HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1591 OSGOOD STREET 12/26/2000 �4/LdL000G/d� C�J/L�G2ePf�
4�u�e�ae�raiie J2.53� 116 meet
�irc�re9fu;,iii�ue.�ic✓t°.rt.�efff 07890 ��n,.��9ac�r�9ell� 0/970
'/ 7SI-,7?A711,7 ��raire 97�7/s7 2250
a� 7S7,7eB'437 97 7/7 2250
December 26,2000
North Andover Community Development
Planning Board
27 Charles street
North Andover,MA 01845
Att: Heidi Griffin,Town Planner
Re: 1591 Osgood Street, Site Plan Review Dated 11/30/00
S.P.E.C.Realty Trust(Chris Adams Trustee)
Dear Ms. Griffin:
The review as received on 12/01/00 for the project noted above indicates that a deeper understanding of what
is being proposed is required. In order to accomplish this the following brief verbal explanation is presented. The
project being proposed is a self storage warehouse facility that is designed to contain 5 structures that are 140'x 30'
and one that is 80 by 30'. This yields a gross ground floor area of 23400sf. As the submission indicated the second
floor is 36 feet wide yielding a second floor area of 28,080 or a gross floor area of 51,480 sf which yields a usable area
of about 50,700 sf for planning storage space. The site itself as noted contains a gross area of about 116,349 sf.
Utilizing this area yields a site that contains a ratio of ground floor area to total area of about 20.6%and a ratio of gross
Hoof area to total area of 44.3 percent. Clearly both of these ratios are under the code requirements.
Because the site is naturally terraced the final design as shown incorporates this natural terracing by placing
three structures at the high level and three structures at the low level all being sited to take advantage of the existing
relatively low existing slopes on the buildable portions. This translates into first floor building elevations on the upper
portion of 120, 125.5 and 125 along with the access road profile as shown that yields the access road grades that go
from 5 to 6 to 4 percent as shown. The structures in the golf course zone will obviously have elevations going from
102.5 to 103.5 to 105.5 accommodating the existing grades.
These grades are controlled by an access road section that is so designed to collect all runoff by the slopes
and grades as originally shown and contain all of the runoff from the high area onto the site. This flow is into a series
of catch basins that connect to the existing storm drain system. The lower area is again so situated to accommodate
the existing grades and provide onsite drainage into the ground for the bulk of this area with the remaining runofffrom
the low areas abutting Osgood Street draining as it has for the past 50+years. The grading as shown on profiles and
sections totally prevent any runoff onto the adjacent abutting properties. The minor changes in the contours now are
included to address the question of contours. For security purposes it should be noted that this project will become a
secured area by means of a black cast iron or aluminum fence around the property. As such the area is controlled by
one gate and was never intended to have vehicular circulation around the front of the complex. The parking revisions
for the ZBA approval reflects this. Additionally this was approved by the Fire Department as required by the ZBA
and noted hereinafter.This approval letter is herewith included. Those that need to have access to parking will have
access available thru the gate.
In order to maximize the use of the miniature golf area it is necessary to provide a retaining wall to obtain
the needed internal space. Having been involved in the development and design of hundreds of segmental walls of this
type for similar projects the writer opted for the segmental block wall because of economy and simplicity. Because
there are numerous competing segmental block walls currently being offered within the industry(at least 8 in this area)
the wall as shown on the drawings is typically noted shown on site plans by major consultants and engineers because
the final design is accomplished by others during the construction phase. However herewith attached are two such
typical walls that identify the major components(see Figures I &2). Specifying the particular wall at this stage is
premature. One could be specified if necessary but would become restrictive to the owner.
The administrative space for the complex will be housed within the existing structure and will utilize existing
toilet and SDS facilities as utilized by the existing miniature golf complex.
The project being proposed is for a self storage warehouse complex to be located on land owned by S.P.E.C.
Realty Trust on 1591 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA. The parcel contains 2.671 acres (I16300sf) which
represents only the industrial land or 67.5% of the land owned by S.P.E.C. The property lines as originally submitted
are shown in Figure 3..This project was originally submitted for consideration on 4/11/00 to the Town of North
Andover. This review process indicated some question relative to existing zoning requirements. These questions
were resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)on 8/8/00 and recorded at the Registry of Deeds,North District
Essex County on 9/6/2000. This plan is the result of a review by the Fire Chief for access and egress for fire fighting
purposes. Above and beyond this fact that the fire approval also consisted of all buildings being sprinkled with
appropriate alarm, access provisions at gate enclosure and 2 fire hydrants at locations shown. A copy of the Fire
Chief's approval letter dated 12/26/00 is also herewith attached in Figure 4. This approval approved the building
location,foundation sizes,internal traffic flow areas,building setbacks,mixed use(existing restaurant and self storage
warehousing),exit and egress locations and sizes,the number of parking spaces,limits of parking,fencing of property,
handicapped parking
and a 45 buffer zone between residential and commercial zoning line. Clearly this approval forms a very sound and
solid basis for the submission to the Planning Board.
The site as it exists currently contains a restaurant(Jimmys Pizza)and a miniature golf course at street level
with a parking area existing above the two operating commercial entities.In other words the site as it exists contains
3 distinct zones namely the lower active commercial zone 1,a sloping bank separating the high area from the low area
zone 2 and a high ground paved parking area zone 3. The size of each zone is tabulated in Table 1 as follows and is
outlined in Figure 5..
TABLE 1 ZONES&AREAS
Zone Acres Square Feet
1 1.53 66,700
2 0.20 8,800
3 0.94 40,800
Total 2.67 116,300
The design engrossed in the plans submitted develops a design that utilizes each zone noted as a separate
design entity and technically is treated as such.In addition it should be noted that the existing site will yield the critical
drainage areas noted in Table 2.
Inspecting of Table 2 indicates that the total area of the site contains 116,300 sf or 2.67 acres or 0.0042 square
miles. The three zones range in size fro 8800 to 66700 sf or 0.202 to 1.531 acres or 0.00032 to 0.0024 square miles.
The individual zones range in size from 0.00016 to 0.00109 square miles. This data supplied in the original
submission very clearly identifies the fact that all zones and subareas are small areas in all units of measure.
—2—
•
CAPSTONE
MASONRY ADHESIVE
•�a APPROVED
11 BACKFILL
GRAVITY STONE 9
WALL WITH
TAMPED #57
-�•r
�.�•� �•r'�+
:+ r��•r
STONE
AND 5/8"BATTER
4 OMIT FOR 10 COURSE
WALL SECTIONS
FINISH .3 SEE PROFILE FOR
GRADE LOCATIONS
EL.243.2
(EL 244.5 FOR 8
WALL SECTIONS)
SOIL BASE
1
_ t� e• •�
DRAIN TO SURFACE AT LOCATIONS
\--NOTED DRAIN
STANDARD
INSIDE ANCHOR UNIT ON OF
M M M M 4pLvR��
TRUNK
UNIT
[ 7[ 7
STANDARD FACE UNIT
AT OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL(TYP) AN HORUNITON
INSIDE.
BLOCK BLOCK LAYOUT •
CORNERS AT CONVEX
,, •��J Mcl"; �
' WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN
S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
D. OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
.; i WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
NORTH D•
LENGTH OF GRID (SEE SCHEDULE FOR
LENGTHS AND LOCATIONS)
2 BEADS CONCRETE ADHESIVE 3"-4" TOPSOIL
AND GRASS
CAP UNIT
LOCKING PINS
(TYPICAL)
i
NATURAL
e6-191' IN-SITU SOIL
3 STONEWALL UNIT — TYPICAL
o GRID LAYER
tea, PROVIDE FILTER FABRIC o
BETWEEN BACKFILL AND BACKFILL
a DRAINAGE STONE 1 SOIL
u
-0�=1/4"TO 3/4' LINE INTERFACE
°' �O CRUSHED STONE �/ WITH FILTER FABRIC
N FOR DRAINAGE
t FINISH GRADE 12"MIN.;
d
6"min 45
4"PERFORATED PIPE
(ROLL IN FILTER FABRIC)
12" VARIES TO SUIT DRAINAGE
.................J
COMPACTED SOIL FOOTING —
OR
2000 TO 2500 PSI CONCRETE
4-0"MIN.
NOTE:1. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL ELEVATIONS
AND DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD AND TO IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE ENGINEERS
OF ANY DIFFERENCES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS.
I
i I its 2
i
r 7 3 .)nra
ew
i
•A
SECTION A-A
AHOLES
-- 14 SLOT NNEERi,HIGH
53/4
i
i
AAEGUUR FACE
i
5 Tie
11'314
NOMINAL DIMENSIONS
(BASED ON AS CAST DIMENSIONS) �/4
A TYPICALSEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL FIGURE 2
�429000GlJL�
REPORT C�/L�%/dP.e`-J WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN DECEMBER 26,2000
S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST (CHRIS
THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
,yB,ATi•�rs�a�lroel�aarant,. 07970 ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
9)8-J4f P850 STREET,NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01846 IONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
194.19 N 280 31' W
E—
RESIDENTIAL ZONE
1.285 ACRES
3 �
N O
N
On
w M
ul
Res/
R`?S60 0ne
< �
s/r�a!'Z ?103T o
Dhe K5 z
to
>: _
o
PERIMETER PLAN z
_
SCALE 1., 100 U)G
U)
F
x
3 °
INQUS7RIAL ZtNE J
h 2 671 AGRES o
0
e. >
y N
h
°
h Z
M g
� W
J
N
a
O
cn
cn
Z °
d z
w
ti
M
J
R,
0
z
3
OSGOO 060
RFET 14.
Ole
..o`...
PLAN OF ALL LAND OWNED BY S.P.E.C. REALTY FIGURE 3
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
DECEMBER 26,2000
S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST (CHRIS
,.8'7".7H,7 ADAMS REPORT OR FIGURES
�t.Q"& �y�o ADAMS TRUSTEE), 1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT REPRODUCED
WI THE THE WRITTEN
97874A STREET,NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922 ONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
North Andover Fire
Department
Tae William Sullivan,Chalmw Zoning Board Of A"Is
F wa Lt_Andrew MaInikas
M Mef Wm-v_ Dolan
t wim 12i2W OO
tea 1591 Osgad st
The North Andover Fire Departent has reviewed the plans forthe proposed Site and support Said plan
given the tart the buildings will be spdnklemd ,master connected and will have acoepWble access for
ernergmMy vehicles.Please car should there be any questions.
p�a-ILI
j'"2 & .(1*22wttedl FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL FIGURE 4
�a2�rc�' �i2 erg WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
DECEMBER 26,2000
S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
019,70 WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
9���G7 P�50 STREET,NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01845 IONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
128 . o
Y
126-
124. , ZO �.. 128
• NF d �.
