Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-18 Response Comments RAHAM ASSOCIATES, I NC, CIVIL ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE 1984 TWO CENTRAL STREET PH: 978-356-2756 IPSWICH, MA 01938 FAX; 978-356-4880 EMAIL: hl.graham@verizon,net REFC % — VED June 30, 2006 JUL 2006 M Osgood Landing AtANN NGp pRh,VjiR c/o Town of North Andover TMNT Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street, Bldg. 20, Suite 2-36 N. Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Lincoln Daley �UL 5 ZOUB ORTH�NpUV�K Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plan NNtNH Riverview Street Extension (Coletti) N.L. Graham Project No. 05-502 Dear Mr, Daley: As we discussed by telephone earlier in the week, I wanted to get you and the Board a written response to the 6/19/06 VHB review letter and the 6/7/06 DPW review memo. I also wanted to put on record the waivers which the project needs and which we intend to request with the submission of a future Definitive Subdivision Plan filing. Finally, I anticipate that Attorney Jim Sears will forward under separate cover, information on a project in Danvers with flood plain issues and building requirements similar to the Coletti proposal. The first section of this letter addresses the 6/19/06 VHB letter, We have repeated the VHB comment in italicized text and our response in bold text. Town of North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations 1. (4.3.1.a.) The Applicant should provide a legend. For our Definitive Subdivision Plan (DSP) filing, we will either label all items on the plan or provide a legend. 2. (4.3.13.) Note 7 on Sheet 2 states the drainage system is to be privately owned. Will it be acceptable that the drainage system will be located on lots of potentially three different owners without drainage easements? VHB recommends the inclusion of drainage easements, especially if the Town agrees to accept the street as a public way. Our DSP will depict drainage easements that will include all drainage facilities and/or grading necessary therefore. 1 RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. 3. (6.3.4) It appears stormwater from the street and other lots is being directed to the detention basin on Lot 1. Based on the Development Narrative, this will only occur during and above flood stages. With no drainage calculations at this time, it is unclear to VHB the extent of this concentration of stormwater. Detailed stormwater and drainage calculations should be submitted with the Definitive plan. Detailed stormwater and drainage calculations will be submitted with the DSP, Since this is a 3-lot subdivision, we have been applying the DEP Stormwater Management Standards "to the extent practicable". Although not required, our intent is toward 100% compliance. 4. (6.7.2.) It appears that Riverview Street does not meet current Town minimum design standards. VHB assumes the Town is not requiring the Applicant to make improvements or make provisions for future improvements for Riverview Street, The Applicant does not propose any improvements to Riverview Street beyond the limits of this property. HOWEVER, the proposed turnaround provisions represent a huge improvement to the health, safety and welfare of the residents along Riverview Street, the public in general who frequent the street, as well as service and delivery vehicles, postal service, school buses, public works vehicles, others. 5. (6.8.1.) It appears many of the Minimum Design Standards for Local Streets (Table 1A) have not been meet. Has a waiver from these requirements been obtained from the Town? The Applicant will be requesting waivers from certain Minimum Design Standards of the R&R. See another section of this report. 6. (6.8.7.) Is curbing proposed? If not, a waiver should be requested. The Applicant intends to propose installation of bituminous Cape Cod berm. See another section of this report. 7. (6.11) No sidewalk is proposed. Has a waiver been obtained for this requirement? The Applicant does not propose sidewalks as none exist in Riverview Street. A waiver will be requested with the DSP filing. See another section of this report. 8. (6,12.) Will monuments be proposed during the Definitive Subdivision phase? Monuments will be depicted on the DSP. Town of North Andover Zoning By-Laws 9. (Table 11) No proposed location is shown for the existing two-family dwelling on Lot 1. VHB assumes the final location will conform to zoning regulations or a special permit will be obtained. Additionally, VHB assumes a special permit for a two-family dwelling is not required for Lot 1 since this is currently a two-family dwelling. The Applicant should clarify. The existing two-family home occupied by the Coletti's will be relocated or razed and rebuilt within the required zoning setbacks. The DSP will clarify same. We agree with VHB that since the dwelling exists as a two-family that a special permit to continue that use is not applicable. 2 RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. I 10. (7.1.2.) Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of eighty feet between the street frontage and front building line. Lot 3 does not have eighty feet of continuous lot width. Has the Applicant received a waiver for this requirement? We disagree and believe that both Lots 2 and 3 do meet minimum dimensional zoning requirements. We will clarify same with the DSP filing. General Comments/Standard Englneering_Practice 11. Note 5 on Sheet 2 states that the existng septic system is to be abandoned. Will there be any issues regarding the disturbance of this system during the water service and roadway construction? It appears the water service to the subdivision passes through the existng septic tank and leaching bed. If the house is relocated and the Coletti's desire to continue occupancy essentially uninterrupted, an interim tight tank might be considered while the existing septic system serving the Coletti home Is abandoned per Title 5 and road and utility work for the project is completed. If the house is razed and rebuilt, the interim sanitary service will not be required. We will include a description of these alternatives in our DSP filing. 12. It seems the street frontage in the Table of Dimensional Requirements for Lots 2 and 3 have been reversed. Additionally, it appears Lot 1 only has 150.6 of street frontage,not 188'. Agreed. These inadvertent errors will be corrected with our DSP filing. 13. VHB recommends labeling all existing contours for clarification purposes. Agreed and will do on the DSP to be filed. 14. The Applicant should consider including on existing conditions plan with the Definitive plans. Agreed. We will create an Existing Conditions Plan and include it with the DSP filing. 15. VHB recommends soils testing throughout the site to adequately determine seasonal high groundwater elevation. This Information will be needed to verify the drainage design. Agreed. We plan to conduct soils testing In the areas of the site where stormwater facilities are planned. This testing will be accomplished in the next couple of weeks and the results of same included with the drainage report to be filed with the DSP. 16. Details of the field stone or unit block retaining wall are recommended. Agreed. Details will be provided with the DSP filing. Environmental Concerns 17. It is unclear what and where the existing "undisturbed" (previously developed) area is located on the site. Furthermore, it is unclear where the proposed development is with respect to this disturbed area (i.e. closer to the river). 3 1 *RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. The Existing Conditions Plan to be submitted as part of the DSP filing will clarify and quantify the previously developed areas of the site for the required Riverfront Area (RFA) calculations to be submitted with the DSP filing. 18. Has a common driveway been considered to reduce the impervious areas within the Riverfront? We do not believe a pervious "Common Driveway" could be used as part of the proposed development plan. However, we are certainly open to suggestions along these lines from VHB and/or the Town Planning Department and/or DPW? 19. VHB recommends that detailed drainage calculations be submitted with the Definitive Plans. Agreed. We intend to submit detailed drainage calculations with the DSP filing. Since this is a 3-lot subdivision, we have been applying the DEP Stormwater Management Standards "to the extent practicable". Although not required, our intent is toward 100% compliance. 20. Based on the narrative provided, it appears that flood storage is to be provided under the proposed buildings. VHB recommends additional details in the next plan submission that will clarify. Agreed. We will submit additional details with the DSP filing. The additional information and details of the Danvers project similar to the subject application to be forwarded under separate cover by Attorney Sears may be helpful. 21. VHB believes an equivalent economic alternatives analysis pursuant to the Riverfront regulations 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c) will be required to justify the use of the site and alterations of the Riverfront Area. A letter from the Applicant's Attorney, James M. Sears to the North Andover Conservation Commission Chairman, Scott Masse dated February 24, 2005, copy attached, addresses this comment. After filing our Notice of Intent, we will supplement this previous statement if required by the Commission. 22, The flood plain compensation does not appear to comply with the Wetland Protection act requirements. Consider: a. The underground drainage and/or detention facilities apparently will be serving dual purposes; facilitating stormwater and providing flood storage. it is not clear that this is possible; and We are of the strong opinion that the dual purpose stormwater compensatory storage facilities are entirely feasible and permittable and Intend to support that position with data and calculations to be submitted with the DSP filing. b. The 24-inch "equalizer" pipes do not provide an unrestricted connection to the Merrimack River(310 CMR 10.57(4)(a)1.). 