HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-22 Peer Review MHF 02/27/2004 13:56 6038930733 MHF DESIGN PAGE 02
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: CVS/Pbarmacy
Location: Salem Turnpike(Route 114)&Peters Street,,Map 24 Lot 81
Listed Owner: Peters Street Realty Trust,LI,C
c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co.
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: (same as listed owner)
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Latest Plain.Revision Date: February 9,2004 Review Date: February 27,2003
MW Design Consultants,Inc. (MHF)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan.received
February 11,2004 for CVS/Pharmacy referenced above for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental.Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse mid Associates,Inc.(VAI). Together,the NQ-1'F and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following revised drawings and
documents for review:
+ Site Plans(C-0 through C-12 revised 02-09.04 and SV-1 revised 07-07-03)
o Traffic Plan(Concept I Plan Plan,Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 dated 02-05-04)
6 Floor flan(Merchandise Plan Sheet F-1P dated 10.01-02)
O Building Elevations(unnumbered,revised 02.06-04)
A Drainage/Stormwater Management Report(unstamped)revised 12/03
• Response to Review Letter dated 02-09-04 to Ms.Parrino
• Miscellaneous telecoms between the Planning Department,NW,VAI,and VHB
The primary remaining review item involves the possible traffic mitigation issue(see comments below),
The items remaining are relatively minor in nature,and have been discussed with VAI,
I
02/27/2004 1.3.56 6e38930733 Ml-F DESIGN PAGE 03
Section 6 Signage
1. Two proposed"monument"signs are shown on the plans at the drive entrances,although rao
details are provided. Are these directional in nature? Will they have external illumination?
Dimensional data? The Applicant should clarify what these are,and if any freestanding site signs
or details are proposed. At this point no main site sign appears to be proposed.
2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,area,confirmation on projection
dimensional limits,and materials.
3. The Hoard should refer to the Building Inspectar regarding interpretation of the following: (a)
Sign limit measurements of 63.19 peztaWAg to the sura'ounding use of materials and colors; (b)
per 6.6.D,we assume that the CVS/Pharmacy is one integral tenaitt,as separate identifiable
tenants are not lisled, Therefore,the maximum number of signs allowed is one primary and one
wandary,which are both assumed to be two wall signs?(thus any freestattding signs weed to be
addressed vis-A vis the Byl aw);(c)supplementary accessory signs as they relate to the Bylaw;(d)
percentage calculations as required in 6.6,1)-1,which should be provided on the plans.
Section M Parking
1. The proposed on.-pavement additiorW snow storage area shown nosy be redundant and should be
removed. This will enable all-season use of the spaces and eliminate melt water and icing to the
entrance CB.
2, The Peters Street driveway is not provided with an adequate leveling platform,which should be
evaluated duo to the long 7%grade off that drive.
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Ititformation Regtdred
e.iv) The proposed construcdou easement for the wall needs to be dimensioned and verified by the
abtttter via a deed reference note. Please verify the steed for guardrail at the rear conger of the site.
e.x) It is our understanding that the Town is requesting a full sidewalk interconnect along the project
frontages. 'hits will serve to meet the intent of section e.xtxih requirements,
e.xvii) Please address possible conflicts between the wall-pak building light mounting height(z value on
detail table)and where those would be located and shown on the building elevations. Please also
clarify pole details,including pole heights. Please move the pole shown within the Stormceptor
footprint.
e.xix) Refer to VAI review letter issued directly by them,attached.
In addition,based on discussions with VAI and VHB and the Town,we understand that VHB will
be calculating the CVS impam without the Eaglewood project improvements and wilhour the
Baglewood project traffic impacts,far independent evaluation decoupled from the F-aglewood
project,if the CVS site was to be developed without or prior to the Wewood site.
Notwithstanding the outcome of these calculations,we understand that the Peters Street
intersection is at or near capacity Lwe ntly,and that the CVS site will not improve that situation.
