HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1600 OSGOOD STREET 6/21/2005 LANDSCAPE ARCHITLCI URI,, K LAND HANNHNG
Mr. Lincoln Daley
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
400 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: 1600 Osgood Street LLC,Parking Lot Improvements.
Dear Mr. Daley;
I am in receipt of the review letter prepared by VHB dated June 16, 2005 regarding the above
referenced project. The following is a response to concerns raised by VHB in their letter. We
would request the opportunity to set up a meeting with VHB prior to the next Planning Board
hearing to resolve any outstanding issues.
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
1. The plans do not seem to indicate any signs are proposed for this location. If a sign is proposed,the
details including the dimensions of the proposed sign should be provided.
The plans do not presently propose a change to lire existing signage on site.If changes are proposed
in the future,the applicant will comply with the requirements of Section (6)Six of the North
Andover Zoning Bylaw.
Section 8.1—Off Street Parking
2. The"Application for Site Plan Special Permit",included in this submission,does specifically indicate
the ground floor area,number of floors and total building area. VHB understands that the existing
buildings(20 and 21)will be renovated and the project narrative indicates that these buildings contain
over 400,000 square feet of office space. The application does indicate that the proposed use will be
office space. VHB offers the following comments for consideration:
• Assuming the building use will be an office,the parking requirement for a gross floor area of
400,000 square feet of office space is 1,333 parking spaces. The application indicates that the
front parking lot accommodates 410 spaces. Are there 923 spaces located in the lots to the side
and rear of the buildings?
Yes,the site presently contains sufficient parking to satisfy the requirements of the North
Andover Zoning Bylaw. The new parking lot provides access in closer proximity to the front of
buildings 20 and 21 for arrival,handicapped and visitor parking.
• The application indicates that there will be multiple tenants for this redevelopment. Will the
proposed building use remain"office space"or will there be additional uses allowed? If so,what
are the parking requirements/impacts?
The existing space has historically been used as professional office. The proposed use will
continue to be professional office.Any future change in use will be reviewed by tile Building
hispectorfor compliance with the parking requirements at the time of the application.
• VHB recommends that the Applicant complete section 9 of the"Application for Site Plan Special
Permit".
The following is a breakdown of space associated with Building 20&21,as required by section
9 of the Site Plan Review application.
r/ Tevvl shmy Sh-cef, Andovoi MP, m8m C%J
I
9/8-170,888?,
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 21,2005
Page 2 of 5
Existing Building(if applicable)
Ground Floor 133,000 sf+/- #of Floors Three
Total Sq. Ft. 400,000 sf+/- Height 40'(+/-)
Use Office Type of Construction Steel
Section 8.3—Site Plan Review
8.3.5.e.ii A partial survey was provided on the Preliminary Planset.
No Comment.
8.3.5.e.vi This section requires a table to be provided(preferably on the plans)showing the
zoning information,parking,setbacks,etc.
Because the building is existing we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement
8.3.5.e.vii See Drainage Report Review below. See responses below.
8.3.5.e.ix This section requires a drawing of the exterior of the building should be provided.
Because the building is existing we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement
8.3.5.e.x As required under this section,all existing and proposed parking should be shown on
the plans.
Because of the relative size of the site we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement. For reference we have attached an aerial graphic
provided by Epsilon Associates showing the extent of existing conditions.
8.3.5.e.xvii Light fixtures are shown on the plans along with a Light Pole Detail,however a detailed
lighting plan was not included in this submission.
Sheet L-1 shows light pole locations and heights. Sheet L-2,details 9,10&11 show
the approximate style and proposed footing detail.
8.3.5.e.xviii See Drainage Report Review below. See responses below.
8.3.5.e.xix A traffic impact study was not included in this submission. VHB assumes that the
j entire site will ultimately be redeveloped. Has there been any consideration given to an
overall traffic study? Has a master plan been prepared?
