HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-20 Engineer Review SPR FROM fkU51- CDNST CORP PHONE NO. : 978 640 0531 Aug. 29 2001 11:39AM a1
51 ),,Wo int lOy
Tewlisbu rry,PVIA 01876
'Tel.(9-78)-51-3456 Fax(9 78)646-0MIX
August 29,2001
Tim McIntosh,RE By Fax Only.
Vanasse H=gen Brustlin,Inc.
101 Walnut Street
P. 0.Bost 9151
Wuteriowxi, MA 0247
Tel. 617-924-1770
Fax 60-924-2286
Re. Your 2"review of the review report dated August 24,2001
The Merrimack Building,No, Andover,MA
Site Plan review No.Andover Planning Board
Dear Tim:
I trust that you have received responses from Patrirlt C. Garnex Co -and_Dannott.1_ Kelly
Associates addressing your review, I am scheduled for next hearing on September 4,
2001. 1 ain Teyuesting for your final rcN iew in time for that meeting.
As suggested by you in items#3, 1 visited the Fire Department. They agmed with you.
Therefore, I am proposing to provide a hydrant at the rear of the building,near the stairs,
in the landscaped area.
If any items rc main unsatisfied in your review,please contact any one of us. Tbanks for
your cooperation.
Sincerely,
L �A
P.L.Hingorani,Trustee
CC: Heidi Griffin,Town Plumley
Fax Oqg-f 88-9542
JereNo.And,1SPR'VHB XT review
I
E
i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW &STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: The Merrimac Building VHB No.: 06716.42
Location: Route 114&Berry Street
Owner& Applicant: One Hundred Fourteen Trust, Peter Hingorani,Trustee
51 Mount Joy Drive,Tewksbury,MA 01876
Applicant's Engineer: Patrick C. Garner Co.,Inc.
109 Whitney Street, Northborough,MA 01532
Plan Date: 01-22-01 Review Date: 07-19-01
The Applicant submitted plans and documents to VHB for review on June 26, 2001. The site
plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of the 1972 Town of
North Andover Zoning Bylaw amended on December 11, 2000 and standard engineering
practice.. The following comments note non-conformance with,specific sections and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Site Plan (5 sheets)
• Application Form for Site Plan Special Permit
• Hydrological Study Report dated 08-26-98
1) Section 8.1: This section defines the required minimum number of parking spaces for a
office park to be one space per 300 square feet of Gross Floor Area(GFA).Based on the
proposed total GFA of 66,665 square feet,the required number of parking spaces is 223.The
site plan indicates that 189 spaces are proposed. A variance has been filed by the Applicant
and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 11,2001,
2) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5.e and VHB offers the following
comments:
a) STORMWATER DRAINAGE/DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comments below
under the item 4)Drainage Review.
b) LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: VHB suggests that the location of the proposed signs
be identified on the site plan.VHB also suggests that a detail for the proposed signs be
provided on the site,plan.
c) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: See comments below,under the:item 3)Traffic Review.
1
DAwork\Route 114_&rry St Office Building review report.doc
I
3) TRAFFIC REVIEW
a
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB) has performed a peer review of the Traffic Impact and
Access Study (TIAS) for the proposed development of office space on Route 114 in North
Andover,MA. Dermot I. Kelly Associates,Inc.prepared the TIAS. Our continents have been
structured to correspond to the table of contents in the traffic study.
In general, the study was performed in a professional manner and conforms to industry standards
for the preparation of a traffic impact assessment.
Executive Summary
This section of the report is satisfactory.
Project Description
This section of the report is satisfactory.
The proposed site drive is described as a"25-foot driveway in a 50-foot right-of-way." VHB
recommends that the proponent investigate constructing one 16-foot receiving lane, and a
separate left-and right-turn lane(each 12 feet wide), for a total of 40 feet of right-of-way.
Alternatives to the Project
The no-build and build conditions were analyzed to make a baseline comparison for the project.
