HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1503 OSGOOD STREET 8/1/2007 ii mmr` WA
in=
------- ... ... --__--- 103 Stiles Road- Suite One-Salern, New FiarnpsViire 03079
Niff Design Consultants, Inc. 1 E(603)893-0720- FAX(603)893-0733
...........
August 1,2007
Mr.Lincoln Daley,Town Planner Rec)elvet)
North Andover Planning Board AUG 16 2007
Town of Nortli Andover
400 Osgood Street /_"L)OVEf�
North Andover,MA 01845 PLANNING DCPMrMEN1-
VIA FACSIMILE: 978-688-9542
Re: Site Plan Review Special Permit
1503'C7sgood Street,LLC
Map 34 Lot 7
1503 Osgood ,�
190105
Sub: Site Plan Compliance
Dear Mr.Daley:
We hereby certify that the above referenced project was constructed in substantial compliance with the
Site Development Plans as approved by the Planning Board in the Notice of Decision dated June 21,2006.
Two outstanding items not currently provided on site are the freestanding sign and the vacuum island
units. The concrete foundation for the freestanding sign has been constructed,but the sign has not been
installed at this time. The vacuum island unit will be installed when it is received from the vendor.
Please contact our office if you have any questions,
Sincerely,
METE'Desig its,Inc.
Fr nAk C. ontei PE
P incip,
FRANK 0
MONTEPI"I
ca cNi Z4
NO.36341
CR 190105 ST
FCM/cmt A
CC: David Murray—Ranger Development
John Smolak—Smolak&Vaughan LLP—via fax 978-327-5219
F:\Projects\Eng\190105\Compliance Letter,doc q �
W3 0 7
acuko 4K;,
ENGINEER gi PLANNERS SURVEYORS
UMWMHMWAMNMr OMMEr W= now
.......... 103 Stiles Road-Suite One-Salem, New I-lampshire 03079
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. TEL(603)893-0-720- FAX(603)893-0733
June 9,2006
Mr. Lincoln Daley,Town Planner
North Andover Planning Board RF-CF-1V51)
Town of North Andover
400 Osgood Street JUN
North Andover,MA 01845 R
pLANNING PAKr%N'T
1503 Osgood Street,LLC
VHB Review Comments
1503 Osgood Street
MHF#190105
Sub: Revised Site Plans
Dear Mr.Daley&Board Members:
Pease find enclosed a revised set of plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced
project located at 1503 Osgood Street. The plans have been revised to address comments made the
Planning Bard on 5/30/06,as well as review comments by VHB dated 5-25-06. The following is our
response to the VHB comments dated 5-25-06:
Town of North Andover Zoning B11aw
1. (3.2) The Application for Special Permit states that the site is located in the Business-2 Zoning
District. Upon examination of the North Andover Zoning Map,it appears that the site is located in
an Industrial-I Zoning District, The Applicant should review and clarify.
RESPONSE: The site has been re-zoned to the Business 2(B-2)District.
2. (4.132) It does not appear that a commercial land use,such as a service station,is allowed in an
Industrial I Zoning District. The Applicant should verify with the Town that such use is allowed.
RESPONSE: See response above.
3. (6.5.1) This section states that no sign shall be lighted,except by steady, stationary light,shielded
and directed solely at the sign. The Applicant should verify that the proposed sign complies with this
section.
RESPONSE: The freestanding sign detail on Sheet#6 indicates that the sign shall be externally
illuminated.
4. (6.5.2) This section requires that no illumination shall be permitted which casts glare onto any
residential premises or onto any portion of a way so as to create a traffic hazard. The Proposed
Freestanding Sign is located adjacent to an intersection which appears to be signalized. The
Applicant should verify with the Town that this proposed sign will not create a traffic hazard.
RESPONSE: External illumination of freestanding sign can be field adjusted,if necessary,to
not create a traffic hazard.
5. (6.5.4) No sign having red or green lights shall be erected within sight of a traffic signal unless
approved as non-hazardous by the Chief of Police, as outlined by this section. The Applicant should
show on the Plans whether or not the Proposed Freestanding Sign will include red or green lights
and, if included,should request the appropriate approval.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Mr. Lincoln Daley
June 9,2006
Page 2 of 5 MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
RESPONSE: No red or green lights are proposed.
