HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 430 OSGOOD STREET 1/13/2004 Land Development
Environmental
Scrviccs
(0 mm����
^mmag/m**,on innovation energy cuo,�000awax our com*wabm�wavour
January l3, 2OO4
Ref: 06716.88
Ms.Julie Panioo
Planning Director
Community Development and Services JAN \
27 Charles Street -
North Andover,MAO184B
NOFTO-
Re: North Andover High School Hydrology Devk*p/
Dear Ms.Parrbnq
VonaeseOangeoDrnsdin Inc. (VBU)iosubmitting the attached Review Report listing the �
comments relative to our review of the hydrologic model for the North Andover High �
School re-deve|opzoaotproject. �
�
The original materials submitted toVI0 for Drainage Review included the October 24,
2003 Plan set, the October 24,2003 Stormwater Management Design and Runoff �
�
Calculations Report prepared by Gale Associates and the Request to Amend the Notice of
Decision for the project prepared byI)iNisca Design Partnership.
The 2003 Stormwater Management Report referred to the January 8,2001 Stormwater /
�
Management Report(prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England)for the existing
conditions analysis bdnrrnadon.This docoozaoivvusrequested and p/nozpdyfucvvordedto
\/EU}by the/�rcbiLechuzol/Engineering Lmaon.ILvvaameokonedindhecorcaapoudenceuL
this time,(December 17,2003) that the documents submitted to VHB were undergoing
revisions in response to comments from the Conservation Commission's consultant Lisa
Eggleston.VHB was alerted that the review should be halted and resumed after the
revisions were completed and submitted to\/BB. �
�
VBB was io receipt oJthe "k8odificdPmstDevelvooumotCnndbiona" anubmis,asonciaLed |
plans,and specifications (dated January 6,2004) on January 7,2004.Preliminary review
began on January 7,with continuing review on January 12 and 13.The level of review �
required for the revised post development conditions is far more extensive than that
required for the previous project xeview for the site completed byVIIB.This was due tnthe �
increased complexity of drainage system ze � udfnz[hmortiGoiultnrfozeaodzatvve�euep/
^ |
additions to the project.The inter-connected nature cd many ofthe drainage structures and �
complexity of underground and surface drainage designs result in a detailed hydrologic �
model. Due to the revisions and the complexity of the revisions and plans, the review at this �
time is limited io the set opo{the bvdrolo �cznodm|uuddhedc�a�x�covidedbu0zernoyt �
hydrologic �
recent plans related to drainage and hydrology.
�
�
101 va|nmmea �
Post Office Box 9lsl
Watertown, Massachusetts oz,1nv|o
m11�924�770 " FAX 60Z 924.2286
xM°°*,`�`mvz^�\��v",��`=,u'�z�o^u� opaii info@vhbzum
wwwxhb.cum
Ms. Julie Perrino
Project No. 0S71G.88
January 13. 2OO4
Page
I(is not clear at this time if all the inverts and design details are final, as there was some
mention in the January 6,2004 report that some revisions are still in progress. VHB
respectfully submits the following comments based uu our review o{the Hydrologic Model
and details for the drainage system.No review of hydraulic capacity of the system or
specific hydraulic routing calculations and inverts as shown on the plans has been
uoznplaicd thus far. Further questions may arise based on the response to the attached
comments and completion of this review if additional information becomes available.
Due to the complexity of the project as it stands to date, and the various versions of plans
and reports that are necessary tocomplete the review itiyexpected that additional funds
will be required to finalize the review.The architectural/engineering team has been very
helpful in assisting us with our review and we have done our best to comply with a short
time frame for completion.We look forward to completing this review for the Town.
Very truly yours,
�
VANASSEBANGENURDSZL[M,INC.
n _ °
�n ez�
P r'r jcd � �eStozu �
tazSoecialist
«c: Timothy B. McIntosh,VHB
Jobo Oxman,[>iNiscoDesign
�
�
�
�
�
�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OB DRAINAGE REPORT AND ASSOCIATED PLANS
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN 0F NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: North Andover High School V}IBNo,:O67I6.88
Location: ChiukezincKuad
, �
Owner: North Andover School Department
Applicant: Town of North Andover
Applicant's Engineer: Schofield Brothers nfNew England,Inc and Gale Associates
Applicant's Architect: DiNiaco Design Partnership Limited
�
Review Date: January I3,2U04
Yuoaese|IangeoBzuaUin,Inc. (YHB)is providing engineering review of the Hydrologic Modeland
associated plans provided to date.This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North
Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater
Management Policy and standard engineering y/uc6cc. V8Q has reviewed the following:
I. P\an—Pce-I}uvelopnoentCondidnoYVatezohed Map D-1,SBNE,December 6,2OO8
2. Plan-Post-Development Condition Watershed Map Plan D-2. Prepared 6ySchofield
Brothers cJ New England, Inc. (SBY48),January 8,20O1
3. Plan—Modified Post Development Conditions Watershed MapD-2A,SBNE,November
l3, 20O3 and December 30,20U3
4. Report Stormwater Management Design and Stormwater Runoff Calculations,North
Andover School Project Cbickecbngcoad,NorUhAndoverMA,PrupazrdbyS8N8,
January 8,20O1
5. Report—North Andover}Gob�cboo|propoond/kdJe6c {�un�plax—Storo�n/aher �
" �
Management Design and Runoff Cabulodoua—RcviacdRenort,PzeparedbyGale
Associates, October 24,2O03
6. Report—Revised 8toznuvvaimz Management Design and StorzovvoiezRunoff �
Calculations,North Andover High School Project,PrepazedbySBNB,ReviumdTanoury �
6,2004 �
�
7. Letter Report—North Andover High School Athletic Complex Request to Amend the �
Notice of Decision,Prepared by DiNisco Design Partnership, December 2,2003.
