HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1600 OSGOOD STREET 7/5/2005 . Town of North Andover IAORTH
�
��
Office ��� ~^~� Planning Department
Community ��e����8������eD�t �88�^� Services Division
^ ^
40O Osgood Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01Q45 us
7, P (978) 9535 6Q8�wvoBl�noeo ` ' -
Lincoln Daley MEMORANDUM P (978)
68Q'9542
TO: Planning]0mmrd
FROM: Lincoln Daley,Town Planner
CC: Heidi Griffin,Community Development& Services Director
D0E: 1600 Osgood Romd—SiteV"Uan Special Permit
Construction of 410-space parking Lot
July 05
Proposal:
The applicant seeks a Site Plan Review Special Permit to construct a new 410 space(190,000 sf) parking
lot, entry plaza, walkways, site lighting, and landscape improvements to the east oF Buildings 20dL2| at
\60O Osgood Street. The project ereuiaanupproxinuate\y7-uurnpodionuftbe \00-ucn: oiCrfoonedy
occupied hy Lucent Technologies. The area im currently comprised ofa paved access driveway and �
nouniounudg7eennpaoc. The proposed pat-king area will be accessed from Osgood Street and utilize the �
two existing curb cuts, The purpose of the improvements is the need for a centralized arrival and parking �
area atthe front o[the site. The current owner io marketing the space to multiple smaller tenants who �
require their employees and clients to park io closer proximity to their office or work p|uoc.
�
Background:
Application Filing: May 6, 2005
Previous Public Hearing Dates:June 7m, June 21*
Last K7fB Review Date:June J(} J005
The purpose of this meeting is to update the Planning Board on the status of the project and for the
applicant to address VBB"xcomments. \/B8 recently submitted a2^«review for the project. The
comments are primarily concerned with recalculating certain components of the drainage plan and
detention pond. Further,the applicant will need to resubmit updated plans to verify compliance with
VBB"u and Staff m ,euononoendudono.
At the previous meeting, the Chris Huntress distributed responses to VHB's comments. He then
addressed the Board's concerns regarding adequate turning radii and on appropriate fire |uoe for
emergency vehicles along the front side of the buildings 20 and 2|. lnuo effort expedite the application
pr000ay' M,. Buntouxu inquired ifhe could approach \/B8 privately to remedy all outstanding concerns,
Since that time,Chi-is Huntress met with VHB last week to address outstanding issues and will update
the Planning Board accordingly.
Review:
BOARD 0P APPEALS 688-9o4| BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Drainage Report
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. Addressed, however
VHB recommends verification with the town,owner and abutters that there is no history of
flooding problems in this area.
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 rational
method run off coefficients in the Mass Highway Design Manual Chapter 10 for pavement
are 0.7-0.95,which similar to Lindeberg,but for new pavement the number should be on
the high side of the range (smooth surface and no cracks). The number used for the lawn
area looks good given the description of the area as"Manicured Lawn"on the soils testing
logs.
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. Additional information was provided and is acceptable,but there is another main drain
line connection to the detention pond that has not been re-calculated with the Hydraulic Grade Line
(HGL). This entire drain line should be re-calculated with the HGL.
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. The soils information was provided. The
Applicant's Engineer should verify if and to what extents unsuitable soils in the detention pond area
will need to be removed. If required,add information to the plans detailing the extent of removal
and replacing with clean sand. Details should include elevations and elevation of groundwater.
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. A hydrograph
was provided as confirmation that the detention pond will provide an average detention time of 24
hours. It is true that the 1-year hydrograph extends out past 24 hours but hours 0 to 12 there is no
outflow. The average detention time can be calculated with a plug flow calculation (time=volume/
flow rate). This detention time is very difficult to achieve without providing the water quality volume
below the outlet invert. Recommend evaluating as an Infiltration Pond(will need to add a sediment
forebay sized according to the Stormwater Management Policy)or evaluate as a detention pond with
a TSS removal rate generated with the P-8 program. The TSS removal Calculations would need to
be re-done,but should still be above the 80%TSS Removal Requirement(for New Development).
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. The Applicant appears to be
agreeable to revising the plans,however,VHB has not received a revised set of 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. VHB has not received a revised set of
plans.
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. VHB has not received a
revised set of plans.
4. 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. VHB has not
received a revised set of plans.
5. 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? VHB has not received a revised set of plans.
