HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1211 OSGOOD STREET 9/3/2003 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: RetakljF llfoi%�Lr°f� 1 Osgood St VHB No.: 06716.86
Location: 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Owner: Frank and Kathleen Terranova, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: F.K.Realty Trust, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Rd Suite One,Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: ept ber'°3,°°2 Review Date: October 15,2003
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for the Retail Facility—
1211 Osgood Street. 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 practice. VHB has received the following drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans(7 sheets)dated September 3,2003
• Special Permit Application dated September 2003
• Letter from the Traffic Engineer TEC dated August 11,2003
• Drainage Report dated September 2003
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections,constructability issues and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 5:Earth Materials Removal
Please verify that all requirements have been met under the Earth Removal By-Law.
Section 6:Signs and Lighting Regulations
Is the proposed site sign to be illuminated?
No lighting plans were submitted with this design package,therefore VHB could not review for compliance. The
Applicant's Engineer should provide detailed lighting plans,which show the location of the two types of proposed
lighting fixtures and the candle-foot outlines of the site.
Section 8:Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
The Summary Chart on Sheet I of the planset lists 51 proposed parking spaces of which 3 are handicapped.
The plans show that only 49 parking spaces are being provided and only 2 handicapped. Based on the gross
floor area of 9,450sf,the required number of parking spaces is 48;in which 2 must be handicap accessible.
The Applicant's Engineer should revise the chart on Sheet 1. Also all parking spaces should be 9'x18'per
the North Andover Zoning Bylaws, The Applicant's Engineer should revise the plans accordingly.
1
T:\06716\docs\reports\1211 Osgood Street.doc
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 Information Required
e-vii) Stormwater Drainage: See General Drainage Comments section.
e-xv) Lighting Facilities: This section required the applicant provide information identifying the
proposed illumination,indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the
proposed lighting facilities. See Section 6:Signs and Lighting Requirements Comments.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study:See Traffic Study Comments.
e-xxi) Utilities:See General and Drainage Comments.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS
I. Is there existing sidewalk on Barker Street and Osgood Street?
2. Where is the existing guardrail proposed to be relocated to? Is the material in good condition?
Provide detail for resetting guardrail.
3. VHB understands from the Traffic Memo that Osgood Street will be widened for a left-turn lane at
some future date. Since the driveway opening is within State Highway Layout,VHB defers to
MassHighway for comments about the location,width,tapers lengths,etc of the proposed
driveway.
4. It is unclear from the plans where the sloped granite curb will be located. The Applicant's
Engineer should label the plans more clearly. Also the detail should illustrate the depth of the
curb.
5. For curbing along the roadway,the placement of the curb should meet MassHighway Construction
Standards. (MHD STD 106.3.0) The dimensions of the granite curb should be provided on the
detail.
6. The 3'wide walkway in the northeast comer of the site should be handicapped accessible. The
Applicant's Engineer should widen the proposed walkway to meet AAB requirements and provide
wheelchair ramps at each end of the walkway.
7. It is unclear from the plans where Wheelchair Ramp Type"A"and Type"B"are located. The
Applicant's Engineer should label the types on the plans.
8. The location for the proposed bollards should be shown on the plans.
9. The Applicant's Engineer should review the planting list. The Plant Summary lists 32 BH(Bar
Harbor Juniper)but the plans show 35 BH are proposed.
10. The invert shown on the plans for the proposed 6"sewer service appears to be incorrect.
11. What will happen to the existing concrete wall located in the northeast comer of the site?
12. How will the curbing proposed along Osgood Street transition to the existing curbing?
13. Are granite curb inlets proposed? If so,a detail showing transition from berm to granite curb inlet
and back to berm should be provided.
III. GENERAL DRAINAGE COMMENTS
1. Proposed pipe labels do not match the pipe size labeled at the Manholes. The Applicant's
Engineer should review and revise the plans.
2. Drainage Manhole#3 has 2-30"pipes coming into it at less than 90 degree angle. Is the structure
large enough to accommodate this configuration?
3. The proposed system is tying into existing 15"vc pipe. The Applicant's Engineer should provide
velocity and capacity calculations to ensure that the existing pipe is adequate.
2
T.\06716\doc:\reports\1211 Osgood Street.doc
4. The proposed design meets the requirements for recharge. The infiltration calculations were based
on a conservative infiltration rate for the type of soils listed on the soils maps of the area. The soil
evaluator visually classified the soils consistently with the soils map. VHB recommends the design
engineer have a sample analyzed by sieve analysis to confirm the classification.
5. VHB found an inconsistency in the infiltration rate used. The summary information referred to a
roof recharge rate of 0.07cfs,while the`Roof Drainage Recharge Facility Design'claims a rate of
0.02cfs. The Applicant's Engineer should review the calculations/assumptions and clarify.
