HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 SPR Engineer Review ALLEN & MAJOR
ASSOCIATES, INC.
100 Commerce Way
PO Box 2118
Woburn,MA 01888-0118
Tel: (781)935-6889
Pax: (781)935-2896
November 13, 2001
Ms.. Hiedi-Griffin RE: A&M Project#2001-17
North Andover Planning Board Proposed Office/Retail Development
27 Charles Street 1812 Turnpike Street, Route 114
North Andover, MA 01845 North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Ms. Griffin:
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (A&M), herewith submits an updated plan set and supporting
documentation for Site Plan Review for the property located at 1812 Turnpike Street and owned
by Jean Paul Proulx.
This latest plan set contains revisions made pursuant to the comments of Robert Nicetta,
Building Commissioner, in his letter dated November 6, 2001, as well as those of Timothy
Willett, Staff Engineer, in his letter dated October 18, 2.001.
For the purpose of clarification, I would like to address each comment and explain A&M's
consequent revisions:
October 18, 2001 letter from Timothy Willett, Staff Engineer:
1, All sewer lines shall be installed in 314" stone, from 6" below invert to the top of the pipe.
The trench detail for sewer/drain pipe installation on Sheet D-1 must be changed.
So changed.
2. The sewer line under Turnpike Street to SMH#1 shall be 8" diameter and will be a public
sewer after all required testing has been performed. The sewer lines from SMH41 to the
building will be privately owned and maintained.
The portion of the sewer service under Turnpike Street has been increased to 8" diameter. .
The applicant agrees with Mr. Willett's description of ownership,
3. All sewer lines mustpars leakage and deflection tests. .
These tests will be performed.
civil engineers • structural engineers + land surveyors
4. The proposed sewer lines.are all 6" PVC at 0.5%slope. Minimum slope for 6" PVC is 1%.
The designer must increase the slope to 1%; or increase all pipe diameters to 8".
The slopes of all 6"pipes are now at least 1%.
5. The sewer line from SMH#I to SMH#2 cannot be installed under the proposed retaining
wall. It appears that the sewer'line can be moved into the driveway entrance while
maintaining 10'separation f-om water lines.
The sewer service has been relocated,
6. Sewer mitigation fees apply to this facility.
T. Change #14 of the Water Notes on sheet ABB.to; The 6"frreline must pass a pressure test of
200 PSI for I hour,
So changed..
8. A Massachusetts approved double check valve assembly backflow preventor must. be
installed on the fire line,
This will be installed,
November 6, 2001 letter from Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner;
1 Pursuant to the Zoning By-law the front setback along Route 114 Shall be a minimum of 100 .
feet. The setback on Drawing C-2 is 93 feet as the building indicates.a building overhang of
8 feet over the foundation, A petition for a variance must be submitted to the Zoning Board
of Appeals (ZBA),
The overhang will be removed. As an alternative, the applicant respectfully requests that
the Board consider the allowance of a shorter, cantilevered overhang (an.extended eave),
or perhaps canvas awnings over windows and doors.
2. The plan shows varying driveway widths from 18 feet to 24 feet. The Zoning Bylaw requires
unobstructed driveways not less than 25 feet wide. A ZBA variance is required.
All driveways that serve parking stalls have been increased to 25 feet in width. Mr.
Nicetta, in a telephone conversation on Friday, Novemeber 9"', 2001, indicated that his
interpretation of the Zoning Bylaw prohibits any driveway less than,25 feet wide. He
made reference to Paragraph 8.1.7 of the Zoning Bylaw, which.reads, "A parking space
shall mean an area of not less than 9'x18', accessible over unobstructed driveways not
less than 25' wide." The two 18 foot-wide. driveways on the plan are designated as one-
way, with appropriate signage and pavement.markings. These drives provide for traffic
circulation, and in the event of an emergency, allow access to all four sides of the
building by emergency personnel. At the discretion of the Board, the applicant is willing
to remove these driveways completely, or to install signage restricting travel to
emergency vehicles.
3. Foot Note 1, Paragraph—2 reads in part "Adjacent to residential districts, an additional 15
foot side or rear setback shall be required. The first 15 feet of the total setback abutting the
residential district shall remain open and green, be suitably landscaped, unbuilt upon,.
unpaved, and not parked upon". The plan does not indicate compliance with this buffer
requirement at the rear lot line.
A 15' green strip has been provided.
4. No elevation or floor plans have been submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. It is
impossible, at this time, to determine if the building height requirement has been met.
Without floor plans of the building indicating the type and square footage of retail and office
space/use, it is not possible to determine the number of required parking spaces.
These materials were submitted previously by the applicant, and were believed to already
be in the possession of the appropriate officials. If this is not the case, copies will be
made available promptly to all who require them.
5. The Pylon Sign as shown on drawing C-2, is to be referred for sign by-law compliance to the.
Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer for permitting.
The Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Office shall be so notified.
I wish to thank you and the members of the North Andover Planning Board in advance for your
gracious allowance of this re-submittal. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES,INC.
e Hamm B. Smith,P.E.
for Project Manager
cc: Jean Paul Proulx
Elmer Pease
AAA
ALLEN,& MAJOR
November 23,.2001 ASSOCIATES, INC.
