HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-05 Civil Peer Review TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Eaglewood Shops MHF No.: 155903
Location: Turnpike Street(Route 114)Map 2 4&27 Lots 16, 17,22
Listed Owner: Lawrence Eagle Tribune Realty Trust
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: Eaglewood Properties,LLC,POBox 337,Topslield,MA 01983
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Plan Date: September 19,2003 Review Date: October 03,2003
MHF Design Consultants,Inc. (MHF)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for Eaglewood
Shops for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse and Associates,Inc.(VAI). Together,the MHF and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following drawings and documents for
review:
• Site Plans(9 shts,C-1 through C-8)dated 09-19-2003 and Sv-1 dated 07-01-2003
• Application Form for Site Plan Special Permit(Clerk Stamped 09-19-03)
• Memo from VHB to NAPE(2 pages)regarding Site Plan Application(dated 09-19-03)
• Memo from Bergmeyer to Board(1 pg)on Architectural Consistency (dated 10-18-03)
• Manufacturer's catalog information for 2 light fixture series
• One 8'/zxI I sheet building elevation sketch(NTS)
• Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report(unstamped)dated 10/03
• Single Environmental Impact Report prepared by VHB dated 10-15-03
1
1. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 3 Zoning Districts and Boundaries
The plans should include notes relative to the recent rezoning action approved by the Town,which may
have been specific to this proposal and should therefore include any notable requirements associated with
that action. No information regarding this was provided to the reviewer,thus no review comments are
offered. We will assume for the purposes of the review that the project is within the G-B(General
Business District)as annotated on the plans. However,it would be helpful to provide a clearer summary
plan indicating all zone lines within and abutting the project.
Section 4 Buildings and Uses Permitted
The proposed retail and restaurant use appears to be allowed by right per 4.131.1 and 4.131.5,subject to
confirmation of above comments.
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
No information regarding any site or building signage has been provided for review. We recommend that a
comprehensive signage package be submitted to the Board for review in accordance with the Bylaw.
Section 7.3 Dimensional Requirements—Yard(Setbacks)
Per Table 2 Note 2,"the first 15 feet of the total setback abutting the residential district shall remain open
and green,be suitable landscaped,unbuilt upon". It appears that if the Town/Property line is deemed to be
abutting a residential district,whereas in fact we understand that a residential development is being actively
planned,then the proposed retaining walls,guardrails,and dumpster pads encroaching within this 15 feet
may not meet the specific"open"and"unbuilt upon"criteria,and may need zoning relief specific to these
items. No notes are included in the plans relative to any zoning relief or other permitting that may have
been applied for or granted.
Section 7.4 Building Height
Per Table 2,maximum allowable building height is 45 feet. This cannot be confirmed without scaled
building elevations,which were not provided. Building height information should be noted on the plans.
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
a) Alternative parking calculations should be provided for the restaurant use with the 1 space per 2
seat criteria and compared to the 15 spaces per 1000 GSF criteria shown—the greater should apply
per the Bylaw. This could not be verified,as floor plans were not provided. Refer to additional
comments below.
b) Required parking at the"Retail 1"building would be 118 spaces. Some of the proposed 111
spaces provided at this location will be used for snow storage areas. This parking lot is segregated
from enjoying benefits fi•om other shared parking areas of the project. If the nearby reserve
parking area is fully constructed and paved,consideration should then be made for safe pedestrian
access,which is not provided. Note that this rear interconnect drive appears to be the only way to
exit the"Retail 1"site and will need to support 100%all Retail 1 site traffic. Also note that there
2
is zero protection/separation/buffering between this main drive and the full length wall face of the
Retail I building.
c) The site plans are unclear as to where the restaurant is located,which is an important consideration
in evaluating parking balance and pedestrian flow. This is particularly important if it is located at
the end of"Retail 3"(location of proposed grease trap). This needs to be discussed,as the higher
weighted restaurant parking needs would tend to imbalance the already low relative quanities
provided at"Retail 3", Furthermore,about half of this critical parking at"Retail 3"is not
available for recirculation without driving around the rear service alley in attempts to find a space
across the main drive throat fronting the more-ample parking field at"Retail 2",which would tend
to apply more conflicting pressure at that juncture, including pedestrian cross movements—please
discuss.
d) The 11"'reserve space shown behind"Retail 2"will be blocked by the dumpster. Also,the
parking calculations may need to be adjusted to account for the parallel spaces provided in the
rear.
Section 8.35 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Information Required
a) Please address conflicting information and data between the Application Form and the Plans(e.g.,
owner information,Existing/Proposed development data).
c) Stamped scaled building elevations have not been provided for review.
e.iv) Any proposed easements or other key legal information should be added to the plans—none
appear to be proposed. Also,no conditions notes appear on the plans relating to any other
approving entities—please confirm,
e.vi) Please address discrepancies apparent in the zoning data provided(refer to Sheet SV-I comments
and Section 3 comment above).
e.vii) Refer to Drainage design comments below,
e.ix) Although the application included an 8'/a"xl 1"building elevation sketch as required,it is difficult
to read because the entire project is shown on this sketch at an unreasonable scale.
c.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sidewalks on Route 114. Also,refer to Sheet C-2
comments regarding circulation.
e.xi) Refer to clarification comments on Sheet SV-1 regarding wetlands indicated on the plan. Please
also confirm that the NOl Filing and information is concurrent with the Site Plan Filing as
required,
e.xii) Retaining walls are extensively proposed for this project—we recommend that details be provided.