6. The Applicant's Engineer should provide calculations showing the removal of TSS in the drainage
system.
7. VHB suggests the Applicant's Engineer does not include the sidewall area in the calculation of the
infiltration area.
8. VHB requests that the Applicant's Engineer review and provide a more detailed
summary/narrative of the model and the function of the recharge area and concrete pipe system as
storage. The model suggests that the infiltration from the recharge area(reach 7)will act as
secondary outlet for pond I and pond 2,however the calculations show discharge rates of 0.07 cfs
and 0.30 cfs for the secondary discharges for the two ponds,(100 year storm,from watershed
routing diagram,pond 1,pond 1 secondary,pond 2,pond 2 secondary,and pond routing by stor-
ind method). There appears to be an inconsistency with the model.
9. The operations and maintenance plan should specifically discuss the cleaning and inspection
methods needed to keep the oversized pipe storage clean and clear.
10. The description in the report of the summary flows to reach 16,list design points 1,2,3 and 4 as
tributary. However the watershed routing diagram shows design points 3 and 4 as being tributary
to design point 2. The design engineer should confirm the runoff is not being double counted.
11. The Applicant's Engineer should conduct additional on site investigation to determine the
configuration of the existing drainage system.
12. Are the existing catch basins on the property proposed to be removed?
13. The Applicant's Engineer has provided test pit data. Were mottles found in the test pits? If
mottles were found,the Applicant's Engineer should detail that information in the test pit logs,and
adjust the estimated seasonal high ground water accordingly.
14. The Applicant's Engineer has provided calculations showing the adequacy of the pipe system
during the 10 year storm. Because the system's ability to detain peak flows on site is dependent on
the runoff entering the pipe system,the engineer must show that the entire system has capacity to
collect the larger storms up to the 100 year flow.
15. The Applicant's Engineer should provide buoyancy calculations for the proposed gas trap. The
proposed gas trap will be installed nearly 6'below the estimate ground water elevation.
IV. TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS
1. The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Barker
Street. As the majority of the site-generated traffic will exit the site at this location. This should
include an assessment of the project-related traffic along with the additional developments noted in
the vicinity of the project.
2. The applicant should evaluate the driveway locations with respect to the Route 125 corridor to
assure that no traffic will be queuing onto the Route 125 corridor(or any public right of way)from
within the site and/or as a result of queuing at unsignalized intersections.
3. The right turn lane into the site off of Route 125 appears to be extremely short. While this is a
state highway location,the presence of the Barker Street intersection immediately to the west may
influence driver access into(and out of)the site as there is limited deceleration distance provided
along Route 125.
3
T:\06716\docs\reports\1211 Osgood Streetdoc
Once the applicant provides additional detail on these issues,VHB will review and,if needed,provide additional
comments to the Town for their consideration.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
William Cotter,P.E.
Drainage Review
Reviewed by: Jw.r.V q�� (.Ca 1�Y (,� Date: /0//
Tracie Lenhardt
Civil Review
Checked by: Date:
Robert L.Nagi,P.E.,P.T.O.E.
Traffic Study Review
��,-- It
5• (1
Checked by: /f�/' ' ""� Date: 10
Tim McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal Engineering
4
T:\06716\does\reports\1211 Osgood Stmtdoc - '..
P
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD j 'y
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVRI'��
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: RetaitFacility—l2I1IOsgeod,,St VHB No.: 06716.86
Location: 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Owner: Frank and Kathleen Terranova, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant- F.K.Realty Trust, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover, MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Rd Suite One,Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date- Septembeelon Voja, Review Date: October 15,2003
63 Review Date: November 25,2003
NON 'n,
Revised Date: 6
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)is providing a second engineering review of the Site Plan for the Retail
Facility— 1211 Osgood Street. 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 practice. VHB has received the following drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans(7 sheets)dated November 10,2003
• Drainage Report dated November 10,2003
• Response Traffic Study Comments from TEC
• Response to Comments
In General the Applicant's Engineer has addressed several of the comments from our previous letter;however,a few
items still need to be addressed.The responses listed below follow the general outline of V14B's October 15,2003
Site Plan review letter. For clarity,VHB's original comment is shown followed by our second comment shown in
bold.
I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 5: Earth Materials Removal
Please verify that all requirements have been met under the Earth Removal By-Law. This comment has been
addressed.
Section 6:Signs and Lighting Regulations
Is the proposed site sign to be illuminated? The Applicant's Engineer has indicated that the proposed sign will
be submitted to the Building Inspector for approval. This comment has been addressed.
No lighting plans were submitted with this design package,therefore VHB could not review for compliance, The
Applicant's Engineer should provide detailed lighting plans,which show the location of the two types of proposed
lighting fixtures and the candle-foot outlines of the site. Lighting plans still have not been submitted for review.
