HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-05 Correspondence i
Town of North Andover OR
ZK 6
Office of the Planning Department _
Community Development and Services Division
n b'
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 "Ssactius�l
http://www.tow-nofnorthandover.com
Town Planner p to@t-ownoLiiortlialtdover.com P (978)688-9535
Julie Panino F (978) 688-9542
February 19, 2004
David Wylie
201 Green Road
Bolton, MA 01740
RE: Eaglewood Retail Plaza
Dear Mr. Wylie:
Attached is the copy of the decision for the permitted Eaglewood Retail Shopping Center. I also
attached portions of the site plan for your review. These plans have been revised but I only have ,
the large set of plans that are difficult to copy. I recommend we set up an appointment to review
the project file and plans. I have highlighted the Royal property, which directly abuts the new
plaza. Landscaping has been provided around the Royal property to address the concerns raised at
the public hearings. If +s ve%ny questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Sinc�rely,
Juli amino, T wn Planner
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9546 PLANNING 688-9535
Town of North Andover Ott.
Office of the Planning Department
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street
�,�
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Sa CHU
http-Z/www.townofnorthandover.com
Town Planner: jparrinoOtownofnorthandover.com P (978) 688-9535
Julie Perrino F (978) 688-9542
March 3, 2004
Eaglewood Properties,LLC
PO Box 337
Topsfield,MA 01983
Re: TMA
Dear Mr, Hamlin,-
Enclosed is information relative to the Merrimack Valley Transportation Management Association (MVTMA),
submitted to me by Andrea Leary. As you are aware,condition 5 (d) of the Planning Board Special Perrrii.t,for
the Eaglewood project,requires you to become a participating member. I believe involvement in the MVTMA
will provide a great benefit to the businesses of your development.
Please feel free to contact me regarding questions and I will be more than happy to schedule a meeting with
Andrea Lea further d' us your.membership requirements.
Sine ely
t Parrino,To n Planner
cc: Planning Board
Heidi Griffin, Community Development.Director
Mark Rees,Town Manager
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
4
F i
Town of North Andover
Office of the Planning Department t..
Community Development and Services Division ,^
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 a aCHU
�vrc�c� c���a�t�tg��a;l;l�e � vcs�
Town<Plamer. - P (978)688-9535
1B�tls- �vw.t��� � ,7_ ,c�€��.t
J.Justin Woods - - F (978)688-95542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: J.Justin Woods,Town Planner
CC: Heidi Gritiiu,Community Development& Services Director ' ;
Mark Rees,Town Manager
RE: Eaglewood Shops Site Plan Application 'a`4
DATE: October 17,2003
The Applicant is proposing a+/- 80,000sf retail facility, related parking and site improvements in the General
Business District. The Planning Department offers the following comments:
L NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Section 3,Zoning Districts and Boundaries
The lots comprising this project were rezoned to General Business at the May 2003 Town Meeting and
subsequently approved by the Attorney General's office. It would be helpful to provide a clearer summary
plan indicating all zone lines within and abutting the project. The applicant should list the restrictive
covenants on the plans. The existing conditions plan.should show correct the Zoning District Boundaries to
reflect the Zoning change on the corner of Peters St and 114 to General Business(GB)and show the residential
properties on the NW,N and NE as Residential-4(R-4)
Section 6, Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
The applicant should submit signage and lighting plans for review.
Section 7.3,Dimensional Requirements—Yard(Setbacks)
Per Table 2 Note 2 of the Zoning Bylaw, "the first 15 feet of the total setback abutting the residential district
shall remain open and green, be suitable landscaped, unbuilt upon." The Board needs to determine what
constitutes landscaping and what constitutes a violation of this requirement. I would recommend defining the
retaining walls as landscaping permitted within the first 15 feet, but not dumpsters(details should be provided
for all of the proposed retaining walls and dumpster fence screening). I am less clear about the guardrails. The
Board could go either way. The intent of the note seems to be to provide a buffer, in which case I would not
recommend permitting the guardrails within the first 15 feet. However, a reasonable argument could be made
that guardrails are a component of the landscaping plan. Either way, I would suggest requiring additional
screening and planting within the first 15 feet, to maintain the buffer as required by the bylaw. Additionally,
there is a letter from Pulte Homes requesting that rear buffers be maintained.
