Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Exception (582)a 0 rn 6 l� z C) 0 U7 fU Ui S - 0 l 1J 10 0-)- `/ L�r�Sf�q h C� pu)+(po J Steven J. Trettel, P.E. _. Vice President G� GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. One Edgewater Drive 1781-278-3815 Norwood, MA 02062 F: 781-278-5701 email: strettel@gza.com 1 /VV F5 / TM 54l� �U dl,en&P, / ll J eaPS I led flGri V p-5 0 �c e�►cl�Te tY'q Novi �oscf' k� 615i wl�,1 TrUy�ee a II o o Yrusl, 2'3 so 4I�e ddkt6-r, a�u� j worn`,e) � e� l� hd5 � Wdher e qS� " ° of P/ rV1 Gt �'� 5�.� ec, o4y� cv4d14ed Town of North Andover Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D. Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner There will be a Telephone (978) 688-9541 Fax (978) 688-9542 Special Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. In the Senior Center 120R Main Street North Andover DISCUSSION: Kittredge Crossing — Performance Bond Issue vs. Letter of Credit 200 Chickering Road PUBLIC HEARING: Michael & Tara Hurley Special Permit R-1. 211 South Bradford Street CONTINUED MEETING: N O w cn N C- '0_f-< �OC3:;C: r—*Mm ->c-- M ,�!3rr — CD rpt o rri -0 rn� (*Requested continuance until October 22, 2002 meeting) Valley Realty Development, LLC Comprehensive Permit —..R-2&1-1 #W.JN8j %M/ENVGEj/ L For premises at: 2357 Tumpike Street (Voted to continue *WJS/WFS/RF/SK/EM/GE/JL) (Voted to continue * WJS/WFS/JP/BM/GF/JL) Noted to continue * WJS/WFS/JP/EM/GEJL) Board of Appeals 688-9541. Building 688-954.5 Conservation 688-9530 Health 688-9540 Planning 688-9535 Re: ;comments for the Meadows hearing Subject: Re: ;comments for the Meadows hearing Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:25:06 -0400 From: "Susan Dennett" <sdennett@attbi.com> To: <wsoule@concentric.net> Walter, I am emailing my comments to you re'The Meadows". I am hoping that they will suffice as my formal comments to the whole committee, and that they can be read at the hearing. To the Zoning Board of Appeals Re: "The Meadows" October 22, 2002 1. The name: 'The Meadows", if this project procedes, should be changed, since there is already confusion between two Meadows in town: Morkeski Meadows, the Housing Authority office and affordable housing building on Waverly Rd. and Greene St., and the Meadows at Edgewood, the nursing home unit. The director of the Housing Authority has mentioned that she gets mail for the Edgewood Meadows, and they get mail for the Housing Authority Morkeski Meadows. 2. Water use: Lake Cochichewick has been very near its "safe yield" on many days each year, not only in this past year when we have been in a drought situation and needed restrictions and outright water bans, but also dating back to about 1997, when a committee was formed and the water quality and quantity was studied. It was determined even then that the "safe yield" was actually surpassed on some days during the summer.Since then more houses have been built, with more bathrooms, more pools sunk into the ground, and more sprinkler systems have been installed. North Andover's DPW and Water Department have been cognizant of this problem and have taken action to safeguard our water supply. This project will put a very large and sudden strain on our water system and supply. This project should be scaled back in size to soften this blow. Other mitigations should be negotiated and enforced to reduce water use, such as installing low -flow plumbing fixtures, capturing roof runoff for irrigation, and installing xeriscape landscaping. 3. Affordable Housing: The percentage of affordable housing should be increased to 30% or 35% to further North Andover's goals of 10% affordable housing. North Andover is woefully short of the state goal. Adding only 25°x6 affordable units in Chap. 40B projects will never allow us to meet that goal, since North Andover is still a growing community with many developments and Form A lots added to our market -rate housing each year. Thank -you for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan B. Dennett 20 Ironwood Rd., North Andover MA pECE9W OCT'2 2 2002 [�i 1 of 1 10/22/02 9:22 AM BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD CHAPTER 40B PERMIT REVIEW Location: 2357 Turnpike Street VHB No.: 06716.58 Owner: Valley Realty Development, LLC Applicant: Valley Realty Development, LLC Applicant's Engineer: GSD Associates, 148 Main Street, Bldg A, N. Andover, MA 01845 Plan Date: 06-03-02 Review Date: 10-01-02 The Applicant submitted plans dated June 3, 2002, a Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed The Meadows Residential Development Project, North Andover, MA; Prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. dated April 2002 and an Application for a Comprehensive Permit booklet dated June 10, 2002. The booklet contains the following information: - Transmittal Letter - Application Form - Certified Abutters List - Preliminary Site Development Plans (Reduced Scale) - Report On Existing Conditions - Preliminary Architectural Plans (Reduced Scale) - Tabulation of Proposed Buildings By Type - Preliminary Utilities Plan (Reduced Scale) - Documents Regarding The Jurisdictional Requirements of 760 CMR 31.01 - List of Required Exceptions - Traffic Impacts - Fees and Request For Waivers This information has been