The Applicant's Engineer has indicated that lighting will be submitted. VHB could not review for
compliance.
TA06716861docs\mports\1211 Osgood Strectldoc
Section 8: Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
The Summary Chart on Sheet 1 of the planset lists 51 proposed parking spaces of which 3 are handicapped.
The plans show that only 49 parking spaces are being provided and only 2 handicapped. Based on the gross
floor area of 9,450sf,the required number of parking spaces is 48,in which 2 must be handicap accessible.
The Applicant's Engineer should revise the chart on Sheet 1. Also all parking spaces should be 9'x]8'per
the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the plans accordingly. This
comment has been addressed.
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 Information Required
e-vii) Stormwater Drainage: See General Drainage Comments section.
e-xv) Lighting Facilities: This section required the applicant provide information identifying the
proposed illumination,indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the
proposed lighting facilities. See Section 6: Signs and Lighting Requirements Comments. The
Applicant's Engineer has indicated that a lighting plan will be submitted. VHB could not
review for compliance.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study: See Traffic Study Comments.
e-xxi) Utilities: See General and Drainage Comments.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Is there existing sidewalk on Barker Street and Osgood Street?This comment has been
addressed.
2. Where is the existing guardrail proposed to be relocated to? Is the material in good condition?
Provide detail for resetting guardrail. This comment has been addressed.
3. VHB understands from the Traffic Memo that Osgood Street will be widened for a left-turn lane at
some future date. Since the driveway opening is within State Highway Layout,VHB defers to
MassHighway for comments about the location,width,tapers lengths,etc of the proposed
driveway. This comment has been addressed. VHB assumes that MassHighway has
reviewed and approved the curb cut application.
4. It is unclear from the plans where the sloped granite curb will be located. The Applicant's
Engineer should label the plans more clearly. Also the detail should illustrate the depth of the
curb. This comment has been addressed.
5. For curbing along the roadway,the placement of the curb should meet MassHighway Construction
Standards. (MHD STD 106.3.0) The dimensions of the granite curb should be provided on the
detail. Although the dimensions were added to the detail,the detail no longer references
granite curb. The Applicant's Engineer should make it clear(on the plans and detail)that
granite curb(type VA4)will be used on Osgood Street.
6. The 3'wide walkway in the northeast corner of the site should be handicapped accessible. The
Applicant's Engineer should widen the proposed walkway to meet AAB requirements and provide
wheelchair ramps at each end of the walkway. The 3'walkway has been removed in the revised
plans;therefore this comment has been addressed.
7. It is unclear from the plans where Wheelchair Ramp Type"A"and Type"B"are located. The
Applicant's Engineer should label the types on the plans. The plans have been revised so that
the wheelchair ramp type is clearer. However,VHB would recommend the addition of a
wheelchair ramp at the southeast corner of the building along with a"one-way"ramp at the
southwest corner.
2
T:\0671686\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Streeldoc
S. The location for the proposed bollards should be shown on the plans. This comment has been
addressed.
9. The Applicant's Engineer should review the planting list. The Plant Summary lists 32 BH(Bar
Harbor Juniper)but the plans show 35 BH are proposed. This comment has been addressed.
10. The invert shown on the plans for the proposed 6"sewer service appears to be incorrect. The
invert elevation has been corrected. This comment has been addressed.
11. What will happen to the existing concrete wall located in the northeast corner of the site? This
comment has been addressed.
12. How will the curbing proposed along Osgood Street transition to the existing curbing? This
comment has been addressed. VHB suggests added a detail to the planset.
13. Are granite curb inlets proposed? If so,a detail showing transition from berm to granite curb inlet
and back to berm should be provided. This comment has been addressed.
III. GENERAL DRAINAGE COMMENTS
I. Proposed pipe labels do not match the pipe size labeled at the Manholes. The Applicant's
Engineer should review and revise the plans. This comment has been addressed.
2. Drainage Manhole#3 has 2-30"pipes coming into it at less than 90 degree angle. Is the structure
large enough to accommodate this configuration? Given the proposed pipe configuration,VHB
recommends that the precast manufacturer confirm and or modify the design of the
proposed 6'diameter structure so that it meets H-20 loading criteria.
3. The proposed system is tying into existing 15"vc pipe. The Applicant's Engineer should provide
velocity and capacity calculations to ensure that the existing pipe is adequate. This comment has
been addressed.
4. The proposed design meets the requirements for recharge. The infiltration calculations were based
on a conservative infiltration rate for the type of soils listed on the soils maps of the area. The soil
evaluator visually classified the soils consistently with the soils map. VHB recommends the design
engineer have a sample analyzed by sieve analysis to confirm the classification. Due to the fact
that no sieve analysis or percolation test information is available,VHB recommends that the
proponent's engineer modify his proposed conditions model so that it does not take credit for
infiltration or the storage volume within the infiltration units. This will insure that no
increase in peak runoff from the site will occur in the event that the recharge system does not
function according to the design.
