HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 1591 OSGOOD STREET 4/30/2018 (7) r� � ..
r ���� '� .
I�� � Q � �
�' �
Town M'Ncwth. Andover
Office of the Building Department
Community Services
Developmenit and E_ a vice Division
�:titliam 1. earl,. Division I:)irodnT � r YPyt
217 ClIarles Street
Wrtii ii(lover,IN.Tassacliiisellu,01.945 "elwlialic(979)689-9545
Building Connniss°ioner ax:('978)688-9542
January 25,2001
Mr. Chris Adams,Trustee
S.P.E.C.Realty Trust
35 Webber Street
Bos to , 8
Re: 1591 Osgood Street
�—No,_rth AndJve�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 E.Phalen,Jr.,Professional Engineer #81720,dated
6/15/2000. Therefore,you must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Modification of Decision to
J 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 Enforcement 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.
X 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
tr�
BOARD OP AT"ITIA?_z 658-9541 T3UaDING 6889545 0-INSE VNFION 689-9530 ]IFALTH 698-9540 PLAT _9535
..RECEIVED
.: JOYCE BRADSHAW
fi TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOVER
1000 AUG 15 P 1: 58
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 afterthe Year 2000
date of filing of this notice Property at.1591 Osgood Street
m the office of the 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,MA01845 HEARING:4/11/2000,5/9,6/20,&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 2id by Scott Karpinski,on the condition that the petitioner 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 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 owning to circumstances relating to 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 of the 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 substantial) dery from the intent or purpose of this Bylaw.
Y Pig PmP Y
Furthermore,ifthe rights authorized bythe 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 after notice,and a new hearing. a
By order ofthe Z Boa f Appeals,
William J.Su ili an,Chairman
ml/decisions2000/30
01/25/01 13:26 FAX 6175676669 Chris Adams 201
January zs,2001
To: Robert Nicetta,Building Inspector
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`gash". All things considered,this recommendation
makes a lot of sense for convenience,accessibility,and safety for the tenants.
I -
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
i
P.S. T spoke with Heidi 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 fot the back buildings to be brought
forward. Please advise. Thank you.
CEIVED
JAN 2dU1
BUILDING DEPT.
01/25/01 13:26 FAX 6175676669 Chris Adams @102
fig
dk
so
US
amp
"Y
wo
(m� � � �k. - '0.;C,•:,.,,: ^
�y�as r»_� rarer
" e`�k
"cog, .......-... - r
czz, �'•'',__� y �r
ma
VIE ills ft
sYoa CSM S •w .- � , _„Q
i /m^- ....-- fir--•'- 6'�Y�, ,
7.
*41
o 4 OP4 ;
m ACI a r 3
•iJ Z
Ri
C b�
gig z¢ o
R� IVEto
4
JAN 2 5 20 �
BUILDING DEP I
WAS
dc a
?!iii: ,'• r:j.,.:,V:.'s:::i'•,•.,
!t[[,.,a Jifii? ,a ,, y ==r:• •,}
a! ' F I;E,.a,i j iliai'�!S :N a f •'7` _d 4"d{W
..,;l� a� �h,F��cl i 111• .,!� '9•� ,: 4 �'`3 pG rp �
211
n, ".
/
ow
.., i!'.,i!L ,i. }�t�•�ii :i'iSilj !`�rl E) ,.. '••», '� ,� W
•�, TO
� gill
{'S! R. a
: h h ii`...
»• p�QF-
``•.,r, r•;(!c•�;}ys•� ;�Su�; o yyj"U 1, jj Z V (� I" y
•�-,r- ,:K'!.li:�:.:tl '�uS3;,1,1r'tiilfi�t'l,tr •..• V � � QC N
+- pI •
`•.+'+, ,, t. t �Lhl ..•`. t �. !�) 1 :._ .,+• / � fir,
.d •,, '4 > G p sis' �:. •, S; 1 �ttflr :. !. !� •,• _ ll .
Q + •» IfF'� i +�i 1% 11. 1I !�
♦
`� •»
r.