Were alternative development scenarios considered for this site? If so,please provide a
description. Given the need for zoning relief for this project due to parking, an analysis of a"by-
right"development on the project site might also be considered.
The Existing Built Environment
Geometrics
This section of the report is satisfactory.
Traffic Volumes
Overall, this section of the report is satisfactory, However,the traffic volumes shown in Figure
2, and subsequently used in the traffic analysis,are based on the average of the weekday counts,
as opposed to the weekday high volumes.
Vehicle Speeds
A comparison of average and 85'h percentile speeds should be noted. Is the range of traffic
speeds shown in Table 2 indicative of the full range of speeds observed or is this a sampling of
the overall travel speeds observed. A summary of the data collected in the field is not included
in the Appendix for review.
Future Traffic Volume Conditions
Background Traffic Growth
The TIAS has accounted for three specific developments near the property. The Town should
review these developments to determine if this is a complete listing or if additional projects
might be included in this summary.
(V
DAwork\Route 119_Uerry St Office DWIding review report.doc
I
Vehicle-Trip Generation
The traffic generation section does not specify what ITE land use code was used to estimate trips
to and from the project site. The report should note what land use code was used and provide
technical justification as to the numbers of trips shown in the report. Given the office land use as
described in the report,we feel that land use code 710 (General Office Building) should be used
to determine the overall traffic generation potential for the project. The information referenced
in the report should be based on the ITE Trip Generation manual(61h Edition).
Traffic Distribution/Assignment
The traffic distribution as described in the report(using observed traffic volumes) does not match
the information presented on Figure 4, The Weekday Morning Peak Hour has 45 percent
arriving from the south,yet the traffic volumes entering the site appear to be distributed with the
majority of the traffic arriving from the southbound direction.
Traffic Analysis
This section of the report is satisfactory.
Safety Analysis
Stopping Sight Distance
While it appears from the information presented in Table 6 that adequate stopping sight distance
is provided, the sight distance noted is +550 feet and the recommended AASHTO sight distance
is 550 feet. The proponent should outline recommendations aimed at improving sight distance
(as noted in footnote"b"in Table 6) and should investigate measures to further increase the SSD
at the driveway location.
General Comments on the Traffic„Impact and Access Study
VHB recommends that a registered professional engineer, licensed to practice transportation
engineering in Massachusetts,certify the information and stamp the final traffic study.
General Comments on the Site Plan
Are truck restrictions being considered at this site? It appears on cursory review that a tractor-
trailer truck(WB-50 design)cannot negotiate many of the turn radii in the site, specifically the
site drive entrance. Furthermore, a smaller delivery truck(similar to a truck that would service
the dumpster, located in the rear of the site) can marginally negotiate the site drive and other
locations on the site.. The proponent should provide an AUTO-Turn review of the site and,if
needed,recommend restrictions to the types of large vehicles visiting the site.
On the layout plan, it was noticed that the handicapped parking stalls are located across a drive
aisle from the building. Are there opportunities to provide handicap parking adjacent or under
the proposed building?
Finally, there is some concern about the effect queuing at the main driveway and the effect it will
have on the on-site circulation patterns.Particularly,we are concerned about the driveway
located immediately to the east of the main entrance drive and the impact queued vehicles exiting
the site may have on site circulation. Could this be signed as"enter only"?
3
D;\work\Route 114_Berry St Office Building review report.doc
4) DRAINAGE REVIEW
The Town of North Andover Conservation Commission (NACC) `s outside consultant has
reviewed and approved the proposed drainage design.The proposed drainage design is a
closed drainage system that includes catch basins,drain manholes,Vortechnics treatment
system, subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin that detains all of the roof
drainage runoff.The Applicant anticipates that all proposed pavement runoff within the
development will be.treated through the Vortechnics treatment system prior to entering the
subsurface infiltration system.
