HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 1003 OSGOOD STREET 7/26/2010 (2) TOWN OF NORTH
ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Proposed Site Development Plans VHB No.: 09280.58
Site Plan Location: 1003 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA
Applicant: Osgood Properties LLC, 865 Turnpike Street,2nd Floor
Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants, Inc., 103 Stiles Road, Suite One, Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: June 17,2010 Review Date: July 26,2010
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
July 13,2008). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Site Plans dated June 17,2010(15 sheets)
• Letter to the North Andover Planning Board regarding watershed quality certification.
• Traffic Impact and Access Study,prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc.
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Please note that
this review does not contain a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by
the Conservation Commission's consultant.
Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw
1. Section(4.136.3.c.ii.3): Has the Applicant obtained a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
construct a new permanent structure within the non-disturbance buffer zone? The southwest corner of
the proposed 7,000 SF building is within the wetland resource non-disturbance zone.
2. Section(4.136.3.c.ii.6): The Applicant is proposing to relocate an existing barn within the non-
disturbance buffer zone of the lake. The barn is labeled for proposed office use on the site
development plan(sheet 3). Does the Board consider the proposed use of the relocated barn to be
accessory? If not(and in addition to comment#1), a variance would be required for this structure to be
constructed within the non-disturbance buffer zone.
3. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.2): Have the edge of all wetland resources been confirmed by the Conservation
Commission? Attention is called to the wetland in the southeast corner of the site which has 2
delineations listed. The buffer zones shown on the submitted plans are based off of the wetland with an
older delineation,which is also further away from the proposed site development than the more
recently delineated wetland.
4. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.4): The Applicant should revise the 100' Wetland Setback dimension to read 100'
Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone.
5. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.5): It appears that the Applicant has not labeled the 325'Non-Discharge Buffer
Zone for the wetlands on the sheets 4 through 6. The Applicant should add this information to the
plans, as required by this section.
1
S:\Communil,Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUMENTS\Judy Folder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Street.doc
6. Section(4.136.4.c.iv):The Applicant should provide proof that the there is no reasonable alternate
location for the proposed building outside of the non-disturbance buffer zone.
7. Section(4.136.4.c.vii):If the use of lawn or garden care products is to be allowed within the non-
discharge buffer zone the Applicant should be prepared to submit further evidence regarding down
gradient concentrations of any relevant chemicals.
8. Section(8.1.8.g): This section states that a special permit may be granted to reduce the number of
required parking spaces by not more than 35%. VHB notes that the Applicant is proposing to reduce
the number of spaces by approximately 33%. Has the Applicant submitted evidence to the Board that
the parking requirements of the proposed use justify a lesser number of spaces?
9. Section(8.3.5.e.viii): According to this section the overall height of the building should be provided.
VHB notes that this is stated as less than 35' in the zoning regulations table,however we suggest listing
the actual height of the proposed buildings.
10. Section(8.3.5.e.xii): This section states that the material and height of proposed signs shall be labeled
on the plans. It appears this detail is not provided for the proposed pylon sign. We recommend the
applicant add the sign material and height information to the site development plan or add a detail.
11. Section(8.3.5.e.xv): This section states that any landscaping required by the Town by-laws shall be
indicated on the plans in tabular form, showing required amount and proposed amount. No table
showing the above information has been provided in the information submitted to VHB.
12. Section(8.3.5.e.xvii): It appears that the light fixture to be used differs between the"Carriage Lamp
and Post" detail on sheet 7 and the fixture shown on the Lighting Plan. It is unclear if both fixtures are
proposed throughout the site. The Applicant should clarify.
13. Section(8.3.5.e.xxi): According to this section sewer lines and profiles are required. VHB notes that
the proposed sewer lines to the 3 floor building have been included on the plans;however it does not
appear that a profile has been provided. The Applicant should provide a profile for this proposed line.
Additionally,it does not appear that sewer lines to the relocated barn have been proposed. Has the
Applicant considered providing sewer services to the relocated barn?
14. Section(8.3.5.e.xxii): A fiscal impact study was not included in the submission. Has the Applicant
requested a waiver?
15. Section(8.3.5.e.xxiii):A community impact study was not included in the submission. Has the
Applicant requested a waiver?
16. Section(16.7.4): This section requires that for lots abutting residential zoning districts,as is the case
with the proposed site development,the 15' nearest the side and rear lot lines must be landscaped and a
6'high stockade fence must be erected. In addition the 10'nearest the side and rear lot lines must have
a buffer of at least 8' high trees or shrubs planted. The submitted plan proposes isolated areas of
landscaping along the side lot line and no fence appears to be proposed.
General Comments
17. The utility lines for electric,telephone, cable and gas are not shown at the proposed building,the
relocated barn or at connection points to the main systems. The board may require these connection
points to be shown on the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 125 in order to make these
connections. It is assumed that the electric,telephone and cable will be provided fi•om a connection to
a utility pole. There is no existing gas main shown on the plans in the area of the site,therefore it is
difficult to understand where this connection will be made. The existing gas main and connection point
should be shown on the plans.
18. The underground detention system and infiltration systems details do not indicate a rating for vehicular
loads. This should be confirmed and shown on the plans as multiple inspection ports are within the
parking lot.
2
S:\Community Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUMENTS\Judy Folder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Street.doc
19. A large area of a temporary stockpile area shown on sheet 5 is located over infiltration system 92.
Assuming this stock piling is to occur after the infiltration system has been installed,will any loading
occur on the system that could potentially damage it?
20. The Applicant should confirm that infiltration systems 1&2 and detention system#1 have the
appropriate separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater. Based on test pit information on sheet
8 the estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation may be close to the bottom of infiltration system
#2 and the detention system.
