Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Notice of Project Change 7-2-2010
.f i -..I 1 s- 4 '1 4 i 1 1' ;r '�: r 'rr .j;. �.,I.:..�,-��:.-��;�.-..I.....�,..,,...,..,.I,.!,..-�..,1-,�"..'f.��.-.,,I,-�-��--"I,,,"I-,,..,,,.,;.�,i.1!,.,"�,':-.,.�`...,1.".�;,--.:",,...I—,.:.f..,',,.,,',..,;,�.I.,,I;..',....,,, 1 I,;...,."-'I,,'.�,�'.,,�.I 1.�,�,'.,.,,".:,��,,�..-,�.-, 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 �' r t 1 l f ' -..:,,,��;.�-.-,,:�,��:...-.,'...!.,,.�"i;..,�,-..-�.,I,:1-.,.'-..",...'.-I.,,.I-��.�III.�:.-,..-.I ,,:I.I-.-:�.,-,,..,,.�. , �;-�,, -,,,,�",,'..,,, � ... i...:, .-.. ....i r,,o..:."�:," ,�..! , — —' . .�— � " i ,, , , � �,� � .1 ,�,�� .'; ;, 'I" . ,,,. � ,, .,,;�, .,I.:� ,�.��l".--.".,,.�""��-111--,:��'�"".�"."-,�"''� ,,,,, I .", ,, � .,., ' '"' , "I�.I.,..�".II�...'..,,�%...;,;.�.-,Z.,.,,,..,!'.'...L...:.j�,.�4:.iI,,�-��-1�,�,,.-,,I..-,,.l�.,1..,..,..'.�"',"....',.,.�,,.'.)..,-:L".I',.,,:.!�.,'-,y.,'I',.k..'..,'.",;.".-,.,,��',,",:".....-",..I,�I...'.-,.-,.,�:,'."�1-,:":�.�-':.,'.,''.�.-.,r—�..�,-,.,:.-�:'�.I''-.',";--�,L,-",",I'!-....','7'.-;I-.----.,,1,�-�-":I:,-L�:.'...,..'.";!"�"-"..'.II.�,�-":�,':�,..1r",.1 1,..I�',.I.1.`. NO.TICE;"=OF PRO �ECT�CHAN�E ' �.1 ' T 51 If i 1 4 'E E,� ■ •}�10 ��V I6 1-, •3 I l t�..,:�,..,.-M�-,..�:..—�..i:':.,,,".".,,,�.I-".,�-',.�I�,..,:.*�.., --i—i,,,...1",,`.-�..,.,.-].;-,,!,�',."��—.. 5 I •,fl. 1 . ;:, , '1 ` l' 7 ' 1 1 - 1 ;l 1, 1 f t . 1 1, % r - I : 1 ; GASOLINE STgT)ONIQONVENIENCE STORE.I. '"�'�'L:.,,-.�',',".��,:.... !,l,,"-,,,..,'.-,�.:'�-W,��.��I-"�..,,.:�,,'--.,'."�.-�-:-.�'.,�",."f"�,�.i.:,f";-'',�";'�-,l'�-,.r.,.-':i�'".;i".;�',.'.'.,.,�,,%'-�''l.,',,�.,,'."L.1',�,'.�:.:�"'',l.,."�,�',.l,:L.�..,i,'-IL.,r'',. .,,,.,�,.j L`.. - 1 DRi,V� THROUGf _AND- PROPOSED O,FFIENVAREHOUSE BUILDING ` } r NORTH NDOVE )WA1SS HU SET•"fS "f 1 f `' I. - - i 1 1 f t: r '� y' \- 1 f, o n,l 1 ', , 'rt S I �1, ' M F '1 ..-L-,'.;...�.,:.,7-I,�,I��1.1 L1�,,I I..�II 1,I,'.,..�'.i,:!I.;..��.;"I�""�,"..,,II,:':,.%,.:I,'��.�'.,--..--'�,.-:...:.-,,�I,I II.,,11,�II,-!�...,,,.:.�:�-',II,.I�,.,I..''",,,---�,",..,�.!.L.�.I,i..�,,�','�-,,.'..r..-I��.'"-,."�.-:,,.,,..IL"�-.�.',%L".:""..,-,.1"-"I,,,...,'",,I.;',,.."�,-.-,�L"'1.,:,,..".�!';-,"L,L..�.4..'"I,":-..-'".�,.�.�,1�',-""..,.--:'.-'..,::I"..,-.,.:,,.,�',".,.-"I,.i,:.,.i-.�.:,. ..,.i..�.iL,..�..,..,,"".,�,'�:.,.':",,,"�%�_,..,..IL 1�..1'.,I,.::,.':;I'....';,r,-...�,.:",!�.."_�,,'�...,.....-I,..",,-,.,%,.:..,-L�',....I,,...,, .:�.-%..,".",�-.:'1,,..,:--.-,','�,,",,,,',.,..'',,.I L-,.�'.,".r,.i,:',�.,�:I�.,,'.,.��.,.'.,,.I.,,-, ..�;,,,,":.�,.r'..,'',.�.-.".,.',,,,,,'.:_,'�1,�,,"!-.L.'",-,,�"',,,....�.�L,.�v,.".,�.,.:-.,r..",.�,.I",,.,:,l i�",,,I�.L"'.",_�-',--,".'.r,"�..,%.-,.�.--""r.:,.,',�-.�.��,'�! > 1.,,'%,3"n�,;l..,,-�.,Lt f:t.!�:,.',:.�1,-,-.!�-:..L-.,,'.,_I,,-'.,,.�,-,',"..�'.�._,.,..:.,;,."�.I.�L��';,:...!�,L;,'._.:.,.,',,':'"�,�,,",,,t1.e,Ir.-.�.,..':,�.�'_:-.'',,,.".,.�.1 w:,�i:.�""-�,"�,'...�,..*�-s-,"-,.,.".�,,.:...",�,',.,-.-�L';:,-���1,.,�,j,:-.i.,-,._,.�''_;;�.��j',,-�,"_-,,'�,!."'��.-,�:,.,'..",.�.-.".��'�,�'".'.,;--��-',.",",':,.I'�--",�.:,�.,..,,.","1:-�.,""'L.j,i.,�%'.'�--.:."'..,".-.",,,,..�-,.,.,��:,'".-,,".�.,".-_.";..','..�...,"-.�-"..,,,.-..,--,.,'-,L1",.,..I",�..�.,','-F!"..,,�,,,,'-,��:,".I'i.�;L L:�,.,..,%r'.C,-n"''"''...r-,...,'-.,.'-.-��,"i,.-,".-''�;�,L�.',.;,!1����"r�-,�1.."'.I'��--.;L".�,."-�..�.,�,,,'.,,�'!L.,..'...r.'�",',',.',.,",.,",.�,'"-%:.j...:--'..:,',i'";',',,i�.lr";.j'..,.I,1",�--"�,,-:�.--,�-.-.._�:-j'.�...:."..'",....i;L',,",.�,,,.�.,..,,���.'�,".,.,�'i''.�.'�-�;-..-.'!-"'":,���,.�-.;.it;.-'."",1,-..-.,.,-.,,',�,,,.'!,',.,-�._,�,.�,_,_.,..1�.-�-4,ij'L,7.,,,,�-_,'-,j,.�1'�,'�.,l.-'L."�- 1, i ..f J.. } ' .,_..r',!,.,�,'�:��,l,!,,I.",,..���,"-.I..-.l.,�.".,.rr,,,,��:::,.,.....�,..�.�.":-.%",.,.,,l-":,L,,",-L.,.1.��1;.,,-,',i,-��r.-j�I 1-."-.,:;.r�,"'.r.'.,I,�'".�,..:";.��-L,,-..-"..--'-,t�,-",-.,.��"r',,.-�':_s.,�.,-'�:,,,.r,�1:''-_,-:..,.-.r,.�,,,,.-.-.'j_��':.,,,�",,I,..�.".i.L-":.'",',.1:-.,.-,.,.-.�-�-,..,,.,,-,.�"i.".I--'�,,,.�-,,,,-...,,.I"�..�.L,,.,,'�,,,',LL-'.L...''".,1,1.,l,..L 1,,-.-..:.,,��.II L,':.,.,�..",'-"-,..:.',,,�..."..A.,,,,,,'.,,-"-"��l-.,�.,.�.,"%,'',,::.,�m,.I-",�,,,,-",,,.."1,"-�L,.'.-r;�Ii-,.,,,:,],,-!.,j,I�,.,I,;_,r,,,,':,,.',,-",,',r',�:r.,'".."':',",..rf..:,�:��.-4.:.'.-.,-,.,.,.�"L",',..%.I�.-.I�-'-�-�,!-.�',.r-."",:,:L,..',:..-.-�",��','I�::-,_��":!'�"L;,r..,.-.'�.t,�'�-�'.-L.,,,':.,-�."i,-.:""j.:.'".I�.�,�"...l,":.LLL",,,,'.'"...!L.,.,.'..;:�,!,I".,......!-L%",-":.",,...�L�,,,-...."'4,,...."L�I�r,.-1,.j:".,.".,-!:,,,.,.%,._.,..��-..".,..,�r.�.:r,..� I..;.,.,_"1'.;"'I.,".,"..-)",I':".L,L',,,,-'�-.,,'-,.�,',.�'-:,..I.,. �.,�,!.-,�,';,k-.-.�;'.'�."''',,....1�,,,.,,:,"...',�.-�--;,�-j,,-,-.'�;.,".".'.�,,--...�'1�.,., �-.-�",'�:�,.'-,,,,...�-�':..1.::;.i1.�......%�'i-"(�";;�."�:.l',,,L.',-�f.,;���.,�.�:"1.,.1.._r�-,,',,�,.,I.",.r..-..-.),�r-,.-"I._�-,-1.",.',.�.�.:-.-'�.1:,.;"�:,�:I'�i.�.:�'",,,�.,...:,,-'-�1,.,-"I..,-,,Lj,.-�.,',";...�.I.,-�'I''"L'�,.,..'-.-_,L-,?-',.-.�,�,,.".,,-,'!..,,,..'��:,�,,,-"��',.1.,�:�-.,..;�,:::-",..,.--.,',�,-�.oj:"I,-.�1�,".�,7,.—;:,.r"-'.'.�,-:I-L:.�,�...:,,�..,�',-�.-,.:,".',...7.'�"'.,.']_,,-�..',..,.,--.,,II.',.,�.�',:r-�,-��,,-��":-.,,,,'.:.�,"-�..-L,.;::,�.�.,,,,.,'%..,"",":-�-,,-7:.�,,'".,."���,-.,--'"�,—_-�-':.�.,"'�.:,,-.---',',,.:,,.;,��..-..�"-_.,-L r-,-�-r.-.--:..,.�',,."�-""._".,,,--.L�-'_..-�;I�,I,!..�,',..'.,""-'I,"'.I,,.,",�-�,,�;":,�." L L-,.L,...-:,'-I:�..�.,�-�-:1 Z-r;.�.,..'�,....:,�r,�.-'..'I,-''.'",,,..L:`r�..,.�.,-:.,"':..'r:..�.'_,;`;',,:....;,;�,,...".-..1�-L,I:i.-.�,.'.!I�..,-,,,r 1L:..,,-",;-�.���,"...1r�.:"..-I��'..'.-:'-"�;"'�I,.�.,",�4�,,".',—,,.�,_'.�.'.-1,,:-,",L,..-,;��.,�'',,,�.:.--'..'I.�,.1.'-,L�1 I-L�.,,'':L-,...,f,,.,',.�-",-'�--,',:.!,...�,,�,;.:......'.L:�',��,'..."L:,..,'m�:..7'"�.,��,�i.'-.L'r:�,,,-�"I,,.....,.-i:!,'.':.:,,';.��I.,,",���r�,�.,:,�.-,1,,-,..,,��._�Li'.i-,:--L1,,.�--,.,�,,.,',:.�,!.I-L�-,,�:,-"_.'..',�L�'.'f�,,1.—�L.�'II�',,I,,I:--,,'.,.",.,,.�'...,",',I:',.;.I�,L;!,'".�...�,,"1.�r:-"��'.,LL�",,:"�I..'-'r.'I 1�:'.,-,.'.-r:",�'-t'I.r.,".j'...",:.'�.:','I1-,i,':,-,.'.-,.�I-:'�.,'."-'--.",I-�,,,:.�,:,:.,.. �r��I_.,',"�,,�,.,-�,—,"-,I�,',�.�",..'N,-j%,.'.'!,..',-,..''',.;,.:��...�,,...-�1"':.1.:-'.,'`�:-.:—.�.,�I.%...',�.�"',��I-'.-!..,,.i,�.-..,,',:�r:�.�.'�l�:'.,�'".-.--.,�:!L,',�,',-,.:'H�-.-��,i�..'�..',�I,�.,--...,,,..I..-'�.'.1,,-.'.�'.1-,',r�..'',,".�`�,.I1..�,,,�,�I:.'I,,:,"'I-'',�..,:r-L,',L,,!.,.I,,-LI:-.�-,�.j._..'.".L,�..,-;I;,.LI.,�'..:�,.,�'-__i. ,Lr.*i',1'',...r.-',',',-;�:....I,';..*,�',".",—I',.-�-L'.''-f...I�I,'..L:L."1I,,I_...,,.�...', �j'-�"..':�:,-:,.r..:,...,".,1.,.�'"�.-�I�,"I r:.'.,,:.,";.I...,'.I:�r':,.,-"-.,,',I..�'-,,-:1,.,I,-..,�,..,.�.L�,L",,��....'�,_,�I,.":I�,'..'.�"'..'.�.�I.'L,-��...:,,%.:1.�-.:.�,.',]_-,,-""'......I.II,..-..".�,.:!:.%.:,".I_.�....-,.,.1,.�.:,'.I....�,..;_",:,",�11,-1_'�L�.1"'.,-t...':�.I.,,-,:,.-,--,,''�",L�"��%..'_,,;�.C..,,L"1;'I�,' 1�,...'I.,"�%"."'�.�':,-.,"��.":.-1--..".;,..,',�',I�,.,"."�,.,,�--..,,'1.-,,'r;",...'";...,,.L."-.,.�..�.,-�.,',,'-'",.:,.j�,.,;�-.'.,"..i:`.r,...!',i,".,-"..,,�::..,.,-.�-,�.",.',.,".",,,��:�...-I,:,'�.,.."."1'".I-.�:",,:' ..,!�!II-,.r-.�-..",�'r.,,.�.,"1',.'.-..,�,:I.'.-%'-'...����.,--�'1L.",..L,-":_'�%�..�..".L:�:.,..�-':I,-,.:.I..;r..:-.,'L:�,��,r J,i'..,':...:�,,."..�:.,'".,.--;"",.,,.�.I."'.:..�.'-...,1�r,�...�Ll,�I,-,,.l-.;,,,."',r I�,.,.....--,:.:,.: ,.,�"..:.";�.",-r . :I::.;.:,�;",'-,".,�. .i'-..::-L�.'�-,'.�r.-"':,;.-','"'''r,-�',:-i,-r_;.,,..-,,,,,",'�.,,,�..',�I,�-:-s--.,,-.L.,�''.,�,,"",.,:.�.--�'��...,�,.'i`:',,",,,�,,'-,,.,:.C,j,,,.,L"-�.���",.'',i;,'-.--,.:".,'..,:;,i..�:-,!:�.:,,-:.","�...:,".�"".',�., ,�,1:;-.,_i,..:,',,.,1,�,'�.,,''-"";�.�I'L,r-�.:.'.-�,.".,"�:.-�,�.-I';",..�.�',e�,,,-,.,!-,-�.:..�.-...I`L",,.,,"�.L�".:'j,,�.:.:,-.I.�,�,".,�,,?,.'";,:,,..,,,,!.;"..,:L:r�".-..:,"',,,..�::��.6:,-.:..'"..,,"��!��,_:-,�,!,',". - ..` _. iI,L.:',;�,.1''',�-.,.,..�;,r;-.'.i:.;'�-,,'.:.J�._.,,-,.,;I'L.-i ..!,:�,.'.;.r',.'..�'-I�.�.,L�."-:',','"r,:,�-.�',.,--'.L r,.L.-" ,,:, .,.,.:.-.I`'�,.''";;�.,�.'".r-.�,.,�`;:,.,�,:�.r'..-.,'L.L'L..�.I,,,,,�,'..�.: .,,'.1-�.-...'''.-r.7..'"i�L'..,%".,�;-.,.'�.,...,-I-I r�` ,,:X.,'-I.:.��ri.----6L.,L�;�-.�..,-..�7L_,u_�,,1..,..L�I'":..1,-,1..,,,I-'",)_..I--',!,,,-....&._:,.t"1I.,..:!I.--�1 1�. ..j...l.�":,,,;,-�-,�-,,-,,I.._�.., '".,-.,I;.��.�..�'..:.,�.-,�.;.-,-I.�I-.." ,ij:..Il�,mIO.',-,,1..1.-�-�"m -., 1r r 1 'S. ,,.,_2,O,-,.I,,::_. 1 ,-'I..;:;��-t'I,�..,.�..,,,.�"I,�.', -;,;L �'e�,..I., ,�I'l.I�.,..I,,,"'--,,,,,:"1--',,-.�"'�,j,,�-�L--.,1,- 1,.,,:1 11' r'r1,-1.:...,,,:�--.-.., .'....,''",,--- 1.:,,..,.-'�I�,'z,.�,,�----.,Li'.,,- ,. ..- -1 - r } ,r 1 - i S - � 1 { 4 i- f �{ _ i 'y it ` r A . f 1 , T` i •1 1 '3 _ f f _ S 1 1 1 , ..-,:I.'.�,':"..,,L,,,L,.:- f I 1 ,fh .• t , 1 ! •7� f ` 6'I SPIT BR00}� ROAD, SUITE '� 10 ^, di' W W • tip NASA, N�Vu HA�iIPsIr�E ':03060 S 1 f l i ,{ 4 (603} 891 2213 p ".-,..'-'.!-�.:-,;,.",r,�",!,,.',..,.,,�.�.,"�- .,..,r�",,,_,,�..-..,,�%1Z '' "�- } i i , ' 1 r f J1 ` S,•- , 1 •T ' 1 •, :1 r I 1 -L�--,.:LL 1.,.,�ft'-..z,-,-.�.%.j�,T o..-u .r , ` '° '-. ` P4iEPAREQ FOF�: /l�,' ' .' Htk,A DEVElOPMr-NT COMPANY o , ,t4 0 - - ASHlNGTON STREET r 1° Q t BRIGHTEN, MASSAC» 1SETTS 021,55 [yam F Q ` r 1 r ;, _ r O } 1 :1 r - r r .DULY 2 20�1.0 O jib 7 �, i GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services REF.: NHX-2010529 July 2, 2010 Secretary Ian A. Bowles Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 SUBJECT: Notice of Project Change, EEA No. 13806 Gasoline Station/Convenience Store with Drive Through and Proposed Office/Warehouse Building Route 125 (Osgood Street), North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Secretary Bowles: On behalf of Hera Development Company, Greenniarr Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) is pleased to submit three copies of a Notice of Project Change (NPC) for a proposed office/warehouse building located on Orchard Hill Road off of Osgood Street (Route 125) in North Andover, Massachusetts. The site currently contains a Solo gasoline station and convenience store with and vacant land behind the gasoline station. Access to the site is currently provided via an existing signalized driveway on Route 125 (a state highway). To avoid the appearance of segmentation of the development of the site, the gasoline station convenience store project went through the MEPA process in the form of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) since there were no definite plans for the development of the vacant portion of the site at that time. The gasoline station/convenience store project received a Certificate on the ENF on June 23, 2006. As currently proposed, the project consists of the construction of an office/warehouse building on the vacant portion of the site, The proposed gross area of the building is 16,527 square feet, consisting of 12,272 square feet of warehouse space, 4,127 square feet of mezzanine office space, and 128 square feet of common space, Site access and egress for the office/warehouse building is proposed to be provided via two new driveways on Orchard Hill Road (a local roadway) with no cross connection to the gasoline station portion of the site and no direct access to Route 125 due to topographical site constraints. Since the site abuts Route 125, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) will need to review the project information to ensure that the Highway Access Permit for the site will not need to be amended. Since the proposed office/warehouse building will increase the average daily traffic generated by the previously approved development by approximately 4.3 percent, the preparation of the enclosed NPC is required. The NPC will be circulated to those who received or commented on the ENF for the gasoline station/convenience store project. As documented in the NPC and enclosed materials, the proposed office/warehouse building and approved gasoline station/convenience store project do not exceed any Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) thresholds for further MEPA review. We therefore respectfully request a determination that the project change is insignificant in terns of its environmental consequences and that no further MEPA review is required. 61 Spit Brook Road, Suite 110, Nashua, NH 03060 Tel:(603)891-2213 Fax: (603)891-6449 www.gpinet.com GPI Mr. Ian A. Bowles July 2, 2010 Page 2 of 2 We look forward to your review of this project. Additional agencies or persons wishing to review the NPC should contact me by e-mail at hmonticu-o@gpinct.com, or by phone at (603) 891-2213. Sincerely, GRE ENMAN—PEDERSEN, INC. Heather L. Monticup Project Manager enclosurc(s) cc: Circulation List 10529D!&Pd LetterU70?JO.dor Commonwealth of Massachusetts FOY Office Use Only Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs F.xecruheOfficeaflnergy Lrniro�rn:errralAffirirs ■ MEPA Office MEPA Analyst: NPCNotice of Project Phane: 617-626- Change The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review of a NPC in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations (see 301 CMR 11.10(1)). Project Name: Gasoline Station/Convenience Store with Drive EEA #:13806 Throu h and Proposed Office/Warehouse Building Street: Route 125 (Osgood Street) Municipality. North Andover Watershed: Merrimack Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42°43' 49" N 327162 mE 4733016 mN Longitude: 71,,06' 40" W Status of project construction: 1o0%of Gasoline Station complete and 0%of Contractor Building complete Pro onent: Hera Development Company Street: 470 Washington Street .Municipality: Brighton State: MA Zip Code: 02135 Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this NPC May Be Obtained: Heather L. Monticup Firm/Agency: Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Street: 61 Spit Brook Road, Suite 110 Municipality: Nashua State: NH Zip Code: 03060 Phone: (603) 891-2213 Fax: (603) 891-6449 E-mail: hmonticup@gpinet.com In 25 words or less, what is the project change? The project change involves constructing a 16,527 square foot office/warehouse building on vacant land behind an existing gasoline station/convenience store. See full project change description beginning on page 3. Date of ENF filing or publication in the Environmental Monitor: EM publication: 5/24/2006 Was an EIR required? ❑Yes ®No; if yes, was a Draft EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) ❑No was a Final EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: } ❑No was a Single EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: } ❑No Have other NPCs been filed? ❑Yes (Date(s): ) ®No Revised 09/09 If this is a NPC solely for lapse of time (see 301 CMR 11.10(2)) proceed directly to "ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES" on page 4. PERMITS / FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE / LAND TRANSFER List or describe all new or modified state permits, financial assistance, or land transfers not previously reviewed: The project will require an Access Permit from MassDOT. Are you requesting a finding that this project change is insignificant? (see 301 CMR 11.10(6)) ®Yes ❑No; if yes, attach justification. See attached Trip-Generation and Project Impact letter. Are you requesting that a Scope in a previously issued Certificate be rescinded? ❑Yes ®No; if yes, attach the Certificate Are you requesting a change to a Scope in a previously issued Certificate? ❑Yes ®No; if yes, attach Certificate and describe the change you are requesting: Summary of Project Size Previously Net Change Currently & Environmental Impacts reviewed Proposed LAND Total site acreage 6.1 0 6.1 Acres of land altered 2.0 1.4 3A Acres of impervious area 0.95 0.64 1.59 Square feet of bordering vegetated 0 0 0 wetlands alteration Square feet of other wetland alteration 00 0 0 Acres of non-water dependent use of 0 0 0 tidelands or waterways STRUCTURES Gross square footage 3,800 16,527 20,327 Number of housing units 0 0 0 Maximum height (in feet) 32 0 32 TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day 1,800 78 1,878 Parking spaces 30 28 58 WATER/WASTEWATER Gallons/day (GPD) of water use 675 570 1,245 GPD water withdrawal 0 0 0 GPD wastewater generation/ treatment 675 570 1,245 Length of water/sewer mains (in miles) 0 0 0 -2- Does the project change involve any new or modified: 1. conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ❑Yes ®No 2. release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction? ❑Yes ®No 3. impacts on Estimated Habitat of Rare Species, Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities? []Yes ®No 4. impact on any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ❑Yes ®No; if yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes ❑No 5. impact upon an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes ®No If you answered 'Yes' to any of these 5 questions, explain below: PROJECT CHANGE DESCRIPTION (attach additional pages as necessary). The project change description should include: (a) a brief description of the project as most recently reviewed (b) a description of material changes to the project as previously reviewed, (c) the significance of the proposed changes, with specific reference to the factors listed 301 CMR 11.10(6), and (d) measures that the project is taking to avoid damage to the environment or to minimize and mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. If the change will involve modification of any previously issued Section 61 Finding, include a proposed modification of the Section 61 Finding (or it will be required in a Supplemental EIR). Previously Reviewed Proiect In May 2006, an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EEA) for the redevelopment of a parcel of land located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 125 (Osgood Street) and Orchard Hill Road in North Andover, Massachusetts. The site is bound by Route 125 and Osgood Landing (formerly known as the Lucent Technologies' Merrimack Valley Works facility) to the west, Orchard Hill Road to the south, and undeveloped land to the north and east. The site previously contained two vacant single-family residences. The project consisted of razing the existing structures and constructing a 3,791 square foot convenience store that includes a donut shop with a drive- through window, and a gasoline fueling facility with 10 vehicle fueling positions on the western portion of the site, as shown on the existing conditions plan. Although the project was reviewed and approved for a 3,800 square foot convenience store, a smaller store was constructed. At that time, there were no plans to develop the remaining portion of the site. Access to the site is provided from Route 125 via one full-accesslegress driveway, which forms the fourth leg to the existing signalized intersection of Route 125 and the former Lucent Technologies' south driveway. The gasoline station/convenience store project by itself did not trip any MEPA review thresholds. Based on a conversation with the MEPA Office and to avoid the appearance of segmentation of the development of the site, an ENF was filed for the gasoline station/convenience store project to act as a placeholder for the remainder of the site. -3- Proposed Project The site currently contains an existing Solo gasoline station and a 3,791 square foot convenience store with access and egress provided at a signalized intersection on Route 125 and vacant land behind the gasoline station. The proposed project consists of the construction of an off ice/ware house building on the vacant portion of the site. The proposed gross floor area of the new building is 16,527 square feet consisting of 12,272 square feet of warehouse/storage space, 4,127 square feet of mezzanine office space, and 128 square feet of common space. The building is proposed to be a multi-tenant facility with 28 parking spaces. Site access and egress for the new building is proposed to be provided via two new driveways on Orchard Hill Road with no cross connection to the gasoline station/convenience store portion of the site due to topographical site constraints. See the attached site plan. As documented in this NPC and attached materials, the proposed project does not exceed any thresholds for further MEPA review. Traffic The projects consist of constructing a new 16,527 square foot off ice/warehouse building. The project previously reviewed by MEPA projected the generation of 1,800 vehicles per day (vpd) on a weekday. Based on data contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a net increase in average daily traffic of 78 vpd over the previous MEPA review, which is an increase of less than 5 percent over previous projections. The new building therefore represents an insignificant change in traffic from the previously approved development and will not change the conclusions of the previous traffic study (submitted with the May 2006 ENF) reviewed by EEA during the approval process for the previously approved development. Additionally, the enclosed Trip-Generation and Project Impact letter demonstrates that the anticipated traffic volumes can be accommodated on the adjacent roadways. To ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic to and from the site, any proposed plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing along the site frontage should be kept low to the ground (no more than 3.0 feet above street level) or set back sufficiently from the edge of the roadways so as not to inhibit the available sight lines. The proponent is committed to working with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division's District Office during the permit process to address Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and other transportation-related matters. Water The proposed project is expected to generate an approximate 570 gallons per day (gpd) increase in water usage than the original project, totaling a projected 1,245 gpd usage for the entire site. This new total water usage amount does not meet or exceed any review thresholds. The water usage calculations are based on the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Environmental Code, Title 5, Sewage Flow Design Criteria. -4- 1'I Wastewater The proposed project is projected to result in the generation of a net increase of 570 gpd of wastewater above that projected under the previously reviewed project, totaling 1,245 gpd generated for the entire site. This new total wastewater usage amount does not meet or exceed any review thresholds. The wastewater usage calculations are based on the DEP State Environmental Code, Title 5, Sewage Flow Design Criteria. Drainage & Stormwater Management The drainage and stormwater management system will be constructed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission and Planning Department. The system has also been designed in accordance with DEP's Stormwater Management Policy as codified in the State Wetlands Protection Regulations, and provides a decrease in post-development runoff rates for all storm events by utilizing a series of best management practices. Best management practices include but are not limited to street sweeping, deep sump, hooded catch basins, a Stormceptor treatment device, underground pipe and stone infiltration system, and an extensive Operation & Maintenance program. The proponent is committed to working with the MassDOT Highway Division's District Office during the permit process to address any stormwater issues. The proponent will also seek coverage under the US EPA NPDES Stormwater General Permit for Construction Sites and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the site. ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES Attachments; 1. Secretary's most recent Certificate on this project 2. Plan showing most recent previously-reviewed proposed build condition 3. Plan showing currently proposed build condition 4. Original U.S.G.S, map or good quality color copy (8-1/2 x 11 inches or larger) indicating the project location and boundaries 5. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the NPC, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.10(7) Signatures: Date Signature of Responsible Officer D to klnal'.Lr. .1 peWrs6n preps-- g or Proponent NPC (if different from above) Nicholas Hera Jr. Heather L. Monticu Name (print or type) Name (print or type) Hera Development Cornany Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Firm/Agency Firm/Agency 470 Washington Street 61 Spit Brook Road, Suite 110 Street Street Brighton, Massachusetts 02135 Nashua New Hampshire 03060 Municipality/State/Zip Municipality/State/Zip 617 787-2008 603 891-2213 Phone Phone -6- I i 0 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A — Secretary's Certificate on the ENF ATTACHMENT B — Plan of Previously-Reviewed Proposed Conditions ATTACHMENT C — Proposed Conditions Site Plans ATTACHMENT D — U.S.G.S. Map ATTACHMENT E — Circulation List ATTACHMENT F — Trip-Generation and Project Impact Letter i A TTA CHMENT A Secretary's Certificate on the ENF June 23, 2006 RECEIVED BY - Cn�xG�Cu�/it��i ���c� "/' �r�����rr,�.�7�ta►� txtir� �� Cy w o Ali&900 `'(( 02774-252/,( MITT ROMNEY Tel, (617) 626-1000 GOVERNOR Fax, (617) 626-1181 KERRY HEALEY http://www,mass.govlenvir LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD SECfiETARY June 23, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME Proposed Gas Station/Convenience Store with Drive-Through PROJECT MUNICIPALITY North Andover PROJECT WATERSHED Merrimack EOEA NUMBER 13806 PROJECT PROPONENT 1503 Osgood Street LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR May 24, 2006 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62H) and Section 11.06 of the MEP.A, regulations (301 CMR 1 I.00), 1 hereby determine that this project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project consists of construction of a gasoline station with ten fueling positions, a 3,800 square foot (sf) convenience store with a donut.shop and drive-through window, and thirty parking-spaces. The project also involves demolition of two existing houses. The project site is approximately 6.1 acres and includes an intermittent stream and associated bordering vegetated wetlands. According to die Environmental Notification Form (ENF), water use is estimated at 675 gallons per day (gpd) and will be provided through connections to the municipal system. An on- site septic system is proposed to handle wastewater flows, which are estimated at 675 gpd. Traffic impacts associated with,.the project are estimated at 1,800 vehicle trips on an average weekday. The proposed project will result in alteration of approximately 0.15 acres of land (including approximately 0.13 acres of new impervious area). The project as proposed in the ENF is slightly below MEPA review thresholds for traffic. However, the proponent is considering additional development on the site in the future, which could result itu a project at Bull build-out that meets or exceeds MEPA review thresholds. As noted in the ENF, the proponent intends to submit a Notice of Project Change once plans have EOEA# 13806 ENF Certificate June 23, 2006 been developed for the eastern portion of the site. Based on information obtained during the :MEPA site visit, it appears that significant portion of the site will remain undeveloped due to the existing wetlands resources: The project is undergoing MEPA review pursuant to Section 11.03(6)(b)13 because it may result in generation of 2,000 or more average daily trips on roadways providing access to•a single location. The project tequires a State Highway Access Permit from the ssHighway Department(MHD) for access onto Route 125. The project also requires an Order of Conditions from the North Andover Conservation Commission for work in the wetlands buffer zone (arid, on appeal only, a Superseding Order from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)). The proponent is not seeking financial assistance from the Commonwealth. Therefore, MEPA.jurisdiction applies to those aspects of the,project.within the-subject matter of required . state permits with-the potential to cause damage 16 the environment. 1n this case,MEPA jurisdiction extends to traffic,.wetlands, land, stonnwater and drainage. Traffic The project site has frontage on Osgood Street (Route 125,Northbound). Proposed access to the site is from a driveway on Route 125 which will form the fourth;leg of an existing signalized intersection(Route 125 and.the former Lucent Technologies' south driveway). Traffic impacts for the project are estimated at 1,900 vehicle trips on an average'weekday. The ENF included a limited. traffic study that generally conforms to the'EOEA/EOT Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments. The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT)has determined that the proposed project will.not have.a%negative impact on the state;highway, However;the proponent will be required, as part of the lV1HD permit process,to make`all . necessary,changes acid updates to signal equipment to accommodate site traffic; and #o provide adequate pedestrian and Bicycle facilities: The proponent should also make evoryeffort to maximize retention and infiltration of:stormwAter ran-off on�site and,avoid connection to the state highway drainage system. The proponent should consult with the MHD District Office during the permit process to address stormwater issues,traffic signal improvements, and Transportation.Demand Management (TDM) measures; Wetlands, Stormwater Management and Construction Activities As further detailed in the ENF, the proposed stormwater system consists of a series of deep sump,hooded catch basins connecting to manholes and/or stormceptor treatment systems. Three stormceptor systems are proposed. Stormwater collected through the closed drainage system will discharge into two separate underground detention systems, and then to grass-lined conveyance channels and level spreaders. All roof run-off from the gas station canopy and convenience store will discharge into an underground infiltration system. As noted in the ENF, the project is being designed to meet DEP Stormwater Management Policy Standards for Total ,Suspended Solids (TSS), groundwater recharge, operation and maintenance, and other standards. The proponent should ensure that the proposed project will be designed to meet the DEP Stormwater Management Policy Standard for an Area of Higher Pollutant Load. 2 EOEA# 13806 ENF Certificate June 23, 2006 The proponent should ensure that appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls are implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and surface waters during construction activities. The proponent should also ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to avoid and minimize dust,noise,odor, traffic, and nuisance conditions associated With construction activities. Sustainable Design I encourage the proponent to require Leadership in Environmental Design (LEED) Certification-for new construction. The incorporation of high performance/green building elements in project design will help reduce the environmental footprint of the final project in terms of energy and water consumption, ambient and indoor air quality, land alteration, and resource consumption. Other Sustainable design measures,which can reduce project development and long-terra operational costs.,'may include: • water conservation and reuse of wastewater and stormwater; • recycling and reuse of construction and demolition (C&D)materials; • ecological landscaping; _ • use of Low Impact Development(LID)te6liniques (the proponent may fund the following web sites useful -www.mass.gov/envir/lid am&www.lid-stormwatef.net); • optimization of natural day lighting,passive solar gain, and natural cooling; • use of energy efficient Heating, Ventilation, and.Air Conditioning(HVAC) and lighting systems, appliances and other equipment,and use of solar preheating of makeup air; • favoring building supplies and materials,that.are non toxic, made from recycled materials, and made with low enlbodied*,energy; • provision of easily accessible and user-friendly recycling system infrastructure. I have determined that the ENF has sufficiently defined the nature and general elements of the project and proposed measures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. I am satisfied that any remaining issues can be adequately addressed during the state and local permitting and review process. The proposed project, as described in the ENF, requires no further review under MEPA. I remind The proponent that any development of the remainder of the project site will require a Notice of Project Change (NPC) in accordance with Section 11.10 of the MEPA regulations. June 23, 2006 DATE Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary Comments Received: 6/19/06 Executive Office of Transportation, Office of Transportation Planning SRP/A.E/ae 3 1) / IC6 .. i'�' . I . . . .. . :i . . . � .. .. - . . . . - . . .. I .. ...... : . . I ;; � .. �i .. .. r, ��. - 17 - ' } - - - - - —� ' s .r - - - : �[, ilridfO - __ _ - _ , � � �3.F41 t _ >,3#..L Yrxa�ittY� ,der of _ { _ i _ - t - - _ eS = - _ - - - . ::- I- .