HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 94 FLAGSHIP DRIVE 7/6/1995 eT----), f�-' - , �Z"
3 W -- —
U L—L---
"01 ANTONIO
11
a6 i Q 45
Planning Board
NIS. 1"ahlet:11 Bmdl'r v i'
lo"n of Norl Andover
lip 10 Mahl SIM
Aiidovt:i% NJA 01845
N-k
94 it!Sop QN,
prnposal IN(), i-4-4"
1 war his, (f A"'ell:
("oler & Cotantonio. Inc, is pleased to provide with this proposal to perfoml
migineering services associated Wh the above proicet it is our understanding that we
arc d calculations for the above referenced comn-,ierciat
to reviow the plan anti calculatit
development in dhe Town ()f North Andover. Spec i tically, our review would cover
stc The plan would lie reviewed under the wile
-im-mater runoff calculations and desig n, w b
Plan ReWew provisions of the Zoni'V By-Uw, The plans would also be reviewcd W,
conlonn• nce w standard engineering, design standards.
Included in this proposal is a Scope of' Services which outlines the specific tasks to be
performed, a listing of Additional Services which are excluded from this contract, and
discussions of Schedule. Fcc and Basis ot'Payment.
I m SCOPE Or, SFIRVIC VS
t.1 JZ,e�,jew the plans and calculations fir conformance with the requirements
of local Phnning Bond and Zoning regiflations as well as standard
engineering practiG-,, This review would be specific, to drainage design,
{}Biel' a
-, ii-11 testing, -which may ultimately affect the drainage
desii,m would also 'he eve fluated,
vi-
,it tj)e property tee obi nerve existing. conditions on the site.
1 .3 Prepare a lotler report connmntin�, on the plans and calculations.
Coler& Colantonio, Inc. would be. pleased to provide the following additional services, iF
required or desired, fOr mutually aureed union additional compensatiozi, Such additional
services would involve fees in addition to \what is indicated in Seelluit 4 0 of this
pro �1tt��ctied is a Fee Schedule which w 11 be used to establish billings for �ervices
not specilically covered bv tliis C'd?ntract.
�., f �tt{�nl�in�:v it lliE'f!t'1Lw.
2 Additional review or preparaiion of additional reports.
\L�(ilti4lii ( i-iold v"i?it s.
'A 113AA)LE
toter tY t_olamonlo, Inc, wilt commence ,vork upon receipt of written authorization to
rn-oceed. �k e will perfc]t�t�t these selviccs to n�e,et your requirenieiits. Typically two to
three \-veeks are required to pet'limin the tasks listen in the Scope of Services,
i he lee to perf-rin the services listed in the, Scope of `services would by $1500 fi)r the
in])rmation in kan-L Ihis i:; a not to exceed fee for the tasks listed in the Scope, You
\viii be billed 'based on actual hour; worked on the project. fees for services listed under
Additional Services, il' required, v,-ould be billed on a time and materials basis in
accoruan(ce with tlic attached 1i e chedute.
I he Zees described above do not include expenses. E,,gm]ses such as mileage,
rcprogrttphic costs, etc., would be bliled at cost plus a fit-wen percent (15%) aditiinistrative
A—,x -m
Invoices for scrvic,O \vill be submitted monthiv. By the sicming of this proposal, it is
agreed aim understood ttiw, pav nent wth tie made upon receipt of the invoice, The
o vner client agrecs to limit the liability of Soler (V. t'oiantonio Inc. to the ctti\ner/clieiat
and to all constructir_�i] c,outractors and sut?cont.ractorw on the project arising from Coler &
c_.olantonio, lric.'s negligent elxors or omissions such that the total aggregate liability
ur'Culcr & ColantciniO. lr]c., will. '-lot exceed the contract :miount. It iF fi flier understood
thm ariv ori this accOunt remainiri« unpaid 161 a pericid of )i will incur a
service charge of I-I_M'-o per i1 .7rlt.li (expressed as an animal Vcreentage rate., the c.lial''Te is
0
lu0 w). It is further arced that if Faid a;:cotiltt i4 turtied over for collcctiori, reasc7nahle-
auornal' ices and costs of collection shall be added to tfte unpaid balances,. whether or
not legal action is instituted. Corer & Ci�l;-ititonio, hic. reserves the right to stop work on
the project. it invoices are not paid within 30 dad's ofthe date of the invoice.
Prior to dolllg any worst on the properM we reser e the rinlit to post a notice of contract,
i-he paities to this contract specifically aoree that Ceder & r'oiantonio, Inc. has no
obiigation. to release drawings or other documents until the I`mal bill too services has been
B,, si t7ia? this letter, }'all indicate Four acceptance ofd- terms and conditions; contained
herLiti and vOU Will rive us tic1tI1OM/-U6O.D.to proceed with the scope of work indicated.
r A
creed to in(! ,-1cC;tp(O-C_i BV:
nw,
W. &
COLANTON10 0z
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
July 18, 1995
LANNING
Ms. Kathleen Colwell
Town Planner
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Engineering Review
94 Flagship Drive
Parking Lot Expansion
Dear Ms. Colwell:
In accordance with our proposal of Coler& Colantonio, Inc. has reviewed the plans and
calculations for the above referenced project. Our review specifically addressed drainage
and stormwater runoff aspects of the design. It is our understanding that other aspects of
the design would be reviewed by in house staff. We also compared the design
assumptions and calculations with standard practices outlined in Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) runoff calculation documents and other standard engineering references.