8. Plans—SKZ- l.1 and 1.1/\ through S]lZ1.23
�
9. Please note that narratives for the erosion and sedimentation control methods were
referred to as 'under separate cover'in the January 8,2001 Report.This has not been
0
xm"°*^*wm/um`u(x*u,ters\"°u°report`'mo4.doc I
provided mreviewed to date.
Ao stated in the cover letter,review ut this time is limited to the set-up o(the Hydrologic
Model and related detail sheets. Some of the detail sheets appear to be in progress with
certain items not yet labeled on the plans. �
Comments are umfollows: �
�
I. The existing conditions model appears(oboa good representative cfexisting
conditions. While no action is considered necessary,VH13 has one comment on the �
modeling bc6miqne used for the ovazUovv ni Pond 3 aa follows.|tappears that the �
overflow ot the access road (the 3Ox42 inch culvert)was modeled using K4 i 's |
equation rather than a weir.The maximum overflow elevation over the road is 98.2 ft., �
which represents 0.6 feet above the road elevation of 97.6 ft.The stage/discharge table
provided in the model at this location only shows discharge to 0.4 ft.above the road.
VYedn not think the use of the weir equation would significantly cbauget6aoz*de6ng
as the difference in flow over the road at the peak 98.2 elevation(for the 100 year storm
event) is 12.63cfafor the weir flow calculation aucompared to 14.9 cts for the
Manning's flow calculation provided.However,this is noted for the record as it is
unclear how the final overflow quantity is extrapolated by the program as the stage
information does not exceed elevation 98.0.No action beyond a discussion is required
for this comment.
2. VHB is in agreement that the overall the system is designed conservatively as the fixed
tailwater of 95.0 (100 year flood elevation from FEMA at the Cochichewick Brook)was
used.
3. It would be helpful for the final"Modified Post Development Conditions Watershed
Map" to show and label all the ponds,drainage areas,reaches and structures identified
in the model. It was especially difficult to identify the reaches that are identified in the
latest proposed conditions model.
4. Boring information and geobpchoical reports indicate that the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is within 30 to 52 inches of the existing surface grades.Exact
boring locations were difficult to read in the boring location sketch provided.It is
understood that under drains and trench drains will be provided for the turf areas and
will assist in the dewatering as necessary. VHB requests confirmation that the Galleys
which are to store water beneath the South"Lower"Fields are above the groundwater
elevation to ensure that they provide the storage asdesigned. �
5. Details for the Galley systems were not identified in the materials reviewed by VHB.
An evaluation of the sizing,materials,inverts and elevations as they relate to the turf
field drainage system and seasonal high groundwater would behelpful.
6. Sheet SKZ 1.2,November 24,2003 is labeled as North Fields-Grading and Erosion �
�
Control Plan.ltisunclear on the plan if any sedimentation ederosioncmntrolitems
are presented.There is a"Stone Swale Detail" at the bottom of the plan and a note on �
�
�
the Plan near the North end of the Track stating"Stone Drainage Trench" (see detail
below). It is unclear if the trench and swaleae the same thing,and if they are for
sedimentation and erosion control or part of the final design.NooUerconbnlavvere
obvious on the plan.
7. Similar to comment above,no specific sedimentation and erosion control information
was noticed on Sheet SZK 1.6, "South Fields Grading&Erosion Control Plan".
�
8. Beehive Grates are referred to in the Flydrologic Model but have apparently been
eliminated from the Plan as per Sheet SKZl.9. �
9. SbeeiaSKZ 1.3, and SK%14 (November 24,2OU3) the North Fields Utility Plan and
North Fields Drainage Layout Plan shows three rims with inverts along the south side
of the track.It is believed that these are Catch basins 1,2 and 3 as referred to in the
hydrologic model. Labeling for these structures may be included on other sheets not
reviewed but i\would be helpful toshow them when other drainage structures are �
labeled.Similarly a CB is shown on the North east end and requires a label.It is
believed this iaCB1Xaa sketched iu the revised Drainage Report.