5. VHB found an inconsistency in the infiltration rate used. The summary information referred to a
roof recharge rate of 0.07efs,while the`Roof Drainage Recharge Facility Design'claims a rate of
0.02efs. The Applicant's Engineer should review the calculations/assumptions and clarify. This
comment has been addressed.
6. The Applicant's Engineer should provide calculations showing the removal of TSS in the drainage
system. The proponent is proposing to install an on-line particle separator as well as include
deep sumps on all new CB's and institute a pavement-sweeping program. The proponent
claims a 49%TSS removal rate,which is below the 80%required by the DEP Stormwater
Management Standards. The proponent's engineer has claimed that this is a redevelopment
and therefore not subject to the DEP standards. This is only the case for redevelopments in
which there is no net increase in impervious area. Since the proposed project increases the
amount of impervious area on the Site,the proponent must provide 80%TSS removal.
7. VHB suggests the Applicant's Engineer does not include the sidewall area in the calculation of the
infiltration area. Due to Comment 4,this comment is no longer relevant.
8. VHB requests that the Applicant's Engineer review and provide a more detailed
summaryinarrative of the model and the function of the recharge area and concrete pipe system as
storage. The model suggests that the infiltration from the recharge area(reach 7)will act as
secondary outlet for pond 1 and pond 2,however the calculations show discharge rates of 0.07 cfs
3
TA0671 686\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Streel2.dm
and 0.30 cfs for the secondary discharges for the two ponds,(I 00 year storm,from watershed
routing diagram,pond],pond 1 secondary,pond 2,pond 2 secondary,and pond routing by MOT-
ind method). There appears to be an inconsistency with the model. This comment has been
addressed.
9. The operations and maintenance plan should specifically discuss the cleaning and inspection
methods needed to keep the oversized pipe storage clean and clear. This comment has been
addressed.
10. The description in the report of the summary flows to reach 16,list design points 1,2,3 and 4 as
tributary. However the watershed routing diagram shows design points 3 and 4 as being tributary
to design point 2. The design engineer should confirm the runoff is not being double counted.
This comment has been addressed.
11. The Applicant's Engineer should conduct additional on site investigation to determine the
configuration of the existing drainage system. This comment has been addressed.
12. Are the existing catch basins on the property proposed to be removed? This comment has been
addressed.
13. The Applicant's Engineer has provided test pit data. Were mottles found in the test pits? If
mottles were found,the Applicant's Engineer should detail that information in the test pit logs,and
adjust the estimated seasonal high ground water accordingly. This comment has been addressed.
14. The Applicant's Engineer has provided calculations showing the adequacy of the pipe system
during the 10 year storm. Because the system's ability to detain peak flows on site is dependent on
the runoff entering the pipe system,the engineer must show that the entire system has capacity to
collect the larger storms up to the 100 year flow. The proposed drainage system cannot store
the 100-year storm volume within the subsurface pipe system. The post development model
shows ponding up to elevation 160 for this design storm. It appears that CB 5 will back up
onto Osgood Street during this event. VHB recommends that this condition is eliminated.
15. The Applicant's Engineer should provide buoyancy calculations for the proposed gas trap. The
proposed gas trap will be installed nearly 6'below the estimate ground water elevation. This
comment has been addressed.
IV. TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS
I. The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Barker
Street. As the majority of the site-generated traffic will exit the site at this location. This should
include an assessment of the project-related traffic along with the additional developments noted in
the vicinity of the project. The timing of the project and the timing of the signal construction
by other parties is a concern. With the signal in place,VHB concurs with the applicant's
response that the project will not add any significant delay to the intersection. However,
should the proposed development project take place rp for to the installation and activation
of the traffic signal,the analysis results indicate that there will be an additional 38.7 seconds
of additional delay,an expected queue increase of approximately 2.5 vehicles,and a
corresponding reduction in level of service from LOS E or LOS F at this location for traffic
exiting Barker Street to Osgood Street. The applicant should identify any measures to
reduce the temporary nature of the project's impact until such a time that the traffic signal is
constructed and operational.
2. The applicant should evaluate the driveway locations with respect to the Route 125 corridor to
assure that no traffic will be queuing onto the Route 125 corridor(or any public right of way)from
within the site and/or as a result of queuing at unsignalized intersections. This comment has been
addressed.
4
T:\0671686\docs\reports\7277 Osgood Street2.doc '..
