Response to initial comments
Carolyn Misch
From:Jay Vinskey [jay@berkshiredesign.com]
Sent:Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:14 AM
To:Carolyn Misch
Cc:'Steven Wilner'; 'Edward Etheredge'; 'PHW'; 'BCD'
Subject:RE: Kensington Estates
Attachments:Kensington-SightDistance.pdf; Kensington-BoringLogs.pdf; Kensington-FireFlow.pdf;
Kensington-Alt centerline.pdf
Carolyn-
Thanks for the early comments. I have attached some information that was missing from the submission. I apologize for
this, as the engineer who was handling this project for several years left our firm shortly before we submitted.
As we will be resubmitting plans (mylars) anyway, it is hoped that all drawing revisions be consolidated after the hearing
and all DPW and Board comments have been voiced and addressed.
Responses below:
G. Jay Vinskey
________________________________
4 Allen Place Northampton, MA 01060
413.582.7000 FAX.582.7005
From: Carolyn Misch [mailto:cmisch@northamptonma.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 12:20 PM
To: jay@berkshiredesign.com
Cc: (dveleta@nohodpw.org); (dmcdonald@nohodpw.org); Wayne Feiden
Subject: Kensington Estates
Jay-
I met with Department of Public Works to sort out big picture issues with the definitive plans submitted and I wanted to get you
these comments in time to get feedback so we can still move forward with a May 12 agenda/ hearing. I have identified these issues
below by category. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these items so we can make sure they are addressed in
time for advertising the 5-12 hearing. This does not represent the entire list of issues. The remaining list is more of minor/detail
issues.
Drainage:
From Rt 66 to DMH 1 is greater than 300’ between cbs and dmh and exceeds subdivision regulations. Another set of cbs would be
required to capture that runoff.
The plans will be revised to maintain a maximum distance of 300’
Sheet R1 the slopes are not shown accurately. Drainage lines are not below frost level and do not meet depth requirements. These
must be insulated and shown in a detail.
Slopes will be shown correctly on the revised plans. All drainage lines not below frost level will be insulated/detailed on the final
plans.
Given the depth issue here, would some LID system work better. Related to this, the box on stormwater application for
investigation of “country drainage/LID is checked but there is no indication about what/how analysis was done and thereby
dismissed. Please explain.
1
A description of this investigation will be included in the revised drainage report, as part of the Stormwater Permit review
process. The plans include a large swale adjacent to lots 1, 2, and 3 as a stormwater conveyance method, and although the
remaining portions of the site contain drain/pipe systems, this area maintains a “country drainage” methodology for handling
runoff.
Profile/invert numbers for DMH #2 on sheet R1 seem to be reversed.
This drafting error will be fixed on revised plans
Department of Public Works is still reviewing other detailed stormwater permit issues and will address those directly with you.
Sewer:
The sewer line is still within the right of way. If the Planning Board grants this (against Department of Public Works’
recommendation), an easement boundary must be shown for both the scenario in which this street becomes public and the scenario
in which it remains private. All private connections crossing the street to the main line must also have easements (either to HOA or
city).
These easements will be added, but we’d first like to discuss the options and preferences (in r.o.w. vs. outside)
with the Board.
Water:
Need updated real fire flow tests now that the upgrades to the public system have been made. This must be done prior to the
hearing in order to show that in fact the assumptions in 2003 are reality and can meet fire flow standards.
Fire flow tests conducted post-upgrade are attached (these were summarized in a 12/10/09 letter to the Board)
In the event that the street does not become public, a second water gate at Glendale and 66 must be installed.
nd
2 water gate can be added to the final plans.
Roads/Traffic
Soil borings for the road base were not submitted as required so Department of Public Works will assume based on test pits that an
18” base vs. 12” is necessary to deal with loose soils.
They reflect the MEDIUM subgrade which qualifies for 12” depth base (a range of 12”-18“ )
Boring logs are attached.
Though the Planning Board preliminarily gave a nod to the waiver on the 290-29D-2 (against Department of Public Works’ initial
recommendation), the condition was that site lines be submitted for the intersection of 66 and Westbrook. I don’t see this
information. Department of Public Works continues to feel that this waiver is not acceptable and will recommend against this
waiver given that there appears to be no reason it could not be met and that safety coming into the intersection is important to
maintain. Given the reduction from 100 to 10’, perhaps there is a middle ground that allows at least a straight run for 1 or 2
cars/UPS truck lengths if not the entire 100’. Department of Public Works also wants to see site line data for the intersection with
Glendale Rd.
The definitive design is based on this waiver which was previously granted at the preliminary stage. The
proposed intersection is located to minimize disturbance, utilize an existing water stub, avoid moving a utility
pole, and allow an optimized lot layout.
Site distances are attached (these were summarized in a 12/10/09 letter to the Board).
{We don’t see sight distances as being related to this waiver, since any vehicle at the stop sign would be aligned
at 90 degrees to Rt. 66.}.
I have attached a geometry revision (possible revisions in red) which shows a longer intersection approach
tangent (43’+), intersecting the arc at Route 66 at 82 degrees. This layout meets Mass. DOT horizontal layout
guidelines for 30 MPH design speed, but would also require a waiver for the intersection angle less than 90
degrees. You will note that while the centerline shifts, the actual physical layout of the road would not
discernibly change from what was submitted (western curb radius would shift about only 2”).
There is no bus shelter detail, please submit.
Do you have a specific standard that you expect?. We will discuss with the Applicant and prepare a design for
the Board to review.
Why are driveway aprons 15’ (max allowed)? This seems excessive.
2
We will be happy to discuss this with the Board.
Thanks,
Carolyn Misch, AICP
Senior Land Use Planner/Permits Manager
City of Northampton
210 Main Street, Room 11
Northampton, MA 01060
(413)587-1287- direct, (413)587-1264 - fax
cmisch@northamptonma.gov
www.northamptonma.gov/opd
City of Northampton email messages are public records except when they fall under one of the specific
statutory exemptions.
3