31C-017 Moser Street Definitive Plan Response~~ ~'~'~
., MEMORANDUM T19I1E&BOnd
Moser Street Definitive Plan Comment Response
To: Carolyn Misch, AICP -Senior Land Use Planner/Permits. Manager
FrtoM: Jennifer Gilbert, David Loring, P.E., LEED AP
COPY: Elizabeth Murphy -MassDevelopment
Alan Delaney - P.E., MassDevelopment
DATE: April 9, 2009
RE: Response to Northampton Department of Public Works Comments dated
March 16, 2009
Attached are responses to the March 16, 2009 comments received from the Northampton
Department of Public Works (NDPW) regarding the Moser Street- Definitive Plan submission
dated February 12, 2009 and revised March 4, 2009. The NDPWs' comment is presented
italicized with the Engineer's response immediately following.
1.5 Development Impact Statements
1.5.1 Sewer Impact and 1.5.2 Water Impact: For this analysis the applicant.~assumed 2
people per bungalow and townhouse unit. The analysis shall assume 3 people per
residential unit. A revised impact statement has not yet been received..
Please see the revised attached Development Impact Statements section 1.5. It, was
assumed for the sewer impact section 100 gallons per day (gpd) per the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and 2 bedrooms per residential unit. The sewer flows were also
calculated at a generation rate of 110 gpd per bedroom based on 310 CMR 15.203 (Title V)
of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). The sanitary sewer
generation projections included in the impact statement were based on the EIR standard.
For the water impact sections, a per capita water consumption of 100 gallons per day was
used matching the rate included in the Environmental Impact Report. Each residential unit
was assumed to include three people for a demand of 9,300 GPD as detailed in Table 7 of
the Development Impact Statement. Using the MDEP 310 CMR15.00 (Title V) generation
rates of 110 GPD/Bedroom would produce a lesser demand of 6,820 GPD.
Waivers
1. 290-18: DPW has no comment,
No response required.
2. 290-22: The Lotting Plan is shown on Sheet 5, not on Sheet 4 as described.
No response required. A revised waiver list is attached, that includes a correction of
the sheet number.
.3. 290-29 D(1):
• It is unclear why the applicant requires a waiver to 28.88 feet from the
minimum radius of 30 feet at station 0+37 L when a 30 foot radius is
provided at station 0+37 R.
r
MEMO Tighe&Bond
FIGURE 1
Musante Drive/Moser Street Southwest Curb Return Radius
..,„ - ~,,
--~------~ ~ ~ni
4~= 3{,.CEO'
A. /Y.f s. Y.L. ~'..C.l~d ~
~ ~ ;. ~) ~'~' ca
It
i2S 81' ~~,,,~.
,G _=46.99'
: S35'21'26"E
^ 40.58' (CHORD)
21A
~,• ~ ~
L' O ~
O
J~ ~ ~
H °~ `}
~- ~
_60.GQ' __ _
~. ___S80'4~'Gd"
See Detail --~ Detail
A radius of 28.88 was proposed for the ROW return at the southwest corner
of the intersection of Moser Street and Musante Drive to simplify the
geometry and future legal descriptions for this location. As shown in Figure 1
above, due to the recorded property lines at this intersection, a radius of 30'
would create a short 30' radius curve with a length of 1.13 feet to connect
tangentially with the record west sideline of Musante Drive at this location. A
course, S80°43'00"E of 0.02', would also be required across Musante Drive
from the west end of the 60.00' course defining the north boundary of Parcel
MD-1 Access Easement as shown on the Village Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan
approved by the Northampton Planning Board September 21, 2007..
• The applicant needs to demonstrate that there is a sufficient turning radius
for vehicles turning. right From Ford Crossing to Musante Drive (east to south)
and from Musante Drive onto Ford Crossing (north to east) without
encroaching into the oncoming lane.
AutoTurn Version 6.0 was used to model a passenger vehicle traveling
through the Musante Drive and Ford Crossing intersection as shown in Figure
2 on the following page.
.02'
L=1.13'
-2-
~,
~~ C~
~, MEMO Tighe&Bond
FIGURE 2
Musante Drive/Ford Crossing Intersection
101-C~0
_ ~ =-~ ~- _-- _~ ~i
_ ~='---
The north to east movement is shown as a dashed line as this alignment is
not part of the work included in this phase of the project. The 25' curb return
radii accommodates the passenger vehicle turning movements at the
intersection without encroachment in the opposing travel lanes.
