HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-05 Engineer Review ,
wiansportntion
Land DevolopmeM ,..,,,:•:,,
Environmental
Sarvicec
OCT 2004
renag�r►et wnarahO" "Orff CMOs resulbe for our e ftb%old bet►MW for out auinmunt
90ber5,2M4
Re 089�i.00 Tlayxr�.rr�r bL�x�P.,n.��t�ct`�'�t2,.lY{�
MOW Griffin
Community Development&Services Director
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re; 8aglewood Shops Plan Revisions
Dear Ms,Criffin,
IU drawings for the Roglowood Shops approved by the North Andovet Plartning Board hove
been revised in order to resolve an appeal of the decision by a direct abutter,Mite Homes,
developer of the Coochnc>Ws Ridge project In Andover,Msssnchusette.The following is
summary of mirror changes to the permit Site DrawhW since the approval:
• Reduction in size of Cut xetairking wall west of Retail 3 by appro)dmately 1,900 square
feet.
• Reduction in size of fail retaining wall west of Retail 2 by approximately 1,900 square
feet.
• Change in layout of retaining wall west of Retail 2,portion of wall perpendicular to
property('Town)lute,creating an area of higher grades more effective landwapi ng,
Landscape Berm along prop"(Town)line.
• Substantial additional landscapiq along property line to indudel
o 16 Eastern Red Cedars.
o 46 Norway Spruce(7'-8' h)
o 16 Norway Spruce(1d'421gh)
o W White Spruce(714'high)
0 14 White Spruce(10'12'high) !
0 9 White Pines(7'-8'high)
The applicant Considers these minor plan revisions necessary in order to resolve the appeal of
the decision.The revisions result in an unproved landscape buffer between the Englewood l
Shops project and the Coachman's Ridge residential project in Andover,Massachusetts.Should
you have any questions please do not hesitate to Call.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGHUBRUSTUN,INC.
)on D.Stephenson P.H.
!
101 walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown Massachusetts 024 71-91 51
617.924.177Q P FAX 617,924.7266 i
���oibr4ldacs�kthreltmrllfsns0'0lA4.da email;info@vhb,com
www.vhb.corn
5.2004 513OPM VHS NO.332
Ae hm soin don
Full Name: Heidi Griffin
Lest Name; Griffin
First Name: Heidi
Job Title: Community Development&Services Director
Company: Town of North Andover
Buoinesa Address. Community Development&Services Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01846
Business: . (978)688-9535
Business Fax; (978)6ae-9342
E-mail; hgrifflMOtownofnorthandovsr.com
Email Display As: Heidi Griffin(hgrlffln 0townofnorthandover.00m)
Categories-, 08354-Eagiewood
Neicewor491M
Community Development&Services Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
(978)698.9531
(978)688-9542 W
Heidi Griffin
Community Development&Services Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01 B45
I
1
�r�1is aav that a st,yu
Manzi McCann
ATTORNEYS AT LAW r
59 Jaekson Street
Lawrence,Munchusetta 01840
Telephone:(978)6E646"
Fax;(978)794-9628
Vincent C.Manzi,1r, OF COUNSEL
Eugene Patrick MUCnnn Chinos Scat Nlorman mom.and vl..
Steven A.Baddour Pecs I MoUlan
Patrick F.McCann Texas only
OFCOUNSEL Mi hul A.MmW
W4 M.Soccarecelo
September 29,2004 a Dow
Clark
Land Cow
226 Causeway Street
Boston,Massachuscus 02114
RE., Coachman Development,LLC v.Planning
Board of North Andover,et al
Mime.No.297053
Dew Sir:
With regard to the above captioned matter,Y am enclosing a Stipulation of Dismissal.
Would you kindly file and docket same in your usual mmaer7
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact this office,
Very ly yours,
incenit
Enclosure
cc: Mark Johnson.Esquire
CC; Thomas r.Urbolis,Esquire
L""ll Office
219 CcOO street
Lowell,Mz v*Au>P w 01852
Telephone: -441.239$
'Sl�c'�'as Usbelis�avisio�ti""•
. �dnve�. �. Atty• �aP,ds tO�si��
NO. 43? P. 3
,. 2044 3; 11PM URBRIS & HROSTEEE ,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BSSEK,ss. TRIAL COURT
LAND COURT DEPT.
MISC.NO.297053
COACHMAN DEVELOPMENT,LLC.,
Plaintiff
V.
EAGLEWOOD PROPERTIES,LLC.,
JOHN SIMONS,ALBERTO ANGLES,
RICHARD NARDELLA,PLLIPE SCHWARZ,
GEORGE WHITE,!AMPS PHINNEX,
as#hey are members ofthe PLANNING BOARD
OF T M TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER,
Defendants
STIPULATION OF DISMUSSAL
The Parties to the above action hereby agree that it may be dismissed,with prcjudicc,without
costs,all rights of appeal waived.
RespoctfWly submitted, Rospectfitlly submitted,
Coachman Development,LLC Englewood Properties,LLC
By its suorriey, By its. Y+
MjWB.Johnson,Esquire uire
O 0252760 HBO 0
aw Oiffiae of Mark B.Johnson Manzi&MrCrN
12 Chestnut Street 59 Jackson Street
Andover,MA 01810 Lawrence,MA 01840
(978)475-4488 (979)686-56"
Respeotfully submitted,
NaA Andover Planning Board
By its Attorney,
Thomas J. ia,Esglir�
BBO#
Urbells&Pieldsteel,LLP
155 Federal Street
Boston,MA 02110
(617)338.2200
August.V,2004
Transportation
Land Development •
Environmental •
Services
•
i imagination 1 Innovation energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
October 22, 2003 yan�S .IhYl` .Yl_�? �tLfn�IY��
Ref: 08354.00
Mr. Lionel Lucien, P.E.
Manager, Public/Private Development Unit
Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Updated Traffic mitigation commitment
Proposed Eaglewood Shops—Route 114
North Andover, Massachusetts
EOEA 13041
Dear Mr. Lucien;
Based on.recent discussions with MassHighway,we are providing this updated commitment letter on
behalf of Eaglewood Properties, LLC (the"Proponent'). This letter Is intended to clarity the mitigation
commitments' outlined in our letter of September 45, 2003, which was included in the Single
Environmental impact Report for the above-mentioned project. This information is being provided for
your review and consideration, and to hopefully be Incorporated into the Section 61 Finding for this
project.
The proposed Eaglewood Shops building program presented in the SEIR has remained unchanged,
outside of minor design details being evaluated as part of the local approval process. The traffic
impacts and site access plan associated with the project have been presented in Chapter 2 of the
SEIR. The suggested mitigation commitments were developed based on the analysis presented in
the study, and extensive ongoing consultation with MassHighway and interested abutters. These
mitigation commitments have been further clarified per your request.
The Proponent will construct the following traffic mitigation measures as follows:
➢ Widen Route 114 (Turnpike Street)within the existing state highway layout by five-feet or less to
provide an exclusive left-turn lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site;
➢ Widen Route 114 (Turnpike Street) along the project site frontage between the proposed
Eaglewood Shops driveway and the Eagle Tribune driveway to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site. The proponent will provide the requirod land to
MassHighway through a no-harm land taking agreement;
➢ Install a fully-actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Route 114 and the Eaglewood Shops,
which is proposed to be located at least 25o feet from the nearost driveway to the adjacent
Northmark Bank property;
➢ Provide Opticom emergoncy-vehicle pre-emption equipment where required within the proposed
four-signal system along Route 114; zoi Walnut street
Post Office Box 9151
watertown, Massachusetts 02471-915t
617.924.1770 , FAX 617.924.2Z86
email: info(Dvhb.com I
\\bfa1vald V d\08354\does\ceporis\$E7R\Mlttgatlon Commit cev.dor www.vhb.com
I
1
Mr.J. Lionel Lucien P,E.
Project No.: 08354.00
October 22, 2003
Page 2
➢ Provide an exclusive pedestrian phase within the proposed Route 114/Eaglewood Shops signal
operation;
➢ If warranted and approved and as directed by MassHighway,the Proponent will install the
necessary equipment needed to update or operate certain traffic signals In the vicinity of the
project as a "closed loop" interconnection/coordination system prior to the site opening. This
traffic signal system will be implemented in accordance with conceptual and 100 percent plans,
specifications and estimates to be submitted to and approved by MassHighway. The traffic
signals to be operated in this system include the following intersections on Route 114:
• Waverly Road/Cotult Street;
0 Eaglewood Shops/Eagle Tribune
• Peters Street; and
• Andover Street(Route 125).
The final intersection and traffic signal design will be subject to approval of the MassHighway for
conformance with State design standards. A Traffic Signal Permit will be prepared for
MassHighway by the Proponent as required.
We believe the above mitigation commitments are consistent with.the areas identified as
needing improvement in the Traffic Impact and Access Study, With the relocation of the
proposed main site driveway from the plan Initially presented In the Expanded ENF,the
Eagle Tribune will no longer be included in the signal operation. However, the Proponent Is
willing to coordinate with that site's ownership regarding any potential direct connection to
the signal in the future. Accordingly,we respectfully request that a Section 61 Finding be
Issued indicating the proposed mitigation and phasing as listed above. If you have any
questions, please contact me at(617) 924-1770.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTI_1N, INC.
Patrick Dunford, P.E.,
Project Manager
CC: MEPA
Ross Hamlin, Eaglewood Properties, LI,C
Constance Raphael, MassHighway District 4
Heidi Griffin—Town of North Andover
David Greenberg, VHB
Wayne Amico, VHB
\VYIaN'ald\ld\03354\dors\reports\SlilR\Mflgalion Commlt rev.doc
I
Transportation PA E C F;` i�k
Land Development
Environmental OGIT -) 0 no"I
Services
■
for LAN N ltitm)
energy Creating results for our clients r I
imagination innovation ts and benefits our cammunt es
October 24,2003
Ref: 08354.00
Mx.Karl Dub ay,P.E.
MMF Design Consultants,Inc.
103 Stiles Road—Suite One
Salem,Massachusetts 03079
Re: Eaglewood Shops—Response to Site Plan Review Comments
Dear Mr.Dubay,
In response to the October 3,2003 engineering review letter for the Eaglewood Shops VH13
offers the following response to comments:
I. North Andover Zoning Bylaws:
Coininent 1-1:
Section 3 Zoning Districts and Boundaries
The plans should include notes relative to he recent rezoning action approved by the Town,which
7nay have been specific to this proposal and should therefore include any notable requirements
associated with that action. No information regarding this was provided to the reviewer, thus no
review comments are offered. We will assume for the purposes of the review that the project is within
the G-B (General Business District)as annotated on the plans, However,it would be helpfid to
provide a clearer sumnary plan indicating all zone lines within the abutting the project.
Response: A copy of the rezoning decision will be provided,the site was rezoned to
General Business from Residential 4 at Town Meeting on May 12,2003 with restrictive
covenants.
Comment 1-2:
Section 4 Buildings and Uses Permitted
The proposed retail and restaurant use appears to be allowed by right per 4.131.1 and 4.131.5,
subject to confirmation of the above connnents.
Response: A copy of the rezoning documentation will be provided to confirm the site being
in the General Business zoning district.
V
'J
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
L-.\08354\dc,cs\letters\08354-RT47�-MIIF_Oct-2003.duc 617.924.1770 ■ FAX 617.924.2286
email: infoC0vhb.corn
www.vhb.com
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 2
Comment I-3:
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
No information regarding any site or building signage has been provided for review. We recommend
that a comprehensive signage package be submitted to the Board for review in accordance with the
bylaw.
Response: A site signage package will be provided by the project architect.
Comment I-4:
Section 7.3 Dimensional requirements—Yard(Setbacks)
Per Fable 2 Note 2, "the first 15 feet of total setback abutting the residential district shall remain
open and green,be suitable landscaped, unbuilt upon". It appears that if the Town/Property line is
deemed to be abutting a residential district,whereas in fact we understand that a residential
development is being actively planned,then the proposed retaining walls,guardrails,and dumpster
pads encroaching within this 15 feet may not meet the specific "open"and"unbuilt upon"criteria,
and may need zoning relief specific to these items. No notes are include in the plans relative to any
zoning relief or other permitting that may have been applied far or granted.
Response: No zoning relief is sought from the 15'residential landscape buffer,the
dumpster pads will be moved out of the 15'. The walls will be incorporated into the
buffering and grading scheme.
Comment 15:
Section 7.4 Building Height
Per Table 2,maximum allowable building height is 45 feet. This connote be confirmed without
scaled balding elevations,which were not provided. Building height information should be noted on
the plans.
Response. Full scale building elevation plans will be provided in the site plan resubmission
package. The building heights will be put on the plans.
Comment I-6;
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
a) Alternative parking calculations should be provided for the restaurant use with the 1
space per 2 seat criteria and compared the 15 spaces per 1000 gsf criteria shown—the
greater should apply per the bylaw. This could not be verified,as floor plans were not
provided. Refer to additional comments below.
b) Required parking at the "Retail 1"building would be 118 spaces. Some of the proposed
111 spaces provided at this location will be used for snow storage areas. This parking
lot is segregated from enjoying benefits from other shared parking areas of the project.
If the nearby reserve parking area is fully constructed and paved,consideration should
then be made for safe pedestrian access,which is not provided. Note that this rear
r
s
\0795715\d as\le the rsQ8354_R'FC_MHF_dci_2003.dnc
c
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 3
interconnect drive appears to be the only way to exit the "Retain"site and will need to
support 100%all retail 1 site traffic. Also note that there is zero protection/separation/
buffering between this main drive and the full length wall face of the Retail 1 building.
c) The site plans are unclear as to where the restaurant is located,which is an important
consideration in evaluating parking balance and pedestrian flow. This is particularl y
important if it is located at the end of"Retail 3", Furthermore about half of this critical
parking at "Retail 3"is not available for circulation without driving around the rear
service alley in attempts to find a space across the main drive throat fronting the more
ample parking field at "Retail 2",which would tend to apply more conflicting pressure
at that juncture,including pedestrian cross movements—please discuss.
d) The 11"reserve space shown behind "Retail 2"will be blocked by the dumpster. Also,
the parking calculations may need to be adjusted to account for the parallel spaces
provided in the rear.
Response:
a) The greater parking requirement,of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet,has been
used in the calculation the 1 space per 2 seats will be shown for reference.
b) The 111 parking spaces are more than sufficient to provide parking to Retail 1.
The temporary snow storage areas have been designed on paved areas to direct
snow melt into the stormwater management system,snow is to be removed
from the site by the plow contractor, The interconnect drive is sufficient to
handle traffic from Retail 1. Based on the Proponent's experience with a similar
retail development in Acton the parking provided is sufficient to park the uses
on site,and the reserve parking area will not be required to be constructed.
c) The restaurant location is not yet firmly established.
d) The dumpster has been moved slightly and the 10'h(formerly 11ft'�reserve
parking space has been shifted to prevent being blocked by the dumpster.
Comment I-6:
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Platt Review—Information Required
a) Please address conflicting information and data between the Application Forni and the Plaits(e.g.,
owner information,ExistinglProposed development data).
Response:Plaits and application have been made consistent
c) Stamped scaled building elevations have not been provided far review
Response: Project architect will stamp the building elevation plans,
e.iv) Any proposed easements or other key legal information should be added to the plans—none appear to
be proposed. Also,no conditions notes appear on the plans relating to any other approving entities—
please confirm.
Response: No easements are proposed at this time.
\0795715\d ocs\I eft e r s08354_R7'C_MHF_Oc t_2003.doe
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 4
e.vi) Please address discrepancies apparent in the zoning data provided(refer to Sheet SV-1 comments and
Section 3 comment above).
Response:Reference to the Rezoning has been made on the SV-1 sheet
e.vii) Refer to Drainage design comments below.
Response: Will Comply
e.ix) Although the application included an 81h"x11"building elevation sketch as regWred, it is difficult to
read because the entire project is shown on this sketch at an unreasonable scale.
Response: Full size building elevation plans are provided
e.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sidewalks on Route 114. Also,refer to Sheet C-2
comments regarding circtdation,
Response:Proposed sidewalks have been shown on the plans,connections to the existing sidewalk on
Route 114 will be made at the site access points.
e.xi) Refer to clarification comments on Sheet SV-1 regarding wetlands indicated on the plan. Please also
confirm that the NOI Piling and information is concurrent with the Site Plan Filing as required.
Response: The Conservation Commission has opened the public hearing on the Notice of Intent
Filing on October 22,2003,and has been continued until November 19,2003. All wetland delineation
issues are being worked out with the Conservation Commission and the peer reviewer for the Notice
of Intent.
e.xii) Retaining walls are extensively proposed for this project—we recommend that details be provided. No
site or building signage information has been provided for review.
Response: A detail of the modular block retaining wall has been provided in the detail sheets.
Details of the reinforced concrete retaining walls will be developed at the time of applying for
building permits,the project architect will discuss possible aesthetic wall treatments and provide
information on site signage.
e.xv) Refer to Sheet C-5 comments regarding landscaping,
Response:Landscape comments will be addressed.
e.xvi) Please provide details of the proposed dumpster fence screening. Also,please address setback
regitirements relative to Section 7.3 review comment and truck accessibility issues in Sheet C-2
comments.
Response: Truck turning template figures have been provided.
r
\0795735\d ors\lettars08354_RTC_Nf HP_dc I_2003.dc,c
k
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 5
e.xvii) No lighting plans were submitted for review.
Response: A site lighting plan has been provided.
e.xviii) Refer to drainage comments below.
Response:Drainage comments will be addressed
e.xix) Refer to Traffic Study comments in associated review letter by VAI.
Response:A response to VAI comments has been provided.
e.xxi) Refer to Sheet C-4 and general drainage comments regarding utilities.
Response: Drainage and utility comments have been addressed.
11. GENERAL COMMENTS
Title Sheet(umtamed or numbered)
I. The owner and applicant information shown conflicts with the Application Form. The engineer's
address and contact information should be shown on this sheet. The Title Sheet should be assigned a
sequential number as an integral part of the submitted plan set.
Response: The owner information has been updated on the cover sheet to reflect the same
information on the Site Plan application. The Cover Sheet has been assigned a sheet number C-0.
Legend and General Notes(G1)
1. The legend symbols conflict with plan data and their legends;the identified sheet scale is not applicable.
Response: The plan set has been updated to be consistent with the symbols on the legend and
general notes sheet.
2. General Note#4(specific loam and seed areas and requirements)conflict with requirements of the
Landscape Plan.
Response: General Note#4 has been update to concur with Note 11 on the Landscape Plan
3. General Note#9(payment on restoration of disturbances outside the limits of work)appears to conflict
with the basic premise of identifi�ing and controlling work limits on the plan and property.
