HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1018 OSGOOD STREET 1/24/2013 MDMTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC
Planners&Engineers PRINCIPALS
Robert J.Michaud,P.E.
Ronald D.Desrosiers,P.E.,PTOE
Daniel J.Mills,P.E.,PTOE
January 24,2013
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
Hancock Associates
315 Elm Street
Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752
Subject: Transportation Peer Review Comments—Letter#4
Proposed Dunkin'Donuts Development
1018 Osgood Street—North Andover,MA
Dear Mr.Peznola:
MDM transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) has reviewed the Response to Traffic Review
Comments letter dated January 15, 2013 prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. (GPI) which was
provided as a response to MDM's peer review letter of January 4, 2013 for the subject project.
We have also received a response letter from MHF Design Consultants, Inc. (MHF) dated
January 10, 2013 and have prepared a separate peer review letter dated January 15, 2013. Based
on that review, we recommend that the area to the east of the site driveway be re-graded to
improve sight distance from 1060 Osgood Street and that a sidewalk be provided along Osgood
Street and continue into the site should it not be possible to provide a direct connection between
the site and 1060 Osgood Street.
With respect to the GPI response letter, MDM has reviewed the supplemental Trip Generation,
Drive-Tl-trough Lane Queuing and On-Site Parking information that has been submitted. The
following comments summarize our review of these items.
TRIP GENERATION
GPI has provided weekday morning and Saturday midday trip generation data for the existing
Dunkin Donuts at 982 Osgood Street. When compared to the ITE-based trip generation
estimate provided in the Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS)', the existing Dunkin Donuts
store generates 19 less vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 34 less vehicle
trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. While the existing Dunkin Donuts store is smaller
iln size and co-located with a full-service gas station, it is expected that these trip generation
characteristics will generally transfer to the proposed site with some minor increases
Traffic Impact and Access Study;Proposed Dunkin Donuts,North Andover,Massachusetts;prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,
Inc.;August 2012
28 Lord Road,Suite 280 •Marlborough,Massachusetts 01752
Phone(508)303-0370•Fax(508)303-0371 •www.mdmtrans.com
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 24,2013
Page: 2
anticipated due to the modern, full-service amenities, additional seating capacity and improved
store visibility. As such, the 1-tigher ITE-based trip generation estimate provided in the TIAS
(i.e., 255 total vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 194 total vehicle trips
during the Saturday peak hour) appears reasonable for planning purposes. No further review
of site trip generation is required at this time.
DRIVE-THROUGH LANE QUEUING
GPI has provided three estimates from three different sources relative to the drive-through
queue lengths projected for the proposed site; 1) a national study indicating a maximum 13-
vehicle queue,2) a probability based calculation indicating a maximum 10-vehicle queue,and 3)
observations at the drive-through for 982 Osgood Street indicating a maximum 11-vehicle
queue. Given the degree that drive-through lane usage fluctuates from month to month and the
minor increase in traffic anticipated from the relocation of the store, it is reasonable to expect a
maximum 13-vehicle queue in the drive-through lane. This vehicle queue length can be
accommodated within the site and is not expected to impact traffic operations along Osgood
Street.
However, MDM remains concerned with the degree to which parking spaces will be impacted
when the drive-through queue exceeds nine vehicles given the limited supply of parking.
Based on the drive-through observations reported for 982 Osgood Street, queues in excess of
nine vehicles were observed between 7:45 AM and 8:30 AM during the weekday morning peak
hour. A similar result will likely occur at the proposed site. Ili order to limit the impact on
parking during this time period, GPI states that the two parking spaces closest to the drive-
through lane will be designated as employee parking and the third closest space will be
designated as an accessible space. However, at times when the drive-through queue reaches 13
vehicles, it is estimated that three additional parking spaces (i.e., six parking spaces in total)will
have their access restricted. As discussed below, parking supply remains a concern and the fact
that the drive-through queue will block access to several parking spaces only worsens the
situation.
ON-SITE PARKING
In a previous correspondence Z, GPI indicated that 17 parking spaces were occupied at a similar
free-standing Dunkin Donuts in Methuen, MA during the Saturday midday period. As such,
we believe that the proposed 19 space parking supply will leave little to no reserve capacity
during peak hours, and therefore, may not be sufficient for the proposed use. hi their latest
2 Response to Comments; Proposed Dunkin Donuts, North Andover, Massachusetts; prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.;
December 2012
MDM
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 24,2013
Page:3
submission, GPI has provided weekday morning and Saturday midday parking demand counts
for the existing Dunkin Donuts at 982 Osgood Street for comparison purposes. The data
indicates that 12 out of 19 parking spaces were occupied for a length of time during the
weekday morning and Saturday midday peak periods. While it is not clear which parking
spaces were vacant,it is clear that many, if not all of the parking spaces located behind the store
are extremely inconvenient for patron use and as such, it would not be surprising to learn that
many of these spaces were vacant even during peak traffic periods. Never-the-less, we
anticipate a greater parking demand at the proposed site due to the additional indoor and
outdoor seating capacity proposed.
GPI also notes that "parking space observations" were made at three other Dunkin Donut
facilities,however,we do not believe that this information is relevant for the following reasons;
It appears that GPI has only reported the number of parking spaces provided at
these sites and not the actual peak parking usage. It is possible that these sites
reach their parking capacity during peak hours.
Other area Dunkin Donuts provide 30 parking spaces or more including
locations in Methuen,Middleton and Dracut,MA(see attached aerial photos).
The Dunkin Donuts located at 5 Ayers Village Road in Methuen, MA appears to
provide 48 parking spaces based on the attached aerial photo compared to the 17
spaces reported by GPI.
The Dunkin Donuts located at 17 South Broadway in Salem, NH appears to
provide 18 parking spaces based on the attached aerial photo compared to the 13
spaces reported by GPI.
SUMMARY
MDM has reviewed the supplemental Trip Generation, Drive-Through Lane Queuing and On-
Site Parking information that has been submitted for the redevelopment of 1018 Osgood Street,
Based on this information, we agree that the proposed Dunkin Donuts could generate 255 total
vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 194 total vehicle trips during the
Saturday peak hour. We also agree that the proposed drive-through facility could generate a
maximum queue of 13 vehicles. However, we remain concerned that the proposed 19 space
parking supply will not adequately support the site operation.
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 24,2013
Page: 4
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss these comments further.
Sincerely,
(N�,
Daniel J.Mills,P.E.,PTOE
Principal
G:\Projects\695-North Andover(Dunkins Review)\Correspondence\695LT04Aoc
MD
� u
i d
cr,
all
21,11
W . 5050, 01
211
Wi
tvc
l
s
R, nub
A --100151FM
Q4r RG; A
loop: .:.. .
w
Sol " - .; x
allo
x
� f
w y
' -
COP
s
fit 541 Y"z
r
AVIV
r
-- � ;
AS-
-y ;, s r` ✓ .� '�Wit`
k
Y '
.s
in 0rti s Ass 6a �
s�� 4
OF
W �-
- .,
ez
�x
i
,H
r '
5 tF
r
!� � ����c amu. :' ✓� ��s�. w aa. ����`� �m§� ^.�.. �� <, r
� 4
S
t
Z
i I
}
".SERIESloll
w
\ 6 >C�a
. � .
. m ; . .
kI
a
'2 t,.
-. , ''k},• a �F.�;,n s„ ,t 4'�✓' `F'= �s;F` 4 U2 }` ap F a "",,_' ,,a �., o Y =M, �,k:`t'
,;e, ;�a�.. »`'� fi Y, ) �,.;s;,' ?�. F 1 ,:�'i; ;,a � � �; 7 tt=,�Y vt'< „Tait•'�'
S �
,�< .« a-. a , ,�_"n., fc. ° ,1, .,;,.- } ,,,,,. r ,>.h. t ry„? YIs,S•{., ., .... ,,,:.a' � ,' k ,a”
n
o„t, , ,:: ;. ,k.'..., :1•, rt =x �n t } f � ih ,c kF f'., '� a<,. h �.- , , � ,;., �4
=.a.,�. , _,. ,§ .,,,> ,.,,,, ,•,,.�' :,.rr,,, ,.. r fi, ,•, ,,.. -"t tn. t'ic a„ .tx=. �_."," t. „-.�<', >f ,_,
•-u , , ,,:,, '€. # r.,tt<,.,`t4tn ,x;a.:.. .t a..f, -Y. t,<:; ,aa-'. �^
.-",.:<`�•' t,:�: v,. � ,, , , t x4§.;f �iae ta.._ „llr.a:'� {!•..: '� UE �,' �""' ,i*
AP""'
ax
t ":,, ti � l.e„ E 1.�'. - t � g „, .. � ,. �t I kX'✓,} t
.a#l• .,, .,.Y :aY, d�F``x 4 r„• ,"' z s'� ,,. ,=ht c, ^x. .,.= FS= ,F, u a r `,,„., ,y§, t�.««,
t
,<t.. ":, �, .,:. .', �.,z,. i G„r ':.: ..,.:,. °Z,<..., l a F • ,f. , � °�`..`F+ ,.. 5.,,,. .:: ,,. C ,, g`> _ �,: ;_.,'
! ,n, ::. "1 ..,,f.:•rw° _,..„ ... , Sz-,.?,. ,:. ,,, �, =tAt,ax::. ,:_{y lVfi .:�<,',,.�"rt:;?,4l ,,)".s Y ry i,ii«: ,'z. ..nk, r„"'d”-°F „"'t..
...:, ,,,,, , t�, <,:.,-, ,.,._, .,,r , , ' .e:r,t . . ,..::. t, „ .:. t, ,t.:'- ,:•, <,v,l�a- s , .+„f -ary t„-; %� -
...12
.drv„ .,,yrk �: �.. ,,1�. ., � ., <� z: ,a. , r,.. .,„ fit, ,,, 1 ttk C f i Y t? t,a. <•<,,, ..,t. .,r:3,
z=
,
,,.ae �. .. f r,= r„,.) ,,.,.;, �, ., a �. �f.:<,.,,<, , x ., .,r,:,, ,....-,. � tI ,-F:= ,.,s•. ( `t f t`t .s
.,.,_ ,'k, ., .,. ,,,, .. �-.�' .,,Y{ ✓_ ,a.,.l, t,...,, �Yl a ,�.,.7Yr�`, ), �,ra cs.,.<„4 _{ r
„.,- ``1;.<., ..,,:i )., ,. ,..:, ..,{,.. r ,.i. Sft l }'z S'`9+ , a,,.-t ,: a:r. a, _�.{ n..,.,?.t,S :, \a#.. •ti;- �f { ,n>. .,,.. ,,,, ... ,
1 7
r �..•:; } ,$1,.; ,._ ,,..,. ,.)., e:, .,.t�V.r .'i, ,, -'I�,�t ,;z`i''„"i .,, fi,(..4x , i+.<., ltva'',,a't Y.>,,`a:.. �.� ,J
.=T4z °.... ;:",...,..� .. ,^'w ,a,.. Fi ,?r-,q 1 .,r« ..,::. 4},< fd v`,�`:.,: :, k-,n' .n� {5�2... t i{t. i'k,} :F. •,•a Y
,.,t;. » ,,, x.,,.., , „ {.. ` } _ fir, 1 �,si } ��rr 5'§" • t h �.x x} r, a,,, ,.t, t {^`
�j „ ,.,,, .i �,r, � .:* � a, „_ 'A-...try s i r,.d-: sa* � *• t ;:-,` 4=-. .,, z�lj.c
s.� ,,;, k"t ,.,,, f. ,',. ,,,,, '�„ry ::,'.,,,: �,. sr.•aa t� { Y,.:',-, n :q', .,t, ,. ..a k r � r <.,., � - a ,c
rte ,,,„ srt... ..,,, <,., ,:,, .akt M_,=, z. ,n 4 ,..1::�k} a ..: •,,,._ ,, t ? ,a»:. ”„•,,, , w £
, ,•,,� :.F*,_ ..,, ><
{„r »t..:. . ....... .». ,,
rx.,»:
NOkt„»,,<r..a',. „,„:,�<,>=,,,. n'� €s ,„:.�t.o:....r r*&s1 a t,:.,x,*a.,���k .. a .,'-f ,".''” ,,..„f�.:••'.#«.�'-as,`,„g<.r,'.„_u..:,»,.1,x,t�,..,a*.1p,,'U.<�..,i•$rs ,�:,:� ',` 'n.',Fa.,,ri..iFai,i?'?z t�t TMs,'Vtrv,r::.tir,,,tif '.,,.•: ,.r,5 _;•:,�
,
a
a>r'`�`, `4,KK' :a t y.4 ,ra��,� t `f� z,�x +�)•'”5,„,,.i, p,. a �
, �ts •.,, � {,... , ,,Y.:, �.,, �. ,°, ,,” .,<.`• : tx 3 m ;:lr' kt� ”.�r u, v �.1.. {
's, 1..
Sl F *='F`4,,• 1,-,tk,t�'F l4 '£4&.#, t
.'> ., ;E;� ..”,,,:.., •,� ,. ,,,,;..,:.W #3Z .`},�” .:.. k t.K ,..,,+� ,n -t tz�,�SyF Ktl`sE t �t�t!~Tt1tS+Y?, `'
' ,, „.,... S a "�* a`i��'+,:,_ '}Y'r� It t: li G t.,,;e }•.r '� ;- .,a �, " 't F2.:k,.s -t t ;l}F� }'� :v��r��`, � �,tt :k�
,r ;,� ,.”. „ , ,,, F yFt„t E Y4 t~ { �'-{, F ,,,,, , x,.v'.��..,l� F:^,`'{,'�1" r�<•, t ”.P_, k�,`,f: 4 ,}f t?;,h1 r,C a,
i „,,:",, .,�: � �. , � ,.. ,,,i 2'" ? C "§. ,,,.,,. ,,,,� ,,,a, r,..4,, `<ki"^a„ fi 1 h S,`E�*}•: i, fS :`f �'a Y {t
,,.,°. .., ,... �"«� ,. .,;,,. `r.: 4`Su ,,. -t, •-.^e ..F 8 2's,,P' � < r t?< � '� r�t?�n-,:, ,, )_,, "' , g; ara• `•it,r'�i=i F, � t!{ �F:
,, ,,, ,,•.y, °„ ,,,,,mac,,, ,,.. ,,.. .,,, I sisti, � ,,r: } t 1};1:.„ , �. ,�,,�`r' �a�{„ssl,t r a y�' ,.:,t,' ,h 't�„<�sza � ;:�. :y T iYlt. :k t� �.
