HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-04 Engineer Review DEF SUB DENIED k
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DEFINITE SUBDIVSION
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE /''fisy�t/Cr,,.
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sile Plan Title: Roadway Improvement Plan VHB No.: 06716.99
Site Plan Location: Methuen Avenue
Applicant-. Ronald Giovanni, 16 MacArthur Road,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services,66 Park Street,Andover,MA
Plan Date: December 2,2004 Review Date: 1-12-05
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of North Andover Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002). The Applicant has
submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Roadway Improvement Plan dated December 2,2004
• Application for Planning Board Approval dated December 3,2004
• Stormwater Management Report dated December 3,2004
The;followns comments note non=crsnforman a wrlh'spec.itic sections of the Rules.anci,Reultilicrns,
quesd0Mkb nments Orrthe-Pm,,posedAestgn-and VNWs recomtnend'at onslsuggestions.
Section V—Definitive Subdivision Plan
5.2 A Lot Layout Plan was not included in the planset,however mach of the required
information is provided oil the Cover Sheet or Grading and Utilities Plan. VHB suggests
the Applicant add a Lot Layout Plan,separating all necessary information from the
Grading and Utilities Plan.
5.2.2 The Applicant has not provided a space for listing and dating revisions to the plan.
5.2.3 This section states that the name and address of the record owner be included in the title
block.
5.2.5.2.1 The Applicant should add the necessary information to satisfy this section.
5.2.5.2.3 The Applicant should add ties,with bearings and distances,to at least two existing
permanent monuments in or adjacent to the subdivision.
5.2.5.2.9 -It appears that Sutton Street Right of Way(ROW) is 60'wide;however the plans
indicate 40'.
-The Applicant should also add the pavement width for Sutton Street.
5.2.5.3.8 The Applicant should verify that this section has been satisfied.
5.2.5.3.10 Have test pits been taken? This section states that the results should be shown on the
plan.
5.2.5.3.15 The Applicant should identify two benchmarks in the subdivision.
5.2.5.4.a See comment 5.2.
5.2.5.4.b.I Bearing and distance is not provided for the construction baseline.
1
\\\hlattiatr\Ie\047 f 6.99\dvrs�memos\fTL71699-hSeEhuenAye-1�16_43.dnr -.
r
I
r
I
5.2.5.4.b.6 -Bearings and distances are not provided for the drainage easements around the proposed
building.
-Is a drainage easement required for the section of the drainage system inside the 40'
Private Way?
5.2.5.4.b.7 Dimensions for the proposed parking area/driveway are not provided.
5.2.5.41.10 No water gates or appurtenances are indicated on the plan.
5.2.5.4.b.12 Is gas service being proposed?
5.2.5.4.b.13 Is electric,telephone or cable service being proposed?
5.2.5.4.c.7 Proposed water line is not indicated on the profile.
5.2.5.4.c.8 -Proposed sewer force main is not indicated on the profile.
-The proposed sewer manhole's location on the profile does not appear to be consistent
with the plan view.
5.2.5.4.c.9 Vertical clearance between the existing gas line on Sutton Street and the proposed sewer
line is not provided on the plans.
5.2.5.4.c.10 The Applicant should add the necessary markings to the plans to satisfy this section.
5.2.5.5.a -Pavement width is shown as 26'on the typical section,however it appears that(lie plans
scale to 23'-6"
-The proposed sewer line is shown exactly at the center line of the roadway in the typical
section,however than plans appear to show it 4'to the right.
-The proposed water line does not appear on the typical section.
-The required cover is not indicated for the proposed sewer line.
-Gas,electric,cable and telephone lines are shown on the typical section,however none
are proposed on the plan.
-A minimum of 7'of loam and borrow is indicated on the typical section,however no
limit of grading line is indicated on the plan.
-It appears that no sidewalk is proposed,VHB suggests incorporating the"No Sidewalk"
section into the typical section.
-It does not appear that a depth has been specified for the gravel borrow type B in the
pavement notes.
-The pavement notes are inconsistent with the note that appears on the plan.
-The Applicant should specify the ranges in which the 2:1 and 3.1 slopes will vary.
5.2.5.5.b -Typical sections of the proposed detention/retention basins were not provided.
-Details of the outlets were provided,however the Applicant should verify the consistency
between the labels on the plan and the names used on the detail sheets.
