HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1551 OSGOOD STREET 2/24/2005 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLANS
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BY-LAWS AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: MEC Warehouse Expansion VHB No.:09280.04
Location: 1551 Osgood Street
Owner: Robert Bartlett—Microwave Engineering
Applicant: Robert Bartlett—Microwave Engineering
Applicant's Engineer: John T. Brendan&Associates(Architects)
Review Date: February 24,2005
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)is providing an engineering review of Site Plans provided to date for
the above referenced project.This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover
Zoning Bylaws,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management
Policy as applicable and standard engineering practice. VHB has reviewed the following:
> Existing Site Plan dated January 19,2005
);, Proposed Site Plan dated January 19,2005
> Exterior Elevations(2 sheets)dated January 19,2005
> Application for Special Permit including a project write-up
> Copy of a letter from MassHighway to Applicant dated January 18,2005
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaws,
constructability issues and questions/comments on the proposed design,and VHB's
recommendations/suggestions.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. VHB recommends that additional labeling be added to the existing site plan to better define
the existing materials. For example,does the north side of the building consist of a grassed
area? Is there an existing asphalt area at the rear of the building? What is the existing edge
treatment(curb,berm)around the perimeter of this apparent asphalt 'area?
SECTIONS EARTH MATERIALS REMOVAL
2. The Applicant should provide documentation stating that all regulations regarding earth
removal shall be adhered to.
SECTION 6 SIGNS AND SIGN LIGHTING REGULATIONS
3. The plans do not show any proposed signs for the site. Further,the Applicant has stated that no
new signs are proposed.
SECTION 7 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4. The site plan appears to meet all dimensional requirements for an Industrial 1 zone.
SECTION 8 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5. (8.1-7): VHB recommends showing the dimensions of the parking stalls on the plans.
6. (8.1-11): VHB notes one proposed loading dock on the south side of the warehouse. Does the site
have access from Beachwood Drive? Are the requirements of this section met? VHB recommends
the Applicant explain.
7. (8.3-5e-i): A location map showing the surrounding roadways was not provided.
8. (8.3-5e-ii): A note on the existing site plan indicates that existing property line and topographic
information was based on a plan prepared by Merrimack Engineering in 1998. VHB recommends
that this plan be submitted for the file. As the existing plan is seven years old,has the site changed
since that time?
9. (8.3-5e-iv): Are there any easements on the property? The Applicant should verify that the
requirements of this section have been met.
10. (8.3-5e-vii): Stormwater drainage calculations have not been provided. Tt appears that the amount
of impervious area will be increased. VHB recommends that drainage calculations be prepared by
the Annlirant and submitted for review.
11. (8.3-5e-x): VHB recommends that the Applicant discuss accessibility issues on site. The site plan
does not show any wheelchair ramps. There appears to be an existing sidewalk at the front of the
building. Are there any other walkways proposed? Are there any measures proposed that would
improve handicap accessibility on site?
12. (8.3-5e-xv): The Applicant has stated that no landscaping is proposed.
13. (8.3-5e-xvii): The Applicant states that the proposed wall mounted lighting for the proposed
warehouse is not expected to increase the level of current lighting. The Applicant has not submitted
any information for the additional lights that would support their statement.
14. (8.3-5e-xviii): A detailed hydrology study has not been provided for the site. VHB recommends
that a drainage study be prepared to demonstrate that the existing downstream drainage pipes can
accommodate the additional runoff from this site.
15. (8.3-5e-xix): A Traffic Impact Study has not been submitted. The Applicant has provided an
explanation why no traffic study has been submitted.
16. (8.3.6.a.ii.d) The Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed drainage system within and
adjacent to the site can handle the increased runoff resulting from the development. For example,
VHB is concerned that the existing 10-inch drainage pipe from drain manhole#1 to drain manhole
#2 may be undersized.
17. (8.3.6.a.ii.e) The site plan does not provide any landscaping.
18. (8.3.6.a.ii.0 VHB recommends that hay bales be provided for sedimentation control.
19. (8.4) This section requires screening and landscaping for Industrial districts. There appears to be
existing landscaping at the rear property line(east side),however,no landscaping is proposed on
the north,south or west sides of the property. The Applicant should verify that the requirements of
this section have been met.
