Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1003 OSGOOD STREET 9/29/2003 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN AND WATERSHED SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE Site Plan Title: THOMAS PROPERTIES-OSGOOD ST. VHB No.: Location: 1003 Osgood Street Owner: Thomas Properties LLC,231 Sutton St.,North Andover,MA 01845 Applicant: Thomas Properties LLC,231 Sutton St.,North Andover,MA 01845 Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc. Plan Date: August 12,2003 Review Date: September 29,2003 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has been retained by the Town of North Andover to provide an engineering review of the Site Plan Special Permit and Watershed Special Permit for the proposed residential and office use at 1003 Osgood Street. This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the following drawings and documents for review: • Site Plans dated August 12,2003 • Landscape and Lighting plan dated August 15, 2003 • Architecture Design Drawings dated August 15,2003 • Application for Site Plan Special Permit • Drainage Calculations dated August 15,2003 • Traffic Impact&Access Study(TIAS)dated August 14,2003 • Narrative document The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections,constructability issues and questions/comments on the proposed design. 1. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS Section 4.136:Watershed Protection District 1. The Plans show 25', 100' and 250' no disturbance setbacks and zones,which are not consistent with the North Andover Watershed boundaries. The Applicant's Engineer should review the town's Watershed boundaries and zoning areas and revise the plans accordingly. 2. The Applicant should provide the date the lot was created to show conformance with the Watershed setback requirements. 3. How will grass be established and maintained on the fields and in the landscaping areas,without using fertilizer and lawn care products? 4. The Applicant's Engineer should provide a statement that there is no other reasonable alternative method to dispose of the runoff than the method proposed. 1 C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK6310\Reviecv1-1003 osgood.doc 4. Which direction does the sanitary sewer in Osgood Street flow? It appears that the grade of the road slopes in the opposite direction as-indicated by the service wye shown on the plan. 5. The material listed for the sewer service is cast iron. What materials will be used for the remainder of the sewer service? VHB recommends the Applicant's Engineer review the Town Standards for sewer services. 6. The proposed sewer system starts with very little cover. The construction notes refer to insulation as shown on the plan. The Applicant's Engineer should show the limits of insulation and provide calculations that the proposed insulation will adequately protect the pipe and discharge from the cold weather. 7. Has the proposed wood guard rail system been crash tested or does it meet state standards for guard rail? III. DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1. The grading in the northeast corner of the existing building will require approximately 1.5 feet of fill at the existing building to create the grading as shown. This may make for a construction issue that could be resolved now. 2. The detention basin has been shown at elevation 120.7,but the nearest wetland was flagged at elevation 130'. It would seem likely that the ground water may effect the amount of runoff actually infiltrated into the ground. The Applicant's Engineer should determine the estimated high groundwater in the area and submit the results for review. 3. The proposed catch basin shown has a 4' sump with a 3 foot tee. The Applicant's Engineer should describe how the system will be maintained or cleaned? 4. Will the proposed brick weir in DMH4 be able to withstand all forces acted upon it? The wall should be detailed showing curvature and connection to the bottom of the manhole. 5. Does the proposed 6"frame and cover meet the requirements of the Town of North Andover? Will the frame support an H-20 load? 6. The flow and capacity calculations for the drainage pipes and catchbasin grates should be provided for all storms that depend on the functioning of these pipes and grates to convey the runoff to the detention basin. The Manning's n coefficient used should be provided. The Applicant's Engineer should also evaluate the actual velocities in the pipes for the predicted storms to show that the velocity does not drop below 2 fps in partial flow conditions. 7. Sub-catchment Area 6 does not appear consistent with the contours shown(southwest of the property). The contours look as though they will shed water off onto the abutting property. 8. The Applicant's Engineer has modeled each catchbasin as a pond. The catchbasins have deep sumps and should be assumed to stay filled therefore there will be no storage in the catchbasins. 9. The summary information explains that when the runoff goes to a basin and is over the capacity of the grate, the excess flow will by-pass to the sump basin downstream. The Applicant's Engineer should model it so that the runoff that bypasses a basin and flows to the sump is reflected in the actual stormwater detail calculations. 10. Since the basins need to function to get the 100 year storm into the detention system,additional calculations should be provided to show how the model behaves during the 100 year storm. IV. TRAFFIC COMMENTS 1. The study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a traffic impact and access study.However,there is no indication that crash/accident data for this area was collected or reviewed.It would be helpful to determine if existing safety issues currently exist at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and in the vicinity of the proposed site. Any additional traffic would likely serve to increase the opportunity for crashes at this location especially with the four-lane cross section on Osgood Street directly in front of the proposed site. 3 C\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK6310\Review1-1003 osgood.doc . Town of North Andover t%OF?T" Office of the Planning Department 4%6 Community Development and Services Division Vq*'Of 27 Charles Street North Andover,Massachusetts O1845 Town Planner: P (978)688-9535 }'Justin Woods MEMORANDUM F (9y8)688-9542 TO: Planning Board FROM: J.Justin Woods,Town Planner CC: Heidi Griffin,Community Development&Services Director RE: 1003 Osgood Street DATE: October 3,2083 This application was continued from the last meeting. The applicant iu seeking u Site Plan Special Permit and Watershed Special Permit. � The applicant needs to revise the plans to have all of the correct watershed boundaries on the plan. The Planner recommends that the applicant prepare a field maintenance plan to show how the soccer field will be � maintained without fertilizers orpesticides. The applicant needs|o provide oigoage and lighting details. The applicant appears to need ZBA approval under Section 9.2 for converting non-living space that is not in conformance with the front setback to living space. The applicant should also provide lot coverage calculations. � The applicant should address the drainage and traffic comments in VHB's report dated September 29,2003. The Planner recommends adding a sidewalk across the front of the site over to Treadwells. BOARD o*APPEALS o88-954/ eououvo688-954 CONSERVATION 688-9530 xuxcn1688*540 PLANNING 688-9535 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN AND WATERSHED SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE Site Plan Title: THOMAS PROPERTIES-OSGOOD ST. VHB No.: 06716.85 Location: 1003 Osgood Street Owner: Thomas Properties LLC,231 Sutton St.,North Andover,MA 01845 Applicant: Thomas Properties LLC,231 Sutton St.,North Andover,MA 01845 Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc. Plan Date: August 12, 2003 Review Date: September 29,2003 Revised Plan Date: October 10,2003 Review Date: November 7,2003 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has been retained by the Town of North Andover to provide an engineering review of the Site Plan Special Permit and Watershed Special Permit for the proposed residential and office use at 1003 Osgood Street. This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the following drawings and documents for review: • Site Plans Revised October 22,2003 • Traffic Impact&Access Study(TIAS)supplemental information included with Response to Comments • Response to Comments dated October 23,2003 In General the Applicant's Engineer has addressed several of the comments from our previous letter;however, a few items still need to be addressed.The responses listed below follow the general outline of VHB's October 14,2003 Site Plan review letter. For clarity,VHB's original comment is shown followed by our second comment shown in bold. I. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS Section 4.136:Watershed Protection District 1. The Plans show 25', 100' and 250' no disturbance setbacks and zones,which are not consistent with the North Andover Watershed boundaries. The Applicant's Engineer should review the town's Watershed boundaries and zoning areas and revise the plans accordingly. This comment has been addressed. 