., ,' ,. ., a. ., ry '� 3i`x , `t}.k.,a,, e.,, ). ;� � I,� � i} �:t, •.,v„ .t a fi ra,fi,•. �.t rt•,k.;2
,z> it k a
,t .:.., ks,.
,i
`� -.,. •" ,,,,,-„4, .r ., ,, .,,•4•Ef .,.,� ,., I�. :,z � �+•.. ..r' ) 1. °,.,.:. „ ,, ,.}zs s
E � .at, ,.
� .. .:,,,. ..a=z,.� ?t,,fi , , �- �;. ,=u ,„ ,< =r, ,. 'i a;;• »,m�,. tz{ 2}a#'jKtt`� a, t ) s 1
,.: u� .,,. ..,,,�, .. ,f,..". ,, ,. .;..st t,y� t„ as -^ l .Y �'x����{.;a.,.�.s:� {,, � '. y.,�-t y.. ?t ek }ts3 •?
-.'.;- < � r•,,,". ,,,.,,,Y.s �= ce?_, {;, t."zt a" t :a ttt .V- • .,,..- *,tt �ku't.,,,,, lasrt so..: s4� t{� f.x y. ,t;<: r r�F '.1 ,"tit,,
Y
t, ,, .,. ,k� :,„. ., ,, `�� � rx F5 » x-:. srt�} � .. '<,? ,ry a .• � 4§.:a•:;. § , 1}
€>7„t °,,. .rr ,.»,,,r,a » .., ? >,� k d r •t .� ,,,, ,�r �' ��'a � F :a F •� ?� t. ��a.
Yt 1 ) z 7�t.-�.. �t�4� .r� y{� t ,�rxe a �fi" �`. to Y#, 7•. � : ,w,,,,� � b?,l
t Y:'nt3' t` t,. as�t �8^., t a <',�t �+•, ��h?;� a. , ,*.�s`�:� � b'.� t,.. ,=cs
1 t
c;??„ � ,; a ,,, ,. }l,g, " tA,.:; �4 t:.. .., {,,:a �'t :, '•tx.,,Fq 'Sr 1§� ,.eus #
;ea ;a...„,' „}•,x: „t,z .�: ,.'}' {.,. s :tt ,,.:.r {st x ,„s,
``>Sir =,c.
.:..,., ,t t` « .,,: .,. ,. ,,.-. ,.-`§:�. ��.:s”<„ , ,,: ,s„, �,".�ttR '.a r c-> ,'•;. ..a,r ,,: ..,Fc' 7 ;. �<�?
, ,nsi,, ., ,rs' ,at �' � •, :.., a.-.� ;<;z ,. � ,:: ,,r,., .,s,,. :Yra -mask"i�. `'+x;:m s .at � t ,.
,t';2},. -.»S„ zttt+E€, 3rry ,i,""••A ,,,r;.z )� „ 1,< a�'. k•„ �` `�'�w ,
a ..
w a
fi.•a,., : .,s.�:2: .,� ='t:.,, ,,,, ,h,. =„n}�, r ^t..'�'r •{s�„# r:y, ,,., .; �"� u, , 'R, t, rvax ,,;.` ,.£
1 •..P ,",ab` k{ • 1 �^�<, .»'jih' t t x {,k2nk l s�': kxF ,;�1,
.a° ys k�,. �,•r„.. :,? t,aa ,>:•Y„,, < , , �: t'sr•.., 1 4„ .; •.. .. � e. } T tz,» s� "'t„i..,,
SK
.,„ ,4,..,.. ,>.., r „,,,,, : t ,a „•, ,. , .Y.�A�:,,."_ .z,,. t Hatt' 4 §'.0
,.^c;, ,,.,�\,:..,; ,:. l .,,: } ,,..: k ,» ,,, .� .,, a �. ,, ,.. =xu, , c i ,. ,. a »,•S`�':". „>„.Y 3 l a.Ft= 5t rv.Y �.
s
..,n„;: ,'',t�^i= ,,. .+�;", r *, r ,,,,,a,,,,,, ;,..,, �},,,."t,l ,." rvx ,.rt- u.: t. ,.ru'. u,fa u: •,r 1� a �:"fzn "*'s:
='::^e ,.isx tl ,a�' :..Z, :xk '2 0 r •. 4e; �I ( ,� k r
,., „-..: �a 1 rs , ��tY�""•�,tc�, "���t §� tl;aFes" it,'' `t';
, n ,.n.r ,.,�'t,,,,„. n. t,,, k� k a,•, ,,. a .,:{yb�g,I 1}
;.,-,.: )c. {�, x,,•k,r»•„ ,,;,.t,,: ..,. ,,.�• ,5 k., ..as .�. � ',., ,.a .� .,'P” :;;,, f,
.,:d„a,�� ,4' ..:... ._.a�� t ,. ,.».k,:,, ., a *`�, ..,;F,.r}e�v� ,,s,.. fi,, d 'a*� « ���a,7,�°'3,: _' "`za.�,.>?�; ,,.a s V,�• „Y , �r�< t, .,a , :ad.�
D�e, �( TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.
��y,�j, Planners&Engineers PRINCIPALS
Roberti.Michaud,P.E.
Ronald D.Desrosiers,P.E.,PTOE
Daniel J.Mills,P.E.,PTOE
January 4,2013
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
Hancock Associates
315 Elm Street
Marlborough,Massachusetts 01752
Subject: Transportation Peer Review Comments—Letter#2
Proposed Dunkin Donuts Development
1018 Osgood Street—North Andover,MA
Dear Mr.Peznola:
MDM transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) has received and reviewed the Response to
Comments memorandum dated December 11, 2012 prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. (GPI)
which was provided as a response to MDM's peer review letter of November 9, 2012 for the
above project.
As you are aware, several items presented in the original TIAS (August 13,2012) for the subject
project required further analysis or explanation in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of
the project's potential traffic impacts. Based on our review, many of the outstanding issues
have been appropriately addressed by the Applicant and do not require further. Issues that
require additional clarification or explanation from the Applicant are described below.
TRIP GENERATION
We believe that the proposed Dunkin Donuts will serve the majority of customers currently
patronizing the store at 982 Osgood Street. As such, we recommended that the Applicant
collect trip generation and vehicle queuing data from the existing facility as we believe that this
is this best data available for estimating peak hour operations at the proposed store.
Specifically, trip generation and peak hour drive-thru queue lengths are critical components to
the site operations with potential impact on the accessibility to the limit supply of parking
spaces proposed.
COLLISION HISTORY
As recommended by MDM, the Applicant has reviewed additional crash data and has
determined that, while there are a relatively high number of accidents occurring in the study
area, the collisions do not indicate a particular pattern correctable by engineering measures.
28 Lord Road,Suite 280 •Marlborough,Massachusetts 01752
Phone(508)303-0370 •Fax(508)303-0371 •www.mdmtrans.com
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 4, 2013
Page: 2
Additionally,the Applicant has revised the site driveway layout,has removed a large tree along
the site frontage and proposes to clear roadside vegetation to enhance safety for motorists
exiting the site.
Due to the close proximity of the entrance driveway to 1060 Osgood Street, MDM recommends
that the Applicant modify the grading to the east of the proposed entrance driveway(within the
State Highway layout) in order to improve sight distance for vehicles exiting from 1060 Osgood
Street.
DRIVE-THROUGH LANE VEHICLE QUEUING
The Applicant has conducted an alternative drive-thru queue analysis which results in a
maximum queue of 10 vehicles in the drive-thru lane during the weekday morning peak hour.
This estimate is generally based on national trip generation statistics for coffee/donut shops and
is not necessarily representative of the drive-flru queues generated by Dunkin Donuts in New
England. In addition, the Applicant's prior traffic study indicated a peak vehicle queue of 13
vehicles. The Applicant should explain tl-ds discrepancy and identify measures that will be
taken should the drive-thru queue lengths exceed the storage area and impact the on-site
parking supply.
SITE ACCESS
The Applicant has modified the site layout and access design to include one-way
counterclockwise circulation in and aromid the site with entrance-only movements at the
northern site driveway and egress-only movements at the southern site driveway. MDM
generally concurs with the revised site layout and access design and generally concurs that
reducing the number of access/egress locations to one entrance-only driveway and one egress-
only driveway will mh-iinize vehicular conflicts and provide for more efficient on-site parking
flow. MDM also generally concurs with the construction of exclusive turn lanes at the egress
driveway which will better accommodate on-site vehicle queues.
The Applicant states that the access has been designed to accommodate sidewalk construction
along the site frontage should the Town or MassDOT construct sidewalk along the western side
of Osgood Street in the future. MDM generally agrees that the construction of sidewalks along
Osgood Street frontage is not necessary at this time since sidewalks are not currently provided
along the western side of Osgood Street. However, MDM continues to recommend that the
Applicant consider pedestrian connections between the site and the immediately adjacent
parcels.
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola, P.E.
January 4, 2013
Page: 3
TRUCK CIRCULATION
MDM has reviewed the revised Truck Circulation Plan and notes that the Applicant has only
reviewed the feasibility of trucks entering from the south. MDM recommends that the
Applicant review trucks travel paths entering from the north to ensure that no encroachment
into opposing travel lanes is required in order to access the site. MDM also recommends that
signs located in grassed or landscaped areas be located so that they are not struck by the
delivery vehicle.
MDM also notes that the WB-50 delivery vehicle is expected to be obstructed by vehicles
queued in the drive-thru lane and conversely, the WB-50 delivery vehicle is expected to block
access to the drive-thru lane and exit driveway during deliveries. We also note that the "Soffit
Sentry height Limitation Bar" is expected to be struck by the delivery truck. MDM recommends
that the Applicant review these issues and provide feasible solutions to limit the impact to site
circulation during delivery times.
Given the narrow width of the drive-thru lane and by-pass lane, it appears from the Fire Truck
Plan (see Sheet 11) that fire apparatus may be obstructed by vehicles queued in the drive-thru
lanes. The Applicant should provide correspondence from the North Andover Fire Department
relative to accepting this condition.
SIGHT DISTANCE
The tree located just south of the exit driveway has been removed and should be referenced as
such on the site plan. While the intersection sight lines exceed minimum sight distance criteria
established by AASHTO, MDM recommends that the roadside vegetation in the area of utility
pole #3007 (opposite the Shell service station) should be removed in order to further enhance
sight distance to and from the exit driveway. MDM recommends that any proposed planting or
physical landscape features should be located outside the driveway sight lines to ensure
unobstructed driver visibility.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
As stated above, we believe that the proposed Dunkin Donuts will serve the majority of
customers currently patronizing the store at 982 Osgood Street. While we recommend that the
Applicant conduct turning movement counts at the existing store to determine the expected trip
distribution (percentage of left- and right-turns to and from the site), the revised site plan
incorporates a separate left- and right-turn lane to accommodate exiting movements regardless
of the estimated trip distribution. As such, no further review of trip distribution is required at
this time.
D
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 4,2013
Page:4
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
MDM has reviewed the updated capacity analysis and is in general agreement with the
findings; specifically, that left-turn movements exiting the site will experience long delays
during peak hours with minor impact to operations along Osgood Street. MDM notes that
although vehicle delays may be extensive (exceeding 50 seconds during peak hours), vehicle
queues at the exit driveway will generally be accommodated without impacting the drive-
through lane. However, the analysis does indicate that queues forming at the exit driveway
may occasionally extend back to the drive-thru window resulting in a potentially longer than
expected drive-thru queue. As stated above, the Applicant should identify measures to be
taken should the drive-thru queue lengths exceed the storage area and impact the on-site
parking supply.
ON-SITE PARKING
MDM had previously recommended that the Applicant conduct a parking study at a nearby
similar Dunkin' Donuts since the Applicant does not meet the zoning requirements for the
number of required parking spaces. MDM has reviewed the latest parking evaluation provided
which is based on observations made a Dunkin' Donuts in Methuen, MA. The parking study
indicates that the Dunkin' Donuts experienced a peak parking demand of 17 parked vehicles
during the 11 AM — 2 PM period on a Saturday. MDM notes that the peak parking demand
observed on Saturday occurred during the first time interval observed and parking demand
may have been higher prior to the start of the parking observations. MDM also notes that the
peak demand of 17 vehicles is close to the proposed parking supply of 19 parking spaces. As
such,we note that the parking supply may not be sufficient for the proposed use.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Applicant indicates that site access has been designed as to minimize off-site vehicular
conflicts. MDM has reviewed the revised access design and proposed roadside vegetation
clearing and is in general agreement with the proposed design. Additionally, based on the
Applicant's correspondence with the Town and MassDOT, traffic signal improvements at the
Route 125/Sutton Street and Route 125/Great Pond Road intersections are expected to begin
construction this winter. These improvements are not anticipated to add any additional
capacity to the roadway system but may improve overall traffic flow within the study area.
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
January 4,2013
Page:5
SUMMARY
It is MDM's opinion that the Response to Comments memorandum adequately addresses many
of the comments and recommendations made in our initial review letter. However, there are
some outstanding issues that require further discussion. In particular, MDM still has some
reservations regarding the feasibility of truck maneuverability in and around the site and the
impact that the drive-thru queue will have on the limited supply of parking spaces.
We are available to discuss these comments in greater detail at your request. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide Transportation Plannutg & Engineering Services to Hancock Associates
and the Town of North Andover. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact this office.
Sincerely,
Daniel J.Mills,P.E.,PTOE
Principal
G:\Projects\695-North Andover(Dunkins Review)\Correspondence\695LT02.doc
MDM/� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.
Planners&Engineers PRINCIPALS
Robert J.Michaud,P.E.
Ronald D.Desrosiers,P.E.,PTOE
Daniel J.Mills,P.E.,PTOE
January 30,2013
Mr.Joseph D. Peznola,P.E.