• DPW does not object to the two (3) 10 foot radius waiver requests at the
intersections of Moser Street/Farm Road and Ford Crossing/Farm Road and
Ford Crossing/Musante Drive.
No response required.
4. 290-29 D (2): DPW does not object to the intersection 1000 foot radius
centerlines of Ford Crossing and Musante Drive.
No response required.
290-29 D (3):
DPW is concerned about the as yet to be designed approach from Village Hill Road.
It is unclear if the estimated 2-3% grade increasing to 5% all occurs within the 30
foot approach. Please clarify.
The conceptual level planning for Ford Crossing and Village Hill Road north and west
of the Coach House maintains a 2-3% grade for the 30-foot approach and increases
to approximately 5% beyond 30 feet.
DPW does not object to the proposed 2.1 percent grade entering the intersection
near the Coach House from Ford Crossing. -
No response required.
i
MEMO Tighe&Bond
5. 290-29 G: DPW does not support this waiver and does not want to set precedent
since it has recently rejected this type of waiver request in other proposed
development. The applicant has not provided a compelling reason to support a
need for this waiver. DPW does not believe that the value or marketability of the
lots will be affected in any way by maintaining a 60 foot right of way (ROW).
The NDPW and the Planning Board have differing opinions regarding the right of way
(ROW) width.. The Office of Planning and Development has agreed to the reduced
width of 57 feet, and the NDPW prefers a 60 foot right of way. The applicant has
forwarded the design of the project on close tolerances and requests the narrower
ROW be approved to maintain the compact feel of the neighborhood.
6. 290-29 H (2): A waiver for the proposed roadway pavement width of 20'
has not been requested and is required.
According to 290-29 H (2), a 22 foot pavement width is required for a Type A Street.
A waiver is requested from Station 0+30 to Station 9+25 to allow for a roadway
pavement width of 20 feet. This is included in the attached waiver request list.
7. 290-29 H (4): DPW does not object to the proposed roadway and ROW centerline
offsets to accommodate the parking lane.
No response required.
8. 290-29 I: DPW does not object to the proposed intersection angles of 87, 92,
and 94 degrees if sufficient turning radii are met.
No response required.
9. 290-35 D: DPW has no comment.
No response required.
j0.290-38 A,B: DPW has no comment.
No response required.
11.290-45 B: DPW does not support a waiver from the 50 foot intersection setback
from the driveway at lot A26. Waiver requests at the other locations only arise
due to "intersections" being created by changing road names. Waivers at these
locations are not needed if a single road name is established.
The NDPW and Office Planning and Development staff have agreed to a design for a
common drive opposite the Musante Drive on Ford Crossing to access Lot A26 and
future lots along Village Hill Road, north of the Coach House.
290-53 K(2): Table Y2 indicates 2Y locations where a waiver from .the 18-inch
vertical separation at water and sewer crossings is requested.
The plans show a detail of sewer service crossing a water main at the minimum 18-
inch distance but do not show a detail of water service crossing sewer mains. Details
of absolute minimum vertical separation at crossings where the j8-inch separation
cannot be achieved and specific construction mitigation in these circumstances shall
be provided.
-4-
~`1
MEMO Tighe&Bond
The Water Main Construction Note #1 describes that a 20 foot length of Class j50
sewer pressure pipe shall be centered over any noncompliant, vertical separation
crossing and that this length of sewer shall be pressure tested and that an absolute
minimum separation of 6 inches shall be maintained. The detail shall apply to all
water/sewer crossings whether mains or service lines and shall be shown on the
plans as a graphic detail.
Crossings of sewer and water lines that do not meet the Y8 inch separation
shall be documented and the installed vertical separation shall be noted on
the Record Drawings.
The Subdivision of Land Chapter 290 provides guidance for lateral service
horizontal and vertical separation. Table 12 was provided to identify those
locations where the service locations potentially would not provide the full 18-
inch separation recommended in Chapter 290. This is no longer included as a
waiver request. A table is included in the amended Definitive Subdivision
plan, dated listing each service invert and utility clearance. The Construction
Documents also include a detail describing the utility clearance requirements
and pipe construction requirements for crossing locations.