100 Commerce Way
Ms, Heidi Griffin Re: 1812 Turnpike Street PO sox 2118
Te
l:Town Planner Office/Retail Development Te ment : ( MA 01888-0118
(781)935-6889
27 Charles Street Traffic Impact Analysis Update Fax: (781)935-2896
North Andover, Massachusetts.0 184 5 A&M Project#2001-17
Dear Ms. Griffin:
As per your request,.Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (A&M) 'has reviewed the traffic report
prepared for the proposed 66,700 sq.ft. office building that is to be located to the south of the
1812 Turnpike Street site. This report has been compared with the report previously prepared for
1812 Turnpike Street, and updates have been made where necessary.
In November of 1999, a traffic impact and analysis report was prepared by Highway & Traffic
Signal Design, Inc. (HTSD), of Nashua, New Hampshire for ,a proposed office and retail
development to be located on the property at 1812 Turnpike Street in North Andover. This study
is summarized in a report entitled, "Traffic Impact & Access Study, Technical Memorandum."
Since the issuance of that report, the traffic generation characteristics of the proposed project
have changed. In addition, a larger office development has been proposed on Berry Street,south
.of the 1812 Turnpike Street site. A traffic impact and analysis report was prepared for this
project as well, entitled, "Traffic Impact and Access Study," by Dermot J. Kelly and Associates,
Inc. (DJK).
Both reports were prepared in accordance with Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOEA/EOTC) guidelines. Five-
year growth predictions were made for two scenarios: No-Build and Build. Traffic growth
predictions under the No-Build scenario are made by applying historical volume growth rates to
current measurements; in this case, an annual growth rate of 1% was used by both studies.
Under the Build scenario, background.volumes are predicted just as in the No-Build case, but
predicted traffic generation fiom the project in question is computed as well.
Because the adjacent project had not yet been proposed, the HTSD report contains traffic
generation and growth predictions that fail to account for the traffic generated by the 66,700
sq.ft. office facility. The DJK report, however, partially accounts for the 1812 Turnpike St.
proposal. Traffic generation for 1812 Turnpike is estimated for a 10,000 sq.ft.retail facility, and
the effect from this additional traffic is included within DJK's calculations and estimates.
The recent change in proposed use of the 1812 Turnpike St. project causes a correlating change
in the number and timing of vehicle-trips. Office use generates a much lower traffic volume than
does retail use,. The shift fiom 50% retail and 50% office to 25% retail and 75% office will
lower the average daily number of trips generated by the development. Traffic generation
estimates within the HTSD and DJK reports, as well as within all new estimates made by Allen
& Major Associates were computed using volume data from "Trip Data," 6th Volume, Institute
of Transportation Engineers, 1998.
civil engineers 0 structural engineers • land surveyors
HTSD 1999 DJK .2000 . Current Traffic Not
Estimates Estimate Proposal, Accounted for
50% Office, 10,000 sq.ft. 75% Office, by DJK
50%Retail Retail 25%Retail Report
Weekday Daily Total 640 412 518 106
Weekday PM Peak Hr,Total 90 26 101 75
Incoming 22 11 21 10
Outgoing 68 15 80 65
Saturday Daily Total 466 . 426 264 -162
Saturday Midday Peak Hr,Total 56 . 50 33 -17
Incoming 28 25. 17 -8
Outgoing 28 25 16 -9
Notei the vehicle trip estimates above represent traffic entering and exiting the proposed development.
Table 1. Predicted Number of Vehicle Trips for 1812 Turnpike Street.
From the column on the far right of Table 1,,it can be seen that the effect of the 1812 Turnpike
St. proposal is largely accounted for.. There is a slight increase in trips generated during the
weekday peak evening hour, however there is a significant decrease in the Saturday peak mid-
day hour.
The only notable impact of this difference in traffic volume is the increase of 65 vehicle trips on
Turnpike Street during the weekday peak evening hour. This represents an increase of
approximately 2% over DJK's estimate.
To mitigate any adverse effect to traffic on Turnpike Street, the main site driveway was designed
and will be constructed in full accordance with current MassHighway design guidelines for
commercial driveways. The site exit on Turnpike Street will be stop sign controlled and will
have more than double the required site distance. While delays are expected on the site exit
drive, all backup will be within the site and is not expected to impact through traffic on Turnpike
Street. The peak hour maximum backup anticipated at this exit is four vehicles.
The site driveway on Berry Street is expected to accommodate no more than 10% of all site-
generated traffic. All movements at this location are expected to operate at LOS A.
I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
ALLEN &MAJOR ASSOCIATES
a ..
tgamin B. Smith,P.E.
ior Project Manager
AAK
ALLEN & MAJOR
NONTH ANDOVER ASSOCIATES, INC.
November 26, 2001 PLANNING DEPARWENT 100 Commerce Way
PO Box 2118
Woburn,MA 01888-0118
Ms. Heidi Griffin Re: 1812 Turnpike Street Tel: (781)935-6889
Town Planner Office/Retail Development Fax; (781)935-2896
27 Charles Street Response to Comments
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 A&M Project#2001-17
Dear Ms. Griffin:
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (A&M) has received your November 9, 2001 letter containing
your comments relative to the proposed development at 1812 Turnpike Street. All outstanding
issues listed in this letter have now been addressed through modifications to the submittal
package and/or further explanation, Responses to these outstanding comments are provided
below:
Comment 5: TOPOGRAPHY- Contour intervals are depicted in 1 intervals rather than the
required 2', A one foot contour interval was chosen to properly illustrate the drainage
characteristics of a relatively flat site. The applicant seeks a waiver from this requirement.
