Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-04-22 Peer Review-VHB
a Transportation Land Development Environmental Services n°nacfrnat►on(innovation energy Creating results for our ctients and benefits for our communities October 3,2003 'Gz2l Ref: 08475.00 Town of North.Andover A �� North AAndoverI Planning Board 27 Charles Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 orT 0 3 pool NVP P la,lf)tt>pNI� "3Re: Proposed CVS PLAN14INC Dr- ij,_- Site Plan Application Dear Planning Board Members, In support of the Site Plan application as outlined in section 8.3 of The Zoning Bylaw of The Town of North Andover,Rag ewood44-oper-ties,LLC is providing the Information required under section 8.3(5)(e)(i-xxiii)as follows: f (L. Si. RC-Airy Ut(s-r i. The North arrow is shown on sheets C-2 through C-5,the location map is located on the cover sheet of the Site Plan set. ii. An Existing Conditiosn Survey has been provided with the Site Plan Set,see sheet SV-1 iii. The use of the proposed building has been labeled on sheets C-2 through C-5,CVS will be the sole tenant of the building. iv. All easements have been identified on the project site,see sheet SV-1 V. The proposed and existing site topography has been shown on sheet C-3 of the site plan set. vi. The applicable zoning information has been identified on sheet C-2 of the site plan set. vii. A"Drai:nage and Stormwater Quality Report"has been submitted with the Site plans. viii. The single proposed building has been identified on the site plans to include gross square footage,building heights have been identified on the building elevation plans. ix. Building Elevation plans have been attached to the Site Plan set. X. All parking areas,sidewalks and curb cuts have shown the sheets C-2 through C-5 of the site plan set. xi. A Notice of Intent does not need to be filed with the North Andover Conservation Commission as no wetland resource areas are located within the vicinity of the project site. 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 1.:\08475\docs\letters\08475-PLBL)_CVletter.d(x 61Z924.1770 a FAX 61Z924.2286 email: infoC@vhb.com www.vhb.com North Andover Planning Board Project No.: 08474.00 October 3, 2003 Page 2 xii. The locations of proposed wall sign locations has been shown oil the building elevation plans. Proposed signage will be provided to the Planning Board when the signage design is finalized. xiii. All right-of-ways have been identified on the site plans,proposed curb types and dimensional offsets to the existing Route 114 right-of-way have been shown on the Site Plan set. xiv. Outdoor storage display areas are not proposed at this time. xv. A Landscape Plan prepared by a Massachusetts Registered Landscape Architect has been included in the Site Plan submission set,see sheet C-5. xvi. Dumpster pad locations have been shown on the Site Plan,see sheet C-2. xvii. Proposed illumination devices have been provided in the Site Plan application package along with a site photometric plan. xviii. A"Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report"has been provided with the Site Plan Submission. xix. A bound Traffic Impact Study is included in the Site Plan application package. No MEPA filings were required for this project. xx. An access permit from the Massachusetts Highway Department is required for access onto Route 114,but has not been filed. A copy of the application will be provided to the Town when submitted to MassHighway. xxi. All proposed utilities have been shown on the Utility Plan,see sheet C-4 of the site plan set. xxii. A fiscal impact report will be submitted to the Planning Board when prepared. xxiii. A Coninamity Impact analysis has been prepared by the project architect,William Starck Architects,Inc.,and is included in the Site Plan submission package. Very truly yours, VANAS a SE HA BRUSTLIN,INC. on D.Stephenson,P.E. Project Manager a 1,:\09475\docs\lettcrs\08475ffl.IiD_CV]etter.doc f E s WILLIAM STARCK ARCHITECTS, INC. d 114 Durfee Street• Fall River, MA 02720 •tel. (508)679-5733 •fax (508) 672-8556 August 19, 2003 Planning Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: CVS # 1239 Turnpike and Peters Street North Andover, MA Members of the Planning Board, The purpose of this letter is to address the "community impact" portion of your review criteria in the Zoning By Laws. As Architect of Record for the proposed CVS Pharmacy to be located at Turnpike and Peters Street, I am confident that this new building will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The exterior of the building is predominantly red brick, highlighted by off-white synthetic accent panels. feel the architecture of the proposed CVS building will be more than compatible with the existing neighborhood buildings. Very truly yours, WILLIAM STARC TECTS INC. ti William C. Sta a President '4 AtIN of WCSImd Enclosure Doc.NewStores/CVS#12391PIanningBoardLet. . t "r r i 9tw MMMIP'a" mre Dimensional Drawings A` `. B C Max,Watt Fixture APK.1 17" 14" 1 10" 400w The Ad,ustaiPak adjustable wall mount luminaire provides The reflector is a stippled, satin aluminum finish, designed to versatile lighting for shopping centers, business parks, and office provide uniform,asymmetrical light distribution, buildings. The finish is a Quali-Guards'textured, themoset, polyester powder The housing is constructed from(CNC)precision sheared and formed, coat paint, oven baked at a temperature of 400e Fahrenheit to corrosion resistant, .080 gauge aluminum,with an adjustable optics promote maximum adherence and finish hardness. chamber for a controlled asymmetrical light distribution. All fixtures are factory wired and tapped to voltage specifications, The lens is clear,tempered,flat glass,fully enclosed and gasketed, available in MH, HPS,and energy efficient Compact Fluorescent. and secured by an aluminum lens frame, with stainless steel external hardware. Model No, optics wattage Snurce Vol4ago Mounting Finish Op lans APK � [ — Model No, Optics Wattage Source Voltage Mounting Finish Options ❑ APK-1 *Asymmetrical Light ❑ 400 [] MH ❑ 120 ❑ Wall Mount [r] Bronze C] Photo Cell Distribution (400) (M) (1) (WM) (BZ) (PC) ❑ 350 ❑ PS ❑ 208 E] Black El Quartz Restrike (350) (P) (2) (BK) (QR) C] 320 ❑ HPS [] 240 [] White Light Shield (320) (S) (3) (WH) (4S) l n ❑ 250 FL ❑ 277 ❑ Green ❑ Round Back (250) (F) (4) (GN) (RB) 200 factory for 480 Gray ❑ Single In-Line Fuse compact © (200) Fluorescent (5) (GY) (SF) options. ❑ 175 ❑ M.Tap Custom ❑ Double In-Line Fuse (175) (6) (CC) (DF) El 150 (150) ❑ 100 (100) ❑ 70 (70) ....._...�__ _ Fnr nrxeckMaMed Srmetcn un mwdiay,.414-irital".it.,F4arsn¢urd.a4(aHnraf.Wde ltcd MPdesara nd ddu d w Mr hdrer.S F'18° sPe 11 he mo"q Thi, dxumru#owains Petpr[4myrtanow dVrsirmeairoli,pq nc.AV uSedit i'ful"nrnquKMnwl#n AWWdd%.in�are lkfk%LLC.In I�+{NUM WTQMP*cyU Mha RV*,xnrt.. Yii emsr tha601rUWW my sd 'r. ns Udaned Won vAMpar FMa 217 East 157th Street, Gardena, California 90248 vls j/� iRE LIGHTING Ph(310) .visio a Fax(31t7)512-6486 �k7■fir//� www,visionairelightirrg.com APK 1 B TYPE: CATALOG#: ."Wim.CGRAYl —EDISON' DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION FEATURES McGraw-Edison's Galler€a A.-Mousing D.,.Reflector combines beauty and versatility Formed aluminum housing Spun and stamped aluminum to make it an excellent choice with stamped reveal has reflector in vertical lamp units, for architects,specifiers and interior-welded seams for or hydroformed anodized contractors in today's structural integrity and is aluminum reflector In energy-and design-consclous finished in premium TGIC horizontal lamp units. ' environment.An aesthetic polyester powder coat.U.L. Rotatable optics standard. reveal in the formed aluminum listed and CSA certified for wet housing gives the Gallaria a locations. E...Door distinctive lookwhile a variety Formed aluminum door has of mounting options and lamp B.-Ba l lest Tray heavy-duty hinges,captive wattages provide maximum Ballast tray is hard-mounted to retaining screws and is flexibility. housing interior for cooler finished in premium TGIC operation. polyester powder coat.(Spider APPLICATION mount unit has Steel door.) C•-•8allast The Galleria achieves superior tong-life core and coil ballast. )=•••Lens light distribution by utilizing a Convex tempered glass lens or . seamless reflector system, flat glass, ,. making It the optimum choice for almost any small,medium or large area fighting application. GSS/GSM/GSL C.- GALLERIA SQUARE D................................................................................................................. .._..... 7 0 - 1 0 0 0 W Metal Halide I_AJ High Pressure Sodium E.................................. ARCHITECTURAL F.................... ..................... ......._ AREA WMINAIRE D ark DIMENSIONS Arm Mount Spider Mount DARK SKY FRIENDLY In all flat glass configurations, '.. q ; F ENERGY DATA e CWA Ballast Input Watts .-..