• According to the plan, there is a discrepancy between crossing locations 2+07
5'L and 5+60 5'R listed in the table and crossing locations shown on the plans
at N2+37 5'L: and N5+40 5'R.
The locations in Table 12 were based upon the February 12, 2009 Definitive
Plan. The crossing locations referenced in the above comment are
referencing locations as shown on the revised March 4, 2009 Definitive Plan.
12.290+53 M(7): The DPW does not support a waiver for any sewer greater than 10
feet in depth to the invert. The section on Ford Crossing from station 9+05 to
9+90 shall be brought into compliance with the 10 foot limit while providing
minimum flushing velocities of 2.5 feet per second. DPW remains in discussion
with the applicant regarding sewer service alternatives to the north and east of the
Ford Crossing/Musante Drive intersection. An exterior chimney drop shall be
provided if the invert in is proposed to enter 2 feet or more about the flow line of
SMH-13.
The NDPW and city staff have agree to allow approximately 180 feet of sanitary
sewer on Musante Drive to remain at approximately 12 feet deep and the plans are
amended to raise the sewer from SMH13 to SMH14 to no more than 10 feet of cover
and constructing an exterior sewer drop at SMH13. The Sewer line from SMH13 to
SMH14 shall be raised to maximum 10 feet cover. An exterior chimney drop is
provided at SMH13 for the sanitary pipe from SMH14 into SMH13.
Water
13. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 4 feet service taps measured along the
flow line of the main.
No response required, the! amended Subdivision Plans include this NDPW
requirement.
r !
MEMO Tighe&Bond
14. Insulation to prevent freezing shall be provided where the horizontal offset to deep
structures is less than S feet. This occurs at least at CB-30, CB-33, CB-35, CB-37.
No response required, the amended Definitive Subdivision .plans include this NDPW
requirement for locations where the five-foot horizontal offset is not maintained.
15. Hydrants shall be placed 5 feet from the edge of pavement (290-54 M) to prevent
plow damage.
Hydrants are noted to be offset 5 feet from the edge of pavement in the amended
Definitive Subdivision plans.
j6. Separate metering and external shutoffs for each townhouse owner unit will be
required.
The amended Definitive Subdivision plans include asix-inch water service to each
conceptual building location. The lot developer will be required to satisfy NDPW
requirements to provide each individually owned unit with a separate meter and
shutoff.
Sewer
17. See comments above for waiver requests 290-53 K(2) and 290-53 M(7).
No response required.
18. A graphic detail with notes shall be provided that illustrate and describes the
required horizontal and vertical separation of water and sewer mains and service
lines that run adjacent to or cross each other.
The Definitive Plans indicated the minimum separation for water and per main on the
typical road. sections on sheets 11 and 12. The vertical separation requirements for
sanitary sewer connections are described on detail 9 on sheet 15. The vertical
separation requirements are further described in the construction notes on sheet 16.
A construction detail is added to the amended Definitive Subdivision plans detailing
the required horizontal and vertical separation of water and sewer mains and service
lines as requested. A table is also included in the amended Definitive Subdivision
plans listing each service invert and utility clearance.
19. A sewer cleanout at the property line for each service stub will be required before
a connection to the sewer is allowed.
Sanitary sewer cleanouts are included in the amended Definitive Subdivision plans.
Drainage
20. The applicant has indicated that drainage system connections from the house lots
are not planned. Therefore, no connections from the house lots to the drainage
system will be allowed.
No response required.
-6-
MEMO
Tighe&Bond
2Y. Construction plans shall provide spot grades to ensure proper drainage from the
parking aisle between N7+50 to NS+50.
The amended Definitive Subdivision plans include this NDPW requirement.
Other
22. Water and sewer service locations shall be coordinated with the landscape plan
and shall, wherever possible, remain outside the estimated drip line of proposed
trees at maturity.
No response required.
23. Are stop sign(s) warranted at the intersection of Ford Crossing/Musante Drive and
Moser Street/Musaante Drive? This includes previously constructed approaches at
Musante/Moser.