No site or building signage information has been provided for review.
e,xv) Refer to Sheet C-5 comments regarding landscaping.
3
e.xvi) Please provide details of the proposed dumpster fence screening. Also,please address setback
requirements relative to Section 7.3 review comment and truck accessibility issues in Sheet C-2
comments.
e.xvii) No lighting plans were submitted for review.
e.xviii) Refer to drainage comments below.
e.xix) Refer to Traffic Study comments in associated review letter by VAI.
e.xxi) Refer to Sheet C-4 and general drainage comments regarding utilities.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS
Title Sheet(unnamed or numbered)
1. The owner and applicant information shown conflicts with the Application Form. The engineer's
address and contact information should be shown on this sheet. The Title Sheet should be
assigned a sequential number as an integral part of the submitted plan set.
Legend and General Notes(C-1)
1. The legend symbols conflict with plan data and their legends;the identified sheet scale is not
applicable.
2. General Note#4(specific loam and seed areas and requirements)conflict with requirements of the
Landscape Plan.
3. General Note#9(payment on restoration of disturbances outside the limits of work)appears to
conflict with the basic premise of identifying and controlling work limits on the plan and property.
4. Layout and Materials Note#4 references several site items that should be included on the site
plans(various HVAC pad locations on the site,compactor pad reference,bollards,etc.). That
should also include light pole bases in Note#7.
S. Existing Conditions Information Note#1 (field survey year)conflicts with the Existing Conditions
Plan General Notes.
Existing Conditions Plan of Land(SV-1)
1. The plan does not indicate complete subject lot and abutting lot information(including
approximate tax map abutting lines,parcel numbers,etc. Note that no certified abutters list was
included in our review materials.
2. The legend and plan information conflict for several items. The legend symbols conflict with
other plan legends.
3. The wetland flagging and actual wetland limits are unclear(e.g.,disjointed/incomplete near
Waverly Road and adjacent Stabile property),and do not match the other plans(e.g.,Flags I-100
to A-4 section). The buffer zones are not shown.
4. No existing boundary monumentation are shown. No existing Town Line reference data are
shown. Surveyor's certification statement(s)are missing.
5. The"Highway Easement"indicated on the subject property is not dimensioned or described in
terms of purpose or deed reference.
6. The prints provided to us included some very small blurry text,some which are also very lightly
screened and difficult to read(e.g.,utility and contour data).
7. General Note#6 appears to be conflicting or incomplete vis-A-vis the Application and the plans in
terms of subject Lot(s).
8. General Note 97 should reference the Rezone action definitively,and the table data appears to
have conflicting information(e.g.,Lot Frontage).
9. Existing materials types are not indicated for street utilities.
10. The existing structure on the primary parcel near the McLean property is not identified or
recognized in the Table,nor are the structure(s)on other parcel(s)which may be included in the
proposed development.
11. The existing surface feature shown within the ditch extending from the Hatem property to the
Town Line is not identified.
12. A plan and/or required documentation combining the required existing lots should be included or
referenced in the application. The combined areas and other information are unclear and also do
not appear to match the Application Form data Items 5 and 6.
Layout and Materials Plan(C-2)
I A truck turning plan should be provided to illustrate movements in several critical areas(e.g,,
approaches around buildings and at service center exit alley,dumpster service access at one-way
aisles)as previously discussed at TRC Department input.
2. Several critical pavement setbacks,wall offsets/setbacks,major curb radii,nontypical
pavement/lane widths need to be clearly identified.
3. Pavement markings and MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be considered(c.g.,main
site drive access throat,interconnect drives, one-way areas,approaching conflict control,fire lane
areas,etc.). Consideration should also be given to adjusting curbline orientation/flow for efficient
circulation,control,and guidance at several critical areas. These and related issues were to be
5
Y
I
I
addressed on the plans per the SEIS review and responses,including possible pedestrian
connections to abutting planned projects.
I
4. Virtually no proposed building dimensions are provided,nor were scaled elevations or floorplans
provided for verification of designed openings,access points,utilities,roof drainage information,
etc. The proposed building areas shown on the plans do not match the Application data Item 3,
and additional plan notes are needed to clearly define required proposed information other than
what is shown graphically. Application Form Items 8 and 9 are incorrect or conflicting with plan
information.
5. No site signage information was provided on the plans.
6. Additional notes and associated plan items should be added to the Plans relative to the required j
Mitigation Commitments outlined in the SEIR.
Grading,Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C-3)
1. The reserve parking field on the detention basin slope should be fully engineered and integrated
into the plans and calculations and constructed to subgrade(at a minimum),per TRC Department
input previously discussed.
2. Adjustments should be made to the drive interconnecting Retail 1—it consists of an 8%grade
extending 200 feet,with no levelinglapproach platform at the bottom of the hill where the building
and main site exit intersection are located.