10. It is difficult to read on the detail sheets exactly how the drain system is tied into the
perimeter drain system.On Sheet SKZ 1.4,North Fields Drainage Layout Plan,a
symbol for Catch Basin(Typ. 8 PL) is shown along the North end of the Track.This
symbol io shown ut7 other locations along the track.Are these Catch basins?Are they
track/field trench Drain Catch Basin Conoechnna called "Sports Edge Catch Basin" as
shown io the tin-numbered detailed on the same sheet below?It appears that this is
also the same as Detail 13 nn Sheet SKZ 1.10.
11. Sheet SkZ1.I refers to details lO and I1oo Sheet SKZ1.10 for the edge drain. It may be
helpful to refer to the Pro-charuiel grates as the "Edge Drains"on the detail sheet for
consistency.
12. The North Field buck area fills up to elevation l532gtothe 1OO year storm event.This
is approximately 0.2 feet below the lowest grade on the field.It is recommended to
evaluate the flow path for runoff from the field in the event o{clogging ofdhesozoll4'
inch Outlets in DMH 1X and 3X and flooding of the field. Is there a bypass in the event �
�
that one or both orifices are clogged?Perhaps a catch basin grate could be provided |
with connection uo the downstream side of the 4-kuh orifices Lu act uaa relief for �
surface ponclit-Lg.Perhaps a flow path to DMH 4X with replacement of the cover with a
grate may beconsidered.
13. While information on Operation and Maintenance for the Particle Separators was
provided in the original Stormwater management Design Report,no sizing/design of
the particle separator was identified in the material reviewed.The plans show the
separator as being b+Due. Details of the separator would behelpful to evaluate the �
design and functioning. �
�
�
�
�
�
�
S0000`azy—
Overallthemistingcondibonssd proposed conditions model have been prepared to
accurately represent hydrologic conditions ai the site.Aastated in their final zepcoL
findings;while increases in volume rnay be expected,the peak rates of discharge from the
site have been decreased and the design has focused onallowing the maximum infiltration �
possible given site conditions. Further, the use of the 95.0 ft tailwater elevation ensures a
conservative design. �
Fine tuning of the detail sheets and plan sets to show all labels,inverts and corresponding
elevations and cross-sections where necessary(specifically for the subsurface drainage
�
system)will assist in proper construction and final review.VHB did not evaluate the
hydraulic capacity of the drainage system at this time,nor did we complete o(nU
evaluation of the plans in terms of cons tructuhility. �
'EF)SCHOFIELD 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 22, 2004 Website www.schofieldbrof`-1om,'-
JAN 7 2,�-I!,)i!
20217
T
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Attn: Bethany Eisenberg, P.E.
RE: North Andover High School Project— Athletic Field Revision.
Dear Bethany:
The following information and enclosed materials are being submitted in response to
certain of the comments contained in your review report dated January 13, 2004. The
comments that we are responding to primarily relate to the Stormwater Management report
and design, and are repeated below in italics for easy reference. The designers of the
athletic field complex, Gale Associates, will be making revisions to the plans and preparing
other information to address the other comment items in your report.
1. The existing conditions model appears to be a good representative of existing
conditions. While no action is considered necessary. VHB has one comment on the
modeling technique used for the overflow of Pond 3 as follows. It appears that the
overflow of the access road (the 30 X 42 inch culvert) was modeled using Manning's
equation rather than a weir. The maximum overflow elevation over the road is 98.2
ft., which represents 0.6 feet above the road elevation of 97.6 ft. The stage/discharge
table provided in the model,at this location only shows discharge to 0.4 ft. above the
road. We do. not think the use of the weir-equation wouldgignificantly change the
modeling as the difference in flow over the road at the peak,98.2 elevation (for the 100
year stone event) is 12.63 cJsfor the weir flow calculation as compared to 14.9 cJsfor
the Manning 's flow calculation provided. Hoivever, this is noted for the record as it
is unclear how the final overflow quantity is extrapolated by the program as the stage
information does not exceed elevation 98.0. No action beyond a disCUSSi071 is required
for this comment.
RESPONSE: We concur with VEB on the point being made and with the conclusion that
the change in the model to a weir equation for the existing conditions would not result in a
significant,change. At this point in time, the point of this analysis is to determine what the
C�
impact will be due to the change in the Athletic Field design and related changes. Under
ID C) t)
the current plan revision, no changes are proposed for the entrance road or "Pond 3" from
the previous design. The key for this revision, therefore, is to see if the change in the flows
=°SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SLR%'EYING • PLANNING
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
RE: North Andover High School 20217
January 22,2004
Page 2
to Pond 3 are being significantly changed from the previous analysis, such that some
alteration of the driveway design would be necessary. To best assess this, it is important to
amend the previous "Proposed Conditions" stormwater model to properly reflect only the
changes so that the results can be compared directly with the previous study. By comparing
the Summary Tables provided in our January 6, 2004 report relative to the Pond 3 (At
Driveway Culvert), for the current proposal vs. the previous (Jan 2001) proposal, it can be
seen that the Peak Flows to the culvert, Peak Discharge, Flood Elevation and Runoff
Volume are all slightly reduced from the previous proposal for all storms analyzed. The
conclusion, therefore, is that the revised athletic field design will not affect this crossing
and is within the parameters approved under the previous design.