considered in the development of this technical memorandum and other various sources of information were also referenced, as needed, and are footnoted in the memorandum. :VHB reviewed the Comprehensive Permit from a standard engineering practice and a public safety point of view. The following comments note questions/comments on the proposed design. VHB offers the following comments: DRAINAGE REVIEW The site plan shows a conceptual drainage system layout. Detailed pipe size and slope information, and construction details have not been included in the plan set. VHB offers the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: 1. The proposed drainage design, including hydraulics and hydrology, could not be reviewed for this comprehensive permit application because detailed drainage calculations were not submitted. VHB recommends that the following drainage calculations \ information be submitted for a thorough drainage review. ■ Watershed analysis for pre- and post -development condition for 2,10 and 100- year/24-hour storm events using TR -20 / TR -55 method. s 1 \0607 6 ocs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc OCT 15 0 BOARD OF APPEALS ■ Plans that illustrate the pre- and post -development drainage areas and respective flow paths. ■ Soil conditions and ground water table elevation data. ■ Drainage pipe sizing calculations using Rational method. ■ Gutter spread and/or catch basin inlet capacity calculations. ■ Culvert analysis using Federal Highway Administration methodology. ■ Other applicable calculations and information necessary for a thorough review. 2. No Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Calculations have been submitted. It is not clear whether the drainage system as proposed will provide the 80 percent removal of TSS required by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 's Stormwater Management Policy. VHB recommends that these calculations be submitted for review. 3. As a full drainage design and associated calculations were not submitted, VHB has not thoroughly reviewed the comprehensive permit application for conformance to the DEP 's Stormwater Management Policy, however, VHB does note that the plans show at least three direct discharges to wetland areas. These discharges are not permitted under the Stormwater Management Policy. VHB recommends that the Applicant eliminate these discharges and submit further Stormwater Management Policy information with associated calculations for review. 4. If there will be standing water in proposed detention areas for an extended period of time, VHB recommends that fencing be proposed around the perimeter of the detention basins with an access gate for maintenance. VHB recommends fencing for safety reasons. 5. The proposed detention basins do not appear to include sediment forebays. Under DEP's Stromwater Management guidelines a sediment forebay must be included in the proper design of a extended detention basin. 6. The proposed detention basins do not appear to be graded to provide proper access for maintenance purposes. 7. The rooftop drainage is not shown on the plans VHB assumes that it will be infiltrated on site as allowed under the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. The Applicant should clarify. 8. The proposed roadway uses what appears to be an existing culvert crossing. The existing conditions summary makes no mention of the size or condition of this wetland crossing. The Applicant should provide detailed information regarding the existing culvert and provide a full culvert analysis for the proposed condition. VHB does not recommend re -using an existing culvert because it will be difficult to verify the load bearing capacity and current condition of any existing structure. STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE VHB has reviewed the site plans for conformance to standard engineering practices. The purpose is to document the engineering issues and potential construction issues associated with this development. VHB offers the following comments related to vehicular safety, pedestrian safety and potential construction issues: 1. Vehicle turning movements for passenger vehicles and single unit vehicles (indicative of a single unit fire truck) were checked. Upon review of the revised site plan, it appears that single unit vehicles can access most building locations. It appears that a single unit vehicle may have some difficulty making the turn around movement near building 8. Single unit vehicles may also have trouble maneuvering around some of the parking lots if all available s 2 TA0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc parking is in use, if there is parking in fire lanes or if there is a significant amount of snow piles. 2. The sidewalk shown on the site plan appears to be 4 feet wide. There have been no construction details provided to verify this. The Applicant should consider using a wider sidewalk to insure proper handicap accessibility. Wheelchair ramps should be shown at all proposed access points to insure that the design conforms to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) requirements Also, there are several sections of sidewalk which "dead end'. This is not acceptable under AAB guidelines. 