3. A similar discussion should also be provided at the main site throat,were 100%of all project
exiting traffic will be maneuvering and queuing(refer to traffic review comments).
4. Drainage profiles should be provided for piping within the detention basin areas. The calculations
should address maximum pipe scour velocities. Maintenance access is not clearly provided.
5. Consideration should be made relative to draining the temporary snow stockpiles shown on
pavement,and their relative flowpaths to effective CB intercept locations(e.g.,bypass drainage
going into Route 114 pavement at"Retail 1",long flow paths over parking areas at both"Retail 2"
and"Retail 3").
6. Consideration should be made in providing a cross slope at the"Retail I"loading dock aisle to
reduce excessive sheeting to the suppressed dock. Also,the trench drain shown at that location
needs additional plan detailing.
7. All retaining walls should indicate top and bottom finish grade elevations at critical points. Safety
and aesthetic considerations should be made at several areas----a typical example is at the northerly
project entrance approach alignment and view of the retaining wall/loading area/guardrail end
point in the middle of the pavement and gore areas. The use of safety fencing and/or guardrail
should be evaluated.on all drive sideslope and wall areas surrounding the bank property and other
areas where needed.
8. The 100'Buffer Zone line needs to be corrected(at flags A4, 1-100, 1-101)
6
i
i
9. Many areas have graded slopes steeper than 3:1.These should be described with details for
additional temporary and permanent stabilization methods.
10. Many areas of the site's driveways have embankments with slopes steeper than 3:1 that drop off
more than 36".These should be either redesigned or provided with guardrails(e,g.connection
fi-om"Retail 1"to"Retail 2").
11. The intersections of driveways within the site and at entrancelegress locations have slopes of up to
5%. Please discuss this relative to posing hazards for traffic circulation and providing leveling
areas in critical areas.
12. The proposed detention basin is shown without a practical means of access for maintenance.This
should be redesigned to incorporate an opening in the guardrail and provide a graded access drive
from the parking area or driveway to the basin.
13. FES-F1 should be provided with a Rip-Rap Pad.
14. Many of the proposed catch basins are designed to capture inordinately large areas of storm water
flows and have flow paths routing overland flows for long distances(e.g.CB-B 10,E7).These
basins have inadequate grate capacities for the areas draining to them.And the long flow paths
pose hazards for winter conditions. Conversely,based on the grading,some catch basins would
capture almost no storm water flows(e.g.CB-1325).These should be examined.
15, The proposed grading would allow storm water flows fi•om Rt. 114 into two of the entrances
(southerly and middle).These flows would then travel long distances before being captured by
catch basins. We recommend the entrances be redesigned with storm water capture occurring at
the site boundary----where practical.
M. This sheet should be provided with the necessary pipe and structure data(e.g. lengths,slopes,etc.)
needed for construction.
17. The proposed grading appears to overreach the property boundary and does not provide enough
space to install the silt fence/hay bale barriers shown(specifically along the existing bank property
line and at the north-west corner).Flows would essentially be centered along the property line and
be divided onto the abutter's property. These areas should be examined and redesigned as needed,
or easements applied.
18. Proposed tree line and Limit of Work line should be shown,
19. CB-K1 is shown with a connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114.This requires
review and approval by Mass Highway,
Utility Plan(C-4)
1, The plans should address all transformer and other pad locations which are not shown this is
unclear. It is unclear on the plan where the connections would be made fi'om the proposed electric
and gas services to the existing utilities in Rt. 114. All utility connections in the Rt. 114 right-of-
way will require approval from Mass Highway and possible input fi om North Andover DPW.
7
i
2. Minimum horizontal separation between utilities is not met, In addition,it appears that several CB
structures have water mains located unnecessarily tight to them.
3. No drainage pipe lengths or slopes are included in the plans;roof drain data is incomplete.
Drainage pipe and structure data should either appear on this sheet or on C-3.Currently it is
unclear which sheet to refer to for such data.
4. No sewer pipe lengths or slopes are included in the plans. Sewer main profiles should be provided
for this project, due to the extensive amount of infrastructure,slopes,and utility crossings inherent
in the design. The final downstream connection plan and pipe data is missing and/or unclear for
proposed and existing.
S. The applicant should consider integrating composite utility design information and
grading/drainage information—for example,the sewer design plans do not show any proposed
grading,the drainage design plan showing invert elevation data does not show any grading—this
leads to confusion and bouncing between plans for interrelated information(e.g.,rim data,cover
yield,etc.),
6. The applicant should address the Fire Department TRC review comments with the appropriate
notes on the plans(e.g., fire suppression,alarm system, fire hydrant and emergeney access
locations,Opticom notes,etc.);DPW TRC review comments(including sewer mitigation fees,
connection permit notes,detention system sizing and access,water main and service
sizing/locations,soil and materials stockpile locations on plans,etc,);other department
comments—with appropriate notes and plan information as necessary.
7. Many of the drainage structures appear to have shallow pipe cover, Specifically:CB-1325,B26,
B6,B10,D5,E4,E5,E7,DMH-A2,E3. The drainage pipe from DMH-133 to B2 is labeled as
12".This should be checked.