2. VHB is in agreement that the overall system is designed conservatively as the fixed
tailwater of 95.0 (100 year flood elevation from FEMA at Cochichevvick Brook) was
used.
RESPONSE: We concur. This tailwater condition was used in response to comments from
the peer reviews during the previous approval process.
3. It would be helpful for the final "Modified Post Development Conditions 6Vatershed
Map" to show and label all the ponds, drainage areas, reaches reaches and structures
identified in the model. It was especially difficult to identify the reaches that are
identified in the latest proposed conditions model.
RESPONSE: We have added the location of these items onto the map (D-2A enclosed).
The exception is the off site watersheds to the east. These are too large to show on this
map and they are shown on the existing conditions watershed maps (No changes are
proposed in those watersheds from existing conditions). We have noted this on the revised
map. We also noticed that in your listing of plans and documents you reviewed that you
did not reference the current Contract Drawings,for the stormwater system (December 14,
2001 which represent the project as approved. These plans show the detail needed to
understand the overall system and we have included these drawings to assist in your
review.
4. Boring infonn*ati.on and geotech.nical reports indicate that the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is within 30 to 52 inches of the existing surface grades. Exact
boring locations were difficult to read in the boring location sketch provided. It is
understood that the drains and trench drains will be provided for the turf areas and
will assist in the dewatering cis necessary. VHB requests confirmation that the Galleys
==SCHOE(ELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SCR%ENANG • PLANNING
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
RE: North Andover High School 20217
January 22,2004
Page 3
which are to store water beneath the south `Lower" Fields are above the
groundwater elevation to ensure that they provide the storage as designed.
RESPONSE: The two Galley systems located below the South "Lower" Fields are in the
same location as the previous approved plan and the groundwater level below the field was
a discussion point during the previous peer reviews. To recap the information provided at
that time, we have included information in "Attachment 1". This includes the soil logs for
Deep Holes 00-1 and 00-5 which are the closest holes to the Galleys. Deep Hole 00-5 is
actually in the location of Galley 1 and Deep Hole 00-1 is about 120 feet east of Galley 2.
From the Contract Drawings, the Bottom of Galley 1 is to be 98.5. The elevation of the
maximum seasonal groundwater elevation at that location is 44 inches below the existing
grade of 101.0 which places the maximum groundwater elevation at 97.3 (1.2 feet below
the bottom of Galley 1).
With respect to Galley 2, the existing surface grade at the Galley is approximately 102.0
and the bottom elevation of the Galley is designed to be 99.5 (30 inches below existing
grade) with the outlet invert at elevation 100.5. Deep Hole 00-1 is 120 feet east of the
Galley and is upgradient at an existing grade of 103.2. The maximum seasonal
groundwater elevation at that location is 34 inches below grade or an elevation of 100.4.
The groundwater in the upland areas of this site is perched and was generally found to
range from 30 to 52 inches below existing grade as you pointed out. The thinking during
the previous review was that the bottom of Galley 2 being 30 inches below grade
reasonably assured that the galley was not below the maximum seasonal groundwater
elevation. At worst case, the elevation could not be above that found in Deep Hole 00-1,
which is below the Galley 2 outlet invert. Since the stormwater model for the Galley does
not include the "dead storage" below the outlet invert, water in the bottom storage would
not impact the flow calculations.
5. Details for the Galley Systems were not identified in the materials reviewed by VHB.
An evaluation of the sizing, materials, inverts and elevwions as they relate to the titrf
field drainage system and seasonal high gf-oundwater would be helpful.
RESPONSE: The enclosed set of Contract Drawings together with the materials provided
in Attachment 1 and the additional information on the new Athletic Field drawings to be
provided by Gale Associates, provide the additional information to address this comment.
Items 6 and 7. These items are being addressed by Gale Associates, Inc. by plan
clarifications and additional information. See their separate response.
�SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SCR,EYING PLANNING
fl
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
RE: North Andover High School 20217
January 22,2004
Page 4
8. Beehive Grates are referred to in the Hydrologic Model but have apparently been
eliminated front the Plan as per Sheet SKZ 1.9.
RESPONSE: That is correct. The beehive grate inlets have been eliminated. The same
structure will now have a manhole cover because a grate will no longer be necessary at
these locations. We just did not change the identification name in the model, but it has no
impact on the hydrologic calculations.
Items 9, 10 aiid 11: These items are being addressed by Gale Associates, Inc. by plan
clarifications and additional information. See their separate response.