-•- ---- 150W MH HPF 1210 Watts) C D E 175W M H HPF 1210 waits) 175W MH HPF(210 Watts) FIXTURE A B C D E F 250W MH HPF 1295 Watts( sman finjor 250W HPS HPF(300 Waits) Immf 235 38 327 397 152or229 337 40W MH HPF(4551Naltsl Medium(in.) 14 3 112 19114 213,'4 6or 14 15ar 16 400W HPS HPF I465 Wetls] tram) 279 89 480 552 152or356 381or406 Largo fin.) 14 It2 4 114 257)8 27 6 or 14 18314 nr l9314 1000W MH HPF OD80 Walls) fmm) 368 108 657 S86 152or356 416or502 1000WHPS HPF(1100Waits) NOTE:Top cap used on GSM with 1006W Pat glass vertically Tamped oplics only. atry� COOPER LIGHTING ADH012827 r?, to f 1 , ' GS SIG SMIG9LGALLERIA SQUARE 6 F G PHOTOMETRICS 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 A B D E 0 A B 0 ABC D E 0 A I 0 A B C D E C 0 1 DC 1 1 i 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 14 0 i 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 6 GM-1 GM-2 GM-3 GM-4 GM-5 GSS-AM-175-MH-MT-3F-FG GSM-AM-400-HPS-MT-3F-FG GSM-AM-1000.MH-MT-3V-FG G8M-AM-1000-MH4Mr-AS-FG GSWAM-1000-MH-MT-AS-SG 175-Wait MH,Type III 400-Walt HPS,Type III 1000-Walt MH,Type lit Vertical 10g0-Watt MH,Area Square IDWWatt MH,Area Square 14,000-Lumen Clear Lamp 50,0W-Luman Clear Lamp 11000-Lumen Clear Lamp 110,000-Lumen dear Lamp 110,0OD-Lumen Clear Lamp Footcandle Table Footcandle Table Footcandle Table Select mounting height and read Select mounting height and read Select mounting height and read across for foolcandle values of MOSS for footcandfa values of across for fouteandfe values of each isofootcandlo lino.Distance each isofootcandle line.Distance each isofooteandle line.Distance in units of mountinu hafuht. in units of mounting height. in units of nmunting height. Mounting Mounting Mounting Height Footcandle Values for Height Footcandle Values for Height Footcandle Values for GM-1 Isofooteandle Lines GM-2 fsofootcandle Lines GMI 3-5 Isofootrandle LFnos A B C D E A B C D E A B C D £ 10' 11.25 4.60 2,25 IAA 0,45 30' 2.00 1.00 0.50 0,25 0,10 30' 3.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 15' 5.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 35' 1.46 0.73 0.37 0.18 0,07 35' 2,60 0.73 0.37 0,18 0.07 20' 2,80 1.12 0.56 0,28 0.19 40' 1.12 0.58 0,28 0.14 0,06 40' 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.10 WATTAGE TABLE Fixture Size watts a '.. GSS 70N-175W GSM 175W--1000w GSL 40OW--10MY '. ORDERING INFORMATION SAMPLE NUMBER;GSM-AM-4a0-MH-MT-3V-SG-BK-L Product Family GSS=Galleda Square Small Wore(add as sufrF GSM Galleria Square Voltage' BK=BIadc Must ePectf (order saparetely) Medium i20a120V 'Arm for uaro Pole.1.0 EPA 4Sl= arile a Square 208=208V Bxf3rgnieArm for Squaro Pofe.0.5 EPA 9 240-240V WH=Architecture€ ed MqunE Kit for Sglraro Pale 277=277V 'Arm for Round Pole.1.0 EPA Mounting Method 4S0=4mv MAt003=6°Arm for Round Pole.0.5 EPA AM=Arm Mount' MT=Multi-Tap wired 277V' Options(add as suffix) MA1009=Direct Mount Kit for Round Polo SM1=Spider Mount Ti=Tri a-Ta wired 347V F=Single Fuse (2'O.D.Tenon) P (120,277or347VI MA10105'rngle-arm Tenon Adapter for 3112"O.D.Tenon SMZ-Spider Mount FF=DouNo Fused MA1011s2 @ 160'Tenon Adapter for 3 112'O.D.Tenon (23/8"O.D.Tenon) Distribution (208,240or480V1 MA1012m30120°Tenon Adapterfor31/2'0.D.Tenon SM3=Spider Mount 1F=Type I Formed(Horizontal)' EM=Quadz Restrike with Delay MA1013=4 @ 90°'tenon Adapter for 3 1/2'O.D.Tenon '.. 2F-T o II Formed(Horizontal) MA1014=2 0 90'Tenon Adapter for 3 1t2"O,D.Tenon [3112'O,D,Tononl' yP l [A€ATwi tlockP atoca Start) MA1019=2@120°Tenon Adapter 3FaTyp©III Formed(Horizontal) R=NEMA Twistlock Pfwtgcentro) � Lamp Wattage, FT=Forward Throw Formed(Horizontal) Receptacle MAi016=9090°Tenon Adapter for 3112'O.D.Tenon AFi=Area RoundWettical) G=QuaazRestrike MA1017=Single-arm Tenon Adapter for 23B'O,D.Tenon 7'0=70W AS-Area Square(Vertical)* MA701S-2 @ 18f�'Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8'O.D.Tenon 160=100W 3V-Type III ylverHcal)' HS'HouaoSideShield MA1019-30120'TenonAdapter for 23/8'O.D.Tenon 175-176W RW=Recte ularWide(Verlical)a' VS^ a MA1021=6"Arm for Square Pole.0.6 EPA(GSS Only) 250-25OW (Arm Mount Only, MA1022=6'Armfor Round Pole.0.5 EPA(GSS Only) '.. 400W Maximum) MA7023�'Arm for Square Pale,0.5 EPA(GSS Only) 4000=10N Lane Type L=Lam Included MA1024�'Arm for Round Pole.0.5 EPA(GSS:Only) ipp0=1000W° FGaSaT Glass" p MA1029-Wall Mount Bracket with 10'Arm(Specify color) SG=Seg Glass MA1045-4 @ 90'Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8'O.D.Tenon LarT'P TYPe MA1046=Wall Mount Bracket wilh 9'Arm{GSS Only, MH=Malal Halide Specify color) HPS=High Pressure Sodium MA1048=2 @ 90'Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8"O.O.Tenon MA1049-3 A 90'Tenon Adapter for 2 3M'O.D.Tenon MA1060-House Side Shield for GSS(Field Installed) NOTES::Arm not Ind)dad.See accessories- MA7061=House Side Shield for GSM(Field Installed) '. Avallab%on GSL housing onry. MA1062=fiouse&do Shield for GSL{Field Installed) 'Medium-bare lamp fur GSS housing.Mogul-base on GSM and GSL tousi'w. OA1018=Photoconlrol-Multi-Tap 'Requires redcoed envelope W-20 lamp when used with GSM housing and flat glass veramay Tamped optics OA1027F11`hotoconlrol-480V 'Requires reduced erntlape of-371amp Wien used wnh GSM housing. QA1207=Pholuoled ric Control,347V NEMA Typo 'Product also available In nor,US smlragea and Bolt for intemnaunal markets.Consult factory roe-Rahliny and ordering information. 'Multi-Tap ballast Is 1200=411/177V wi,ed 277V.Trip!rTap bafiaat is f20127M47Vw1,ed 347V. 'Aveilabla on GSM and GSL housings onry. `aw optic not available with Pal glasa °IDOOw GSL with net glass requires BT37 lamp and is not avnnabte In AS,Fi1V,3V distributions. "Olher f'rnIxh coiom available.Consult MC131-FresonArchlfechnal CMurs brochure. Wft;Spec1fiml3on8 and dimen,'Ons Subject to change wirhaui notice. Visit our web site at www.cooperlighting.com COOO:R Lighting Customer First Center 1121 Highway 74 South Peachtreo City,GA 30269 770,486.4800 FAX 770.48SA80i ADHO12827 1 i Transportation E Land Development l` Environmental S e r v i c e s a 101 WalnUt Street 11 yAnasse Hangen�3r sthh In.c• P.O.Box 9151 Watertown,MA 02471-9151 617 924 1770 Memorandum To: Peters Street Realty Trust,LLC pate: October 2,2003 FAX 617 924 2286 c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co. 100 Turnpike Street North Andover,MA 01845 Project No.: 08475 From: Patrick Dunford,P.E. Re: Proposed CVS Pharmacy Project Manager Route 114 at Peters Street North Andover,Massachusetts At the North Andover Town Meeting held on May 13,2003 members of the development team for the above-mentioned project presented findings regarding the fiscal impacts to North Andover anticipated from the proposed project. The following memorandum summarizes the general findings discussed,based solely on the information that was presented by the development team at the Town Meeting. This memorandum is intended to be a summary of information presented by others,and is not based on any analysis prepared by Vanasse Hang en Brustlin,Inc. With the new zoning for this parcel,it was anticipated that,at a minimum, an approximately 13,000 square foot CVS Pharmacy would be developed on this site. This total valuation of this development was in turn assumed to be$4,875,000,based on available information compiled by the development team at that time. Under this scenario,the resulting tax revenue per unit to the Town of North Andover would be approximately$78,000. Only$2,000 in non-school expenses to the town was anticipated,resulting in a net annual benefit of$76,000 to the Town of North Andover. \\Nfawald\checkin\08475\dos\memos\CVS fiscal impad.doc Transportation Land Developinent nvit°unite tal Services (a imagination�innovation 1»neir(gy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our cofnniklnitie.s December 23,2003 _.aji.asse 11GLIZfrL12- .I r"Zls. 2,.._1"11C Ref: 08475.00 C1 Heidi Griffin Community Development&Services Director 27 Charles Street North.Andover,MA 01845 �st,�rP'Mi�Ii� .� ��r.,1 r �P�i�,��R•�E\i'�+ Re: C'VS/Pharmacy—Response to Site Plan Review Comments Dear Ms.Griffin, In response to the November 13,2003 engineering review letter from MHF Design C'onsultans,Inc.,for the proposed CVS/Pharmacy VHS offers the following response to comments: 1. NORIII ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS I j Section 3 Zoning Districts and Boundaries 1. 7"ire plaris should include any covetiarits associated with fhe recerit rezoning action associated with this property. No information regarding this was provided to the reviewer, thus rro review corrnnents are offered. We will assrurie for t1te purposes of tyre review that the project is within the G-13 (General Business District)as annotated on the,plans. However, it would be helpful to provide a clearer srmrniary plan indicating all zone lures Witin`n and abutting the project, includhig the possible residential zone(R-4)across the Street on Route 114. Response: A copy of the rezoning decision will be provided, they site was rezoned to General.Business from 13-4 at Town Meeting on May 12,2003 with restrictive covenants. Section 4 Buildings and lases Permitted 1. 1"lie proposed retail establishrrierrt appears to be allowed by right per 4.131.1,subject to confirmation of above corrn?imts. Response: A copy of the rezoning documentation will be provided to confirm the site being in the General Business District. 