HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 160 FLAGSHIP DRIVE 10/2/1997 10/02./97 12:48 140.625 P02
zi rV,
0"L C "' NTON10
ENGINJer=H8 4^10 SCIFNT(STS
October 2, 1997
Planning Board
c/o Kathleen Colwell
30 School Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
Lot 75 Flagship Drive
Site Plan Submittal
Dear Ms. Colwell:
As requested, Color&Colantonio,Inc. has reviewed the revised plans and calculations
for the above referenced project. Based on our conversation with Michael Howard,the
site is not subject to DEP Stormwater Management Policy. The following documents
were reviewed-,
• A set of plans entitled"Proposed Site Expansion Map 25 -Lot 75 Flagship
Drive North Andover Business Park North Andover, MA"prepared for
Channel Building Company, Inc.,prepared by MI F Design Consultants,Inc.
last revised 9/29/97.
• A report entitled "Drainage Analysis Proposed Site Development Map 25 -
Lot 75 Flagship Drive North Andover Business Park North Andover, MA",
prepared by MHF Design Consultants,Inc. last revised September 29, 1997,
This correspondence follows the numbering sequence of our previous report. We have
left our original comment with our current comments on the design italicized. We offer
the following comments:
SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ISSUES:
1. It is our understanding that Scetions 8.3.5.e) ii,iii, iv,xv, xix,xx,xxii and xxiii,are
typically reviewed by Town Staff. We have no further comment.
2. Section 8.3.5.e.i. A north arrow should be shown on the Landscape Plan.
aclorily addressed
3. Section 8.3-S.e.iv. A portion of the access drive is located outside of the access
easement. Permanent drainage casements should encompass grading for detention
basins beyond the property limits. It is unclear if the access drive at the southern end
101 Accord Park Drive 617.982-5400
Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:617-982-5490
10/02/97 12,48 NO 625 P83
of the building can be built within the grading, utility and drainage easement
dedicated to the abutting property. A. grading easement may be,required at the
southern property line to perform proposed grading. OV0ri d1y further .
e . documentation is forthcoming regarding easements/rights fir work We recommend
that the Planning Board review the iraforination provided
4. Section 8.3.5.e.v. The proposed grading extends beyond the property lines and within
the Flagship Drive Ri g ht of Way. Proposed grading on [lie southern property line
i extends beyond the property line. It is not clear that the applicant has the right to
perform grading in these ,areas. I"rtedly fiirther documentation is forthcoming
regarding easetnenis/rights for work We recommend that the Planning hoard review
i floe information provided
5. Section 8.3,5.vii. See drainage issues below.
E, Section 8.3.5.e.x, The rrra.ximurn pitch of the handicapped ramp should be labeled on
the detail. Satisfactorily addressed
T Section 83,5.e.xi. It is unclear if all wetlands have been located on the plan and
approved by the Conservation Commission. The status of the stormwater outlet area
on Lot 85 should be classified as a wetland or drainage area. Satisfactorily addressed.
S. Section 8.3,5.c.xii. It is our understanding sign inforination will be submitted at a
later date. No further comment.
9, Section 8.3.5.e.xiv, It is unclear if outdoor storage/display areas are proposed. These
areas should be identified if applicable. Satisfactorily addressed no outdoor storage
areas are proposed
.M 10. Section 8.35.e,xvi. The method of screening the refuse area should be identified.
f should review the
('.,t��..��'<�' adequacy ov�dro�rrr�eil °� ,snirxec.n Identified,„ i'"h �`la»Hirt Board
11. Section 8.3.5.e.xvii, A detail of two free standing light fixtures has been detailed. It
is unclear if light fixtures are located on the building's exterior. Wall mounted light
g �
fixrures are indicated on the building.
9
12. Section 83.5.e.xviii. It is our understanding that the existing drainage system
throughout the industrial park is assumed to have adequate capacity for the proposed
praject,therefore we have not commented on this issue, No further comment.
13. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi. The location of the gas line should be shown on the plans. Sewer
and water should be offset a minimum of 10'. SMH i#1 appears closer than 10' to the
water line_ A cleanout should be installed at the 45 degree bend in the sewer pipe.
The sewer and storm water pipe crossing should be checked. It is unclear what size
10/02/97 12:49 NO.625 P05
..........
the capacity of the syste,11 would discharge to either Flagship Drive 0 the northerly
e fia r
drainage system or across the drive on Lot 82 to the adjacent wellandv,for the
southerly system.