Section 7.4,Building Height
Scaled building elevations have been provided for review, but they have not yet been stamped(a full size copy
should be provided to MHF). I would recommend requesting additional information such as the materials and
colors. I would also request more data on the indicated sign locations, Per Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw, the
maximum allowable building height in the GB District is 45 feet, which is the vertical distance as measured
fi-om the average finished grade level adjoining the building at all exterior walls to the highest roof surface,but
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
October 17,2003
Eaglewood Site Plan Review
Page 2 of 3
shall not include chimneys, spires or mechanical equipment, or penthouses used for enclosures of mechanical
equipment. The elevations show the second floor ending at 35'4, but two other areas extending up to 47'8 and
55'11. 1 consulted with the Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer to confirm that the 10'11 feet exceeding the
height limit is exempt. He stated that per Section 7.4.4, the structural features of a non-manufacturing building
are ok up to 65 feet.
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
The applicant needs to provide floor plans for the restaurant and retail spaces so that the parking calculations
can be checked and verified. Parking calculations should be confirmed with the Building Commissioner/Zoning
Officer. The reserve parking area should be fully designed and should show pedestrian access connecting the
reserve parking area to the retail areas.
11. GENERAL COMMENTS
Existing Conditions Plan of Land(SV-1)
The applicant should show on the existing conditions plan all of the existing lots that comprise the subject site,
including references to the Assessor's Map and Lot number. The applicant needs to file a Form A Approval
Not Required Plan to merge and revise the lot lines appropriately since the intent is to consolidate a number of
existing lots in common ownership. The applicant was advised to file a Form A Plan prior to filing the site in
the TRC report. These applications are available from the Planning Department and the plan would be
reviewed administratively as a boundary line consolidation/adjustment.
Layout and Materials Plan(C-2)
A truck turning plan should be provided to illustrate movements in several critical areas (e.g., approaches
around buildings and at service center exit alley, dumpster service access at one-way aisles) as previously
discussed at TRC Department input. Traffic control signage should also be added to the plans.
Grading,Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C-3)
There area a number of house cleaning drainage issues identified in MHF's report that need to be resolved.
1. The reserve parking area on the detention basin slope should be fully engineered and integrated into the
plans and calculations and constructed to subgrade(at a minimum), per TRC Department input previously
discussed.
17. The proposed grading appears to overreach the property boundary and does not provide enough space to
install the silt fence/hay bale barriers shown(specifically along the existing bank property line and at the
north-west corner). Flows would essentially be centered along the property line and be divided onto the
abutter's property. These areas should be examined and redesigned as needed, or easements applied.
18. Proposed tree line and Limit of Work line should be shown,
Utility Plan(C-4)
1. The plans should address all electric pad locations which are not shown—this is unclear. It is unclear on
the plan where the connections would be made from the proposed electric and gas services to the existing
utilities in Rt. 114. All utility connections in the Rt. 114 right-of-way will require approval fiom Mass
Highway and possible input from North Andover DPW.
4. Sewer main-profiles should be provided for this project, due to the extensive amount of infrastructure,
slopes, and utility crossings inherent in the design.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
i
i
October 17,2003
Englewood Site Plan Review
Page 3 of 3
Landscape Plan(C-5)
Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval for substitutions or
modifications of the landscaping plan.
Traffic Review
1. An evaluation of on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation should be completed with regard to the
proposed development and adjacent tenants. This analysis should include a plan depicting the turning and
circulation requirements for delivery vehicles entering, exiting and within the site along designated
delivery routes. The Circulation pattern should also consider internal traffic and whether or not one exit
will have adequate capacity to support all of the exiting traffic.
2. Highway Plans and plans for offsite improvements should be submitted for review
3. The initial Traffic Study identified in the EENF shows the main signalized site driveway across fi-om the
Eagle Tribune driveway. This has changed in SEIR, to a point approximately 220 feet to the east. VA1
stated in their review that the optimal location for this driveway is across from the existing Eagle
Tribune driveway. An alternate solution may be to move the Eagle Tribune driveway across the
street from the location shown on the SEIR. if the latter is considered, I would also suggest looking at a
right turn only exit lane in the Retail 1 (Staples)area.