Landscape Plan(C-5)
1. Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval in
addition to owner approval regarding plant substitutions, if any are proposed.
2. Landscape Note 47 does not include a seed mix or erosion control fabric specification as
referenced. The seed specification at the detention basin should be verified. The plan should
include specifications for seed mixture in detention basin area,steep-sloped embankments(i.e,
steeper than 3:1),and other"loam and seed"areas. Standard planting installation details for are
missing for shrubs and trees.
3. Consideration should be given to specifying groundcover and/or mulch in lieu of grass in and
around the rear service guardrail area and other retaining walls,due to grass maintenance and
appearance challenges in these thin strip areas.
4. Please verify any conflicts with utilities(e.g.,minimum hydrant clearance in fa ont of"Retail T'
building),and proposed tree line limits shown at detention basin. Also,please add a north arrow.
S
4
1
5. Consideration should be given to discussing some species variation to the straight line of 100
Eastern Red Cedars proposed along the base of wall at the property line. Also, please consider or
discuss replacing non-native species(e.g.,Austrian Pine).
6. The realized benefit of the Turfstone interlocking pavers may not be fully functional,as they are
located on the high perimeter ends of a proposed parking area that is solidly paved in the center
where all the drainage collects and travels—please explain.
7. Will critical areas be provided with landscape irrigation? None appears to be proposed,
8. Sight distances around plantings at all intersecting drives should be verified.
9. The SEIR refers to design measures for landscape beds that will be contoured to create infiltration
depressions,which are not shown or detailed
Site Details(Sheets C-6,C-7,C-8)
l. The details for the catch basins should include the manufacturer and model of the oil hood to be
installed.A corresponding detail should also be provided.
2. The grease trap detail should indicate which size/model is to be used.Also,there should be daily
flow calculations included to explain how the size was determined.
3. The drain manhole detail indicates an oil hood to be installed at the outlet.This is not
recommended,as it impedes maintenance access,and is redundant if hoods are provided at the
catch basins.
4. There is included a"Stormceptor Model STC 450i"detail. This device is not indicated on any
plans,nor mentioned in the Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report. It is unclear why it is
shown.The reviewer agrees that such a device is a good addition to any stormwater management
plan.However, if it is to be included,it should be shown on the plans and in the TSS removal
calculations,Operation and Maintenance Plan,etc.And according to Stormceptor's design
criteria,it may have to be model STC 900,or STC 1200--depending on the level of treatment and
flow needed.
5. Data on the FES Detail Table on Sheet C-6 is missing. The Hydrant Detail thrust blocking
requirements need to address hydrants located at proposed vertical fill walls. The sidewalk
Siamese connection detailed is unclear as to plan location. The utility trench detail is too generic
and should be revised to address differing specifications and dimensions for differing pipe/utility
uses. Utility frames,covers,and grates should be specified as to materials,sizes,makes, and
models(or equivalents).
6. The proposed slope granite curb detail on Sheet C-7 is missing critical stone dimensions and is
only specified with a 4"height,which conflicts with the proposed contouring on the plans.
7. Min/Max slope criteria specified in the various HC ramp and crosswalk details on Sheet C-7
should be verified with the grading plan(e.g.,ACR Type D at"Retail 2"westerly entrance,etc.).
9
8. The Turfstone Paver detail is identified but missing on Sheet C-7. Please clarify conflicts between
plan callouts and details for bollard sizes and guardrail(e.g.,steel vs. timber).
9. Several details should be added to the plans,including pavement section,pavement patch on
existing streets,sewer cleanout,roadway widening plans and details,project signage,lighting,
slope stabilization for slopes exceeding 3:1,detention basin and sediment trap sections/details,
retaining walls(including observed face appearances),dumpster fencing,etc.
10. We recommend the designers replace or augment the catch basin sediment trap detail with a stone
and filter fabric type.Although the hay bales are acceptable for on-site catch basins during
construction,they are impractical for use on the catch basins in the existing roadway(Rt. 114).
Additional Permits/Reviews required for the project:
• Order of Conditions—review/approval from Conservation Commission&DEP
• Mass Highway Trench&Driveway Permits
• Local Sewer/Water connection permits
• NPDES Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
III. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER UALITY REPORT
1. North Andover Wetland Bylaws require the 1-year storm event be included in the drainage
calculations,
2. Massachusetts Stormwater Policy requires the 25-year storm event be included in the drainage
calculations.
3. Data fi•om test pit(s)performed by a certified soil evaluator should be included in the report,or on the
plans.The test pit location(s)should be shown on the plans.
4. The designers are taking credit for infiltration/groundwater recharge at the extended detention basin,
Stormwater Policy does not allow this.The designers should find another method of
infiltration/recharge to fulfill the recharge requirement.
5. The TSS removal calculations take credit for 10%removal by street sweeping.It will be the decision
of the Conservation Commission as to whether or not to accept this.
6. The TSS removal calculations do not include the Storniceptor unit shown on the details of the plans.
The designers should clarify if such a unit is to be included.
7. The predevelopment Hydrocad model describes the area's flow path with only two slopes across the
site. It is the reviewers' opinion that the slopes across the site vary significantly enough that the model
should describe them with more detail.