101 Walnut Street Post office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 t.A08475\aocs\v.aRu0us\sRe.11laj,_coinn,ents\08475-arc-'_Ntltr-Dec_2003.aoc 617.924.1770 ® FAX 61Z924.2286 email: info@vhb.eom www.vhb.com Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 2 Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regidations 1. The Building Elevations indicate proposed building signage. Nofi-eestaiidiiigoi-gi-otiiidsigiisay,e proposed on the plans—the applicant slioidd confirm that 7vitli a plait note,or add it to the plans. Response: The project architect will be providing information on signagne. The building inspector will sign off on any proposed signage. 2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,inaterials,lighting,etc. Per 6.5.1, internally lit signs are not allozved. Projecting signs per 6.3.15(>12")are not allo'eved per 6.5.12. Response: See architectural comments tinder separate cover. I The rear elevation Drive Vint sign may have a typo("Exit" instead of"Enter"),albeit the text is difficult to read. Response: See architectural comments Linder separate cover. 4. The Board shoidd refer to the Building Inspector regarding interpretation of thefollozving: (W Sign limit ineastirettients of 6.3,19 pertaining to the stirrowiding use of materials and colors; (b)pet'6.6.D, 7ve assitine that the CVS11-11tarinacy is one integral tenant,as separate identifiable tenants are not listed. 71terefore, the maxiniton ininiber of signs allowed is one primary and one secondary,zoldcli are botit assumed to be wall signs(no freestanding or ground signs proposed);(c)supplementary accessory signs as they relate to the Bylazo;(d)percentage calculations as required in 6.6.D.1,ivIticli slioilld be provided on the plans. Response: See architectural comments tinder separate cover. Section 7.3 Dimensional Reqttirentents—Yard(Setbacks) 1. The provided street frontage in the Plait fable is incorrect; the lines referred to as rear lines in the plait table inay be actually side lines as the Bylazv lias been normally interpreted and per fliegrapitical setbacks sliozon on the plait; the graphical setback along the abutting clitirch sideline is shown incorrectly. Although none of these continents affect the building layout as sliomi,ive recommend that the variances for the front building and parking setbacks to Roitte 114 be referenced by(late and decision,inchiding decision text and related plan references for confirmation of any conditions or assliniptions. Response: Comment noted. As stated above, the interpretation of the corner lot setbacks do not affect the building, as the plait meets all requirements. The zoning relief requested from the Route 114 setback is now noted on the plans. \0795715\ct(xs\lctters09475—Kr('_A11 IF__M,c_2003.d(x Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 3 Section 7.4 Building Height 1. We recommend that the Layout Plan table indicate the building Iteiglit in feet per 2.27 of the Bylazv, and the Elevations be dimensioned for botli height and ceiling height(per required sign area calculations). Response: See architectural comments tinder separate cover,the architectural plans are currently being revised, the final proposed building elevations indicate that the height complies with zoning. Section 7.4 Lot Coverage 1. Please check the I ayout Platt table data for correct Lot Covet-age value. Please verify flic listed GSTA which varies slightly between plans and miscellaneous documents. Response: The Lot Coverage and the GSFA have been verified and the plans revised to reflect the verified numbers. Sectimi 7.4 FloorArea Ratio 1. This is trot required bi the District;liozvever,if the FAR is listed,please check the calcitlatio?i per 2.38.3 per the Bylaw. Response: The FAR calculation has been removed from the zoning compliance table as it is not applicable in the General BUSines Zoning District. Section 8.1 Parkbig 1. the Materials and Lai/out Platt should indicate the snow stockpile area sliozon at the Grading Plait. Please discuss zvliy this area catmot be annotated in reserved grass areas on the plan, instead of olt top of parking spaces. Response: The snow stockpile area has been revised to be shown in the reseve parking area adjacent to Peter's Street, the snow stockpile area are not shown in heavily;y landscaped areas in order to prevent damage to the landscaped areas. Snowmelt from plowed snow can cause damage to landscaped area by depositing silt,sand,and other debris which is unsightly and can burn the plant material. \0795715\docs\lettersO&175-IZ1"C-NifIF-Lkc-2003.tioc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 4 Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Information Reqnired a) A copy of the Special Permit Application Form was not provided or reviewed. Response: A copy of the Special Permit Application Form will be provided. b) Sheets C-2 through C-5 should have the scales annotated in the title blocks for the record to supplement the bar graphics. Response: The site plans have been updated to indicate the drawing scale in the title block. C) The Architectural Plans stibinitted need to be stamped. Response: The Architectural Plans will be resubmitted by the Architect with the appropriate signature and sea], Linder separate cover. e.ii) Abitttbig Map/Lot and Tax Map data should be properly annotated for all legal abi(tters(no certified abutters list ivas provided);general ground surface type is not annotated. Response: The SV-I plan has been modified to more clearly delineate the zoning district boundaries. e.iv) Aiiy proposed easements or other key legal information should be added to the plans—none appear to be proposed. It is questionable as to how the proposed Walls 7voidd be constructed or maintained without proposed easmient(s). Also, no conditions notes appear on the plans relating to any other approving entities as reilitired(e.g., Board of Appeals and Rezoning). Response: A proposed easement has been added for the construction of the retaining wall adjacent to the east property line. e'vi) The Zone District information on the SV-1 plan needs to be corrected. Response: The zone district information on the SV-1 plan has been clarified. e.vii) Refer to Drainage design comments belozv. Response: The drainage design comments listed below are addressed. e.viiox)Refer to iWscellaneoiis building-related comments above. Please address airy rooftop-inowited IIVAC or other visible systenis. Response: The project architect will address strucute and architectural related comments Linder separate cover. (0 \07957154dcKs\IettersUK&175 R['C_,IdHF_Dc_2003.doc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 5 C.X) Please clarify on the plans zvliat is proposed for sidewalks on Route 114 and Peters Street, to acconnnodate access. Please also address possible site access between tlie Phan nacy and the abutting Cluircli and Eagle Tribune, building(which map appear to be advantageous). Response: (it) Sidewalks are currently on the westerly side of Route 114 only(opposite side of the roadway),and sidewalks are not present ou Peters Street east of Route 114. (b) The grade differential between the church,and Eagle Tribune are not conducive to ADA accessible routes between the properties. e.xii) We believe that retaining walls are proposed on the site,boat the plan information is unclear and no details are provided. Refer to above continents regarding signage. Response: Retaining walls are provided on the site. Annotation providing the type of wall and top- of-wall/bottom-of-wall information is noted on the plans. Manufacturer's specification sheets are provided for the proposed wall systern. Refer to the modular block retaining wall detail provide in the plan set. c.xiii) Please annotate the transition location of PC(.'IVGC curbing at the Route 114 entrance. 'floe parking aisles directly fronting the building should be dimensioned for clarity. Response: The transition location between PCC and VGC is noted on the plans. The parking aisles between the proposed building and Route 114 have been dimensioned. e.xv) Please verify adequate sight distance regarding fliefieldstone wall work at the Peters Street entrance, and supplement note 13 accordingly. Refer to Section 8.4 below for additional comments. Response: Site Distance issues will be addressed in the revised traffic report/ memorandum tinder separate cover. e.xvi) Please provide details of the proposed drimpsterfence screening(panel materials,lieiglit,colors,etc. are not detailed). The approach curbline should be adjusted to eliminate protrusion of the frontcorner of Hue diiiiipstei-eiielositi-e into the travel 7vay. The location and grading of the dunipsterand associated loading areas may be a prominent element of this site as viezved from [lie abutting Eagle Tribune facility. Response: A durripster pad screening detail is now provided on the plan set. The clumpster pad does not encroach the driveway or the curbline. Every effort has been made to locate the dumpster in a (0 \0795715\(Iocs\lcttersO&175—lt'I'C—Allil;—I)ec,-2003.dDc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 6 convienient location while still keeping it out of a prominent place. The Eagle Tribune reviews and approves all proposed work on the proposed CVS site. e.xvii) Refer to Section 8.4 connnents belozo. In addition, the loose cut sheets provided do not match the specified fixtures on the lighting plan (all details should be shown on the lighting plan). No pole or base details were provided. Response: See architectural comments tinder separate cover. e.xviii) Refer