4. A truck delivery plan should be prepared.
5. The circulation within the parking field in front of the proposed Retail building should be re-evaluated to
remove dead end isles
6. The design of the dumpster areas should be reviewed so trash trucks do not intrude into the circulation isle
or appropriate provisions should be in place so that these areas remain clear at all times.
7. The Applicant should also seek to establish a pedestrian connection to Pulte Homes' residential project to
the rear of the site.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
MEMORANDUM
TO N orth A ndover P lann.ig B oard
FROM H eidiG rifEin, Comm unity D evebpm cnt& Sesvi D i for
RE : Site Plan.R ev3Ew -Eagkw ood Shops-Route 114
DATE : NovEmberl3,2003
A s the attached m en orand€im from M H F outlines m any of the engineeidng isaies and others w e
touched upon atthe hstheamg,Iw illbxiefdy sun m ai am mm e of the changesm ade since the last
m eeti ag
1, A 4' huh white picket Bice has been added along the frontage of Route 114 as
requested by the B oard;
2. Snow storage and ran oval plans have been pmvi`led since the lastm eebng. The
plans indicate that the snow stockpile areas am�T en poraW and w i11be ran oved from
site the day of plow ing. The stow pile areas axe located throughout several areas
along the izontage of packing areas on R oute ll4. The B oard w as conoetned w ith
the mow pile ren oval areas being bcated above pazlcbg areas and this issue;Ehoukl
be address if it is notto the sadsfactbn of the Board.as proposed.
3. Tn regards to buiklinig m atoms and sbaage m atm�als: e-neraleolDm,t ct nes,and
.otherm atarials inforrn atiDn tc> truly depictw hat is being pmposedSheetA 4 has been
pmvided indicating m onum Ent and ffinctional sera details and typical pole lighbi g
m ockups. H ow ever, it is unclear where the indicated sbnage is to be placed.on the
Layout Plan,quant Em and total sbWe areas, the m ethod of signage lthtbg, and
complete co-biz, labeled. Although Sheet A 2 indicates typical building signage
locations,it:.doesnoHndicate the above required inf3omr ation. W eundeistand thatthe
B oard m ay request inf ua ation relate to a posc.3ble com m on than e of w all signage
design.
4. The B oard Mould deirun ine w hether or not a ccm plete design of the pmpos d
res;_rve paikmg should be provided as indicated in M H F's xeviaw letterr. If not,the
decision w ill_need tD reflect it accurately,but I concur w Ah M H F that the remove
parking Mould be adequately planned fnr if itneeds to be built:and that the design
should include allitern snozm ally squired for review,including pedestrraa access.
5. k is dif�ult;to ievicw the parking w ith the unceit unty of]mow ing whether or not
the resbu=tw illexiston the site as ind,-atBd by the applicant The prcpos=l uge
Mould be definitely deteun Bred to prov-jde an overall.effective parjc_ing,pedesbJan-
fa:iendly site plan. If nerd be,the apphoant c ould a1 v ays could back for a site plan
m od ific at ion and thatcould be conditioned in the decision.
6. The Planning D q ae t enthas xequeste=l consistently that the AN Plan be pzgaared
in association w ith the,sines ittal. I am not sure why the applicant has not, or is,
relucWnttn s.ln itone.
---The-applicantn,� tD ad�-the..Bylaw _Section-84 which-sets forth m imam _
screening and land.�e mquiran ants for off-street lots. M ore gpecifirally, the
"i`npeivbus screen"re4uivan entofpaiagizph 1,and the requimm ents ofpauxjizph 4
w here interbr landsa-ipe sups are required.
8. The parking area the boaid originally had concerns w ith and considered "aw kw ard"
located above the R oyalPropety still mn gins on the plans.
9. The landing section of our site plan emulations state the follow l g:
"O n at Imst three sides of the perm eter of an outdoorpaAing lot, there dhallbe planted at
]mst one tree for every the (3 0) linear fit in the inter part of an outdoor parking lot
where tw o row s ofparking paces containing a total.of 10 or ore parking qDaces f ace each
other,a land. open q)acenotless than 6 feetinwidth shaRbeprovided.The lands
stt:p m ay be provided either-, 1)betw een the row s of parking Epaces parallel to the aisle
or,2) in tw o or m ore strips parallel to the spaces and e ctEnding h= the aisle serving
one row of spaces to the aisle serving the other row of Epaees,as illustrated below .
