Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1635 OSGOOD STREET 11/14/1997 No.bbl 902 U COLANTONIOZ ENGINEEnS ANC)SCIENTI5'1'9 November 14, 1997 Planning Board&Conservation Commission c/o Ms.Kathleen Colwell&.Mr. Michael Howard 30 School Street North Andover,MA 01845 RE: Supplemental Engineering Review 1635 Osgood Street Site Plan Submittal&Notice of Intent Dear Ms. Colwell&Mr.Howard: As requested, Coler& Colantonio, Inc. has performed a supplemental review of the plans and calculations for the above referenced project. We received the data on November 4, 1997. This correspondence follows the format of our previous letters of October 7 and 9, 1997. Our current comments are italicized to ease your review. The following documents were reviewed: • Plans entitled "Notice of Intent Plan 1635 Osgood Street in North Andover, MA" prepared for Tyler Munroe, prepared by Marchionda and Associates,L.P. dated September 17, 1997. • A report entitled "Hydrologic Analysis for 1.635 Osgood Street North Andover, MA", prepared for Tyler Munroe, prepared by Marehionda and Associates,L.P. dated September 8, 1997,Revised October 31, 1997. We offer the following comments: SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ISSUES: (October 7, 1997 letter) 1. It is our understanding that Sections 8.3.5.e) ii, iii, iv, xv, xix, xx, xxii and xxiii, are typically reviewed by Town Staff. No further comment. 2. Section 8.3.5.e.v. Topogravhy Topography should include both sides of Osgood Street. The topographic plan should include invert information on existing drainage structures and the floor/basement elevatiou of the existing house. Most cif the requested information wa.c provided We are concerned that the outlet of the 18 inch culvert was not determined. We recommend that Town staff comment �f any difficulties have been observed with the capacity of this culvert. 101 Accord Park Drive 617-982-5400 Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax: 617-982-5490 11•'1 i r' iu:Ub rJU.dk91 WS J 3. Section 8 3 5 e v Zoning Information The table of zoning information should 'include parking requirements. It is our understanding that the building inspector is addressing parking requirements. 4. Section 8.3. .e.vii. Stormwater Drains e We have not completed our drainage review at this time and reconunend scheduling a site walk. We note that: ® sheet flow used in To calculations is excessive compared to Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRSQ guidance on the subject; ® woods are typically in good condition in this area unless grazed by domestic livestock or burned e the proposed detention basin is very close to the house and may create seepage problems if a basement is present ® a test pit, witnessed by a soil evaluator, should be excavated at the proposed detention basin and recharge area These issues are discussed below in Drainage Issues. 5. Section 8.3.5 e.ix. Building 1✓levation Building elevations were not included in the information provided. No further comment. 6. Section 8 3 5 e x Location of Parking Walkways Parking dimensions should be indicated on the plans. The aisle is less than the required 25' for the southerly parking spaces. .Sati*tc1ory. 7. Section R 3 S e xi Location of Wetlands Notice of Intent A Notice of Intent has been filed. No further comment. 8. Section 8,3 5 e xii. Location of Walls Sisms A sign is indicated, however, the height and materials are not listed. The sign has been eliminated. 9. Section $ 3 5 e xi3i Location of Roadways/Drives Dimensions to adjacent curb cuts should be indicated, including across the street if applicable. Satisfactory. 10. Section 8 3.5 e.xvi. Refuse Area No refuse areas are indicated on the plan. It is unclear if any are proposed. No refuse areas are proposed. 11. Section 8 3 5 e xviii Drainage Basin Study We have not completed our review of the drainage at this time, see above comments. See Drainage Issues below. 12. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi. Utilities It is unclear that the existing septic system has adequate capacity for the proposed use. We recommend that the Board of Health comment on this issue. Reportedly the Board of Health has reviewed the plan. The proposed trench drain and outlet appear to violate Title 5 setbacks. 11%i4,V( W.�J r riu.Uol w4 DRAINAGE ISSUES: (October 9,1997 letter) 1. It is unclear that runoff will flow consistent with the subarea divide at the southern side of the building. Some spot grades should be provided to define the divide or the divide modified. No longer applicable. 2. Sheet flow used in Te calculations is excessive compared to Natlural Resources Conservation Service (NR.SC) gtddance on the subject. Typically, sheet flow is less than 100 leer. It is unclear how the slopes were developed for sheet flow calculations. Satisfactory. 