-_. _ — __ - - - -.:_ _ter z..,,. = - _.—. .-_,:. .. ..,. - - - — _ !— ...._ -... �� .�. i'- '..z: - - Si ......- -,-i r - - - - - j S = June 12 20D6 - . i _ .-< _ ,..-- ... -- '- -1 - _ .-._..- -- _ . -- - Szeplicnnte}3ard, eere# ry - - - - - - Execitre Office ofEnviranme�tl�1;ffn�rs = 100 tra�mbricgctree ,£ uite 90Dv - _ - Bastin,MA 0211 2150 =E _ - _ - _ - -I , L ; F , 1 , - - ar fi RL N�or �AAcover has StUn/Gc�nven�e#c�More with Driv©Trough �Np �- ry 7.,I y�''}y AA r {�. Ait; � t _ O - _ - _ - - } =1 b - - - = - — - - _ _ - - _ -_ _ ..: -= -_ _ 1" "� — f - - ,'"I�carearcta Ptiicax - - _ _ 1 J -. ..,.. ; sue_ r..r •--•S-_. - _ — _ - On bcTtalf 0 - E kecUt�ve ce of nspnrha#ton,T am:s�ibtr�ttttt�g comments rear itng the p�oposod has St __,_ a,- ni,-ice Moro L�r3ith Drive TbrougTipro e t Ott North AndovCr, asrepard'b -the tficeof`T` spert #ton, ani�ng iyou hAve apt gU6s ions regardinQ--. comments,pease Il TAonel Lucien,P E,Manager o tic - PubI IP ate Deu lapxnctrt U iit, a#.� 7}�37 �34. `''_ - - - _ _ 4 = - - - - - ---t - - , _ _ - - _ - _ znce�rely, - - . o -_.-7... . - - - p - eputyeczetary for Planning - . - - - . . .- _ - . I" .I .. . . North Andover- Gas Station 2 6/12/2006 cc: Luisq. a;Popwonsky,:Commissioner Sohn Blundo,P.E;,.Chief Enganeer 3 = Pa ca eavcn,vorth,p,E.,btstrict 4 highway Director ! State�'rafftc Engineer = PPDU file:: - , {,' - _ MP-6,ActN.Wes files - I,' Planntn Board 1 own of_ f North Anclo ver - N cr ack�Ville ate 7ipnal:P)ant�zng;CommisW)n - _ - b - - . - - - - - - _ - - - - ->_r - _ - - - - - - - - - - . { . - = . - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - ! - _-- f_ _ _ , % - - - - - - i !. - - - __ - 'r. _- - - - i_ -_. _ — - __ .... .. _.:_.-..: - a_ .:. - - - - - - . : .. -. : -- . ' - .-_ : _._ - _ , -. - . _ . .. - - - - I. — _. - _ I1. — - - _ _ _ - r - 1 _-- _ _ _ - _ _ 4 . t. T _. - : .-. -.: :.:. - { - - i _ t k= - E - _- - .: _ i - iI -- - -. - - - % ... -. - - _ .. _ :.._.. ._ _ - .. -'c ---_- _ _ -- - .. __ - _ _ . __ .. .. - r �...! -- - - - - - .. ,' ..... _-r - .. _ . - I -- - - - .. -_- - __ -- - { _ _.. CUmmoriWEALTYIO*-- ASSAC1iU ETTS EXIT CUTIVE:0-14C OF TRANSPORTA TION OVPICE`OfP T$rtrvs�©R Troty PLANN 7Vc MIi MORAND s TO :_ Kenneth 3 N�z11e�,�'E`,E�ecutivc.Dzrector - - � `-r = Office ofTzar►spo�fat�rixzEPlaring = _ I�R�M 3 Lionel Lucze�z p E y,Manager �, _ _ - - PublzclPrivate Develo pmon Unit - — - - - DAT Jude 12,2QOb - - = 1ZE No rthAntiaver Proposed Gas StatXbCohvenyce More wi#h Dnve Throf� ENF EA 111380b - ) i Tk e Publ clPri vat e e 7ev optr nt it has re ob eatip-M- m 1 )foz the Proposed C Stationlanverzretzce S#ore vvl over th ?rt ve Through North d . - - _ =The pio�ect ezztaxls dems tas izttg the extstztzg i o single arttily homes and coast uct ng a g0oli*ne =sezvice station confaYn3n 1'0 vehicle fiuoling p-08160ns, a cnnvenrci�ce store,,a t not stop an d 30 - $ spate par nglspaces =The site is located nn an apxo�tttnafe�y b 1 acre parcel w;th fiozlage on - - Qsgaid Stet(Route i2 )nortbnund Accds tosthe site is provided frorrr a drMwa an Route -=' 125,wlueh�vt11 form the fdurih leg of an extsung szzzalizert urterseetzozz Based ort1T Land Use _Code:945 (GsolmsfServzeettatsor�welt Converzdne M rket) and ernpirtcal data 66Ilected°for donutszop v�zth drire th% ughdQsv the pz'oject z =expected to generate 1,8Q9 vehicle traps an an; _'average weekday A Massachusetts� g y'Dcpart entperrn t_is required for direct accesst6 mute'120 - } Z The ENF inolued'a liauted tra#fic studythat gersrally conforms tta;theEOEAJSOT i Guxdeirnes for Traffio fin P act Assessments 9Ve bclo"MA lzat the trafficssocia#ed vtnth the project 5 will not have a ne at�ve I npadtOn the"s#ate hi, bcva `a11dWcommend#hat�oftut�her review k e required based on traffic kioweer,the propoerztzll be Ydquired to make ail necessary Changes and;tzpdates to the szgr�al equipment to accom odate the site,tra c and pzovzde adeq�ratc pedestxzat and iicycic'facihtt s Thepxoponent should also paae every of ort to niaxtmize the retentzo t and -_ rnfiltratrozz o;£storm water-rtzp azt site and avoid eontieetioz►ta:the state hi''hw y dMbage System The prdpoziezat should address these�omtnerits�vttla the District Ofice'dutir�g the permYttzrig {'stage:_ = _ - if you have any questions regarding these cortzmerits,please caitact me at (517)973 7 1=, or Mclody Droves:o _the;Public/private Deve1_opti ent Unit at(b 11 j 973 34 .j I ATTACHMENT B Plan of Previously-Reviewed Proposed Conditions ij I I I ATTACH ENT C Proposed Conditions Site Plan I ATTACHMENT D U.S.G.S. Map i USCS Map E North Andover, Massachusetts gE MI �Aka, d}fit �F',: r "�' ��R c ,•�'�� � 1 � .�lYa��—� �f�� �I�lr �'� ..,`����U � ��.� ��� �I k 7 •r �j h". �� It' �� �X� t � �'a___i� ��\ •. ..1.1 _ ),��.( S�i '(rr'..�� "„""`" �'�'- ;-� aiw � � �.�� . �� P�' 0 f ,-�, i f may` {.��j�t /�� I / �� �• 1 � i1 ::�A ���: a t3 >�,` r. : ./{''r 1�'r,-= -� '�' •� >, eta. 'U t ¢ 7. O ' mla 15'/.e Pc Dl3ktkE 0 JY]. �_KQJU1TIA5 MyncolcduilhTOFOW024103NalbwAOwV91d, rmdlopa) GPIGreenman-Pedersen, Inc. Engineers, Architects, Planners, Construction Engineers & Inspectors li I I i A TTACHMENT E Circulation List I CIRCULATION LIST Secretary Ian A.Bowles Merrimack Valley Planning Commission Executive Office of Envirommental Affairs 160 Main Street Attn:MEPA Office Haverhill,MA 01830-5000 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston,MA 02114 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Route 135 Commissioner's Office Westborough,MA 01581 One Winter Street Boston,MA 02108 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Attn: MEPA Coordinator DEP/Northeast Regional Office 10 Park Plaza, 6`t'Floor Attn: MEPA Coordinator Boston,MA 02216-3966 205B Lowell Street Wilmington,MA 01887 North Andover Board of Selectmen Attn: Tracy M.. Watson, Chairman Executive Office of Transportation North Andover Town Offices Attn: Environmental Reviewer 120 Main Street 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 North Andover,MA 01845 Boston,MA 02116-3969 North Andover Planning Department Massachusetts Highway Department Attn: Judith M.Tymon,AICP,Town Planner Public/Private Development Unit 1600 Osgood Street Attn: Mr. Lionel J. Lucien North Andover,MA 01845 10 Park Plaza,Room 4150 Boston, MA.02116 North Andover Conservation Commission Attn: John Mabon, Chairman Massachusetts Highway Department--District 4 1600 Osgood Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator North Andover, MA 01845 519 Appleton Street Arlington, MA 02476 North Andover Health Department Attn: Susan Y. Sawyer,Director Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission 1600 Osgood Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator North Andover,MA 01845 10 Park Plaza,Room 3510 Boston,MA 02116 The Massachusetts Historical Commission The MA Archives Building 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston,MA 02125 i A TTA CHMENT F Trip-Generation and Project Impact Letter GPIGreenman - Pedersen,, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services REF.: NHX-2010529 July 2, 2010 Mr.Nicholas Hera, Jr. Hera Development Company 470 Washington Street Brighton, Massachusetts 02135 SUBJECT: Proposed Contractor's Building Orchard Hill Road North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Hera: Greennian Pedemen, Ine. (GPI) has prepared this letter related to expected trip-generation estimates and project impacts for .the proposed development to be located on Orchard Hill Road in North Andover, Massachusetts. The site currently contains a Solo gasoline station and convenience store with access and egress provided at a signalized intersection on Osgood Street (Route 125) and vacant land behind the gasoline station. Based on the site plan provided by Hendren Design Associates, the project consists of the construction of a contractor's building on the vacant portion of the site. The proposed gross area of the building is 16,527 square feet consisting of 12,272 square feet of warehouse space, 4,127 square feet of mezzanine office space, and 128 square feet of common space. The building is proposed to be a multi- tenant facility with 28 striped parking spaces. Site access and egress