Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineer Review 2009-2011 i TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: The Arbors at North Andover VHB No.: 09280.56 I i Site Plan Location: 1275 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: Elm Development Services,L.L.C.,200 North Main Street,East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Applicant's Engineer: Marchionda&Associates,L.P.,62 Montvale Avenue, Suite 1,Stoneham,MA 02180 PIan Date: November 12,2009 Review Date: December 8,2009 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended July 13,2008). The traffic impact and access study submitted for the proposed development was also reviewed. The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review: • Site Plans with latest revision date of Noverber 12,2009(20 plan sheets) • Letter from the Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)granting dimensional variances for perimeter setback and maximum building height, • Traffic Impact and Access Study,Proposed Congregate Care Facility,Route 114(Turnpike Street),North Andover,MA,dated June 2001 and updated November 10,2009;prepared by i Dermot J.Kelly Associates,Inc. ' The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Please note that I this review does not include a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. . j Town of North Andover Zonine B law 1. Section 6.4,2(a): This section states that,"No permanent sign shall be erected,enlarged,or structurally altered without a sign permit issued by the Building Inspector." It should be noted that a sign permit will be required for the proposed entry sign(detail on sheet L-2). VHB defers to the board on whether this permit should be filed with the Special Permit for the Continuing Care Retirement Center(CCRC) or following the potential granting of the Special Permit prior to construction. 2. Section 6.6.A.2: This section specifies that ground signs shall be set back a minimum of ten(10)feet from all property lines, The entry sign/wall indicated on the plans appears to be set back approximately five(5)feet from the property line. Has the Applicant requested a waiver from this dimensional !!!, requirement for ground signage7 3. Section 8,1.5(c): This section requires that the maximum width of the driveway to a facility containing { five(5)or more parking stalls shall be twenty-five(25)feet at the street line. The proposed driveway width at the street line is approximately forty-three(43)feet wide. It appears that this width is to # facilitate traffic flow and safety,therefore the Board may wish to modify the\vidth limitation. VHB defers to the board on this item. However VHB would not recommend narrowing the driveway for this particular layout as it appears to be designed this way to allow for vehicular turning maneuvers. i 1 � \\\Vhb\proj\4Vni-7-L'\09280.00\dots\memos\09.28055•'IheRrborsalNorihAndoter_CCfiC-review].doc 4. Section 8,1.5(e): Off-street loading requirements for a CCRC development are not clear because the. table does not provide specific requirements for a CCRC. VHB defers to the board as to the number and size of the loading bays required for this proposed development. VHB recommends that the Applicant clarify the loading areas and show the truck turning movements, i 5. Section 8.1.5(f): The Applicant has not provided a photometric lighting plan for the proposed site lighting for the development. Therefore,conformance with this section of the by-law has not been reviewed. VHS defers to the board as to whether a photometric lighting plan is will be required for the proposed development. b. Section 13.5(a): This section states that,"A CCRC shall be permitted only within a single lot containing a total area of not less than twenty-five acres." Footnote 1 on Sheet 2 indicates that the overall parcel proposed for development is comprised of three lots under common ownership totaling 33.35 acres. VHB defers to the town in the determination on weather a waiver request is required or the lots will be required to be joined to become a single lot, It does not appear that this would be,an issue as the applicant is proposing to create a conservation restriction totaling 25.14 acres. 7. Section 13.5(d)(1): The Applicant has included a letter from the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow the construction of a porto cochere within seventy-three(73)feet from the perimeter. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to the ZBA's decision to grant this variance. The plans appear to be consistent with this seventy-three foot dimension,however the dimension should be shown on the plans. 8. Section 13.5(d)(3): The Applicant has included a letter from the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow for relief from the requirements of building height from thirty-five j (35)feet to forty-nine(49)feet,two(2)inches. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to the ZBA's decision to grant this variance, The zoning summary on Sheet 2 indicates that the building ! height is 49'2"(consistent with the variance)however no building elevations confirming this height are ! included in the planset. VHB defers to the board on whether building elevations are necessary in the granting of the Special Permit. f 9. Section 13.5(f)(2): This section states that for congregate housing one parking space shall be required for each unit. The proposed site plans include 125 CCRC units and ninety-seven(97)parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of approximately 0.78 parking spaces per CCRC unit. The zoning table on Sheet 2 provides the ratios which the proposed parking meets. Has the Applicant applied for or been granted a waiver from the parking requirement per this section of the Zoning By-law? 10. Section 13.7(a)(2): This section requires the Applicant to submit a"Definitive Plan"in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 11.3. VHB assumes that the submitted planset represents the required,"Definitive Plan." The following lists the applicable provisions within Section 11.3 which are not included in the Site Plans. 4 a. Section 11.3.3(f): The lot number, dimensions of the lot in feet and the width of the abutting streets and ways are not included on the plans, b. Section 11.3.3(i): Does a portion of this lot lie within the 100-year floodplain7 An area on the proposed plan is designated as flood compensation area however there are no limits for the 100-year flood plain shown on the plans. c. Section 11.3.30): The dimensions of the proposed building are not indicated on the plans. d. Section 11.3.3(k): The distances of the proposed building from the lot lines are not shown on the plans. ' 2 \%%Vhb\prof\%Nat-TE5092S0.00\dots%memos\0928056-TheArborsaWorthAndover CCRC-review2.doc i i i , , e. Section 11.3.3(rn): The average finished grade of the proposed building is not shown on the i plans. i f£. .Section 11.3.3(n): The elevation above average finished grade of the floor and ceiling of the lowest floor of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. } t , g, Section 11.3.3(r); The height of the proposed building,above the average finished grade of I abutting streets is not shown on the plan. General Comments 11, VHB has reviewed on-site circulation for the proposed development. It appears that passenger vehicles and single unit vehicles(snow plows,ambulances,UPS/FED EX,etc.)can maneuver throughout the site appropriately. 12. The handicap curb cut detail does not appear to account for the fact that the,accessible parking spaces are two(2)feet longer than the adjacent parking spaces. It is not clear how this transition is accomplished. This discrepancy should be accounted for in the detail to ensure that an accessible path meeting the ADA/AAB required width will be constructed at the accessible parking spaces. , 13. There are two proposed fire hydrants spaced approximately 570' apart,associated with the proposed development. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved these.hydrant locations? The North Andover Subdivision Mules and Regulations specify that fire hydrants shall be ! located not more than five hundred feet apart. Afire lane is proposed to be provided at the west side of the building but does not extend behind the building. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved the fire access circulation for the site? If not already completed,VHB recommends that the Fire Department review and approve the hydrant locations and the fire vehicle Circulation. Ei E 14. The underdrain detail specifies that it is a roadway underdrain. Is this intended to be the detail for the underdrain system proposed with the tiered segmental retaining wails to the rear of the proposed building? The underdrain inverts should be shown on the plans. M The utility connection points for electric,telephone,cable and gas are shown at the proposed building however the connection points to the main systems are not shown. The board may require these connection points to be shown on the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 114 in order to make these connections. It is assumed that the electric,telephone and cable will be provided from a connection to a utility pole. There is no existing gas main shown on the plans therefore it is difficult to understand where this connection will be made, The existing gas main and connection point should be i shown on the plans, 16. The infiltration system typical inspection port detail does not indicate that it is rated for vehicular loads, i This should be confirmed and shown on the plans as one of the inspection ports is within the parking lot. ! 17, The Applicant should confirm that infiltration system 1 has the appropriate separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater. The estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation increases between TP- 2 and TP-I on the eastern portion of infiltration system 1. i 18. The proposed snow storage area on the northem portion of the site is adjacent to the 50' wetland buffer, It appears that snow in this area will melt and discharge directly to the wetland resource area without being afforded the water quality treatment provided in the stormwater management system. Snow storage areas are generally designed such that the snow will melt back onto the pavement to allow for full water quality treatment through the stormwater management system. Has the Applicant 3 \\\Vhb\prof\W at-TE\09280.00\dots\memos\09M056-TheArborsatNorthAndover CCRC-reviewl.dcc 1 E evaluated providing snow storage areas that will be treated for water quality and not impact the wetland resource area? ! i 19. VHB recommends that the limits of the wooden rail be extended to the west between the parking area and the 1:1 slope area(14'drop)to protect errant vehicles from the steep slope. Consideration should be given to further extending the wooden rail adjacent to the fire lane. The ability of this wooden rail ! to withstand vehicular impact is unclear. The Applicant may wish to consider a proven crash tested system in lieu of the wooden rail. i 20. The proposed segmental retaining wall proposed around the existing drop inlet catch basin to be replaced(at station 126 approximately of Route 114)extends within the layout of Route If 4. Can this j retaining wall be within the roadway layout? 21. A MassDOT access permit will be required to allow the driveway connection,the utility connections within Route 114 and to allow for the construction of the segmental retaining wall within the Route 114 layout. VHB assumes that the Applicant's Engineer will discuss any work within the Route 114 layout with the Town DPW/Enginecring Department and MassDOT as well as obtain all necessary permits t from the State and the Town. ' i 22. Has the Applicant evaluated the incorporation of a vertical curve at the main entrance to the site to allow for a smooth transition for vehicles entering and exiting the site? There is a grade differential of 4%at PVT-0+9.75 with no vertical curve. 1t appears that a vertical curve could be incorporated between the extended cross slope of Route 114 and the 5%grade of the driveway to create a smooth transition. t Traffic Review ; I Technical Review Comments: E 23. Table 1 summarizes data for various weekdays from 2001 but the corresponding count sheets are not included for verification. 24. Was Saturday data collected to confirm that the proposed development does not have a potential Saturday peak that needs to be analyzed? I 25. Turning movement volumes for the"Seven Hills"driveway across from the proposed site driveway are noted as being negligible on the traffic volume figures.Was this driveway counted?If the address for the Seven Hills property is 93 Turnpike Street,it appears that a Fresh City restaurant was in operation on the site until Nov 2009 and that another,similar,fast casual restaurant plans to reoccupy the space. Calculation of impacts at the site driveway/Route 114/Seven Hills Driveway intersection need to take into account potential fast food restaurant traffic, including the possibility of a weekday midday and Saturday midday peak conditions. 26, 2007 crash data is available.The crash analysis should take into account at least the latest three years of ! available data.It should also be noted that the latest average crash rate for MassDOT District 4 is 0.58, not 0.88 as quoted in the report, 27. Since no crash data appears to be available from the MassDOT records for the site frontage,the Proponent should review any available crash data from the North Andover police department for the section of Route 114 between Johnson Street and Brook Street to rule out apparent safety issues related to roadway geometry and/or vehicular speeds.Police crash records should also be reviewed for crash history at the Johnson Street intersection. t 4 \\\Vhb\prof\Wet-TE109280.00\does\memos\092805b-TheArborsallorthAndover_CC RC-rev iew],doc { 3 I i 28, Trip generation and traffic assignment layers should be provided for the background projects included I in the analysis. i 29. While there appears to be a drop in traffic volume between the 2001 and 2008 ATR data,comparison to older studies for the site have shown substantial increase in traffic volumes between 1999 and 2001. It is possible that the current economic conditions and the fact that the 2008 data was collected a week i before Christmas could have factored into the differences in traffic volumes.To maintain consistency ' with prior analysis,use of a 2%annual traffic growth rate(as in the prior studies for the site)is more appropriate than the 1%that was used in the current study. 