Trees rec Pied by this section shallbe at least 3 5 inches in dim etnr at a height four feet
above the ground att in e of pl<an#�ng and shallbe of species chamctm3zed by suitabibly and
hardiness forbcation in parking lot. .
The lands ap-hg plans do not m eet the recluhim en.ts of this won. For exan ple, the
plantings located in front of R etail#1 and R eta#2 do not appear to have trees at least 3 5
inches in than eter in fact, them are only 20 trees lister on the entire landscaping plan
[O ctoberG Jory R ed M aple]which axe 3 5 inches in diem eterkbaliper'or largeroutof the 114
d ade uees listed on the plant lissL The applicant should either impest a w aiver to this
section of the landscaping bylaw orrevase the plans appmpriately.
10. I am unclear as to whether or not pedes-than aocam has been proved to the adjacent
paxcelow ned by Pulte H om es but am of the understanding the two entities axe ath n pt hg to
reach an agreen entto try and incorporate this m1aestof the B oard.
A gain, I w ould reiterate this is a brief revkw as there are m any other itEm s reefs rgmce 1 in
M H F D esign'sm an oxandum [attached).
Page 1 of 3
Wilson, Deb
From: Griffin;Heidi
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:37 PM
To: Wilson, Deb
Subject: FW: eaglewood project list of action items
Hi:
Can you please put the below portion of my original email sent out in the Eaglewood File?
Thanks,
heidi
-----Original Message-----
From: Dunford, Patrick[maiito:PDunford@VHB.com)
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:04 PM
To: kcram@rdva.com; hgriffin@townofnorthandover.com; Karl R. Dubay; Maryanne Thurrott
Cc: Stephenson,.Ion; Fill, Ana
Subject: FW: eaglewood project list of action items
Attached please find a copy of our memorandum addressing the traff�related comments from the VAl peer review. We are still working on addressing
some of the additional items highlighted by Heidi below. An original version of this document,with accompanying material is being delivered to you
tomorrow.
Please call with any questions.
-----Original Message----
From: Heidi Griffin [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:58 AM
To: Dunford, Patrick
Cc: McIntosh, Timothy; 'Alberto Angles; 'Angles,Alberto; Rees, Mark; rnardella@comcast.net; 'Simons, John'; 'Felipe Schwarz'; 'George White(E-mail)';
'James Phinney'; Sullivan, Jack, Nicetta, Robert; Parrino, Julie; chuntress@eomcast.net, krd@mhfdesign.com; rbehamlin@msn.com
Subject: RE: eaglewood project list of action items
Pat:
In just closing out my notes; 1 also forgot to mention that a Form A Plan is also required for all of the properties to be merged. Technically,this should be
done sooner than later as the properties should be merged prior to work being proposed on it....
11/18/03
. ........................................................... .
Page 2 of 3
Thanks,
Heidi
-----Original Message----
From: Griffin, Heidi
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:06 AM
To: 'pdunford@vhb.com'
Cc: 'P. E.Timothy B. McIntosh (E-mail)'; 'Alberto Angles; 'Angles,Alberto; Rees, Mark; 'rnardeila@comcast.net; 'Simons, John'; 'Felipe Schwarz';
'George White (E-mail)'; 'James Phinney; Sullivan,Jack; Nicetta, Robert; Parrino,Julie; 'chuntress@comcast.net; 'krd@mhfdesign.com';
'rbehamlin@msn.com'
Subject. eaglewood project list of action items
Hi Pat:
I compiled the below list of items that I believe both your engineering team and the applicants were asked to further examine as a result of the
hearing held last Tuesday:
1. Snow Storage -Must be placed in an area where it cannot block parking spaces
2. Parking -The parking lot to the right could be reconfigured to an area where it is not so isolated and odd-shaped;
3. Fence- Fencing [i.e.white picket fence]along the frontage would aesthetically improve the project;
4. Landscaping -More detailed landscape plans, particularly with more landscaping along the front, will be discussed and are needed
at the next planning board meeting in a presentation by Chris Huntress,
5. Pedestrian Access- Proof that pedestrian access has been explored with Pulte Homes adjacent residential property should be
provided.
