HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-05 Traffic Correspondence II SPR Transportation Land Development Environmental ' • Services • i imagination Innovation energy Cresting results for our clients and benefits for our communities October 22, 2003 Vanasse Hang n B=sft_Ins.___ 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 Masses.€ghway,we are providing this updated commitment letter on behalf of Eaglewood Properties, LLC(the "Proponent"). This letter is intended to clarify the mitigation commitments outlined in our€eater of September 15,2443, 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 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 Northrnark Bank property; ➢ Provide Opticom emergency-vehicle pre-emption equipment where required within the proposed four-signal system along Route 114; 101 Wain ut Street Post Office Box 9151 i Watertown, Massachusetts 42471-9151 617.924.177o . FAX 617,924.2286 j \\lJ<�wald\Id\1i835�\dots\reports\$E1R\NeltlgaiionCommit rev.doc email:info@vhb.com '... www.vhb.com Mr.J. Lionel Lucien, P.E. Project No.: 08354,00 October 22, 2003 Page 2 ➢ Provide an exclusive pedestrian phase within the proposed Route 1141Eaglewood 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/Cotuit Street; C 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 Dun ford,�E , Project Manager CC: MEPA Ross Hamlin, Eaglewood Properties, LLC Constance Raphael, MassHighway District 4 Held! Griffin—Town of North Andover David Greenberg, VHB Wayne Amico,VHB ■ \\Ivfawafd\id\Q8354\does\reporia\SGn2\Mitigation Commit rev.doc pli I'l, MA 00 Commissioner inero Mitt�Romney Kerry Healey Daniel A. Graba��uskas John Cogfiano Secretary Gov �H-I- WAY Governor ft Governor Secretary Commissioner October 24, 2003 ia, F Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary NOV 0 4 2001 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs h 251 Causeway Street, 9' Floor H'OkTll AN00VFI DfQ-)AHT1Vs[.:NT Boston, Ma 02114 RE: North Andover- Englewood Shops Retail Development - SEIR (EOEA#13 04 1) ATTN: MEPA Unit Deirdre Buckley Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder: The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Eaglewood Shops Retail Development project in North Andover. The project entails the development of 77,000 square feet of retail space with 440 parking spaces, located on a 13.3-acre site on Route 114, across from the Eagle Tribune. The retail development will consist of the construction of a 23,600 square foot freestanding retail building on the westerly portion of the site, and 54,100 square feet of retail building space on the easterly end of the site. Based on ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center), the project is expected to approximately 5,900 new vehicle trips on an average weekday and 7,950 vehicle trips on an average Saturday. AMassHigliwaypen-nit is required for access to Route 114. The SEIR included a traffic study performed in accordance with EOEA/EOTC guidelines for traffic assessments, We believe that the SEIR has addressed most of the state highway issues related to this project. The proponent has worked with the owners of the Nortiu-nark Bank and the Lawrence Eagle Tribune to reconcile access issues along Route 114. Main access to the site will be provided via a riew signalized intersection, located 650 feet west of the Route 114/Peters Street intersection, The proponent has committed to configure this driveway to accommodate any future realignment of the Lawrence Eagle Tribune driveway. We believe that aligning the two'driveways to form a four-way intersection will benefit traffic operations along Route 114; therefore, we encourage the proponent to continue to coordinate with the owner of the Lawrence Eagle Tribune. To mitigate the project's traffic impacts, the proponent has committed to implement improvements along Route 114, These improvements consist of the following: providing an exclusive left-turn lane on the Route 114 northbound approach and providing an exclusive right-turn lane on the Route 114 southbound approach. Additionally, the proponent will implement a closed- loop traffic signal interconnection and coordination system that will include the following locations Massachusetts Highway Department o Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973 -(617) 973-7800 0 I Secretary Roy Herzfelder 2 10/24/03 on Route 114: the Route 114/Eaglewood site driveway intersection; the Route 114/Waverly Road/Cotuit Street intersection; the Route 114/Peters Street intersection; and the Route 114/Route 125 (Andover Street) intersection. As part of this signal interconnection and coordination system, the proponent should install emergency vehicle pre-emption equipment (Opticom) as required. The proponent is responsible for acquiring the necessary right-of-way in order to implement these improvements. The proponent has committed to donate any necessary right-of-way along the Route 114 site frontage to complete these improvements; however, the proponent has not stated whether any specific agreements are in place to acquire additional right-of-way from other property owners on Route 114. The proponent has committed to a TDM program that includes pedestrian and bicycle site access, carpooling and local taxi services. The proponent has contacted the Merrimack Valley Transit Authority about establishing bus service to the site. It was determined that the site is not conducive for locating a bus stop; however, the proponent has agreed to ensure adequate pedestrian connections to the existing bus service in the Route 114 corridor, Upon satisfactory resolution of the above issues, the proponent should submit a revised letter of commitment to MassHighway. MassHighway will base its Section 61 Finding on this revised letter of commitment. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact me at (617) 973-7341, or Kristina Johnson of the Public/Private Development Unit at (617) 973-7342. Sincerely, J. Z' � el Luci i, E. Manager, Public/Private Development Unit Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development i Secretary Roy Herzfelder 3 10/24/03 cc: Astrid Glynn, Deputy Secretary Luisa Paiewonsky,Deputy Commissioner Thomas Broderick,P.E., Chief Engineer Kelly O'Neill,Deputy Chief, Highway Operations Kenneth S. Miller,P.E., Director,Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Stephen O'Donnell, District 4 Director PPDU files MPO Activities files Planning Board,Town of North Andover Merrimack Valley Planning Commission i , Ref: 3888 November 6,2003 Mr. Karl Dubay MHF Design Consultants,Inc. 103 Stiles Road Salem,NH 03079 Re: Professional Review Comments Eaglewood Shops North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Dubay: Vanasse &Associates, Inc. (VAI) completed a review of the proposed Englewood Shops retail facility to be located off Salem Turnpike (Route 114), in North Andover, Massachusetts. Our preliminary review was summarized in our October 3, 2003 letter. The review focused on the project's conformance with Town of North-Andover Planning and Zoning Regulations with regard to impacts on the transportation infrastructure and on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation, as well as the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)/Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC) guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TISs) and accepted Traffic Engineering practices. In performing our review, the following plans and documents were evaluated: • Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), Eaglewood Shops, North Andover,Massachusetts; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin;May 15, 2003. • Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Eaglewood Shops, North Andover,Massachusetts;Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; September 15, 2003. • Site Plans, Eaglewood Shops, North Andover, Massachusetts; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; September 19, 2003. VAI also performed a site visit io observe general conditions within the project site with regard to on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation and access to the development, as well as to review existing conditions and traffic operations along Route 114 in the vicinity of the project site. This letter completes our review and includes a review of responses and updated site plans.In completing our review, the following additional plans and documents were evaluated: • Memorandum — Peer Review Responses — Traffic, Eaglewood Shops, North Andover,Massachusetts; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; October 29, 2003. • Site Plans, Eaglewood_ Shops, North Andover, Massachusetts; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; October 28, 2003. Findings In general, we found that the-Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in the EENF, SEIR, the Peer Review Mr. Karl Dubay November 6,2003 Page 2 Responses Memorandum and updated site plans were prepared in a professional manner and in general, accordance with accepted engineering standards. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum adequately responded to the technical concerns outlined in our October 3, 2003 review letter. Following are the original comments and our responses to VHB's responses to our comments: 1. Imbalances in the volume of traffic occurring between the study area intersections should be reviewed and adjusted accordingly and as necessary to reflect the nature of existing development and the presence of roadways and driveways between the study intersections, Specifically, the count sheets for the intersection of Salem Turnpike with the Eagle Tribune driveway are substantially higher than the volumes used to develop the 2003 Existing traffic volume networks. In the response rrremorandrun, VHB indicated that when the intersection was counted, the software doable counted the volumes on Salem Turnpike. Further review indicates that the adjustments rraade by VHB in developing the base traffic volume networks are reasonable. 2. At the intersection of Haverhill Street and High Street, during the weekday evening peak hour, it appears that the volumes for the Haverhill Street northbound and southbound approaches have been transposed. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum corrected the transposition of the traffic volumes at this intersection. The intersection was re-analyzed, with the results tabulated in Table I of the Peer Review Responses Memorandum, The intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday evening or Saturday midday peak hours, The traffic generated by the project is projected to Have a mirror impact on intersection operations causing the intersection to degrade from LOS B to LOS C during the weekday evening peak hour. No mitigation or responsibility for mitigation has been identified at this intersection. It is suggested that re-timing of the signal should be reviewed. 3. The westbound rigbt-turn volume on Salem Turnpike approaching Waverly RoadlCotuit Street should be corrected on the traffic volume networks and the corresponding intersection capacity analyses. The count sheets reflect the higher volume turning right to Waverly Road vs. Cotuit Street. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum corrected the transposition of the traffic volumes at this intersection. The intersection was re-analyzed, with the results tabulated in Table 2 of the Peer Review Responses Metrrorarrdttrrr. Mitigation has been proposed by the project proponent to coordinate the signals on Salem Turnpike, 4. There appears to be a substantial imbalance on Salem Turnpike between Elm Street and the North Andover Bypass. This imbalance should be reviewed and corrected, if necessary. The Peer Review Responses Merrtora.ndum indicates that there are a number of driveways and side streets in.. this stretch of Salerrr Turnpike, which would account for the imbalance. No revision to the volumes beyond those identified in. the Peer Review Responses Memorandum are necessary. 5. It does not appear that the counts for Salem Turnpike and the North Andover Bypass, which were conducted in March 2003, were seasonally adjusted as indicated in the report. CAWINOOWSITOARK.llabay 110603.61c Mr. Karl Dubay November 6, 2003 Page 3 The Peer Review Responses Mentorandutn provided at updated analysis, wvith the seasonal adjustment. The intersection was re-analyzed, with the results tabulated in Table 3 of the Peer Review Responses Mertrorardurrn. This intersection is projected to degrade to LOS F without the project during the weekday evening peak horn•. No mitigation or responsibility for mitigation has been identified at this intersection. 6. Back-up data should be provided relative to the seasonal adjustment calculations. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum provided the seasonal adjustment data. Data front the MassHighway Permanent Count Station No. 502, Routes 114 and 125 in North Andover was used and is appropriate. 7. A detailed evaluation of motor vehicle crashes occurring at the intersections along Salem Turnpike should be completed in consultation with the Town of North Andover Police Department. Each of these intersections, except for the Eagle Tribune driveway, was found to have experienced an average of seven or more reported motor vehicle crashes per year over the three-year review period. In addition, difficulty in assessing MassHighway nomenclature for the intersections of Route 114 with Route 125 and the Bypass may be cleared up with a review of local accident data. Local accident data should be reviewed for the intersections of Route 114 with Route 125 and the Bypass. 8. Traffic volumes within the study area were projected to 2008, representing future conditions on the roadway network. In developing the future year traffic volume projections, specific development by others expected to be completed within the time horizon and general historic traffic growth trends were reviewed. A background traffic growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was used to develop the future traffic volume projections presented in the study. This historic traffic growth rate is consistent with other studies completed in the area. No additional response was required. 9. The methodology used in the development of the future condition traffic volume networks without the project (No-Build) appears to be appropriate and generally follows excepted Traffic Engineering standards. No additional response was required. 10. Back-up data should be provided relative to the identified background projects and their trip distribution and assignment. Additional data was provided and reviewed. The 2008 No-Build networks identified in the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and those included in the Peer Review Res)onses Memorandttrn are correct. _ It. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project were developed utilizing trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for a similar _land.-..use -as--that proposed.- -ITE Land Use Code (LUC) .820, Shopping- Center, .with the CMND0 WSITEN1[AK.May 110603.Joe i Mr. Karl Dubay November 6, 2003 Page 4 independent variable of gross square footage equal to 79.925 gsf was used to develop the traffic characteristics of the planned development. No additional response was required. 12. It is understood that approximately 9,000 sf of the site will be a restaurant (based on the parking calculation from the site plans). Are other tenants identified? Specifics of proposed tenants could affect traffic generation and additional information should be provided. Traffic volume data was provided for a similar retail facilir)� Brookside Shops, ill Acton, Massachusetts. This facility is similar to the proposed Eaglewood Shops facility, and comprises approximately 74,000 sf of retail space. A review of the traffic counts that were provided in the Peer Review Responses Memorandum indicate that Brookside Shops generates vehicle trips at a rate slightly lower thanthose used identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)r Trip Generation. Therefore, use of the ITE data to generate trips for the Eaglewood Shops project is appropriate, and slightly conservative. 13. Project related traffic was assigned to the study area roadways and the study intersections based on a review of existing traffic patterns and an evaluation of appropriate gravity model data. The methodology used in developing the trip distribution pattern for the project and the resulting trip assignments appear to be reasonable. No additional response was required. 14. The 2008 Build condition traffic volume networks were developed by adding project generated traffic volumes to the respective No-Build traffic volume networks. The Build condition traffic volume networks appear to be developed appropriately. No additional response is required. Where appropriate, within the Peer Review Response Memorandum, revisions were made and analyzed. 15. The intersection capacity analysis performed at the intersection of the Route 125/Route 133 should be revised to remove the right-turn lanes modeled for the Peters Street and Andover Street approaches. Dedicated right-turn lanes are not currently provided on Peters Street and Andover Street at the intersection. The analysis should be revised accordingly. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum provided all updated analysis, with the corrected intersection geometry. The intersection was re-analyzed, with the results tabulated in Table 4 of the Peer Review Responses Memorandum. This intersection currently operates LOS F, and is projected to continue to operate at LOS F without or with the project during the weekday evening peak hour. No mitigation or responsibility for mitigation- has been identified at this intersection, Mitigation should be identified—along tivitln. --any right-of-way constraints. By identifying-improvements that will - increase capacio) the town. of North.Andover will have a valuable planning tool to rise to assess the project's impacts, as well as other projects along the Salem Turnpike corridor. 'Trip Genetnwiofn, Sixth Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers;Washington,DC; 1997. CAVVINUOWS4 EMAK.Dubay 110603ACC Mr. Karl Dubay November 6, 2003 Page 5 16. An evaluation of on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation should be completed with regard to the proposed development and adjacent tenants. This analysis should include a plan depicting the turning and circulation requirements for delivery vehicles entering, exiting and within the site along designated delivery routes. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum provided truck flow diagrams, based on the revised site plan. These diagrams indicate that both WB-50 and WB-67 vehicles can navigate through the site. However, it should be noted that due to the size of these vehicles, the swing of the body of the truck often crosses the centerline of the aisle or driveway. Consideration should be givers to limiting large truck deliveries to off-peak periods, or when the site is closed to customers. 17. The addition of project related traffic to the study area roadways and 'intersections was shown to result in an increase in motorist delays, volume-to-capacity (vlc) ratios and vehicle queues over anticipated future conditions with the proposed project (Build conditions) at the intersections along Salem Turnpike at Peters Street and at Route 125/Route 133 and Elm Street. Proposed mitigation consists of coordination of signals along Salem Turnpike. Measures should be reviewed to provide additional.capacity. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum, provided an updated analysis, with the corrected intersection geomretry. The intersection was re-analyzed with the correct geometry, with the results tabulated in Table 4 of the Peer Review Responses Memorandum. This intersection currently operates LOS F, and is projected to continue to operate at LOS F without or with the project during the weekday everting peak hour. No mitigation or responsibility for mitigation has been identified at this intersection. Mitigation should be identified along with any right-of-way constraints. By identifying improvements that will increase capacity, the town of North.Andover will have a valuable planning tool to use to assess the project's impacts, as well as other projects along the Salem Turnpike corridor. 18. Vehicle queues were not presented in the report and should be tabulated, Concern is for We ratios exceeding 1.0(capacity) and queues exceeding storage provisions and affecting capacity. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum provided a vehicle queue summary for Existing, No-Build and Build conditions. The Peer Review Responses Mein.orandum did not provide or compare the queue summary for the Build Mitigated condition. This data should.be provided. 1.9. Preliminary design plans should be prepared for recommended improvements in order to evaluate the extent of the improvements and impacts to adjacent properties. The site plans state that the off-site improvements are shown on the Highway Plans. No Highway Plans have been provided for review. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum referenced the Conceptual Access Plan contained in the Single Environmental Impact Report, Figure 2-3. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum states that detailed plans will be prepared during the permitting process with. MassHighway. - - — These-details should-start-to be addressed-as-soon-as possible--Concern is that-these details - could affect intersection operations. CAWINDOWSUEEIRK.Dubay 110603.daC'< Mr. Karl Dubay November 6,2003 Page 6 20. Detailed sight-distance measurements (stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance) were not provided in the report. Sight distances should be evaluated for the intersection of Salem Turnpike and the site driveways. No additional response is required. However, where appropriate, landscaping planted near the site driveways should be set back and not exceed three (3)ft, to not impede sight distances. 21. The proposed improvements to the center, signalized site driveway should incorporate appropriate tapers for lane widenings. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum referenced the Conceptual Access Plan contained in the Single Environm.entat Impact Report, Figure 2-3. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum. states that detailed plaits will be prepared during the permitting process with. MassHighway. These details should start to be addressed as soon as possible. Concern is that these details could affect intersection operations, In this case, the taper to create the exclusive right turn lane into the site driveway. This taper, length of approximately 75 feet, should be 180 feet, based on a speed of 30 miles per hour(ntph)for Salem Turnpike. This will shorten the effective length of the exclusive right turn lame by 100 ft. 22. The initial Traffic Study identified in the EENF shows the main signalized site driveway across from the Eagle Tribune driveway. This has changed in SEIR, to a point approximately 220 feet to the east. The optimal location for this driveway is across from the existing Eagle Tribune driveway. No additional response is required. 