6. The applicant requested several waivers from Section 8.3.5.e of the North Andover Bylaw. The Planning
Board will need to act the following waiver requests:
a. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.vi has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to provide a
table showing the zoning information, parking, and setbacks.
b. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.ix has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to require a
drawing of the exterior of the buildings as the buildings already exists.
c. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.x has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to show all
existing and proposed parking on plans due to the relative size of the site and limits of the
proposed parking.
d. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.xii has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to provide a
fiscal impact study, as the buildings already exist.
e. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.xiii has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to provide a
community impact analysis, as the buildings already exist.
f. A waiver to Section 8.3.5.e.xix has been granted so as to allow the applicant not to provide a traffic
study. The resulting construction will not increase the historic traffic flow or volumes as the parking is
being provided to service existing buildings.
7. The applicant is currently before the Conservation Commission. The application is being reviewed by their
outside consultant, Lisa Eggleston, Eggleston Environmental. As stated her letter dated June 29, 2005, two
issues remain. She recommends that an impermeable barrier be placed along the side of the infiltration
system facing the detention basin to prevent lateral flow toward the basin. It was further recommended that
several low berms or a shallow winding channel be added in the bottom of the detention basin to minimize
short-circuiting and enhance the time of travel through the based for small storm events.
Recommendations:
If the Planning Board determines that the application satisfies Section 8.3 of the"Town Bylaw and the applicant has
sufficiently addressed VHB's comments/recommendations, Planning Staff would recommend a condition approval
for the project. As one of the conditions,language would be place in the decision requiring written verification from
VHB(at the applicant's expense)stating that all issues have been addressed. A draft decision has been included for
your review and comment.
June 30,2005
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
101 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 9151
Watertown,MA 02471-9151
Attn: Timothy B. McIntosh,P.E.
RE: Engineering Review: Response to Follow-Up Drainage Comments
1600 Osgood Commerce Center,Building 20 &21 Parking Lot
Dear Mr. McIntosh,
Marchionda & Associates, L.P. is in receipt of your June 30, 2005 comment letter to the
North Andover Planning Board regarding the subject project. We offer the following
responses and attached supplemental information in response to the comments. Our
responses (italicized) follow each of the comments below:
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. Addressed, however VHB recommends verification with the town,
owner and abutters that there is no history of flooding problems in this area.
Marchionda &Associates has received no indication that the existing southerly
drainage system is prone to flooding. If a flooding problem were to exist, the
proposed design would in fact help as the peak flow and volume to the existing
system are reduced in the proposed condition.
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 rational method run off coefficients
in the Mass Highway Design Manual Chapter 10 for pavement are 0.7-0.95,
which similar to Lindeberg, but for new pavement the number should be on
the high side of the range (smooth surface and no cracks). The number used
for the lawn area looks good given the description of the area as "Manicured
Lawn" on the soils testing logs.
WIN IE
C&ei.,c.., 3of o.f`
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
June 30, 2005
Page 2 of 4
The modeling has been revised to reflect a C value of 0.9 as requested (see
attached modeling output).
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. Additional information
was provided and is acceptable, but there is another main drain line
connection to the detention pond that has not been re-calculated with the
Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL). This entire drain line should be re-calculated
with the HGL.
As shown on the previously submitted plans, the main drain line referenced in
this comment discharges at an invert above the 100 year flood elevation.
Therefore, we assumed free discharge in the pipe sizing calculations, and no
revisions are required for this network.
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.
The soils information was provided. The Applicant's Engineer should verify
if and to what extents unsuitable soils in the detention pond area will need to
be removed. If required, add information to the plans detailing the extent of
removal and replacing with clean sand. Details should include elevations and
elevation of groundwater.
Test pits conducted by Marchionda & Associates indicated suitable soils in the
vicinity of the proposed basin, and we do not anticipate encountering unsuitable
materials in this area.
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 almost completely grass or pond areas and TSS
pollutants should not be generated. New calculations were provided. See Note
#6 below.
No response required
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
June 30, 2005
Page 3 of 4
6. The detention pond does not appear to meet the criteria for an extended detention
basin, as defined by the Massachusetts Storm,water 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. A hydrograph was provided as confirmation
that the detention pond will provide an average detention time of 24 hours.
It is true that the 1-year hydrograph extends out past 24 hours but hours 0 to
12 there is no outflow. The average detention time can be calculated with a
plug flow calculation (time =volume /flow rate). This detention time is very
difficult to achieve without providing the water quality volume below the
outlet invert. Recommend evaluating as an Infiltration Pond (will need to
add a sediment forebay sized according to the Stormwater Management
Policy) or evaluate as a detention pond with a TSS removal rate generated
with the P-8 program. The TSS removal Calculations would need to be re-
done,but should still be above the 80% TSS Removal Requirement (for New
Development).