3. The Applicant should verify the number of handicap accessible parking stalls and show the total number in the summary table to verify that proper parking ratios have been provided. 4. The proposed site appears to be in significant cut conditions in many locations. The proposed site drive in particular is shown to have a cut of up to 18 feet. The Applicant should provide test pit information to verify the location of the groundwater table. The proposed design is likely to impact the groundwater on site. 5. The proposed wall location along the north side of the proposed site drive is close to the adjacent property line. The Applicant should provide detailed structural design details of this wall to insure that the design will not impact neighboring properties. 6. No proposed easements have been shown on the plans. The Applicant should clarify the ownership of all proposed common areas. It is unclear if the Applicant intends for the site drive to be an accepted street. VHB has assumed that the Applicant will retain ownership of the roadway. 7. The proposed site drive functions as a local residential street. VHB recommends that the site drive be designed as a local roadway. Construction details, typical sections and roadway geometry information should be provided so that an appropriate review of the roadway design may be conducted. 8. The driveway at Building 19 appears to have sub -standard sight distance. The driveway is located on the inside of a curve and the proposed building may obstruct the drivers view. VHB recommends that the Applicant investigate. 9. The Applicant has not provided a proposed roadway profile for the site driveway, therefore VHB is unable to verify the adequacy of the design. Also, VHB recommends that an existing profile on Route 114 be shown so that vertical sight distance exiting the site drive may be evaluated. 10. The Applicant has not provided a construction baseline. VHB recommends that the Applicant provide a baseline so that an appropriate review of highway geometry may be conducted. 11. The proposed site drive to the Lower Meadows portion of the site is approximately 1800 feet in length and ends in a modified cul-de-sac. The Subdivision Rules & Regulations require a maximum 800 -foot cul-de-sac length for public safety reasons. The Applicant should investigate the possibility of providing a secondary access point, to provide better access for emergency vehicles. 12. The Applicant stated in the application that the solid waste would be removed from site via both curbside pick up and the use of on-site dumpsters. The location of the proposed dumpsters has not been provided. The Applicant should delineate the areas where curbside pick up will be provided and show the proposed locations of all dumpsters. The Applicant should also provide details of any proposed landscaping or other method of screening around dumpsters. 13. The location and number of fire hydrants should be reviewed by the North Andover Fire Department to insure adequate fire protection. 14. Route 114 (Turnpike Street) is a State Highway. The Applicant will need to obtain a state highway access permit. O 3 T:\0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc 15. The location of snow disposal areas has not been identified on the site plan. The Applicant should show the location of proposed snow storage areas and refer to the Snow Disposal Guidelines issued by DEP for snow disposal location requirements. Ideal snow storage locations are away from wetland areas. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This review is provided for the Comprehensive Permit Application submitted by Valley Realty Development, LLC, for The Meadows Condominiums in North Andover. No field visit to verify wetland boundaries is included in this review. VHB assumes that grading plans and larger scale plans will be submitted at a later date, and note that our review may suggest items that would be included in later designs. We also note that the North Andover Conservation Commission requires 40 scale plans for its review during the Wetlands Protection Act permitting process. The Applicant is proposing a 270 -unit development on a 47 -acre parcel located at 2537 Turnpike Street. The Applicant has flagged wetlands in the project area and appears to have sited the project outside of wetland resource areas, and in most cases sited structures outside the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone. However, the project will require approval from the Wetlands Protection Act for work within the 100 -foot buffer zone to wetland resource areas. Without further information, we cannot comment on compliance with the WPA. VHB assumes that the Applicant is also aware that the project will need to conform to the Stormwater Management Policy (SMP). From the Site Drainage Plan, there appears to be three direct discharges to adjacent wetlands. Under the SMP for new development, new discharges can be permitted only for runoff that has been treated to remove 80 percent of the Total Suspended Solids. It appears that roof runoff has been tied into the site drainage system. In accordance with the SMP, roof runoff is considered "clean" and should be infiltrated rather than piped into the drainage system. TRAFFIC REVIEW VHB has performed a professional