6. Retaining Walls-if they are over 4' high on unbalanced fill, they will require building permits. Details of the retaining walls should
be provided.
7. Transportation Management Agreement-The applicant agreed to join the TMA, and this will be conditioned in a decision when it is
made.
8. Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Agency- Heidi Griffin will contact Joe Costanza to explore the possibility of busing to the
site and ensure the site is properly planned for busing if allowed.
9. Conservation Commission Jurisdiction -Heidi Griffin will coordinate through the Conservation Administrator that this project is for the
most part out of their jurisdiction.
10. Internal Trucking - It was discussed that the internal trucking circulation patterns were awkward. However, some members of the
board liked it and others disliked it. My suggestion would be to ensure that any trucking circulation proposed can absolutely
accommodate not only emergency vehicles, but also have proper turning radii for delivery trucks. Of particular interest would be the
area where two trucks would meet facing each other from their one way access, stop and then turn down the center aisle.
11. Internal pedestriantvehicular access- It was suggested that either striping, or other types of delineation for vehicles/pedestrians such
as a rumble strip, etc. be clearly delineated between the parking lot areas and the front of the stores.
12. Any single free-standing sign at the front of the site is ultimately permitted by the Building Commissioner as he determines which
signs are in conformance with the zoning bylaw. However, the style of such signs are of acute interest to the planning board for
design and architecture. Currently proposed is a single free-standing sign that denotes the title of the shops"Eaglewood". This is
preferable, as it is similar to the Butcher Boy Plaza site. A more detailed signage plan for each of the individual shops, including
what the"scheme" of the signage will be [for example, are they all aligned at the same height, different height, different colors, etc.]
should be provided definitively. Obviously, each tenant will have their own preference for their own corporate logo however the town
11/18/03
.........
............................................... .......... . .
Page 3 of 3
needs to ensure they have a building schematic and signage plan conducive to the architectural styles compatible with the surrounding area.
13. Courtyard concept-one board member discussed the courtyard concept from when the planning board previously attended a site
visit in Acton, MA. The applicant should be prepared to explain how this concept can or cannot work this particular site.
14. A site visit should be scheduled sometime soon. It is preferable that the edges of the building, as well as tentative roadways be laid
out in order that the planning board familiarize themselves with the site prior to attending the site visit.
The above is a brief list of items that were brought up the other night, and are not all inclusive. I tried to synopsize items that I thought the team
should be aware of to address.
In regards to the next planning board meeting,the meeting is on an unusual night-due to elections it is being held on Thursday, November 6,
2003. As such, I will need revised plans to review for the meeting by Thursday, October 30th by the close of business if you wished to be placed
on the agenda. Plans submitted after that date will not be able to be reviewed by staff and therefore you would not be able to be placed on the
agenda.
Seeing that your list of items to discuss are long, I would suggest focusing on submitting a revised landscape plan with a presentation by Chris
Huntress, as well as any major revisions listed above you would like to discuss. You may submit your revised plans directly to Karl Dubay at
MHF Design,with a copy to myself and the town engineer simultaneously on October 30t'.
If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks,
r r-
"t"���.lc/��r !
Cornrt"iEJn!4/ Development S dices Dire for
27 Charies Street
North;_ndaver. MA 0 1845
,978) 688-9831
EY%8; 888-9��2 i�h
iS -$C rf? in;Cb iJ YiSt/confidential3 ps � Y�� �knJmiE#1 i i 1E' �n Clr�7pi 1 p S Any �t1�2r,L:S�9I uiSS€' t13 ?sii0e^FI, Cp0�ivi^gF Orr CrIlisclasu"^~�?^of th;s tC^ommnupq cat-of is
stri.—dy prc iibitcd. it you iEaYS.. received his 4Vi3 mulnication ;,n error, p`ease notify us and destroy it,�yii..immediately. VanaiJ�yJe �IC{ngen Brustdiin, -.nc. is not
responsiNe for any undete able a€oration.,transmission error, conversion media degradation, 3Jz E''�la're error, Jr interference with this rans :istion.
1 ill 8/03