21. VHB reviewed the on-site vehicle circulation. The majority of the site layout accommodates a Single
Unit vehicle(i.e. ambulance, fire truck, snow plow). On the fire truck access plan(sheet I of 1)the
southwest site entrance is shown as the entry point for the 40' vehicle. Based on a turning template
placed on the plan it appears that the turning point may be too tight and the truck may need to enter
from the left lane instead of the right to avoid encroaching upon vehicles exiting the site at the same
point. While this may be acceptable,we recommend the Applicant verify the turning path at this
entrance and update the plan as required.
22. Larger vehicles such as a WB-50(tractor trailer)will encroach into opposing travel lanes within the
parking lot and the adjacent roadway. The Applicant should provide information/discussion on the
type and frequency of vehicles expected to use this site and whether any changes to the parking lot
layout are warranted. This may not be an issue depending on how frequently larger trucks are expected
at this site.
23. A MassDOT access permit will be required to allow the driveway connection,to close the 2 existing
driveway openings and to allow for the grading and installation of landscaping within the Route 125
layout. VHB assumes that the Applicant's Engineer will discuss any work within the Route 125 layout
with the Town DPW/Engineering Department and MassDOT as well as obtain all necessary permits
from the State and the Town.
24. A wood guardrail detail has been included on sheet 7,however it appears there are no callouts for
guardrail on the site development plan(sheet 3). The Applicant should clarify whether guardrail is
required and revise the plans accordingly.
25. It appears the proposed location for the trash enclosure for the existing site eliminates 4 parking spaces
from the existing amount. The Applicant should verify that this does not put the existing site into non-
compliance with the zoning by-law regarding the required amount of spaces for the existing site.
26. It appears the proposed location for the trash enclosure for the proposed site is behind a group of 4
parking spaces. How will waste removal services be performed if cars are parked in this area and
blocking the trash enclosure?
27. The site development plan shows handicap spaces and accessible routes to the proposed building on the
front and rear(north and south)of the building. There do not appear to be accessible routes along the
sides(east and west)of the building. VHB assumes entrances are provided at the north and south sides
of the building. Will these entrances provide full access to the building?
28. The site development plan does not appear to show any accessible route or handicap parking spaces
near the relocated barn building. Has the Applicant considered providing handicap spaces in front of
the relocated barn building? Has the Applicant considered providing a handicap ramp where the
sidewalk from the relocated barn meets the parking lot? Has the Applicant considered providing a
handicap accessible route from the proposed 3 floor building to the relocated barn building? To meet
the requirements of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(MAAB)and ADA the Applicant
should provide an accessible route to this building.
29. The end points of the 5' sidewalks on either side of the proposed building meet the existing site
driveway on the east and the proposed site driveway on the west. It appears that the slope of these
points is greater than 2%at all 4 of these locations. VHB recommends the Applicant revise the grading
of these locations and update the plans accordingly,specifically to show the limit of work for the points
where the sidewalks meet existing at the existing site drive.
3
S:\Commmnity Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUMENTS\Judy Folder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Streetdoc
30. In reference to comment 924 above,the Applicant should revise the plans at the sidewalk end points to
show proposed handicap ramps. It appears that the running slope at each of these locations is greater
than 5%,which according to MAAB/ADA regulations makes them ramps. We also recommend adding
a detail to the planset which shows this"1-directional'style ramp.
31. The"Typical Handicap Ramp Recessed in Walk"detail on sheet 7 does not show any detectable
warning panel. We recommend revising the detail to propose detectable warning panels.
32. The"Typical Handicap Ramp Recessed in Walk"detail on sheet 7 lists the maximum slope of the ramp
to be 8%,however note#17 on sheet 4 states that the maximum slope shall be 8.3%. The plans should
be revised for consistency.
Traffic Review
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has performed an independent technical review of the traffic
study prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, inc. (DJK)for the proposed mixed use development
project,located at 1003 Osgood Street(Route 125)in North Andover,Massachusetts. The
development of this site includes the construction of a new building containing 21,000 square
feet(so and the renovation and relocation of an existing on-site barn that would contain 4,000 sf.
Post construction,the project would consist of 7,000 sf of gross floor space dedicated to a
restaurant use,7,000 sf of specialty retail use,and 11,000 sf dedicated to office use.The new
building would contain all three land uses(7,000 sf of each) and the renovated barn would be
dedicated to office space.
Two driveways are proposed for access to/from the site.The northern or common driveway
would be shared with the adjacent Great Pond Crossing retail facility.The southern driveway
would be right-turn in/out only.Approximately 110 parking spaces would be provided.
Submission Materials
As part of the technical analysis for the Town of North Andover,VHB reviewed the following report
submitted by the applicant:
■ Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Mixed Use Development, 1003 Osgood Street,North
Andover, Massachusetts; Prepared by DJK,June 24,2010.
Other various sources of information were also referenced,as needed,and are footnoted in this
memorandum.
Overview
The traffic report has been prepared in a manner consistent with transportation engineering standards.
There are a few areas,however,where VHB believes some additional information and/or clarification is
required. The following includes a general review of the study followed by specific and detailed comments
to which the applicant should respond.
Traffic Impact and Access Study Review
In general,the study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a
traffic impact and access study.
4
S:\Community Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUNIENTS\Judy Polder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Street.doc
Existing Conditions
The study area appears reasonable for a project of this size,considering the roadway network in the area of
the site. The study notes that traffic volumes were collected manually at the two study intersections along
Osgood Street in June 2010. Though the volumes were not seasonally adjusted,a review of MassDOT
seasonal traffic data indicates that June is about equal to or slightly higher than average annual traffic along
the Route 125 corridor. Therefore,the volumes appear to be acceptable for use in this traffic impact study.
