HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 430 OSGOOD STREET 2/20/2001 ® "U"' a r c h i t e c t s a n d . p l a n n e r s
Limited
r . ; , .
2b February 2001 FEB 1 2001
VHB, Inc. NOMI 1 ANE)OVC tj
101 Walnut Street PLANNING, D17-Pm RTM NT .
Watertown, MA 02471
Attention: Tim McIntosh
Reference: North Andover High Schad
North Andover, MA
Subject: Application for Site Plan Special Permit
Dear Rick:
I.am forwarding you copies of correspondence you requested to facilitate your review of the
Stormwater drainage plan. The enclosed correspondence is between the Conservation
Commission Consultant, John Chessia of Coler and Colantino and a project consultant, Fred
King of Schofield Brothers. The documents Schofield Brothers prepared for this project include:
® Sediment and Erosion Control Plan-
Stormwater Drainage Plan
Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater Runoff Calculations
Please note some correspondence refers to previous versions of these documents which are
now superseded by the current versions, which were approved by the Conservation
Commission and sent to you as part of the full Planning Board Submission package.
Sincerely,
Jon Oxman AIA
DiNISCO ESIGN
JO/cm
cc: Heidi Green
Richard Rice (no enclosures)
Fred King(no enclosures)
Enclosures: Letter from John Chessia (27 October 200 0)
Letter from Fred King (15 November 2000)
Letter from Fred King (06 December 2000)
Letter from John Chessia (20 December 2000)
Letter from Fred King (09 January 2001)
Letter from John Chessia (16 January 2001)
Letter from Fred King.(31 January 2001).
99430.0 GorPlanDept 06-Trnsm MB
Kenneth DiNisco Richard N. Rice Gary E..Ainslie Christopher Huston.
8 7 S u m m e r S t r e e t B o s t o n M A 0 2 1 1 0 6 1 7 . 4 2 6 . 2 8 5 8 f a x 4 2 6 . 1 4 5 7
ke
EBSCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING PLANNING
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
1071 Worcester Road
Framingham,MA 01701-5298
508-879-0030
1-800-696-2874
FAX 508-879-1797
January 9,2001
20217
North Andover Conservation Commission
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Brian Lagrasse
RE: Wetlands File 242-1045 -North Andover High School Project
Dear Brian and Commission Members:
Enclosed for your review are two copies of the revised plans and drainage report dated January 8,
2000. The plans reflect the revisions to the site drainage, drainage report and additional
information in response to John Chessia's review letter of and the discussions at the continued
public hearing on 12/20/00. The enclosed materials include the following:
- Stormwater Drainage Plans, Sheets 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.3.10 and 1.3.11 as
revised 1/8/01.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, Sheet 1.3.3 as revised 1/8/01.
- Report "Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater Runoff Calculations",
revised 1/8/01.
The revisions to the above plans and documents are described in the Preface of the Stormwater
Management Report.
I am delivering today a copy of this letter and the attached materials to John Chessia for his review
and comment.
During your review of the enclosed materials, if you or Mr. Chessia have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
Fredric W. King,P.E. /
Senior Engineer
Cc: John Chessia
Ken DiNisco
Enclosures
°oSCHOFIELD BROTHERS
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc. . W4"4; /�� CON cor,l
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING I
1071 Worcester Road•Framingham,MA 01701 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Phone 508-879-0030•Fax 508-879-1797
TO DiNisco Design Partnership JOB No 20217
87 Summer Street DATE 1/10/01
Boston, MA 02110 ATTN John Oxman
RE No.Andover High School
We are sending you via Overnight Mail the following items:
[] Copy of letter Change order E] Specifications
El Prints Plans See below
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 1/8/01 Stormwater Management Reports
3 1/8/01 Erosion&Sediment Control Sheet (1.3.3)
3 1/8/01 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheets (1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9,
1.3.10, 1.3.11)
1 1/9/01 Cover`aater to No. Andover Conservation Commission.
1 1/9/01 Trans al to John Chessia
These are transmitted:
E] For approval Ox For your use ® .. As requested
F] For review and comment [] Approved as submitted ['j Approved as noted
F1 Returned for corrections [] Prints return after loan to us [] For bids due
Remarks:
If you need more copies of the Stormwater Report, give me a call.
Copy to: z .
Signed
Fredric W.
SC"OflEtiJ BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND, fNC. [ t� 191 OCR" V ° ° HMDI�T �
Engmeer�ng-® Sury'Wn ®;Planning
- 1d 71Vorc6ferRoad ,43a NAI+S God �tv�.
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701-5298
DATE JOB NO.
_- - - --
(508) 879-0030 _ -- _ ATTENTION , ,
11`c' 1 t,
('..��f kL d- C�r_l� :31�{i (rVG �tLTLI hi! �r + ri°
yo/ c�J R fj Pti<tL�L 02 1 V;�
WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ES N`J .(���r✓.�rc-�
rtF�e following items:._
❑ Shop drawings ❑.Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ .Specifications
❑.Copy of letter ❑ Change order.
COPIES DATE - NO. DESCRIPTION
a, F:a
d—' - tll.rte* / Ti 2 : T"`. "c,;�„ L f
/ J �. f2r731 J'S/ J SP[/�[�s /.j o L c P. T /• -
v (t = `! % 'tom<✓ r?vW 7-1—_-�/ C.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
-❑ For approval _E] Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies fordistribution
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints .:
> 1
For review and comment ❑
[I .FOR BIDS DUE 39 ❑.PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS kaT f� ' f2CviSr ->'C oh/ S11 rc >' .'3 rZi.Vf-S
prZRrN S-reut rvRF 47,
?hfr OivC_y cF/ NCr oN T/�K f�2 sly-✓ SEUtjrr •/i Cory?;r%vc
Z4 "s
o hi ..SNr~rF T -4
1=viS I'D•YS -7 rim r� e7t. i�� rte. i�fF" t2>�F'olt T : PRArc - ;
Tl�� i�it'f r in/G '=W rTs/ Tl�rc C .S 15 !/•fir > �,/ C<?1�i1+, ri �-►/ ` '> S
Cf�.t��/
3
?RawA��l'�4�F��
BSCHOLIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING PLANNING
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
1071 Worcester Road
Framingham.MA 01701-5298
508-879-0030
1.800-696-2874
January 31,2001 FAX 508-879.1797
20217
North Andover Conservation Commission
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Brian Lagrasse
RE: Wetlands File 242-1045 -North Andover High School Project
SENT VIA: Hand Delivery.
3 Dear Brian and Commission Members:
Enclosed are eight copies of the latest revision of the plans and documents for your use. The plan
g P P
sets include two sets of full size (30x42) sheets and six sets of half-size sheets. The enclosed
materials reflect the revisions to the site layout, planting plan, drainage, etc. as discussed with the
Commission on January 17, 2001.
The revised layout for the driveway entrance eliminated a substantial portion of the wetlands
alteration such that there are now only two small areas of wetlands filling. These areas include 320
sq. ft. off the northeast wing of the proposed building, and 200 sq. ft. in the southwesterly portion
of the site. We have, therefore, eliminated the proposed wetland replication areas in the vicinity of
the tennis courts and provided a small replication area adjacent to the northeast wetland alteration.
The replication area previously proposed in the southwest area has not been changed. The
S Wetland Replication Narrative has been revised to incorporate the above changes. Also, the Buffer
Zone planting presented at the last meeting has now been incorporated into the Planting Plans
prepared by Carol R. Johnson, Associates.
As discussed at the last meeting, the proposed revisions will not affect the stormwater runoff
analyses or design calculations and the report previously submitted (dated 1/8/01) will not need to
be revised.
Attached is a complete list of the enclosed materials. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc.
Fredric W. King. P.E.
Senior Enaineer
Cc: DiNisco Design Partnership
Enclosures
l/
BSCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING PLANNING
it Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
1071 Worcester Road
Framingham,MA 01701-5298
508-879-0030
1-800-696-2874
November 15, 2000 FAX 508-879-1797
i
20217
North Andover Conservation Commission
's
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Brian Lagrasse
RE: Wetlands File 242-1045 -North Andover High School Project
Dear Brian and Commission Members:
Since our meeting with the Conservation Commission on October 18`h, 2000, we have received the
Engineering Review Report from John Chessia dated October 27, 2000 and met with him to review
the report on November 13, 2000. The purpose of the meeting with Mr. Chessia was to make sure
we understood all his comments and discuss how we plan to address each item. We also informed
him of some proposed minor revisions to the project that have come up since his review. These
revisions will be included in the next set of plans that will be submitted along with the revisions to
address the points he raised.
This letter is being submitted to you to summarize for you the results of our meeting with Mr.
Chessia for your information. The following is a brief description of how we propose to address
each of Mr. Chessia's comments and the proposed plan revisions.
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN INCLUDE:
1. The proposed driveway access to Chickering Road is to be eliminated from the plan.
2. The existing overpass walkway from the site across Chickering Road will now remain.
3. Because the existing driveway from Osgood Street will be the only main access, the entrance
near Osgood Street will be widened to provide a turning lane and the sidewalk will be moved
to the south side of the driveway. Additional wetland delineation was performed in the area of
the access drive because of the new work being proposed and that delineation and associated
buffer zones will be added to the plan.
4. Some proposed minor grading changes, some of which are in response to John Chessia's
comments and general coordination of the plans of the various design consultants.
RESPONSES TO THE ITEMS IN JOHN CHESSIA'S REPORT
ITEMS 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13 —These are general information being provided by Mr. Chessia
to the Commission and do not require any response from the Applicant.
10/27/2000 10:14 FAX 781 982 : A0 COLER&COLANTONIO 0002/006
O
COLANTONIOZ
ENGINEERS ANO SCIENTISTS
October 27,2000
Brian LeGrasse
North Andover Conservation Commission
Town lull Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Engineering Review
North Andover High School
Notice of Intent
Dear Mr.LeGrasse:
In response to your request, Coler &Colantonio,Inc. has reviewed the submittal package
for the above referenced site. Our efforts included a comparison of information submitted
with respect to the requirements of the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw and the DEp
Stormwater Management Policy. The submittal package included the following
information:
Plans Entitled
• "North Andover High School, North Andover, Mass." Prepared by DiNisco
Design Partnership, cover sheet dated 9/25/00, sheets 1.3.6 -- 1.3.10 revised
10/13/00.
Reports Entitled
• "Wetlands Notice of Intent, North Andover High School, not dated, Prepared
by Schofield Brothers received 10/10/00.
• "Report, Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater Runoff
Calculations, North Andover High School Project, dated October 5, 2000 and
prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc.
Wetlands Protection Bylaw:
1, Section HI.)D.)4.)a.) Work is proposed within.the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone:
Work includes construction of access driveways, bituminous paths, subdrains and
grading_
101 Accord Park Drive 781-982-5400
Norwell,MA 02051-1685 Fax:781-982-5490
�SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING PLANNING
p Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
1071 Worcester Road
Framingham,MA 01701-5298
508-879-0030
1-800-696-2874
December 6,2000 FAX 508-879-1797
20217
North Andover Conservation Commission
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Brian Lagrasse
RE: Wetlands File 242-1045 -North Andover High School Project
Dear Brian and Commission Members:
Enclosed for your review are two copies of the revised plans and drainage report dated December
6,2000. The plans reflect the revisions to the site layout and changes and additional information in
response to your requests and John Chessia's review. Also included are the revised Site Survey
Plans showing the additional survey information, the corrected buffer zone lines and the additional
wetland boundary along the access driveway from Osgood Street. The enclosed materials include
the following:
- Stormwater Drainage Plans, Sheets 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.3.10 and 1.3.11 as
revised 12/6/00.
- Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, Sheets 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 as revised 12/6/00.
- Report "Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater Runoff Calculations",
revised 12/6/00.
- Site Survey Plans, Sheets 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and 1.0.5 by Richard F. Kaminski &
Associates, dated revised 11/30/00.
CHANGES IN THE SITE PLANS AND REPORT INCLUDE:
1. The proposed driveway access to Chickering Road has been eliminated from the plan.
2. The existing overpass walkway from the site across Chickering Road will now remain.
3. Because the existing driveway from Osgood Street will be the only main access, the entrance
near Osgood Street will be widened to provide a turning lane and the sidewalk will be moved
to the south side of the driveway. Additional wetland delineation was performed in the area of
the access drive because of the new work being proposed and that delineation and associated
buffer zones have been added to the plans.
