Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-17 Engineer Review SPR r 1 1 y i L � i �A I V 1t Z GNC-slNeV-o5 ANO 5GIENT15T5 December 21, 1998 Planning Board Kathleen Colwell 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01945 RE: Initial Site Plan Checklist Review Commerce Park Dear Ms. Colwell: In response to your request, Coler& Colantonio,Inc.has reviewed the site plans for the above referenced site. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the requirements of the"North Andover Zoning Bylaws" Section 8.3 submittal requirements. The submittal included the following information; Plans Entitled: ® "North Andover Commerce Center" eleven sheets dated December 4, 1998. )Prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Received December 8, 1998, Reports Entitled: • "Drainage Study for North Andover Commerce Center",dated December 4, 1998. Prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Received December 8, 1998. The site is located off Clark Street and directly abutting the western property line of the Lawrence Municipal.Airport, The site includes flagged wetlands at the north and west property boundaries. Our comments relative to the North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 83, are as follows: 1. Section 8.3)5.)b.)The drawing were prepared at scales of 1 '�60' and 1"=50'. A. scale of 1"T40' is required. 2. Section 8.3)5.)c.)The existing conditions plan was not stamped or certified by a Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor 3. Section 8.3)5.)e.)i.)The location map is not to scale and does not include a north arrow. 4. Section 8.3)5.)e.)v.)Contour data does not extend 50' beyond the property limits. 101 Accord Park Drive 781-982.5400 Norwell, MA02061-1685 Fax: 781-982-5490 t p , { 5. Section 8.3)5.)e.)vi,) The Plans should indicate the limits of the Industrial Z District, WatexshW District and any other applicable district on or abutting the parcel. Sign,dimension requirements are not included in the zoning information. 6. Section 8.3)5.)e.)vii.) The DPW should review the proposed storm sewer � crossing in Clark Street, 7. Section,8.3)5.)e.)viii.)The areas, heights and gross floor areas of the existing buildings are not listed on the plans. 8, Section 8.3)5.)e.)ix.)A building elevation plan was not provided to this office. It is unknown,if this data has been provided to the Planning Hoard. 9. Section 8.3)5.)e.)xi.) A Notice of Intent should be filed in conjunction with a site plan submittal,. It is unclear that the wetlands have been verified by the Conservation Commission. 10. Section 8.3)5.)e.)xii.) Sign details were not included, 11, Section 8.3)5.)e.)xvi.) Proposed refuse screening and enclosure is not illustrated the on plans. 12, Section 8.3)5.)e.)xviii.)Existing and proposed flood elevations on the site were not indicated. 13, Section.8.3)5.)e.)xxi.)A sewer line profile was not included. In addition, the proposed sewer location and discharge line are not clearly delineated or permitted. 14. It is our understanding that Sections 8.3)5.)e.)xix,xx,xxii,xxiii, are typically reviewed by Town Staff. 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 xncet 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. ohn C. Chessia, P.E. cc: Jim Rand, DPW Appledore Engineering, Inc. f J I COL COLA 6TONIO z GNGiNEER5 AND SCIENTigTS January 14, 1998 Planning Board/Conservation Commission Kathleen Colwell/Michael Howard 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA. 01845 RE: Wetland Bylaws and Zoning Bylaws Review Commerce Park Dear Ms, Colwell: In response to your request, Coler& Colantouio, Inc. has reviewed the site plans for the above referenced site. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Zoning Bylaw, Wetlands Protection Bylaw,the DEP Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering practice, relative to stormwater drainage. We submitted a preliminary checklist,dated December 21, 1998, relative to the Zoning Bylaws site plan review. We also visited the site on January 4, 1999 to observe existing site conditions. The submittal included the following information: Plans Entitled: ® "North Andover Commerce Center"Eleven sheets dated December 4, 1998. Prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Dated December 4, 1998. Received December 8, 1998. Reports Entitled: * "Drainage Study for North Andover Commerce Center",prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Dated December 4, 1998. Received December 8, 1998. "Geotechnical Investigation for North Andover Commerce Center",prepared