122• ••426
120 IS�1j!jG PAVEMENT--.
124
118,
I't6 110 120
108 •118
106
10w" �y' ;�,•�'.: ,, •l 116
'.� ',.,114
102°,
� � . , �'; •112
100 �. ..' '•i
�,• i •110
R mil• 'v I••
Exisr
STRUCNG ,o 106
98•, � V
c ••
R.1N•.7 • X��'/�j ` ' 104
®SG®00 ST
44
PLAN OF EXISTING CONDTIONS AND ZONES
FOR DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
SCALE 1"=100'
PLAN OF EXISTING CONDTIONS AND ZONES FIGURE 5
FOR DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS REPORT DATE
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN DECEMBER 26,2000
4�vyerre�irse°�sne�eerer..1��Ol890
y8�yls y��7 S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
MAY NOT BE
fla�.�4l�S°ur5° � or97o ADAMS TRUSTEE), 1591 OSGOOD WITHOUT THE WRITTENED
9��74�1850 ONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
STREET NORTH ANDOVER MA.01845
TABLE 2
DRAINAGE AREAS&CLASSES BY ZONE
Zone Class Area(ksf) Area(Acres) Area(sq.mixl0-1) Slope%
Zone 1 Total 66.7 1.531 2.4 3.6
Paving 26.5 0.608 0.95
Building 4.5 0,103 0.16
Golf Surface 8.4 0.193 0.30
Sand 4.6 0.106 0.17
Gal Gross 22.7 0.521 0.81
Zone 2 Total and 8.8 0.202 0.32 20
Banking
Zone 3 Total 40.8 0.937 1.46 2.4
Paving 30.6 0.702 1.09
Trees&Grass 10.2 0.234 0.37
Total Total 116.3 2.67 4.2 53
The general existing slopes as developed from the general topography are also shown in Table 2. Zones 1
and 3 have existing slopes ranging between 2 and 4%which are considered as low to moderate slopes but very
workable for construction.
The general soil criteria of the entire slope as developed from historic soil work, site geometry,soil test and
test pits indicate a major deposit of sand and gravel. Material from the site was utilized to construct the Lucent
Technology plant across Osgood Street as quality granular fill. Soil tests as provided completely confirms this.
Percolation tests yields a perc rate of 2 min/inch.This translates into a coefficient of permeability of 0.5 in units of
ft/min that is about 0.00069 fps or 30 in/hr. A simple comparison to a maximum 100 year storm that will produce a
maximum rainfall of about 10.5 in/hr and a 7 in/day (0.29iph)rainfall clearly when the sub soil is exposed to the
rainfall for the 100 year storm the natural soil will readily absorb the 5 min duration intensity of 10.5 mpi and very
clearly the 7 ipd(0.29 iph)very handily. Recognizing these very basic and fundamental soil facts and the 100 year
storm intensity criteria provides sound engineering criteria for site drainage. This material was provided in the
original submission but not in this narrative form.
The answer to this question of runoffbegins by understanding what currently exists because fundamental legal
concepts is relatively simple (ie runoff after development cannot be increased or decreased to the detriment of the
abutting land owner). Thus the existing runoff however arrived at must be allowed and the future runoff must be equal
to the existing runoff. The existing runoff is developed thru the examination of the existing areas noted in Table 2
which indicates a site that contains an impervious surface that includes existing paving, existing structure and the
impervious segment of the miniature golf course totaling about 70,000 sf or about 60%of the site is impervious. This
in itself is comparatively different from most virgin territory. How the drainage from the impervious surface is
handled and where it currently goes and how much is the runoff is of great importance. First it must be recognized
that all rainfall falling on an impervious existing surface which has some slope will flow off the impervious surface..
-3-
In this case the upper impervious surface is collected and diverted to an existing catch basin about 215 feet up the
existing paved access road. This water is then collected in a 12 inch concrete pipe and diverted to a second catch basin
on Osgood Street. Thus the runoff from zone 3 is handled by the existing storm drainage system noted.
The bank area runoff noted as zone 2 is handled by the natural percolation into the ground and by a small low
strip between the bank bottom of slope and the rear leg of the miniature golf course where the runoff water collects and
peres into the ground. The net result is that this runoff is totally absorbed on site. This fact has been observed by the
writer on at least 3 occasions.
It should be noted that the miniature golf courses concrete paved walkways are slightly elevated above the
grass area and in actuality creates a small darns within the golf area. The runoff from the golf area finds its way into
the locked in grass areas and percolates naturally into the ground. This feature was also observed by the writer and
essentially creates zero runoff and allows direct penetration into the soils below. As noted the soils will handle the
rainfall.The design incorporates this feature.
The grass and sand area adjacent to the miniature golf course in zone 1 is a surface that is basically an open
sand surface. This material has a perc rate of 2 mpi and a permeability that is about 30 in/hr as previously noted. This
surface is behaving exactly as a soil of this nature should. The rain is being absorbed directly into the soil.
The balance of the paved area zone 1 either flows naturally into the street or into batch basin on Osgood Street.
The previous written summary indicates how the current rain and runoff as it currently exists is being treated
as shown originally. Future runoff considerations must take this into account.
Relative to existing parking the existing parking spaces adjacent to the restaurant and miniature golf currently
has about 40 identifiable parking spaces for both businesses. The site has two existing curb cuts at the northerly and
southerly ends of the property on the easterly side of Osgood Street as noted on the original submission. It should be
noted that this parking area has adequately handled the existing traffic. Considering that both businesses have a
customer retention period averaging about 25 minutes this translates into an existing peak traffic flow of 96 vehicle
per hour(vph)and has historically handled this mixed traffic flow.
The business records of the golf course indicates a maximum vehicular traffic flow in its prime of 70(vph).
When added to the restaurant maximum traffic flow of about 30(vph)yields a maximum traffic flow of about 100
(vph). Thus two different approaches yields a maximum existing traffic flow of about 100(vph). Thus a maximum
traffic of 100(vph)becomes a realistic standard to utilize as a basis for future and/or other comparative traffic flows.
The analysis by VHB indicates that storm drainage is a majorconcern for pre and post construction conditions.
Consequently the following additional information is provided. The beginning of the storm drainage starts with
recognizing the parcel size and physical existing contours. The plans very clearly demonstrate the site conditions that
basically indicate that the site goes from a high elevation of about 128 to elevation 100 or a slope of 28 feet in about
530 feet yielding an average slope of about 5.3%. In fluid flow the contours for all intents and purposes become
equipotential lines and any line perpendicular to the contour line establishes the flow direction. As the plans clearly
demonstrate the flow is generally from east to west and is overland flow with no visually discernable concentrated flow
paths being present. Further as the previous data has indicated the site itself is small about 116,300 sf or 2.67 acres.
Still further as previously noted the site for all intents and purposes contains three individual drainage zones as noted
in Table 2 with about 60 percent of the site currently having an impervious surface. This indicates that for any storm
about 60%of the rainfall currently runs off the site. This fact alone indicates that by Riparian law the runoff as it
currently exists for storms of all intensities must be allowed including the 60 percent impervious runoff condition. This
establishes the proper legal criteria for runoff.
The data in Table 2 as well as the existing contours establishes 3 distinct drainage zones each being
independent of the other. In other words the drainage from these 3 zones are independent of one another. Clearly then
—4—
each of these zones are smaller than the whole ranging in size for zone 166700 sf,zone 2 8800 sf and zone 3 40,800
s£ For identification purposes the zones are identifiable as zone 1 the restaurant and golf area, zone 2 the bank
separating the low area from the high area and zone 3 the paved high area. Thus the existing fundamental information
provided originally indicates that the site contains 3 small independent drainage areas as originally shown.(Figure5)
The drainage onto zone 3 as it exists today is from overland flow of land currently owned by S.P.E.C. and
is a land locked residential parcel containing some 56000 sf(1.285 acres). This parcel is wooded and basically handles
any flow onto the property and in actuality is providing a flow buffer zone. With this land being land locked the storm
drainage to be handled by necessity is small and further no water courses of any kind exist on the property. Thus the
flow is small and overland with very minimal runoff onto the commercial zone.
The questions of which drainage technique is to be utilized in the analysis was raised by VHB. VHB suggests
the use of TR 55rMO. Recognizing that the drainage areas are small and that the limitation of TR55/IMO are such
their use is precluded by published limitations we respectfully must disagree with this approach and offer the following
supporting documentation. The TR55 program as updated to May 28, 1998, identifies some very fundamental
premises. Very clearly in chapter 3 on page 3-4 of the TR55 document(Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds it is
very clearly noted the minimum time of concentration(Tc in hours)is 0.1 hours/or 6 minutes. This document defines
for sheet flow the time of concentration(Tc)by the relationship.
T,=Tc=0.007(nL)0s/(P20.5So.4) (1)
where
T, is the travel time(hr)=Tc for flow in a zone where L is less than 300 feet
n is Mannings Roughness Coefficient(n=0.011)For paved surfaces
L is the flow length(ft)
P2 is the 2 year 24 hour rainfall which is obtained from Figure B-3 or about 3 ipd
S is the overland flow slope(ft/ft)
Utilizing the appropriate values noted in Equation 1 reduces to
T,=Tc= 1.096 x 10-4(L)o.s/S0.4 (2)
For the three drainage zones noted the times of concentration developed from Equations 1 and 2 are shown
in Table 3.
TABLE 3
TIMES OF CONCENTRATION FROM TR55 CRITERIA
Zone Length (ft) Oh(ft) Slope ft/ft Tc(hrs)
1 280 6 0.021 0.047
2 40 10 0.25 0.0012
3 230 12 0.052 0.028
Total Site 530 28 0.053 0.054
The results of time of concentration for zones 1,2 and 3 yield values for the time of concentration of 0.047,
0.0012,and 0.028 respectively. These results clearly indicate that as separate zones the time of concentration is well
below TR55's limiting criteria of 0.1 hr as does the data for the entire site as a unit.Even with Higher n values the times
—5—
of concentration are well below the limiting criteria of 0.1 hr.
Further it is noted in the industries standard reference"Introduction to Hydrology"by Viessman&Lewis 4'
edition published by Harper Collins 1996 on pages 324 to 331 notes the limitations relating to size(5 to 2000Acres),
minimum time of concentration (0.1)hours and maximum ratio of parcel sizes(5)are clearly identified as the limiting
criteria for the use of the TR55 and its derivatives. This is further proof that the use of TR55 is inappropriate in this
case, due primarily to parcel size.
Examining Equation 1 indicates that the appropriate values for the worst case zone would be zone 1 where
L is 280 ft,S=0.021 and Pz would be about 3 ipd. The only major variable not accounted for would be n. The value
of n that is necessary to meet the limiting criteria of 0.1 hr for the time of concentration would be about 0.045. Clearly
with about 59%of the area as it exists today being impervious(n=0.011)and the balance being grass or an exposed
sandy surface with n ranging from 0.06 to 0.15 would yield a composite n value of about 0.021 then the time of
concentration being about 0.054 hr. Clearly once again the limiting criteria not met.
Clearly the design approach utilized in the original submission with the Rational Method accepted by most
professionals is clearly the accepted standard.