-The V-Notch Weir at P-2 Elevation detail does not indicate the 100-yr storm water
elevation.
5.2.5.5.c Profiles were not provided for the drainage swales.
5.2.6.d Closure calculations were not provided.
Section VI—Requirements for Improvements and Design
6.2.1 -Existing trees to be removed or retained should be labeled as such on the plans,
-is any form of tree protection being proposed?
6.3.3 An erosion/sedimentation control plan,as described in Appendix VI,was not submitted.
2
\\\VEawatr\tr\0671699\dots\menlos\0671699-\Iethtlrnr).ve-12_16_Uf.da
1 1 I
6.3.4 It appears that the lots drainage is outletting directly onto the Ottaviani property. This
should be avoided.
6.8.7 The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section.
6.13.2 The Applicant should add the identification tape to the Trench detail.
6.13.3.II The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section•
6.13.3.IV The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section. j
6.14.5 No emergency spillways are proposed for the detention/retention basins.
6.14.9 There do not appear to be any test pit results provided. Ground water elevation was not
determined.
6.18.1 The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section.
Appendix V—Rules and Regulations Governing Storm Water Management
3.13.4 Seasonal high groundwater level was not provided.
i
3.F.2.ii A maintenance plan was not provided.
3.F.2.iii Pollutant removal efficiency was not discussed in the report.
3.G A nitrogen and phosphorus loading report was not included in the report.
5.c The Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
5.i The drainage is outletting directly onto the adjacent Ottaviani tot.
General Comments
a) A detail should be provided for the roof drain.
b) The scale on the Utilities and Grading Plan is inaccurate.
c) The Bit.Cone.Paved Swale detail refers to section D-D,however there is no such label
on the plans.
d) The Applicant should verify the consistency between the labels on the plans and the
details(i.e.the plans indicate Prop Wood Post and Rail Fence;however a Wood
Guardrail detail is provided).
e} It is not clear what material is proposed for the F-6"below grade portion of the Siltation
Control Pence detail.
f) The silt fabric is typically entrenched to ensure siltation control.
g) The proposed drainage system may hinder potential future development(lengthening)of
Methuen Avenue. The Applicant should discuss with the Town.
Ir) Section 7.4 of the Town Zoning Bylaw states that maximum building height for an R-4
zone is 35',the Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
i) Section 8.12 of the Town Zoning Bylaw states that two parking spaces are required per
dwelling unit. The Applicant should indicate the necessary 4—9'xl8' parking spaces on
the plans.
3
\\1kWwalr\te\05716.'l9\das\memos\057169`!-MethUCMve•12_16_04.doc
1 I
I
Drainage Comments
a) The existing contours are not sufficient to properly verify the layout of the sub-catchment
areas and the times of concentration. VHB suggests providing contours for the entire
catchement area.
b) The Applicant used a time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model
should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero
discharge(beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time span
of 0-24 hours.
e) The total catchment area appears to scale at approximately 39,500 5F,however the model
indicates that 34,800 SF(pre-)and 34,900 SF(post-)were used. The Applicant should verify.
d) The pre-and post-development catchment areas should be consistent,as stated above,there is
a slight discrepancy,
e) Since test pits have not been taken,the Applicant should justify the use of exliltration in the
Hydrocad model. The Applicant should also justify the 0.01 efs value that is used.
f) The slope for the R-I grass swale appears to be high. The slope scale appears to be 0.8%.
g) The proposed grass swale(R-1)is modeled as 120' long,which means that the elevation at the
end of the swale is below 139'. This would indicate an overlap between the basin and Swale
areas, VHB suggests that if the Applicant is using 138,50' as the top basin elevation,the
length of the Swale should be scaled back to 40'so that the end of the swale is at the 138.50'
elevation.
h) The 120 degree weir for P-2 is modeled as 10' long;however the plans indicate a 2' to 4'
length. The Applicant should verify.
i) It is unclear what the 141.3'elevation is indicating in the Rip-Rap Weir detail.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein. t
Reviewed by: � ) 1 �� � � Date:
i
Darryl Gallant
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
Reviewed by: ' ar: ��'• ;?{'%- _ Date:
Timothy I3,1 clntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
4
\\Wa,valr\IPNI(.71F.99\dncr\memos\067 M99-MelhuenAve-12_lk(Wdoc
B �
TOWN OF NOR FU ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DEFINITE SUBDIVSION
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER RULES AND REGULATIONS
Site Plan Title. Roadway Improvement Plan VHB No,: 06716.99
Site Plan Location: Methuen Avenue.''