12. The North Field track area fills up to elevation 153.29 in the 100 year stoma event.
This is approximately 0.2 feet below the lowest grade on the field. It is recommended
to evaluate the flow path.for runoff from the field in the event of clogging of the small
4-inch outlets in DMH Ix and 3x. and flooding of the field. Is there a bypass in the
event that one or both orifices are clogged? Perhaps a catch basin grate could be
provided with connection to the downstream side of the 4 inch orifices to act as a
relief for surface ponding. Perhaps a flow path to DMH 4x with replacement of the
cover with a grate may be considered.
n RESPONSE: There was no "Emergency Overflow" provided on this system and we concur
,j that this should be added. We also agree with the recommended solution of providing an
overflow path to DMH 4x and a grate inlet to address this. That suggestion is a simple and
effective solution for this concern and I understand that Gale Associates is incorporating
that into the revised plans.
13. While information on Operation and Maintenance for the Particle Separators was
provided in the original Storinnwater Management Design Report, no sizing/design of
the particle separator was identified in the material revietived. The plans show the
separator as being in-line. Details of-the separator would be helpful to evaluate the
design and functioning.
RESPONSE: The Particle Separator design information is contained in Part 2, pages 2-5
and 2-6 of the January 8, 2001 report that was provided. The detail is on the Contract
Drawing Sheet 1.3.11 enclosed. The present revision of the athletic fields has no bearing
on the Particle Separator units. The important design parameter is the amount of
impervious surface draining to these units which is not changing with this revision.
SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SLR%EYING • PLANNING
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
RE: North Andover High School 20217
January 22,2004
Page 5
We look forward to meeting with you to review these materials. If you have any questions
regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc.
Fredric W. King, P.E. J
Senior Engineer
Cc: DiNisco Design Partnership
North Andover Planning Board
Enclosures
=HSCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SCRY EYING PLANNING
f IICI
ATTACHMENT 1
NORTH ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC FIELD REVISION
INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE MAXIMUM
SEASONAL GROUNDWATER AT STORMWATER
GALLEYS 1 AND 2
1-22-04
(PREPARED FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED DURING
THE PREVIOUS PLAN REVIEW)
CONTENTS:
- Deep Hole Test Logs 00-1 and 00-5 with elevation data added. (2 pages)
- 2 Portions of the Contract Drawings (Dec 14, 2001) showing the areas of
Galleys 1 and 2 and soil test locations.(2 pages)
r
FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM
Page 2 of 10
Location Address or Lot No. 675 Chickering Road,North Andover, MA
On-site Review
Deep Hole Number 00-1 Date: 8/23/00 Time: AM Weather Sunny,80
Location(identify on site Flan) see sketch
Land Use Lawn Slope(%) 1-2% Surface Stones None
Vegetation Grass
Landform Drumlin
Position on landscape(sketch on the back) see sketch
Distances from:
Open Water Body N/A Feet Drainageway N/A Feet
Possible Wet Area N/A Feet Property Line N/A Feet
Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other
DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG*
Depth from Surface Soil Horizon Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other
(inches) (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,
Boulders,
Consistenc ,%Gravel)
0—25" A SANDY LOAM 10 YR 3/2 None Observed Massive-Friable
25—34" Bw SANDY LOAM 7.5 YR 5/8 None Observed Massive-Friable
34—120" C SANDY LOAM 2.5 Y 7/1 >5 1,6 9 34"- Massive-Firm,Blocky,
(FINE) 7.5 YR 5/8 some stones and cobbles
y
MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA
Parent Material(geologic) Glacial till Depth to Bedrock: >120"
Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 11'4" Weeping from Pit Face: 56"
Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @34" (By soil morphology) L�✓ ^ ���•
U
llGP APPFO\'1 FORM-12/07/9 S
FORM 11 -SOIL EVALUATOR FORM
Page G of 10
Location Address or Lot No. 675 Chickering Road, North Andover,MA
On-site Review
Deep Hole Number 00-5 Date: 8/24/00 Time: AM Weather Sunny,80
Location (identify on site plan) See sketch
Land Use Lawn Slope(%) 1-2% Surface Stones None
Vegetation Grass
Landform Drumlin
Position on landscape(sketch on the back) see sketch
Distances from:
Open Water Body N/A Feet Drainageway N/A Feet
Possible Wet Area N/A Feet Property Line N/A Feet
Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other
DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG'S
Depth from Surface Soil Horizon Sol[Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other
(inches) (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,
Boulders,
Consistency.%Gravel)
0—29" A SANDY LOAM 10 YR 2/2 None Observed Massive-Friable
29-63" Bw SANDY LOAM 7.5 YR 5/8 >5%9 44% Massive-Friable
7.5 YR 5/8
63—132" C SANDY LOAM 2.5 Y 7/2 >59%Throughout- Massive-Firm,Some stones
(FINE) 7.5 YR 5/8 And cobbles
MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA
Parent Material(geologic) Glacial till Depth to Bedrock: >132"
Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Weeping from Pit Face: 112"
Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @44" (By soil morphology) L_1' V = 47
SuTZ�p �-� ELf✓ = � ° �•�
DEP APPROVED FORM-12/07/95
z gip` d0 j
J 0 t �;
�S,y C) �� •�� oIII o
CL O r N LO
i• ® O U w 0 j
105 (t
000
14 m i' I � iJ � J
p� O
_ ( 4 106
E- 0 N
z
� o
w w ,(
w0 0� it
V
1 wN
rr O m J ~
�.