Based on my conversation with Mr. Richard Mathews, P.E. of your office, I
have reclassified the basin as an infiltration basin. In order to justify this
change, I have attached calculations showing that the upstream recharge
chambers infiltrate the DEP Water Quality Volume, and I have also attached
the TSS calculations as revised accordingly.
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. Addressed.
No response required
Timothy B. McIntosh, P.E.
June 30, 2005
Page 4 of 4
8. The HDPE flared end sections should incorporate tie down anchors to prevent any
possibility of floating. Addressed.
No response required
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. The Applicant is not proposing a
fence. No further engineering review is required at this time.
No response required
Based on my conversation with Mr. Richard Matthews, P.E. of your office,I trust that the
information provided will adequately address all of VHB's final comments. If our
responses do not completely address your concerns please contact me at (781) 438-6121
as soon as possible so that we can provide any additional information that you may need
before the next Planning Board hearing(scheduled for July 5, 2005).
Very truly yours,
Marchionda &Associates,L.P.
Matthew A. Leidner, P.E.
Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Lincoln Daley (Town Planner)
Christian Huntress (Huntress Associates, Inc.)
File
H:\PROJECTS\670-09\Correspondence\VHB Response\Response_063005.doc
MARCHIONDA & ASSOCIATES, L.P. JOB
1600 O Ganj �r4,,Lc_-
Land Planning, Surveying and Civil Engineering SHEETNO• I OF /
62 Montvale Ave. ���j
Stoneham, MA 02180 CALCULATED BY A �`-- DATE
781.438-6121, Fax 781-438-9654
WWW.marchionda.com CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
--' .. .. .._
r
r
i
:
UL
Of
WQ� :1 X in, ,� A �+ z.
-- ----
r r
r r
r
- _. .. . Z3,o 7 6 .z..s
r .
r •
r
r
:
:
r
:
r
s '
r ,q. I
r 7 1.�r5u^^Lt. .. •. G, .(�G1'f'�,---''c�'�`----ice��!f/k�;r _. �t I�G.4: I%(_'Gi�j-�:r�7A>�X-._...__ ��¢�•�
r
�L
r
, ! E
i
:
r
: r •
:
t
:
r
r
;
:
: , r
r
r :
10 -711 1
r
1.�, _ D' ... .�� D
: r
_- .. .
.......... _r.....
i
:
i
r
r r
!i •
____ . .._
jj
i
,
� r
i
[ i
,
i
:
i
i r i
F
PrdYfnlCf 2041 15oplS�x6;206.1�MGef1
WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CATCH BASIN SYSTEMS INPUT DATA IS IN EIL
SUB-AREA -VALUES 0.10 Cw-WOODED 0.10 Cg-GRASSED 0.90 Cpr-PAVEDIROOF WEIGHTED
AAcre AS Aw5 Aw/A x w SF to xC Apr(SF) 0xC C
58
SC-01 0.22 93 0 0.00 3069 0.03 0514 0.61 0.64 0.000104 2.3E-05
96
SC-02 0.22 71 0 0.00 5383 0106 4288 0.40 0.45 0.000103
SC-86 022 9488 0 0-00 4945 0,05 4543 0.43 0.48 0.000105
SC-73 0.06 2455 0 0.00 1370 0.08 1085 0.40 0,45 0.000407
SC-74 0.25 10928 0 0.00 8757 0.08 2171 0.18 0,26 9.15E-05
SC-03 0.20 6742 0 0.00 4442 0.05 4300 0.44 0.49 0.000114
SC-04 0.22 9578 0 0.00 1446 0.02 8132 0.78 0.78 0.000104
SC-0.5 0.35 15097 0 0.00 7898 0105 7199 0.43 0.48 6.62E-05
SC-06 0.35 16260 0 0.00 2820 0.02 12440 033 0.75 6.55E-05
SC-07 0.29 12525 0 0.00 1 6219 0.04 7306 0.52 0.57 7.98E-05
SC-08 0.27 11549 0 0.00 4203 0.04 7176 0.56 0,60 8.68E-05
SC-09 0.33 14344 0 0.00 2182 0.02 12182 0.76 0,78 6.97E-06
SC-10 0.59 26556 0 0100 14099 0.06 11457 0.40 0.48 3.91E-05