30. The site plans refer to the site as a Continuing Care Retirement Community(CCRC)while the traffic E study analyzed the project as a Congregate Care Facility(CCF).ITE's database is relatively larger for CCRCs than for CCFs.Also,ITE clearly distinguishes between the two types of facilities.The Proponent should clearly describe the proposed use of,and anticipated operations at,the facility and justify the land use code used in the,analysis.Note the difference in trip generation between the two land uses in the table below. 7!7 kd MrnEnterin v h X�fln 14 h t Total v h $ �+ _ 23. „ . ...•• ' '�r,�„�., ,t_may_ �.. . . . Weekday Evening 1~nerin Exiting {vph) 9 19 Weekday,Dalyi nterin v h 134 176 xit i~ig 't?l! 3 ' �34 '176. ' Total v h 268 351 1 f� 1 S k 1 L .rrr f 31. Capacity analysis was run using HCS 2000 and not HCS+,the latest version of the analysis software available. E 32. Review of the capacity analysis worksheets indicate that the Critical Gaps used in the analysis were reduced below their default values(i.e., it was assumed that drivers would accept smaller gaps in traffic than the typical values used in the analysis).A gap acceptance study validating the use of smaller gaps 1 should be provided or the analysis should be based on default gap values. , 33. The capacity analysis should be based on observed peak hour factors(PHFs)and heavy vehicle(HV) .percentages,and not the values used in the report.Use of default gap values as well as the observed PHF's and HV%s by VHB showed substantially poorer traffic operations than those reported in the study. i 34. The study does not discuss the proposed site driveway's compliance with Intersection Sight Distance � (ISD)requirements.ISD measurements and calculations should be performed in addition to Stopping 9 i 5 \1\Vhh\pruj\Wat-TE\09280.00\dots\memos\0928056�TheArhocsatNorthAndover CCRC-reviewl.doc V i I I f Sight Distance(SSD)calculations.Resulting SSD and ISD sight lines should be plotted on a plan view to clearly depict the sight triangles that need to be cleared,If vertical alignment is an issue along that section of Route 114,sight line diagrams should also be plotted on a roadway profile. I 35, VHB recommends that a registered Professional Engineer,certified to practice transportation engineering in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,stamp the final traffic study,including the sight f distance graphics. j In summary,while the traffic information was generally prepared in conformance with standard engineering practice,VHB's review identified several areas of concern,of varying degrees of magnitude.Use of less f than typical vehicular gap values in the analysis, confusion about the appropriate lane use code for the development,and lack of detailed sight distance calculations are of primary concern, I VHB notes that while peak hour trip generation for projects such as the proposed facility might be relatively lower than other residential uses such as townhouses and apartments,the location of the site along a high speed roadway,coupled with the potential for a higher proportion of aged drivers attempting to turn into and out of an unsignalized driveway from/to a center left turn lane warrants a closer look at safety issues such as sight distances and available gaps. It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and continents contained Herein. Reviewed by: Date: /Z 0,6 'P ' Griffin Ryder,f.E. Senior r 'ect give r—Land Development w Reviewed by: Date: d I Project Manage -I—Tr; ffiic Planning and Engineering Checked by: /% /� Date: 6 Timothy , clntosh,P.E. Project Manager—Highway and Municipal i f } I i I I I i 6 \\\V hb\prof\W al-TE\09280.00\dots\mcmos\0928056-TheArborsat\octhAndover_CCRC-raviewl.doc O` t40RT#j 3r �4t `■n °va�4p� Town of North Andover Office of the Planning Department �o e Community Development and Services Division 4 • ti � o Argo " �y 1600 Osgood Street S CHNorth Andover, Massachusetts 01845 TO: Planning Board FROM: Judy Tymon, Town Planner RE: Application for Continuing Care Retirement Center and Site Plan Review Special Permits 1275 Turnpike St (Boston Hill)North Andover, MA DATE: I" Review—December 9, 2009 The following is a review of the plans with recommendations: The following information was included as part of the applications: Plans: Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center 1275 Turnpike St. North Andover, MA 01845 Sheets AIA A1.1,A2.0,A3.1, A3.2, A3.3,A3.4, A3.5, A4.0, A4.1,A5.0,A5.1,A5.2, A6.0 Special Permits Plan,Notice of Intent Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Sheets I — 18 Submitted by: Marchionda &Associates 52 Montvale Ave. Stoneham, MA 02180 Applicant: Elm Development 200 North Maier St. East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Additional: Cover Letter Narrative Traffic Report Draia)age Report 5urarr�rrny The applicant has submitted an application for two Special PerEntis for Site Plan Review and for a Continued Care Retirement Center, for construction of a 125 unit congregate housing development,with associated, grading, parking, utilities, landscaping, in the Village Residential(VR)district on Turnpike St., at the location of the former Boston Hill ski area. I Knebround In December, 1987, the Planning Board approved a Definitive Subdivision, creating 3 lots at 1275 Turnpike St. Subsequent to that decision, A Planned Residential Development was also approved in October of 1989 for the development of 104 townhornes in 22 buildings. In May 2002, the Planning Board unanimously voted to grant to Mesiti Development, 231 Sutton St, Suite 2F, North Andover, MA 01845, a Site Plan Review Special Permit for the construction of 96 age restricted town homes with grading and landscaping improvements. On October 16, 2007,the Planning Board voted unanimously to grant an extension of the Special Permit for Site Plan review to the applicant for a period of one year to October 26, 2008. On August 11,2008,the applicant filed an Application for a Modification to the Site Plan Review Special Permit with the Planning Board pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw. This modification allowed for the following: • Demolition of retaining walls, pavement and guard rail • Demolition of the existing"lodge"building, outbuildings and pump house • Installation of erosion control barriers and stabilization of all disturbed areas with loam and seed. • Completion of"Phase I" ,according to the Site Plan Review Decision granted by the Planning Board in May 2002. On May 12,2009,the North Andover Annual Town Meeting voted to extend an existing Conservation Restriction on the Boston Hill property from 18.74 acres to 25.14 acres. On July 30, 2009 the applicant,through its agent Marchionda and Associates, filed an ENF (Environmental Notification Form)with EOEEA(Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs). In September 2009, the ZBA granted a height variance and building setback variance for the building design that was presented to the Planning Board. The variances allow for a pitched roof design as well as for the"porte cochere"design in the front of the building, resulting in an intrusion into the required 100 ft. setback. Definitive Subdivision Rer uh ements or CCRC A>>licotion Section 13.7 Approval of the CCRC Bylaw states that `the applicant will be required to submit a `Definitive Plan' in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 11.3 of the Planned Development District Bylaw. Section 13.7.b. "Relationship to Subdivision Regulations also states that "the requirements of the special permit in no way or manner release the applicant from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the North Andover Planning Board", Section 11.3 specifies the procedure for submitting a Preliminary Plan and a Definitive Subdivision Plan. A Definitive Subdivision was approved in 1987, creating 3 lots to serve the creation of a roadway for the proposed 104 townhomes in 22 buildings. The current project is being developed on the lot as one parcel. Since there is sufficient frontage(1,123 ft.)and the developer is proposing the creation of one building, a roadway is no longer needed. The Planning Board could require that the existing three lots be combined 2 �I into one lot using the ANR process,this satisfying the need to address tine requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. i Landscapin The Landscape Pla.ir is designated on sheet Ll as a"Preliminary Landscape Plan". The plan shows several landscaped islands in the parking lots,with most of the landscaping either close to the building or at the entrance. Additional landscaping may be required to break up the expanse of the parking area and to provide a better view from the road. Admittedly, there are constraints at the front of the property, including existing wetlands and stormwater ma.nagenient infrastructure. The Planning Board may allow a further reduction in parking or a re-location of parking to the sides of the building in order to reduce the large parking area in the front. The bylaw requires 1 parking space per unit,which would equate to 125 spaces. The applicant is requesting 97 spaces, a reduction of 28 spaces. According to the bylaw,the Planning Board "may waive the applicant's compliance with these parking regulations, provided that the applicant's plans demonstrate the capacity to fully comply with all other requirements of section 13." Traffic SMd� The applicant has provided a Traffic Study that has been reviewed by VHB. Several concerns were raised including: • The Traffic Study utilized Critical Gaps in its analysis that are below the typical default values (i.e., it was assumed that drivers would accept smaller gaps in traffic than the typical values used in the analysis). VHB recommends that a gap acceptance study validating the use of smaller gaps should be provided or the analysis should be based on default gap values. This is a very important issue, considering the fact that the facility will house a high proportion of elderly drivers who will be attempting to enter and exit an unsignalized driveway, onto a highway that supports very high traffic volume and high speeds. • The site plans refer to the site as a Continuing Care Retirement Community(CCRQ while the traffic study analyzed the project as a Congregate Care Facility(CCF). ITE's database is relatively larger for CCRCs than for CCFs. Also, ITE clearly distinguishes between the two types of facilities, The application should clearly describe the proposed use of,and anticipated operations at, the facility and justify the land use code used in the analysis.Note the difference in trip generation between the two land uses in the table below: 3 I . f WIWI A IV IN�40 M.190 I Weekday Mornrng Entering_(vph). . m_.. ._ 5 14 -- _ - Exiting_(vph) _ 3 g .Total (vph) _� - -. - _ ._g _ � _ -- . .__23 Enterin v h 12 17 Exiting ��ph� _ 9 19 Total 21 36 Weekday Daily Entering.(vph) 134 176 134 176 Total {vph) _ � 268� 351 There is also a lack of detailed sight distance calculations. The study does not discuss the proposed site driveway's compliance with Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) requirements. ISD measurements and calculations should be performed in addition to Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) calculations. Resulting SSD and ISD sight lines should be plotted on a plan view to clearly depict the sight triangles that need to be cleared. If vertical aligmuent is an issue along that section of Route 114, sight line diagrams should also be plotted on a roadway profile. Stormwater Ma►takentent Lisa Eggleston will provide a review of the stormwater management system for both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. Recommendations The applicant should address the following issues: I. Review the current parking and landscaping plan with the goal of possibly reducing the number of parking spaces and providing more landscaping to break up the parking area and to provide screening from the street. 2. Review the architectural style of the proposed building, and provide the Planning Board with examples of similar projects that the applicant has completed. 3. Re-flag the wetlands adjacent to the site, per request by Conservation Administrator. The"A" series is adjacent to the potential construction site. 4. All traffic issues identified by VHB should be addressed, in particular the issues mentioned in this review. 5. An ANR should be filed to combine the three existing lots. 4 6. All issues identified in the VHB review should be addressed. 