4 /v k RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. We do not necessarily agree that our Preliminary Plan design does not meet the intent of this regulation. However, we will look into this question further and either present information to support our current design or modify same. In general, the VHB report presents comments and recommendations which we believe are most appropriately addressed with the DSP filing. We intend to address them accordingly and completely at that time. The following section of this letter addresses the 617106 DPW review memo. We have repeated the DPW comment in italicized text and our response in bold text. 1. A Y-type turnaround is not acceptable. The combined circular and branch, Y- or T- type turnaround design has been proposed in order to minimize unnecessary impervious surface (pavement) in the Riverfront Area (RFA) while providing a much needed turnaround at the end of Riverview Street that will accommodate all types of vehicles. The proposed circular (50' diameter) portion of the standard turnaround will accommodate passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks. The Y-, branch or T- type turnaround will accommodate larger single-unit and tractor-trailer type vehicle turnaround requirements. The latter style design is an acceptable alternative design in numerous North Shore communities. The Massachusetts Highway Design Manual at Sect. 12.4 recognizes "T-type or branch design .... If space Is limited" as an acceptable alternative. In addition, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy manual acknowledges acceptance of branch type dead-end turning areas for very low volume roads (ADT equal to or less than 400). Given the above and the "real" need to provide a maneuverable public terminus at the end of Riverview Street, we believe the DPW should support and the Planning Board approve the design put forth. Said need and design does not set any type of precedent which either the DPW or Planning Board needs to be concerned with given the specific nature of the site and proposal. Relative excerpts from the Massachusetts Highway Design Manual, AASHTO and/or other nearby Town Rules and Regulations will be provided upon request of the DPW or Planning Board. A waiver will be requested in reference to this matter. 2. The proposed 30' right-of-way is inadequate. The existing right-of-way of Riverview Street up to the subject property is 22'. The proposed 30' right-of-way exceeds same and provides ample space 5 li RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. to effect the required radii and paved area for the branch turnaround that will accommodate large single unit and tractor-trailer type turnaround maneuvers. A waiver will be requested in reference to this matter. 3. Existing Riverview Street is presently sub-standard. 15' wide pavement. We acknowledge same and also understand that the right-of-way and other physical constraints prevent any additional widening. The proposed turnaround for the project will prevent the need for backing of vehicles for certain unknown distances along the existing, 15' wide street. 4. The proposed road profile is too flat min. - 1%. We have looked at our Preliminary Design and propose to increase the longitudinal road profile grade to a minimum of 1% with our Definitive Subdivision Plan (DSP) filing. We will maintain the proposed 2% cross-slope or could go to 3% if desired by the DPW. 5. A hydrant must be installed at the end of the water main. Agreed. We will extend the size of water main In Riverview Street (6" minimum) to a point In front of Proposed Building 3 and place a hydrant on the west side of the paved drive area. 6. The relocation of the existing house on Lot 1 is creating an unbuildable lot. It is our understanding that the DPW understands the proposal to raze and rebuild or relocate the home on Lot 1 to a location conforming to the setbacks of the Zoning By-Law. 7. The sewer pump station must be on private property. Agreed. We will revise our plans and depict same on our DSP filing. 8. What is the elevation of the seasonal high water table drainage/storm water management? We plan to conduct soils testing in the areas of the site where stormwater facilities are planned. This testing will be accomplished In the next couple of weeks and the results of same included with the drainage report to be filed with the DSP. 9. Compensatory storage? Compensatory storage volumes have been calculated on a (vertical) foot by foot basis. These volumes are accomplished under both Building Nos. 2 and 3, in three (3) proposed drainage structures beneath the parking areas, in the detention basin and by on-site grading. 6 /z ' *RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. 