Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-16 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (37) i v BAYS IDE r . ENGINEERING June 18, 2013 Ms. Judith M. Tymon Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: PROPOSED BRANCH BANK NORTH ANDOVER,MA Dear Judy: Bayside Engineering is in receipt of Vanasse and Associates (VAI)March 29, 2013 review of the Site Plans and Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS) prepared for the proposed branch bank project at 780 Providence Highway in Dedham, MA. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the comments raised on the Bayside TIAS. As a result of several comments, the site plan has changed and a copy of the plan, SK-1 is included in the Appendix for reference. Comment No.1: In accordance with Massachusetts General Law, the engineer should provide a letter attesting that the November 2012 TIAS was prepared under the responsible charge of a Professional Engineer duly registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and with the requisite experience in the fields of Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning. Response: By copy of this letter, the November 2012 Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS) was prepared under the responsible charge of Kenneth P. Cram, a Registered Professional Traffic Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The appropriate stamp and signature are included at the end of this response letter. Comment No.2: In addition, the Applicant's engineer should provide a determination as to the applicability of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as it relates to the Project and, specifically, the need to file a Notice of Project Change. Further, given that the Project site will be accessed from Route 125, a State Highway under the jurisdiction of MasSDOT the Project will require the issuance of a State Highway Access Permit for both the proposed use and the driveway modifications. The Applicant's engineer should provide an update on coordination with MassDOT with respect to the State Highway Access Permit. Q Trojects\12 PROJECTS@121491-LYNNFIELD ENGINEERING Butcher Boy No Mdover,Cormpondence\l.'Tymon 061813.doc 600 Unicorn Park Drive E Woburn, MA 01801 , Phone: 781.932.3201 � Fax: 781.932.3413 Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 2 Response: The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations were reviewed as it relates to the proposed branch bank project. The original MEPA filing was concluded on August 2, 1989 with the issuance of the Secretary's Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). As such, in 2013, any new MEPA review would be required if the new project were to exceed any MEPA thresholds (301 CMR 11.10: (3)). As the projected traffic volumes and parking spaces provided fall well below the transportation thresholds for an Environmental Notification Form, MEPA review is not required. The project site will be accessed from Route 125, a State Highway under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). A State Highway Access Permit will be required and will be applied for. To date, there has been one informational meeting with MassDOT District 4 office in Arlington. Upon project approval, the Highway Access Permit will be filed with MassDOT. Lastly, that the original MEPA review (as identified in the Final EIR Certificate) was for a two story building with retail on the first floor and offices on the second floor. The existing building is approximately half that which was originally approved and as a result, the proposed bank would not trigger MEPA thresholds for a Notice of Project Change. Comment No. 3: The study area evaluated in the November 2012 TIAS is sufficient to allow for an assessment of Project-related impacts on the transportation infrastructure. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Comment No. 4. The traffic counts were preformed after public schools were closed. As such and given that the North Andover High School is located off Route 125 to the south of the Project site, a supplemental ATR should be conducted on Route 125 while public schools are in session in order to validate the traffic counts that form the basis of the November 2012 TMS. Alternatively, a supplemental TMC could be conducted at the Route125/Route 133 intersection. Response: Supplemental manual turning movement counts were conducted on Thursday April 25, 2013 and on April 27, 2013 at the intersection of Osgood Street (Route 125) and Great Pond Road (Route 133). A supplemental automatic traffic recorder count was also conducted on Osgood Street to gather weekday and Saturday traffic volume data when schools were in session. These count sheets are included in the Appendix of this letter. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 3 These volumes were compared to the raw count data obtained in June 2012. This comparison showed that during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, as a whole, the intersection total volumes were generally comparable. Turning movements at the intersection varied slightly. These counts were used, in conjunction with the peak hour turning movements at the Butcher Boy driveways to develop the revised peak hour traffic flow networks. Comment No. 5. It appears that the raw traffic count data was reduced in some instances in order to balance traffic volumes between intersections, including the through traffic volumes that conflict with vehicles entering and exiting the Project site. Balancing between intersections should be accomplished by identifying the highest traffic volume by direction between intersections and then adjusting the remaining traffic volumes upward as necessary. Revised traffic volume networks and analyses should be provided for all peak hours and analysis conditions (Existing, No-Build and Build). Response: The raw traffic count data was reduced in some instances in order to balance traffic volumes between intersections, including the through traffic volumes that conflict with vehicles entering and exiting the Project site. Balancing between intersections by identifying the highest traffic volume by direction between intersections and then adjusting the remaining traffic volumes upward as necessary would yield higher traffic volumes at some intersections and would result in a more conservative analysis scenario. During the weekday morning peak hour, a review of the actual peak hour counts by location shows negligible difference between the two Butcher Boy driveways, while there is a 100 car difference between the Butcher Boy entrance driveway and Great Pond Road. Review of the count worksheets for the intersections show that the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road peaked from 8:00 to 9:00 AM, while the site driveway intersections to the north peaked form 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM. Further review of the Osgood Street and Great Pond Road count data for the 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM hour indicates more comparable volumes with the intersections to the north and as a whole, only about 3 percent lower(1,993 vph vs. 2,046 vph). During the weekday evening peak period, 4:30 to 5:30 PM, between Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and the Butcher Boy entrance driveway, again there was negligible difference (0 to 1 vehicle) while there was a 33 to 46 car imbalance between the Butcher Boy entrance and exit driveways. As such, the volumes were held at the Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and the Butcher Boy entrance driveway intersections and balanced through the exit intersection, yielding a slight increase in the southbound flow and a slight decrease in the northbound flow. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 4 During the Saturday midday peak period, 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM, both the Osgood Street and Great Pond Road and the Butcher Boy exit driveway peaked at the same time, while the intersection of Osgood Street and the Butcher Boy entrance peaked from 10:45 to 11:45 AM. As such, the volumes were held at the Osgood Street and Great Pond Road intersection and balanced through the entrance and exit intersection, yielding a slight increase in the southbound flow and a slight decrease in the northbound flow at the Butcher Boy exit. Using the new counts, revised Existing, No-Build and Build conditions traffic flow networks were developed and are shown graphically on Figures 1 through 3 (attached). Comment No. 6. An inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area were not conducted as apart of the November 2012 TIAS. A review of the roadway network serving the Project site indicates that sidewalks are not currently provided along either Route 125 or Route 133 within the study area, and that the traffic signal system at the Route 125/Route 133 intersection does not include pedestrian traffic signal equipment, timing or phasing. Formal bicycle facilities are not currently provided within the immediate study area. In addition, Route 125 and Route 133 do not appear to provide sufficient width (combined travel lane and shoulder, where provided) on a consistent basis to support bicycle travel in a shared travelled-way configuration. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Comment No. 7. An inventory of public transportation services within the study area was not conducted as apart of the November 2012 TIAS. The Town of North Andover is served by public transportation services provided by the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) fixed route bus service); however, these services do not currently extend to the Project site. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Comment No. 8. The motor vehicle crash analysis was completed in accordance with standard Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning practices and we are in agreement with the resulting assessment and findings of the analysis. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 5 Comment No. 9: A review of historic traffic growth information for the Town of North Andover indicates that the 0.5 percent per year background traffic growth rate is appropriate for use in establishing base future traffic volume conditions within the study area. We are in agreement with the methodology that was used to develop the No-Build condition traffic volumes. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Comment No. 10:The Applicant's engineer should provide the traffic volume networks and any associated calculations related to the trip-generation and trip assignments for the identified specific development projects by others. Further, the No-Build condition traffic volume networks should be revised to refect the corrections to the Existing conditions traffic volumes as stated previously. Response: The worksheets are attached. Comment No. 11: We are in agreement with the methodology that was used to develop the anticipated traffic characteristics of the Project and the resulting values, and we are in general agreement with the trip distribution pattern that was used to assign Project-related trips to the roadway network. Response: The project proponent concurs with this statement. Comment No. 12: We note that the Applicant's engineer used the 8th Edition of "Trip Generation"published by ITE vs. the 9rh Edition which was available at the time that the November 2012 TIAS was prepared. That said, use of the 9ih Edition of "Trip Generation" would result in similar or lower trip estimates for the Project. Further, we note that the Applicant's engineer did not account for `pass-by" trips, or motorists that are currently travelling along Route 125 for other purposes that will patronize the Project in conjunction with their travels and would not be new trips on Route 125 as a result of the Project. Such trips could account for up to 47 percent of the traffic associated with the Project. Response: The 8e' Edition of"Trip Generation" published by ITE was used in the TIAS as ITE was back ordered for copies of the 0" Edition. Use of the 9'° Edition would result in similar or lower trip estimates for the proposed branch bank, as shown in Table 1. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 6 TABLE 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Proposed Proposed Bank Bank Trips Based Trips Based Proposed on ITE 8b on ITE 9s' Pass-By Net New Edition' Edition' Trips Trips Average Weekday Daily Traffic 544 544 136 408 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 25 25 5 20 Exitin¢ 20 19 5 14 Total 45 44 10 34 Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 48 45 11 34 Exiting 47 44 11 33 Total 95 89 22 67 Saturday Daily Traffic 316 316 78 238 Saturday Midday Peak Hour: Entering 50 50 12 38 Exitin 47 47 12 35 Total 97 97 24 73 'Based on PTE LUC 912, Drive-In Bank;3,672 A Use of the 8d' edition yields a slightly more conservative analysis scenario. Further, pass-by trips were not taken into account for the proposed branch bank. The ITE data referencing the 47 percent pass-by rate comes from data that is 20 years old; primarily form the Louisville area of Kentucky. While it is acknowledged that there would be some pass-by, the 47 percent is not supported for this project. To remain consist with MassDOT and MEPA guidelines; a 25 percent pass-by rate was used. Comment No. 13: The Applicant's engineer should provide the trip assignment networks illustrating the assignment of Project-related traffic on to the roadway network. Further, revised Build condition traffic volume networks should be provided to reflect the corrections to the Existing and No-Build condition traffic volumes as stated previously. Response: The worksheets are attached. Comment No. 14:The traffic operations analysis was completed using the appropriate methodologies and should be updated to reflect the revised traffic volumes requested as a part of this review. Further, the Applicant's engineer should provide a summary of level-of-service and vehicle queue by approachIlane Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 7 group for each study intersection and analysis condition. This information can be provided in a table or in graphical format. Response: Summarized in Table 2 are the updated signalized capacity analysis results and Table 3 summarizes the updated unsignalized level of service results. TABLE 2 SIGNALIZED LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY OSGOOD STREET AT GREAT POND ROAD Peak Hour/ 2013 Existing 2018 No-Build 2018 Build Lane Group V/C' Delay LOS` Queue dV/C Delay LOS Queue V/C Delay LOS Queue Weekday Morning EastboundLT/TH/RT 0.01 12.0 B 1/1 0.01 12.5 B 1/1 0.01 12.6 B 1/1 Westbound LT/TH/RT 0.89 33.4 C 7/14 0.94 43.7 D 8/15 0.95 44.8 D 8/15 Northbound LT/TH 0.41 11.9 B 3/4 0.44 12.5 B 3/5 0.45 12.5 B 3/5 Southbound LT/TH/RT 0.79 18.2 B 7/9 0.84 20.5 C 7/10 0.84 20.9 C 8/11 Overall 0.84 20.1 C 0.89 23.8 C 0.89 24.2 C Weekday Evening Eastbound LT/TH/RT 0.01 14.8 B 1/1 0.01 15.9 B 1/1 0.01 16.6 B 1/1 Westbound LT/TH/RT 0.73 24.4 C 5/8 0.77 28.3 C 5/9 0.79 30.2 C 6/9 Northbound LT/TH 0.73 13.6 B 7/12 0.74 14.1 B 8/13 0.74 13.9 B 8/13 Southbound LT/TH/RT 0.81 17.4 B 6/11 0.85 19.9 B 6/13 0.86 20.9 C 6/13 Overall 0.78 16.5 B 0.82 18.2 B 0.84 18.7 B Saturday Midday Eastbound LT/TH/RT 0.01 14.2 B 1/1 0.01 14.6 B 1/1 0.01 14.9 B 1/1 Westbound LT/THAT 0.71 23.1 C 3/7 0.77 27.1 C 4/8 0.79 28.6 C 4/8 Northbound LT/TH 0.45 7.7 A 3/4 0.48 8.0 A 3/5 0.49 8.0 A 3/5 Southbound LT/THAT 0.76 11.9 B 5/6 0.81 13.8 B 6/7 0.83 14.4 B 6/7 Overall 0.75 11.9 B 0.80 13.5 B 0.82 14.0 B 'Volume-to-capacity ratio. bDelay in seconds per vehicle. `Level of service. dAverage queue/95"percentile queue in vehicles(25 feet per vehicle). LT=Left;TH=Through;RT=Right. TABLE 3 UNSIGNALIZED LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersection/ 2013 Baseline Critical Movement/ 2018 No-Build 2018 Build Peak Hour Demand' V/C° Delay` LOS' Queue Demand V/C Delay LOS Queue Demand Vic Delay LOS Queue Osgood Street and the Existing Butcher Boy Marketplace Entrance Left-turn movements into the Butcher Boy Marketplace: Weekday Morning 44 0.04 8.4 A 1 44 0.05 8.6 A 1 Weekday Evening 78 0.14 11.6 B I 53 0.06 8.6 A I SaturdayMidday 78 0.15 9.2 B 1 93 0.18 9.4 B I Y 63 0.07 9.0 A 1 63 0.07 9.2 A 1 81 0.09 9.4 A I Osgood Street and the Existing Butcher Boy Marketplace Exit Left-turn and through movements from the Butcher Boy Marketplace: Weekday Morning 74 0.48 43.9 E 2 74 0.53 51.5 F 3 87 0.64 62.0 F 4 Weekday Evening 194 2.04 569.0 F 18 194 2.35 717.8 F 19 220 2.68 862.1 F 22 Saturday Midday 170 1.23 201.3 F 12 170 1.44 293.2 F 14 202 1.71 405.5 F 18 Right-turn movements from the Butcher Boy Marketplace: Weekday Morning 21 0.03 9.7 A 1 21 0.03 9.4 A 1 27 0.04 9.5 A I Weekday Evening 106 0.13 9.9 A 1 106 0.14 10.1 B 1 122 0.16 10.2 B I Saturday Midday 78 0.12 10.5 B 1 78 0.13 10.8 B 1 91 0.15 10.9 B I All movements from Commerce Way: Weekday Morning 22 0.16 23.9 C 1 22 0.18 26.5 D 1 22 0.18 27.3 D I Weekday Evening 64 0.29 22.9 C 1 64 0.32 25.7 D 2 64 0.33 27.1 D 2 Saturday Midday 37 0.18 23.5 C 1 37 0.21 27.1 D 1 37 0.23 28.7 D 1 Demand of critical movements in vehicles per hour. Volume-to-capacity ratio. Delay in seconds per vehicle. Level of service. W percentile queue in vehicles(25 feet per vehicle). Q:Nroj.s\12 PROTECTS\2121491-LYNNFIELD ENGMEERING Buwbe Boy No MdovedCo pondenceg.TMon 061813.doc As shown in Table 2, the project does not cause a change in level of service from 2018 No-Build to 2018 Build conditions. It should be noted that the results reflect a single lane on the Great Pond Road approach and actual observations of existing operations indicate that vehicles queue two abreast and use the approach as a two-lane approach. The results in Table 3 represent the unadjusted results resulting from the actual delay studies completed when the traffic counts were originally completed. The project does not cause a change in level of service from 2018 No-Build to 2018 Build conditions. Visual observations of existing operations and a review of actual delay measurements indicate that the critical movements will operate better than the model indicates. Comment No. 15.The Applicant's engineer should provide the detailed statistical vehicle queue calculations for the ATM and teller lanes for the peak arrival period (Saturday midday peak-hour with 50 vehicles arriving). The analysis should be based on the number of arriving vehicles during the peak arrival period that will use the ATM and teller lanes and using the observed service flow rates of two (2) minutes per transaction for the ATM lane and three (3) minutes per transaction for each teller lane. In addition, the queue length should be evaluated based on both a 20 and 25 foot vehicle spacing in order to determine the adequacy of the design of the drive-through facility. Response: The queue analyses were included in the TIAS in the Appendix. Demand for the teller window was based on empirical