It should also be noted that zone 3 is serviced by an existing 12 inch concrete pipe that is about 215 feet from
the edge of the existing pavement. This drain follows the Mass DPW criteria for servicing a paved area with a
maximum flow length of about 300'. This value owes its origin to the Rational Method. The analysis of a pipe of this
nature is accomplished via the accepted standard Mannings equation as shown in the original submission and yields
a maximum flow of about 11 cfs. Utilizing the Rational Method as is the criteria for this criteria yields a flow into the
pipe of about 7.9 cfs. Clearly as originally shown the inlet flow(7.9 cfs)is less than the pipe capacity. This verifies
the existing pipe capacity is sound and at the very least that the original design was based upon the Rational approach.
For these reasons the Rational Method for the design and analysis of the storm drainage of this site was
chosen.
The data provided originally provided and engrossed on Sheets 8 thru 12 identifies the existing conditions
existing and future runoff criteria data supporting the 100 year local storm which yielded 7 ipd(TR55 would utilize
6.5 ipd)and an in situ soil that has a perc rate of 2 mpi. This data very clearly and definitively indicates that the
existing runoff and future runoffs with the two groundwater recharge systems will provide a future runoff that in
actuality is slightly lower than existing runoffs. This will remain the same regardless of which drainage technique is
utilized for analysis.In addition the accuracy of both techniques is about 10%+/at very best-.
It should also be noted that the drainage system is based on a 100 year storm regardless of which technique
is utilized for analysis.
TR55 provides an alternate means of developing the time of concentration in the form of
Tc=L/(3600V) (in hours) (3)
where L is the flow length(in/ft)and V is the average velocity in fps where V can be determined from a log-log plot
of watercourse slope(ft/ft)vs average velocity(V)(fps)and is depicted in Figure B-3 of the TR55 support document
"Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds". With this plot designating limits for an unpaved watershed (ie 1%
impervious) and totally paved waterways (ie 100% impervious) being presented in the log-log form the average
velocity(V)(fps)can be represented by the following simple equation
V= 14.95 so-481 P(1.0477).3 (4)
where V and s are as previously noted and the tern P represents the percent impervious. Table 4 represents the time
—6—
of concentration for the 3 zones previously noted.
TABLE 4
TIME OF CONCENTRATION FROM EQUATION(4) (IN HOUR)
Zone Area(acres) P(%) S(ft/ft) VC(pps) L ft Tc(hrs
1 1.46 67 0.021 2.8 280 0.028
2 0.27 1 0.25 7.7 40 0.0014
3 0.94 58 0.052 4.4 230 0.015
The results in Table 4 also are indicative that the time of concentration in hours are well under the lower
qualifying limit of 0.1 hours. Clearly TR55 even by this criteria does not apply.
As a matter of fact the latest revision of TR55 dated May 28, 1998,incorporated the earlier limiting criteria
in the TR55 program. The limitations are expressly noted in this program by the simple fact that the program will not
run and the two limiting criteria for TR55 are noted on the screen in the form of
1. "Time of Concentration out of range' (ie 0.1 hour)or
2. Such area off by factor of 5
In other words the program is limited to cases where the time concentration is limited to the low limit of 0.1
hr and/or one of the areas involved is 5 times larger or smaller than one of the areas within the program. In this case
both occur. Thus in this case very clearly TR55 does not apply with the primary reason being the size(ie a small size
with smaller parts).
Now specifically the following will address the VHB comments of the review dated 11/30/00.
1. Unfortunately an earlier layout was included and did not reflect the approved plan by the ZBA. The correct
site plan is herewith included as part of this submission.
2. The primary site plan submitted was at the scale of V = 40". Naturally supporting documentation for
various aspects of the design were included in what the writer felt provided added clarification and are easily included
in our offices contract format. The site plans herein attached all are to the scale requested.
3. a. The locus plan provided was taken from the standard USCGS map and was blown up to the scale of
1"= 1/4 mile and easy to use mile scale. Attached is the same locus plan Figure 6 to the scale of 1"= 1500'
a non standard scale..
b. Utilities and curb cuts as they exist and proposed are one in the same as noted originally.
c. No easements or land encumbrances exist as shown.
d. Done as originally provided and herewith enclosed.
e. As noted in Exhibit 4 the ZBA identifies the zoning as I-S and is correct. The site plan notation is
consistent with the ZBA approval. Change made on site plan notes I-S for requested consistency.
f. See information prior to this
g.The gross floor space of the two stories is 51489 sf is added with other pertinent data as noted.
h. Existing curb cuts where originally shown and coincide with proposed curb cuts notation is added for
clarification.
—7—
3
I%�`.` ( � �......_..:.�
j
%J r� ; � ,� ,1 ;:
Atr
-N
C
Water'
0
G)
0
0
cn
4
LOCUS PLAN
SCALE V=1500' =0.284 mi
LOCUS PLAN WITH REVISED SCALE FIGURE 6
gaztjaur" REPORT DATE
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN DECEMBER 26,2000
S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
J87 X84 777 THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
01970 ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
.97X747 PPJ,9 STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01845 ONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
i. The standard practice for this type of wall is exactly what is shown on the plans. Having designed
hundreds of these types of walls we have followed standard practice. Details of design when the contractor
has not selected the wall type is premature. Also see data previously provided.
j,No refuse areas are required
k. The lighting as shown provides the illumination levels on the site that can be provided by a large number
of commercial units. The generic fixture data is provided. Beyond this it is in our opinion premature.
1. The reference quoted is not readily available thru commercial bookstores and was available at the Weston,
MA Transportation and MIT libraries and further information provided indicates that the document may be
out of print. As is common in transportation circles traffic data based upon knowledge of actual events
produces the most reliable information. The proposed development has about 48000 sf of usable space. The
average rental unit size is about 150 sf. This indicates that about 320 spaces are available. With a 95%
occupancy rate (the actual industry operating criteria) which is the normal occupancy rate indicates an
average traffic flow into and out of the site of about 10 vpd indicating the worst case scenario being about 24
vpd maximum. With a 12 hour work day the proposed maximum traffic is in the order of 2 vehicles per hour.
As noted earlier this traffic count is lower than the current existing maximum traffic flow. Also this is
indicative that the parking provided is well over any realistic needs. Further the trip generation and resultant
parking has been verified in the field by the writers which has included local facilities. Comparison to a
theoretical value does not seem appropriate where real data exists.
m. The utilities required on the site are only water and gas only if the final building design incorporates
heating and/or cooling. These lines are shown on the drawings in the same locations as originally noted.
n. Fiscal Impact. The current industrial tax rate is$15.75/$1000. The estimated value of the property
would be in the vicinity of$1,200,000 which would yield an annual tax revenue of$18,900.00. Water use
for this operation would be for the use of toilet facility. The cost of water is borne by the owner. No other
local facilities are required or requested. Clearly another local business is being established without any
current or future needs being required by North Andover. Fire and police protection obviously would be
required only in emergency or on a call basis. This cost obviously is minimal. Clearly from a financial view
point this is a large plus for North Andover.
o. Community Impact. The project as approved by the ZBA fits into the approved zoning bylaws and as a
consequence must be viewed as being in keeping with published community criteria. The architecture is that
of a commercial establishment which is compatible with the established zoning and is compatible with local
architecture of this type. The nature of the business is generated thru minimal vehicular traffic and as such
does not generate pedestrian traffic. No pedestrian traffic will be generated. The site as recognized by all
is on Osgood Street a minor state highway and as such does not have pedestrian traffic. There does not
appear to be any nearby historic areas or site near this project thus its influence clearly from the historic view
point is not a problem. As noted earlier this project is totally in keeping with local and regional plans for this
area.
4. We are of the opinion that the supplemental written material explains in detail the drainage design and
concepts
a. Done
b. The water flow from uphill is not inhibited. It should be emphasized that the uphill area is a continuation
of an sand/gravel deposit with very good permeability. This is currently allowing the rain to percolate into
the ground. Evidence of this type of flow does occur uphill of this site at certain time as runoff onto Osgood
Street but not thru the S.P.E.C. property. There are no visible signs of concentrated flow from the land above
the site. If there was such a flow it would have been addressed. See previous information. No revision is
required.
c. Method of drainage calculation was originally addressed and has not changed.
d. The design as submitted originally was based upon the entire site with the existing conditions as they
currently exist. With the project grading as originally proposed the entire site drainage for the propose site
is handled internally on the site and as such does not impact any abutter. The system is designed for the 100
year storm. With all of the drainage handled on the site the analysis for 2 and 10 year storms is academic and
not required. The previous data also addresses the limitation of TR55 and any off shoots from this program.
—8—
5. Standard Engineering Practice.
a. This is the first time that a saw cut line along the ROW has ever been required. However,this is added
to satisfy this continent.
b. Done
c. Materials for the site are shown on Sheet 32. No sidewalks and curbs of any kind are proposed.
d. Corrected by supplying the ZBA approved drawings.
e. See ZBA approval
f. The ZBA approved plan was for 2 handicapped spaces. To satisfy this requirement 4 are now identified.
Very truly yours,
Prof.Thomas E. Phalen,Jr
TEP/efb
enclosures
file:planboard
—9—
Monday,February 19,2001 7:00 PM To:Griffin.Heidi From:Prof.Thomas E.Phaeln Jr., 729-4372 Page:2 of 3
4 u�rte 'F�e .39 ' <`a �et
Iutc/iFat€s:.,rlaaracivalett✓ v��yv .,16iJ {jelti v,yTv
�`ean� 7d1-i 7TilT �i�r�
Y7-;w'-
J�'P•Tai Tay-Si,T�° tut:'.SST cf'-T u���'.�/i
February 20,2001
North Andover Community Development
Planning Board
27 Charles street
North Andover,XLA 01845
Att:Heidi Griffin,Town Planner
Re:1591 Osgood Street,Site Plan Review Dated 2/13,101
S.P.E.C.Realty Trust(Chris Adams Trustee)
Dear Ms. Griffin:
This letter relative to your memo dated February 13,2001,as faxed to our office on February 16,2001,and lair.
McIntosh's letter dated February 16,2001,as fonvarded to our office by you on the sane date.
Nor.Mchntosh raised three additional qualification questions relative to drainage. These question where answered
on February 20, 2001, and hand delivered to the consultant on this date. The end result of these submissions clearly
indicates a storm drainage system that meets the 100 year storm criteria and in fact actually improves the drainage from
the site. Clearly the systems as presented are more than adequate to meet current drainage criteria of the Mass DEP as well
as sound engineering practice.
Relative to your memo and Mr.McIntosh's letter it is clear that the plans as presented meet the planning criteria
of the Town of Nortln Andover. The following observations are made to the following items.
VII Stonu water totally addressed.
XV S.P.E.C.Realty would be more than happy to add trees along Osgood Street provided the parking as approved
by the ZBA is not sacrificed because this parking comes out to the ROW of Osgood Street. IvIr_Niceta has clearly indicated
that any changes in the approved ZBA plans would not be approved. If the spaces disrupted by trees is acceptable to all
parties it would be acceptable to S.P.E.C.Realty.