Applicant, Ronald Giovanni, 16 MacArthur Road,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services,66 Park Street,Andover,MA
Plan Date: Februaryl7,2005 Review Date; 3-1-05
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of North Andover Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002). The Applicant has
submitted the following information for VHB's review:
Response to comment letter dated February 17,2005
• Roadway Improvement Plan with revision date of February 17,2005
a Stormwater Management Report with revision date of February 17,2005
VHB's original comments are shown in normal font while our follow-up comments are shown in bold. In
general,the majority of VHB's comments have been addressed. Please see 5.2.5.4.b.6 and Appendix 5,
section 5.c.for follow-up comments.
Section V—Definitive Subdivision Plan
5.2 A Lot Layout Plan was not included in the planset,however much of the required
information is provided on the Cover Sheet or Grading and Utilities Plan. VHB suggests
the Applicant add a Lot Layout Plan,separating all necessary information from the
Grading and Utilities Plan. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.2 The Applicant has not provided a space for listing and dating revisions to the plan. This
comment has been addrewed.
5.2.3 This section states that the name and address of the record owner be included in the title
block. This comment has been Addressed.
5.2.5.2.1 The Applicant should add the necessary information to satisfy this section. This
comment has been addressed,.
5.2.5.2.3 The Applicant should add ties,with bearings and distances,to at least two existing
permanent monuments in or adjacent to the subdivision. This comment has been
addressed.
5.2.5.2.9 -it appears that Sutton Street Right of Way(ROW)is 60'wide;however the plans
indicate 40'.
-I`he Applicant should also add the pavement width for Sutton Street. These comments
have been addressed.
5.2.5.3.8 The Applicant should verify that this section has been satisfied, This comment has been
addressed.
1
\\\Ntawalr\1e\0671G99\dm\mom05\0671699-NlcihtrnAve-03-01-OS,dce
5.2.5.3.10 Have test pits been taken? This section states that the results should be shown on the
plan. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.5.3.15 The Applicant should identify two benchmarks in the subdivision. This continent has
been addressed.
5.2.5.4.a See comment 5.2. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.5.4.b.I Searing and distance is not provided for the construction baseline. This comment has
been addressed.
5.2.5.4.b.6 -Bearings and distances are not provided for the drainage easements around the proposed
building.
-is a drainage easement required for the section of the drainage system inside the 40'
Private Way? The bearings shown on the Lot Layout Plan are different from the
bearings shown on the Roadway improvement Plan. VHS assumes that the bearing
systems are different. The Applicant should convert the bearing to be consistent for
all plane.
5.2.5.4.b.7 Dimensions for the proposed parking area/driveway are not provided. This comment has
been addressed.
5.2.5.4.b.10 No water gates or appurtenances are indicated on the plan. This comment has been
addressed.
5.2.5.4.b.12 Is gas service being proposed? This comment has been addressed.
5.2.5.4.b.13 la elrxuiC,w1clAtum ul unblc scl vil"G Whig V ulluwO Tuffs cuulureut Laai Wets
addressed.
5.2.5.4.c.7 Proposed water line is not indicated on the profile. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.5.4.c.8 -Proposed'sewer force main is not indicated on the profile.
-The proposed sewer manhole's location on the profile does not appear to be consistent
with the plan view. These comments have been addressed.
5.2.5.4.c.9 Vertical clearaacc between the existing gas line on Sutton Street and the proposed sewer
line is not provided on the plans. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.5.4.c.10 The Applicant should add the necessary markings to the plans to satisfy this section. This
comment has been addressed.
5.2.53 a -Pavement width is shown as 26'on the typical section,however it appears that the plans
scale to 23'-6".
-Thc proposed sewer line is shown exactly at the center fine of the roadway in the typical
section,however than plans appear to show it 4' to the right.
-The proposed water line does not appear on the typical section.
-The required cover is not indicated for the proposed sewer line.
-Gas,electric,cable and telephone lines are shown on the typical section,however none
are proposed on the plan,
-A minimum of 7'of loam and borrow is indicated on the typical section,however no
limit of grading line is indicated on the plan.
-it appears that no sidewalk is proposed,VHB suggests incorporating the"No Sidewalk"
section into the typical section.