7lius,we roconamend that cite Applicant propose some form of mitigation work at the interscction,
2
02/27/2004 13:56 6038930733 MHF DESIGN PAGE 04
and/or propose some foram of contribution and/or form of bonding that would treed to W properly
and legally administered. Conttibutions/Bonding could be adrtrinistered to possibly recognize the
Englewood project improvements,if those improvements are permitted and duly recognized and
guaranteed at some point in time prior to CVS obtaining building permits.
e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the NO IM permit application has not yet been fried with the State,
as specifically required for this Site Plan submission and NAPB review, We understand that the
corridor issues ate of great concern to the Town.,notwithstanding outer filings that are currently
under MHD review in this immediate area.
Utility Plan&Details
1. DMH-B I and DMH-A5 should be relocated to avoid an acute pipe connections. DMH-B4 could
be specked as the Storiumptor with a better pipe inlet configuration and DMH-B3 could be
eliminated as it is supe:ffuous. it is commendable that the Stormceptor is designed to the 100-
year storm event,as it is not rquired;however our calculations indicate that the same hydraulic
capacity could be achieved with a substantial reduction in Stormceptor units,if the Outlet Control
Manhole and modeling utilized a difi'exent multiple orifice opening configuration—this is merely a
construction cost issue suggestion,however.
2. As previously suggested, SMH 2 Rim will be raised up out of the pavement by about%a foot,and
SMH-I may be slightly low---these issues could be avoided it'the grading information was shown
on the sewer design;from a Q/A standpoint.
3. To provide improved visual screening and safety signage placement,consideration should be
made to extend the landscape island near DUB-AS to the north. This could be done and still
provide compactor and building access,and would tremendously improve aesthetics at that site
entrance.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by MHF and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust tbat this review
efficiently serves the Planning Hoard in theix review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Dater
K14R frubay,PIE.,Senior jest Manager
3
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: CVS/Pharmacy
Location: Salem Turnpike(Route 114)&Peters Street,Map 24 Lot 81
Listed Owner: Peters Street Realty Trust,LLC
c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co.
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: (same as listed owner)
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB)
101 Walnut Street, Watertown,MA 02471
Latest Plan Revision Date: October 3,2003 Review Date: November 13,2003,
MHF Design Consultants,Inc. (MHF)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for
CVS/Pharmacy referenced above for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI). Together,the MHF and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following drawings and documents for
review:
0 Site Plans(13 shts,Cover,C-I through C-8 dated 10-03-03, SV-I dated 07-07-03)
• Building Floor Plan&Elevations(2 shts,A-L I dated 06-30-03&A-4.1 dated 08-19-03)
• Site Lighting Plan(not numbered, dated 08-05-03)
• Application Memo fi*orn Attorney Manzi to the NAPB dated 10-03-03
• Memo from VHB to NAPB(2 pages)regarding Site Plan Application(dated 10-03-03)
• Memo from Starck to NAPB(I pg)regarding architectural design (dated 08-19-03)
• Manufacturer's catalog information for light fixture details(3 pages)
• Memo fi-orn VHB to Applicant(I pages)regarding Fiscal Impact(dated 10-02-03)
• Drainage/Stormwater Management Report(unstamped)dated 10/03
• Traffic Study prepared by VHB dated 10-02-03
L NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 3 Zoning Districts and Boundaries
1. The plans should include any covenants associated with the recent rezoning action associated with
this property. No information regarding this was provided to the reviewer,thus no review
comments are offered. We will assume for the purposes of the review that the project is within the
G-B(General Business District)as annotated on the plans. However, it would be helpful to
provide a clearer summary plan indicating all zone lines within and abutting the project,including
the possible residential zone(R-4)across the Street on Route 114.
Section 4 Buildings and Uses Permitted
1. The proposed retail establishment appears to be allowed by right per 4.131.1,subject to
confirmation of above comments.
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
1. The Building Elevations indicate proposed building signage. No freestanding or ground signs are
proposed on the plans—the applicant should confirm that with a plan note,or add it to the plans.
2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,materials,lighting,etc. Per 6.5.1,
internally lit signs are not allowed. Projecting signs per 6.3.15(>12")are not allowed per 6.5.12,
3. The rear elevation Drive Thru sign may have a typo("Exit"instead of"Enter"),albeit the text is
difficult to read.