S.P.E.C.has supplied information relative to traffic as requested by the consultant. This data is included on Sheet
4a of the docuunents submitted to your consultant and will be hand delivered to you in time for the meeting. This data very
clearly confirms the original traffic data supplied by the writer. Three sets of data indicate a very low traffic count,see
Sheet 4a.
S.P.E.C.Realty has submitted fiscal and community impact statements. These items are included as item n and
in on Page 8 of the letter to you on December 26, 2000, with a copy being hand delivered to your consultant. These
statements very clearly are positive.
We will also present to the Plami4 Board copies of the changes requested in the form of one additional drawing
and three revised drawings that reflect the changes requested and will be reviewed by your consultant.
Monday,February 19,2001 7:00 PM To:Griffin.Heidi From:Prof.Thomas E.Phaeln Jr., 729-4372 Page:3 of 3
At this time the writer wishes to thank you and your associates for your help un bringing the plans to an acceptable
level for approval.
Should their be any questions call or write at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Prof Thomas E. Phalen Jr.
President
TEP/efb
Enclosure
2
January 16, 2001
To: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner
From: Chris Adams
Dear Heidi,
In reviewing my discussion with the storage building manufacturers,Miller Building
Systems, I find that I misunderstood their recommended changes. Thus, I did not
communicate them correctly to you at our last meeting.
What they are suggesting is that we move the back three buildings forward. Building 4
would be built into the bank of the incline as per the drawing at the bottom left of this
plan.
It would not eliminate the wall or increase the size of the building.
It gives split-level access to the building as shown in the Miller plan,to make it more safe
and marketable. Economically, it eliminates the need and cost of an elevator or stairs.
All things considered,this recommendation makes a lot of sense.
Now that I have made the correct explanation, can this minor change be allowed without
complications? Please examine it and let me know your thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Adams
(617) 567-6669 C� Uo ) 1 Z 5 lo'
ct d vd u 's .b vn j
h Calo-e-, c�D�Qn
t"
s -,>,
l�
I OY) p yv V1 w(s ��
_ AN-16-01 12 :26 PM MILLER BUILDINGS 2156434734 P° 01
P®,Box 492
950 Penllyn Pike
Spring House, PA 19477-0492
TEL(215)643-5022
PAX(215)643-4734
www,millerbldgs.00m
Tuesday, January 16, 2801
Chris Adams
Basic Sales Company
hlarborview Condos
35 Webster Street
Suite 202
Boston, MA 02125
Gear Chris:
After careful review of your site plan, we have some suggestions that may contribute to
the efficiency, function, and safety of your new self storage center. Miller Buildings has specialized In
construction of multistory self storage buildings throughout the Eastern United Stated since 1078. Miller
has designed "split-level"or"Sank barn" style building that use retaining walls as the 3 sides of the
ground floor, and allows customer access to both levels without the need of an elevator, lift, or stairs.
The Miller split level building allows you to double the footprint of your storage area, and, at the same
time eliminate a dangerous obstacle at the grade change. This layout will help your grading efforts and
traffic flow. Please contact me when you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Lculs A, Gilmore
Xv
Flo
No
Pit
ei• °P•°,i
pb• °°b frl e•���'�"*k,''� �'tom' :a'yJ .. °'Bap•q,bq °`�
�.�j{ Sy,+6 i-�f-f�� °'qq• ��1�i1 °pge.p M 9
Dll
op
PP p6
pp
Ri
rg
•°9vo nl �,Mr 1' a ,•i,�, !e°•o
n°\ I�• P 1
�f�hn• °°awO- �7 °6L x w..FX�'i( .jr, .rl(k}-1��/� +.
°Bb •a_a f Iw15141. ll.' '�aYS 11
W a• t i -.+0
4' .............."•i °'9`tl � � ls.• � r:r'id��r-/�. ,Ey°. •P!~ qi
°°-i•vgi°°'°aw °•° °''��+VV�.�s aq /�"'rrl r"4 ''FrL -
>aW_ w®� s wee ,,,_. . ° / •-. _
Jilla
� faQ_.q-+wiq aq•, •-w-° •a ieeea • ap r. r;N 1 ,,.. • !
aid;$
pp1 y1.• µa
:rm 11 lygq 1 p
Is
It
to
r :K
•q { � n°hh °°•\
a-.q-wgeq•- 3.' 1
I
1
t�+Lq .is
Town of North Andover t„oRrf,
Office of the Building Department
Community Development and Services Division "
William J.Scott, Division Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
D. Robert Nicetta Telephone(978)688-9545
Building Commissioner Fax(978)688-9542
RECEIVU)
MEMORANDUM JAN 2 6 2001
To: Heidi Griffin,Town Planner
From: Robert Nicetta,Building Commissioner
Date: , January 26,2001
Re: S.P.B.C.Realty Trust
1591 Osgood Street
Attached please find copy of my correspondence to Mr. Chris Adams,which is self—explanatory,to seek a
modification of decision on Petition No: 012-2000 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I recommend that the
Planning Board not act on the referred site until Mr. Adams decides on which building option he chooses.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
r
^ rl
x
�ilaitiro J� I)ivdi"Jorj
? r✓
C{ f
ori 9 7 1) 688s 9.5,15
� b�.al4sr;tE.l"f�r.t;1:i<w � `r')lr`r�fi•�'1.`.r/6-,
i)1<,
�.�2trlc'%i�r�r, ( «nt�ttr,s�,�i�rrar<r�
January 25,2001
Mr. Chris Adams,Trustee
S.P.B.C.Realty Trust
35 Webber Street
Boston,MA 02128
Re: 1591 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA
Dear Mr.Adams:
I am in receipt this date of your fax letter and sketches for the referenced property improvements.Review
of files for the site indicate that you were granted a Variance and a Special Permit on August 10,2000,
Petition No: 012-2000.The decision(copy enclosed)was granted on the topographic plan and warehouse
design by:Phelan&Allen Limited,Thomas B.Phalen,Jr.,Professional Bngineer #81720,dated
6/15/2000. Therefore,you must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Modification of Decision to
use the site and building plan changes,that possibly may also impact the approved parking scheme,by
Miller Building Systems and not the plans of Phelan&Allen,Limited as approved in Petition No: 012-
2000.
As you may recall that at the last meeting attended by yourself,the Town Planner,Mr.Thomas Phelan,
Jr.,your project engineer,I stated that my position as Zoning Bnforcement Officer does not allow me to
modify any decisions of the Zoning Board. As such,you may re-apply for modification if you so desire.
If you require any further assistance or information please call me at the above telephone number.
Yours truly,
D.Robert Nicetta
Building Commissioner
CC: William Scott,CD&S
Heidi Griffin,Town Planner
William J. Sullivan,ZBA Chair
)�C)!^.LI)t:I;(+"'l�l'f'4+J�) fI G,>1-�.`r"wl l 131J1 l;l'�"if I(.,�I2'>•J.4_r 4�`rwl a�) i`'�IhI h)Y,)�Ya,��.'S t7 7 613Ar.L:J':Cf t S;�5�..+rkC] I'.C,/;2J[)[P T<;fif. �l.`+:'a5
RECEIVED
+' JOYCE BRADSHAW
• R .°° TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOVER
1000 AUG IS P 1: 58
t
North Andover
Zoning Board of Appeals,
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
Phone (978) 688-9541 Fax(978) 688-9542
Any appeals shall be filed NOTICE OF DECISION
within(20)days after the Year 2000
date of filing of this notice Property at:1591 Osgood Street
in the office ofthe Town Clerk.
NAME: S.P,E.C.Realty Trust(Chris Adams,Trustee) DATE:8/10/2000
ADDRESS: for premises at:1591 Osgood Street PETITION: 012-2000
North Andover,MA 01845 HEARING:4/11/2000,519,6/20,&7/11, 8/8/2000
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday,August 8,2000,at 7:30 upon the application S.P.E.C.
Realty Trust,(Chris Adams,Trustee)for premises at:1591 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA. Petitioner is a
party aggrieved of the Building Inspector and is requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 7,Paragraph
7.3 for relief of a rear setback,and from Section 8,Supplementary Regulations,P7,to allow for parking spaces. And
for a Special Permit from S9,P 9:1 in order to change a use and construct one office area and several self-storage type
warehousing units within the I-S zoning district.
The following members were present:Walter F. Soule,Raymond Vivenzio,Scott Karpinski,Ellen McIntyre,George
Earley.
Upon a motion made by Raymond Vivenzio and 2h'd by Scott KarpinsK on the condition that the petitioner withdraw
without prejudice his request as a party aggrieved of the Building'hispector, therefore, the Board voted to GRANT a
variance from the requirements Section 8,Supplementary Regulations P7,to allow for 51 spaces for parking as shown
on the topographic plan&warehouse design by:Phalen&Allen Limited,Thomas E.Phalen,Jr.,Professional
Engineer,#81720,dated 6/15/2000. The Board voted to GRANT a Special Permit from Section 9,P9.1 in order to
construct one office area and several self-storage type warehousing units on the premises of 1591 Osgood Street which
is within the I-S zoning district. Voting in favor: Walter F.Soule,Raymond Vivenzio,Scott.Karpinski,Ellen
McIntyre,and George Earley.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have power upon appeal to grant variances from the terms of this Zoning Bylaw where the Board
finds that owningto circumstances relatingto soil conditions,shape,or topography ofthe land or structure and especially affecting
such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in general,a literal enforcement ofthe provisions of this Bylaw
will involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the petitioner or applicant,and that desirable relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Bylaw.
Furthermore,if the rights authorized by the variance are not exercised within one(1)year ofthe date ofthe grant,they shall lapse,and
may be re-established only after notice,and a new hearing. Furthermore,if a Special Permit granted under the provisions contained
herein shall be deemed to have lapsed after a two(2)year period from the date.on which the Special'Permit was granted unless
substantial use or construction has commenced,they shall lapse and may be re-established only sifter notice,and a new hearing." h
By order ofthe Z Boa f Appeals,
William J.Su an,Chairman
ml/decisions2000/30
W--J V1
January 25,2001 ff
To: Robert Nicetta,Building Inspector I
Town of North Andover
From: Chris Adams
Dear Robert;
In reviewing my discussion with the storage building manufacturers,Miller Building
Systems,I find that I misunderstood their recommended changes. Thus,I did not
communicate them correctly to you at our last meeting.
What they are suggesting is that we move the back three buildings forward. Building 4
would be built into the bank of the incline as per the drawing at the bottom left of this —
plan.
It does not eliminate the retaining wall or increase the size of the building project.
it gives split-level access to the building,as shown in the Miller plan,to make it more
safe and accessible. The tenants would have convenient back-up access to their space.
Economically,it eliminates the need and cost of a lift,but doubles the cost of the
retaining wall, so it would be a`wash". All things considered,this recommendation
makes a lot of sense for convenience,accessibility,and safety for the tenants-
Now that I have made the correct explanation,can this minor change be allowed without
complications? Please examine it and let me know your thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
` Xz�;a_
Chris Adams
(617) 567-6669
P.S. f spoke with I-Ieidi this morning. She expressed that she sees no problem with it ._.
from the view of the Planning Board as long as there are no floor space changes to the
plan.