The Applicant has modified the proposed drainage design after the NACC's approval of the
drainage design. The detention basin has been replaced by the subsurface infiltration system
at the east boundary to facilitate additional parking spaces for the proposed office
development.The revised drainage layout is somewhat similar to the original drainage design
with the exception of the detention basin.VHB offers the following comments regarding the
revised drainage design:
a) The hydrological study dated August 26, 1998 was performed based on the original
drainage layout.The Applicant should revise the hydrological study to reflect the current
drainage layout.
b) The proposed runoff from the parking lot at the east boundary does not have any water
quality treatments prior to entering the subsurface infiltration system. VHB recommends
that Vortechnics treatment system be proposed with the subsurface infiltration system.
c) The Applicant should identify where the 12-inch Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe
(RCP) goes from the Manhole I.
d) The detention basin and weir detail should be deleted from the construction detail sheet
since the detention basin has been replaced by an infiltration system.
e) VHB recommends that a haybale with silt fence detail be provided on the detail sheet.
f) The drainage pipe slope between DMH-C and DMH-D and between CB-E and CB-F are
less than the minimum slope of 0.4%. VHB recommends that steeper longitude slope be
provided to increase pipe capacity.
g) VHB recommends that catch basin to catch basin connection be avoided(CB-A to CB-B
and CB-E to CB-F), especially when the catch basins are located at low points. The
drainage system will fail if the downstream catch basin is clogged.
h) The invert in and invert out elevations for the Vortechnics treatment systems should be
identified on the site plan for review,
i) It appears that the invert elevation at the outlet is higher than the invert elevation of the
overflow pipes in the infiltration system. The Applicant should verify that the excess
runoff would not overtop the infiltration system. VHB recommends that the invert
elevations for the overflow pipes of the infiltration systems be identified on the site plan
for review.
j) The Applicant provided plans that illustrate post-development drainage areas. However,
no pre-development drainage areas have been submitted for review.VHB recommends
that their respective flow paths for each drainage area be identified on the same plan,
(0
DAwork\Route 114_Serry St Office Building review report.doc
k) The Town of North Andover regulations require that post-development peak discharge
rates for 1, 10 and 100-year124 hour storm events not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates. VHB recommends that a summary table that compares pre-and post-
development peak discharge rates for 1, 10 and 100-year storm events be provided.A
comparison between pre-and post-development peak discharge rate will determine
whether the proposed development will or will not increase offsite flooding impacts
during 1, 10 and 100-years storm events.
1) The Applicant has not provided any pipe sizing calculations for review. VHB
recommends that Rational method be used to verify whether the proposed drainage pipes
have adequate capacity to handle the peak discharge flow based on a 10-year storm
event.
3) STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE:
VHB has reviewed the site plans for conformance to standard engineering practices. The
purpose is to document the engineering and potential construction issues associated with the
project.VHB offers the following comments:
a) VHB recommends that handicap parking spaces that are located at the site entrance be
relocated in close proximity to the elevator lobby area inside the garage to provide the
shortest accessible route to the office building for the handicap persons.
b) No proposed water main has been shown on the site plans. VHB recommends that the
proposed water main be shown on the site plan.
c) The site plans indicate that a proposed fire hydrant is located at the site entrance.VHB
recommends that an additional fire hydrant be proposed within the proposed
development,perhaps at the rear of the building.Have the site plans been submitted to
North Andover Fire Department for review?The Applicant should verify this.
d) The plans do not clearly identify the proposed materials.VHB recommends that
proposed materials be identified on the plans. Is any sidewalk and curbing proposed on
the site?If so,the Applicant should provide wheelchair ramps for handicap access.
e) VHB recommends that a typical pavement section for the proposed driveway be
provided on the site plans.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and
comments contained herein.
IN
Reviewed by: ` ' Date: 1 a
Danny H.Wong,E.I.T.
Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal Engineering
f/y,A
Checked by:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.
Project Manager--Highway and Municipal Engineering
m
5
D.Awork\Route 114_13erry 5t Office 6uilding review repoct.doc
I
j
Transportation
Land Development • ,
Environmental •
S e r v 1 c e s
® i
y imagination innovation I energy Creating results for ourchenis and benefits for our comintlo ties
August 24,2001 ...Van . mWin, Inc.