Comment 6: ZONING INFORMATION., Zoning information has been provided and is located
on sheet C-2, The Building Commissioner determined that with the building overhang the
setback is 93 , the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 100'for the front setback. The plan
does not indicate compliance with the buffer requirements at the lot line abutting the residential
district. The building overhang has been altered so as to be considered an eave and therefore not
subject to the setback requirement. The required 15 foot buffer has been provided along the rear
lot line.
Comment 9: BUILDING ELEVATION. Building elevations have not been provided.
Elevations and floor plans are provided.
Comment 10: LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: The applicant has proposed 79 spaces
required by the Zoning Bylaw. There are two curb cuts proposed far access and egress, one off
Route 114, and one off Berry Street. The number of parking spaces has been reduced to 75. The
proposed building use has been altered to lower the.parking requirements as per Section 8.1.2 of
the Zoning Bylaw. A summary of parking calculations is provided below:
Use Gross Floor Area Parking Ratio Required Parking
First Floor
Office 5,000 1 space per 300 sq.ft, 17 spaces
Retail 5,000 5 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. 25 spaces
Second Floor.
Office 10,000 1 space per 300 sq.ft. 33 spaces
Retail 0 5 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. 0 spaces
Total 75 spaces
civit engineers a structural engineers 4 tand,surveyors
Comment 1l: LOCATION OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT• The applicant has filed a
Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission issued an
Order of Conditions on October 24, 2001.
Comment 12: LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: There are several types of signs proposed on the
site: 1) Stop signs, 2) Handicapped parking signs, 3)pylon sign, 4) Do not enter.. Details have
been provided for the stop sign, handicapped parking sign and do not enter, however a detail of
the pylon sign should be submitted, The design of the sign has been set aside for the present to
allow future tenants an opportunity to provide input in its final configuration. Prior to the
construction of this sign, a detail drawing of it shall be submitted to the.Building Commissioner
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.
Comment 13: LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The entrance off Route 114 is marked as
one way showing a driveway width differing from 24' to 18'. Section 8.1.7 of the Zoning Bylaw
requires the width to be 25'. Also along the drive is the loading zone the applicant needs to
demonstrate how.the trucks will be entering and exiting the loading zone. The site entrance at
Turnpike Street (Route 114) is proposed to accommodate two-way traffic. Traffic exiting the
site via this drive will be stop sign-controlled. Drives and entrances serving parking stalls have
been widened to 25 feet. The two 18 foot wide drives provide site traffic circulation and access
for emergency vehicles. These two drives are to be designated for one way traffic through the
use of signs and pavement markings. The eastern drive also serves as a loading zone for the
proposed building. During loading and unloading, access through this drive may be blocked.
All site traffic will still have 25 foot wide unobstructed access to the nearest site entrance. Also,
three sides of the building and all main entrances will still be accessible to emergency vehicles
and personnel.
Comment 14: LIGHTING FACILITIES. Ten lights are proposed on the site with four different
styles of lighting. Some are double luminalre, others are single. There are 5 lights proposed to
be wall mounted. The applicant must prove to the Board that the lights abutting the residential
property are inwardly reflected. All proposed lights on the site are downward-reflecting to
prevent the illumination of abutting properties. No light is proposed closer than 45 feet to a
residential lot line. It should be noted that an extensive vegetated wetland area exists to the east
of the site which will further ensure that site-generated light will not cause a nuisance to the
abutting residential property.
Comment 15: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The applicant should provide an updated traffic
impact study reflecting the recent decision for Berry Street. Updated traffic impact information
has.been provided.
Comment 16: COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: The applicant needs to provide a copy of the
State Highway Driveway Permit application. Provided.
Comment 21: FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant needs to provide this, Provided.
i
i
Comment 22: COMMUNITYIMPACT: The applicant needs to provide this. Provided.
I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
ALLE *,MAJOR ASSOCIATES
einjamin B. Smith,P.E. ,roject Manager
AAK
ALLEN & MAJOR
ASSOCIATES,INC.
December 4, 2001 100 Commerce Way
ISO Box 2118
Woburn,MA 01888-0118
Ms. Heidi Griffin Re: 1812 Turnpike Street Tel: (781)935-6889
Town Planner Office/Retail Development Fax: (781)935-2896
27 Charles Street Response to Comments
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 A&M Project 92001-17
Dear Ms. Griffin:
Since our submittal of supplemental information concerning the above referenced project to your
office on Monday, November 26, 2001, additional changes have been made to the application
materials. Specifically, the North Andover Building' Commissioner, Robert Nicetta, has
indicated his dissatisfaction with several aspects of the project. Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
(A&M) believes that the new planset and information submitted herewith address all of his
concerns.
1. The one-way drives have been eliminated from the plan.
2, The parking lot has'been reconfigured to provide more parking and at the same time
provide additional green space.
3, The building overhang has been eliminated entirely.