Before a stop sign is installed, a warrant analysis will be completed and submitted to
the NDPW for their concurrence. The ihtersection of Ford Crossing/ Musante Drive
functions as a through-way and does not have approaches which warrant the use of
a stop sign at this phase of the development. The Ford Crossing/Musante .Drive
intersection will need to be reviewed again for stop control when Ford Crossing is
developed to the east.
A stop sign warrant analysis for Moser Street (west)/ Musante Drive was provided in
a memorandum dated February 12, 2009 to NDPW. This memorandum concluded a
stop sign was warranted at this location and was included in the Definitive Plan.
Before a stop sign is installed, a warrant analysis wilt be completed and submitted to
the NDPW for their concurrence. The intersection of Musante Drive/Moser Street
(east approach) was not further evaluated for stop sign criteria. The work proposed
`does not impact the controlling criteria for evaluating a stop control on this
westbound approach.
24. Final revised construction plans that incorporate a/I Planning Board conditions shall
be submitted to DPW for review and comment.
No response required.
25. No material type is provided for the one foot wide strip along the edge of the HMA
Driveway Section (Detail 7, Sheet Y3). .
Detail is revised in the amended Definitive Subdivision plans to include .ordinary
borrow at end of apron to protect pavement.
26. Detail 8, Sheet 13 is for the Sidewalk, not the Wheelchair Ramp as labeled.
Clarification of the sidewalk construction and ramp construction is provided in the
amended Definitive Subdivision plans.
J:\N\N0592\DO 19 North Roads\Report\Moser Street Definitive Plan Revised Submission 2\040909 ResponseComments.doc
-7-
f ~
MEMO Tighe&Bond
1.5 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENTS
1.5.1 Sewer Impact
The proposed phase represents only part of the total wastewater flow which will be
produced by the full build out of this project. In Technical Memorandum #2, the full build
out flow was calculated to be 552,500 gallons per day (gpd). Table 3 below summarizes the
capacity of the affected sewage lines and what the future full build out peak wastewater
flow is projected to be. As it can be seen there is sufficient surplus hydraulic capacity within
each sewer segment reviewed to accommodate the project peak wastewater flows from the
Village at Hospital Hill Development.
It'should be noted a per capita wastewater flow rate of 100 gallons per day was used to
evaluate the residential units and 20 gallons per day per employee was used for the
commercial/industrial buildings. This study also assumed that 3 people will occupy each
single-family dwelling unit and that one person will occupy each assisted living unit. Lastly,
it was assumed that there will be 3 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial/light
industrial space.
Table 3
Proposed Sewer Generation -Full Build Out
Current Peak Wastewater Total Peak
pipe Peak Flow from Wastewater Sewer percent Surplus
Segment Wastewater Proposed
Flow Capacity
F
Full Capacity
Flow
a Development ( e
mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
(m9d) (mgd)
Prince Street 0.087 0.396b 0.483 1.13 43% 0.65
Earle Street 0.187 0.157` 0.344 1.55 22% 1.21
West Street 0.274 0.5534 0.827 1.46 57% 0.63
Mill River 0.274 0.5534 0.827 1.82 46% 0.99
Siphon
a Based on flow data collected in November 2002 by temporary flow meters. For Prince Street, the peak wastewater flow
was estimated by subtracting the peak flow measure on Earle Street (Meter 1) from the peak flow measure on West Street
(Meter 2)
b Includes wastewater flow from north campus site
` Includes wastewater flow from south campus and Ice Pond sites
d Includes wastewater flow from north campus, south campus and Ice Pond sites
e Sum of current peak wastewater flow and project peak wastewater flow from proposed development '
f Lowest capacity reach within sewer section under review
To determine the total water demands that would result from the addition of proposed North
Roads phase the "Current Peak Wastewater Flow" of water, from November 2002, needed to
be increased to account for the new construction at the Village at Hospital Hill site. This
consists of new single family homes and apartments. This results in 144,480 gpd of peak
wastewater flow. It was assumed that 3 people per residential unit and 3 employees per
1,000 square feet of commercial space.. Table 4A presents the sewer generation due to the
new construction.