by Jaworski Geotech Inc. Dated November 2, 1998.Received January 14, 1999. "Notice of Intent for North Andover Con-unerce Center", prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Dated December 1998. Received January 14, 1999. Letter of Response-Prepared by Appledore Engineering,dated January 8, 1999, received January 15, 1999. The site is located off Clark Street and directly abutting Lawrence Municipal Airport to its north. The site includes flagged wetlands, streams and ponds at the north and west property boundaries. t 01 Accord Park Drive 781-982-5400 Norwell. MA 02061-1685 Fax: 781-982-5490 Zoning Bylaw: The plans state that the site is located in the Watershed Protection District. According to the North Andover Zoning Map,only the southwest comer of the site is in the Watershed Protection District. It is anticipated that there will be no impact on the Watershed District due to the proposed development. Therefore,we have not reviewed this project,relative to the regulations goveming the Watershed Protection District. Section 6.6)H.)Landscaping, Buffering, Lighting-- The Planning Board should review the proposed landscaping.Note that the southerly parking area is located at the roadway layout line and street widening would impact this area. Section 8.01 l.) The plans should indicate the proposed loading areas and number of bays. Section 8.3.)5.)v.) Off site contours should be provided to determine the effects of offsite Moff on the proposed drainage system, specifically on the south side of the site. Section 8.4)1.)It is not clear that an impervious screen has been provided for off-street parking areas. Section 8.4.) 4.) It is not clear that the required green space for the westerly parking lot has been provided. Wetland Protection Bylaw: The North Andover Conservation Commissions should review the wetland boundaries. Section III.)4.)A section of the parking lot in the southwest comer of the site, labeled `Annex', lies within a flagged wetland. We anticipate that additional flagging in this area would address this issue, Section III.)4.)a,)Minor grading for the proposed constructed wetland falls within the 25' No-Disturbance Zone. Section III.)4.)b.) The edges of the proposed parking lot on the north and west side of the lot fall within the 50' buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and isolated wetlands. The Conservation Commission should review this design. Section IV.)13.)1-9.) Stormwater Standards: dl Satisfactorily addressed. Standard 2 The lag method of calculating the time of concentration was used.We have discussed the use of the lag method with the Natural resources Conservation Service. They developed the TR-55 and TR 2p models and no longer recommend use of the lag method, We do not agree with the ground cover description of Woods-Fair Condition, Based on our site visit, we would estimate the woods to be in good condition. Curve number and time of concentration calculation sheets, consistent with TR-55, should be submitted. The one year 24 hour stoma should be modeled, The pipe calculations were modeled for the 25-year stop n, It is unclear how the westerly parking area will discharge in a greater than 25-year event. The stage storage elevations and volumes for the proposed constructed wetland are not cl=. It appears that pipe used for the outlet structure is modeled as a 36" diameter vs. the 24"diameter pipe indicated on the plans. An emergency spillway designed to pass the 100-year storm should be provided. This spillway should be designed to pass the 100-year storm with the normal outlet plugged. Test pit excavations and soil borings were performed and logged,however it is not indicated that they were witnessed by a town representative. (.groundwater estimations were based upon observed water at the time(November 1998) of excavation. Redoximorphic or mottling identification is indicated by the Soil Conservation Survey as the most accurate method for determining high groundwater elevations.It does not appear that these tests were performed by a soil evaluator as required by the Wetlands Dy-Law. Standard Recharge systems and calculations were not submitted. Reportedly, on site recharge is not possible due to the high groundwater elevation. Soil evaluations, which indicate these conditions,have not been submitted. The addition of uuderdrains to the proposed parking lot will drain the groundwater, which is contrary to the recharge requirement. It is possible that the site could not reasonably be designed to provide recharge. ,Standard 4 All proposed catch basins should be installer)with 4' sumps and hoods. 