20. A catch basin to manhole arrangement should be used to maximize settlement in the
catch basins. We recommend that the drainage layout in the entrance way be
redesigned to include an additional manhole, the design has been revised to reflect a
catch basin to manhole arrangement except at CBS 2 and 3. CB 2 is an area drain off
the pavement.
21. Rip-rap should be shown at the inlets to the detention basin. Data used to design the
rip rap at Pipe inlets and outlets should be included in the submittal. A typical design
detail should also be provided. Satisfactorily addressed
22. Invert data for reservoir No. 2 and northern basin should be adjusted in the model to
be consistent with the invert data on the drawing. No longer applicable.
23. It is unclear why the weir coefficient is not consistent throughout the model. Backup
data for weir coefficients should be provided, No longer applicable.
24. Inlets into the detention basins should not be located at the outlets. This type of
design will cause-short circuiting and ineffective treatment of runoff. No longer
applicable.
25. Two outlet structures are labeled DIV and should be clarified. No longer applicable.
26.A culvert/orifice analysis was not included in the report for the northern detention
basin, No longer applicable.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
It is our understanding that the site is not subject tostormwater Management Policy.
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,
C/ ER&COLANTONIO,INC.
)ohn C. Chessia,P.E.
xC Mike Howard
MHF Design Consultants
08/29/97 97 10:00 NO.306 P6,
Z
ENCINttRR AND OCIEN"1 iSYS
August 29, 1997
Planning;Board
c/o Mr. William Scott
30 School Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Engineering Review
Lot 75 Flagship Drive
Site Plan Submittal
Dear Mr. Scott:
At your request, Cofer&Colantonio,Inc.has reviewed the plans and calculations for the
above referenced project. Our review specifically addressed the requirements for
submission under the Site Plan Review section of the Zoning By-Laws and water quality
issues on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Since the project involves a building
of over 25,000 square feet it is considered a"major"project under the By-Laws. This
correspondence is a result of the above review and includes our comments on the
submittal package. The following documents were reviewed:
® A set of plans entitled"Proposed Site Expansion Map 25 -Lot 75 Flagship
Drive North Andover Business Park North Andover,MA"prepared for
Channel Building Company,Inc.,prepared by MHF Design Consultants,Inc.
dated April 26, 1996.
® A report entitled"Drainage Analysis Proposed Site Development Map 25 -
Lot 75 Flagship Drive North Andover Business Park North Andover. MA",
prepared by MHF Design Consultants,Inc. dated August 5 1 997.
The parcel is located on Flagship Drive, an industrial subdivision. The lot is currently
undeveloped and wooded. Drainage from the proposed site access drive will be
connected to the storm sewer system in Flagship Drive and a drainage system located
south of the property. It is proposed to construct a building of 30,000 square foot in plan,
together with associated parking,utilities and a storm water management structures.
We offer the following comments:
101 Accord Park Drive 617-962.5400
Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:617.962-5490
M=29.'97 10:01 1.40.307 (POI
SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ISSUES,
1. It is our understanding that Sections 8.3.5.e)ii,iii,iv,xv,xix,xx,xxii and xxiii,are
typically reviewed by Town Staff.
V2 /Section 8.3.5.e.i. A north arrow should be shown on the Landscape flan.
3. Section 8.3.5.e.iv. A portion of the access drive is located outside of the access
casement. Permanent drainage easements should encompass grading for detention
basins beyond the property limits. It is unclear if the access drive at the southern end
of the building can be built within the grading, utility and drainage easement
dedicated to the abutting property. ,A grading; easement may be required at the
southern property line to perform proposed grading.
4. Section 8.3.5.e,v. The proposed grading extends beyond the property lines and within
the Flagship Drive Right of Way. Proposed grading on the southern property line
extends beyond the property line. It is not clear that the applicant has the right to
perform grading in these areas.
Section 8.3.5.vii. See drainage issues below.
6f Section 8.3.5.e.x. The maximum pitch of the handicapped ramp should be labeled on
the detail.
Section.8.3.5.e.xi. It is unclear if all wetlands have been located on the plan and
J approved by the Conservation Commission. The status of the stormwater outlet area
ion Lot 85 should be classified as a wetland or drainage area_
18fi Section 8.3.5.e.xii. It is our understanding sign information will be submitted at a
later date.
9 Section 8.3.5.e.xiv. It is unclear if outdoor storage/display areas are proposed. These
areas should be identified if applicable,
.Section 8.3.5.e.xvi. The method of screening the refuse area should be identified.