3. Woods are typically in good condition in this area unless grazed by domestic livestock or burned. It is our understanding that the site is not used for livestock. Satisfactory 4. The proposed detention basin is very close to the house and may create seepage problems if a basement is present in the house. The plans should identify finish floor and basement slab elevations of the house. The revised plans satisfactorily address this issue, 5. A test pit, witnessed by a soil evaluator, should be excavated at the proposed detention basin and recharge area. Test pit logs are included with. the Notice of Tntent, however the location of testing is not indicated on the plan. The location of test pits have been indicated on the plan and are satisfactory for the detention basin. A test pit should be performed at the location of the recharge area 6. Data to justify the discharge from the outlet structure should be provided. A stage discharge curve was provided, however, the formula used in this model should be identified. In addition, we request that the area calculations used to develop storage be supplied. The requested information has been provided and is satisfactory. 7. We recommend that the outlet structure grate be sloped rather than vertical and that the opening size be specified. The requested information has been provided and is satisfactory. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY: Standard#1 It is unclear if runoff from the front section of the access drive should be considered untreated runoff. The revised plans indicate no increase in untreated runoff from existing conditions. Standard#2 Based on the calculations presented rates have been met for the site. The above comments may require some revision to the design to comply with rate requirements. Some of the rates have been rounded to the nearest cis although the 2 yr storm is listed to the nearest tenth v,f a cfs. We recommend that the data be consistent to the tenth of a i fs. The report 111'14,97 10:07 NO.001 6JUS indicates no increase in rates, however, it does not include hydrograph tables to allow us to make a comparison to the tenth of a cfs. Standard#3 The recharge design is acceptable subject to a test pit being performed at the location of the infiltration system. Typically, test pits are performed by a soil evaluator and witnessed by an agent of the Town. A lest pit should be performed at the location of the infiltration system. Standard#4 We disagree with the TSS removal forums. Water duality $wales have specific design requirements which have not been demonstrated in the submittal. The swab for Area 1 does not receive all the flow from the impervious surface in Area 1. The area used in the treatment calculations should reflect this condition. It is not acceptable to credit a fore bay associated with the detention basin twice, it is an integral part of an extended detention basin. It is not obvious ur the calculations that the detention basin stores runoff for the required time to be considered an extended detention basin. The outlet structure with a sump is being; credited with removal associated with a "water quality inlet/deep sump catch basin". These devices are given 25%removal since they are the first receiving BMP. It is unlikely that the outlet structure would perform the same. We do not agree with the use of the "sediment trap" at the outfall pipe as 25% removal, again the manual lists this as a first step prior to the rate control BMP. The TSS forms have been modified to address most of our concerns. We still questions the use of the outlet structure sump for TSS removal. It appears that the outlet structure sump is being compared to a water quality inlet. A review of the applicability of a water quality inlet in the DEP manual indicates that this BMP is a pretreatment device only. We have attempted to contact DEP for clarification but have not been successful to date. Standard#5 The site does not appear to be subject to higher pollutant loads. We recominend that the Applicant identify the proposed materials to be stored and the amount of trucks/equipment to be stored on site. Satisfactory. Standard#6 N/A Standard#7 N/A Standard#8 &#9 It is our understanding that town staff typically reviews these standards. 