4. The Board should refer to the Building Inspector regarding interpretation of the following: (a)
Sign limit measurements of 6.3.19 pertaining to the surrounding use of materials and colors; (b)
per 6.6.13,we assume that the CVS/Pharmacy is one integral tenant, as separate identifiable
tenants are not listed. Therefore,the maximum number of signs allowed is one primary and one
secondary,which are both assumed to be wall signs(no 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.
Section 7.3 Dimensional Requirements—Yard(Setbacks)
1. The provided street frontage in the Plan table is incorrect; the lines referred to as rear lines in the
plan table may be actually side lines as the Bylaw has been normally interpreted and per the
graphical setbacks shown on the plan; the graphical setback along the abutting church sideline is
shown incorrectly. Although none of these comments affect the building layout as shown,we
recommend that the variances for the front building and parking setbacks to Route 114 be
referenced by date and decision,including decision text and related plan references for
confirmation of any conditions or assumptions.
Section 7.4 Building Height
I. We recommend 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).
2
Section 7.4 Lot Coverage
I. Please check the Layout Plan table data for correct Lot Coverage value. Please verify the listed
GSFA,which varies slightly between plans and miscellaneous documents.
Section 7.4 Floor Area Ratio
1. This is not required in the District;however, if the FAR is listed,please check the calculation per
2.38.3 per the Bylaw.
Section 8.1 Parking
I. The Materials and Layout Plan should indicate the snow stockpile area shown on the Grading
PIan. Please discuss why this area cannot be annotated in reserved grass areas on the plan,instead
of on top of parking spaces.
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Information Required
a) A copy of the Special Permit Application Form was not provided or reviewed.
b) Sheets C-2 through C-5 should have the scales annotated in the title blocks for the record to
supplement the bar graphics.
c) The Architectural Plans submitted need to be stamped.
e.ii) Abutting Map/Lot and Tax Map data should be properly annotated for all legal abutters(no
certified abutters list was provided);general ground surface type is not annotated.
e.iv) Any proposed casements 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 would be constructed or
maintained without proposed easement(s). Also,no conditions notes appear on the plans relating
to any other approving entities as required(e.g.,Board of Appeals and Rezoning).
e.vi) The Zone District information on the SV-I plan needs to be corrected.
e.vii) Refer to Drainage design comments below.
e.viii/ix)Refer to miscellaneous building-related comments above. Please address any rooftop-mounted
HVAC or other visible systems.
e.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sidewalks on Route 114 and Peters Street,to
accommodate access. PIease also address possible site access between the Pharmacy and the
abutting Church and Eagle Tribune building(which may appear to be advantageous).
e.xii) We believe that retaining wal Is are proposed on the site,but the plan information is unclear and no
details are provided. Refer to above comments regarding signage.
e.xiii) Please annotate the transition location of PCC/VGC curbing at the Route 114 entrance. The
parking aisles directly fronting the building should be dimensioned for clarity.
3
e.xv) Please verify adequate sight distance regarding the fieldstone wall work at the Peters Street
entrance,and supplement note 13 accordingly. Refer to Section 8.4 below for additional
comments.
e.xvi) Please provide details of the proposed dumpster fence screening(panel materials,height,colors,
etc.are not detailed). The approach curbline should be adjusted to eliminate protrusion of the
front corner of the dumpster enclosure into the travel way. The location and grading of the
dumpster and associated loading areas may be a prominent element of this site as viewed from the
abutting Eagle Tribune facility.
e.xvii) Refer to Section 8.4 comments below. 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.
e.xviii) Refer to drainage comments below.
e.xix) Refer to Traffic Study comments in associated review letter by VAT.
e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MHD permit application has not yet been filed with the State,
as specifically required for this Site Plan submission and NAPB review. We understand 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 comments for further
information.
e.xxi) Refer to comments below regarding utilities.
e.xxii) No action or calculation verifications are taken on the statement of fiscal impact submitted,
although we acknowledge the project's potential positive net tax revenue to the Town,
notwithstanding any VAI concerns regarding traffic impacts.
e.xxiii The Applicant has issued a statement regarding architectural consistency,which no review action
is being offered. However,the required Community Impact Analysis includes pedestrian
movement,which is not addressed or provided.
e.xxi) Refer to Sheet C-4 and general drainage comments regarding utilities.