and independent technical review of the Traffic Impact and Access Study — Proposed Residential Development Project (The Meadows) prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. (DJK) for a 270 -unit apartment community to be located along Route 114 in North Andover. The proposed development is being proposed under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Chapter 40B), which encourages the construction of affordable housing using locally granted permits. The law enables the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), in consultation with other municipal boards and officials, to grant a permit to a developer who is proposing state or federally sponsored low or moderate -income housing. The developer may appeal a denial decision by the ZBA to the Commonwealth's Housing Appeals Committee. This review of the transportation issues focuses on three aspects of the report: ■ First, the technical information presented has been reviewed and compared with general industry standards for approach and application. Where inconsistencies exist or further clarification is needed, it has been clearly noted; ■ Second, a thorough review of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Applicant has been completed. Where VHB is not able to reach the same conclusions e 4 T:\0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc and/or the analysis does not support a specific recommendation, additional information is requested; ■ Finally, VHB offers findings and suggestions to the ZBA as the process moves forward. These specifically focus on other issues not noted in the technical submissions for the project. Overview In general, the traffic report has been prepared in a professional manner generally consistent with transportation industry standards. However, from a transportation perspective, the impact analysis has five main areas of concern: ■ The existing traffic volumes were not adjusted to reflect average conditions; ■ Trip distribution/assignment of site related traffic is not specified in detail and assigns site generated traffic to existing travel patterns, which may not take into consideration the layout of the buildings and parking areas for the "Upper" and "Lower Meadows" that may impact each driveway differently than what was analyzed; ■ Accident data was not obtained or reviewed in the traffic report; ■ Existing sight distance measurements were not reported only measured distances with recommended improvements; and ■ Synchro analysis for the study area intersections assume operations conditions that are not specified in report. The following provides specific comments on the traffic study and provides traffic comments on the site plan submitted along with the study. Traffic Impact and Access Study Review In general, the study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a traffic impact and access study. However, in several instances, information and conclusions presented in the report are not verifiable given the information provided in the Appendix section of the report. Where specifically noted, additional information has been requested to verify statements made in the report. Introduction The description of the study area and methodology were presented in a standard manner and are accurate. However, it should be noted that the traffic report was prepared using 294 -units and not the 270 -units specified in the plans prepared by GSD Associates. It seems that the development size may have been updated but the traffic study was not. This trip generation difference will be discussed in the trip generation section to this memorandum. Existing Conditions All traffic count locations appear to be reasonable given the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development. It should be noted that there is no mention in the report to the peak hours used for the analysis. However, these hours can be determined by looking at the raw counts appended to this report and the appropriate times were used. In addition, turning movement volumes for the Industrial Drive across from the developments south driveway were estimated and not counted, therefore, these numbers cannot be quantified. O 5 T:\0671655\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc Existing Traffic Volumes — The study notes that traffic volumes were collected during the month of February 2002; however, these volumes were not adjusted to reflect average month conditions based on seasonal traffic volume information. It appears that the average conditions for this area could generate as much as 11 percent more traffic than the month of February. This information was based on data published by MassHighway at permanent count station 502 located on Route 114 in North Andover. This increase in traffic could have an impact on the level of service analysis prepared for the study area intersections. Automatic traffic recorder data collected, when compared to MassHighway data for Route 114, does seem reasonable. Vehicle Speeds — Speed measurements were collected by the "floating car method" and are an acceptable method of determining vehicle speeds along a roadway. However, this method does have a small sample size and precision is difficult to obtain. Vehicles speeds should have been collected