m � Q
8p�c) CL o EAT 107
H
S "' a - EL
f000; U ('7,— cap
- i a; I p
1 c°n U cr
LO
° 106 I
r -
lol'
N ' w
EL
o $ I J LX
H
J � a
V) 1- w o c
Vl E-
W w CL
� � w
wO0. z i 00 ; _1:05 Z
Li
_ z
< z w a
— N
E' / l T+ [L 0 F—'
n- —
�p � N Lt
m
o
LO w N 1 N N �
aw 0L OL
ti 6
co
rn
Q M -
f-
`" o ► 10 I I I i
)PE--
.0
_. , WF'z
z ( P R
U ��- RE
Lc r_osse� eld W I °o l
I I
! LAWN N
I o
0
F218
E5
19
D -
D�Ff� TE31- aOPOSED D EN ION =,I
uR0
+9 �,LLEY SYST M 1 - INV.=99
S=0.0 10
\ i.
0 0 � }` VC
- o l I
0 0 I S?0.
)_ _ DMH#8
ry
Soccer Field
- -
- -
105/" I 10 L:; . tl
5 7 / \t tl 11
l
-- -- - _
22�!
--
CONVERT XISTING B
i, 100 TO DMH R SE
l] COVER TO EL.=104.3
• J
(2), 15" INV. IN =95.00
GR"IITE CURB
- — _
i
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental °
Services
►
imagination innovation energy e;,.;r:::_;,._,:;:--:, .. ..... _........ :•- -. -.. .. ,....
January 27,2004
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Ref: 06716.88
Ms.Julie Parrino
Town Planner
Community Development and Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: North Andover Fligh School Review
Dear Ms.Parrino,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)prepared an engineering review for the above
referenced project dated January 13,2004. In rensponse to that review,VI IB has received
the following information from Gale Associates and Schofield Brothers:
1. Memorandum to Julie Parinno from Dale Harris dated January 23,2004
2. Letter to VHB from Schofield Brothers dated January 22,2004
3. Attachment No. 1 dated January 22,2004(test pit information)
4. Plans revised through January 20,2004 entitled North Andover High School
Athletic Complex
It appears that all of VHB's comments have been adequately addressed and VHB's concerns
in this matter have been satisfied. 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.
r-101 �.
Timothy B!McIntosh
Project Manager-Highway&Municipal Engineering
cc: Bethany Eisenberg,Ed MacArthur,VHB
lot kVa',nui Sw,-T
4Vateao\w1, Massaclu,srns 02471 9151
617.924.1770 ■ FAX 617.924.2286
\\N1a%Yatr\te\1JG716.88\does\letters\letl-pvinno-01270.1.ioe c til li l: 1 n"O C vh b.com
www.vhb.com
Gale Associates, Inc.
a- A L E 163 Libbey Parkway I P.O.Box 890189 I Weymouth MA 02189-0004
P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com
MEMORANDUM
'!J\PIfVIi,C i✓s. fif y JIT
TO: Ms. Julie Parrino, Planning Director
FROM: Dale K. Harris, P.E., Gale Associates
RE: VHB Planning Board Review
DATE: January 23, 2004
CC: Fred King, P.E., Schofield Brothers
Richard Rice, R.A, Dinisco Design Partnership
This memo is to document the response to the hydrology review letter dated
January 13, 2004 from Vanasse Hange Brustlin, Inc., and the subsequent meeting
held on Monday, January 26, 2004. The comments _and responses have been
numbered to correspond for ease of cross-reference. As requested, we are also
including several revised Permit Plans in response to the review comments which
slightly modify the plan sheets as originally submitted. We trust that these
revisions are complete and meet the approval of the Town and the review agent.
1. The existing conditions model appears to be a good representative of existing
conditions. While no action is considered necessary, VHB has no comment on
the modeling technique used for the overflow at Pond 3 as follows. It appears
that the overflow at the access road (the 20 x 42 inch culvert) was modeled
using Manning's equation rather than a weir. The maximum overflow
elevation over the road is 98.2 ft., which represents 0.6 feet above the road
elevation of 97.6 ft. The stage/discharge table provided in the model at this
location only shows discharge to 0.4 ft. above the road. We do not think the
use of the weir equation would significantly change the modeling as the
difference in flow over the road at the peak 98.2 elevation (for the 100 year
storm event) is 12.63 cfs for the weir flow calculation as compared to 14.9 cfs
for the Manning's flow calculation provided. However, this is noted for the
record as it is unclear how the final overflow quantity is extrapolated by the
program as the stage information does not exceed elevation 98.0. No action
beyond a discussion is required for this comment.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
G:\710920\1etters\memo00.doe
Gale Associates, Inc.