4. An updated elevation plan is submitted herewith.
5. An updated floor plan showing proposed uses is submitted herewith. Mr. Nicetta has
requested that the exact nature of both the retail and office uses be put on the floor
plan. At this time, tenants for the proposed building have not yet been secured. It is
understood that certain retail uses (e.g., restaurant) have more restrictive parking
requirements, and therefore may not be suitable for this building.
I hope that I have addressed all of your questions and concerns. If you need any additional
information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
ALLEN & A)OR ASSOCIATESIk
-
6)
mith,P.E. a
fSefor Project Manager
,
civil engineers 41 structural engineers • land surveyors
SUMMARY OF
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
From John C. Chessia, P.E., of Coler & Colantonio, Inc.
FOR
OFFICE/RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
1812 TURNPIKE STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
PREPARED FOR
Jean P. Proulx
1812 Turnpike Street
North Andover, MA
PREPARED BY
Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 2118
Woburn, MA 01888-0118
October 11, 2001
SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
1812 Turnpike Street
North Andover,Massachusetts
Attachments:
• Letter 1, from John C. Chessia,P.E., to Heidi Griffen, dated July 2, 2001.
• Letter 2, from John C. Chessia, P,E., to Scott Massee, dated September 10, 2001.
• Letter 3, from John C. Chessia, RE., to Scott Massee, dated September 10, 2001.
Letter 1: Mr. Chessia lists his outstanding concerns as they relate to the Site Plan Review
for the project.
Letter 2: Since July 2, 2001, Mr. Chessia has received and reviewed supplemental
information provided by Allen& Major Associates, Inc. He lists all of the concerns that
he has had during the full history of the project, as well as the efforts made to mitigate
them. He also indicates whether or not the concerns have been addressed to his
satisfaction. As of September 10, 2001, one comment remains; he is concerned about the
calculations performed to model Detention Pond 2.
Letter 3: After receipt of Mr. Chessia's comments on September 10, 2001, Allen &
Major immediately provided him with updated calculations. Mr. Chessia responded later
during the same day with this final letter. Within this letter,he indicates that all of his
comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Summary: While letters 2 and 3 are addressed to Scott Masse, chairman of the North
Andover Conservation Commission, Heidi Griffin was included in the circulation list of
both. In Letter 3, Mr. Chessia's indication that all of his concerns have been adequately
addressed appears to relate to both the proceedings of the Concervation Commission, as
well as those of the Planning Boad.
d
W02/2001 10:36 FAX 781 982 5490 COLER & COLANTON10 0002/003
LR
CL.�NTH Z
ENGINEE"S AND SCIENTISTS
July 2,2001
Heidi Griffin
Platuutig Board
Town Hall Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Engineering Review _
Offiice/Retaii Development i8i2 Turnpike Street
Dear Ms. Griffin:
In response to your request, Color&Colaniotuo, Inc. has reviewed the submittal package
for the above referenced site. it is our understanding that the original submittal was
withdrawn and this is a new filing for the site. Since the plan is essentially the same we
have used our prior reviews as a reference. Qur efforts included a comparison of
information submitted with respect to the requirements of the Zoning Bylaws. We also
compared the design assumptions and calculations with standard engineering practice.
The submittal package included the following information:
Plates Entitled
• "Site Development Plans for Officelkeiail Development 1812 Turnpike
Street", located in North Andover, Klass." consisting of eleven sheets dated
VM/61,prepared by Allen and Major Associates Inc. keceived i 0/24/06,
Reports Entitled: .
• "lfesponse letter'", dated 4/23/01, prepared by Allen and Major Associates.
Received 10/24/00.
it should be noted that we have not reviewed the site plan for the Conservatlon
Commission, however where applicable comments relate to the site plan review,we have
commented. Our previous review letters to the PIanning Board dated November 7, 2000
and a review letter to the Conservation Commission dated January 26, 260i should be
referenced. We have only included applicable comments.
101 Accord Park Drive 781-982.5400
Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:781-982-5490
07/02/2001 10:36 VAX 781 982 5490 COLEiR & COLANTONJO �003/003
i
Section 8.3)5.)vii.) The maintenance drive for Pond 2 appears to have adequate width,
however it appears that the volume of the pond has been.reduced. The submittal package
did not include updated calculations for runoff. Updated calculations should be
submitted to assure the pond is adequately sized.
Section 8.3)5.)6.)ii.)f) A "Permit to Access State Highway"will be required to construct
the retaining wall along the south side of Pond 3. Another retaining wall is proposed
along the southerly edge of the access drive. Reportedly, all construction will take place
to the north of the proposed retaining wall and would not impact the no-disturbance zone.
We recommend that this construction should be monitored to verify these claims.
Section IV.)B.) State Stormwater Standards:
Standard 2
The volume within pond 3. appears to have been reduced in order to accommodate
maintenance access. Calculations should be submitted to assure the Pond is adequately
sized.
Standard 4
The TSS calculation sheet has been revised to include a pre-treatment unit. The State has
approved the pre-treatment unit for 77%removal. It appears using the 77%removal that
the standard has been met. A detail of the stormceptor should be included in the planset.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficient for your needs. We would be pleased to meet with the
Board or the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have.any
questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER&COLANTCNIIO,INC.
ohn C. Chessia,P.E.
xc Allen and Major Associates, Inc.
