnorthandover.com;jbyerley@townofnorthandover.com Cc: hgrifFn@townofnorthandover.com;jsullivan@townofnorthandover.com; cagea@aoLcom Subject: Lot 4 Willow Street-Site Review # 2 Hi All, Here is VHB's second review. Tim Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 2/14/05 Nicetta, Robert To: Byedey, Jackie Cc: Griffin, Heidi Subject: Sudarshan Chatterjee,MD My plan was given to Chief Dolan for review and his comments. As such, following are concerns of BulidingfZoning, The parallel parking along the right line of the pavement will reduce the width of the ZBA required 25 foot corridor. It is impossible for parking vehicles to park exactly 9 feet from the edge of the pavement and not infringe on the 25 foot width of the corridor. The left rear comer of the building and the rear end of the car in the left parking space reduce the corridor to 20 feet, Fire apparatus require a minimum of 25 feet to make the turn the comer. 14 office and 12 reception areas are indicated on the floor plans. The applicant indicates that 34 parking spaces are sufficient for these areas. The parking will be insufficient with patients In each of the offices and the reception rooms filled to capacity with waiting patients. Additionally,no office space is shown. I use, as an example, 'The Evergreen Office Complex", located in the near vicinity, which does not have enough parking, The building department receives many complaints from abutters and people doing business in the"Complex"concerning the lack of parking.