Section 8.4 Screening and Landscape Requirements
1. The plant list table should also specify the minimum required tree heights.
2. The applicant should provide confirmation of meeting the landscape strip requirements of 8.4.4.
3. The lighting requirements of 8.4.5(shielding at property lines)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
wall-paks to provide area lighting,especially facing abutting properties.
4
IL ADDITIONAL GENERAL COMMENTS
Title Sheet(unnamed or numbered)
1. The Title Sheet should be assigned a sequential number as an integral part of the submitted plan
set. Latest Issue date listed for SV-1 should be revised.
Legend and General Notes(C-1)
1. Layout and Materials Note 94 and Utilities Note#7 reference several site items that should be
included on the site plans(various equipment pad locations on the site,compactor pad reference,
bollards,etc.). Existing Conditions Information Note#1 (field survey month)conflicts with the
Existing Conditions Plan General Notes.
Layout&Materials Plan and Details
I. A truck turning plan should be provided to illustrate movements 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 curbcut—this is tight even for customers. Is it the intent to allow or not allow left
turns into the site from Route 110—the signage and geometry is unclear.
2. Several critical pavement setbacks,wall offsets/setbacks,major curb radii,nontypical dimensional
elements,etc. are missing and need to be clearly identified. PIease address curb radius extension
in Route 114 ROW beyond property line extension. Please provide sidewalk and MCC treatment
detail. Identify where heavy duty pavement is located as detailed,please specify subpavement
gravel specs on the detail,add trench patch detail,add retaining wall detail(including observed
face appearances),etc.
3. Pavement markings and additional MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be considered.
Key examples include: (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 for exiting/entering traffic--consider
a channelization landscaped island along the compactor unit,add R5-1,(e)queueing/approach/
bypass striping in and around the drive thru area,(f)protection for exit door swing/egress at the
drive-thru approach,(g)review pavement arrows(the details require that these be placed exactly
as shown on the plans),(h)consider bollard or wheelstop in front of easterly building column.
Grading and Drainage Plan&Details
1. The details for the catch basins should include the manufacturer and model of the oil hood to be
installed.A corresponding detail should also be provided. Slope stabilization details should be
provided.
2. All retaining walls should indicate top and bottom finish grade elevations at critical points. Please
specify guard rail and detail where required.
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.
5
4. The Drop-Over Manhole specified and detailed is not cost effective or appropriate for tying into a
12"RCP--please consider a standard manhole,which can be easily accommodated in the field
with less effort or disruption than the Drop-Over method.
5. Please consider re-routing drainage pipes to avoid crossing directly underneath the drivethru
facility(slabs, footings,electronics,overhead structures,etc.).
6. Evaluate why CB-B I is placed in the middle of the aisle where all the drive aisle drainage is
routed along the curbs(including flows from Peters Street which should be intercepted upstream)
and then directed cross-pavement to the middle—that is inefficient and will also promote icing.
Although it is specified as double-grate, it will be taking-on quite a bit of the onsite and offsite
flows with long flowpaths.
7. The exact placement of CB-C2 will prevent it from catching any stormwater and its location
should be evaluated.
8. Please consider recharging the roof drainage separately in the fill section behind the building
that may result in higher efficiencies in terms of construction cost and overall performance.
9. No test pit information is provided---the design intent of the Stormtech system is unclear.
Stormtech has re-issued newer revised/expanded details which the applicant should consider,and
that may 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 for pre-post mitigation,and why the
system is design to be so very deep,being it a Stormtech open bottom system probably in the
SHWT. Details should be provided to clearly indicate the elvations,chamber layout,isolator row,
piping in/out,etc.