' `-.et
LLd
0„ • � '. . I � • •; .I �� ,1 � �MV.F'M•��'��•' �1'• r.. I •.� •.i I •.. •. � ,:'S�y,1�� ,
� '�� �� r V` ' � IIr'•/7•�tA�-IV.\• •.. W ^l i\:J�J
�r "� raw+.t •wa,r/�} 'r.....a ( ' y� L
co
Town of North Andover
Office of the Building Department ;:•`;r- "'•°�
1 Community Development and Services Division
William J.Scott, Division Director "�°+ -- -- •�'�
27 Charles Street �'aa�,K'•„ese�'
D. Robert Nicetta North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Telephone(978)688-9545
Building Commissioner Fax(978)688-9542
MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Griffin,Town Planner
From: Robert Ncetta,Building Commissioner
Date: - January 26,2001
Re: S.P.E.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
f Planning Board not act on the referred site until Mr.Adams decides on which building option he chooses.
rN
�.i
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUELDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
-,��Re'
ceived by Town Clerk:
RECEIVED
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 1VLaSSACHUSETTS TOWN CLERK
BOARD OF APPEALS NORTH ANDOVER
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANC -q P
0.
Applicant S.P.E.C. Realty Trust Address35 WEbbster St. Boston, MA 02128
FOR PROPERTY @ 1561 OSGGOOD STREET Tel. No. 1-617567-6669 Work
I
1. Applicant is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section 7&(8.1)
Paraggraph7.2 rear and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws.
Tn p—arl iing
b) For a Special Permit under Section 9 Paragraph 9.1
of the Zoning Bylaws
&/c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the Building Inspector or other
authority. SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM OUR CONSULTANT
2. a) Premises affected are land and building(s)
numbered •1561 OSGGOOD STREET Street.
� 1
b) Premises affected area property with frontage on the North ( ) South ( ) East ( ) West ( )
side of 1561 OSGGOOD.STREET Street.
C) Premises affected are in Zoning District 1S and the premises affected have an
area of 116349 ' square feet and frontage of 275' feet.
J. Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner(if joint ownership, give all names):
S.P.E.C. Realty Trust 35 WEbbster St. Boston, MA 02128
Date of Purchase 3/15/85 Previous Owner CHRISTOPHER V.ADAMS
b) 1. If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in premises:
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
2. Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit required
i
50f8
is eaSene
`7�arc�eelter,✓&J.4ac&M&J 07890 YaA.,✓&J-44.41JI&J a797a
AGN 78�7�sz7��7 �rG9�or.e- 97oe7WA��sa
.�w,�•7877'.¢�7� .baa•977/.7.i'�'.5a
March 1, 2000
Zoning Board of Appeal
Town Hall
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Proposed Warehouse Self Storage
S.P.E.C. Realty Trust(Chris Adams Trustee)
1592 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Board Members:
This report is the result of a denial of a building permit for warehousing of the self storage type by Mr.
D. Robert Nicetta the Building Inspector on 2.22.00.and owned by S.P.E.C. Realty Trust at the above noted
site The purpose of this report is to correct some apparent misconceptions by Mr. Nicetta and to present
proper technical backup for certain considerations and to focus on what S.P.E.C.Realty Trust perceives their
rights to be.
SITE HISTORY
The site is currently occupied by a restaurant(Jimmy;s Pizza),a miniature golf course adjacent to and
behind Jimmy's Pizza and vehicular rental parking on the parcel high ground behind the miniature golf course.
The restaurant predates S.P.E.C.Realty Trust(ie prior to 1958),the miniature golf course and the vehicular
rental parking came into existence on or before 1969. S.P.E.C. Realty trust took over all of these uses,
structures and associated rights on March 15, 1985 (See Deed in Figure 1). The zoning by laws in effect at
this time refer to the lot of record being under the zoning by laws and zoning district map as defined by the
zoning plan dated May 12 and June 5, 1972. This plan identifies the land falls into 1-S Industrial District .
This by law in section 4.11(3)general provisions identifies some restrictions that exist relative to the parcel
of land currently owned by S.P.E.C. Realty Trust to quote "when a zoning district boundary divides a lot
of record on June 5, 1972 in one ownership, all the zoning regulations set forth in this zoning by law
applying to the greater part by area of such lot so divided may by special permit be deemed to apply and
govern at and beyond such zoning district boundary but only to an extent not more than one hundred(100)
linear feet in depth(at a right angle to such boundary)into the lesser part by area of such lot so divided'.