Jim Rand
egs/JCC
I
09/12/2001 14:35 PAX 781 982 5490 COLER &. COLANTONIO IA002
R
1
COLER
COLANTON10 z
ENGINEFRB AND sClENTtSTS
September 10,2001
Scott Masse
Conservation Conunission
Town Hall Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
Office/Retail Development 1812 Turnpike Street
Notice of Intent
Dear Mr.Masse:
In response to your request, Coler & Colantonio, Inc. has reviewed the supplemental
submittal package for the above referenced site. Our efforts included a comparison of
information submitted with respect to the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Bylaw
and 'Wetlands Regulations. We also compared the design assumptions and calculations
with the Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering practice. The
submittal package included the following information:
Plans Entitled
• "Site Plan for Office/Retail Development 1812 Turnpike Street", located in
North Andover,Mass,"consisting of eleven sheets,cover dated 7/20/01, plans '
revised on dates shown on the cover sheet Prepared by Allen and Major
Associates Inc. Received 7/23/01.
Reports Entitled:
• "Response letter" and "Drainage Calculations", dated 7/20/01, Prepared by
Allen and Major Associates. Received 7/23/01.
Our latest comments are in italics, previous comments are screened:
It is unclear that the Conservation Commission has approved the Wetland Boundaries.
Reporiedly, Richelle Martin has ccur/irned the wedand bowldrn-v. Satis/avtorih>
addressed.
Section Il,)4.) It does not appear feasiblo to construct the proposed retaining walls
without impacting the 25-fagot no distut'bance zone. The plans should include a
construction detail of the wall. The plans should also indicate required construction urea
to install the wall.
_ 1812 Turnpike Street
101 Accord Paris Drive 781-982-5400 1
Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:781-982-5490
1
09XI212001 14:36 FAX 781 982 5490 COLER & COLANTONIO Cj0O3
A wall detail has hcearn added to the ideal,~. Reportedly, construction of the relcaittitl, 1,"etil
jvill artily 1,eq Lire distltl-hcutc�(! to the rear of the irall and not cause canA! irrtpaer heyond the
lctyoltl lille. The COrrunission should require iltspeclion fY this construction to a'erijj these
claitn.s. No,f iarther c:ollatl left t.
Section IV-)B.) State Stormwater Standards:
Standard 1
Satisfactory subject to other comments.
Standard 2
`rhe calculations indicate an increase in post development leak discharge for the I and 2-
year storms. Inlet capacity calculations should be performed and submitted for Catch
Basins 1, 2, 4 anti 9. Catch basins should provide sufficient capacity to capture the 100-
year runoff without bypass. We anticipate high groundwater would impact the design of
the detention basins.The hydrology model should include all offsite drainage tributary to
the project site. In particular,off-site flow from the west would flow into Detention Basin
1. Ofl'site flows to this basin would increase flood levels, which could impact the design.
The submitted hydrologic calculations indicate that the storm sewer system would
surcharge during the 25-year storm.The pipe analysis model should reflect ibis condition.
The proposed ga•ading in the vicinity of Detention Basin 1 does not reflect the detail. The
tinge of concentration calculation for post development area t#4 should be submitted The
calculations indicate runoff storage in the detention basins below the outlet invert. Test
Pits should be performed by a certified soil evaluator and witnessed by an agent of the
Towle. Based on published soil data, groundwater is estimated at 1-2 feet below existing
grade, The bottom elevation of Detention Basin 2 is approximately 2-feet lower than the
adjacent wetland.
The latest revised runoff calculations inclicaate no net increase in peak runoff from the
site, however the system design requires rnrdUi'catiou to meet local and state design
standards. These modifications worded likely change the s;)venz model and rung f
characteristics. These design madifications should he suhtnitted and reriewed prior to
final approval of runoff ealculations.
Design issues still- remain. In particular, the design does riot account for the 12"
p erf)rated PVC. outlet. It is assumed that the 12 " PVC is intended to have openings at
the bottom of•the pipe at some unspecified size and location. It does not appear feasible
to construct the riser as indicated given the elevation of the openings and the inven of the
12" PI/C.
The outlet structure for Pond #1 has beers modified to include 3-orifices ill place of the
riser (ripe. Thrs outlet should include a trash ruck to present clogging. This redesigned
outlet has been modeled,for the 100-year storm.
Satinfa.ctorily addressed.
1812 Turnpike Street
2
09/12/2001 14:36 FAX 781 982 5490 _ .._ COLER & COI.ANTONIO 004
171ere is no subarea plate for each catch basin €utall-'ses. Inlet calwlcily calculations have
?!ni been stcbrliiti tL Tire, hydroldic grade lirte,fc)r the stormw€lter s,y.steill has been. modeleel
for the 10-year stoat, /101W►•cr the too-year storm should be analyzed fi)r stormwater
hypass. The drain Ripe from catch basi12 7 to DM11 4 will be exposed ers deli fled. The
design of Pond_") ivill result in the flooclilIg of Illf? State Hightf•civ R1114.
