Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-15-CSDRC-min Town of Lexington Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee August 15, 2016 Parker Room, 8:00 am to 10:00 am Meeting Notes Attendees: Howard Levin (chair), Victoria Buckley, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Anne Eccles, Peggy Enders, John Frey, Jon Himmel, Wendall Kalsow,Timothy Lee, Pam Shadley, Elaine Doran, Wendy Manz, Glenn Parker, David Wells, Ada Wong Others present: David Kucharsky (Planning), Megan Zammuto (Economic Development), Richard Murray Davis, Gerry Paul, Mark Connor, Margaret Sharfin, Elizabeth Brach The meeting was called to order at 8 am and was devoted principally to discussion of First Tier Response draft recommendations regarding Center Streetscape sidewalks and lighting. Copies of each draft report were handed out, as was a revised agenda. SIDEWALKS Jon Himmel introduced the draft Sidewalk reporton behalf of the subgroup, reviewing the five areas where the subgroup made recommendations: Sidewalk Pavement; Handicapped Curb Ramps; Crosswalks; and Oversight.The presentation and subsequent discussion included the following comments: In addition to the standards set by the Brick Institute (affiliated with the University of Pittsburg, asuggestion was made that those of the Bethesda Institute be checked, as well. The Sidewalk Pavement section K is incomplete; the materials need to be specified. Concern was expressed about the Handicapped Curb Ramp recommendations and tripping hazardsassociated with the brick. The recommendation is to use the lightest of the pallet brick colors for contrast with the sidewalk brick. Pam commented that two tactile ramps are preferred, and said this area needs more discussion to avoid confusing the design. Handicapped ramps that are bricked “need delineation around the whole thing,” since the visually impaired look for contrast and this is also important at night. In terms of the brick selection process, it was agreed that the DPW would need some direction. Jon said it was important toask the town “to do forensics”on the brick installed in front of Michelson's, as is recommended in the draft (Notes, Section d).Pam said the disconnect was with the public’s understanding 1 of what was planned for the south side sidewalk and the writing of the specifications.Victoria said specs had called for non-beveled, non- chamfer brick, and beveled was installed. She mentioned a variety of issues with that sidewalk, including drainage, and said it was another example of the importance of the appointment of an oversight group. Concerns about costswere discussed; the committee may be asked to specify which sections of the Center Streetscapeare the most important; the Selectmen will have to give direction on this. Victoria said that there would need to be enough in the budget for twice-yearly maintenance. Jon pointed out that the Oversight Item d calls for a mockup “withfull construction section for the sidewalk,” and underItem e, a web based smart phone feedback systemto report sidewalk issues.He said that, in 2014 according to an FST report, the town spent$20/square footannually for sidewalk repair.David Kucharsky clarified that the FST prioritized all the sidewalks in town, rating themhigh/medium/low priority.Based on that report, the Town addressesthose issues in order, he said. Glenn Parker recommended that the Committee construct an alternate plan (“Plan B”), given budget constraints.He mentioned the app SeeClickFix as a good tool to report potholes, broken signs, etc. Gerry Paul suggested that the sidewalk improvements bedone incrementally, or to install a “selective swath” instead of re-doing the entire sidewalk at once. Howard said phasing the project as a matter of cost control would also be less disruptive. A suggestion was made that the area between Wallace Court and Woburn Street be done with the concrete/brick sidewalk design as a cost-cutting measure. A member commented that “being asked to come up with a Plan B is premature and beyond the scope of the committee.” Wendell commented that a number of cost cutting measures might include having bituminous concrete outside the main area; not cutting down all the trees; picking amenities that are less expensive than what is shown in the Beta plan; and having as much brick as the budget affords. Jon commented that Beta developed a budget estimate in their 25 per cent plan. Lighting, for example, is about 20% of the project. He recommended a separate section in the report on cost control, not doing line item cost control in the Sidewalk section. Pam said the subcommittee felt the brick should be 100% from the statue to the area near the post office.And then from there to Woburn Street, options would include all concrete; all asphalt;brick with a border options.She said the committeecould recommend making those sidewalks wider with a brick edge, to tie the downtown to that side together. Wendell suggested some report edits: under sidewalk pavement E, add "or appropriate material."Under Oversight D, might request twomock-ups instead of one, so that one is field and the other is of a curb cut 2 area.Perhaps bigger than 8x8, as well.Footnote on page 4, "repairs done" instead of "remedied". Peggy suggested that on page 1of report the meaning of the expression “meticulously maintained” be clarified. Wendell