Hancock Associates
315 Elm Street
Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752
Subject: Transportation Peer Review Comments—Letter#5
Proposed Dunkin' Donuts Development
1018 Osgood Street—North Andover,MA
Dear Mr.Peznola:
As requested, MDM transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) has reviewed the Response to
Transportation Review Comments letter dated January 25, 2013 and prepared by MHF Design
Consultants, Inc. (MHF) which was provided as a response to MDM's January 16, 2013 and
January 24, 2013 peer review letters for the above project. We are also in receipt of revised Site
Development Plans dated October 19, 2012 (revised January 23, 2013). The following comments
summarize our review of these items.
COLLISION HISTORY/SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
As recommended in our prior comment letter, the Applicant proposes to re-grade the area to
the east of the proposed entrance driveway which will result in improved sight distance for
vehicles exiting from 1060 Osgood Street. MDM has no further comments relative to this issue.
SITE ACCESS/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
As indicated in our prior comment letter, we anticipate a significant amount of foot traffic to
occur between the proposed Dunkin Donuts and 1060 Osgood Street and therefore recommend
that either a pedestrian walkway be constructed between the parcels or a sidewalk be
constructed along Osgood Street to accommodate pedestrian demand.
In response to this recommendation, the Applicant proposes to construct a walkway to the
easterly property line in an effort to provide a pedestrian connection to/from 1060 Osgood
Street. The Applicant states that there is an understanding with the North Andover Planning
Board that it will be the responsibility of the adjacent owner to build the remaining sidewalk to
the parking lot. While this appears to be a reasonable proposal, MDM notes that the adjacent
property owner may not be able to build the remaining sidewalk to ADA requirements due to
the 3 to 4 foot grade difference between the end of the proposed walkway and the existing
parking lot at 1060 Osgood Street. MDM recommends that the walkway be re-designed such
28 Lord Road,Suite 280 •Marlborough,Massachusetts 01752
Phone(508)303-0370 •Fax(508)303-0371 •www.mdmtrans.com
Mr. Joseph D.Peznola,P.E.
'January 30, 2013
Page: 2
that it can be connected to the adjacent lot in conformance with ADA requirements. If said
location cant satisfy ADA requirements than an alternative connection is recommended (e.g., a
sidewalk located along Osgood Street and the site driveway).
DRIVE-THROUGH LANE QUEUING
MDM's initial comments relative to drive-through queuing stem from the fact that a significant
range of vehicle queues have been observed at various Dunkin Donuts facilities throughout the
area. One of the more common concerns relative to drive-through facilities is their potential to
impact on-site parking and adjacent street traffic operations should queues spill out onto the
roadway.
Originally, the Applicant chose not to survey the adjacent Dunkin Donut's drive-through and
instead,provided national and probability based queuing estimates. Given the fact that that the
proposed stand-alone facility (1018 Osgood Street) is replacing an existing operable drive-
through facility (982 Osgood Street) in such close proximity to the site, a question as to the
potential impact on Osgood Street remained valid.
When data from the adjacent Dunkin Donuts was eventually presented, it showed an 11 vehicle
queue during the one weekday morning peak hour observation without seasonal adjustment
factors being applied. While this observation suggests that the probability based queue
estimate was slightly low (10-vehicle queue) and the nationally based queue estimate was
slightly high (13-vehicle queue), it is an observation from one weekday and does not take into
account seasonal fluctuations exhibited by Dunkin Donuts facilities. MDM notes that drive-
though queue storage is typically designed for the 95th percentile queue length under peak
season conditions and that, in our experience, January is typically a below average season for
Dunkin Donuts facilities in the region. Therefore, it is the opinion that MDM that a queue
length of 13 vehicles is more appropriate for said location.
ON-SITE PARKING
Based on the data and analysis presented by the Applicant, the parking supply and drive-
through storage area will typically accommodate on-site operations exhibited by the Dunkin
Donuts proposed for this area. However, there is a delicate balance that occurs between the
drive-through operation and on-site parking activity during peak hours. At times when there is
greater parking demand than there are spaces provided, which could occur on a daily basis, the
drive-through queue can expect to increase. Due to the layout of the site, any increase in drive-
through queuing will almost immediately result in a further reduction in effective parking
supply due to the blocking of parking spaces. MDM notes that approximately 4 spaces are
likely to be blocked at times during the weekday morning peak hour, thus reducing the
effective parking supply at the site from 19 spaces to 15 spaces. Given the apparent site
Mr.Joseph D. Peznola,P.E.
January 30, 2013
Page:3
constraints, no additional parking space can be banked at the site, therefore, overflow parking
may take place on the adjacent property.
It should be noted that peak parking characteristics associated with the Dunkin Donuts at 982
Osgood Street are not likely to completely represent parking demands at the proposed site due
to the significant increase in indoor and outdoor seating proposed. In addition, the Applicant's
data demonstrated a need for only 12 spaces based on a review of the existing 982 Osgood
Street facility, however, MDM notes that said facility only has an effective parking supply of 12
spaces. Therefore, the observation simply indicated that the lot was 100% full during the study
period.
As a final point of reference, the average peak parking demand associated with a stand-alone
coffee/donut shop with drive through window is estimated at 24 spaces based on ITE parking
demand data'. This estimate is highly consistent with the Town's zoning requirement of 27
spaces and should be provided at a minimum.
SUMMARY
In summary, we believe that the variability of drive-through queuing in combination with the
layout and limited supply of parking spaces does not provide the site with the reserves needed
to accommodate fluctuations in site traffic activity. During peak times, it may be necessary for
patrons to circulate back out onto Osgood Street to re-enter the site, back-up within the site to
get in queue for the drive-through lane and others may find it attractive to park at 1060 Osgood
Street. For these reasons, we recommend that the Applicant provide 24 parking spaces at the
site which is highly consistent with the Town's zoning requirement.
Lastly, we believe that the walkway to 1060 Osgood Street should be re-designed so that the
adjacent property owner has a reasonable chance to extend the walkway to his/her property
given the significant grade separation.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss these comments further.
Sincerely,
Mills da
Daniel J. , PTOE
Principal
G:\Projects\695-North Andover(Dunkin Review)\Correspondence\695LT05 Final.doc
'
ITE,Parking Generation,411, Edition,Land Use Code 937.
1018 Osgood St. Review January 30, 2013
Watershed Special Permit Determination—Summary of L. Eggleston's review:
® Applicant provided data from additional test pits. Also raised the elevation of infiltration
system#2, so that it has the 2' separation from ESHGWT
® Storage volume has been increased to treat the 1/2"water quality volume within the
infiltration systems,however it does not meet the standards. If the systems do not
overflow into the wetlands in the back of the property,they could overflow into the
drainage in Osgood St. and it is not clear that there is not an obstruction to the flow. The
increased flow could become a problem.
Civil Review—Summary of Hancock Review:
® Parking: Applicant requests a reduction in parking from required 27 spaces to 19.
Requesting relief under section 8.1.8.g, which allow for reduction in parking under
certain circumstances,where it can be demonstrated that a use needs lesser number of
spaces, i.e., housing for people with disabilities, low vehicle ownership. Section f
addresses Land Bank Parking. Reviewer recommends that section f. should apply.
® The applicant asserts that the proposed 19 spaces will be sufficient for peak usage based
on actual traffic counts performed at the existing DD location and at a stand-alone
location in Methuen.
® Applicant submitted data for two locations (existing Osgood St. location, stand-
alone Methuen DD) including peak time parking for both locations:
® Osgood St. —Lot contains 19 spaces. Peak time usage observed was 12
® Methuen stand-alone DD: 13 and 16 peak time usage. Lot contains 31 spaces.
® Applicant also submitted information on other DD establishments.No traffic
counts,just total spaces: Salem NH: total spaces 13; Methuen(Route 97) 17 total
spaces and Windham NH,total spaces 17.
® The peer reviewer does not agree that 19 spaces is sufficient, since the observed peak at
Methuen is 16.
® Methuen(Route 97) contains 48 spaces. There are multiple uses at this site.
® Dracut and Middleton both have more than 30 spaces.
® New store will have more seats, larger store.
® Other installations have over 30 spaces.
® Existing Osgood St. has spaces in the back that may not be conveniently accessed.
I think the applicant has provided enough detailed information to justify the 19 spaces. There are
similar stand-alone sites with fewer total spaces and similar sites with more spaces. The Board
did discuss at the last meeting the"human behavior" factor—will customers pass by a site that
has a long queue and no visible empty parking spaces? Also,the applicant is being asked to
reduce impervious cover due to Watershed restrictions.
® Fiscal Impact and Community Impact—the applicant is requesting a waiver and should
provide a basis for that request.
1
.1018 Osgood St. Review January 30, 2013
Traffic Review—Summary
® Queuing at exit driveway from drive-thru: Reviewer maintains that a 13 car queue is
possible and would impact more parking spaces than the employee and accessible spaces.
Again, as with parking,the applicant has provided information to support the maximum
11 vehicle queue. The Board did discuss this issue at length at the last meeting
® Sight Distance: Issues have been resolved.
® Trip generation Issues resolved.
® Sidewalks. Discussed possibility of a path to connect to the adjacent strip mall..
® Truck circulation;two deliveries a week using WB-50.
® The Fire Dept. has given me a verbal OK for Fire Truck Plan. They will put that
approval in writing before the meeting.
® Revised lighting plan needs provided
® Elevations have architect stamp,but architect is from NY. Building plans will be
stamped by a MA architect.
® New plans reflect comments provided by DPW—sewer stub provided.
2
Enright, Jean
From: Tymon, Judy
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:10 AM
To: 'Mark Gross'
Cc: Enright, Jean
Subject: Peer Reviews
Attachments: 120125 Sewer Dept Review.pdf; 130120 DPW Review.pdf; MDM Traffic Review- 1018
Osgood Street 1.24.2013.pdf; Route 114 Middleton.JPG; 17 South Broadway Salem NH.JPG;
450 Broadway Methuen.JPG; Broadway Road Dracut.JPG; 5 Ayers Village Road Methuen
MA.JPG
Mark,
have attached the following reviews:
Traffic Review from MDM along with photos of other DDD sites
Review from DPW and Sewer Dept.
The Board seemed okay with parking at the last meeting, however, I am obligated to raise the issue that the reviewer
has documented regarding parking. I am here until 12 today. Let me know if you have any questions.
Judith M.Tymon
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
120 Main Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Phone 978.688.9535
Fax 978.688.9542
Email itvmon@townofnorthandover.com
Web www.TownofNorthAndover.com
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal offices and officials are public records.For more
information please refer to: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm.
Please consider the environment before printing this email
1
INEMMENMENNNEW ENNEW EM REM
® _ 44 Stiles Road ° Suite One ° Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 ® FAX (603) 393-0733
F Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
January 25,2013
Ms. Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01845 1
,_ ? '70
Re: Transportation Peer Review Comments...Response Letter#3
Proposed Dunkin' Donuts Development MEW W
1018 Osgood Street—North Andover,MA
M 4F#306412
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Please find enclosed a revised set of plans for the above referenced project. The plans have been
revised to reflect the comments from Hancock Associates in correspondence dated January 15,
2013 as well as comments from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) in
correspondence dated January 15,2013 and January 24,2013 and received in this office on
Januaryl6,2013 and January 25, 2013 from your office via email. Based on the MMM
comments dated January 15, 2013,we offer the following:
COLLISION HISTORY
Due to the close proximity of the entrance driveway to 1060 Osgood Street, MDM recommends
that the Applicant modify the grading to the east of the proposed entrance driveway(within the
State Highway layout) in order to improve sight distance for vehicles exiting from 1060 Osgood
Street.
MHF Comment. The grading in the area directly to the west of the site driveway for 1060
Osgood Street has been revised according to the sketch provided by MDM.
SITE ACCESS/PEDESTRAIN ACCESS
MHF Response: A proposed 4 foot wide bituminous sidewalk has been provided to the adjacent
property to the east but up to the property line. It will be the responsibility of the adjacent
property owner to build the remaining sidewalk to the parking lot. This was discussed and
agreed to with the North Andover Planning Board.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
TRUCK CIRCULATION
The Town Planner has requested comments from the Fire Department relative to this issue.
Based on the comments from MDM's correspondence dated January 24, 2013 we offer the
following:
With respect to the drive thru queuing, MDM has chosen to apply the queuing analysis that
has resulted in the most amounts of vehicles in a queue(13 vehicles). As stated in the Response
to Comment letter prepared by Greeman Peterson, Inc. (GPI) dated January 15, 2013 the Traffic
Impact and Access Study (TIAS) prepared for the project provided data for a 13 vehicle queue.
These data were documented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and were based
on observations conducted at 12 Starbucks coffee shops as well as 6 coffee shop locations.
Starbucks has a different and more extensive product line than found at a Dunkin Donuts,
therefore the process times are typically much longer resulting in longer drive thru queues. In
MDM's Drive Thru Vehicle Queuing comment within their November 9, 2012 letter, NIDM
states that"Based on past experience,N1DM finds that drive-thru operations for Dunkin Donuts
locations are unique relative to other fast food restaurants with drive thru windows". Based on
this comment we specifically provided an alternate queuing analysis which was conducted
based on service times for Dunkin Donuts facilities and indicated a 95th percentile queue of 10
vehicles.
As stated in NMMs January 4, 2013 letter "....we recommend that the applicant collect trip
generation and vehicle queuing data from the existing facility (982 Osgood Street) as we believe
that this is the best data available for estimating peak hour operations at the proposed store.
Specifically trip generation and peak hour drive fl-iru queue lengths are critical components to
their site operations with potential impact on the accessibility to the limited supply of parking
spaces proposed." Based on this comment, we counted the existing facility located at 982
Osgood Street to collect trip-generation data and drive thru window vehicle queues. The
existing observations revealed that the Dunkin Donuts restaurant generated less vehicle trips
than what were previously evaluated. In addition, the existing drive thru lane observations
showed a maximum of 11 vehicles occurring during the weekday AM peak hour, which would
impact the parking minimally for a very short period of time. The reviewer has chosen to
disregard the data that was specifically requested to be collected at the nearby facility that
shows fewer vehicles in the drive thru queue, and now wants to impose the maximum queuing
on the site that was originally presented in the TIAS. It is uncertain as to why the reviewer
rejected the additional data that they requested at the existing Dunkin Donuts restaurant (982
Osgood Street) that resulted in additional time and expense if this information was believed to
provide the most applicable comparison to the operations at the proposed restaurant.