2. The Applicant should provide the date the lot was created to show conformance with the Watershed setback requirements. The Applicant has provided a deed and therefore a date of the property. This comment has been addressed. 3. How will grass be established and maintained on the fields and in the landscaping areas,without using fertilizer and lawn care products? The Applicant has indicated in the response letter that only organic type lawn care products will be used. This comment has been addressed. 4. The Applicant's Engineer should provide a statement that there is no other reasonable alternative method to dispose of the runoff than the method proposed. A note has been added to the plans. This comment has been addressed. 1 C\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LKFID3\Revietv2-1003 osgood.doc 5. The Applicant's Engineer should provide evidence that the temporary and permanent on site operations will not create concentrations of Nitrogen in the groundwater, greater than the Federal limit at the down gradient property boundary. This comment has been addressed. Section 6: Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations Although a lighting plan was provided,the plan should be modified to show the limits of the proposed lighting area. The proposed lighting should not leave the property border. The Applicant has indicated that only residential pedestrian level type lighting will be used. The intent of our original comment was to inquire about potential impacts from the proposed lights on adjacent property. The Applicant should describe what impacts,if any, these lights will have on adjacent property. See comment 8.3-5e)xvii below. Sign details were not provided with this submission;therefore VHB could not review this section for compliance. A detail of the proposed sign was provided and is compliance with the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. This comment has been addressed. Section 7:Dimensional Requirements 7.3 Yards(setbacks The existing structure and a portion of the addition extend into the required setback as shown in Table 2 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant has acknowledged this comment. 7.4 Building Heights In Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws, the maximum building height is 35 feet. The existing structure exceeds that height. The Applicant has acknowledged this comment. 7.5 Lot Coverage The actual lot coverage should be listed on the application. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the application to include this information. The lot coverage has been added to the plans. This comment has been addressed. Section 8: Supplementary Regulations Section 8.1 Off Street Parking 1. The parking calculations provided are not consistent with the floor areas provided on the architectural drawings. The Applicant's Engineer should review and revise the parking calculations accordingly. This comment has been addressed. Section 8.3 Site Plan Review 8.3-5 Information Required e)xii) The Applicant's Engineer should provide details for any proposed signs. This comment has been addressed. e)xvii) The Applicant's Engineer should provide a lighting plan showing luminary values from the proposed system and the extent of the area lit with respect to the property lines. This comment has not been addressed. The intent of our original comment was to inquire about potential impacts from the proposed lights on adjacent property. The Applicant should describe what impacts,if any,these lights will have on adjacent property. See comment in Section 6 above. e-xviii) Drainage Basin Study: See Drainage Comments. e-xix) Traffic Impact Study: See Traffic Comments 2 CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLKFID3\Revietiv2-1003 osgood.doc II. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Applicant's Engineer should check the existing site distance on Osgood Street. See Traffic Comments. 2. Is the existing water service sufficient for the section of the building that will be serviced by it? This comment has been addressed. 3. The existing domestic water service, the proposed fire and the domestic services should be detailed by material and size. The Applicant's Engineer should compare expected demand with available capacity and the capacity of the water services. This comment has been addressed. 4. Which direction does the sanitary sewer in Osgood Street flow? It appears that the grade of the road slopes in the opposite direction as indicated by the service wye shown on the plan. The plan has been revised. This comment has been addressed. 5. The material listed for the sewer service is cast iron. What materials will be used for the remainder of the sewer service? VHB recommends the Applicant's Engineer review the Town Standards for sewer services. The Applicant has confirmed that cast iron pipe is proposed for the sewer service. VHB believes that cast iron is not acceptable to the Town. VHB recommends that the sewer service that is located within the Osgood Street layout be PVC or a material acceptable to the Town. 6. The proposed sewer system starts with very little cover. The construction notes refer to insulation as shown on the plan. The Applicant's Engineer should show the limits of insulation and provide calculations that the proposed insulation will adequately protect the pipe and discharge from the cold weather. This comment has been addressed. 7. Has the proposed wood guard rail system been crash tested or does it meet state standards for guard rail? This comment has been addressed. III. DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1. The grading in the northeast corner of the existing building will require approximately 1.5 feet of fill at the existing building to create the grading as shown. This may make for a construction issue that could be resolved now. This comment has been addressed. 2. The detention basin has been shown at elevation 120.7,but the nearest wetland was flagged at elevation 130'. It would seem likely that the ground water may effect the amount of runoff actually infiltrated into the ground. The Applicant's Engineer should determine the estimated high groundwater in the area and submit the results for review. This comment has been addressed,although VHB suggests a buoyancy check for the system. 3. The proposed catch basin shown has a 4' sump with a 3 foot tee. The Applicant's Engineer should describe how the system will be maintained or cleaned? This comment has been addressed. 4. Will the proposed brick weir in DMH4 be able to withstand all forces acted upon it? The wall should be detailed showing curvature and connection to the bottom of the manhole. The Applicant's response that the weir will be a mortared wall does not address VHB's concern about the structural stability of the wall as it functions as a weir. 5. Does the proposed 6"frame and cover meet the requirements of the Town of North Andover? Will the frame support an H-20 load? This comment has been addressed. 6. The flow and capacity calculations for the drainage pipes and catchbasin grates should be provided for all storms that depend on the functioning of these pipes and grates to convey the runoff to the detention basin. The Manning's n coefficient used should be provided. The Applicant's Engineer should also evaluate the actual velocities in the pipes for the predicted storms to show that the velocity does not drop below 2 fps in partial flow conditions. This comment has been addressed. 3 CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LKFID3\Revie%v2-1003 osgood.doc 7. Sub-catchment Area 6 does not appear consistent with the contours shown(southwest of the property). The contours look as though they will shed water off onto the abutting property. This comment has been addressed. 8. The Applicant's Engineer has modeled each catchbasin as a pond. The catchbasins have deep sumps and should be assumed to stay filled therefore there will be no storage in the catchbasins. Modeling the catch basins as ponds will allow Hydrocad to account for tail water,however the applicant's engineer should not consider storage time within the basin as the impervious sump will prevent the basin from draining and any water entering the basin will exit right away. 9. The summary information explains that when the runoff goes to a basin and is over the capacity of the grate, the excess flow will by-pass to the sump basin downstream. The Applicant's Engineer should model it so that the runoff that bypasses a basin and flows to the sump is reflected in the actual stormwater detail calculations. This comment has been addressed. 10. Since the basins need to function to get the 100 year storm into the detention system,additional calculations should be provided to show how the model behaves during the 100 year storm. This comment has been addressed. IV. TRAFFIC COMMENTS 1. The study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a traffic impact and access study.However,there is no indication that crash/accident data for this area was collected or reviewed.It would be helpful to determine if existing safety issues currently exist at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and in the vicinity of the proposed site. Any additional traffic would likely serve to increase the opportunity for crashes at this location especially with the four-lane cross section on Osgood Street directly in front of the proposed site. This comment has been addressed. 