4. Some minor grading changes, some of which are in response to John Chessia's comments.
5. The stormwater management system has been revised to reflect the new survey information.
6. In general, the plans and Stormwater management report have been improved for clarity.
7. The Watershed Models have been re-assessed and refined for both existing and proposed
conditions. Complete information on the revisions to the Stormwater Management Report is
described in the report Preface.
8. Wetland Replication Area #2 has been relocated to an area to the east of the proposed access
driveway and just north of the crossing in response to Item 20 in John Chessia's report. The
�SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING
North Andover Conservation Commission 20217
December 6,2000
Page 2
elevations at the previously proposed location made in impossible to hydraulically connect it to
the reach where the crossing is taking place.
The Architect, DiNisco Design Partnership will be sending to you under separate cover, additional
information on the alternatives analysis and new area computations of the existing and proposed
alteration of the Riverfront and various buffer zones as you requested.
I am delivering today a copy of this letter and the attached materials to John Chessia for his review
and comment. It is our understanding from our recent meeting with him that this will provide
enough time for him to complete a review for the next scheduled hearing continuance on December
20, 2000.
During your review of the enclosed materials, if you or Mr. Chessia have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
Fredric W. King,P.E.
Senior Engineer
Cc: John Chessia
Ken DiNisco
Enclosures
,. — —. -- I }Q car D„o_nv s ror/Pi zuuu 10:42 FAX 781 982 5490 tu
e�
COLER & COLANTONIO -T- -
16002/008
CJ
ENrvNCEcjS AND Sc;IENTi5T3
December 20, 2000
Brian LaGrasse
North Andover Conservation Commission
Town Hall Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
North Andover agh School
Notice of Intent
Dear .Mr.LaG-rasse:
In response to your request, Coler& Colantonio, Inc, has reviewed the revised package for the above referenced site. Our efforts included a compazison of information
submitted with respect to the requirements of the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw and the
DEP Stormwater Management Policy. The submittal package included the following
wing
Plans Entitled
• "North ,Andover High School, North Andover, Mass." Prepared b Di
Design Partnership, cover sheet dated 9/25/00, sheets 1.01, --1.0.5 an n Niseo
1.3.11 revised 11/30/00 and 1216100, received December 6, 2000- d 13.1 -
Reports Entitled
• An alternatives analysis package prepared by DiNisco Desion p
dated December 8, 2000,received December 12, 2000, e artnership,
• "Report, Stormwater Management
Calculations, North Andover High School Pro ect, datedtDe water Runoff
and prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc. received December
6, 2000
This coiTespondence follows the format of our initial letter._ Current t cor>lxrxaents are in
101 Accord Park Drive --
Norwell, MA 02061-1685 781-982-5400
Fax, 781-982-5490
11:'30 CAA Y81 982 5490 COLER & COLANTONIO
r' 16002/009
L 1 z
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
January 16, 2001
Brian LaGrasse
North Andover Conservation Commission
Town Hall Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
North Andover High School
Notice of Intent
Dear Mr. LaGrasse:
In response to your request, Coler & Colantonio, Inc. has reviewed the revised submittal
package for the above referenced site. Our efforts included a comparison of information
submitted with respect to the requirements of the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw and the
DEP Stormwater Management Policy. The submittal package included the following
information:
Plans Entitled
• "North Andover High School, North Andover, Mass." Prepared by DiNisco
Design Partnership, sheets 1.3.3 and 1.3.6 — 1.3.11 dated 1/8/01, received
January 9, 2001.
Reports Entitled
• "Attachment 2, Report, Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater
Runoff Calculations, North Andover High School Project, dated October 5,
2000 and prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc., revised
through 1/8/01 and received January 9, 2001.
This correspondence follows the format of our initial letter. Current comments are in
italics. Screened items have been satisfactorily addressed during previous reviews.
101 Accord Park Drive 781-982-5400
Norwell, MA 02061-1685 Fax: 781-982-5490
m/lC.tx a r c h i t e c t s a n d p 1 a n n e r s
Limited
07 March 2001
North Andover Fire Department
124 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: William Dolan, Chief
Reference: High School
North Andover, MA
Subject: Preliminary Drawing Review
Dear Chief Dolan:
We wish to thank you and Lt..Melnikas for taking the time to meet with us on 22 February 2001
to review the new high school project. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding
of the issues discussed at the meeting. Attached are memos from Robert W. Sullivan (RWS)
and Thompson Engineering (TE) describing in detail"the discussions of their respective
plumbing, fire protection and fire alarm systems. The following is DDP's recap of miscellaneous
,project issues.
1. Project Phasing/Schedule—The new building will be constructed on the middle
"plateau", the existing building demolished after the new school is completed, and the ball
fields then constructed. The new building will be completed and occupied 01 September
2004,with the.fields completed no later than the spring of 2005.
1.1 Sitework-DDP explained that it is likely that a site preparation contract will start
July/August 2001 to prepare the site for the.start of general construction
(foundations) in the spring of 2002. This will include constructing a temporary
retaining wall along the rear of the existing school to allow the rough grade
changes necessary to construct the new building and parking. The retaining wall
will be located to allow 14-foot minimum (at field house)passage around the rear
of building.
1.2 Soil Storage— DDP explained that the northern most portion of the site will be
needed to store topsoil and fill until the existing building is demolished and the
playfields constructed the summer/fall of 2004. The area agreed to be reserved
for the public safety complex (now the new fire headquarters) along Prescott
Street is planned to be part of the area used for soil storage during construction,
but would not be otherwise developed.. It is not known at this time whether the
construction of the new fire headquarters will overlap that.of the high school
project.
Kenneth DiNisco Richard N. Rice Gary E.Ainslie Christopher Huston
8 7 S u m m e r S t r e e t B o s t o n M A 0 2 1 1 0 6 1 7 4 2- 6 2 8 5 8 f a x 4 2.6 1 4 5 7
w w w . d i n i s c o c o m
William Dolan, Chief 07 March 2001 Page 2
1.3 Phasing Issues were noted as follows:
a. An existing hydrant at the rear of the existing building will need to be
removed (or relocated) to accommodate the temporary retaining wall.
RWS shall confirm final disposition with NAFD.
b. The existing propane tank will need to be temporarily relocated. RWS to
coordinate location with NAFD.
C. The new hydrants and water main should be specified to be activated as
soon as practical, so that the new building can be protected while under
construction.
2. Basement Cooler/Freezer— DDP to confirm if ammonia will be present in the
refrigerator equipment, as it will pose a "special hazard",under the code.
3. Acid Waste—Science classroom waste will-drain to neutralization equipment in the
basement. A dyke shall be constructed to contain 110% of the equipment's capacity,
and ventilation provided.
4. Elevator— If hydraulic fluid is combustible, a sprinkler head is required in the pit by
code. DDP shall confirm.
5. Instruction—Specifications shall include Fire Department training for sprinkler systems,
fire alarm systems and"for gas shut off procedures and locations for HVAC equipment,
etc.
6.. Site Access— DDP reviewed 3600 on-site roadway access around school, noting over
flow parallel parking is proposed along the outside curb of the driveway (leaving the
building side curb a no parking/fire lane zone). An ambulance drive,approximately 8 feet
wide, is provided along the north ball fields, extending onto Prescott; the end of this drive
can be.coordinated with the new fire headquarters as that design is'finalized. _A service
drive extends into the west (gymnasium) courtyard; NAFD that a walkway be
widened to 12 feet in the east(cafeteria) courtyard for fire vehicle access. NAFD stated
that this path must be paved, as reinforced earth emergency drives have not been
maintained at other sites in town.
7. Narrative-DDP will submit"Fire Protection Construction Documents"to NAFD for
approval, per code.
8. Site Plan Approval— DDP noted that the high school project has been submitted to the
Planning Board for an initial hearing on 20 March 2001.
William Dolan, Chief 07 March 2001 Page 3
Should you have any questions or concerns with regards to the items noted above, with the
engineer's memos attached, or with any other aspect of the project, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you again for your assistance With the new high school.
Sincpwly,
Richard N. Rice
DiNISCO DESIGN
RNR/cr
cc: William Allen, Superintendent of Schools
Louis Minicucci, SBC Chair
Nancy Kurtz
Paul Szymanski, Director of Management Support Services
Heidi Griffin, North Andover Planning Department
Patrick Saitta, Municipal Building Committee
Gene Kingman,R.W. Sullivan
Kevin Murphy, Thompson Engineering
Enclosures: R.W. Sullivan Memo 02/27/01
TE Memo 03/06/01
99434 CoiCtvTwn/St 13
FHT-Z OHNE) 1 Z ; 5Z (FAX) 61?�Z3 M P- 001
FEB 2 7 2001
Meeting Memo
Robert W Sullivan, .Inc.:
Consulting Engineers
302 Union Wharf ;
<<n� ire�e8
c;
Boston,MA 02109 ' °` FP
Ccrjv iff
;.plumb
617-523-8227 Fax 617-523-8016 aP, vAe
One Etec
Date: February 27, 2001
To: DDP
PEB-27-Z0WNE) 12 ;5Z (FAX) 6125238016 P. OOZ
February 27,2001
DiNisco Design Partnership
North Andover Hugh School
Fire Department Project Presentation Meeting
Page 2
the municipal connections is lost.
Existing fire hydrants to the east,to the north and to the west of the building will be removed, as
phasing allows.The rear hydrant will remain, to provide protection to the rear of the building, as
long as the existing water line is needed to serve the existing building. Once phasing allows or
requires it,this hydrant will be removed. Until this hydrant can be removed,the contractor shall
have to protect this hydrant,because it is located adjacent to the anticipated earth retention
system at the toe of the new slope(at south end of new parking lots at new addition.
The west and east hydrants will be removed because new fields will be constructed in these
areas.The south (front)hydrant will remain.
Fire hydrants will be added around the new building to provide protection for the building and
the parking lots.
Interior Fire Protection Systems:
An 8" water line will be supplied from the site water main system, entering the building into the
Basement Mechanical Room.A double check valve backflow preventer will be provided, as well
as a wet main alarm check valve at this point.
The new building will be completely protected by automatic wet sprinklers,zoned by floor/wing
in the academic building and by use area in the gym/shop/kitchen building. Each floor/zone will
be controlled by a supervised shut-off valve and a flow switch.
Heads will be provided in the elevator machine room.Heads will be provided for under-stage
protection.This will be a separate zone,controlled the same as the other zones.
Sprinkler hydraulic criteria will be in accordance with NFPA 13, 1996.
The academic building will be equipped with standpipes in each stair way. One stair way in each
wing will be the sprinkler riser also. Standpipe hose connections will be on the floor landing in
the stairway.
Drains will be piped outside to either spill to grade or to a nearby catch basin.
Related Plumbing System Issues: _
A natural gas detection/shutoff system will be provided for the science wing. This will sense
FEBT-2001 (TUE) 1 Z:53 K 003
February 27,2001
DiNisco Design Partnership
North Andover High School
Fire Department Project Presentation Meeting
Page 3
natural gas at the ceilings of the rooms in which gas outlets are located, sound an alarm and shut
off'gas to the entire science wing. Alarm will ring through fire alarm system to call fire
department
A similar gas detection/shutoff system will be provided for the kitchen. This system will shut off
the gas to the kitchen cooking line and sound an alarm. As with the science wing,this alarm will
ring through the fire alarm system to call the fire department
NAFD requested:
_ t,
A new fire hydrant to be located Adjacent to the service court entrance to the east side of
the new building.
A new hydrant to be located along the existing entrance drive from Osgood Street.
A siamese pumper connection to be located in this area,near this fire hydrant. This
pumper connection can be either on the building or in the lawn beside the drive. Siamese
to have 2 VV National Standard thread.
All hose standpipe connections to be 2'/2'National Standard thread,with 2'/2" by 11/i'
reducer and a 1'/Z'iron pipe threaded outlet and cap,
All sprinklers in gym to be equipped with guards.
Sprinkler heads to be installed in the elevator pits in accordance with elevator code
(flammable oil will require protection-non-flammable will allow no sprinklers).
"Fire Protection Construction Documents" as defined in the Building Code in 903.1.1,
to be submitted for approval.