The proposed Moser Street Project of the Village Hill is expected to generate 6,820 gpd of
wastewater flow based on a generation rate of 110 gallons per day per bedroom obtained
from 310 CMR 15.203 of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
-8-
', J
~., MEMO Tighe&Bond
Regulations. Each bungalow and townhouse unit was assumed to include 2 bedrooms.
Table 4B presents the sewer generation due to the proposed construction based on a
generation rate of 100 gallons per capita as included in the Environmental Impact Report.
The peak wastewater flow due to the new construction and the proposed Moser Street
Project construction is estimated to be 182,672 gpd.
Table 4A
Sewer Flow Generation Due to New Construction
Per Capita Estimated
Total Wastewater Average Daily Estimated Peak
Quantity Number of Flow Wastewater Wastewater Flow
Residents (gpd) Flow (gpd)a (gpd)b
Single Family 11 units 33 100 3,300 18,480
Homes
Apartments 75 units 225 100 22,500 126,000
Total 25,800 144,480 ~
a Calculated as the number of residents or employees multiplied by the per capita wastewater flow rate.
b Calculated as the estimated average daily wastewater flow multiplied by a peaking factor of 5.6.
Table 4B
Sewer Flow Generation Due to Proposed Construction
Per
Total Bedroom Estimated Estimated Peak
Quantity Number of Wastewater Average Daily Wastewater Flow
Bedrooms Flow Wastewater b
Flow (gpd)a (gpd)
(9Pd)
Bungalows 25 units 50 110 5,500 30,800
Townhouses 6 units 12 110 1,320 7,392
Total 6,820 38,192
a Calculated as the number of residents or employees multiplied by the per capita wastewater flow rate.
b Calculated as the estimated average daily wastewater flow multiplied by a peaking factor of 5.6.
Using the above calculated wastewater flow rates the estimated surplus of capacity due to
the new construction and the proposed construction of the bungalow and townhouse units in
the sewer segments can be estimated. Table 5 shows that the existing sewer segments will
be more than sufficient to handle additional peak flows.
-9-
MEMO Tighe&Bolnd
Table 5
Proposed Sewer Generation -New Construction and Proposed Construction
Current Peak Wastewater Total Peak
Pipe Peak Flow from Wastewater Sewer percent Surplus
Wastewater
Segment Proposed Capacity Capacity
Flow f Full
Flow
a Development ( e (mgd) (mgd)
mgd)
(m9d) (mgd)
Prince Street 0.087 0.183b 0.270 1.13 24% 0.86
Earle Street 0.187 0` 0.187 1.55 12% 1.36
West Street 0.274 0.1834 0.457 1.46 32% 1.00
Mill River 0.274 Od 0.274 1.82 15% 1.55
Siphon
a Based on flow data collected in November 2002 by temporary flow meters. For Prince Street, the peak wastewater flow
was estimated by subtracting the peak flow measure on Earle Street (Meter 1) from the peak flow measure on West Street
(Meter 2)
b Includes wastewater flow from north campus site
` There is no additional wastewater flow which would originate from south campus or Ice Pond sites
d There is no additional flow from the north campus, south campus or Ice Pond sites to the Mill River Siphon
e Sum of current peak wastewater flow and project peak wastewater flow from proposed development
f Lowest capacity reach within sewer section under review
1.5.2 Water Impact
The proposed phase represents only part of the total water flow which will be produced by
the full build out of this project. In Technical Memorandum #2, the full build out flow was
calculated to be 3.70 mgd on the average day. This is well below the City's permitted water
supply withdrawal of 4.77 mgd, and therefore the City's water supply is sufficient to
accommodate the proposed full build out development. Table 6 below summarizes current
and projected future water demands which were presented in Memorandum #2. The
maximum day demand (1.6 times the average day demand) and the peak hour demand
(2.5 times the average day demand) were determined by reviewing the City demand data
from 1997 to 2000.
Table 6
Proposed Water Demands -Full Build Out
Demand Current Proposed Projected Future
Condition Demands Development Demands with Proposed
(mgd) Demands (mgd) Development (mgd}
Average Day 3.60 0.10 3.70
Maximum Daya 4.60 0.16 4.76
Peak Hourb 9.00 0.25 9.25
e Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of 1.6
b Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of 2.5
To determine the total water demands that would result from the addition of proposed
Moser Street Project the "Current Demands" of water, from November 2002, needed to be
increased to account for the new construction at the Village Hill site. This results in an
estimated average day water demand of 25,800 gpd. Again, it was assumed that three
people per residential unit and three employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial space.