AMk
IW
\0795715\d ocAle lters09354_RTC_MFlF_O[L_2003.4oc
I
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 6
Response: The limit of work has been added to the Layout and Materials flan.
4. Layout and Materials Note#4 references several site items that should be included on the site plans
(various HVAC pad locations on the site,compactor pad reference,bollards,etc.). That should also
include light pole bases in Note#7.
Response: Light Pole base locations have been shown on the site plan for coordination purposes
only. A site lighting plan has been included in the plan set.
5. existing Conditions Information Note#1 (field survey year) conflicts with the Existing Conditions
PIan General Notes.
Response: The notes have been revised to be consistent.
.Existing Conditions Plait of Laird(SV 1)
1. The plan does not indicate complete subject lot and abutting lot information(including approximate
tax map abutting lines,parcel numbers,etc. Note that no certified abutters list was included in our
review materials.
Response: The SV-1 plan has been updated to provide assessor reference information on the abutting
properties.
2. The legend and plan information conflict for several items. The legend symbols conflict with other plan
legends.
Response: The SV-1 plan is an attachment to the Site Plan set and has an independent legend from
the Site flans.
3. The wetland flagging and actual wetland limits are unclear(e.g.,disjointed/incomplete near Waverly
Road and adjacent Stabile property),and do not match the other plans(e.g.,Flags 1-100 to A-4
section). The buffer zones are not shown.
Response: Flag 1-100 has been added to the SV-1 plan,other flags shown reference an older wetland
delineation line,VHB is in the process of adding additional"new"flags to extend the current
delineation line and is coordinating this effort with the North Andover conservation agent. The
updated plan,with additional wet flags,will be provided to you when complete.
■
\0795715\das\1e1 to rs0835�_1tTC_tv1HF_Ckt<2a113.doc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 7
4. No existing boundary m.ontimentation are shown. No existing Town Line reference data are shown.
Surveyor's certification statement(s)are missing.
Response:Boundary monumentaion is called out on the revised SV-1 plan. The SV-1 plan is not an
ALTA survey and therefore no certification is provided.
5. The "Highway Easement"indicated on the siibject property is not dimensioned or described in terms of
purpose or deed reference.
Response: The State Highway layout number establishing the easement has been labeled on the
plans. The highway easement on the west side of Route 114 on the locus property was not found in a
deed and therefore no deed reference made,
6. The prints provided to us included some very small bltirry text,some which are also very lightly
screened and difficult to read(e.g.,utility and contour data).
Response: A clearer revised print has been provided.
7. General Note#6 appears to be conflicting or incomplete vis-it-vis the Application and the plans in
terms of subject Lot(s).
Response:The note has been corrected to reflect all subject lots.
8. General Note#7 should reference the Rezone action definitively,and the table data appears to have
conflicting information(e.g.,Lot Frontage),
Response: The existing minimum lot frontage references the minimum lot frontage located on
Waverly Road.
9. Existing materials types are not indicated for street utilities.
Response: Utilities in the street are for reference only.
10. The existing strut ire on the primary parcel near the McLean property is not identified or recognized
in the Table,nor are the structures)on other parcel(s)which may be included in the proposed
development.
\0795715\dote\letter6O8354_)KI�Z-bII-�_Oc1_2OD3.doe
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 8
Response: The structure has been identified on the SV-1 plan
11. The existing surface feature shown within the ditch extending from the Hatein property to the Town
Line is not identified.
Response: This has been labeled a ditch,the area has consistent surface features of the surrounding
wooded area.
12. A plan and/or required documentation combining the required existing lots should be included or
referenced in the application. The combined areas and other information are unclear and also do not
appear to match the Application Farm data Items 5 and 6.
Response: A plan will be filed at the registry of deeds combining the three lots to create a single lot
for the project. The plan,once prepared will be provided to the Town.
Layout and Materials Plan (C-2)
1. 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.
Response: Truck turning template figures have been prepared and are attached.
2. Several critical paventent setbacks,wall offsets/setbacks,major curb radii,nontypical pavement lane
widths need to be clearly identified.
Response: Additional dimensions have been provided on the plan.
3. Pavement markings and MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be considered(e.g.,main site
drive access throat,interconnect drives,one-way areas,approaching conflict control,fire lane areas,
etc.). Consideration should also be given to adjusting curbline orientation/flow far efficient
circulation,control,and guidance at several critical areas. These and related issues were to be
addressed on the plans per the SEIS review and responses,including possible pedestrian connections to
abutting planned projects.
\479571 5\dots\le U a rs0 B 354_RTC_]vIHF_Oc t_2003.d oc
i
Response to Comments
Eagiewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 9
Response:Additional signage and pavement markings have been added to the plan. Initial contact
has been made with the residential developer to the west of the site,the residential developer has not
responded positively to the potential of coordinating the two projects.
4. Virtually no proposed building dimensions are provided,nor were scaled elevations or floorplans
provided far verification of designed openings,access points,utilities,roof drainage information,etc.
The proposed building areas shown on the plans do not match the Application data Item 3,and
additional plan notes are needed to clearly define required proposed information other than what is
shown graphically. Application Form Items 8 and 9 are incorrect or conflicting with plan information.
Response: Full size building elevation plans have been provided with the resubmission package,
77,500 gross square feet of building area is proposed. Approximate roof drain location has been
identified on the plan.
5. No site signage information was provided on the plans.
Response: The project architect has provided a preliminary project signage package with the
resubmission set,see sheet A-4.
b. Additional notes and associated plan items should be added to the Plans relative to the required
Mitigation Commitments outlined in the SFIR.
Response: Relevant items from the mitigation chapter of the SEIR have been listed on the Legend and
General Notes sheet on the plan set,Sheet C-I,.
Grading,Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C-3)
I. The reserve parking field 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.
Response:The reserved parking field was analyzed as impervious area in hydrologic calculations.
2. Adjustments should be made to the drive interconnecting Retail I—it consists of an 8%grade
extending 200 feet,with no leveling/approach platform at the bottom of the hill where the building and
main site exit intersection are located.
\0795715\does\letters08359_RTC—NIHF—Oci_2003.doc
Response to Comments `
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.; 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 10
Response: The grade on the connecting road has been reduced to 7.5% and a leveling area has been
provided at the south end of the connector road.
3. A similar discussion should also be provided at the main site throat,were 100%of all project exiting
traffic will be maneuvering and queuing(refer to traffic review comments).
Response; The grades at the main site drive are suitable for ingress and egress.
4. Drainage profiles should be provided for piping within the detention basin areas. The calculations
should address maximum pipe scour velocities. Maintenance access is not clearly provided.
Response: Drainage profiles for piping around the detention basin has been included in the plan set.
5. Consideration should be made relative to draining the temporary snow stockpiles shown on pavement,
and their relative flowpaths to effective CB intercept locations(e.g.,bypass drainage going into Route
114 pavement at"Retail 1",long flow paths over parking areas at both "Retail 2"and "Retail 3").
Response: Snow plowed on the site will be temporarily stockpiled and removed from the site,snow
will be removed from the site before significant snow melt can occur. In the event of spring snow and
melt during the removal of snow from the site,snow melt will be collected in the site closed drainage
system and pass through the site stormwater BMPs.
6. Consideration should be made in providing a cross slope at the"Retail 1"loading dock aisle to reduce
excessive sheeting to the suppressed dock. Also,the trench drain shown at that location needs
additional plan detailing.
Response: A trench drain detail has been shown in the detail sheets. Approximately 0.1 acres of
surface runoff is directed to the loading area and trench drain.
7. All retaining zvalls should indicate top and bottom finish grade elevations at critical points. Safety and
aesthetic considerations should be made at several areas—a typical example is at the northerly project
entrance approach alignment and view of the retaining wall/loading area/guardrail end point in the
middle of the pavement and gore areas. The rise of safety fencing aird/orguardiail should be evaluated
on all drive sideslope and wall areas surrounding the bank property and other areas where needed.
Response: Top and Bottom of wall spot shots have been shown on grading and drainage plan.
Additional guardrail and fence have been noted on the site plans. The project architect will provide
potential aesthetic wall treatments for the reinforced concrete retaining walls.
\0795715\d as\]e t to rs 083%-RTC_MT-iF_oc L2003.d oc
i
1
Response to Comments j
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 11
8. The 100'Buffer Zone line needs to be corrected(at flags A-4, 1-100, 1-101)
Response: The 100'buffer zone has been corrected on the plans.
9. Mariy areas have graded slopes steeper than 3:1. These should be described with details far additional
temporary and pennanetit stabilization methods.
Response: A slope stabilization detail has been added to the detail sheets,and notes on the grading
plan have added specifying the use of PAM on slopes adjacent to the wetland resource area,
10. Maity areas of the site's driveways have embaztkniews with slopes steeper tharr 3:1 that drop off more
than 36". 77tese should be either redesigned or provided with guardrails(e.g. cowiectiori from "Retail
I"to "Retail 2").
Response: Additional guardrails have been added to the site plans.
11. 77te intersections of driveways within the site acid at ezitraiicelegress locations have slopes of up to 5%.
Please discuss this relative to posing hazards for traffic circidatioit and providing leveling areas in
critical areas.
Response: The southern site ingress point has been eliminated creating more efficient traffic
circulation,intersections with severe grades have been minimized.
12. The proposed detention basin is showtr without a practical means of access for iiiainten.ance. This
should be redesigned to incorporate arz opening in the guardrail and provide a graded access drive
froirz the parking area or driveway to the basin.
Response: A graded service access to the detention pond has been provided,a break in the guardrail
and gate on the chain link fence has been provided to access the pond via the graded drive.
13, FES-F1 shottld be provided with a Rip-Rap Pad.
Response: A rip rap energy dissipation basin has been provided at the FES-P1 outlet.
R
\0795725\dots\letters08359_RTC_1+g Oct_2003.doc
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 12
14. Many of the proposed catch basins are designed to capture inordinately large areas of storm water
flows and have flow paths routing overland flows far long distances(e.g. CB-BIO, E7). These basins
have inadequate grate capacities for the areas draining to them.And the long flow paths pose hazards
for winter conditions. Conversely, based on the grading, some catch basins would capture almost no
storm water flows(e.g. CB-B25). These should be exantined.
Response: Additional catch basins have been added to the plan,catch basin inlet capacity
calculations are provided.
15. The proposed grading would allow storm water flows from Rt. 114 into two of the entrances(southerly
and middle). These flows would then travel long distances before being captured by catch basins. We
recornnten.d the entrances be redesigned with storm water capture occurring at the site boundary--
where practical.
Response: The southerly site ingress has been eliminated and the central main site drive and
northerly ingress have been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114 and prevent off site
flow from flowing on to the project site.
16. This street should be provided with the necessary pipe and structure data(e.g. lengths, slopes, etc.)
needed far construction.
Response: Lengths of pipe have been shown on the Utility Plan,slopes can be calculated from
information provided on the plans. Excessive information can result in conflicting information on the
plans.
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 luxe and be divided
onto the abutter's property. Tlrese areas should be exarrrirred and redesigned a.s needed, or.easentents
applied.
Response: The toe of slope near the western property line of the bank has been pulled back from the
property line. Pulling back of the slope results in channelizing flow on the project site.
18. .proposed tree line and Limit of Work line should be shown,
Response; The limit of work has been shown on the plan.
a
\0795715\dots\l a tters08359_RTC_MHI,_Oc1_2003.d oc
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 13
19. CB-KI is shown with a connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114. This requires review and
approval by Mass Highway.
Response: Permitting of the traffic signal,utility connections and associated drainage improvements
within the Route 114 Right of Way will be reviewed and permitted by the Massachusetts Highway
Department. Copies of the Roadway improvement plans will be reviewed by the Town and copies
of the application and submitted plans will be provided to the Town.
Utility Plan(C-4)
1. The plans should address all transformer and other pad locations which are trot shown—this is
unclear. It is unclear on the plan where the connections would be»wade 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 from Mass Highway and possible input from North Andorer DPW
Response: Approximate transformer pad locations have been shown on the site plans. Final electric
and gas service locations to the buildings will be coordinated with the utility companies,the electric
and gas service main have been shown on the plans,
2. Mininn nt horizontal separation between utilities is not tnet. In addition,it appears that several CB
strrcctures have water mains located unnecessarily tight to them.
Response: A minimum 10'horizontal separation has been provided between the water plain and
sewer lines. Utility conflicts with catch basins have been eliminated.
3. No drainage pipe lengths or slopes are included in the plans; roof drain data is incomplete. Drainage
pipe and structure data should either appear on this sheet or on C-3. Currently it is unclear which
sheet to refer to for such data.
Response: The utility plan has been updated to include pipe lengths for drain lines.
4. No sewer pipe lengths or slopes are included in the plans. Sewer main profiles should be provided for
this project,due to the extensive ainottnt of infrastructure,slopes,and utility crossings inherent in the
design, The final downstream connection plan and pipe data is missing and/or unclear for proposed
and existing.
\0795715\dots\le tlerso8354-RTC-MHP_Oct-2003.doc
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 14
Response: Sewer pipe lengths have been added to the utility plan,a sewer profile sheet has been
added to the plan set. The connection point the exiting sewer manhole on Route 114 has been
clarified.
5. The applicant should consider integrating composite utility design information and grading/drainage
information for example, the sewer design plans do not show any proposed grading,the drainage
design plan showing invert elevation data does not show any grading—this leads to confusion and
bouncing between plans for interrelated information(e.g., rim data,cover yield,etc.).
Response: For clarity purposes the Utility Plan does not include grades on it.
6. The applicant should address the Fire Department TRC review comments with the appropriate notes
on the plans(e.g.,fire suppression,alartn system,fire hydrant and emergency access locations,
Opticorn notes,etc.);DPW TRC review comments(including sewer mitigation fees,connection permit
notes,detention system sizing and access,water maim and service sizing/locations,soil and materials
stockpile locations on plans,etc.);other department cornrnents—with appropriate notes and plan
information as necessary.
Response: Plans have been sent to the Fire Department for Review and no comments have been
received back from Chief Dolan. All local water and sewer connection permits will be obtained by
the contractor,all utility connection within the State layout will be approved by the Massachusetts
Highway Department.
7. Many of the drainage structures appear to hai,e shallow pipe cover. Specifically: CB-B25, B26, B6,
BIO, D5, E4, E5, E7, DMH-A2, E3. The drainage pipe front DMH-B3 to B2 is labeled as 12". This
should be checked.
Response: The drainage system has been revised since the initial design,shallow pipe cover has been
addressed in the revised plan set.
Landscape Plan (C-5)
1. Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval in addition
to owner approval regarding plant substitutions,if any are proposed.
a
a
\0795715\dots\letters08354_RTC_NU IF Oct_2003.doe
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 15
Response:The Landscape note#7 has been revised to state that Town approval is required to
substitute plants.
2. Landscape Note#7 does not include a seed rnix or erosion control fabric specification as referenced.
The seed specification at the detention basin should be verified. The plan should include specifications
for seed mixture in detention basin area, steep-sloped einbankntents(i.e. steeper than 3:1), and other
"loam and seed"areas. Standard planting installation details for are missing for shrubs and trees.
Response: A chart indicating seed mixes for the detention basin,steep slopes and lawn areas has been
added to the Landscape flan,A note specifying the erosion control fabric has been added to the plan,
A sheet of details showing plant installation details has been added to the plan set.
3. Consideration should be given to spectfijing groundcover and/or mulch in lieu of grass in and around
the rear service guardrail area and other retaining walls,due to grass maintenance and appearance
challenges in these thin strip areas.
Response: The area under the guardrail will be covered with a layer of crushed stone,in lieu of loam
and seed.
4. Please verihj any conflicts with utilities(e.g.,tninimum hydrant clearance in front of"Retail 2"
building),and proposed tree line limits shown at detention basin. Also,please add a north arrow.
Response: A north arrow has been added to the plan,landscaping conflicts with hydrants have been
eliminated.
5. Consideration should be given to discussing some species variation to the straight line of 100 Eastern
Red Cedars proposed along the base of wall at the property line. Also,please consider or discuss
replacing non-native species(e.g.,Austrian Pine).
Response:The line of 100 Easter Red Cedars has been revised to diversify the species selection.
The plant list consists of mainly native species.The non-native species selected are not on the invasive
species lists.Austrian fine was selected as part of the screen planting.It is a fast growing pine with
dense foliage.It is known to withstand the wind and salt spray associated with parking lots.We
believe that it is the best selection to achieve a dense,effective screen in the quickest amount of time.
r
r
\0795715\does\ie ttersOB354,_R'rC_MvW_Oct_2003.doc
P
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 16
6, The realized benefit of the Turfstone interlocking pavers may not be ficll y ficnctional,as they are located
on the high perimeter ends of a proposed parking area that is solidly paved in the center where all the
drainage collects and travels—please explain,
Response:The Turfstone Paver are designed to minimally reduce runoff during smaller rainfall
events and are not modeled or intended to be used to mitigate peak rates of runoff.
7. Will critical areas be provided with landscape irrigation? None appears to be proposed.
Response:Notes have been added to the Landscape Plan indicating that all lawns and plantings will
be irrigated,No irrigation of the detention area is proposed.
8. Sight distances around plantings at all intersecting drives should be verified.
Response:Walls,signs, and plants growing higher than 30"have been kept out of the sight distance
triangle areas.
9. The SEtR refers to design measures for landscape beds that will be contoured to create infiltration
depressions,which are not shown or detailed.
Response:The island plantings will not be graded as depressions.Ponding of water in the winter,due
to frozen soil,will create ice damage to the tree and shrub trunks.This damage will weaken or kill the
plantings.
Site Details(Sheets C-6, C-7, C-8)
1, The details for the catch basins should include the manufacturer and model of the oil hood to be
installed.A corresponding detail should also be provided.
Response:The manufacturer and model of the oil hood have been added to the catch basin detail.
2. The grease trap detail should indicate which size/nnodel is to be used. Also, there should be daily flow
calculations included to explain how the size ivas determined.
Response:The size of the grease trap has been added to the Utility Plan and to the detail.Grease trap
sizing calculations are provided with the detail.
AgMIL
e
\0795715\doesMeiter608359_RT(_1 ff1 -Oct_2003Am
1
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
Ociober 29, 2003
Page 17
3. The drain manhole detail indicates an oil(rood to be installed at the outlet. This is not reconnnended,
as it impedes maintenance access, and is redundant if hoods are provided at the catch.basins.
Response:The oil hood has been removed from the drain manhole detail.