11: 1 1-y r 1U:Ud NU.U01 We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board and Conservation Commission on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER&COLANTONIO,INC. ( � S John C. Chessia, P.B. xc Marchionda and Associates,L.P. COLANTONIOZ U w F_NGINEER5 AND PCIGNTISTS October 9, 1997 Planning Board&Conservation Coanmission c/o Ms.Kathleen Colwell&Michael 1-loward 30 School Street North Andover,MA 01845 RE: Engineering Review 1635 Osgood Street Site flan Submittal Dear Ms.Colwell: At your request,Coler& Colantonio,Inc.has completed our review of the plans and calculations for the above referenced project. Refer to our correspondence of October 7, 1997 for Zoning By-Law review and preliminary drainage comments. This correspondence completes our drainage review and addresses water quality issues as required under current DEP policy. The following documents were reviewed: • Plans entitled"Proposed Site Plan 1635 Osgood Street in North Andover, MA"prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates, L.P.dated September 8, 1997. • A report entitled"Hydrologic Analysis for 1635 Osgood Str eet North Andover,MA",prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates,L.P. dated September 8, 1997. • A"Notice of Intent" i'or 1635 Osgood Street North Andover,MA,prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates,L.P.not dated, The parcel is located on Osgood Street in an Industrial S zone. '1'lie lot is currently developed with a single family home. The rear of the site is wooded. The site slopes from the north side toward Osgood Street. It is proposed to construct a building of 2,400 square foot in plan,together with associated parking,utilities and stone water management structures. We offer the following comments: 101 Accord Park Drive 617-982-5400 Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:617-982-5490 000*nvl c-t--('T c rr,InT DRAINAGE ISSUES: 1. It is unclear that runoff will flow consistent with the subarea divide at the southern side of the building. Some spot grades should be provided to define the divide or the divide modified. 2. Sheet flow used in Tc calculations is excessive compared to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRSC) guidance on the subject. Typically, sheet flow is less than 100 feet. It is unclear how the slopes were developed for sheet flow calculations. 3. Woods are typically in good condition in this area unless grazed by domestic livestock or burned. It is our understanding that the site is not used for livestock. 4. The proposed detention basin is very close to the house and may create seepage problems if a basement is present in the house. The plans should identify finish floor and basement slab elevations of the house. 5. A test pit, witnessed by a soil evaluator, should be excavated at the proposed detention basin and recharge area. Test pit logs are included with the Notice of Intent,however the location of testing is not indicated on the plan. 6. Data to justify the discharge from the outlet structure should be provided. A stage discharge curve was provided, however, the formula used in this model should be identified. In addition, we request that the area calculations used to develop storage be supplied. 7. We recommend that the outlet structure grate be sloped rather than vertical and that the opening size be specified. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY: Standard#1 It is unclear if runoff from the front section of the access drive should be considered untreated runoff, Standard#2 Based on the calculations presented rates have been met for the site. The above comments may require some revision to the design to comply with rate requirements. Standard#3 The recharge design is acceptable subject to a test pit being performed at the location of the infiltration system. Typically, test pits are performed by a soil evaluator and witnessed by an agent of the Town. S andard#4 We disagree with the TSS removal forms. Water quality swales have specific design requirements which have not been demonstrated in the submittal. The swale for Area 1 does not receive all the flow from the impervious surface in Area 1. The area used in the treatment calculations should reflect this condition. It is not acceptable to credit a fore bay associated with the detention basin twice, it is an integral part of an extended detention basin. It is not obvious in the calculations that the detention basin stores runoff for the required time to be considered an extended detention basin. The outlet structure with a sump is being credited with removal associated with a"water quality inlet/deep sump catch basin". These devices are given 25%removal since they are the first receiving BMP. It is unlikely that the outlet structure would perform the same. We do not agree with the use of the"sediment trap" at the outfall pipe as 25%removal, again the manual lists this as a first step prior to the rate control BMP. Standard#5 The site does not appear to be subject to higher pollutant loads. We recommend that the Applicant identify the proposed materials to be stored and the amount of trucks/equipment to be stored on site. Stand4rd 46 N/A Standard 47 N/A Standard#8 &#9 It is our understanding that town staff typically reviews these standards. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board and Conservation Commission on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER& COLANTONIO,INC. 4� Alin C. Chessia,P.E. xc Marchionda and Associates,L.P. Hu.bQ7 u'tJl 1L1:-Ji-'7t l: cl 4 FACSIMILE COVER E1K3kJEER3 SHEET To: Kathleen Colwell Company: Town of North Andover Phone: (508) 688-9530 Fax: (508) 688-9542 From: John Chessia Company: Coler & Colantonio, Inc. Phone: (781) 982-5443 Fax: (781) 982-5490 Date: October 7, 1997 Pages including this cover page: 4 Comments: Following is our preliminary review of 1635 Osgood Street. We received the supplemental data of the Crossroads project on October 1, 1997 and have not completed our review at this time. Xc Marchionda and Assoc, rru.e59 092 1�,;4J :7r 15.41 U Z ENGINEEFIS^NU SCIENTISTS October 7, 1997 Planning Board c/o Ms. Kathleen Colwell 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Engineering Review 1635 Osgood Street Site flan Submittal Dear Ms. Colwell: At your request,Coler&Colantonio, Inc. has initiated review of the plans and calculations for the above referenced project. We received the data on September 25, 1997, and have not had time to complete our review at this time. This correspondence identifies issues of concern,however,our review of the drainage has not been completed. Our review specifically addressed the requirements for submission under the Site Plan Review section of the Zoning By-Taws. This correspondence is a result of the above review and includes our comments on the submittal package. The following documents were reviewed: • Plans entitled"Proposed Site Plan 1635 Osgood Street in North Andover, MA"prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates, L.P. dated September 8, 1997. ® A report entitled"Hydrologic Analysis for 1635 Osgood Street North Andover,MA",prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates, L.P. dated September 8, 1997. a A"Notice of Intent"for 1635 Osgood Street North Andover, MA, prepared for Tyler Munroe,prepared by Marchionda and Associates,L.P.not dated. The parcel is located on Osgood Street in an Industrial S zone. The lot is currently developed with a single family home, The rear of the site is wooded. "17he site slopes from the north side toward Osgood Street. It is proposed to construe a building of 2,400 square foot in plan,together with associated parking,utilities and storm water management structures. We offer the following comments: 101 Accord Park Drive 617.982.5400 Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:617-982-5490 IU''Ut:''if 1:D:-1 NU.bbJ lrU SITE PLAN SUBINIITTAL ISSUES: 1. it is our understanding that Sections 8.3.5.e)ii,iii,iv,xv,xix,xx,xxii and xxiii,are typically reviewed by Town Staff. 2. Section 8.3.5.e.v. Topography Topography should include both sides of Osgood Street. The topographic plan should include invert information on existing drainage structures and the floor/basement elevation of the existing house, 3. Section 8.3.5.e.v. Zoning g nformation The table of zoning information should include parking requirements. 4. Section 8.3.5.e.vii. Stormwater Drainage We have not completed our drainage review at this time and recommend scheduling a site walk. We note that: ® sheet flow used in Tc calculations is excessive compared to Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRSC)guidance on the subject; woods are typically in good condition in this area unless grazed by domestic livestock or burned ® the proposed detention basin is very close to the house and may create seepage problems if a basement is present i a test pit, witnessed by a soil evaluator, should be excavated at the proposed - detention basin and recharge area 5. Section 8.3.5.e.ix. Building Elevation Building elevations were not included in the information provided. 6. Section 8.3,5.e.x. Location of Parking Walkways Parking dimensions should be indicated on the plans. The aisle is less than the required 25' for the southerly parking spaces. 7. Section 8.3.5.e.xi. Location of Wetlands Notice of Intent A Notice of Intent has been filed. 8. Section 8.3.5 gxii. Location of Walls Signs A sign is indicated, however, the height and materials are not listed. 9. Section 8.3.5,e.xiii Location of Roadwa s/Drives Dimensions to adjacent curb cuts should be indicated, including across the street if applicable. 10. Section 8.3,5.e.xvi. Refuse Area No refuse areas are indicated on the plan. It is unclear if any are proposed. 11. Secticn 8.3.S.e.xv_iii. Drainage Study We have not cam leted our review of the drainage at this time,see above comments. t�J t� 7 r iJ:cc NU.b5J L U4 12. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi. Utilities It is unclear that the existing septic system has adequate capacity for the proposed use, We recommend that the Board of Health comment on this issue. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER& COLANTONIO,INC. c A C. Chessia, P.E. xe Marchionda and Associates,L.P.