Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 23, 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 Chairman Gregory Zurlo with members Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor and Aaron Henry present. Anthony Galaitsis was absent ********************HARTWELL AVENUE TRANSPORTATION PLAN********************* PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Zurlo announced that there are some unresolved issues with the plan and that there would be another hearing in September so that the Board could have more time to work on the plan. Tetra Tech presented the current plan, addressed comments received to date on the plan and gave a detailed explanation of the operational and safety benefits of roundabouts. Public Comments:  Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee offered comments on the Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan. They are seeking more detail with regard to the funding for and activities of the proposed Transportation Management Association (TMA). They would like to know what programs would be offered and at what cost. It was also suggested that TMA membership fees be paid in a lump sum upon project approval rather than making annual contributions.  Comparisons were made between proposed changes to Wood Street and the recent reconstruction of Spring Street. Ten foot travel lanes may slow traffic minimizing the difference between vehicle speeds and bike speeds.  Bike lanes should be added within the proposed roundabouts.  The downgrade on Winter Street as it approaches Bedford Street is dangerous when icy. Vehicles attempting to stop on Winter Street may slide into Bedford Street traffic.  Cost estimates for the proposed infrastructure improvements were questioned. (Concern is that they may be too low.)  David Kanter read a letter into the record. He would like to see more detail regarding estimated construction costs and to also include land taking costs in these estimates. The Town should plan for Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 unanticipated factors that will add to the construction costs. (Tetra Tech is providing updated estimates with additional detail to the Lexington DPW for review.)  Mr. Kanter asked that the written report for the project be updated and posted for review on the Town website well in advance of the September hearing.  The Boston Sports Club runs a summer camp for children. Traffic entering and exiting the camp at all hours of the day should be considered.  Will Bedford Street move south away from existing residences? The existing curb line will be held but a bike lane will be provided moving vehicular traffic away from residential properties and providing some additional space for vehicles turning in and out of driveways.  How will emergency vehicles be accommodated through the roundabouts? Traffic should be able to clear a path for emergency vehicles since there are no traffic lights to impede forward movement toward the curb line. Emergency vehicles can also drive over the apron of the center island.  Does traffic on Winter Street at Bedford Street warrant a signal? Traffic volumes on Winter Street barely meet the threshold for the Peak Hour Warrant during the AM peak hour. MassDOT generally looks to see that an Eight-Hour Warrant is met (rather than the Peak Hour Warrant) before installing a signal. Residents believe that traffic volumes would increase on Winter Street if a signal were installed as it would reduce delays and attract more cut-through traffic.  Set a design speed of 25 mph for Wood Street and then reconstruct the roadway to limit travel speeds to this level.  Concern raised regarding a Board comment made at a prior meeting suggesting that the study to date is seeking to merely set a budget for traffic mitigation and that the traffic mitigation plan itself may change going forward. Dick Thuma thinks that a lot of good work has been completed and that the elements of the current plan should be carried forward.  The Town has reconstructed other roadways without public input and without consideration of pedestrian and bicycle needs. This practice should stop.  The West Lexington Greenway and Minuteman Bike Path are key components of the transportation network and should be clearly included in all plans.  Reduce Lincoln Labs traffic on Wood Street. Don’t install signals at the two ends of Wood Street as this would enhance access to Lincoln Labs. Support the proposal to restrict turns at the northern end of Wood Street. Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 Page 3  Prioritize easy to complete elements of the plan. Quickly lower the speed limit on Wood Street and impose truck restrictions.  Eliminate the proposed bypass lanes on the Hartwell Avenue/Bedford Street roundabout. They allow for high speeds and would not permit safe pedestrian crossings. (A board member suggested that pedestrian crossings on the bypass lanes may need signalization.)  Concern expressed regarding the timing of State funding for proposed infrastructure improvements. What happens if the development occurs but the infrastructure does not immediately follow? Can we say “no” to development until the roadway work is completed?  Town meeting members need to be educated regarding the pros and cons of roundabouts.  Winter Street needs more attention in the study. The proposed roundabout on Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue will be too efficient in processing traffic leaving no gaps for traffic to exit Winter Street. Winter Street will need a signal. Signalization is now under consideration as are geometric changes at Winter Street along Bedford Street.  Concern for pedestrian safety on the departure legs of the roundabouts. Traffic is more likely to slow or stop for pedestrians on the entering legs.  Plans should accommodate recreational bikers not just commuters.  Congestion on Bedford Street is due in a large part to the first traffic signal in Bedford operating at capacity. This signal should be fixed.  A signal at Winter Street will attract cut-through traffic satisfying the signal warrant.  Add the suggested Bedford Street improvements at Winter Street to the overall Bedford Street improvement plan.  The existing lane drop on Bedford Street westbound is a congestion point limiting the flow into Bedford. The roundabout may operate more efficiently causing increased congestion and back-ups at intersections in Bedford.  The existing light at Hartwell Avenue on Bedford Street provides the only breaks in traffic sufficient to accommodate turns from Winter Street.  Bedford Street west of Hartwell Avenue has minimal sidewalks and it took the Town years to construct what is there. Why weren’t cement sidewalks built as in Bedford?  Pine Knoll Road experiences some of the same grade and access issues as Winter Street. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 Board Comments:  The Town Meeting vote made it clear that the Town wants more development on Hartwell Avenue. The Traffic Mitigation Plan needs to define ways to accommodate, not prevent, this development.  The Plan will seek to mitigate impacts and fairly distribute the costs of the mitigation.  