Figure 2(20 10 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes),as provided in the traffic study, omitted eastbound
and northbound traffic volumes at the common site driveway intersection.A review of the existing
conditions operations analysis shows these missing volumes were correctly included in the analysis.
No MassDOT or local police crash data were reviewed as part of the traffic study. Since the study is
proposing the addition of approximately 1,200 daily vehicle trips to a higher volume,moderate speed
roadway, it would be useful to review the most recent three years of crash data along this section of Osgood
Street. This would include a review of crashes that may happen midblock along Osgood Street and not
necessarily at the existing site driveway intersection.
A sight distance safety evaluation was conducted based on vehicle speeds measured along Osgood Street
and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)standards'. The
results indicate that stopping sight distance is adequately met and the proponent proposes additional
maintenance of roadside vegetation across the project frontage to ensure sufficient sight lines. When
determining the area in which vegetation should be maintained, intersection sight distance triangles should
be added to the site plan.
Future Conditions
The annual traffic growth rate of two percent is reasonable for this area.No other specific background
development projects were identified for inclusion by Town officials. Trip generation for the proposed site
was determined using data established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)2. The trip
generation was calculated using the proper land use codes,but it was noted that the average trip rate,rather
than the regression equation was used to generate the office portion of the vehicle trips. While use of the
regression equation would have been appropriate,VHB has considered both approaches and does not see a
significant difference from an operational perspective in this case. The distribution of site generated vehicle
trips was reasonably assumed to mimic existing travel patterns.
Figures 3 and 4(2015 No Build and Build traffic volume networks),as provided in the traffic study,contain
incorrect southbound through volumes at the southern driveway intersection. In both cases the correct traffic
volume is used in the operational analysis.
Capacity and Queue Analysis
The methodology for analyzing the no build and build conditions is sound and it appears to have been
performed correctly. It was noted that default peak hour factors were used in the analysis;however the use
of actual peak hour factors is not expected to significantly alter the results.
Both study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS F during the morning and evening peak hours.
This is fairly typical of unsignalized intersections along busy roadways during peak hours.Queues at the
driveways are projected to be small.However, it was noted that an"error"result was calculated for the
common site driveway approach during the evening peak hour. This suggests that delays are so significant
they cannot be properly calculated. VHB recommends that the proponent review possible mitigation
measures for this intersection,such as signalization or separate left and right turn lanes out of the site
I A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets;American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO);
Washington,DC;2004.
2 Trip Generation;Eighth Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE);Washington,DC;2008.
5
S:\Community Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUMENTS\Judy Folder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Street.doc
driveway. Since this driveway will be shared with the adjacent existing development,proper function is
critical.
Peer Review Recommendations
VHB recommends that the following issues be addressed by applicant:
1. Crash data from the North Andover Police Department and MassDOT should be reviewed along
Osgood Street for the most recent three-year period available.
2. Intersection Sight Distance triangles should be considered when determining the area of vegetation
maintenance along the site frontage.
3. Figures 2 tlu•ough 4 should be corrected to show the appropriate traffic volumes.
4. Mitigation measures should be considered at the common site driveway.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Stephen Rhoads
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Laura Castelli
Senior Transportation Engineer—Traffic Planning
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
6
S:\Community,Development\TOWN PLANNER DOCUNIENTS\Judy Folder\1003 Osgood\0928058-1003 Osgood Street.doc
�n r
44 Stiles Road-Suite One•Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) $93-0720 • FAX (603) 893-0133
MCH�Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
June 17,2010
North Andover Planning Board
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
HAND DELIVERED
Re: 1003 Osgood Street
Map 34 Lot SO
Proposed Mixed-use Development
Osgood Properties,LLC
Sub: Watershed Certification Letter
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of Osgood Properties,LLC,this letter serves as a certification by MHF Design
Consultants, Inc. that there will not be any significant degradation of the quality or quantity of
water in or entering Lake Coehichewick as a result of the above referenced project. The site has
been designed to minimize the impact of the project to the buffer zones associated with the
Watershed Protection District_ Storm water management for the site incorporates recharge
through infiltration trenches as well as providing 80%TSS Removal per the D.E.P. Stormwater
Management Policy, and the use of lawn fertilizers will be limited to organic methods with
reduced nitrogen content.
Please feel free to contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
MHF De ' u Consultants,Inc,
Fr = onteiro,P.E.
Pr si nt
CR 230207
YA2302071Watershed-Special-Prmt-Cert.LTR.doe
cc: John.Grasso, Osgood Properties,LLC
John T. Smolak, Smolak&Vaughan LLP
ENGINEERS PLANNERS o SURVEYORS
�
Enright, Jean
From: | molito Mary
Sent Monday, November 08, 2010 11:29 AM
To: Enright,
Subject: RW: 1003 Osgood Street Proposed Site Development-2nd Review
Attachments: O&28O58-1003 Osgood Stneet-2.dmc; OQ28O58'1003 Osgood Gtreet-2.odf
Hi]ean,
This was meant for you.
Mary
From: Rhoads, Stephe
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Tvmon, Judy; Ippo|ib)/ Mary �
Cc: McIntosh, Timothy
Subject: 1003 Osgood Street - Proposed Site Development - 2nd Review
Hi Judy& Mary, �
I've attached VHB's 2nd review for the subject project. Please let us know if you have any questions. �
�
Thanks �
�
Steve
Stephen JLIZboads
8igbnwyF"ngioccr
VVB|Vu^oym8nng,oD,uyUim, Inc.