This correspondence is a result of the above review and includes our comments on the
submittal package. The following documents were reviewed:
• A plan entitled"Site Plan of Land in No. Andover, Mass.,"prepared for
Development Assoc., prepared by David E. Ross Associates, Inc. dated June
1995.
• A report entitled"Drainage Calculations Development Associates Flagship
Drive North Andover, Massachusetts,"prepared by David E. Ross Associates,
Inc. stamped on June 23, 1995.
We offer the following comments:
1. The parcel is located on Flagship Drive, an industrial subdivision. The lot is currently
developed with a building and parking/loading area. Drainage from the site is
connected to the storm sewer system in Flagship Drive. Wetlands are located at the
southeast corner of the lot. It is proposed to expand the parking area, no expansion of
the building is proposed with this submittal.
2. Contours on the plan are inconsistent at the area identified as Pond 1, and near the
wetland limits north of the replication area adjacent to the fill pile. Adjustments to
the contours in these areas may impact the amount of wetland filling required.
101 Accord Park Drive, Suite One 617-982-5400
Norwell, MA 02061-1685 Fax: 6'17-982-5490
3. Our measurement of wetland fill and replication areas indicates approximately 870 sf
of fill and 730 sf of replication.
4. No inverts are indicated for the interceptor drain. The detail references the plan for
elevations of the interceptor drain, however, this information is not provided.
5. Flow paths used to determine the Time of Concentration (Tc) should be indicated
on the subarea plans.
6. The Tc calculations for subarea 1, under both existing and proposed conditions,
appear to be too long. Our experience has been that woods with dense undergrowth
is uncommon in the northeast. In addition, the calculation of flow time for the
shallow concentrated flow segment is longer than estimated using the SCS TR-55
program. Using a longer Tc results in a lower peak rate of flow. In this case since
the values are the same under pre and post construction conditions the impact to the
design is anticipated to be minimal.
7. Subcatchment 5 does not reflect additional paving which is proposed to be added to
the subarea. Adding pavement will increase the peak runoff rate.
8. The model does not accurately reflect the grading with respect to subcatchment 6.
The plans indicate a detail of a proposed cape cod berm which appears to be installed
around the perimeter of the proposed parking area. In addition,the grading directs
flow from subcatchment 6 to existing catch basin 4. This subcatchment should be
combined with subcatchment 2 since both areas discharge to the same location. This
will likely result in a higher peak discharge from catch basin 4, since flow would not
be routed through the swale and would concentrate more rapidly at the catch basin.
It is anticipated that adjustments to the model to reflect the above comments would result
in a larger difference between pre and post construction peak runoff rates. The submittal
package did not address the capacity of the downstream system. If the overall
subdivision was designed to handle the flow from the site as currently before the
Planning Board and Conservation Commission, an increase in runoff rate may be
acceptable.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER& COLANTONIO, INC.
t /r
/` John C. Chessia, P.E.
08/01/95 14:55 COLER COLRNTOH 10 -* 503 632 23997 HO. 796 P01
COLER &
COLANTONIC-J �
AN 8%^'!F-NTIST5
FAX CovER SHEET
DATE:
F PAGES
12 _ r��
.
FAX NUMBER:
Direct Line:
FROM:. 6'97.982®54+3
0-
'Al
o
if you cannot read any portion of this fax, please call our main number
617-982-5400.
617-982-5400
101 ACCORD PARK DRIVE, SUITE ONE
FAX'. 617-982-5490
1/05 14:55 COLER COLRATOH10 y 508 582 =97 No.705 P02
COLANTONIOZ
FNGINAR=RS AND SCI�:N rib 13
August 1, 1995
Ms. Kathleen Colwell
Town Planner
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Additional Engineering Review
94 Flagship Drive
Parking Lot Expansion
Dear Ms, Colwell:
Cofer& Colantonio, Inc, has reviewed the revised plans and calculations for the above
referenced project. Our review specifically addressed drainage and stormwater runoff
aspects of the design. This correspondence follows the numbering system of our letter of
July 18, 1995, where a comment has been satisfactorily addressed we have so stated, We
offer the following comments:
1. No response required,
7, Satisfactory.
3. No wetland alteration is proposed with the revised submittal.
4. Satisfactory.
5. Satisfactory,
G. Satisfactory.
7. Satisfactory.
8, The location of the "cape cod berm"has been clarified. It appears to be placed
directly on the pavement to act as a gutter for runoff. This will direct runoff to the
swale; as calculated in the report.
9. The calculations indicate a larger increase in post development runoff than the
original submittal. The regulations require that there be no increwse in runoff rate
post development. As stated in our first review, if the original subdivision plans
included provisions designed to mitigate the anticipated runoff from this site post
1/95 14:56 COLER COLAHTOhd I O 3 508 682 2397 NO.795 P03
development, an increase may be acceptable. The calculations provided, which
Address the capacity of the existing storm sewer system, consider pressure flow(i.e.
the level of water in manholes and catch basins would be well above the top of the
pipes). Typically, storm sewers are designed to function as open channels, It is not
known what the criteria was at the time of the original subdivision. The existing
system would be undersized based on open channel flow design criteria, We agree
that the increases in runoff from the site is small, however, the Planning Board should
also consider the implicatimis of incremental increases from other development in the
area,
We Appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficient for your needs, if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER& COLANTONIO, INC.
Xohn C. Chessia, F.E.
xc David E, Ross Associates