The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-02-05 Northmark Bank Correspondence WRTH�� BANK Jane C. Walsh President May 9, 2003 RECFIVED ! Mark Rees I Town Manager MAY p fj 2001 Town of North Andover Town Hall F'tA N N pNb()Visf-� 120 Main Street r�F4�R� l�r`f North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Rees, It has come to our attention over the last few weeks that a commercial development is planned for the land located adjacent to our headquarters on Route 114 in North Andover. Although we are proponents of commercial and residential development, we believe that the planning for such developments needs to be done with serious forethought of the many impacts resulting from such major developments. In that regard, I would like to address the specific proposed development of the Route 114 site. The plans currently proposed by the developer would very negatively affect our basic business. It is absolutely not the intention of Northmark Bank to allow an entrance from our site to or from the proposed development or to alter either our current entrance or current egress to our headquarters, contrary to what is depicted on the proponent's plans. Any change in the configuration of our current stand-alone site would have a very negative impact on our business. I look forward to speaking with you if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Ja"e C, Walsh President cc: Members of the Board of Selectman Planning Board Members 89 Turnpike Street P.O. Box 825 North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 686-9100 FAX (978) 686-5779 Winchester Office 26 Mount Vernon Street Winchester,MA 01890 (781)721-9100 FAX(781)721-9948 ORTH ° BANK Jane C. Walsh President July 10, 2003 Mr, Mark Rees Town Manager k , Town of North Andover `'"° Town Hall I 120 Main Street ' _ j North Andover, MA 01845 e�NNjt�� . I. Fi 1�4rlC;hd J' Dear Mr. Rees, As indicated in my letter to you of May 9, 2003, the proposed development around Northniark Bank's headquarters on Route 114 in North Andover raises some significant concerns. The specifics of these concerns are highlighted in the documents that I have included for your review. I look forward to speaking with you if you have any questions on the enclosed documentation. Very truly yours, e C. Walsh President Enclosures cc; Members of the Board of Selectman Planting Board Members Fire Chief Chief of Police 89 Turnpike Street P.O. Box 825 North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 686-9100 FAX (978) 686-5779 Winchester Office 26 Mount Vernon Street Wi-tchester,MA 01890 (781)721-9100 FAX(781)721-9948 � r HALE AND DORR LLP C 0 U N 5,B L O R 8 A T L A W haledorr.coin 60 STATE STRi=•BOSTON,MA 02109 617-526-6000•e•Ax 617-526-5000 KATHAitl E E.BACHMAN 617-526-6216 katl�arine,bacl�I�tanQbaledorr.cam July 10, 2003 BY HAND Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Secretary of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office 251 Causeway Street - 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Re: Eaglewood Shops Retail Development EOEA File No. 13041 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to you on behalf of Northmark Bank, a Massachusetts commercial bank and owner of premises at 89 Turnpike Street,North Andover, Massachusetts, to provide you with our client's comments on the proposed Eaglewood Shops Retail Development described in an Environmental Notification Form filed with your office under EOEA File No. 13041". Northmark Bank has had its headquarters at 89 Turnpike Street in North Andover since its founding in 1987. This locally-owned bank serves individual and commercial customers in the area from this location. Access for banking customers and bank employees is critical to its daily operations. As more particularly described in the attached reports from Merrimack Engineering Services, a civil engineering firm, and its traffic consultant, Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc., the Eaglewood Shops Retail Development, as proposed, will: *Materially adversely affect access to the bank, by blocking one of the bank's two access drives and creating traffic queues which will make extremely difficult the use of the second access drive. Development plans filed by Eaglewood also assume that the developer may alter access to the bank without the legal right to do so. *Create significant drainage inflows onto the Northmark Bank property, for which the developer does not have legal easement rights. *Evade the regulatory review required under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The Eaglewood development is one of a series of projects being undertaken on land originally under single ownership, the impacts of which should have been reviewed under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act as a single project. If the entirety of the developments had been considered, as required under 301 CMR 11.01(2)(c), it is very likely that regulatory review thresholds in the areas subject to review under MEPA, including air quality and traffic, would have required significantly greater study than the "enhanced ENF" with which the Eaglewood development proponent seeks to conclude the MEPA process. A plan illustrating the adjacent, segmented phases of this overall development is enclosed. BOSTON LONOON MUNICH Nrw YORK OXFORD PR[NCATON RESTON WALTHAM WASHINGTON IIOSTON 1698878v1 lfate and Barr LLP fs a Massaelhtrsens Lindted Lfabilily Panrierslilp I MEPA Office July 10, 2003 Page 2 We must call to your attention the fact the project proponent is aware that Northmark Bank has declined to have its property incorporated into the Eaglewood retail development. Our client met with Eagiewood's representatives on two occasions to discuss Eaglewood's desire to rearrange access to the Northmark Bank headquarters; at both occasions, the Bank made clear that it did not wish to do so. The statement in the "Coordination with Abutters" section of the Expanded Environmental Notification Form that "The Northmark Bank will be maintained and incorporated into the