4. There is included a "Storinceptor Model STC 450i"detail. This device is not indicated on any plans,
nor mentioned in the Drainage and Storinwater Quality Report. It is unclear why it is shown. The
reviewer agrees that such a device is a good addition to any storntwater management plan, However,if
it is to be included,it should be shown on the plans and in the TSS removal calculations,Operation
and Maintenance Plan,etc.And according to S torinceptor's.design criteria,it may have to be model
STC 900,or STC 1200—depending on the level of treatment and flow needed.
Response:The locations of the STC 450i units have been shown on the plans,the stormceptor inlets
are being used in lieu of in line stormceptor treatment manholes.
5. Data on the FES Detail Table on Sheet C-6 is missing. The Hydrant Detail thrust blocking
requirements need to address hydrants located at proposed vertical fill walls. The sidewalk Siamese
connection detailed is unclear as to plan location. The utility trench detail is too generic and should be
revised to address differing specifications and dimensions for differing pipe/utility uses, Utility
frames,covers,and grates should be specified as to materials,sizes,inakes,and models(or equivalents).
Response: the FES detail has been updated to include dimensions of the rip rap basins,hydrant have
been relocated as not to abut against walls. No Siamese connections are proposed, the detail has been
removed from the detail sheet. All structures are to have Neenah frames,grates and covers.
6. The proposed slope granite curb detail on Sheet C-7 is missing critical stone diiensions and is only
specified with a 4"height,which conflicts with the proposed contouring on the plans.
Response: Slope granite curbing is no longer proposed for use on the site. The detail has been
removed from the detail sheets.
7. Min/Max slope criteria specified in the various HC ramp and crosswalk details on Sheet C-7 should be
verified with the grading plan(e.g.,ACR Type D at "Retail 2"westerly entrance,etc.).
Response: The Site flan is designed to comply fully with the ADA/ ABA requirements for
accessibility.
i
a
\0795715\dots\le ilers0835A_RI'C.NIE3F—Oci-2003.d oc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.; 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 18
8. The Trot fstone Paver detail is identified but missing on Sheet C-7. Please clarifry conflicts between plan
callouts and details for bollard sizes and guardrail(e.g.,steel vs. timber).
Response:The Turfstone Paver detail is now shown on Sheet C-7.Plans have been updated to reflect
a 6-inch bollard size,as shown on the site details.
9. Several details should be added to the plans,including pavement section,pavement patch on existing
streets,sewer cleanout,roadway widening plans and details,project signage,lighting,slope
stabilization for slopes exceeding 3:1,detention basin and sediment trap sections/details,retaining
walls(including observed face appearances),dumpster fencing,etc.
Response:Additional details have been added the plan set.
Response:The following details were added to the plans:
■ Sewer Cleanout
■ Slope Stabilization
■ Detention Basin
• Retaining Walls
■ Dumpster Fencing
Response: Roadway improvement plans for Route 114 will be provided when prepared.
10. We recommend the designers replace or augment the catch basin sediment trap detail with a stone and
filter fabric tape.Although the hart'bales are acceptable for on-site catch basins during construction,
they are impractical for use on the catch basins in the existing roadway(RI. 114).
Response: A SiltsackTn'detail has been added to the details.
Additional Permits/Reviews required for the project:
• Order of Conditions---review/approval from Conservation Contrnission &DEP
• Mass Highway Trench &Driveway Permits
• Local Sewer/Water connection permits
• NPDES Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
;III. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER QUALITY REPORT
r
•
\0795715\does\ketters08354_RT(C_l,( OcI_2003.doc
l
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No,: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 19
1. North Andover Wetland Bylaws require the 1-year storm event be included in the drainage calculations.
Response: The 1-year storm event hydrologic drainage calculations have been included in the revised
drainage calculations.
2, Massachusetts Stormwater Policy requires the 25-fear storm event be included in the drainage
calculations.
Response: The Massachusetts Stormwater Policy requires only the 2-, 10-and 100-year storm events
to be evaluated.However,the 25-year storm event calculations are included for your use.
3, Data from test pit(s)performed by a certified soil evaluator should be included in the report,or on the
plans. The test pit location(s)should be shown on the plans.
Response: Test pit data has been provided in the revised Drainage Report.
4. The designers are taking credit for infiltration/groundwater recharge at the extended detention basin.
Stor inwater Policy does not allow this. The designers shouuld find another method of infiltration/recharge to
fulfill the recharge requirement.
Response: The Stormwater Policy does not exclude meeting the infiltration recharge requirement
within the detention basin. Stormwater surface runoff is pretreated prior to entering the infiltration
basin.
5. The TSS removal calcuulations take credit for 10%removal by street sweeping. It will be the decision of the
Conservation Commission as to whether or not to accept this.
Response: No comments have been made received from the Conservation Commission as of yet
regarding the 10%TSS removal credit for street sweeping.
&. The TSS removal calculations do not include the Storniceptor unit shown on the details of the plans. The
designers should clarifif if such a unit is to be included.
Response: The Stormceptor units to be used on the project site have been shown on the plans,
■
\0795715\das\le tters08354_RTC_NEFW_Uct_2003.d oc
V
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 20
7. The predevelopment Hydrocad model describes the area's flaw path with only two slopes across the site. It is
the reviewers'opinion that the slopes across the site vary significantly enough that the model should
describe them with more detail.
Response:The time of concentration line has been adjusted to account for the varying slopes along
the flow path.
8. The designers created a post-development Hydrocad model of the development as a single subcatchment. In
order for Hydrocad to accurately model stormwater flows,the development should be divided into
individual subcatchments for all the catch basin areas,the rooftops,driveways,landscaped areas,and so on.
Also,the subcafelzments should be routed through the pipe system. In this manner the pond(detention
basin)and all pipe performance would be more accurately represented.
Response: The post-development HydroCAD model has been updated to include multiple
subcatchment areas.
9. The detention basin as designed world pond to within inches of the crown of the embankment(see 100-year
storm calculations). It is recommended that at least 1 foot of freeboard be provided.
Response: The detention basin is mitigating the 100-year storm event,though not required by the
Stormwater Policy,the current design allows for 100-year free board in excess of 6".
10. The detention basin as designed appears to be 6 feet deep in some areas.Please address the possible review
by the State Office of Dam Safety.
Response: The proposed detention basin is considered a stormwater impoundment and is not subject
to review by the State Office of Dam Safety.
11. The sedintent forebay as designed is insufficient in size. Based on a developed area of 7.6 acres, the forebay
should have a total volume of about 13,00 cubic feet based on the Stormwater Policy. The basin shown has
only 2,500 c.f. This should be redesigned.
Response: The sediment forebay has been designed per DEP standards,which is to provide sufficient
volume for 0.1-inches per contributing acre. The reference to 67 cubic yards / acre is an error in
Figure 3.J.1 of the Stormwater Management Policy Volume Two.
NW
Aft
\0795715\dots\lei tersO8354_RTC_MI-11 Oc k_2DO3.doe
1
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 03354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 21
12. The "Storer Drainage Computations"spreadsheet displays some pipes as having insrtffi'cient capacity.
Specifically:DMH-B3 to B2, DMH-B2 to B1, DMH-E3 to E1,DMH-E1 to B3.
Response: The closed drainage system spreadsheet has been updated.
13. The "Storm Drainage Computations"spreadsheet data includes the "n"value for the HDPE pipes as
0.013;the correct vahie is between 0.010 and 0.012.
Response: The closed drainage system has been conservatively designed with a manning roughness
coefficient of 0.013 to provide a factor of safety.
14. The "Storm Drainage Computations"spreadsheet displays many grate capacities that are inadequate.
Specifically:CB-A8,B9,B10,B14,B22,B24,B26, D2,E7, E4.
Response: Grate inlet calculations will be provided.
15. Compliance Review with MA➢EP Stormwater Police
Currently the submitted plans and report do not assure compliance with the policy as follows:
Standard#I. Untreated Stormwater
The plan as submitted complies with this standard by treating all stormwater prior to discharge to
nearby wetlands.
Standard#2:Post-develo meet peak dischar e rates
The plans and report submitted will have to be revised to confirm compliance.
Standard#3:Recharge to groundwater
The plans and report submitted do not provide adequate recharge. Further design information is
required.
Standard#4:TSS removal
The plans and report submitted comply with this requirement only if North Andover Conservation
Commission agrees to apply 10% TSS removal credit far street sweeping.
Standard#5:Higher potential vollittant loads
The plans and report comply with this standard.
Standard#6:Protection of critical areas
i
\0795715\d ocs\le tters08354_RTC—�C7ct_2003.doe
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
October 29, 2003
Page 22
This standard does not apply,as there are no critical areas nearby.
Standard#7:Redevelopment pro'Lects
This standard does not apply.
Standard#8:Erosion/sediment control
The plans and report comply with this standard. Brit more details will be required with revised plans.
Standard#9:O eration Maintenance PIan
The plans and report comply with this standard.
Response; Compliance with the nine standards of the Stormwater Policy has been included in the
revised drainage report.
Seven sets of the revised Site Plan package will be sent to the North Andover Planning Department,I
have enclosed one set of the revised site plan package for your re-review,if you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact any member of the VHB Eaglewood Shops project team.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE I IANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Jon D.Stephenson,P.E.
Project Manager
CC: Ross Hamlin,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
John Allyn,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
Vin Manzi,Esq.,Manzi&McCann Attorneys at Law
Walter Rogers,Eagle Tribune Publishing
Heidi Griffin,Town of North Andover
s
\07957I5\does\lettecs08354_RTC_MHH_Oct_2003.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
Services
lol watnutstree
' Uanasce ffaneen Rrust.Un, Inc. P.n.soy 9a
Watertown,MA 02471-916
617 924 1771
FAX 617 924 228(
Memorandum To: Heidi Griffin Date: October 29,2003
Community Development Director
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Cc: Ken Cram-VAI
Karl Dubay-MFIF
Project No.: 08354
Fxom: Patrick T.Dunford,P.E. Re: Proposed Eaglewood Shops Development
Project Manager Peer Review Responses--Traffic
Ana Fill,P.E.
Traffic Engineer
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)has reviewed the comments provided in the peer review letter
dated October 3,2003 by Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI)and an in email dated October 20,2003.
This memorandum responds to these comments and indicates actions VHB will take to address these
issues. VHB only provided responses to comments regtdring action. A copy of the peer review letter
and the email are attached,which numbers the comments according to the answers provided below.
Responses to Letter Comments
1) Route 114's offset-intersections of the Eagle Tribune and Northmark Bank driveways were
counted by two separate individuals. In compiling the data into a single summary sheet, the
through volumes on Route 114 were mistakenly double-counted by the software. Accordingly,
this data sheet was only used for the side-street volumes for the bank and the Eagle Tribune. The
incorrectly presented Route 114 through-volumes on this combined counting sheet were compared
to those obtained at the two intersections bracketing this location: Dartmouth Street and Peters
Street. Both of these locations presented similar through movement counts that were significantly
lower. Furthermore,inspection of the Route 114 volumes obtained using an Automatic Traffic
Recorder(ATR)indicated that those volumes were compatible with those obtained at the
Dartmouth Street and Peters Street locations. Counts previously conducted on Route 114 at Peters
Street in 2001 for the adjacent Pulte development are also consistent with this finding. Based on all
these factors,the more accurate volumes obtained at the Dartmouth Street and Peters Street
intersections were used at this location to develop a more realistic existing condition. The count
sheets for each intersection are provided in the Appendix to this document.
2) The volumes for the Haverhill Street northbound and southbou.nd approaches were mistakenly
transposed for the 2003 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour Conditions. Accordingly,VHB has
revised the traffic volume networks(attached) and the intersection capacity analysis for this
condition. The results of the revised analysis are presented in Table 1.
\\\0M\does\memos\Transpoiia ti onResponses-Local-Comp3 ete.d oc
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 09354
TABLE 1
HAVERHILL STREET AT HIGH STREET
REVISED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Peak Hour 2003 Existing 2008 No-Build 2008 Build
vie Delay' LOS` v/c Delay LOS We Delay LOS
Weekday Evening 0.80 15 B US 19 B 0.89 21 C
Saturday Midday 0.51 8 A 0.54 8 A 0.56 8 A
a. VIC=Volume to Capacity Rallo
b. Average delay per vehice in seconds.
c. LOS=Level-of-Selvi o.
These changes did not result in a significant difference in the level of service results,and
consequently the conclusions presented in the previously submitted traffic assessment remain
valid.
3) The right-turn volumes from Route 114 westbound into Waverly Street and Cotuit Street have
been reversed. Accordingly,VHB has revised the traffic volume.networks(attached)and the
intersection capacity analysis for this intersection as summarized in Table 2 to reflect this change.
TABLE 2
ROUTE 114 AT WAVERLY STREETICOTUIT STREET
REVISED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Peak Hour 2003 Existing 2008 No-Build 2008 Build 2008 Build w/Mitigation
y/c° Delay LOS° Delay LOS LOS ylc Delay LOS vie Delay 1
Weekday Evening 1.12 51 ❑ 1.24 66 E 1.38 73 E 1.20 72
Saturday Midday 0.93 30 C 1.00 38 D 1.04 46 D 1.03 45
a. VIC=Volume to Capacity Ratio
b. Average delay per vehicle in seconds.
C. LOS=Level-of-Service.
These changes did not result in a significant difference in the level of service results,and
consequently the conclusions presented in the previously submitted traffic assessment remain
valid.
4) The volumes on Route 114 between Elm Street and the North Andover Bypass have not been
balanced due to the separation length between the locations(approximately one-half mile) and the
presence of other uses having curb cuts on Route 114. Specifically,Merrimack College, the Royal
Crest Apartments,Berkeley Road and Tolland Road all intersect Route 114 between these
locations,which would account for any imbalances.
5) The Route 114/North Andover Bypass intersection was seasonally adjusted utilizing the
MassHighway Statewide Traffic Data Collection 2002 Weekday Seasonal Factors. According to a
more local MassHighway permanent traffic recorder station,however,the month of March is
approximately three and a half percent lower than the average conditions. Accordingly,VHB has
\\\0a954\dots\memos\Transport at€onResponse s_I.ocal_Compl a le.doc
Date: October 29,2003 31
Project No.: 08354
revised the traffic volumes for this intersection to reflect a 3.5%adjustment factor. The traffic
volume networks(attached)and the intersection capacity analysis for this location (summarized in
Table 3)have been modified as well to reflect these changes.
TABLE 3
ROUTE 114 AT ANDOVER BYPASS
REVISED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Peak Hour 2003 Existing 2008 No-Build 2008 Build
y/c' Delay6 LOS' vlc Delay LOS v1c Delay LOS
Weekday Evening 1.10 72 E 1.15 86 F 1.15 89 F
Salurday Midday 0.73 22 C 0.77 28 C 0.79 33 C
a. ==Wurno to Capacity Nalio
b. Average delay per vehUe in seconds.
c. LOS=Level-of-Service.
+ D0ay exceeds 120 seconds,
Although the changes in volumes resulted in lower levels of service during the weekday evening
peak hour,the conclusion that the project is expected to have minimal impacts at this location
remains vaEid. As can be seen in Table 3,the volume to capacity ratio remains unchanged from
No-Build to Build Conditions during the weekday evening peak hour and the project adds only 3
seconds of delay to this location. It should be noted that this intersection is already operating over
theoretical capacity under existing conditions,and will continue to do so in the future with or
without the project. During the Saturday midday peak hour,this intersection continues to be
expected to operate at LOS C under all conditions.
6) Back-up data relative to the seasonal adjustment calculations are provided in the Appendix to this
document.
7) VI-IB revised the intersection capacity analysis for Route 125/Route 133 at Peters Street/Andover
Street to remove the right-turn lanes modeled for the Peters Street and Andover Street approaches.
TABLE 4
ROUTE 1251133 AT PETERS STREETIANDOVER STREET
REVISED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Peak Hour 2003 Existing 2008 No-Build 2008 Build
vle Delayb LOS° v/c Delay LOS v10 Delay LOS
Weekday Evening 1.23 107 F 1.31 + F 1.37 + F
Saturday Midday 0.81 23 C 0.86 30 C 0.92 38 D
a. V/C=Volume to Capacity Ratio
b. Average delay pervehlcie in seconds.
a LOS=Level-of-Service.
+ Delay exceeds 120 seconds.
\\\OEf359\d as\memoslT7ansporta IionRespunses_Local_Comple teal oc
Date: October 29,2003 4
Project No.: 08354
As shown in Table 4,modifying the lane configurations did not result in a significant difference in
the level of service results,and consequently the conclusions presented in the previously
submitted traffic assessment remain valid. This intersection continues to be expected to operate at
LOS F during the weekday evening peak hour and at acceptable levels of service during the
Saturday midday peak hour.
8) The proposed Eaglewood Shops site has been designed to minimize conflicts between vehicle and
pedestrians. This goal has been achieved by providing a comprehensive network of sidewalks
with connecting crosswalks within the site as well as to the existing off-site network(see Figure 2-3
in the SEIR). The proponent previously contacted the Pulte Corporation(the developer of the
adjacent Coachmari s Ridge property in Andover)in July 2003 to determine if there were any
mutually beneficial grading options that could be incorporated into both sites. The possibility of
pedestrian connections and grading changes to minimize the size of walls were both considered.
VHB provided Pulte with a copy of the site plan,but Palle was unresponsive in offering any
comments or suggestions at that time. Given the safety concerns associated with a pedestrian
connection behind the retail buildings, this matter was not pursued any further.
The delivery vehicle routes have also been designed to minimize conflicts within the site.
Graphics highlighting the critical truck turning movements are provided attached to this
document. To address comments at the first public hearing on this project,the southerly right-
turn in only driveway has been eliminated to better connect the southerly parking field to the site.
As shown in the graphic,large delivery vehicles can still access the rear of the site by way of the
main signalized site driveway.
9) Several measures were evaluated to improve the Route 114 corridor operations including adding
capacity. Unfortimately,right-of-way(ROM constraints render any capacity enhancement
through geometric modifications unfeasible. Therefore,the proponent has instead committed to
implementing a closed-loop traffic signal interconnection and coordination system along the
corridor to improve traffic flows along this corridor. During the permitting of the off-site roadway
improvements,signal operation changes at each of the intersections in the proposed system will be
evaluated to identify any capacity enhancing timing changes which could be implemented.
10) Tables 5 and 6 summarize the queues for the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak hours,
respectively.