8. The designers created a post-development Hydrocad model of the development as a single
subcatchment.In order for Hydrocad to accurately model stormwater flows,the development should
10
be divided into individual subcatchments for all the catch basin areas,the rooftops,driveways,
landscaped areas,and so on.Also,the subcatchments should be routed through the pipe system. In this
manner the pond(detention basin)and all pipe performance would be more accurately represented.
9. The detention basin as designed would pond to within inches of the crown of the embankment(see
100-year storm calculations),It is recommended that at least 1 foot of freeboard be provided.
i
10. The detention basin as designed appears to be 6 feet deep in some areas.Please address the possible i
review by the State Office of Dam Safety. i
i
I l. The sediment forebay as designed is insufficient in size.Based on a developed area of 7.6 acres,the
forebay should have a total volume of about 13,00 cubic feet based on the Stormwater Policy. The
basin shown has only 2,500 c.£This should be redesigned.
12. The"Storm Drainage Computations"spreadsheet displays some pipes as having insufficient capacity.
Specifically:DMH B3 to B2,DMH-B2 to B1,DM1-I-E3 to El,DMH-El to B3.
13. The"Storm Drainage Computations"spreadsheet data includes the"n"value for the HDPE pipes as
0.013;the correct value is between 0.010 and 0.012,
14. The"Storm Drainage Computations"spreadsheet displays many grate capacities that are inadequate.
Specifically: CB-A8,B9,BI0,B14,B22,B24,B26,D2,E7,E4.
15. Compliance Review with MADEP Stormwater Policy:
Currently the submitted plans and report do not assure compliance with the policy as follows:
Standard#1:Untreated Stormwater
The plan as submitted complies with this standard by treating all Stormwater prior to discharge to
nearby wetlands.
Standard#2:Post-development peak discharge rates
The plans and report submitted will have to be revised to confirm compliance.
Standard 93:Recharge to groundwater
The plans and report submitted do not provide adequate recharge. Further design information is
required.
Standard#4:TSS removal
The plans and report submitted comply with this requirement only if North Andover Conservation
Commission agrees to apply 10%TSS removal credit for street sweeping.
Standard#5: Higher potential pollutant loads
The plans and report comply with this standard.
Standard#6:Protection of critical areas
This standard does not apply,as there are no critical areas nearby.
Standard#7:Redevelopment projects
This standard does not apply.
11
�i
I
Standard 98:Erosion/sediment control
The plans and report comply with this standard.But more details will be required with revised
plans.
Standard#9:Operation/Maintenance Plan
The plans and report comply with this standard.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by M1HF and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust that this review
efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E.,Senior Project Manager
Checked by: Date:
Frank C.Monteiro,P.E.,President
12
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Eaglewood Shops MHF No.: 155903-11
Location: Turnpike Street(Route 114)Map 2 4&27 Lots 16, 17,22
Listed Owner; Lawrence Eagle Tribune Realty Trust f partial owner)
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: Eaglewood Properties,LLC,POBox 337,Topsfield,MA 01983
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Revised Plan Date: October 28,2003 Review Date: November 12,2003
MHF Design Consultants,Inc. (MHF)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for Eaglewood Shops for
the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering practice. In addition,
the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed (under separate memorandum)by
Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI). Together,the MHF and VAI reviews are considered to be the Review for this
project. We have received the following drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans Revised 10-28-03 and Figure S I
• Drainage Report Revised October 2003
• Response to Review Comments dated 10-24-03
This information also contained substantial newly-generated plans which were integated into the revised
submission. The Planning Department also conducted a review coordination meeting with the applicant and the
peer review team. Please refer to VAI`s most recent review letter, appropriately coordinated with ongoing
interaction directly with the applicant,which should be considered part of this Application Review.
Zoning Districts
1. Please provide a copy of the rezoning decision for review confirmation of restrictive covenants, which
should also be specifically annotated on the plans per the TRC Meeting request.
2, The Zone Line and type remains unclear along Route 114 and across this street,respectively.
Signs and Site Lighting
1, Sheet A4 has been provided indicating monument and directional sign details and typical Bole lighting
mockups. However, it is unclear where the indicated signage is to be placed on the Layout Plan,quantities
and total signage areas, the method of signage lighting,and complete colors labeled.
2. Although Sheet A2 indicates typical building signage locations, it does not indicate the above required
information. We understand that the Board may request information relative to a possible common theme
of wall signage design.
3. Sheet A3 (Photometrics) was provided, but does not include data references to the several fixture and pole
types inferred.
4. Consideration should be made to changing the rear-facing wall paks facing the abutting future residential
development to forward-facing pole fixtures.
5. Likewise, the fixture type for poles along the Bramanti residence and the pole in back of the dumpster at
Retail Space#3 appears to place too much light onto abutting property and should be modified. (Refer to
Bylaw 8.4.5.)
6. Details should be provided for pole bases, and confirm photometrics with actual mounting height and any
stated photometric maintenance factoring.
7. In addition, the designer should evaluate why some poles are specified unprotected in the middle of
pavement, where a design adjustment could be reasonably made to move them into nearby landscape
islands.