IVIHF Design Consultants, Inc.
We believe that the expected queuing for the drive thru will be accommodated on-site and will
cause minimal,if any disruption to the on-site parking.
ON-SITE PARKING
With respect to the proposed parking spaces, MMM requested that we count the parking
operations at a free-standing Dunkin' Donuts facility. Based on this request, we observed that
the maximum occupied spaces to be 17 spaces at 450 Broadway in Methuen, Massachusetts.
After receiving this information, the reviewer has commented (January 4, 2013 letter) that the
proposed 19 parking spaces may be inadequate. Based on this comment, we counted the
existing facility located at 982 Osgood Street and observed the maximum occupied spaces to be
12 spaces. The Parking Demand Studies conducted at the two existing facilities provided
occupied spaces less than the 19 spaces being provided at the proposed site. Based on the
information provided,the data suggest that the peak-parking demand can be accommodated on
the site. Parking spaces that were provided in the last response letter for other sites were
merely provided as information showing that other similar sites have spaces equal to or less
than those provided on the proposed site. No actual parking counts were done for these other
sites. /J
Sincerely yours, ;,i 1
MHT DES C( TSITL;TNTS,INC.
�i
ss. E.
Principal
Cc: Mr.Dan Mills,MDM Transportation Consultants,Inc.
Mr. Greg Nolan,Cafua Management Company,Inc.
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E. Hancock Associates
NIZINIMENEENEW ISIMEW OEM
swomw
44 Stiles Road ® Suite One- Salem, New Hampshire 03079
T4-7t; TEL (603) 893-0720 - FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
January 25, 2013
Ms. Judy Tymon, Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Site Plan Review Response #3
'07
NORTH ANDOVER
1018 Osgood Street PLAWNG DEPARTMENT
MHF# 305312
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Please find enclosed a revised set of plans for the above referenced project. The plans
have been revised to reflect the comments from Hancock Associates in correspondence
dated January 15, 2013 and received in this office on January 16, 2013 from your office
via email. Based on those comments we offer the following:
1. With respect to the parking supply issue,we remain firm in our conviction that
the site has adequate parking based on the documentation that has been requested
by MDM and provide to them and the Board for consideration.
2. Drainage issues are being addressed to Ms. Eggleston.
3. As stated previously the building plans will be submitted to the Building
Department with a Registered Architect from the State of Massachusetts.
4. A revised lighting plan has been submitted in the attached revised drawings.
5. A sewer stub has been provided to accommodate the future sewer flows from this
site. See attached letter from Tim Willett from the Engineering Department. Our
plans will be revised to reflect these existing conditions with the sewer line.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS a SURVEYORS
HF Design Consultants, Inc.
This letter serves to address the last remaining comments. Should you need further
clarification on items,please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely your
MHF D I TANTS, INC.
ss,
Principal
Cc: Mr. Joseph. D. Pemola, P.E.
Mr. Greg Nolan, Cafaa Management Co, Inc.
e-
iTLi:,f1 J4.....
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 2013
TO: Judy Tymon,Town Planner
CC: Bruce Thibodeau,Director
Gene Willis,Dir for of Engineering
FROM: Tim Willett
RE: 1018 Osgood Street
Site Plan Review
Proposed Dunldn Donuts Facility
I have reviewed the submittal by MHF for the proposed Dunkin Donuts facility at 1018 Osgood Street for
Water and Sewer connections. I offer the following conunents.
I. An existing 6"PVC sewer stub for fixture connection for this property was installed several years ago
as part of a Town Project. The stub should be used and can eliminate the proposed off-site sewer
line as shown on Sheet 5.
2. The Town's existing 12-inch water main is located near the middle of existing pavement in Route
125. A Mass DOT permit and DPW Street Opening Permit will need to be secured by the applicant
for the proposed 6-inch water line.
t
i
0 44 Stiles Road•Suite One•Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 •FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
January 28,2013
i
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon,Town Planner
Re: 1018 Osgood Street
JFJ Holdings,LLC
Sub: Response to Eggleston
Environmental Review Comments
Dated January 7,2013
Dear Ms.Tymon and Board Members:
On behalf of our client,JFJ Holdings,LLC,please find enclosed a revised set of
plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced project. The plans
have been revised to address the comments in the Eggleston Environmental review letter
dated January 7,2013. Based on those comments, as shown below,we offer the
following responses in bold:
1. At our meeting on 11/19, we discussed the need for distributing recharge across
the project site, and particularly within the Watershed Protection District. I
indicated to MHF that even if there was less than two feet of separation to the
seasonal high groundwater elevation, an infiltration system within the WPD
should still be able to provide effective recharge and filtering of flow under most
periods of lower groundwater. With the additional test pit. data included in this
submission, however, a clearer picture of the groundwater conditions on the site
emerges, and I question whether any below-grade system can be used to
effectively infiltrate stormwater within the WPD. Seven of the eight test pits
conducted on the site (four in August 2012 and another four in November 2012)
indicate that the high groundwater elevation is approximately three to four feet
below existing grade across the site. Evidence of groundwater was not seen in the
eighth test pit, however based on the other test pits the ESHGW was estimated to
also be four feet below grade. Thus, the ESHGW elevation across most of the
project site ranges from elevation 144 to 140. Infiltration System #1 (near the
wetland) is located in a portion of the site where the proposed ground elevation
will be raised. The bottom of the stone in the system would only be 1.2 feet above
the ESHGW, but the system should be able to function adequately most of the
time. Proposed Infiltration System 42, however, is located in a cut portion of the
site, where the proposed surface grades will be lowered by approximately three
feet. The entire below-grade infiltration system, with a bottom invert of 136.67,
would therefore be several feet lower than the ESHGW elevation in that area, and
likely to be in groundwater most of the year.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
Ms.Judy Tymon
January 28,2013
Page 2 of 3
MHF Design Consultants,Inc.
Response: Additional test pits have been performed on 1/28/13 and added to
the Plan Set and Stormwater Report and the results provide consistent data
with the previously submitted logs. Please note that infiltration system #2
has been raised two additional feet compared to the previous design. In
addition,the results of Test Pit#113-4 indicate a depth to eshwt of 6',thereby
providing the required 2' of separation to the eshwt to proposed infiltration
system N.
2. Even without the groundwater issue, the proposed plan only attenuates the rate of
runoff flow leaving the site, not the volume. The volume of flow discharged to
Osgood Street under post-development conditions would more than twice the
existing runoff volume under every design storm condition, and could exacerbate j
any downstream flooding.
Response: We have increased the volume capacity within both infiltration
systems to the maximum extent based on the existing site conditions. In
order to mitigate the Post Development volumes the onsite infiltration
systems would need to be increased in upwards of 5-10x the size of the
currently proposed system and in our opinion is unreasonable and
inconsistent with previous developments approved in Town.
3. The proposed design also does not provide sufficient dead storage volume in the
infiltration systems to capture and treat even a '/2-inch water quality volume. The
TSS calculations submitted include storage volume in the Oil/Grit Chambers to
reduce the water quality volume in the infiltration systems. This is an invalid
assumption for two reasons. First, the oil/grit chambers are solid structures and
are designed to operate full and to remain full between storms — they have no
storage capacity. Second, the treatment provided in the infiltration system is only
in the flow that is actually captured and infiltrated; the overflow from the system
is not treated. Therefore in order to get the 80% TSS removal credit the entire
water quality volume must be captured and infiltrated.
Response: Storage volume within both infiltration systems has been
increased to treat the 1/2-inch water quality volume.
4. It is not clear what the basis is for the saturated thicknesses of 129 and 133 ft used
in the mounding calculations. As indicated in my previous comments, saturated
thickness should be the difference between ESHGW and the bottom of the
aquifer,probably something in the range of 10 to 15 feet. The model may call for
an elevation,but it also needs the relative elevations as the saturated thickness of
the aquifer is part of what determines how quickly the additional groundwater
flow is dispersed. The elevations used in the analysis are not even consistent with
the ESHGW on the site.
Response: The saturated thickness was taken by subtracting the 10 to 15 feet
from the ground surface elevation at each test pit location in the vicinity of
each infiltration system. This has been revised by subtracting the 10 to 15
feet from the eshwt as suggested.
Ms.Judy Tymon �� •...
January 28,2013 — —
Page 3 of 3
MHF Design Consultants,Inc.
5. The detail for the Snout Oil/Water separator on Sheet 8 should be clarified or
relabeled to indicate that it is the outlet hood for the catchbasins, so as not to
confuse it with the detail for the larger oil/water separator chambers. I would
actually suggest that the larger chambers be called out as oil-grit chambers. The
detail for the Stormceptor units should also be removed from the plan.
Response: The detail for the Snout Oil/Water separator has been relabeled
as suggested and the Stormceptor unit details have been removed from the
plan set.
6. An application for a Watershed Special Permit, including a written certification
by a professional engineer stating that the project will not cause any significant
degradation in the quality or quantity of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick
is still needed.
Response: Written certification has been provided as suggested.
Based on the revised plans and documents,we feel that we have addressed the comments
in both the review letter and the staff meeting.
Please contact our office if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
MHF D sign Consultants,Inc.
Js Tymula
. Project Manager
FAProjects\Eng\305311\EE Review--Response 1-28-13.docx
cc: Lisa Eggleston,Eggleston Environmental
Greg Nolan,JFJ Holdings,LLC
® 44 Stiles Road • Suite One- Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 ® FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
Mardi
Ms. Judith Tymon, Town Planner
Planning Department
-H -
sgoo( ac'vd
North Andover,MA 01845
HAND DELIVERED
i s0.i-S s" od Strcct
Map 35, Lot 19
Cafua Realty Trust,LLC
Peer Review Response
Dear Ms. Tymon:
PlpagP find PnrinePA n, QPt of rPCTicPA »l_n_nc -n-nrl Arninn,rrp r-a_li i latinne in rpennncP to nnm_mpntc
from Lisa Eggleston regarding the review of the Storni-water ivianagement Report and drainage
plans for the above referenced project located at 1018 Osgood Street. The revised plans and
report address the comments from Lisa Eggleston in her email dated January 31, 2013. Based on
u..e C--n- --is We vier
The test pit information and locations have been updated and verified in the field. Some of the
information that was previously submitted was mislabeled and not shown in the correct location.
.:lc w 1 c'ar: y 'W- :. IJl«leiionE`e .tf-`-.1 ti M f^Ja Pty �IJC 9t� L'vC 3n 11liSC�4l .J J lvfil.
TP# 1112-4 the original test pit that was excavated for this system, which is located in the
proposed.infiltration system#2, shows no seasonal high water table at least to the bottom
elevation of the pit. This test pit was excavated to a depth of 120" at an existing elevation of
-1,19+ Nvhirh -,vn» d reit tha tnSt nit bottom at elevation i Q i'hP rnnrirmatnry tact n.t that Avag
r
excavated is labeled as TP#113-4 and has a seasonal high water table at 80". The existing
ground elevation at this pit is 145.5 which place the seasonal high water table at about elevation
119. R Thic wvniild pvnlnin the nnn n11can7anPP nfthP caaennal high in the first tact nit cinrP
_v-
the pit only went dowi-i io elevation 139+. based on this seasonal nigh water table elevation, we
have raised the bottom elevation of Infiltration system# 2 to elevation 141.00, which will
provide for a 2 foot separation from the bottom of the infiltration system and the seasonal high
Wi.s.L..'Z Lao-le. es`e lir.c.: �:� . -"''w._r•�°c-a. :.iiv ' s- c_ -z stems
t z'<' -in me -d ;B c s �.i7 F�i�r�.t. ' ' '•°
i ,-'< YY : - 4,:r:;SiE`w`-:v ."iJ.s L::i�.J i . .. ,�
Additional trench drains at a higher elevation in the driveways are proposed to capture the runoff
for this infiltration system. The previous trench drains at the lower elevations of the driveway
will capture runoff and treat the runoff through the use of a sand filter which then will tie into
31£ p 5'slsUe s4 a ;traisEin4 �3 ;;eitiE� Sy' E .
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
an OEM
.....ONO=
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
L V. IN.
aim a. W go---
in. -;.r.- win syiqN>-ni -n-1 I U Y
-— 11 ... tt ri-Q. We e-"Zea conlin"'O laim; Z,ic w 0" 1 i i 1. 0 1 1 LI Ia.pri, V.
to infiltration system# 2,thereby reducing the amount of runoff going into the Osgood Street
drainage system. The original test pit information for this system TP 112-3 had an estimated
seasonal high water table of 42". Based on the existing ground elevation of 144,this places the
h-ah xxrntpr tnhh-� at ihi-.xxtf-41nnii and nf thk card at Pip.xmt nn 1,1() 5 An
estimated s e a_4z o Mall system
additional confirmatory test pit was excavated on the site(TP 113-1), which had an estimated
seasonal high water table at 72". Based on the existing ground elevation at this location of 145.5,
the Pcf;mntPJ QPncninnl hierli xvnfi-r tnhlp vvniilil hp at -1pirnfinn 110 1 Ac a rp-nilt the linftnm of
the mi -filtration systen7 was raised to elevation 142.00, Wnlicli is about 18" above the seasonal
high water table at TP 112-3 and 30" above seasonal high water table at TP-112-3. This would
provide for an average separation of the system from the seasonal high water table of 2 feet.
pf v ^S
much
much of the additional volume from runoff to infiltration system# I since it is discharging to the
wetland located to the northeast of the site and eventually discharges to the large wetland complex
further to the north. As required under the Stormwater Management Standards,our rates of R1110ff
toeac_h._eSlo-nn ------- vn in fhe -Li
mmary
Table. Although the runoff rates have been reduced from the predevelopment rates,the volume has
been reduced as well,but not entirely. With respect to the drainage system in Osgood Street,the
nAdifinnn'! vnInmp -will not mrArtnv thi- P_ApzfPm cinrp the Arninncrp exTefpm r1peirm is lincpd nil the
runoff rates thlaiWill be going to the drainage systein. iiieauaiiiortaivoiuinecan oeacco-iin-noda'-teaI
in the system since it will occur over a longer period of time since the runoff rate has been reduced
from the predevelopment condition. Therefore, as a result of no increase to the runoff rate in the
S!"S-L-U, Lfltffe M-1 U9 -e An fy"tff ��iT 1. 1
-a, .1, X Z - 5
in E
_v a .7
additional volume from the site. Additionally,this runoff does discharge into the same wetland area
located to the north of the site via the Osgood Street drainage system.
is c --esp—dence -10 Ma
We that ".1-s ad-dc-;,-s,sL;-,1-;- th - i-�Mz' . .wen:,
U) l:., I Cori
Eggleston regarding this project. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact us at
your convenience.