This same restriction also exists under Section 4.1.1.4 pg 25 of the amended Zoning By Laws dated
May 1999. Thus the zoning restriction prior to 1985 and as they exist today are the same. This limitation has
f direct bearing on the setback that will be addressed under setback relief hereinafter included.
Mr.Nicetta has indicated that his denial decisions are based upon the 1999 Zoning By Laws. Clearly
�- - -- -
� � �"`��
15 �
v �
ti
� ,,�.,�.
�� G �`y�
n
L)
ted
Li
n �a�u�c2� C�ir�2ee�d
n `,r//uacJ°rc9lcs,r�a1.l�ich°,uxlla 096'90 �i,�.urti•�,a.�9aci°u�ett9 07970
u �•78�7�.¢7'�7 ���•976'7•��.�.�50
976'74A.02p50
December 26,2000
u North Andover Community Development
n Planning Board
27 Charles street
L' 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:
n 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
fl 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
4 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
n floor 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
Li 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.
tV
These grades are controlled by an access road section that is so designed to collect all runoff by the slopes
n 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
r 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
n 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
n 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
r
u
f
LJ 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
L; 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.
VThe 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 (116300sf) which
represents only the industrial land or 67.5% of the land owned by S.P.E.C. The property lines as originally submitted
n 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 set backs,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
f� and a 45 buffer zone between residential and commercial zoning line. Clearly this approval forms a very sound and
i solid basis for the submission to the Planning Board.
tJ
The site as it exists currently contains a restaurant(Jimmys Pizza)and a miniature golf course at street level
P with a parking area existing above the two operating commercial entities.In other words the site as it exists contains
V 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..
I
V
TABLE 1 ZONES&AREAS
n
V Zone Acres Square Feet
1 1.53 66,700
n
LJ 2 0.20 8,800
3 0.94 40,800
Total 2.67 116,300
n
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
r drainage areas noted in Table 2.
L 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.
n 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.
n —2—
u
n
V-7.511 9 FT. MINIMUM TO EDGE OF
CAPSTONE
MASONRY
EL 251.0+1--
12
BACKFILL
�j • • �,+
a'w •t'
0TAMPED#57
GRAVITY STONE 9
WALL WITH
+�'i :+•
STONE INFILL
AND 5/8"BATTER
4 OMIT FOR 10 COURSE
WALL SECTIONS
FINISH .3 SEE PROFILE FOR
•�• `+�`
i • s'•
�•�. �'•
�a
•
GRADE �.a� +•a j•,�,�. +.•.•� LOCATIONS
EL.243.2
WALL SECTIONS)
•`�r!���� \—COMPACTED
SOIL BASE
DRAIN TO SURFACE AT LOCATIONS
NOTEDON
STANDARD FACE UNIT
ANCHOR UNIT ON INSIDE OF WALL(TYP) AT OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL(TYP)
TRUNK
UNIT
a�.cs a■c��IT- Tr
STANDARD
AT OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL(TYP) AN OR UNIT ON
INSIDE.
BLOCK LAYOUT BLOCK LAYOUT
AT CONVEX CORNERS
A TYPICALSEGIVIENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL :
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN
S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 . .D MAY NOT BE
REPRODUCEDWITHOUT THE E
STREET,NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845
LENGTH OF GRID (SEE SCHEDULE FOR
nn LENGTHS AND LOCATIONS)
# 1
Li
2 BEADS CONCRETE ADHESIVE
3"-4" TOPSOIL
AND GRASS
I CAP UNIT
%
LOCKING PINS .
i
i (TYPICAL) =
LJ
I
NATURAL
IN-SITU SOIL
= STONEWALL UNIT' TYPICAL
o GRID LAYER
.n •% e
n PROVIDE FILTER FABRIC 0
Li BETWEEN BACKFILL AND
BACKFILL
N
DRAINAGE STONE I SOIL
n II e i
_ ..........
Lj 1/4"TO3/4" �/ LINE INTERFACE
O; CRUSHED STONE WITH FILTER FABRIC
.5 FOR DRAINAGE
r ° FINISH GRADE 1 IN.;
= o
i
e i
S,min ,��• 45
n 4"PERFORATED PIPE
i Li (ROLL IN FILTER FABRIC)
12" VARIES TO SUIT DRAINAGE
n
COMPACTED SOIL FOOTING —
OR
2000 TO 2500 PSI CONCRETE
i
t�
4-0"MIN.
n
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.