To the best of our knowledge,this is an accurate summary of the discussions which took place at
the subject meeting.These minutes will become part of the project record as constituted unless
we are notified within 5 days of a discrepancy,
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT W. SULLIVAN,INC. ,,
EUGENE B.KINGMAN
FEBT-299HTUE) IN3 (FRK)61952380�6 P. 004
February 27,2001
DiNisco Design Partnership
North Andover High School
Fire Department Project Presentation Meeting
Page 4
ti
03/07/01 10:14 FAX 6172277561 THOMPSON ENGINEERING CO DINISCO U001/002
hompson en mpan���
MAR 7 200 eMorandu
To: Richard Rice/DiNisco Design Partnership EFI1oJ. NAB 1
,tai. u-ber
Project: North Andover High School _ o Cor Cons stru®t
0 Car Cons FP
0 Cor Cons Plurnb
From: Kevin W_ Murphy 0 Cor tans HVAC
0 Cor Cores Elec
0 Cor Cons
Date: March G, 2001 0 Gar Contrractor Owner
Subject: North Andover Fire Department review 0 Cor r a r
cm et J Q.'q Q Me-006
We offer the following meeting notes on the fire alarm system is, iscussedx". t
Andover Fire Department.
Present:
Chief Dolan,Lt. Melnikas-North Andover Fire Department(NAFD)
Richard Rice -DiNisco Design Partnership (DDP)
John Greenwood-RW Sullivan(RWS)
Kevin Murphy-Thompson Engineering Company(TEC)
Issues:
I. TEC reviewed the fire alarm system design with the NAFD. TEC pointed out the location
ofthe master box,annunciator and control panel. TEC stated that the fire alarm system shall
be an class"A", addressable type system with smoke detectors in all paths of egress,
combination horn/strobe lights ra all paths of egress, manual pull stations at all exits and
combination horn/strobe light units in all classroom_ All wiring shall be installed in conduit
raceways (EMT).
2. The NAFD stated that one annunciator location would be acceptable_
3. The NAFD agreed that the fire alarm system shall be a horn evacuation signal system except
for the auditorium shall be avoice evacuation system. The gymuasium and cafeteria will be
furnished with bQms.
4. The NAFD stated that a sprinkler head shall be installed in the elevator machine room and
elevator pit. TEC stated that a circuit breaker with a shunt trip coil will be provided for
disconnecting the elevator power when the heat detectors in the machine room are activated.
Also, a smoke detector shall be installed in the elevator pit and connected to the elevator
recall system. The NAFD shall determine if the elevator pit smoke detector i s connected to
the alarm circuit or supervisory trouble circuit_
5. TEC stated that building floor plans behind a plastic lens be installed on the wall adjacent
to the annunciator panel in entrance vestibule. TEC also stated that O&M manual, shop
drawings and wiring diagrams shallbe furnishedin aplans cabinet in the main electric room
next to the control panel. TEC stated that these requirements would be in the specification.
03/07/01 10:14 FAX 6172277561 THOMPSON ENGINEERING CO 4 DINISCO IM 002/002
—Thompson engineering compan/^,
Page 11
March 6, 2001
Subject: North Andover Fire Department review
6. The NAFD stated that the town did have a fire alarm municipal circuit and requested that a
master box, strobe beacon light and knox box be installed near annunciator location. The
master box will be,provided with a microswitch. The microswitch allows the master box to
activate the building fire alarm system when the master box has been manually operated.
The NAFD stated that TBC should call Jim Daw to receive NAFD municipal circuit
requirements.
7. TEC stated that since the system is an addressable type system that provides exact room
designations at the annunciator,therefore smoke detector remote alarm indicators will not
be included in the fire alarm system design.
S. TEC stated that the audible alarms(horns)and the visual alarms(strobe lights)will be wired
on separate circuits, this will allow the audible alarms to be silenced independently of the
visual alarms.
9. The NAFD requested that at the annunciator panel, the NAFD shall have complete control
of the fire alarm system. (Ex. Reset alarm condition, silencing horns, drill switch, trouble
alarm aclmowledge, etc). TEC stated that this requirement is standard design and will be
in the specifications. The NAFD stated that the school should not have access to the drill
switch feature.
10. TEC stated that protective bousing will be installed on all pull stations and born/strobe light
units in the gymnasium-
11- DDP stated that TEC will provide the NAFD a set of drawings showing the final fire alarm
system design for the department's review.
12. TEC requests that the NAFD provide TEC with any Town fire alarm standards,that the fire
department may have.
File: 20009/12-NAFD meeting.wpd
APR-03-Z001 (TOE� 1 . 19 (FAK)6175Z38016 P. 001
FAX T.RANSMSSION COVER SHEET
Robert W. Sullivan, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
302 Union Wharf
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 523 - 5227 Fax(617) 523 - 8016
Date: April 3, 2001
To: DDP
Attn: Ken DiNisco
Fax: to 17 `�I Zfv 14
Subject: NAHS
Planning Board Plans Review (R WS#5592)
Sender: Gene Kingman
CO.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES,PLEASE CALL(617) 523-8227.YOU
SHOULD RECEIVE ONE PAGE(S)INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
Ken:
The comment from VHB about water service valves was that we should consider locating the fire
service shut-off before the"tee"to the domestic water service,
This would mean that both the fire and the domestic water services would be shut off from one
valve, and the fire service could not be shut off without shutting off the domestic as well. We
would not normally recommend this. We would do as we have shown-a separate valve for each.
If it is desired to shut otTboth services with one valve,we would add another valve on the
combined line, between the"tee"and the fire hydrant near the roadway.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL.
THANKS,
GENE KINGMAN
V1 MCommcnLvFaxmcmo.wpd
Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.
38 Chauncy Street, Suite 701
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
tel: (617) 542-1199 • fax: (617) 451-9904
• e-mail: info @bca-engineers.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Rice/Jon Oxman JOB/FILE NO: 977memo06.dp.wpd
FROM: D. Prentiss, P.E./A. Cloutier
DATE: April 3, 2001
SUBJECT: North Andover High School - Response to Town Consultant's Comments
INTRODUCTION
This memo is intended to respond to the Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) memo dated 3/22/01,
which is a summary of comments on the BC&A traffic study completed for the North Andover High
School relocation/expansion project`. This memo will respond to the issues raised by VHB in a
point-by-point fashion and provide supplemental information where necessary.
In addition, a traffic study for a school project is not typical when compared to the standard traffic
study. Typically commuter peak hours are analyzed,but for any school project the commuter PM
peak hour is not an issue since school is not in session during this period. The AM hour peak covers
both the school peak and the commuter peak period.
BACKGROUND
As noted in the BC&A traffic study, a number of comprehensive studies and work was completed
on the High School relocation/renovation project dating back to 1997. This included l.) a
preliminary impact assessment where the traffic impacts on Osgood Street were reviewed; 2.) a
feasibility access study which reviewed alternate access schemes to/from the site and 3.) a traffic
signal feasibility study which analyzed the feasibility on installing a new traffic signal on State
Route 125 (Chickering Road) and interconnecting with two adjacent State-owned traffic signals.
All these studies were footnoted in the recent traffic study.
• 2000 Existing Conditions
The study area was selected based on the previous studies. The greatest impacts of the school-
related traffic are at the intersections closest to the site, not intersections that are one-half a mile
away. While it is recognized that other intersections to the south will be affected, the Town's
consultant is upgrading Osgood Street from Chickering Road to Main Street and improving area
intersections to a 20-year horizon period. Therefore, additional traffic from the school should be
Traffic Impact Study-Proposed North Andover High School;Bruce Campbell&Associates,Inc.(BC&A);February 2001
Bruce Campbell&Associates, Inc.
Ref: 977memo06.dp.wpd MEMORANDUM
Page 2
easily accommodated at the locations noted by the Town's consultant.
• Seasonal Adjustments
Review of the previous BC&A studies show that traffic counts were conducted in September and
May when school was in session. The July data was only collected at the assisted living facility on
the west side of Route 125 when an alternate access to the school site was being considered.
Pedestrian data was also collected on the Rock Overpass during the off-school periods for
comparison purposes.
• Trip Generation/Distribution
Both Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and actual or empirical data was presented in all
BC&A studies. Actual data is higher than ITE data. For the site trip distribution, a combination of
School Geographic data and traffic patterns were used in the study. The earlier BC&A studies
presented a detailed analysis of these patterns.
• 2005 No Build Conditions
Discussions were held with the Town of North Andover Planning Department to verify background
developments in the area. No major projects are proposed in the area that would contribute traffic
to immediate area intersections.
As noted in previous BC&A studies,Massachusetts Highway Department permanent count station
9502 in North Andover was reviewed and data actually shows no growth in a four-year period.
Therefore, a 1% annual growth rate is appropriate.
• Conclusions/Recommendations
At a future date,when the school is built-out,a signal warrant analysis can be provided with actual
site-related traffic data rather than projected school traffic data. In many school-related situations,
police officer control is often provided for school peak hours only. These measures can be revisited
when the school is built-out and traffic monitored at the site drive.
• General Comments on the Traffic Impact and Access Study
The site drive on Osgood Street is an existing condition and there is only a single driveway serving
the site. After reviewing the Town consultant's plans to upgrade Osgood Street,it appears that the
site distance will be improved.
As noted in earlier BC&A studies for the project, extensive analysis and review was conducted of
Bruce Campbell&Associates, Inc.
Ref: 977memo06.dp.wpd MEMORANDUM
Page 3
pedestrian and bicycle traffic when demolition of the Rock Overpass was being considered along
with considering direct access to Route 125 (Chickening Road).
Traffic impact studies are not typically stamped by registered professional engineers as they are
planning documents. Traffic impact studies submitted to MassHighway are not required to be
stamped nor does the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs or Executive Office of
Transportation&Construction -the reviewing agencies of Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) submissions. Town by-laws also do not require such an action.
Bruce Campbell&Associates, Inc.
04/09/2001 13:49 FAX 01003/006
04/05/01 09:48 M BC&A Q002
C Bruce Campbell Associatest Inc. Principals
Brute Campbell,P.E.
GearSY SezkorovainY, P.E.
A Transportation Engineers and Planners Michael Greenbaum,P.E.
Gultekin Suttan,P.E.
Associates
vedgt Alsan,RE
Ronald D_Desrosiers,P.E.
Bonnie S_ Polin
April 5, 2001 Douglas C. Prentiss, P.C.
Mr_Steve O'Donnell
District Highway Director
Massllighway District 4
519 Appleton Street
Arlington, Massachusetts 02474
Attention: Ken ravioli, Pernlits Engineer
Dear Mr_O'Donnel I:
SUBJECT: INDEZECT highway Access Permit-Supplemental Submittal
North Andover High School-EOEA 4 12350
Osgood Street
Ne th Andover, Massachusetts
As we discussed last week,attached is supplemental drainage information you requested.
Specifically we have enclosed-
9 Attachment 2 -Storrnwater Management Development and Stormwater Run-off
Calculations; Scofield Brothers; October 5,2000;
• Two copies of the Stormwater Drainage Plans,sheet 1.37,dated January 31,2001
developed by Scofield Brothers-
We are subrnittiug this supplemental material on behalf of the North Andover School
Department and the Town towards obtaining an INDIRECT Highway Access Permit for the
renovated and expanded High School,located east and abutting Route 125 (Chickering Road)in
North Andover, Massachusetts_
Please notes the existing gated access drive(south of the William F.Rock Overpass)is to be
closed permanently.New granite curbing is proposed at this location so that:continuous curbing
will be provided on the east side Route 125 at this location- The existing pavement at this gated
drive within the State ITighway Layout(SHLO)will be removed and disposed of ofd site. New
grading within the SHLO will occur as shown on the attached plans_
3S Chauncy St. - Boston, MA 02111 Phone:(617) 542-1199 - Fax_(617) 451.9904 - e-mail:Info®BCA-engineers.wm
04/09/2001 13:49 FAX U004/006
04/05/01 09:49 FAX BMA X1003
i Page 2
Should you have any questions on the submittal,please contact us_
Very truly yours,
t
llousl C. Prentiss,
Senior Transportation Engineer
97?HAYItrO2.dp
C4;7 R.Rice biNi3rO P9.11231 rprtneeahSp
J.Chmw DiNisco Dciip Partnership
04/05/2001 14:51 FAX Z 002
o •
•a r c h i t",e c t s a n d 'p t a n 11 'e r••s'
Memorandum
Date: 05 April 2001
To: . Tim Mclntash Vanasse Hangen,Brustlin.(VHB)
Heidi Griffin North Andover Planning Department
Pat Saitta Municipal Building Consultants
Kenneth"F. DiNisco
Richard Rice
From: .lon Oxman o °
Project North Andover High School
Project No: 99430:0
Subject: Response to VHB Review Memo of the Site Plan t Special Permit for
North Andover.High School
1. RESPONSE TO VHB MEMO
1-1. This memo responds to the VHB.memo'to the Planning Board dated 22 March
2001 and covers those issues'not addressed in separate memos from RW .