2. The traffic report analyzes the proposed site driveways as one drive with a 12-foot wide lane for entering traffic and one 12-foot lane for exiting traffic while the proposed Site Development Plan indicated two driveways with a one-way counterclockwise circulation through the site. The analysis should analyze each driveway individually and queues at the south entering drive should be reviewed to determine if there are any impacts at the north exiting driveway since they are only 250 feet apart. Either the traffic report should be updated to reflect what is being proposed in the site plan or vice versa. This comment has been addressed. 3. It should be noted that the site plan indicates a proposed soccer field to be located behind this mixed-use development. There is no mention to this field in the traffic report. The applicant should clarify if this soccer field is part of this development. If the field is part of the development, the traffic impacts,and more importantly the on-site parking impacts,should be revisited. The Applicant has responded that the soccer field will only be used on weekends. VHB recommends that the Town consider restricting soccer events(by means of a condition of approval) to non- business hours. VHB's concern is that there will not be enough parking if the business is operating and the soccer field is active. 4. The proposed site plan should indicate turning radii for the largest emergency response vehicle operated by the Town of North Andover.Also,if the proposed soccer field is part of this development,the Applicant's Engineer should consider the impacts of bus parking and/or turning radii on the site. The Applicant's Engineer should provide an AutoTurn©or similar plan showing the routes for both school busses and emergency response vehicles within the site.VHB recommends that the Town's Fire Chief or representative review this information to assure their comfort with the plan. This comment has been addressed. 4 CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKFID3\Revie%v2-1003 osgood.doc 5. The traffic study recommends that some clearing will be required to provide the appropriate sight distance measurements at the site driveways.It is recommended that a clear sight distance be provided to meet the current travel speeds along Osgood Street. This should be shown on a plan and a maintenance easement be provided to assure that these sight lines can be maintained in perpetuity. This comment has been addressed. 6. The proposed site plan shows one 25-foot lane exiting the site.VHB recommends that this driveway be striped as two lanes,a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane,each at least 12-feet wide. The Mitigation Measures section in the Executive Summary of the Traffic Study references the site driveways operating with a 12-foot lane for entering vehicles and a 12-foot lane for exiting vehicles. The Executive Summary and analysis of the report should be updated for clarification and should include two exiting lanes. This comment has been addressed. 7. An existing pole is proposed to be relocated from the north driveway,however,it appears that the site driveway could be designed to eliminate this from being done. This comment has been addressed. It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. Reviewed by: Date: Tracie Lenhardt Project Engineer Reviewed by: Date: Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Project Manager 5 CAVVINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LKFID3\Revie%v2-1003 osgood.doc MEMORANDUM TO: North Andover Planning Board FROM: Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Director RE: Site Plan Review and Watershed Special Permit - 1003 Osgood Street DATE: November 13,2003 The applicant proposes a 13,000 square foot professional office building which will involve the renovation and reconstruction of the existing farmhouse on the property. Also, the project will entail four residential apartments that will be part of the overall renovation plan. The proposal also includes a youth soccer field to the rear of the property. The soccer field will be only used on the weekends and is designed for children under the age of 10. It is my understanding the fields will be transferred to a private entity, and not the town of North Andover, to ensure private control for utilization of the property. My review is as follows: SITE PLAN REVIEW: i. NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: This has been provided. ii. SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: This has been provided. iii. NAME/DECRIPTION OF PROJECT: This has been provided. iv. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: Easements have been provided on the plans. V. TOPOGRAPHY: This has been provided. vi. ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning information has been provided. The lot is pre- - -- existing-and-non-eonforming -I-will-need WRIT-TEN-confirmation-from--the-Building Commissioner that a finding or otherwise is not required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this project. For example, the existing building is T-from the property line and the required front setback is 35' in this zone; therefore I will need a written determination that this is acceptable as it is pre-existing non-conforming structure. Also, the pre-existing building exceeds the.maximum building height of 35'. I will need WRITTEN confirmation from the building commissioner as to whether or not this will require a variance or a finding. Finally, please see my comments on parking, in specific reference to adequate parking for the soccer field. I will meet with the Building Commissioner prior to the meeting on the 18th and discuss with him what will be needed in the way of zoning relief, if necessary and update you at the meeting. vii. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: Please see attached review performed by the Town's consulting engineer. Revised calculations were provided by the applicant on 10/27/03. viii. BUILDING LOCATION: All of the building locations have been provided. ix. BUILDING ELEVATION: Building elevations have been provided. The elevation plans are detailed in nature and adequately explain the breakdown of the buildings, which include a new addition to the ground floor, and a new addition to the 1St floor, as well as a 2❑d floor addition. Sheet A3 depicts north, south and west elevations which are in harmony with the intent of the business 2 zoning district. x. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: 54 parking spaces are required under the zoning bylaw - 8 spaces for the apartments, and 46 for the office space. The applicant has provided the required 54 parking spaces. However, the parking for the .soccer field is to be utilized on the existing office parking spaces. I will need confirmation from the Building Commissioner to ensure adequate parking exists on the site for the use of the soccer field. The applicant has indicated the soccer field will be only used on the weekends, and therefore the office parking will be adequate. Again, I have concerns that ample parking exists for the use of the soccer field and will discuss further with the Building Commissioner. Additionally, there will be a 5' wide concrete sidewalk that will connect the front of the.building to the rear of the parking lot. This is a nice feature as it will provide connectivity throughout the site. xi. LOCATION OF WETLANDS/NOTICE OF INTENT: There are several wetlands located on the site. The applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the conservation commission for work proposed in their appropriate buffer zones. However, they withdrew their application and will have to re-file to revise the drainage on the site. I will need confirmation from the Conservation Administrator that our revised plans will also meet the needs of the Conservation Commission and their applicable bylaws. xii. LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS: Retaining walls`have been identified. There is a retaining wall between the property and the adjacent Treadwells' property, as well as a -- --- retaining wa1} along-the 5a'-no build conser-vation-zone between-the-property -and the - -- - adjacent Town of North Andover property. Also, there is a guardrail in this area also. xiii. SIGNAGE: A signage plan has been provided and enclosed in your packets. The sign is attractive and aesthetically pleasing. It is entitled "1003 Osgood Street", with the below sign title stating "Northpoint Realty Development, L.L.C., Minco Corp.". Beneath that are three locations for the business names that will locate into the offices. The sign is 24.75 square feet in total area, with two posts. xiv. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: There are two access drives to the site. The entrance drive is proposed to be one-way. There will be a "entrance only" sign at this location. The exit driveway will be striped with a 12.5 right turn lane and a 12.5 wide left turn lane. There will a stop sign and "Exit Only, Do Not Enter" Signs at each lane intersection with Route 125. The existing driveways will be closed and replaced with bituminous cape cod berm. There is a 25' wide travel lane maintained throughout the site, as required by the zoning bylaw and required by fire and police for emergency access. xv. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed. xvi. LANDSCAPING PLAN: Revised landscaping plans have been provided with more detail and additional specifications of sizes and species. All vegetation in the front of the property has been removed and replaced with a traditional plantings, such as rhodedendron, etc. The left side provides a buffer of street trees into the back parking lot with shade trees. The right side of the building is comprised of evergreen and ornamental trees. xvii. REFUSE AREAS: A disposal area is located to the rear of the property near the rear parking spaces. It is proposed on an 18' by 18' concrete pad and will be enclosed with a six foot solid wood fence. xviii. LIGHTING FACILITIES: The lighting proposed is residential, pedestrian level type lighting which will be appropriate for a site of this nature. xix. DRAINAGE SYSTEM: The applicant has submitted revised drainage calculations to VHB on October 27, 2003. Please refer to VHB's report for more details on the drainage. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The applicant has applied to MA Highway for an access permit to the site. VHB recommended that the applicant provide crash/accident data at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road, as well as the vicinity of the proposed site. The concern was that additional traffic would increase the opportunity for crashes at this location. The data provided, in summation form from the applicant, is as follows: -- ---X99$:--I rear--end-accident --- -- - - --- 1999: 2 "angle" accidents 2000: 4 accidents, 1 "angle" accident, 2 rear-end accidents and 1 "unknown" accident; 2001: 7 accidents, 3 "angle" accidents, 3 rear-end accidents and 1_"unknown" accident. ��w I will defer to VHB's traffic experts for advice on this matter, but clearly the accident data above depicts that an increase in accidents in this nearby area could be increased further by the additional traffic generated by this project. I would recommend that the applicant provide the specific site distance from each entrance and exit drive so the Planning Board is aware of the site distance provided for each. For example, what is the distance from the exit drive to the intersection of Osgood Street/Great Pond Road? Again, I will defer to VHB but have concerns that proposed mitigation measures, as listed below, may not be adequate: 1. Mitigation Measure #1: To enhance site distances at intersections of proposed driveways, roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations adjacent to these driveways be maintained for sufficient sight lines. How do we guarantee these be maintained on a yearly basis? Will MA Highway Maintain this, if such a maintenance easement needs to be provided. We would need to condition the decision for yearly maintenance and appropriate bonds for such. 2. Proposed site driveways be 24' wide: I agree with this recommendation and they are depicted on the plans. 3. Proposed driveways be placed under STOP sign control with painted stop line. A painted crosswalk and overhead streetlight be considered at these locations. xx. UTILITIES: This has been provided on the plans. The project will be connected to the municipal water, and will be tied into the new municipal sewer system on Osgood Street. All utilities will be underground. xxi. FISCAL IMPACT: A waiver has been requested and I would agree that the proposed project would generate a positive cash flow to the town and that the waiver should be granted. xxii. COMMUNITY IMPACT: A waiver has been requested and I would agree that the waiver is appropriate and should be granted. Furthermore, the architectural style is slightly contemporary in nature which will blend in with the surrounding aesthetics and will be an improvement to the site. WATERSHED REVIEW: The project proposes the following work in each of the respective zones of the Watershed District: 1. Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone [within 250' of Lake and 100' of wetland resource areas]: Minor grading associated with the proposed soccer field, limited construction of the driveway, --- par•king retaining-walls-and-as grading for-site-circ�rlation and--renovation-of the-existing -- barn. No new buildings have been proposed within this zone. 2. Non-Discharge Buffer Zone [Within 325' of Lake and all wetland areasl: Renovation and expansion of the existing farmhouse, renovation of the existing barn, and stormwater management including surface discharge and associated grading. All of the above uses are allowed by special permit. The applicant has provided watershed certification [dated 8/15/03] as required by the Bylaw that there will be no degradation to the quality or quantity of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick. The project will be on sewer, not septic. The applicant provided a deed of the land as proof the lot existed prior to 1994 and thus qualifies as a lot with the respective resource areas of the watershed district for such. Finally, the engineer added a statement to the plans that there is no other reasonable alternative method to dispose of the runoff other than the method proposed. I have no issues with the work proposed within the watershed district as long as the decision is conditioned that only organic type lawn care products will be used in the landscaping for the site and for the fields located within the watershed district. ADDITIONAL ISSUES I would like to emphasize that overall I believe this project will be a vast improvement to the existing site. My concerns rest with the traffic impacts and adequate parking for the soccer field. It might be in the applicant's best interest to do some sort of quick analysis as to how many people utilize a soccer field, in town that is close in size to ensure the Planning Board adequate parking exists. Finally, I would also like to reiterate the project needs to be reviewed with the Building Commissioner for zoning compliance, keeping in mind the lot if pre-existing, non-conforming and once again, the parking for the soccer field and if a variance is required for parking for that lot. F December 2, 2003 Ms. Heidi Griffin Planning Director Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 RE: 1003 Osgood Street- Site Plan Review/Special Permit Dear Heidi: I am in receipt of both your letter dated November 13, 2003 and VHB's review letter dated November 7, 2003 regarding the renovation and expansion of 1003 Osgood Street in North Andover Massachusetts. As the Planning Board is meeting this evening I am hoping that this letter can serve as a summary of the outstanding issues identified in each of the above referenced correspondence. In your letter dated Novemberl3, 2003 you had asked for additional information / clarification regarding the following items: 1. Location of Parking and Walkways: 54 parking spaces are required under the zoning bylaw — 8 spaces for the apartments, and 46 for the office space. The applicant has provided the required 54 parking spaces. However, the parking for the soccer field is to be utilized on the existing office parking spaces. I will need confirmation from the Building Commissioner to ensure adequate parking exists on the site for the use of the soccer field. The applicant has indicated the soccer field will be only used on the weekends, and therefore the office parking will be adequate. Again,I have concerns that ample parking exists for the use of the soccer field and will discuss further with the Building Commissioner. The proposed soccer field is a U-10 field, meaning that it is intentionally undersized to accommodate the play of children 10 years old or younger. As such, this is not a field that will attract adult leagues or high school practice / competition events. The field will be owned privately and leased to the Town for a nominal fee each year. As such, the control of the field will remain in the hands of the owner of the building. The use of the field will be limited from 5:30pm to dusk, Monday through Friday and 9:00am to dusk on Saturday and Sunday. As you noted, the proposed site accommodates 46 parking spaces, all of these spaces will be available for use of the soccer field during the hours noted above. We feel that 46 spaces are adequate for the needs of this field. We base this finding upon the fact that the two new full size soccer fields built at Foster Farm provide a total of 92 parking spaces, or 46 spaces per field. Givers that the Foster Farm fields are full size MIAA regulation fields appropriate for adult league and high school play, we feel that 46 parking spaces will be sufficient for this site. 2. Traffic Impact Study: The applicant has applied to MA Highway for an access permit to the site. VHB recommended that the applicant provide crash/accident data at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road, as well as the vicinity of the proposed site. The concern was that additional traffic would increase the opportunity for crashes at this location. The data provided, in summation form from the applicant, is as Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2, 2003 Page 2 of 4 follows: 1998: 1 rear-end accident 1999: 2"angle" accidents 