\\\08359\d ucs\memos\Tr ash spor latlonRes p onses_Lceal_Co mp]e le.dx
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
TABLES
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION QUEUES
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR
2003 Existing 2009 No-Build 2008 Build
Intersection Approach Average 95"'Percentile Average 95,hpercentile Average 95k'Percentile
Route 114 at SIi ur 19 47 23 55 41 111
Waverly Road/ SB TH-RT 108 172 117 184 117 184
Cotuit Street NB LT 233 390 257 419 257 419
NB TH-RT 153 242 165 260 176 294
WB LT 12 89 18 66 35 101
WB TH-RT 287 495 328 568 356 615
EB LT 31 84 66 130 70 137
EB TH-LT 591 1181 731 1316 967 1394
COTUIT 5 22 5 22 5 22
Route 114 at SB LT 52 165 103 214 155 281
Route 133/ 5B TH-RT 120 244 161 256 241 353
Peters Street NB LT 48 128 67 141 113 214
NB TH-RT 240 456 388 522 482 631
WB LT 76 126 84 137 132 220
WB TH RT 168 219 308 485 622 920
EB LT 68 197 130 255 181 335
EB TH-LT 186 253 239 272 634 397
Route 114 at SB LT V5 649 511 686 501 673
.Route 125/ SB TH-RT 514 692 552 730 541 718
Route 133 NB LT 116 186 133 209 144 226
NB TH-RT 444 658 489 706 481 696
WB LT 81 163 88 185 83 171
WB TH 775 915 875 1015 855 994
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB LT 34 67 34 67 32 65
EB TH-RT 338 417 382 538 396 601
Route 125/133 at SB LT-TH-RT 152 241 164 259 160 251
Peters Street NB LT--TH-RT 764 777 873 876 977 W7
WB TH 1145 1402 1246 1507 1246 1507
WB RT 14 41 16 44 16 44
EB TH 305 424 327 455 327 455
EB RT 0 35 0 38 0 41
High Street at SB LT-TH-RT 90 201 104 224 112 241
Haverhill Street NB LT-TH-RT 170 456 212 516 229 539
WB LT-TH-RT 79 139 84 146 84 146
EB LT-TH-RT 55 103 57 107 57 107
Route 114 at NB LT-TH 613 669 672 725 677 729
Andover Bypass WB LT 319 520 345 550 345 550
WB TH-RT 403 488 444 536 462 557
EB JUG(LT) 66 129 70 139 70 139
EB TH 445 598 523 659 550 686
Note: Queues infect,
%\%08354\does\memos\Transpo r to t t o n Response s_LmaLCo m pl a le.doc
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
TABLE 6
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION QUEUES
SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR
2003 Existizte 2008 No-Build 2008 Build
Intersection Approach Average 95"'Percentile Average 95"Percentile Average 95'kPercentile
Route 114 at SB LT 20 51 28 66 44 96
Waverly Road/ SB TH-RT 53 120 59 130 59 130
Cotuit Street NB LT 123 234 135 257 135 257
NB TH-RT 36 69 38 73 43 83
WB LT 6 37 10 65 19 107
WB TH-RT 204 348 231 393 258 437
EB LT 24 114 30 140 37 154
EB TH-LT 430 899 504 1000 594 1101
COTUIT 12 30 12 30 12 30
Route 114 at SB LT 98 239 177 317 186 328
Route 133/ SB TH-RT 346 569 417 651 484 748
Peters Street NB LT 27 67 39 107 101 187
NB TH-RT 326 411 381 452 381 452
WB LT 106 158 114 168 114 168
WB TH-RT 266 304 304 345 347 427
EB LT 173 317 248 388 359 508
EB TH-LT 282 317 308 333 348 368
Route 114 at SB LT 281 472 300 508 No 508
Route 125/ SB TH-RT 303 505 322 542 322 542
Route 133 NB LT 102 167 118 190 151 233
NB TH-RT 665 898 719 954 719 954
WB LT 87 161 92 183 92 183
WB TH 377 454 417 510 447 580
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB LT 53 94 53 94 53 94
EB TH-RT 281 341 318 413 360 530
Route 125/133 at SB LT-TH-RT 187 352 259 375 260 376
Peters Street NB LT-TH-RT 203 528 319 626 393 724
WB TH 242 485 372 514 372 514
WB RT 0 37 1 40 1 40
EB TH 235 440 359 464 359 464
EB RT 0 43 0 45 0 46
High Street at SB LT-TH-RT 35 103 41 117 46 130
Haverhill Street NB LT-TH-RT 43 115 50 132 56 146
WB LT-TH-RT 19 70 22 78 23 83
EB LT-TH-RT 21 76 23 85 24 91
Route 114 at NB LT-TH 76 113 79 117 81 120
Andover Bypass WB LT 43 103 47 120 47 120
WB TH-RT 113 160 124 174 132 186
EB JUG(LT) 24 57 24 57 24 57
EB TH 188 307 213 338 246 357
Note: Queues In feet.
11) A conceptual site access plan has been shown in Figure 2-3 in the SEIR. More detailed plans will
be prepared during the permitting process with MassHighway. However,this plan identifies the
proposed lane-configuration,driveway location,and proximity to nearby intersections and
properties.
\\\08354\dots\memos\'I'ransporlatlo"Respoases Local_Comptete doe
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
12) The northerly site driveway allows for entering right-turns only,and there are no obstructions or
roadway curvature that would block the site lines of vehicles approaching this driveway on
Route 114 from Waverly Road. As previously noted,the southerly site driveway has been
eliminated with the current plan.
Based on a field evaluation by VHB,stopped vehicles at the proposed signal will be visible to
vehicles arriving on Route 114 from either Waverly Road or Peters Street. An exclusive left-turn
lane into the site will also be provided to keep vehicles waiting to turn left into the site from being
in the path of Route 114 westbound through-traffic. According to AASHTO`,"the first vehicle
stopped on one approach should be visible to the driver of the first vehicle stopped on each of the
other approaches. Left-turiung vehicles should have sufficient sight distance to select gaps in
incoming traffic and complete left-turn. Apart from these sight conditions, there are generally no
other approach or departure sight triangles needed for signalized intersections." Regardless, the
appropriate placement of signal heads will be further evaluated during the MassHighway design
process to help ensure adequate visibility of the signal itself.
13) The proposed signalized site driveway will be designed to incorporate appropriate tapers for lane
widenings. The taper shown to the proposed left-turn lane on Route 114 was developed to
maintain the maximum possible storage length for left-turning vehicles into the site,as well as for
the Route 114 eastbound left turn lane onto Peters Street.These details will continue to be
evaluated during the permitting and design process with MassHighway.
14) VHB agrees that from purely a traffic operations perspective,the optimal location for the proposed
driveway would have been across from the existing Eagle Tribune Driveway, However,
Northmark Bank expressed significant concern that the initially proposed location would
adversely affect their site's access. Accordingly,both META and MassHighway requested that the
proponent search for an alternative location for the proposed signalized driveway. The currently
proposed location was the only feasible location which acceptably address the concern s of the
affected parties.
15) The proposed site plan has since been modified. With the recent elimination of the southerly
right-turn,enter-only driveway,additional changes to signage will be required. VHB will revise
the site plans to include additional directional signs,and a revised plan will be forwarded to the
peer reviewers for additional comment. While the driveway behind retail buildings 2 and 3 is
generally 25-feet wide,and could accommodate two lanes of travel,this section is proposed as
one-way.The one-way pattern is proposed to minimize conflicts between delivery vehicles,and
also promote having all trucks exit the site by the driveway between these two buildings. Trucks
could not navigate the parking lot in front of retail 3 in the opposite direction.Given the minimal
employee traffic anticipated behind the building,the one-way pattern should not pose a
significant hardship.
16) VHB consulted with the Police Department earlier in the permitting process to evaluate safety
concerns at the NorthMark Bank and Eagle Tribune driveways. While this assessment was
helpful,the reports did not offer substantially more detail than the accident information obtained
from the MassHighway database. Regardless,VHB can contact the Police Department for
additional accident data if any specific concerns are identified,
17) Back up data relative to background projects have been provided in the Single EIR appendix.
They have also been attached to this document.
I American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways alld
Streets.200L
\\\06354\d ocs\memos\Transpoa la I i o nResponse s_I.oc al_Com p I e te.d oc
Date: October 29,200 8
Pxoject No- 08354
18) A trip generation comparison utilizing alternate land use codes was developed in response to
comment 4.22 in the Single MR. All tenants being considered for the site are retail in nature and
consistent with the ITE description for land use code 820,Shopping Center. For connparison
purposes,VHB conducted traffic counts at the existing Brookside Shops in Acton. This 74,000
square foot plaza was also developed by the Proponent,and contains tenants similar to those
being pursued for this site. Applying the observed trip rates at that plaza (based on counts
conducted on October 23`d through October 25`'2003) to the proposed development results in
lower trip generation than that analyzed in the traffic study.While exact tenants have not yet been
identified, this will hopefully provide some level of assurance that use of ITE LUC 820 is
appropriate for this site. The observed Acton traffic data are provided in the Appendix.
A parking evaluation was also conducted at the site on the same days that the driveway counts
were conducted. The parking demand counts were conducted every half-hour between 4 PM and
7 PM on the weekday,and 12 PM and 3 PM on the Saturday. The counts revealed that the site
experienced peak demands of 124 and 210 during the respective weekday and Saturday. Givers
the similar sizes of these two developments, the 400+space supply at the Eaglewood Shops should
be more than adequate to accommodate a comparable demand without the need for constructing
the reserve spaces.
19) As noted earlier,plans showing the critical truck movements through the site have been provided
attached.
20) Since the original submission,the proposed site plans have been modified to eliminate the
southerly right-turn,enter-only driveway. By doing this,the southerly parking field is better
connected to the site,and one of the dead-end aisles has been eliminated.
21) VHB will review the design of the dumpster areas and will modify the plans as warranted and
feasible. Since the preparation of the original site plans,some of the proposed dumpster locations
have been eliminated.
22) All signs and pavement markings will conform to MUTCD requirements.
23) VHB will review the plans to provide a STOP sign and/or STOP line for motorists approaching
the rear access road adjacent to the Retail 1 building. As the rear driveway is enter only,STOP
sign control may only be required (if at all) on the approach from the parking aisle opposite the
access drive to the rear of the building. A painted island has been provided in this area to better
delineate traffic flow. The need and location for additional crosswalks is.also being reevaluated,
Responses to Email Comments
1) VHB has reviewed the traffic networks,and a decrease in traffic was identified between the
Existing and No-Build volumes occurs at the Eagle Tribune driveway's exiting left-turn
movement onto Route 114. The decrease shown in the graphic is incorrect,since turning
movements to and from specific development driveways should remain unchanged. It should
be noted that the Synchro analyses presented for this location in the Single EIR were conducted
with the appropriate volumes. The traffic volume networks(attached)have been revised
accordingly.
2) Copies of the background development networks have been attached to this document.
3) Site-generated traffic volumes networks have been attached to this document.
\\\D8354\d as\memos\Truisp orlaiionEtesponses_L ocaE_Comple Ic.d oc
Date; October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
4) The pass-by trip distribution was developed utilizing the existing traffic volumes. The resulting
distribution indicates that approximately 60 percent of pass-by traffic will be from the southeast
and 40 percent from the northwest.
5) VFIB has revised the intersection capacity analysis for the Route 114 at Peters Street/Andover
Street to correct the westbound through-movement for the 2003 Existing conditions weekday
evening peak hour. The results are summarized in Table 7.
TABLE 7
ROUTE 114 AT PETERS STREET
REVISED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Peale Hour 2003 Existing 200 No-Braid 2008 Build.
We Delay' LOS' We Delay LOS v1c Delay LOS
Weekday Evening 1.02 43 D 1.24 61 E 1.48 85 F
Saturday Midday 0.86 44 D 1.14 59 E 1.35 87 F
a. VIC=volume to Capacity Ratio
b. Average delay per vehicle in seconds.
e. L03=LeveW-Selvice.
+ Delay exceeds 120 seconds.
The modification of volumes did not result in a significant difference in the level of service
results as compared to those presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study. Accordingly,the
conclusions presented in the previously submitted traffic assessment remaui valid.
Furthermore,other minor discrepancies are expected to have resulted in insignificant changes in
the analysis,and therefore they are not expected to affect the study's conclusions. As noted
earlier,the operation of all of the intersections included in the proposed coordinated system will
be evaluated during the MassHighway design process to identify any capacity enhancing timing
changes that could be implemented.
6) The signal timings and cycle lengths were determined utilizing MassHighway signal timing
plans. Since the analyzed signalized locations presently operate as fully-actuated,
uncoordinated intersections,the signal timings and cycle lengths may vary between each
condition. With the implementation of the proposed coordinated system,a uniform cycle length
will be provided at the intersections in the system.
\\108351\does\memos\Tran spo r;a li on Responses_Loc al_Com pie I e.d oc
Date: October 29,2003 10'
Project No.: 083S4
ATTACHMENTS
• Peer Review Continents
• Route 114 Count Data
• Traffic Volume Networks
+ Capacity Analysis Worksheets
• Seasonal Traffic Variations
• Observed Brookside Shops Trip Generation I Parking;Demand
e Background Development Traffic Volume Networks
• Site-Generated Traffic Volume Networks
• Truck Turning Movement Diagrams
\\\0835M1\d ocs\memos\Traeupor to tionl2rsponses_I.aca]_Comple t e.dor
Date: October 29,2003 31'
Project No.: 05354
• Peer Review Documents
\\\08359\tines\msmos\Transpor3aiionResponses_Local Cocnpleie.doc
Date; October 2%2003 1
Project No..- 08354
• Route 114 Count Data
1\\D3359\@ ocs\memoslTransporta II onResp onses_L€xal_Com ple teal oc
Date: October 29,2003 13!
Project No.: 08354
• Traffic Volume Networks
\\\U8354\das\memos\TransportaGonCtesponses_T.aal_Cornplete.cf oc
Date: October 29,2003 1
Project Nllo.: 09354
• Capacity Analysis Worksheets
\\\08354\dots 1 in cmn s\Tran spot to don R e5p once s_Local_Comple le.dcc
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
• Seasonal Traffic Variations
\\\03359\does\memos\'FTansportatinnitespanses_l.ocd Cornptw.doc
Date: October 29,2003 R
Project No.: 08354
• Observed Brookside Shops Trip Genera Lion/ Parking Demand
\\\08354\d ocs\memos\Transport a II onResp onses_Local_Compie le.doc
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
• Backgrow-id Development Traffic Volume Networks
\\\08351\dnc5\memas\7Yansportaliar:ResporiseR Lnc.�Complele.doc
Date: October 29,2003
Project No.: 08354
• Site-Generated Traffic Vol-time Networks
\\\03354 dots\memos\TransporlationResp onses_C,ocal_Comple le,doc
Date: October 29,2003 19
Project No.: 08354
• Truck Turning Movement Diagrams
\\1 D3354\darn\mcmos\Transpvrta(!on Respnnses_Local_Complc tc.doc
Transportation R FE C F 11
Land Development i
Environmental
OV 2 6 ?003
S e r v i c e s
f\O t71f ;1f�f11C�lft:il
i'LAfV ING Ut_11!1t tE ialt_-'�i T 101 Walnut Street
i Uanasse lfai Q i. Brustfla, [nc P.0.Box 9151
Watertown,MA 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Memorandum To: ron Stephenson Date: November 24,2003
Project No,: 08354
From: Prank Stewart,ASLA Re: Landscape Zoning Compliance
I
The following is our understanding of the North Andover Zoning Regulations Section 8.4 in regard
to Landscape Design.
Parking lot
• Section 8.4.1 requires a G foot wide planting strip along the parking lot.The plan provides a
25 foot wide planting area along Route 114.
• Section 8.4.1 requires a visually impervious screen along the parking lot.The plan provides
for a hedge of evergreen Hicks'yews and h-kberry shrubs along the parking lot.These
shrubs are of a type that will grow at least five feet high in three years.In addition to this,
there will be a new stone wall, about three feet high,along the back of sidewalk on Route
114.The intent is for it to be a"Farmer's wall",meaning a roughly built wall as is commonly
found on old properties in North Andover.
• Section 8.4.4 requires that"on at least three sides of the perimeter of an outdoor parking lot,
there shall be planted a tree every 30 linear feet.The combined length of the site perimeter
on the north,east,and south sides is approximately 2,340 linear feet. 2,340 LP divided by 30
requires that 78 trees be provided on the perimeter.Zoning requires that these trees be 3.5"
in diameter at four feet above the ground.We have increased the sizes of 112 trees to be 3.5"
in diameter.
• In addition to the required trees,we are proposing to plant 243 evergreen trees along the
west property line.These are Red Cedars,White Pines,Norway Spruces,and White Spruce
trees.They will grow to 50 feet high or so,and provide a year round buffer to the residences
to the west of the site.
• It is our calculation that 104 trees are required at this site.We are providing 423 trees on the
site.
Nortbmark Bank Screening
• VHB landscape architects have worked with Chris Huntress, the landscape architect
representing the Northmark Bank.Chris prepared a plan for landscape screening for the
Bank. VHB,Inc.has incorporated this design into our Landscape Plan with the exception of
using slightly smaller trees than the Huntress plan in the areas where existing large trees are
being preserved. We have also reduced the number of tree near Route 114 shown on the
Huntress Plan because they would not serve to screen the Site from the Bank.
• We understand that the Bank is in concurrence with our plan.
\\\08354\dots\memos\Landscape\LA112403.doc
i
I
Date: November 24,2003 2
Project No.: 08354
Residences on Route 114
• VHB landscape architects will meet with the four residential abutters across from the
site on Route 114.These meetings will be set tip by Robert LaRochell of Andover
Strategic Alliances,Inc.
• Specific landscape design recommendations will be based on site conditions and the
owners preferences.Visibility from existing residential driveways onto Route 114 is of
paramount importance in the design.