Sullivan, Bruce Campbell &Associates and Schofield Brothers of New England. .
The responses follow the organization of the VHB memo.
2. OFF STREET PARKING
2.i. Accessible Parking- Plans will be.revised to includel2 accessible spaces,"2 of
which will be van accessible (One each in the north and south parking areas).
2.2. layout and Materials Plans stamped by registered civil engineer—Plans-are
stamped"and signed by registered Landscape Architect.This fully complies with
all.state and local laws and requirements.
3. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW
3.1. See memo from•Bruce Campbell&Associates, dated 03 April 2001-forwarded to
VHB separately.-
Kenneth UiNisco Richard N.Rice Gory E.Ainslie Christopher Huston
87 Summer •Street B0StOn M•A 02110 617 . 426 . 2858 lax 426 . 1 957
w w w d i n i s c 0 c o m
04/05/2001 14:51 FAX 10 003
MEMORANDUM Response to VHB Review Memo Page 2
4. DRAINAGE REVIEW
4.1. See memo from Schofield Brothers,dated 05 April 2001 forwarded to VHB
separately.
5. STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
5.1. Wheelchair Ramps
5.1.1. Plans will be checked and revised as necessary to include wheel chair
ramps at all roadway-crossing areas.
5.1.2. The contours will be checked and if necessary revised at the two noted
locations:
® North parking lot at crosswalks
® South parking lot at handicap spaces
5.2. Vehicle Turning Movements
52.1. Bus and Truck Routing will be identified on plans.
5.2.2. Bus and large truck movements in parking lots will be checked for
difficulty in maneuvering.Adjustments will be made if necessary.
5.3. Pavement Markings, Warning And Regulation Signage
5.3.1. Will be included on site plans.
5.3.2. Direction of traffic flow is shown in the original submission. See
attachment 6.
04!05/2001 14:51 FAX 0 004
MEMORANDUM Response to VHB Review Memo Page 3
5.4. Guardrail and Retaining Wall. (Note that the road height above the adjacent
grade ranges from 0"—0"to 2'—(Y)-
5.4.1- Retaining wall will be designed for vehicle surcharge.
5.4.2. Retaining wall/guardrail connection will be designed to address vehicle
impact
5.4.3. Post spacing will be confirmed that it is adequate.
5.4.4. The guardrail will not extend beyond limits of the retaining wall.
5.4.5. Fencing is not necessary.The pedestrian walkway is on the opposite
side of the road.
5.5. Water Service Shutoff
5.5.1. See RW Sullivan Memo dated 03 April 2001 forwarded to VHB
separately.
99430.0 CorPlanDevt 18-MORm
04/06/2001.15:44 FAX 005
4--OS-2001 3: 13PM MOM SCNOPIELD BPOS OF NE 1 508 879 1797 P, 2
F3ESCHORELD BROTHERS
ZNGYN££RiN
G - SURVEYING • )PLANNING
sohotietd Brothers of Now England,Inc.
1071 womWar Road
Framingham,MA 01701-5296
506-87911030
1-800-686.2W4
April 5,2001 PAX 508-979A797
20217
Kenneth DiNisco
DiNisco'Design Partnership
97 Summer Street
Boston,NIA 02110
RE: North Andover Iligh School Project
Dear Ken:
We have reviewed the comments relative tb the Stormwater Management System design
plans and calculations contained in the review report prepared by Vanasse, Haiigen,
13rustlin, Inc. (VBB) for the North Andover Planning Board dated 3122/01. The following
is our response to those items:
ITEM 4) a) — The proposed drainage system indicates that stormwater will discharge to
Cochichewick Brook through existing pipes along the battik, The Applicant should verify
that the proposed flow will not adversely impact the capacity of the existing pipes. The
discharge vetociry at the existing pipe outlet should also be checked to ensure that erosion
does not occur.
Response: This was also ari important issue reviewed by the North Andover Conservation
Commission and their consultant, John Chessia of Coley & Colantonio, Inc. and was
closely reviewed. To address their concems during their review, we included the pipe
outlets in the hydrologic model to show how these pipes work during the storm events.
The flows through the existing 24 inch outfall and the 15 inch outfall are modcled as the
outfall from"Pond 7", and the existing 30 inch outfall is shown as the outlet of"Pond 30"
in the model_ The outfalls from all these pipes are submerged at Cochichewick Brook
under normal conditions which restricts the capacity and the velocity of discharge_ As an
example, the outflow for the 10 year storm from the l5 inch pipe is 3.14 CPS. This results
in an outflow velocity of 2.6 FPS. The 10 year sto);Tn outflow for the 24 inch pipe outfall is
_ computed to be 16.21 CIS which iesults in a velocity of 5-1 MS. These velocities are not
excessive and were considered acceptable particularly since the velocity reduces
immediately upon leaving the pipe and entering the ponded water at the brook_ The flows
to the 30 inch pipe are significantly reduced from existing conditions and there is
essentially no change at the existing arch pipe culvert, so there is no impact at these two
locations.
04/06%2001 15,:43 FAX 0002
4-06-2001 S=14PM FROM SCHOFIELD BRAS OF NF 1 608 879 1797 P. 3
ENGINEERING• $tlSYING •PLANNIN(•
DiNisoo resign P artnershlp 20217
April 5,2001.
Page 2
TEEMS 4) b)—A large diameter drain manhole should-be considered for,DMH#36. Iris
manhole has more that four drain pipes entering/exiting and therefore, the integrity of the
manhole wall is in question.
Response® We concur with 'VHB that a larger diameter manhole than the standard 4 foot
diameter will be required for this structure. A. 5 foot inside diameter minimum will be
required in this case_ This is covered on the standard drain umhole detail on Sheet 1.3.11
that requires "Use 5 ft. diameter when total depth exceeds 10 f et or where ip�e
arrangemene will daaaa a the inte 't of thc_MqMhole sections". If deemcd necessary, we
can modify the detail on the next plan revision set to call to call out the specific manhole
structures where this is required,
ITEM 4)c)— VHB recommends that a detail of the Swale located at north side of the soccer
field be added to the stormwater drainage details plan.
Response: The "swat&" at the north end of the soccer fields is not at Swale, in the classic
sense of having an actual channel with a slope, etc_ In this case, it is a "stone
interceptor/sub-drain" where the base of the northerly slope and the grade of the soccer
field meet. The= is no real depression but this arrangement allows water shedding off the
soccer field and slope'to enter the drain system along the entire length of the low point.
The grade at the top of the stone interceptor is elevation 104.0. The deemI of the interceptor
/sub-drain is contained on the detail sheet and refers to the plan for the grading,pipe sizes,
etc. We can add more information to the detail on the next plan revision if additional
clarification is necessary.
.ITEM 4)d)—1't is not clear where the reinforced concrete,flared end sections are proposed
on the site. The Applicant should identify the locarions of proposed flared end sections on
the stor nwarer drainage plans.
Response; The detail sheet contains a generic plan for pipe ends that also shows the rip-
rap apron and includes other types of pipe ends such as HDPE and PVC pipe. The only
location where this applies is for the outlet of the 6 inch subdrain located easterly of the
lower parldng lot and main driveway. We noted that the labeling for this pipe end was cut
off in the sheet layout so that wall be corrected and we can modify the detail to make it
clear where it applies,
ITEM 4) e) — There appears to he some discrepancies between the pipe capacity
calculations and the stormwater drainage pkms regarding the pipe slope-v- VHB
recommends that the pipe slopes be reviewed wid revised. (certain pipe sections are then
listed).
04/06/2001 15:44 FAX 0 004
d--08-2001 2:14PM FROM SCHOPIELD BROs OF NE 1 608 879 1797 P. 4
eBSCMHELD BROTHE
AIMM94kipir, TVEVEYING.PLANNING
Dilr I=Dcaign Parmership 24217
April 5.2001
Pa—3
There are some minor discrepancies between the Stormwater Report calculations and the
January 31, 2001 plans. The report was based on the January 8, 2401 plant that underwent
some modifications to shift the driveway at the wetland crossing to comply with a request
by the Conservation Commission and some cot'rections to the pipe layout. This resulted in
some minor shifts in the location of a few of the drain pipes. The Commission detennined
that these were insignificant and did not require the presentation of modified drain
calculations, but we will provide updated capacity calculations for those pipe runs for
review. These are relatively simple calculations and we will prepam these Within the next
few days.
ITEM 4)e)--The invert in from CR#40 for DMH#36 al pears to be missing from the Drain
Manhole Rini and Inverts schedule,
Response: We concur and that invert will be added to the next plan revision_
If there are any questions regarding the above,please do not hesitate to cult.
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New 1Eng1aid,Inc.
Fredric W.King,
Senior Engineer
04/09/2001 16:54 FAX 0]002
° -a•,r. c h. i •t e :c i s a d p 1 a 'n ,e Y' S
Lin d ,
2.
Memorandum
Date:, : .09 April 2001 :
Yo: Planning Board'Members
Heidi Griffin No6'Andover Pia6ning Oepilrtti°ient'
Tim McIntosh Vanasse.Hangen Bru'stlin`(VH(3),.
From: Jon Oxmari AIA DiNisco'Design,Partnership (DDP)
Project North Andover High School
Project No. 99430.0
Subject:,,,- Response-to Review Memos.and Planning;Board Hearing
1: • RESPONSE TO,SITE PLAN°SPECIAL-PERMIT REVIEW;
1.1.-••This-Memorandum responds comprehensively to the-outstanding issues in the
following three-'reviews of the Site Plan Special Permit_ ;
Vanasse Hangeri Brustlin (VHS) Review Memo dated'22'March 2001
®. Town'Planrier Review Memo dated 27 March 2601.:'
® Planning Board Hearing on 03 ApriG2001 :
2. VHB MEMO
'':2.1. Attached to this Memorandum are the,following-responses from.project consultants
which are referenced below:
® _ Bruce Campbell'&Associates•Memorandum (BC&A) dated 03.April 2001
Schofield Brothers of New-England(SBNE) Memor2aridurn`dated 05 AO l 2001
RW Sullivan (RWS) Memorandum dated 03 April 2001 "
22 Ken DiNisco;Rick Rice and Jon Oxman of DDP, Doug Prentiss of BG&A, and"Fred
King-of'SBNE met•;with Tirn'Mclntosh arid,Robert Nagi of VHS on 06 April.2001 at '
DDP's office to discuss•VHB's.feview memorandum.Conclusions reached during that
meeting are'incorporated in'the discussion,below.
Kenneth biNisco Richard N:Rice Gtanj E.Ainslie Christopher Huston
..8 7 .S si m m e r S k i e 'e t B o s t o �t M A. 0 2 1 1'0 b 1 7•. 4 2 6 2 6 5 6 • f a.x ''4 2'0 . 1 4 5 7
W w rd. . d,i n i s c o : c.-.o m,
04/09/2001 16:55 FAX 16003
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School, 09 April 2001 Page 2
2.3. Off Street Parking
2.3.1. Accessible Parking e Plans will be revised to include 12 accessible spaces,2 of
which will be van accessible (One each in the north and south parking areas).
2.32. Layout and Materials Plans stamped by registered civil engineer® Plans are
stamped and signed by registered Landscape Architect.This fully complies with
all state and local laws and requirements.
2.4. Traffic Impact Study Review
2.4.1. The above referenced SC&A memorandum from the traffic consultant was
reviewed at the meeting with VHB, and no exceptions were taken to the BC&A
memo.
2.4.2. In addition to the BC&A memorandum which references the analysis and review
of pedestrian and bicycle traffic,the proposed site plan's pedestrian and bicycle
access to the site was reviewed at the meeting with VHB.As noted in the
original submission, the site plan is consistent with the North Andover Bicycle
Advocacy committee's plans for the development of a Rail Trail along the route
of the former Essex Railroad. See attachment 26 of the original submission. In
addition pedestrian access is also provided from Prescott Street to the north all
the way through the site to the pedestrian bridge and along the entry drive to
Osgood Street.
2.5. Drainage Review
2.5.1. The above referenced SBNE memorandum from the civil engineer was reviewed
at the meeting with VHS. SBNE will recalculate the pipes in question and tax the
results directly to VHB by Tuesday, 10 April 2001.
2.6. Standard Engineering Practice
2.6.1. Wheelchair Ramps
2.6.1.1. Plans will be checked and revised as necessary to include wheel chair
ramps at all roadway-crossing areas. It was decided at the meeting with
VHB that the architect would include in the construction documents
provision of a wheel chair accessible crossing at the Osgood Street
entry.The current Osgood Street Improvement Project does not take into
account the relocation of the entry drive sidewalk to the south side of the
entry drive, or the widening of the drive at the Osgood Street curb cut.
