HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-09-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2010
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office
Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Richard Canale with members Charles
Hornig, Anthony Galaitsis, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and
Lori Kaufman present. Gregory Zurlo was absent.
**************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION****************************
PUBLIC HEARING
Stedman Road, definitive plan: Mr. Canale called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. In attendance
were Attorney Frederick Paulsen, and David Romero and Eric Nitche of Commonwealth Engineering,
with approximately 3 people in the audience.
Mr. Romero said the revised plans show the layout without the sidewalk, an 18-foot pavement width,
operation and maintenance plan for drainage, and a revised easement for the driveway (handed out at the
meeting) to allow vehicles to enter and turn around on the driveway. The new plan submitted would save
8-10 trees, provide substantial snow storage area, require a waiver for the berm curbing, and replace no
parking signs with no stopping and no turnaround signs. The slope details show stabilization for the 1:1
slope. Storm water issues have still not been addressed and the applicant will be going before the
Conservation Commission on June 22. Mr. Henry said he received comments from the Engineering
Department late today, and needed to review and discuss them with the Engineering Department.
Board comments:
Pass on storm water issues for now, since no updates were available at this time.
There was concern with the construction of the drain on the northern side of the property.
Construction phasing would need to be discussed with the school and should avoid trenching on a
school day.
The drainage from Farmcrest Avenue could run across Stedman Road but should not travel along
it.
What would be done with the old swale?
There is a steep slope on the south side of Farmcrest Avenue.
The walk way from Farmcrest Ave. to Marrett Road is not suitable for bikes, want stone dust not
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2010
cobble stone.
Normal tree protection would not work here; trees will get stressed but they want as much
protection for them as possible.
Stonewalls relocated should be rebuilt the same way.
Where would the signs for no turnaround and no parking be? Mr. Romero said they would be
placed closer to the entrance of the road.
Bike symbols with chevrons on pavement should be used.
Snow storage should not impinge on pathway. Mr. Romero said it would be hard to regulate, he
would be in touch with the school to identify the pathways.
Discussed the status of Stedman Road as a through street and discussed a waiver since it is not of
adequate grade and construction for safety issues. Want as little disturbance as possible.
Audience Comments:
Mr. Jerry Van Hook of the sidewalk and bicycle committees said this sounds very good and questioned if
the stabilization and continuation of the gravel path made sense. MMNHP uses this material with a 6%
maximum grade and hoped this would work, but if not the road should be paved, but liked the woodlands.
Mr. Henry said the material would be a question for Engineering.
Mr. Rob Hewett cited his letter requested waiving section 175-45, do not make Stedman Road a through
street but connect to Farmcrest Avenue.
Board Comments:
Stedman Road would be a dangerous intersection with Marrett Road due to angle of connection.
This could be a disaster to the environment and surrounding area if complete compliance were
required without waivers.
How would adequate grade from Stedman Road to Farmcrest Avenue be achieved?
Why not improve Steadman to Farmcrest and eliminate need for many waivers?
Need to minimize destruction and keep safe for the children.
Drainage was still a concern and the public hearing needed to be continued to get more data.
Waiver and adequate construction maybe discussed.
Mr. Henry will draft a proposed decision.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2010 Page 3
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday,
July 14, at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room.
***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE*****************
The Board will have the community meeting on Saturday, June 12. The working/planning session has
been moved to July 10 at the library.
Upcoming projects are 137-139 Shade Street, Wachusetts Drive, Laurel Street and Rockville Ave.
subdivision.
Ms. Manz will be out on August 4 and Mr. Galaitsis will check his availability for July 10.
*******************HARTWELL AVENUE TRANSPORTATION PLAN*******************
The Board discussed the reaction of the Board of Selectmen regarding Hartwell Avenue Transportation
Plan.
Board Comments:
The Board discussed what may be needed to do to get federal funding by the 2020 date.
There should be a meeting set up with the Board of Selectmen to do prioritizing on what
Lexington may need to do to get funds.
Should the Town be proactive or figure out another alternative to obtain funds. Perhaps the Town
could fund the three Massachusetts Avenue intersections for $10 million itself and go
aggressively after funding for the Hartwell Avenue area.
A new flyover from Rt.128, over the Town dump, with access only to Hartwell would be an
expensive but more effective way to provide long-term solutions (i.e., increase road capacity and
reduce impacts on nearby intersections) of increased development in the Hartwell area
The Board needed to articulate what would be desired for the Hartwell Avenue area down the
road.
The accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles were not well thought out.
The details of the improvements would be the expert’s job, the Board should decide what would
be the desired outcome from the project 10-15 years from now.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2010
TDM side needed to be discussed and justify the impact fees. How much it would cost and what
be gotten from it?
Establish the goals and principles, TMO district plan and guidance statement of work for 25%
design with a timeline.
We need to be at 25% design before getting into queue, flexibility and willingness to do some
funding locally and from the State and then determine what would most likely be funded at the
federal level.
Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Town Engineer was more optimistic and said that just because the project
was not in this year did not mean that can’t be in the following year. The TMOD would allow
development, not necessarily promote it.
The roadway capacity was not the barrier to development it was the regulations that limit.
Capacity was not bad, but congestion was an issue and design could help reduce congestion.
The transit piece needed to be addressed, which was missing some key points.
Parking had not been discussed and perhaps modifying the parking requirements by improving
incentives should be considered.
Improving number of trips during peak hours was only one piece, but the total number of daily
trips should be addressed.
Designs for multimodal mobility would need to be addressed along with the infrastructure.
Speed and liveabilty such as on Wood Street have to be considered.
How to move forward on this process was questioned. Should there be a considerable rewrite?
What does the Board hope to produce?
Take this document and figure out how it fits with Town Meeting charge.
Need cost estimates for the whole plan and better breakout where the monies come from.
Audience Comments:
Mr. Jerry Van Hook from Bicycle Committee, Sidewalk Committee and TMG said to start to get
the Federal Government involved since Lexington was unique as the bikeway goes right through
the center of town. On Wood Street provide bicycle access, as well as occasional cars with
narrow vehicular lanes, making it more comfortable for bikes and keep traffic at a reduced speed.
Peggy Enders, chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, underscored that the principles of lane
widths needed to be articulated and a bike lane standard created.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 9, 2010 Page 5
Board Comments:
Goals for traffic mode splits should be offered by a reduction in fees.
Can set incentives, but transit was so poor here. The goal was to encourage bringing in business
and good behavior, but they need to be able to get there.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk