Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZahoruiko Ltr to BOA Reponses to Traffic Review.2002.3.13 - Correspondence - 0000 Meetinghouse Road 3/13/2002 MEETINGHOUSE COMMONS LLC 1 � 185 Hickory IEII Road 0 117 11' n_ North Andover, MA 01845 AMMVEj� 978-687-2635 fax978-689-2310 801 ME 13 P 3: 31,1 March 13, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Comprehensive Permit Application for Meetinghouse Commons at Smolak Farm Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: Per our hearing last night, attached are two revised plan sets, referenced in our response letter submitted on March 11, 2002, to the ZBA consultant(VHB). Let me know if you want me to continue to fold these plans as requested in the past, since the bulk of 45-50 pages does not fold cleanly. These plans have been delivered today to the ZBA consultant,VHB. Also attached are twelve copies of the relevant sections of our responses to the traffic review by VHB, which were referenced in our transmittal on March 11, 2002. Furthermore, I will speak with members of my project design team to remind them that any documents (other than large plan sets otherwise agreed)should be submitted in sets of twelve, Atty. Brian Levy will forward twelve copies of the most recent draft version of the proposed Comprehensive Permit Conditions and List of Exemptions for your review by Tuesday, March 19,2002. Since we realize that there have been some changes in the Board over recent months, hopefully this will put all members on the same page,regarding these documents. Also,I want to thank the Board for agreeing to request,that VHB respond to our responses to their review comments within two weeks (by March 26), so that we will have time to deal with any unresolved issues and submit final comments at least a week before the next hearing date of April 9, 2002, We look forward to any comments from the Board prior to that next hearing, so that we can respond in reasonable time, and hopefully, close the hearings at that time. Currently,as mentioned in correspondence submitted prior to the last two hearings in January and February,there are no concerns from any other Town Boards or Departments which have not been answered. Please,contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely OMAC 13 2002, mas D. Zahoruii�ko, Manager ous�Commons LLC eetinghouse Commons LLC BOARD OF APPEALS Transportation Land Development Environmental ° Services i , e tmagtnat#on Innovation energy Creating resu Its for our clients and benefits for ottr communities March 13,2002 .jr,�ncrr�e Hange�2$r�s�in,_I�c,__ Ref: 06716.49 Mr, Robert Nicetta Building Inspector /Zoning Officer Town of North Andover Office of Community development 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Re: Meeting House Commons-Comprehensive Permit Application North Andover,MA Dear Bob, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)received written responses to our review comments (dated 2-11-02) for the above referenced project. We received these responses on March 12, 2002 from Huntress Associates,Inc. Please note that the written responses provided are incomplete as the traffic related responses were not included. Further,VHB's review dated 2-12-02 did not include drainage and environmental comments. These comments were included in our final report which was submitted to you on March 11,2002, To date,VHB has not received written responses to these drainage and environmental comments. Prior to any further VHB review,we request the following information from the applicant: 1. A complete set of written responses to comments within our March 11,2002 review. 2, Revised set of plans. 3, Revised traffic study,application and other pertinent documents. If you have any questions,please call me. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. �1,� RECEIVED Timothy B. McIntosh,P.E. Project Manager-Highway&Municipal Engineering MAID 14 2002 BUILDING DEPT. 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 ~i 1( r , Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-91S1,1 \\MAIVA7Et\te10671649\das\totters\net-nicetl 617.924,1770 m FAX 617,924.2286a-0313p2.dnc email: infoQvhb.com '.. www.vhb.com M= TRAFFIC IMPACT & ACCESS STUDY' foc �`,%'andO111 A�100VER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS NOZ �IAR I .3 p 3: 35 Proposed Residential Development Project Dale Street North Andover, Massachusetts Proponent Meetinghouse Commons, LLC March 2002 prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Q?F Traffic Engineering/Transpo rtat Ion Planning 280 Main Street,Suite 204 North Reading, MA 01864 E.1 978-664-2205 FAX* 978-664-2444 f i I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 5 i i RESPONSE TO COMMENTS COMMENT NO. 1 TRAFFIC REVIEW VHB has performed a review of the Traffic hnpact Study — Proposed Residential Development for a proposed eighty-eight unit residential subdivision to be called Meetinghouse Comtuons at Smolak Farms located off of Dale Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. (DJK) submitted the traffic impact study. V11V reviewed the entire report for safety issues, access and egress issues, and reviewed technical calculations and findings presented in the report. In general, the report has been prepared in a professional manner and conforms to traffic engineering industry standards. RESPONSE No additional response necessary. COMMENT NO. 2 PROPOSAL 1'hc description of the project notes [fie 88 units of over-55 housing. However, a review of the site plan noted that there is a Community Meeting House on the site. What types of activities might take place in this facility? Are the 7 parking spaces shown adjacent to the building adequate to support these activities`? 