\\\OB354\does\memos\Landscape\LA112403.doc
1
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
Services
101 Walnut street
Vr�nnsse Hanzen Rrustlin Lac
�, .,,of a L � , P.O.Box 9151
Fltt'�C;Vfat wn,IV1A 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Transmittal' To: . Heidi Griffin Bate, December 9,2003
North Andover Planning Board
27 Charles Street
North Andover,NIA 01.845
Project No„ 08354,00
From: Jon D,Stephenson,P.E, Re: Eaglewood Shops Site Plan Resubmission
December 9,2003
In support of the Site Plan application for the Eaglewood Shops Retail Development the following
.revised plans and supporting data are being submitted to you in order to get on the December 1.6,
2003 Planning Board Hearing:
Site Plans-full scale-one copy
Site flans-half scale--ten copies
Revised Stormwater memorandum-eleven copies
Architectural plans-half scale-ten copies
Architectural plans--full size--one copy
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
4
RiJL.l
\\\oa354\does\Transmittals\TR_HGriffinr12 09_03.doe
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental ; '
Services
Nov 2 6 2005
101 Walnut Street
TTrxvxrtsse angy2 Rrustlln., hic l\Ir:i!4'fllANI)OW"I't P.0.Box 9151
PLANNING-',tJ'-' Ott l E , ,1tertown,NIA 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Transmittal To: Heidi Griffin pate: November 25,2003
Town of North Andover
Community Development&Services
Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Project No,: 08354.00
From Jon D.Stephenson,P.P. �S Ile: Eaglewood Shops Site flan Review
Resubmission
Heidi,
The attached information is being re-submitted to you on behalf of Eaglewood Properties,LLC site
plan submission application:
1) Response to MHpr Peer Review Continents of November 12,2003
2) Response to email from Heidi Griffin,dated October 27,2003
3) Response to memo from Heidi Griffin,dated November 13,2003
4) Revised Site Plans (dated 11/26/03)
5) Zoning Decision
6) Recorded Restrictive Covenants
7) Landscape Zoning Compliance Memo
8) Summary of Coordination with adjacent Pulte Site
9) Revised Hydrologic Memo
10) Traffic Response Memo
{t) ,iDRAfJ" LOT CaNSca0pA-T1,a,,, PLA�ri
CC:
Karl R. Dubay
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
103 Stiles Road
Suite One
Salem, NH 03079
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
Eggleston Environmental
55 Old Coach Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
(Plus Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report dated October 2003)
North Andover Conservation Commission
\\\08354\dots\Transmittals\TR_1-IGriffin_ll_26 03.doc
i
i
Date; November 25,2003 2
Project No.: 08354.00
I
(Plus Drainage and Stormwater Quality Report dated October 2003)
\\\OS3 S1\does\Tm s mi t tai s\Ti_H Cri f f in_11_2G_03.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
S e r v i c e s
101 Walnut Street
Vanasse Han.een Brustlin, h1c. NORTI I AC01,1o,W:
P.O.Box 9151
Watertown,ND, 02471-9151
617 924 1770
PAX 617 924 2286
Memorandum To: North Andover Planning Board Date: November 25,2003
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Project No.: 08354
From: Patrick Dunford,P.E. Re: Eaglewood Shops
Project Manager North Andover,Massachusetts
Coordination with Adjacent Pulte Site
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received and reviewed a letter sent by the Pulte Homes of
New England to the Town of North Andover regarding the above-mentioned project. The letter,
dated October 14,2003,was written by Melissa Kimball who is the sales manager for Pulte. In the
letter,various concerns are noted regarding the impact of the proposed Eaglewood Shops on the
abutting Pulte site under development at 170 Haverhill Street in Andover.
VHB had previously initiated contact with Mr.James McCabe,who is President of Pulte Home
Corporation in July 2003. VHB sent the proposed site plans to Pulte electronically with both the
proposed Eaglewood and Pulte developments shown. The purpose of this coordination was to discuss
any mutually beneficial grading options between the two properties,among other items. Since that
time,VHB has not been contacted by Pulte prior to the letter noted above. Since receiving the letter,
VHB has had discussions with Melissa Kimball and will be providing her with copies of the most
recent plans that will be submitted to the Town on November 26,2003. An inf orinal meeting between
VHB and Pulte has also been scheduled within the next week at the Pulte site. With the further detail
provided on the plans regarding the landscaping,grading and other site features it appears that the
concerns expressed in the letter from Pulte will be properly addressed.
\\Maivaldl\ld\09354\docs\memos\PWte Coordination.doc
i
Transportation
Land Development � a
Environmental •
S e r v i c e s
PLJ1WifdF1
s Imagination I innovation energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
i
1
November 26,2003 use HGt Pn R�^��.ct1.�72, T�2r
Ref: 08354.00
Mr. Karl Dubay,P.E.
MHF Design Consultants,Inc.
103 Stiles Road-Suite One
Salem,New Hampshire 03079
Re: Eaglewood Shops-Response to Site Plan Review Comments(2)
Dear Mr.Dubay,
In response to the November 12,2003 engineering review letter for the Eaglewood Shops
project VHB offers the following response to comments:
Zoning Districts
1. Please provide a copy of the rezoning decision for review confirmation of restrictive
covenants, which should also be specifically annotated on the plans per the TRC Meeting
request.
Response: A copy of the rezoning decision and covenants, recorded at the Registry of Deeds, has
been provided with the Site Plan resubmission, the restrictive covenants have been added to
the Legend and General Notes Sheet C-2.
2. The Zone Line and type remains unclear along Route 114 and across this street,respectively.
Response: The zone line has been clarified an the Existing Conditions Plan of Land,SV-1.
Responses to "Signs and Site Lighting" and "Building Height and Related Plans"
comments are provided under separate cover.
Parking and Circulation
1. The complete design of the proposed reserve parking should be provided, and notes should
be added to the plans identifying the procedures to be used .for its construction if the Town
decides to affectuate it—if the Planning Board agrees to the reserve nature of the facility for
this application. The design should include all items normally required for review, including
pedestrian access. To merely label the area as reserve parking without these details is not
appropriate.
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
L:\08354\dots\letlers\08354-RTC-MHF-Nov_2003.doc 61E7.924.1770 ■ FAX 617.924.2286
email: info@vhb.com
www.vhb.com
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 2
Response: The site plans have been revised to include a detail of the future potential
reserve parking area deck. A cross walk has been shown on the plan connecting the future
parking expansion area to the Retail 2 building.
2. The applicant should address the aisle along the sidewakl of Retail 1 building,which is totally
unprotected with no buffer or curb offset or sidewalk, and should be verified with the
Architectural Plans regarding materials and proposed bumpout features,etc.
Response: The site plans have been revised to shift Retail 1 generally to the north three feet
to provide a curb and landscape area between the building and the drive aisle.
3. The applicant should address the potential parking imbalance at the restaurant, if it is to be
located near Retail Space#10,where the entire parking field to the south of the main site drive
is taken for that one use.
Response: The plans have been revised to provide cross linking pedestrian access to
accommodate potential pedestrian paths.
4, We understand that the Board may request that the Planning Department coordinate possible
MVRTA bus routes and related technical site plan requirements with the applicant, if
applicable.
Response: The applicant is discussing this issue with the North Andover Community
Development Deparh-nent and will modifiy the plans as required to accommodate the need
for access.
5. We understand that the applicant may agree to join the Transportation Management
Agreement(TMA),which the Board may request that it be a condition of a possible decision.
Response: The plans have been modified to accommodate the bus to the maxnnum extent
practicable.
Existing Conditions Plan of hand
1. Original Connnent: The plan does not indicate complete subject lot and abutting lot information
(including approximate tax snap abutting lines, parcel numbers, etc. Note that no certified abutters
list zuas incl tided in our review tnaterinls.
Applicant's Response: The SV-1 plan has been updated to provide assessor reference
information on the abutting properties.
i
\LA08354\dots V ellers\68354_RTC_M1ir,-Nov_2003.doc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 3
Reply:-- Abutters'information across the streets need to be indicated. This plan indicates Lots
17 and 22 to be an integral 12art of the proposed ro'ect but the appear to be owned b
additional entities than what is shown on the Cover Sheet and the Application. The Planing
Department has requested that the ANR Plan be prepared in association with the submittal.
Response: A draft lot consolidation plan has been prepared and will be filed with the appropriate
agencies prior to Site Plan approval.
2. Original Continent: The wetland flagging and actual wetland limits are wiclear (e.g.,
disjointedfincotnplete near Waverly Road and adjacent Stabile property), and do not snatch the other
plans(e.g.,Flags 1-100 to A-4 section). The buffer zones are not shown.
Applicant's Response: Flag 1-100 has been added to the SV-1 plan, other flags shown
reference an older wetland delineation line,VHB is in the process of adding additional"new"
flags to extend the current delineation line and is coordinating this effort with the North
Andover conservation agent. The updated plan, with additional wet flags,will be provided
to you when complete.
Reply: The new information will need to be verified once provided.
Response: The plans have been revised to reflect the locations of six additional wetland flags.
3. Original Comment: A plan and/or required docnmentation combining the required existing lots
shoatld be included or referenced in the application. The combined areas and outer information are
unclear and also do not appear to match the Application Forna data Items 5 and 6.
Applicant's Response: A plan will be filed at the registry of deeds combining the three lots to
create a single lot for the project. The plan,once prepared will be provided to the Town.
Re 1 : We believe that the Plaj Department has requested that this 121an be provided as
part of the project submittal,and that related information be u_.pdated.
Response: A draft lot consolidation plan has been provided as an attachment to the submission.
Layout and Materials Plan
1. Original Cotattatent: Several critical pavement setbacks, wail offsets/setbacks, major curb radii,
nontypical pavementflane widths need to be clearly identified.
Applicant's Response: Additional dimensions have been provided on the plan.
Reply: Several critical nontypical.data remains to be identified for clarity and construction
control.
Response: Additional data has been added to the plans to include radii, curb types and signage
clarification.
1
\L:\03354\does\letters\OS354_RTC_MHF- Nov-2003.doe
� e
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 4
2. Original Comment: Pavement markings and MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be
considered(e.g.,main site drive access throat, interconnect drives,one-way areas,approaching conflict
control,fire lane areas,etc.). Consideration should also be given to adjusting curbline orientation/flow
for efficient circulation,control,and guidance at several critical areas. These and related issues were to
be addressed on the plans per the SETS review and responses,including possible pedestrian connections
to abutting planned projects.
Applicant's Response: Additional signage and pavement markings have been added to the
plan. Initial contact has been made with the residential developer to the west of the site, the
residential developer has not responded positively to the potential of coordinating the two
projects.
Re 1 : More safe control signage and markings should be considered in the critical
areas—exainples include the lack or insufficient safe control at internal site intersections—
including to the rear of Retail 1 and Retail 213 sta control? Ri ht of way? Better warnin
si a e? Etc. Additionally,we understand that the Board may request verification from the
abutting developer regarding his response to your irate ation coordination efforts to date.
Response: Additional stop bars and signs have been added to the plans, coordination with the
adjacent development in Andover is in progress, a memo is attached to the submission with a
summary of coordination to date with the adjacent development.
3. Original Comment: Adjristlnents should be made to the drive interconnecting Retail 1—it consists of
an 8%grade extending 200 feet,with no leveling/approach platform at the bottom of the hill where the
building and main site exit intersection are located.
Applicant's Response: The grade on the connecting road has been reduced to 7.5% and a
leveling area has been provided at the south end of the connector road.
Re 1 : The Uading and general design in this area need much more attention due to safe
considerations. The grade extends essentially through the intersection and down into the
loading dock without sufficient relief—note that this area will need to sLipport..100% of all
Retail 1 traffic egress, is located within and shared with the primary loading zone and u
against the actual building wall surrounded with guardrail with no room for error, and
includes an end 12rdecting retaining wall at the loading split.
Response: The site plans have been revised to add a stop bar, which will resolve the situation
decribed above.
4. Original Comment: Consideration should be made relative to draining the temporary snow stockpiles
shown on pavement, and their relative flowpOlis to effective CB intercept locations (e.g., bypass
drainage going into Rouite 114 pavement at "Retail I", long flow paths over parking areas at both
"Retail 2"and "Retail 3").
Applicant's Response: Snow plowed on the site will be temporarily stockpiled and removed
from the site, snow will be removed from the site before significant snow melt can occur. In
s
\L:\08359\does\1 e t ters\tl8 3 54_HTC_1vlff F_1V ov_2603.d oc
e v
fi
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 5
the event of spring snow and melt during the removal of snow from the site, snow melt will
be collected in the site closed drainage system and pass through the site stormwater BMPs.
Reply: The Snow Storage and Removal information on Fi re-S1 should be transferred to the
Site flans. However, we understand that the Board is concerned about any snow storage
indicated over vroposed parking spaces and the relative tightness of the 12arking su 1 T. The
issue of unusually long flow paths throw hotit the drainage design has not been ade uatel
addressed.
Response: Snow stockpiled on the site will be removed from the parking fields.
5. Original Comment: Many of the proposed catch basins are designed to capture inordinately large
areas of storm water flows and have flow paths routing overland flows for long distances (e.g. CB-810,
E7). These basins have inadequate grate capacities for the areas draining to them. And the long flow
paths pose hazards for winter conditions. Conversely, based on the grading, some catch basins would
capture almost no storm water flows(e.g. CB--B25). These should be examined.
Applicant's Response: Additional catch basins have been added to the plan, catch basin inlet
capacity calculations are provided.
Reply: The original comment remains.
Response: The plans have been revised to include more catch basins with grading and location
modifications to correct the stormwater flow issues,
6. Original Comment: The proposed grading would allow storm water flows from Rt. 114 into two of the
entrances (southerly and middle). These flows would then travel long distances before being captured
by catch basins. We reconrrnend the entrances be redesigned with storm water capture occurring at the
site boundary--where practical.
Applicant's Response: The southerly site ingress has been eliminated and the central main
site drive and northerly ingress have been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114
and prevent off site flow from flowing on to the project site.
Reply: As currently designed, the southerly entrance will direct flows from Rt. 114 into the
project, then flow an inordinately long distance before being captured by the on-site drainage
system.
Response: The site grading has been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114 to prevent
Route 114 stormwater from entering the site,additional detail has been added to clarify the plans.
7. Original Cornrnent: This sheet should be provided with the necessary pipe and structure data (e.g.
lengths,slopes, etc.)needed for construction.
Applicant's Response: Lengths of pipe have been shown on the Utility flan, slopes can be
calculated from information provided on the plans. Excessive information can result in
conflicting information on the plans.
\L:\083 5�\t�oc s U e t to r s 108354_RTC_MH P_N ov_2003.do[
Response to Comments
haglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 6
Reply: Drainage pipe slopes need to be indicated somewhere in the plan set—not providing
the data at all certainly would eliminate any information conflicts, but the slopes need to be
identified on the plans!
Response: The plans have been revised to show the length and slope information as requested.
8. Original Conanent: Additional notes and associated plan iteans should be added to the Plans relative
to the reg0red Mitigation Conantitnaenfs outlined in the SEIR.
Applicant's Response: Relevant items from the mitigation chapter of the SEIR have been
listed on the Legend and General Notes sheet on the plan set,Sheet C-1.
Reply: The commitments and other general information outlined in the SEIR remain to be in
disagreement with the plans,...including subsequent revisions to the plans—please explain
what items are relevant and-LAft other items are irrelevant as it pertains to the requirements
of the SEIR and related procedures. The Board needs to clearly understand the le alities of
this process, the impacts of any rezoning covenants and my related flan changes thereto vis-
a-vis the SEIR and aLiy inconsistencies which exist.
Response: The plans have been revised to include call outs for all items mandated by the SEIR
mitigation plan.
Utility Plan
1. Original Continent: The applicant should address the Fire Department TRC review contntents zoith
the appropriate notes on the plans (e.g.,fire suppression, alarm system,fire hydrant and emergency
access locations, Opticow notes, etc.); DPW TRC review comments (including server mitigation fees,
connection permit notes, detention system sizing and access, water wain and service sizingdocations,
soil and materials stockpile locations on plans, etc.); other departanent comwents—with appropriate
notes and plan infot•rnation as necessary.
Applicant's Response: Plans have been sent to the Eire Department for Review and no
comments have been received back from Chief Dolan. All local water and sewer connection
permits will be obtained by the contractor, all utility connection within the State layout will
be approved by the Massachusetts Highway Department.
Reidy Various outstanding Department input should be obtained and verified as necessary.
Please check the gas main connections shown in the street.
Response: The southerly gas main connection has been clarified on the Site Utilty Plan.
2. Original Connn.ent: Many of the drainage structures appear to have shallozv pipe cover. Specifically:
CB-825, B26, B6, B10, D5, E4, E5, E7, DMH--A2, E3. The drainage pipe from OMH-B3 to B2 is
labeled as 12". This should be checked.
Applicant's Response: The drainage system has been revised since the initial design,shallow
pipe cover has been addressed in the revised plan set.
,
\L:\08354\d ocs\Let to r s\O3354_R"CC_MH F_N ov_20 D3.d oc
i
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 7
Reply: The original comment remains Most 12ipes from catch basins have only 2 feet of
cover. This is inadequate in all but the most severe restricted areas which cannot be feasibl T
provided. We request that the a licant address these comments with an needed changes,
prior to us reviewing every utility detail.
Response: The catch basin detail provided on sheet C-9 of the Site plan set. The catch basins are
constructable with two feet of cover as discussed.
Landscape Plan
I. The applicant needs to address the Bylaw Section 8.4, which sets forth minimum screening
and landscape requirements for off-street lots. More specifically, the "impervious screen'
requirement of paragraph 1, and the requirements of paragraph 4 where interior landscape
strips are required.
Response: Landscaped end cap islands have been provided to meet this requirement.
2. We understand that the Board may be requesting additional details to the Landscape Plans,
particularly attention to possibly more landscaping along the front.
Response: Landscaping along Route 114 is provided as well as a farmers stone wall.
3. The proposed landscaping shown off the property will require verification of the landowner's
approval.
Response: An agreement is pending between the proponent of the Eaglewood Shops and the
Northmark Bank property owners to provide additional screening on and adjacent to the bank
property.
4. We understand that the Board may wish to discuss with you possible picket fencing and/or
stone wall design alternatives for the project frontage, as part of the overall plan presentation.
We also undertand that the Board may request a site visit with the applicant to discuss the
project.
Response: Tlne proponent is proposing an farmers stone wall along the property frontage along
Route 114, the idea was presented to the Planning Board at the November 18"'hearing and the board
responded favorably to the design, The approximate corners of Retail 1, Retail 2, Retail 3 and main
points on the drive aisles have been staked and flagged in the field for the Planning Board members
to walk the site.
a
\L:\08354\d ocs\letters\08359_RTC_h4HF-,tdov_2DO3.doc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 8
Site Details
I. The grease trap flow calculations are based on seating data that is inconsistent with the other
plans.
Response: The seat count used in the grease trap flow data and the seat count on the parking table
have been corrected and axe now consistent.
2. The Turfstone Paver picture detail should be accompanied by a specification detail,including
bedding materials and intercell materials,O&M,etc.
Response: The Turfstone Pavers are no longer proposed for use on the site.
3. The pavement details should include materials specifications.
Response: Additional information has been added to the pavement detail to include aggregate size of
the base material.
4. This project requires extensive roadway widening and intersection plans, which have not
been provided—the site plans only reference this work in schematic only.
Response: Copies of the offsite roadway improvement plans will be provided to the Planning Board
and peer review consultant when 25%plans are completed.
5. The retaining wall details should be revised to indicate face texture and color details. Some
elevation data are transposed on the plan. The detail provided also indicates fencing which is
unclear as to specification (type, height, color, etc.). This is an important visual element due
to the extensive amount of walls proposed. We understand that the Board may require
extensive detailing regarding these systems.
Response: The retaining wall detail has been modified to include a call out for a specific
manufacturer's product. A specific fence and handrail detail and callout have been provided in the
detail sheets.
Draiange Calculations
1. Original Comment: The designers are taking credit for infiltration/gronndruater recharge at the
extended detention basin. Storntzvafer Policy does not allozv this. The designers should find another
method of infiltration/recharge to fulfill the recharge rerinirentent.
Applicant's Response: The Storinwater Policy does not exclude meeting the infiltration
recharge requirement within the detention basin. Stormwater surface runoff is pretreated
prior to entering the infiltration basin.
\I.:\0835�\d oc s V e t to rs\€183 54_ktTC_A'IH I�_N av�2p 03.dac
1
i
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003 7
Page 9
Reply: Although not excluded, the use of a detention basin for groundwater recharge is not
recommended and must comply with certain guidelines and include calculations to support
the rate and volume of recharge. The current design does not fulfill the applicable criteria.,
Specifically, no recharge rate calculations were provided to confirm capacitor. More
fundamentally, the basin is currently designed with a bottom elevation that is 3-5 feet below
the estimate seasonal groundwater. In such a situation there would be no groundwater
recharge whatsoever. In fact groundwater would infiltrate the basin. Normal detention
basins - which drain to the bottom between storms - can be desi ed below groundwater
elevations; but they cannot then be given credit for groundwater recharge. An alternative
method of groundwater rechar e should be sought. It is the reviewer's recommendation that
roof drains - which re uire no additional treatment - be infiltrated-sepayately from other
stormwater, in efficient fill areas within the site design. This would fulfill the recharge
requirement, as well as allowing the basin to be reduced in size. And aggregate cost savings
could be realized—one example is by keeping the clean roof water separated from the
pavement water which could then only require one Stormceptor at the end verses several at
each CB in that area)
Response: Subsurface Stormtech infiltration units have been provided beneath the parking fields to
meet the stormwater policy infiltration requirement. The detention pond is therefore used strictly for
detention and no infiltration requirements are proposed to be mitigated in the pond.
2. Original Comment: The TSS reinoval calculations take credit for 10% removal by street sweeping, It
will be the decision of the Conservation Commission as to whether or not to accept this.
Applicant's Response: No comments have been made received from the Conservation
Commission as of yet regarding the 10%TSS removal credit for street sweeping.
Reply: The original comment remah-is. We also understand that the Board may request
that the Planning Department take an active role in closely coordinating the project with the
Commission's Agent.
Response: The Notice of Intent is under review by the North Andover Conservation Commission
and it's peer review consultant. Currently the stormwater BMP design is accounting for the 10%
removal credit for street sweeping.
3. Original Comment: The detention basin as designed would pond to within inches of the crown of the
embankment (see 100-year storm calculations). It is recommended that at least 1 foot of freeboard be
provided.
Applicant's Response: The detention basin is mitigating the 100-year storm event, though not
required by the Stormwater Policy, the current design allows for 100-year free board in excess
of 6".
Reply: The original comment remains. It is standard...engineering practice that 1 foot of
freeboard be provided. Anything less can compromise the structural integrity of the basin
impoundment berm which is a requirement of the policy). It is also recommended that the
s
\L:\0 M4\dots\1e tiers\0835A_RTC_MHP_Nm-2003.d w
I
Response
nse to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 10
emergency.overflow weir and final outlet piping/manhole location be switched to better-
accommodate maintenance access.
Response: The overflow weir and outlet control headwall and piping have been switched to better
accommodate maintenance access to the structures, and the pond has been modified to provide 1 foot
of freeboard in the pond for the 100-year frequency storm event.
4. Original Cornntent: The "Storer Drainage Corrrputations" spreadsheet displays many grate capacities
that are inadequate. Specifically: CB-AS, B9,810,B14,B22,B24,B26, D2, E7, E4.
Applicant's Response: Grate inlet calculations will be provided.
Reply: The original continent remains. We could not find my.grate capacity calculations
values for cai2acity are simply shown without references). Furthermore the ca acities
shown for many catch basins are overestimated. Inordinately large areas are directed to
single catch basins. These should be reexamined.
Response: The grate inlet capacity calculations have been-updated to include the additional drainage
structures and additional double grates added to the plan.
5. Original Cononent: Contpliance Review with MADEP Stormwater Policy: Standard#3:Rechar' e to
groundwater: The plans and report submitted do not provide adequate recharge. Further design
information is required. Standard#4: TSS rentoval: The plans and report submitted comply with this
requirement only if North Andover Conservation Conrrnission agrees to apply 10% TSS removal credit
for street sweeping.
Applicant's Response: Compliance with the nine standards of the Stormwater Policy has
been included in the revised drainage report.
Rel 21y: Com liance with Stormwater Standards#3 &4 require design revisions as indicated
above.
Response: The recharge to groundwater standard is being met with subsurface recharge chambers
beneath the parking fields and the Conservation Commission will determine will determine the
compliance with the TSS removal standard.
Eleven sets of the revised Site Plan package will be sent to the North Andover Planning Department,I
have enclosed one set of the revised site plan package for your re-review,if you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact any member of the VHB Eaglewood Shops project team.
Very truly yours,
VANASSB HANGEN BRUSTI,IN,INC.
v r
5zz�-
Jon D. Stephenson,P.E.
\L:\083 54\d o rs\I e tt e rs\08354_RTC_MH F_No v_2003.d oc
II
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 11
Project Manager
CC: Ross Hamlin,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
John Allyn,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
Vin Manzi,Esq.,Manzi&McCann Attorneys at Law
Walter Rogers,Eagle Tribune Publishing
Heidi Griffin,Town of North Andover
e
s
\L:\06354\dots\letters\08353_RTC_NMV_Nov_2003.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental NOV 2 6
Services
I\N011111 ANDOV141
PLAT\IM6 t}EPA[i f Iv11-N'�01 Walnut Street
E Vanasse Haneen Rrustlin, [na P.O.Box 9151
Watextown,MA 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2266
Memorandum Toy North Andover Planning Board Date: November 26,2003
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Noiect No.: 08354
From: Patrick Dunford,P.E. Re: l aglewood Shops
Project Manager North Andover,Massachusetts
Response to Comments
The North Andover Comm-Lu-ity Development and Services Director,Heidi Griffin,had previously
provided Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,lnc. (VHB)with a list of items discussed at the November 6"
hearing for the above mentioned project. VHB has since met with MHF Design Consultants(MHF),
the Town's peer review consultant, and is providing the following responses to each item as follows:
1. Instead of the initially suggested picket fence treatment,the proponent is now proposing a
farmers stone wall along the site frontage as shown on the most recent site plans. This
treatment is more in keeping with the nature of the corridor and is more appropriate for the
scale of this project's frontage.
2. Snow will be temporarily stockpiled on site as shown on the most recent site plans,and will be
removed as soon after as is practical.
3. Additional building material and sign details have been provided in the most recent plan
submission package being submitted to the Town on November 26,2003.
4. Following a meeting with MHF on November 21,2003,it was agreed that it was not necessary
or appropriate to construct the proposed reserve parking area. Additional justification for this
from a traffic perspective is provided in VHB's memorandum to the Town dated October 29,
2003. Instead of constructing the space, the revised plans show the location of where a park
deck would be constructed if deemed necessary in the future. This parking area has already
been accounted for in the drainage report previously submitted.
5. The exact location of tenants within the site has not been determined at this time. Since the
plans were initially submitted to the town the pedestrian accommodation within the site have
been further developed. Included in this effort were the provision of crosswalks between the
parking area at the southerly end of the site and Retail 3. With the need for the signalized
entrance to be Iocated within the center of the site to address abutter concerns,more parking is
provided to the north of the main driveway in front of Retail 2 than in the vicinity of Retail 3.
Accordingly, the need for the spaces located at the southerly end of the site is critical to
maintain flexibility in locating tenants at the southerly end of Retail 3.
6. A draft Lot Consolidation Plan has been included for review in the November 26,2003
submission package. This plan will be finalized and formally submitted following review.
7. A separate memorandum addressing the project's compliance with the landscape
requirements in the local bylaws has been provided with the November 26,2003 submission
package.
\\Mawa1d\Id\08354\dots\mem0s\H Griffin 11-13-03 response.doc
i
Date: November 26,2003 2
Project No.: 08354
8. As noted under comment 4,the parking area referred to is needed for accommodate the
anticipated demand from the southerly building within Retail 3. As this upper tenant's
parking demand will be most prevalent in the immediate vicinity of that building,the spaces
at the southerly end of the site are necessary. The landscape plans in the latest plan set
provide detail regarding the buffering in the vicinity of this area.
9. As noted under comment 7,a separate landscape memorandum has been provided.
10. A meeting between VHB and representatives of Pulte has been scheduled for December 2,
2003. Pulte had submitted a letter dated October 14, 2003,commenting on various elements of
the project. However,the lack of a pedestrian connection was not identified as a concern in
this letter. While this can be discussed at the meeting with Pulte,promoting pedestrian
activity to the rear of the site creates safety concerns due to loading activity,as well as overall
security. The Pulte letter specifically noted concerns with lighting at the rear of the building.
Introducing pedestrian activity in this area would likely result in the need for increased
lighting,which would be contrary to the concerns expressed in that letter.
\\Mawa1d\Id\05354\dots\memos\H Griffin 11-IM3 response.doc
i
j
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Andover Planning Board
FROM : Heidi Griffin Community Development & Services Director
RE: Site Plan Review—Eaglewood Shops--Route 114
DATE: November 13, 2003
As the attached memorandum from M H F outlines many of the engineering issues and others we.
touched upon at the last hearing, I will briefly summarize some of the changes made since the
last meeting:
1. A 4' high white picket fence has been added along the frontage of Route 114 as requested
by the Board;
2. Snow storage and removal plans have been provided since the last meeting. The plans
indicate that the snow stockpile areas are Temporary and will be removed from site the day of
plowing. The snow pile areas are located throughout several areas along the frontage of parking
areas on Route 114. The Board was concerned with the snow pile removal areas being located
above the parking areas and this issue should be addressed if it is not to the satisfaction of the
Board as proposed.
3. In regards to building materials and signage materials: (g)eneral colors, textures, and
other materials information to truly depict what is being proposed Sheet A 4 has been provided
indicating monument and directional sign details and typical pole lighting mockups. However, it
is unclear where the indicated signage is to be placed on the Layout Plan, quantities and total
signage areas, the method of signage lighting, and complete colors labeled. Although Sheet A 2
indicates typical building signage locations,it does not indicate the above required information.
We understand that the Board may request information relative to a possible common theme of
wall signage design.
4. The Board should determine whether or not a complete design of the proposed reserve
parking should be provided as indicated in M H F`s review letter. If not, the decision will need
to reflect it accurately, but I concur with M H F that the reserve parking should be adequately
planed for if it needs to be built and that the design should include all items normally required for
review, including pedestrian access.
5. It is difficult to review the parking with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not the
restaurant will exist on the site as indicated by the applicant. The proposed use should be
definitely determined to provide an overall effective parking, pedestrian site plan. If need be, the
applicant could. always could (come) back for a site plan modification and that could be
conditioned in the decision.
G. The Planning Department has requested consistently that the ANR Plan he prepared in
association with the submittal. I am not sure why the applicant has not, or is, reluctant to submit
one.
7. The applicant needs to address the Bylaw Section 8 A,which sets forth minimum
screening and landscape requirements for off-street lots. More specifically, the "impervious
7
screen>5 requirement of paragraph 1, and the requirements of paragraph 4 where interior
landscape strips are required.
& The parking area the board originally had concerns with and considered "awkward"
located above the Royal Property still remains on the plans.
9. The landscaping section of our site plan regulations state the following.
"On at least three sides of the perimeter of an outdoor parking lot, there shall be planted at least
one tree for every thirty (30) linear feet in the interior part of an outdoor parking lot where two
rows of parking spaces containing a total of 10 or more parking spaces face each other, a
landscaped open space not'Zns than 6 feet in width shall be provided. The landscaped strip may
be provided either; 1) between the rows of parking spaces parallel to the aisle or, 2) in two or
more strips parallel to the spaces and extending from the aisle serving one row of spaces to the
aisle serving the other row of spaces, as illustrated below
Trees required by this section shall be at least 3.5 inches in diameter at a height four feet above
the ground at time of planting and shall be of a species characterized by suitability and hardiness
for location in parking lot. . . .
The landscaping plans do not meet the requirements of this section. For example, the plantings
located in front of Retail #1 and Retail 42 do not appear to have trees at least 3.5 inches in
diameter. In fact, there are only 20 trees listed on the entire landscaping plan [0 October Glory
Red Maple) which are 3.5 inches in diameter/caliper or larger out of the 114 shade trees listed on
the plant list. The applicant should either request a waiver to this section of the landscaping by
law or revise the plans appropriately.
10. 1 an unclear as to whether or not pedestrian access has been provided to the adjacent
parcel owned by Pulte Homes but am of the understanding the two entities are attempting to
reach agreement to try and incorporate this request of the Board.
Again, lwould reiterate this is a brief review as there are many other items referenced in M H F
Design's memorandum [attached).
i
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental i
serv1ces NOV 262003
Nr71=RT1-1 AN11C 0-Ft
f�LANNIi�ICa U� F'hi=i I IME N101 Walnut Street
Kmasse ffan�_,en Brustlin, Inc. P.O,Box 9151
Watertown,MA 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Memorandum To: North Andover Planning Board Date: November 26,2003
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Project No.: 08354,00
From: Jon D.Stephenson,P.E. Re: Eaglewood Shops
Project Manager North Andover,Massachusetts
Response to Continents of
October 27,2003
The North Andover Community Development and Services Director,Heidi Griffin,had sent an ernail
to VHB on October 27,2003 with a list of 14 items that VHB was asked to further examine, the
following are responses to the 14 items:
1. Snow Storage—Must be placed in an area where it cannot block parking spaces
Response: Snow will be temporarily stockpiled on site as shown on the most recent site plans, and
will be removed as soon after as is practical.
2. Parking— The parking lot to the right could be reconfigured to an area where it is not so
isolated and odd-shaped;
Response: The parking area referred to is needed to accommodate the anticipated demand from
the southerly building within Retail 3. As this upper tenant's parking demand will be most prevalent
in the immediate vicinity of that building, the spaces at the southerly end of the site are necessary.
The landscape plans in the latest plan set provide detail regarding the buffering in the vicinity of this
area.
3. Fence—Fencing[i.e. white picket fence]along the frontage would aesthetically improve the
project;
Response: instead of the initially suggested picket fence treatment, the proponent is now proposing
a farmers stone wall along the site frontage as shown on the most recent site plans. This treatment
is more in keeping with the nature of the corridor and is more appropriate for the scale of this
projects frontage.
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.
\\�Inwald\Id\08354\toes\mcn¢os\E[Griffin 10-27-03 response_cmait.doc
J1
i
Date: November 26,2003 2
Project No.; 08354
E
Response: The project Landscape Architect presented the landscape plan at the November 18,
2003 Planning Board hearing, attached in the Site Plan resubmission package is a Landscape memo
detailing the landscaping. The proponent is under agreement with the Northmark Bank to screen the
area around the bank property.
5. Pedestrian Access--Proof that pedestrian access has been explored with Pulte Homes
adjacent residential property should be provided.
Response: A meeting between VHB and representatives of Pulte has been scheduled for December
2, 2003. Pulte had submitted a letter dated October 14, 2003, commenting on various elements of
the project. However, the lack of a pedestrian connection was not identified as a concern in this
letter. While this can be discussed at the meeting with Pulte, promoting pedestrian activity to the
rear of the site creates safety concerns due to loading activity, as well as overall security. The Pulte
letter specifically noted concerns with lighting at the rear of the building. Introducing pedestrian
activity in this area would likely result in the need for increased lighting, which would be contrary to
the concerns expressed in that letter.
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.
Response: A detail of a typical retaining wall has been added to the plan set. Appropriate permits
will be obtained prior to construction.
7. Transportation Management Agreement-- The applicant agreed to join the TMA, and this
will be conditioned in a decision when it is made.
Response: No Response
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.
Response: No Response
9. Conservation Commission Jurisdiction—Heidi Griffin will coordinate through the
Conservation Administrator that this project is for the most part out of their jurisdiction.
Response: No Response
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.
Response: Truck turning templates have been provided with the traffic study.
11. Internal pedestrian/vehicular 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.
Response: Since the plans were initially submitted to the town the pedestrian accommodation within
the site have been further developed. Included in this effort were the provision of crosswalks
between the parking area at the southerly end of the site and Retail 3.
\\N1awald\1d\09354\does\memos\H Griffin 10-27-03 response emnll.doc
Date: November 26,2003 3
Project No.: M54
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 needs to ensure they have a
building schematic and signage plan conducive to the architectural styles compatible with
the surrounding area.
Response: The project architect has provided additional plan information regarding signage and will
continue to coordinate with the Planning Board as the site signage program is further developed.
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.
Response: A pedestrian courtyard and seating area has been established at the southern end of
Retail 3.
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.
Response: The corner locations of the three buildings have been staked in the field, as well as the
approximate locations of the drive aisles. Planning Board members are welcome to visit the site at
any time.
\\Nlawald\ld\08354\does\memos\H Griffin 10-27-03 response_email.doc
i
Transportation NOV 2 6 2(10.3
Land Development .
Environmental /1,ttrl)C.71/f:I t
S e r v i c e s PLANNINu Uhl>!vi�il�rtl;;l "�
imagination innovation energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
November 26,2003 17aiiasse HainBPn Rru, dhL iw -..
Ref: 08354.00
Mr.Karl Dubay,P.E.
MHP Design Consultants,Inc.
103 Stiles Road—Suite One
Salem,New Hampshire 03079
Re: Eaglewood Shops—Response to Site Plan Review Comments (2)
Dear Mr.Dubay,
In response to the November 12,2003 engineering review letter for the Eaglewood Shops
project VHB offers the following response to comments:
Zoning Districts
1. Please provide a copy of the rezoning decision for review confirmation of restrictive
covenants, which should also be specifically annotated on the plans per the TRC Meeting
request.
Response: A copy of the rezoning decision and covenants, recorded at the Registry of Deeds, has
been provided with the Site Plan resubmission, the restrictive covenants have been added to
the Legend and General Notes Sheet C-2.
2. The Zone Line and type remains unclear along Route 114 and across this street,respectively.
Response: The zone line has been clarified on the Existing Conditions Plan of Land,SV-1.
Responses to "Signs and Site Lighting" and "Building Height and Related Plans"
comments are provided under separate cover.
Parking and Circulation
1. The complete design of the proposed reserve parking should be provided, and notes should
be added to the plans identifying the procedures to be used for its construction if the Torn
decides to affectuate it----if the Planning Board agrees to the reserve nature of the facility for
this application. The design should include all items normally required for review, including
pedestrian access. To merely label the area as reserve parking without these details is not
appropriate.