1TSS removal worksheets should be submitted, It likely that the design would comply especially since it is a redevelopment site. i � } t dard 5 Refer to comment on Standard 2 relative to required test pit data for the evaluation the proposed constructed wetland's water quality improvement capabilities. ,A,pocket wetland is defined by the DEP Stormwater Management Policy, as discharging through a hooded bread crested weir. St r Ord 66 Not applicable. '9tpndard 7 Refer to compliance with standards I through 5. LtqWmd Typically reviewed by town staff: Standard The locations and erosion control procedures for temporary storage of excavated materials should be indicated on the plans. Cleanouts for roof drains should be indicated on the plans. We understand that town staff typically review these plans. Section IV,)C.)4.)Existing and proposed 100-year flood elevations should be modeled for ponds and wetlands impacted by proposed construction. Section IV.)C.)6,)b.)The grading is not clear in proximity of the proposed constructed wetland. The side slope of the proposed wetland is 2:1; it is recommended that the side slope be no steeper than 3,1. Headwall details including bar racks should be submitted. Section IV.)C.)6.)d,) Storage capacity of the proposed constructed wetland may not comply with this section. Test pits consistent with this section should be performed to provide an accurate estimation of the high groundwater elevation. Section VI.)l3,)4.)i.) See comment on Section IV.)C.)4.). Section*VI.)B.)4.)d.)The limits of the existing tree line are unclear. Section VI.)l3.)4.)f.)It is not clear that the existing on site gravel ditch,sewer pipes and sewer manholes are proposed to be removed. The discharge points of the existing sewer pipes at the northwest corner of the site are not indicated. All storm drains and sanitary sewer lines,which are to remain, should be verified. Moor drains,if any, should not be connected to the storm drain system. } i Section VI.)B,)5.)g,) The 50' No-Build Zone is not indicated on the existing conditions plan. Section VI.)B.)4.)i.)The plans were submitted at variable scales from 1"'-50' to 1 '=60'. Section,VI.)B.)4,)j.)Flows for the easterly wetland&stream areas have not been ,provided. General Comments: 1. The town should note the poor condition of Clark Street and the existing flooding problem at the low point of Clark Street, 2. The Planning Board and Conservation Commission,may want to review any testing regarding soil contarmnation. Reportedly, a 21 E has been performed and is going to be forwarded. 3. Subdivision Regulations Section 7.)A.)2.)a,) Clark Street presently has a variable ...,u,.,, ,paved width.,it is proposed to create a 24' traveled way by constructing curbs and landscape islands.Note that a 40' traveled way is required in business or industrial zones. The existing layout is a 50' right of way vs, a 60'right of way for new industrial zone roadways. 4. The town should note that the proposed private drainage connection across Clark M.....,..... Street between DMH#5 and DMH#d4 may conflict with the existing utilities in Clark Street and create maintenance issues, 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&COLANTONIO, INC. John C. Chassis, P.E. cc: Jim Rand, DPW Appledore Engineering, Inc. jpl/7CC COLER COLANTONIOZ er,ioiNB'EFaS AND SCiC�NTiQ'rS J�muary 29, 1999 Planning Board/Conservation Commission Clo William Scott 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Wetland Bylaws and Zoning Bylaws review Commerce Park Dear Ms. Colwell: In response to your request, Coler & Colantonio, Inc. has reviewed the site plans for the above referenced site.The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Zoning Bylaw,Wetlands Protection Bylaw, the DEP Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering practice, relative to stomwater drainage. We submitted a preliminary checklist, dated December 21, 1998, relative to the Zoning ,bylaws site plan review. We also visited the site on January 4, 1999 to observe existing site conditions. The submittal included the following information: Plans Entitled: "North Andover Commerce Center"Eleven sheets dated December 4, 1998.Prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc. Dated December 4, 1999. Received December 8, 1998. Reports Entitled: • "Drainage Study for North Andover Commerce Center", prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc, Dated December 4, 1998.Received.December 8, 199& • "Geotechnical Investigation for North