04/09/2001 16:55 FAX 1A 004
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School,09 April 2001 Page 3
2.6.1.2. The contours will be checked and if necessary revised at the two noted
locations:
® North parking lot at crosswalks
i South parking lot at handicap spaces
It was decided at the meeting with VHB that there would be no
speedtables at roadway crossings and that wheel chair crossings would
incorporate curb cuts.
2.6.2. Vehicle Turning Movements
2.6.2.1. Bus and Truck Routing will be identified on plans.
2.6.2.2. Bus and large truck movements on site drives were reviewed at the
meeting with VHB.The road configuration at the curve around the tennis
courts is based on a drawing from the traffic consultant, BC&A, a copy of
which is attached to this meeting report(Revised Wetlands Crossing).
BC&A designed the road at this location to accommodate both the
wetlands site constraint and safe use by bus and truck traffic. At the
meeting Doug Prentiss reviewed the site plan and identified three
locations to confirm minimum radii of comers.See Partial Site Plan-Large
Vehicle Movement attached to this memorandum.The noted revisions will
be made to the plans. Revisions to the east service entry and east
courtyard shown at the 03 April 2001 Planning Board Hearing are
documented on the Partial Site Plan—East Gourtyard and Service Entry
attached to this memorandum_This plan also shows the addition of a
paved 12 foot wide fire access lane requested by the fire department at
the east courtyard.
2.6.3. Pavement Markings, Warning And Regulation Signage
2.6.3.1. Pavement Markings,Warning and Regulation Signage will be included on
site plans.
2.6.3.2. Traffic flow as documented in the original submission was reviewed at
the VHB meeting. See attachment 6 of the original submission. Red
arrows indicate car traffic;yellow arrows indicate the bus route and blue
arrows show the 2 service entries for truck deliveries.
2.6.4. Guardrail and Retaining Wall Issues:
2.6.4.1. Retaining wall will be designed for vehicle surcharge.
2.6.4.2. Retaining wall J guardrail connection will be designed to address vehicle
impact.
04/09/2001 16:56 FAX 0 005
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School, 09 April 2001 Page 4
2.6.4.3. Post spacing will be confirmed that it is adequate.
2.6.4.4. The guardrail will not extend beyond limits of the retaining wall.
2.6.4.5- Fencing is not necessary_ The pedestrian walkway is on the opposite
side of the road (Note that the road height above the adjacent grade
ranges from 0"—V to 2'—01.
2.6.5_ The Water Service Shutoff issue and RW Sullivan's memo dated 03 April 2001
were discussed at the VHB meeting.VHB noted that their comment was made
as a recommendation to forestall Inadvertent shut off of the sprinkler service.
3. TOWN PLANNEB MEMO
3.1. Sidewalk Extension Along Prescott Street (x. Location Of Parking l Walkways)
3.1.1. State funding for the high school does not reimburse for off-site improvements.
This improvement would be more appropriate for the Town rather than the
School Department to address. In addition,the northern end of the site
(approximately 1 acre) has been reserved for future use by the town for a
Public Safety Complex, which could impact sidewalks in this location.
3.2. Retaining Walls (xii. Location Of WallslSigns)
3.2.1. The structural engineer will certify that the walls have been installed per contract
documents as part of the`controlled construction' provisions of the
Massachusetts Building Code.
3-3- Large Vehicle Movement(xii. Location Of Roadways/Drives)
3.3.1. Large Vehicle Movement was reviewed at the VHB meeting. See item 2.6.2.
above.
3.4. Additional Planting Buffer At Rear Lot Line (xv. Landscaping Plan)
3.4.1. Additional planting cannot be added to that part of the rear lot line area that is in
the wetland. However,the architect has met with the neighbors that would
directly be affected by additional planting at the rear lot line and there will be
additional planting outside the wetland as agreed to by those neighbors at the
neighbors meeting on 22 February 2001.
3.5. Refuse Area Dumpster Truck Access (xvi. Refuse Areas)
15.1. The issue of truck maneuvering at the dumpster area is addressed above in
items 2.6.2. and 2.6.3.
04/09/2001 16:56 FAX (A 006
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School,09 April 2001 Page 5
3.6. Commonwealth Review (xx. Commonwealth Pevrew)
3.6.1. MEPA regulations have been satisfied with the Certificate on the Environmental
Notification Form, attachment 20 of the original submission.
3.6.2. A 401 Water Quality Certification is not required as noted in the letter from Fred
King, attachment 22 of the original submission_ See also page 2 of the attached
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection correspondence that
further documents this.
4. PLANNING BOARD NEARING
4.1. Secondary Emergency Site Access
4.1.1. There are two options for a secondary emergency access:the Prescott Street
access shown on the original submission and access off Chickering Road
opposite the senior housing entry drive. The access off Chickering Road,which
is a state highway,would require a MassHighway Access Permit.The traffic
consultant met with MassHighway on 05 April 2001 to discuss the requirements
for an emergency access only off Chickering Road. MassHighway requires the
same standards for a curb opening regardless of its use. See the attached letter
dated 05 April 2001 from Bruce Campbell&Associates. Because of these
requirements the emergency access off Prescott Street is the preferred option.
The 8 foot wide bituminous concrete path shown connecting the site drive to the
Prescott emergency access will be increased to 12 feet. Note that this site drive
can be coordinated with the parking and roadway system of the future Public
Safety Complex.
4.2. Snow Removal
4.2.1. The North Andover Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions includes
the requirement of submitting a"Snow Stockpiling Plan"depicting designated
areas with adequate storage and a written agreement from the DPW stating they
concur with the designated areas.
4.3. Sidewalk Width
4.3.1. The minimum sidewalk width is 5 feet.
4.4. Building Setback from Front Lot Line
4.4.1. As noted in the original submission and the attached partial site plan,the Front
Setback is 32 feet.The Zoning Bylaw specifies a minimum Front Setback of 30
feet.
04/09!2001 16:56 FAX 007
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School, 09 April 2001 Page 6
5. REVISED PLAN SUBMISSION
5.1. Construction Documents will be revised as documented in this memorandum and
attachments.The architect requests that the Planning Board approves the project
based on this response, making the revisions contained herein part of the order of
conditions as the Planning Board sees appropriate. This will facilitate obtaining other
required sign-offs from town agencies in a timely fashion to make a submission
deadline of 01 June 2001 for state funding of the high school project.The architect will
submit final construction documents to the Planning Board prior to construction.
Jon xman AIA
DiNISCO DESIGN
W. Louis Minicucci
Paul Szymanski
Nancy Kurtz
Patrick Saitta
Kenneth DiNisco
Richard Rice
Enclosures: Bruce Campbell &Associates Memorandum (03 April 2001)
Schofield Brothers of New England Memorandum (05 April 2001)
RW Sullivan Memorandum (03 April 2001)
Revised Wetlands Crossing (19 January 2001)
Partial Site Plan—Large Vehicle Movement(09 April 2001)
Partial Site Plan— East Courtyard and Service Entry(09 April 2001)
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Correspondence(06
November 2000)
Letter from Doug Prentiss Regarding Emergency Access(05 April 2001)
Partial Site Plan—Front Set Back(09 April 2001)
99430.0 CorP1anDept 24-Ptn®rd
04/09/2001 16:57 FAX 008
Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.
38 Chauney Street,Suite 701
Boston,Massachusetts 02111
tel:(617) 542-1199 - fax: (617)451-9904
• e-mail= info @bca-engineers.com
TO: rick Rice/Jon Oxman JOBIFI LE NO: 977inemo06.dp.wpd
FROM: D. Prentiss, P.E./A. Cloutier
DATE: April 3,2001
SUBJECT: North Andover High School-- Response to Town Consultant's Continents
INTRODUCTION
This memo is intended to respolad to the VaDasse Hangen Brustlin (VI48) memo dated 3/22/01,
which is a summary of comments on the BC&A traffic study completed forthe North Andover High
School relocation/expansion project'. This memo will respond to the issues raised by VHB in a
point-by-point fashion and provide supplemental information where necessary.
In addition,a traffic study for a school project is not typical when compared to the standard traffic
study. Typically commuter peak hours are analyzed,but for any school project the commuter PM
peak hour is not an issue since school is riot in session during this period. The AM hour peak covers
both the school peak and the commuter peak period.
BACKGROUND
As noted in the BC&A traffic study,a number of comprehensive studies and work was completed
on the High School relocation/renovation project dating back to 1997. This included, 1.) a
preliminary impact assessment where the traffic impacts on Osgood Street were reviewed; 2_) a
feasibility access study which reviewed alternate access schemes to/from the site and 3_)a traffic
signal feasibility study which analyzed the feasibility on installing a new traffic signal on State
Route 125 (Chiekering Road)and interconnecting with two adjacent State-owned traffic signals.
All these studies were footnoted in the recent traffic study.
® 2000 Existing Conditions _
The study area was selected based on the previous studies. The greatest impacts of the school-
related traffic are at the intersections closest to the site, not intersections that are one-half a mile
away. While it is recognized that other intersections to the south will*be affected, the Town's
consultant is upgrading Osgood Street from Chickering Road to Main Street and improving area_
intersections to a 20-year horizon.period_ Therefore,additional traffic from the school should be
Traffic bapoct Study-Proposed North Andover Nigh School.Bruce Campbell&Associates,Inc_(BC&A):Fetmtary 200I
Bruce Campbell&Associates,Inc.
041/09/2001 16.57 FAX _ U009
Itef. 977memo06,dp.wpd MEMORANDUM
Page 2
easily acconu nodated at the locations noted by the Town's consultant_
Seasonal Adjustments
Review of the previous BC&A studies show that traffic counts were conducted in September and
May when school was in session. The July data was only collected at the assisted living facility on
the west side of Route 125 when an alternate access to the school site was being considered.
Pedestrian data was also collected on the Rock Overpass during the off school periods for
comparison purposes.
• Trip Generation/Distribution
Both Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and actual or empirical data was presented in all
BC&A studies. Actual data is higher than ITE data. For the site trip distribution,a combination of
School Geographic data and traffic patterns were used in the study. The earlier'BC&A studies
presented a detailed analysis of these patterns.
• 2005 No Build Conditions
Discussions were held with the Town of North Andover Planning Department to verify background
developments in the area_ 'No major projects are proposed in the area that would contribute traffic
to immediate area intersections.
As noted in previous BC&A studies,Massachusetts Highway Department permanent count station
#502 in North Andover was reviewed and data actually shows no growth in a four-year period.
Therefore,a I%annual growth rate is appropriate.
Con clusions/Rccommendations
At a future date,when the school is built-out,a signal warrant analysis can be provided with actual
site-related traffic data rather than projected school traffic data. In many school-related situations,
police officer control is often provided for school peak hours only. These measures can be revisited
when the school is built-out and traffic monitored at the site drive.
• General Comments on the Traffic Impact and Access Study
The site drive on Osgood Street is an existing condition and there is only a single driveway serving
the site. After reviewing the Town_consultant's plans to upgrade Osgood Street,it appears that the
site distance will be improved_
As noted in earlier BC&A studies for the project,extensive analysis and review was conducted of
13ruce Campbell&Associates,Inc.
04/09/2001 16:58 FAX [a 010
MFMORANDUM
Ref_ 977memo06.dp.wpd
Page 3
pedestrian and bicycle traffic when demolition of the Rock Overpass was being considered along
with considering direct access to Route 125 (Chiekering Road).
Traffic impact studies are not typically stamped by registered professional engineers as they are
planning documents. Traffic impact studies submitted to MassHighway are not required to be
stamped nor does the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs or Executive Office of
Transportation&Construction -the reviewing agencies of Massachusens Environmental Policy Act
(ML-PA.) submissions. Town by-laws also do not require such an action.
Bruce Campbell&Associates,Inc.
04/09/2001 16:58 FAX 00 P 2
-4-OS-2081 3:13PM FROM SCHOFT6LD BROS ®F NE 1 508 879 1797
$NGIyIBEItING SU V�Y[2dG • PLANkdKidG
Sd+ofiaW arothars at New England,Inc.
1071 Woreesier Road
Framingham,MA 01701-5298
508-879-0030
1-800496-2874
April 5,2001 FAX 60.879-1787
24217
Konnoth DiNisco
DiNisco T)esign Partnership
87 Summer Street
Boston,MA 02110
1E: ]North Andover Iligh School Pzaject
Dear Ken.