10. The stormceptor call out needs a detail. Please discuss or evaluate possible efficiencies in utilizing
the Stormtech system for treatment and possibly eliminating the additional cost and maintenance
of the Stormceptor.
11. The design includes a final outlet connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114.This
requires review and approval by Mass Highway.
Utility Plan&Details
1. The plans should address all 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.
2. Minimum horizontal separation between utilities is not met,are unnecessarily tight,or need clear
offset dimensions. Please address proposed sewer line location vis-a-vis setback to existing water
easement and specific deed restrictions,if any. Please show proposed light pole near dumpster per
the lighting plan.
3. No sewer pipe lengths or slopes are included in the plans. The sewer/drainage pipe crossings have
less than 12"of separation(front)and less than 6"of separation(rear). The applicant may wish to
evaluate alternative routings to reduce 550' of sewer and 4 manholes,and almost 500' of electric
service as routed based on our experience with similar users. Some sewer pipe sizes are not
labeled,and the main connection detail is not verified in terms of invert elevation or detail.
b
Usually,pipe less than S"is not recommended between manholes. 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.
Landscape Plan&Details
1. Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval in
addition to owner approval regarding plant substitutions,if any are proposed.
2. Will critical areas be provided with landscape irrigation? None appears to be proposed. Also,no
typical landscape planting details were provided.
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.
III. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER UALITY REPORT
I. The report proclaims compliance with DEP's Storniwater Policy. However,if there are no
resource areas within 100' of the site,then compliance is not required. However,the design does
not comply. We recommend either removing references to compliance with the policy,or listing
standards that are met,or not met.
2. The predevelopment Hydroead model includes two reaches that are not described and appear to
serve no purpose.
3. Regarding the postdevelopment Hydroead model: Reach"DP2"should be labeled and/or
described as a summation;and the Tc description for Subcatchment I should be revised,as the
total flow length prior to entering pipes appears to be approximately 175'.
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 cannot provide
infiltration. However,if it is to provide detention only,then construction details need to be
clarified and include a liner to prevent groundwater from surcharging the system. The designer
may wish to explore possible adjustments to the design.
5. Operation and Maintenance Plan: Sweeping schedule should be more frequent(e.g.monthly);
maintenance of Stormceptors should be added; maintenance of Stormtech chambers should be
added.
6. Test Pit data should be provided.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by MHF and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust that this review
efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E.,Senior Project Manager
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: CVS/Pharmacy
Location: Salem Turnpike(Route 114)&Peters Street,Map 24 Lot 81
Listed Owner: Peters Street Realty Trust,LLC
c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co.
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: (same as listed owner)
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Latest Plan Revision Date: December 23,2003 Review Date: December 31,2003
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. (MI117)is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for
CVS/Phari-nacy referenced above for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse and Associates,Inc.(VAI). Together,the MI-IF and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following revised drawings and
documents for review:
• Site Plans(C-0 through C-10 and SV-I revised 12/03)
• Response to Site Review Comments Memo from VHB to Ms. Griffin(dated 12/23/03)
• Drainage/Storrnwater Management Report(unstamped)revised 12/03
Note that no new information or revised plans have been provided for review regarding
signage,lighting,or building;thus we have maintained any comments pertaining to those
items.
1. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
1. The Building Elevations indicate proposed building signage. No freestanding or ground signs are
proposed on the plans the applicant should confirm that with a plan note,or add it to the plans.
2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,materials,lighting,etc. Per 6.5.1,
internally lit signs are not allowed. Projecting signs per 6.3.15 (>12")are not allowed per 6.5.12.
3. The rear elevation Drive Thru sign may have a typo("Exit"instead of"Enter"),albeit the text is
difficult to read.
4. The Board should refer to the Building Inspector regarding interpretation of the following: (a)
Sign limit measurements of 6.3.19 pertaining to the surrounding use of materials and colors; (b)
per 6.6.1),we assume that the CVS/Pharmacy is one integral tenant,as separate identifiable
tenants are not listed. Therefore,the maximum number of signs allowed is one primary and one
secondary,which are both assumed to be wall signs(no 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.