-10-
MEMO
Tighe&Bond
The water demand due to the Moser Street Project is estimated to have an average day
water demand of 9,300 gpd based on the assumption of three people per bungalow and
townhouse unit.
The estimated wastewater flows due to the new construction and the proposed construction
are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Water Demands Due to New Construction and Proposed Construction
Per Capita Estimated Estimated Estimated
Total
Water Avg. Day Max. Day Peak Hour
Quantity Number
Demand VI/ater Water Water
Residents
(gpd) Demand Demand Demand
(9pd)a (gPd)b (gpd)`
New Construction
Single
Family 11 units 33 100
Homes
Apartments 75 units 225 100
Proposed
•~ ,
3,300 5,280 8,250
22,500 36,000 56,250
Bungalows 25 units 75 100 7,500 12,000
Town Houses 6 units 18 100 1,800 2,880
Total 35,100 56,160
a Calculated as the number of residents or employees multiplied by the per capita water demand
b Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of 1.6
~ Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of Z.5
18,750
4,500
87,750
The calculated water demands due to the new construction and the proposed Moser Street
project are added to the °Current Demands" from 2006 to get the projected future water
demands. As it can be seen in Table 8, an average day demand of 3.63 mgd is well below
the City's permitted water supply withdrawal rate of 4.77 mgd. Therefore, the City's water
supply is sufficient to accommodate this phase of the proposed development plan.
Table S
Proposed Water Demands -New Construction and Proposed Construction
Demand Current Proposed Projected Future Demands
Condition Demands Development with Proposed
(mgd) Demands (mgd) Development (mgd)
Average Day 3.60 0.035 3.64
Maximum Daya 4.60 0.056 4.66
Peak Hourb 9.00 0.088 9.09
a Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of 1.6
b Calculated as the estimated average daily water demand multiplied by a peaking factor of 2.5
-11-
~\
MEMORANDUM TIghE&Bond
Moser Street Definitive Plan Comment Response
To: Carolyn Misch, AICP -Senior Land Use Planner/Permits Manager
COPY: Elizabeth Murphy -MassDevelopment
FROM: Jennifer Gilbert, David Loring, P.E., LEED AP
DATE: March 04, 2009
RE: ~ Response to Ms. Carolyn Misch and Northampton DPW Comments dated
February 20, 2009.
Attached are written comments responding to the comments received regarding the Moser
Street Definitive Plan Submission dated February 12, 2009. The original City comment is
presented italicized with the Engineer's response immediately following..
I have the following comments on the submission of the subdivision that includes most of
DPWs major comments. If you all can address these by Monday morning then we could
advertise for the March Y2 hearing. However it does not make sense to put this on the
agenda if these issues cannot be satisfied as the Planning Board will not be able to -close the
hearing until they are.
Waivers
1. Trees- Lacebark Elm has space limitations. If 6.5' is adequate based on arborist
determination, then this would be ok. Otherwise select a different species.
The Lacebark Elm is one of the approved Northampton street trees. The .Landscape
Architect has reviewed the planting requirements for this species and found no
published restrictions for this tree.
2. Trees- Planning Board will likely require the use of structural soils as a condition to
requested waiver for reduction in tree belt,
The tree belt has been increased to 8 feet along Farm Road and Ford Crossing and
therefore a waiver for reducing the tree belt is no longer required for these
roadways. A waiver is requested for a reduced width of tree belts to 5.5 feet along
Musante Drive to match the previously approved cross-section from Sta. 18+55 to
Sta. 20+20 on both sides of the roadway and' from Sta. 20+30 to Sta. 20+44 on the
west side of the roadway. As .previously approved for Musante Drive, a root barrier
has been added where the tree belts do not meet the 8 foot requirement.
3. MassDevelopment should maintain as much separation from trees and utilities as
possible given the waiver.
esponse rnen aired.
U
MAR 5 209
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
iVORTHRNlPTON, MA 41060 _1 _
0
/' '.