SC-11 0.19 8245 0 0.00 1218 0.01 7027 0.77 0.78 0.000121
SC-12 0.36 15484 0 0.00 3722 0.02 11782 0168 0.71 6.46E-06
SC-13 1 0.16 6915 1 0 0.00 633 0.01 6382 0.83 0.84 0.000145
SC-14 0.22 9719 0 0.00 1014 0.01 8705 0.81 0.82 0.000103
SC-16 0.14 6288 0 0.00 20W 0.03 4279 0.61 0.64 0.000159
SC-18 0.35 15055 0 0.00 4013 1 0.03 11042 0.66 0.69 6.64E-05
SC-17 0.24 10558 0 0.00 4367 0.04 6191 0.53 0.57 9.47E-05
SC-18 0.33 14556 0 0-00 3067 0.02 11489 0.71 0.73 6.87E-05
$C-19 0.12 5134 0 0.00 26t 0.01 4873 0165 0.86 okwt95
SC-20 0.24 10406 0 0.00 4989 0.05 6417 1 0.47 0.52 9.61E-05
SC-21 0.25 11076 0 0-00 4244 0.04 6832 0.58 0.59 9.03E-05
SC-20A 0.35 15263 0 0.00 10555 0.07 4708 0.28 0.35 8.66E-05
SC-37 0115 6435 0 0.00 4387 0.07 2048 0.29 0.36 0.000155
SC-35 0.01 535 1 0 0.00 535 0.10 1 0 0.00 0.10 1 0,001869
SC-38 1 0.24 10296 0 0.00 1 8135 0.08 2161 0.19 0.27 9.71E-05
A=Total Area C=WelgMed Runoff Coefficient
Aw=Wooded Area Cw=Runoff Coefficient(Wooded Areas)
Ag-Grassed Area Cg=Runoff Coetflcierd(Grassed Areas)
Apr 5 Paved/Roof Area Opr=Runoff Coef lerd(Paved/Roof Areas)
662.05 6/3N20055:01 PM Prop-weighted C's
r
O3 O7m
� N o cO aD V 6� ()( A W N P (0 W V 07 p A W N
a 0
T m
� m b ",
p
c0i v'—
II v o 0 0 n 0 n 0 0 a a o n n
Iv do cn ar m m m sp x W m w z a x
b p b 0 o b o °w
N
( O
v
� m
rn 0
O r
} 0
C. O 0�
10 a
m
° $n o r m n is n 0 n n O 0 n m e
> m qo ao qo m w ur 0 0
W N (�JI C6J
I
r_,1 p p p p v, y, p cn to o to v1 cn p o 0 0 0 0 0
c o 0 a a o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 c7 0 0 0 0 m
LO 0 0 0 (0� (0W� f0NJ I0NV o p o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
A (p cO (� W N V O (W71 07 O o O N 07 O O O O 0
11
{O{aaf Oi 01 (O� OAA {0a� .O.pp7 .yO.yaa O O a O O O 3 a
p A A A -AP A A A h A A O A L A O O d O O O w•r•
N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 o a e
A 0 07 (D O O V (J1 A O R1
h tpnry s tp(Dp _a — - —pp — —
0 07 LVT1 (7t Op) 07 A Oa7 (pD V 07 fil .-. N N p A
Al
a o 0 0 0 0 o a o o p o 0 a p
b o 0 0 o t1 a 0 $ 0 0 0 0 a
? O 4 O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O P O O l7 Ln Ut O (Ti (7� O� Vi O O O O fh t�
G7
cn 0 o 0 0 o p
3 N (((7pO( .�A. UWO (VN4 w ((D � NWJ V yW pVp V ((Old( Ja W (Np N y G<
CW71 O a O (71 O (Ofl O O O UWi O con Ut 0 0 O M (071 V 7
0
C11 (li p p 07 p fn W p (J1 p (ri (It (7t U1 (71 p 1 a
Cpp71 m 0 � W V Wp W 07 (f(70�1 0D CD P.pp J V � (7t W tNtpp N C
(Ji b (Wfl O CW71 Up7 UI O O O O O (77 0 O (pit (N 71 O
N
A
_ O
z6 (coo w (°��° `�i o °o °0 0 00 g 0 0 0 0 o A
��7 �0p77 P? Oo .(pD .(ppD� (D (pOD� (00 CO (G f0 (D W CO �07 A ? N
C11 �A711 may( (77 00D Q O O � A O W 6J7 (�� T O (Q7t ((�J�7(
� 61 0JJ1 Op7 pp (p0 .(p(p0 ,(pO (.p0 1(10 SO (pyyD (0 .(p0 0 0 V, ul T. N C=
A N 007 W 0 V to V j ('AO 0 QN7 O r
m
ql W (.07( fd W O
D
-pa fpW)t O (D (W A N pJ Oj A (O 07 .NA J pO :sr'
Q S O O S O O O O O O O O O O S O O O O O O rs
oa U1 r
p r i 1 s r —
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w m W p W w N 0
(O0�( O QO7 O O (Ot O O O O O O �O�77 O N Se r3
0 07 W OD i O Cl) A V O A W W ? O W U1 ttttPPP
cm O O O O 0 O O .O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O p O p
b b O
a i j s j 1 to
N
O
O �
W
�
§
� { �
E �
\ § ) § (
§ ( e a
2 § .