LE 163 Libbey Parkway I P.O.Box 890189 I Weymouth MA 02189-0004
P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com
2. VHB is in agreement that the overall the system is designed conservatively
as the fixed tailwater of 95.0 (100 year flood elevation from FEMA at the
Cochichewick Brook) was used.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
3. It would be helpful for the final "Modified Post Development Conditions
Watershed Map" to show and label all the ponds, drainage areas, reaches and
structures identified in the model. It was especially difficult to identify the
reaches that are identified in the latest proposed conditions model.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
4. Boring information and geotechnical reports indicate that the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is within 30 to 52 inches of the existing surface
grades. Exact boring locations were difficult to read in the boring location
sketch provided. It is understood that under drains and trench drains will be
provided for the turf areas and will assist in the dewatering as necessary.
VHB requests confirmation that the Galleys which are to store water beneath
the South "Lower" fields are above the ground water elevation to ensure that
they provided the storage as designed.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
5. Details for the Galley systems were not identified in the material reviewed by
VHB. An evaluation of the sizing, materials, inverts and elevations as they
relate to the turf field drainage system and seasonal high groundwater would
be helpful.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
6. Sheet SKZ 1.2, November 24, 2003 is labeled as North Fields-Grading and
Erosion Control Plan. It is unclear on the plan if any sedimentation and
erosion control items are presented. There is a "Stone Swale Detail" at the
bottom of the plan and a note on the Plan near the North end of the Track
stating "Stone Drainage Trench" (see detail below). It is unclear if the trench
and Swale are the same thing, and if they are for sedimentation and erosion
GA710920Uetters\memo00.doc
Gale Associates, Inc.
LE 163 Libbey Parkway I P.O.Box 890189 I Weymouth MA 02189-0004
P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com
control or part of the final design. No other controls were obvious on the
plan.
The note and the detail are one in the same, and the labels have been
clarified on the drawing. The other erosion control devises were
labeled on the plan ("haybales and silt fence"), but have been
removed to avoid confusion as they were previously approved for
these project limits.
7. Similar to comment above, no specific sedimentation and erosion control
information was noticed on Sheet SKZ 1.6, "South Fields Grading & Erosion
Control Plan".
Same answer as above.
8. Beehive Grates are referred to in the Hydrologic Model but have apparently
been eliminated form the Plan as per Sheet SKZ 1.9.
That is correct, the Beehive Grates have been eliminated as
necessary. See also separate response from Schofield Brothers of
New England, Inc for this item.
9. Sheets SKZ 1.3, and SKZ 1.4 (November 24, 2003) the North Fields Utility
Plan and North Fields Drainage Layout Plan shows three rims with inverts
along the south side of the track. It is believed that these are Catch basins 1,
2 and 3 as referred to in the hydrologic model. Labeling for these structures
may be included on other sheets not reviewed, but it would be helpful to show
them when other drainage structures are labeled. Similarly a CB is shown
on the North east end and requires a label. It is believed this is CB1x as
sketched in the revised Drainage Report.
These sheets have been modified accordingly to label the catch
basins 1, 2, 3 and CBlx per the revised Drainage Report.
10.It is difficult to read on the detail sheets exactly how the drain system is tied
into the perimeter drain system. On sheet SKZ 1.4, North fields Drainage
Layout Plan, a symbol for Catch Basin (Typ. 8 PL) is shown along the North
end of the Track. This symbol is shown at 7 other location along the track.
Are these Catch basins? Are they track/field trench Drain Catch Basin
connections call "Sports Edge Catch Basin" as shown in the un-numbered
detailed on the same sheet below? It appears that this is also the same as
Detail 13 on Sheet SKZ 1.10.
G:\710920\1etters\memo00.doc
Gale Associates, Inc.
163 Libbey Parkway I P.O.Box 890189 I Weymouth MA 02189-0004
P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com
These symbols are the Sports Edge Catch Basins as shown on the
detail below and the detail sheet SKZ 1.10. These have been re-
labeled for clarification on Sheet SKZ 1.4, and removed from sheet
SKZ 1.10 to avoid confusion.
11.Sheet SKZ 1.1 refers to details 10 and 11 on Sheet SKZ 1.10 for the edge
drain. It may be helpful to refer to the Pro-channel grates as the "Edge
Drains" on the detail sheet for consistency.
The detail sheet SKZ 1.10 has been modified accordingly to label the
Pro-channel grades also as "Edge Drains".
12.The North Field track area fills up to elevation 153.29 in the 100 year storm
event. This is approximately 0.2 feet below the lowest grade on the field. It
is recommended to evaluate the flow path for runoff from the field in the
event of clogging of the small 4-inch outlets in DMH 1X and 3X and flooding
of the field. Is there a bypass in the event that one or both orifices are
clogged? Perhaps a catch basin grate could be provided with connection on
the downstream side of the 4-inch orifices to act as a relief for surface
ponding. Perhaps a flow path to DMH 4X with replacement of the cover with
a grate may be considered.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item. We have made these modifications to the drainage
system (revising DMH 4X to CB 4X) and will confirm this intent at
the meeting with VHB.