VC-IY
I IJ VUlzi,
NMF Design Go ul In
Principal
cc: Mr. Greg Nolan, JFJ Holdings LLC
Rcrulp.0nn Pnvir nm ni-PI
-Ecrodeston
mom
T444 Stiles Road ® Suite One ® Salem, New Hampshire 03079
-_ _— ---- TEL (603) 893-0720 ° FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, i www.mhfdesign.com
NORTH!ANDOVER March 25, 2013
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
Re: 1018 Osgood Street
JFJ Holdings,LLC
Sub: Plan Revisions based on
March 7, 2013 meeting
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
Please find enclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced
project located at 1018 Osgood Street.
As you know,MBF Design Consultants met with yourself,Jennifer Hughes and Ms. Eggleston
on March 7, 2013 to review the additional comments from Eggleston Environmental relative to the above
referenced project. The attached plans and revised Drainage Report incorporate revisions based on the
design options discussed at that meeting. Specifically we have revised the plans as follows:
1. The roof drainage has been redirected into infiltration system#2 and the pavement area in the
lower parking lot has been redirected to other systems; a portion going to infiltration system#1 and
another portion going to the sand filer located at the front portion of the site. This has allowed us to raise
the bottom of infiltration system#2 to elevation 144.00 which provides for a greater separation from the
estimated seasonal high water table. Two test pits in the area of infiltration system#2 indicated a
variation in the depth of the seasonal high water table from none observed at 120" (1112-4) at the west
end of the site to 48" faint(1112-4) on the east end of the site. It was also discussed that this seasonal
high water table elevation at this location is potentially created as a result of runoff from the roof not
being controlled and creating this condition. It would be reasonable to assume that the average seasonal
high water table would be approximately at a depth of 6 feet or at elevation 142+/-. This is substantiated
by other test pits in the immediate vicinity and shown on the revised plans(113-2 and 113-3). Using this
estimated seasonal high water table elevation would provide a 2 foot separation from the bottom of the
proposed infiltration system#2.
2. A portion of the site's lower parking area has been intercepted thru the use of a trench drain
that will capture the pavement runoff and direct it to infiltration system#1. This runoff had gone to
infiltration system#2 in the previous design. Additionally, some runoff from the lower area will also be
captured and be directed into the proposed sand filter located at the front of the site.
3. Both infiltration systems have been enlarged to provide as much storage as possible to reduce
the volume of flow from the site.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
JMs. Ju �,,,Tymon
Marcb 25, 2013 ®_
Page 2 of 2 --
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
4. Included in the report are exhibits which provide for documentation regarding the issue of
additional volume from the site as a result of the development See Appendix D. Based on these exhibits
and our documentation and calculations,the additional volume from the site that will be directed to the
wetland thru the Osgood Street drainage system is an additional 1,523 cf. Based on the ponded area of
the wetland that is at the outlet of this drainage system being 80,000 sf,the additional volume represents
an increase of this ponded wetland area of only 0.019 feet or 0.22 inches . Additionally, we were
conservative in the calculation of the area at the outlet and restricted it to just the observed ponded area,
Based on the aerial photo,the wetland area associated with the outlet of this drainage system is much
larger, approximately 3 times the size that we calculated for the ponded area of the existing outlet,which
would suggest an even smaller increase.
Based on the revised plans and documents,we feel that we have addressed the comments in both
the previous review letters and the March 7,2013 meeting.
Please contact our office if you have any comments or questions.
Sinc rely,
Des' n C to ,Inc.
Gross, E.
Principal
cc: Lisa Eggleston,Eggleston Environmental
Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Commission Agent
Greg Nolan,JFJ Holdings, LLC
Enright, Jean
From: Tymon, Judy
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Enright, Jean
Subject: FW: 1018 Osgood Street
Attachments: 305312hancockreposne.doc; 305312mdmreview.doc
Jean,
Here are responses from MHF for your files.
Judy
From: Mark Gross [mailto:msg(cmhfdesi ng coml
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:42 PM
To: Tymon, Judy
Cc: 'Monticup, Heather'
Subject: 1018 Osgood Street
Judy,
Revised plans and correspondence have been overnighted to your office for Monday delivery. I have attached copies of
the letters that have been sent to the peer review consultants.Any questions, please call.
Mark
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal offices and officials are public records_For more
information please refer to:http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/l)reidx.htm.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
1
ENNEW NEW --doll=
0� saw
_ 44 Stiles Road m Suite One® Salem, New Hampshire 03079
_._____-___ TEL (603) 893-0720 ° FAX (603) 893-0733
F Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
January 10,2013
Ms. Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Site Plan Review Response
1018 Osgood Street
MI-IF'#305312
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Please find enclosed a revised set of plans for the above referenced project. The plans
have been revised to reflect the comments from Hancock Associates in correspondence
dated December 30, 2012 and received in this office on January 7,2012 from your office
via email. Based on those comments we offer the following:
1. The Applicant has requested a Special Permit under Section 8.1 for reduction in
parking. The Applicant's reference to Section 8.1.81 appears incorrect and should
be Section 8.1.8.g"Reduction in Parking". The Board should review the
applicability of this section, as the use does not seem to align with the uses
described in this section. The section speaks to uses such as those for persons with
disabilities, low rate of vehicle ownership or the availability of transportation
demand management alternatives. The Board may wish to explore the application
of Section 8.1.8.f in this case; "Land Banked Parking" as being more appropriate
to the use given the Applicant's arguments. Additionally,the Applicant has
miscalculated the number of spaces required. In accordance with Section 8.1.4
(note 4 of Table of Off-Street Parking), "where uses are open-air type not
enclosed in a structure, each foot of lot devoted to such use shall be considered to
be equivalent to one fifth of one square foot". The 25' x 30'outdoor seating area
requires an additional two spaces.
ENGINEERS 0 PLANNERS SURVEYORS
MHF Response:An additional Special Permit is being requested. MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
Hancock Comment: The parking as been further reduced to 19 spaces. Again,
Hancock believes that the Applicant should utilize Section 8.1.81. In this
manner, should parking demand exceed the supply,the Town could require the
Applicant build the land banked parking.The additional,parking demand study
performed by the Applicant on a site in Methuen found the parking demand to
be 17 spaces,fairly close to the 19 provided.
MHF RESPONSE: Land banking the parking does not assist us with the reduction of
pavement for purposes of complying with the Watershed Protection District
requirements since we would have to account for those spaces in the drainage design
of the site and defeats the purpose of impervious reduction. Additional
documentation is being supplied to MDM regarding this issue with respect to
additional sites and a parking count of the existing site located just to the south of this
parcel.
2. The Applicant has requested waivers from Section 8.3.5.e requiring the
submission of a Fiscal Impact Study and a Community Impact Analysis. The
Applicant argues that the project is minor in nature. The Bylaw has provisions
defining minor projects (less than 2,000 s.f.). The Board should instruct the
Applicant to provide the required study and analysis.
MHFResponse: We stand by our request for waivers from these items.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to the Board regarding this matter.
MHF Response: Comment acknowledged
3. The Applicant has requested that the Board make a Determination of
Applicability and/or grant a waiver in accordance with eth provisions of Section
4.136 Watershed Protection. Section 4.136.2.c states"In the event the SPGA
determines, on the basis of credible evidence before it, that there exists a
significant doubt or dispute concerning the proper location of the boundaries of
the Watershed Protection District on any individual lot or lots, the SPGA shall, at
the request of the owner of such lot or lots, engage a Registered Professional
Engineer to advise it in determining such boundaries". We see this process as
separate and distinct from the Applications before the Board and that the report
and decision of the Board precedes any action by the Board on the application at
hand. We understand the Board has engaged Lisa Eggleston as the Registered
Engineer advising the Board. Hancock has reviewed the Existing Conditions Plan
and letter from Epsilon and notes that assertion with regard to drainage patterns
are not clearly depicted on the Plan. Drain lines shown on the plan are incomplete.
A review of the Existing Conditions Plan prepared by MHF Consultants for the
1003 Osgood Street Project do not support the detail outlined in the Epsilon letter.
The Existing Conditions plan should be updated to reflect this detail.
MMONEENOMEW =MEW WN so=
M=V
MHF Response:A separate Watershed Special permit application hdillephs)Wgonsultants, Inc.
for a portion of the property based on our meeting with the Town's Environmental
Consultant.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to Ms.Eggleston and the Board regarding
this matter.
MHF Response: Comment acknowledged
4. No loading area(12'x25'xl4') is proposed as required by Section 8.1.5.e.
MHF Response:An additional Special Permit has been requested,
Hancock Comment: Hancock believes there is sufficient space to the south of the
dumpster where the edge of pavement has a radius of 45 feet(assumedly for
truck turning)that could be slightly expanded and squared off to accommodate
a single box truck. We understand box trucks are used for daily delivery of
donuts from regional bakeries.Any other location for trucks to park would
impede the one-way circulation regardless of it being off-peak hours.
MHF Response: The daily delivery of donuts is made early in the morning between
the hours of and 6 am, well before any appreciable customer traffic for the drive
thru is made and is done from the by-pass lane....the time of the delivery is literally 5
tolOminutes. Virtually all stores operate this way in terms of the delivery ofproduct
and therefore are not an impediment to the operation of the site for the drive-thru.
Again the purpose as described above is to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces
on this site for drainage design purposes. We will request the Special Permit from the
Board regarding this request.
Section 8.3.5 Additional Information Required:
1. Zoning Section 8.35.d requires that an Architect registered in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts stamped all building elevations. An Architect Registered in New
York stamps the elevations submitted.
MHF Response:Building Plans will be submitted to the North Andover Building
Department and will be stamped by a Registered Architect in Massachusetts.
Hancock Comment: The By-law requirement pertains to submission to the
Planning Board. This is an open item.
General Engineering Review Comments
1. Queuing should be adjusted to provide 20' per vehicle. Queuing for only four to
five vehicles are provided from the order board back prior to impacting parking
spaces. The Applicant should consider designating several impacted spaces as
employee parking.
MHFResponse: The queuing has been verified by the traffic consultant and we
will designate the spaces at the end of the drive thru queue as employee spaces.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to NMM Transportation for review of the
additional information submitted by the Applicant regarding the queuing.
MHF Response: GPI, Inc is providing additional information relative to the queuing
at the existing site.
MERMW mm now
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
2. Light levels on the sidewalk at the proposed appear too low. It is recommended at
least 1.0 foot-candle is provided within pedestrian areas.
MHF Response: The lighting plan is sufficient for the use and does not take into
account the lighting coming from inside the store which provides additional
lighting in the sidewalk areas.
Hancock Comment: Hancock believes the area of low light is far enough from
the building such that internal lighting may not be sufficient to address the issue.
A sidewalk bollard light may be necessary to address the issue.
MHF Response: We will resubmit a revised lighting plan to address this issue.
Review Criteria/Design Guidelines
1. The Applicant states that the project will be connected to municipal sewer and
water as evidence that the municipal system has the ability to serve the project.
More detail with regard to available system capacity and actual project demands
should be provided.
MHF Response:A typical Dunkin Donuts of this size will generate 380 Bpd. The
flow rate can be accommodated by the existing 8"sewer line in Osgood Street.
Hancock Comment: The Applicant should verify that there are no existing issues
with the sewer in the area.
MHF Response: Comment acknowledged
This letter serves to confirm that a majority of the issues have been satisfied and the only
outstanding issues are those described above that will need to be discussed by the Board.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this letter. Should you need further
clarification o n items,please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
MHF DESIGN CONSULT, INC.
Mark S,"GTb44'P,.'-k
Principal
Cc: Mr. Joseph. D. Pemola,P.E.
Mr. Greg Nolan, Cafua Management Co, Inc.
SEMEW
L
® 44 Stiles Road ® Suite One - Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 • FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
January 10,2013
Ms. Judy Tymon, Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Transportation Peer Review Comments...Response Letter#2
Proposed Dunkin' Donuts Development
1018 Osgood Street—North Andover,MA
MHF#306412
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Please find enclosed a revised set of plans for the above referenced project. The plans have been
revised to reflect the comments from Hancock Associates in correspondence dated December 30,
2012 as well as comments from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) in
correspondence dated January 4, 2012 and received in this office on January 7,2012 from your
office via email. Based on the MDM comments we offer the following:
TRIP GENERATION
We believe that the proposed Dunkin Donuts will serve the majority of customers currently
patronizing the store at 982 Osgood Street. As such, we recommended that the Applicant
collect trip generation and vehicle queuing data from the existing facility as we believe that this
is this best data available for estimating peak hour operations at the proposed store.
Specifically, trip generation and peak hour drive-thru queue lengths are critical components to
the site operations with potential impact on the accessibility to the limit supply of parking
spaces proposed.
AIHF Comment. GPI will be providing that data via counts performed the week of January Th
and will be submitted under separate cover to this letter.
COLLISION HISTORY
As recommended by MDM, the Applicant has reviewed additional crash data and has
determined that, while there are a relatively high number of accidents occurring in the study
area, the collisions do not indicate a particular pattern correctable by engineering measures.
Additionally,the Applicant has revised the site driveway layout,has removed a large tree along
ENGINEERS 0 PLANNERS 0 SURVEYORS
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
the site frontage and proposes to clear roadside vegetation to enhance safety for motorists
exiting the site.
Due to the close proximity of the entrance driveway to 1060 Osgood Street, MDM recommends
that the Applicant modify the grading to the east of the proposed entrance driveway(within the
State Highway layout) in order to improve sight distance for vehicles exiting from 1060 Osgood
Street.
AMF Comment: The on-site and ROW grading to the east of the driveway for 1060 Osgood
Street has been revised to provide for improved site distance over what exists on the property
currently.