2000: 4 accidents, 1 "angle" accident,2 rear-end accidents and 1 "unknown" accident; 2001: 7 accidents, 3 "angle" accidents, 3 rear-end accidents and 1 "unknown" accident. I will defer to VHB's traffic experts for advice on this matter, but clearly the accident data above depicts that an increase in accidents in this nearby area could be increased further by the additional traffic generated by this project. I would recommend that the applicant provide the specific site distance from each entrance and exit drive so the Planning Board is aware of the site distance provided for each. For example, what is the distance from the exit drive to the intersection of Osgood Street/Great Pond Road? Again, I will defer to VHB but have concerns that proposed mitigation measures, as listed below, may not be adequate: a. Mitigation Measure #1: To enhance site distances at intersections of proposed driveways, roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations adjacent to these driveways be maintained for sufficient sight lines. How do we guarantee these be maintained on a yearly basis? Will MA Highway Maintain this, if such a maintenance easement needs to be provided. We would need to condition the decision for yearly maintenance and appropriate bonds for such. . b. Proposed site driveways be 24' wide: I agree with this recommendation and they are depicted on the plans. c. Proposed driveways be placed under STOP sign control with painted stop line. A painted crosswalk and overhead streetlight be considered at these locations. VHB has reviewed the final traffic analysis and agrees that all comments have been adequately addressed 3. Zoning Information: Zoning information has been provided. The lot is pre-existing and non-conforming. I will need WRITTEN confirmation from the Building Commissioner that a finding or otherwise is not required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this project. For example, the existing building is 7' from the property line and the required front setback is 35' in this zone; therefore I will need a written determination that this is acceptable as it is pre-existing non- conforming structure. Also, the pre-existing building exceeds the maximum building height of 35'. I will need WRITTEN confirmation from the building commissioner as to whether or not this will require a variance or a finding. Finally, please see my comments on parking, in specific reference to adequate parking for the soccer field. I will meet with the Building Commissioner prior to the meeting on the 181h and discuss with him what will be needed in the way of zoning relief, if necessary and update you at the meeting Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2, 2003 Page 3 of 4 As you noted, the existing building is a pre-existing non-conforming structure in that the existing building is within the front yard setback, and the existing barn is in excess of 35' feet in height. The proposed additions/structures comply with all required setbacks and height limitations, and as such do not increase the non-conformity of the pre-existing non-conforming status. It was our understanding that because we did not increase the non-conformity of the structure that a variance would not be required. We will be happy to work with the Building Inspector on a clarification of this matter as we move forward. We would respectfully suggest that Planning Board condition the approval to require that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant either obtain a letter form the Building Inspector stating that a variance is not required, or obtain a variance for the existing non-conformity from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In VHB's letter dated November 7, 2003 they had asked for additional information /clarification regarding the following items: 1. Section 6: Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations Although a lighting plan was provided, the plan should be modified to show the limits of the proposed lighting area. The proposed lighting should not leave the property border. The Applicant has indicated that only residential pedestrian level type lighting will be used. The intent of our original comment was to inquire about potential impacts from the proposed lights on adjacent property. The Applicant should describe what impacts, if any, these lights will have on adjacent property. The proposed lights have been depicted on a construction detail provided on sheet U2 of the landscape drawings. These posts are approximately 6' in height with a 100-150 watt bulb. The style of the fixture is entirely residential in scale,the location of the posts are well within the site boundary, and the fixtures will not project light beyond the limits of the property boundary. 2. The material listed for the sewer service is cast iron. What materials will be used for the remainder of the sewer service? VHB recommends the Applicant's Engineer review the Town Standards for sewer services. The Applicant has confirmed that cast iron pipe is proposed for the sewer service. VHB believes that cast iron is not acceptable to the Town. VHB recommends that the sewer service that is located within the Osgood Street layout be PVC or a material acceptable to the Town. Our experience on other projects has shown that the Town prefers cast iron, or ductile iron piping on sewers within Route 125. If this is not the case we will be happy to provide a pipe meeting the requirements of the North Andover DPW. I would respectfully request that the Planning Board consider a condition of approval that requires the applicant to secure approval of the final sewer plans front the North Andover DPW prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the record plans. 3. The Applicant's Engineer has modeled each catchbasin as a pond. The catchbasins have deep sumps and should be assumed to stay filled therefore there will be no storage in the Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2, 2003 Page 4 of 4 catchbasins. Modeling the catch basins as ponds will allow Hydrocad to account for tail water, however the applicant's engineer should not consider storage time within the basin as the impervious sump will prevent the basin from draining and any water entering the basin will exit right away. I would respectfully request that the Planning Board consider a condition of approval that requires the applicant to secure approval of the final drainage plans from the North Andover DPW prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the record plans. Given the above, we would respectfully request that Planning Board close the public hearings with regard to these applications and look to render a final decision in your first meeting in January of 2004. Thank you for your time and consideration with regard to this matter. As always, please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns. Sincerely; Huntress Associates,Inc. Christian C. Huntress Landscape Architect Cc: Brian Darcy,Thomas Properties,LLC 103 Stiles Road•Suite One•Salem,New Hampshire 03079 MHF Design Consultants, Inc. TEL(603)893-0720• FAX(603)893-0733 August 15, 2003 North Andover Planning Board C/o North Andover Community Development and Planning 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01 845 Re; Watershed Certification/Lakeview Farm Site Plan MHF# 11 Dear Board Members: On behalf of Thomas Properties,LLC,this letter serves as our certification that there will not be any significant degradation of the quality or quantity of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick. The site has been designed specifically to minimize the impact of the project to the buffer zones associated with the Watershed Protection District. Specifically, no impervious surfaces, structures,roof drains or associated drainage structures have been located within the 250' Non-Disturbance Zone. In addition,the site will be tied to the municipal sewer system, eliminating the need for an on-site septic system and possible nitrogen loading within the Watershed Protection District. Storm water management for the site has also been designed to encourage recharge through overland flow, and the use of fertilizer will be limited to organic methods with reduced nitrogen content. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely yours MHF DE GN CONSULTANTS, INC. Fr C. onteiro,P.E. Pri cipal Cc: Thomas Gioseffi,Thomas Properties, LLC 1 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS am OEM 103 Stiles Road-Suite One-Salem, New Hampshire 03079 MHF Design ConSUltants, Inc. TE[_(603)893-0720- FAX(603)1193-•0733 October 23,2003 Ms.Heidi Griffin,Community Development Director North Andover Planning Department 27 Charles Street IF`'r V E D North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Re: 1003 Osgood Street VHB Review Responses f� 1?003 MHF# 130802 PLIANN Dear MS.Griffin: Pease find enclosed a revised set of plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced project located at 1003 Osgood Street. The plans have been revised to address the comments in correspondence from VHB, Inc.dated September 29,2003. Based on those comments we offer the following: 1. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS Section 4.136: Watershed Protection District 1. The Plans show 25', 100'and 250' no disturbance setbacks and zones,which are not consistent with the North Andover Watershed boundaries. The Applicant's Engineer should review the town's Watershed boundaries and zoning areas and revise the plans accordingly. RESPONSE: The plan has been revised to show the 100-foot,250 foot and 325 foot boundaries that are applicable to this parcel in the watershed district. The other setbacks are shown for purposes of the Conservation Commission submittals. This lot predates 1994 therefore is only subject to the non-discharge and non-disturbance zones as depicted in Table 2 of the Watershed Protcetiou District ordinar.cC. 2. The Applicant should provide the date the lot was created to show conformance with the Watershed setback requirements. RESPONSE: The deed research for the property was researched back to the 1950's in which the subject parcel consisted of two parcels of land. Attached is a deed for the property showing the two pat-eels,which dates back to the 19801s,therefore precedes the 1.994 date in the ordinance. 3. How will grass be established and maintained on the fields and in the landscaping areas,without using fertilizer and lawn care products? RESPONSE: Only organic type lawn care products will be used in the landscaping for the site as well as for the fields. 4. The Applicant's Engineer should provide a statement that there is no other reasonable alternative method to dispose of the runoff than the method proposed. RESPONSE: A state ent has been added to the plans. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS WAMMENOMMLVEW MENOW ow mom MHF Design Consultants, Inc. 5. The Applicant's Engineer should provide evidence that the temporary and permanent on site operations will not create concentrations of Nitrogen in the groundwater,greater than the Federal limit at the down gradient property boundary. RESPONSE: A stated in response to comment 3 above,the use of organic lawn care products and slow release nitrogen products will be used. All other construction related site operations are outlined in the operation and maintenance plan contained in our stormwater management report. Section 6: Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations Although a lighting plan was provided,the plan should be modified to show the limits of the proposed lighting area. The proposed lighting should not leave the property border. Sign details were not provided with this submission;therefore VHB could not review this section for compliance. RESPONSE: The lighting proposed is residential pedestrian level type lighting as depicted on the drawings. A copy of the proposed signage is attached to this letter. Section 7:Dimensional requirements 7.3 Yards(setbacks) The existing structure and a portion of the addition extend into the required setback as shown in Table 2 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged,however no part of the addition extends into the setback. I 7.4 Building Heights In Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws,the maximum building height is 35 feet. The existing structure exceeds that height. RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. 7.5 Lot Coverage The actual lot coverage should be listed on the application. The Applicant's Engineer should revise the application to include this information. RESPONSE: Lot coverage has been included on the revised plans. Section 8: Supplementary Regulations Section 8.1 Off Street Parking 1. The parking calculations provided are not consistent with the floor areas provided on the architectural drawings. The Applicant's Engineer should review and revise the parking calculations accordingly. I RESPONSE: The floor areas have been revised to be consistent with the architectural plans. � Section 8.3 Site Plan Review 8.3-5 Information Require(] e)xii) The Applicant's Engineer should provide details for any proposed signs. e)xvii) The Applicant's Engineer should provide a lighting plan showing luminary values from the j proposed system and the extent of the area lit with respect to the property lines. e-xviii) Drainage Basin Study: See Drainage Continents. e-xix) Traffic Impact Study:See Traffic Comments RESPONSE: These items have been addressed elsewhere in this response letter. I i 2 C.:\Ducuments and Settings\Administrator\My Document\9308vhbresponse.doc j 1 I NNERNWMONFAMW MENEW MM OEM MHF Design Consultants, Inc. 11. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Applicant's Engineer should check the existing site distance on Osgood Street RESPONSE: See comments in Traffic Section of this response letter. 2. Is the existing water service sufficient for the section of the building that will be serviced by it? RESPONSE: The existing water service will continue to service the residential structure,which currently contains three apartments and will add one additional apartment. 3. The existing domestic water service,the proposed fire and the domestic services should be detailed by material and size. The Applicant's Engineer should compare expected demand with available capacity and the capacity of the water services. RESPONSE: The proposed water services have been revised on the attached plans to show the size and material. it is our understanding that based on discussions with the Department of Public Works,that the 12-inch main on Osgood Street has sufficient pressure and capacity to serve this development. 4. Which direction does the sanitary sewer hi Osgood Street flow? It appears that the grade of the road slopes in the opposite direction as indicated by the service wye shown on the plan. RESPONSE: The direction of flow for the sanitary sewer has been shown and the vvc connection has been- revised to reflect the actual direction of flow. 5. The material listed for the sewer service is cast iron. What materials will be used for the remainder of the sewer service? VHB recommends the Applicant's Engineer review the Town Standards for sewer services. RESPONSE: The material for the sewer line will be cast iron. 6. The proposed sewer system starts with very little cover. The construction notes refer to insulation as shown on the plan. The Applicant's Engineer should show the limits of insulation and provide calculations that the proposed insulation will adequately protect the pipe and discharge from the cold weather. RESPONSE: Based on the revised grading and the inverts of the sewer lines,there is no need for insulation on the sewer lines and the sewer trench detail has been revised accordingly. 7. Has the proposed wood guardrail system been crash tested or does it meet state standards for guardrail? RESPONSE: The proposed guardrail is typical for those used on state parkways where metal guardrails are not allowed. The use of this type of guardrail is on private property and not subject to any state requirements. 111. DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1. The grading in the northeast corner of the existing building will require approximately 1.5 feet of fill at the existing building to create the grading as shown. This may make for a construction issue that could be resolved now. RESPONSE: Grading against the existing foundation of the house will not create any problems. 3 C:\Documents and Setlings\Adininistrator\hly Doc unienb\13080bresponse.doc MHF Design Consultants, Inc. 2. The detention basin has been shown at elevation 1203,but the nearest wetland was flagged at elevation 130'. It would seem likely that the ground water may affect the amount of runoff actually infiltrated into the ground. The Applicant's Engineer should determine the estimated high groundwater in the area and submit the results for review. RESPONSE: Stormwater is not being infiltrated in the underground detention system. Roof infiltrator systems have been added to the plans and details provided showing the separation from seasonal high water levels,which were recorded from on-site test pits. 3. The proposed catch basin shown has a.4' sump with a 3-foot tee. The Applicant's Engineer should describe how the system will be maintained or cleaned? RESPONSE: This detail has been revised. 4. Will the proposed brick weir in DMH4 be able to withstand all forces acted upon it? The wall should be detailed showing curvature and connection to the bottom of the manhole. RESPONSE: The weir wall will be a mortared wall and has been shown on the details. 5. Does the proposed 6"frame and cover meet the requirements of the Town of North Andover? Will the frame support an H-20 load? RESPONSE: The detail for the drain manhole has been revised to show the Town of North Andover detail, 6. The flow and capacity calculations for the drainage pipes and catchbasin grates should be provided for all storms that depend on the functioning of these pipes and grates to convey the runoff to the detention basin. The Manning's n coefficient used should be provided. The Applicant's Engineer should also evaluate the actual velocities in the pipes for the predicted storms to show that the velocity does not drop below 2 fps in partial flow conditions. RESPONSE: All the information requested is shown in the drainage calculations for this project, 7. Subcatchment Area 6 does not appear consistent with the contours shown(southwest of the property). The contours look as though they will shed water off onto the abutting property. I RESPONSE: The runoff from Subc 6 flows to the property line and along the property line and flows back onto the property at the wetland area. Visual inspection of the adjacent site shows that the contours rise significantly up from this area so that runoff cannot flow onto the adjacent property. g. The Applicant's Engineer has modeled each catchbasin as a pond. The catchbasins have deep sumps and should be assumed to stay filled therefore there will be no storage in the catchbasins. RESPONSE: The reviewer should be aware that according to Hydrocad creator Peter Smart,catch basins should be modeled as ponds in order to account for the effects of tailwater on the exit pipe.Therefore,this is standard procedure in using Hydrocad modeling. 9, The summary information explains that when the runoff goes to a basin and is over the capacity of the grate,the excess flow will by-pass to the sump basin downstream. The Applicant's Engineer should model it so that the runoff that bypasses a basin and flows to the sump is reflected in the actual stormwater detail calculations. 4 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\"13080bresponse.doc Emow EM mom MHF Design Consultants, Inc, RESPONSE: 'T'here is no way to model bypass flows from a catch basin in series to another basin In a sump condition in the Hydrocad model.Rather,bypass flows were added to the peak rates in the tabulated grate capacity cheek table(see page 11).'There it is clear that the 8.0 cis capacity of the catch basin in the sump condition at the southeast portion of the parking area(CB-2)is more than enough to accept the flows to it. 10. Since the basins need to function to get the 100 year storm into the detention system,additional calculations should be provided to show how the model behaves during the 100 year storm. RESPONSE:We know of no requirement that grate capacities accommodate the 100-year event.However, the information for the 100-year event is included in the Hydrocad printouts,and it shows clearly that G11-2 has sufficient capacity for all flows which may end up there. lV. TRAFFIC COMMENTS 1. The study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a. traffic impact and access study.However,there is no indication that crash/accident data for this area was collected or reviewed.It would be helpful to determine if existing safety issues currently exist at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great fond Road and in the vicinity of the proposed site. Any additional traffic would likely serve to increase the opporturvty for crashes at this location especially with the four-lane cross section on Osgood Street directly in front of the proposed site. RE SPONSE; The Mass Highway accident data was researched for Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and revealed the following accident history. The actual accident data is reproduced in the appendix of this response. TABLE 41 INTERSECTION ACCIDENT SUMMARY—OSGOOD STREET AT GREAT POND ROAD 1998 through 2004 1998 1999 2000 Total I Severity Property Damage 1 1 2 4 Personal Inlnry 0 1 2 3 l Total 1 2 4 7 Type 3 Angle 0 2 1 Rear-End 1 0 2 3 Unknown/Other 0 0 1 1 Total 1 2 4 7 Road Conditions Wet/Icy 0 0 3 3 Dry 1 2 1 4 Unknown 0 0 0 0 Total 1 2 4 7 Time 7-9 AM 0 0 1 1 4-6 PM 0 0 0 0 Other 1 2 3 6 Total 1 2 4 7 Source: Massachusetts Highway Department. S C:\Documents and Set#ings\Administrator\My Documents\13080bresponse,doc MMKUW MW mom MHF design Consultants, Inc. 2. The traffic report analyzes the proposed site driveways as one drive with a 12-foot wide lane for entering traffic and one 12-foot lane for exiting traffic while the proposed Site Development Plan indicated two driveways with a one-way counterclockwise circulation through the site.The analysis should analyze each driveway individually and queues at the south entering drive should be reviewed to determine if there are any impacts at the north exiting driveway since they are only 250 feet apart.Either the traffic report should be updated to reflect what is being proposed in the site plan or vice versa. RESPONSE: The two proposed,driveways consist of a one-way pair,the south driveway would be the entrance drive and the north driveway would be the exit driveway. The analysis was conducted as a single driveway to present a conservative analysis condition. The south entrance driveway was analyzed again as a one-way entrance and the 95th percentile queues were 0.04 and 0.03 for the morning and evening peak.hours. The initial.Traffic Study provided the same results. The analysis is reproduced in the appendix of this response. 3. It should be noted that the site plan indicates a proposed soccer field to be located behind this mixed-use development. There is no mention to this field in the traffic report. The applicant should clarify if this soccer field is part of this development, If the field is part of the development,the traffic impacts,and more importantly the on-site parking impacts,should be revisited. 1 RESPONSE: The proposed soccer field is part of the proposed Development Plan. The proposed soccer field will only be used on weekends when the office component of the proposed development project will normally not be in use or in use on a limited basis. Consequently,the parking required for the proposed office building will be available to the parents of the soccer players. 4. The proposed site plan should indicate turning radii for the largest emergency response vehicle operated by the Town of North Andover.Also,if the proposed soccer field is part of this development,the Applicant's Engineer should consider the impacts of bus parking and/or turning radii on the site, The Applicant's Engineer should provide an AutoTurn @ or similar plan showing the routes for both school busses and emergency response vehicles within the site.VHS recommends that the Town's Fire Chief or representative review this information to assure their comfort with the plan, RESPONSE: The proponent will meet with the Town's Fire Chief and implement any appropriate changes that are required by the Fire Chief. A plan has been added showing the access for a fire truck access to the site. 5. The traffic study recommends that some clearing will be required to provide the appropriate sight distance measurements at the site driveways.It is recommended that a clear sight distance be provided to meet the current travel speeds along Osgood Street.This should be shown on a plan and a maintenance easement be provided to assure that these sight lines can be maintained in perpetuity. RESPONSE: The Traffic Impact and Access Study "recommended that roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations adjacent to the access/egress driveways be maintained such that sufficient safety sight lines are provided in both directions throughout the life of the project." Since the proposed Site Development Ilan now includes an entrance drive and an exit drive, the sight distance maintenance area is shown on the enclosed plan adjacent to the proposed exit drive. 6 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\1308vhbresponse.doc WMENMENWAMV Womw mm so= MHF Design Consultants, Inc. 6. The proposed site plan shows one 25-foot lane exiting the site.VHB recommends that this driveway be striped as two lanes,a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane,each at least 12-feet wide.The Mitigation Measures section in the Executive Summary of the Traffic Study references the site driveways operating with a 12-foot lane for entering vehicles and a 12-foot lane for exiting vehicles. The Executive Summary and analysis of the report should be updated for clarification and should include two exiting lanes. RESPONSE: The enclosed plate shows the exit driveway to be striped with a 121/2-foot`vide right- turn lane and a 121/2-foot wide left-turn lane at the exit drive. 7. An existing pole is proposed to be relocated from the north driveway,however,it appears that the site driveway could be designed to eliminate this from being done. RESPONSE: Given the overall design considerations of the project the proponent has elected to leave the driveway at its current location and relocate the existing utility pole. i Please review the attached revised information and should you have any questions,please feel free to call I me at your convenience, I Sincerely ours, MHF D GN ,INC> p I ,os Principa Cc: Mr,Brian Darcy,Northpoint Realty Mr. Chris Huntress,Huntress Associates Mr.Williarn Cotter/Mr.Robert Nagri,VHB,Inc. J I i C I I 7 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\1348vhbresponse,doc Rur,,,vnj,",ss S'S'(1")("fA,'.'l4."