10. The retaining walls will need structural/geotech engineer certification due to rail traffic load and vibration. The proposed walls(s) nearest the track is over 20' from the nearest rail and equal to or less than 4 feet in height. Regardless, we will provide engineer certification as to their stability with respect to vibration. We do not believe that rail load Is a design factor and will provide the appropriate certification in regard to same. 11 . The proposed parking does not comply with zoning regulations . Section 8.1 - off -street parking. It is our understanding that the Building Inspector bolieves that the proposal does comply with the Zoning By-Law and that the DPW defers to his opinion. In general, the DPW memo raises comments and questions which will be addressed with the DSP filing including the request for waivers and the rationale in support of said requests. See another section of this report. The following section of this report summarizes in general the waivers which we will request with the DSP filing and about which the Preliminary Plan design has been based. Table 6.8.1, sets forth the Minimum Design Standards for Local (Residential) Streets (30 mph Design Speed). The following relief will be requested of these requirements: • Design Speed - 30 mph. This design speed requirement is not applicable for the turnaround area of the site. • Min. ROW Width - 50 feet, The proposed 30' ROW exceeds the 22' ROW of Riverview Street as it approaches/abuts the site. The proposed 30' ROW provides ample space to effect ",he required radii and paved area for the branch turnaround that will accommodate large single unit and tractor-trailer type turnaround maneuvers. • Min. Pavement Width - 26 feet, The proposed 22' pavement width exceeds the 15'± width of Riverview Streets as it approaches/abuts the site. The proposed pavement width allows the required pavement area and radii for the circular and branch turnaround maneuvers. AASHTO standards for very low volume local roads supports this proposed paved width. • Min. Horizontal and Vert. Site Distance - 200 feet. This requirement is not applicable to the turnaround area of this site, • Vertical Curve - Min. Length -100 feet. Vertical Curve: K Value - Crest - 30. Vertical Curve: K Value - Sag - 40. These requirements are not applicable to the turnaround area of the site. 7 1.3 h i RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. • Pavement Cross Slope - Normal Crown -3%. A 2% crown is proposed but we will modify same to a 3% crown if requested by the DPW. • Cul-De-Sacs Max Length (roadway plus turnaround) - 600 feet. The Applicant has had no control over the cul-de-sac length of Riverview Street already permitted, developed and accepted by the Town. • Min. Turnaround ROW Diameter (sic) - 120 feet. Min. Turnaround Pavement Diameter - 100 feet. A 54' circular diameter ROW and 50' circular diameter pavement combined with the proposed Y- or branch type turnaround provides adequate turning area for all types vehicles. j Similar type turnarounds are acknowledged alternatives by MHD, AASHTO and other North Shore community Rules and Rags. Other sections of the Rules and Regs for which relief will be requested include: Sect. 6.9 - A Cape Cod or similar bituminous concrete berm section will be requested versus the low-profile granite edging. Sect. 6.11 - Relief will be requested from the requirement to construct sidewalks where none exist along Riverview Street as it abuts the subject property. Sect. 6.18 - Relief will be requested from planting of street trees and in lieu thereof to provide plantings around and about the proposed dwellings. Sect. 6.21 - Relief will be sought to provide street lights and in lieu thereof to provide lighting at entrance ways of the proposed dwellings. Had we the time between receipt of the VHB review letter and last weeks Board hearing, we would have had this letter for the meeting, I would suggest that had we had these responses for the Board that they might have viewed the application differently and resolved to act on it differently as well. Accordingly, I would like to request that you and the Board consider an approval with conditions rather than a disapproval. As we believe our application and submission to be complete, the disapproval will have to be based on nonconformance with the Rules and Regulations relative to design standards. Hopefully this letter clarifies that we will be requesting waivers for design features of our plan that do not comply with some of said standards due to certain site constraints and supportable engineering rationale An approval with conditions would reference both the VHB and DPW communications with direction from the Board to address same to the best of our ability. The decision might also include acknowledgement of the requested waivers, the Board's reflection on same and whether or not they might be inclined to favorably considered them if we are unable to modify or delete the need for them. 8 H RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. Obviously, an approval with conditions looks better on the record for the project, the Applicant and ourselves. And, it in no way guarantees or obligates the Board to approve a future Definitive Subdivision Plan filing. Thank you for your continued assistance and guidance in this matter and your's and the Board's anticipated favorable response to this letter. Very truly yours, H.L. GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. l H.L. Graham, P.E. President HLG/gb Enclosure cc: Scott Coletti Jim Sears, Esq. (via FAX #978-750-6940) VHB, Inc,, Attn: Tim McIntosh (via FAX #617-924-2286) 9 l � *H RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE 1984 TWO CENTRAL STREET PK 978-356-2756 IPSWICH, MA 01938 FAX;978-356.4880 EMAIL; hl.graham@verizon,net October 10, 2006 Osgood Landing c/o Town of North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street, Bldg. 20, Suite 2-36 N. Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Lincoln Daley Re: Concept Subdivision Plan Riverview Street Extension (Coletti) H.L. Graham Project No. 05-502 Dear Mr. Daley: Enclosed please find six (6) prints of our September 19, 2006, Concept Subdivision Plan for the above referenced location. This plan has been prepared to address In a general fashion the issues raised by the Planning Board during the Preliminary Subdivision Plan permitting process. It also addresses issues raised by the DPW during the same process and during a meeting at their offices on August 31, 2006. The significant changes reflected on the enclosed plan in relationship to the previously submitted Preliminary Subdivision Plan are as follows: 1. The dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 are now depicted graphically as smaller buildings, likely single-family units with requisite parking. The existing two-family use on Lot 1 would be continued. 2. The combined circular and branch type turnaround has been replaced by a circular turnaround. The turnaround is designed with an eighty-foot right-of-way diameter and a sixty-eight foot pavement diameter. This design was discussed with the DPW at our August 31 meeting. At their request, we increased these diameters from the Concept Plan reviewed at that meeting. 3. A fire hydrant has been added at the end of the proposed water main extension located at the throat of the turnaround, 4. The street right-of-way is 34 feet, 12 feet wider than the right-of-way at the now stubbed end of the accepted portion of Riverview Street. 5. The street paved width is proposed at 22 feet, 8 feet more or less wider than the accepted portion of Riverview Street. n i �I RAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. 6. The road profile has been increased to a minimum of 1%. 7. The sewage pump pits will be located on private property, a separate facility for each building. 8. Soils testing has been performed to assure that the detention basins and infiltration system bottoms sit above seasonal high groundwater. Groundwater levels in the area of Buildings 2 and 3 was observed on July 6, 2006 at 11'± below grade and seasonal high groundwater estimated (by mottling) to be 4'± below grade. In the area of the proposed detention basin, observed levels were found 10.5'± below grade and seasonal high groundwater estimated to be 7'±'below grade. 9. Compensatory storage is proposed of like volume to flood waters to be displaced by proposed development. 10. Proposed retaining walls nearest the railroad will be limited. to 4' to 6' exposed height. A structural/geotechnical engineer will be consulted in their final design to assure stability from rail traffic loads and vibrations. 11, Building first floor levels (habitable space) have been raised to 3' or more above the El. 33 floodplain. We are sending a copy of this letter and a print to the DPW and would hope to have their comments in response to same, Under separate cover, Attorney Jim Sears is sending you a letter addressing the Conlon easement issue. We would like to bring this plan back before the full Planning Board for a conceptual discussion prior to preparing the Definitive Subdivision Plan. Please advise us as to which meeting (date) we might discuss this with the Board. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, H.L. GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, INC. H.L. Graham, P.E. President HLG/gb Enclosures cc: Scott Coletti w/print Jim Sears, Esq. (via FAX #978-750-6940) w/print North Andover DPW w/print I Page 1 of 1 Ippolito, Mary From: Willett, Tim Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:02 AM To: Ippolito, Mary Cc: Daley, Lincoln Subject: FW: Riverview Street Extension -----Original Message----- From: Willett, Tim Sent: Tuesday, November 21., 2006 3:45 PM To: Daley, Lincoln Cc: Ippolito, Mary Subject: Riverview Street Extension have reviewed the Concept Subdivision Plan by Graham Associates dated September 19, 2006, l have the following comments. 1. The proposed cul-de-sac is undersized but acceptable due the limited area for construction. 2. The proposed water main should be S" diameter. 3. The water main should terminate at the proposed hydrant and the service line to building 3 should be re- located accordingly, 4. The sewer force main shall remain privately owner and maintained even after town acceptance of the roadway. 5. An existing septic tank is shown in the roadway. It will have to be removed along with all piping and leaching area prior to roadway construction. 6. There does not appear to be a drainage easement for the detention pond. 7. It is impossible to comment on the drainage and roadway without final contours and profile. Further review of the future Preliminary Plans is necessary. 11/30/2006