L
i 11B
n z
t 1 t Ble Btu
{ 1 A
11 t
SECTION A-A
319 HOLES
1 + �_
` iRSLOTMERi.NGH 53/4
t
+ RREOULAR FACE
r
t+31a
NOMINAL DIMENSIONS
(BASED ON AS CAST DIMENSIONS)
AlleaYimi&W A TYPICALSEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL FIGURE 2
CAV2tee WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
4Aarpim X'e..�.�aw"ofasn DECEMBER 26,2000
�'. S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
les 720ANf7 THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
f8.islr.�utretS°erlcss, 0!970 ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
.97X740,yffe STREET,NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01845 IONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
n
Li 194.19 N 280 31' W
F
C
RESIDENTIAL ZONE
1.285 ACRES
L
os
� N O
N
o ai
to M
(J N
a 20 W
4St�j �3� o
2 e z
On
As so
i•
�•
PERIMETER PLANT
U z
SCALE 1"=10D' w
D
rn
Z
3 0
hNDUCRES IALZONE JI ..
O
>
� z
y N
h
D
to z
; T
g
W
�{r �o Q_
0
V .................. N
.............
z
..................................................
.................... ................... .. ........... z
W
M
.............
...........
z
O
OSGOO 3060�2' `..` 8b 9 ,
o sT ?14 0 f, :
PLAN OF ALL LAND OWNED BY S.P.E.C. REALTY FIGURE 3
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
DECEMBER T200o
S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
ft p�.eG�'. iust.�.lens �t�619Jo ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
97�7.w/u5o STREET,NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01922 IONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
f '
u
U
[") NorthAndover
L Department
I '
IJ
n
L
T« William Suirwan,Chaiffm Zoning Board of AMmIs
Fill Lt Andrew Melnikas
am Ghief Win V.polar
Data 17128100
Rye 1591 0Vcd A
R
I
V
The North Andover Fire Departed has reviewed the plans forthe proposed slue and suppoit said plan
given the fest the buidirgs wits be sprfnNemd ,master connected 2nd will have acceptable access for
efner8ency vehicles.Freese car should thane W any queW0119.
V
C
V
C�
n
& � ed FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL FIGURE 4
Kajralt.?f F1SF-;Z erg WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
DECEMBER 26,2000
S.P.E.C.REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
7g¢ 7"7 THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
��.lQs�tnset�alene d�A�o>v7o ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
'.-.7 97R-74f-Mf& STREET,NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01845 CONSENTOFBOTH AUTHORS
L
4 .
u
r
128 . e
126- '
n 124. ZO- . ' �_ 128
122. X26
V 120 - ST*G PAVEM NTP
4124
U 118
116. 4.422
lit-
110
11- t��-h1:�• •.• � ^ +
108 2 '`'` ^r ,`4. 120
r i
106%10
• '•118
116
Li
' .;' ' �` .• '�� ' 414
102•'
+112
LLi
`
100 •.'•
.- { 110
•.108
STRUCNG ,;106
` � F
n "'..?�. xs '�A►G,, 104
OSG00
D
TRFFT
. 102
LiPLAN OF EXISTING CONDTIONS AND ZONES
FOR DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
SCALE 1"=100'
k
glaAa &-sIllenYlmaded PLAN OF EXISTING CONDTIONS AND ZONES FIGURE 5
FOR DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS REPORT DATE
r ������ ;l;y �� � WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN DECEMBER 26,2000
' 4�a�ec�s�irw� iwafecllsr.�f�OlB90
7ef-7"71f7 S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(C H RIS THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
Li 1�.�.nLds.�ixat5o.��r,�A(o�9jo ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD NWITHOUTTHE WRITTENED
n STREET NORTH ANDOVER MA.01845 r
ONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
V
4 '
u
S
u
r? TABLE 2
DRAINAGE AREAS&CLASSES BY ZONE
Zone Class Area(ksf) Area(Acres) Area(sq.mix10") 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
L' Golf Surface 8.4 0.193 0.30
Sand 4.6 0.106 0.17
n Gal Gross 22.7 0.521 0.81
1 ,
U
Zone 2 Total and 8.8 0.202 0.32 20
Banking
i
LJ 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 5.3
{'1
u 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.