3. The right turn lane into the site off of Route 125 appears to be extremely short. While this is a
state highway location,the presence of the Barker Street intersection immediately to the west may
influence driver access into(and out of)the site as there is limited deceleration distance provided
along Route 125. This comment has been addressed.
Once the applicant provides additional detail on these issues,VHB will review and,if needed;provide additional
comments to the Town for their consideration.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: Date: // C=> 07-,
Christopher Nowak,P.9.
Drainage Review /
Reviewed by: ; ^�t LI I Date: 26
Tracie Lenhardt
Civil Review
Checked by: Date:
Robert L.Nagi,P.E.,P.T.O.E.
Traffic Study Review
Checked by: Date:
Tim McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal Engineering
5
T10671686\does\reports\1211 Osgood Stree@.doc
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: VHB No.:06716.86
Location: 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Owner: Frank and Kathleen Terranova, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: F.K.Realty Trust, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Rd Suite One,Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: S 14,rmhe 3,,2003 Review Date: October 15,2003
Revised Date: Review Date: November 25,2003
Revised Date: December, 2,003 Review Date: December 11,2003
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)is providing a third engineering review of the Site Plan for the Retail Facility
—1211 Osgood Street. 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 practice. VHB has received the following drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans(7 sheets)dated December 4,2003
• Proposed Building Floor Plan dated December 3,2003
• Proposed Lighting Plan dated December 2,2003
• Response to Comments
In General the Applicant's Engineer has addressed several of the comments from our previous letter;however,a few
items still need to be addressed.The responses listed below follow the general outline of VHB's October 15,2003
Site Plan review letter. VHB original comments and secondary comments(shown italicized)are listed below.
Comments that are shown bold are comments that must be addressed by the Applicant.
I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section S:Earth Materials Removal
Please verify that all requirements have been met under the Earth Removal By-Law.
This continent has been addressed.
Section 6:Signs and Lighting Regulations
Is the proposed site sign to be illuminated? The Applicant's Engineer has indicated that the proposed sign will be
submitted to the Bttilding Inspector far approval.
This comment has been addressed.
No lighting plans were submitted with this design package,therefore VHB could not review for compliance. The
Applicant's Engineer should provide detailed lighting plans, which show the location of the two types of proposed
lighting fixtures and the candle-foot outlines of the site. Lighting plans have been submitted. This comment has
been addressed.
1
\\Ma�va:r\te\0671686\does\reports\1211 Osgood Saeelldoc
Lighting plaits still have not been submitted for review. The Applicant's Engineer has indicated that lighting frill be
submitted. VHB could nor review for compliance.
Section 8:Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
The Summary Chart on Sheet 1 of the planset lists 51 proposed parking spaces of which 3 are handicapped.
The plans show that only 49 parking spaces are being provided and only 2 handicapped. Based on the gross
floor area of 9,450sf,the required number of parking spaces is 48;in which 2 must be handicap accessible.
The Applicant's Engineer should revise the chart on Sheet 1. Also all parking spaces should be 9'x18' per
the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the plans accordingly.
This conhntent has been addressed.
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 Information Required
e-vii) Stormwater Drainage: See General Drainage Comments section.
e-xv) Lighting Facilities: This section required the applicant provide information identifying the
proposed illumination,indicating the direction and the degree of illumination offered by the
proposed lighting facilities. See Section 6:Signs and Lighting Requirements Comments.
The Applicant's Engineer has indicated that a lighting plan will be submitted. VHB could not
review for compliance. Lighting plans have been submitted. This comment has been
addressed.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study:See Traffic Study Comments.
e-xxi) Utilities:See General and Drainage Comments.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Is there existing sidewalk on Barker Street and Osgood Street?This continent has been addressed.
2. Where is the existing guardrail proposed to be relocated to? Is the material in good condition?
Provide detail for resetting guardrail. This continent has been addressed.
3. VHB understands from the Traffic Memo that Osgood Street will be widened for a left-turn lane at
some future date. Since the driveway opening is within State Highway Layout,VHB defers to
MassHighway for comments about the location,width,tapers lengths,etc of the proposed
driveway. This comment has been addressed. VHB assumes that MassHighway has reviewed and
approved the curb cut application.
4. It is unclear from the plans where the sloped granite curb will be located. The Applicant's
Engineer should label the plans more clearly. Also the detail should illustrate the depth of the
curb. This comment has been addressed.
5. For curbing along the roadway,the placement of the curb should meet MassHighway Construction
Standards. (MHD STD 106.3.0) The dimensions of the granite curb should be provided on the
detail. Although the dimensions were a&led to the detail,the detail no longer references granite
curb. Tlte.4pplicartt's Engineer shotdd make it clear(on the plans and detail)that granite curb
(type VA4)will be used on Osgood Street. Detail states that VB curb should be used in Rte 125
Right of Way,but the Layout&Materials Plan(sheet 3 of 7)still states that granite curb or
precast cement concrete curb. Plans should be revised.
