Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1211 OSGOOD STREET 7/21/2004 NORTH Town of North Andover F o o do Office of the Planning Department 3a y``''- °L Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street ®g4r.o North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �SSACHus ht!p://www.townofinorthandover.com Town Planner. 1parrhio Cg?towpofllorthandover.com P (978)688-9535 Julie Vondrak F (978)688-9542 July 21, 2004 F.K. Realty Trust 1211 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Modification to Site Plan 1211 Osgood Street-McKlays Dear Mr. Terranova: At the regularly scheduled North Andover Planning Board meeting held on July 20, 2004, the Board voted to grant the modification to the Site Plan. The revised plan displays changes to the ingress/egress to and from the site, as requested by Mass Highway. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a revised plan must be stamped and signed by a Registered Professional Engineer. A mylar of the site plans must be submitted to the Planning Board for endorsement. In addition, a copy of the MassHighway permit shall be submitted approving the modified ingress/egress lanes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Since y, J e Vondrak, Town Planner cc: Planning Board Robert Nieetta, Building Commissioner BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 F. K Realty Trust 1211 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978-683-3164 July 13, 2004 Ms. Julie Perrino Town Planner Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 1211 Osgood Street Order of Conditions Dear Ms. Perrino : On January 4, 2004, FX Realty Trust received approval for the proposed redevelopment of our property at 1211 Osgood Street in North Andover. As part of the conditions of approval we were to obtain final approval from MassHighway for the access and egress drives to Rte 125 state highway. We have with our engineers Andover Engineering and Transportation Engineering and Construction responded to requests by MassHighway to revise the access/egress scheme approved by the planning board. Attached are seven copies of a proposed revision to the access and egress plans for the proposed 1211 Osgood Street plaza as requested by MED. Parking supply remains unchanged with this reconfiguration. We are submitting this revision for consideration by your board to amend our order of conditions to reflect these changes. It is our expectation that we will have the MBD permit approval in time for our meeting with your board next Tuesday, July 20th. Thank you for your assistance. Frank Terranova'' Trustee F.K. Realty Trust Page 1 of 1 Brian Pendleton From: James D'Angelo Beat: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:42 AM To: Brian Pendleton Subject: McLays )sgood Street North Andover, MA-TEC response to VHB traffic Comments In my testimony before the planning board this evening I would like to say that we are coordinating our responses to the VHB comments on traffic. " Section IV—Traffic Study Comments 1. We will provide capacity analysis of the Barker Street/Osgood Street intersection under full buil conditions. The access and circulation for this site was developed in concert with Mass Highwa Traffic Engineering District 4 to reduce conflicts and left turn movements on Osgood street in the vicinit of the Barker Street Intersection. This location is proposed to be signalized with the development of- and will serve as the main access to that proposed development. At the time of that construction, Rte 125 will be widened to accommodate protected left turn lanes to the - -and to Barker Street. The geometry of the McLays site access on Osgood Street has be defined to be compatible with that future widening of Rte 125 and the development of left turn lanes. 2. A peak hour demand analysis indicates that xxx vehicles will demand the right turn into the site from Rte 125 while yy vehicles will demand exiting maneuvers to the Route 125. The right turn only exit will assist in clearing the access to spaces located to the front of the building. All Left turn movements will be directed to the lower volume Barker Street and as such no queuing issues are anticipated. 3. The length of the right turn entrance was consciously designed so as not to conflict or send confusing messages to drivers using the Barker Street intersection. The curb line for the entrance is consistent with long term improvement plans for the corridor. Brian, please get capacity analysis from VAI report for the xxx development across the street and hold show full build with our trips loaded to the intersection. This should give us level of service of E or even F at that approach only. It will remain so until such time as intersection is signalized. Help me out by filling in the blanks for me. Thanks Brian/Tim JDA James D'Angelo, P.E. TEC/Transportation Engineering and Construction, Inc. Ten New England Business Center-Suite 107 Andover, MA 01810 Tel 978-794-1792 Fax 978-794-1793 www.tecmass.com 10/21/2003 Town n Of North Andover Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street ' . North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 r 1 r�an'���a�l c_ tl� flu�Ql��:k;in r�a�over c oni Town Planner. P (978x)688-9535 _/.%v%A( Iown f'nortihu�����l��ver corn, J.Justin Woods __. F (978)6889542 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: J.,Tustin Moods,Town Planner CC: Heidi Griffin,Community Development& Services Director RE: 1211 Osgood Street Site Plan Application DATE: October 17,2003 The Applicant is proposing a +/- 10,000sf retail facility, related parking and site improvements in the General. Business District. The Planning Department offers the following comments: T. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Section 6,Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations The applicant should submit signage details and lighting plans for review. Section 8>1 Off Street Parking The applicant should confirm the parking calculations with the Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer and revise the plans to make sure that all of the spaces are shown as 9'x18' per the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. H. GENERAL COMME,NTS There are not sidewalks on Balker or Osgood Street. Staff would recommend including sidewalks around the site along both streets, III. GENERAL DRAINAGE COMME NTS The applicant's engineer should address the drainage comments in VRB's memo dated October 1.5, 2003. TV. Traffic Review The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Barker Street. This anaylsis should include an assessment of the project-related traffic along with the additional developments noted in the vicinity of the project. The applicant should also evaluate the driveway locations with respect to the Route 125 corridor to assure that no traffic will be queuing onto the Route 125 corridor. Specifically, VHB notes that the right turn lane into the site off of Route 125 appears to be extremely short. BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS ® PLANNERS 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01810•TEL(978)475-3555,373-5721 •FAX(978)475-1448• E-MAIL:merreng@aol.com RECEIVED September 11, 2003 8 EP 1 2 2003 NORTH ANC)OV�.f PLANNIiNQ OC-PA19TI ENT Mr. Justin Woods Town of North Andover Planning Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Proposed Retail Facility 1211 Osgood Street North Andover, MA Dear Mr. Woods: Please find enclosed herewith three (3) copies of the Application for Site Plan Special Permit, ten(10) copies of the Site Development Plan Set(7 sheets), Architectural Plans, Drainage Report, a filing fee of$1,061.50, a project review fee of$2,000.00, a List of Parties of Interest(abutters within 300' of the project site) as certified by the Assessor's Office, two (2) complete sets of addressed stamped envelopes for each abutter noted, and 30 stamped envelopes (not addressed). In addition to the descriptive and technical information provided within the plans and report submitted herewith, a narrative relative to each of the following items is included herewith: • Traffic Impact Study • Commonwealth Review • Fiscal Impact • Community Impact It is requested that this Application for Site Plan Special Permit,under Section 8.3 of the North Andover Zoning By-Law, is found to be within the guidelines for design and in compliance with current regulations and procedures. Mr. Justin Woods September 11, 2003 Page 2 Please contact me should you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES Robert C. Daley,P.E. Civil/Project Engineer cd Enclosure cc: Mr. Frank Terranova MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01810 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: Retail Facility—1211 Osgood St VHB No.: 06716.86 Location: 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MAO 1845 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: September 3,2003 Review Date: October 15,2003 Revised Date: November 10,2003 Review Date: November 25,2003 Revised Date: December 4,2003 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. Continents that are shown bold are comments that must be addressed by the Applicant. 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 have been submitted. This comment has been addressed. 1 \\\gawatr\le\0671636\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Stree t3.d oc Lighting plans still have not been submitted for review. The fl pplicant's Engineer has indicated that lighting Brill be submitted. VHB could not review for compli(Ince. 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 18' per the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the plans accordingly. This continent 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 platy hill 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. IL 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 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 continent has been addressed. VHB asstmres 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 club. The Applicant's Engineer should make it clear(on the plans and detail)that granite curb (t), e 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 plans;therefore this comment has been addressed. 2 \\MaNvatr\te\0(71636\dots\reports\1211 Osgoai Streetldoc 7. It is unclear from the plans where Wheelchair Ramp Type"A" and Type"B"are located. The Applicants Engineer should label the types on the plans. The plans have been revised so that the wheelchair ramp tNpe is clearer. However, VHB would recommend the addition ofa wheelchair ramp(it the southeast corner of the building along with a "one-way" ramp at the southwest corner. This comment has been addressed. 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. I1, 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. 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 addresser!. 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. 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 pr-opolent'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(toes not fiulction 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 \\Macvatr\te\0671636\dos\reports\1211 Osgoal Street1do 0.02cfs. 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 all on-line particle separator as well as include deep snnnps on all nest,CB's anal institute a parenhent-sweeping program. The proponent claims a 49cl'r TSS removal rate, which is below the 80% required by the DEP Stornnrater Management Standards. Tlne proponent's engineer lia.s claimed thtut this is a redevelopment amd tlhere fore not subject to tlne DEP standarcLs. This is only the case for redevelopments in which there is no net increase in impervious area. Since the proposed project increases the amount oj'innperviotrs area on the Site, the proponent must provide 80% 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 continent is no longer relevant. S. 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 efs and 0.30 cfs for the secondary discharges for the two ponds,(100 year storm,from watershed routing diagram,pond],pond 1 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 addresser]. 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 continent 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's 5 and 6 will back up onto Osgood Sheet 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 be 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 addresser!. \\\9awatr\te\0671636\does\report5\1211 Osgood StreelIdm 4 '.. IV. TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS 1. The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Barker Sweet. 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 aloe; with the additional developments noted in the vicinity of the project. The tnnirrg of the project anal the tinning of the signal construction by other parties is a concern. 