U
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
C 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..
C' -3-
V
S ,
'—' 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
`n on Osgood Street. Thus the runoff from zone 3 is handled by the existing storm drainage system noted.
L�
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 dams 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.
(�t The grass and sand area adjacent to the miniature golf course in zone 1 is a surface that is basically an open
L� 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).
C 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 major concern for pre and post construction conditions.
L-J 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
n basically indicate that the site goes from a high elevation of about 128 to elevation 100 or a slope of 28 feet in about
L530 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
n demonstrate the flow is generally from east to west and is overland flow with no visually discernable concentrated flow
L 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.
rJThe 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
E —4—
E
n
c
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
sf. 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
L; 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 landlocked 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 55/TR20. Recognizing that the drainage areas are small and that the limitation of TR55PTR20 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 34 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
v for sheet flow the time of concentration(Tc)by the relationship.
T,=Tc=0.007(nL)o.s/(P2 o.SSO.a) (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)
Pz is the 2 year 24 hour rainfall which is obtained from Figure B-3 or about 3 ipd
r) S is the overland flow slope(ft/ft)
i
u
Utilizing the appropriate values noted in Equation 1 reduces to
T,=Tc= 1.096 x 10'(L)'.8/S0.4 (2)
Li
For the three drainage zones noted the times of concentration developed from Equations 1 and 2 are shown
f'r in Table 3.
V
TABLE 3
TIMES OF CONCENTRATION FROM TR55 CRITERIA
Li
Zone Length(ft) Ah(ft) Slope ft/ft Tc(hrs)
n
l� 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
n
L
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
n
—5—
Li
i
L�
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'
L; 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
L 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.
U
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
r 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
Lr the existing pipe capacity his sound and at the veryleast that the original design was based upon the Rational approach.
PFor these reasons the Rational Method for the design and analysis of the storm drainage of this site was
Li chosen.
r 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
L' 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%
n impervious) and totally paved waterways (ie 100% impervious)being presented in the log-log form the average
L velocity(V)(fps)can be represented by the following simple equation
T 1 V= 14.95 So.413 P(1.0477�3 (4)
LJ where V and s are as previously noted and the term P represents the percent impervious. Table 4 represents the time
n
L
4�?
Li
l� of concentration for the 3 zones previously noted.
TABLE 4
TIME OF CONCENTRATION FROM EQUATION(4) (IN HOUR)
l i Zone Area(acres) P(%) S(ft/ft) Vc(pps) L ft Tc(lus
Li
1 1.46 67 0.021 2.8 280 0.028
n
2 0.27 1 0.25 7.7 - 40 0.0014
L, 3 0.94 58 0.052 4.4 230 0.015
E
The results in Table 4 also are indicative that the time of concentration in hours are well under the lower
n 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
n 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
L` both occur. Thus in this case veryclearly TR55 does not 1 with the rima reason beim the size ie a small size
Y apply primary 4' g (�
with smaller parts).
Now specifically the following will address the VBB comments of the review dated 11/30/00.
r 1. Unfortunately an earlier layout was included and did not reflect the approved plan by the ZBA. The correct
L site plan is herewith included as part of this submission.
n 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
L� consistent with the ZBA approval. Change made on site plan notes I-S for requested consistency.
L� 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
L clarification.
E —7—
f7
L,
Lj
F)
Ll
'yl
V
Lj
I%
Z:f 'ZZ7
C.
c oil
,./�"�f0
-Z
Va
cl) 0
0
cl)
LOCUS PLAN
SCALE I" = 1500' =0.284 mi
LOCUS PLAN WITH REVISED SCALE FIGURE 6
WAREHOUSE SITE DESIGN REPORT DATE
DECEMBER 26,2000
arwm S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS
Li .70l7,7_*y-.77f7 THIS REPORT OR FIGURES
j-'a'&A YA,,aYaAn 0Y971 ADAMS TRUSTEE),1591 OSGOOD MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA.01845 IONSENT OF BOTH AUTHORS
Lj
n
I ,
LJ 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
I, has not selected the wall type is premature. Also see data previously provided.