As the plan shows,the only change would be for the back buildings to be brought
forward. Please advise. Thank you.
EI _
JAN ZU0
BUILDING DEPT.
'� n Y � ,4�1i:�h Y` � •
-77 71
IL
Sig
Hit
CZsZ 110.............. ..... ..._...._�.:i
X00 Dp Os �C<rb IC!^__•_•_•_• . �1 /�\ fir' - Y - . �•
gay S>7 , .� �\r/���_ •�...__ ,1�
m
o! s
f •* ���� - _ - .��"'�.` �• -_ - --,----
HH
�QP 111 �� .11oo tb..- .......
yy •��. �;� Y.4„' • -
• -��arm,::• �f'�-•. _
; ,ta4r i
soar I ...........
"'� ��.� ;c �.�...,•• ,• � .,,.
La
c m •
mQ z¢ R. �N� •,it a y JAN 25 20
at
BUILDINU DEEP
,ktz- -
• : / .�. �;�=_.t. • s�.:,•. yam:.---:
4f
ihm
a all
Aw
Mrf
o a.• r ` FC���,:-�i7y_I,Vf. '•f� f �DJ�•ti,`,.r-r •• . / I
X....ry_•St__ tntr• _ ••
f r a-d:- .'-°E-
: -�,sr-:s + t.nz• - f
• I '
•
+ I s + I
t fs 1sY 7r SIP 2V W
f
•i T ' � s + , f
! J • r f +
• 1 +
t _
_ s
CRMCAL ZONING&PAPAI G Q
I
LAND AREA'S AND RAMOS �
1.COI MFJtCtAL: 116306 SF:
_.. A 2.fj=No STRUCTURES:E
G� l ��d���,5 3.GROUND AREA NEW 8TRt
IZeta:+i�� 6,TOTAL OCClIPMD GROUN
r•- wAa
APPROVED TOM�F NORTH ANDOVER 8t»�NG A�no 24.7
ZMING BOARD: 6.STORAGE ARLA(2 FLOOI
MATE PARIONO ANALYSIS
RECEIVED COME RF-cu eo PARKING
i.RESTAURANT PARIUNG ..
2.SW STORAGE WARFI+
JAN 2 52001
•_ 3.TOTAL AS PER CODE
UI L I
Naw$PACT:$SHOWN Tilt
11 1''1 own of. NorthAndover
Office of the Health Departffient
Coininunity Developinent and Services, Division
%A1d1j;nnj. Scott, [AviMon Director
27 Charles Str(-->et
North Andover, MaSSad1L1S(-?ttS 01845
T
Sa�'idra Starr elephone (978)688-9540
Healfli Dire(,Ior Fax (978)688-9542
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
TO: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner FFB 14 2001
CC: Phalen& Allen, Chris Adams NORTIA iAJqD0VP'R
From: Sandra Starr, Health Director PLANNING (X-.PA1Tf"1V1F-.NT
Date: 02/13/2001
Re: 1591 Osgood Street
This memo concerns the proposal to develop the site at 1591 Osgood Street,
North Andover. Health Department personnel have reviewed the plans submitted
to the Planning Board for a special permit and have the following comment.
Please be advised that if the proposal adds any structure to the existing building,
the Health Department will have to assume that there is additional flow to the
septic. If such an addition were proposed the Health Department would then
have to look at the functioning of the subsurface disposal system. If there is no
additions to the existing building than this office has no outstanding issues.
BOARM)FAPITALS688-9541 BUILDING 699-9545 CONSERVATION 699-9530 NURST" 698-9543 1'LANNINCY'689-9535
February 16,2001
Ref: 06716.2(
Heidi A.Griffin -Town Planner
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover MA 01845
Re: Engineering Review for#1591 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi:
VHB met with Mr.Phalen on Tuesday,February 13,2001,to discuss technical issues with the proposed
design. At the conclusion of the meeting,Mr.Phalen agreed to provide additional information to VHB to
clarify existing conditions and proposed drainage issues. Upon review of the additional information
provided by Mr.Phalen,VHB offers the following comments:
1. VHB was concerned with the capacity of the existing drainage system located on Osgood Street. Mr.
Phalen is proposing to connect to this existing drainage system. VHB requested that Mr.Phalen verify
the capacity of the existing 12-inch pipe on Osgood Street and verify that this pipe can accommodate
the stormwater that is generated by the proposed site. Mr.Phalen assumes that much of the
stormwater will infiltrate into the ground on site. The calculations provided by Mr.Phalen show that
the existing pipe will flow at maximum capacity(6.55 cfs) as a result of the proposed site. Therefore,
based on Mr.Phalen s assumption and calculations,it appears that the existing pipe can accommodate
the proposed flows.
2. VHB requests that Mr. Phalen explain how he arrived at the value of 5.95 cfs in item number 11 of the
Additional Drainage Calculations to Supplement Submitted Calculations.
3. VHB recommends that a backup calculations (area calculations)be provided for the value of 0.63 cfs in
item 12 of the Additional Drainage Calculations to Supplement Submitted Calculations.
4. VHB recommends that Mr.Phalen explain the value of 2500 SF in the Storm Leaching Field Flow and
Area Computations. It is unclear what this area refers to.
All of VHB's other comments with regard to this project have been satisfied and no additional information
is required. Should you have any questions or require any additional information,please feel free to
contact me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
C:\windows\TEMP\let-griffi"21601.doe
Mr.Eric Bottermam
Project No.: 05785
April 16,1999
Page 2
Project Manager-Highway&Municipal Engineering
\\MAWATA\te\05785\darn\letters\let-griffin-021601
Town of North. Andover
. Ott d
C(�)ni,.ITIuni.t"y 'l-)evelopment and Services Division
williani.j, sp .
pp pryry$. R yy��y q ygq Y{ yy yµ
v'My A,.,Iti� Y�kV k"kd�Ad N Y.�YGw�.Q ��./N�
27 Charles Street
Noi th Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Fax pho (sty �caw)f�88 c��a35
1�'eic� tic���e ��;"
1➢eidi Griffi:ri �� 2
Plartifing Director
To: Planning Board
From: Heidi Griffm, Town Planner
Re: Site Play Review - 1591 Osgood Street— Storage Warehouses
Date: February 13, 2001
The applicant is.proposing approximately 51,000 square feet of six two-story warehouse
storage facilities.
My review is as follows:
i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: This has been provided.
ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: This has been provided.
iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: This has been provided.
iv. EASEM)ENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: There are no easements/legal conditions
that I alp aware of.
V. TOPOGRAPHY: Topography has been provided in T contour intervals.
vi. ZONING INFORMATION: This has been provided and the applicant is in
conformance with the zoning bylaw requirements. The applicant has had a
zoning review performed by the Building Commissioner which resulted in the
need for a variance for parking spaces. The Zoning Board granted the applicant
to provide 82 parking spaces.
vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: Please see attached review performed by the
Town's consulting engineer.
1�0A,RD Crt AI''I'L/51.,S 688-954'I BUILDING 688-9545 CONSI;R'VATION 689-9.530 PLANNING 4tr88 95'35
viii. BUILDING LOCATION: The proposed buildings are two stories, a maximum of
25-30' ip height.
ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: Building elevations have been provided with their
submission and are denoted as Exhibit 9 in the package of "Additional Data"
enclosed. A sample of the building is also included as Exhibit 9 as to the
architectpral renderings of the building.
X. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: This has been provided.
xi. LOCATIDN OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT: There are no wetlands on
the property being developed.
xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: The segmental block retaining wall details are
located on Sheet 14. Exhibit 7 of the Additional Data Package include a sample
sign detail. The sign will be a maximum of 32 square feet, and 15' in height, and
will be located in the corner entrance of the lot.
xiii. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: This has been provided. The access
road will have 2.5" of bituminous concrete for a width of 14' with the 5.5' on
either side of the concrete being comprised of 8" of crushed stone.
xiv. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being
proposed.
xv. LANDSCAPING PLAN: Section 8.4.4 requires that for all parking areas of 20
or more spaces at least one tree for every 30 feet must be provided on at least
three sides of the perimeter of the outdoor parking lot. The side lot lines to the
separation of the zoning district (residential/industrial) measure 524.33 and
529.79, respectively, with the rear lot line measuring 210.37. This would require
17 street trees on each side lot line and 7 in the rear lot line. The total number of
trees proposed appear to meet this criteria. However, if possible, I feel
additional landscaping should be provided along the frontage of the property for
aesthetic purposes.
xvi. REFUSE AREAS: It is my understanding that refuse areas are not being
proposed.
xvii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: The lighting plan is depicted on Sheet 7 and
proposes 10 light fixtures with a 20' aluminum pole and 400 watt metal halide
lamps.
xviii. DRAINAGE SYSTEM: Please see the attached outside engineer's report.
The applicant h4s requested waivers to the traffic, fiscal and community impact studies.
I do not think these are unreasonable requests. However, I do think a phasing plan
should be provided to the Board. I would also like for the applicant to confirm the
status of the curb cut with the Massachusetts Highway Department to the Planning Board.
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Andover Planning Board
FROM: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner
RE: 1591 Osgood Street—Site Plan Review
DATE: November 30,2000
The applicant proposes six two-story storage units totaling approximately 50,800 square
feet. The storage units are proposed to be located at the existing parcel of land where
Jimmy's Pizza and the miniature golf course are located (across from Lucent
Technologies).
The plans are in a format that are very difficult to read. Many sections of the plan are at
a scale of 1"=100' (i.e. lighting plan, utility plan, landscaping plan). I will NOT review
these plans until they are redrawn at the required 1"=40' or a scale that is legible and on a
piece of paper larger than 8.5 x 11. The site plan contains a signature block for the
Zoning Board which obviously needs to be-changed to be for the Planning Board.
The applicant has received a variance from the Zoning Board so as to allow 51 spaces for
parking vs. the required 133 spaces. The applicant has applied to MA Highway to
determine whether a new permit is required -as access is currently -available. The
contours from the beginning of the access lane (25' in width) range from 102 to 128.
Obviously, the hill-is somewhat steep. It is unclear which portion of the access lane the
applicant plans to pave as is it somewhat undefined on the plans.
I am attaching VHB's report regarding this proposal.