I'll.e hydreaidic grade line has been modeled fin- the 100-your storm, The inlet report
indicates Catch Basins 1 eind 2 as located at a sag, however the plans indicate these
basins on a slope-. Tire design plaatc show the drain pipe from Catch Basin #17 to be
exposed, however the catchment area plans indivale .5-Pet of CoVer-. It is unclear- cr.s to
which plan is accurate. A retaining vvall has been proposed along the southern side (3f
Pored V. A detail and design for-this wall should be .submitted as this wall is intended to
r€rain approximately 2-feet of water. The construclion ol'this wall will impoet the ROW
,lor RI. 114. The proposed swill as designed will trap water within the Hassachusetts
Ilighwa'), R.0.TV "Ie recommend that the Conservation Commission approval be
conditioned upon the approval fi•orn the Ha,ssachusemv Highwery Depearrment since the
design relics upon this we ill as are integral part of'the drainage system.
Catch betshis I and 2 have been expanded to trench drains, Adequate cone)• has beet?
provided for the outlet from CB V. Reportedly, the proposed retraining wall along Pond
#3 will be back-filled within the Maysachuseits Highway ROW
Comment remains regarding the backfill within the Massachusetts Highway R.O.W. .Spot
grades should be shown on Clue top of lite walls.
Spot grades have been shown on the top of the walls, satisfactorily addressed.
The reel€}ntion ponds have been designed with similm, however they do not maintain
adequate separation if? high groundwater to facilitate infiltration, Infiltration Basins
should be located a minimum of'-feet above seasonal lrigli groundwater. Test pits have
been peij'ormed in the vicinity of the proposed basins, which indicate ground water
within inches of'the sttrlace. Pie datci supplied for test pit 6 is inconsistent. The lest pit
logs do not indicate arty!rll as noted in the percolation test log.
The detention basin outlets have been redesigned. however-. as designed have a sump of
less than two feet. Typically, a detention bc;tin should be designee to pitch to they outlet,
Vie outlet for Pond #2 is indicated as a 4"-PVC pipe ai grade. This pipe would be
inaccessible and likely to clog due its site and location.
Pond#1 hers been designed with a minor slope. The outlet to fond#2 should be modified
to a struc•taire wl(t trash rack it)prevem clogging.
Ponds #1 and#2 are. rnodt,'fied to show minimal .slopes within the bottom oj'the basins.
The slopes range benl`ee12 .1%Cnid.5%. The outlet strarturer forponds#1 rind#2 have
been modif e!d and include a trash rack. Satin%cictorily addressed.
Pervious, critshed stone berms should be proposed between forebays and detention
basins. The Pond III,outlet .structure should be modeled as designed and designed to
completely drain the pond. 1'he proposed bean around they proposed outlet riser in Pond
1812 Turnpike Street
3
09X1212001 14:37 FAX 781 982 5490 COLER & COLANTONIO Z 0O5
#1 should be indicated cis c:rtished .stones. As elesigileel they : OW? se+e'er system will
snrchearge and likely J)'pass the basin(p01241 1 j. 7itiltirctter Coliditif)fis shoiild be (,Javi(ied.
Crushed clone bc!rni.s have been added between cilJ ft)reybays and basins. The prapnscd
berm around the riser pipe in Pond #1 lias been tnodr'j%ed to crushed Stolle. The slorta
sc►ver ss=stein lids beets inO de1ed for the 100-Year siorm and clues not indicate surcharging
conditic)us.
Please see other responses within this comment,
Coritoirt.s to the west of'proposed Pond#1 have been clarifl d. Reporlerdly, all easettient
fi)r the proposed pond ivill be established fbJlowing approval. It is noted that the owner
of the abittling properry is also the developer oj'this project. The grading in this vicinity of
the basin is consistent Frith the detail. The time of oncentrcition,for the post development
area#4 hits been submitied.
Standard 3
The calculated recharge system area is inconsistent with the area indicated. on the plans.
The infiltration trench as design would require high groundwater at or below elevation
130.00 to provide the recommended 2-feet of separation. The stage storage calculations
indicate asytn► ctry in area between stages 1.13 and 1.88-feet. Test pits should be
performed in this area to determine the high groundwater elevation.The recharge volume,
permeability and trench volume calculations should be submitted.
Volume ealeiticttions fi)r the proposed recharge sN.-slents were submitted and exceed the
required recharge volume. Stage storage calculations have been clarified and 2-jieet of
ground►rater separalion has been provided beneath the proposed recharge system. Test
pits and percolation tests have been performed in the vichtity of'the, proposed recharge
systeni. Satisfctc:torily addressed.
Standard 4
The TSS removal calculations are inconsistent with the Stormwater Management Policy.
Drain manholes (correction catch basins) should include four foot sumps to receive full
TSS removal credit. 11 is unclear that the site will be swept fiegUently enough to receive
credit. A completed standard DEP TSS calculation sheet should be submitted.
A standard TSS retnoi'al calculation shear should be submifred. Street sweeping
inspection should be conditioned its the Commissions approval.
The TSS calculation ,sheet has been provided with the response letter. Detention basin #.2
does not appear to cotiform to DEP Stormweiter design guidelines regarding average
detention tine. Outflow from detention basin #1 flows into detention Basin #3. This
treatment.series should provide adequate removal.
A Stormceptor pre-treatment unit is proposed upstream of Pond 2. The DMP's selected
appear to meet State TSS removal guidelines, satisfactorily addressed.
