The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutConsultant Review - 1679 OSGOOD STREET 8/27/2000 AUG.31.2000 1:01PM VHB NO.151 P.1 Transportation Land Development Environmental S e r v i c e s 101 walnut Sheet Post Office Sox 9151 Watertown Massachusetts 02471 617 9241770 PAX 617 924 286 FAX Transmittal Deliver To: Heidi Griffin Prom: Timothy B.McIntosh,PX. Town Planner Company: Town of North Andover SIB Project No.: 06716.19 Telephone No.: FAX No.: 978-68 -9542 Original of Telecopy: Will be gent on 08-29.00 Date and Time: August 29,2000 Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Form): 1 RE; Stor-U-Self(#1670 Osgood Street)Site Plan—North Andover,MA Hi Heidi, VHB received a response to our latest comments(dated 8-29-00)from Richard Kaminski. Mr. Kan-dnski's response letter is dated"0-00. All of VHB's concerns in this matter have been addressed. No further review is required at this time. Please call me if you have any questions. Tim 1� LI/ �v�.awnrn��osne�aas�7ransminats�t�x•g>��os�ioo.da� Transportation Land Development Environmental S e r v i c e s isim aginatoon t8'novat's)on eovergy Creating results for our clients and benefit;for our communities August 29,2000 . Ref: 06716.19 Ms. Heidi A.Griffin,Town Plarmer Community Development&Services Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Re: Star-U-Self(1679 Osgood Street) Site Plan Review North Andover,MA Dear Heidi, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received Mr.Richard Kaminski's written response letter(dated 8-4-00)to our Engineering Review for the above referenced project. It appears that the majority of VHB's comments have been adequately addressed and VHB's concerns in this matter have been satisfied. VHB recommends that Mr.Kaminski address the following comments: 1. Mr.Kaminski states in his responses that the proposed retaining wall(no. 1)will be constructed over a proposed 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe. VHB recommends that the proposed reinforced concrete pipe under the proposed wall be Class V. VHB also recommends that a construction detail(section and elevation)be prepared and included in the plan set showing the proposed 18-inch pipe through the proposed retaining wall. 2. Mr.Kaminski states in his responses that the proposed wheelchair ramp detail meets current American Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. However,the"Handicap Ramp in Sidewalk"detail does not meet these standards because there is no'level landing'area shown. VHB has attached a copy of the ADA standard and a copy of the Architectural Access Board(AAB)standard. Both standards require a level landing area and shown the slope and width requirements of this landing area. VHB recommends that the detail be revised to show a level landing area. No further engineering review is required at this time. VHS recommends that Mr. Kaminski revise the plans accordingly and submit written responses to the above comments, 101 Walnut Street Past Office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 07.471-9151 T.\0671619\docs\letters\self storage-approv-082900.doe 61 Z924.1770 o FAX 61 Z 924 2286 ernail: info @vhb.com wwwMilo.com Heidi Griffin Project No.: 06716.19 August 29, 2000 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. r Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Senior Project Engineer—Highway &Municipal Engineering cc: Mr.Richard F.Kaminski,P.E. \06524\docs\lettersselfs torage-approv-082900.d oc 521 C:YIIt: AR CTS..ACCESS BOARD A ., Sin 21.3 SLOPE The maximum slope shall be one-in-12(1:12)(8.3%). Where sidewaLT=are too narrow to install a straight-line arb art at a slope of one-in-12(1:12)(83%),the primary slope may be steepf-than 1:12 (8.3 1/6)but the sides of the arb art shall not exceed one-m-12(1:12)(83%). See Fir,21b. The maximum cross-slope for any curb cut shall be 1:50(2°/4). (There is no tolerance allowed on slope its) 12 1 sudace of Ramp Level Level Landing W, Lsxrtdin97 . -. °o L Horizontal Profection of Run Slope Figure 21 b 2L4 TRANSITIONS Transitions from curb cues to walks, gutters, or streets shall be flush or free of changes in level greater than�inch C/_."= 13mm). Maximum slopes of adjoining gtuters,road:urfice unmediately adjacent to the curb arts,or accesstiiie route shall not exceed one-in-20 (1:20)(5%). 21-5 DRAINAGE Grading and dramage shall be designed to minunize pooling of water, accumn ation of ice or flodi of waxer across the base of the curb cut. 2L6 WIDTH The mmitnum width of a arb cut shall be 36 inches(36"=914mxn), cxdusive of flared sides Sec Fig.21c- 21.6.1 Lading width.