site with the proponent providing internal access to the site as described in Chapter 3" (page 1-5) is made in direct contradiction to the express communication of Northmark Bank with the proponent. As a further matter, Northmark Bank cooperated with the Massachusetts Highway Department when MHD widened Route 114 approximately eight years ago, including the grant of necessary easements to MHD and accepting MHD's adjustments to the curb cuts to the Northmark Bank property. When the Eaglewood proposal became public, Northmark wrote to MHD, asking for assurance that MHD would not permit access to the Bank to be impaired by this development. Cominissioner Cogliano responded with his assurance that MHD would not take such an action. Copies of this correspondence are enclosed. Northmark Bank is a well-respected, important contributor to the economic and civic Iife of its community. The proposed development would materially adversely impair the ability of the bank to serve its customers and conduct its business. The proper legal rights to carry out the development scheme have not been obtained, and MEPA's regulatory requirement that projects not be segmented has not been respected. Northmark Bank supports responsible economio development by its neighbors. This proposal does not meet that standard. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any-questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours," ,M +� A IJ Katharine E. Bachman Cc; Ms. Jane C. Walsh, President,Northmark Bank Mr. Stephen E. Stapinski, Merrimack Engineering Services Mr, Dermot J. Kelly, DJK Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning BOSTON 16988780 n, MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS + LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERS bb PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHLISMS 0181 Q•TEL(978)475-3555,373-5721 •FAX(978)475-1448 E-MAIL:merrong@aoLcom July 3, 2003 Y Ms. Jane Walsh,President BY FAX&MAIL Northma;rk Bank 89 Turnpike Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Eaglewood Shops North Andover, MA EOEA#13041 Dear Ms, Walsh Per your request I have reviewed the Environmental Notice Form filed by VHB on behalf of the proponent of the subject development, and have found significant traffic, drainage and regulatory issues presented by the proponent: 4 A. TRAFFIC 1. Eaglewood has depicted on plans filed with the Town of North Andover a proposal to close your southerly driveway onto Route 114., It is my understanding that you have not agreed to such a closure, It appears that Eaglewood's traffic plan involving signalization of their and the property across the street from the site(Eagle Tribune Publishing which is currently in common ownership with this site) and the proposed development will cause a significant queue which will inhibit the ability of motorists from utilizing your southerly driveway and further inhibit the ability of motorists to utilize your northerly driveway. 2. Eaglewood is proposing a driveway to interconnect between your bank and your proposed development. It is my understanding fi-om you that no t agreement with Eaglewood has been made and that in fact you do not wish an interconnection between your site and the proposed development, Ms. Jane Walsh, President July 3, 2003 Page 2 B. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 1. The grading plan prepared by VHB for the driveway leading onto your site depicts storm-drainage flow over land along the driveway onto the Northmark Bank property with no provisions for handling that increase in runoff or flooding onto the Northmark site. 2. The grading plan prepared by VHB for the project depicts major retaining walls located in close proximity to your northerly property line, such that the finish grade of the proposed retail facility will be approximately 6' below the ground elevation at the property line,and approximately 10'�-- 12' below the existing driveway and bank building floor elevation. This extreme earth cut and retaining wall will have significant aesthetic impacts on your facility without the provision of any buffer between the driveway and the proposed development or retaining wall. There are also vehicular and pedestrian safety negative impacts which will occur to your site from this design. g 3. The proposed plan depicts a driveway and roadway which varies in height between 5' to 10' feet above the elevation of your property at the rear or westerly property line of the site. The grading plan prepared by the engineer does not,depict any storm drainage in that area and in fact will create a pond in the northwest corner of your property. That ponding will have significant negative impact on the existing drainage facilities which currently service your site and your existing building. 4. The proposed grading and construction along the westerly property line of your site will result in a substantially steep slope. That slope does not have the potential for planting or buffering and as such substantial negative aesthetic impacts can be expected if this aspect of the development is implemented. MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETMS 01810 Ms. Jane Walsh,President July 3, 2003 Page 3 C. RE,GULALTORY COMPLIANCE 1. It appears that the Eaglewood development is being segmented from other developments since the owner of the Eaglewood property is also the owner of substantial other properties in the area, several of those have been recently- approved or are in the process of being approved for development. Those include the following: a. Recent addition to Lawrence Eagle Tribune Publishing Facility across the street from Eaglewood(about 80,000 S.F.) b. Proposed CVS stand alone facility located across the street from Eaglewood. c. Eighty(80)unit condominium complex located behind Eaglewood currently under construction by Pulte Homes (formerly owned by Lawrence Eagle Tribune). d. Vacant residential land on Nigh Street(under study by the owner for development). It appears.that if those developments were included with the Eaglewood proposal, thresholds might be crossed for,Air Quality and possibly wetlands or stormwater management as well as traffic. 2. Consideration of the entire development scheme rather than the segmentation may have an impact on other permits such as DEP Sewer Extension and MHD curb cut permits. In consideration of all of the above please do not hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or comments. Very truly yours, M CK ER1NG SERVICES Ste e tap' S. Presid t cd MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 0)810 Cit-P,V4 io L t, U) j { Pop 1-n " N",\'+\xyy,lsly ii 1 C i N) 1) \y y, y ly t,y o y i / '1 , r o +1 1 1 �,.•\` a,y\,♦ \y�,'��`1\ � r � i}r r' l3b". ` 1� y _ \,y ( /r_�,; i (, ``=`yr� INSM \ \ _ , 'y `j;:L, , ` y` \ li�'` - �, ' �i�$ ',l,'•`�;=t` y �y\y ,`,.•,sj/ ',,.f\ r` � 1 I i,,y „ :.OXI ` �` � ,.1 Q Gp`� •tip ' Paglewood Shope R=tall berelopmcw NmIB Ah&vtr,MA o eo tx0 p.n '\ I V6Ak.' `VwuST- V4-r-a'14T GA 0 P 1��L-� I� L-I% v L,Aus �1_�1G� E1�GtG T'e BU 5 1,�t?. �-+v C1 iA=n� JA)4 ' v Jam iQAP TOWNOFf MA SSACf L/S5� ca v�� x..wcn accw,wcttrsrre, t _ 1J 0 1S f57ti } x `as` a p.�lv�l�t ssu� -0-s-6— 51�7FR 1 M/ t� xta/2 IRILAAQ. m t 1434 MRCE4 r" ♦� l r 1 � in blAfM l Q73 sr.azo AN ,3 I-kA • h� cam'[p`� N �� N`� �J '� 1 u _ C 5? Wi op st _ 4 �41 V• T•� �� *�, �� ,•'`.� 4•, �yy 4.1,� , y v r . �. Ln 01 k R �� a0" "4 LAWRENCE �t! Isaat tlaop 4l W / D t� a ` r6 .77 M fOwn bOU"U w L-A-NA 6JKDorrTiol J. Kelly Inn. Traffic Enc)irrcorinylTrtlrispr>rititiori Planning 280 Main Street, Suite 204 North Ruts ling, MA 01864-1300 Office: 978.664 P?08 Fax: 978-661.2444 REF; 643 Via Fax only July 10, 2003 Mr. Steve Stapinskf Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc, 56 Park Street Andover, MA 01810 RE: Eaglewood Shops -- EOEA#13041 North Andover, MA Expanded Environmental Notification Form Clear Steve: DJK Associates, Inc. (DJK) has performed a professional and independent technical review of the Transportation Section as presented In the EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM (ENF) prepared for EAGLEWOOD SHOPS, NORTH ANDOVER, MA prepared by Vanasse Haagen Brustlin, Inc, (VHB) dated May 15, 2003 and Layout and Material Plan C-3 prepared by VHB dated May 1, 2003, The proposed Shopping Center project Includes the construction of two separate retail buildings to be located on Route 114 in North Andover, Massachusetts along the Andover town Ilne_ This review of the Transportation Study focuses on the technical Information presented in the Transportation Section of the Expanded ENF, Overview The Northmark Bank property is located adjacent to and west of Route 114 with the proposed Eaglewood Shops abutting the Northmark Bank property on the remaining three sides of the property to the north, west and south. The Northmark Bank currently has two driveways, an entrance driveway located along the northern side of the property and an exit driveway located along the southern end of the property, essentially creating e one-way circulation pattern around the existing building. The Expanded ENF shows a signalized driveway for the proposed Shopping Center 15 feet from the Northmark Bank exit driveway and 145 feet from the Northmark Bank entrance driveway, The VHB Traffic Analysis shows that there will be a significant adverse Impact to the existing driveways serving the Northmark Bank properly due to the location of the proposed signalized driveway. As described below, the Traffic Review resulted in the following concerns: ` DJK Dermot ,I, Kelly Ar'soc:ialv�-., Im'. Traffic Fri ctinr;r.rinq[Truii!`portation Planning F Mr. atsapklnski July 10, 200$ Page 2 • Inconsistent traffic counts. • Missing traffic volume data and Information, « Lack of a coordinated analysis Involving the proposed CVS located across Route 114 from the Proposed Eaglewood Shops, especially In light of the reported common property ownership. + Lack of alternative Driveway location analysis for the proposed signalized driveway serving the proposed Shopping Center. * Lack of a detailed discussion regarding the duration and frequency of the Northmark Rank Driveway blockage. Inconsistent plan information and misrepresentation of Northmark Bank access alternatives. The above Issues should be address in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The following Is a more detailed review of the Eaglewood Traffic Report. Existing Conditions The description of the study area and methodology were presented In a standard manner. The study notes traffic volumes were collected both manually and mechanically during January and March 2003. Vehicle classification and manual turning movement counts were conducted In 15-minute intervals for the weekday evening (4;00-- 6:00 PM) peak and the Saturday midday peak (11:00 AM _ 1:00 PM). All traffic count locations i appear to be reasonable given the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development. However, DJK could not verify the 200 Existing Weekday Evening and 2003 Existing Saturday Midday Traffic Volumes because the traffic volume data In the appendix does not match Figures 3-4 and 3-5. For example, at the Bank Driveway the appendix indicates 27 vehicles entering and 41 vehicles exiting and Figure 3-4 shows 15 vehicles entering and 25 vehicles exiting. Furthermore, the report Indicates that traffic volumes were increased to account for average month conditions based on data from a nearby MassHighway traffic control station. That data was not presented in the report so that could not be substantiated. This data also needs to be presented so December and/or peak month conditions could be evaluated. Several intersection counts were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. It Is standard practice to count traffic can Thursday or Friday when evaluating traffic for proposed Shopping Center development projects. The automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts do not show a combined total for northbound and southtaound traffic, which Is an industry standard. The Saturday manual counts were conducted between 11 AM and 1 PM when the ATR data presented In the Expanded ENF shows traffic to be higher during Saturday midday hours outside the 11 AM to 1 PM time period. DJKDorr7 of J. Kc'�Ily As�;c�r,i;.�t��;, Inc Trutfic Enciinrworing/TrEiiisportatlon Planning I Mr, Stapkinski July 10, 2003 Page 3 No Build Conditions The Transportation Report states that upon review of traffic data from MassHighway count station 502 on route 114 a growth rate of one percent per year Is appropriate. The MassHighway data Is not presented in the report, However, DJK research of MassHighway data indicated an average growth rate of 1.8% between 1997 and 2001 1(43,481 -- 40,507/40,507)/4 T 1.84%]. Traffic volumes should be increased by 2% per year, which Is an industry standard. The report also Indicates that traffic volumes from other development projects were added to the No Builds traffic volume networks. DJK could not verify this since this data was not presented In the Expanded ENF. Build Conditions The Transportation Report used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Shopping Center trip rates for the proposed two retail buildings. Shopping Center trip rates are normally applied to an "Integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall." Alternatively, trip rates should be applied to the two buildings separately. Additionally, the proposed Restaurant constitutes a disproportionately large percent of the proposed shopping center; consequently, an alternative trip-generation analysis should be performed to include restaurant trip generation rates. Traffic Operational Analysis No Level of Service Traffic Analysis was presented for the existing Northmark Bank Driveways under Existing, No Build and/or Build conditions. The Site Drive/Eagle Tribune/Route 114 Intersection analysis was reviewed due to the significance of the impact the project has on the existing Northmark driveways, MEPA guidelines for traffic assessments require queue lengths to be presented in "tabular form." The Transportation Report does not present queue length in tabular form. Queue length as it affects the existing Northmark Driveways as well as adjacent intersections and left-turn lanes is one of the most critical traffic-related issues regarding the proposed Shopping Center and its impact to the adjacent properties. Notwithstanding, the analysis presented In the appendix of the Transportation Report indicates a 50" percentile queue of 190 feet. The Northmark Exit Drive is within 15 feet of the proposed stopiine and the entrance drive is within 145 feet of the stopline for the new traffic signal. Consequently, both driveways will be blocked during the Eagle Trlbune]Eaglewood Shops phase of the proposed traffic signal as well as during other phases of the proposed signal, Alternative driveway locations should be evaluated and presented for review, especially in light of the fact there is common ownership involved with the land across Route 114 from the Proposed $hopp€ng Center at the CVS site, Additionally, an alternative access/egress should be evaluated via Waverly Road since the project parcel has frontage along Waverly Road. DJK ❑errnol ,I. Kolly A,,,,ioclalr3,,, Irr(;, Tt ftic: Er1c;}ir)r;:rxin(llTr,rrl:,l)c>rlr,atio�rs Plunning Mr. Stapkinski July 10, 2003 Page 4 Inconsistent Plan Information and Northmark Bank access Preference Representatives of Eaglewood Properties, LLC met with Northmark Bank officials twica. During each meeting Northmark Dank represented that their preference is to maintain the existing bank access and egress and no parking could be lost to accommodate the Proposed Eaglewood Shops, layout and Materials Plan C-3 shows the Northmark exit driveway to be closed, two to three parking spaces lost to accommodate the Proposed Eaglewood Shopping Center, and onsite Bank circulation would not accommodate a portion of the Bank parking lot, The Bank has not agreed to this, Furthermore, DJK could not substantiate MHD's position on the Eaglewood proposed signal since MHD personnel are on vacation this week. We can comment that both the Expanded ENF and the Plan C-3 show roadway work on Route 114 beyond the Intersection of the property extended and the existing edge of tho roadway which is a violation of MHD's curb cut permit policy based on our previous and recent experience, SummarylConclusioan DJK could not verify the analysis presented In the Expanded ENF for the reasons stated above. Given the unique characteristics of the proposed project and the surrounding properties there Is an opportunity to evaluate access/egress alternatives in the Environmental Impact Report process, which may ultimately lead to the best accesslegress option for the project, its abutters and the traveling public, As currently planned, the proposed Eaglewood Shops s►gnalized driveway would have a significant adverse Impact on the existing Northmark Bank property and viable alternatives should be evaluated. Upon your review of the above analysis, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions, comments, and/or If you require any additional information, Sincerely, DJK ASSOCIATES, INC, Dermot J. Kelly, PE, PTOE President cc: File i, BANK i April 30,20Q3 Jana C Walsh PrrlSid,�xttt Mr. Jahn C:ogliauq,Commissioner Massachusetts Highway Departmont 10 Park Plaza BosiaJJ,MA 02116 RE: Northmark Bank Property 89 Turnpike $treet/Route 114 North Andover, lv1,A Dear Cornraipajoner cogliana: It has recently corn.,*to my attention tb t Eagle Woad f?evely muRt Goznpan)r is p pvs g to rezone land 1009ted adjacent to oar bank hORdqusrters ou Route 114 iallorth Andover, MasaaGl9.usetts. The proposed rezoning would peuigit tho co.cstMotion of a large retail shopping centex-with approximately 413 parkaw,%spaces. The shoppingMterwill surt�all�ti our W.sting bank f4cility. As part of'the d,*vclvpraent proposal the proponent has indicated that the Massaebuse is Highway Department is plug to or will close one of the two accesses that currently seryios the headqum tem of our b�mk faQWty. I am,quite coacemed and suprised that the Massachusetts Highway Dcpartmcnt would abolish one of Qur existing curb outs without having discussions with us, and R=b.er Z boheve our acccss rights would be violated since we bave a right to maintait our properly parm,itted access driveways, ever our front , on Route 114. Altnmtivoly,should tho Massaahugerts IfighwaY Depa=mt not havo made such a statement or should the Massachusetts H'9bway Aapartmcnt not be prpposing such a closure of our driveway thorn aftiti.on,Haight be directed to the dwelo er wbo is represonfit45 that Massachusetts Highway Depamneat has made or will mako such a decision. Auy decision to close or alter the curmnt exit to our facility would have a very negative impact on our existing business. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of'the dcvolopment plan pxvvidod by the pTOponunt to the Town of North Andover that de*4 out'oxisting bark facility: U).e driveways, and the looati.ou,of the proposed closure. Route 114 in foot of our facility was rooarxstructed by the Mmsaclzumtts a way Depazrmer,t approximately eight years ago. At that time we grantcd easeraentu for temporary access and for widening the higbway. The historic wall in front of ow. building was reconstructed in oxdox tv gcaonumda:te rbe madway reoomtxU90on. We have always fqund the Massachuset%Higbway Dcpartrnent to be professional, ooMpetcnt and cmnng about the property nights and business operations of it$public—the clients they serve. S9 TUmPik@ $ et P-0- Sox 828 North Avdowu,* MA oIM (!3,'8)5W9100 F'AX( 8)686-5779• Wincheatet Cage zG Mvvrtt 5romvn$t,,et KVKheste WA,Ulm (781.)nj.9700 F (781)721_994$ Mr. Jolun Gogiiano,,Commissio .eK . _. _...... APdI 30+ Z003 Page?. T solicit yvur, help and attention tv Us matter hoping that the Massacbtmtts Highway Ueparmcnt is not pmposing such.a closure Qf our driveway and that it is only the hope of tho developeu who is proposing a projw that will have ccosid ble impact on the traffic operations of Route 114. AgWA,I appreciate yvur every aonsfd=Uon of our situation and I h9pe that you will not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or gonments or if you yr your�taffwould like to further discuss my owcems. f• ,r .0e. Pr.esidont Enolosura, , { NA WNWANY Mitt Flamrrey Kc7r I feley L7anief A Gros John Cogllsna 4-� �� Gc�v&mGr U,l7ovemor Sec fary Cvmmissfcr�er Office of the Commissioner Julie 12,2003 .lane C Walsh,President NorthMark Bank 89 Tumpike Street P.O. 13ox 825 North Andover,MA 01845 Dear Ms. Walsh: Thank you for your letter regarding the 1`u.tm Eagle Wood Development Campauy's irctail shopping center in North Andover. In your letter,you raised concerns regarding statements made by the proponent of the project that the Massachusetts Highway Department(MassMghway)is planning to Close one of the two aooesses that currently service the NorthMark Bank facflity. Please be assured that MassHighway does not intend to close your existing access. Masskf:ighway reviews and issues access permits on state highways based On a process that follows standard operating procedures. Access permits,once issued, are valid for as indefinite period of time. Any changes or modificadons to an access permit require MassHighway approval in consultation with the permit applicant. MassHighway,along with other state agvxcies,participates in the Massaobtwtts Bxiviroamcntal Policy Act (KEPA), a state-level review of any private dovelopments that impact the stag highway system. Ibe prof orient for this project met with,UassHighway's District 4 Office to discuss the projCot's traffic impacts prier to the forma111PA submission. As part of their general access scheme,they have proposed to consolidate some driveways along Routo 114. While we generally support proposals that improve traffic operations and safety along state highways,we respect the access rights of all abutters,and do not unilaterally implement access schemes proposed by others.We have recoriu =ded that the project Proponent scale cooperation from adjoining property owner to implement an access scheme that will be satisfactory to all parties involved.We will encourage them to work with you to develop acceptable access schemes during the environmental review of the project. T.f you have any questions oC concerns,please feel free to contact me,or Kenneth S.Miller,P,B, Director, 13ureau of Transportation Planning and Development,at(617)97.3-8064. ccrely, John Coglian,o Coznmfssjoner J'Cllcsnt. Messadwsetts Highway Department•Teri Park P180, Boston, MA O2f 164973*(617)973-7800 to ORTHO III BANK Jane C. Walsh 1 „ President October 21 2003 Town of North Andover Planning Board Q('� � � 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 NORM] ;NDOVER PkAfgrdi.Nic:z QVI-1 RTMEN'T RE: Eaglewood Shops North Andover, MA Members of the Planning Board, As you may be aware, Northmark Bank has expressed concerns regarding the Eaglewood Shops development project as it relates to the negative impacts that the project, as currently proposed, would have on our business. The major concerns identified are in the areas of traffic, drainage, grading and landscaping. Enclosed please find documentation highlighting concerns relating to the drainage and grading issues as outlined by our engineering firm, Merrimack Engineering. I thought this information would be helpful to you in your deliberations and review of the proposed development. In addition, our traffic and landscape engineers are continuing to work with the developer's engineering firm on the negative impacts to our business and facility from the proposed plans for traffic and landscaping. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions on the enclosed documents. Sincer ly, / �ne C. Walsh President Enclosure cc, Katharine Bachman, Esquire Hale and Dorr 89 Turnpike Street P.O. Box 825 North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 686-9100 FAX (978) 686-5779 Winchester Office 26 Motint Vernon Sheet Winclester,MA 01890 (781)721-9100 FAX(781)721-9948 MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS +r LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01810• TEL(978)475-3555,373.5721 •FAX(978)475.1448= E-MAIL:Merrer)9000.com i October 8, 2003 Town of North Andover Conservation Commission 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Eaglewood Shops North Andover, MA Mejnber$of the Co i,ssion: Relative to the subject please be advised that I'have reviewed the Notice of intent and plans for the project as well as the Peer Review completed by MHF Associates for the project and it appears that the project if constructed in the fashion in which it is designed will have negative impact upon Northmark Bank, the abutter to the project. Although Northmark Bank is not located within 100' of the wetland area, it is MHF Associates opinion that modification to the plans will result fiom compliance with.the Peer Review resulting in a change to those elements of the project located within 100 of the wetland resource area. In addition, it appears that this filing is premature since the applicant has not applied for all pen its required for the project. `l'he,attached communications of me to Jane Walsh delineate in more detail the concerns. On behalf of Northmark Bank we request that our comments be considered by the Commission and that the Commission at least continue hearing the project until negative impacts to abutting,property owners from the proposed design have been mitigated. Please feel free to contact ine should you have questions or comments. Very truly yours, MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES Stephen E, Stapinski, R.L.S. Project Coordinator cd Enclosure cc: Ms. Jane Walsh => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10/08'03 16:03 MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. PROFESSIONAL,ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS + PLANNERS 68 PARK STREET•ANDOVER.MASSACHUSUIS DIM-TEL(978)475-3555.373.5721 • FAX(978)476.1448- E•MAIL:msrcor)POD 'Com October 7, 2003 Ms. Jane Walsh,President BY FAX & MAIL Northmark Bank 89 Turnpike, Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Review of Site Plans Eaglewood Shops Turnpike Street—Route 114 North Andover, MA Dear Ms. Walsh; Relative to your request, please be advised.that I have completed a review of the Faglewood Shops plans provided to me by VHB in their transmittal dated October 1, 2001 (sic 03). The plans are dated September 25, 2003 and consist of sheets C-1, C-2, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8 and SV-1, as well as a copy of the Notice of Intent dated September 26, 2003 signed by Jean.P. Crouch, Senior Envi(romental. Scientist, VHB. Although the plans are complete in their presentation of a picture of the proposed Eaglewood Development,they are not complete in the context of compliance with the Town of North Andover Regulations of the Planning Board regarding site plan review, compliance with.the Town of North Andover Zoning By-Law and the regulations of the Town.of North Andover Conservation Commission. There are several reasons which lead me to those conclusions all of which 1 am sure will be addressed by the peer review consultant for the Town of North Andover. In general the plans have several disompancies between sheets, such as legend symbols conflicting with plan symbols, buildings are not properly dimensioned,walkways, parking, islands, and other items of a similar nature are not dimensioned acid cannot be constructed in the field, Details regarding landscaping are lacking on the plans and in general there do not appear to be sufficient construction details ftom which to construct the proposed facility. Conflicts between elements of design such as the location of the future reserve parking area and the finish grading associated with the detention pond lead to the opinion that in general there is a lack of coordination on the plans, and that these plans are somewhat preliminary in nature. => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10f08'03 16:03 Ms. Jane Walsh, President October 7, 2003 Page 2 However a review as to strict compliance with the Town of North Andover Regulations is not the basis or purpose of our evaluation of the plan, but rather an evaluation as to whether or not the proposed design will lead to a negative impact to the Northmark Bank facility. In that regard we have considered the Town of North Andover Zoning By-Law and other regulations as they normally would be enforced relative to adjacent property setbacks with the assumption that non-compliance of those regulations will result in undo harm to or negative impact upon an adjacent property owner. Specifically I have reviewed Section 8.3.6 of the By-Law, to find that the Planning Board must find that the plan provides "protection of abutting property front detrimental site characteristics" and further that"the proposed development must not present a demonstrable adverse impact on the surrounding area resulting from excessive noise, dust, smoke, or vibration which are higher than levels now experienced from uses permitted in the surrounding area". The Board must also find that the plan provides for "protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting, including parking lot and building exterior lighting. " and the "adequacy of the soil erosion plan and any plan for protection of steep slopes, both during and after construction" and that there is "provision of adequate landscaping, including the screening of adjacent residential uses,provision of street signs, landscape islands in the parking lot and a landscape bwer along the street frontage. " and further "the buildings shall relate harmoniously to each other in architectural style, site location and building exits and entrances". The plan must also "demonstrate that the scale, massing and detailing of buildings are compatible with those prevalent in the surrounding area. " and that "screening shall be provided for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, roof top equipment, utility building and similar features". It is with the above in mind that I have completed my review of