5 F µOHTh A ,L`° Town of North Andover Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division �ASSACHUS 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 TO: Planning Board FROM: Judy Tyrnon,Town Planner RE: Application for Continuing Care Retirement Center and Site Plan Review Special Permits 1275 Turnpike St (Boston Hill)North Andover, MA DATE: I"Review—December 9,2009 The following is a review of the plans with recommendations: The following information was included as part of the application: Plans: Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center 1275 Turnpike St, North Andover, MA 01845 Sheets A 1.0,A1.1, A2.0,A3.1,A3.2, A33, A3.4, A3.5,A4,0, A4.1,A5.0,A5.1,A5.2, A6.0 Special Permits Plan,Notice of Intent Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Sheets 1 — 18 Submitted by: Marchionda&Associates 52 Montvale Ave. Stoneham, MA 021.80 Applicant: Elm Development 200 North Main St. East Longineadow, MA 01028 Additional: Cover Letter Narrative Traffic Report Drainage Report Suln/lI The applicant has submitted an application for two Special Per►ntis for Site Plan Review and for a Continued Care Retirement Center, for construction of a 125 unit congregate housing development,with associated, grading, parking, utilities, landscaping, in the Village Residential (VR) district on Turnpike St., at the location of the former Boston Hill ski area. 1 i B ackmround In December, 1987, the Planning Board approved a Definitive Subdivision, creating 3 lots at 1275 Turnpike St. Subsequent to that decision, A Planned Residential Development was also approved in October of 1989 for the development of 104 townhornes in 22 buildings. In May 2002, the Planning Board unanimously voted to grant to Mesiti Development, 231 Sutton St, Suite 2F, North Andover, MA 01845, a Site Plan Review Special Permit for the construction of 96 age restricted town homes with grading and landscaping improvements. On October 16,2007,the Planning Board voted unanimously to grant an extension of the Special Permit for Site PIan review to the applicant for a period of one year to October 26, 2008. On August 11,2008, the applicant filed an Application for a Modification to the Site Plan Review Special Permit with the Planning Board pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw. This modification allowed for the following: • Demolition of retaining walls,pavement and guard rail • Demolition of the existing"lodge"building, outbuildings and pump house • Installation of erosion control barriers and stabilization of all disturbed areas with loam and seed. • Completion of"Phase I",according to the Site Plan Review Decision granted by the Planning Board in May 2002. On May 12,2009, the North Andover Annual Town Meeting voted to extend an existing Conservation Restriction on the Boston Hill property fronn 18.74 acres to 25.14 acres. On July 30, 2009 the applicant, through its agent Marchionda and Associates, filed an ENF (Environmental Notification Form)with EOEEA(Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs). In September 2009, the ZBA granted a height variance and building setback variance for the building design that was presented to the Planning Board. The variances allow for a pitched roof design as well as for the"porte cochere" design in the front of the building,resulting in an intrusion into the required 100 ft. setback. De tnitive SubtlivisionRe(Ltiretnews for CCRCA>plications Section 13.7 Approval of the CCRC Bylaw states that `the applicant will be required to submit a `Definitive Plan' in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 11.3 of the Planned Development District Bylaw, Section 13.7.b."Relationship to Subdivision Regulations also states that " the requirements of the special permit in no way or manner release the applicant from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the North Andover Planning Board". Section 11.3 specifies the procedure for submitting a Preliminary Plan and a Definitive Subdivision Plan. A Definitive Subdivision was approved in 1987, creating 3 lots to serve the creation of a roadway for the proposed 104 townhornes in 22 buildings. The current project is being developed on the lot as one parcel. Since there is sufficient frontage (1,123 ft.) and the developer is proposing the creation of one building, a roadway is no longer needed. The Planning Board could require that the existing three lots be combined 2 into one lot usingthe ANR process,this satisfying the geed to address the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Landscapist, The Landscape Plan is designated on sheet Ll as a "Preliminary Landscape flan". The plan shows several landscaped islands in the parking lots,with most of the landscaping either close to the building or at the entrance. Additional landscaping may be required to break up the expanse of the parking area and to provide a better view from the road. Admittedly,there are constraints at the front of the property, including existing wetlands and stormwater management infrastructure. The Planning Board may allow a further reduction in parking or a re-location of parking to the sides of the building in order to reduce the large parking area in the front. The bylaw requires I parking space per unit, which would equate to 125 spaces. The applicant is requesting 97 spaces, a reduction of 28 spaces. According to the bylaw,the Planning Board"may waive the applicant's compliance with these parking regulations,provided that the applicant's plans demonstrate the capacity to fully comply with all other requirements of section 13." TLaffle Stu(b The applicant has provided a Traffic Study that has been reviewed by VHB. Several concerns were raised including: • The Traffic Study utilized Critical Gaps in its analysis that are below the typical default values (i.e., it was assumed that drivers would accept smaller gaps in traffic than the typical values used in the analysis). VHB recommends that a gap acceptance study validating the use of smaller gaps should be provided or the analysis should be based on default gap values. This is a very important issue,considering the fact that the facility will house a high proportion of elderly drivers who will be attempting to enter and exit an unsignalized driveway,onto a highway that supports very high traffic volume and high speeds. • The site plans refer to the site as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)while the traffic study analyzed the project as a Congregate Care Facility(CCF). ITE's database is relatively larger for CCRCs than for CCFs. Also, ITE clearly distinguishes between the two types of facilities. The application should clearly describe the proposed use of, and anticipated operations at,the facility and justify the land use code used in the analysis.Note the difference in trip generation between the two land uses in the table below: 3 r � Weekday Morning Enterin14 g (vph) .__.. 5- -. ---_-__�_ Exiting yph) 3 g Total (vph) 8 23 Weekday Evening Entering (vph) _1.2_ _ _._ .. _.� _ 17 _Exiting (vph)__ __ _._._ _.__ _...... __..9.__ 19 Total (yph) ... -----— ____----__-- Entering (vph)_-..... .. _._ _ - 134 ._ 176 Exiting (vph} - 134 176 -. Total (vph) _ __ . _ _.... 268 351 • There is also a lack of detailed sight distance calculations. The study does not discuss the proposed site driveway's compliance with Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) requirements, ISD measurements and calculations should be performed in addition to Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) calculations. Resulting SSD and ISD sight lines should be plotted on a plan view to clearly depict the sight triangles that need to be cleared. If vertical alignment is an issue along that section of Route 114, sight line diagrams should also be plotted on a roadway profile. Storinwater ManrWenient Lisa Eggleston will provide a review of the stormwater management system for both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. RecomniendationN The applicant should address the following issues; 1. Review the current parking and landscaping plan with the goal of possibly reducing the number of parking spaces and providing more landscaping to break up the parking area and to provide screening from the street. 2. Review the architectural style of the proposed building, and provide the Planning Board with examples of similar projects that the applicant has completed. 3. Re-flag the wetlands adjacent to the site, per request by Conservation Administrator. The"A" series is adjacent to the potential construction site, 4. All traffic issues identified by VHB should be addressed, in particular the issues mentioned in this review. 5. An ANR should be filed to combine the three existing lots. 4 i E 6. All issues identified in the VHB review should be addressed. S 1 Town of North Andover 4-a I e pp Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division �vT'S CH�1`' 1600 Osgood Street S�AC �� North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 TO: Planning Board FROM: Judy Tyrnon,Town Planner RE: Application for Continuing Care Retirement Center and Site Plan Review Special Permits 1275 Turnpike St (Boston Hill)North Andover, MA DATE; I" Review—December 9, 2009 The following is a review of the plans with recommendations: The following information was included as part of the application: Plans: Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center 1275 Turnpike St, North Andover,MA 01845 Sheets A1,0, A1.1,A2.0,A3.1, A3.2, A3,3,A3.4, A3.5, A4.0, A4.1,A5.0, A5,I,A5.2, A6.0 Special Permits Plan,Notice of Intent Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Sheets 1 — 18 Submitted by: Marchionda &Associates 52 Montvale Ave. Stoneham,MA 02180 Applicant: Elm Development 200 North Main St, East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Additional: Cover Letter Narrative Traffic Report Drainage Report Sutstmary The applicant has submitted an application for two Special Permiis for Site Plan Review and for a Continued Care Retirement Center, for construction of a 125 unit congregate housing development,with associated, grading, parking, utilities, landscaping, in the Village Residential (VR) district on Turnpike St.,at the location of the former Boston Hill ski area. 1 Backzround In December, 1987, the Planning Board approved a Definitive Subdivision, creating 3 lots at 1275 Turnpike St. Subsequent to that decision, A PIanned Residential Development was also approved in October of 1989 for the development of 104 townhomes in 22 buildings. In May 2002, the Planning Board unanimously voted to grant to Mesiti Development, 231 Sutton St, Suite 2F, North Andover, MA 01845, a Site Plan Review Special Permit for the construction of 96 age restricted town homes with grading and landscaping improvements. On October 16, 2007,the Planning Board voted unanimously to grant an extension of the Special Permit for Site Plan review to the applicant for a period of one year to October 26, 2008. On August 11, 2008,the applicant filed an Application for a Modification to the Site Plan Review Special Permit with the Planning Board pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw. This modification allowed for the following: • Demolition of retaining walls, pavement and guard rail • Demolition of the existing"lodge"building, outbuildings and pump house • Installation of erosion control barriers and stabilization of all disturbed areas with loam and seed. • Completion of"Phase I",according to the Site Plan Review Decision granted by the Planning Board in May 2002. On May 12, 2009, the North Andover Annual Town Meeting voted to extend an existing Conservation Restriction on the Boston Hill property from 18.74 acres to 25.14 acres. On July 30,2009 the applicant,through its agent Marchionda and Associates,filed an ENF (Environmental Notification Form) with EOEEA (Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs). In September 2009,the ZBA granted a height variance and building setback variance for the building design that was presented to the Planning Board. The variances allow for a pitched roof design as well as for the"porte cochere"design in the front of the building, resulting in all intrusion into the required 100 ft. setback, Definitive Subdivision Re uire►nents for CCRCApplications Section 13.7 Approval of the CCRC Bylaw states that `the applicant will be required to submit a `Definitive Plan' in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 11.3 of the PIanned Development District Bylaw. Section 13.7.b. "Relationship to Subdivision Regulations also states that " the requirements of the special permit in no way or manner release the applicant from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the North Andover Planning Board", Section 113 specifies the procedure for submitting a Preliminary Plan and a Definitive Subdivision Plan, A Definitive Subdivision was approved in 1987,creating 3 lots to serve the creation of a roadway for the proposed 104 townhomes in 22 buildings. The current project is being developed oil the lot as one parcel. Since there is sufficient frontage(1,123 ft.)and the developer is proposing the creation of one building, a roadway is no longer needed. The Planning Board could require that the existing three lots be combined 2 into one lot using the ANR process,this satisfying the need to address the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Landsegpin The Landscape Plan is designated on sheet L1 as a"Preliminary Landscape Plan". The plan shows several landscaped islands in the parking lots, with most of the landscaping either close to the building or at the entrance. Additional landscaping may be required to break up the expanse of the parking area and to provide a better view fronn the road. Admittedly, there are constraints at the front of the property, including existing wetlands and stormwater management infrastructure. The Planning Board may allow a further reduction in parking or a re-location of parking to the sides of the building in order to reduce the large parking area in the front. The bylaw requires I parking space per unit, which would equate to 12S spaces. The applicant is requesting 97 spaces, a reduction of 28 spaces. According to the bylaw,the Planning Board "may waive the applicant's compliance with these parking regulations, provided that the applicant's plans demonstrate the capacity to fully comply with all other requirements of section U." Traf Lie Stud The applicant has provided a Traffic Study that has been reviewed by VHB. Several concerns were raised including: • The Traffic Study utilized Critical Gaps in its analysis that are below the typical default values (Le., it was assumed that drivers would accept smaller gaps in traffic than the typical values used in the analysis). VHB recommends that a gap acceptance study validating the use of smaller gaps should be provided or the analysis should be based on default gap values, This is a very important issue, considering the fact that the facility will house a high proportion of elderly drivers who will be attempting to enter and exit an unsignalized driveway, onto a highway that supports very high traffic volume and high speeds. • The site plans refer to the site as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)while the traffic study analyzed the project as a Congregate Care Facility(CCR). ITE's database is relatively larger for CCRCs than for CCl~s. Also, ITE clearly distinguishes between the two types of facilities. The application should clearly describe the proposed use of, and anticipated operations at,the facility and justify the land use code used in the analysis.Note the difference in trip generation between the two land uses in the table below: _ 3 - 111110 o Weekday Morning Entering (vph) 5 14 Exiting (vph) _._ 3 8 Total (vph)..