talked about the importance of brick installation, what it requires when it’s set on a bituminous base versus a sand base. A rigid base --for example, the brick at Rowe’s Wharf --requires much less maintenance. It was suggested that a definition of the types of brick –and the pros and cons of the various types –be provided in the report. The more information that’s provided, the more understanding of and support for the recommendations. Jon said that report sections will need to be coordinated, since there will be effects on the sidewalk from other aspects of the design(for instance, trees). LIGHTING Howard began the discussion of the lighting recommendations by saying that, unlike sidewalks in the town center, there is no real historic precedent for lighting. To what extent, he asked, do we want to be “pseudo-historical,” faithful to the Sasaki vision, or to make it functional for now? Pam Shadleypresented the Lighting recommendations on behalf of the subgroup. She reviewed the performance standards on the first page of the handout, including: IESNA standards, based on the volume of traffic. Correct illumination at crosswalks.Necessary for vehicular areas, pedestrian areas as well. LED bulbs have become warmer. Stay within3000-3500Kelvin range; the higher you go the bluer you go.Higher Kelvin washes things out. Lighting is expensive; if you want to reduce costs, reduce number of poles. All poles should be black; DPW can always get black paint.Stainless steel is not recommended. Focus attention on pedestrian scale light --similar to one on north side of Mass Ave. Comments during the presentation included: Howard mentioned the issue of thelack oflightat Emery Park (illus page 6),Pam replied that the report does not recommend these be replaced. Does the committee needto be true with respect to all the Sasaki elements? For example, is it better to have fewer but taller lights 3 overhead? The Sasaki lights were popular at the time when the Center was done, it was a fad at the time. Mark said that the value of the Sasaki light is that it’s unique; the light is placed in a specific period of time. Pros and cons of staggering lights on both sides of the street, or leaving them on one side, were discussed. For example, more poles meanmore sidewalk obstruction. David Wellssaid he never noticed high lights in the center.These would be very appropriate at crosswalks.The fact that they're different, doesn't make a difference. Pam said that the goal should be that the roadway lights, that the light source isn’t seen.With pedestrianlights,the light source should be seen, Jon said that the fully burdened value of lights is $1.8 million.We should have a lighting consultant, rather than depending on the roadway designer.Lightshave such a profound effect on evening/nighttime.Beta should be encouraged to hire a sub-consultant, to ensure the most optimal design for street lighting. He agreed with others that, looking forward environmentally, the Dark Sky issue needs to be addressed. Wendell observed that Sasaki lights are not a shielded light, “they were lighting the whole world.” Pam mentioned that the LED Minimal roadway light (illus page 3), can have apedestrian light attached to it at the 13-foot height. This would be acost savings. With respect to staggering lights on both sides versus one-sidedlighting, Pam suggested that the consultant be asked to model both.Howard said he will ask John Livsey to bring in a lighting consultant or ask that the follow-up group oversee the choice of lighting. Opinions about the various design options included the following Pendant design just adds more clutter; Eclectic is interesting, mixinglightsisn't a problem; The Spring City fixture is interesting, owing to Dark Skies effect, but it's not being recommended for the Streetscape; The Sasaki light (page 4), can represent a cost savings, keeping the same ones; the top panel could be opaqueto reduce sky lighting.(The panel would have a detrimental effect to appearance.) Some concern was expressed about what the HDCposition would be; In terms of the two lights, the detail of the light on page 5 (the light at the Town Offices) is more traditional. There is currently a revival of mid-century appreciationSasaki picked a lantern-shaped figure,it was a nod toward historic character of the town. Howard asked for a straw vote of the Committee: The committee was unanimous in its choice of the light shown on page 3 for Roadway Lighting (the LED Minimal Roadway Light Fixture). 4 For pedestrian lighting, the committee wasunanimous in its choice of the “Sasaki-derivative light” shown on page 4 versus the more traditional Spring City light (page 5). Howard said that a lighting consultant/designer needed to brought into the project to give appropriate attention to issues such as moonlighting, up-lighting, and downlighting. Peggy said that the needs of bicyclists who ride through the Center at should be considered along with pedestrians and motorists, both in terms of lighting that helps them see as well asbe seen. Mark Connor said that the lighting designer needs an actual “client;” this would help the design review process. Howard said he hoped to schedule apublic hearing in early September, after Labor Day, perhaps during the week of September 12. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 23. Peggy Enders, Recorder 5