Because tl:e building is existing,and the proposed improvements will not increase
historic traffic volumes to the site we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement. The layout of the parking lot does not inhibit
future redevelopment of the property.
( 8.3.5.e.xii A fiscal impact study was not included in this submission. .
Because the building is existing we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement.
%l 8.3.5.e.xiii A community impact analysis was not included in this submission.
l l Because the building is existing we respectfully request a waiver from strict
compliance with this requirement.
Drainage Report Review
1. The Applicant's Engineer should verify that there is adequate capacity in the existing drainage
piping system and that there is adequate outfall for the wetland system.
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 21,2005
Page 3 of 5
The area contributing to the existing onsite southerly drainage system is appreciably smaller
under proposed conditions titan existing conditions,thus reducing boll)the peak runoff rate
and runoff volume to the existing system. Since the existing southerly drainage system will see
less flow(in terms of peak rate and total volume)under proposed conditions, it is our opinion
that an analysis of the existing system is not necessary.
2. The generally accepted surface runoff coefficients for the rational method for pavement and
average grass surface are 0.9 and 0.3 respectively. The coefficients used in the report were low.
The rational method calculations should be recomputed with these coefficients.
The runoff coefficients used in the model were taken from the Ninth Edition of the "Civil
Engineering Reference Manual"(Lindeburg), which gives a runoff coefficient range of 0.75-
0.85 for driveways and 0.05-0.15 for well-drained lawns(up to 7%slope). Average runoff
coefficients of 0.80 and 0.10 were utilized for pavement and grass surface,respectively,which is
the middle of the range for both cases.
3. The rational method calculations assume a free discharge at pipe ends. The Applicant's Engineer
should verify that this condition exists at the existing drainage system connection(CB-85),the
proposed detention pond and the existing wetland and adjust the calculations if required. This
analysis is especially important because the proposed pipe system design allows stormwater to
surcharge and develop a higher hydraulic grade line.
Where applicable,the model will be updated accordingly.
4. The Applicant's Engineer should provide the test pit soils information,test pit locations and
percolation testing results that are discussed in the drainage report.
Soil test pit and percolation test information:will be provided.
5. The Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy allows averaging TSS treatment trains when
they are part of the same sub-basin. The proposed drainage design consists of two separate sub-
basins and two separate discharge points. The Applicant's Engineer should recalculate the TSS
removals for each sub-basin. Treatment Trains#4 and 5 are ahnost completely grass or pond areas
and TSS pollutants should not be generated.
As requested, TSS can be recalculated for each sub-basin,and any resulting modifications to
the treatment chains will be made accordingly. Tire unpaved(grass and pond)areas were
included in lire TSS calculations to be conservative,as most of the unpaved areas do not flow
through lire entire treatment chain(and thus tend to pull the weighted average down).
However,we can remove these areas from the calculations as requested.
6. The detention pond does not appear to meet the criteria for an extended detention basin,as defined
by the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy. The requirements include providing 24
hour detention time for the stormwater and incorporating a sediment forebay. Additional
information on the proposed detention time and a revision to the plan to include a sediment
forebay is required to meet the criteria. If the requirements can not be met,the TSS calculations
will need to be adjusted accordingly.
The Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy specifically recommends the "design of the
detention basin should target 24-hour average detention time for the entire spectrum of storm
events in each year." Marchionda&Associates generated the one-year hydrographt for tl)e
proposed detention basin to ensure that the design was consistent with this recommendation.
The "tail"of the one-year hydrograph extends out beyond llte 24"'hour,indicating a relatively
prolonged detention time for a storm of this magnitude. This was accomplished by providing a
small(4")orifice set at the basin floor elevation to minimize outflow during small storms,while
providing a much larger overflow weir at a higher elevation to control the larger storm events.
The detention time for the small(tie.<_one-year event)could likely be increased somewhat by
using a smaller orifice and/or raising the orifice to an elevation above the basin floor elevation.