with the automated traffic recorder when daily traffic volumes were recorded. Motor Vehicle Crashes — There is no indication that accident data for this area was collected or discussed. While this appears to be a low accident location, according to MassHighway data, vehicle accident records should be reviewed through the town to determine the amount of accidents in this area and the cause of each. With the addition of the developments north driveway, Sharpner's Pond Road will change from a T -intersection to a 4 -way intersection increasing the amount of turning movements thus increasing the risk for vehicle accidents. Public Transportation Services — There is no mention of public transportation along this roadway and it is assumed that there will be no bus stops to this residential development. In addition, this study does not mention any sidewalks present along Route 114 nor does it propose sidewalk along the front of this development. However, it appears that this area of Route 114 is mostly residential use and with the addition of this 270 -unit development a sidewalk in front of this development should be considered. Summary — The analysis of the existing conditions as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study appears to be reasonable and follows general industry guidelines for the preparation of a traffic impact study. Additional information on the following would be helpful in evaluating the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding street network: Adjustment of traffic volumes to reflect average conditions Crash data statistics along the Route 114 corridor 500 feet to the north and south of this site Future Conditions In the study methodology section, it is noted that the proponent contacted the Planning Office for the Town of North Andover, however, Route 114 is considered state highway and there is no indication of the proponent contacting the Massachusetts Highway Department in the preparation of this study. 6 TA0671655\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.do c Background Development Growth — The analysis includes three specific potential projects in the vicinity of the proposed development and characterizes them as projects that will add new traffic in the vicinity of the project site. The study notes that these three specific developments (totaling 79 residential condominiums, 95 single-family homes, and 66,700 square feet of retail) would be occupied within the 5 -year project horizon. For this reason, the new vehicular traffic associated with each of these projects was assigned to the local roadway system and considered as 'background' traffic growth. The vehicular traffic estimate for each of these projects was obtained from the Planning Office for the Town of North Andover. However, there is no mention of traffic studies performed as part of the permitting process for each specific development or if the proponent determined this data using standard ITE trip generation estimates. Therefore a trip generation table and traffic network should be prepared and included in this study indicating the amount of trips generated by each development making note where the data was obtained to quantify this background traffic. In addition, a background growth rate of 1.0 percent was used to account for general 'background' growth and to account for projects not currently proposed that might be constructed in the near future. This was done to further highlight the fact that the analysis presented in the report is 'conservative'. Trip Generation — VHB verified the traffic generation used in the traffic study and finds that the method used, regression analysis, is a reasonable method to develop traffic generation. However, an argument could be made that the average rate method could also be used, in which case increases traffic by 10 vehicles during the morning and evening peak hours for 294 -units. However, since this development has changed from 294 to 270 -units the average rate method for 270 -units generates the exact same amount of trips, during the peak hours only, as the regression method for 294 -units. Therefore, this report generates a reasonable and accurate amount of traffic for 270 -units during the peak hours and is not considered to be a conservative analysis. The daily traffic volumes generated by this site using the higher average rate method for 270 -units would generate approximately 1,582 rather than the 1,628 projected in this report, therefore, the daily traffic estimates are conservative. This site could be expected to generate approximately 1,582 new daily vehicle trips, 120 morning peak hour vehicular trips and 150 evening peak hour vehicular trips. Traffic Distribution and Assignment — The distribution of new site -generated traffic based on observed traffic patterns appears to be reasonable, although journey -to -work data for the Town of North Andover for the census tract in which the project is sited might result in a more accurate estimate of the traffic assignment. In addition, consideration should be given to the amount of traffic exiting each drive based on the proposed layout of the units and parking locations. For example, those entering the development and accessing the "Lower Meadow" may be inclined to access