\\Mmaotr\te\09280.00\reFart s\092800.1•sae:eviewl•15MOsgood.dm 2
STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
19. The Applicant's Engineer should demonstrate that emergency vehicles can maneuver into,out of
and through the site.
20. If wheelchair ramps are proposed,the Applicant's Engineer should show wheelchair ramp details
with dimensions,slopes and material for the proposed wheelchair ramps to ensure conformance to
ADA standards.
21. VHB recommends that the North Andover Fire Department review the proposed site plan. VHB
anticipates that the NAFD may request that the Applicant verify that adequate fire protection
measures are in place,location of existing hydrants in relation to the building and adequate access
for emergency vehicles exists to all sides of the building.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS
As previously mentioned,the Applicant has not submitted any drainage design calculations for
this site. It appears that the amount of impervious area(additional parking area and warehouse
roof)on site will increase. VHB recommends that calculations be submitted for review. In
general the following issues should be addressed:
• Delineation of existing and proposed watershed
Evaluati—of pre—nd4ion fl/A{A/c vcrcrtc nnct rnnrlifinn AmAre
». »...,..., r__ ......».._...._.. -. .---r _... _.._ ...
• Sizing of proposed drainage pipes
• Verifying existing capacity of existing pipes
• Upgrade of existing pipes if over capacity
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and
comments for all sections.
Reviewed by: Date:
Timoth .McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
\\Ua%vatr\te\09280.00\reports\0928001-site mviewl-13510sgood.doi 3
CC-
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLANS
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BY-LAWS AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: MEC Warehouse Expansion VHB No.:09280.04
Location: 1551 Osgood Street
Owner: Robert Bartlett-Microwave Engineering
Applicant: Robert Bartlett-Microwave Engineering JOL 15 20M
NORTH,AN DOVER
Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services PL,/AI>SNM DEPARTMENT
Review Date: June 8,2005
2nd Review Date: July 14,2005
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)is providing an engineering review of Site Plans provided to date for
the above referenced project.This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover
Zoning Bylaws,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management
Policy as applicable and standard engineering practice. This is VHB's second review of the revised
Merrimack Engineering plans. VHB has received the following for the follow-up review:
➢ Site Development Plan(5 sheets)revised June 28,2005,
➢ Hydrology Report revised June 29,2005,
➢ Response to comments letter with additional requested information dated June 29,2005.
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaws,
constructability issues and questions/comments on the proposed design,and VHB's
recommendations/suggestions. VHB's original comments are shown in normal font,with the
follow-up comment directly bellow in bold font.
SECTION 5 EARTH MATERIALS REMOVAL
1. The Applicant should provide a note on the plans stating that all regulations in this section
regarding earth removal shall be adhered to.
Addressed.
SECTION 6 SIGNS AND SIGN LIGHTING REGULATIONS
2. (Landscaping,Buffering,Lighting): It does not appear that the Applicant is proposing any
landscaping along the north or east property lines. The Applicant should justify or verify with the
Town if this section is satisfied.
Addressed.
Post-its Fax Note 7671 oat #of
® `jw�� pages®
To Fro
Co./Dept. Co. _r v /�'Ai
Phone#��� �Pi .? Phone# ,�
Fax 7s- We Fax# S 6e6f_?SeA
C:\DOCUME-1\mippolit\LOCALS--1\Temp\0928004-SiteReview-Follow-up.doc 1
SECTION 8 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
4. (8.1.2): a) The Applicant is providing 70% more parking spaces than required by this section. Has
the Applicant considered reducing the number of proposed spaces? Are there future
development plans that require the additional parking? The Applicant should discuss.
Addressed. The Applicant has stated that the larger number of parking spaces are
required for the 85 employees and company vehicles.
b) It appears that 74 proposed and 15 existing spaces are shown on the plan(total of 89
spaces). The Applicant should verify and revise the plan and Dimensional and Density
Summary on the cover sheet to be consistent.
Addressed.
c) Are the existing parking spaces in the pavement overlay area at the western side of the
building being restriped and retained? The Applicant should clarify by adding labels
to the plans.