1812 Turnpike Street
4
09/-12/2001 14:38 FAX 781 982. 54,90 COLER & COLANTONIO 1�j008
E
I
Standard 5
The water quality volume should be calCUIated and treated in accordance with the
Storn1wilter ManagCIIICIt Policy.
The water qn ality 1-oh► ne has been calculated and will be treated reused on the proposed
design. Tit is firctor should be considered in tiny revisions to the plane-
Standard 6
Not Applicable.
Standard 7
Not.applicable.
Standards 8 &9
These standards are typically reviewed by Town staff.
Minimum Submittal Requirements:
1. Section lV.)B.)1.)b.) Test pits should be performed by a certified soil evaluator and
wiwessed by are agent of the town in the locations of the proposed detention basins
and infiltration trench. The engineer should report all maintenance activities to the
Commission.
Test pits curd percolation tests have been perfomned and submitted. Satisfactorily
addressed.
Flood Control Standards:
2. Section 1V.)C.)1.)The 100-year flood elevation should be determined for pre and post
construction conditions. The culvert tinder Turnpike Street should be included in the
model to determine tho flood elevation.
According to the wetlands prorections tics. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding will
consist of those tarsus indicated on the NFIP ttraps or i{'these arenas have not been
studied that they he developed by ca prgfessiotual engineer. the strecttn flowing
through the site has not been studied by FEWA and thus the flood plaits should be
established to determine the limit of the. BR5F.
Rvj)ortecdly, there is no culvert or control sir7lc:ture proximate to the site downstream
of the inlerrnitrent .stream, which crosses the site. I'he existing topography provided
indicates the stream as Halting in an east to west direction. We have heart irif nned
by the design engineer. that this topogrcal)hv is incorrect and that the streau:flows in
a vrest to east direction, We recommend consadting with Town staff to identify {f'
flooding has been observed in this area. Dd,s would potentially clarify the presence
of'BI SF anti whether tlu project would itrrpuc7 BLSP'.
Satisfactorily addressed.
1812 Turnpike Street
5
1
09V1212001 14:38 FAX 781 982 5490 COt.ER & COLANTONIO 0 007
I
3. Section lV.)C.)Z.) The existing intermittent stream should be modeled for tilt 100-
vear flood elevation, peals discharge and time of concentration. 'rbe size, material and
insert of the culvert crossing beneath Turnpike Street should be intlicttted.
It seertts clear tiara this area experiences.flooding in the 100-year .storm event and
likely lesser storms. Tltis area has not been studied ky FFMA. See comment '.
No lotager applicable. Note that the requested data is also required under S(Wtivra VI
B)4.)j. 1rnlot proviciced ct rvaii-er sltoul(l be regz(ested.
4. Section 1V.)C.)6.)a.) We iecorninencl thfll storrnwater facilities be designed constant
with (lie requirements of ASCE Manual and Reports of. Engineering Practice No. 77
and the DEP Storrmvater Managcnnznt Policy. It is recommended the drainage basin
begin be a tninirmrua 8 feet wide and the slopes shall be no greater than 3:1 for the
purpose of maintenance vehicle access and stability.
Side slopes greater than 3:1 are not consistent with DEP Slorinwater Management
design standards. The: proposed berms are less that? 5-feel in tvidth. Cornntent
rentain.s.
Side .slopes have been modified and appear adequate. The proposed begins are
approximately 5-feet wide versus standard practice as noted above. Access to the
pond#2 outlet structure is linaited by the emergency overflow1rip-rap. It is unclear
how access iv ill be achieved.
Adequate access has been provided for all basins. Updated calculations have been
submitted, however, when comparing Me January 16, 2001 calculations to the July
20, 2001 calculations, the contour area for Pond 2 has not changed within the July
20, 2001 model, where as the contour areas in the plans have clearly been revised.
Based on our measurements, the area appears to be overestimated. The area and
volume of Pond 2 in the model should be checked to be consistent with the plan.
5. Section IV.)C.)6.)c.) The plans should indicate the location of the overflow spillway
for the detention basins. The spillways for both detention basins should he
constructed with rip rasp on both sides to avoid erasion and siltation. Rip rap sizes
should be specified based on calculated flow velocities.
Rip rap sizing cu.lculatiatts 1?arse bcyeta per and .submitted. Spillways for all
basins have been included on the plans.
Spillways should be extended to the li»tit of fill and sufficient distance beyond to
stabilize the slopes and prevent erosion.
7'he rip-rap has been extended to the limit of excavation. No further co mrrent.
6. Section 1V.)C.)6.)d.) Test pits should be provided to deternnine the maxirmuni high
groundwater elevation in the location of the detention basins and infiltration trench.
Active storaGe within the detention basin must be located above this elevation. In
addition, froth basins provide sumps, however the drainage time is not indicated. It is
rmotmmended that two feet of ground water separation be provided for' infiltration..
1812 Turnpike Street
6
09/12/2001 14:39 FAX 781 982 5490 COLER & COLANTONIO 0 008
Tc<.st pits and percolation tests have been provided. The basins ]lave been elevated
above file hioli l-()unclwater tc:rble, lioivew�r .sumps have been included which require
it{filtrution ernd foot srp(lration to g)-01111dWale".