via the north driveway since it is more of a direct route. A detailed trip distribution analysis should be developed taking this into consideration. Summary — The analysis of the future conditions as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study appears to be reasonable and follows general industry guidelines for the preparation of a traffic impact study. However, the report generates traffic for 294 -units using the regression analysis from ITE for this land use. It appears that the more conservative approach would be to generate traffic using the average rate method. It should be noted that using the average rate method for this modified 270 -unit site generates the same amount of traffic that is being reported in this traffic study, which makes this assumption not as conservative as one may think. Additional information on the following would be helpful in evaluating the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding street network: 7 TA0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc ■ Develop a traffic network and table illustrating the background traffic used for this study ■ Evaluate trip distribution of traffic to/from the site driveways using journey to work data and assigning traffic to/from the "Upper Meadow" and "Lower Meadow" to appropriate drives. Traffic Overations Analvsis Methodol= — The traffic study used the appropriate analysis software and methods to analyze the intersections and roadways within the study area. The analysis is based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual and the software selected (Synchro) is an approved and widely recognized analysis tool for traffic operations analysis. Results — The following is a summary of the results, VHB's observations, and discussion on the mitigation planned by the Applicant for specific locations. Route 114 at the Proposed North Site Drive and Sharpner's Pond Road — According to the analysis presented in the traffic study, the westbound Sharpner's Road approach operates at Level of Service (LOS) D during the morning and LOS C during the evening peak commuter hours. Future analysis conditions show that the level of service will worsen to a LOSE for the 2007 No -Build condition and LOS F for the 2007 Build condition. For the evening peak hour this approach will operate at a LOS D for the 2007 No -Build condition and LOS F for the 2007 Build condition. Synchro analysis was performed with the westbound approach having enough room to store one vehicle making a right turn and thus simulating a two-lane analysis. This would allow right turners enough room to pass to the right and separate from left -turners. Since these assumptions were not mentioned in the report traffic conditions on this approach should be observed to ensure these conditions are occurring. If this is not the case the level of service analyzed in this report would not be accurate and conditions could be much worse. These assumptions were made on the proposed north site driveway. Both sides of the street appear to accommodate one all-purpose lane for all turning movements, however, the throat of the road flares out to a much wider width. As long as vehicle queues are not extensive and blocking the short right turn lane this analysis is considered acceptable. The Applicant has committed "that Sharpner's Pond Road be widened to accommodate two 12 foot wide approach lanes for a distance of 100 feet from Route 114". With the addition of this lane traffic operations for this approach would improve, however, with the addition of this lane more conflicts will exist at the intersection with main line traffic and traffic exiting the north site driveway, which may cause more accidents. Therefore, it is recommended that with the addition of these two new driveways a gap study be conducted. A field measurement of the number and duration of gaps should be conducted during the peak hours. This data would help determine if in fact there are enough gaps and of the appropriate duration for vehicles to exit this development. Route 114 at the proposed South Site Drive and Industrial Drive — This analysis assumes the same conditions with the right turning vehicles that were discussed above. However, the amount of traffic exiting the Industrial Drive is considerably less. Again it should be noted that the turning movements for this drive were not counted and were estimated in the traffic report. Should these number be accurate the level of service expected for this approach will continue to operate at a LOS C or better for all conditions analyzed. 