Section 7.3 Dimensional Requirements—Yard(Setbacks)
1. The provided street frontage in the Plan table and the graphical setback shown along the abutting
church sideline need to be corrected and/or adjusted.
Section 7.4 Building Height
1. We recommend that the Layout PIan 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).
Section 8.1 Parking
1. Please evaluate if the snow storage area can be moved off the paved parking spaces and onto the
proposed grass areas.
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Information Required
a) A copy of the Special Perm it Application Form was not provided or reviewed.
c) The Architectural Plans submitted need to be stamped.
e.ii) Abutting Map/Lot and Tax Map data should be properly annotated for all abutters across the ROW
(no certified abutters list was provided);general ground surface type is not annotated.
c.iv) The proposed construction easement for the wall needs to be verified by the abutter,and the
easement include maintenance as well as construction and be either dimensioned or have a future
2
deed reference note. Also,any approval conditions notes(if any)regarding variances by the BOA
should be included.
e.viii/ix)Refer to miscellaneous building-related comments above. Please address any rooftop-mounted
HVAC or other visible systems.
e.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sidewalks and/or crosswalk improvements on
Route 114 and Peters Street,to accommodate access. Please also address possible site access
between the Pharmacy and the abutting Church and Eagle Tribune building(which may appear to
be truly advantageous,even if these are not ADA accessible). Refer to e.xxiii requirements below.
e.xii) Please indicate details and location of the retaining wall fencing proposed.
e.xiii) Please label where the curb material transitions occur at the entrances.
o.xv) Please verify adequate sight distance regarding the fieldstone wall work at the Peters Street
entrance,and supplement landscape note 13 accordingly.
e.xvi) The location and grading of the dumpster and associated loading areas may be a prominent
element of this site as viewed from the abutting Eagle Tribune facility. At least it could be rotated
to be accessed from the direction of one-way travel from the rear,which will also provide better
visual screening from the Rte 114 entrance.
e.xvii) Refer to Section 8.4 comments below. 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.
e.xix) The following comments are offered by VAL
Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VAI) has received the December 23, 2003 response
memorandum from VHB. VAI is in the process of reviewing the material contained
within.
VAI's concern is the operation of the Peters Street driveway. Tire vehicle queues from
the signal at Salem Tiurnpike (Route 114) will extend beyond fire proposed CVS site
driveway. VHB indicated that additional analyses were perfor»red assuming Peters
Street was widened to include an exclusive right-tarn lane and the vehicle queues would
still extend beyond the site driveway. No capacity analyses or queue results were
included in the December•23,2003 memorandum. These should be provided.
VHB included a conceptual off-site mitigation plan for Peters Street. VHB indicates that
the exact limits of this plan(referenced as Concept 1, dated November 18, 2003) will be
determined as the plan is developed farther. On this concept, VHB proposes to remove
the existing concrete island and widen Peters Street to provide for a 26 foot 0) wide
eastbound lane and two 12 ft wide west bound lanes. No pavement striping is shown for
the 26-ft wide east bound lane. Additional pavement markings and signs are needed to
indicate the through travel way, as well as the area which is designed to be a storage
area for left turns into the CYS driveway. A revised plan should be prepared, shown in
conjunction with the updated site plans.
3
Is the proposed site driveway to Peters Street to have 20-ft radii or 30-ft radii?
VAI had requested that sight distances be reviewed. The VHB memorandum indicates
that the sight lines will be provided as a supplement to the December 23, 2003
memorandum.
e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MHD permit application has not yet been filed with the State,
as specifically required for this Site Plan submission 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 further information.
e.xxiii The Applicant has issued a statement regarding architectural consistency,which no review action
is being offered. However,the required Community Impact Analysis includes pedestrian
movement,which needs to be discussed with the Board.
Section 8.4 Screening and Landscape Requirements
I. The plant list table should also specify the minimum required tree heights.
2. The applicant should provide confirmation of meeting the landscape strip requirements of 8.4.4.
3. The lighting requirements of 8A.5(shielding at property lines)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
wall-paks to provide area lighting,especially facing abutting properties.