to drainage comments below. Response: The Drainage comments listed following are addressed. e.xi.x) Refer to Traffic Shidy connnenfs in associated reviezv letter lty VAL Response: The Traffic Study comments are addressed in a separate letter of comment response. e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MID permit application has not yet been filed zvith the State,as specifically reilitiredfor this Site Plan submission and NAPB reviem We tinderstand that the corridor issues are of great concern to the Town,notwithstanding other filings that are currently under NAPB consideration in this immediate area. Refer to the VAI conintents for further information. Response: The MHD Permit application and corridor issues are addressed in a separate letter of comment response. c.xxi) Refer to comments belozv regarding utilities. Response: The Utility comments listed following are addressed. e.xxii) No action orcalettlationvet-ifictitioijsai't>taken oii the stateiiielitof fiscal impact submitted,tiltlioiigli we acknowledge the project's potential positive iiet tax revenue to the Town,notwithstanding any VAI concerns regarding traffic impacts. Response: A fiscal impact statement will be provided to by the project proponent. e.xxiii I"Iie Applicant liasissiteda statement i-egai'di)tg architectural consistency,zvliiciiiioreviezv action is being offered. However, the retittired Community Impact Analysis includes pedestrian inovenient, which is not addressed or provided. Response: Currently sidwalks are present on the westerly side of Route 114,a crosswalk exists connecting the northwest and southwest corners of Peters Street/ Route 114. No sidewalks exist on the easterly side of Route 114 or on Peters Street east of Route 114. \0795715\docs\lei tersO8,175.,,KI'C,-MI IF-Dec-2001dor. Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 7 e.xxi) Refer to Sheet C-4 and general drainage continents regarding utilities. Response: The general drainage comments refer to the applicant's site civil drawings Sheet C-4. Section 8.4 Screening and Landscape Requirements 1. The plant list table sliould also specify the inininnun required tree heights. Response: The plant list table has been revised to specify the minimum required tree heights. 2. Vie applicant sliould provide confirmation of ineeting the landscape strip requirements of 8.4.4. Response: The plans have been reviewed and revised to meet the landscape requirentents as noted. 3. The lighting requ iren ten ts oj'8.4.5(shielding at property lines)do snot appear to be inet. The lighting plan does not indicate the property lines,and the intensity levels shown appear to be very excessive onto abutting properties. Also,consideration sliould be given to not relying solely on"wall-paks to provide area lighting,especially facing abutting properties. Response: See architectural continents and revised plans tinder separate cover. H. ADDI17ONAL GENERAL COMMENTS Title Sheet(unnamed oi-numbered) L The Title Slieet sliould be assigned a seTiential number as an integral part of the submitted plan set. Latest Issue date listed for SVA sliould be revised. Response: The Title sheet has been revised to reflect a sequential number and the current revision date of all attached plans. Legend and General Notes (C-1) 1. Layout and Materials Note#4 and Utilities Note It7reference several site items that sliould be included on the site plans(various equipinent pad locations on the site,coinpactor pad reference, bollards,etc.). Existing Conditions Information Note#1 (field survey month)conflicts with the Existing Conditions Plan General Notes. \0795715\clocs\letters08475_lt1'C_NlI 1F_Dec_2003.d(x Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 8 Response: The Existing Conditions notes have been removed from Sheet C-2,all existing conditions data is on sheet SV-1,attached to the revised plan set. Additional data has been included in the plans set. Layout&Materials Plait and Details 1. A truck turning plan should be provided to illustrate itiovenients in critical areas. Also,please evaluate the very tight right turn radius(in front of the building)onto the site drive leading to Peters Street citi,bctit---tltisis tight even for customers. Is it the intent to allow or not allow left turns into the site frontRoute 114?—the signage and geometry is unclear. Response: (a) A truck-turning figure will be provided to show typical movements in the Traffic report/ memorandum. (b) A 20 foot radius curb is provided at the Peters Street entrance. This radius is consistent with standard practice for access to minor roadways. 2. Several critical pavement setbacks,wall offsets/setbacks,major curb radii, nontypical dimensional elements,etc. are missing and need to be clearly identified. Please address curb radius extension in Route 114 ROW beyond property litre extension. Please provide sidewalk and MCC treatment detail. Identify zoliere heavy dirty pavement is located as detailed,please specify subpavenient gravel specs on the detail,add trench patch detail,add retaining wall detail(including observed face appearances),etc. Response: The plan set has been revised to address the above comment. 3. Pavement markings and additional MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be considered. Key examples inchide:(a)centerline on long Peters Street approach drive,(b)centerline and gore,at Route 114 drive nosing transition,(c)proposed R3-2 sign legend is incorrect, (d)channelization behind the building is poor and will invite head-on collisions far exiting/entering traffic—consider a channelization landscaped island along the compactor unit,add R5-1, (e)quetteinglapproachl bypass striping in and around the drive thrit area,(J)protection for exit door swing/egress at the drive-thril approach, (g) review pavement arrows(the details require that these be placed exactly(is shown on the plans),00 consider bollard or wheelstop in front of easterly building colialin. Response: (a) An off site roadway improvement plan is provided in the traffic iriernorandurn under separate cover. (b) An off site roadway improvement plan is provided in the traffic memorandum tinder separate cover. (c) The site plans have been revised to address this comment. (d) Channelization behind the building is not theoretically necessary because of the one-way(counterclockwise in the plan view) traffic circulation pattern. \0795715\das\lel 1ers08475_RTC_h1FI F-Dec-2001 ci m Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 9 (e) The proposed tenant operates other stores with drive-thrU facilites generally identical to the proposed site. Queuing and by-pass striping is not typically added to the drive-thru area and traffic related issues have not been known to Occur at other sites with similar,unstriped configurations. (f) The site plans have been revised to include bollards at the exit door, the door is designed for ernergency egress and is not a means of primary building egress. (g) The location and specification of the pavernent arrows has been reviewed. (h) The site plans have been revised to include a carstop to protect tile column noted. Grading and Drainage Plan &Details 1. The details for the catcli basins sliould include the manufachirer and model of the oil hood to be installed. A corresponding detail should also be provided. Slope stabilization details sliould be provided. Response: The catch basin detail has been revised to indicate the inanufacturer and model number of the proposed catch basin hood. The site plans have been revised to indicate slope stabilization in greater detail. 2. All retaining walls should indicate top and bottom finish grade elevations at critical points. Please specify gtiard rail and detail 7oltere required. Response: The site plans have been revised to reflect top and bottom of wall. A guardrail has been added to the plan where appropriate. 3. Pipe and structure data(e.g. lengths,slopes,etc.)are not provided on the plans. Please label the existing contours. All required gas and Water valves should be clearly labeled. Response: The site plans have been revised to note pipe structure data,existing contour labeling, and required gas and water valves. 4. Die Drop-Over Manhole specified and detailed is not cost effective or appropriate for tying into a 12" RU—please consider a standard manhole,wliiclt can be easily accommodated in the field with less effort or disruption than the Drop-Over method. Response: In order to maintain the existing drainage in Route 114,it is appropriate to use a drop over manhole. S. Please consider re-routing drainage pipes to avoid crossing directly underneath the drivellint facility (slabs,footings,electronics,overhead structures,etc.). \0791,7 i5\docs\1et1ers08475.,RTC_M1 JF_Dec_2W3.doc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 10 Response: The applicant is aware of this potential maintenance and contraction issue,and has rerouted the pipes from underneath the drive-thrU facility. 6. Evaluate why CB--BI is placed in the middle of the aisle Where all the drive aisle drainage is ranted along the curbs(including flows front Peters Street which should be intercepted tipstreani)and then directed cross-pavement to the middle—that is inefficient and will also promote,icing. Although it is specified as doable-grate,it will be taking-on quite a bit of the onsite and offsite flozvs with long flowpaths. Response: The drainage plan has been revised to change the Peters Street access road to pitch into the eastern edge curbing and into DCB-Bl. DCB-131 has been moved out to the curbline to catch the runoff. 