the.plans and this report to you. I have not been provided any building plans so I have not been able to evaluate whether or not "scale, massing, and detailing of buildings are compatible" with your building and its scale or size. In addition, I have not been able to determine whether or not those buildings relate "harmoniously" to your building, However, in relation to the Norfmark Bank building, I have been able to determine the following in consideration of the above: 1. The plan shows the location of baybales to be located on land of the Northmark Bank, along its westerly boundary(rear of its site). I have not been advised that Northmark Bank has granted easezl oats to allow sauce to occur. Obviously erosion of soil onto the Northmark Bank property does not comply with the "adequacy of soil erosion". MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01810 => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10/08'03 16:04 Ms. Jane Walsh, President October 7, 2003 Page 3 2, The plan depicts the location of finish grading to be constructed up to and adjacent to the Northmark property. Given the need or provision of erosion control along the property line it does not seem that implementation of the finish grading in this location is feasible, Again this does not comply with the "adequacy of soil erosion:" requirement. 3. The methodology for implementation of the finish grading along the westerly property line— specifically the proposed swale, will cause drainage flow and runoff onto the Northmark Bank property by virtue of a "shared" drainage swale in this area. This does not comply with the minimization of the, "detrimental site characteristics" requirement of the Board. 4. The provision of catch basin D2 located literally 2' fTom the property line cannot be constructed without encroachment upon the Northmaxk Batik property for construction since the diameter of the drainage structure is 4' and excavation beyond the limits of the structure are necessary.to accouu-nodate its installation. This does not comply with the minimization of the"detrimental site characteristics"requirement of the Board. 5, There appears to be a proposed retaining wall constructed in the southwesterly corner of the Northmark Bank property immediately adjacent to the property line. That is drafted on sheet C-3A.but not called for on Sheet C-2 which depicts the location of other retaining walls to be constructed oti the site. The plans appear not to be coordinated in that regard. No details as to the type of retaining wall as well as the feasibility for construction have been included on the plan set for evaluation. No ability to evaluate the aesthetics of the wall has been provided in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Board and Zoning By-Law. This does not comply with the minimization of the "detrimental site characteristics"requirement of the Board. 6. A concrete retaining wall is proposed to be located along the southerly boundary of the Northmark Bank, offset approximately 5' on the easterly corner and 7' on the westerly comer. Described as "a modular block wall"details associated with the construction including the aesthetics have not been provided. Further, the location of the wall within 5' of the property line violates the requirements of the Zoning By-Law relative to planting and screening in parking lots which have off-street parking lots with more than six spaces (Sectiozi 8A). This does not comply with the"provision for adequate landscaping"requirement of the Board. MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREV t ANDOVER,MAS$ACHV$eTT$01810 => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10/08`03 16:05 Ms. Jane Walsh, President october 7, 2003 Page 4 7. A concrete retaining wall is proposed to be constructed up to the Northmark Bank property line in the northwest corner of the Northmaik property. No description regarding the size and type of wall other than it is "concrete"has been made on the plan. It does not appear to be feasible to construct such a wall given the requirement of foundations and footings to support a concrete wall, This will result in a "detrimental site" impact upon the Northmark Bank, 8. "A concrete wall" is proposed to be located approximately 15' north of the northerly boundary of Northmark Bank. It appears that retaining wall will be approximately 10' high in order to retain soil which supports the Nortek Bank pad. Without construction details including the size of the footing(which can be extensive .for this type of retaining height)the impact on the Northmark Bank parking facilities, circulation, and planting cannot be properly evaluated i.e. will a 10' cut in this area cause the existing trees on the Northmark Bank property to be undermined or die due to groundwater changes, will the structural stability of the existing Northmark infrastructure be disrupted during or after construction. This will result in a "detrimental site" impact upon the Northmark Bank. 9, A catch basin has been proposed in the northwest corner of the Northmark Bw*property, approximately 2' onto the Eaglewood site. The proposed rim elevation of the catch basins is 136,0. However the existing grade elevation at this point is 134.0. Construction of the catch basin in this manner will cause flooding of approximately 2' vertically or more onto the Northmaxk Bank property. This will result in a "detrimental site" impact upon the Northmark Bank. 10, The capacity of the grate of catchbasin D2 adjacent to the Northmark Bank property has a capacity of about 2.05 CFS but a 25 year design inlet flow of 3.4 CFS. Because the catchbasin is draining a"pond" area it should be desigacd for the 100 year storm with a design flow in excess of4,02 CFS —requiring at least another grate and a change in the piping design, otherwise water will pond onto the Northmark property. This flooding will result in a "detrimental site" impact to Northmark Bank. 11, The invert elevation of the pipe into drain manhole D1 has been proposed at elevation 132.6, the elevation of that