II. ADDITIONAL GENERAL COMMENTS
Layout&Materials Plan and Details
2. Please elaborate on the retaining wall detail(what does versalok"standard"finish and color mean,
including approved equal?).
3. Traffic from Rt.114 entering site would be directed head-on into out-bound traffic from drive-
through;and may also be blocked by truck accessing compactor. Please evaluate why the
compactor unit 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
between the transformer pad and building,which is not provided.
Grading and Drainage Plan&Details
1. Temporary slope stabilization details should be provided.
2. Please discuss why guardrail is not specified along the rear of the site at critical locations.
4
3. Please label the existing contours around the site limits.
S. You may wish to consider placing the roof drain outlets towards the Route 114 side of the building
and directly into the StormTech system (which usually can be accommodated and also is clean
water)—this can eliminate 5 manholes and 150-feet of pipe with a slight adjustment to the rear
CB.
9. The grade difference between the door exist slab and DMH Al &A2 appears excessive. The
grading behind the dumpster crosses over the hay bale barrier. Grading at HC spaces exceeds 2%
maximum allowed by ADA. Grading of driveway and entrance fi•om Peters Street appears to be
excessive(7%)and is not provided with a leveling area at intersection--if the low point near end
of driveway were elevated and/or relocated,then the driveway grade could be considerably
reduced. Please evaluate the limits of the proposed retaining wall—could it be shortened at the
northeast corner and possibly eliminated in other sections where it is approximately merely I-foot
in height?
IL The design includes a final outlet connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114.This
requires review and approval by Mass Highway.
Utility Plan&Details
2. DPW usually requests a minimum 10-foot horizontal separation between all parallel utilities----
please address.
3. The sewer/drainage pipe crossings appear to be touching or have only 6"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 grading plan on another sheet indicates'h foot lower grade. SMHI may need to be identified
and detailed as a drop SMH. A sewer connection detail will need to be provided.
Landscape Plan&Details
1. Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval in
addition to owner approval regarding plant substitutions,if any are proposed.
2. Also,no typical landscape planting details were provided.
Ill. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER QUALITY REPORT
i. The 24"drain pipe shown from the detention facility to the connection in Rt. 114 is unexplainably
large.The drainage calculations show that a 15"pipe would be adequate. Although there is no
regulation against over-sizing a pipe,in this case it is an issue because there are pipes connecting
at DMH C3 at difficult angles.
2. It is not clear what the designers are using for an estimated high groundwater elevation/depth. On
page 4 of the Soil Assessment Form a depth of 10 feet is shown without any mottling or
groundwater,while on 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 would mean the Stormtech
5
system is 6'into the groundwater,while the 10'depth would mean the Stormtech system is
approximately 1'above the groundwater. The designers should clarify how the groundwater
elevation was determined and which depth they are using for drainage design. Although
Stormwater Policy requires 2'separation from groundwater, 1'is acceptable in this case,because
no infiltration is expected in the calculations.
3. The Stormtech system seems excessively large.This is an issue because the system is rather close
to the building(Stormwater Policy recommends 20',but we concur that separations to building
slabs could be less than 20' but usually attempt to provide at least 10'). A cursory evaluation of
the detention basin calculations indicate that by adding another orifice configuration in the control
outlet,the system could be reduced significantly in size with balanced calculations,and still meet
all the flow mitigation requirements. This will provide significant construction and maintenance
cost reductions.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by Ml1F and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust that this review
efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E.,Senior Project Manager
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: CVS/Pharmacy
Location; Salem Turnpike(Route 114)&Peters Street,Map 24 Lot 81
Listed Owner: Peters Street Realty Trust,LLC
c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co.