DRIVE-THROUGH LANE VEHICLE QUEUING
The Applicant has conducted an alternative drive-thru queue analysis which results in a
maximum queue of 10 vehicles in the drive-d-tru lane during the weekday morning peak hour.
This estimate is generally based on national trip generation statistics for coffee/donut shops and
is not necessarily representative of the drive-thru queues generated by Dunkin Donuts in New
England. In addition, the Applicant's prior traffic study indicated a peak vehicle queue of 13
vehicles, The Applicant should explain this discrepancy and identify measures that will be
taken should the drive-thru queue lengths exceed the storage area and impact the on-site
parking supply.
MHF Comment. We disagree regarding the comment about the queuing analysis not being
representative of Dunkin Donuts in New England. This analysis was done specifically for the
Dunkin Donuts drive thru based on a service time of 30 seconds which is their standard service
time for all stores and hag been used specifically for Dunkin Donuts throughout New England.
As in the Trip Generation response above, GPI will be supplying queuing information for this
site based on the existing site for AM and Saturday peak periods and will be submitted under
separate cover to this letter. The impact to the on-site parking supply if the queuing exceeds ten
vehicles will potentially affect 2-3 spaces, of which 2 are designated as employee parking and
one is designated as an accessible space.
SITE ACCESS
The Applicant has modified the site layout and access design to include one-way
counterclockwise circulation in and around the site with entrance-only movements at the
northern site driveway and egress-only movements at the southern site driveway. MDM
generally concurs with the revised site layout and access design and generally concurs that
reducing the number of access/egress locations to one entrance-only driveway and one egress-
only driveway will minimize vehicular conflicts and provide for more efficient on-site parking
flow. MDM also generally concurs with the construction of exclusive turn lanes at the egress
driveway which will better accommodate on-site vehicle queues.
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
The Applicant states that the access has been designed to accommodate sidewalk construction
along the site frontage should the Town or MassDOT construct sidewalk along the western side
of Osgood Street in the future. MDM generally agrees that the construction of sidewalks along
Osgood Street frontage is not necessary at this time since sidewalks are not currently provided
along the western side of Osgood Street. However, MDM continues to recommend that the
Applicant consider pedestrian connections between the site and the immediately adjacent
parcels.
A1HF Response. Providing pedestrian access to either site would require cooperation and
permission from the adjacent property owners for construction of any access on their property
for a connection. The owner is not in a position to negotiate those connections. Additionally,
the connection to the property to the south/west would be difficult at best given the grade
change.
TRUCK CIRCULATION
MDM has reviewed the revised Truck Circulation Plan and notes that the Applicant has only
reviewed the feasibility of trucks entering from the south. MDM recommends that the
Applicant review trucks travel paths entering from the north to ensure that no encroachment
into opposing travel lanes is required in order to access the site. MDM also recommends that
signs located in grassed or landscaped areas be located so that they are not struck by the
delivery vehicle.
A4HF Response: A revised truck turning plan has been included in the revised plans to show
delivery trucks entering from the north.
MDM also notes that the WB-50 delivery vehicle is expected to be obstructed by vehicles
queued in the drive-thru lane and conversely, the WB-50 delivery vehicle is expected to block
access to the drive-thru lane and exit driveway during deliveries. We also note that the "Soffit
Sentry height Limitation Bar" is expected to be struck by the delivery truck. MDM recommends
that the Applicant review these issues and provide feasible solutions to limit the impact to site
circulation during delivery times.
AMF Response:as discussed in our meeting,Dunkin Donuts has only two delivery trucks a
week of the WB-50 size and these deliveries are done at off peak hours. Additionally, they off
load these vehicles in the by-pass lane, thereby not impeding the use of the drive thru lane. This
is how a majority of these sites operate for loading and unloading. The "'Soffit Sentry Height
limitation Bar"is optional and has been removed from the site plan.
Given the narrow width of the drive-thru lane and by-pass lane, it appears from the Fire Truck
Plan (see Sheet 11) that fire apparatus may be obstructed by vehicles queued in the drive-thru
lanes. The Applicant should provide correspondence from the North Andover Fire Department
relative to accepting this condition.
MHF Response: We will coordinate with the Fire Department.
e
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
SIGHT DISTANCE
The tree located just south of the exit driveway has been removed and should be referenced as
such on the site plan. While the intersection sight lines exceed minimum sight distance criteria
established by AASHTO, MDM recommends that the roadside vegetation in the area of utility
pole #3007 (opposite the Shell service station) should be removed in order to further enhance
sight distance to and from the exit driveway. MDM recommends that any proposed planting or
physical landscape features should be located outside the driveway sight lines to ensure
unobstructed driver visibility.
MHF Response: The site plan has been updated to show this tree to be removed south of the exit
driveway. A note has been added regarding clearing of vegetation in the vicinity of the utility
pole # 3007 and no landscaping is located within the driveway sight lines as depicted on the
revised Landscape Plan.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
MDM has reviewed the updated capacity analysis and is in general agreement with the
findings; specifically, that left-turn movements exiting the site will experience long delays
during peak hours with minor impact to operations along Osgood Street. MDM notes that
although vehicle delays may be extensive (exceeding 50 seconds during peak hours), vehicle
queues at the exit driveway will generally be accommodated without impacting the drive-
through lane. However, the analysis does indicate that queues forming at the exit driveway
may occasionally extend back to the drive-thru window resulting in a potentially longer than
expected drive-thru queue. As stated above, the Applicant should identify measures to be
taken should the drive-thru queue lengths exceed the storage area and impact the on-site
parking supply-
AH—IF Response: As stated above in the Drive-Through Lane Vehicle Queuing response, the
impact to the on-site parking supply will potentially affect 2-3 spaces, two of which are
designated as employee parking and 1 is designated as an accessible parking space.
ON-SITE PARKING
MDM had previously recommended that the Applicant conduct a parking study at a nearby
similar Dunkin' Donuts since the Applicant does not meet the zoning requirements for the
number of required parking spaces. MDM has reviewed the latest parking evaluation provided
which is based on observations made a Dunkin' Donuts in Methuen, MA. The parking study
indicates that the Dunkin' Donuts experienced a peak parking demand of 17 parked vehicles
during the 11 AM — 2 PM period on a Saturday. MDM notes that the peak parking demand
observed on Saturday occurred during the first time interval observed and parking demand
may have been higher prior to the start of the parking observations. MDM also notes that the
F
iii Design Consultants, Inc.
peak demand of 17 vehicles is close to the proposed parking supply of 19 parking spaces. As
such,we note that the parking supply may not be sufficient for the proposed use.
MHF Response: We believe that 17 spaces are more than adequate for the patrons utilizing this
particular site. GPI will be providing a similar count of parking space utilization at the
existing site in addition to the one performed at the Dunkin Donut site in Methuen.
Additionally,we have looked at other Dunkin Donut sites in the area and will provide parking
space counts for those facilities which in some cases are less than the spaces being proposed for
this facility. This information from GPI will be provided under separate cover.
We believe that this addresses all the outstanding issues that have been outlined in MDM's
correspondence and look forward to a final response from MDM regarding the traffic issues for
this project. Should you have any questions,please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
MHF DESIGN ONSIJI.TA1 TS,INC.
'Mark S. Gro" .RE,'
Principal
Cc: Mr.Dan Mills,MDM Transportation Consultants,Inc.
Mr. Greg Nolan,Cafua Management Company,Inc.
Mr.Joseph D.Peznola,P.E. Hancock Associates
EgglestonEnvironmentl
January 7, 2013
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: 1018 Osgood Street
Stormwater Management Review
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
I am writing this letter in follow-up to my November 14,2012 review letter on the above-
referenced project. Since that time I have received and reviewed the December 7, 2012
revised plans and Stormwater Management Report submitted by MHF Design
Consultants. I also participated in a meeting with town staff and the applicants on
November 19, 2012 to discuss my comments and the issues on the site.
The design revisions reflect a decrease in overall impervious area on the site and provide
stormwater recharge through two proposed infiltration systems, one in the area draining
to the onsite wetland and one in the front portion of the site, in the Watershed Protection
District. The proposed Stormeeptor unit has been eliminated, as water quality treatment
of runoff flows is to be provided through the oil/grit chambers and infiltration systems.
The revised drainage analysis reflects these design revisions and uses the more
conservative Rawls rate for modeling of exfiltration. I note that the revised Stormwater
Report also includes data from four additional test pits conducted on the site in November
2012.
My comments on the revised submittal are outlined below:
1. At our meeting on 11/19, we discussed the need for distributing recharge across
the project site, and particularly within the Watershed Protection District. I
indicated to MHF that even if they could not provide a two-foot separation to the
high groundwater elevation, an infiltration system within the WPD should still be
able to provide effective recharge and filtering of flow under most groundwater
conditions. With the additional test pit data, however, a clearer picture of the
groundwater conditions on the site emerges, and I question whether any
subsurface infiltration system can be used to effectively recharge or treat flow
within the WTD. Seven of the eight test pits conducted on the site (four in August
2012 and another four in November 2012) indicate that the high groundwater
elevation is approximately three to four feet below existing grade across the site.
Evidence of groundwater was not seen in the eighth test pit,however based on the
other test pits the ESHGW was estimated to also be four feet below grade. Thus,
the ESHGW elevation across most of the project site ranges from elevation 144 to
32 Old Framingham Rd Unit 29 Sudbury MA 01776 tel 508.259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
1018 Osgood Street, Stormivater Review 2
January 7, 2013
140. Infiltration System #1 (near the wetland) is located in a portion of the site
where the proposed ground elevation will be raised. The bottom of the stone in
the system would only be 1.2 feet above the ESHGW, but the system should be
able to function adequately most of the time. Proposed Infiltration System #2,
however, is located in a cut portion of the site, where the proposed surface grades
will be lowered by approximately three feet. The entire subsurface infiltration
system, with a bottom invert of 136.67, would therefore be several feet below the
ESHGW elevation in that area, and likely to be in groundwater most of the year.
2. Even without the groundwater issue, the proposed plan only attenuates the rate of
runoff flow leaving the site, not the volume. The volume of flow discharged to
Osgood Street under post-development conditions would more than twice the
existing runoff volume under every design storm condition, and could exacerbate
any downstream flooding.
3. The proposed design also does not provide sufficient dead storage volume in the
infiltration systems to treat even a 1/2-inch water quality volume. The TSS
calculations use the storage volume in the Oil/Grit Chambers to reduce the water
quality volume in the infiltration systems. This is an invalid assumption for two
reasons. First, the oil/grit chambers are solid structures and are designed to
operate full and to remain full between storms. Second, in order to provide the
treatment necessary to get the 80% TSS removal credit in the infiltration systems
the entire water quality volume must be infiltrated.
4. It is not clear what the basis is for the saturated thicknesses of 129 and 133 $used
in the mounding calculations. As indicated in my previous comments, saturated
thickness should be the difference between ESHGW and the bottom of the
aquifer, probably something in the range of 10 to 15 feet. The model may call for
an elevation, but it also needs the saturated thickness of the aquifer as this is part
of what determines how quickly the additional groundwater flow is dispersed.
These elevations are not even consistent with the ESHGW on the site.
5. On Sheet 8, the detail for the Snout Oil/Water separator should be
clarified/relabeled to indicate that it is the outlet hood for the catchbasins, so as
not to confuse it with the detail for the larger oil/water separator chambers. I
would actually suggest that the larger chambers be called out as oil-grit chambers.
The detail for the Stormceptor units should also be removed from the plan.
6. An application for a Watershed Special Permit, including a written certification
by a professional engineer stating that the project will not cause any significant
degradation in the quality or quantity of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick
is still needed.
Once again,I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board with
the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs. Please
1018 Osgood Street, Stormwater Review 3
January 7, 2013
feel free to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues
addressed herein.
Sincerely,
EGGLEMN ENVIRONMENTAL
Lisa D.Eggleston,P.E.
C: Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Coordinator
HANCOCK
_ _
s
December 30,2012
Ms.Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover,MA 01845
Subject: 2"d Peer Review Summary
1018 Osgood Street
Proposed Site Plan
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Hancock has completed a review of the response letter from MI-IF received by the
Planning Office on December 12, 2012 and revised documents submitted to the Planning
Board for the proposed Site Plan at 1018 Osgood Street. The following documents were
reviewed.A review of the Traffic Study will be sent under separate cover from MDM
Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1. Proposed Site Development Plans,Proposed Donut Shop,prepared by MIIF
Design Consultants,Inc., dated October 19, 2012, containing twelve (12) sheets
including sign plan, stamped by Frank C. Monteiro, PE. Revised 12/7/12.
2. Proposed Architectural Elevations for Proposed Donut Shop,prepared by James
D. Smith,AIA, dated July 13, 2011, stamped by James D. Smith State of New
York Registered Architect.
3. Lighting Plan for Dunks in Andover, prepared by LSI Industries, dated August
17, 2012.
4. Application for Site Plan Approval Packet dated October 19, 2012, signed by
Mark S. Goss, PE.
5. Letter dated October 19, 2012 (errant date)received by NAPD 12/12/12 from
MI-IF Design Consultants to the Planning Department.
The following was used to assist in our review:
1. Zoning Bylaw of Town of North Andover last amended October 15, 2012
2. Town of North Andover Zoning Map October 2012
3. Warrant Article 36 from June 12, 2012 Town Meeting.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
4. Special Permit Site Plan Review Instructions 9/30/10
5. General Bylaws of the Town of North Andover
6. North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Amended through Dec.2002
Parcel/Zoning Comments:
1. The deed for the property (Book 12798 Pg 255) describes the parcel as having
dimensions of 150' by 202.12' with 29,760 square feet. The Existing Conditions
Plan submitted has a lot with dimensions of 149.53 by 187.32' with 28,127 square
feet. The Applicant should explain the source and timing on the differences and
whether the timing affects the application of any grandfathered protection being
claimed.
MHFResponse: The deed is from 1950 and describes the property at that time.In
1061 there was a highway taking along Route 125, hence the difference in the plan
versus the deed. This has no affect on the grandfathering issues for the project.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
2. The Zoning for the parcel was changed at the June 12,2012 Town Meeting from
Industrial 2 to Business 2. The property has B2 zoned parcels to the east and west.
The airport parcel to the north remains 1-2 zone. This zone line should be
reflected on the project plans.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
3. It appears the project is compliant with use and basic dimensional requirements of
the North Andover Zoning By-Law.