Tmosynnnhwn| LaudDcrc|opmeu\| Bovimnmmu| Onmioou
101 Walnut Street �
YYotennvm'NA U2472
|
Phone:6|7.924 1770 x10161hu: 617.924.2286
Dino Dial:617.607.2723 �
�
�
_--_m—__'
www.xhb.*ann
-1 his communication is confidential and intended only for the recipient(s),Any other use,
dissemination,copying,"/disclosure".this communication*strictly prohibited. oYOU
have received this communication in error,please notify us and destroy it immediately.
va^assononoonamn|m.Inc.is not responsible ooanyundom^mu|ea|mmmm.\m^mnes|on
error,conversion,media degradation,software error,or interference with this hansmission.
vvnv^,onanoanomo|m.Inc.|m1 Walnut s:|Watertown,wmmmrx |s|rac^.1778
Please note tile Mmamhuseu Secretary of State's office has determined that most mna|mm and from municAp |omreswmumomlsompublicmomu .Foimum
information please refer to:
Please consider the environment before printing this emao.
1
TOWN OF NORTH
ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Proposed Site Development Plans VHB No.: 09280.58
Site Plan Location: 1003 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA
Applicant: Osgood Properties LLC, 865 Turnpike Street,2nd Floor
Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Road, Suite One, Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: June 17,2010 Review Date: July 26,2010
2nd Review Date: 1115110
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
July 13,2008). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's 2nd review:
• Site Plans dated June 17,2010(15 sheets)and revised Sept.22,2010
• Applicant's response to 1St review comments
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Please note that
this review does not contain a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by
the Conservation Commission's consultant. Original comments are shown in regular font with follow-up
comments shown immediately after in bold font.
Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw
1. Section(4.136.3.c.ii.3): Has the Applicant obtained a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
construct a new permanent structure within the non-disturbance buffer zone? The southwest corner of
the proposed 7,000 SF building is within the wetland resource non-disturbance zone.
Not addressed. The southwest corner of the building remains within the non-disturbance buffer
zone of the wetland on the west side of the site. We do note that the Applicant has reduced the
size of the proposed main building(from 21,000 SF GFA to 20,424 SF GFA). In doing so the
southeast corner of the building is now outside of the 325' non-discharge buffer zone of the lake.
We suggest the Applicant investigate relocation of the building,reduction of the building
footprint,or requesting a variance in order to retain the structure in its current size and
location.
2. Section(4.136.3.c.ii.6): The Applicant is proposing to relocate an existing barn within the non-
disturbance buffer zone of the lake. The barn is labeled for proposed office use on the site
development plan(sheet 3). Does the Board consider the proposed use of the relocated barn to be
accessory? If not(and in addition to comment#1),a variance would be required for this structure to be
constructed within the non-disturbance buffer zone.
The Applicant has provided VHB a letter from the North Andover Building Commissioner
indicating that a variance is not required. If necessary,VHB assumes that the Planning Board
will discuss any further concerns regarding the relocation of the existing barn directly with the
Building Commissioner.
1
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JUTRCVV9M\0928058-1003 Osgood Street-2.doc
3. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.2): Have the edge of all wetland resources been confirmed by the Conservation
Conunission? Attention is called to the wetland in the southeast corner of the site which has 2
delineations listed. The buffer zones shown on the submitted plans are based off of the wetland with an
older delineation,which is also further away from the proposed site development than the more
recently delineated wetland.
Addressed.
4. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.4): The Applicant should revise the 100' Wetland Setback dimension to read 100'
Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone.
Addressed.
5. Section(4.136.4.c.ii.5): It appears that the Applicant has not labeled the 325'Non-Discharge Buffer
Zone for the wetlands on the sheets 4 through 6. The Applicant should add this information to the
plans, as required by this section.
Addressed.
6. Section(4.136.4.c.iv): The Applicant should provide proof that the there is no reasonable alternate
location for the proposed building outside of the non-disturbance buffer zone.
Not addressed. Refer to comment#1 above. The southwest corner of the proposed building
remains within the non-disturbance buffer zone of the wetland on the west side of the site.
7. Section(4.136.4.c.vii): If the use of lawn or garden care products is to be allowed within the non-
discharge buffer zone the Applicant should be prepared to submit further evidence regarding down
gradient concentrations of any relevant chemicals.
Addressed.
8. Section(8.1.8.g): This section states that a special pen-nit may be granted to reduce the number of
required parking spaces by not more than 35%. VHB notes that the Applicant is proposing to reduce
the number of spaces by approximately 33%. Has the Applicant submitted evidence to the Board that
the parking requirements of the proposed use justify a lesser number of spaces?
Addressed.
9. Section(8.3.5.e.viii):According to this section the overall height of the building should be provided.
VHB notes that this is stated as less than 35' in the zoning regulations table,however we suggest listing
the actual height of the proposed buildings.
Addressed.
10. Section(8.3.5.e.xii): This section states that the material and height of proposed signs shall be labeled
on the plans. It appears this detail is not provided for the proposed pylon sign. We recommend the
applicant add the sign material and height information to the site development plan or add a detail.
Addressed.
11. Section(8.3.5.e.xv): This section states that any landscaping required by the Town by-laws shall be
indicated on the plans in tabular form,showing required amount and proposed amount. No table
showing the above information has been provided in the information submitted to VHB.
Addressed.The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the landscaping requirements.
12. Section(8.3.5.e.xvii): It appears that the light fixture to be used differs between the"Carriage Lamp
and Post"detail on sheet 7 and the fixture shown on the Lighting Plan. It is unclear if both fixtures are
proposed throughout the site. The Applicant should clarify.