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
L:\08354\dots\]esters\08354_RTC_MHF_Nov-2003.doc 617,924,1770 ■ FAX 617.924.2286
email; info@vhb.com
www,vhb.com
s
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 2
Response: The site plans have been revised to include a detail of the future potential
reserve parking area deck. A cross walk has been shown on the plan connecting the future
parking expansion area to the Retail 2 building.
2. The applicant should address the aisle along the sidewakl of Retail 1 building,which is totally
unprotected with no buffer or curb offset or sidewalk, and should be verified with the
Architectural Plans regarding materials and proposed bumpout features,etc.
Response: The site plans have been revised to shift Retail 1 generally to the north three feet
to provide a curb and landscape area between the building and the drive aisle.
3. The applicant should address the potential parking unbalance at the restaurant, if it is to be
located near Retail Space#10,where the entire parking field to the south of the main site drive
is taken for that one use.
Response: The plans have been revised to provide cross linking pedestrian access to
accommodate potential pedestrian paths.
4. We understand that the Board may request that the Planning Department coordinate possible
MVRTA bus routes and related technical site plan requirements with the applicant, if
applicable.
Response: The applicant is discussing this issue with the North Andover Community
Development Department and will modifiy the plans as required to accommodate the need
for access.
5. We understand that the applicant may agree to join the Transportation Management
Agreement(TMA),which the Board may request that it be a condition of a possible decision.
Response: The plans have been modified to accommodate the bus to the maximum extent
practicable.
Existing Conditions Plan of Land
1. Origurat Cornrnent: The plan does not indicate complete sr.abject lot and abutting lot information
(inchsding approximate tax rnap abutting Iirres, parcel nurnber•s, etc. Note that no certified abutters
list zvas incha.ded in oast review materials.
Applicant's Response: The SV-1 plan has been updated to provide assessor reference
information on the abutting properties.
r
s
\L:108354\does\I e t to rs\03354_RTC_]vII-3F_Nov_2003.d oc
fi
1
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 3
Reply: Abutters'information across the streets need to be indicated. This plan indicates Lots
17 and 22 to be an integral tart of the proposed project, but they appear to be owned by
additional entities than what is shown on the Cover Sheet and the Application. The Planing
Department has requested that the ANR Plan be prepared in association with the submittal.
Response: A draft lot consolidation plan has been prepared and will be filed with the appropriate
agencies prior to Site Plan approval.
2. Original Comment: The wetland flagging and actual zvetland limits are unclear (e.g.,
disjointed/incomplete near Waverly Road and adjacent Stabile property), and do not hnatch the other
plans(e.g.,Flags 1-100 to A-4 section). The buffer zones are not shown.
Applicant's Response: Flag 1-100 has been added to the SV-1 plan, other flags shown
reference an older wetland delineation fuze,VHB is in the process of adding additional"new"
flags to extend the current delineation line and is coordinating this effort with the North
Andover conservation agent. The updated plan, with additional wet flags, will be provided
to you when complete.
Reply: The new information will need to be verified once provided.
Response: The plans have been revised to reflect the locations of six additional wetland flags.
3. Original Coniment; A plan and/or required doci nnentation combining the required existing lots
should be included or referenced in the application. The combined areas and other information are
unclear and also do not appear to match the Application Form data Items 5 and&.
Applicant's Response: A plan will be filed at the registry of deeds combining the three lots to
create a single lot for the project. The plan,once prepared will be provided to the Town.
Reply: We believe that the Planning Department has requested that this plan be provided as
art of the ro'ect submittal and that related information be updated.
Response: A draft lot consolidation plan has been provided as an attachment to the submission.
Layout and Materials Plan
1. Original Comment: Several critical pavement setbacks, wall offsets/setbacks, major curb radii,
nontypical pavement/lane widths need to be clearly identified.
Applicant's Response: Additional dimensions have been provided on the plan.
Reply: Several critical nontypical data remains to be identified for clarity and-.cons truction
control.
Response: Additional data has been added to the plans to include radii, curb types and signage
clarification.
r
i
\L:\fl 83 SA\d oc s\1211 e r s\08354-RTC_A?FtF_N ov�2403.d oc
i
1
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 4
2. Original Comment: Pavement markings and MUTCD signage in several critical areas should be
considered (e.g.,main site drive access throat, interconnect drives,one-way areas, approaching conflict
control,fire lane areas,etc.). Consideration should also be given to adjusting curbline orientation1flozo
for efficient circulation,control,and guidance at several critical areas, These and related issues were to
be addressed on the plans per the SETS review and responses, including possible pedestrian connections
to abutting planned projects.
Applicant's Response: Additional signage and pavement markings have been added to the
plan. Initial contact has been made with the residential developer to the west of the site, the
residential developer has not responded positively to the potential of coordinating the two
projects.
Reply: More safety/control signage and markings should be considered in the critical
areas—exarnl2les include the lack ar insufficient safe control at internal site intersections—
including to the rear of Retail 1 and Retail 2 3 (stop control? Right of way? Better warnitl
signage? Etc) Additionally,we understand that the Board may request verification from the
abutting developer regarding his response to your integration coordination efforts to date.
Response: Additional stop bars and signs have been added to the plans, coordination with the
adjacent development in Andover is in progress, a memo is attached to the submission with a
summary of coordination to date with the adjacent development.
3. Original Comment: Adjustments shorild be made to the drive interconnecting Retail 1—it consists of
an 8%grade extending 200 feet,with no leveling/approach platform at the bottom of the hill where the
building and main site exit intersection are located.
Applicant's Response: The grade on the connecting road has been reduced to 7.5% and a
leveling area has been provided at the south end of the connector road.
Reply: The grading and general design in this area need much more attention due to safety
considerations, The grade extends essentially through the intersection and down into the
loading dock, without sufficient relief—note that this area will need to support 100% of all
Retail 1 traffic egress, is located within and shared with the primary loading zone, and un
against the actual building wall surrounded with guardrail with no room for error, and
includes an end prgjecting..retaining wall at the loading split.
Response: The site plans have been revised to add a stop bar, which will resolve the situation
decribed above.
4. Original Comment: Consideration should be made relative to draining the temporary snow stockpiles
shown on pavement, and their relative flowpaths to effective CB intercept locations (e.g., bypass
drainage going into Route 114 paveln.ent at "Retail 1", long flow paths over parking areas at both
"Retail 2"and "Retail 3").
Applicant's Response: Snow plowed on the site will be temporarily stockpiled and removed
from the site, snow will be removed from the site before significant snow melt can occur. In
\L:\03354\doesV etters\08354_RTC_MHF_Nov_2003.doc
a
Response to Comments
Eagfewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 5
the event of spring snow and melt during the removal of snow from the site, snow melt will
be collected in the site closed drainage system and pass through the site stormwater BMPs.
Reply: The Snow Storage and Removal information on Pi ire-Sl should be transferred to the
Site Plans. However, we understand that the Board is concerned about any snow storage
indicated over proposed parking spaces and the relative tightness of the parking supply. The
issue of unusually long flow.paths throw bout the drainage desigq..has not been adequate
addressed.
Response: Snow stockpiled on the site will be removed from the parking fields.
5. Original Comment: Many of the proposed catch basins are designed to capture inordinatelJ large
areas of storm water flows and have flow paths rooting overland flows for long distances (e.g. CB-B10,
E7). These basins have inadequate grate capacities for the areas draining to them. And the long flow
paths pose hazards for winter conditions. Conversely, based on the grading, some catch basins would
capture ahnost no storm water flows(e.g. CB-B25). These should be examined.
Applicant's Response: Additional catch basins have been added to the plan, catch basin inlet
capacity calculations are provided.
Reply: The original comment remains.
Response: The plans have been revised to include more catch basins with grading and location
modifications to correct the stormwater flow issues.
6. Original Comment: The proposed grading would allow storm water flows from Rt. 114 into two of the
entrances (southerly and middle). These flows would then travel long distances before being captured
by catch basins. We recommend the entrances be redesigned with storm water capture occurring at the
site boundary--where practical.
Applicant's Response: The southerly site ingress has been eliminated and the central main
site drive and northerly ingress have been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114
and prevent off site flow from flowing on to the project site.
Reply: As currently designed, the southerly entrance will direct flows from Rt. 114 into the
project, then flow an inordinately long distance before being captured by the on-site drainage
system.
Response: The site grading has been designed to maintain the gutter line on Route 114 to prevent
Route 114 storinwater from entering the site,additional detail has been added to clarify the plans.
7. Original Comment: This sheet should be provided with the necessary pipe and structure data (e.g.
lengths,slopes,etc.) needed for construction.
Applicant's Response: Lengths of pipe have been shown on the Utility flan, slopes can be
calculated from information provided on the plans. Excessive information can result in
conflicting information on the plans.
A
r
\L:\08354\dots\letters\08354_RTC-MHF_Nav_20Q3.doc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 6
Reply: Drainage pipe slopes need to be indicated somewhere in the plan set—not providing
the data at all certainly would eliminate any information conflicts, but the slopes need to be
identified on the plans!
Response: The plans have been revised to show the length and slope information as requested.
8. Original Comment: Additional notes and associated plan items shoidd be added to the Plans relative
to the regifired Mitigation Commitments outlined in the SEIR.
Applicant's Response: Relevant items from the mitigation chapter of the SEIR have been
listed on the Legend and General Notes sheet on the plan set,Sheet C-1.
Reply:. The commitments and other general information outlined in the SEIR remain to be in
disagreement with the 121ans, including subsequent revisions to the plans—please explain
what items are relevant and wh other items are irrelevant as it Vertains to the requirements
of the SEIR and related procedures. The Board needs to clearly understand the legalities of
this process, the impacts of any rezoning covenants and any related 121ap changes thereto vis-
a-vis the SEIR,and any inconsistencies which exist.
Response: The plans have been revised to include call outs for all items mandated by the SEIR
mitigation plan.
Utility Elan
1, Original Comment: The applicant shoidd address the Fire Department TRC reviezo continents with
the appropriate notes on the plans (e.g.,fire srtppression, alarm system,fire hydrant and emergency
access locations, Opticoin notes, etc.); DPW TRC review comments (including sezver mitigation fees,
connection permit notes, detention system sizing and access, water main and service sizing/locations,
soil and materials stockpile locations on plans, etc.); other department comments—with appropriate
notes and plan information as necessary.
Applicant's Response: flans have been sent to the Fire Department for Review and no
comments have been received back from Chief Dolan. All local water and sewer connection
permits will be obtained by the contractor, all utility connection within the State layout will
be approved by the Massachusetts Highway Department.
Reply: Various outstanding Department input should be obtained and verified as necessary.
Please check the gas main connections shown in the street.
Response: The southerly gas main connection has been clarified on the Site Utilty Plan.
2. Original Comment: Many of the drainage structures appear to have shallow pipe cover. Specifically:
CB-B25, B26, B6, B10, D5, E4, E5, E7, DMH-A2, E3. The drainage pipe from DMH-B3 to B2 is
labeled as 12". This should be checked.
Applicant's Response: The drainage system has been revised since the initial design, shallow
pipe cover has been addressed in the revised plan set.
\L:\OB354\d ocs\le tiers\DB 354_RTC_P.II-IB_Nov_20�3.doc
e .
3
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No- 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 7
Reply: The original comment remains Most pipes from catch basins have only 2 feet of
cover. This is inadequate in all but the most severe restricted areas which cannot be feasibly
provided. We request that the applicant address these comments with any needed changes,
prior to us reviewing every utility detail.
Response: The catch basin detail provided on sheet C-9 of the Site plan set. The catch basins are
constructable with two feet of cover as discussed.
Landscape Plan
1. The applicant needs to address the Bylaw Section 8.4, which sets forth minimum screening
and landscape requirements for off-street lots. More specifically, the "impervious screen"
requirement of paragraph 1, and the requirements of paragraph 4 where interior landscape
strips are required.
Response: Landscaped end cap islands have been provided to meet this requirement.
2. We understand that the Board may be requesting additional details to the Landscape Plans,
particularly attention to possibly more landscaping along the front.
Response: Landscaping along Route 114 is provided as well as a farmers stone wall.
3. The proposed landscaping shown off the property will require verification of the landowner's
approval.
Response: An agreement is pending between the proponent of the Eaglewood Shops and the
Northmark Bank property owners to provide additional screening on and adjacent to the bank
property.
4. We understand that the Board may wish to discuss with you possible picket fencing and/or
stone wall design alternatives for the project frontage, as part of the overall plan presentation.
We also undertand that the Board may request a site visit with the applicant to discuss the
project.
Response: The proponent is proposing an farmers stone wall along the property frontage along
Route 114, the idea was presented to the Planning Board at the November 18'`'hearing and the board
responded favorably to the design. The approximate corners of Retail 1, Retail 2, Retail 3 and main
points on the drive aisles have been staked and flagged in the field for the Planning Board members
to walk the site.
i
\L:\08354\does\]etIer5\0835'4_RTC_)VLRI Nov_2003.doc
1
Response to Comments
Eag€ewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 8
Site Details
I. The grease trap flow calculations are based on seating data that is inconsistent with the other
plans.
Response; The seat count used in the grease trap flow data and the seat count on the parking table
have been corrected and are now consistent.
2. The Turfstone Paver picture detail should be accompanied by a specification detail,including
bedding materials and intercell materials,O&M,etc.
Response: The Turfstone Pavers are no longer proposed for use on the site.
3. The pavement details should include materials specifications.
Response: Additional information has been added to the pavement detail to include aggregate size of
the base material.
4. This project requires extensive roadway widening and intersection plans, which have not
been provided—the site plans only reference this work in schematic only.
Response: Copies of the offsite roadway improvement plans will be provided to the Planning Board
and peer review consultant when 25%plans are completed,
5, The retaining wall details should be revised to indicate face texture and color details. Some
elevation data are transposed on the plan. The detail provided also indicates fencing which is
unclear as to specification (type, height, color, etc.). This is an important visual element due
to the extensive amount of walls proposed. We understand that the Board may require
extensive detailing regarding these systems.
Response: The retaining wall detail has been modified to include a call out for a specific
manufacturer's product. A specific fence and handrail detail and callout have been provided in the
detail sheets.
Draiange Calculations
1. Original Comment: The designers are taking credit for infiltration/groundwater recharge at the
extended detention basin. Stormwater Policy does not allow this. The designers should f nd another
inethod of infiltration/recharge to fulfill the recharge requirement.
Applicant's Response: The Stormwater Policy does not exclude meeting the infiltration
recharge requirement within the detention basin. Stormwater surface runoff is pretreated
prior to entering tie innfiltration basin.
R
\L:\08354\flocs\letters\OB359_RTC_A BI- —Nov_24D3.doc
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No,: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 9
Reply: Although not excluded, the use of a detention basin for groundwater recharge is not
recommended and must comply with certain guidelines and include calculations to support
the rate and volume of recharge. The current design does not fulfill the applicable criteria.
Specifically, no recharge rate calculations were provided to confirm capacity. More
fundamentally, the basin is currently designed with a bottom elevation that is 3-5 feet below
the estimate seasonal groundwater.. In such a situation there would be no groundwater
recharge whatsoever. In factgroundwater would infiltrate the basin. Normal detention
basins — which drain to the bottom between storms — can be designed below groundwater
elevations; but they cannot then be given credit for groundwater recharge. An alternative
method of ound-water recharge should be sou ht. It is the reviewer's recommendation that
roof drains — which require no additional treatment - be infiltrated separately from other
stormwater, in efficient fill areas within the site design. This would fulfill the recharge
requirement, as well as allowing the basin to be reduced in size. And aggregate cost savings
could be realized-----one example is by keeping the clean roof water separated from the
pavement water which could then only require one Stormce for at the end verses several at
each CB in that area)
Response: Subsurface Stormtech infiltration traits have been provided beneath the parking fields to
meet the stormwater policy infiltration requirement. The detention pond is therefore used strictly for
detention and no infiltration requirements are proposed to be mitigated in the pond.
2. Original Cornrnent: The TSS renr.oval calcidations take credit for 10% reinoval by street sweeping. It
zvill be the decision of the Conservation Commission as to whether or not to accept this.
Applicant's Response: No comments have been made received from the Conservation
Commission as of yet regarding the 10%TSS removal credit for street sweeping.
Reply: The original comment remains. We also understand that the Board may request
that the Planning Department take an active role in closely coordinating the project with the
Commission's Agent.
Response: The Notice of Intent is under review by the North Andover Conservation Commission
and it's peer review consultant. Currently the stormwater BMP design is accounting for the 10%
removal credit.for street sweeping.
3. Original Cornnrent: The detention basin as designed zvoidd pond to within inches of the crown of the
ernbankrnent (see 100-year storm calcuations). It is recornrnended that at least 1 foot of freeboard be
provided.
Applicant's Response: The detention basin is mitigating the 100-year stone event, though not
required by the Stormwater Policy, the current design allows for 100-year free board in excess
of b".
Reply: The original comment remains. It is standard-.engmeeriL-tg.practice that 1 foot of
freeboard be rovided. An thin less can com romise the structural irate i , of the basin
im oundinent berm which is a requirement of the policy). It is also recommended that the
A
■
\L:\08354\does\letters\08359 RTC MHF Nov 2003.doc
1
Response to Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 10
emergency overflow weir and final outlet i in manhole location be switched to better-
accommodate maintenance access.
Response: The overflow weir and outlet control headwall and piping have been switched to better
accommodate maintenance access to the structures, and the pond has been modified to provide 1 foot
of freeboard in the pond for the 100-year frequency storm event.
4. Original Connnent: The "Storm Drainage Computations" spreadsheet displays many grate capacities
that are inadequate, Specifically: CB-A8,B9,B10,B14,B22,B24,B26, D2, E7, E4.
Applicant's Response: Grate inlet calculations will be provided.
Reply: The on final comment remains. We could not find an rate capacity calculations
values for capacity are simply shown without references). Furthermore, the capacities
shown for many catch basins are overestimated. Inordinately large areas are directed to
single catch basins. These should be reexamined.
Response: The grate inlet capacity calculations have been updated to include the additional drainage
structures and additional double grates added to the plan.
5. Original Comment: Compliance Review with MADEP Stormwater Policy: Standard#3:Recharge to
groundwater: The plans and report submitted do not provide adequate recharge. Further design
information is required. Standard#4: TSS removal: The plans and report submitted comply with this
requirement only if North Andover Conservation Canunission agrees to apply 10% TSS removal credit
for street sweeping.
Applicant's Response: Compliance with the nine standards of the Stormwater Policy has
been included in the revised drainage report.