L, 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,
L' 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
11 average traffic flow into and out of the site of about 10 vpd indicating the worst case scenario being about 24
L, 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
ir heating and/or cooling. These lines are shown on the drawings in the same locations as originally noted.
L; 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
r for this operation would be for the use of toilet facility. The cost of water is borne by the owner. No other
Llocal 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
Er' 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
F7 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—
n
L
r
L,
n
S. 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 comment.
b. Done
c. Materials for the site are shown on Sheet 32. No sidewalks and curbs of any kind are proposed.
n d. Corrected by supplying the ZBA approved drawings.
Le. See ZBA approval
f. The ZBA approved plan was for 2 handicapped spaces. To satisfy this requirement 4 are now identified.
Very truly yours,
U
Prof.Thomas E. Phalen,Jr
TEP/efb
V enclosures
file:planboard
LI
n
L
i
a RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL - ,M� o ,
ZONING ry ZONING I-S �? • o •�� 1 o 10
329.60'N 610 29'E :' 158.05'N 610 29•E•• HYD ^ wry ^ HYD 1 371.74' N 61°26'E
�A02
.i ?r•-•-• ��:
• IN T . _ ^ I _ `:__ w S VttR._ _ _?� 20_x_ __ ; PROFILE LINE SHEE
T .r8 �'iL_ ' .�.._:,.• ' .may.�. ..$.�. ,.�.�.�.�.� .......T.
..RGI?---NCB- -+ 2'_ftCP.-%- ;-=---- --+n� --- ; ;------ I --�`i .s.- .:t.--tiMhTO PAV1
; ArN
ell
Of
ry
W.
•'.'V.
•: Ch +�" // O pp , tv
y1
ii 6I
Arw
y am '.? ( ,�o; 2
coIP
O F�
cc
. . HP
CD
Ac
Aj
2 ' � •� G u a
VENC SEE bBEL6 OW STORpj E "' _ M t
' 167.77' S 26° 29' W ,�-_.... ;, / HP^ �� c0 tv Q
-+s. '�-
� ----------- Q
NOTE: ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES TO BE FIRE SPRINKLED, MASTER ^ ^a A o , T IT
ALARM CONNECTED, AND GATE LOCK AND UNIT LOCKBOX ACCESS ^ ti \� \� -,.`� Jy y
^ . "
r6 "' SCD O
TO BE PROVIDED TO FIRE DEPT. SCALE: 1 IN = 40 FT oo �e� �Q 2
356.56'S 71°57• %y O
CRITICAL ZONING & PARKING DATA SEE PLAN W
APPROVED BY ZBA DATED APPROVED 818100 PROVIDED PARKING
LAND AREAS AND RATIOS 1. FRONTAL PARKING SHOWN 39
1. I-S ZONING COMMERCIAL:116305 SF(2.67 ACRES) 2. DELIVERY PARKING ONE SIDE
j� 2. EXISTING STRUCTURES: 5400 SF OF STRUCTURE ONLY 43
LLJJ 3. GROUND AREA NEW STRUCTURES: 23400 SF 3. TOTAL PARKING AVAILABLE 82
4. TOTAL OCCUPIED GROUND AREA: 28800 SF
5. GROUND BUILDING AREA TO TOTAL ACTUAL PARKING REQUIRED FROM ANALYSIS ACTUAL REQUIRED PARKING-
BUILDING AREA RATIO: 24.7% STANDARDS AND FIELD VIEWS VS. PARKING PROVIDED
6. STORAGE AREA(2 FLOORS): 50700 SF 1. RESTAURANT 32 47 NEEDED<< 82 PROVIDED&
7. GROSS FLOOR AREA 51480 FF 2. SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE 15 32 NEEDED<< 39 FRONTAL PROVIDED
APPROVED BY TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PARKING ANALYSIS 3. TOTAL REQUIRED 47 THUS PARKING IS ADEQUATE
PLANNING BOARD: CODE REQUIRED PARKING INDICATED TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN &
DATE 1. RESTAURANT PARKING 32 �H of
2. SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE o�� �% WAREHOUSE DESIGN 6-6
101
3. TOTAL AS PER CODE 133E WAREHOUSE DESIGN 9� �af a 90
ftmEN•1 H S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS 7"7
81 � ADAMS TRUSTEE), 1691 OSGOOD
TE STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA 0184
I stataG Soi,�`
�- .Som mat os9Ta
aNEW SPACES SHOWN THUS t,1� DECEMSER 27, 2000 SHEETS
RESIDENTIAL «—> COMMERCIALti • ,�p •�� o10
a ZONING ti ZONING N .^` 1 Ap o
371.74' N 61
329.60'N 610 29'E /• 158.05'N 610 29'•E•, 26'F
GATE& FENCE
a 4e
03
•7.
r'
910
a r ,
U /
2.