drain line is too high to allow property drainage of the stormwater.from the Northmark Bank property, assuming that catch basin D2 is adjusted to match the existing grade (elevation 134,0)_ This flooding will result in a "detrimental site"impact to Northmark Bank. MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET i ANDOVER.MASSACHUSETfS 0)0 10 => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10/08'03 16:05 I Ms, Jane Walsh, President October 7, 2003 Page 5 12. The driveway located on the Eaglewood property, approximately 25' west of the Northmark Bank property, and in the southwest portion of the,Northmark Bank, approximately 10' west of the Northmark property line will vary in height from 6' to 8' above the existing grade along the Northmark Bank westerly property line. This will result in vehicle headlights that, at the southwest portion of the Northmark 13Eu*site, will shine into the second floor of the Nprthmark Bank. This flooding will result in a "detrimental site impact to Northmark Bank, In addition to the review indicated above, it is my understanding that the developer has filed a Notice of Intent with the local Conservation Commission. It is my opinion that the filing with the Conservation Commission is not in compliance with the local Conservation Commission Regulations or those of the,)DEP since the developer has not applied for other permits with other Boards that might be necessary in advance of the filing of a Notice of Intent. That is to say that the local Conservation Commission and the State DEP Regulations require an applicant to at least have made application to other Boards that issue permits prior to filing of the Notice of Intent. In this particular case, the developer has not filed a request for an Earth Removal Permit with the Zoning Board of Appeals since it is clear that the developer will be excavating in excess of 5,000 cubic yards of soil to construct the development. Further, it appears that a variance applications(must also be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for development of "the first SO'of front setback" of area along Route 114 in order to "provide an effective visual buffer and no parking shall be permitted", Given the requirement and footnote 1 of the Summary of Dimensional Requirements (Table 2) of the Zoning By-Law and the requirement to-comply with Section 5,5.3 and 5.6 of the By-Law, it appears that this application is premature in filing with the local Conservation Commission. Independent of the above it does not appear that the past-development design of the drainage system is responsive to the requirements of the Town of North Andover or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in that the hydrological model was prepared using blydroCAD Software, which is acceptable, but the analysis is based upon using one large watershed area rather than segregation of the watershed into several smaller areas which will permit a more accurate estimate of runoff and compliance with the stormwater management requirements of the Town and Commonwealth. Anticipating that corrections to the methodology for modeling will be necessary, we have not pursued a more definitive preview of the drainage analysis at this time. MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET•ANDOVER,MASSACHUWIi 01810 => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10/08'03 16:06 j Ms. Jane Walsh, President October 7,2003 Page 6 Given the above, it appears that the plans which have,been prepared are preliminary in nature and require additional design development in order to mitigate impacts on the surrounding property, in particular NorthmarlC Bank, and to be placed in compliance with the Town of North Andover Zoning By Law as applicable for site plan review. Given all of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or comments. Very truly yours, MERRIMACK.ENGINEERING SERVICES Stephen E. Staptnski, R.L.S, President cd MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. 66 PARK STREET+ANDOVER.MMSACHORM 0)810 => NORTHMARK ,TEL=9786859378 10008'03 16:06 N ORT11 BANK Jane C. Walsh President December 3, 2003 Town of North Andover Planning Board I)i G 0 J 27 Charles Street North Andover MA 01845 RE; Eaglewood Shops North Andover, MA Members of the Planning Board, As you are aware from prior communications,Northmark Bank has concerns regarding the Eaglewood Shops development project. Although an agreement has been drafted that would deal with the major issues, I thought it would be important for you to know that no agreement has been executed. It is very concerning that the significant issues we have raised, and which are addressed in the agreement, have not been dealt with at this stage in the planning process. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, j?aneC. Walsh President cc; Robert Tuchmann, Esquire Hale and Dorr 89 Turnpike Street P.O. Box 825 North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 686-9100 FAX (978) 686-5779 Winchester Office 26 Mount Vernon Street Winchester,MA 01.890 (781)721-9100 FAX(781)721-9948 O ORTH BANK Jane C. Walsh D.. z . President RE January 16, 2004 a.l0 Town of North Andover N ItY.T1.14 OVI. H Planning Board 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Eaglewood Shops North Andover, MA Members of the Planning Board, As you are aware from prior communications, Northmark Bank has concerns regarding the Eaglewood Shops development project. Although an agreement has been drafted that would deal with the major issues, I thought it would be important for you to know that no agreement has been executed, I understand that the Planning Board would like to bring closure to this process, as would Northmark Bank,but it is very concerning that the significant issues we have raised, and which are addressed in the agreement, have still not been dealt with. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, jJ ue C. Walsh G' President cc: Robert Tuchmann, Esquire Hale and Dorr 89 Turnpike Street P.O. Box 825 North Andover, MA 01845 (978)686-9100 FAX 686-5779