-it does not appear that a depth has been specified for the gravel borrow type B in the
pavement notes.
-The pavement notes are inconsistent with the note that appears on the plan.
2
\W,Uw11r\1e\0671h"\Mor1\memos\Dh71fiW-MrthurnAve�lXi l-W.doc
- •err ,,. . ''
-The Applicant should specify the ranges in which the 2:1 and 3:1 slopes will vary.
These comments have been addressed.
5.2.5.5.b -Typical sections of the proposed detention/retention basins were not provided.
-Details of the outlets were provided,however the Applicant should verify the consistency
between the labels on the plan and the names used on the detail sheets.
-The V-Notch Weir at P-2 Elevation detail does not indicate the kOO-yr storm water
elevation. These comments have been addressed.
5.2.5.5.c Profiles were not provided for the drainage swales. This comment has been addressed.
5.2.6.d Closure calculations were not provided. TMiscomrnent has been addressed.
Section VI--Requirements for Improvements and Design
6.2.1 -Existing trees to be removed or retained should be labeled as such on the plans.
-Is any form of tree protection being proposed? This consent has been addressed.
6.3.3 An erosion/sedimentation control plan,as described in Appendix VI,was not submitted.
This comment has been addressed.
6.3.4 It appears that the lot's drainage is outletting directly onto the Ottaviani property. This
should be avoided. This comment has been addressed.
6.8.7 The Applicant is requesting a waiver froin this section.
6.13.2 Thu Applivuul should dull dir illCiltil-iCailllll tape lu OM TiCuch dr-Wil. T ills coglulwat tills
been addressed.
6.13.3.I1 The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section.
6.13.3.IV The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section.
6.14.5 No emergency spillways are proposed for the detentionlretention basins. This comment
has been addressed.
6.14.9 There do not appear to be any test pit results provided. Ground water elevation was not
determined. This comment has been addressed.
6.18.1 The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this section.
Appendix V—Rules and Regulations Governing Storm Water Management
33.4 Seasonal high groundwater level was not provided. This comtnent has been addressed.
3.1~.2.ii A maintenance plan was not provided. This comment has been addressed.
3.17.2-iii Pollutant removal efficiency was not discussed in the report. This comment bass been
addressed.
3.G A nitrogen and phosphorus loading report was not included in the report. This comment
has been addressed.
5.c The Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied. The test pits provided indicate
that the Seasonal High Groundwater{SHG}elevation Is 138.6 for basin 1 and 138.9
for basin 2. Based on the elevations shown on the plan for the bottoms of the
proposed detention basins,the requirements of this section are not met. This section
requires that 2 feet exist between the bottom of proposed detention basins and SHG
elevation. Basin 1 is 0.4 feet below SHG and basin 2 is 1.3 feet above SHG.
5.i The drainage is outletting directly onto the adjacent Ottaviani lot. This comment has
been addressed.
3
\\\41arYalr\k\9671b.'Xl\does\m¢manlUh71699-�tethlxnAti�e-03-01.05.Aa
i
General Comments
a) A detail should be provided for the roof drain. This comment has been addressed.
b) The scale on the Utilities and Grading Plan is inaccurate. This continent has been
addressed.
c) The Bit,Conc.Paved Swale detail refers to section D-D,however there is no such label
on the plans. This comment has been addressed.
d) The Applicant should verify the consistency between the labels on the plans and the
details(Le.the plans indicate Prop Wood Post and Rail Pence;however a Wood
Guardrail detail is provided). This comment has been addressed.
c) It is not clear what material is proposed for the V-6"below grade portion of the Siltation
Control Fence detail. This comment has been addressed.
f) The silt fabric is typically entrenched to ensure siltation control. This comment has been
addressed.
g) The proposed drainage system may hinder potential future development(lengthening)of
Methuen Avenue. The Applicant should discuss with the Town. This comment has
been addressed.
h) Section?A of the Town Zoning Bylaw states that maxsr+urrt building height for anR-4
zone is 35'.the Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied. This conmunt has
been addressed.
i) Section 8.1.2 of the Town Zoning Bylaw states that two parking spaces are required per
dwelling unit The Applicant should indicate the necessary 4--9'xig'parking spaces on
the plans. This comment has been addressed.