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: (same as listed owner)
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Latest Plan Revision Date: March 9,2004 Review Date; March 11,2004
MI-IF Design Consultants,hic. (M.H )is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan received March
11,2004 for CVS/Pharmacy referenced above for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse and Associates,Inc.(VAI). Together,the MHF and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following revised drawings and
documents for review:
• Site Plans(C-0 through C-12 revised 03-0.9-04 and SV-I revised 07-07-03)
• Traffic Plan Concept 1 (2 versions of Sheet 1 o f 2, one of Sheet 2 of 2, dated 02-05-04)
• Floor Plan(Merchandise Plan Sheet F-IP dated 10-01-02
(included in previous submissions but removed from this plan set)
* Building Elevations(unnumbered,revised 02-06-04)
• VAI Peer Response—Traffic memo dated 02-09-04 to Ms.Parrino
NOTE A: Please refer to VAI memo addressing the Traffic Plan Concept and Peer Response
referenced above.
NOTE B: The Floor Plan referenced above should be re-included into the Site Plan set.
NOTE C: There must be a misunderstanding here... most of the pending review comment
items have not been addressed in any way—either on the plans or via an response
memo. Our original intent via telecoms with VHB was to quickly verify that the
remaining comments would have been addressed,
1
Section 6 Signage
1. Two proposed"monument"signs are shown on the plans at the drive entrances,although no
details are provided. Are these directional in nature? Will they have external illumination?
Dimensional data? The Applicant should clarify what these are,and if any freestanding site signs
or details are proposed. At this point no main site sign appears to be proposed. (Not Addressed.
At the very least,the directional signs should be labeled and detailed appropriately,and a
note placed on the plan that no freestanding sign is proposed.)
2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,area,confirmation on projection
dimensional limits,and materials. (Not Addressed. Usually,the Planning Board requires this
information for their review,although the Building Commissioner would have final review
for the sign permit issuance. See comment below for example.)
3. The Board should refer to the Building Inspector regarding interpretation of the following; (a)
Sign limit measurements of 6.3.19 pertaining to the surrounding use of materials and colors; (b)
per 6.6.13,we assume that the CVS/Pharmacy is one integral tenant,as separate identifiable
tenants are not listed. Therefore,the maximum number of signs aIIowed is one primary and one
secondary,which are both assumed to be two wall signs?(thus any freestanding signs need to be
addressed vis-a-vis the Byl,aw);(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.(Not
Addressed)
Section 8.1 Parking
2. The Peters Street driveway is not provided with an adequate leveling platform,which should be
evaluated due to the long 7%grade off that drive. (Please address what appears to be a 20-foot
leveling area treasured from the stop bar that exceeds 2% and then drops to over 7%--this
will be the only means of site egress for all other travel directions other than the one-way out
onto Route 114 North,and at a drive intersection that will require some.delay waits
queueing out of the drive. Also,please review the sidewalk ramps shown at the crosswalk).
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review--Information Required
e.iv) The proposed construction easement for the wall needs to be verified by the abutter via an
easement deed reference note on the plans. (Not Addressed. At a minimum,the oard needs to
be assured that the abutting land owner approves this.)
e.xvii) Please address possible conflicts between the wall-pak building light mounting height(z-value on
detail table)and where those would be located and shown on the building elevations. Please also
clarify pole details,including pole heights. (Nat Addressed. Are the wall pales mounted on the
roof,or are the z-values incorrect?)
e.xix) Refer to VAI review letter issued directly by them,regarding traffic comments. Please address
conflicts at curbing/sidewalks between the site/grading/utility plans and the Concept Traffic Plan
submitted.
e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MHD permit application has not yet been filed with the State,
as specifically required for this Site Plan submission and NAP13 review. (Not Addressed.)
2
Utility Plan&Details
1. As previously suggested, SMH 2 Rim will be raised up out of the pavement by about V2 foot, and
SMH 1 may be slightly Iow--these issues could be avoided if the grading information was shown
on the sewer design, from a Q/A standpoint. (Not Addressed)
2. To provide unproved visual screening and safety signage placement,consideration should be
made to extend the landscape island near DMH-A5 to the north. This could be done and still
provide compactor and building access,and would tremendously improve aesthetics at that site
entrance. You may also need to look at the SU Vehicle Turning Template. (Not Addressed)
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by MW and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAI. We trust that this review
efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E.,Senior Project Manager
3