__ 8 23 Weekday Evening Entering (vph � 12_-_ _ l_.--�__ _ 17_. Exiting (vph) _._. .___ 9 19 Total (vph} 21 _ 36-__ .._-_-- _- . _— _ Weekday Y Dail 134 -- __ Ex_ Ent{n m naV�ph� 134_ -. -- _.... . 176 - _Total (vph)_ 268 351 • There is also a lack of detailed sight distance calculations, The study does not discuss the proposed site driveway's compliance with Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) requirements. ISD measurements and calculations should be performed in addition to Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) calculations. Resulting SSD and ISD sight lines should be plotted on a plan view to clearly depict the sight triangles that need to be cleared. If vertical alignment is an issue along that section of Route 114, sight line diagrams should also be plotted on a roadway profile. Stornt►vater Management Lisa Eggleston will provide a review of the stormwater management system for both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. Recotttntendations The applicant should address the following issues: I. Review the current parking and landscaping plan with the goal of possibly reducing the number of parking spaces and providing more landscaping to break up the parking area and to provide screening from the street. 2. Review the architectural style of the proposed building, and provide the Planning Board with examples of similar projects that the applicant has completed, 3. Re-flag the wetlands adjacent to the site,per request by Conservation Administrator. The"A" series is adjacent to the potential construction site. 4. All traffic issues identified by VHB should be addressed, iii particular the issues mentioned in this review. 5. An ANR should be filed to combine the three existing lots. 4 i 6. All issues identified in the VHB review should be addressed. i 5 l � -� on TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: The A)-boys at North Andover VHB No.: 09280.56 i Site Plan Location: 1275 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: Elm Development Services,L.L,C.,200 North Main Street,East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Applicant's Engineer: Marchionda&Associates,L.P.,62 Montvale Avenue,Suite 1,Stoneham,MA 02180 Plan Date: November 12,2009 Review Date: December 8,2009 February 16,2010(Revised) Follow-up Review: February 25,2010 The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended July 13,2008). The traffic impact and access study submitted for the proposed development was also reviewed. The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's follow-up review: • Site Plans—Special Permit Plans,Notice of Intent Plans,and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for The Arbors at North Andover;revised February 16,2010;prepared by Marchionda& Associates,L.P. (19 plan sheets) • Architectural Plans—Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center, 1275 Turnpike Street, North Andover Street;dated July 1,2009;prepared by God&Associates(14 sheets) • Response to Comments letter dated February 17, 2010;prepared by Marchionda& Associates,L.P. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestio€is. Please note that this review does not include a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. VHB's original November 12,2009 comments are in normal font,followed by Marchionda&Associates, L.P.(M&A)response in italics,followed by VHB's follow-up response in hold. Town of North Andover Zonin Bylaw I. Section 6.4.2(a): This section states that,"No permanent sign shall be erected,enlarged,or structurally altered without a sign permit issued by the Building Inspector." It should be noted that a sign permit will be required for the proposed entry sign(detail on sheet L-2). VHB defers to the board on whether this permit should be filed with the Special Permit for d:e Continuing Care Retirement Center(CCRC) ot•following the potential granting of the Special Permit prior to construction. M&A(2/17/2010): Are applicafion for a sign permit►still be filed after the Special Permil/Sile Plan Approval is process is completed. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. VHB recommends the Board conside€•a condition of approval that once the application is submitted, a copy of the application shall be submitted to the Board for their records, 1 \\\hlawatr\to\0920D.56\dots\memos\O928056=rl,oArborsatNortMndover_CCRC-review?doc 1 2, Section 6.6,A,2: This section specifies that ground signs shall be set back a minirnuFn of ten (10)feet from all property lines, The entr3y sign/wall indicated on the plans appears to be set back approximately five(5)feet from the property line. Has the Applicant requested a waiver from this dimensional requirement for ground signage? M&A (2/17/2010). The sign location on the plans(see Sheet S)has been revised to cot form to the 10 foot setback regUirenrettl. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed, I 3, Section 8.1,5(c): This section requires that the maximum width of the driveway to a facility containing five(5)or more parking stalls shall be twenty-five(25)feet at the street line. The proposed driveway width at the street line is approximately forty-three(43)feet wide. 1t appears that this width is to facilitate traffic slow and safety,therefore the Board [nay wish to modify the width limitation, VHB defers to the board on this item, However VHB would not recommend narrowing the driveway for this particular layout as it appears to be designed this way to allow for vehicular turning maneuvers. M&A(2/17/2010): No comment necessary. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. 4. Section 8,1,5(e): Off-street loading requirements for a CCRC development are not clear because the table does not provide specific requirements for a CCRC, VHB defers to the board as to the number and size of the loading bays required for this proposed development. VHB recommends that the Applicant clarify the loading areas and show the truck turning movements. M&A(2/17/2010): YHB is correct in that there tto loading regttir•errretrts in the zoningperlainittg to a CCRC, Drive 3 of the plait set is the loading area which is consistent to what the applicant has at similar ,facilities and has been designed to accommodate SU30 vehicles. VHB(2/25/2010): Drive 3 accommodates an SU30(box truck)vehicles. VHB defers to the board on whether the proposed loading area is sufficient for this facility. 5. Section 8.1.5(f): The Applicant has not provided a photometric lighting plan for the proposed site lighting for the development. Therefore,conformance with this section of the by-law has not been reviewed. VHB defers to tine board as to whether a photometric lighting plan is will be required for the proposed development. M&A(2/17/2010): 4 photometric lighting plan will be provided VHB(2/25/2010): VHB has not received a photometric lighting plan as of the date of this letter. Based on a conversation with the Applicant Engineer,(lie plan will be available soon. 6. Section 13.5(a): This section states that,"A CCRC shall be permitted only within a single lot containing a total area of not less than twenty-five acres," Footnote I on Sheet 2 indicates that the overall parcel proposed for development is comprised of three lots under common ownership totaling 33.35 acres. VHS defers to the town in the determination on weather a waiver request is required or the lots will be required to be joined to become a single lot. It does not appear that this would be an issue as the applicant is proposing to create a conservation restriction totaling 25.14 acres, M&A(2/17/2010): An ANR plan combining the 3 lots will be prepared after•the Special PerntitlSite Platt 11pproval is process is completed. VHB(2/25/2010): VHB recommends the Board consider a condition of approval that once the ANR plan has been prepared,a copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the Board for their records. 7. Section 13.5(d)(1): The Applicant has included a letter from the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow the construction of a porte cochere within seventy-three(73)feet from the perimeter. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to the ZBA's decision to grant this variance. The plans appear to be consistent with this seventy-three foot dimension,however the dimension should be shown on the plans, M&A(2117/2010): The 73 fool setback dimension has been added to plait sheets 4 and 5, VHB (2/25/2010): Continent addressed, 2 \\\Alawa tr\te\09280.56\does\memos\092805S-TheArhorsatNorthAndoverCCRC-review2.dor i E i i . 1 8. Section 13.5(d)(3): The Applicant has included a letter front the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow for relief from the requirements of building height from thirty-five (35)feet to forty-nine(49)feet,two(2) inches. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to(lie ZBA's decision to grant this variance, The zoning summary on Sheet 2 indicates that the building height is 49'2"(consistent with the variance)however no building elevations confirming this height are included in the planset. VHB defers to the board on whether building elevations are necessary in the granting of the Special Permit. M&A(2/17/2010): The building height of 49'2"is shown on ar•chilectrtral plan sheet A3.1 VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. 9. Section 13.5(f)(2): This section states that for congregate housing one parking space sliall be required for each unit. The proposed site plans include 125 CCRC units and ninety-seven(97)parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of approximately 0.79 parking spaces per CCRC unit. The zoning table on Sheet 2 provides the ratios which the proposed parking meets. Has the Applicant applied for or been granted a waiver from the parking requirement per this section of the Zoning By-law? M&A(2/17/2010): The required nunnther-of paNchrg spaces has been discussed ivilh the Board extensively and we believe all ar-e in agreerruent for I space per unit fir the subject p-operiy is excessive. Thins, we have requested the Board to grant a ivaiver'to the parking requirements as provided for•in the CCRC zoning, VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. Tile Applicant is requesting a waiver for the requirements of this section. 10. Section 13.7(a)(2): This section requires the Applicant to submit a"Definitive Plan"in accordance with file applicable provisions of Section 11.3. VHB assumes that the submitted planset represents the required,"Definitive Plan." The following lists the applicable provisions within Section 11.3 which are not included in the Site Plans. a. Section 11.3.3(f): The lot number,dimensions of the lot in feet and the width of the abutting streets and ways are not included on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): This inforrnalionn will be shown on the ANR plan. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. See VHB response to Comment 6. b. Section 1 1.3.3(i): Does a portion of this lot lie within the 100-year floodplain? An area on the proposed plan is designated as flood compensation area however there are no limits for the 100-year flood plain shown oil the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): There is no designated flood plain on the lot. The reference to Mood plain compensation goes Back to the permitting that was done far•the 96 lown hoaxes. At that One the peer°review engineer-for the conservation commission insisted that we prepare calculations to determine the extent offlooding associated with Boston Brook during a 100 ,pear event rind pi•oi,ide corrnpensatiarn,fo'airy portions of dial area to he attei-ed. The current plans and drainage syslem, which is being revieuped by Lisa Eggleston, have been pi-epa•ed to be consistent with the prim-approvals. VHB (2/25/2010): Comment addressed. c. Section 11.3.30): The dimensions of the proposed building are not indicated on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The building dimensions are shotvrn on architectrn-al plan sheet A2.0. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. d. Section 11.3.3(k): The distances of the proposed building from the lot lines are not shown on the plans. M&A (2/I712010): The dimension fr•orr the lot lines have been added to sheet 4 of the plan set. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. Consider adding a dimension from the front lot line to the building,exclusive of the porte cochere setback,which requires a variance. 3 \\\M awn tr\te\09280.56\does\memos\0928856-Thegrbors atNorIIiAndover_CCRC-revieiv7.doc e, Section 11.3.3(m): The average finished grade of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. M&A(2/1'7/2010): The average finished grade is slroivrr oii ar-chitectitiral plant sheet A3.1. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. While the Schematic Section (detail 2-A3.1) graphically shows the average grade, the proposed elevations should be provided. It is recommended that the section include proposed grade elevations. f Section 11.3,3(n): The elevation above average finished grade of the floor and ceiling of the lowest floor of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The elevations above the average finished grade are shown oil architectural plan sheet A3.1. VHB(2/25/2010): See VHB response to Comment 10.e. Elevations should be shown. g. Section 11.3.3(r): The height of the proposed building,above the average finished grade of abutting streets is not shown oil the plan. M&A (2/1712010), Dire to the fact that no srtbdivision road is proposed it is pi�esrutred that this requirement is most appropriate as to the relationship of the building height to the average grade of the parking lot which is shown oil architectural sheet A3.1. VHB(2/25/2010): See VHB response to Comment Me. The Schematic Section appears to references a vision angle at street level(not parking lot as mentioned in the response). VHB would recommend the relationship should be taken from Turnpike Street. Please confirm the eye level elevation at street level is correct. VHB understands a variance for a building height of 49'-2"has been granted. General Comments 11. VHB has reviewed on-site circulation for the proposed development. It appears that passenger vehicles and single unit vehicles(snow plows,ambulances,UPS/FED EX,etc,)can maneuver throughout the site appropriately. M&A(2/17/2010): No response necessary VHB(2/2512010): Comment addressed. 