Dei's Responses to All Outstanding Comments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1/19/17 DEI’S RESPONSES TO ALL OUTSTANDING COMMENTS Outstanding comments from VHB (Ken Staffier) in his letter dated 1/16/17. 4. The plans show two different details for the accessible curb ramps. The plans should clearly label the type of accessible curb ramp to be used for each location. The accessible curb ramp adjacent to Building C does not appear to provide adequate clearance at the top of the ramp. The plan should be revised to provide adequate clearance consistent with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Regulations and the ADA (whichever is more stringent). The stairs have been adjusted to provide the landing area needed. 9. Recommend that additional grading detail be added at these locations that sufficiently demonstrate that runoff from the site will not be discharged onto the abutting properties. The proposed grading is in close proximity to the property line, recommend the proposed swale be shifted to the north to prevent potential grading impacts to the abutting property. The grading has been adjusted to clearly indicate that any water traveling in the area will be collected in the onsite drainage system within the property mimicking the existing conditions. 10. The width of the parallel spaces should be added to the plans. The width has been added to the plans and is more than adequate to provide access to vehicles for parking. 12. The mounding analysis has been updated to incorporate the suggested variables. The applicant should clearly label each of the calculations. The analysis should also include calculations for determining the recharge rate (volume of runoff to be infiltrated) and a simple schematic showing the overall dimensions of the infiltration basins for the three scenarios; the centroid of the systems should be clearly delineated. The calculations have been provided. 29. The hydrologic analysis has been updated to reflect the infiltration rates as recommended. The analysis indicates that there is no discharge from the infiltration system during the 100-year storm event, however, the water surface elevation within the infiltration system exceeds the invert elevation of the outlet. It is expected this would generate some discharge during the 100-year storm event. The applicant should explain this discrepancy. The 12-inch outlet pipe of the underground infiltration system is set at elevation 126.60, however, the outlet control is the downstream emergency overflow device, CB #209, that has a rim elevation of 130.0. The analysis also indicates a 60” x 60” outlet from P-4; the inlet structure detail on Sheet C- 5.10 calls for a 24” cover. The detail should be updated to match the hydrologic model. The detail has been updated. 1 1/19/17 The detail should also be updated to reflect the size of the rectangular orifice (14” x 9”). There is also a discrepancy regarding the size of the outlet pipe from the inlet structure between the HydroCAD model and the site plans. This discrepancy should be addressed. The detail has been updated. 33. Hydraulic sizing calculations were not included with the Stormwater Report. Please provide. The hydraulic analysis should also include calculation demonstrating that the 25” x 12” equalizer culvert has adequate capacity to allow unimpeded flow between the two infiltration chambers. The culvert has been revised to be a standard 24” x 24” box culvert. Rational Method calculations will be provided under separate cover. 38. The sewer line from Building B to SMH 300 does not meet the minimum velocity. The system has been adjusted and the spreadsheet has been updated. 79. The STOP sign at the site driveway and North Avenue should be relocated to the back of sidewalk. Sign has been moved as requested. 80. The revised plans show snow storage within the parking area immediately adjacent to the utility shed serving the septic system. At a minimum, an access aisle/clear pathway should be maintained for access to the utility shed. An access pathway has been illustrated. 81. Recommend a trash rack/grate and 4-foot sump be added to the inlet device. A 5-foot sump has been added to the inlet device. 82. Provide invert elevations for all inlet pipes to the infiltration system. Invert elevations for all inlet pipes have been added. 83. The grading and drainage plan call for 14 - ConSpan 14 x 9 Units. However, the detail and HydroCAD model call for StormTrap Double Trap Units. The plans should be updated accordingly. In addition, there is a discrepancy between the infiltration system detail and the HydroCAD model. The detail calls out two different StormTrap unit sizes while the HydroCAD model call for 9’-0” model. The applicant should address the discrepancy. The discrepancies have been corrected. 84. Additional grading detail should be added in the vicinity of the overflow structure (CB-209) to prevent water from discharging onto the abutting property (263 North Avenue). The grading has been adjusted to clearly indicate any water traveling in the area will be collected in the onsite drainage system within the property mimicking the existing conditions. 85. There is a pipe conflict between sewer service to Building B and the outlet pipe from CB-210. The conflict has been rectified. 2 1/19/17 86. The applicant should provide formal responses to comments received from Richard Sweeney, PE Weston DPW via email dated 1/4/2017. See responses below. Outstanding Comments from VHB (Kathleen Lynch) in her letter dated 12/30/16 (Note: The balance of the comments in this letter are addressed by Terraink in a separated document.) 1. Recommend clear indication on the Site Preparation Plan of which trees within the site and along the property line are to be protected and remain, typically shown by X-ing out trees to be removed, and circling trees to remain. The note on the Drawing related to identification of trees to remain, and stating that the significant trees to remain will be further identified on the Landscape plan still leaves many gray areas. A site preparation contractor will not necessarily look at the final planting plans. And while the dashed boundary of the wastewater field and related note on the Site Preparation plan, and the text of the memorandum from Beveridge and Diamond, state that all trees at the front of the site will be removed, and all trees at the back will remain, there are trees outside of the dashed wastewater boundary, including along the property lines and in areas not disturbed by grading that ideally would remain. Specifically: A. There are several trees near the upper end of the eastern haybale line, outside of the dashed wastewater line but in an area undisturbed by grading. These large trees ideally would be protected and remain. These are a 30” tree, 2x6” trees, and a 12” tree. The site preparation plan has been revised to indicate which trees are to be removed using an “X”. The plan also includes trees that are to receive protection in the area of the septic field. These are marked with an “O”. It is understood that the area up the hill from the diversion swale will only be accessed during construction by the septic system installer and that no staging or other work will occur in that area. It was discussed that additional tree protection around the trees not immediately affected by the septic system installation would be required. B. The proposed ‘Diversion Swale’ between the wastewater system and the developed area is routed through the boundary indicating trees that will remain. There are several existing large trees in this area, especially along the 146 contour, that would ideally remain, and that are indicated as remaining on Drawing L1.0. But all are not within the dashed waste water boundary, and it is not clear what disturbance the diversion swale will create. Is it cutting into the grade, or formed on top of it? Clarify treatment of trees within the swale. The swale has been re-aligned to better conform to the proposed limits of excavation work and the trees affected have been identified with an “X” or “O”. 2. Tree protection detail: This detail does not seem adequate to address protection of trees to remain, especially since the detail appears to indicate a tree protection fence at the drip line, but none is 3 1/19/17 called out or referred to, and many of the trees do not have a wide canopy to define a protection zone. The detail does not indicate any protective layer between the tree trunk and boards, or how to hold vertical protection boards in place. Even with appropriate attachment methods added, the detail may provide trunk protection, but doesn’t provide the more critical root protection. We’d recommend a line of snow fence generally protecting the zone of the trees to remain, a minimum of 10’ from the trunk, as well as more information on how the trees will be protected during installation of the waste water system with an airspade. The plan and detail have been revised as discussed during a meeting with VHB. Snow fence and burlap have been added to the detail. In addition, the limit of work has been pulled away as much as possible from trees along the property lines. Also, see response to Comment #1 above. Comments from Weston DPW in its email dated 1/4/17. 1. There is a plan for 269 North Ave., dated 2011, on which there was a test pit with test pit log and it is indicated that the test pit was done on the abutting property. There was mottling found at 8.0-ft., elevation 123.00, which is higher than the current bottom of the infiltration systems proposed.