Drainage Comments
a) The existing contours are not sufficient to properly verify the layout of the sub-catchment
areas and the times of concentration, VHB suggests providing contours for the entire
catchemant area, This conunent has been addressed.
b) The Applicant used a time span of 5-20 hours in the Hydrocad model. Typically,a model
should have a time span that goes from zero discharge to peak discharge,and back to zero
discharge(beginning and ending of storm event). VHB suggests using a minimum time span
of 0-24 hours. This comment has been addressed.
c) The total catchment area appears to scale at approximately 39,500 SC,however the model
indicates that 34,800 SF(pre-)and 34,900 SF(post-)were uacd. The Applicant should verify.
This comment has been addressed.
d) The pre-and post-development catchment areas should be consistent,as stated above,there is
a slight discrepancy, This comment has been addressed.
e) Since test pits have not been taken,the Applicant should justify the use of exfiltration in the
Hydrocad model. The Applicant should also justify the 0.01 efs value that is used. This
comment has been addressed.
f) The slope for the R-1 grass Swale appears to be high. The slope scale appears to be 0.8°Io.
This comment has been addressed.
g) The proposed grass Swale(R-1)is modeled as 120'long,which means that the elevation at the
end of the Swale is below 138'. This would indicate an overlap between the basin and Swale
areas, VHB suggests that if the Applicant is using 138.50' as the top basin elevation,the
4
\�\Mawa:E\ir\d6746.99\ik,cs\memtK\WJi/>994klhuenAve-0C�-oI-0LS.doc
length of the swale should be scaled back to 40' so that the end of the swale is at the 138.50'
elevation. This comment has been addressed.
I
h) The 120 degree weir for P-2 is modeled as 10' long;however the plans indicate a 2'to 4'
length. The Applicant should verify. This comment has been addressed.
i) 1t is unclear what the 141.3'elevation is indicating in the Rip-Rap Weir detail. This
comment has been addressed.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Darryl Gallant
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Jiangen B rug tii1 j.Ine.
Reviewed by:
/d ! Date: 1
Timothy 1 ., mash,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Ilangen Brustlin,Inc.
5
\\\Wwatr\H+\0671b."Wocs\memos\W I6W-NirthueMee,00Idli.doc
f
97Y 417s' 101
r l�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DEFINITE SUBDIVSION
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE MAR 3 1 200,i,
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER RULES AND REGULATIONS
i 011111 f+N17OW`q
P ,. JNING DEPAit i w;t_•tq i
Site Platt Title: Roadway Improvement Plan VHB No.: 06716.99
Site Plan Location: Methuen Avenue
Applicant: Ronald Giovanni, 16 MacArthur Road,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineein Merrimack Engineering Services,66 Park Street,Andover,MA
Platt Date: December 2,2004 Original Review: 1-12-05
Plan Date: Februaryl7,2005 2"d Review: 3-1-05
Yd Review: 3-30-05
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of North Andovet Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002). The Applicant has
submitted the following information for VHB's third review:
• Response to comments letter dated March 15,2005
In general,the majority of VBB's comments have been addressed. For clarity,VH13's original comments
are shown in normal font,our second review comments are shown in italic font and our third review
comments are shown in bold font.
Section V—Dermitive Subdivision Plan
5.2.5.4.6.6 Bearings and distances are not provided for the drainage easements around the proposed
building.
The bearings shown on the Lot Layout Plan are different front the bearings shown rift the
Roadway hnproventent Plant. VHB asstones that the bearing systems are d4lferent. The
Applicant should convert the bearing to be consistent for all plans,
Comment Addressed.
Appendix V—]Rules and Regulations Governing Storm Water Management
5.c The Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
The test pits provided indicate that the Seasonal High Groundwater(SHG)elevation is
138.E for basin 1 and 138.9 far basitt 2. Based on the elevations shown on the plan for
the bottoms of the proposed detention basins, the requirements of this section are not
met. This section requires that 2 feet exist between the bottont of proposed detention
basins and SHG elevation, Basin I is 0.4 feet below SHG and basin 2 is 1.3 feet above
SHG.
• 1
\f?sr 5t•+!r rx,7}/,.ng 13Mt memlx ��]tsw_\?clht;ae.�•e=1?Ird•�•?"-€�c1!1['
i
As stated in Appendix V of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations,a 2-foot
separation between the bottom of the detention basin and the SHG elevation is
required. The Applicant's design does not provide this 2-foot separation.