We have reviewed the comments relative to the Stormwater lvian4,pment System design
plans and calculations contained in the review report prepared by Vanasse, Hangen,
Brustlin, Inc. (VUB) for the North Andover]Planning Hoard dated 3122101. The following
is our response to those items:
ITEM 4) a) -- The proposed drainage system indicates that stormwater will discharge to
Cochichewick Brook through existing pipes along the bank. The Applicant should verify
that the proposed flow will not adversely impact the capacity of the existing pipes. The
discharge velocity at the existing pipe outlet should also he checked to ensure that erosion
does not occur.
RMonse: This was also ad important issue reviewed by the North Andover Conservation
Commission and their consultant, John Chessia of Coles & Colantonio, Inc_ and was
closely reviewed: To address their concerns luting their review, we included the pipe
outlets in the hydrologic model to show how these pipes work during the storm events.
The flows through the existing 24 inch outfall and the 15 inch outfall are modeled as the
outfall from "Pond 7', and the existing 30 inch outfall is shown as the outlet of"Pond 3V'
in the model. The outfalls from all these pipes are submerged at Cochichewick Brook
under normal conditions which restricts the capacity and the velocity of discharge. As an
example,the outflow for the 10 year storm from the 15 inch pipe is 3.14 CFS. This results
in ar►outflow velocity of 2.6 FPS. The 10 year storm outflow for the 24 inch pipe outfall is
_ computed to be 16.21 CFS which results in a velocity of 5.2 FPS. These velocities are not
excessive and were considered acceptable particularly since the velocity reduces
immediately upon leaving the pipe and entering the ponded water at the brook- The flows
to the 30 inch pipe are significantly reduced from existing conditions and there is
essentially no change at the existing arch pipe culvert, so there is no impact at these two
locations.
_ 04/09/2001 16:58 FAX (a 012
d—OF,-2001 3: 14PM FROM SCHOF I ELD EROS OF NE 1 508 879 1797
E' s
QBSCHOHUD BRUMERS
ENGINE RING•SURVEY NG•PLANNING
AiNisco bcsign Partnersbip 20217
April 5,2001
Page 2
ITEMS 4) b)-A large diameter drain manhole should-be considered f or DMH#36. This
rnanhale has more that four drain pipes enteran,/exiting and therefore, the integrity of the
manhole wall is in question.
Response: We concur with VBB that a larger diameter manhole than the standard 4 foot
diameter will be requixed for this structurc. A 5 foot inside diameter minimum will be
required in this case_ This is covered on the standard drains manhole detail on Sheet 1.3.11
that requires "Use 5 ft. di ter when total depth ex2eeds 10 feet or where pipe
arrangement will damage Ihe integdty of t
le Manhole s dons"_ if deemed necessary, we
can modify the detail on the next plan revision set to call to call out the specific manhole
structures where this is required.
ITEM 4)c)- VHB recommends that a detail of she ssvale located at north side of the soccer
field be added to the stormwater drainage details plan.
Response: The "swale" at the north end of the soccer fields is not a swale in the classic
sense of having an actual channel with a slope, etc. In this case, it is a "stone
interceptor/sub-drain" where the base of the northerly slope and the grade of the soccer
field meet. There is no real depression but this arrangement allows water shedding off the
soccer field and slope'to enter the drain system along the entire length of the low point.
The grade at the top of the stone interceptor is elevation 104.0. The detail of the interceptor
sub-drain is contained on the detail sheet and zefers to the plan for the grading,pipe sizes,
etc. We can add more information to the detail on the next plan revision if additional
clarification is necessary.
ITEM 4)d)-1"t!s not clear where the reinforced concrete flared end sections are proposed
on the site. The Applicant should identify the locations of proposed flared end sections on
the stormwater drainage plans.
Response: The detail sheet contains a generic plan for pipe ends that also shows the tip-
rap apron and includes other types of pipe ends such as HOPE and PVC pipe. The only
location where this applies is for the outlet of the 6 inch subdrain located easterly of the
lower parking lot and nn in driveway. We noted that the labeling for this pipet end was cut
off in the sheet layout so that will be corrected and we can modify the detail to make it
clear where it applies.
ITEM 4) e) - There appears to be some discrepancies between the pipe capacity
calculations and the' srormwater drainage plans regarding the pipe slopes. VUB
recommends that the pipe slopes be reviewed and revised: (certain pipe sections are then
listed).
04/09/2001 16:59 FAX 0 013
4-05-2001 3.14PM FROM SCHOFIELO BROS Or NE 1 508 879 1797 p- d
SBSW0HELQHWHEHS
ENGINEER!_ VEYi • LANNING
i
DiNisco Design lPuMerAip 20217
April 5.2001
Page,3
There are some minor discrepancies between the Stormwater Report calculations and the
January 31, 2001 plans. The report was based on the January 8,2001 plan that underwent
some modifications to shift the driveway at the wetland crossing to comply with a request
by the Conservation Commission and some corrections to the pipe layout, This resulted ill
some minor shifts in the location of a few of tbo drain pipes, The Commission determined
that these were insignificant and did not require the presentation of modified drain
calculations, but we will provide updated capacity calculations for those pipe runs for
review. These are relatively simple calculations and we will prepare these within the next
few days.
ITEM 4)e)—The invert in from.CB#40 for DMH#36 appears to be missing from the Drain
Manhole Rim and Inverts schedule.
Response: We concur and that invert will be added to the next plan revision_
If there are any questions regarding the above,please do not hesitate to calf,
Very truly yours.
Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
Fredric W. King,P,;(
Senior Engineer
--.04/09/200116: FAX 0 014
APR-03-2001�TUE} l�.19 (F��}61��2.3�016 P. 001
FAX S SSI SHEET
Robert W. Sullivan, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
30'Union VAiarf
Boston,MA 02109
(617) 523 ®8227 Fax(617) 523 ® 8016
Date: April 3, 2001
To: DDP
Attn: Ken DiNisco _
Fax: tor' ~+ 145 7
Subject: NAHS
Planning Board Plans Review (RWS#5592)
Sender: gene Kingman
CC.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES,PLEASE CALL(617) 523-8227.YOU
SHOULD RECEIVE ONE PAGE(S)INCLUDING THIS COVER SBEET.
Ken:
The comment from VHB about water service valves was that we should consider locating the fire
service shut•offbefom the"tee"to the domestic water service.
TIYis would mean that both the f1m and the domestic water services would be shut off from one
valve,and the fire service could not be shut off without shutting offthe domestic as well.We
would not normally recommend this.We would do as we have sbown-a separate valve for each..
If it is desired to shut off both services with one valve,we would add another valve on the
combined line,between the"tee-and the fire hydrant near the roadway.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL.
THANKS,
GENE KINGMAN
04/09/2001 16:59 FAX @►015
Co
co
to
SK
jo
.,�• ,�,.�` "`rr -te r" ® s
r fi����� T�„`, ��j• ice. •i •?�'1�' "� "�x
! it�
cn
co
to
'y�• `J' ' r�•` IPA -•r:`,�'-'-.• ;,..
.��• ,t ( 7 S I Lea
W 6 z
04/09/2001 17:00 FAX .. U016
KN
l J6
JI
I
RIM ;^
I
i
_ 0 20 40
.. ro
19Jonuary2001
® j� architects and planners
04/09/2001 17:01. FAX 16017
". LU i;ty .L �: n'Gam', S.>j ?•' :Z t%* ..t
�tz 'i::;�r%:'<i%.u•... .� '�' :�^Y;r`-_`.a;c'[.9�•.� � _ ..q;�- '= i%ri:,.;ri.•,�. f: - 'c,��{ �'�;^,�
cX{ I(N( 'hIS t URrS
�• i l�,, ?ally�'' '� \
• t
r
J
'
f
.a
CATCH'•LASIN B
IN aIjT)=is/tt/
aAS(t�
04i09i2001 17:02 FAX @]018
_ _ .ea+�':, :�� ',` '•'Si'�°Y%=;' .`�.�r,''J5 T_'":\':,~,, �Y,��' 'a�:..T.�.,':-�' ;-;<rwZ.:�;.f - 1.�.
y� °4 ,loll _ �i �' r �� P�• ti'U
••VN. SrT--�. �i�;�A- �.'C .__� .•:�,r?°i' x. Y�cY�' f4 - I�� 1'�
`% f',S° � � .: •S•> °.: .> .. .. ..'"� ,. ��•ti;5'?�1�»`/.ek '"a,.� :��� ..•r+ .'may•
r._ �'.".. sect P�`��. 'j:S .�• (((
1
-J-�`'` •. `� ' cars .'�`° �.�.,�: ��•
PAf�14fG \� � � �►
(BfT Carr C_ AVD 31-1 .;
Al't�As�
Rj ._ �
IN INj-94,t
OUT)— 4.0 °
4�1
I at
ti
..� l U �
rr.4
�:�`
04/09/2001 17:04 FAX 0 019
_ v�•�:•J�9?f,; ;C:i'� :.{: :'>':�i{L .��.: - _,+..:_:o�.,�`,`.'�� - �.::.�W. �'- ._�.� -ar. <�J n���; �:4:��b':
':�vv°.-.l�.0 :�7;�Sja.'.:R- -�` cse .L,K..'�• "a't'�1..•.t-'.✓5;� :•e•^„'ro R d .��'f �.” ��`.
A,'. yr,••ca r`;! ''.i�•.:; :;3%,a,;%s».'"z-L-��'�?S{4% .•atEr, •�ti`i;''� .�^-� y�1al, s.,, '-r_.. .. _. -
.a;'• '.•.':� �p...r.'?• :4:. ,_�i '4.• _J •yN� .. _ '• •, 'm.'e---d r ti0-:'. .. �•,
'-i
• � r t �' 4�dk"�dill j—`��_7 6 ~ -
� 1 y
f CA CH, 4A I"j / s
46 i
flyo! .fir •�
t' �I G ��4p � ^pti o.•
WOM GHIJ
t�3�4 �3g
i 389_545'1 V
t
;
LU
1�E L N G 2 . S TORY}, E3 R C K B ; �
`= 1N t nds Cro 1 `
O. HIGH SCH,: l
1 1 • it 1 r� l l
,
Rh
N
�(u,� ` sT
z. '� .t� ,• fir,
• r 'sLul
`,��'; • � � �emlc tliu�.. .._rr WK, -
�►,
`�{ -` j ate ,. y��,fiiNt�k� ,i �-'-3!1 ^
� �r Y -
� `�OF B ter . a1v�l�t'am iff 1 .�.
..._���+C7 ^,\ �' :,��'iy�'tii '.�% c`��� •Y'�-�"•���1�' 1 ir'��� I�U�=;'.��I�i�.1�i�ny�I�`,h�ii� �1 c..
�� ._+A�i/r 1 i. -".0 ''—� .��-��!_r.!^1ti•.__. �� .;�.i,�i21 ���Trw�w�i�t.
gm
Ulf- MIn
-O. 1u7
L�P�j ` _a •.:i„Ry+�''��'^1'\AFi�...�s�+w:-
r._.` r—�-�3T1�'�1 a s ��1�� _��rr- a a'' � •�w+`.�j•�/[-2TE.r_
�. F
04/09/2001 17:06 FAX @1021
14�11
/00- �-yr f•�1- �i i ..®
r I
d1 r ! 1
t f f f r_i A � /—`�'�`i1•'l` 3 r Qi � �_„2G�'� rJ/�.—.mss�-- '^��
LQGPQ
P
i -
Partial Site Plan ® 0 20 40
Large Vehicle Movement at
South Parking Lot Entry (1) N 09-April 2001
NORTH ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL
North Andover, MA Limited
architects 'and planners
04/09/2001 17:07 FAX Q022
J,
F
7
-fle r
?J
O�X
Partial Site Plan ® 0 20 40
Large Vehicle Movement at IF91 1F==1
East Service Entry (2) N 09-April 2001
NORTH ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL DVVV'fe4 Nt-� P"1%44 -
North Andover, MA Limited F -
architects and planners
04/09/2001 17:07 FAX 16023
V-F—. 12i�_Blb
J
F
4
'P
7Lp%V% k)
0*5
amm
ELEV, 4
A 1 4.06
now R M
xF='Mw wa—mm =No\— —iN
4"ft
Wzcv
�up
uf, if
Upt
Partial Site Plan ® 0 20 40
Large Vehicle Movement at R11 F==9
West Service Entry (3) N 09-April 2001
NORTH ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL M�4" P"&-C44 •
North Andover, MA Limited 6
architects and planners
✓,.�y - , -i r fra x '" + -t_
y� t.\�yY�;t ;r a7 ✓.1`„''ihy ,� ,,,}4k..�c rid f"iSS�ah il,a.t„�_} t-�u 4` �.Ji�;�KF i �. r1'aEl�a.,i �` 1.?'ruY ,,•'j -
���6
lT�`� °tS� t1 hie .� ���"' ��t .s N r i,7- �5; r�.IZ4��'•�.,�,.�v�-L�L }it�T{t.,.�.i .2r1�,a.'"'.'''.+'cJ�}$trS i°S t'u v f �`
z��> `s�t c; "'r' a :+r �� x� r �� <.7„��''1 1� � ,� •�q >r F � }r >. S" ° +*'�7„? +'� t �`� �! �.. �
�,4`r s }7 L 5t k.t �.. ,} 3.,sr.s � 1 .o-2 � , ,,� r�1. �e .���•Dyy"..#t -7 Y +�v. s
�'4"J�+�t�.a >F '�;�r r��.ti�� j '�sa'- �' t ?* �2�'x f 'i P� t 'Sixfs 1 It ��l i �i1 .+ire �r ��{ 'T} 1: ' •y
Tn�• � a��� �,t}.? i.y t+- rs�„� .,F as �r'�a L °'ssr .�'- v'tC 1 -K' �4ax: W:.'''�'r ks-'t� L � Y
j�'j=4z;' '" v�^'S : z 4r�s��'.,. ''`S'cse ,", }}r r� �>kr n�'°Gt t+. � A �.'y'k,'�,r� '4.�f�l# � r's�'kT �xr id"� .T i • ' �, ,'.