ADDITIONAL DATAFORPLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATIONOF
WAREHOUSE DESIGN
S.P.E.C.REALTYTRUST(CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, TRUSTEE)
1591 OSGOOD STREET(ROUTE 125)
NORTH ANDOVER,MAO 1922
EXffiBIT NO. DESCRIPTION
I PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION
2 MASS HIGHWAY APPLICATION
3 APPROVED ZONING BOARD PLAN
4 ZONING BOARD APPROVAL
5 RECORDED PLAN OF LAND (ESSEX COUNTY)
6 CERTIFIED LIST OF ABUTTERS
7 SIGN DATA
8 LVIPACT STATEMENT ON TRAFFIC AND
CONSERVATION
9 PERSPECTIVE AND ELEVATION
ADDITIONAL DATA FOR PLANNING
OF BOARD CONSIDERATION OF
Z. q WAREHOUSE DESIGN
100AW
E m WAREHOUSE DESIGN ,f„�, o�a9v
- S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS 7a�7xs7��7
ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD �P�.4lfa Soot
FG/STi R��c<�c@ � .,�X81-119,70 s/ANAL EN STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
NOVEMBER 3,2000
SHEET 1 97�7�7,�,t5v
EXHIBIT 1
Town of North Andover Planning Board
Please type or print clearly:
1. Petitioner: SPEC REALTY TRUST(CHRIS ADAMS TRUSTEE.)
Address: P. O. BOX 574 NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
Telephone Number: 617-567-6669
2. Owners of the Land: SAME
Address: .
Telephone Number:
Number of years ownership: 42 YEARS
If applicant is not the owner,please state interest in property:
3. Request for a Special Permit under Section of the North Andover
Zoning Bylaw to THE pROPnSED IRE CONFORMS TO THE IISF AI 1 nWl=n I INDER
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS AND THE NECESSARY APPEALABLE
ONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
OWEVER THIS
SSARY
4. Location of Property:
Zoning District: I -S ZONING DISTRICT
Assessors: Map: 34 Lot# 4&31
Registry of Deeds: Book#: 1940 Page#_16 & 24
5. Existing Lot:
Lot Area(Sq. Ft): 116349 SF Building Height: 25'-30'
Street Frontage; 250' Side Setbacks: 25'
Font Setback: 70' Rear Setback: 45'
Floor Area Ration: 0.28 Lot Coverage: 28%
6. Proposed Lot(if applicable): NA
Lot Area (Sq.Ft.): Building Height:
Street Frontage: Side Setback:
Front Setback: Rear Setback:
Floor Area Ratio: Lot Coverage:
EXHIBIT 1
7. Required Lot (as required by Zoning Bylaw); 30'
Lot Area.{Sq.Ft.): 40000 SF Building Height:
Street Frontage: 250' Side Setback: 25'
Front Setback: 50' Rear Setback: 45'
Floor Area Ratio: 0.28 Lot Coverage: sn0i,__
S. Existing Building(if applicable): DNA
Ground Floor(Sq.Ft.) # of Floors
Total Sq. Ft.; Height:
Use: Type of Construction:
9. Proposed Building:5 @ 140'+1 @ 80'X 30"WIDE =
Ground Floor(Sq.Ft.) 23400 SF #of Floors 2
Total Sq. Ft.; 51080 SF Height: MAX 30'
Use: SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE Type of Construction: METAL
10. Has there been a previous application for a Special Permit from the Planning
Board on these premises? NO If so,when and for what type of
construction?
11. Petitioner and Landowner signature(s):
Every application for a Special Permit shall be made on this form which is
the official form of the Planning Board. Every application shall be filed with
the Town Clerk's Office. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to
furnish all supporting documentation with this application. The dated copy
of this application received by the Town Clerk or Planning Office does not
absolve the applicant from this responsibility. The petitioner shall be
responsible for all expenses for filing and legal notification. Failure to
comply with application requirements,as cited herein and in the Planning
Board Rules and Regulations may result in a dismissal by the Planning
Board of this application as incomplete.
Petitioner's Signature: _S,��c JT�,9 t 7-Y
Print or type name here: S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CDHRISTOPHER ADAMS,TRUSTEE)
pQ
Owner's Signature:
Print or type name here: S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CDHRISTOPHER ADAMS,TRUSTEE)
1YIfiJS ExHieir 2
�--- niGH" Y
Eaumm
To be completed by the Applicant. See reverse for instructions. -
1. Town/City NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
2. State Highway route numbers and/or name 1591 OSGOOD STREET ROUTE 125
3. Description of property and/or facility for which access is sought(attach additional sheets if necessary).
ACCESS TO PROPERTY CURRENTLY EXISTS TO EXISTING RESTAURENT AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE.PROPOSED
SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSING WILL REPLACE GOLF ACTIVITIES AND WILL IN ACTUALITY REDUCE TRAFFIC FLOW
TO 16 TO 20 VEHICLES PER DAY FOR WAREHOUSING WITH RESTAURENT REMAINING AT CURRENT LEVEL.
4. Description of work to be performed within State Highway Layout(attach additional sheets if necessary).
NONE. ATTACHED SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL
PLANNING BOARD.
S. Dig We number: TO BE OBTAINED BY CONTRACTOR AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
6. Applicant Information - 7. Property Owner
NameS.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS ADAMS,TRUSTE Ime SAME
Mailing Address P.O. BOX 574 Mailing Address SAME
NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01922
Telephone Number 617-567-6669 Telephone Number • SAME
Signature ' Signaturei�a
Print signature CDHRISTOPHER ADAMS Print signatum CDHRISTOPHE R ADAMS
Date 11/3/00 Date 11/3/00
Return completed application to District Highway Director for your TowWCity. Refer to reverse aide for appropriate address
t. Application number S. Section 61 finding
2. Date received 6. Mass Historic action
3. Fee amount 7. Plans returned
4. NtEPA required Revision submitted
ENF-EOEA Cert. S. Application complete
EIR-EOEA Cert. 9: Permit issued
Other-EOEA Cen. 10. Permit denied
REP—
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL m ®+ '
ZONING ry ZONING �4
#9.60'"N 61°29'i_ o♦ 15�.®5'N 61°29'a °°° 371.74' N 61°26'E
(i t' .. � f ft• I�N PAVING
Ii e r ,• o
A P t ` f•
! �
r °
Pe I fi
Az
N.
f f .
t
• \ • .'�$+?` ♦ 1.
i e e i • Q
' r r
• s i a � I
I ♦ .y • r a° hf �aq f
' !
l
'1 ./!r S 260 29' VY tii iJi •a i}' S 4"5 y
t7 f
I 1
L S`,CRAGE STRUCTURES TO BE FIRE SPRINLEPP M
R, CONNECTED,AND GATE LOCK AND UNIT LOCKM 3 i
RROVIOED TO FtRE DEr ,r f •R I
i ANALYSIS ACTUAL REQUIRED PARKING
V,'S. .PARKING PROVlDED I
i 47 NEED60 e< 82 PROVIDED &
I 32 NEEDED<< 39 FRONTAL PROVIDED I
` D P `TOWN OF ANDOVER `THUS PARKING IS�.C3G.;C�UAYI~
"
DATE IC PLAN &
E DESIGN
4
DESIGN
Q RUST(CHRIS 1117
1691OSGOOD r
)V4R, MA 0+192
SFlE°Et1 9y8T��2.�50
EXHIBIT" 4
J
'RECEIVED
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOVER '
This is br certify that twenty,(20)days 1000 AUG 15 P 1: 58
have staDsw Imm date of dodelon.61ed
wtthou MV 01 sPPML p d
��joyoaYY!! f3tedltneue
Town out
North Andover ,'
Zoning Board of Appealstwn ;:4
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone(978)688-9541 Fax(978)688-9542
Any appals shall be filed NOTICE OF DECISION
witiiin(20)days altcr the Year Z000
date offhling ofthis uotioe Property at.,1591OsroodStreet
in the office of the Town Clerk
NAME: S.P.E.C.Realty Trwt(Chris Adams,Trustee) DATE:8/10/2000
ADDRESS: for premisn at.,1591 Osgood Stmt PETMON:012.2000
North Andover,MA 01845 HEARING:4/11/2000,,5/9,6120,&7/11,8/8/1000
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday,August 8,20M.at 7:30 upon the application S.P.E.C
Realty Trusts(Chris Adams,Trustee)for premises at 1591 Osgood Sttreet,North Andover,MA. Petitioner is a
party aggrieved of the Buildinj Inspector and is requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 7,Paragraph
7.3 for relief of a rear setback,and from Section 8,Supplementary Regulations,P7,to allow for parking spaces. And
for a Special Permit from S9.P 9.1 in order to change a use and construct one office area and several self-storage type
warehousing units within the I-S zoning district.
The following members were present:Walter F.Soule,Raymond Vivenzio,Scott Karpitrski Ellen McIntyre,George
Earley.
Upon a motion made by Raymond Vivenzio and 2n1 by Scott Karpinski,on the condition that the patitioner withdraw
without prejudice his request as a party aggrieved of the Building Inspector,therefore,the Board voted to GRANT a
Variance from the requirements Section 8,Supplementary Regulations P7,to allowfor 51 spaces for patldrig as shown
on the topographic plan&warehouse design b)r Phalen&Allen Limited,Thomas E.Phalen,Jr.,Professional
Engineer,#81720,dated 6/15/2(]00. The Board voted to GRANT it Special Permit from Sectica 9,P9.1 in order to
construct one office area and several self-storage type warehousing units on the premises of 1591 Osgood Street which
is within the I-S zoning district. Voting in favor. Walter F.Soule,Raymond Vivenzio,Scott Karpinski,Ellen ,
McIntyre,and George Earley.
The Zoning Board of Appuh shall have power upon appeal to grad variances from the term ofthis Zoning Bylaw where the Board
fndsthrt owningto circumstances relrtingto soil conditions,shape,or topography ofnhe lead or structure and especially affecting
such load or slmcttues but not affecting&an entity the zoning district in general,a literal enforcement ofthe provisions ofthis Bylaw
will involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the petitioner or applicant and that desirable relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying of substantially derogating from the intent or purpose ofthis Bylaw,
Furthermore,ifthe rights authorized bythe variance are not exercised within one(1)you ofthe date ofth a gran%they sball lapses and
may be re-established only m1cr notice,and anew hearing Furthermore,ifs Special Permit granted under the provisions contained
herein shall be deemed to have lapsed after a two(2)year period from the date on which the Special Permit was granted unless
substantial use or oonnsuction has eornmenced,they shall lapse and may bere-esublished only alkernotice,and anew hearing
By order oftheT 'g$o fAppnls
Willism 1'Sulli an,Chairmen
ml/decisions2000130 '
�H Of ZONING BOARD OF APPROVAL
�/gsfq FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN
E WAREHOUSE DESIGN �, ,�,, d�a9d
Pui S.P.E.C.REALTYTRUST(CHRIS
g ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD
FC/STERN
EN� STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
�s�CNAL
NOVEMBER 3,2000 SHEET 1 9�a y��re5o
194.19 N 280 31' W EXHIBIT 5
RESIDENTIAL ZONE
1.285 ACRES
PERIMETER PLAN AS
RECORDED IN ESSEX
COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS
N c SCALE V*=100'
N
O
t0 M
0 N
w ::::.R Res�aehti w
a o a a ?S6o W'>'
e N
a o> 'aII �hd
w >.
00 z
Lu
> U) ti
La
- , U z
wwD �
LL o
Zmw c
0
a - _
HZwG Z t� a � a
� g2 � � n Z ;
i= z �Q = 0 3
W O a o �NDtlS RIAL ZON.' >
Z J
® W '� w w o 2 $ 1 ACRES
z
WQC7 > Oy y Z °
= 0^° zQ xa — o o W
_ =+ w x r C z Q U 0 y
M g O. o f-
w J GwNw ° > °o
r J ='� W M
Z
i~ w a
co = � � �= w � W
Z Z � aa� z �
w � �3 u! !- >
a 6owo
ei �0. y < me
i
R. z
3 O SN Of
•1 yN
OS+GOO 60.99 nn
jot
/sTE
AI 100 °.g R�
STRc�r 0O'w `�S�ONAL
EXHIBIT 6
5 tv ' T Y Tf v57- CflQ�t7tiPNF.Q r. '4 bzJ 7' r 0'T f='0
I's-7f �S Gov 4 S,l. /V /1/V Du✓x'R� pj',!.D/'c-P J—
Lucent Teobnologles 7
i500 Osgood street
N.An$over. Xaz01848 OF t,�y'
P 41 (A&V
711,351 good at
ndover, Met. 0184E
Dixon Realty Trust 44
stalls, Trustee
mon 5t
Lawrence. Ms. 01642
vangin Tree Realty Trust 28
George Farkas Trust
2110 White Lane
8a91ett, Tense 78082
White eireh 'Cpnetruction Co. Inc. 5
12 Rogers Aoad
Haverhill, me. 01035-
G M 2 Realty Trust
Grape K. klag*betto
1679 Osgood et '
north Andover, •01845
A meo w*ve COG I/vc-MAi c, t oaP.
G WA Loe-AL I US P4
IP'L'--c.7y revfr
1&2-2 OSG,vv sT
a �
1fv,00 6V% X99
ABUTTERS CERTIFICATION
ASH Of ,I� VIA ASSESSORS OFFICE
Z► q FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN
"Oft �yG 4�i'uys/re�rroe
E WAREHOUSE DESIGN ,f,,�,K�o�a90
�E J,, S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
R� �@ ADAMS TRUSTEE),1691 OSGOOD
/ST STE � STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
NOVEMBER 3,2000 1 SHEET 1 9J��6�xx50
EXHIBIT 7
ous PIZZA
AdEm"b"�..T.0
.. .Atlordable,•Bellabla-S ure'.
FREE
DELIVER
PRW 6r Joao
'• tit, fry ✓y, i
• 1
4
u'.
J•.q
••f
r i
Ij
t
�1
10-98-M am WE
' �- JaYPimRD ; C�rt®4000 I'
LK�VEF"u,MA aye-372
SIGN AS SUBMITTED BY SIGN CENTER OF HAVERHILL, MA WILL CONFORM TOTALLY IN ALL
RESPECTS TO THE ZONING BY LAWS OF NORTH ANDOVER, MA.
AS SUBMITTED SIGN DATA
o H Of BY THE SIGN CENTER 961aAeA
ZHOAW�► q FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN _
y WAREHOUSE DESIGNb+ O 690
ftiui S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS Ahl
# �xsy��7
81 ,,�c
S 'p �c� ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD Ix"ll.��t
Ffs�ONAI � STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922 019,0
NOVEMBER 3,2000 SHEET 1 976-,74y'.8.8.50
EXHIBIT 8
IMPACT STATEMENT ON TRAFFIC
AND CONSERVATION
FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN
1.TRAFFIC
THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES VISITING THIS FACILITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RENTABLE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE DURING A PERIOD OF TIME.
THE COMPLEX HAS ABOUT 46800 SF OF RENTABLE SPACE AND WITH THE APPROXIMATE
SIZE OF A SPACE BEING ABOUT 125 SF YIELDS ABOUT 356 RENTABLE SPACES.ABOUT
95 % OF THE SPACES ARE UNDER CONTRACT DURING THE COURSE OF A YEAR YIELDING
338 SPACES THAT WILL TURN OVER IN A GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME. THE RENTAL CONTRACT
IS FOR A MINIMUM OF ONE MONTH. THE AVERAGE TURNOVER TIME IS OVER TWO MONTHS.
ASSUMING THAT THE TURNOVER PERIOD IS ONLY ONE MONTH THIS YIELDS A
CONSERVATIVE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO THE SITE AS 338/MONTH OR A VEHICLE COUNT
OF 0.94 TRIPS PER HOUR.ASSUMING THAT THE SPACE IS RENTED THE SAME DAY YIELDS
A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 2 VEHICLES PER HOUR. OBVIOUSLY THE INFLUENCE TO TRAFFIC
ON ROUTE 125 FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF VERY SMALL. CONSIDERING THAT THIS
SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE IS REPLACING A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE WHOSE RATE
IS IN THE RANGE OF 15-30 VEHICLES PER HOUR THE TRAFFIC INFLUENCE IS BEING
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. THIS FACT DOES NOT WARRANT A FULL SCALE TRAFFIC
INVESTIGATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON TRAFFIC RESULTS.
2. CONSERVATION
THE SITE IS ON A SIDE HILL OPPOSITE THE VERY LARGE LUCENT TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX.
ON ROUTE 125 A SLOPE EXISTS ABOVE AND BELOW THE SITE FOR A LARGE DISTANCE.
FEMA MAPS AND LOCAL CONSERVATION MAPS INDICATE THAT ANY WETLANDS ARE AT
LEAST ONE MILE AWAY. NO STREAMS EXIST ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE. STORM
RUNOFF WATERS TODAY AND TOMORROW ARE HANDLED BY ONE SINGLE STORM DRAIN
ON THE SITE. THE SITE IS SO DEVELOPED UTILIZING A 100 YEAR STORM OF T IPD THAT THE
RUNOFF BEFORE AND AFTER THE 100 YEAR EVENT IS THE SAME OR SMALLER.WITH
THESE FACTS THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION HAS
AT THE INITIAL ALL INCLUSIVE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION INDICATED THAT
CONSERVATION ISSUES ARE SUCH THAT NO REVIEW IS NECESSARY.THE SITE HAS NO
PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT REQUIRE CONSERVATION REVIEW.
IMPACT STATEMENT ON TRAFFIC
OF , AND CONSERVATION y ame2 &JWIlw yuntted
oZ► gcti FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN 4r -T,
�ULEE m WAREHOUSE DESIGN snofe+ter J ampa
S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS 7.f�,7-fA7YV7
ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD
oo FC/STERN ��@ � � rEa�0X970
�`�slONAL EN STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922
NOVEMBER 3,2000
SHEET 1 97�74�P�50
f
/ / Jil r ✓r � G
i
i
�l
EXHIBIT 9
9
ME
k
tic, t
A',
/
a
3�
AJi f
"jigr/' ' '
TYPICAL COMMERCIAL
�N OF ,�9 PERSPECTIVE yzitz 'v1-'AY(; t:real
FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN
ft
at yG 4�t�ei�r Sri a
E r WAREHOUSE DESIGN
� �w�e9terr�S,Q 0890
5EN/��� S,P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
ADAMS TRUSTEE), 1591 OSGOOD xea, lella�reet
��slpNAl EN�'� STREET, NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922 ya'�6'"a�9yo
NOVEMBER 3,2000 sHEET 1 "50
EXHIBIT 9
_. .. z
0
zN
oW
> N
10
J W
UQ
}a �
U. z
2
TYPICAL ELEVATION
SVI Of ,yqf FOR WAREHOUSE DESIGN
ti 4
ALESR, WAREHOUSE DESIGN
81 ���i S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS ye��x�7��y
ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD
1 rx"!!
L EN�'\��. STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01922 .���• 079,0
NOVEMBER 3,
2000 SHEET 1 9,X,741 fOJO
�
�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW & STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
�
Site Plan Title: Warehouse Design VH]QNw.: 08710.26
Location: l59l Osgood Street
�
Owner: S.9.E.C. Realty Trust (Chris Adams, Tmatee),
P.O. Box 574,North Andover, M/\Ul922
Applicant: S.y.B.C. Realty Trust(Chris Adams, Irnatee),
P.O. Box 574,North Andover, M&O)y22
Applicant's Engineer: Thomas B. Phalen' Phalen &Allen Limited,4 Eugene Drive,
Winchester,MA0l8gO �
�
�
Plan Date: 11-03-00 Review Date: I1'30-00 �
The Applicant submitted plans and documents to VHB for review on November 13, 2000, The
site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of the lg72Town
of North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998 and standard engineering practice. The
following comments note non-conformance with specific sections and question s/comments on
the proposed design.
l) Section 8.1.7; This oocdoo requires that parking spaces be uooeuaib|n over uounobstructed �
driveway not less than 25' wide. The site plan indicates au area between parking stalls o\ the
northwest corner of the existing restaurant/golf area with a driveway width of 10 feet.
Vehicles will have difficulty pulling out from the parking space at that comer. }\|ao'
emergency access will be hindered at this location, especially if the parking lot is full, The
Applicant's engineer should revise the plan to conform the requirement of this section. See
comment 5d) below.
2\ Section 8.3.5.b : This section requires that drawings be prepared at a scale of one inch
egou|a forty feet (1"=40') oz larger scale,\/HU recommended that property lines plan, fence,
xopvv storage, storm drainage 8±nlooUjc lighting plan and utilities y|oo be prepared at o scale
of one inch equals forty feet(1"=40'). The current plan set, typically at a scale of 1 inch
100 feet, is difficult toreview.
3) The following information in required by Section 8.3.5 nnd\/BB offers the following
comments:
u) NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: The Applicant has provided u location map.
However, no scale has been indicated ou the map. \/B8 suggests that u) onunDbe
shown uto scale of one inch equals fifteen hundred feet (l" = l5OO`). ^ '�
»�
-- 1
|
�
�
�
�
h) SURVEY DF LOT/PARCEL: \/8B recommends that existing
curb \in� |� xb�mkx0�ood3�� �o � l��) ood� ���uu.�� nk |* m�
--' '"� `�-�� ' ^ ur_��^"��m�
c) EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: \/BB usxnnuca that there are uoeasements or
legal encumbrances on the property that may prevent or place conditions on the proposed
development. The Applicant should verify this. (\I�
d) TOPOGRAPHY: VHB recommends that proposed topography information be shown on
the site plan. v�l}
^�~ �
c) ZONING INFORMATION: There appears iobea discrepancy between the site space 8L
bulk requirements (sheet 2) and the zoning data table (sheet 6) regarding the ground area
(lot coverage). Also, no floor-area-ratio has been provided in both sheets. The Applicant �
should provide the Ooor-arca-rudo and revise the discrepancy accordingly. �
f) 8IO0MWATER DRAINAGE/DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comments below �
under the item 4) Drui�u����vi�vv. �
' �
g\ BUILDING LOCATION: VHB recommends that gross floor area in square feet of �A �
-
proposed v/uzebooxedesign bo shown oo the plans. j,';,
/ "-
b> LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: VDB recommends that existing or \
proposed curb cuts along Osgood Street be shown nu the plans. Currently,nuexisting -:4c� '
c�, mu�) �� �
information ix shown for Osgood Street. ory �v°`� ' `' �
i) I.()C/\ZION OF WALLS/SlGNS: The plan indicates that uaegozoota|block retaining
wall is proposed. \/HB unggeuim that the Applicant provide details uf the proposed �
/
retaining vvuU on the site plans. The details should include the dimensions and materials
tobe used for the proposed wall.
�\ llBFD�SB��B]���8: /�rethere any refuse areas proposed for this site?lf so, these areas
'' should be shown oo the plans.
k) LIGHTING FACILITIES: The perimeter lighting plan shows the direction and the \\
degree of illumination offered by the proposed|iohbn�fuoi|dinm.11ovvcv�c' itiaooi�l�ur \ ^`�,\1��/ �
- ' l(' ' � �
what kind of lighting fixture has been proposed. The Applicant should clarify. �
0 TRAFFIC DV8,AC7`STUDY: The Applicant's engineer has zegocatnd u waiver from this
requirement. The proposed traffic generation data presented by the Applicant's engineer `
is an estimate. Traffic generation data is typically found in a publication entitled "Trip
(}eouotinu, \/nlnnuolof3`` bytbelnndtotoofIzmuopodubouEnoiuenra. \/f{I} »
recommends that the Applicant's engineer use traffic data from the "Trip Generation" for
traffic impact uoulyoia.
nA UTILITIES: The utility plan is illegible and should be enlarged for clarity. \/HB [P
ncoouuoeuds that utility p|uu be prepared at u scale of one inch equals forty feet(1"=40`)
oz larger scale. /ot�-w°\
u) FISCAL IMPACT: A fiscal impact report has not been submitted. The Applicant should ( k)rl/UuL^��
submit this for review.
o) COMMUNITY IMPACT: No community impact report has been submitted. The J-
Applicant should submit the conununity impact report for review.
0 2
�
4) DRAINAGE REVIEW: VBB has reviewed the drainage design and calculations. V8B
found the proposed drainage layout is ambiguous. Therefore, a complete and thorough
drainage review could not be completed at this time. VHB recommends that tile Applicant's
engineer resubmit u\u[gcr scale drainage layout plan that clearly identifies all drainage
structures (drain manhole and ou1cb basin) and other proposed od\idem (hydrants &c|iubi
fixtures) tn avoid any confusion. Further, the routing of the drain age/recharge system and
discharge point should be clearly defined oo the plan. \/BB recommends that the drainage
layout plan be prepared oiu scale of one inch equals forty feet (1'"=40') or larger scale oo �
necessary. In addidon'\/}lB offers the following comments regarding the proposed drainage
design:
u> The Applicant's engineer should submit unarrative duuodhiug general drainage patterns
for existing and proposed conditions.
b) According(n the runoff coefficient computation, i( appears that the watershed area for
the runoff analysis im limited io the industrial zone parcel. Since the proposed site io �
located at the bottom of the hill, the drainage analysis should include any overland runoff �
from uphill io the proposed site, The Applicant should revise the drainage design
�
accordingly. �
o) \/BB recommends Lba1buok-unca|onludouu {mrdmeofooncoNzu1ioubnpnovided. 7be �
Applicant's engineer should provide u plan illustrating the existing and proposed
�
drainage areas and respective flow paths used to calculate the time of concentration. |
d\ VG8 o:uoouuuoda that TIl55/TD20 method established by Soil Conservation Service
(SC3) and }fydroCAIJ O software be used for existing/proposed vvutczxbed analysis. The
pre-development and post-development peak discharge flows for 2-year, lO-yearand
|00'your storm events should be provided. This data will verify that the proposed
development will not impact the abutting properties.
5) STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE: ^/f{B has reviewed the site plans for
conformance to standard engineering practices. The purpose iuto document the engineering
and potential construction issues associated with the project. \/}{Boffemtbofolluwing
comments:
u) \/8D recommends that o saw-cut line be ubonm on the plans to indicate the limit ofwork
o\ the Osgood Street (Route l25). �
b) Since there is a profile for the access road,l/I{B r000nxncodm that the access road
construction baseline be shown outhe site plan 10 correlate the iofuonadoo between two �
plans.
c) The Applicant's engineer mbouldideuhfvthepropomndouub:dalmooibeaite. Bnvotho
sidewalk and granite curbing been proposed oo the site? If so, Tile Applicant's engineer
should provide wheelchair ramps for handicap access. \�
�� �
d) The vehicle turning movement for the parking lot area at the northwest corner of the
existing restaurant/golf im difficult for u passenger vehicle and impossible for single �
�
|
— 3
xmai=v`mmm`w^aocs\reports m^nm6r"mei.rep°t.d" �
�
/
unit vehicle of fire truck). The resolve this
iaaou. T VT 0ikpo»v`=`~
o) The typical parking space dimensions and striping details do not reflect the proposed
parking configuration. \/BBrcononnendxrevixingLhodutuDtoauo|eyuddug to show an
actual representation of the parking spaces proposed.
h The number of handicap parking space does not meet/\I)}\requirements. The plan �
indicates that ninety (;0) parking apuo�o have provided to uocoonnodo1�dzopuddo� �
` '
need for the proposed ndc. Given the total parking apucum provided, the minimum
number of handicap space required should be four(4). The plan indicates that two (2)
spaces have been allocated for handicap parking. The Applicant's engineer should revise �
�
this imynn. �
�
It is �bu��ho ��������� �o �b��an�auod �
-_-_-_-__-- _=,--_--,-- '_- RESPONSES �
comments contained herein. �
�
Reviewed by: V, Date: Jsoloo
Danny B. Wong,IlII
Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal Eo 'o3ring
Checked by:'
Timothy B.Senior Project Engineer-Biobwuy and Municipal Engineering
�
�
�
/
�
- 4
` °r°w" �
�
�
Memorandum
To: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner
CC: file
From: Susan Ford, Health Inspector
Date: 11/15/00
Re: 1591 Osgood Street
This correspondence is in regards to the application to the Planning Board, dated
Nov. 3, 2000, for site development at 1591 Osgood Street. Upon review of the
application,the Health Department has the following comments in relation to the
existing septic system servicing Jimmy's pizza.
1) There is no issue with the locations of the proposed buildings. As shown on the
plan these buildings pose no risk to the integrity of the septic system.
2) However, there can be no additional flow to this septic system. The Health
Department has no issue with the proposed structures as long as no new
plumbing connections are necessary to provide water or sanitary facilities to any
of these buildings. Additional flow would require an upgrade of this septic
system.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments.
1
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
I � ZONING i� ZONING aE�' y,x° `•1� °'`° °°``�y '^° xti ° �' � 371.74' W 610 26'
#9.60'N610 29'E o 158.05'N61 0 2$°E°°°
ARR
IlBo
OEb�1 PAVING
LIMIT 0
f'-e °°°°°°'°° •fl
i a yy Wq
:�p.
• a 1 P �� �°
1 -...g
' r
f d @.
I rri ey a ', r 1' ,°t aafo taa Pa'• w •°°°° °
NI
U y • "E!: _ • c�,. J a � a y a° °aa°rte .. `V 8
mj
i r `f • ♦ M ° Pia aaa a /�o' s°' Jap
�Y g'37r fa•Ia 1a; , - f. .6�
+ ! . ray-. i �w. °�6 .._, ; Pa y a1 y ae ® .'*fi _ �i",.
1 1 I • Y•44
JwtJ} a v1�1y0 '
f
a y St _ + a a;
d .
a o � .. g' c _ ► 1� a 84,
it fA
/
`( .f '` pp���1 tf. aP `f�_'.... ,� `rai P�O; IP 01 � � y �... �°°°,J• \. .. �p a Jy
g� f f P a f a
I p f 1 y a • f ° I f 1 i a
��1y/�j
�� • f I a JI fa f f G 6 t� � � '� 1 + "�. � ° r � Q
J 7 f f 1 f _ A • - - , 1
r " �` ° "M HP 2
I � .• ;s °fI ! •a 6d°3 l ; a'P r f1 1 � T".J, tkF.y� °• JJ �.
' �} � � a � • d e • a - 1 LyfKy ti7 a eP
I f � fa I I i•7t, �a a s
• 7.77' 3 260 29'W Y iy aa, y I•f°f r P i �° a i t. y ° e ` , ° 't y ��� Ivj�•
a0a a f i t ytped P 1 .. p. I J qlJ
6 Ec7T PIT x •,. ° tl .Y.. .:.. 9`- j
L
AGE STRt p �E CTURES TO BE FIRE SPRINLERED, MASTER
CONNECTED,AND GATE LOCK AND UNIT LS KBO C ESS
'PROV WED TO FIRE DEvr,
SCALE: °) IN 49 FT
35G e �-
.�% CRITICAL ONINe&PA MI DATA � ``w •..
PROVIDED PARKING' .�: � ✓%��
LAND A qEAS AND IAA i`IbS� `I. FRONTAL PARKING SHOWN 39
! 1.CC1Ms ERC6AL. 116305 SF(2,67 ACRES)
i ► 2. EXIS"INO STRUCTURES. 'SF ° DELIVERY IV�ERI� PA tICINC ONE SIDE
OF STRUCTURE ONLY 43
I 3.GROUND AREA NEW STRUCTURES: 23400 60�
4.T'OT OCCUPIED GROUND AREA' 2.,8800 SF
3. TOTAL PAF:�i11�IC AVAILABLE 82 �
tA TO TOTAL : ANALYSIS ACTUAL REQUIRED PARKING 5.CRC D BUILDING J fi `1 � �iF � O€ � C ' 3�
BUILOM G AREA RATIO: 2-4.7% . STANT�ARI35 ANI3 FIEL1�VtIi�E�iiS VS. PARKING PROV O)ED �
6. S"I't`�"° OE AREA (2 FLOORS), 5���� -.� � 'I. I��S7AOIt�AN� 3� 47 NEED60<k 82 PROVIDED &
2, SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE 15 32 NEEDED<e 39 FRONTAL PROV iDE?D
r !,
PARKING NAoYSIS � PARKING IS ADEQUATE
. E TOWN OF NORTH.YDO "R ;I
ae�v
oasE CODE EOUtRED PARI(1NG INDICI� ED or TOPOGIRAPHIC PLAN &
� - -�•�d.� 1. RES AUR—ANT'PARKING 32 � qtr, WAREHOUSE DESIGN
Z, SELI 'IC3RAGEt6ARE10llwIU _ y
101 E WAREHOUSE DESIGN
3. To L AS PER CODE 133 4.P.E°D,REALTY TRUST(CHRIS )zs•jas 111r
4 ,Q,IDAMS TRUSTEE), 1631 OSGOO D
STREET, NORTH ANDOV R,MA 0132
QIMP
Jrl�tAJe.Xdir
_J2 NEW SpnCES SHOWN IIU5 , JUNE I�
r+ +1 SkFE71 9yiY�6�2P 0 l
^� {