Addressed.
13. Section(8.3.5.e.xxi):According to this section sewer lines and profiles are required. VHB notes that
the proposed sewer lines to the 3 floor building have been included on the plans;however it does not
2
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\jUTRCW9b1\0928058-1003 Osgood Sheet-2.doc
appear that a profile has been provided. The Applicant should provide a profile for this proposed line.
Additionally,it does not appear that sewer lines to the relocated barn have been proposed. Has the
Applicant considered providing sewer services to the relocated barn?
Addressed.
14. Section(8.3.5.e.xxii):A fiscal impact study was not included in the submission. Has the Applicant
requested a waiver?
Addressed. The Applicant has requested a waiver.
15. Section(8.3.5.e.xxiii): A community impact study was not included in the submission. Has the
Applicant requested a waiver?
Addressed. The Applicant has requested a waiver.
16. Section(16.7.4): This section requires that for lots abutting residential zoning districts, as is the case
with the proposed site development,the 15' nearest the side and rear lot lines must be landscaped and a
6' high stockade fence must be erected. In addition the 10' nearest the side and rear lot lines must have
a buffer of at least 8'high trees or shrubs planted. The submitted plan proposes isolated areas of
landscaping along the side lot line and no fence appears to be proposed.
Addressed.
General Comments
17. The utility lines for electric,telephone,cable and gas are not shown at the proposed building,the
relocated barn or at connection points to the main systems. The board may require these connection
points to be shown on the plan in order to assess the disruption to Route 125 in order to make these
connections. It is assumed that the electric,telephone and cable will be provided from a connection to
a utility pole. There is no existing gas main shown on the plans in the area of the site,therefore it is
difficult to understand where this connection will be made. The existing gas main and connection point
should be shown on the plans.
Addressed.
18. The underground detention system and infiltration systems details do not indicate a rating for vehicular
loads. This should be confirmed and shown on the plans as multiple inspection ports are within the
parking lot.
Addressed.
19. A large area of a temporary stockpile area shown on sheet 5 is located over infiltration system 92.
Assuming this stock piling is to occur after the infiltration system has been installed,will any loading
occur on the system that could potentially damage it?
Addressed.
20. The Applicant should confirm that infiltration systems 1&2 and detention system#1 have the
appropriate separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater. Based on test pit information on sheet
8 the estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation may be close to the bottom of infiltration system
#2 and the detention system.
Addressed,however please note that it appears from the revised infiltration system detail that
infiltration system#2 now requires a deeper trench to construct than in the previous plan
submission. Due to the distance of the nearest test pits to the area of this system we agree with
the Applicants statement that additional onsite testing in the area of the system should be
performed if necessary.
3
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JUTRCVV9bt\0928055-1003 Osgood Street-2.doc
21. VHB reviewed the on-site vehicle circulation. The majority of the site layout accommodates a Single
Unit vehicle(i.e.ambulance,fire truck, snow plow). On the fire truck access plan(sheet 1 of 1)the
southwest site entrance is shown as the entry point for the 40' vehicle. Based on a turning template
placed on the plan it appears that the turning point may be too tight and the truck may need to enter
from the left lane instead of the right to avoid encroaching upon vehicles exiting the site at the same
point. While this may be acceptable,we recommend the Applicant verify the turning path at this
entrance and update the plan as required.
Addressed.
22. Larger vehicles such as a WB-50(tractor trailer)will encroach into opposing travel lanes within the
parking lot and the adjacent roadway. The Applicant should provide information/discussion on the
type and frequency of vehicles expected to use this site and whether any changes to the parking lot
layout are warranted. This may not be an issue depending on how fi-equently larger trucks are expected
at this site.
Addressed.
23. A MassDOT access permit will be required to allow the driveway connection,to close the 2 existing
driveway openings and to allow for the grading and installation of landscaping within the Route 125
layout. VHB assumes that the Applicant's Engineer will discuss any work within the Route 125 layout
with the Town DPW/Engineering Department and MassDOT as well as obtain all necessary permits
from the State and the Town.
Addressed.
24. A wood guardrail detail has been included on sheet 7,however it appears there are no callouts for
guardrail on the site development plan(sheet 3). The Applicant should clarify whether guardrail is
required and revise the plans accordingly.
Addressed.
25. It appears the proposed location for the trash enclosure for the existing site eliminates 4 parking spaces
from the existing amount. The Applicant should verify that this does not put the existing site into non-
compliance with the zoning by-law regarding the required amount of spaces for the existing site.
Addressed.
26. It appears the proposed location for the trash enclosure for the proposed site is behind a group of 4
parking spaces. How will waste removal services be performed if cars are parked in this area and
blocking the trash enclosure?
Addressed.
27. The site development plan shows handicap spaces and accessible routes to the proposed building on the
fi•ont and rear(north and south) of the building. There do not appear to be accessible routes along the
sides(east and west)of the building. VHB assumes entrances are provided at the north and south sides
of the building. Will these entrances provide full access to the building?
Addressed.
28. The site development plan does not appear to show any accessible route or handicap parking spaces
near the relocated barn building. Has the Applicant considered providing handicap spaces in front of
the relocated barn building? Has the Applicant considered providing a handicap ramp where the
sidewalk from the relocated barn meets the parking lot? Has the Applicant considered providing a
handicap accessible route from the proposed 3 floor building to the relocated barn building? To meet
the requirements of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(MAAB)and ADA the Applicant
should provide an accessible route to this building.
Addressed.