7.y.{�E� r�.,� t a 27?^ � -s'�45«.r -?.� zAS`°+, t C,i i h..1 rk`�' ;.� � tt J .,r+a? ,'y,t�«:'a3 r+v��y �<'f`t` �, 'Y� •
ay�t"4,dn��"'-`tits •,t`��j � �s�tc � rt Y Y t�L tx y+�yt ij ,.� r�. "Y'ri! M.z r,...�F N .1 2 rc' t+
xFykWG �,
1"
'��.r� 'S ry' 't.+�. 'fit'ix T s x.a't t vim''.• +ir' r Y. ?�� t1 a 3cs.�� -. t *.,4�h" r-,.t',�a✓�h' ' -?.�sz?,t'i} ,�u.M^��
s�i.�h.M �:�l.�kz'.,es� Srr�st ,4 ;�'�f3 ?+. � � :�+ �ri � «sr•z 3 5.1 i�! t a 1'^. j F f�:- +. k t� � �' '
J.v +. ct.. 'x''" {{ � '�},,� +• +� T <, �,'k a �, k3 a.2� ^4""� 7�-�, ,, �>=r - .x 1.> ?f s Z � ,`,i'.
L��it'< -c'"}{rX.ra;•�" k � c� c«.';ry*cft '�4'iS,..���t•'c�h s� i}��`! �: �,.,, :�`�s�, ..�'�x��I�..(k f{`i�h�y4;...;,`c yr�..a'i.�~`} s
}
; fff^r
; '''" •t'I N 1..t ' st'`.s' -�f*.z,5� ' ' ; '* re s}�sK- ' 6"'Si` ,�14'a'i^ U+,1„✓.+C"�.
gag
'AM
r. s in �� it+." ": ,� 'r' p i'�t ✓ �jF `fi++kfrr � ''�v
t ,
rs52�, �'15`
..:.' �''....' "�.:ir. .tk. � �
r,emmop"
s MIN
a.-4 Pri1S�.n..7>~4?e.4� facr_x�{ti;i �h'gr°4 r=�T�e' kc. +'r?' Y t ..vu..:.tu��➢it
r /
i
i
•
Ah�\ ,r-'Im
e rt 41, a
ism "SSrr
NZ, s
,tr �
:1
r
r , w
I
04/09/2001 17:12 FAX 0025
COMMONWEALTH OF N IASSACHUSETTS
ExEcunvE OF'F'ICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DF,PARTMBNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,____.—
` Metropolitan Boston®Northeast Regional Office
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI BOB DURAND
Govemor _ Secretary
JANE SWMr LAUREN USS
Lieutenant Governor Commissioncr
DEP File# 242-1045
RE:NOTIFICATION OF WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT FILE NUMBERN.ANDOVER.- _
DATE: 11/6/00 (city/town)
The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Notice of Intent filed in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 131, §40):
Applicant:N.ANDOVER.SCHOOL BT DG COMMITTEE Owner: .
Address: 675 CIiICKERINGr ROAD Address:
N.ANDOVER.MA 01845
Project Location: 675 CHICKERING ROAD
IF CHECKED,THE FOLLOWING ITEMS)APPLY TO THIS NOTICE OF INTENT:
A.jC_JThis project has been assigned the following file#
Although a file#is being issued,please note the following:
ISSUANCE OF A FILE NUMBER INDICATES ONLY COMPLETENESS OF
SUBIVIITTAL,NOT,APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
B,( )No file#will be assigned to this project until the following missing information is sent to
this office,to meet the minimum submittal requirements in accordance with the Wetlands
Protection Regulations at 310 CMR 10.00=
___copy(s)of a completed Notice of Intent(Form 3 or Form 4 of Sect. 10.99,
whichever is applicable) and a M of the Fee Transmittal Form,with a copy of the
check for the State's share of the Notice of Intent filin fee.
2. ( )_copy(s)of plans, calculations, and other documentation necessary to completely
describe the proposed work and mitigation measures to protect resource areas.
3.( )_.copy(s)of an 8.5"X 11"section of the USGS map of the area_
4- ( ) co (s)of plans showing compliance with Title 5 of the State Environmental
Code,310 CUR 15.00.
5. ( )Proof that a copy of your Notice of Intent has been mailed or hand delivered to the
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
COMMENTS:
(see page 2 for idditional information)
This information is avan3ble In alternate format by eaftg our ADA Coordinator at(6M 5746872
205a Lowell St Wilmington,MA 01887®Phone (978)661-7600 a Fax (978)661-7615®TDD#(978)6617679
Primed on Recytied Payer
04/09/2001 17:13 FAX [a 026
C.-cx-2 Other Regulatory Jurisdiction
1. ( )Application has been forwarded to Waterways Regulatory Program to determine
if a Chapter 91 License is required.
2.(X)Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Corps of
Engineers for review(call 1-800-362-4367 for information).
D. ( X 2 401 Water Quality Certification -
The project described in your Notice of Intent requires a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Department of Environmental Protection and may require
submittal of a 401 application form. See below for further details:
1.( X )Based upon the information submitted in and with your Notice of Intent a
separate 401 Water Quality Certification application form is not required. The
Department has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and finds that there is
reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted in a mmuer that will
not violate the Massschuset.*.s Surface Water-Quality Stgadards,:provided that:
a) the applicant receives and complies with a Final Order of Conditions from the local
conservation colznission or the Department;
b) The Order of Conditions does not cause the loss of more than 5,000sq.ft. of
bordering vegetated wetlands and land under water and/or the dredging of more than
100 cubic yards of land underwater;
c) 'any loss of vegetated wetlands has been mitigated with a miniznnni replication of 1:1;
and is not part of a subdivision;does not cause the loss of any Wetlands designated as
d) The project is not exempt froin the M.G.L_ c. 131;§40-the Wetlands Protection Act;
Outstanding Resource Waters; and does not cause the loss of any salt marsh.
Therefore,provided that the above conditions are satisfied,the Final Order of Conditions will
serve as the Water Quality Certification for this project. This does not relieve the applicant of
the duty to comply with any other statutes or regulations.
2. ( )Before the activity described in the Notice of Intent can commence,you must
obtain a Water Quality Certification form froin this Regional Office. Please complete
the enclosed 401 Water Quality Certification application form and file it with this
Regional Office for review.
3.( )Your project involves dredging of greater than 100 cubic yards of material or
requires a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for work in"waters of
the Commonwealth." Therefore,your proposed project is subject to 314 CMR 9.00 and
requires a Water Quality Certification. Please complete the enclosed 401 Water
Quality Certification application form and file it with the Department of
Environmental Protection,Waterways Program, and One Winter Street,Boston,
MA 02108. Contact the Division of Waterways program at 617-292-5655 if you bave
any questions.
For more information please contact:MR. STANDISH,at 978-661-7600.
Cc:Conservation Commission ( }U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
( )Coastal Zone Management
( )DEP-Water Pollution Control
( ) Reprrsentative:MR.RICE,DINISCO DESIGN PTNSHP., 87 SUNNIER ST.,
BOSTON,MA.02110
_ 04/09/2001. 17:13 FAX
ua/ua/ua ua;49 FAX 73MA� 0001
+& A Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc. Mimi IS
Bruce Campbell,PE.
Transportation Engineers and Planners George B Tuenmitry PE.
Michael Gruenbautrr,P.E.
Gultekin Sultan,P.E.
FPrOiNUMtbW Associates
—�—�-�� VedatA lsan, P,E.
��R d asin,ea Ronald D.Desrosiers, P E.
sFP
nsptumb Bonnie S-Folin
April S;2001 a ecc Douglas C. Prentiss, P_E.
o co rCOAS cta �^
' ®COtQwncr
O CorF&E
Mr.Ken D1Nisco
Presidelnt 001a out oaG
DiNisco Design Parinenbip, LTD
87 Summer Street
Boston,Massachusetts 02110 Via fax, 1-617-426-1457
Subject:North Andover High School-Emergency Access
Dear Ken:
This correspondence is intended to follow up the comments trade by the Plaw ing Board the
odd night(April 3,2001)regarding a secondary or gated access to the reloeated/renovated
North Andover High School from State.Route 125.
This morning I met with the Permits Engineer of Mawoghway at the MassHighway District 4
office in Arlington. I submitted the supplemental information on drainage(see attached letter)as
requested by MassHfghway and pursued the discussion on a secondary/emergency access onto
State Route 125. It was indicated to me that regardless of the type of use of the curb opening,
the intersection desigA would Owd to conform to Massfthway stimdards and at a minimum
would likely require 30-50 foot curb radii and be a minimum of 24 feet wide. Until further
details are available,traffic data,conceptual sketch,etc.,other departments(traffic,
environmental,utilities,etc.)would need to comment on the proposed use as to what additional
requirements would be necessary-sidewalks,lighting,turn labes on Route 125,etc.
If you have any questions on this meeting,please contact us.
y yo
Douglas C. Prentiss,p. .
Senior Transportation Engineer
9-nl"s_dp
38 Chauncy St. - Boston, MA 02111 Phone:(617)542-1199 Fax:(617)451-9904 - e-mail:infoOBCA-engineers.corn
04/09/2001 17:14 FAX 4-71 u 2 8
Z-
V-
Op
C\1
C\1
zzzz CL
LL
Clu
Li CIL
>
0,
N
lu
tc 10
C2�
IN C11 Ne�'
qs�
T
( it t .
Lj I
Aj N
t!F
rL
LK
4f!t
Im
Cl)
CO
LL
CC <
LLJ >
>
>
z 0
0 0
CL
04/10{2001 14:41 FAX 002
4-10-2001 11 :4.bAM FROM SCHOFIR D BROS OF NE 1 908 879 1797 P-2
ENGINEERING - SL�k'VFYINt; PLANNING
S00fi®Id Elrothere of New England,Inc_
1071 Wbrmatef hoed
Framingham.MA01701-5296
508-879-0030
1.800496.2074
April 10,2001 FAX 508-879-1797
20217
Vanasse Hanger Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street
Watertown,MA 02472
Attu Timothy R,MicIntosh,PE.
RE: North Andover High School Project—Stotmwater.
Dear Tim:
To follow up oil our discussions at our meeting with you on April 6, 2001, we reviewed the
plans and calculations for the proposed drain pipe sections pointed out in the VHB review
report (3/22/01) as having some discrepancies. The following are our findings and
corrections that are proposed to address these items;
CB#11 to D #12 a CB#18 to DMiH#16
In both of theses pipe runs, there is a draftinb error on the plan. The pipe slopes
indicated in,the drain calculations are correct and the slopes shown on the plan are will
be corrected in the next revision. The pipe slopes for these two'pipe runs should be
0.0131tJ#t, and 0.068 ft./ft.respectively.
• -3#36 to DMgi#32
In this case, the pipe slope shown on the plan as 0.050 ft./ft. is correct but the
calculations in the Storruwater Report shows the pipe slope as 0.01 from a previous
revision. Attached is the corrected calculation page A3-6 of the report.