21 546—RPT2 Copyright®2002 by DJK, Atl rights raserved. t RESPONSE The Community Meeting House will provide an ancillary support function for the elderly residents located on site. The 6 parking spaces adjacent to the building are adequate to support the anticipated use of the facility. COMMENT NO, 3 Study Area — It appears that the study area includes [lie site driveways as well as the intersection to the cost. How was the study area selected? Was the study area di5cn5Se(I/ContlClnned with the Town ol' North Andover prior to preparation of the study? RESPONSE The study area was informally discussed with the Town during the initial preparation of the Traffic Impact & Access Study. The study area was selected to provide background information, which is above and beyond what would normally have been presented based on the small amount of traffic generation and the low level of existing traffic on the roadways and intersections in the immediate area of the project. COMMENT NO. 4 Existing Conditions DJK performed a thorough evaluation of the existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site. fJ' i i Vehicle Speeds and Sight Distance — VHB visited the area to gain an understanding of the existing roadway configuration. During our site visit, VHB noted that maximum speeds along certain areas along Dale Road slightly exceeded 30 ,and 40 mph. For the purposes of calculating driveway sight distance requirements, VHB recommends that the 40 mph speed be utilized. Given that this is an elderly housing facility where perception and reaction times for some of the residents might be slower than the general population, some conservative calculations — such as using a 45 mph speed — would also be helpful in assurning that the sight distance calculations are adequate and conservative. RESPONSE The above comment is self-conflicting. Elderly residents with slower reaction times would tend to drive slower, not faster. Furthermore, studies have shown average/medium reaction times varied between 0.64 seconds and 0.66 seconds. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual uses a brake reaction time of 2.5 seconds in determining Stopping Sight Distance. The AASHTO Manualalso states "a 2.5 second brake reaction time for stopping sight situations encompasses the capabilities of most drivers, including those older drivers." Notwithstanding the above, the TIAS states that there is +400' of sight distance and AASHTO states that 360 feet are required for a design speed of 45 mph. Therefore, the SSD as presented is conservative and adequate for 45 mph. l� 22 54"PT2 Copynghl 0 2002 by DJK. All rights r©served. i i RESPONSE awn The developer has provided 25% of the entire project as affordable. This represents a significant "fair share" contribution towards the Town's needs for affordable housing. No additional fair share contribution has been requested, or is expected at this time. COMMENT NO. 10 Also, just to clarify, the site drive is described as being 24-Feet wide, with one 12-foot wide lane for uttering traffic, and two 12-loo( wide lanes fur left-turning and right-€urnittg exiting traffic. Please con(iri,t Illat the site driveway will either have a 24-foot wide curb opening or a 36rfoot wide curb opening, Please make sure (his is shown on the site plans, RESPONSE The proposed site drive is 24 feet wide with two 15-foot corner radii. COMMENT NO. 11 Conclusions VHB has reviewed the traffic impacts study, prepared by 17JK, for(lie 92-unit over-55 community known as Meeting House Commons at Smolak Harms. The traffic study has adequately evaluated the impacts of the proposed development will, the exception of those issues noted above, In summary, the issues outstanding include: • Clarify the use of the Community Meeting House as well as the adequacy of the proposed 7 parking spaces to support those uses. • Review the stopping sight distance calculations with respect to the updated AASHTO 2000 handbook and present a 45-mile per hour calculation. Ir + Review and present intersection sight distance calculations. • Present accident information for study area roadways and intersections to assure the town that there is no pre-existing safety issue. • Consider providing a "fair-share" contribution towards addressing general area traffic issues. The developer should work with the Town to determine this amount that is consistent with other similar agreements between (lie Town and other developers. RESPONSE All of the above issues have been addressed in this Response to Comments. COMMENT NO. 13 Furthermore, a professional traffic engineer certified to practice traffic/civil engineering g b to the Conunonwealth of Massachusetts should stamp the final traffic report. i 25 546—RPT2 i Copyright 0 2002 by DJK. All rights reserved. ON Ste}; j ? ;:::G r RESPONSE The Traffic Impact and Access Study and Response to Comments have been stamped on the title page of the report. COMMENT NO, 14 It is recomnicnded that the applicant provide WRIVI'EN RESPONSES to the issues and comments colltalnCd he1'cin. RESPONSE This report is the proponent's written response. Mill MIN 2s 546—HPT2 Copyright 0 2002 by DJK. Alf rights reserved.