12. The handicap curb cut detail does not appear to account for the fact that the accessible parking spaces are two(2)feet longer than the adjacent parking spaces, It is not clear]now this transition is accomplished. This discrepancy should be accounted for in the detail to ensure that an accessible path meeting the ADA/AAI3 required width will be constructed at the accessible parking spaces, M&A(2/17/2010): The plan does account for the increase of 2.feet in the parking stalls for the handicapped spaces. On sheet 5 of 18 the handicapped spaces are noted as being 9 feel by 20 feet. Also, ive have revised the detail of the handicapped spaces on sheet 15 of the plan to fiirrther clarify that the proposed handicapped spaces and the sideit,alk are frilly compliant Will the ADA/AAB requirements. VHB (2/25/2010): Comment addressed. 13. There are tivo proposed fire hydrants spaced approximately 570' apart,associated with the proposed development. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved these hydrant locations? The North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations specify that fire hydrants shall be located not more than five hundred feet apart. A fire lane is proposed to be provided at the west side of the building but does not extend behind the building. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved the fire access circulation for the site? If not already completed,VHB recommends that the Fire Department review and approve the hydrant locations and the fire vehicle circulation, 4 \\\Mlawalr\le\09280,56\dots\memos\09Z8056-TheArbarsalNorltiAndaver_CCRC-revie%v2,dor M&A(2/17/2010): Prior to preparing the plan we met wilh Lt. Allelinkas to review his requiremenis and we believe the plan has been prepared in compliance with his requirements. However, the applicant will make revisions to the plan if required 41,the fire department revielir. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. V14B recomrneuds the Board consider a condition of approval that the Applicant shall submit docuynentation frorn the Fire Department that the Fire Department approves of the proposed design. 14. The underdrain detail specifies that it is a roadway underdrain. Is this intended to be the detail for the underdrain system proposed with the tiered segmental retaining walls to the rear of the proposed building? The underdrain inverts should be shown on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The depth of the underdrain as it related to the proposed i oadivgj,is specified on detail sheet 14 of the plan set which is consistent witty standard engineering practice. 11 is not slat?dard practice to specify iiiver•Is for rrt?der'di•ains. Underdrains are also proposed to conO-ol ground water behind the segmental retaining walls which, cis specified on sheet 2 of the plat?set, note 3 are required to be designed by a structural engineer. Such design will include the specification of the depth and location of the underdrain as it relates to the proposed malls. VHB(2/25/2010). Comment addressed. Consider adding a note to the underdrain detail that the underdrain shall be connected to downstream catch basins. 15. The utility connection points for electric,telephone,cable and gas are shown at the proposed building however the connection points to the main systems are not shown. The board may require these connection points to be shown oil the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 1 l4 in order to make these connections. It is assumed that the electric, telephone and cable will be provided from a connection to a utility pole. There is no existing gas main shown on the plans therefore it is difficult to understand where this connection will be made. Tile existing gas main and connection point should be shown oil the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The complete layoul of these utilities and their connection points have not been shown on the plans because the design oj'these private utililies is done by the utility companies once they are p•ovided iiritl?approved plat?. The utility companies}frill not provide a design on an unapproved plan. regarding the gas service, the applicant has negotiated an agreement with the gas company to extend a gas main to the silo. .411 per•tnitting iregnii-ecl for.such air exteirsion is to be dotie by the gas company, VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. VHB recommends showing an approximate layout for the private utilities(at least within the private property)with a note that exact locations shall be determined by the respective utility owner. 16. The infiltration system typical inspection port detail does not indicate that it is rated for vehicular loads. This should be confirmed and shown on the plans as one of the inspection ports is within the parking lot. M&A(2/17/2010): The cast iron frame and cover that is specified for the drain manholes on sheet 16 of the plan set(Lebanon Cat No, LB268-3-000 Or approved equal)it rated for H2O loading. VHB (2/25/2010): The inspection port detail,along with other details for the infiltration system and water quality swale,has been removed from the plans. it appears the systems utilized for stormwater management have been revised, The revised infiltration system has proposed typical H-20 rated frames and covers. VHB assumes that these revised details will be or have been reviewed as part of the Conservation Commission storwwinater/drainage review. l7. The Applicant should confirm that infiltration systern I has the appropriate separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater. The estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation increases between TP- 2 and TP-I on the eastern portion of infiltration systern 1. M&A(2/17/2010): The design of the di-airrage syssterti, which is being r•evieiired by Lisa Eggleston, has been revised and infiltration system l has been elin?inaled VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. S \\\kl awatr\te\09280,56\do[s\memos\0928056-TheAthorsaiNorthAndover_CCRC-review2.d of 18. The proposed snow storage area on the northern portion of the site is adjacent to the 50'wetland buffer, It appears that snow in this area will melt and discharge directly to the wetland resource area without being afforded the water quality treatment provided in the stormwater management system. Snow storage areas are generally designed such that the snow will niclt back onto the pavement to allow for full water quality treatment through the stormwater management system. Has the Applicant evaluated providing snow storage areas that will be treated for water quality and not impact the wetland resource area? M&A(2/17/2010): The sraotiv storage area has beers revised. II is rrotiv a rrtirrirnrtrtt of a 10 foot wide shoulder graded to slope towards the parking lot so that all snow,melt will be treated by Me parking lot drainage system. See plant set sheets S and 6. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. Consider adding a IO-font dimension to the plans. 19. VHB recommends that the limits of the wooden rail be extended to the west between the parking area and the 1:1 slope area(14' drop)to protect errant vehicles from the steep slope. Consideration should be given to further extending the wooden rail adjacent to the fire lane. The ability of this wooden rail to withstand vehicular impact is unclear. The Applicant may wish to consider a proven crash tested system in lieu of the wooden rail. M&A(2/17/2010): The linariis of the retairurig jvall artd ii?oodert rail have been extended to go along lire entire fi•onl of the parking lot and along the fire lane. See plan set sheet 5. The frtnction of the rail is for fall protection as required under the building code. Also the vast majority of the wall and rail are setback a sigll,frcant distance ftorn the parking lot which is lined by 6 inch crab io which, in our Opinion, is more than sufficient to prevent vehicles f'om rolling Off the parking lot dire to the vet y/Ow speeds within the parking lot. A crash proven system(steel beam and post) 9,slem could be provided however, in our opinions it is riot it,arratrled and mould detract from the aesthetics o f the project without providing any significant public benglil. However,we will defer to the Board as to which type of railing is preferred. VHB(2/25/2010): Due to the heiglit of the proposed wall,the Applicant should strongly consider a fence on top of the wall protected by a rail system for vehicular protection. The Applicant should verify the appropriate height of the fence with the building inspection. VHB believes this may be four-feet. 20, The proposed segmental retaining wall proposed around the existing drop inlet catch basin to be replaced(at station 126 approximately of Route 114)extends within the layout of Route 114. Can this retaining wall be within the roadway layout? M&A(2/17/2010): The segmental retaining wall has been revised to stay off of the route 114 raachvay layout. VHS(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. The grading in this area is not clear. VHB recommends a blow-up detail of this area,including bottom and top of wall elevations. 21, A MassDOT access permit will be required to allow the driveway connection,the Utility connections within Route 114 and to allow for the construction of the segmental retaining wall within the Route 114 layout. VHB assumes that:the Applicant's Engineer will discuss any work within the Route 114 layout with the Town DPW/Engineering Department and MassDOT as well as obtain all necessary permits from the State and the Town, M&A(2/17/2010): The applicant is mt,are that permits from iWass I ighway are required for this Project VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. 22. Has the Applicant evaluated the incorporation of a vertical curve at the€vain entrance to the site to allow for a smooth transition for vehicles entering and exiting the site? There is a grade differential of 4%at PVI -0+9,75 with no vertical curve. It appears that a vertical curve could be incorporated between the extended cross slope of Route 114 and the 5%grade of the driveway to create a smooth transition, 6 \\\A(a1vatr\te\09290.56\does\niemos\0920056-'nieAThorsatNorihAndover_CCRC-review2.d w M&A(2/17/2010): The-2%slope into the site is simply the extension of the existing-2%cross slope on Route 114 which transitions to a positive 2%slope into the project. This is a very common norrnal transition from the cross slope from an existing r'oadivay into a proposed entrance and is in fact below the maximum intersection grade of 3%as provided for in the North Andover Subdivision Regulations (see Section 6.8.9). VHB (212512010); Although a vertical curve transition is preferred,the grade break is acceptable for a low speed driveway. The 3% grade referred to in Section 6.8.9 of the Subdivision Regulations refers to a maximum roadway grade,not a grade break. Note that comments relative to the traffic review will be addressed under a separate letter. It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RE,8P©NSES to the issues and comments contained herein, Reviewed by: Date; 2L�--f 1peef,�Athan r—Highway an Muni pal Checked by: Date; 2 (� Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Project Manager—Highway and Municipal 7 \\\Mawatt\te\09280.56\does\memos\0928056-7heAiborsaLMorthAndovei_CCRC-rev1e1V2.d0C Eggleston Environmental OT-Fi oe February 24, 2010 North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner RE: Stormwater Management Review The Arbors at North Andover—Special Permit Applications Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members: I am writing this letter in follow-up to my December 10, 2009 review letter on the above- referenced project. Since that time I have received and reviewed the February 16, 2010 response letter from Marchionda & Associates. L.P, together with the following: • Drainage Report, The Arbors at North Andover,prepared by Marchionda & Associates, LP, dated 11/12/09 and revised 2/15/I0, ■ Special Permits Plan,Notice of Intent Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for The Arbors at North Andover, Sheets I through 19 of 19, prepared by Marchionda & Associates, L.P., dated 11/12/09 and revised 2/16/10. ■ Wetland and Buffer Zone Mitigation Plan, The Arbors at North Andover, prepared by Seekamp Environmental Consulting, and dated 2/15/10. The revised submission includes a number of design modifications since the last submittal, including (but not limited to), a revised configuration for the subsurface detention system commensurate with less dependence on infiltration from the systern to attenuate flow rates, the addition of a Stornmceptor 900 treatment unit to treat the outflow fiom the detention system, elimination of the water quality swales and creation of a wetland mitigation area, and a new overflow structure to regulate flows discharged from the site through the two culverts under Route 114. Revisions to the drainage analysis have also been made to reflect the design modifications and address my previous comments. My comments on the revised plans are as follows: 1. The modified overflow structure with the double-barreled outlet helps to mitigate flow rates and provides a better balance of flows discharged through the two existing culverts under Route 114 under small storm conditions. However, during the large storm events the diversion of flow through the upper outlet becomes more of a factor, resulting in a significant increase over existing conditions (44% in the 10-yr storm and 61% in the 100-yr storm) in the total volume of flow 55 Old Coach Road Sudbury NSA 01776 Let 508.259.1137 fax 866,820.7840 The Arbors at North Anclover, Technical Review 2 February 24, 2010 discharged through the existing 36-inch culvert, with a corresponding decrease in the volume of flow through the box culvert. It is my understanding that the wetlands on either side of Johnson Street are hydraulically connected, however if there is any restriction in that connection during large storm conditions it is likely to be exacerbated by the increased volume of discharge to the wetlands on the east side of Johnson Street. 