6. The 3' wide walkway in the northeast corner of the site should be handicapped accessible. The
Applicant's Engineer should widen the proposed walkway to meet AAB requirements and provide
wheelchair ramps at each end of the walkway. The 3'walkway has been removed in the revised
plaits;therefore this comment has been addressed.
2
\\Mawitr\te\0671656\dots\reports\1211 Osgood StmetIdoc
7. It is unclear from the plans where Wheelchair Ramp Type"A"and Type°B"are located. The
Applicant's Engineer should label the types on the plans. The plans have been revised so that the
wheelchair ramp tlpe is clearer. However. VHB would recommend the addition of a wheelchair
ramp at the southeast corner of the building along with a 'byre-way"ramp at the southwest
corner. This comment has been addressed.
8. The location for the proposed bollards should be shown on the plans. This comment has been
addressed.
9. The Applicant's Engineer should review the planting list. The Plant Summary lists 32 BH(Bar
Harbor Juniper)but the plans show 35 BH are proposed. This continent has been addressed.
10. The invert shown on the plans for the proposed 6"sewer service appears to be incorrect. The
hivert elevation has been corrected. This comment has been addressed.
11. What will happen to the existing concrete wall located in the northeast corner of the site? This
comment has been addressed.
12. IIow will the curbing proposed along Osgood Street transition to the existing curbing? This
comment has been addressed. VHB suggests added a detail to the planset. A note has been
added to the plans. This comment has been addressed.
13. Are granite curb inlets proposed? If so,a detail showing transition from berm to granite curb inlet
and back to berm should be provided. This comment has been addressed.
IH. GENERAL DRAINAGE COMMENTS
1. Proposed pipe labels do not match the pipe size labeled at the Manholes. The Applicant's
Engineer should review and revise the plans. This comment has been addressed
2. Drainage Manhole#3 has 2-30"pipes coming into it at less than 90 degree angle. Is the structure
large enough to accommodate this configuration? Given the proposed pipe configuration, VHB
recommends that the precast manufacturer confirm and or modify the design of the proposed 6'
diameter structure so that it meets H-20 loading criteria.
This comment has been addressed
3. The proposed system is tying into existing 15"vc pipe. The Applicant's Engineer should provide
velocity and capacity calculations to ensure that the existing pipe is adequate. This comment has
been addressed.
4. The proposed design meets the requirements for recharge. The infiltration calculations were based
on a conservative infiltration rate for the type of soils listed on the soils maps of the area. The soil
evaluator visually classified the soils consistently with the soils map. VHB recommends the design
engineer have a sample analyzed by sieve analysis to confirm the classification. Due to the fact
that no sieve analysis or percolation test information is available, VHB recommends that the
proponent's engineer modify his proposed conditions model so that it does not take credit for
infiltration or the storage volume within the infiltration units. This will insure that no increase in
peak runoff from the site will occur in the event that the recharge system does not function
according to the design.
The proponent's engineer has modified his proposed conditions hydrologic model per VHB's
request. The results of this modification show that the Proposed Project does not increase
the peak rate of runoff leaving the Site when the proposed subsurface recharge system is
operating per the design. However,if the proposed infiltration system fails,the project will
increase the peak rate of runoff leaving the site for the 2 and 10-year design storms. Based
on this information and the high rate of failure of these systems,VHB recommends that the
Town add a condition to the Project approval stating that the Proponent must maintain the
recharge system in working order in perpetuity or modify the design so that the peak rate of
runoff is not increased in the case of a recharge system failure.
5. VHB found an inconsistency in the infiltration rate used. The summary information referred to a
roof recharge rate of 0.07cfs,while the`Roof Drainage Recharge Facility Design'claims a rate of
3
\\Ndae•atr\te\0671686\does\reports\;211 Osgood Streelldoc
0.02cfs. The Applicant's Engineer should review the calculations/assumptions and clarify. This
continent has been addressed.
0. The Applicant's Engineer should provide calculations showing the removal of TSS in the drainage
system. The proponent is proposing to install an on-line particle separator as well as include
deep sumps on all new CB's and institute a pavement-sweeping program. The proponent claims a
49% TSS removal rate, which is below the 80% required by the DEP Stornnrater Management
Standards. The ph•oponeitt's engineer has claimed that this is a reclevelopnieitt caul therefore not
subject to the DEP standards. This is only the case for-redevelopments in which there is no net
increase in impervious area. Since the proposed project increases the aniount of impervious area
on the Site, the proponent nntst provide 80ryC TSS removal
Due to the fact that the Project does not discharge to a wetland resource area,the proponent
is not required to meet the 80%TSS removal standard.