Ref: 06716.42
Ms.Heidi A.Griffin �
Town Planner FI E-�.,
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover I �
27 Charles Street AUG 2
North Andover,MA 01845 NO1'I ANDoVE
PLANW,IG DEPAnTMENT
Re: The Merrimac Building
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received Patrick C. Garner Company,lnc.'s
written response letter(dated July 30,2001) to our engineering review for the above
referenced project. In general,all of VHB's comments have been addressed with the
exceptions noted below:
1. The drainage pipe slope between DMH-C and DMH-D appears to be inadequate. VHB
recommends that pipe slope be revised to the minimum of 0.4%.
2. The Applicant has identified the invert elevations for the Vortechnics treatment systems
in order to address VHB's drainage comments. Upon review of the invert elevations,
the invert-out elevation for MH-J(130.48)appears lower than the invert-in elevation of
the Vortechnics treatment system(130.50).VHB recommends that the invert-out
elevation for MH-J be raised.
3. The following are the VHB's comments from the previous review that the Applicant
has not been responsed:
• No proposed xvater main has been shoran on file site plans. VHB reeoniiiiends that the
proposed water main be shown air file site plats.
• The site plans indicate that a proposed fire hydrant is locate at the site entrance, VHB
reconunends that all additional fire hydrant be proposed within the proposed developinent,
perhaps at the rear of the bffilding. Have the site plans been sfibinitted of North Andover
Fire Departinent for reviezu?The Applicant should verifij this.
4. Most of the traffic issues raised in our previous report appear to be addressed to our satisfaction.
However,we offer the following additional traffic related comments:
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 915i
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
617.924.1770 . FAX 617.924.2286
T:\0671612\does\letters\let•approt,al•081501.doc email: infoQvhb.eom
www.vhb.com
1
Heidi Griffin
Project No.: 06716.42
Page 2
• We are still concerned about the ability of large vehicles(specifically WB-50 tractor vehicles)
to manage their way through the site. The AUTO-turn plan included in the report shows
that a truck could access the site via the driveway,but does not show how a truck would
travel through the site. We remain concerned about the ability of heavy vehicles to manage
the tight turns through the remainder of the site.
• Additionally,while the sight distance calculations appear to be adequate,the proponent
should identify if land adjacent to the site driveway will need to be altered to provide the
necessary sight distance measurements and,more importantly,if this land is or is not owned
by the proponent. If it is not owned by the proponent,then a summary of discussions with
neighbors should be provided stating that they have given permission to alter vegetation
and topography(if needed)in perpetuity.
The Applicant has provided me with a copy of your July 26,2001 letter.for the above
project. While I have reviewed the letter and the revised plans,I have not provided
comments. I assume that the Applicant has satisfied or will satidfy the requests and
concerns outlined in your letter.
VHB recommends that the Applicant address the above comments. If you have any
questions or concerns,please call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B. McIntosh,PR
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
cc: Patrick C. Garner
Peter Hingorani
Dermot Kelley
a
t&
T o\0671642\d oe s\let ters\le t-a p p ro val-081501,doe
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
Services
® 4
e
! Imaginat Ion 11111Ovatl on energy Creating,results for our chenis and betlefits for otlr conlnwill ties
August 30,2001 Vanasse__Hc ngen Brust-lin, InC,_.__
Ref: 06716,442
Ms.Heidi A.Griffin
Town Planner
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: The Merrimac Building
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received Patrick C.Garner Company,Inc. and
Dermot J.Kelly Associates,Inc.written response letters and revised plans to our Follow-up
Review.for the above referenced project. It appears that all of VHB's comments have been
adequately addressed and VHB's concerns in this matter have been satisfied. No further
engineering review is required at this time.
If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convienerice.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B. cIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
cc: Patrick C. Garner
Dermot J.Kelly
i
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
61Z924.1770 z FAX 617.924.2286
\\mawatr\te\0671642\docsVelter6 Jet-approvat-O:SHOLduc er11a11: info@vhb.com
www.vhb.com