\ k
(
/
\ § \ T
� » P
Z. } % U 0 2
� .
} ul
\ k \
\ ) § J
s s
@ m
%
@ \ e £g
\ ( (
$
Ln
%
\ 0 \ / k
' 2 92
0 % k
% ® _
( § § .
§
CA (n ] 9 ¥A
A
o @ ¥ w J E
9 0 § b \to
k �
\
®E
2 ;
§ « O ; ;
§ \/
]
th
§ ®
1600 Osgood Commerce Center
Building 20&21 Parking Lot Design
North Andover, Massachusetts
TSS REMOVAL BY TREATMENT AREA-NORTH
TREATMENT AREA IN SWEEPING TO CB TO STORMCEPTOR TO DETENTION):
BMP DESIGN TSS REMOVAL CUMULATIVE TSS REMOVAL
Street Sweeping 10% 10.00%
Deep Sump/Hooded CB 25% 32.50%
Stormceptor 71% 80.43%
Infiltration Basin 80% 96.09%
TREATMENT AREA 2N SWEEPING TO CB TO DETENTION):
BMP DESIGN TSS REMOVAL CUMULATIVE TSS REMOVAL
Street Sweeping 10% 10.00%
Deep Sump/Hooded CB 25% 32.50%
Infiltration Basin 80% 86.50%
TREATMENT AREA 3N SWEEPING ONLY):
BMP DESIGN TSS REMOVAL CUMULATIVE TSS REMOVAL
Street Sweeping 10% 10.00%
COMPOSITE TSS REMOVAL-NORTH
TREATMENT AREA AREA(FT2) CUMULATIVE TSS REMOVAL
1 N 130,590 96.09%
2N 23,097 86.50%
3N 1,064 10.00%
Composite TSS Removal*= 94.06%
`Composite TSS removal calculated as weighted average of cumulative TSS removal rates for individual
treatment areas
May 20,2005
Marchionda&Associates, L.P. Page 1 of 3 Revised June 30,2005
y g J r
Cs c� C y� N N U
iA w`a g S.. 0 E
E €€ a E F � �
> i
�°U z tt md0 3 x t$ ca
rmg _
t _ _
I
s
j —..._
EO J33H9} IZ5
,
i
.ye �P
�`� z u,;r
v
0 0
l
i
mill
I I z o
II
Z-0 ANS
t y
{ fI
/�• ��F.. 'I� III
I
®OO Y,n ;MI t t I 10
II! ;� k d •� I I j
§ /' r
°
85 I
P
Iry '1 D F �P
r -
p3 �
8 I
t3�
v 0
=off
Ji
f
� "r. 7 � I• r�"• " I/ T
EO 0 t SIX3
- r •I
I
^z Qzs 1-3 o U
E < (91—S
z a m o.to
'�—o 133HS 33S Alit t 1 11 —� 133HS 335
j1 �1I ilI j
ll�,l
I 1 1' I maw a
°gym az
ojp zv�
;i � II /9 • "I I mw¢ w �
O�
M N
KpFZ o�o
�... w 0
1 `•
_FO¢ Z01
I./ ' ' i• �° tim i N
l ♦ I E,F
9 o l
O� Z in ZZU'�iZZ
z
1 � 1
Z
1
'i l �' � I /g� `�9 •� /r li II! x'y_zi.1 u*i�n uiDi u'�im
/ �Y� •'i \R � � III ,! i
I
e
iIII ��' ��I •-o , , , ,I ; I "I �N��mN
.A� ♦ I 1 I 0 2 2 2=S
.+�7Hp t I II EEEE��
Y
/ �l/i \�/tt n1 • a 1 i i �11 j' 1 ,L ® III a Z N 66�rv'i n n i
N N NOO'h
Noi o b�
\
jiij� �,
` / \ � •`�• \.� 1111 11111
Oil '� /2i\ , . i�'ii°iiiiii
``> ` ` 1111 91jj1 j1 uo UUUOu
;;;Nw Tem111 -
1IIIP. 111111
I S
0 6 • s \ g77 s000000
'��5�5#^S Q�7,'-- _•_.. / °-I m m m m m m m
I
1 it
e' / I
Ma: (Y)
VJ
0 0) 0 O r
6R IA,
(D E
WOMEN e
J- E
J! M
0 0 N, main
to i]AHS 33S V-Z) 133HS
RZ 1
%
Jr
-- ----- .1A
1 Jazz
Ism
w-Q r2
I mm TWA 91
T
OM"
sit
:;jMM- Z"
amp NEI 1 jlll ilk (#
R HHUMHUMA "jil
. .........�, a's , I
p_6
A A
IMP
P
Z-0 133H --US
o
ow
ash .t:Qc rn v N�
a = C C d
Q F .p
g�
m ash t `.°U z a main
G3 I
PAt
ff x
1
I I N
Z
I /
,1 / i2 WU'ain3 I mw
8 i I f za�o z �z z