The design implies a sump raf less than two feet. ;l'Ite .base of they hasins rise indicated
at the saine e.levation as the orrtler invert. For this contour to (aVist el lower elevation
ill the basin schist also be constructed.
'Elie pond helrtonl eletTition Itus been indicated in the details as lower than 135,00. A
millilnunl slope has been provided acrr)ss' Pored #1. This slope ,should be provided ill
all basins and spat grades should be included. Ponds ? and 3 have contain sumps.
Ponels should be stoped to chairs.
Surnps within ponds #1 and#7 have been removed. ,See comment under St(mdurd##4.
All basins show rrrinirncrt slopes to the orttlet structure. Satisfactorily addressed.
7. Section VI.)B.)5.)c.) Proposed grading ties to existing site topography are unclear at
the property boundaries. It does not appear feasible to construct as proposed without
off site impacts.
Contour ties have been clarified vict purposed retaining ~calls. Scttisfactority
addressed.
General Comments:
b. A structural design for the proposed retaining stalls should be.indicated, It does not
appear feasible to construct these walls without impacting the 25-no disturbance zone.
Please comment for Section 14 H.). No further cnmmenf.
9. It is unclear that DMH.#5 will be able to accommodate five pipe connections.
The stormwater $ystem has been trloclifred so that no DMIJ will connect more than
four pipes. No,fitrther comment.
10. It is unclear that the proposed Con'ugated Polyethylene Pipes are capable of handling
the required loads given the designed cover. The Massachusetts Highway Design
Manual requires the provision of 6"covet•below sub-grade over a Class V RCP.
The ADS :spec on cor-rugr_ued pipes was submitted which indicates 12" min. cover.
However, the specifications provided are. not consistent with the trench eletails on file
plans. Tlris detail.should reflect the ntant4fctcturers.specifications for construction. We
would not recommend this pipe material firr public projects with this .shallow colter:
Frost heave and strucuiral stabilit'v are both issues with this design. For a primate site
it will be file owner's concern should problems occur.
Comment remains.
.rl separate ADS trench detail has been included. No frtriher comment.
11.The notes sheet should be updated to reflect the current project.
Tire notes have been updated to reflect the current project. No further comment.
1812 Turnpike Street
7
09,!12/2001 14:39 FAX 781 982 5490 COL,ER & COLANTONIO U 009
12. The pipe runs between DMH#1 and CB',; 1&2 and the outlet from Detention Basin I
should be checked al intersections.
These pipes have been nrodirled to avoid.conilicts. No frtrther coln.inent.
13, As designed, flood elevations in Detention Basin 1 would result in flooding on the
abutting property west of the site. A daainage easement should be provided for this
area and recorded on the deed for the property.
See comment relative to Standard?. Coinnient remains.
Reportedly, an easement will be provided. lVe reconzinend this easement be indicated
on the plaits, The contours do not close (it the Berry Street entrance. It is unclear
this design tivoitld inipact drainage on Berry Street.
The proposed drainage easenent has been shown. The contours have been revised at
Berry Street. Satisfactorily addressed.
Additional Comments
14,Note ##4 under Water notes, sheet ABB should read Town of North Andover. The
note has been revised.
15, Utilities serving the building are shown below the infiltration area. For access and
maintenance purposes the infiltration area should not be located above these utilities.
Utility locations have been revised and are no longer below the infiltration areas.
16. Spot grades should be shown on the top of the retaining walls. ,Spot grades have been
shown on top of the retaining walls.
17.The invert elevation for the outlet pipe from pond #2 should be labeled. The invert
elevation has been labeled.
18.The Prop. Pipe Design spreadsheet within the report should be updated. The prop.
Pipe Design spreadsheel appears to have been revised and reflects the proposed
drainage structure schedule shown on Sheet C-3.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Conservation Corrinlission on this project and
hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. We would be pleased to meet with
the Board or the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have
any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
LER&COLANTONIO,INC.
e4
ohn C. Chessia,P.E.
xe Heidi Griffin
Allen and Major Associates, Inc.
Jim Rand
1812 Turnpike Street
8
09/24/2001 07:42 FAX 781 982 5490 C{)L',R & COLA\TON-10 t0002/002
COLER
COLANTONIOZ
ENGINEERS AND 9CIENTiST5
September 10,2001
Scott Masse
Conservation Commission
Town Hall Annex
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Supplemental Engineering Review
Office/Retail Development 1812 Turnpike Street
Notice of Intent
Dear Mr. Masse,
In accordance with your request, Coler&Colantonio, Inc. has conducted an update of the
technical review of the proposed site development. Our review is based on the following
additiorfal materials submitted by the applicant's engineer:
• Updated pages for hydrology model, Prepared by Allen and Major Associates.
Received 9121/01.
The revised pages addresses our previous concerns outlined in the September 10, 2001
review letter, under section Flood Control Standards, Comment 3 Section IV.)C.)6.)a.).
The comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
I
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Conservation Commission on this project and
hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. We would be pleased to meet with
the Board or the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have
any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER&COLANTONIO,INC.
John C, Che sia,P.E.
xc Heidi Griffin
Allen and Major Associates, Inc.
1812 Turnpike Street
101 Accord Park Drive 781-982_5400 1
Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:781-982-5490