•
-
. �
�o
- t N
,2.,
t..�.._.._ 1.0 ca -0
• •• • 1 ' i` / .0 '• O O
'167.77 S 260 29' WA .0 , If
Z'\
o10 , , •�.,� �• r ;!,�( FEN
\
U � ^Ory � ����_.�� � \
356.56'S 710 57' yy
LUMINAIRE SPECS: TYPE 4, SHORT, CUTOFF LUMINAIRE:
LAMP 400 WATT METAL HALIDE-ED-28 ENVELOPE: 32000
a LUMENS: LLF 0.72
NO.OF UNITS 10
LUMENS PER FIXTURE 32000
AREA OFSITE116300+/-SF LIGHTING AND FENCE PLAN
MFG.COEF.OF U 0.3 SCALE: 1 IN = 40 FT
MAINT.COEF. 0.4
MAX.MOUNTING HEIGHT 20'
HEIGHT FACTOR 30/20=1.5
aAVG.FC.=IOx32000xO.3xO.4x1.5/116300= AVERAGE F. C . ON SITE
0.5 FOOT CANDLES SH OF
LIGHTING & FENCE PLAN FOR �/�a�eiL &,S� C�irizitrd
o'�� 4tcq� WAREHOUSE DESIGN
1"1011ft yG 4uupevrs�.ros
E WAREHOUSE DESIGN
N, y S.P.E.C. REALTY TRUST(CHRIS 78�7.es7&7
ADAMS TRUSTEE), 1691 OSGOOD
/STERE c�'c� STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA 0192 -r-o"AS' a
F`�s/QWAL .SPS, mat a�97o
QDECEMBER 27, 2000 SHEEr6 97B74�1�50
\
� aS
•' ''2s
• 777rjn % ' •••
\, ,Y• '?6
Y • ,
r y ,
In NG ►
cn
Z '
pZ ''o--- - %%
0 CA)
•�•'• / �'
•----
i .• '
Oco ...........
� o r
GO
Z N
N
f yO ,
1
co
r 4
,
. , 1
,.
/ 1
: 1 Mb
y s100. f ,IMPERVI , GOLF
{., iII` ,,, ••., GRASS' ' , ;•' �.
'10
%LF. � �,�' •' FSS • '�• : ;,\,
�'P 'J S
Sill
108
4� 3m f 4
o x ,y �.
m c m cn
-� n / .
T x
jJe ,
N Z m C N Z 1 / � \\ ,ter 106
o v _ t
cn z
z
cn z
N0Z
= cO7o m
O
S �.
Ln �
0s(;004)
Cr
Y
a
l �p01
_s£ .._�,66.09
NN
/
LU
ED
p 000
, /
r . nn
z W90
n
do-pie
� , 3
,Zz 090£
a
boy . � � ,'�''• � / l N � � R
LO
cc 00 w
• s
U
v'O a\ Z NHo�
Q
'•.VJ = �' w 5 °' > o
,•p i oC Oo 00
CL o
s, = i w W - ^ N
/�• �, '; a w z
90, X�y 7 / U OjIw- Q N
r , y
ny1 ; av � z
Of
g In
N z
ui U
• o:
• � �� 3 a w w
r;
w
• - u�
U(OTS
y '� >
z •' `a,
= �
r a
O00,
o ••';�.; do
z ;
US sy
Z
•�O '•
a 2
a
_ 1,01
NZI
... .......
90,•
. *w, .91
�.ONn
` '�•'•• 4 •'•,fid bd
Z
/yMINI
o
1Z 01
S LL
o /N
O/00o
40, , Z
Q
94
,
M -
O
N` •`. i i
r •
I
i i • i i r� i i
V31111 i i \
a3a00M
iON111SIX3iiiiiii ii
L