7. VHB suggests the Applicant's Engineer does not include the sidewall area in the calculation of the
infiltration area. Due to Comment 4, this comment is no longer relevant.
8. VHB requests that the Applicant's Engineer review and provide a more detailed
summary/narrative of the model and the function of the recharge area and concrete pipe system as
storage. The model suggests that the infiltration from the recharge area(reach 7)will act as
secondary outlet for pond 1 and pond 2,however the calculations show discharge rates of 0.07 cfs
and 0.30 cfs for the secondary discharges for the two ponds,(100 year storm,from watershed
routing diagram,pond 1,pond I secondary,pond 2,pond 2 secondary,and pond routing by stor-
ind method). There appears to be an inconsistency with the model. This comment has been
addressed.
9. The operations and maintenance plan should specifically discuss the cleaning and inspection
methods needed to keep the oversized pipe storage clean and clear. This comment has been
addressed.
10. The description in the report of the summary flows to reach 16,list design points 1,2,3 and 4 as
tributary. However the watershed routing diagram shows design points 3 and 4 as being tributary
to design point 2. The design engineer should confirm the runoff is not being double counted.
This comment has been addressed.
11. The Applicant's Engineer should conduct additional on site investigation to determine the
configuration of the existing drainage system. This comment has been addressed.
12. Are the existing catch basins on the property proposed to be removed? This continent has been
addressed.
13. The Applicant's Engineer has provided test pit data. Were mottles found in the test pits'! If
mottles were found,the Applicant's Engineer should detail that information in the test pit logs,and
adjust the estimated seasonal high ground water accordingly. This comment has been addressed.
14. The Applicant's Engineer has provided calculations showing the adequacy of the pipe system
during the 10 year storm. Because the system's ability to detain peak flows on site is dependent on
the runoff entering the pipe system,the engineer must show that the entire system has capacity to
collect the larger storms up to the 100 year flow. The proposed drainage system cannot store the
100-year storm volume within the subsurface pipe systent. The post development model shows
ponding up to elevation 160 for this design storm. It appears that CB's 5 and 6 will back tip onto
Osgood Street during this event. VHB recommends that this condition be eliminated.
This comment has been addressed however it appears that a note remains from the previous
design. The Grading and Utilities drawing calls for a cap to be placed on the drain line that
exits CB"A"located in Osgood Street. This cap should he eliminated.
15. The Applicant's Engineer should provide buoyancy calculations for the proposed gas trap. The
proposed gas trap will be installed nearly 6'below the estimate ground water elevation. This
comment has been addressed.
4
\\Mawatr\te\0671636\does\reports\1211 Osgood Streetldoc
IV. TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS
1. The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Barker
Street. As the majority of the site-generated traffic will exit the site at this location. This should
include an assessment of the project-related traffic along with the additional developments noted in
the vicinity of the project. The timing of the project and the timing of the signal construction by
other parties is a concern. With the signal in place, V11B concurs with the applicant's response
that the project will not add any significant delay to the intersection. However,shotdd the
proposed development project take place ALiio.to the installation and activation of the traffic
signal, the analysis results indicate that there will be an additional 38.7 seconds of additional
delay. an expected queue increase of approximately 2.5 vehicles, and a corresponding reduction
in level of service from LOS E or LOS F at this location for traffic exiting Barker Street to Osgood
Street. The applicant should identify any measures to reduce the ternpoar,nature of the project's
impact until such a time that the traffic signal is constructed and operational. While we agree
that the consolidation of the left turn movements should be made at the intersection of Route
125 and Barker Street to minimize the number of conflict points along Route 125,the
applicant does not provide,identify or suggested any reasonable measures that will help
reduce the temporary impacts that this project will have until such time as the traffic signal
is constructed. One option that might be considered is for the Town to request that the
applicant regularly(every three or six months)monitor traffic at the intersection of Route
125 and Barker Street during this interim period until the signal is constructed and/or in
place. The Town may wish to reserve the right to suspend the issuance of
additional occupancy permits for this development if it is determined that traffic
impacts(either resulting from the proposed project and/or through the impacts of unrelated
traffic growth)create an unsafe operating condition at the intersection of Route 125 and
Barker Street.
2. The applicant should evaluate the driveway locations with respect to the Route 125 corridor to
assure that no traffic will be queuing onto the Route 125 corridor(or any public right of way)from
within the site and/or as a result of queuing at unsignalized intersections. This comment has been
addressed.
3. The right turn lane into the site off of Route 125 appears to be extremely short. While this is a
state highway location,the presence of the Barker Street intersection immediately to the west may
influence driver access into(and out of)the site as there is limited deceleration distance provided
along Route 125. This comment has been addressed.