VHB has verified that the Applicant is not claiming any infiltration or storage
volume below the SHG elevation in the Hydrocad model. As such,the results of the
model should remain accurate. VHH suggests the Applicant revise the design to
provide the required separation or request a waiver from the Town for this section
of the Rules and Regulations.
Should a waiver be granted,there will be standing water in this pond. VHB
suggests the Applicant consider a fence around pond P-1 for safety reasons.
Additional Comments and Issues
1. The Applicant should note that the Peak Flow Summary Chart currently shows an increase
in flows for the 2-and 10-year storms at design point 2. Section 6.14.1 of the Town's Rules
and Regulations states that no run-off at the boundaries of the subdivision shall be bigher
following the development of the site for the 10-and 100-year storms.
Although it appears that the Applicant has added the design points to show a global
reduction in peak flows. Comparisons should be made at each design point. VHB suggests
The Applicant revise the model so that post-development run-off matches existing at design
point 2 for the 10-and 100 year storms.
2: As the site is a 1-lot subdivision,the DEP Stormwater Management Standards do not apply.
However the Applicant has provided TSS removal rate calculations. VHB noticed some
Inaccuracies in these calculations and offers the following comments for the Applicant's
benefit;
• The Applicant cannot claim a 60% removal rate for the vegetated swale unim the
swale provides storage for the Water Quality Volume,
• The Applicant cannot claim a 60%n removal rate for the detention basins unless an
adequately sized sediment trap is provided,and the basin must provide storage for
the Water Quality Volume,
0 As currently shown,both detention basins appear to hold the required volume to be
considered sediment traps. Therefore,the Applicant may claim a 25% removal rate
by considering the detention basins as sediment traps,
• If street sweeping will occur,the Applicant may claim a 10%-removal rate for the
sweeping.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: 1 [ E Date: 13 �r�
Darryl Gallant
Civil E�gineer—Highway and Municipal
Checked by: f''�_�'r% 'f Date: }1/1'
Timothy B.OcIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
2
\\\MAwair\�r\i1fi71 F.49\Jr><s\rneiErm�0671b'I'i-MelhuenAve•'i'hlyd•3.2Z•4:>.doc
f
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DEFINITE SUBDIVSION
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER RULES AND REGULATIONS
Site Plan Title: Roadway Improvement Plan VHB No.: 06716,99
Site Plan Location: Methuen Avenue
Applicant: Ronald Giovanni,16 MacArthur Road,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services,66 Park Street,Andover,MA
Plan Date: December 2,2004 Original Review: t-12-05
Plan Date, Februaryl7,2005 2"a Review: 3-1-05
3"t Review: 3-30-05
4th Review: 4-18-05
The Applicant has adequately addressed VIIB's comments and no further engineering review is
required at this time. Please refer to the final report below for additional detail.
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of north Andover Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002). The Applicant has
submitted the following information for VHB's fourth review:
• Response to comments letter dated April 4,2005,
• Revised Post-development Drainage Analysis dated March 28,2005,
• Revised Sheets 2 and 3 of the Roadway Improvement Plans dated March 29,2005.
In general,all of VHB's comments have been addressed. For clarity,VHB's original comments are shown
in normal font,our second and third review comments are shown in italic font and our final review
comments are shown in bold font.
Appendix V--Rules and Regulations Governing Storm Water Management
5.c The Applicant should verify that this section is satisfied.
(2'j review) The test pits provided indicate that site Seasonal High Groundwater(SHG)
elevation is 138,E far basin 1 and 138.9 for basin 2. Based on the elevations shown on
the plait for site bottoms of the proposed detention basins, the requirements of this section
are not met. This section requires that 2 feet exist between tine bottom of proposed
detention basins artd SHG elevatiot+, Basin 1 is 0.4 feet below SHG and basin 2 is 1.3
feet above SHG.
(3"t review) As stated in Appendix V of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations,a 2-foot
separation between the bottom of the detention basin and the SHG elevation is required.
The Applicant's design does not provide this 2-foot separation.