6. (7.1,Table 2-Summary of Dimensional Requirements) The Applicant should show on the Plans that
the proposed building meets the 35 foot maximum height requirement. Additionally,the Table of
Zoning Regulations shown on the Site Plan should be revised to show the Maximum Building Height
as less than 35 feet instead of less than 45 feet(assumed to be a drafting error).
RESPONSE: The table has been revised accordingly.
7. (8.2)The proposed project appears to comply with all automobile service station requirements listed
in this section.
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
8. (8.7) This section requires that parking spaces shall mean an area of not less than 9 feet by 18 feet.
Both proposed wheelchair spaces arc shown as 8 feet across, The Applicant should review and revise.
Also,the Applicant should verify that the handicap spaces comply with the applicable ADA
requirements.
RESPONSE: The Handicap parking spaces have been revised accordingly.
General CommentsLStandard Engineering Practice
9. There is a label on the Site Plan stating, "existing(traffic)signal equipment to be relocated." Has
the Applicant received permission from the Town and/or MassHighway to move this signal
equipment? VHB understands that this section of Route 125 is state highway, Will the proposed site
driveway be incorporated into the traffic signal system? The Applicant should verify.
RESPONSE: The applicant is working with MHD on the necessary signal modifications.
10. The Handicap Ramp Detail at Building Detail is not consistent with the wheelchair ramp shown in
plan view. The Applicant should review and revise as necessary.
RESPONSE: Detail revised as noted.
11. The Applicant should verify that a large tanker truck(fuel delivery)can maneuver into,around and
out of the site.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the WB-50 Truck Turning Plan Sheet I of 1,which has been
added to the site plan set
12. Has this project been reviewed by North Andover Fire Department?
RESPONSE: Yes,as part of the TRC process.
13. Has the Applicant discussed any emergency planning or procedures in case of hazardous spill?
RESPONSE: The emergency procedures will vary slightly depending on the oil company that
occupies the facility. We suggest that these procedures by provided by the tenant prior to
occupancy.
Drainage Comments
14. The Applicant should perform soil explorations in the areas of the infiltration system and the
underground detention systems to establish the elevation of high groundwater and to verify the
assumed percolation rates.
RESPONSE: Groundwater assumptions were derived from the on-site test pit results
performed&witnessed on June 17,2005,(refer to stormwater drainage report). The ESHWT
F:\Projects\Eng\190105\VIM-Rcsponse-6-9-06,doc 2
EMEMMMOrmw Namw sm
Mr. Lincoln Daley WINOW W"
June 9,2006
Page 3 of 5 MHF Desigu Consultants, ince
was determined from Test Pit#2 and Test Pit#6 and these results were used in establishing bed
bottom elevations for Underground Detention Basin#1 and#2,respectively. Confirmatory test
pits shall be performed prior to construction and a ballast system designed,if necessary,and
submitted to the town of North Andover for review.
15. The post-development peak discharge rates increase slightly according to the table in Section V:
Drainage Summary for the 1-,2-,and 10-year storm events,while the text of the report states that the
peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development conditions. The Applicant should explain the
increase in pM,,discharge or revise the calculations.
RESPONSE: The report has been revised to state there is a slight increase. The on-site soil
conditions consist of Windsor soils and are described by SCS as excessively drained soils. These
soils translate to a Hydrologic grouping"A"soil. The intent of the proposed development was to
minimize the amount of increase to the design point and was accomplished by the two proposed
underground detention systems and the underground infiltration system. The minor increase,
ranging from 0.09 to 0.41 cfs,is negligible due to the proximity and size of the wetland system
downstream and the overall watershed contributing to the wetland system.
M The TSS calculation provided has an error. The remaining load from the street sweeping should be
the starting load for the deep sump catch basin, not 1.00. The Applicant should revise the
calculation,
RESPONSE: The TSS calculations have been revised.
17. The runoff from the roof is considered clean if the roof is not metal and therefore does not require a
TSS calculation. The Applicant should confirm that the Fuel Facility Canopy is not a metal roof.
RESPONSE: The Fuel Canopy incorporates a rubber root
18. Drain manholes#1 and#2 (Storniceptors)have three inlet pipes, The Applicant should verify with
the Stormceptor manufacturer that the pipe configuration is adequate for the specified Storinceptor
models or revise the pipe locations.
RESPONSE: In speaking to Jim Lyons on June 6,2006,Rinker Materials representative,a
Stormeeptor distributor from the Westfield,MA plant,we received confirmation that the
Storinceptor units can in fact handle up to three inlet pipes and one outlet pipe.
19. The area for the roof runoff from the building appears to not include the front canopy over hang. The
Applicant should verify the size of the roof and revise the calculations accordingly.
RESPONSE: The area has been revised and calculations updated.
20. The design of the drainage channels is not clear on the plans or details. There is a detail for a grass
lined swale on sheet 7 but there is none labeled in plan view. The Applicant should clarify the label
and details.
RESPONSE: The detail sheet and plan view have been revised for clarity.
21. The Site Plan Sheet 3 shows"Snow Storage"on top of the area of Flared End Section#1 outlet apron
and drainage channel,which is shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet 4. The Flared End
Section or the Snow Storage Area needs to be re-located,and the plans revised accordingly.
RESPONSE: The snow storage area has been removed from this area and the grading has been
revised.
22. The 8" orifice and the 12"culvert from the Infiltration System are not detailed. The Applicant
should provide a detail.
RESPONSE: It was the design intent to show a 12"x8"reducer to allow maximum storage
capacity in the infiltration trenches. A detail and specifications have been added to the plans.
F:\Projects\Eng\190105\VHB-Response-6-9-06.doc 3
mom
M� MM --omm
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 9, 2006
Page 4 of 5 MHF Des! n Consultants, Inc.
23, The discharge edge of Level Spreader#1 is directly adjacent to the 25' no touch area and the Y4
contour,but the top lip of the spreader is labeled to be elevation 75. This appears to be V too high.
RESPONSE: The Level Spreader has been revised accordingly.
24. The Applicant should revise the elevations of the level spreader to meet the existing grade at
elevation 74.
RESPONSE: The Level Spreader has been revised accordingly.
25. The possibility of a buoyant condition for the underground detention systems needs to be evaluated.
RESPONSE: Buoyancy calculations have been added to the drainage analysis.
26. The Applicant should provide a detail for the 6" and 24"risers for the underground detention
systems. The detail should include the frame and cover or grate and the installation requirements.
The locations of the frames and covers and the frames and grates should be labeled on the plan.
RESPONSE: The locations of the frame and covers are shown on the plan view and additionally
on the Detail Sheets. The details provided also include schematics for the riser frame and
covers.
27. The Applicant should specify the Stormceptor models designed for the project and their locations. It
is unclear on the plans,details and calculations what models are designed for the project. The detail
provided is for a Stormceptor Model STC 4501,which is an inlet type of Stormceptor meaning it has a
frame and grate like a catchbasin.
RESPONSE: The Stormceptor detail has been labeled with the corresponding manhole frame
and cover or catch basin frame and grate for each unit.
28. The cast iron frame for the cover of the drain manhole should be set on a full mortar bed. This is
labeled on the catchbasin detail but not the manhole detail. The Applicant should revise the detail.
RESPONSE: The detail has been revised accordingly.
29. The detail of the permanent soil stabilization using loam and seed should be provided. The design
information should include thickness of loam and the seed mix.
RESPONSE: Loam and seeding notes have been added to the site plan.
X The Flared End Section#Iis labeled incorrectly on the drainage structure table on the Grading and
Drainage Plan Sheet 4, There is also a conflict with this Flared End section and the graded swale.
The flared end itself will block the drainage How path and will also have little to no cover over the
pipe in the current configuration. The invert elevation needs to be corrected and the conflict needs to
be resolved and the plans modified,
RESPONSE: The flared end section,grading,inverts and swale have been revised.
Traffic Comments
Please refer to the attached traffic memorandum prepared by Greennian-Pederson,Inc. dated June 8,2006
in response to the traffic review and comments.
Planning Board Comments 5/30/06
1. We relocated some of the parking spaces as suggested by the Board. We also designated 7 spaces as
"future"spaces,if needed,and these will not be paved unless constructed in the future.
2. Landscape plantings were increased around the site.
3. The architectural treatment on the gable ends of the building has been modified.
F:\Projects\Eng\190105\VBB-Response-6-9-06.doc 4
ammummomffmw momw mm HEM
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 9,2006
Page 5 of 5
KA- =-i —
g MH Design n orismar ta, ine.
Please contact our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
MHF Design Consultants Inc.
Christopher M. Ty a,EIT
CR 190105
CC:David Murray–Ranger Development
Eric Eby–Greenman-Pederson,Inc.
John Smolak–Smolak&Vaughan LLP
I
F:\Projects\Eng\190105\VHB-Response-6-9-06.doc 5