Once the applicant provides additional detail on these issues,VHB will review and,if needed,provide additional
comments to the Town for their consideration.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: __ Date:
-mt 1 Christopher Nowak,Y.E.
t t"f"I Drainage Review
Reviewed by: Aa t r + t Fr�tACS%�, Date: d
Tracie Lenhardt
Civil Review
5
\\.\lawatr\tc\0671686\dos\reports\1211 Osgood Slreetldoc
Checked by: Date:
Robert L.Na-i.P.E..P.T.O.E.
Traffic Study Review 1 /
Checked by: f GIs%"F Date: 12
-ineerin.
Tim McIntosh,P.P.-Proje4 anager—Highwa y•and N�unicipal En
6
\\>taivatr\te\0671686\dots\mports\1211 Osgood Stmctldoc
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING RE VIEW OF MODI ME SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Titles Re, ,tee iu, ;t No.: 06716.86
Locations 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Owners Frank and Kathleen Terranova, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicants F.K. Realty Trust, 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineers MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Rd Suite One, Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: rev. December 2,2004 Review Date: January 13,2005
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) is providing an engineering review of a Modified site plan for a retail
facility located at 1211 Osgood Street. This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North
Andover'Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the following drawings and
documents for review:
• Site Plans(7 sheets)dated September 3, 2003 with revision date of December 2, 2004
• Modification of Special Permit Application dated December 2,2004
VHB performed engineering reviews for the original special permit application between September and
December 2003. VHB has attached our engineering review reports for the Town's convenience. Our final
review was dated December 11, 2003 and was based on the Applicant's plan dated of December 4,2003.
The focus of this engineering review will be on changes between the Applicant's current design plan and
the December 4, 2004 plan that VHB last reviewed. VHB is unaware of any plan changes that may have
occurred after December 4, 2004.
The following comnnents note non-conformance with specific sections, constructability issues and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
1. (section 8.1.7) This section states that a parking space shall be accessible over an
unobstructed driveway not less than 25-fect wide. There are two locations on the site where
driveway width is less than 25-feet. The first location is the driveway between Barker Street
and the south side of the building and the driveway width is 14-feet. Please note that the
original plan appears to have provided a 19-foot driveway width at this location. The second
location is adjacent to the north side of the building and the driveway width is 17-feet. Please
note that the original plan appears to have provided a 25-foot driveway width at this location.
VHB assumes that the current zoning bylaw(section 8.1.7)refers to a minimum two-way
driveway width. It is not clear whether the zoning bylaw provides for a minimum driveway
width for one-way driveways. VHB understands that the reason for the reduction in driveway
l
C:\W 1ND0WS\TLMP\Modification-121 10sgoodStrM-1.doc
width is to accommodate additional parking and new air conditioning units. Further,the
internal site circulation appears to be functional for single unit vehicles(small fire truck and
ambulance). VHB recommends that a waiver be requested by the Applicant.
H. GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The Applicant is proposing an additional 8 parking spaces according to the application.
According to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(MAAB)requirements,handicap
accessible spaces are required. Based on the 55 total parking spaces proposed, 3 handicap
accessible spaces including a van accessible space must be provided. The current design plan
only includes 2 accessible spaces.
2. It appears that several wheelchair ramps are proposed along the sidewalk on the southeast side
of the building. It appears that the intent was to provide an accessible path around the air
conditioning units. An accessible ramp should be proposed at the northerly end of this walk.
Also,have any safety measures been considered along the driveway(signs or pavement
markings)for when a pedestrian exits the sidewalk to get around the air conditioning units?
3. The access onto Osgood Street(Route 125)appears to have changed since VHB last reviewed
the plan. The original plan showed a `right in/right out' driveway located near the
southwesterly end of the site. The original driveway also included roadway tapers to allow for
acceleration and deceleration out of and into the proposed driveway. The current plan shows
`right in' driveway at the southwesterly end of the site and a`right-out' driveway at the
northwesterly end of the site. As Route 125 is state highway,has this change been approved
by the Massachusetts Highway Department(MHD)? Does the current proposal require any
permits from MHD?
4. The proposed driveway onto Route 125 located at the northwesterly end of the site is located
beyond the projection of the applicant's property. Will the location of this proposed driveway
hinder the adjacent property owner's ability to develop his property by limiting the access to
the property? Refer to plan sketch for clarity
M. GENERAL DRAINAGE COMMENTS
1. VHB assumes that the modifications proposed will have no impact on the original drainage
design. Therefore,no review comments are offered.
IV. TRAFFIC COMMENTS
1. In our previous engineering reviews,the signalization of the intersection of Osgood Street and
Barker Street was discussed. Can the Applicant provide an update on this?
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Tim McIntosh,P.E.,Project Manager—Highway and Municipal Engineering
2
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Modffication-12110sgoodStreet-l.doc