Building Height and Related Plans
1. We request that all sheets be checked and revised as necessary—Sheet A2 Elevations do not match the
information provided in the remaining sheets, including Sheet C-2 Layout Plan and Sheet Al Overall Site
Plan /Floor Plan. Additionally, Sheet Al includes other information (landscaping and other items) which
do not agree with the respective plans. Typical inconsistencies include GSPA, landscape design, curbing,
dumpster orientation, striping, sidewalks, door openings, wall dimensions, hardscape/courtyard areas, other
indicated data,etc.
2. Sheet A2 should also indicate general colors, textures, and other materials information to truly depict what
is being proposed (e.g., "fiberglass shingles"is vague and will be a prominent visual feature on this building
complex, ditto for "clapboards", "Decorative Grille work" and "Pop Up" features are interesting, but no
details are given for materials,colors,roof interface treatment,canopies,etc.
3. We recommend that Building Department (e.g., Mr. Nicetta) review the proposed building heights for his
specific interpretation with the Bylaws as their definition and how he typically applies them.
Parldng and Circulation
1. ----The-complete-desigtr-of--the proposed reserve parking-should be-provided -and-notes should be added to the
plans identifying the procedures to be used for its construction if the Town decides to effectuate it—if the
Planning Board agrees to the reserve nature of the facility for this application. The design should include
all items normally required for review, including pedestrian access. To merely label the area as reserve
parking without these details is not appropriate.
2. The applicant should address the aisle along the sidewal of Retail 1 building, which is totally unprotected
with no buffer or curb offset or sidewalk, and should be verified with the Architectural Plans regarding
materials and proposed bunipout features,etc.
3. The applicant should address the potential parking imbalance at the restaurant, if it is to be located near
Retail Space#10, where the entire parking field to the south of the main site drive is taken for that one use.
4. We understand that the Board may request that the Planning Department coordinate possible MVRTA bus
routes and related technical site plan requirements with the applicant, if applicable.
5. We understand that the applicant may agree to join the Transportation Management Agreement (TMA),
which the Board may request that it be a condition of a possible decision.
Existing Conditions Plan of Land
1. Original Comment: The plan does not indicate complete subject lot and abutting lot information(including
approximate tax reap abutting limes, parcel numbers, etc. Note that no certified abutters list was included
in our review materials.
Applicant's Response: The SV-1 plan has been updated to provide assessor reference information on the
abutting properties.
Reply: Abutters' information across the streets need to be indicated. This plan indicates Lots_17 and 22
to-be air integral part of the proposed project, but they appear to be owned by additional entities than what
is shown on the Cover Sheet and the Application....-The Planing Department has requested-that the A_NR
Plan be prepared in association with the submittal,
2, Original Continent: The wetland flagging and actual wetland limits are unclear (e.g.,
disjointed/inconrplete near Waverly Road and adjacent Stabile property), and do Trot match the other plans
(e.g., Flags 1-100 to A-4 section). The buffer zones are not shown.
Applicant's Response: Flag 1-100 has been added to the SV-1 plan, other flags shown reference all older
wetland delineation line, VHB is in the process of adding additional "new" flags to extend the current
delineation line and is coordinating this effort with the North Andover conservation agent. The updated
plan,with additional wet flags,will be provided to you when complete.
Reply: The new information will need to be verified once provided.
3. Original Connnent: A plan and/or required documentation combining the required existing lots should be
included or referenced in the application. The corrrbined areas and other information are unclear and also
do not appear to match the Application Farm data Itetrrs 5 and 6.
Applicant's Response: A plan will be filed at the registry of deeds combining the three lots to create a
single lot for the project. The plan,once prepared will be provided to the Town.
Reply: We believe that the Planning Department has requested that this plan be provided as part of the
project submittal and that related information be updated.
Layout and Materials Plan
1. Original Conrrtent; Several critical pavement setbacks, wall offsets/setbacks, major curb radii, nontypical
pavement/lane widths need to be clearly identified.
Applicant's Response: Additional dimensions have been provided on the plan.
Reply: Several critical nontypical data remains to be identified for clarity and construction control.
2. Original Conannent: Pavement markings and MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be
considered (e.g., main site drive access throat, interconnect drives, one-way areas, approaching conflict
control,fire lane areas, etc.). Consideration should also be given to adjusting enrbline orientation/flow for
- --efficient circulation, control, and guidance at several critical areas. These and related issues were to be
,
addressed on the plans per the SEIS review and responses, including possible pedestrian connections to
abutting planned projects.
Applicant's Response: Additional signage and pavement markings have been added to the plan. Initial
contact has been made with the residential developer to the west of the site, the residential developer has
not-responded positively to the potential of coordinating the two projects.
Reply: More safety/control si na a and markings should be considered in the critical areas---examples
include the lack or insufficient safe control at internal site intersections—includin (o the fear of Retail 1
and Retail 2/3 (stop control? Right of way? Better warning si na e? Etc. Additionally, we understand
that the Board may request verification from the abutting developer regarding his response to your
integration coordination efforts to date.
3. Original Comment: Adjustments should be made to the drive interconnecting Retail 1—it consists of an.
8% grade extending 200 feet, with no leveling/approach platforitt at the bottom of the Trill where the
building and tttain site exit intersection are located.