23. Traffic flow along the rear of the site needs to be clarified. The travelway is shown as 25 feet wide,however, there are arrows shown indicating one-way traffic flow. There are no signs in this area indicating directionality. Appropriate Do Not Enter and One-Way signs should be added. Do Not Enter signs should be posted in the rear of the facility where the two, one-way truck routes approach one another. There does not appear to be any physical obstructions to prevent vehicles in the rear to travel the wrong way down the travel way. 24. A truck delivery plan should be prepared for the site depicting proposed truck routes. The plan should include an evaluation of the turning and maneuvering requirements for delivery vehicles using AutoTurnOO or similar computer model. The Peer Review Responses Memorandum provided track flow diagrams, based on the revised site plant. These diagrams indicate that both WB-SO and WB-67 vehicles can navigate through the site. However, it should be rioted that due to the size of these vehicles, the swing of the body of the truck often crosses the centerline of the aisle or driveway. Consideration should be given. to limiting large track deliveries to off-peak periods, or when the site is closed to customers. -25— The-circiilat oii within the parking .field in--front of--the proposed-Retail-1- building should be reevaluated to remove dead end aisles. The proposed southerly driveway has been elitninated and the parking layout modified. CAWMDOWSI'ENIL'1K.Dubay L1060AC • 3 Mr. Karl Dubay November 6,2003 Page 7 26. The design of the dumpster areas should be reviewed so trash tracks do not intrude into the circulation aisle or appropriate provisions should be in place so that these areas remain clear at all times. The design of the dumpster areas steeds to he reviewed. 27. All signs and pavement markings within the project site should conform to the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)2. Proposed centerline pavement markings should consist of double yellow lines. All sighs and pavement markings within. the project site will cornfornt to the requirements of the MUTCD. 28. A STOP-sign (RI-1) and STOP-line should be provided for motorists approaching the rear access road adjacent to the Retail 1 building. There is no signage indicating control in the southwest corner of the Retail 1 building, There also appear to be two,STOP signs that are not needed and should be reviewed. One is located on the site driveway approach to Salem Street and the second is located raid-block on the easternmost site access aisle. E»mailed.comments 29. There is a decrease in traffic volumes from Existing to No-Build at some locations. The intersection of Salem Turnpike and Peters Street shows a drop in the Peters Street westbound right turn movennent from Existing to No-Brtild conditions during the weekday evening peak horn. This intersection,should be re-analyzed with the correct volumes. 30, Please provide clean copies of the background development networks. Additional data was provided and reviewed. The 2008 No-Build networks identified in. the Expanded Environmental Notificatiorn Forrrt. (EENF) and those included in. the Peer Review Responses Memorandum are correct. 31. Back-up data should be provided relative to the site generated traffic volumes assignment. Additional data was provided and reviewed. The 2008 Build networks identified in the Expanded Environmental Notification. Form (EENF) and those included in the Peer Review Responses Memorandum are correct. 32. The pass-by traffic volumes do not appear to have been distributed based on the respective weekday evening and Saturday midday existing peak hour traffic volumes. -- - This comment has been addressed. No farther response required. 2Marncarl oir Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD);Federal Highway Admltiistration;Washington,DC;2001. CANViNDOWMTEMM.Dubay-1.10h01doc '.. Mr. Karl Dubay November 6, 2003 Page 8 33. The peak hour traffic volume networks should be checked against the Synehro analysis. At the intersectio❑ of Route 114 at Peters Street, the westbound through/right turn volume seems to be incorrect. Other minor discrepancies exist throughout the analysis. This cononert has been addressed. No further response required. 34. The signal timings and cycle lengths should be checked for consistency. This coininent has been addressed. No frtrther response required. CANV1N➢OWSUFNI 1K.Mbay 110607.dcc Mr. Karl Dubay November 6, 2003 Page 9 Summary VAI has completed the review of the proposed EagIewood Shops retail development. The information reviewed was found to have been prepared in a professional manner and in general, accordance with accepted engineering standards. The project proponent has responded to all comments and provided responses. In terms of mitigating the project's traffic impacts, the proponent has offered a closed loop signal system and signal timing modifications for the Salem Turnpike corridor from Waverly Road to Route 125/Elm Street, including the proposed signal at the main site driveway. No significant capacity improving measures have been identified for this corridor, or for the remaining study area intersections, which currently are operating at a poor level of service and will be impacted by the project. Mitigation measures should be identified, knowing that in some instances, Fight-of-way will be required, so that the town of North Andover has a planning tool to use to assess this project, as well as future projects within the Salem Turnpike corridor. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Town and the project proponent in evaluating the proposed project. If you should have any questions regarding our initial review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, VANASSE &ASSOCIATES, INC. Kenneth P. Cram, P.E. Associate KPC/rla cc; RDV,File CAWINDOWStTH-WAK.Dubay 1ia603,dm