Reply: Com liance with Stormwater Standards#3 &4 require-design revisions as indicated
above.
Response: The recharge to groundwater standard is being met with subsurface recharge chambers
beneath the parking fields and the Conservation Commission will determine will determine the
compliance with the TSS removal standard.
Eleven sets of the revised Site flan package will be sent to the North Andover Planning Department,I
have enclosed one set of the revised site plan package for your re-review,if you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact any member of the VHB Eaglewood Shops project team.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Owlv r
Jon D, Stephenson,P.E.
i
\L:\08354\d ocs\I e t I er s\0 B 354_RTC_MH P_N ov-2001 d oc
1
Response 10 Comments
Eaglewood Shops
Project No.: 08354.00
November 26, 2003
Page 11
Project Manager
CC: Ross Hamlin,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
Jolu-t Allyn,Eaglewood Shops,LLC
Vin Manzi,Esq.,Manzi&McCann Attorneys at Law
Walter Rogers,Eagle Tribune Publishing
Heidi Griffin.,Town of North Andover
s
s
\L:\08354\do,s\letters\08354_%TC_1vMF_Nov 2003.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental;
e r v i c e s
DEC 0 00)
101 Walnut Street
i Vf.92asse lfanZe,n l-ttCtr292 Lnc. P.O.Box 9151
Watertown,MA 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Memorandum To: Heidi Griffin Date: November 26,2003
Community Development Director
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Cc: Ken Crain-VAI
Karl Dubay-MHF
Project No.; 08354
Front: Patrick T. Dunford,P.E. Re: Proposed Eaglewood Shops.Development
Project Manager Peer Review Responses—Traffic
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has reviewed the additional continents provided in the peer
review letter dated November 6,2003 by Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI). The VAI continent letter
was prepared in response to additional information that was submitted by VHB,including revised site
plans and a response memorandum dated October 29,2003. As most of the VAI memorandum
contained confirmations of the supplemental information provided by VHB or factual statements, only
the remaining issues noted in the memorandum are addressed in this document. VHB has discussed
the general content of the VAI memorandtunn and offers the following responses:
• Haverhill Street Hi h Street intersection—The Traffic Impact and Access Study contains
analysis of this actuated intersection,which is located in the Town of Andover. In comment 2,
VAI suggested that retiming of the signal be considered. The timings presented in the analysis
are based on field observations of how the signal presently functions. As traffic volumes
increase on a given approach,the signal should automatically reallocate green time in keeping
with the parameters currently programmed in the controller. This was not accounted for in
VHB's analysis,which is in keeping with standard practices. Furthermore,as all of the
approaches at the intersection are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service it does
not appear that any retiming of the signal is needed.
• Route 114/Route 125 Andover Bypass—In comment 7,VAI suggested that local accident data
be reviewed for this location to supplement the MassHighway accident records. This research
can be conducted by the Proponent on behalf of the Town if desired by the Board.
• Landscaping/sight_distance—Comment 20 noted concerns with the proposed landscaping
plan and wall treatments along the site frontage. These elements have been further refined
since the last plan submission. These plantings and architectural treatments have been located
so as not to interfere with the sight lines at any of the site driveways.
• Proposed Route 114 right-turn lane---VAI correctly notes in comment 21 that the proposed
right-turn lane on Route 114 features an entering taper length that is shorter than that typically
used in this type of design. The right-turn lane and taper were designed to be contained
entirely within the section of Route 114 along the site's frontage so as not to adversely impact
access to the adjacent Northmark Bank. The plan has been provided to MassHighway for
preliminary review and they did not indicate any objection to this design. However, the
\\\08354\does\memos\Traffic Response 11-26r03Aoc
Date: November 26,2003 2
Project No.; 08354
r design will undergo full review by MassHighway as part of the approval process for the
signalized access.
• Truck deliveries—In response to comments by the Planning Board, the right-turn/entry-only
driveway to the southerly part of the site from Route 114 has been returned to the site design.
Truck access was also questioned by VAI under cornment 24. With this feature, trucks
accessing the site will travel around the rear of the building which will minimize turning
movements within the site. While it is not practical to restrict truck deliveries times,deliveries
will be strongly encouraged to occur during off-peak conditions. Truck delivery volumes
noted in VHB's October 29,2003 memorandum indicate that the volume of trucks within the
site will not be significant.
• Dunpstex locations—The number and location of dumpsters at the rear of the buildings have
been consolidated as suggested under comment 26. This internal design change has also been
provided to MHF Design Consultants for review,and they have indicated that the new design
is also acceptable to them.
• Stop signs_—Stop signs and lines have been added in the vicinity of Retail 1 as suggested under
comment 28.
• Mitigation—In multiple sections of the comment letter VAI requested that additional capacity
enhancing improvements be identified within the study area. A graphic highlighting the
general features of the currently planned improvements along the Route 114 corridor has been
provided attached to this document. The exact details of the coordinated signal system will be
further developed in the design/review process with MassHighway. The Section 61 traffic-
mitigation commitment letter provided to MassHighway(attached) also identifies the planned
roadway improvements associated with the project. The proponent expects to be filing 25-
percent level design plans for review with MassHighway shortly. Full-sized,scaled versions
of these plans can be provided to the Town at the time of submission. As shown in the
graphic,there is limited right-of-way available along the Route 114 corridor to allow for any
significant capacity enhancing improvements,such as providing additional travel lanes. If
desired,additional right-of-way information can be obtained by the proponent from
MassHighway and provided to the Town for reference. VAI has noted that this information
would be helpful to the Town as a planning tool for future improvements in this area.
However,it would not be possible for the applicant to implement any additional mitigation
inwolving land acquisition from other private property owners in the area. Identifying any
such long-term improvements involving additional right-of-way is more appropriate to be
developed as part of a town master plan process. Accordingly,given that the proponent is
already providing a coordinated four-signal system along Route 114,any additional physical
mitigation would likely be beyond the scope of this project.
\\\08354\does\mem0s\Traffic Response 11-26-03.doe
i
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental •
Services
r
• II
� imagination innovation I energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
October 22, 2003 Vanass
Ref: 08354,00
Mr. Lionel Lucien, P.E.
Manager, Public/Private Development Unit
Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Updated Traffic ritigation commitment
Proposed Eaglewood Shops—Route 114
North Andover, Massachusetts
SOFA 13041
Dear Mr. Lucien:
Based on.recent discussions with MassHighway,we are providing this updated commitment letter on
behalf of Eagl®wood Properties, LLC (the"Proponent"). This letter is intended to clarify the mitigation
commitments outlined in our'ietter of September 15, 2003,which was included in the Single
Environmental Impact Report for the above-mentioned project. This information is being provided for
your review and consideration, and to hopefully be incorporated into the Section 61 Finding for this
project.
The proposed Eagiewood Shops building program presented in the SEIR has remained unchanged,
outside of minor design details being evaluated as part of the local approval process. The traffic
impacts and site access plan associated with the project have been presented In Chapter 2 of the
SEIR. The suggested mitigation commitments were developed based on the analysis presented in
the study, and extensive ongoing consultation with MassHighway and interested abutters. These
mitigation commitments have been further clarified per your request,
The Proponent will construct the following traffic mitigation measures as follows:
➢ Widen Route 114 (Turnpike Street) within the existing state highway layout by five-feet or less to
provide an exclusive left-turn lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site;
➢ Widen Route 114 (Turnpike Street) along the project site frontage between the proposed
Eaglewood Shops driveway and the Eagle Tribune driveway to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site. The proponent will provide the required land to
MassHighway through a no-harm land taking agreement;
➢ Install a fully-actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Route 114 and the Eaglewood Shops,
which is proposed to be located at least 250 feet from the nearest driveway to the adjacent
Norihinark Bank property;
Provide Opticom emergency-vehicle pre-emption equipment whore required within the proposed
four-signal system along Route 114; 101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
617.924.17M r FAX 617.924.2286
\\lvlativald\ld\0S35�\does\reports\SElR\Mitlgation Commit rev.doc email: info@vh6.com
www.vhb.com
r
3
i
yi
Mr.J. Lionel Lucien, P.E.
Project No.: 08354.00
October 22, 2003
Page 2
➢ Provide an exclusive pedestrian phase within the proposed Route 114/Eaglewood Shops signal
operation;
➢ If warranted and approved and as directed by MassHighway,the Proponent will install the
necessary equipment needed to update or operate certain traffic signals in the vicinity of the
project as a"closed loop" interconnection/coordination system prior to the site opening.This
traffic signal system will be implemented in accordance with conceptual and 100 percent plans,
specifications and estimates to be submitted to and approved by MassHighway. The traffic
signals to be operated in this system include the following intersections on Route 114:
• Waverly Road/Cotult Street;
• Eaglewood Shops/Eagle Tribune
• Peters Street; and
• Andover Street(Route 125).
The final intersection and traffic signal design will be subject to approval of the MassHighway for
conformance with State design standards. A Traffic Signal Permit will be prepared for
MassHighway by the Proponent as required.
We believe the above mitigation commitments are consistent with the areas identified as
needing improvement in the Traffic Impact and Access Study. With the relocation of the
proposed main site driveway from the plan initially presented in the Expanded ENF,the
Eagle Tribune will no longer be included in the signal operation. However, the Proponent is
willing to coordinate with that site's ownership regarding any potential direct connection to
the signal in-the future. Accordingly, we respectfully request that a Section 61 Finding be
issued indicating the proposed mitigation and phasing as listed above. If you have any
questions, please contact me at(617) 924-1770.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC.
Patrick Dunford, .E.,
Project Manager
CC: MEPA
Ross Hamlin, Eaglewood Properties, LLC
Constance Raphael, MassHighway District 4
Heidi Griffin—Town of North Andover
David Greenberg, VHB
Wayne Amico, VNB
t
t
\\Maivald\ld%03354\do's\reporls\SEIR\Iv€idgation Cammli rev.doc
t
APR-19-2005 10 :27 AM ANDOVER STRATEGIC ALLIAN 978 470 4800 P. 02
Tronspor"On
Land DwMopmont
�nvttonlrtMttaf
8wrvlaes
tall wrinul9tn�t1
P.0.1tox 91'!1
Wrbe#rwn,MA OU71.901
fill 924 IM
FAX W 924 Z2%
Mmorandum To: Ross Hamlin pots April 18,2005
Esgtewood Properties,LLC
Protect No.. 08354
i
I'mm Patrick Dunford,P.E, as: Proposed Georgetown Savings Bsnk
Project Manager Baglewood Shope
North Andover,Massachusetts
The Eagkwo0d Shops development in North Andover,Massachusetts is currently under
construction and final tenants are In the process of locim;secured for the remaining retail space
within the site. Qne such tenant will be the Georgetown Savings Bank,which will occupy
approximately 2,WO square feet(so of building space and will feature two drive-through lanes, The
bank will be located In the retail space south of and adjacent to the 23,6W square foot Staples
building at the northerly and of the Bite. With the addition of Ckorgstown Savings Bank to the site
Ow overall retail area will remain unchanged from the 77,5W of of retail space that was approved In
February 2W4 by the North Andover Planning Board. Purthermore,the Mal retail space to be
constructed remalno lower than the 79,925 of of retail space that was analyzed in the traffic studies
submitted so part of the project permitting.Regardless,to help Identify any haffk Impacts that
might be associated with this individual tenant,VHS reevaluated the hip generation associated with
the overall project as discussed below.
TRIP GIMRATION
The Traffic impact and Access Study conducted as part of the project permiWrts estimated Ow trip
generation associated with the project based on rates provided by the Institute of Transportation
l;ngineers(ITE)in its Trip Cknm on'report. The Shopping Grnttr land use code(LUC 820)was
deemed the stoat appropriate for the project,and this approach was approved troth locally and by
MassHlghway in Its review of the pr*ct. Although tho kumis ory now more defined,Including
the bank,the overall approach for trip generation estimates remain valid. According to rM,the trip
generation rates for LUC 820(Shopping Center)were developed based on data from a variety of
Whopping centers. Moreover,sorr*of thew centers contained non-merchandisins facilities such as
restaurants,past offices,lta nk&health clubs and recreational facilities. Therefore,the trip generation
rates utilised accowited for a variety of retall uses including banks. With the adUCUMI in the overall
retail space from the 79,92$square feet analyzed in the original traffic study to approximately 77,50D
square feet,no significant changes in trip generation arc expected. In fowl,with the reduced building
area there should be a corresponding reduction in traffic pa cumpored to the a6091 development
Program,
In keeping with standard traffic ep4neering practices,the Irlp generation for the project should still
be calculated by considering the overall shopping center as a single entity,and not by evaluating
each individual tenant separately. Regardless,for general comparison purposes,VH8 also obtained
data and general operational information from Georgetown Savings Sank which could be compared
to standardized bank data from 17179.
'lrutltute of Tranrportatian t?t�#nrere,rrp Genrnttlon,fi"FdiNaa►,waahtngMn,D,C.,1997.
,,,oux,ewtnwho.,To cony Fuse
RFR-19-2005 10C27 AM ANDOVER STRATEGIC ALLIAN 978 470 4800 P. 03
f4: AiM 19,
hued No.:OM
I
f2efiogSIgujl,SIAD81 Rank Data
Georgetown Savings Bank presently operates at two locations: its main headquarters in
Georgetown,Massachusetts and a branch facility located In Rowley,Maeartchusetia. The Rowley
branch is more similar in size(approximately 3,W sf)and operation to the North Andover alte as
compared to the larger(14,400 sf)main Georgetown Savings Bank headquarters in GearPprtown, The
Rowley branch also features both lobby service and a diive-thwugh window and drive-through
ATM. Accordingly,VHS reviewed daily transaction data collected at the Rowley branch and
compared it to the standardized ITS data for banks featuring drive-through operations. The data
from Georgetown Savings Bank are for transacHons only and do not translate directly into vehicle j
Mpe. However,it can be conservatively assumed that each transaction,corresponds to one vehicle
and consequently two vehicle tripe(orue entering and one exiting).In fact,some customers may
make multiple trarsaactions or a bungle vehicle at the sit«could contain more than erne customer.
These and other factors could reduce the resulting trip 1prwation from the totals based on the two-
!rip-per-transaction assumption. Table 1 compares the estimated bank dairy trip gem atton using
the Georgetown Savings Bank data to that estimated using the TI'S data,
TABLB 1
GEORGETOWN SAVINGS RANK DAILY TRIP GIONORATION COMPARISON
ROWLEY,MA 9RANCH DATA VS.ITE DATA
R&wlty branch transaction data' ITB Data''' Difference
Vehicle Vehicle
Time Period Drive-through Lobby Total Trips Trips
Weekday 115 70 185 370 767 -397
Saturday 125 45 170 340 1 no +160
Toot deity gust nrr Wnuction dill For lobby,ddy#4mv%h taller and d►ive-tiwudh ATM w provtdAd
by Ceorrknm Savino Suck For Rowley bunch from Pebruary 14,2006 through MWMh 17�20W, Two
vshlcle trips per truwcwn swumed.
As ateul;kd to Ttbk i,beset on lrstltuk of Trsnrportsekne Wrsinsstfti 7►i►G++snsrisrr,7"'l;,tltbn,
wsshMStoe,PIC"2=1 LUC M(chive-in 9+iw-
As can be seen in Table 1,the calculated weekday daily trip generation based on actual data!saucer►the
Rowley branch of the Georgetown Savings Bank is far lower than that estimated using the 1TE data.
1n fact,the weekday daily trip generation based on the branch data is less than half of that which
would be expected based on the iTE data, The Saturday compariaan is incoansl4mt with the
weekday results in that the TIT data indicate 160 fewer trips than the Rowley data. This may be the
result of the 1111 database being somewhat outdated, The sites in the database were surveyed frntm
the mid-1970a to the=00. With the some of the older data points changes in traffic patterns
resulting from the prevalence of ATMs is likely not reflected, Before the introduction of ATMs
banking activity was confined almost exclusively to normal banking hours,which would cotnsiat of a
4-to 5-hour working day on a Saturday. With more banking now occurrhtg after hours at the ATM,
the Saturday daily trip generation figures based on the ITS data may not reflect true 44Wd4toffl
today. Therefore,actual data from an existing brannch of the Georgetown Savings llutk should be
more representative of conditions at the Eagiewood Shops than the ITE-based pro(ections,
As rested earlier,cuakwner transaction data typically am not used for estimating trip generation.
Regardless,the conservative Assumption of two-trips-per•tranasction likely averstaten the trip
generation figures discussed above,Considering the bank as one of multiple tenants within the
overall shopping center remains the most appropriate mean for calculating trip generation. The
occurnriree of shared trips between the irndividual tenants,combined with the definition of a
shopping center clearly including uses such as bank,further validate this approach.Use of the
��ranat�s�r.lewt�alTC ramp,Misaa
WYK^1"J'—L19b.`y iNJ :cC1 MYI F11�1LVYcr[ o [ t�n , ccaa�,, nu.�. xnf� � � •-+ � [ �+ �v._.. - --
l
Omer April M,
Proled No., oM
Georgetown Savings Bank data is beat utilized for analyzing the operation of the proposed drive-
through,as discussed in the following section,
As noted In table 1 the Rowley brunch currently serves between 115 and 125 customers on a dAU
basis through its drive-through operation. This represents a far leas traffic-intensive use that other
drive-through operations,such as fast-food servIgo,which can typically process that MAY
customers on an has*basis under peak conditions. gi+sed on these reported volumes,VHB has
found that the drive-through area as designed should be able to proceza this volunw of traffic
without adversely affecting the operation of the rest of the site. Over 125-feet of protected storage
space will be provided for each drive-through lane adjacent to the southerly side of the bank
building. Customers will access the drive4hrough by traveling in a counterclockwise direction
around the retnr of the overall building, To avoid conflicts,the ores behind the building will be
signed as one-way heading in the direction of the drive-through Flow,
CONCLUSION
In summary,the bmiusion of a bank at;one of the tenants at the 8a&wood$hope should not result
in a significant change In the trip generation amuciated with the site, The proper method for
estimating trip generation for the site continues to be by considering the entire site as a shopping
center,with the bank only being one of the multiple tenants within the site. As there has not been
any change in the overall retail building area on site there should not be any algrdicant change in
the overall project trip generation. VHB's review of data from the bank found that daily use of the
drive-through may only fall in the 115-to Mcuetomer range,which Is a far less intense use of a
drive-through operation than would be found at a fast-food drive-through operation. The layout of
the proposed drive-through has been configured so as riot to adversely affect t1u overall operation of
the site. As the overall project traffic mitigation was developed from traffic studieo based on 79,925
of of retail space as compared to the actual 77M sf that will be built,the proposed roadway
improvements are still appropriate for the current development,
\��oWi�do�rr[nw�rG tangy wrud