for the contractor's building is proposed to be provided via two new driveways on Orchard Hill Road with no cross connection to the gasoline station portion of the site. This letter has been prepared to evaluate the trip-generation and project impacts associated with the proposed contractor's building development, Trip-Generation Traffic to be generated by the proposed contractor's building was forecast using the trip rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation? report.' This particular land use is not contained within the ITE Trip Generation report. To provide a trip-generation comparison, data were researched assuming the proposed project contains a 12,272 square foot mini-warehouse for the warehouse component and 4,255 square feet of mezzanine office space, which also includes the common space, versus 16,527 square feet of office space. The trip-generation comparison is summarized in Table 1. All trip-generation data are attached to this letter. t Trip Generation,Eight Edition;Institute of Transportation.Engineers;Washington,DC;2008, 61 Spit Brook Road, Suite 110, Nashua, NH 03060 Tel; (603)891-2213 Fax:(603)891-6449 www.gpinet.com GPI Mr. Nicholas Hera, Jr. July 2, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Proposed Proposed Proposed Time Period/Direction Warehouse Space' Office Space b Total Trips Office Space' Trips Used Weekday Daily 30 48 78 182 182 Weekday AM Peak Hour: Enter 1 6 7 23 23 Exit 1 1 2 3 3 Total 2 7 9 26 26 Weekday PM Peak Hour: Enter 2 1 3 4 4 Exit 1 5 6 21 21 Total 3 6 9 25 25 Saturday Daily 28 10 38 40 40 Saturday Midday Peak Hour: Enter 3 1 4 4 4 Exit 2 1 3 3 3 Total 5 2 7 7 7 '1TE Land Use Code 151 (Mini-Warehouse)for 12,272 s£ b1TE Land Use Code 7I0(General Office Building)for 4,255sf. 1TE Land Use Code 710(General Office Building)for 16,527 sf. It is expected that the contractor's building will generate low peak-hour traffic volumes as shown by the warehouse and office space estimate since the warehouse storage space will be used by the tenants of the proposed mezzanine office component of the project. Therefore, the new traffic to the study area for the warehouse space component is expected to be negligible. For analysis purposes,.although the full office building alternative will overestimate the project's impacts, it was used to provide a more conservative (worse case) analysis scenario. The proposed site, which is located within the CDD3 zoning district, allows for other by-right uses to be constructed on the site such as retail space and restaurants. A trip-generation comparison between a potential retail project, a potential restaurant project, and the currently proposed contractor's building project is provided in Table 2, I0519 Trip-Generation&LDS Letter 070210- MEPA.doc GPI Mr. Nicholas Hera, Jr. July 2, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Table 2 TRIP-GENERATION COMPARISON Difference in Trips__ Potential Potential Proposed Proposed Proposed vs. Time Period/Direction Retail Space' Restaurant b Development° vs.Retail a Restaurant' Weekday Daily 732 1,862 182 (550) (1,680) Weekday AM Peak Hour: Enter 7 68 23 16 (45) Exit 5 46 3 Total 12 114 26 14 (88) Weekday PM Peak Hour: Enter 27 35 4 (23) (31) Exit 34 33 21 3 12 Total 61 68 25 (36) (43) Saturday Daily 694 1,810 40 (654) (1,770) Saturday Midday Peak Hour; Enter 35 70 4 (31) (66) Exit 33 72 3 121 (69) Total 68 142 7 (61) (135) s ITE Land Use Code 814(Specialty Retail)for 16,527 sf. °1TE,Land Use Code 933(Fast-Food Restaurant without Drive-Througli window)for 2,600 sf. `From Table 1. dProposed Development minus Potential Retail Space. `Proposed Development minus Potential Restaurant. As shown in Table 2, the proposed contractor's building development is expected to generate significantly less traffic than a restaurant development on a weekday, a Saturday, and the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours. The proposed contractor's building development is also expected' to generate less traffic than a retail development on a weekday and a Saturday. When compared to a retail development of the same size, the proposed project is expected to generate slightly more trips during the weekday AM peak hour (1 vehicle every 4 minutes) and significantly less trips during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. 10529 Dip-Generadon&LOS Letter 070210- MEPA.doc GPI Mr..Nicholas Hera, Jr. July 2, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Project Impacts Based on discussions with the North Andover Town Planner, 2010 Baseline traffic conditions at the Osgood Street and Orchard Hill Road intersection were obtained from the Traffic hnpact and Access Study prepared for the Solo gasoline station and convenience store which currently occupies the western portion of the site, z Having estimated the project-generated vehicle trips (Table 1), the next step in determining the project's impacts is to establish the distribution of project traffic and assign these trips to the local roadway network. The distribution of proposed site traffic on the area roadways is based on existing travel patterns and expected travel routes to the site. Accordingly, approximately 50 percent of the site traffic is expected to and from the north on Osgood Street and 50 percent to and from the south on Osgood Street. Level-of-service analyses were conducted at the Osgood Street and Orchard Hill Road intersection under 2010 Baseline and 2010 Build conditions during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours. The capacity and queue analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures in the Ilighway Capacity Manual (HCM) and is described in an attachment to this letter.3 The queue analysis methodology for unsignalized intersections is based on the concepts and procedures described in the HCM. The 95tt'percentile queue represents the length of queue of the critical movements that are not expected to be exceeded 95 percent of the time during the analysis period (typically one hour). hi this case, the queue length is a function of the capacity of the movement and the movement's degree of saturation. All analysis worksheets are attached to this letter. As shown in the attached capacity analysis worksheets under 2010 Baseline and 2010 Build traffic-. volume conditions, vehicular turns onto Orchard Hill Road from Osgood Street are expected to operate at LOS A during all three critical peak hours investigated. The Orchard Hill Road right-turn movements onto Osgood Street are expected to operate at LOS C or better during all three peak hours studied. Left-turning movements from Orchard Hill Road are expected to operate at LOS D during the weekday AM peak hour, LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour, and LOS C during the Saturday midday peak hour. Maximum queues on Orchard Hill Road are not expected to exceed five vehicles during the peak hours. It should be noted that operations may be better than as modeled due to the gaps and platooning in the Osgood Street southbound traffic stream that are created by the traffic signal located approximately 250 feet north of the intersection. The gaps in the traffic stream provide additional opportunities for vehicles to turn out of Orchard Hill onto Osgood Street. 2 Traffic Impact and Access Study; Proposed Gasoline .Station/Convenience Store with Drive-Through; North Andover; Massachusetts; Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.;October 2005. 3 Highway Capacity Manual 2000;Transportation Research Board;Washington,D.C.;2000. 10629 Trip-Generation&LOS Lener 070210- MEPA.doc GPI Mr. Nicholas Hera, Jr. July 2, 2010 Page 5 of 5 Summary In summary, the proposed development is expected to have minimal impacts on the Osgood Street and Orchard Hill Road intersection with an expected increase in traffic of approximately 1 additional vehicle every 2 to 8 minutes during the critical peak hours. These impacts assume a conservative (worse case) scenario that 100 percent of the building is occupied as an office use (the higher generator), when in actuality only 26 percent is designated as office space and the remaining 74 percent is designated as warehouse space. Using the conservative (worse case) methodology, these impacts represent an increase in queue length of less than 1 vehicle on the Osgood Street southbound approach and less than 2 vehicles on the Orchard Hill Road approach. In addition, volume-to-capacity ratios on all movements at the intersection are expected to be below 1.00, indicating that capacity will remain after the proposed development is constructed and occupied. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (603) 891-2213. Sincerely, GREENMAN —PEDERSEN,INC. Heather L. Monticup Project Manager Attachments 10.529 Trip-Generation&LOS Letter 070210- MCPA.doc PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts ATTACHMENTS TRIP-GENERATION CALCULATIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY CAPACITY AND QUEUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts i TRIP-GENERATION CALCULATIONS I Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 151 -Mini-Warehouse Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable(X): 12.272 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T= 2.50 *(X) T= 2.50 * 12 T= 30.68 T= 30 vehicle trips with 50%( 15 vph)entering and 50%{ 15 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF, ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 0.15 *(X) T= 0.15 * 12 T= 2 vehicle trips with 59%( 1 vph)entering and 41% { 1 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 0.26 * (X) T= 0.26 * 12 T= 3.19 T= 3 vehicle trips with 51%( 2 vph)entering and 49%( 1 vph)exiting. SA'TURDAY DAILY T= 2.33 *(X) T= 2,33 * 12.3 T= 28.59 T= 28 vehicle trips with 50%( 14 vpd)entering and 50%( 14 vpd)exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T= 0.40 * (X) T= 0.40 * 12.3 T 4.91 T= 5 vehicle trips with 50%( 3 vph)entering and 50%( 2 vph)exiting. Greettntrrn-Pedersen,Lte, LUC 151 - 12,272 s£xls Institute of Transportation Ertgineet�s (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 710 - General Office Building Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable(X): 4.255 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T= 11.01 * (X) T= 11.01 * 4.255 T= 46,85 T= 48 vehicle trips with 50%( 24 vph)entering and 50%( 24 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T� 1.55 *(X) T= 1.55 * 4.255 T= 6.60 T= 7 vehicle trips with 88%( 6 vph)entering and 12%( 1 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1.49 *(X) T= 1.49 * 4.255 T= 6.34 T= 6 vehicle trips with 17%{ 1 vph)entering and 83%( 5 vph)exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T- 2.37 * (X) T= 2.37 4.255 T= 10.08 T= 10 vehicle trips with 50%( 5 vph)entering and 50%{ 5 vph)exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T= 0.41 *(X) T= 0.41 * 4.255 T= 1.74 T= 2 vehicle trips with 54%( 1 vph)entering and 46%( 1 vph)exiting. Greenman-Pedersen,Ine. LUC 710-4,255 sf xls Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 710 - General Office Building Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable(X): 16.527 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T= 11.01 * (X) T= 11.01 * 16.527 T= 181.96 T= 182 vehicle trips with 50%( 91 vph)entering and 50%( 91 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAT{HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1.55 * (X) `I'= 1.55 * 16.527 T= 25.62 T= 26 vehicle trips with 88%( 23 vph)entering and 12%{ 3 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK DOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 1.49 *(X) T= 1.49 * 16.527 T= 24.63 T= 25 vehicle trips with 17%( 4 vph)entering and 83%( 21 vph)exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T= 2.37 * (X) T= 2.37 * 16.527 T= 39.17 T= 40 vehicle trips with 50%( 20 vph)entering and 50%( 20 vph)exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T= 0.41 *(X) T= 0.41 * 16.527 T= 6.78 T= 7 vehicle trips with 54%( 4 vph)entering and 46%( 3 vph)exiting. Greenman-Pedersen,lire. LUC 710- 16,527 sfxls Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 814 - Specialty Retail Center Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq.Feet Gross Leasable Area Independent Variable(X): 16.527 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T= 44.32* (X) T= 44.32* 16.527 T= 732.48 T= 732 vehicle trips with 50% ( 366 vpd)entering and 50% ( 366 vpd)exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREI.'I'TRAFFIC ITE LUC 820 Weekday Morning Trip Rate — ITE LUC 814 Weekday Morning Trip Rate ITE LUC 820 Weekday Evening Trip Rate ITE LUC 814 Weekday Evening Trip Rate LD0 = (y) Y = 0.72654155 3.73 2.71 T= Y * 16.527 T= 12.01 T= 12 vehicle trips with 61% ( 7 vph)entering and 39% { 5 vph)exiting. (saute distribution split as ITE LUC 820 during the weekday morning peak!lour of adjacent street traffic) WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 2.40 * (X) +21.48 T= 2.40 * 16.527 + (21.48) T= 61.14 T= 61 vehicle trips with 44% ( 27 vph)entering and 56% ( 34 vph)exiting. SATURDAY DAILY T= 42.04 * (X) T= 42.04 * 16.527 T= 694.80 T= 694 vehicle trips with 50% ( 347 vpd)entering and 50% ( 347 vpd)exiting. SA'TURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR ITE LUC 820 Saturday Midday Trip Rate = ITE LUC 814 Saturday Midday Trip Rate ITE LUC 820 Saturday Daily Trip Rate ITE LUC 814 Saturday Daily Trip Rate 4.89 = (Y) Y= 4.11398039 49.97 42.04 T= Y * 16.527 T= 67.99 T= 68 vehicle trips with 52% ( 35 vph)entering and 48% ( 33 vph)exiting. (same distribution split as ITE LUC 820 during the Saturday midday peak hour of generator) Greeunrart-Pedersen, Lee. 814-SF.xls I Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code (LUC) 933 - Fast-Food Restaurant without Drive-Through Window Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area Independent Variable(X): 2.60 AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY T= 716.00* (X) T= 716.00* 2.60 T= 1,861.60 T= 1,862 vehicle trips with 50% ( 931 vpd)entering and 50%( 931 vpd)exiting. WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T= 43.87 * (X) T= 43.87 * 2.60 T= 114.06 T= 114 vehicle trips with 60% ( 68 vph)entering and 40%( 46 vph)exiting. WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC T=. 26.15 * (X) T= 26.15 * 2.60 T= 67.99 T= 68 vehicle trips with 51% ( 35 vph)entering and 49% ( 33 vph)exiting. SA'rURDAY DAILY T= 696.00* (X) T= 696.00 * 2.60 T= 1,809.60 T= 1,810 vehicle trips with 50% ( 905 vpd)entering and 50%( 905 vpd)exiting. SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR T= 54.55 * (X) T= 54.55 * 2.60 T= 141.83 T= 142 vehicle trips with 49% ( 70 vph)entering and 51%{ 72 vph)exiting. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 933-SF.xls PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of levels of service to traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).4 The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of year. A description of the operating condition under each level of service is provided below: • LOSA describes conditions with little to no delay to motorists. • LOS.B represents a desirable level with relatively low delay to motorists. • LOS C describes conditions with average delays to motorists. • LOS D describes operations where the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delays are still within an acceptable range. • LOSE represents operating conditions with high delay values. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay, • LOS F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers with high delay values that often occur, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Levels of service for unsignalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis methodology of the HCM. The procedure accounts for lane configuration on both the minor and major street approaches, conflicting traffic stream volumes, and the type of intersection control (STOP, YIELD, or all-way STOP control). The definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is a function of average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration 4 Highway Capacity Manual 2000,Transportation Research Board;Washington,D.C.;2000. PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The level-of-service criteria for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table A-1. Table A-1 LEVEL-Or-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized Intersection Criteria Average Control Delay Level of Service (Seconds per Vehicle) A <i0 B >10 and<_15 C >15 and:M D >25 and<35 E >35 and:550 F >50 Source; Highway Capacity Manual 2000,Transportation Research Board;Washington,D.C.;2000, Page 17-2, For unsignalized intersections, this delay criterion may be applied in assigning level-of-service designations to individual lane groups or to individual intersection approaches. PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S BUILDING North Andover,Massachusetts CAPACITY AND QUEUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1: Orchard Hill Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Baseline HCM Unsi nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday AM Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR S8L SBT Lane Configurations Volume(vehlh) 6 10 576 21 53 1076 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.40 0.40 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 Hourly Crow rate(vph) 15 25 662 24 56 1145 Pedestrians Lane Width(fl) Walking Speed(fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.79 vC,conflicting volume 1359 343 686 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 910 343 686 tC,single(s) 7.1 6.9 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 3.7 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 92 96 94 cM capacity(vehlh) 182 659 903 Direction, Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 15 25 441 245 438 763 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 56 0 Volume Right 0 25 0 24 0 0 cSH 182 659 1700 1700 903 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.04 0.26 0.14 0.06 0.45 Queue Length 95th(ft) 7 3 0 0 5 0 Control Delay(s) 26.5 10.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay(s) 16.6 0.0 0.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 - Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 V:1105291AnalysislWeekday AM Baseline,syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen, ]no, Page 1 1: Orchard Hill Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Build HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday AM 'r 4-- t /' Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SST Lane Configurations ) r* 0 4t Volume(vehlh) 7 12 576 32 65 1076 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.40 0.40 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 Hourly flour rate(vph) 18 30 662 37 69 1145 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(fYs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.78 vC,conflicting volume 1391 349 699 VC1,stage 1 conf Vol vC2,stage 2 conf Vol vCu,unblocked Vol 940 349 699 tC,single(s) 7.1 6.9 4.1 IC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.7 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 90 95 92 cM capacity(vehlh) 170 653 894 Direction,Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 18 30 441 257 451 763 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 69 0 Volume Right 0 30 0 37 0 0 cSH 170 653 1700 1700 894 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.26 0.15 0.08 0.45 Queue Length 95th(ft) 8 4 0 0 6 0 Control Delay(s) 28.5 10.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay(s) 17.3 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 .. - . Intersection Capacity Utilization 61,9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 V;110529\AnalysislWeekday AM Build.syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1 i 1: Orchard Hill Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Baseline HCM Unsi nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday PM T I' �► Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume(vehlh) 27 54 1096 23 8 721 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,58 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate(vph) 47 93 1231 26 9 848 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.84 vC,conflicting volume 1687 629 1257 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1444 629 1257 tC,single(s) 6.8 7.0 4.6 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.5 p0 queue free% 55 78 98 cM capacity(vehlh) 103 420 439 Direction,Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 47 93 821 436 292 565 Volume Left 47 0 0 0 9 0 Volume Right 0 93 0 26 0 0 cSH 103 420 1700 1700 439 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.22 0.48 0.26 0.02 0.33 Queue Length 95th(ft) 48 21 0 0 2 0 Control Delay(s) 65.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Lane LOS F C A Approach Delay(s) 32.6 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 T Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 V:1105291Analysis\Weekday PM Baseline.syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1 f 1: Orchard Hill Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Build HCM Unsi nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday PM 'f- t /'" \,,. Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r tT +T+ Volume(veh/h) 37 65 1096 25 10 721 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate(vph) 64 112 1231 28 12 848 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.84 vC,conflicting volume 1693 630 1260 VC1,stage 1 conf Vol vC2,stage 2 conf Vol vCu,unblocked vol 1451 630 1260 tc,single(s) 6.8 7.0 4.6 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.5 p0 queue free% 37 73 97 cM capacity(vehlh) 102 420 438 Direction, Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 64 112 821 439 295 565 Volume Lett 64 0 0 0 12 0 Volume Right 0 112 0 28 0 0 cSH 102 420 1700 1700 438 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.63 0.27 0.48 0.26 0.03 0.33 Queue Length 95th(ft) 77 27 0 0 2 0 Control Relay(s) 87.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C A Approach Delay(s) 42.2 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 3. - 4 _. Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 V:1105291AnalysislWeekday PM Build.syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1 1: Orchard HIII Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Baseline HCM Unsi nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Saturday Midday t i Movement WBL WBR N8T NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►, Volume(vehih) 35 33 503 31 39 484 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.65 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate(vph) 54 51 519 32 44 644 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.94 vC,conflicting volume 894 275 551 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 756 275 551 tC,single(s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 83 93 96 cM capacity(vehih) 313 728 1029 Direction,Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 54 51 346 205 225 363 Volume Left 54 0 0 0 44 0 Volume Right 0 51 0 32 0 0 cSH 313 728 1700 1700 1029 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.04 0.21 Queue Length 95th(ft) 15 6 0 0 3 0 Control Delay(s) 18.9 10.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay(s) 14.7 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 V:1105291Analysis\Saturday Midday Baseline.syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. page 1 1: Orchard Hill Rd & Osgood Street (Rte. 125) 2010 Build HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Saturday Midday f- !* \',. Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Vi r 0 0 Volume(vehlh) 37 34 603 33 41 484 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.65 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate(vph) 57 52 519 34 46 544 Pedestrians Lane Width(fl) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 352 pX,platoon unblocked 0.94 vC,conflicting volume 900 276 553 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 761 276 553 tC,single(s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 82 93 96 cM capacity(vehlh) 310 727 1028 Direction, Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 57 52 346 207 227 363 Volume Left 57 0 0 0 46 0 Volume Right 0 52 0 34 0 0 cSH 310 727 1700 1700 1028 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.04 0.21 Queue Length 95th(ft) 17 6 0 0 4 0 Control Delay(s) 19.2 10.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay(s) 1&0 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS 8 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 V:1105291AnalysislSaturday Midday Build.syn Synchro 7- Report Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Page 1