-�l'",',,,, LANDSCAPPI ARCIIIATCTUIUI LAND PLANNING December 2, 2003 Ms. Heidi Griffin Planning Director Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 RE: 1003 Osgood Street- Site Plan Review/Special Perrnit Dear Heidi: I am in receipt of both your letter dated November 13, 2003 and VHB's review letter dated November"7, 2003 regarding the renovation and expansion of 1003 Osgood Street in North Andover Massachusetts. As the Planning Board is meeting this evening I am hoping that this letter can serve as a summary of the outstanding issues identified in each of the above referenced correspondence. In your letter dated November•13, 2003 you had asked for additional information / clarification regarding the following items: 1. Location of Parking and Walkways: 54 parking spaces are required under the zoning bylaw — 8 spaces for the apartments, and 46 for the office space. The applicant has provided the required 54 parking spaces. However,the parking for the soccer field is to be utilized on the existing office parking spaces. I will need confirmation from the Building Commissioner to ensure adequate parking exists on the site for the use of the soccer field. The applicant has indicated the soccer field will be only used on the weekends, and therefore the office parking will be adequate. Again, I have concerns that ample parking exists for the use of the soccer field and will discuss further with the Building Commissioner. The proposed soccer field is a 17-10 field, meaning that it is intentionally undersized to accommodate the play of children 10 years old or younger. As such, this is not afield that will attract adult leagues or high school practice /competition events. Tire field will be owned privately and leased to the Town for a nominal fee each year. As such, the control of the field will remain in the hands of the owner of the building. The use of'the field will be limited from 5:30pm to dusk, Monday through Friday and 9:00aln to dusk on Saturday and Sunday. As you noted, the proposed site accommodates 46 parking spaces, all of these spaces will be available for use of the soccer field(luring the hours noted above. We feel that 46 spaces are adequate for the needs of this field We base this finding upon the fact that the two new full size soccer fields built at Foster Farm provide a total of 92 parking spaces, or 46 spaces per fleld. Given that the Foster Farm fields are frill size MJAA regulation fields appropriate for adult league and high school play, we feel that 46 parking spaces will be sufficient for this site. 2. Traffic Impact Study: The applicant has applied to MA Highway for an access permit to the site. VHB recommended that the applicant provide crash/accident data at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road, as well as the vicinity of the proposed site. The concern was that additional traffic would increase the opportunity for crashes at this location. The data provided, in summation form from the applicant, is as Tmvkslmr% Slicet, Andovci MA 0181() Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2,2003 Page 2 of 4 follows: 1998: 1 rear-end accident 1999: 2"angle"accidents 2000: 4 accidents, 1 "angle"accident, 2 rear-end accidents and 1 "unknown"accident; 2001: 7 accidents, 3 "angle"accidents, 3 rear-end accidents and 1 "unknown"accident. I will defer to VHB's traffic experts for advice on this matter, but clearly the accident data above depicts that an increase in accidents in this nearby area could be increased further by the additional traffic generated by this project. I would recommend that the applicant provide the specific site distance from each entrance and exit drive so the Planning Board is aware of the site distance provided for each. For example, what is the distance from the exit drive to the intersection of Osgood Street/Great Pond Road? Again,I will defer to VHB but have concerns that proposed mitigation measures, as listed below,may not be adequate: a. Mitigation Measure #l: To enhance site distances at intersections of proposed driveways, roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations adjacent to these driveways be maintained for sufficient sight lines. How do we guarantee these be maintained on a yearly basis? Will MA Highway Maintain this, if such a maintenance easement needs to be provided. We would need to condition the decision for yearly maintenance and appropriate bonds for such. b. Proposed site driveways be 24' wide: I agree with this recommendation and they are depicted on the plans. c. Proposed driveways be placed under STOP sign control with painted stop line. A painted crosswalk and overhead streetlight be considered at these locations. VHB has reviewed the final traffic analysis and agrees that all comments have been adequately addressed 3. Zoning Information: Zoning information has been provided. The lot is pre-existing and non-conforming. I will need WRITTEN confirmation from the Building Commissioner that a finding or otherwise is not required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this project. For example, the existing building is 7' from the property line and the required front setback is 35' in this zone; therefore I will need a written determination that this is acceptable as it is pre-existing non- conforming structure. Also, the pre-existing building exceeds the maximum building height of 35'. I will need WRITTEN confirmation from the building commissioner as to whether or not this will require a variance or a finding. Finally, please see my comments on parking, in specific reference to adequate parking for the soccer field. I will meet with the Building Commissioner prior to the meeting on the 181h and discuss with him what will be needed in the way of zoning relief, if necessary and update you at the meeting Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2,2003 Page 3 of 4 As you noted, the existing building is a pre-existing non-conforming structure in that the existing building is within the front yard setback, and the existing barn is in excess of 35' feet in height. The proposed additions/structures comply with all required setbacks and height limitations, and as such do not increase the non-conformity of the pre-existing non-conforming status. It was our understanding that because we did not increase the non-conformity of the structure that a variance would not be required. We will be happy to work with the Building Inspector on a clarification of this matter as we move forward. We would respectfully suggest that Planning Board condition the approval to require that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant either obtain a letter form the Building Inspector stating that a variance is not required, or obtain a variance for the existing non-conformity from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In VHB's letter dated November 7, 2003 they had asked for additional information/clarification regarding the following items: 1. Section 6: Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations Although a lighting plan was provided,the plan should be modified to show the limits of the proposed lighting area. The proposed lighting should not leave the property border. The Applicant has indicated that only residential pedestrian level type lighting will be used. The intent of our original comment was to inquire about potential impacts from the proposed lights on adjacent property. The Applicant should describe what impacts, if any,these lights will have on adjacent property. The proposed lights have been depicted on a construction detail provided on sheet L-2 of the landscape drawings. These posts are approximately 6'in height with a 100-I50 watt bulb. The style of the fixture is entirely residential in scale,the location of the posts are well within the site boundary, and the fixtures will not project light beyond the limits of the property boundary. 2. The material listed for the sewer service is cast iron. What materials will be used for the remainder of the sewer service? VHB recommends the Applicant's Engineer review the Town Standards for sewer services. The Applicant has confirmed that cast iron pipe is proposed for the sewer service. VHB believes that cast iron is not acceptable to the Town. VHB recommends that the sewer service that is located within the Osgood Street layout be PVC or a material acceptable to the Town. Our experience on other projects has shown that the Town prefers cast iron, or ductile iron piping on sewers within Route 125. If this is not the case we will be happy to provide a pipe meeting the requirements of the North Andover DPW. I would respectfully request that the Planning Board consider a condition of approval that requires the applicant to secure approval of the final sewer plans from the North Andover DPW prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the record plans. 3. The Applicant's Engineer has modeled each catchbasin as a pond. The catchbasins have deep sumps and should be assumed to stay filled therefore there will be no storage in the Ms.Heidi Griffin December 2,2003 Page 4 of 4 catchbasins. Modeling the catch basins as ponds will allow Hydrocad to account for tail water, however the applicant's engineer should not consider storage time within the basin as the impervious sump will prevent the basin from draining and any water entering the basin will exit right away. I would respectfully request that the Planning Board consider a condition of approval that requires the applicant to secure approval of the final drainage plans from the North Andover DPW prior to the Planning Board's endorsement of the record plans. Given the above, we would respectfully request that Planning Board close the public hearings with regard to these applications and look to render a final decision in your first meeting in January of 2004. Thank you for your time and consideration with regard to this matter. As always, please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns. Sincerely; H ss cia s,Inc. ist tresi ns Landscape Architect Cc: Brian Darcy,Thomas Properties,LLC i