Comment acknowledged.
4. The Applicant has requested a Site Plan Special Permit under Section 8.3.
Comment acknowledged.
5. The Applicant has requested a Special Permit under Section 8.1 for reduction in
parking. The Applicant's reference to Section 8.1.81 appears incorrect and should
be Section 8.1.8.g"Reduction in Parking". The Board should review the
applicability of this section, as the use does not seem to align with the uses
described in this section. The section speaks to uses such as those for persons with
disabilities, low rate of vehicle ownership or the availability of transportation
demand management alternatives. The Board may wish to explore the application
of Section 8.1.8.f in this case; "Land Banked Parking"as being more appropriate
to the use given the Applicant's arguments.Additionally,the Applicant has
miscalculated the number of spaces required. In accordance with Section 8.1.4
(note 4 of Table of Off-Street Parking), "where uses are open-air type not
enclosed in a structure, each foot of lot devoted to such use shall be considered to
be equivalent to one fifth of one square foot". The 25' x 30'outdoor seating area
requires an additional two spaces.
MHFResponse:An additional Special Permit is being requested.
Hancock Comment: The parking as been further reduced to 19 spaces.Again,
Hancock believes that the Applicant should utilize Section 8.1.8.f.In this
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
manner,should parking demand exceed the supply,the Town could require the
Applicant build the land banked parking. The additional parking demand study
performed by the Applicant on a site in Methuen found the parking demand to
be 17 spaces,fairly close to the 19 provided.
6. The Applicant has requested waivers from Section 8.3.5.e requiring the
submission of a Fiscal Impact Study and a Community Impact Analysis. The
Applicant argues that the project is minor in nature.The Bylaw has provisions
defining minor projects(less than 2,000 s.f.). The Board should instruct the
Applicant to provide the required study and analysis.
MHFResponse: We stand by our requestfor waivers from these items.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to the Board regarding this matter.
7. The Applicant has requested that the Board make a Determination of
Applicability and/or grant a waiver in accordance with eth provisions of Section
4.136 Watershed Protection. Section 4.136.2.c states"In the event the SPGA
determines, on the basis of credible evidence before it, that there exists a
significant doubt or dispute concerning the proper location of the boundaries of
the Watershed Protection District on any individual lot or lots, the SPGA shall, at
the request of the owner of such lot or lots, engage a Registered Professional
Engineer to advise it in determining such boundaries". We see this process as
separate and distinct from the Applications before the Board and that the report
and decision of the Board precedes any action by the Board on the application at
hand. We understand the Board has engaged Lisa Eggleston as the Registered
Engineer advising the Board. Hancock has reviewed the Existing Conditions Plan
and letter from Epsilon and note that assertion with regard to drainage patterns are
not clearly depicted on the Plan. Drain lines shown on the plan are incomplete.A
review of the Existing Conditions Plan prepared by NIHF Consultants for the
1003 Osgood Street Project do not support the detail outlined in the Epsilon letter.
The Existing Conditions plan should be updated to reflect this detail.
MHFResponse:A separate Watershed Special permit application has been filed
for a portion of the property based on our meeting with the Town's Environmental
Consultant.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to Ms.Eggleston and the Board regarding
this matter.
8. The plan does not appear to comply with the buffering requirements of Section
8.4 with regard to planting and/or fencing along the east property line and the
number of tress per linear foot of parking.
MHFResponse:A 6-foot high stockade fence has been shown on the Landscape
and Lighting Plan.
Hancock Comment: The plan now complies with Section 8.4 of the By-law.
9. The plan does not comply with the requirement of Section 8.1.4.b calling for
handicapped spaces located nearest the door.
MHFResponse: The plan shows handicap spaces which will provide equal access
to the front door as well as the rear door of the facility which is primarily for the
employees.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
10. The plan does not meet he requirements of Section 8.1.5.a calling for a 25'
parking aisle;24' is proposed.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised.
Hancock Comment: The plan now complies with Section 8.1.5 of the By-law.
11.No loading area(12'x25'xl4') is proposed as required by Section 8.1.5.e.
MHFResponse:An additional Special Permit has been requested.
Hancock Comment: Hancock believes there is sufficient space to the south of the
dumpster where the edge of pavement has a radius of 45 feet(assumedly for
truck turning)that could be slightly expanded and squared off to accommodate
a single box truck.We understand box trucks are used for daily delivery of
donuts from regional bakeries. Any other location for trucks to park would
impede the one-way circulation regardless of it being off-peak hours.
12. The freestanding sign depicted on the architectural elevation does not comply
with Section 6.6.13. It exceeds 25 square feet and is higher than 8 feet above the
ground.A Board of Appeals Special permit would be required.
MHFResponse: Comment Acknowledged.
Section 8.3.5 Additional Information Required:
1. Zoning Section 8.35.d requires that an Architect registered in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts stamped all building elevations.An Architect Registered in New
York stamps the elevations submitted.
MHFResponse:Building Plans will be submitted to the North Andover Building
Department and will be stamped by a Registered Architect in Massachusetts.
Hancock Comment: The By-law requirement pertains to submission to the
Planning Board. This is an open item.
2. Section 8.5.e.i—LOCATION MAP: states, "A location map showing
surrounding roadways and land uses adjacent to the site(1"=1500'). Location
Map should show at least one intersection of two existing Town roadways." The
`Locus Plan' contained within the Proposed Site Plan, is at a scale of 1"=300' and
does not adhere to the requisite scale of 1"=1500' set forth in this section.
MHFResponse:Plan has been revised.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
3. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xvii—LIGHTING FACILITIES states"Identification of the
proposed illumination, indicating the direction and the degree of illumination
offered by the proposed lighting facilities, including an example of the light
fixture to be used." It is unclear from the submitted plans whether the type,
direction and degree of illumination conform to the guidelines set forth in Section
6.0—Signs and Outdoor Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw.
MHFResponse:A lighting plan showing lighting levels, direction of lighting and
lighting fixtures have been submitted.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
4. Section 8.3.5.e.xxi—UTILITIES: states"All utilities, including water line
locations, sewer line locations and profiles, and storm drainage systems."A
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
profile of the proposed sewer line running 248 feet within Osgood Street should
be provided.As stated earlier missing information regarding the drainage along
this route should be obtained. The Applicant should consider a"dog-house"style
manhole at the existing sewer line to allow for continued flow during
construction. The Applicant should also provide copies of the easement
documents for this sewer line as it enters private property on the south side of
Osgood Street. Lastly,the Town Engineer should be consulted with regard to
construction specifications for work within Osgood Street.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
General Engineering Review Comments
1. Hancock understands Lisa Eggleston is reviewing the design of the stormwater
management system. We defer to Ms.Eggleston's regarding this matter.
MHFResponse: Comment Acknowledged.
2. The applicant should indicate areas of snow storage on the plan.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
3. The landscaping plan should show all proposed underground utilities to ensure
that no conflicts exist.
MHFResponse:No conflicts exist.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
4. The Applicant should investigate consolidation of the two proposed curb cuts into
a single curb cut.Additionally,the slope of the entrance exceeds 8%. The
Applicant should also investigate softening these grades given the nature of
Osgood Street and the anticipated speed of vehicles turning into the site.
MHFResponse: The curb cuts have been revised to have an entrance and exit and
the grade on the driveways has been reduced to S% at the entrance and 6.5% at the
exit.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response and change to the plan.
5. The curb radii should be a minimum of 30' to support right turns into the site and
right turns out of the site.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
6. The Applicant should investigate providing parking for patrons leaving the drive-
through for instances of order problems or delays.
MHFResponse:Parking for patrons of the drive thru is not necessary for this type
of facility.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
7. Queuing should be adjusted to provide 20' per vehicle. Queuing for only four to
five vehicles is provided from the order board back prior to impacting parking
spaces. The Applicant should consider designating several impacted spaces as
employee parking.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
MHFResponse: The queuing has been verified by the traffic consultant and we
will designate the spaces at the end of the drive thru queue as employee spaces.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to MDM Transportation for review of the
additional information submitted by the Applicant regarding the queuing.
8. Soil testing in support of the stormwater management system should be added to
the plans.
MHFResponse: The plan has been revised
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
9. The Applicant should consider the inclusion of a grease trap given the proposed
restaurant use. Hancock understands the proposed shop's current practice limits
food preparation on site, however this is subject to change. Given the restaurant
use,the Board of Health should be consulted with regard to the inclusion of a
grease trap.
MHFResponse:Dunkin Donuts uses an internal grease trap for this type of facility
and will adhere to whatever requirements that the Board for health dictates for this
type of facility.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
10. The Applicant is proposing a segmental block wall requiring geo-grid
reinforcement in close proximity to a proposed infiltration system. The Applicant
should confirm there are no conflicts. Similarly, a retaining wall is proposed at the
back of the proposed dumpster area within 3' of the property line. The Applicant
should confirm the geo-grid(if required)can be installed within the property
limits.
MHFResponse: The proposed retaining walls for the site will be a landscape type
block.All the walls are less than four feet in height and therefore will not require
any type of geo grid reinforcement.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
11. The detail of the trash enclosure needs to be coordinated with the retaining wall
mentioned above.
MHFResponse:A detail of the retaining wall trash enclosure typical section has
been included.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
12. Regarding the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan,the stockpile area should
be relocated out of the buffer zone to the wetlands and protection from over-
compaction of soils within the proposed infiltration area should be provided.
Catch basins in Osgood Street within the area of the proposed sewer should be
noted to receive Siltsacks.
MHFResponse: The stockpile area has been relocated out of the buffer zone.A
note regarding the addition of silt sacks in the basins along Osgood Street has been
added to the Construction sequence.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
13. Light levels on the sidewalk at the proposed appear too low. It is recommended at
least 1.0 foot-candle is provided within pedestrian areas.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
MHFResponse: The lighting plan is sufficient for the use and does not take into
account the lighting coming from inside the store which provides additional
lighting in the sidewalk areas.
Hancock Comment: Hancock believes the area of low light is far enough from
the building such that internal lighting may not be sufficient to address the issue.
A sidewalk bollard light may be necessary to address the issue.
Review Criteria/Design Guidelines
1. The Applicant states that the project will be connected to municipal sewer and
water as evidence that the municipal system has the ability to serve the project.
More detail with regard to available system capacity and actual project demands
should be provided.
MHFResponse:A typical Dunkin Donuts of this size will generate 380 gpd. The
flow rate can be accommodated by the existing 8"sewer line in Osgood Street.
Hancock Comment: The Applicant should verify that there are no existing issues
with the sewer in the area.
2. The Applicant states that the architectural style is in harmony within the context
of the surrounding businesses and that the scale of the building is consistent with
that of surrounding buildings but provides no support.
MHFResponse: The building style of the proposed Dunkin Donuts is New
England Colonial Style which is consistent with the architectural design of the
Treadwell's site across and north of this site and with the proposed development
located directly across form the site.
Hancock Comment: Hancock defers to the Planning Board with regard to this
response. The Applicant now complies with the information submission
requirement.
3. The Applicant states that electric,telephone and cable utilizes will be placed
underground but shows proposed overhead lines crossing Osgood Street to a
proposed pole on site.
MHFResponse: The power company will require overhead lines from the existing
pole line to the site and the will go underground from there. Typically the power
company will not place service lines underground across public streets.
Hancock Comment: We are satisfied with the response.
4. As discussed earlier the Applicant is proposing two curb cuts. The Applicant is
required to minimize curb cuts to reduce turning movements and hazardous exits
and entrances.
See previous discussion.
We believe the Applicant has addressed the majority of our prior concerns related to the
review of site related issues.A letter commenting on the response to the Traffic Study
response will be sent under separate cover. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Marlborough, MA Danvers, NIA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
Sincerely,
Hancock Associates
Joseph D. Peznola,PE
Principal
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
H,�COCIKI
ASSOCIAT
E
January 30,2013
Ms. Judy Tymon,Planner
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street—Bldg. 20 Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01845
Subject: Final Peer Review Summary
1018 Osgood Street
Proposed Site Plan
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Hancock has completed a review of the response letter from MHF dated January 10, 2013
and revised plans submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed Site Plan at 1018
Osgood Street.The following documents were reviewed.A review of the Traffic Study
will be sent under separate cover from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1. Proposed Site Development Plans, Proposed Donut Shop,prepared by MHF
Design Consultants, Inc., dated October 19, 2012, containing twelve(12) sheets
including sign plan, stamped by Frank C. Monteiro,PE.Revised throughl/23/13.
2. Proposed Architectural Elevations for Proposed Donut Shop,prepared by James
D. Smith, AIA, dated July 13, 2011, stamped by James D. Smith State of New
York Registered Architect.
3. Lighting Plan for Dunks in Andover,prepared by LSI Industries, dated August
17,2012.
4. Application for Site Plan Approval Packet dated October 19, 2012, signed by
Mark S. Goss, PE.
5. Letter dated October 19, 2012 (errant date)received by NAPD 12/12/12 from
MHF Design Consultants to the Planning Department.
6. Letter dated January 25, 2013 from MHT Design Consultants to the Planning
Department
7. Interoffice Memorandum from Tim Willet to Judy Tymon dated January 25, 2013
regarding water and sewer connections.
Remaining Issues
1. Hancock remains concerned regarding the parking supply and overdevelopment
of this small commercial site. The North Andover Bylaw has a clear route to
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
impervious reduction through land-banked parking. We do not agree with the
Applicant's argument regarding this defeating the purpose. While MHT remains
"firm"regarding their conviction to the parking provided,the design leaves no
room for error.
2. We defer to Ms.Eggleston regarding drainage issues.
3. Architectural plans signed by a registered architect are a By-law requirement
pertaining to submission to the Planning Board.The Board can choose to waive
this submission requirement.
4. Hancock's concern with the adequacy of pedestrian lighting has been addressed.
5. The Sewer Department has commented on the existence of a sewer stub and the
12"water main in Osgood Street. The letter is silent with regard to adequacy of
these utilities. We assume if there was an issue the Public Works would have
mentioned their concern.