7. The exact placement of CB--C2 will prevent itfivin catching any storinwater and its location should be evaInated. Response: The location of the catch basins and the grading at the Route 114 drive has been re- evaluated and revised to optimize the arnOLInt of storn-twater captured by said catch basins. 8. Please consider recharging tire roof drainage separately in the fill section behind the lniilding—that may residt in higher efficiencies in terms of constriction cost and overall performance. Response: This issue was considered during the initial Site Plan submission,however,due to the presence of]edge,was not considered a possibility, due to both constructability issues and operational issues. 9. No test pit information is provided—the design intent of the Storinteclisystem is unclear. Stornitech Tuts re-issued newer revised/expanded details which the applicant should consider,and that nlay possibly lead to more efficiencies in the system layout. It is very unclear why the design indicates a 24" outlet pipe if that is to be the end-analysis far pre-post mitigation,and zolly the system is design to be so very deep,being it a Stornitech open bottom systein probably in the SHWT. Details shoidd be provided to clearly indicate the elvations,chamber layotit, isolator rozo,piping in/out,etc. Response: Additional details have been provided regarding the entire Stormtech system. Specific drawings developed by Storintech have been incorporated into the drawings. 10. The storinceptor callotif needs a detail. Please discuss or evaluate possible efficiencies in utilizing the Storintech system for treatment and Possibly eliminating the additional cost and maintenance of the Storinceptor. (0 \07957 15\dms\I e k tersO8475-RTC-?%ffI F-Dcc-DOI d oc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 11 Response: A stormceptor detail has been added to the plans. The stormceptor will be necessary for pretreatment,sufficient data is not available that indicated that the Stormtech isolator row provided Sufficient pretreatment . ll. The design includes afinal outlet connection to tlie existing drainage system on Rt. 114. Tliis retlitires reviezv and approval by Mass HigIlWay. Response: The storm drainage connection will be part of the MHD Application package, which has yet to be made. Utility Plait &Details 1. The plans should address fill transformer and other pad locations which are not shown—this is unclear and/or conflicting. The typical pipe trench detail needs to be supplemented to address all pipe types used. Response: The site plans have been revised to reflect the different pad locations and cross sections. The pipe trench detail already incorporates the design issues of all types of underground utilities to be used on the site. 2. Mininittin horizontal separation between utilities is not met,are unnecessarily tight,or need clear offset diniensions. Please address proposed sewer line location vis-n-vis setback to existing water easement and specific deed restrictions,if any. Please shozv proposed light pole near dintipster per the lighting plan. Response: A note has been added to the plan indicating a minimum IOhorizontal separation between water and sewer pipes. The sewer connection from the south end of the building has been eliminated. 3. No sezver pipe lengths or slopes tire included in the plans. The sezver/drainage Pipe crossings have less tlian 12"of separation (front)and less Haan 6"of separation (rva?). The applicant may ivisli to evabiate alternative routings to reduce 550'of sezver and 4 manholes,and alinost 500'of electric service as routed based on oar experience zvitli shnilar users. Some server pipe sizes are not labeled, and the main connection detail is not verified in terms of invert elevation or detail. Usually,pipe less than 8"is not recommended between nianlioles. Grading should be shown with Hie sezver design,as it is extremely difficult to evaluate the design tvith no grading slioivii on the sezver plait. Response: The sewer connection out of the front(south end) of the building has been eliminated. The plans have been revised to include size,slope,and length data. The pipe sizes specified are adequate for the proposed load, and similar sewer configurations are in use with other CVS sites without operational issues. The electrical/ telephone/ cable connection locations are based on the (0 \0795715\ttocs\lettersO&175_12'F(:_Ntlll7—L)ec 2003.doc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 12 building configuration (the mechanical room being in the northwest corner of the building) and the location of the connection utility pole on Peters Street. Landscape Plan &Details 1. Landscape Note#7 shoidd be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Tomi approval in addition to owner approval regarding plant substitutions,if any are proposed. Response: The Landscaping plan has been revised to address this comment. 2. Will critical areas be provided with landscape irrigation? None appears to be proposed. Also,no typical landscape planting details zvere provided. Response: Irrigation of all proposed landscaping will be provided,irrigation notes have been added to the plan. 3. Could the extra pavement in back of the building be landscaped instead(at the location of the proposed electric service penetrations)? There may be proposed pads located here anyway. Response- The extra pavement referred to has been removed and the plans have been updated to provide a small landscaped area on the north side of the building to the east of the proposed campactor pad. III. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER OLL4LII'Y REPORT 1. Vie report proclaims compliance with DEPs StonnivaterPolicy. However, if there are no resource areas within 100'of the site, then compliance is not reilitired. However, the design does mot comply. We recommend either removing references to compliance With the policy,or listhig standards that are inet,or itot met. Response: The references to compliance in the Drainage/Stormwater Management Report have been reworded to clarify the virtue and extent of compliance. 2. IV predevelopmetit Hydrocad model inchides two reaches that are not described and appear to serve no pro-pose. Response: The two reaches,DP-1 and DP-2(Design Point),are included in the predevelopment HydroCAD model as consistent points of comparison with the post-development HydroCAD model. In both the pre and post development models, the design point reaches have no specific hydraulic properties. This method of providing clear and consistent points of reference between comparative models is consistent with standard engineering practice. \0795715\docs\letters08.t7',.'_R'I'C,.,\II I F-Dec-2003.doc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 13 3. Regarding the postdevelopmeW Hydrocad model: Reach "DP2"should be labeled and/or described as a simintatimi;a)id the Tc description for Sitbcatchment I C shoidd be revised,as the total flozo length prior to entering pipes appears to be approximately 175'. Response: The Drainage/Stormwater Management Report has been revised to label DP-1 and DP-2 as "Design Points",a clearer description than"New Reach". The report has also been revised to reflect the actual flow length,which is about 360 feet. 4. Discussion and description of the "Detention Chambers"is confused. It alternately refers to the system as being "infiltration"and"detention". As designed, the system camiot provide infiltration. However,if it is to provide detention only,then construction details iieed to be clarified and include a liner to prevent grotmdzvaterfrom surcharging the system. The designer may wish to explore possible adjtisttiieWs to the design. Response: The report and references have been revised to note this particular structure as a "detention system". The groundwater table should not intercept the proposed subsurface detention system. The test pit data shows that the seasonal high groundwater table is below elevation 179,where the detention system bottom is set at elevation '180.7. Although the soils on the site are not suitable for infiltration,there will be no distinct advantage to lining the subsurface system. There will be some infiltration,which is conservatively not included in the overall reduction in peak stormwater flow,and adding a liner will only prevent this from occurring. 5. Operation mid Maintenance Plan: Sweeping schedule should be morefreqiteiit(e.g. monthly); maintenance of Stormceptors shoidd be added; maintenmice of Stormtech chambers shoidd be added. Response: The sweeping schedule in the operation and maintenance plan meets or exceeds the published requirements of DEP and the Town of North Andover. The operation and maintenance plan for the manufactured BMP's have been added to the report. 6. Test Pit data should be provided. Response: Test Pit Data has been added to the Drainage/Storrnwater Management Report. Seven sets of the revised Site Plan package will be sent to the North Andover Planning Department,I have enclosed one set of the revised site plan package for your re-review,if You have any questions please do not hesitate to contact any ineinber of the VHB Eaglewood Shops project team. (a \0795715\docs\IeItcr,sOM75-RI C—IN H IF_Dec_�2003,doc Response to Comments CVS/Pharmacy Project No.: 08475.00 December 23, 2003 Page 14 Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. Joinil).Stephenson,P.E. Project Manager CC: Ross Hamlin,Eaglewood Shops,LLC Vin Manzi,Esq.,Manzi &McCann Attorneys at Law Walter Rogers,Eagle Tribune Publishing Karl Dubay,MI-IF Design Consultants,Inc. 0 7957 15\d ocs\I cite r s,0847S--RTC_X IH F-Dec-2003.doc Transportation j Land Development Environmental i Services I i i I 101 Walnut Street T a na Ss Uunge72 B9"ZdS�r1.9��?c P.O.Fox 9151 Watertown,MA 02471-9151 617 924 1770 FAX 617 924 2286 Memorandum To: Heidi Griffin Date: December 23,2003 Community Development Director Town of North Andover t,_:. 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 t= Cc: Ken Cram-VAI Karl Dubay-MHF r a Project No.: 08475 From: Patrick T. Dunford,P.E. Re: Proposed Eaglewood Shops Development Project Manager Peer Review Responses—Traffic Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has reviewed the traffic-related comments provided by the peer reviewer for the above-mentioned project. The comments were presented in a letter from Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI) to MHF Design Consultants dated November 11,2003. The letter contains both factual statements noting the nature of the material presented,as well as requests for additional information in certain areas. VHB has discussed the general content of the VAI memorandum and offers the following responses: • Traffic Study Area--The study area presented in VHB's assessment dated October 2,2003 is limited to the intersection of Route 114 and Peters Street,and the project site driveways on Route 114 and Peters Street. The study area was developed with consideration of the likely project impacts and the current traffic conditions in the area. VAI has also requested that two additional intersections be studied: Route 125/133 at Peters Street and Route 114 at the Eagle Tribune driveway. Both intersections were included in the Traffic Impact and Access Study prepared for the nearby Eaglewood Shops development'. In that study,this intersection was shown to be operating over capacity under existing conditions during both the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak hours. The study prepared for the proposed CVS notes that the project is expected to add less than 30 new vehicle trips to this intersection. This translates into an approximately one-percent increase in traffic volumes at this location.Given this relatively minor increase,VHB did not feel that the intersection warranted inclusion in the study. Likewise,the Eagle Tribune driveway on Route 114 was also included in the recent studies prepared for the Eaglewood Shops,and was shown. Exiting traffic from that site is expected to operate at a failing level of service during both of the critical peak hours studied. The only effect means of mitigating that condition is to include that driveway in the operation of the planned signal at the Eaglewood Shops site driveway. However, the Eagle Tribune ownerships indicated that they were not interested in that option at this time. As the CVS project was included in the background traffic growth for the Eaglewood Shops,further study of this location would offer little benefit, as appropriate mitigation measures were already identified. 'Vanasse Hangen Brusilin,Inc.,Eipnndrd Enviroun ental Nolijrntion Form—Engdetl1oorl Shops North Andover,May 2003. \\\03475\dots\memos\Tra1 peer response 12-19-03.doc M1 u Date: December 23,2003 2 Project No.: 05475 • Seasonal Variation—Seasonal adjustments calculations are provided in the Appendix to this document. • Background Traffic Growth---The trip assignment for the background traffic projects considered in the study are provided in the Appendix to this document. • Trip Dist„r,bution—The gravity model used to develop the trip assignment shown in the appendix of the October 2,2003 traffic assessment is included in the appendix to this document. • Truck deliveries—A graphic showing the truck delivery movements through the site are provided attached to this document. "Truck Route"signs are also provided as shown on the revised site plan included in the latest submission package. • Route 114 Peters Street Haverhill Street—The traffic study notes that this intersection will operate over capacity under future conditions with or without the project. This location is planned to be included in a four-signal system on Route 114 to be developed as mitigation for the nearby Eaglewood Shops project. The benefits from that work should be most prevalent on Route 114,and generally would not serve as capacity enhancing measures. While not specifically requested by VAI,VHB also evaluated the possibility of adding a right-turn lane on the Peters Street approach. While the right-turn movement would operate more efficiently, the approach as a whole would still operate at a failing level-of-service,and the queues would still extend beyond the site driveway. This measure would also likely require that one of the signal strain poles at the northwest corner of the intersection be relocated. This level of mitigation would be disproportionate to the project's impacts,especially given that a right- in/right-out driveway is already proposed from the site directly onto Route 114. It has been our experience that MassHighway prefers to have any additional long term planning-type analyses conducted by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission(the regional planning agency in the area),and not by consultants on behalf of private development projects. • Peters Street,Queues—VAI correctly notes that queue tables were not provided in the traffic study;this documentation can be provided if necessary. However, the analysis contained in the appendix to that document clearly indicate that queues currently extend past the proposed site driveway location and will continue to do so in the future. A conceptual off-site mitigation plan for Peters Street is provided attached to this document.The goal of this plan is - to provide sufficient width on-Peters Street departing from the signalized intersection to - .prevent traffic waiting to turn left from blocking northbound Peters Street through-traffic. The exact limits of any widening will be determined as this plan is developed further. [Please note that the plan is intended for the off-site Peters Street work only,and may not reflect all recent changes to the internal site design.A single comprehensive plan will be provided as both plans are further developed.] • Sight Distance—A graphic showing sight lines to and from the driveway will be provided shortly as a supplement to this document. • MUTCD signs avement markings—The pavement markings and signage within the site have been updated as requested as shown on the revised site plans. \\\08475\dots\mernos\Tr,J peer response]2-14-03.dix Date. December 23,2003 3 Project No.: 0S475 a ATTACHMENTS f • Peer Review Comments t 6 r • Seasonal Traffic Variations I Background Development Traffic Volume Networks • Gravity Model • Truck Turning Movement Diagrams • Peters Street Access Plan \\\03475\dOuArneMOS\Trafpeerresponse12-19-03.doc t Date: December 23,2003 4 Project No.: 0&175 r i • Peer Review Documents I I i \\\08475\does\memos\Traf peer response 12-19-03.doc Transportation Land Development Environmental Services o imagination innovation energy Creating results for our dientsand benelits for our Communities Vanasse Hangen Brust-lin, Inv. February 9,2004 Ref: 08475.00 1`4kr 111;1 fl p A fj",- Ms.Julie Parrino Community Development&Services Director 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Re: CVS/Pharmacy-Response to Site Plan Review Comments N�T Dear Ms. Parrino: In response to `e Novemim-4�3,�'OP,3�engiiieei�ii)g review letter from MI-IF Design Consultants, Inc.,for the prof QVS/Phainiacy,VHB offers the following response to comments: I. NORTHANDOVE-R ZONING BYLAWS Section 6 Signs and Sign Ligliting Regitlations 1. Vie Building Elevations indicate propose([building sigiiage. No freestanding or groinid signs are proposed on the plans—the applicant slioidd confirm that 7oitli a plait note,or add it to the plans. 1�csponsc: A freestanding sign Ims now been locIted on the plans. All signs will cornply with the sign bylaw of North Andover. 2, Vie proposed 7vall signage needs specifications for colors, ?naterials,lighting,etc. Per6.5.1, internal[[/lit sighs are not allowed. Projecting sierras per 6.3.15(>12")are not allowed per 6.5.12. Response: All proposed signagev%;ill conform xvitli the North Andover sign regulations.ze/ 3. The rear elevation Drive Tlint sign array have a typo("Exit" instead of"Enter"),albeit t1te text is difficidt to read. Izesponse: TI)C building elevations will be corrected. 