Addressed.
5. (8.1.11): Is a loading dock being proposed? The Applicant should show the location on plans and
verify that this section is satisfied.
Addressed.
6. (8.3.5.e.x): It does not appear that wheelchair ramps are being proposed. Is the existing cement
concrete walk at the building entrance currently ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)compliant?
Wheelchair ramp details should be provided as necessary.
Addressed.
7. (8.3.5.e.xvi): Is an outdoor refuse storage area being proposed? The location should be shown on
the plans and the Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
Partially Addressed. The Applicant has not provided a response to this comment,however a
refuse storage area has been identified on the plans. The Applicant should provide a method of
screening(fence or other).
8. (8.3.5.e.xix,8.3.5.e.xxii,8.3.5.e.xxiii): A Traffic Impact Study,a Fiscal Impact Analysis and a
Community Impact Analysis were not provided with this submission.
Addressed. The Applicant has provided a letter stating that no traffic,fiscal or community
impacts will occur as a result of the addition of the storage area.
9. (83.6.a.ii.f): VHB suggests the erosion control barrier be extended along the edge of the existing
north edge of the driveway entrance on Osgood Street.
Addressed.
10. (8.4) See Comment no.2. The Applicant should verify that the requirements of this section have
been met.
Addressed.
STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
11. The Applicant's Engineer should demonstrate that emergency vehicles can maneuver into,out of
and through the site.
Addressed.
C:\DOCUME—l\mippolit\LOCALS--I\Temp\0928004-SiteReview-Follow-up.doc 2
12. VHB recommends that the North Andover Fire Department review the proposed site plan. VHB
anticipates that the NAFD may request that the Applicant verify that adequate fire protection
measures are in place,location of existing hydrants in relation to the building and adequate access
for emergency vehicles exists to all sides of the building.
Addressed.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS
13. The Applicant used a time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model
should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero
discharge(beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time
span of 0-24 hours.
Addressed.
14. The Applicant should provide data to support the infiltration rate used for the Infiltration System
model.
Partially Addressed. The Applicant should note that to be conservative,the infiltration rate
should be lower than the test result,not higher. The hydrology report should be revised using
the test pit results or a lower number to be conservative.
15. The 10 year Storm Pipe Analysis that was provided incorrectly states that the calculation is for a
0.5% slope. The slope used in the calculation is 5% (or 0.05 ft/ft).
16. The Applicant should provide a more detailed pipe capacity analysis. VHB suggests a pre-and
post-development pipe capacity calculations. The calculations should show that the flows from the
on-site structures into the manholes on Beechwood Drive is being matched or reduced,thereby
demonstrating that the existing drainage system will not be adversely affected by the site
development.
17. VHB suggests the Applicant provide the same type of calculation in Comment No.16 for the run-off
flowing to the three existing catch basins located along Osgood Street.
15,16,17-Partially Addressed. VHB offers the following comments for the rational method
drainage analysis that was provided:
• The runoff coefficient for grassed areas is typically 0.3. The Applicant has used 0.15.
• The total drainage area has been miscalculated for the Post-Development runoff to the
Proposed CB in front of the building. It appears that the Applicant subtracted rather
than added the areas.
• It appears that the weighted drainage area going to the Proposed CB in front of the
building is low. VHB calculates an area closer to 0.81.
• The slopes and pipe lengths in the pipe capacity calculation spreadsheet are inconsistent
with the plans. The Applicant should revise.
• As a result of the above comments,it appears that the pipes going from Prop CB to Prop
DMH and from Prop DMH to Exist DMH may be under capacity. The Applicant should
verify and revise as necessary.
C:\DOCUA4E-1\mippolit\LOCALS-1\Temp\0928004-SiteReview-Follow-up.doc 3
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and
comments for all sections.
Reviewed by: Date:
Darryl Gallant
Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager-Highway and Municipal
C:\DOCUME^I\mippolit\LOCALS-1\Temp\0928004-SiteReview-Follow-up.doc 4
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLANS
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BY-LAWS AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: MEC Warehouse Expansion VHB No.:09280.04
Location: 1551 Osgood Street
Owner: Robert Bartlett-Microwave Engineering JUN 2 8 2005
Applicant: Robert Bartlett-Microwave Engineering NORTH ANDOVER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services
Review Date: June 8,2005
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)is providing an engineering review of Site Plans provided to date for
the above referenced project.This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover
Zoning Bylaws,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management
Policy as applicable and standard engineering practice. This is VHB's second review,however it is the first
review of the revised Merrimack Engineering plans. VHB has reviewed the following:
➢ Site Development Plan(5 sheets) dated May 10,2005,
➢ Exterior Elevations plan(1 sheet) dated April 25,2005,
➢ Drainage Report dated May 10,2005,
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaws,
constructability issues and questions/comments on the proposed design,and VHB's
recommendations/suggestions.
SECTION 5 EARTH MATERIALS REMOVAL
1. The Applicant should provide a note on the plans stating that all regulations in this section
regarding earth removal shall be adhered to.
SECTION 6 SIGNS AND SIGN LIGHTING REGULATIONS
2. (Landscaping,Buffering,Lighting): It does not appear that the Applicant is proposing any
landscaping along the north or east property lines. The Applicant should justify or verify with the
Town if this section is satisfied.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0928004-SiteReview.doc 1
SECTION 8 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
4. (8.1.2): a) The Applicant is providing 70% more parking spaces than required by this section. Has
the Applicant considered reducing the number of proposed spaces? Are there future
development plans that require the additional parking? The Applicant should discuss.
b) It appears that 74 proposed and 15 existing spaces are shown on the plan(total of 89
spaces). The Applicant should verify and revise the plan and Dimensional and Density
Summary on the cover.sheet to be consistent.
c) Are the existing parking spaces in the pavement overlay area at the western side of the
building being restriped and retained? The Applicant should clarify by adding labels
to the plans.
5. (8.1.11): Is a loading dock being proposed? The Applicant should show the location on plans and
verify that this section is satisfied.
6. (8.3.5.e.x): It does not appear that wheelchair ramps are being proposed. Is the existing cement
concrete walk at the building entrance currently ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)compliant?
Wheelchair ramp details should be provided as necessary.
7. (8.3.5.e.xvi): Is an outdoor refuse storage area being proposed? The location should be shown on
the plans and the Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
8. (8.3.5.e.xix,8.3.5.e.xxii,8.3.5.e.xxiii): A Traffic Impact Study,a Fiscal Impact Analysis and a
Community Impact Analysis were not provided with this submission.
9. (83.6.a.ii.f): VHB suggests the erosion control barrier be extended along the edge of the existing
north edge of the driveway entrance on Osgood Street.
10. (8.4) See Comment no. 2. The Applicant should verify that the requirements of this section have
been met.
STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
11. The Applicant's Engineer should demonstrate that emergency vehicles can maneuver into,out of
and through the site.
12. VHB recommends that the North Andover Fire Department review the proposed site plan. VHB
anticipates that the NAFD may request that the Applicant verify that adequate fire protection
measures are in place,location of existing hydrants in relation to the building and adequate access
for emergency vehicles exists to all sides of the building.
DRAINAGE COMMENTS
13. The Applicant used a time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model
should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero
discharge(beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time
span of 0-24 hours.
14. The Applicant should provide data to support the infiltration rate used for the Infiltration System
model.
15. The 10 year Storm Pipe Analysis that was provided incorrectly states that the calculation is for a
0.5% slope. The slope used in the calculation is 5% (or 0.05 ft/ft).
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0928004-SiteReview.doc 2
16. The Applicant should provide a more detailed pipe capacity analysis. VHB suggests a pre-and
post-development pipe capacity calculations. The calculations should show that the flows from the
on-site structures into the manholes on Beechwood Drive is being matched or reduced,thereby
demonstrating that the existing drainage system will not be adversely affected by the site
development.
17. VHB suggests the Applicant provide the same type of calculation in Comment No. 16 for the run-off
flowing to the three existing catch basins located along Osgood Street.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and
comments for all sections.
Reviewed by: Date:
Darryl Gallant
Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B. McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager-Highway and Municipal
C\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6310\0928004-SiteReview.doc 3