I Section 8.3.5.e.xvii. A detail of two free standing light fixtures has been detailed. It
+/ is unclear if light fixtures are located on the building's exterior.
1/Section 8.3.5.e.xviii. It is our understanding that the existing drainage system
throughout the industrial park is assumed to have adequate capacity for the proposed
tI .ect,therefore we have not commented on this issue.
I3. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi. The location of the gas line should be shown on the plans. Sewer
and water should be offset a minimum of 10'. SMH#1 appears closer than 10' to the
08:'29.'97 10:02 NO.307 P02
water line. A eleanout should be installed at the 45 degree bend in the sewer pipe.
The sewer and storm water pipe crossing should be checked. It is unclear what size
pipe is exiting the northern detention,basin outlet structure.
STORM WATER DRAINAGE ISSUES:
/I . Calculations are based on the rational method for sizing stormwater management
structures. NRCS methods are typically used for this type of design and are required
under the Wetland By-Laws..
1 . Subarea plans should be submitted at a scale of 1" ® 40'. It is not clear at what scale
the reduced plans are which prevents us from checking the areas. Subarea plans
should indicate cover and soil type divides. Curve numbers (CN) and Tc values
should be developed using Soil Conservation Service TR-55 for entry into the TR-20
program. No information was provided to substantiate the CN or Tc used to develop
runoff hydrographs. This information is necessary for us to evaluate the calculations.
�The outlet structures will be difficult to maintain as designed. The 4 and five inch
utlets should be protected from clogging by a trash grate. The calculations should
justify the use of weir and orifice coefficients based on the proposed conditions. It
appears that the outlets should be modeled as culverts.
/6�uidelines e recommend that detention basin swale systems be designed consistent with
in ASCE Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 77"Design
and Construction of Urban Stonnwater Management Systems"and Stormwater
Management guidelines published by DEP. The proposed slopes are 2:1. DEP
regulations and ASCE recommend a 3:1 maximum slope. The top of the basins
hould be designed to be accessible for maintenance vehicles.
1 . A test pit, witnessed by a soil evaluator,should be performed at the proposed
detention basin location to determine groundwater levels. Note that the Conservation
Commission regulations do not allow for storage below the maximum groundwater
elevation.
JJ' The design should demonstrate that a safe outlet for storm-water to discharge exists in
the event that the outlet structures are plugged.
VA catch basin to manhole arrangement should be used to maximize settlement in the
catch basins. We recommend that the drainage layout in the entrance way be
redesigned to include an additional manhole.
2 Rip-rap should be shown at the inlets to the detention basin. Data used to design the
rip rap at pipe inlets and outlets should be included in the submittal. A typical design
detail should also be provided.
Invert data for reservoir No. 2 and northern basin should be adjusted in the model to
be consistent with the invert data on the drawing.
08/29/97 10:03 NO.307 D03
It is unclear why the weir coefficient is not consistent throughout the model. Backup
data for weir coefficients should be provided.
X24:Inlets into the detention basins should not be located at the outlets. This type of
/design will cause short circuiting and ineffective treatment of runoff.
2/ Two outlet structures are labeled DI#7 and should be clarified.
�.�A culvert/orifice analysis was not included in the report for the northern detention*
basin.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
S ndard#1
Roof runoff has not been treated prior to entering the detention/infiltration basin.
Standard#2
The storm water model should be based on MRCS methodology.
Standard 43
No permeability data has been provided for the infiltration basin. It is unclear that
this standard has been met. The storage and drainage time in the infiltration basin
should be calculated. The depth to groundwater should be determined.
Standard#4
The detention basins have not been designed in accordance with stormwater
management guidelines. The TSS removal rate for detention basins with d
sediment forebay is 70%. The calculations use $Q%and the detention basins have
not been designed with a sediment forebay,
Standard#5
The project does contain land use with higher potential pollutant loads due to the
metal roof. Roof runoff has not been treated prior to entering the
detention(infiltration basins,
Standard#G
Not applicable
1
Standard#7
Not applicable
Standard#8
It is our understanding Town Stag is reviewing the erosion control plans.
08/29/97 10:03 No.307 D 04
Standard#9
An Operation and Maintenance (0 &M)Plan conforming to stormwater
management standards should be submitted.
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,
COLPR& COLANTONTO,INC.
1
An C. Chessla,P.E.
xc Mike Howard
MHF Design Consultants