2. Further clarification is needed on the design detail for the underground detention system. The drainage calculations indicate that the bottom of the system is sloped; however this is not shown on the plan. The plan should also specify a minimum 6- inch stone base under the infiltration units since it is factored into the recharge calculations. 3. I recommend moving the proposed Stormceptor unit to an offline configuration adjacent to, rather than downgradient of DMH-8. Recent studies conducted at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center indicate that, despite the presence of an internal bypass, the TSS removal efficiency of these hydrodynamic separators is actually only about 30 to 40% when the separators are used in an inline configuration such as is currently proposed. It is my understanding that MADEP is in the process of sunsetting the current STEP approvals based on this more recent data. The efficiency of the units can be greatly improved if they are operated offline, e.g, through a bypass manhole, 4. The O&M plan included in my copy of the drainage report has the wrong first page, but it does appear that my previous comments have either been addressed or are no longer pertinent. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board with the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs. Please feel five to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed herein. Sincerely, EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL i Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E. C: Jennifer Hughes, North Andover Conservation Commission Paul Marchionda, Marchionda &Associates Tymon, Judy � �rrppmioumww iwmwuuwlnn �w moiwtuumMon '. From: Paul [Paul@Marchionda.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3.55 PM To: lisa@egglestonenvironmental.com Cc: Tymon, Judy; Hughes, Jennifer; Jason Robertson Subject: Boston Hill CCRC Attachments: Sheet 6.pdf; sheet 7.pdf, Sheet 8.pdf; sheet 12.pdf; sheet 17.pdf Lisa Thank you so much for your expeditious review of the revised material we submitted to you last week. You prompt response and cooperation is greatly appreciated. I have reviewed your February 24, 2010 comment letter and consistent with our conversation earlier today 1 would just appreciate your confirmation as to a clarification of you comment number 1 and your review of the minor revisions to the plan set we have made in response to comments 2 and 3. No response to comment 4 is necessary, In regards to comment 1 you are correct in that there is an increase in volume of runoff in the post developed conditions tributary to the 36 inch culvert and a equivalent reduction (numerically, not percentage wise) in the volume to the box culvert both of which flow under route 114 to hydraulically connected wetlands which is typical and a standard method of balancing watersheds so that there is no increase in peals flow from the development. I just want the commissioners and planning board members to understand that the equivalent reduction in volume to the box culvert represents an extremely small reduction in the total volume of runoff to the box culvert amounting to about 2% which is essentially no variance from the existing conditions. I was just concerned that a reading of your comment 1 could lead one to believe that there is a significant reduction in volume (44% in a 10-yr and 61% in a 100-yr storm) at the box culvert which is not the case due to the enormous off site watershed that is tributary to the culvert and as such the small decrease in volume in negligible and statically insignificant. Also there is no concern about any possible restriction between the hydraulically connected wetlands on either side of Johnson Street due to the fact that the watershed with the increased volume flows into the wetlands on the down stream side of that connection. In regards to comment 2 please see sheet 17 attached where we have noted that the bottom of the underground detention area is to be sloped towards the outlet and we also specified a minimum 6 inch stone base as requested. Lastly regarding comment 3, we have revised the design of the stormceptor unit to an off line configuration as recommended. That revisions is shown on sheets 6, 7, 8 &12 as attached hereto. If you would like a hard copy of the plans for your records just let me know and I will send them to you. I would appreciate it if after review of the above if you could send me an e mail confirming that the clarification and revisions I have provided satisfy your most recent comments prior to the planning board hearing scheduled for Tuesday March 2n . Of course if there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Paul A Marchionda, PE i N This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom addressed. You acknowledge that by opening the electronic documents attached hereto that you agree with the terms of the disclaimer/waiver,the statement of ownership, and other matter as documented on Marchionda R Associates'website at littp://www.marcliionda.cairt/disclaimer.litin CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This entail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.Thank you. 2 f� i 1 II Marchionda & Associates, L.P. Engineering and Planning Consultants L February 17, 2010 P-0 Mr. Timothy McIntosh VHB 101 Water Street Watertown, MA 02471 RR Boston Hill, CCRC, 1275 Turnpike Street, North Andover Dear Tim We are in receipt of your review of the subject site plan/special permit application for the proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center at 1275 Turnpike Street in North Andover. A plan set revised as of February 16, 2010 is attached. Responses to your comments relative to the traffic review have been provided previously from our traffic consultant Dermot Kelly. The following are your comments regarding the North Andover Zoning Bylaws and General Comments followed by our responses shown in bold type Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw 1. Section 6.4.2(a): This section states that, "No permanent sign shall be erected, enlarged, or structurally altered without a sign permit issued by the Building Inspector." It should be noted that a sign permit will be required for the proposed entry sign (detail on sheet L-2). VIM defers to the board on whether this permit should be filed with the Special Permit for the Continuing Care Retirement Center(CCRC) or following the potential granting of the Special Permit prior to construction. An application for a sign permit will be filed after the Special Permit/Site Plan Approval is process is completed. 2. Section 6.6.A.2: This section specifies that ground signs shall be set back a rnHmum often (10)feet from all property lines: The entry sign/wall indicated on the plans appears to be set back approximately five (5) feet from the property line. Has the Applicant requested a waiver from this dimensional requirement for ground signage? The sign location on the plains (see sheet S) has been revised to conform to the 10 foot setback requirement. 62 Montvale Avenue Tel: (781)438-6121 Stoneham,MA 02480 Fax: (781)438-9654 website: http://www.marchionda.com Email: mail@marchionda.com I a Marchionda 2 & Associates, L.P. Engineering and Planning Consultants I 3. Section 8.1.5(c): This section requires that the maximum width of the driveway to a facility containing five (5) or more parking stalls shall be twenty-five (25) feet at the street line. The proposed driveway width at the street line is approximately forty-three (43)feet wide, It appears that this width is to facilitate traffic flow and safety,therefore the Board may wish to modify the width limitation. VHB defers to the board on this item, However VHB would not recommend narrowing the driveway for this particular layout as it appears to be designed this way to allow for vehicular turning maneuvers. No comment necessary. 4, Section 8.1.5(e): Off-street loading requirements for a CCRC development are not clear because the table does not provide specific requirements for a CCRC. VHB defers to the board as to the number and size of the loading bays required for this proposed development. VHB recommends that the Applicant clarify the loading areas and show the truck turning movements. VHB is correct in that there no loading requirements in the zoning pertaining to a CCRC.Drive 3 of the plan set is the loading area which is consistent to what the applicant has at similar facilities and has been designed to accommodate SU34 vehicles. S. Section 8.1.5(f): The Applicant has not provided a photometric lighting plan for the proposed site lighting for the development. Therefore, conformance with this section of the by-law has not been reviewed. VHB defers to the board as to whether a photometric lighting plan is will be required for the proposed development. A photometric lighting plan will be provided. b. Section 13.5(a): This section states that, "A CCRC shall be permitted only within a single lot containing a total area of not less than twenty-five acres," Footnote 1 on Sheet 2 indicates that the overall parcel proposed for development is comprised of three lots under common ownership totaling 33.35 acres. VHB defers to the town in the determination on weather a waiver request is required or the lots will be required to be joined to become a single lot. It does not appear that this would be an issue as the applicant is proposing to create a conservation restriction totaling 25.14 acres. F An ANR plan combining the 3 lots will be prepared after the Special Permit/Site Plan Approval is process is completed. 3 Marchionda & Associates, L.P. Engineering and Planning Consultants 7. Section 13.5(d)(1): The Applicant has included a letter from the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow the construction of a porte cochere within seventy-three(73) feet from the perimeter. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to the ZBA's decision to grant this variance. The plans appear to be consistent with this seventy-three foot dimension, however the dimension should be shown on the plans, The 73 foot setback dimension has been added to plan sheets 4 and 5. 8. Section 13.5(d)(3): The Applicant has included a letter from the Town of North Andover Board of Appeals granting a variance to allow for relief from the requirements of building height from thirty-five(35)feet to forty-nine (49) feet, two (2) inches. VHB is not aware of any outstanding appeals to the ZBA's decision to grant this variance. The zoning summary on Sheet 2 indicates that the building height is 497' (consistent with the variance) however no building elevations confirming this height are included in the planset. VHB defers to the board on whether building elevations are necessary in the granting of the Special Permit. The building height of 49' 2" is shown on architectural plan sheet AM 9. Section 13.5(0(2): This section states that for congregate housing one parking space shall be required for each unit. The proposed site plans include 125 CCRC units and ninety-seven (97)parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of approximately 0.78 parking spaces per CCRC unit. The zoning table on Sheet 2 provides the ratios which the proposed parking meets. Has the Applicant applied for or been granted a waiver from the parking requirement per this section of the Zoning By-law? The required number of parking spaces has been discussed with the Board extensively and we believe all are in agreement that the requirement for 1 space per unit for the subject project is excessive. Thus,we have requested the Board to grant a waiver to the parking requirement as provided for in the CCRC zoning. 10. Section 13.7(a)(2): This section requires the Applicant to submit a"Definitive Plan" in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 11.3. VHB assumes that the submitted planset represents the required, "Definitive Plan." The following lists the applicable provisions within Section 11.3 which are not included in the Site Plans. a. Section 11.3.3(0: The lot number, dimensions of the lot in feet and the width of the abutting streets and ways are not included on the plans. This information will be shown on the ANR plan, I Marchlonda 4 & Associates, L.P. Engineering and Planning Consultants b. Section 11.3.3(i): Does a portion of this lot lie within the 100-year floodplain? An area on the proposed plan is designated as flood compensation area however there are no li nits for the 100-year flood plain shown on the plans. There is no designated flood plain on the lot. The reference to flood plain compensation goes back to the permitting that was done for the 96 town homes. At that time the peer review engineer for the conservation commission insisted that we prepare calculations to determine the extent of flooding associated with Boston Brook during a 100 year event and provide compensation for any portion of that area to be altered. The current plans and drainage system, which is being reviewed by Lisa Eggleston, have been prepared to be consistent with the prior approvals. c. Section 11.3.30): The dimensions of the proposed building are not indicated on the plans. The building dimensions are shown on architectural plan sheet A2.0. d, Section 11.3.3(k): The distances of the proposed building from the lot lines are not shown on the plans, Agree. The dimension from the lot lines have been added to sheet 4 of the plan set. e. Section 11.3.3(m): The average finished grade of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. The average finished grade is shown on architectural plan sheet A3.1. f Section 11,3.3(n): The elevation above average finished grade of the floor and ceiling of the lowest floor of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. The elevations above the average finished grade are shown on architectural plan sheet A3.1. g. Section 11.3.3(r): The height of the proposed building, above the average finished grade of abutting streets is not shown on the plan. Due to the fact that no subdivision road is proposed it is presumed that this requirement is most appropriate as to the relationship of the building height to the average grade of the parking lot which is shown on architectural plan sheet A3.1. Marchionda & Associates, L.P. t Engineering and Planning Consultants General Comments 11, VHB has reviewed on-site circulation for the proposed development. It appears that passenger vehicles and single unit vehicles (snow plows, ambulances, UPS/FED EX, etc.) can maneuver throughout the site appropriately, No response necessary 12. The handicap curb out detail does not appear to account for the fact that the accessible parking spaces are two (2)feet longer than the adjacent panting spaces, It is not clear how this transition is accomplished. This discrepancy should be accounted for in the detail to ensure that an accessible path meeting the ADA/AAB required width will be constructed at the accessible parking spaces. The plan does account for the increase of 2 feet in the parking stalls for the handicapped spaces, On sheet 5 of 19 the handicapped spaces are noted as being 9 feet by 20 feet. Also, we have revised the detail of the handicapped spaces on sheet 15 of the plan set to further clarify that the proposed handicapped spaces and the sidewalk are fully compliant with the ADA/AAB requirements. 