The proposed mitigation is intended to benefit residents by accommodating commuter traffic on the major streets rather than have congestion force traffic into residential areas.  Going forward public comments should be addressed to the Board, not to the consultant.  Suggestion that we not get hung up on the details at this point. The details have not all been figured out yet. The final plan will need to entertain the concerns expressed by the public. It will address the issue of design speeds on area roadways.  The Board will look at costs more comprehensively. Will also explore all possible funding sources. Developers must pay their share but the Town, the Base and other state agencies may be able to contribute. At 9:45 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing without deliberation. They will have another public hearing on the TMOD plan in September. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** PUBLIC HEARING 147 Shade Street, Continued Public Hearing from May 26, 2010 for site sensitive development: The public hearing was opened at 9:50. Present were Mr. Fred Russell, the engineer, and property owners, Ms. Wendy Whu and Mr. Chen He. New plans were distributed and Mr. Russell walked through the changes, which included moving the location of the back house 5 feet further from the back lot line, a full width restoration of Shade Street, relocation of the infiltration structure, and changes in the limit of work (LOW) and the landscaping. Mr. Henry reported that there had been no comments from Engineering regarding drainage. Board Comments:  What were the distances from the oak tree? There was no further encroachment than the existing Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 Page 5 driveway and the infiltration structure was 25’ from the tree trunk.  Conservation has three standard options for tree protection and it was suggested that one of them be followed.  Rather than spend money for a full width reconstruction since the Town will be repaving the street next year, spend the money on landscaping.  The location of the water and electrical services seems to imperil the tree. These will be moved over.  While there will be a slight increase in the distance and speed the water flows, given its scale and the size of the watershed, it is not a concern. Public Comments: Mr. Zurlo said the Board had received and placed on file the letters from residents of 82, 84 and 88 Middle Street.  Requested additional set backs to preserve the tree canopy in the rear. Did the plans show the tree line or grass? The 30’ is a tree line.  The summer screening is adequate, but for the winter they would prefer more evergreens and increased setback. The noise from the highway is a concern. The money saved from resurfacing will be used to plan a back line of evergreens. The field placement will be done under the supervision of the planning staff.  What is the set back from the property line? It is 45’ from the back.  Concerns were expressed about saving the maximum number of trees. Further Board Comments:  Consider modifying the grade at the northwest corner to save the tree.  Are there foundation drains or sump pumps? Foundation drains  None of the water should be daylighted. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to close the public hearing and begin deliberations. The Board discussed the application. The homes are to be built in close compliance to the plans, which Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 means a 31½’ height limit and adhering to the footprints shown. The applicant had said the foot prints shown were what would be built or they would come back to the Board for a revision. Members agreed with waving the full width reconstruction of the road as the street will be repaved by the Town next year. The cost savings are to go to landscaping to buffer the rear lot lines. They wanted to see an effort to save the trees at the far corners which would require tweaking of the grading plan. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to approve the special permit with site plan review for a site sensitive development to be built in accordance with the plans submitted and the special conditions put forward. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to approve the subdivision plan. Centre Street, Street Improvement Plan – The applicant was seeking direction as to which street improvement plan to pursue. Board members indicated they preferred to minimize the disturbance but at the same time this is a street providing frontage, not just a driveway. Members agreed that the mid-range plan was preferred. Sheridan Street, Street Determination – In 2007 the town paved the road and it is still in excellent condition except for a grate that is a hazard to bicyclists. If the grate is within the portion that is a private way, it should be raised and replaced; otherwise it should be brought to the attention of the town. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0 to determine that Sheridan Street, in the vicinity of 9 Sheridan Street, is presently of adequate and construction to provide for the needs of the vehicular traffic and for the installation of municipal services in relation to the proposed use, subject to the condition that any street openings required for the proposed use of the parcel shall be repaired in accordance with the standards typically required for a public way. In accordance with § 175-30 of the Planning Board Development Regulations, the Board waived the requirement for a definitive street construction plan as it was unnecessary given the excellent condition of the road. Minutes for the Meeting of June 23, 2010 Page 7 177 Grove Street, Surety Agreement – On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to modify the tri-partite agreement by reducing the original $93,075 to no less than 15 percent of that amount. **************************************MINUTES************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for May 26, 2010, June 9, 2010 and June 16, 2010 as amended. ********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE******************** Election of Officers – The floor was opened for nominations and Mr. Hornig nominated the current officers for a second term – Mr. Zurlo as chair, Mr. Canale as vice chair and Mr. Galaitsis as clerk. There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed. The slate of officers was elected by a vote of 4-0. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to continue the same committee representative/liaison assignments as follows: Mr. Hornig to the Conservation Committee and the Historical Commission; Ms. Manz to the Community Preservation Committee, Historic Districts Commission, Housing Partnership Board and the Lexington Center Committee; Mr. Zurlo to the Design Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Advisory Committee; Mr. Galaitsis to the Energy Conservation Committee and the Noise Advisory Committee; and, Mr. Canale to Hanscom Area Towns Committee, Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee, Sidewalk Committee, Transportation Advisory Committee, Traffic Mitigation Group, Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and the Vision 2020 Executive Committee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk