Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1503 OSGOOD STREET 5/11/2006 4 IAoRTM ot,�t� o ,ap HD SSACNU`�E Town of North Andover Office of the Planning Department 1600 Osgood Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Town Planner P (978)688-9535 Lincoln J. Daley F (978)688-9542 M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M TO: Planning Board FROM: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner RE: Special Permit Site Plan Review- 1503 Osgood Street Construction of Auto Service Station, Retail Convenience Store and Deli, and Drive- Through Donut Shop DATE: May 11,2006 The applicant, 1503 Osgood Street LLC, is before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Special Permit to construct a(1)3,791 s.f. convenience store, deli, and doughnut shop facility complete with drive-through facility and(2)a five-fuel dispenser self-service gasoline service station. The property is located at 1503 Osgood Street, Map 34, Parcel 7 within the B2 District and consists of on 6.1 acres. The property is currently not in use and includes two existing residential dwellings along with a number of old outbuildings, all of which are vacant and in general disrepair. All buildings will be razed before construction. My review is as follows: SITE PLAN REVIEW: i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: This has been provided on the plan. ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: A survey of the Map 34, Lot 7 was completed by a certified land surveyor on 4/11//06. iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: This has been provided in the title block and a review is located in the application narrative. iv. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: NA V. TOPOGRAPHY: This has been provided on the site plan at two-foot intervals. vi. ZONING INFORMATION: A zoning chart has been included on the site plan. (Refer to Sheet 3). The site is located in the Business 2 (132) district. The proposal meets the majority of the (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. xiii. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The applicant states that MassHighway directed the applicant to place the curb cut off of Osgood Street be aligned with the existing traffic signal and driveway to the former Lucent facility. The driveway was designed to provide sight lines that exceed the minimum requirements for stopping distances. The proposed landscaping and signs in the vicinity of the site driveway have been located back from the proposed curb cuts. xiv. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: The proposal calls for installation of 3 underground storage tanks to support the gasoline service station. The applicant will need written confirmation from the Fire Department approving the location and type of underground tank. xv. LANDSCAPING PLAN: An extensive landscaping plan has been provided that meets the requirements with the Town Bylaw. Although, the proposed landscaping and signs in the vicinity of the site driveway have been located back from the proposed curb cut, Staff questions whether the proposed location of the landscaping and trees will impact sight lines along Osgood Street. The applicant should address this concern and revise accordingly. xvi. REFUSE AREAS: Dumpsters are proposed at the southeast corner of the development. The applicant will need a dumpster permit from the Town. xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: A lighting facilities plan has been submitted with the application. The proposal calls for the installation of canopy fixtures set flush with the gasoline service station canopy and 8 16-foot lights located at various points around the site. The applicant states that the lighting will not cause glare and will minimize spillover onto adjacent properties. xviii. DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: A stormwater management plan and drainage report has been submitted and is currently being reviewed by the outside consultant. xix. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: A Traffic Study entitled "Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Gasoline Station/Convenience Store with Drive-Through, North Andover, Massachusetts; Prepared by Greenman-Pederson, Inc.; October 28, 2005"has been provided and reviewed by the outside consultant. Below please find summary recommendations: The applicant has made a commitment to provide traffic signal improvements to minimize the impacts of this development on the Route 125 corridor. In addition to this mitigation measure, VHB recommends that the following issues be addressed by applicant: 1. As suggested by the applicant, crash data from the North Andover Police Department should be reviewed to verify the accuracy of MassHighway crash data. 2. ISD sight triangles should be added to the site plan and any objects (vegetation or signage, for example) should be modified or removed so that safe sight lines can be provided. 3. The annual growth rate used in this study should be compared to rates used in traffic studies for other developments in the area, such as the master plan for the redevelopment of the Lucent Technologies Merrimack Valley Works facility. I. 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. 2. 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 peak discharge or revise the calculations. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Drain manholes#1 and#2 (Stormceptors)have three inlet pipes. The Applicant should verify with the Stormceptor manufacturer that the pipe configuration is adequate for the specified Stormceptor models or revise the pipe locations. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The 8" orifice and the 12"culvert from the Infiltration System are not detailed. The Applicant should provide a detail. 10. The discharge edge of Level Spreader#1 is directly adjacent to the 25' no touch area and the 74 contour,but the top lip of the spreader is labeled to be elevation 75. This appears to be 1' too high. The Applicant should revise the elevations of the level spreader to meet the existing grade at elevation 74. 11. The possibility of a buoyant condition for the underground detention systems needs to be evaluated. 12. 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. 13. 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 450i, which is an inlet type of Stormceptor meaning it has a frame and grate like a catchbasin. 14. 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. MAY-16-2006 14:32 From: To:97e6e89542 P.3/5 MAY. 10' 06(WED) 12:50 AAA MERRIMACK GALLEY TEL 978681386/ P. 001 MOOMMaCk Valley 165 Parker street Lawrence, MA 0188.0039 Tel 97EV681.9200 May 9, 2006 fax 97M98-qg1 Mr.Richard Nardt-11a,Cha=an Plannin'9 Board Town of Nord1 Andover 16W 02good Street 140111 A*Ovrr,-XA 01545 RS: Appliration for Site Platt Review Special permit— 1503 Osgood Sbmet Dear Mr.Nardelle: I am writing to express ttly sttpport for the proposed red lopment project to be located at Y 503 Osgccd St, 't.. As you Way aoww,thb AAA Merrinmic Valley Branch Office at 49 Orchard HW Road in North Andover vim opened in 2001. Since that time,our braurb office hes expelienced 0 stewy pmwtI1 in the services it provides. WC are Also pleased to see the proposed project dt 1503 Osgood Stram is progressing,and we view it as o positive stag in the&velopment of this area of JRoute 125. This project may complement the eerviecs which AAA provides,and we cnay use the fueling fnrilities for our fleet vehicles. Wo have elect severfll times With the applicant's representatives,both at the owner's planning stages of the project and vwy recently, used upon the plans we have reviewed,we 1]9've very%w issues with the proposed design of the:building aud layou►of the project. However,we would,hope that this development would not suh9tantially inmW the "ff`ic exiting from OrcWd Hill Road to haute 125 by having an entrance or exit onto Orchard 14"'Road Awn the Project Cuffently,exftieg from Orchard Hill koad j$sometiM09 difficult due to the tunount and speed of the cars traveling north down else hill on route 125. A large inefWse in 1rattic exienji;Orchid all p%Dad could be a traft hazard. Please feel free to conwt me should you bbve any questions. ldarle B, Seeley President/CEO P.,DS:bjr t'1AY-10-2006 01:38PM Pr-oui: 9786U15867 IQ: Paee:001 R--90 MW-16-2006 14;32 From: To:9786889542 P.2�5 OWb/'-Moth 1W99 PAR 013 UUD 9431 A6CUUN114® qJb=,+< yam 44 to*wl da I" MMERRMACKVAU.EY � ' r jm a x'17���4• FEDERAL CREDIT UN10H 1 MAY l,2 ehud NardgUa,C1 an Flaiffling Board Town oftb Anilover 1600 Osgood"Areet North Amdow,Musuhusen 01845 RE Appliadion for Ske Plan Revi6w 5 i l Fornah«41503 Osgood Smet Dem .N . On f of the Marrirnwk VWky FadeW CrWit Union, 1 am mmuling(hie letter to express the Credit Union's support lot tlo propmed pmjm to be to 1503 Os of the pmpaV at 1503 02goW 5tr umd for twidential pispom,big over recent ymm the property ho rmained vac;aw, As you niky know,the Credit Union Im bow WAtad at 1475 Osgood Sava for ova 20 yew. In tha dme,we haw seen a number of dmps.especiefly the negativs dangcs 10 the Wft as a rmit of job losse®a the femw Lmvent fi6lity 1 e d across the ovd. Wo am hopeK however,do INS Project WUJ he of a lumber of pmjem which will be developed in the area in dw yvam to conte. This propsed project is timorM in desIM ad will W wbas we hope 1s the beginning of vedevelopment efforts in thia=a of Rom 125. We had met YAth the � d oper°s MWcuntativem very ftdy on is the d el 's planning stages of the p we were ploand to bt abler to iviovide input on the project ed tizat tame. We hope that ft Boaffd will 5vppon tltia project as om which provides M only an imPOMM MvkC 111nCd011 AM th®WnM,but 81 000 WWCh will W pn i portant Source of tux mvrme to the Town. William T.Dean.Jr. P g d� Vicc President,Operationi rah , ufddy,; and personal"Mce sInce 16U%, 1 r l St,PO Na W,MOM An At 076.478 140460 7 Am 97"82-e623 #tV.AWMP %)C a P@db 1eP a '�J X13' PIAY-IA-,Wf,, 1.1;13AM From; 978 685 3297 CD; Page;002 =q5% I OWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SIIE PLAN SPECIAL PERIN111 't FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORIH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW s Site Plan Title: Site Plan VHB No.: 0928018 Site Plan Location: 1503 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: 1503 Osgood Street,LLC,2 Bridgeview Circle Iyngsborough,MA Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc.. 103 Stiles Road Suite One Salem,NH Plan Date: April 10,2006 Review Date: 05-25-06 Revised Plan Date: June 9,2006 Second Review Date: 06-19-06 f'� l The Applicant has adequately addressed VHB's comments and no further engineering review is required at this time., Please refer to the final report below for additional detail. the plan was reviewed fbr conformance to the 1972 Iown of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended May 2004) the Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's second review: • Revised Site Development PIans dated June 9,2006 • Revised Stoimwater Management,Drainage Calculations,&Best Management Practices date June 9,2006 • Response to Comments letter from MHF Design Consultants dated June 9,2006 • Response to Comments on Traffic Study letter from Greenman-Pedersen dated.June 8,2006. Ilie following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions: VHB's original comments are shown in normal font,with follow-up comments shown in bold. Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw 1 (3.2) I he 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. Addressed., VHB assumes the site has been re-zoned to Business 2(B-2)District per MHF's response,, 2. (4.132) It does not appear that a commercial land use,such as a service station,is allowed in an Industrial 1 Zoning District. The Applicant should verify with the Town that such use is allowed. Addressed.. With the re-zoning,the proposed service station is an allowable land use:. 3. (65.1) Ihis 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. Addressed,. VHB recommends a detail of the external sign illumination, 1 \\hfawatT\te\09280 18\does\memos\09280-1503 Osgood-review2.do 4. (6.5.2) Ihis section requires that no illumination shall be permitted which casts glare onto any residential premises or onto any portion of away 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 Iown that this proposed sign will not create a traffic hazard. Addressed. VHB recommends adding a general note of potential field adjustment of sign illumination,. 5. (6.5 4) No sign having red or green Iights 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. Addressed. 6. (71, 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). Addressed., 7 (8.2)The proposed project appears to comply with all automobile service station requirements listed in this section No response required. 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 are 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. Addressed. VHB recommends adding a handicap pavement marking to the second handicap parking stall. General Comments/Standard 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. VHB assumes the applicant will r eceive all necessary approval and per mitting from MHD required for-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 Addressed.. 11.. The Applicant should verify that a large tanker truck(fiiel delivery)can maneuver into,around and out of the site.. Addressed. 12. Has this project been reviewed by North Andover Fire Department? Addressed. 13.. Has the Applicant discussed any emergency planning or procedures in case of hazardous spill? VHB assumes that it is acceptable to the Town that the submission of planning/procedures occurs after the specific oil company tenant is determined, 2 \\Mawatr\te\09280-18\dues\memos\09280-1503 Osgood revieiv2.doc - Drainage Comments 14 I he 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 Addressed.test pits confirming the estimated gr oundwater elevation and the assumed percolation rate to be performed in the area of the infiltration system prior to construction the results to be reviewed with the Iown of North Andover, 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 peak discharge or revise the calculations. Addressed. 16 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. Addressed. 17. The runoff from the roof is considered clean if the roof is not metal and therefore does not require a ISS calculation The Applicant should confirm that the Fuel Facility Canopy is not a metal roof. Addressed. 18. Drain manholes#1 and#2 (Stormceptors)have three inlet pipes. the Applicant should verify with the Stormeeptor manufacturer that the pipe configuration is adequate for the specified Stormceptor models or revise the pipe locations. Addressed.. 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 Addressed.. 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 Addressed, 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 Addressed. 22, The 8"orifice and the 12"culvert from the Infiltration System are not detailed. The Applicant should provide a detail Addressed, 23 the discharge edge of'Level Spreader#1 is directly adjacent to the 25'no touch area and the 74 contour, but the top lip of the spreader is labeled to be elevation 75 Ihis appears to be I'too high. The Applicant should revise the elevations of the level spreader to meet the existing grade at elevation 74 Addressed. 24 the possibility of a buoyant condition for the underground detention systems needs to be evaluated. Addressed•. 3 \\MawatrVe\0928010\dots\memos\092&}1503 Osgood-review2doc 25.. The Applicant should provide a detail for the 6"and 24"risers fbr 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. Addressed,. 26. 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 450i,which is an inlet type of'Stormceptor meaning it has a frame and grate like a catchbasin. Addressed,. 27. The cast iron frame fbr the cover of the drain manhole should beset on a full mortar bed. Ihis is labeled on the catchbasin detail but not the manhole detail. the Applicant should revise the detail Addressed., 28 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 Addressed, 29., The Flared End Section#1 is labeled incorrectly on the drainage structure table on the Guiding and Drainage Plan Sheet 4.. Ihere is also a conflict with this Flared End section and the graded Swale. The flared end itself will block the drainage flow 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. Addressed. Traffic Comments The applicant has sufficiently addressed all of VHB's engineering review comments to date. No further traffic review is required at this time. 4 \\Ivfawafr\(e\0928018\does\memos\09280-1503 Osgood-review2 doc TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMII FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Site Plan VIIB No.: 0928018 Site Plan Location: 1503 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA Applicant: 1503 Osgood Street,LLC,2 Bridgeview Circle Iyngsborough,MA Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc. 103 Stiles Road Suite One Salem,NH Plan Date: April 10,2006 Review Date: 05-25-06 the plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Iown of'North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended May 2004). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review: • Application for Site Plan Special Permit with Memorandum in support of Application from the Applicant's Engineer, • Stormwater Management and Drainage Calculations dated April 10,2006, • Site Plan(8 sheets+attached Lighting Proposal and Building Plans)dated April 11,2006, • 2 Letters dated April 14,2006 from Smolak&Vaughan,the Applicant's Attorney,addressed to the Town of'North Andover Planning Board and VHB,Inc.,detailing the proposed project and Planning Board Hearing date.. The following continents note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions Town ol'NoYA Andover Zoning.Bylaw I. (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-1 Zoning District. The Applicant should review and clarify. 2 (4 132) It does not appear that a cormnercial land use,such as a service station,is allowed in an Industrial I Zoning District The Applicant should verify with the Iown that such use is allowed. 3. (65.1) Ihis 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 4. (6.52) 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 Iown that this proposed sign will 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 Iights and, if included,should request the appropriate approval. 6. (7.1, Iable 2-Summary of Dirnensional Requirements) The Applicant should show on the Plans that the proposed building meets the 35 foot maximum height requirement Additionally,the Table of 1 \\Mawak\te\0328018\does\memos\092801503 Osgood-reviewl,doc 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). 7. (82)The proposed project appears to comply with all automobile service station requirements listed in this section 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 are 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 General Comments/Standard Engineering Practice 9• Ihere 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 ofRoute 125 is state highway. Will the proposed site driveway be incorporated into the traffic signal system? The Applicant should verify. 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. 11.. The Applicant should verify that a large tanker truck(fuel delivery)can maneuver into,around and out of the site, 12 Has this project been reviewed by North Andover Fire Department? 13. Has the Applicant discussed any emergency plarming or procedures in case of hazardous spill? 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. 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 peak discharge or revise the calculations 16. the ISS calculation provided has an error. the remaining load from the street sweeping should be the starting load for the deep sump catch basin,not 100. The Applicant should revise the calculation. 17 the runoff from the roof is considered clean if the roof is not metal and therefore does not require a ISS calculation. The Applicant should confirm that the Fuel Facility Canopy is not a metal roof.. 18. Drain manholes#1 and#2 (Stormceptors)have three inlet pipes the Applicant should verify with the Stormceptor manufacturer that the pipe configuration is adequate for the specified Stormeeptor models or revise the pipe locations. 19 the area for the roof runoff from the building appears to not include the front canopy overhang, The Applicant should verify the size of the roof and revise the calculations accordingly. 20. The design of the drainage channels is not clear on the plans or details Ihere 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 2 \\Mawatr\te\09280.18\dots\memo;\0928 0-1 503 Osgood-reviewt doc 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. 22 the 8"orifice and the 12"culvert from the Infiltration System are not detailed. the Applicant should provide a detail. 23 The discharge edge of Level Spreader#1 is directly adjacent to the 25'no touch area and the 74 contour,but the top Iip of the spreader is labeled to be elevation'75. This appears to be 1'too high. the Applicant should revise the elevations of the level spreader to meet the existing grade at elevation 74 24 the possibility of'a buoyant condition for the underground detention systems needs to be evaluated. 25. 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 26 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 SIC 4501,which is an inlet type of Stormceptor meaning it has a frame and grate like a catchbasin. 27 The cast iron frame for the cover of the drain manhole should beset on a full mortar bed- This is labeled on the catchbasin detail but not the manhole detail, the Applicant should revise the detail. 28_ 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. 29. The Flared End Section#lis 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 flow 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 Traffic Comments Please refer to the attached traffic memorandum titled Engineering Review of TIAS Proposed Gas Station/Convenience Store prepared by VHB for the Town of North Andover and dated May 25, 2006 for VHB's traffic review and comments... It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein Reviewed by: A)4 Date: Courtne lerud Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal C Reviewed by: �� Date: d Richard Matthews Civil Engineer—Land Development Checked by: r/%'GL Date: ��146 Timothy B.TWcIntosh,P E Project Manager —Highway and Municipal 3 \\MawatrVe\09280.18\dots\memos\09280-1503 Osgood•reviewl d« j '