There remains a difference of opinion regarding the parking. The Planning Board will
have to address directly with the Applicant.A letter commenting on the response to the
Traffic Study response will be sent under separate cover. Should you have any questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Hancock Associates j
v /0
oseph D.Pez` Ma, PE
Principal
Marlborough, MA Danvers, MA
315 Elm Street 185 Centre Street
www.hancockassociates.com
101MENSEMENEW SEEM
EIRMENW, --amem
44 Stiles Road - Suite One ® Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 - FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
December 11, 2012
Mr. John Simons
North Andover Planning Board
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: 1018 Osgood Street
Special Permit for Parking
Reduction and Loading Bay
Requirements
MHF# 305312
Dear Mr. Simons:
On behalf of JFJ Holdings, LLC, MHF Design Consultants, Inc. is requesting that the
Planning Board, as the SPGA, grant a Special Permit under Section 8.1 Off Street Parking and
Loading paragraph 8, Special Permits, based on the requirements under section g, Reduction in
Parkiniz, and section b,Modification of Parking oadin Area Design Standards, d believe that
JL g an
we fall under the other circumstances as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Board as
described below. With respect to section g,Reduction in Parking,the required parking for the
site is calculated at 27 spaces and 19 spaces'have been provided. We are requesting a reduction
of eight(8) spaces which represents only 30%reduction of the required amount,which is less
than the 35%which would be allowed under this section of the By-Law. We believe that the
reduction is appropriate since for this type of fast food restaurant(coffee shop),more than 50%
of the business is conducted thru the drive thru which is much more than you might find for a
more food driven type of restaurant. Additionally a more common type of application for
parking requirement is based on seats. This facility will have 25-26 seats in addition to the
takeout. Using a standard rate of one space per two seats,plus employees,this site would require
13 spaces for the seating and 5 spaces for employees or a total of 18 spaces. Additionally, we
have conducted a Parking Demand Evaluation Analysis based on a similar type facility in
Methuen, Massachusetts. A copy of the excerpt from the Response Comments to MDM's review
of the traffic study including the actual Parking Demand data is included for your review and
consideration.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
7Z
FI Design Design Consultants, Inc.
With respect to section b, Modification of Parking/Loading Area Design Standards,we
are requesting that the site not be required to have a specific designated loading area of the
dimensions required given the nature of this type of development.- Typically,this type of use has
deliveries made on off peak hours and off loads the products onto hand trucks and wheeled into
the rear entrance of the building. There is no formal loading dock area that is necessary given the
nature of the type and size of deliveries that are made to the site. Additionally, deliveries are not
made but every few days and at off peak business hours, generally in the area to the rear of the
drive thru in the by-pass lane of the site. We respectfully request that the Board make a finding
as to the adequacy of the parking and loading areas for this site and issue a Special Permit as
filed for this project.
If you should have any questions,please contact our office at your convenience.
Very Truly Yours,
MHF Design Cf6ins ts,I
PC
ark S.
rosy, P.E.
Principal
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Proposed Dunkin'Donuts—North Andover,Massachusetts
signals provide gaps in the traffic stream which allow motorists more
opportunity to enter and exit driveways and curb cuts along Osgood Street.
From this, it can be concluded that the proposed Dunkin' Donuts development
is not expected to have a significant impact on the operations of Osgood Street.
Site Circulation
Comment: MDM has reviewed the Site Plan and has the following comments:
• In order to reduce conflict points along Osgood Street and to eliminate the
conflict between exiting vehicles and patrons destined to the drive-thru, the
proposed northerly driveway should be designed as an enter-only driveway.
• The pavement markings designating the drive-through lane should be
extended to and terminated at the parking field so that motorists can clearly
differentiate between the drive-thru lane and the by-pass lane.
• Parking stalls that could be obstructed by vehicles stacked in the drive-thru
lane should be designated for employee parking so as to limit the frustration
to patrons.
Response: As recommended by MDM and as commented on by MassDOT, the northern
site driveway has been modified to an entrance-only driveway.
The updated Site Plan has revised the parking field, as well as the drive-through
lane and by-pass lane area. With these modifications, the pavement markings
have been extended to be visible from the parking field.
The Applicant is willing to designate employees to park in the stalls that could
be obstructed by vehicles stacked in the drive-through lane. If the Town wishes,
EMPLOYEE PARKING signs can be installed.
On-Site Parkin
Comment: MDM notes that a parking study was not conducted as part of the TMS. Given
that the Applicant does not meet the zoning requirements for the number of
required parking spaces, MDM recommends that the Applicant conduct a
parking study to determine if the number of proposed parking spaces will
adequately accommodate anticipated patron demand. The analysis should
include parking data collected at a local, freestanding Dunkin' Donuts
restaurant.
12066 RTC Memo 121112 Page 13 '..
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Proposed Dunkin'Donuts—North Andover,Massachusetts
Response: As requested, a parking demand evaluation was conducted at an existing
freestanding Dunkin' Donuts restaurant (3,527 square feet) located at
450 Broadway in Methuen, Massachusetts. This facility was chosen as
Broadway has similar characteristics as Osgood Street in that they both provide
two lanes in each direction, directional flow is separated by a double-yellow
centerline, and they have comparable daily traffic volumes. According to
historical traffic-volume data(South Broadway north of Lawrence Road) carried
approximately 22,000 vehicles per day in 20112 and the TIAS depicted that
Osgood Street carried approximately 25,660 vehicles per weekday. The New
Hampshire Department of Transportation historical traffic-volume data is
provided in the Appendix.
A parking demand survey was conducted at the Methuen Dunkin' Donuts
parking lot during the weekday AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the
Saturday midday peak period (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) in 15-minute increments.
The time periods selected for evaluation were determined based on discussion at
the November 19ffi meeting with the Town of North Andover's traffic peer
review consultant, Mr. Daniel J. Mills, P.E., PTOE, of MDM. The survey
included noting the number of parked vehicles and the number of available
parking spaces. The observations were conducted on Thursday, December 6,
2012, and on Saturday, December 8, 2012. The parking demand survey data for
the parking areas are provided in the Appendix. Table 3 summarizes the total
number of occupied parking spaces during each 15-minute interval within the
Methuen Dunkin' Donuts parking lot.
As shown in Table 3, the peak parking demand for the weekday AM peak period
was found to be 13 vehicles and occurred at 7:45 AM and at 8:45 AM, and the
peak parking demand for the Saturday midday peak period was found to be
17 vehicles and occurred at 11:00 AM. Based on these observations, there were
18 remaining available parking spaces (31 total provided minus 13 occupied)
during the weekday AM peak demand period and 14 remaining available
parking spaces (31 total provided minus 17 occupied) during the
Saturday midday peak demand period. A graphical representation of the parking
survey results for the Methuen Dunkin' Donuts parking lot is provided in the
Appendix.
2 New Hampshire Department of Transportation Traffic Volume Report; 2011; NH 28 (South Broadway) north of
Lawrence Road.
12066 RTC Memo 121112 Page 14
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Proposed Dunkin'Donuts—North Andover,Massachusetts
Table 3
PARKING DEMAND SURVEY—
Methuen Dunkin' Donuts Parking Lot
Thursday,December 6,2012 Saturday,December 8,2012
Number of Number of
Start Time Occupied Spaces Start Time Occupied Spaces
7:00 AM 6 11:00 AM 17
7:15 8 11:15 16
7:30 9 11:30 10
7:45 13 11:45 4
8:00 11 12:00 PM 8
8:15 9 12:15 4
8:30 12 12:30 6
8:45 13 12:45 8
1:00 8
1:15 9
1:30 7
1:45 8
These parking observation data reveal that the parking areas are only
±42 percent utilized (13 occupied/31 total) during the weekday AM peak
parking demand period and only ±55 percent utilized (17 occupied/31 total)
during the Saturday midday peak parking demand period. Therefore, the
observations suggest that the proposed 19 parking spaces to be provided on the
site would accommodate the peak parking demands of the Dunkin' Donuts
restaurant.
Mitigation Measures
Comment: MDM notes that no off-site mitigation is proposed in the TIAS. We recommend
that the Applicant provide off-site mitigation to allow for enhanced access/
egress for vehicles and pedestrians and to address the traffic impacts and safety
issues related to the project. In addition, MDM recommends that the Applicant
undertake some level of traffic signal improvements at adjacent intersections
should MassDOT's traffic signal betterment project be delayed or put on hold.
Response: As provided within this RTC memorandum, the proposed Dunkin' Donuts
development is not expected to have a significant impact on the operations of
12066 RTC Memo 121112 Page 15
GPIGreenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Dunkin' Donuts Parking Lot Survey
450 Broadway, Methuen, MA
(3,527 sf)
Start Time 12/6/2012,Thu 12/8/2012,Sat
7:00 AM 6
7:15 AM 8
7:30 AM 9
7:45 AM 13
8:00 AM 11
8:15 AM 9
8:30 AM 12
8:45 AM 13
11:00 AM 17
11:15 AM 16
11:30 AM 10
11:45 AM 4
12:00 PM 8
12:15 PM 4
12:30 PM 6
12:45 PM 8
1:00 PM 8
1:15 PM 9
1:30 PM 7
1:45 PM 8
� I
Dunkin' Donuts Parking Observations35
I
i
{
r 31 parking spaces
30 '
s
M
20
i s
n [
.� 15 �._�.. __ ___ _ ___ _. _.13_._.17__- -
Weekday AM
13 12 16 Saturday Midday j
10 - -8 g 8 8 i
i 9 10' 9
6 8 8
5 �____ ___� _ _� — __� .. _ ------
7
6
I 4
0
0- CL CL CL C
a n. o. a a
O Ln O N O u1 O Ln O In O ul O Ln O vY O In O Ln f
( O ri M ct O 71 M t O 71 M d' O rl T 7t O 71 M 'a' k
I,, n n 00 00 00 00 c�-I-I a�-I crq-1 e-i eN-1 c-I e-i-1 -4-4 11 HH
I
Time j
z
44 Stiles Road °Suite One, Salem, New Hampshire 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 ® FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design nsIt ns, Ince www.mhfdesign.com
October 19, 2012
Ms. Judith Tymon, Town Planner
Planning Department
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
HAND DELIVERED
Re: 1018 Osgood Street
Map 35, Lot 19
Cafua Realty Trust, LLC
Special Permit Application
Dear Ms. Tymon:
Please find enclosed a revised set of plans for the above referenced project. These plans have
been revised based on comments from Hancock Associates dated November 9, 2012. Based on
those comments we offer the following:
Parcel/Zoning Comments:
1. The deed is from 1950 and describes the properly at that time. In 1961 there was as
highway taking along Route 125,hence the difference in the plan versus the deed. This
has no affect on grandfathering issues for this project.
2. The I-2 and B-s line have been shown on the revised plans.
3. Comment acknowledged.
4. Comment acknowledged.
5. We have revised the request for a Special Permit under Section 8.1.8g and believe based
on the attached information we meet the criteria for filing for a Special Permit under this
section. See attached request and supporting documentation.
6. We stand by our request for waivers on these items.
7. A separate Watershed Special Permit application has been filed for a portion of the
property based on our meeting with the Town's Environmental Consultant, Lisa
Eggleston.
8. A 6 foot high stockade fence has been shown on the Landscape and Lighting Plan.
9. The plan shows handicap spaces which will provide equal access to the front door as well
as to the rear door of the facility which is primarily for the use of the employees.
10. The proposed driveway width has been revised to 25 feet.
11. A request for a Special Permit for Loading has been filed as part of the Special Permit
request for parking as outlined in item 5 above.
12. Comment acknowledged.
ENGINEERS ® PLANNERS ® SURVEYORS
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
Section 8.3.5 Additional Information Required
1. Building elevations will be submitted to the North Andover building department and will
be stamped and signed by a registered architect in Massachusetts.
2. The location map has been revised accordingly.
3. A lighting plan showing the lighting levels, direction of lighting and lighting fixture have
been submitted.
4. The plan has been revised to indicate the use of a"doghouse" style of manhole for the
sewer connection. The sewer connection is located in the ROW of Osgood Street and
therefore no easements for connection into this line are necessary.
General Engineering Review Comments
1. Comment acknowledged.
2. Snow storage areas are shown on the site plan.
3. As part of the design of the Landscaping we have made sure there are no conflicts with
utilities,therefore do not need to show on the Landscape and Lighting Plan.
4. The curb cuts have been revised to have an entrance and exit and the grade on the
driveways has been reduced to 5%at the entrance and 6.5%at the exit driveway.
5. Curb radii has been revised to 309 feet for the right turns into the site and out of the site.
6. Parking for patrons of the drive thru is not necessary for this type of facility.
7. The queuing for the site has been verified by the traffic consultant and we will designate
the spaces at the end of the drive thru queue as employee spaces in the event that the drive
thru backs up beyond the nine spaces shown.
8. Test pits for the stormwater design have been added to the detail sheets.
9. Dunkin Donuts uses an internal grease trap for this type of facility and will adhere to
whatever requirements that the Board of Heath dictates for this type of facility.
10. The proposed retaining walls for the site will be a landscape type block. All the walls are
less than four feet in height therefore will not require any type of geo-grid reinforcement.
11. A detail of the retaining wall and trash enclosure typical section has been included.
12. The stockpile area has been relocated out of the buffer zone. A note regarding the
addition of siltsacks in the basins along Osgood Street has been added to the Construction
sequence.
13. The lighting plan is sufficient for the use and does not take into account the lighting
coming from inside the store which provides for additional lighting in the sidewalk areas.
Review Criteria/Design Guidelines
1. A typical Dunkin Donuts site of this size will generate approximately 380 gpd. This flow
rate can be accommodated by the existing 8" sewer line in Osgood Street that is being
tied into.
2. The building style of the proposed Dunkin Donuts is New England Colonial Style which
is consistent with the architectural design of the Treadwell's site across and north of this
site and with the proposed development located directly across the site.
lila Design Consultants, Inc.
3. The power company will require overhead liens from the existing pole line to the site and
then will go underground from there. Typically,the power company will not place
service lines underground across public streets.
4. The curb cuts have been revised for an entrance and an exit.
We look forward to meeting with the Planning Board at the upcoming hearing on
December 18, 2012. Please contact our office if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
es ' Co�s»�� Inc.
M k S. Gross, P.E.
Principal
cc: Mr. Greg Nolan, JFJ Holdings LLC
Mr. Joseph D. Pemola,P.E.