Applicant's Response: The grade on the connecting road has been reduced to 7.5%and a leveling area has
been provided at the south end of the connector road.
Reply: The grading and general design in this area need much more attention due to safety considerations.
Tile grade extends essentially through the intersection and down into the loading dock, without sufficient
relief—note that this area will need to support 100% of all Retail I traffic egress, is located within and
shared with the primary loading zone and up against the actual building wall, surrounded with guardrail
with no room for error,and includes an end pr6ecting retaining wall at the loading split.
4. Original Comment: Consideration should be made relative to draining the temporary snow stockpiles
shown on pavement, and their relative flowpaths to effective CB intercept locations (e.g., bypass drainage
going into Route 114 pavement at "Retail I", long flow paths over parking areas at both "Retail 2" and
"Beta it 3").
Applicant's Response: Snow plowed on the site will be temporarily stockpiled and removed from the site,
snow will be removed from the site before significant snow melt can occur. In the event of spring snow
and melt during the removal of snow from the site, snow melt will be collected in the site closed drainage
system and pass through the site stormwater BMPs.
Reply: The Snow.Storage and Removal information on Figure-S1 should be transferred to the Site Plans.
However, we understand that the Board is concerned about any snow storage indicated over proposed
parking spaces and the relative tightness of the parking supply. The issue of unusually long flow paths
throw hout the drainage design has not been adequately addressed.
5. Original Comment: Marty of the proposer)catch basins are designed to capture inordinately large areas of
storm ►vater flows and have flow paths routing overland flows for long distances(e.g. CB-BIO, E7). These
basins have inadequate grate capacities for the areas draining to them. And the long flow paths pose
hazards for winter conditions. Conversely, based on the grading, some catch basins would capture almost
no storm water flows(e.g. CB-B25). These should be examined.
Applicant's Response: Additional catch basins have been added to the plan, catch basin inlet capacity
calculations are provided.
Reply: The original comment remains.
6. Original Comment: The proposed grading would allow storm water flows from Rt. 114 into two of the
entrances (southerly and middle). These flows would then travel long distances before being captured by
catch basins. We recormnend the entrances be redesigned 1Vith storin )rater capture occurring at the site
boundary—where practical.
Applicant's Response: The southerly site ingress has been eliminated and (lie central main site drive and
northerly ingress have been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114 and prevent off site flow
from flowing on-to the-project site.-
Reply: As currently designed, the soutlerly entrance will direct flows from Rt. 114 into the project, then
flow an inordinately long distance before being captured by the on-site drainage system.
7. Original Continent: This sheet should be provided with the necessary pipe and structure data(e.g. lengths,
slopes, etc.)needed for construction.
Applicant's Response: Lengths of pipe have been shown on the Utility Plan, slopes can be calculated from
information provided on the plans. Excessive information can result in conflicting information on the
plans.
Reply: Drainage pine slopes need to be indicated somewhere in the plan set—not providing the data at all
certainly would eliminate any information conflicts but the slopes need to be identified on the plans!
8. Original Comment: Additional motes and associated plait items should be added to the Plaits relative to the
required Mitigation Commitments outlined in the SEIR.
Applicant's Response: Relevant items from the mitigation chapter of the SEIR have been listed on the
Legend and General Notes sheet on the plan set,Sheet G I.
Reply: commitments and other general information outlined in the SEIR remain to be in
disagreement with the plans, includings ubsequent revisions to the plans--please explain what items are
relevant and why other items are irrelevant, as it pertains to the requirements of the SEIR and related
procedures. The Board needs to clearly understand the legalities of this process, the impacts of airy
rezoning covenants, and any related plan changes thereto vis-�-vis the SEIR, and any inconsistencies which
exist.
Utility flan
I. Original Comment: The applicant should address the Fire Department TRC review comments with the
appropriate notes on the plans (e.g., fire suppression, alarm system, fire hydrant and emergency access
locations, Opticorx notes, etc.); DPW TRC review comments (including sewer mitigation fees, connection
permit notes, detention system sizing and access, water main and service sizing/locations, soil and
materials stockpile locations on plans, etc.); other department comments—with appropriate notes and plan
information as necessary.
Applicant's Response: Plans have been sent to the Fire Department for Review and no comments have
been received back from Chief Dolan. All local water and sewer connection permits will be obtained by
the contractor, all utility connection within the State layout will be approved by the Massachusetts
Highway Department.
Reply: Various outstanding Department input should be obtained and verified as necessary. Please check
the gas main connections shown in the street.
2. Original Comment: Many of the drainage structures appear,to have shallow pipe cover. Specifically: CB-
B25, B26, B6, B1O, D5, E4, E5, E7, DMH-A2, E3. The drainage pipe from DMH-B3 to B2 is labeled as
12". This should be checked.
Applicant's Response: The drainage system has been revised since the initial design, shallow pipe cover
has been addressed in the revised plan set.
Reply: The original comment remains. Most pipes from catch basins have only 2 feet of cover. This is
inadequate in all but the most severe restricted areas which cannot be feasibly provided. We request that
the applicant address these comments with any needed changes,prior to us reviewing eVefy utility detail.