4 The Board slioidd refer to the l3ttildbig Inspector regarding interpretatio)i of the following: (a) Sign 1bWt)iicasiireineiits of 6.3.19 pertabibig to the,sio-roiniding use of materials and colors; (b) per 6.6.1),roe assume that the CVS111liariiincy is one integral tenant,as separate identifiable teiiants are not listed. Therefore, the maxiiiiiiiii number of sigiis allowed is one primary and one 101 MhUt Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02,471-9151 617.924.1770 a FAX 617.924.2286 \\i\,IAWAI,D\LD\08475\Docs\lvleii-tos\08475,-,RTC-,.MI IFF(+-2004.doc email: info@vhb.ccjii www.vhb.com secondary,which are both assumed to be wall signs(fro freestanding or ground signs proposed); (c)supplementary accessory signs as they relate to the Bylaw;(d)percentage calculations as required in 6.6.D.1,which should be provided on the plans. R \\MAI-VALD\LD\08475\Docs\\Memos\05475_RTC_Mi-IF_Feb_2004.doc 2 MS.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref. No: 08475 Response: All necessary sign permits will be obtained, which will include all of the recl€rirccl information. All signs will conform with the North Anclover signage bylaw. Section 7.3 Dimensional Requirements—Yard(Setbacks) 1. The provided street frontage in fire Plan table and the graphical setback slrozun along the abutting church sideline need to be corrected and/or adjusted. tZesponse: The graphical representation of the setback is now correctly located on the Plans, Section 7.4 Building Height 1. We recormnend that the Layout Plan table indicate the building height in feet per 2.27 of the Bylaw,and the Elevations be dimensioned for both height and ceiling height (per required sign area calculations). Response: The building height will not exceed 45 feet�Is required by zoning. Section 8.1 Parking 1. Please evaluate if the snow storage area can be moved off the paved parking spaces and onto the proposed glass areas. Response: Two areas have been provided for snow storage,one area at the land-banker[ parking areas, and the other location near the Route 114 entrance. We feel that these irr..rti are more than adequate for snory storage, while:providing storage areas both off- p,i%0nuCrlt, and on-pavement. Extensive use of oft-pavvni ant snow storage tends to harm I,111d',caping areas,a prominent feature of the site%vhich the Planning Board has specifically stated they want to feature. Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review---Information Required a) A copra of the Special Permit Application.Form was not provided or-reviezued. t.tsE,c�nse: A copy of the.Special Permit Application has been provided. c) The Architectural Plans submitted need to be stamped. The :Archit('ctural flans Nvill be stamped after the Planning Board zipproves the scope of the building. e.ii) Abutting Xlap/Lot and Tax Map data should be properly annotated for all abrrtt€ors across fire ROW(no certified abutter's list was provided);general ground surface tripe is not annotated. ■ ■ \\IMA WA L D\C.D\08475\rocs\\,Iomos\08475_RTCTMI IF-FeU_2004.doc 3 Nits.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref.No: 08475 Response: This information is contained within the SLII-Vey,sheet SV-L This infor€-nation is now also shown on the layotit Flan. e.iv) The proposed construction easement for the zoall needs to be verified by the abutter,and[lie easerrrerzt include rrraintenance as well as construction and be either dimensioned or have a future deed reference note. Also,any approval conditions motes(if any) regarding variances by the BOA should be included. Response: The proposed easement is now dimensioned. Coordination with the church is ongoing. A copy of the ZBA decision and rezoning is included in the Legend and General Notes sheet C-1. e.viii/ix)Refer to miscellaneous building-related eonnnents above. Please address airy rooftop--rnorzrrfed H VAC or other visible systems. Response: The rooftop-mounted HVAC system will be hidden from the ground by a parapet wall arotuxd the perimeter of the building. Please refer to the architectural plans. e.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sideivalks and/or crosswalk irnproverrrents on Route 114 and Peters Street, to accommodate access. Please also address possible site access between the Phannacy and the abutting Church and Eagle Tribune building(which may appear to be truly advantageous,evert if these are not ADA accessible). Refer to e.xxiii requirements below. Response: An access walk from the Eagle Tribune will be provided to the.proposed CVS. Likewise, the site plan has been modified to include tl sidewalk extending along the Peters Street driveway to a crosswalk connecting to the side%valk adjacent to the building. From Route 114,a ne4v sidewalk will be provided extending from the site driveway to the ne�v signalized intersection at the Route l 14 ) agl(nvood Shops main site driveway. As this sidewalk will be located within tile state highway layout, MassHighway has indicated that the Town will have to provide documentation stating its willingness to be responsible for the maintenance of the sideN,%,alk. A i%,alkway is also proposed as shown can the site plans connecting from the Eagle Tribune to the CVS site. e.xii) Please indicate details and location of the retaining wall fencing proposed. Response: Retaining wall fc nciitg is not priwidvd. e.xiii) Please label where the curb rnaterial transitions occur at the entrances. Response: The labels are indicated on the plans as 'crocus feet.' Refer to the Legend and General Notes page for a description. e.xv) Please very adequate sight distance regarding the fieldstone wall work at the Peters Street entrance,and supplement landscape note 13 accordingly. Response: The wall at the Peters`ilrcet and ncarbv plantings will all be less 111ail 3.ti feet ill height so as not to interfere %vith drivers, site: lines. • s \\CIA 4VA L D\I,D\08475\Does\Memos\08475 IZ'rC_Mt-1 F_Feti_2004.doc 4 iv[s.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref.No: 08475 e.xvi) The location arrd grading of the dumpster acid associated loading areas may be a prominent element of this site as viezved from fire abutting Eagle Tribittie facility. At least it could be rotated to be accessed from fire direction of one-way travel fi-orrt the rear,Which will also provide better visual screening from file Rte 114 errtraitce. Response: The dumpster has been rota[ecl to accommodate the front-loading dumpster trunks. e.xvii) Refer to Section 8.4 comments below. Iit addition, the:loose cut sheets provided do riot match fire specified fixtures orb the lighting plan (all details should be shown orr the lighting plan). No pole or base details were provided. Response: The site lighting plan is in the process of being revised by the lighting consultant and will i€lcorporate the above comment in the design. e.xix) The following comments are Offered bid VAI: Varrasse mid Associates, Inc. (VAI) has received the December 23, 2003 response memorandum from VHB. VAI is hi fire process of reviewnrg fire material contained zvithirr. VAI's conce rii is the operation of the Peters Street driveway. The vehicle queues from tire signal at Salem Turnpike (Route 114) will extend beyond fire proposed CVS site drivervay. VHB indicated that additional analyses were performed assuming Peters Street was widened to itrclude an exclusive right-turn lane and fire vehicle queries would still extend beyond tire site driveway. No capacity analyses or queue results were included hi the December 23,2003 memorandum. These should be provided. VHB included a conceptual off-site mitigation plait for Peters Street. VHB indicates that tine exact limits of this plan (re f erenced as Concept 1, dated November 18, 2003) will be determbied as fire: plan is developed further. Oil this concept, VHB proposes to remove the existing concrete island mid widen Peters Street to provide for a 26 foot (ft) wide eastbound lame and two 12 ft wide west bound lames. No pavement stripitrg is shown for the 26 ft wide east bomid lane. Additional pavement markings and signs are needed to indicate the through travel watt,as well as the area which is designed to be a storage area for left turiis into the CVS driveway. A revised plait should be prepared, shozvrr ill cotijuncfimi with the updated site plaths. Is fire proposed site driveway to Peters Street to have 20 ft radii or 30 ft radii? VAI had requested that sight distances be: reviewed. Tire VHB memoratrdrttrr indicates that the sight lilies will be provided as a supplement to the December 23, 2003 me moraudum. Response: Detiileci rc s1 cT€ 5c s to the. VAI comments are provided in a separate- letter which is ako inrluc od in the current submittal package. \\MAWALD\LD\08475\Doc&\Memos\08475_R'lC_AEI tF_Feb_2004.doc 5 Ms.