ut �
I I I UtN�F m0 N4
I 1 1% 1J Z v a Qo=aox <Q <N
i y
>o
I €
I � I 1 opixx tiioz��w zorr w�
p
<Io
IL
/
0
w S a
aI_Z_ —' Q
CD 3�o
�I o °o_ o
ID o o s
I;
'1 I Cp o I
CD
J S
r- E-0 133HS 33S
R F
CL 0
a4e
IM
IN lei
Rimini mr .
E °� a 'K�= figY�3�fi�;uy fi�
& fl! a ua ae=a° a �s
it E
Y
11a geaa
............ C rt
I
Vc
a a e � a r moo`
L
i
U Kb6 a a�aE
7�W
01 .6
sa° ngg LASS
LU
c)
o- o s
dl $ _
Cori JR.
d�X
zk
go < 9;7,CrLa
8 s
B 9 15
yy 3 2 E
-
°
z�
65.E5
as°" xnz em
A==
Edd�
k�
2g Mh
Fo$
�x w 18e= s s: so;ae
>� w .,
a
-441 25
N;�"S., I
a A
�8�ry h
7,1 qqs ms
tl� g�3
HE
s
Town of North Andover
Office of the Conservation Department
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
e epbo.
Alison E, McKay T' lne(978)088 0
-9553
Comservation AdminisLrAor. Fax (978),688-9,542
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 25, 2005
TO: m"ary"Ippolito
CC: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director
FROM: Alison McKay, Conservation Adminjstrato '!
SUBJECT: Ozzy Properties - 1600 Osgood Street
The Conservation Department is in receipt of Site Plans entitled "Preliminary Parking Lot
Plans for Buildings 20 & 21, 1600 Osgood Street Commerce Center", dated May 6, 2005 and
supplemental Site Plans dated May 2005 (no title sheet) and offers the following preliminary
comments:
1. The only work proposed within 100' of a jurisdictional wetland resource area appears to
be the installation of a drainage pipe and associated outlet structure.
2. The proposed drainpipe will carry stormwater flows from the proposed extended
detention basin. The pipe is approximately 560 linear feet to the existing wingwall
(headwall) outlet at the wetland resource area.
3. Approximately 1001.f. of pipe is proposed within the buffer zone and approximately 23
l.f of pipe is proposed within the regulated 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone.
4. Since work is proposed within the regulated 25' No-Disturbance Zone, the applicant
should provide a waiver request and an alternative analysis for this work.
5. Erosion controls are proposed in suitable locations within the buffer zone. However, the
Commission may require additional erosion controls (i.e. check dams,etc.).
6. Construction sequencing and work within the buffer zone during low flow conditions
only are likely to be conditioned by the Conservation Commission.
7. Depending on the amount and the velocity of flow coming from the pipe, a riprap apron
dissipater may be necessary at the outlet
8. The Conservation Commission will provide further review, including stormwater review,
when the application is filed with the Conservation Department.