13.While information on operation and Maintenance for the Particle Separators
was provided in the original Stormwater management Design Report, no
sizing/design of the particle separator was identified in the material
reviewed. The plans show the separator as being in-line. Details of the
separator would be helpful to evaluate the design and functioning.
See separate response from Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc
for this item.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the Town and its review agent to
respond to the VHB review comments as noted. Should you or they have any
further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
G:\710920\1etters\memo00.doc
Parrino, Julie
From: Kenneth DiNisco[k.dinisco @dinisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:04 PM
To: Julie Parrino
Cc: Rick Rice; Jon Oxman; Fred King; Dale Harris; Pat Saitta
Subject: NA/HS Siteplan Review Questions
Dear Julie,
Here are the responses to your questions that we discussed this afternoon concerning the
Planning Board's Site Plan. Review.
Question. Is there any additional landscaping as a result of the proposed site changes?
Answer. NO.
Question. Are there any additional refuse areas at the exterior concession stand?
Answer. NO.
Question. Are there any traffic changes?
Answer. NO.
Question. What is the height of the retaining wall at the northwest corner of the site?
Answer. Five (5) feet.
It's always a pleasure working with you. Good luck in your new job.
Sincerely,
KEN
Kenneth F. DiNisco
DiNISCO DESIGN
k.dinisco @dinisco.com
(P) (617) 426-2858
(F) (617) 426-1457
1
a r c h i t e c t s a n d p l a n n e r s
7 i nitEd
r .,
p/ 6
Memorandum
Date: 26 January 2004 : �.� rb, �d, wr, ., 6
To: Planning Board Members
Julie Parrino North Andover Planning Department (NAPD)
Tim McIntosh Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB)
From: Jon Oxman AIA DiNisco Design Partnership (DDP)
Project North Andover High School Athletic Complex
Project No. 99430.0
Subject: Response to Planning Board Review Memoranda
1. RESPONSE TO PLANNING BOARD CONSULTANT'S REVIEW MEMORANDA
1.1. This Memorandum responds comprehensively to issues in Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin's Review Memoranda listed below.
12 Our response includes the following materials which are attached to this
memorandum:
• Planning Board's Consultant Review Memorandum by (author's name not given
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), 14 January 2004.
• Planning Board's Consultant Hydrology Review Memorandum by Bethany
Eisenberg, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), 14 January 2004.
• Memorandum from Fred King, Schofield Brothers New England,Inc. (SBNE), 22 ,-
January 2004. Including the following two attachments:
• Information Relative to the Maximum Seasonal Groundwater at Stormwater
Galleys 1 and 2, 22 January 2004.
• Modified Post Development Conditions Watershed Map, D2A, Revision 3, 20
January 2004.
• Memorandum from Dale Harris, Gale Associates, Inc. (GA), 23 January 2004.
• Planning Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 4, 20 January 2004.
Kenneth DiNisco- Richard N.Rice Gary E. Ainslie Christopher Huston Donna DiNisco
87 Suinm e r S t r e e t Boston MA 027. 10 617 . 426 . 2858 fax 4 2 6 . 1 4 5 7
w w w . d i n i s c o . c o m
MEMORANDUM North Andover High School, 26 January 20034 Page 2
1.3. We are forwarding at your request the following from the Plans as Approved,
excerpted from the Construction Document set:
• Plans as Approved, excerpted from the Construction Document Set: Stormwater
Drainage Plans and Details, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.3.10 and 1.3.11.
1.4. We have previously forwarded to the Planning Board and VHB copies of the
Conservation Commission's Consultant review letters
• Conservation Commission's Consultant Review Letters by Lisa Eggleston,
Eggleston Environmental (EE), 14 January 2004; 03 December 2003 and 05
November 2003.
1.5. Fred King and Dale Harris met with Tim McIntosh and Bethany Eisenberg on 26
January 2004 at VHB's office to discuss outstanding issues in VHB's review.
1.6. The specific items addressed in the VHB memo are responded to in the attached
memoranda from SBNE and GA,
2. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS RESPONSE AND FOLLOW UP
2.1. We are forwarding to the Planning Board;
• Planning Board Package—9 copies of the materials listed above in 1.2, 7 copies
with half size drawing sets and 2 copies with full size drawing sets care of Julie
Parrino; 1 copy care of Tim McIntosh — Memorandums only (full size drawing set
and other materials listed above delivered at meeting with VHB, SBNE and GA on
26 January 2004).
• Plans as Approved Drawing Set Excerpt—2 full size copies care of Julie Parrino.
2.2. Please contact Rick Rice or myself if you have any questions.
Jon Oxman IA
DiNISCO SIGN
cc: Louis Minicucci (Memoranda only)
Paul Szymanski (Memoranda only)
Nancy Kurtz (Memoranda only)
Patrick Saitta (Memoranda only)
Kenneth DiNisco (Memoranda only)
Richard Rice (Memoranda only)
Enclosures: See Items 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1 above.
99430.0 SitePlanRvwResponsel