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref.No: 08475 e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MHD permit application has not yet been filed with the State, as specifically required far this Site flair submissim and NAPB review. We understand that the corridor issues are of great concern to the Town, notwithstanding other filings that are currently under MHD review in this immediate area. Refer to the VAI comments for farther information. Response: VHB met with staff fronl the Massl-lighw=ay District 4 office on January 14, 2004 to review the proposed site access plan. At the rileeting, MassHighway c011cirrrt(I with the general design of the site. With the latest revisions to the site design shown in this package, the formal M issl-iighway Access Permit application will be.submitted. Shortly. e.xxiii The Applicant Iras issued a statement regarding architectural consistency,which no review action is being offered. However, the required Community unity Impact Analysis includes pedestrian movement,which needs to be discussed With the Board. Response: Pedestrian access will be discussed with the Planning Board. As noted em-lier, sidewalks have been added connecting the site to Route 114,Peters Street and the Lagle Tribirrle. Likewise, inlvrn'll crosswalks have been added to connect these sidewalks to the building entrances. Section 8.4 Screening and Landscape Requirements 1. The plant list table should also specify the minimum required tree heights. Response: Typically, the plant list specifies the minfinum calliper thickness, which is more indicative of the species than is tree:height. 2. The applicant should provide confirmation of meeting the landscape strip requirements of 8.4.4. Response: The LLrnd xape Plan has a zoning table %-vhich provides [lie required information. 3. The lighting requirements of 8.4.5(shielding at property litres)do not appear to be met. The lighting plan does not indicate the property lines,and the intensity levels shown appear to be very excessive onto abutting properties. Also,consideration should be given to not relying solely on zvall-paks to provide area lighting,especially facing abutting properties. Responw: The ligliling consultant has moc-lifiect the Lighting Plarl to meet the bylavv rekIL ir'erlleIlt`+. 1I, ADDITIONAL GENERAL COMMENTS Layout &A4aterials Plan and Details 2. Please elaborate on the retaining wail detail(zvlrat does versalok"standard"finish and color memi, inchrdirig approved equal?). a \\VIA W ALD\LD\08475\Doc-,\it4enios\08475TRTC_it,l]-I F_Fcb_2004.doc 6 I Ms.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref.No: 08475 Response: Versalock is a type of retaining wall. The "standard" finish and color indicates that they th-pical block will be cised, with the color to be coordinated ,vith the owner and architect. Please refer to the cutshects provided to the planning board. 3. Traffic from Rt.114 entering site would be directed]read-on into out-bound traffic from drive- through;and may also be blocked by truck accessing compactor. Please evaluate why the compactor rrnit couldn't be mirrored to face the other way,which would allow for a landscaped area to channel traffic more safely—this area could also improve safety signage location,entrance aesthetics,visual screening,etc. It would also help in allowing the required 10 foot separation betweetr the transformer pad and building,which is not provided. Response: .As sho%vn on the site plans,signage is provided to inform motorists entering fron) Route l t-1 of the one-way counterclockwise flow around the building. Reversing the compactor as suggested would introduce truck traffic traveling ill the opposite way around the building. Re-ardless of[lie minimal truck traffic, this would create uncxpecled C011fhcts Within the site. Grading and Drainage Plan &Details 1. Temporary slope stabilization details should be provided. Response: A detail has been provided. 2. Please discuss why guardrail is not specified along the rear of the site at critical locations. Response: A guard r,lil is now shown on the top of tale retaining wall near the church parkins; lot. This ShOUld provide adequate safety 11Ieasures fr�r VVIIicles. 3. Please label the existing conforms arorurd the site limits. Response: The existing contours have been labeled. 5. You may wish to consider placing the roof drain outlets towards flit, Route 114 side of the building and directl€f into file StornrTeeh system (which usually can be accommodated and also is clean water)—this can eliminate:5 manholes and 1517 feet of pipe with a slight adjustment to the rear CB. Response: :ill roar drain outlets will be coordinated with the M'Chilcc€rn-A and conArtrchon plans. The comment is noted. 9. 'Tire s;made drff°rence between the door exist slab and DMH Al &A2 appears excessive. Tire grading behind the dumpsfer crosses over the tray bale barrier. Grading at HC spaces exceeds 2% maximinn allmed by ADA. Grading of drivezvay and err trance=from Peters Street appears to be excessive(7%)and is not provided with a leveling area at intersection--if the lozv point near end of driveiony were elevated and/or relocated, then fire driveway grade could be considerably reduced. Please evaluate the limits of the proposed retaining wall--could it be shorter red at the 0 \\MA W ALD\I-D\OS475\Docs\\demos\0.5475_RTC_MHF_I�eti_2004.doc Vts.Julie Perrin i February 9,2004 Ref.No: 08 475 northeast corner and possibly eliminated ill other sections where it is approximately merely]-foot ill lreiglrt? All grading comments have been noted and wvic.,ved oppropriaLely. See. the Grading plan for revisions. IL The design includes a final outlet connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114. This requires review and approval by Mass Highway. Response: This will be covered within the Mass1 lighwaV Access Permit application, which will be submitted shortly. Utility Plan &Details 2. DPW usually requests a minimum 10 foot horizontal separation between all parallel utilities----- piease address. A 10-foot separation has been provided between the water and sewer utilities. Gas and electric are not critical in keeping a separation,however, we have moved the electric service 10' from the sanitary and the gas service 10' I rom the water. 3. The sewer/drainage pipe crossings appear to be touching or have only b"of separation. Grading should be shown with the sewer design,as it is extremely difficult to evaluate the design with no grading shown on the sewer plan. One typical example is the SMH2 Rim callout as 189.4 where the grayling plan oil another sheet indicates 712 foot lower grade. SMH1 may need to be identified and detailed as a drop SMH. A sewer connection detail will geed to be provided. Response.: Grading is not typically shown on a Utility plan. I'lease refer to the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plan for the grading; information. The utility plan has been Back-checked to confirm the separation issue,. A sower connection detail has been p rov ided. Landscape Plan &Details L Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the resporrsibilitrJ to obtain Town approval ill addition to owner•approval regarding plant substitutions, if any are proposed. Pesponse: The note has been changed. 2. Also, no typical landscape planting details were provided. Response: Tvpical landscaping details have noxv hoon provided. M. DRAINAGEAND STORMWATER QUALITYREPORT \\IM AWALM Lb\08475\rocs\Nlciiios\08475_RTC_NIH F_Feb_?004.doc g Nis.Julie Parrino February 9,2004 Ref. No: 08475 t g 1. The 24"drain pipe shown from the deferrtiorr facility to the connection ill Rt. 114 is unexplainably large. The drainage calculations show that a 15"pipe would be adequate. Although there is no Iregulation against over-sizing a pipe, in this case it is all issue:because there are pipes connecting at DMH C3 at difficult angles. Response: VFIB agrees that the 24" pil)r may be reduced to a 15"pipe. Change has been noted. 2. It is not clear what the designers are using for all estimated high groundwater elevation/depth. On page 4 of the Soil Assessment Forrn a depth of 10 feet is shown withortt ally 2rrottlilig or groundwater,while oil sheet 6 a depth of 36 inches is shown to mottles/groundwater. This would indicate that 36"is the depth for•design purposes. The 36"depth zvould mean the Storrntech system is 6'into the groundwater,while the 10'depth would mean fire Storrntech system is approxintately 1'above the groundwater, The designers should claroj lrow tliegrorrridivater elevation was determined and which depth they are using for drainage design. Although Storinwater Policy requires 2'separation from grorrrrdwater', 1'is acceptable ill this case,because no infiltration is expected in the calculations. Response: The correct Soil Assessment Form has been provided. 3. The Storrntech system seems excessively large. This is an issue because the system is rather close to the building(Stormwater"Policy reconnnends 20',but we concur that separations to building stabs could be less than 20'but usually afternpt to provide at least 10'). A cursory evaluation of the detention basin calculations indicate that ky adding another orifice configuration in the control outlet,the system could be reduced significantly ill size with balanced calculations,and still meet all the flow mitigation requirements. This will provide significant construction and maintenance cost redactions. Response: VI IB's calculations indicate [hat the detention system is properly sized. The system may seem large fora 2-or 5--•car slonii event, but has been designed to safely pass the 100-year even as xe�ll, without ac VV1-ae affects to downstream areas, per the \Massachusetts Storniwater Policy. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information. 1 can be reached at 617-924- 1770x1402. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC. Jon Stephenson,P.E. Project Manager a \\MAWALD\t.D\08475\Doc,5Vvleinus\05475_RTC_,N41 EF_Feb_2004.doc �