DMH#36 to PS#3
In this case, the pipe slope shown on the plan as 0,010 ftJft. is correct but the
calculations in the Stormwater Report shows the pipe slope, as 0.017 from a previous
revision. Attached is the corrected calculation page A3-18 of the report.
CB#15 to DMH#4I
In this case, the pipe slope shown on the plant as 0,040 ft./ft. is correct but the
calculations in the Stortnwater Report shows the pipe slope as 0.011 from a previous
revision. Attached is the corrected calculation page A.3-22 of the report.
04/10/2001 14:41 FAX
4--°10-2001 11 .4.1AM FROM 5CHOFIELI) BROS OF NE 1 508 879 1797 P. 2
PX wrea�r �BMW�!H!F-
Vanasse Hangen Brustlln,Inc.
North Andover High School 20217
,
A�prii 10,20P1
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this information,please do not hesitate to call.
`"fiery truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New Eogjand,Ine.
Fredric W.Ping,P.E.
Senior E'ngine'er
Cc, DiNisco Design Partnership
Enclosures (3 pages).
04//10/2001 14:41 FAX 0 004
d-10-2001 11 :d1AM FROM SCHOI=IELD EROS OF NE 1 508 879 1797 P_A
!Pe FI®VV ® Propos6d Jab # 20217
CB 10 to DMH012 C13#11 to DMH#12
Size 10 in. Size 10 in_ o f
Slope 0.037 ftJft. Slope 0.05 `�
Manning's coef, n® 0.01 Manning's coef. n= 0.01 !�
Area 78.54 in-2 or 0.55 ft.2 Area 78.54 in? or 0.55 ft z
Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft. Perimter 31.42 in. 262 ft.
R=A/P 0.208 ft. R-A![9 0.208 ft.
V=1.49/n(RP(S)"2 10.67 V=1.49<n(R)2 (S)" 11.71
Q=VA,capacity 5.48 Q=VA 6.39
Q 25 yr. 1.1 Q 26 r_ 1.61
DMH#12 to DMH#13 CB#12 to DMH41S
Size 10 in. Size 10 in_
Slope . 0.052 ftJft. Slope 0.04 ft-
,-d-Manning's eoef. n= 0.01 Manning's coef, n= 0.01
Area 78.54 Ina or 0.55 ft? Abell 78.54 in? or 0.55 ft.2
Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft. Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft
R=A/P 0.208 ft. R=A/P 6.208 ft.
11.94 V=1.491n(R) (S)�n 10.47
0--VA 6.51 (OVA 6.71
-Q 25 yr. 2.71 Q 25 yr. 1.61
DMK#13 to DMH#1/4 CB#13 to DMH#14
Size 21 in. Size 10 in.
Slope 0.0086 ft./ft. Slope 0.04 ftttt
Manning's ccaf.- n=. 0.012 Manning's coef. n® 0.01
Area 346.36 in? or 2.41 ft.2 Area 78.54 in a or 0.55 ft.2
Perimeter 65.97 in. 5.50 ft. Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft.
R=A/P 0.438 ft.* R=A/P 0.208 ft.
V=1.49/n(W(gf? 6.64 V=1.49In(R)"(S)"' 10.47
O=VA -15.96 Q--VA 5.71
a 25 . 14.68 Q 25 YT 0.55
C5#14 to DMH#14 DBH#14 to PS#i1
Size 10 in. Sias 21 in.
Slope 0.0054 ft./ft. Slope 0.02 ft-M.
Manning's ccef. n= 0.01 Manning's coef. n= 0.012
Area 78.54 in a or 0.55 ft_2 Area 346.36 in? or 2.41 ft?
Perimeter 31.42 in. 262 ft. Perimeter 65.97 in_ 5.50 ft,
R=AIP 0.208 ft.. R=A/P 0.438 ft.
V=1.49M(R)"(S)""2 3.86 V-1.49/n(Rj�(s)"� 1 0.12
Q=VA 2.10. Q=VA 24.84
Q 25 yr. 0.99 Q 25 r. 16.22
Manning's cceffieients C13015to PS#1
Concrete pipe 0.012 Siige 10 in.
PVC 0.01 Slope 0.05 ft.(ft.
Concrete lined 0.01 . Manning's coef. na 0,01
Area 78.54 in.z or 0.55 ft_'
Perimeter 31.42 in. 2,62 ft_
R_A/P 0.208 ft.
V=1.491n(R)24(S)i2 11.7'1-
O=VA 6.39
04//10/2001 14:42 FAX 005
4-10-200 1 11 :41 AM FROM SCHOF I ELD EROS OF N6 1 608 879, 1797 p_
® r
Pipe Flow ® Propcised Job 20217 10-0
Q8437 t® ®MH#33 DMH#33 to DMH#36
Size 6 in, Size 15 in.
Slope 01068 ft./ft. Slope :0.017 ftJft
Manning's coef, n= 0.01 Manning's roof. n= 0.012
Area. 50.27 in.2 or 0.35 ft.2 Area 1:76.71 1n.2 or 1.23 ft.2
Perimeter 25.13 in. 2.09 ft. Perimeter 47.12 in. 3,93 ft.
R=AJP 0.167 ft. R=A/P 10.313 ft
11.77 V=1.49/n(R)210J(S)12 7.45
Q=VA, capacity 4.11 Q=VA 9.15
Q 25 W. 1,1 Q 25 yr. 6.77
CB#38 tb DMH#34 CB#39 to DMH#34
Size 10 in. ' .
Size 1 Q.in.
Slope 0.051 Rift. Slope 0.01 ft./ft.
Manning's coef. n= 0.01 Manning's coat, n= 0.01
Area 78.54 In.2 or 0.55 ft.2 Area 78.54 1n.2 or 0.55 ft,2
Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft. perimeter 31.42 in_ 2.62 ft,
R=A/P 0208 ft_ R=A/P 0208 ft.
V-1,49Jn(R)2n(S)"1 11.82 V=1.49/n(Rr(S)112 5,24
Q=VA 5.45 Q=VA 2.86
Q 25 r. 1.84 Q 26 yr. 2.8
DMH#34 to DMH#86 C13#40 to DMH#36
Size 15 in, Size 10 in.
Slope 0.0073 ftAt. slope 0.1 ft./ft.
Manning's coef. n= 0.012 Manning's coef. n= 0.01
Area 176.71 in.' or 1.23 ftz Area 78.54 in.' or 0.55 ft.2
Perimeter 47.12 in, 3,83 ft, Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft.
R=A/P 0.313 ft, R=AJP 0.206 ft.
V=1,49 1n(Rr(SY'"' 4.89 V=1.49Jn(R)23(S)"z 16.56
Q=VA 6.00 Q=VA 9.03
Q 25 yr. 4.64 Q 25 yr. 3.14
C8#41 to DMH#35 CB#42 to DMfi#35
81ze 12 in. Size 8 in.
Slope 0.01 ft,/ft. Slope 0.1 "t_
Manning's coef, n= 0.01 Manning's Beet, n= 0.01
Area 113.10 in 2 or 0.79 ft.2 Area 50.27 in-'2 or 0.35 ft�
Perimeter 37.70 in. 3.14 ft. Perimeter 25.13 in. 2.09 ft-
R=A/P 0250 ft. R;AJP 0,187 ft,
V,1.49Jrn(R)w(S)`2 5191 V=1.491n(R)*(Sf2 14.27
Q-VA 4.64 Q=VA 4.98
Q 28 yr. 4.57 Q 25 jr. 0.39
DM11#35 to DMH#p36 OMH#36 to PS#3
Size 15 in, Size 21 in_
slope 0.01 ftJft. 0
a Slo 5f /•o_�
P .01 ft,/ft. t`Z
Manning's coef. n= 0.012 Manning's coef. n= 0.012l�
Area 176.71 M24 or 1.23 tt.` Area 346.36 in! or 2.41 ft
Perimeter 47.12 tn. 3.93 ft. Perimeter 65.97 in. 5.50 ft,
R=AIP 0.313 ft, R=A/P 0.438 ft.
V=1.49Jn(R)"(S)112 5-72 V=1.49/n(R)P (S)' 7.16
.Q--VA 7.02 O=VA 17.21 `�
Q 25 r. 4,96
0 25 r. 17.16 �" /C
04/10/2001 14:42 FAX 0006
d-10-2001 11 :d2AM FROM SCHOFIELD SROS OF NE 1 608 879 1797 P. 6
Pipe raw ® Proposed Job # 20217 X;g /. Y®/jo-,:D/
CS 43 to PS#4 CB#44 to PS#4
Size 10 in. Site 10 in.
Slope 0.029 ft./ft. Slope 0.02 ft./ft.
Manning's coef. n= 0.01 Manning's coef, n= 0.01
Area 78,64 in.. or 0.55 ft.2 Area 78,54 in? or 0,55 ft?
Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft. Perimeter 31.42 in. Z,62 ft.
R=A/P 0.208 ft, R=A/P 0.208 fit.
V=1,49/n(Re(S)'�'2 . 8.92 V=1.49/n(R)z(3(5)112 7.40
Q=VA,Capacity 4,86 O=VA 4.04
0 25 Vt. 1.16 Q 25 yr. 2.22
P.S#4 to OMH#6 C8#45 to DMfi#41
Side 12 in. Size 10 in.
Slope 0.015 ft./k Slope 0.04 ftJft. V.19 eel S re4
Manning's cod, n= 0.012 Manning's coef. n= 0.01
Area 113.10 in? or 0,7,9 (t? Area 78.54 in,2 or 0.55 ft.a
Perimeter 37.70 in. 8.14 ft, Perimeter 31.42 in. 2.62 ft_
R=A/p 0.250 fit. R=A/P 0.208 ft.
V=1A9/n(R)u9(S)'' 6.03 V=1A9/n(Rr(S)" 10.47
Q=VA 4.74 0--VA 5.71
Q ZS r, 3.38 Q 25 r, 2.09
Transportation
Development Lmnd
Environmental
serviccs
~aomag/natio"|mnovat:w w
11|mn('1'9YCreating results for our dio*and beriefits for our communities �
April l2,208l
Ro[ 86716.28
Ms. Heidi A. Griffin -Town Planner
Community Development&Somicoo
Town ofNorth Aodnnz
27 Charles Street
North Andover,D8A0lO45
D*: North Andover High School
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi,
\/xnumaeBuugeuBzuadio'Inc. (VBB)has received DiNimoo'u written response letter(dated l0-l8-
00)to our Engineering Review for the above referenced project.All of VHB's comments have been
addressed with the exception nf the following:
l. The Applicant agreed to revise curb radii oL several locations in improve d6eo6Obyofuo600l |
�
busses,single unit delivery trucks and larger delivery trucks to access the parking lot and school.
In a meeting on April 6,2001, it was agreed that 30-foot radii would be provided at these
locations. The Applicant agreed to fax sketches of these locations so that VHB could check
vehicle turning movements. The oke0o6uo that were provided were incorrectly drafted. 30-ffot
radii were not shown ou the sketches.
Once the Applicant provides updated sketches with the correct radii,VHB's concerns in this matter
will 6csudoficd and un further engineering review will berequired.
%f you have any questions or concerns,please call moui your convenience. �
�
Very truly yours, �
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,l0C.
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway&Municipal Engineering
cc: DiNiaouDoxiQo
Dan Wong-VBB
�
�
|
l0wh|nut Street
�
Post Office Box m5l �
Watertown, MassachUsetts sl �
��24.1770 = FAX 61Z924.2286 �
rnmi|: info@,hbmm
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
S e r v i c e s
lonagenation�Innovat'I'On�Lileo'gy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
April 17,2001 -Vanass e,-H,-tngen-Bt,z4stll.'ri., Inc,
Ref- 06716.28
Ms. Heidi A. Griffin -Town Planner
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: North Andover High School
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received DiNisco's revised sketches and written response
memorandum(dated 04-13-00)to our Engineering Review for the above referenced project.
As you are aware,the only outstanding comment was the radii at three locations within the parking
lot. VH13 is satisfied that the radii at these locations has been revised as recommended. VHB's
concerns in this matter are satisfied and no further engineering review is required at this time.
If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
� - (' ....-- (
Timothy B."McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager-Highway &Municipal Engineering
cc: DiNisco Design
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
\\MAWATR\te\0671628\docs\letters\let-approval-041701.doc 612924,1770 a FAX 61Z924.2286
email; info@vhb.corn
www.vhb.com