Andover Commerce Center", prepared by Jaworski Geotech Inc. Dated November 2, 1998, Received January 14, 1999. • "Notice of Intent for North Andover Commerce Center", prepared by Appledore ingineering Inc.Dated December 1998,Received January 14, 1999. • Letter of Response- Prepared by Appledore Engineering, dated January 8, 1999, received January 15, 1999. The site is located off Clark Street and directly abutting Lawrence Municipal Airport to its north. The site.Includes flagged wetlands,streams and ponds at the north and west property boundaries. Zoning Bylaw. The plans state that the site is located in the Watershed Protection District. According to the North Andover Zoning Map, only the southwest corner of the site is in the Watershed Protection District. It is anticipated that there will be no impact on the Watershed District due to the proposed development. Therefore, we have not reviewed this project relative to the regulations governing the Watershed Protection District. No further comment. 101 Accord Park Drive 781-982-5400 Norwell, MA 0206 1-1 685 Fax' 781-982.5490 p Section 6.6)H.) Landscaping, Buffering, Lighting - The Planning Board should review the proposed landscaping. Note that the southerly parking area is located at the roadway layout line and street widening would impact this area. No further comment. Section 8.1)]1.) The plans should indicate the proposed loading areas and number of bays. Satisfaclordy addressed. Section 8,3.)5.)v,)Off site contours should be provided to determine the effects of offsite runoff on the proposed drainage system, specifically on the south side of the site. No further comment, Section 8.4)1.) It is not clear that an impervious screen has been provided for off-street pa )(ing areas. We recommend that the Planting Board review this issue, Section 8.4.) 4.) It is not clear that the required green space for the westerly parking lot has been provided. rb& Comment reflects the islands required in parking lots i.e. solid stpip islands between rows or a 6'island jot every 10 sprrGes, Wetland Protection Bylaw: The North Andover Conservation Commission should review the wetland boundaries, No further comment. Section lll.)4.) A section of the parking lot in the southwest corner of the site, labeled `Annex', lies within a flagged wetland. We anticipate that additional flagging its this area would address this issue. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue. Section 111.)4.)a.) Minor grading for the proposed constructed wetland falls within the 25' No- Disturbance Zone. Satisfactorily addressed. Section III.)4.)b.)The edges of the proposed parking lot on the north and west side of the lot;fall within the 50' buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and isolated wetlands. The Conservation Commission should review this design. Comment remains. Section M)B.)1-9.) Stormwater Standards: smadard 1 Satisfactorily addressed. Standard 2 The lag method of calculating the time of concentration was used. We have discussed the use of the lag method with,the Natural Resources Conservation, Service. They developed the TR-55 and TR-20 models and no longer recommend use of the lag method, We do not agree with the ground cover description of Woods-Fair Condition. Based on our site visit, we would estimate the woods to be in good condition. Curve number and time of concentration calculation sheets, consistent with TR-55,should be submitted. The one year 24}tour storm should be modeled, r The pipe calculations were modeled for the 25-year storm. It is unclear how the westerly parking area will discharge in a greater than 25-year event. The stage storage elevations and volumes for the proposed constructed wetland are loot clear, It appears that pipe used for the outlet structure is modeled as a 36" diameter vs_ the 24" diameter pipe indicated on the plans. An emergency spillway designed to pass the 144-year stoma should be provided. This spillway should be designed to pass the l00-year storm with the normal outlet plugged. Vest pit excavations and soil borings were performed and logged, however it is not indicated that they were witnessed by a town representative. Groundwater estimations were based upon observed water at the time (November 1998) of excavation. Redoximorphic or mottling identification is indicated by the Soil Conservation Survey as the most accurate method for determining high groundwater cicvatiouxs. It does not appear that these tests were performed by a soil evaluator as required by the Wetlands By-Law. The calculations are