Landscape Plan
I. The applicant needs to address the Bylaw Section 8.4, which sets forth minimum screening and landscape
requirements for off-street lots. More specifically, the"impervious screen"requirement of paragraph 1,and
the requirements of paragraph 4 where interior landscape strips are required.
- 2. - We-understand-that the-Board-may be-requesting-additional-details to the-Landscape Plans, particularly--
attention to possibly more landscaping along the front.
3. The proposed landscaping shown off the property will require verification of the landowner's approval.
i
4. We understand that the Board may wish to discuss with you possible picket fencing and/or stone wall
design alternatives for the project frontage, as part of the overall plan presentation. We also undertand that
the Board inay request a site visit with the applicant to discuss the project.
Site Details
l: The grease trap flow calculations are based on seating data that is inconsistent with the other plans.
2. The Turfstone Paver picture detail should be accompanied by a specification detail, including bedding
materials and intercell materials,O&M,etc,
3. The pavement details should include materials specifications.
q. This project requires extensive roadway widening and intersection plans, which have not been provided—
the site plans only reference this work in schematic only.
5. The retaining wall details should be revised to indicate face texture and color details. Some elevation data
are transposed on the plan. The detail provided also indicates fencing which is unclear as to specification
(type, height, color, etc.). This is an important visual element due to the extensive amount of walls
proposed. We understand that the Board may require extensive detailing regarding these systems.
Draiange Calculations
1. Original Comment: The designers are taking credit for infrltrationJgroundivater recharge at the extended
detention basin. Stornasvater Policy does not allow this. The designers should find another method of
inafrltrationlrecharge to fulfill the recharge requirement.
Applicant's Response: The Stormwater Policy does not exclude meeting the infiltration recharge
requirement within the detention basin. Stormwater surface runoff is pretreated prior to entering the
infiltration basin.
Reply: Although not excluded the use of a detention basin for groundwater recharge is not recommended
and must comply with certain guidelines and include calculations to support the rate and volume of
recharge. The current des i n does not fulfill the applicable criteria. Specifically, no recharge rate
calculations were provided to confirm capacity, .More fundamentally, the basin is currently designed with a
bottom elevation that is 3-5 feet below the estimate seasonal groundwater. In such a situation there would
be no groundwater recharge whatsoever, In fact groundwater would infiltrate the basin. Normal
detention basins — which drain to the bottom between storms — can be designed below groundwatez
elevations; but they cannot then be given credit for groundwater recbarE. An alternative method of
groundwater recharge should be sought (It is the reviewer's recommendation that roof drains — which
require no additional treatment - be infiltrated separately from other stormwater, in efficient fill areas
within the site design. This would fulfill the recharge requirement, as well as allowing the basin to be
reduced in size. And aggregate cost savings could be realized—one example is by keeping the clean roof
water separated from the pavement water which could then only require one Stormceptor at the egad verses
several at each CB in that area
2. Original Comment: The TSS removal calculations take credit for 10% removal by street sweeping. It will
be the decision of the Conservation Conunission as to whether or not to accept this.
Applicant's Response: No comments have been made received from the Conservation Commission as of
yet regarding the 10%TSS removal credit for street sweeping.
Reply: The original comment remains. We also understand that the Board may request that the Plannin
_ De artment-take an active role-in-closcl)Lcoordiaratin -the ro'ectwith-the-Commission's Agent _.---.------ _ _...--
3. Original Comment: The detention basin as designed would pond to within inches of the crown of the
enrbanknrent (see 100-year storm calculations). It is reconrtrmended that at least I foot of freeboard be
provided. --
1 r
Applicant's Response: The detention basin is mitigating the 100-year storm event, though not required by
the Stormwater Policy,the current design allows for 100-year free board in excess of 6".
Reply: The original comment remains. It is standard engincering practice that 1 foot of freeboard be
provided, Anything less can com romise the structural integrity of the basin im oundment berm which is
a requirement of thepolicy)... It is also recommended that the emergency overflow weir and final outlet f
piping/manhole location be switched to better-accommodate maintenance access.
4. Original Comment: The "Storm Drainage Computations" spreadsheet displays many grate capacities that
are inadequate. Specifically: CB-A8; B9, BIO, B14, B22, B24, 826, D2, E7, E4.
Applicant's Response: Grate inlet calculations will be provided.
Reply: The original comment remains. We could not find any grate capacity calculations values for
capacity are simpy shown without references) Furthermore the capacities shown for many catch basins
are overestimated. Inordinately large areas are directed to single catch basins. These should be
reexamined.
5. Original Comment: Compliance Review with MADEP Stormwater Policy: Standard #3: Recharge to
groundivater: The plants and report submitted do not provide adequate recharge. Further design.
information is required. Standard #4: TSS removal: The plans and report submitted comply with this
requirement only if North Andover Conservation Commission agrees to apply 10% TSS removal credit for
street sweeping.
Applicant's Response: Compliance with the nine standards of the Stormwater Policy has been included in
the revised drainage report,
Reply: Compliance with Stormwater Standards#3 &4 require design revisions as indicated above.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this review
by MHF and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust that this review efficiently serves
the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E., Senior Project Manager