HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-15 Engineer Review� li�/F34/11�F7� 1.i:4'] b133t773YJ133 irinr uGJi u�v 3 Ml.lL V1
Tom- q 78-794 - o93
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGULEKffiG RE,VIEW OF SITE PLAN
REVIEW MEMORANDUM 02
Site klaw Walgreens Pharmacy&Retail Complex
Location: Intersection of Route 114&Waverly Road
!;Tall Date: Rtvised 9-13-05 tb rougb►9-2"5 Review 92 Date: 10-04-05
Last week we received the following revised drawings and documents for review, including the
applicant's response to review comments dated 09-26.05:
o Site P)atxs(general revsion date 09-13-2005, including updated ALTA p)ats)
•Drainage Report(revision date 09-15-2005)
Geotechnical Report(dated 06-28.05,reviewed only for generalized drainage information)
We have the Sollowing remaining comments,most of which are WAor notes or detsWs:
5.5.6.2 The larth Removal Permit should be coordinated via the regulations, including reference
notes on the Site Plan.
6.6.1; The signage.data tables should be conditioned with a note that the information is subject
to the Building Inspector's£real determinations as appropriate.
8.3.5.e.viii Resolve remaining conflicts between the architectural and civil plans(e,g., retail building
front doors and curbizig,pharmacy drive-thru curbing, etc.).
8.3.5.e.ix The visual screening/impacts of rooftop utilities and the general appearance of the roofs
as they are viewed ftm Route 114 should be addressed.
8.3.5.e-xii Detaining wall detailing will be implemented via shop drawings;although the Board may
request that the wall color and texture be indicated on the plan.
8.3.5.e.xvi Provide trash enclosure details. Address how the end unit retail tenant could reasonably
access the assigned trash enclosure area,which is remote with no service path other than
on the drivethru/exit lanes.
8.3.5.e.xxi Gas service to the retail building should be shown.
I
lb/FJq/'Ll�175 J..�:4y b�.3tly.�nr,3,3 ,•,tic ucala,v -..��.. •.,�
8.3.7.a.ii.a The Site Ilan should clearly reference all required permits,all of which should be tied to
the conditional approval. Any changes resulting from other permits being finalized
should be coordinated with the Planning Board.
8.4.4 The required 6-foot minimum landscape island width is not provided in the interior
parking islands_ We suggest that customer vehicles would be subjected to very tight
turning maneuvers, increased conflicts within:opposing aisles, and very tight situations at
the main project entraneesiexits. We have transmitted an alternative sketch to the
Planning Department which could address these issues and maintain the proposed
parking quantity.
We suggest a varied surface treatment design to avoid establishing and maintaining
extensive lawn areas at 2:1 slopes,and to also provide additional function and value to
the required planting buffer. This could be accomplished with stepped landscape beds
and low walls. Of particular concerts is coordinating this design with the roadway
shoulder expansion, which may introduce additional areas of steep slopes.
The required perimeter tree table should be revised to include the Austrian fines
proposed,and revised to show the correct perimeter linear footage(tire quantity proposed
under 8.4.4 does meet the minimum required).
08. Identify the Vortsentry models on the chart detail.
D 12_ Provide confirmation regarding status of the outstanding NOI review items.
D14. Clarify conflicting/missing information relative to the subdrain and pavement details.
D16. Add a CB upgradient of CB#8 to reduce the long sheeting flowpath.
TRAMC J UES tviaTEC review memoranda
We understand that TEC has been working with the Town and the Applicant in reviewing traffic
considerations,including assistance at hearings—please refer to TEC's latest review memoranda
and ongoing assistance accordingly. We understand that TEC and VAl have been interacting in
resolving review/response issues throughout this process and TEC's latest review memo updating
progress to-date will be provided to the Board. The information exchange included additional data,
analysis,and vehicle turning plans. Ongoing review interaction relative to the Town's regulations
include.
8.3.5.e.iv Appropriate measures for easements and/or Right of Way dedications as may be required;
any conditions or related Menus pertaining to permits/approvals by others that may creed to
be included in the Site flans.
2
10/04/2005 13:49 bO3WJJiJtJ3 MMr VL�10" +"Hum ua
8.3.5.e.xix Updated information regarding MEPA and M14D permitting that is required to be
coordinated concurrently with the Plarming Board application.
8.3.5.e.xx Adequacy of corridor impact and related planning issues, including coordination with
MHD,the MEPA process,and other State Agencies.
15.4.1.R.3.b-1 Adequacy of the proposed ofsite traffic mitigation.
15.4.1.H.3.b-2 Adequacy of ingress/Egress and internal traffic circulation, including the U,turn exiting
the outboard pharmacy window and clearance around bollards and lanes,right turns
around all landscape island aisles,orderboard/doorswings and turning conflicts around
rear of general retail building pickup window operation,truck deliveries and blind
baci jng into customer traffic aisles,etc.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in
this review by MHF and the traffic reviews prepared under separate cover by TEC. We trust that this
review efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed
application.
Reviewed by:
D
u Gay' ,
3