satisfactory. We have not received the latest test pit data. Sea 3 Rocharge systems and calculations were not submitted. Reportedly, on site recharge is not possible due to the.high groundwater elevation,.Soil evaluations, which indicate these conditions, have not been submitted. The addition of u,nderdrains to the proposed parking lot will drain the groundwater, which is contrary to the recharge requirement. It is possible that the site could not reasonably bo designed to provide recharge. We are walting for test pit data. Stand 4 All proposed catch basins should be installed with 4' sumps and hoods. TSS removal worksheets should be submitted. It likely that the design would comply especially since -it is a redevelopment site. Satisfactorily addressed. We recommend that the sumps and hoods be provided in the CB's to reduce maintenance and increase longevity of the basin. 5tandar Refer to comment on Standard 2 relative to required test pit data for the evaluatiotx the proposed constructed wetland's water quality improvement capabilities. A pocket wetland is defined by the DEp stormwater Management Policy, as discharging through a hooded broad crested weir. No further comment. Standard6 Not applicable. 5tandard 7 Refer to compliance with standards l through S. Standard 8 } y `[)�pically reviewed by town staff. The locations and erosion; control procedures for tcmparary storage of excavated materials should be indicated on the plaits. Clcanouts for roof drains should be .indicated on the plans. We understand that town staff typically review these plans. No further comment.. Section IV.)C.)4.) Existing and proposed 100-year flood elevations should be modeled for ponds and wetlands impacted by proposed construction. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this Issue. Section IV,)C.)b.)b,) The grading is not clear in proximity of the proposed constructed wetland, The side slope of the proposed wetland is 2:1; it is recommended that the side slope be no steeper than 3:1. Headwall details including bar racks should be submitted. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue. Section IV.)C.)b.)d,) Storage capacity of the proposed constructed wetland may not comply with this section. Test pits consistent with this section should be performed to provide an accurate estimation of the high groundwater elevation. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue. Section VI.)B,)4,)i.) See Comment on Section IV.)C,)4,). We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue. Section VI.)B,)4.)d.)The limits of the existing tree line are unclear. Satisfactorily addressed. Section VI,)B,)4.)f,) It is not clear that the existing on site gravel ditch, sewer pipes and sewer manholes are proposed to be removed. The discharge points of the existing sewer pipes at the northwest comer of the site are not indicated. All storm drains and sanitary sewer lines, which are to remain, should be verified, Floor drains, if any, should not be connected to the storm drain system. Satisfactorily addressed. Section VI.)A.)S.)g,) The 50' No-Build Zone is not indicated on the existing conditions plan. Satisfactorily addressed Section Vi.)B,)4.)i,) The plans were submitted at variable scales from l'"=50' to 1"=601. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue, Section VI.)B.)4,)j,) Flows for the easterly wetland & stream areas have not been provided. We recommend that the Conservation Commission comment on this issue. Gener$I Comments- 1. The town should note the pooh condition of Clark Street and the existing flooding problem at the low point of Clark Street.No further comment, ti f 2. The Planning Board and Conservation Commission may want to review any testing regarding soil contamination. Reportedly, a 21B has been performed and is going to be forwarded. 3. Subdivision Regulations Section 7.)A.)2.)a.) Clark Street presently has a variable paved width. It is proposed to create a 24' traveled way by constructing curbs and landscape islands. Note that a 40' traveled way is required in business or industrial zones. The existing layout is a 50' right of way vs. a 60'right of way for new industrial zone roadways. C The town should note that the proposed private drainage connection across Clarke Street between DMH#5 and DMH#4 may conflict with the existing utilities in Clarks Street and create maintenance issues. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your deeds. 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. 6 s John C. Chessia,P.E. cc: Jim Rand, DPW Appledore Engineering,Inc. jpUJCC