13, There are two proposed fire hydrants spaced approximately 570' apart, associated with the proposed development. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved these hydrant locations? The North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations specify that fire hydrants shall be located not more than five hundred feet apart. A fire lane is proposed to be provided at the west side of the building but does not extend behind the building. Has the North Andover Fire Department reviewed and approved the fire access circulation for the site? If not already completed, VHB recommends that the Fire Department review and approve the hydrant locations and the fire vehicle circulation. Prior to preparing the plan we met with Lt. Melinkas to review his requirements and we believe the plan has been prepared in compliance with his requirements. However, the applicant will make revisions to the plan if required by the fire department review. 14, The underdrain detail specifies that it is a roadway underdrain, Is this intended to be the detail for the underdrain system proposed with the tiered segmental retaining walls to the rear of the proposed building? The underdrain inverts should be shown on the plans. The dept of the underdrain as it related to the proposed roadway is specified on detail sheet 14 of the plan set which is consistent with standard engineering practice. It is not standard practice to specify inverts for underdrains. Underdrains are also proposed to control ground water behind the segmental retaining walls which, as specified on sheet 2 of the 1 I Marchionda & Associates, L.P. i Engineering and Planning Consultants plan set, note 3 are required to be designed by a structural engineer. Such design will include the specification of the depth and location of the underdrain as it relates to the proposed walls. 15. The utility connection points for electric, telephone, cable and gas are shown at the proposed building however the connection points to the main systems are not shown. The board may require these connection points to be shown on the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 114 in order to make these connections. It is assumed that the electric, telephone and cable will be provided from a connection to a utility pole. There is no existing gas main shown on the plans therefore it is difficult to understand where this connection will be made. The existing gas main and connection point should be shown on the plans. The complete layout of these utilities and their connection points have not been shown on the plans because the design of these private utilities is done by the utility companies once they are provide with an approved plan. The utility companies will not provide a design on an unapproved plan. Regarding the gas service, the applicant has negotiated an agreement with the gas company to extend a gas main to the site. All permitting required for such an extension is to be done by the gas company, 16, The infiltration system typical inspection port detail does not indicate that it is rated for vehicular loads. This should be confirmed and shown on the plans as one of the inspection ports is within the parking lot. The cast iron frame and cover that is specified for drain manholes on sheet 16 of the plan set(Lebanon Cat No. LB268-3-000 or approved equal) is rated for H2O loading. 17. The Applicant should confirm that infiltration system 1 has the appropriate separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater. The estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation increases between TP-2 and TP-1 on the eastern portion of infiltration system 1, The design of the drainage system, which is being reviewed by Lisa Eggleston, has been revised and infiltration system 1 has been eliminated, 18. The proposed snow storage area on the northern portion of the site is adjacent to the 50' wetland buffer. It appears that snow in this area will melt and discharge directly to the wetland resource area without being afforded the water duality treatment provided in the stormwater management system. Snow storage areas are generally designed such that the snow will melt back onto the pavement to allow for full water quality treatment through the stormwater management system. Has the Applicant evaluated providing snow storage areas that will be treated for water quality and not impact the wetland resource area? f k Marchionda & Associates, L.P. Engineering and Planning Consultants The snow storage area has been revised. It is now a minimum of a 10 foot wide shoulder graded to slope towards the parking lot so that all snow melt with be treated by the parking lot drainage system. See plan set sheets 5 and 6. 19. VHB recommends that the limits of the wooden rail be extended to the west between the parking area and the 1:1 slope area(14' drop)to protect errant vehicles from the steep slope, Consideration should be given to further extending the wooden rail adjacent to the fire lane. The ability of this wooden rail to withstand vehicular impact is unclear, The Applicant may wish to consider a proven crash tested system in lieu of the wooden rail. The limits of the retaining wall and wooden rail have been extended to go along the entire front of the parking lot and along the fire lane. See plan set sheet 5. The function of the rail is for fall protection as required under the building code. Also the vast majority of the wall and rail are setback a significant distance from the parking lot which is lined by a 6 inch high curb to which, in our opinion, is more than sufficient to prevent vehicles from rolling off the parking lot due to the very low speeds within the parking lot. A crash proven system (steel beam and post) system could be provided however, in our opinion it is not warranted and would detract from the aesthetics of the project without providing any significant public benefit.However, we will defer to the Board as to which type of railing is preferred. 20. The proposed segmental retaining wall proposed around the existing drop inlet catch basin to be replaced(at station 126 approximately of Route 114) extends within the layout of Route 114, Can this retaining wall be within the roadway layout? The segmental retaining wall has been revised to stay off of the route 114 roadway layout. 21. A MassDOT access permit will be required to allow the driveway connection,the utility connections within Route 114 and to allow for the construction of the segmental retaining wall within the Route 114 layout, VIIB assumes that the Applicant's Engineer will discuss any work within the Route 114 layout with the Town DPW/Engineering Department and MassDOT as well as obtain all necessary permits from the State and the Town. The applicant is aware that permits from Mass Highway are required for this project, Marchlonda & Associates, L.P. s, Engineering and Planning Consultants i I 0 22. Has the Applicant evaluated the incorporation of a vertical curve at the main entrance to the a site to allow for a smooth transition for vehicles entering and exiting the site? There is a grade differential of 4% at PV1-0+9.75 with no vertical curve. It appears that a vertical curve could be incorporated between the extended cross slope of Route 114 and the 5%grade of the driveway to create a smooth transition. The-2% slope into the site is simply the extension of the existing-2% cross slope on Route 1.14 which transitions to a positive 2% slope into the project. This is a very common normal transition from the cross slope from an existing roadway into a proposed entrance and is in fact below the maximum intersection grade of 3% as provided for in the North Andover Subdivision Regulations (see section 5.8.9). We will be forwarding you the photometric plan and landscaping plans soon but we wanted to get you the revisions and responses to your other comments as soon as possible as the next planning board hearing is scheduled for March 2nd and we are hoping to go into that hearing with all of your comments adequately addressed. Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions. l a&Associates, L.P. rch:. da,PE President cc: Judy Tymon, North Andover Planning Board i TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: The Arbors at North Andover VHB No.: 09280.56 Site Plait Location: 1275 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: Elm Development Services,L.L.C.,200 North Main Street,East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Applicant's Engineer: Marchionda&Associates,L.P., 62 Montvale Avenue,Suite 1,Stoneham,MA 02180 Platt Date: November 12,2009 Review Date: December 8,2009 February 16,2010(Revised) Follow-up Review: February 25,2010 March 3,2010(Revised) Final Review: March 16,2010 The Applicant has addressed VHB's comments and no further engineering review is required at this time. The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended July 13,2008). The traffic impact and access study submitted for the proposed development was also reviewed. The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's final review: • Site Plans—Special Permit Plans,Notice of Intent Plan,and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for The Arbors at North Andover;revised March 3,2010;prepared by Marchionda& Associates,L.P. • Architectural Plan A.3.1 —Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center, 1275 Turnpike Street,North Andover;dated July 1,2009;prepared by Gori&Associates • Revised Lighting Plan--The Arbors of North Andover,Andover,MA; dated November 30, 2009;prepared by Holophane • Landscape&Lighting Plan,Details—Special Permit Plans,Notice of Intent Plan,and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for The Arbors at North Andover;revised February 25, 2010;prepared by Huntress Associates,Inc. • Sight Distance Plan—Route 114 At Proposed Site Drive,North Andover,MA;dated March 2, 2010;prepared by Dermot J.Kelly Associates,Inc. • Response to Comments letter dated March 5,2010;prepared by Marchionda&Associates, L.P. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's reconunendations/suggestions. Please note that this review does not include a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by the Conservation Contmission. VHB's original November 12,2009 comments are in normal font,followed by Marchionda&Associates, L.P. (M&A)response in italics,followed by VHB's follow-up responses in bold. Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw 4. Section 8.1.5(e): Off-street loading requirements for a CCRC development are not clear because the table does not provide specific requirements for a CCRC. VHB defers to the board as to the number 1 \C:\Documents and Settings\tnippolit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Ottllaok\ZSYVv29U\0928456-TlieArborsatNorlOAndnver_CCRC- review&doc and size of the loading bays required for this proposed development. VHB recommends that the Applicant clarify the loading areas and show the truck turning movements, M&A(2/17/2010): VHB is correct in that there no loading requirements in the zoning pertaining to a CCRC. Drive 3 of the plan set is the loading area which is consistent to what the applicant has at similarfacilities and has been designed to accommodate SU30 vehicles. VHB(2/25/2010): Drive 3 accommodates an SU30 (box truck)vehicles. VHB defers to the board on whether the proposed loading area is sufficient for this facility, VHB (3/16/2010). Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 5. Section 8.1.5{f): The Applicant has not provided a photometric lighting plan for the proposed site lighting for the development. Therefore,conformance with this section of the by-law has not been reviewed. VHB defers to the board as to whether a photometric lighting plan is will be required for the proposed development, M&A(2/17/2010): A photometric lighting plan will be provided. VHB(2/25/2010)'. VHB has not received a photometric lighting plan as of the date of this letter. Based on a conversation with the Applicant Engineer,the plan will be available soon. VHS(3/16/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 6. Section 13.5(a): This section states that,"A CCRC shall be permitted only within a single lot containing a total area of not less than twenty-five acres." Footnote 1 on Sheet 2 indicates that the overall parcel proposed for development is comprised of three lots under common ownership totaling 33.35 acres. VHB defers to the town in the determination on weather a waiver request is required or the lots will be required to be joined to become a single lot. It does not appear that this would be an issue as the applicant is proposing to create a conservation restriction totaling 25.14 acres. M&A(2/17/2010): An ANR plan combining the 3 lots will be prepared after the Special PermitlSite Plan Approval is process is completed. VHB(2/25/2010): VHB recommends the Board consider a condition of approval that once the ANR plan has been prepared,a copy of the final plan shall be submitted to the Board for their records. VHB(3/16/2010): Comment addressed, Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 10. Section 13.7(a)(2): This section requires the Applicant to submit a"Definitive Plan"in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 113. VHB assumes that the submitted planset represents the required,"Definitive Plan." The following lists the applicable provisions within Section 11.3 which are not included in the Site Plans. d. Section 11,33(k): The distances of the proposed building from the lot lines are not shown on the plans, M&A (2/17/2010): The dimension from the lot lines have been added to sheet 4 of the plan set. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. Consider adding a dimension from the front lot line to the building,exclusive of the porte cochere setback,which requires a variance. VHB(3/16/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5, 2010. e. Section 11.3.3(m): The average finished grade of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. M&A (2/17/2010): The average finished grade is shown on architectural plan sheet A3.1. VHB(2/25/2010): Comment addressed. While the Schematic Section(detail 2-A3.1) graphically shows the average grade,the proposed elevations should be provided. It is recommended that the section include proposed grade elevations, VHB(3/16/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5, 2010. 2 \C.\Documents and Settings\mippotit\Local Sellings\Temparary inleroel Niles\Conlent.Ottltook\ZS]'Vv29U\092905G-TlieArborsatNorthAndover_CCRC- revlewldoc i f. Section 11.3.3(n): The elevation above average finished grade of the floor and ceiling of the lowest floor of the proposed building is not shown on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): Tlie elevations above the average ftiiished grade are shoiti>tt on ai-chitectural plait sheet A3.1. VHB (2/25/2010): See VHB response to Comment 10.e. Elevations should be shown. VHB (3/16/2010): Comment addressed. g. Section 11.3.3(r): The height of the proposed building,above the average finished grade of abutting streets is not shown on the plan. M&A(2/17/2010): Dire to the fact that no subdivision toad is proposed it is presumed that this requirement is most appropriate as to the relationship of the building height to the average grade of the parking lot which is shower on architectural sheet-43.1. VHB(2/25/2010): See VHB response to Comment 10.e. The Schematic Section appears to references a vision angle at street level(not parking lot as mentioned in the response). VHB would recommend the relationship should be taken from Turnpike Street. Please confirm the eye level elevation at street level is correct. VHB understands a variance for a building height of 49'-2" has been granted. VHB(3/16/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5, 2010. General Comments 14. The underdrain detail specifies that it is a roadway underdrain. Is this intended to be the detail for the underdrain system proposed with the tiered segmental retaining walls to the rear of the proposed building? The underdrain inverts should be shown on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The depth of the underdrain as it related to the proposed roadway is specified on detail sheet 14 of the plan set which is consistent with standard engineering pt actice. It is not staitdat'd practice to specify inverts for uttdet di-ains. Underdrains are also proposed to control gt ound water behind the segniental retaining walls which, as specified on sheet 2 of the plan set, Mote 3 are required to be designed by a strtictural engineer. Stich design ivill include the specification of the depth and location of the underdrain as it relates to the proposed walls. VHB (2125/2010): Comment addressed. Consider adding a note to the underdrain detail that tlt_e underdrain shall be connected to downstream catch basins. VHB (3116/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 15. The utility connection points for electric,telephone,cable and gas are shown at the proposed building however the connection points to the main systems are not shown. The board may require these connection points to be shown on the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 114 in order to make these connections. It is assumed that the electric,telephone and cable will be provided from a connection to a utility pole, There is no existing gas main shown on the plans therefore it is difficult to understand where this connection will be made. The existing gas main and connection point should be shown on the plans. M&A(2/17/2010): The complete layout of these utilities and their connection points have not been shown on the plans because the design of these private utilities is done by the utility companies once they are provided with approved plrrtt. The utility companies ivill itot provide a design oit aft unapproved plan. Regarding the gas service, the applicant has negotiated an agreement with the gas company to extend a gas stain to the site. All permitting required for stick an extension is to be done by the gas conipany. VHS (2/25/2010): Comment addressed. VHB recommends showing an approximate layout for the private utilities(at least within the private property)with a note that exact locations shall be determined by the respective utility owner. VHB(3/16/2010): Continent addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 3 \C;\Documents and Settings\mippolit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fifes\Content dutlnok\ZSYVv29U\0928056-TlheArborsatNortltAndover_CCRC- reviewldoc 19. VHB recommends that the limits of the wooden rail be extended to the west between the parking area and the 1:1 slope area(14' drop) to protect errant vehicles from the steep slope. Consideration should be given to further extending the wooden rail adjacent to the fire lane. The ability of this wooden rail to withstand vehicular impact is unclear. The Applicant may wish to consider a proven crash tested system in lieu of the wooden rail. M&A(2117/2010): The limits of the retaining wall and wooden rail have been extended to go along the entire front of the par]ring lot and along the f re lane. See plan set sheet 5. The function of the rail is-for fall protection as required under the building code. Also the vast majority of the wall and rail are setback a signifcant distance f ont the parking lot which is lined by 6 inch curb to which, in our opinion, is more than sufficient to prevent vehicles from rolling off the parking lot due to the veq low speeds within the parking lot. r1 crash proven system(steel beam and post)system could be provided however, in our opinion it is not warranted and would detract fi•ow the aesthetics of lire project without providing any significant public benefit. However, ive will defer to the Board as to which type of railing is preferred. VHB(2125/2010): Due to the height of the proposed wall,the Applicant should strongly consider a fence on top of the wall protected by a rail system for vehicular protection. The Applicant should verify the appropriate height of the fence with the building inspection. VHB believes this may be four-feet. VHB(3/16/2010); Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010. 20. The proposed segmental retaining watt proposed around the existing drop inlet catch basin to be replaced(at station 126 approximately of Route 114)extends within the layout of Route 114. Can this retaining wall be within the roadway layout? M&A(2/1712010): The segmental retaining wall has been revised to stay off of the route 114 roadl>>ay layout. VHB (2/25/2010): Comment addressed. The grading in this area is not clear. VHB recommends a blow-up detail of this area,including bottom and top of wall elevations. VHB (3116/2010): Comment addressed. Refer to M&A response letter dated March 5,2010, All traffic review comments have been addressed. VHB has received an intersection site distance plan. The plan is acceptable. 4 \O\Ducuments and Set tings\mippolit\Local Settings\Tempordry Internet Piles\Content.Outlnok\ZSY1'V29U\0928056-TlieArborsat\rorlhAndover_CCRC- revlew3.duc O4�µO or b��O �� b..,,, •. ;, 6L Town of North Andover Office of the Planning Department + h Community Development and Services Division Sgcµus 1600 Osgood Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 TO: Planning Board FROM: Judy Tymon, Town Planner RE: Application for'Continuing Care Retirement Center and Site Plan Review Special Permits 1275 Turnpike St (Boston Hill)North Andover, MA DATE: 2nd Review—March 16,2010 The following is a review of the plans with recommendations: The following information was included as pant of the application: Plans: Proposed Continuing Care Retirement Center 1275 Turnpike St. North Andover, MA 01845 Sheets A1.0,ALL, A2.0,A3.1,Al2, A3.3, A3.4, A3.5, A4.0, A4.1, A5.0, A5.1, A5.2, A6.0 Special Permits Plan,Notice of Intent Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Sheets 1 -- 18 Submitted by: Marchionda &Associates 52 Montvale Ave. Stoneham,MA 02180 Applicant: Elm Development 200 North Main St. East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Additional: Cover Letter Narrative Traffic Report Drainage Report Su»raar The applicant has submitted an application for two Special Permtts for Site Plan Review and for a Continued Care Retirement Center, for construction of a 125 unit congregate housing development, with associated, grading, parking, utilities, Iandscaping, in the Village Residential (VR) district on Turnpike St., at the location of the former Boston Hill ski area. 1 Back round Planning Board has reviewed and discussed the following: ➢ Traffic Plan. • The VHB report was reviewed as was the site visit made by the Planning Board in December, D. Kelley discussed at the last meeting the alignment of the proposed driveway with the driveway for the office building on the opposite side of Turnpike St. • The VHB report related some differences in opinion regarding relevance of certain traffic data; however, they did conclude that the inclusion of this data would not have a material impact on the outcome of the actual report, • A new site line distance plan was submitted by the applicant's consultant. ➢ Stortnwater Plan, • The consultant report prepared by Lisa Eggleston has been completed and all issues have been resolved. Lisa has submitted a memo to this effect, • The applicant will be required to provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP)as required in order to obtain a NPDES permit. The consultant recommended that the Planning Board's Special Permit be conditioned on a review of this plan. • The Conservation Commission has not issued an Order of Conditions. They have asked the applicant to provide a complete Operations and Maintenance Plan for the project. Their next public hearing is scheduled for March 24, 2010. ➢ Civil Engineering Review: VHB has concluded their report and found only minor issues, all of which have been addressed: • The size of the loading area was discussed at the last meeting and the PB concluded that the applicant has provided sufficient room for loading • The photometric plan has been submitted. • An ANR plan will be required and should be a condition of the Special Permit, • Parking Spaces: The applicant has asked for a waiver on the number of parking spaces. The proposed site plans include 125 CCRC units and ninety-seven(97) parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of approximately 0.78 parking spaces per CCRC unit, The bylaw requires one space per unit. ➢ Landscape Plan &Photometric Plan: • A landscape Plan has been provided. The Conservation Commision has commented on the plant list, noting that invasive species were included, Those plants has been removed from the list • Photometric Plan: A Photometric Plan has been provided ➢ Retaining Walls: The applicant should show possible designs of the retaining walls(front and rear), including details on the type of material to be used. ➢ Open Space: • The plan should show specific parking spaces to be set aside for the general public when accessing the Open Space. Additional Waivers: • Section 4.2 Phased Development Bylaw—NIA, Expired on July 1 2009. • Waiver of Requirement for Earth Removal Permit—Removal of soil is incidental to a construction project. • Section 13.5.d.1 —Perimeter Setback. Intended to provide a `greenbelt' perimeter, except for road and utilities. No building or structure shall be located within the 100 ft. setback of the CCRC parcel. Applicants argues that the term greenbelt is not defined and that a parking lot is 2 not a structure. Also argues that section 13.5.d.1 does not expressly prohibit a parking area within the 100 ft. setback. Also, in the VR district,the zoning table states that the `front setback shall be 100' along 125 in 1-1 and I-2; the first 50' shall provide a visual buffer and no parking shall be permitted. Applicant argues that the `no parking in first 50 ` is only for 1-1 and I-2 and does not relate to the front setback along 114. But the CCRC bylaw has its own front setback provision that is fairly detailed. Section 8.3.5.xxii Fiscal Impact and xxiii Community Impact. Applicant is asking for a waiver. Recommendations The applicant should address the following issues: 1. Review the current parking and landscaping plan with the goal of possibly reducing the number of parking spaces and providing more landscaping to break up the parking area and to provide screening from the street. The Planning Board may also allow the applicant to"bank"parking spaces for future use, if needed. 2. Review the architectural style of the proposed building, and provide the Planning Board with examples of similar projects that the applicant has completed, 3. An ANR should be filed to combine the three existing lots.