6Vith the signal in place, VHB concurs with the applicant's response' that the project kill not acid any sign{fcatt dela y to the intersection. However, should the proposed development project take place rior to the installation and activation of the traffic signal, the anolsis results indicate that there will be an additional 38.7 seconds of additional delay, an expected queue increase of approxintcrtely 2.5 vehicles, altar a corresponding reduction inn level of service f•om LOS E or LOS F at this location for traffic exiting Barker Street to Osgood Street. The applicant should identih,all y measures to reduce the temporat_v nature of'the project's impact trnrtil such a tintne tltrnt tlne traffic signal is constructed anal 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 continent 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, VI3B 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: 1 1 Christopher Nowak,P.E. l►3"1 Drainage Review l Reviewed by: Ki � ! �fn)(kDg-17�� ate: Yom_ Tracie Lenhardt Civil Review 5 \\\1, atr\le\06716£36\dots\reports\1211 Osgood StreetIdoc Checked by: Date: 10Robert L.Nagi,P.E.•P.T.O.E, ITraffic Study Review 7 Checked by: \ Date:_l f — _ Tim McIntosh,P. .E Proje���nager—Highway and IV�unicipal EnUineering 1 6 \\\faivatr\te\0671686\dxs\reports\1211 Osgood Street3.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: Retail Facility—1211 Osgood St VHB No.: 06716.86 Location: 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MAO 1845 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: September 3, 2003 Review Date: October 15,2003 Revised Date: November 10,2003 Review Date: November 25,2003 Vanasse Hangen BTUStIin,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 VHB'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. I TA0671686\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Street2.doc Section 8: Supplementary Regulations Section 8 1 Off Street Parking The Summary Chart on Sheet l of the planset lists 51 proposed parking spaces of which 3 are handicapped. The plans show that on]),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 18' 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. S. 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 Street2.doc 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 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? "Phis 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 0.07cfs,while the `Roof Drainage Recharge Facility Design' claims a rate of 0.02cfs. The Applicant's Engineer should review the calculations/assumptions and clarify. 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 sidewal]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 I and pond 2,however the calculations show discharge rates of 0.07 cfs 3 T:\0671686\dots\reports\121 i Osgood Str�,t2.doc 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. 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 shoves 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. VHS 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 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,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\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Street2.doc 3. The right turn lane into the site off of Route 125 appears to be extremely short. Vdhile 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. c Reviewed by: Date: Christopher Nowak, P. . Drainage Review Reviewed by: j�i� l.(� 1 �I��l�fr�ll— Date: �' Li? c' 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 T:\0671686\dots\reports\1211 Osgood Street2.do: 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 Pion Title: Retail Facility—1211 Osgood St VHB No.:06716.86 Location; 1211 Osgood Street,North Andover,MAO 184 5 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: September 3,2003 Review Date: October 15,2003 Vanasse Hangcn Brustlin,ine.(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 Plana(7 shoots)dated September 3,2003 a 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,eonstructability issues and questions/comments on the proposed design. I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS SmHoo 5:Earth Materials Removal Please verify that all requimments 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 propoaod lighting ftxtureg and the candle-foot outlines of the site. Section 8:Supplementary Regulations &C601 A_t Off Street Parking The Summary Chan 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 am 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 t. Also all parking spaces should be 9'x18'per the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the plans accordingly. T:\aens\mn\ffM"\,tii o.o-e 9"Odac (j i'. Section 8.3 Site Plan Review 5.3-5 Information Requited e-vii) Stormwater Drainage: See General Drainage Comments section. e-xv) Lighting Facilities: This section required the applicant provide infostnation 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, CI. GENERAL COMMENTS L 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-tum lame 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 Massmghway 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 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. 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 It. What will happen to the existing concrete wall located in the northeast corner 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. 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 Manholeg3 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 tito existing pipe is adequate. 2 TADV16\doa\,ePWt6\1111 C090M stiaeLdtt 4. The proposed design moms 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 summery information referred to a roof recharge rate of 0.07efs,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(roach 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 efs for the secondary discharges for the two ponds,(100 year storm,from watershed routing diagram,pondl,pond 1 secondary,pond 2,pond 2 secondary,and pond routing by star- ind method). There appears to be an inconsistency with the model. 9. The operations and maintenance plan should specifically discuss the cleaning and inspection mctlwds 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 flow&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 eadmate ground water elevation. IV. TRAFFIC STUDY COMAWNTS 1. The applicant should provide capacity analysis at the intersection of the Route 125 and Harker 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 toted 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 unsigr►alized 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 preserve 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 r..\067t6\doa\mp"\1211 Qjmd am[a.deo Once the applicant provides additional detail on these iasuas.VIB will review and,if needed,provide additional comments to the Town fbr their consideration. It is recommended that the applicant provide WRrTTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. Reviewed by: Date: William Cotter,P.E. Drainage Review Reviewed by: ate Dates 10 63 Tracia Unhardt Civil Review Chedwd by: Date: Robert L.Nagi,P.S..P.T.O.E. Traffic Study Review �,� Chocked by: Date: Tim McIntosh,e& Project Manager—Highway and Municipal 8ngineoring 4