8 T:\0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc The eastbound site driveway approach is expected to operate at a LOS D during the weekday morning conditions and at a LOS C during the weekday evening condition. The gap study discussed above would help in determining if in fact there are enough gaps that are long enough for traffic to exit the site safely. The proponent has committed to having two lanes for egress, which will help elevate traffic congestion and maintain queues on site. Sight Distance Analysis The traffic study used the appropriate guidelines for determine adequate sight distance for the observed and posted speed limits. However, it does not indicate the actual sight distance measurements in the field but the measurements based on future clearing of roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations. Sight lines need to be maintained during construction as well as when the development has been completed. The proposed sight lines seem to be attainable for the proposed south site driveway, however, with the north driveway being so close to the abutting property, to the north, sight distance looking north may be more difficult to attain. This depends on how far back from the edge of pavement vegetation needs to be cleared and on the location of property lines. Parking Analysis The report does not provide a discussion of area parking issues. In addition the total number of parking -illustrated on the site plan is 784 with a parking ratio of 2.9 parking spaces per unit, on site. This seems to be incorrect and the actual number of spaces is 662 with a ratio of 2.45. VHB reviewed industry standards as well as other developments of this type and has found that, in general, a parking ratio of between 1.80 and 2.00 is the current industry standard for comparable sites. With this high of a ratio the Applicant is well above this range. Conclusions and Recommendations The Applicant has made a commitment to providing on and off-site roadway infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Applicant has also committed to the installation of intersection advanced warning signs. VHB has requested additional information (discussed in detail in the previous section) including: ■ Traffic volumes adjustments to reflect average conditions ■ Crash data statistics along the Route 114 corridor 500 feet to the north and south of this site ■ Develop a traffic network and table illustrating the background traffic used for this study ■ Evaluate trip distribution of traffic to/from the site driveways using journey to work data and assigning traffic to/from the "Upper Meadow" and "Lower Meadow" to appropriate drives. ■ Existing sight distance measurements ■ Existing traffic operations at Sharpner's Pond Road ■ Gap study analysis It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. 0 9 TA0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc AReviewed by: GC1 Date: Andrew W. Ogilvie, P.E. Senior Project Engineer - Highway and Municipal Engineering Reviewed by: Date: Robert L. Nagi, Project Manager — Traffic Systems Engineering Checked by: Timothy B. Mc ntosh, P. . Project Manager — Highway and Municipal Engineering O 10 TA0671658\docs\reports\Meadows comp permit Review 9-30-02-wrking.doc North Andover Public Schools North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 October 18, 2002 Mr. William Sullivan Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development & Services 27 Charles Street North Andover. MA 01845 Subject: Condominium Students Dear Mr. Sullivan: This letter is in responi:e to your fax request for a K to 12 break -down of North Andover students, in residence. at various condominium developments in the Town of North Andover. This is the second request for such information that I have received since August 2002. The first was from Heidi Griffin and I wish to share the following information with you. While I would be most happy to provide you with any amount of applicable material to support your evaluation and assessment of proposed developments, l am limited in the kind of support that we can offer from the School Department. As 1 mentioned to Heidi in. my c mail of August 6. 2002, in the past, I obtained the kind of information that you are looking for from Bill Scott. However, we did pay a third party to provide us with some student data on students living at Royal Crest, Village Green and Heritage Green. The data was for the 2000-2001 school year and is shown on the last page of your request. With our approval, you could request similar information for all of the units identified in your fax under the title of Apartment and Condominium Survey from School Geographies. Mr. Craig Mitchell, President, School Geographies, is under contract to the School Department to maintain a comprehensive student transportation data base. All of our bus routes are created by Mr. Mitchell using proprietary software. l have discussed you request with Mr. Mitchell and he quoted a not to exceed price of $450.00 for the information requested. A purchase order would be acceptable if payment for his services is made within 30 -calendar days from receipt of invoice. Under Massachusetts Department of Education regulations, we cannot legally request and pay for such information. Such expenditures must be directly related the education of our students. If the request was directly connected to our School Facilities Master Planning initiatives, that the expense would be justifiable. Community Development initiatives are covered under the municipal umbrella. Please feel free to contact me if any additional input is required. SiF9rely, T' Paul P. Szymanski Director, Management Support Services Cc: William E. Allen Craig Mitchell Robert Nicetta ''`'s S -V F5 OCT90 E 0 Y E 18 zooZ D 875 Chickering Road, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 (978) 794-1503 $ alb BOARD OF APPEALS FAX (973) 794-0231 TO 'A t'TC•VT Inn-- QT i3n TC?n-tTtil-QlF.x*e4 STOOUO^. 31Tan,4*H'N