29. The end points of the 5' sidewalks on either side of the proposed building meet the existing site
driveway on the east and the proposed site driveway on the west. It appears that the slope of these
4
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JUTRCW9M\0928058-1003 Osgood Street-2.doc
points is greater than 2%at all 4 of these locations. VHB recommends the Applicant revise the grading
of these locations and update the plans accordingly,specifically to show the limit of work for the points
where the sidewalks meet existing at the existing site drive.
Addressed. The Applicant has indicated that the maximum cross slope for wheelchair ramps will
be 2%. Please note that when the driveway slope immediately adjacent the wheelchair ramp
exceeds 2%the driveway slope will need to be adjusted to match the adjacent wheelchair ramp.
VHB expects that during construction the driveway pavement will be warped to meet the 2%
cross slope of the wheelchair ramp.
30. In reference to comment#29 above,the Applicant should revise the plans at the sidewalk end points to
show proposed handicap ramps. It appears that the running slope at each of these locations is greater
than 5%,which according to MAAB/ADA regulations makes them ramps. We also recommend adding
a detail to the planset which shows this"1-directional'style ramp.
Addressed. Although VHB agrees that there are no handicap spaces on the west side of the
parking lot we suggest that the Applicant consider placing detectable warning panels at these
wheelchair ramps.
31. The"Typical Handicap Ramp Recessed in Walk"detail on sheet 7 does not show any detectable
warning panel. We recommend revising the detail to propose detectable warning panels.
Addressed. Please note that the detectable warning surface detail shows 2 patterns,triangular
and square. VHB recommends that the square pattern be used as opposed to the triangular
pattern.
32. The"Typical Handicap Ramp Recessed in Walk"detail on sheet 7 lists the maximum slope of the ramp
to be 8%,however note#17 on sheet 4 states that the maximum slope shall be 8.3%. The plans should
be revised for consistency.
Addressed.
Traffic Review
VHB recommends that the following issues be addressed by applicant:
1. Crash data from the North Andover Police Department and MassDOT should be reviewed along
Osgood Street for the most recent three-year period available.
Addressed.
2. Intersection Sight Distance triangles should be considered when determining the area of vegetation
maintenance along the site frontage.
Addressed.
3. Figures 2 through 4 should be corrected to show the appropriate traffic volumes.
Addressed.
4. Mitigation measures should be considered at the common site driveway.
VHB assumes that the Planning Board will discuss any further operational concerns at the
shared site driveway with the Applicant.
5
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JUTRCW9M\0928058-1003 Osgood Sheet-2.doc
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Stephen Rhoads
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
6
C:\Documents and Settings\jenright\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JUTRCVV9M\0928058-1003 Osgood Street-2.doc
TOWN OF NORTH
_ ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Proposed Site Development Plans VHB No.: 09280.58
Site Plan Location: 1003 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA
Applicant: Osgood Properties LLC, 865 Turnpike Street,2nd Floor
Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: MHF Design Consultants,Inc., 103 Stiles Road, Suite One,Salem,NH 03079
Plan Date: June 17,2010 Review Date: Feb. 11,2011
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
July 13,2008). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Site Plans dated June 17,2010(13 sheets)and revised Jan. 17,2011
• Applicant's response to Eggleston Environmental comments dated Jan.20,2011
• Letter from Gerald Brown,Building Commissioner,dated Dec. 15,2010
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions. Please note that
this review does not contain a full review of the stormwater management system as this will be reviewed by
the Conservation Commission's consultant.
Additionally,please note that this review is based on the submittal of significantly re-designed site
plans due to previous comments made in VHB's second review(dated 1115110). Prior comments
which were addressed by the Applicant are not included in this review.
Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw
1. Section(4.136.3.c.ii.6): The Applicant is proposing to construct the proposed building via a Special
Permit under this section which allows the expansion of an existing structure by less than 25%of the
gross floor area if the existing structure exceeds 2,500 square feet. The calculations provided on sheet
3 demonstrating the allowed expansion appear to be correct.
2. Section(8.3.5.e.xxi):According to this section sewer lines and profiles are required. VHB notes that
the proposed sewer lines to the existing barn building and the proposed building have been included on
the plans;however it does not appear that a profile has been provided. The Applicant should provide a
profile for the proposed lines.
General Comments
3. The proponent has reduced the size of the proposed development and eliminated the secondary
driveway access to/from the site.Although the site is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips,VHB
remains concerned about traffic operations at the shared use driveway,which would now be the sole
access point for the proposed development. Significant queuing into the site may cause traffic
circulation difficulties and could create an unsafe condition.
1
C:\Documents and.Settings\jtymon\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\5HTHS9BD\0928 05 8-10 03 Osgood Street-3.doc
4. A portion of the temporary stockpile area shown on sheet 5 is located over infiltration system#1.
Assuming this stock piling is to occur after the infiltration system has been installed,will any loading
occur on the system that could potentially damage it?
5. VHB reviewed the on-site vehicle circulation. The majority of the site layout accommodates a Single
Unit vehicle(i.e. ambulance,fire truck,snow plow). On the provided fire truck access plan the
proposed site entrance is shown as the entry point for the 40'vehicle. Based on the drafted truck
movement on the plan and our review with a turning template the following issues are noted:
a. It appears that the turning point into the site requires the truck to enter from the left lane of
Osgood Street instead of the right.
b. Additionally entering in this path appears to create a conflict with any vehicles which may be
exiting the site at the same time. The same conflict results from the movement of a single
unit vehicle.
c. Based on our template review of a 40'vehicle it appears that vehicle overhang may create a
conflict with the proposed signage at the entrance of the parking lot.
d. The Applicant should investigate whether geometric revisions can be made in order to
improve the turning path in the site entrance area and eliminate potential conflicts with site
signs.