MEMO Tighe&Bond
4. Right-of-Way- Department of Public Works does not believe there is adequate
rationale for reducing the width by 4 ; This ROW would allow water gates in the
green and not in the sidewalk, (Department of Public Works does not want the gates
under the sidewalk) 2' on either side of the street would not substantially impact the
lots.
A 57 foot ROW has been discussed with the City of .Northampton officials. The 57
foot ROW provides a full eight foot tree belt and utility service in the green space
outside of the proposed walks.
The water service valves are currently located on the ROW line beyond the sidewalk.
5. Sewer Depth beyond 10' will not be allowed, Applicant must provide more detailed
information about the necessity of these depths for the lines beyond estimation that
it is needed for gravity flow from remainder of campus.
The sanitary sewer was designed with additional depth to maximize the potential to
serve the remaining north campus by gravity sewer. Raising the sanitary sewer may
require undeveloped areas remaining on the north campus to be serviced by a
pressure sanitary sewer system. Additional conditions are being negotiated with the
City to allow the additional depth.
6. 290-29 (should be -28)
Chapter 290-29 corresponds to Streets and Ways whereas Chapter 290-28
corresponds to Controlling Standards.
D,1. What is the requested radius?
At Sta. 0+37 left, 28.88' is requested; at Sta. 2+50 right, Sta. 7+25 right, and 9+24
right, 10.00' is requested.
D.2. What is the requested straight line distance?
At the intersection of Musante Drive and Ford Crossing it is not possible to meet
straight line distance because a flat .horizontal curve is proposed. This westerly
curve is necessary to avoid the Coach House as Mustante Drive was continued
northward to Ford. Crossing from the previously approved and constructed Musante
Drive roadway. The deflection from a 100 foot straight line distance is 5.0 feet north
for both the east and west approaches to Musante Drive.
D.3. What is the proposed grade at each approach?
Entering the intersection from Mustante Drive the grade is 2 percent. Entering the
intersection from Ford Crossing the grade is 2.1 percent. The grade from_ this
intersection towards Village Hill Road has not been designed. The approach from
Vilage Hill Road is expected, to be 2-3 percent in the immediate vicinity of the
intersection increasing to approximately 5 percent.
H.4. What is the proposed offset?
The centerline of Farm Road does not coincide with the center line of the Right-of-
Way, by an offset of 3.5 feet to the west due to the parking aisle on the east side of
the__r_oadway. Proposed. Ford Crossing__centerline 'will_ does not__coincide with the
-2-
MEMO Tighe&Bond
centerline of the ROW due to the proposed on-street parking lane. The Ford
Crossing centerline is offset 2' north of the actual ROW centerline.
7. 290-53: The table shows horizontal offsets for sewer and gas lines, not sewer and
water whose horizontal separation meets the 10' requirement. Furthermore,. the
request is for a vertical waiver, not horizontal. What is the rationale for the need of
separation and how will this resolve the issue?
Table 12 of the Definitive Plan Submission Project Manual provides an itemized list of
where the sewer services and water services do not provide the full eighteen inches
of vertical distance separation.
It is proposed to rotate the service wye off of the sewer main to the sewer service at
a length and angle to be determined in the field. The rotation of the sewer service
will provide clearance for the water main crossing. See detail 9 on sheet 15 of the
plans.
Water
8. The water connection at Moser/Musante should be cut back in the street and tied to
the proposed line continuing up Moser instead of connecting under the curb as
shown.
This drafting oversight is corrected this submission. This water line connection is
shown correctly on other sheets.
9. Water and Sewer Impact statements must use 3 persons per household not 2. There
is no rationale for using the lower number that is different from the standard average
required.
The proposed sewer impact statement misspoke and has been revised to be reflect
110 gallons per day per bedroom instead of 110 gallons per day per person. The
proposed water impact statement has been revised to reflect the requested 3 person
per unit at 100 gallons per day per person.
10. There is no detail sheet for water and sewer separations at crossings. Detail is
required.
A typical detail is included as detail 5 on sheet 16 of the plans.
Street/Crosswalks
11. The detail sheet shows standard zebra crossing with approach triangles for the
crosswalk. Crosswalk striping should continue to be the duratherm pattern that was
installed on Village Hill Road
The crosswalk marking is revised and included as detail 10 on sheet 13.