However,we were concerned that these approaches would increase the likelihood of clogging
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 21,2005
Page 4 of 5
and/or prolonged standing water(potential maintenance,safety,and health issues)and could
potentially compromise the town's 72-hour maximum detention time limit. With regard to a
forebay,the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy specifically recommends that"the
inlet should be designed with a forebay or settling zone to trap coarse sediments." The proposed
design incorporates riprap aprons and a length to width ratio of 3:1(higher than recommended
minimum of 2:1)in order to dissipate energy and provide a settling zone. In addition,the
runoff entering the pond from paved areas will be pretreated through deep sump hooded catch
basins and the majority will undergo additional pretreatment through a Stormceptor®unit.
7. The new pipe connection to the headwall appears to be in conflict with an existing pipe that is
shown on the existing conditions survey. The piping and the scope of the proposed construction
needs to be clarified in this area.
Marchionda&Associates conducted afield verification of tine existing pipes prior to completing
the design to ensure that the proposed piping scenario was possible to construct. Our field
observations indicated that the existing 8-inch pipe which ties into the western wing of the
headwall is actually much closer to the end of the wing than shown on the existing conditions
plan,leaving ample space to tie the proposed 18-inch pipe into the headwall between file
existing pipes. The scope of construction in this area is summarized in tine notes on Sheet C-4
of the plan set.
8. The HDPE flared end sections should incorporate tie down anchors to prevent any possibility of
floating.
This comment is only applicable to the northernmost flared end section,as it is the only one that
may become submerged during certain storm events. Flared end sections are installed by
clamping them to the end corrugations of the pipe,which holds tine end section securely in
place. In order for the end section to float it would either have to become detached from the
pipe or the whole pipe would have to float,both of which are unlikely scenarios. In addition,
tine ADS design literature does not recommend any additional means of tying down end sections
beyond securing them to the pipe.
9. The Applicant should consider including a 4-foot high chain link fence around the perimeter of the
detention pond for safety. It is unclear if a fence would be required under State Building Code
because the anticipated depth of stormwater in the detention pond is less than 4 feet in the 100-year
storm event and the emergency overflow is set at 4.5 feet deep.
A fence is not presently proposed around the proposed detention basin.
General Comments
1. To prevent confusion between existing features and proposed work,VHB suggest screening all
existing features on the Parking Lot Site Plans. In addition,labeling of existing features,such as
edge of pavement and existing on-site lighting,would assist in clarifying the existing site.
We will work with VHB to clarify the plans.
2 VHB recommends additional labeling of the proposed features,such as curbing,pavement,
walkways,flag and light poles,on the Parking Lot Layout&Material Plans.
Revised plans are being prepared and will be submitted directly to VHB and the North Andover
Planning Department for review.
3. VHB assumes the Cape Cod Berm shown on the Parking Lot Layout&Material Plan is for the
landscaped islands and the Precast Concrete Curb is proposed along the front of the building. The
Applicant's Engineer should show on the plans where each type of curbing is proposed.
Revised plans are being prepared and will be submitted directly to VHB and the North Andover
Planning Department for review.
Mr.Lincoln Daley
June 21,2005
Page 5 of 5
4. The plans state that the curb shall be set flush in front of the handicapped parking. How will the
curb and sidewalk transition down to a 0"reveal? The Applicant's Engineer should consider the
safety(protection)of pedestrians on the"flush"sidewalk?
We have added wheel stops to all handicapped parking spaces to protect the pedestrians on tl:e
sidewalk.Revised plans are being prepared and will be submitted directly to VHB and the North
Andover Planning Department for review.
S. Without knowing the total number of parking spaces proposed,VHB could not determine the
number of handicapped parking spaces required for this location. The Applicant's Engineer
should verify that the number of handicapped parking spaces provided meets the current
Architectural Access Board(AAB)requirements.