VHB has verified that the Applicant is nor claiming any infiltration or storage volume
below the SHG elevation in the Hydrocad model. As such, the results of the model
should rentaitt accurate. VHB suggests the Applicant revise the design to provide the
required separation or request a waiver from the Town far this section of rite Rides and
Regulations.
l
. .:ti_.irw.,at:i.�.ivr�i�•v C�3..........i tl�t[M�.�:�I.,.0:A'". __..�5. 1 lQ 11..1
1
Sltottld a fvaiver be grattteei, there+vill be startdittg water•in tltis port►!. VHB surggests the
Applicant consider a fence arotatd pond P-1 for safoh,reasons.
i
Addressed,
Additional Comments and Issues
1. The Applicant should note that the Peak Flow Stninnaty Chart currently shows an increase In
flows for the 2•and 10-year storms at design point 2. Section 6.14.1 of the Tmvn's Rifles and
Regulations states that no ran-off at rite boanlaries of lire subdivision shall be higher following
the development of the site forthe 10-and 100-yearmorurs,
Although It appears that the Applicant has added the design points to show a global redaction In
peak flows. Comparisons should be made at each design point. VHB suggests the Applicant
revise the model so that post-development ran-off uratches existing at design point 2 for Cite 10-
and 100-year storms.
Addressed.
2. As lire site is a 1-lot subdivision, the DCP Storn:water Management Standards do not apply.
However the Applicant has provided TSS removal rate calculations. VHB noticed some
inaccuracies in these calculations and offers the following comments for the Applicant's benefit:
• Tito Applicant cannot claim a 60%removal rate far the vegetated swale unless the swale
provides storage for the Water Quality Volume,
a The Applicant cannot claim a 60%removal rate for the detention bruins unless an
adequately sized sediment trap is provided,and the basin nutst provide storage for the
Water Quality Volume,
• As currently shown, both detention basins appear to hold lire required volume to be
considered sediment traps. Therefore,the Applicant rosy claim a 25%n removal rate by
considering lire detention basins as sediment traps,
• If street sweeping will occur, the Applicant may claini a 10%removal rate for the
sweeping.
Not fully addressed. The Applicant has not provided the correct TSS removal
calculations as requested. Since the DEP Stormwater Management Guidelines do not
apply to this project,no further engineering review is required, The Applicant should
note that revised calculations may be requested by the North Andover Conservation
Commission.
2
nxv,u.a�,�n��.,�:nArtl. p.�.th
i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DEFINITE SUBDIVSION � �
PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE E '
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER RULES AND REGULATIONS
Site Plan Title: Roadway Improvement Plan VHB No.: 06716,99 '
E
Site Plan Location: Methuen Avenue !; i} ,
Applicant: Ronald Giovanni, 16 MacArthur Road,Peabody,MA ..,
Applicant's Engineer: Merrimack Engineering Services,66 Park Street,Andover,MA
Plan Date: April 14, 2005 Review Date: 6-6-05
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of North Andover Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002). The Applicant has
submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Roadway Improvement Plan(4 sheets)dated April 14,2005,
+ Revised Post-Development Drainage Analysis dated April 12,2005.
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Rules and Regulations,
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendationstsuggestions,
Genera[/Drainage Comments
1. There is a 1000 square foot discrepancy between the revised total post-development catchment
area and the area in previous submissions. In addition,the total post-development area is 1000
square feet smaller than the total pre-development area,as shown in previous submissions. The
Applicant should revise.
2. The revised Post-Development Subcatchment Plan is not to scale, VHB was not able to review
catchment areas. The Applicant should provide a revised Subcatchment plan.
3. Critical paths for the times of concentration were not provided on the revised Post-Development
Subcatchment Plan,VHB was not able to review times of concentration, The Applicant should
add critical paths on the revised subcatchment plan.
4. The Applicant should provide volume calculations for the Roof Runoff Detention Facility.
5. The Applicant should justify and/or explain why a blow-off valve is proposed at the low point of
the proposed water line.
6. VHB notes that the Applicant has provided a"Trench Section at Existing or Resurfaced Traveled
Way"detail,which calls for a reinforced concrete trench cap. Has the Applicant considered
other fill materials such as controlled density fill? The Applicant should verify with the North
Andover Department of Public Works if this detail is acceptable.
7, The Applicant should revise the Pavement Notes and Pavement Section Insert to satisfy the
requirements of Appendix I or the Rules and Regulations. Section A.5 calls for a 12 inch gravel
sub-base,and Section A.7 calls for a 4 inch pavement base course.
1
\C:\W INDOWS\TIRNI'\0671699-kielhuenAve_Revised-06_06_05.doc
!ll
1
a
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Darryl Gallant
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P. E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
2
\C:\WINDOWS\IEMI'\0671699-AiethuenAve Revised-06_06_05.doc
r