- Where a perpendicular arb art is provided, a Lording the width of the czrb cut sbail be provided at the top of the arb apt. The landing shall be 48 inches(48 1219mm)in length. The slope of said landing shall not exceed one-in-50(1:50)(20/a)in any direction 2L7 FLARED SIDES Sides of arb acts shall camid at least 24' (24"=61Omm)at the curb. The maximum slope ofthe flare is one-ia-ten(1:10)(10%). Curbing at the flared sides must blend with.,the slope of the flared sides. Sae Fig.21c. O �D ]i 1:12 as 1:10 v X1:10 L24- min, L 36" min. 24" min Curb Cut with Rayed Sidles Figurer 21c 2/?3/96 521 CMR-84 ------------------ -------------------------- Pt. 36,App. A 28 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-94 Edition) Department of justi, 4.8 Ramps 4.9 Stain LQv01 Landing 4.8.7 Edge ProteCtIc surface of Ramp with drop-offs shall hav Laval Landing or projecting surfaces I, slipping off the ramp.C mum Of 2 in(50 mm)hi Horizontal pro action at Run 4.8.8 Outdoor Col and their approaches sk, water will not accurnula Nnmum Wu Maximum H........I P,.I,C(,.. 4.9 Stairs. Slaps n Mm h 1:12 to<1:16 30 76o 30 9 4.9.1-Minimum Nun 1:16 to<1:20 lo tn,3 an I be accessible by 4.1 sha 4.9.2 Treads and Rio flight Of stairs,all steps: K(I. 16 riser heights arid uniforT treads shall be no less u Components of a Single Ramp Run and Semple Ramp Dfinenslons wide,measured from ris, 18(a)). open risers are Tu 4.9.3 Nciaings.The un, 4.8.3 Clear WIdth.The minimum clear width M`Hiandralls shall be provided along both shall not be abrupt.'rbe of a ramp shall be 36 in(915 mm). sides of ramp segments.The Inside handrail the leading edge of the tr on switchback or dogleg ramps shall always, than 1/2 in(13 Ram).RiE mmrmuuNmoum 4.8.4-Lacidip.Ramps shall have level be continuous, the underside of the nosi landings at bottom and top of each ramp and not less than 60 degrees each ramp run.Landings shall have the follow- (2)If handralls are not continuous, they Noatrigs shall project no t ing features: shall wend at least 12 In(3405 mm)beyond the (38 Run)(see Fig. 18). top and bottom of the ramp segment and shall (1)The landing shall be at least as wide as be parallel with the floor or ground surface 4.9.4 Elandraills.Statru the ramp run leading to it. (see Fig. 17), rails at both sides of all s. Comply with 4.26 and sh. (2)The landing length shall be a nunimum of (3)The clear space between the handrail and features: 60 in(1525 nun)clear. the wall shall be I - 1/2 In(38 mmil. (1)Handralls shall be c (3)If ramps change direction at Landings,the (4)Gripping surfaces shall be continuous. both sides of stairs.The I minimum landing size shall be 60 In by 6o In switchback or dogleg star (1525 mm by 1525 mm). (5)Top of handrail gripping surfaces shall be continuous(see Fig. 19(a, mounted between 34 in and 38 n(865 mm and (4)If a doorway Is located al.a landing.then 965"above ramp surfaces. (2)If handratis are not the area in front of the doorway shall comply with 4.13.6. shall wend at least 12 Jr (6)Ends of handrails shall be either rounded top riser and at least 12 11 4.8.51 Handralig If a ramp run has a rise or returned smoothly tojlocr, wall.or post. width of one tread beyond the top,the extension sha greater than 6 in(150 min)or a horizontal 17)Handrails shall not rotate within their floor or ground surface.A Projection greater than 72 in(1830 mm),then filitrigs• handrail shall continue to It shall have handrails on both sides. Handrails of the width of one tread f art not required on curb ramps or adjacent to 4.8.6 Cross Slope and Surfaces.The cross the remainder of the we, seating in assembly areas.Handrails shall slope of ramp surfaces shall be no greater than zontal(see Fig. 19(c)and comply with 4.26 and shall have the following 1:50. Ramp surfaces shall comply with 4.5. sloes shall comply with 4 features: (3)The clear space beta wan shall be 1.1/2 In(38 29 30 520 ' TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW &cSTANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE Site Plan Title: Pzmpnmad Stor-K]'Self Sml]-Stormge q/HBNw.: O07l6.l9 Location: l07g Osgood Street (Route l25) Owner: Richard]. Kelly, 55 Cambridge Street,Burlington,M/\0l8O3 Applicant: R. J. Kelly Company, 55 Cambridge Street, Burlington, MAUI8O3 Applicant's Engineer: Richard R Kaminski, 3)60 Merrimack Street,Lawrence,MA Oi843 � Plan Date: 06-30'00 Review Date: 07^27-00 The/\pp|ivao(submitted plans and documents toVRB, for review on July 10, 2000. The site � plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of the l972 Town of � North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998 and standard engineering practice. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections and questions/comments on the proposed design. � | |. (Section 0.1)This section requires dheouzohexofpurbiugxpaooxtobcninatv-cioht. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a variance from this section. With this variance, the Applicant iy allowed to provide forty-five parking spaces toa00000modntothe parking need for the proposed facility. 2. (Section #.4)The landscape plan appears to meet the uoo:nniog and landscaping requirements for off-street parking. 3. The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VH13 offers the following � comments: � � u) EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: VBB assumes that there are no easements or � legal encumbrances on the property that may prevent or place conditions on the proposed � development. The Applicant should verify this, � b) 800uomm�oLmb�lo� � ' � under item 4) Drainage Review. o) BUILDING LOCATION: V}{l] recommends that existing greenhouse and building bn � shown on the existing condition plan. The overall height in feet of the proposed and existing structures should ho shown uowell. � � � � � -~� \ ` � � dA LOCATION OF OF INTENT: k appears that there isuwetland on the west side wf Osgood Street. Asa Notice of Intent has been submitted LnNorth Andover Conservation Commission (NACC), VHB recommends that the findings of the I«ACChoforwarded tnox for review. e) TRAFFIC IMPACT 8TlJI)Y: The/\Dp|iouut has requested u waiver from this requirement. However, the Applicant has submitted traffic data the "SeDf-Stozuge Almanac"published by the MioiCo, Inc. Traffic generation im typically found io u publication entitled "Trip Generation,Volume I of 3"by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. \/BB does not recommend using the Self-Storage Almanac for traffic data. D COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: V8B understands that the Applicant has submitted uo application tnthe Massachusetts Highway Department for access state highway permit. \/BOB rccozoulouds that Mass-Highway permit requirements ho forwarded tooafor review. 4. DRAINAGE REVIEW: Vfl]8 has received drainage calculations and design. The proposed drainage design is ucloued drainage oyxtcnu that includes onLob basins, drain manholes, u detention pond, and fonudnbnoa-droiou. VVe offer the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: u) The drainage design conforms to the requirements nf the Department ofEnvironmental Protection Stozon*utur Management Standards. b\ The Applicant should show the location of silt fences with hay-bales on the plan. c) The 18-iuob reinforced concrete pipe (from DMB-1 to [)MIf-2) appears tn conflict with � the foundation/key mf retaining wall no.1. The Applicant should review and revise � accordingly. dU It is not clear whether the detail ^'Cnoua Section—I)MB-12° is typical for all proposed manholes. VHB recommends that a typical drain manhole detail be shown on the construction details plan. / 5. STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE: VBB has reviewed the site plans for � conformance to standard engineering practices. The purpose iato document the engineering � issues and potential construction issues ummooiu\ed with the project. \/I{B offers the following comments: � u\ VHB recommends that proposed curb radii for the entrance/egress driveway be shown on | the plan. | b) The Applicant should verify that the proposed driveway can accommodate the turning � movements of large trucks (seoh-troi)oh. / `V � c) The site plan indicates that a utility pole io located within the proposed driveway. Tbe Applicant should coordinate the relocation of this utility pole with the respective utility company. . d) The Applicant should verify that the proposed handicap ramp detail included in the plans oueeLo the current/\D/\ (American Disability Act) reqobonocots o) \/}fB recozoonoodo that the sidewalk detail be revised to show uuooma slope. f) The plans include typical sections for three different types of reinforced concrete retaining walls. \/8B is unable to review these walls ut this time uo structural culuolodoou and geotocboicul information have not been provided. VEO0 assumes that shop drawings and calculations will be provided by the Applicant at the time of conmLzoudou. � o\ The location of the proposed wood fence should be shown on the wall details. I1ia recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES io the issues and oonzozuo(o contained herein. Reviewed by: Duke: / Timothy B.Mxlutoab,P.]B. Senior Project Bngioeex—BigbvvuyundMnniciDn\Engineering Daniel Ho-Yin Wong,|BII. �~ Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal Engineering � � 3