Y2. Need warrant for proposed stop sign. Why is only one proposed at the 4-way
intersection?
The northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches of the Moser Street and
Musante Drive intersections were not part of this submittal and were previously
designed, approved, and built. For the proposed eastbound approach, a stop sign
warrant analysis was completed and a stop sign was warranted. This analysis was
provided to the Northampton DPW on--February 18~ 2.009.
-3-
MEMO Tighe&Bond
Other
13. Applicant should consider common driveways for lots A25/A26 and A2/A21 given
proximity to intersecting streets and curve.
MassDevelopment has reviewed this suggestion and prefers to maintain individual
driveways.
14. Is infiltration anticipated on the individual lots? This should be incorporated as a
whole relative to stormwater so that we don't have a repeat of Olander Drive
scenarios.
Infiltration is anticipated on the individual lots. However, the final details of the
infiltration design will be the responsibility of the individual .lot developer. The
stormwater system does not account for this potential infiltration resulting in a
slightly more conservative design.
15. See attached miscellaneous notes from Department of Public Works --below.
DPW comments and responses are provided under the following 'DPW Comments"
heading.
16. Reference numbers for details should be shown on plan sheets
Reference numbers for details are shown on the revised plans.
17. Street Names. Should be one loop name perhaps or Moser wrap to Ford Crossing or
Moser becomes one big loop and Ford is eliminated? Planning Board will determine.
If it is one loop one of the waivers goes away (driveways relative to street
intersections).
This comment requires discussion between City officials and MassDevelopment.
DPW Comments
Sheet s
1. Label water line in profile
The water line is labeled in the revised plans.
2. Point "proposed 1 " Cu water service" note to water line, not sewer.
This is a drafting oversight'is corrected in the revised plans.
Sheet 7
3. Misplaced arrow for "proposed grade at center line"note on profile
This is a drafting oversight is corrected in the revised plans.
Sheet 7-8
-4-
~~~\
MEMO Tighe&Bond
4. Drain path from 7+90 to C836/37 will flow around corner and bump out?
The parking aisle has been super-elevated at 2 percent to drain to roadway gutter
from Sta 7+66 to Sta. 8+20, as shown on Sheet 12 -Typical Roadway Sections.
Sheet 8
5. No stations shown on profile
The stations are revised in the revised plans.
Sheets 11-17
6. Drain sizes on typical roadway sections are incorrect. Should be 18'%15', 15°, IS"
and 15"starting from the top.
The storm drain is included in the typical sections for location reference only. The
storm drain pipe size is noted on the plan and profile sheets.
7. HMA Multi-Use Path Detail -provide two 1-1/2"layers of HMA, not one 3"layer.
Two 1-1/2" HMA layers are noted in detail 5 on sheet 13.
8. Remove vertical pipe from Section A-A of Sanitary Service lateral detail and add note
that "sewer line clean out with tee-wye connection to be installed at property line (by
others)." ~ '
The detail is revised in the revised, plans.
9. Re-label DMH detail as SMH and provide DMH detail.
Sewer manhole (SMH) and drain manhole (DMH) details are revised with this
submission and are on sheet 15.
10. For water service notes add to #6: "...install in green space (not sidewalk)
approximately at the property line..."
The note is revised with this submission.
11. Need to provide water/sewer crossing details both for where main cross mains and
where services cross mains. This is a problem area.
A typical detail is included in this submission as detail 5 on sheet 16.
Drainage -Doug had the following general comments (from 12/22/08) .based on a quick
review:
12. How has the projected impervious area changed (roads, sidewalks, driveways, roofs,
etc.) relative to previous calculations?
The previous design submission for the design of Detention Basin 3 included an
impervious area of 6.717 acres. Based upon the Conceptual Master Plan approved
by the CAC in December 2008, Tighe &Bond calculated the impervious area to be
5.347 acres.
-5-
-, -~
~ I
p
a
MEMO ~ Tighe&Bond ~~
13. If there is any, proposed connection to the .drainage system from house lots this
should be discussed and considered now rather than as an after thought.
Drainage system connections from the house lots are not planned
J:\N\N0592\DO 19 North Roads\Report\Moser Street Definitive Plan Submission\DefinitivePlanResponseComments.doc
-6-