9. The Conservation Department has not received this filing application to date, but expects
the applicant to be filing with the Department in the next few days for the Conservation
Public Meeting date of June 8, 2005.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Once a filing is submitted with the Conservation Department, I can offer further comments if
necessary. However, please let me know if you need further information in regards to this
site plan review prior to the Conservation filing submission.
adLa i 1 rro���� eU �NU1 I fs!� MUA�
1 tf,� � ' �,nn `� I� H�� ,�a ���'
& Associates, L-wlR
` M
MswvAng t.aormffla�As
May 20, 2005
Mr. Lincoln Daley
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Dept. Of Planning & Community Services
400 Osgood Street
North.Andover,MA 01.845
RE: Site Plan for 1600 Osgood Connnerce Center, Building 20&21 Parking Lot
Dear Mr. Daley,
Marchionda & Associates, L.P., on behalf of 1600 Osgood Street LLC., submits the
enclosed Site Plan for the proposed 1600 Osgood Commerce Center, Building 20 & 21
Parking Lot located off Osgood Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Please note that
we are only submitting the "civil" plans-- sheets C-I through C-6—which are intended to
accompany a plan set submitted to your attention by Huntress Associates, Inc, on
May 6, 2005. Enclosed are twelve (12) copies of the civil plans along with three (3)
copies of the associated drainage report, which Marchionda & Associates has prepared to
accompany the plans. We have also forwarded two (2) set of the plans and associated
drainage report to Mr, Timothy McIntosh with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. for his
review and comment.
Please feel free to call Paul Marchionda or me at (781) 438-6121 or Chris Huntress at
(978) 470-8882 to discuss any of this information or should you require any further
information.
Very truly yours,
Marchionda & Associates, L.P.
'RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2005
Matthew A. Leidner, P.E. NUkl h A041L)GVER
Project Manager ,=CANNING DEPARTMENT
Cc: Christian Huntress (Huntress Associates, Inc.)
Timothy McIntosh(Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.)
File
1-1:\PROJEC'rS\670-09\Correspondence\1.05 2005_Daleydoc
SAIHe � 0 a)c (781) 438-9654 website:
Stoneham, MA 02180 RwIrW°m
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: 1600 Osgood Commerce Center VHB No.: 09280.07
Site Plan Location: 1600 Osgood Street(Route 125)
Applicant: 1600 Osgood Street,LLC,c/o Ozzy Properties,3 Dundee Park,Andover,MA
Applicant's Engineer: Huntress Associates,Inc., 17 Tewksbury Street,Andover,MA
Plan Date: Plans not provided Review Date: 6-30-05
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
December 2002),the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations(NAWPR)and standard engineering
practice. The following information has been submitted for VHB's review:
• Letter to North Andover from Huntress Associates dated June 21,2005 responding to VHB
comments made on June 16,2005.
• Revised plans and calculations sent via email including:Plan Sheet C-2,Hydraflow
Calculation,One Year Hydrograph,Test Pit Logs,Test Pit Plans,TSS Removal Calculations
VHB's original comments are shown in normal font followed by our follow-up comments shown in bold
font.
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. Addressed.
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? Addressed.
• 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? Addressed.
• VHB recommends that the Applicant complete section 9 of the"Application for Site Plan Special
Permit". Addressed.
1
�r1oMIRA Amon;,i-
Section 8.3—Site Plan Review
8.3.5.e.ii A partial survey was provided on the Preliminary Planset. No further engineering
review is required.
8.3.5.e.vi This section requires a table to be provided(preferably on the plans)showing the
zoning information,parking,setbacks,etc. The Applicant is requesting a waiver
from the requirements of this section.
8.3.5.e.vii See Drainage Report Review below.
8.3.5.e.ix This section requires a drawing of the exterior of the building should be provided. The
Applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of this section.
8.3.5.e.x As required under this section,all existing and proposed parking should be shown on
the plans. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of this
section. The aerial graphic was helpful.
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. No further engineering review is
required.
8.3.5.e.xviii. See Drainage Report Review below.
8.3.5.e.xix A traffic impact study was not included in this submission. VHB assumes that the
entire site will ultimately be redeveloped. Has there been any consideration given to an
overall traffic study? Has a master plan been prepared? The Applicant is requesting
a waiver from the requirements of this section.
8.3.5.e.xii A fiscal impact study was not included in this submission. The Applicant is
requesting a waiver from the requirements of this section.
8.3.5.e.xiii A community impact analysis was not included in this submission. The Applicant is
requesting a waiver from the requirements of this section.
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. Addressed,however
VHB recommends verification with the town,owner and abutters that there is no history of
flooding problems in this area.
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 rational
method run off coefficients in the Mass Highway Design Manual Chapter 10 for pavement
are 0.7-0.95,which similar to Lindeberg,but for new pavement the number should be on the
high side of the range(smooth surface and no cracks). The number used for the lawn area
looks good given the description of the area as"Manicured Lawn"on the soils testing logs.
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. Additional information was provided
and is acceptable,but there is another main drain line connection to the detention pond that
has not been re-calculated with the Hydraulic Grade Line(HGL). This entire drain line
should be re-calculated with the HGL.