data from the bank's Westgate, Haverhill branch. During the weekday morning peak hour, an average of five teller transactions is expected and seven ATM transactions are expected. Applying an average transaction rate of three minutes per transaction to the expected trips to be generated through the teller drive-through window yields an expected average queue of one vehicle and a 95th percentile queue of three vehicles or less. Applying a transaction rate of three minutes per transaction to the expected trips to be generated through the ATM yields an expected average queue of one vehicle and a 95th percentile queue of two vehicles. During the weekday evening peak hour, an average of ten teller transactions is expected and nine ATM transactions are expected. Applying the average transaction rate of three minutes per teller window transaction yields an expected average queue of one vehicle and a 95th percentile queue of one vehicle. Applying a transaction rate of three minutes per transaction to the expected trips to be generated through the ATM yields an expected average queue of one vehicle and a 95th percentile queue of three vehicles. QAP.je.tAl2 PROlECT512121491-LYNNFIELD ENGINEERING Butcher Boy No MdcverTorrespondenceV.Tymon 061813.doc Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 10 During the Saturday midday peak hour, an average of four teller transactions is expected and thirteen ATM transactions are expected. Applying the average transaction rate of three minutes per teller window transaction yields an expected average queue of two vehicles and a 950i percentile queue of six vehicles. Applying a transaction rate of two minutes per transaction to the expected trips to be generated through the ATM yields an expected average queue of one vehicle and a 951h percentile queue of three vehicles. Based on the Site Plan, with the maximum 951h percentile queue expected to be six vehicles during the Saturday midday period, this yields three vehicles at both teller windows and three vehicles at the ATM. This indicates a queue length of 75 feet. As shown on the current site plan, storage for these vehicles is provided in both teller window drive-through lanes. This queue would not extend out the driveway to Osgood Street. Comment No. 16.Sight distance measurements (stopping and intersection sight distance) should be provided for the Butcher Boy Marketplace driveway intersections completed in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards in order to demonstrate that the intersections can continue to operate in a safe manner. The sight distance evaluation should be based on the measured 851h percentile vehicle travel speed along Route 125 (use 50 mph). Response: Existing speed data for Osgood Street was also collected using the ATR in April 2013. The posted speed limit on Osgood Street in the site vicinity is 35 mph. The speed data is summarized in Table 4. TABLE 4 OSGOOD STREET VEHICLE SPEEDS Average 85"' Observed Percentile Posted Speed Speed' Speed Direction Limit(mph) (mph) (mph) Osgood Street Southbound 40 42 47 Osgood Street Northbound 40 40 44 'Based on speed data compiled on April 25 through April 28,2013. As shown in Table 2, the average speed of vehicles travelling southbound or northbound was found to be 42 and 40 mph, respectively. The 85th percentile speed was found to be 47 mph for southbound vehicles and 44 for northbound vehicles. The 85'h percentile speed is the speed at which sight distances are typically evaluated. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 11 SIGHT DISTANCES Sight distance measurements were performed at the intersection of Osgood Street at the potential site access location in accordance with Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) standards. Both stopping sight distance (SSD) and intersection sight distance (ISD) measurements were performed. In brief, SSD is the distance required by a vehicle traveling at the design speed of a roadway, on wet pavement, to stop prior to striking an object in its travel path. ISD or corner sight distance (CSD) is the sight dis- tance required by a driver entering or crossing an intersecting roadway, to perceive an on-coming vehicle and safely complete a turning or crossing maneuver with on-coming traffic. In accordance with MassDOT standards, at a minimum, sufficient SSD must be provided to the intersection. SSD is generally more important as it represents the minimum distance required for safe stopping while ISD is based only upon acceptable speed reductions to the approaching traffic stream. However, the ISD must be equal to or greater than the minimum required SSD in order to provide safe operations at the intersections. In accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) manual, "If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions. However, in some cases, this may require a major-road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor-road vehicle. To enhance traffic operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distances are desirable along the major road. " Accordingly, ISD should be at least equal to the distance required to allow a driver approaching the minor road to safely stop. Table 5 presents the measured SSD and ISD at the intersection of Osgood Street at the potential site access road. Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 12 TABLE 5 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY Required Minimum Measured (Feet)' (Feet) Osgood Street and Existing Butcher Boy South Site Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Osgood Street approaching from the south 345 500+ Osgood Street approaching from the north 385 500+ Osgood Street and Existing Butcher Boy North Site Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Osgood Street approaching from the south 345 500+ Osgood Street approaching from the north 385 500+ Intersection Sight Distance: Looking to the south from the Site Driveway 4506/520` 500+ Looking to the north from the Site Driveway 4500/520c 500+ aRewmmended minimum values obtained from.4 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets;American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO);2010,and based on a 41 mph speed southbound and 40 mph northbound,adjusted for grade as appropriate. 'Recommended minimum value for vehicles fuming right exiting a roadway under STOP-sign control. `Recommended minimum value for vehicles turning left exiting a roadway under STOP-sign control. As can be seen in Table 5, in excess of 500 feet of SSD exists at the existing Butcher Boy driveway intersections with Osgood Street. Further, the SSD measurements performed at the proposed site driveway intersections with Osgood Street exceed the recommended minimum requirements based on the observed 85th percentile speeds of 44 and 47 mph on Osgood Street. Additionally, the measured SSD also exceed the AASHTO requirements for 50 mph (425 feet required). Comment No. 17: We are in agreement with the recommendations that were provided as a part of the November 2012 TMS and would suggest that the following additional recommendations be considered for the Project: • Driveways and circulating roadways serving the Project site should be a minimum of 24 feet in width where two-way travel is to be accommodated and a minimum of 16 feet in width for one-way travel. • One-Way, Do Not Enter and turn restriction signs should be provided within the Project site in order to regulate and direct traffic in a one-way circulation pattern (counter-clockwise) around the bank building. • Multiple conflicts are created at the entrance driveways to the Project site that have the potential to impede access to both the Ms. Judith M. Tymon June 18, 2013 Page 13 proposed bank and the Butcher Boy Marketplace, particularly at the right-turn entrance proximate to Route 125. It is recommended that this intersection be eliminated and that the drive-through window facility be relocated to the north side of the bank building so that all traffic entering and exiting the bank is directed to the east end of the Project site (location of current exit from the bank). • All Signs and pavement markings to be installed within the Project site shall conform to the applicable specifications of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). • Where provided, centerline pavement markings shall consist of a double yellow line in accordance with the centerline pavement marking standards of the MUTCD. • Signs and landscape features proposed along the Project frontage and adjacent to existing and proposed driveways should be designed, constructed and maintained so as not to impede sight lines to and from the Project site driveway. Response: As shown on the current site plan, one way circulation is proposed and the one-way travel lane is a minimum of 16 feet in width. Appropriate signage and pavement markings, conforming to MUTCD standards, will be installed to control and direct traffic in a one-way circulation pattern. With the revised site plan, the conflicts on the site have been eliminated with vehicles entering the site from Osgood Street. Signs and landscape features proposed along the site frontage and adjacent to existing and proposed driveways will be designed, constructed and maintained so as not to impede sight lines to and from the site driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, BAYSIDE ENGINEERING, INC. P. IgG 1/ m ?enneth Director, Traffic Engineering �ft1!tAL cc: R. Barthelmes, Lynnfield Engineering J. Dirk, VAI