6. Based on review of turning templates larger vehicles such as a WB-40 and WB-50(tractor trailer)
appear to exit the site driveway(wheel path would travel over the landscaped island)as they make the
turn movement to travel around the interior of the site. These vehicles would also encroach into the
opposite side of the site driveway which could create a conflict with any vehicles which may be exiting
the site at the same time. Additionally,it appears that these vehicles would experience difficulty
navigating the interior of the parking lot if vehicles are present in the parking spaces. The Applicant
should provide a delivery truck access plan to address the anticipated vehicle size used for deliveries
and its potential movements through the site. It is also recommended that the movement of the vehicle
used for waste removal services be depicted on a plan.
7. It appears that there is no proposed location for a concrete pad and trash enclosure. VHB assumes the
tenants of the proposed development will share the use of the existing trash enclosure with the
neighboring property and that this has been discussed with the property owner.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Stephen Rhoads
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Reviewed by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
2
C:\Documents and Settings\jtymon\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlook\5HTHS9BD\0928058-1003 Osgood Street-3.doc
Tymon, Judy
To: John Smolak
Cc: Brown, Gerald; Bellavance, Curt
Subject: Variance requirements for 1003 Osgood St.
John,
I would appreciate a phone call from you as soon as you return from vacation. The review from VHB was completed and
returned to me yesterday,July 28. In that review there was a question as to whether the applicant had applied for a
variance from the Zoning Bylaw section 4.136.c.ii.(3) Construction of a new permanent structure. As depicted on the
plan the barn is being moved to the non-disturbance zone and that relocation can be considered a new permanent
structure. Also, a corner of the new building is within the non-disturbance zone and would also require a variance as a
new structure.
As the town planner, I should have discussed this requirement with both the applicant and with the Planning Board but I
admit that I did overlook this issue. However, it appears that both you and Jerry Brown have been aware of the issue,
have discussed it and there is written correspondence going back to June 22, 2010 relative to this issue. I have looked in
the file and the application and have not been able to locate your letter of June 22, 2010 and just received today Jerry's
letter of June 23, 2010. In his letter, which was not copied to me,Jerry states that as the Zoning Code Enforcement
Officer, he believes that the relocation of the barn to the non-disturbance zone does not constitute a new structure and
thus does not require a variance from the ZBA. He also states in the letter that the new building does not require a
variance, in spite of the fact that a portion of the building is in the non-disturbance zone.
I do not agree with either of these findings. I do not understand how the re-location of the barn can be considered a
"replacement of any permanent structure" since currently there is no structure in that location. The re-location of the
barn would require the construction of a new foundation, which constitutes a new building. Also, in my experience with
Watershed Special Permits,the Planning Board has consistently adhered to the requirements of the Watershed
Protection Zoning and has required a Special Permit when a portion of a new structure or addition to an existing
structure is being proposed to be built within the Non-Discharge Zone.
It will be the Planning Board's decision as to whether they agree that, according to section 10.31.1 that"the specific site
is an appropriate location for such a use,structure or condition". In the future, I would like to be informed by both the
Building Inspector and by yourself, as a representative of the applicant,when such issues arise, so that I can be informed
and so that I can provide this information to the Planning Board, since the Board does rely in part on my knowledge in
order to make their decisions.
Judy Tymon, AICP
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood St.
North Andover, MA 01945
978-688-9535
1
Town of North Andover
Office of the Planning Department
4
Community Development and Services Division
1600 Osgood Street
HU North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
To: North Andover Historic Commission
c/o Kathy Szyska
North Andover Historic Commission
201 Osgood St.
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: 1003 Osgood St. Commercial Development
Date: March 10, 2011
Dear Kathy,
First, the Planning Board would like to thank you for attending their meeting on February 15 to
talk with the Board about the proposed development at 1003 Osgood St. Your input was very
much appreciated, especially the information regarding the historic uses of the site.
The Planning Board approved the Site Plan Review and Watershed Special Permit for the
development at their meeting on March 1, 2011. The final design includes the preservation and
restoration of the barn and a new addition, for a total of over 19,000 sq. ft. of office/retail space.
The applicant, John Grasso, had been working with the Planning Board on the current design
since spring of 2010, when he first appeared before the Board with a concept plan. At that time,
the development included a new stand-alone office/retail building and the relocation of the barn
to the rear of the property. The Planning Board had expressed concerns regarding the proximity
of the development and related storniwater structures so close to Lake Cochichewick, the Town's
main source for drinking water. Throughout this process,the applicant was more than
cooperative and worked with the Planning Board to design a complex that not only satisfied all
of the Plarming Board's concerns but also produced a viable commercial development.
Prior to this application,the Planning Board had considered various proposals for the property,
many of which were attempts to preserve the farmhouse and/or the barn. Of all of those
attempts, the Board considers the current development to be in the best interests of the town, in
that it respects the historic significance of the site and provides for the possibility of increased
economic development for the Town of North Andover.
The Planning Board and the developer worked as partners for more than a year and the Board
feels that John Grasso's cooperation and willingness to listen and respond to the Planning
Board's concerns played a significant role in producing the approved development. We hope that
the Historic Commission takes this history into account when reviewing Mr. Grasso's
application.
If you have any questions for the Planning Board,please let us know.
Sincerely
Planning Board, Town of North Andover
cc: John Grasso
John Smolak /
2
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
155 FEDERAL STREET
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02110-1727
Telephone 978-475-4552
THOMAS J.URBELIS Telephone 617-338-2200
e-mail tju @uf-law.com Telecopier 617-338-0122
April 7, 2011
Clerk, Civil Business
Essex Superior Court
43 Appleton Way
Lawrence, MA 01841
RE: GREAT POND CROSSING LLC,ET AL.VS.
NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD,ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-521-C
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find my Notice of Appearance.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. elis
TJU/lcmp
Enclosure
cc: William D. Perkins (w/enc)
Osgood Properties, LLC (w/enc)
Planning Board (w/enc)
w:\wp5l\work\n-andove\great pond crossing\courtAr.docx
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TRIAL COURT
ESSEX,Ss. SUPERIOR CouRT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION No.2011-521-C
GREAT POND CROSSING,LLC and
WILLARD D. PERKINS, plaintiffs
V.
NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD,SO @ERT,
SIMONS,RICHARD ROWEN,TIMOTHY MICHAEL
COURTNEY LAVO Pa e m�members COLANTONI, as they oft the North Andover
Planning Board and OSGOOD PROPERTIES,INC.
Defendants
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
ce is hereby given of my appearance for the Defendants North Andover Planning
Noti
Board and John
Simons, Richard Rowen, Timothy Siebert, Courtney Lavolpicelo and Michael
Colantoni, as they are members of the North Andover Planning Board.
Date: April 7,2011 NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD,
JOHN SIMONS,RICHARD OWE
TIMOTHY SIEBERT, COURTNEY
LAVOLPICELO AND MICHAEL
COLANTONI, as they are members of the North
Andover Planning Board.
By their attorney,
Thomas J. Urbel'rs BO 4506560
-- --- __ - URBELIS &FIELDSTEEL,LLP
155 Federal Street
Boston,MA 02110
(617) 338-2200
tju @uf-law.com
w.\wp51bvork\n-andove\9reat pond crossing\appearance.docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas J. Urbelis, hereby certify that I served a true copy of the above by first-class
mail,postage prepaid, upon:
Willard D. Perkins
Great Pond Crossing, LLC
28 Andover Street
Andover, MA 01810
Osgood Properties, LLC
865 Turnpike Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Date: April 7, 2011
Thomas J. Urbeli
2
/ unwei
di n ... ,a. F � � �f k bee � Ne �
tl I� � dF�, M ,'71
l , t i " " A 1 I � (r4 it�46/2 ,/"•'�;r (f'��r4,,
Cf� �l / `(r/ t 1 �t l! (r �_rt 1J -� I'4 l
'IT/1"P110,10 m Y ! �l r Y)6N ()x),10
October 4, 2013
JUdith M, Tyrnon, AlCP
North Andover Planning Departrnent
1.600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE Site Improvements, Site Plan Special Permit
1003 Osgood Street
Clear Ms.Tymon;
This letter is to confirm that the site work cornpleted to date appears'to substantially comply with the
approved plans and'The Planning Board's Site Plan Special Kermit:.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
hank you,
Douglas Lees, Pf
Latild l� 1.s6
'I Wp�"Afaoto' MA 0/',09
, F dF �M � ` r�1i N, /1N1/'?Y0 IMNYJ f (C) RI 1, 64 i I AX (° (4Y.014,'N
I)ate: October 4, 20113 Project No.2 79.02
A("YAPTMENT FOR SERVICES
Land Engineering & 1?rrvir°011111entaal Set-vices, Ira(° (LEP'S), is pleased to submit this proposal fear
engineering services to the following:
Names .0sgc ocf ('IotpeL,rt
Address 865 I_ur,rmit'�,5y..eA'.2„(i f1o,or.�
City North racicv t_ / ,.),l f _ ... .._ after called the client.�
Site 1,oeaation: �iV�a _ - .:.-1,ot d (19} �)a�e►crtl Street
111" agrees t.o pe'rforrn the following services as requested:
will perform tlae ills reef cars of tile; stornlwatcr maaraagenaent system in accordance vvrithr
the Operation and Maintenance Plan and l_,ong, 'fe.rm Pollution Prevention Plan f-or Storrinwarter
Management Systems Map 35 Lot 70, 1003 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA, last revised
February 18, 2001 and the Order of Conditions issued by the North Andover (_'onservat.ion
Conurrission, MassDF1P file #2421491 inspection reports will be filed with you and with tile.
Town as re(wired.
I"hc parties agree that tics may vary depending on existing Held conditions and thee, exact services provided.
Invoices shall be ut)ola coampletion of services or on a monthly basis at the option of'LEE.S, and are clue net 30
days. Interest will be added at the rate of one and a half(l.5) percent per month (18 percent Per amaunn) fOr late:
payments, 11'payment is not received within :30 days, we reserve the right to suspend work until payment is
received ill full. 1,h,I.`s reserves tfae right to hold inspection rep0l'ts until all invoiced amounts, and all amounts
agreed to ill this contract, have been received by 1-EFS. This contract is 111111 and void unless executed by the
client and returned to t E'FS within thirty(30)days.
All documents remain the property of l.f;t S. Land t�,ngineerir7g & I:-.rrvirc>rarrrental Services, Irac.. liability for all �
claims shall be limited to the total slums paid to the E'ragincer under this agreement. The C',lient agrees to
indenanify and hold harmless LFFS, from all claim; and costs (including, attorney's Peres) arising out of this
agreement, except when such claainas allot cost,MT causeo:l by the 11cglige.nt acts, errors or omissions of LEFT .
AUTHORIZATIONS
If this agreement is acceptable to you, please sign the agreement: and return the Original and the
spa�cilled rdaainer to 0111'office. We look f >rward to being Ofcorntinueci service.
Lanai Engineering & Environmental Services, llrrc. ACCEPTED
c
Douglas 1's, f,ces, I'13 Date I ::I Title, '" Date �