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. The soils information was
provided. The Applicant's Engineer should verify if and to what extents unsuitable soils in
2
the detention pond area will need to be removed. If required,add information to the plans
detailing the extent of removal and replacing with clean sand. Details should include
elevations and elevation of groundwater.
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 almost completely grass or pond areas
and TSS pollutants should not be generated. New calculations were provided. See Note#6
below.
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. A hydrograph was provided as confirmation that the
detention pond will provide an average detention time of 24 hours. It is true that the 1-year
hydrograph extends out past 24 hours but hours 0 to 12 there is no outflow. The average
detention time can be calculated with a plug flow calculation(time=volume/flow rate).
This detention time is very difficult to achieve without providing the water quality volume
below the outlet invert. Recommend evaluating as an Infiltration Pond(will need to add a
sediment forebay sized according to the Stormwater Management Policy)or evaluate as a
detention pond with a TSS removal rate generated with the P-8 program. The TSS removal
Calculations would need to be re-done,but should still be above the 80% TSS Removal
Requirement(for New Development).
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. Addressed.
8. The HDPE flared end sections should incorporate tie down anchors to prevent any possibility of
floating. Addressed.
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. The Applicant is not proposing a
fence. No further engineering review is required at this time.
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. The
Applicant appears to be agreeable to revising the plans,however,VHB has not received a
revised set of 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. VHB has not
received a revised set of plans.
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. VHB has
not received a revised set of plans.
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? Addressed.
3
.....,..a,.`.;c`.0"290.Q".d.^,cs`.mcmo;`.!K1O9(Y,v".E4`(?n^^^a Bc:•icr:^63005.c?o:
5. 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. Addressed.
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. VHB
has not received a revised set of plans.
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? VHB has not received a revised set
of 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. Addressed.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Tracie Lenhardt
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Richard P.Mathews,P.E.
Senior Project Engineer—Land Development
Reviewed by: Date: CO
Timothy B44cIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
4
....�. mono.m�.�...� �nn�o n..rrn n�..,,...+v -
`.`.).:a....,.`.:c.,,,_..C.... .....c..^c^c^..._,.'!0,. __,...__d.._,...cr:e�::^63CL�.dx
GF�nrm6rr �,w, f ��ii����r���r���!�vN XM�r (� : „� w %�'' V�r^.��Grt7�'i�/✓�6cCOii�ri�i���Pf IP��
..........
/oar„
t
/ �
Summary of e e is to
Transit Oriented Development
enets ® Chapter 40R L(North Andover does n2Lhing
® North Andover achieves 10%affordable housing and ® North Andover remains at approximately 5.9%
controls the affordable housing process. affordable housing throughout its overall housing stock.
- Town decides how review process is set rep. -If under 10%North Andover has little control over
-Town creates design criteria through overlgv zone. the 40B process. Town can expect over 1200!rousing
-Unwanted 40B projects can be rejected units to meet present requirements sunder Chapter 40B.
® North Andover to receive nip to$2.55 Million from State ® No financial incentives.
as incentives for creating 40R Zoning and Housing.
-$1000 per unit upon approval of Overlay Zone
-$3000 per unit upon issuance of a building permit.
-North Andover is presently first in line for funding.
® Commuter Rail Station siting requires!rousing in close ® No Commuter Rail Station in North Andover.
proximity.MBTA preliminary siting criteria requires 650
residential units within a 114 mile radius of a proposed
Commuter Rail Station.
a Proposed residential development is projected to provide m Continued 40B development will likely lead to drain on
positive revenues above and beyond State incentives. North Andover's municipal revenues.
® Housing built in an area with existing infrastructure. ® Infrastructure costs to Town of North Andover unknown.
-Development proposed in close proximity to -Large and small housing projects scattered around
abundant utility and transporation infrastructure. Torun,resulting in increased infrastructure cost.
® Proposed housing to be built in a previously disturbed ® Typical 40B development results in reduction of open
area requiring no trees to be cut and does not innpact space and removal of mature forested areas abutting
any residential abutters.Existing balyields to be existing residential neighborhoods.
relocated an site.
® Residential development not subject to TIF agreement. ® Residential development not subject to TIF agreement.
Residential units taxed and assessed at 100%valuation. Residential units taxed and assessed at 100%valuation.
® Provides economic development incentives to site by N Unknown Impacts.
providing workforce housing near employment center
and commercial areas.
® Attracts higher end commercial and retail users to site ® Unknown Impacts.
® Encourages new economic development along the Route ® Unknown Impacts.
125 corridor.