As stated in the Site Plan Review application,the plan proposes a total of 411 new parking
spaces.As required by Section 8,paragraph 14 of tl:e North Andover Zoning Bylaw "one
handicapped parking space shall be provided for every twenty(20)parking spaces provided on
site"The proposed plan provides for 22 handicapped spaces. Tile ADA requirements as
dictated Section 23.2 of 521 CMR "Architectural Access Board"require a total of 9
handicapped spaces for a lot containing 401-500 spaces. Our intent was to satisfy the more
strict requirements of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw in preparing the submitted plans.
6. On drawing C-2,there are two"UB"blocks in the driveway aisle closest to the building. Are these
proposed or existing? These icons should be included in the legend or labeled on the plans.
We will work with VHB to clarify the plaits.
7. It is unclear whether the existing walkway from Osgood Street to the existing building is to be
retained to the new parking lot. If it is to be retained,a wheelchair ramp is required opposite the
proposed wheelchair ramp closest to the turn-out. In addition,is there adequate handicap
clearance around the flagpole proposed in the existing walk?
We will work with VHB to clarify tit plans.
8. The constructability of the drain manholes numbered 01,03,04,05 and 08 with the number of
pipe connections proposed should be reviewed.
The constructability of all manholes was considered during the design process. Although
certain manholes appear to have conflicting pipes in plan view,tl:e pipe inverts elevations are
offset enough to allow sufficient distance between openings. However,if the manhole
manufacturer indicates that any of the manholes are not constructable as shown,a larger
manhole will be substituted but inverts will remain unchanged.
Again,we would appreciate the opportunity to meet directly with VHB to expedite the review of this
project.Thank you for your time and consideration with regard to this matter and please feel free to call my
office with any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Huntress Associates,Inc.
Christian C.Huntress
Landscape Architect
Cc: T.McIntosh,VHB
M.Leidner,Marchionda&Associates,LLP
M.Howard,Epsilon Associates,Inc.
O.Goldstein, 1600 Osgood Street LLC
SO' j
tI
' � r � ��/i,r f 11 4✓!%J / i%�/�j//+w l����7/ /,d e r
✓ � No Access I/ //j x�l � �" � r
��J I IIVIy 'r;
��j//�� a %��F,✓���%l ��"�'�� I�/ ;
lri r
��Ir a�i /,,/ .� ri +at a o' °ti � �r% o✓ir✓ l�
d /l�� �'�r'�'✓J`x„t � v�9 / 'fir/ �/, i/
rlhd
1I f ��/�P1Ox / /��/� �j�/' 1/ F ✓ � ll:,hv ���`' /r e u v,.
D /�/� �Pia lmrL� � 1/ /j��nl' i%�✓/ �0 / ^'i I%r/ ' ° � tt '" ' ' e,
t3Ff-Site Wegands �/;�/� � /�i�✓�� r' t ��'^�� � m a� . � , rP �/� li,ormf/ r/ /i ail/r �✓J�
�� � '✓ ��� //a k/ a/ / ,
r �/l /r/�i ///�/�/r ,rra�r!� I,µ� /x �r�ri� J �/�m////�0 j,r„ � rte► �, ry
/ Agrrox w ramune J % � 'b3 ��rµt�✓'�t//� �/a��, �✓ ,/, / r r�l �J t';^
i
uip�e
�Jj / Le end
Approximate Property Boundary
RiverirontArea �x
100-Year Flood Boundary(Zone AE)^ r ! ➢� � fr = Delineated Streams
N
�j r rya r UO/D/// Delineated Wetlands
yy��4(M
Scale 1:4,800 N easemap:2001 Odhophotogmphy,M—GIS
Delineated Wetlands and Riverfront Areas
1 inch=400 feet H. }
200 0 200 400 Lucent Technologies '�
Feet North Andover,Massachusetts ""
awmw.assv.ww n,ao,�nisnoa_i�m�naws_m _a+=n_aroa.,nK� snroa