Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20090413 - Planning Board - Meeting MinutesHOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Fire Station – 73 Main St. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Abate, Chairman, Joe Markey, Vice Chairman, Sandy K. Altamura, Carol DeVeuve, John Coolidge, Jaime Goncalves, David Auslander, Ken Weismantel, Claire Wright ……. Elaine Lazarus, Planning Director ……. Cobi Wallace, Administrative Assistant 1. Public Hearings – (1) 30 North Mill St. – Scenic Road Application; (2) 30 North Mill St. – Definitive Subdivision Plan – Christian Nealon Christian Nealon, applicant, Tim Nealon, attorney, and David Marquedant, surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Tim Nealon stated he is here to represent the applicant. He stated Judith Schmitz, wetlands expert, is also here to answer questions if needed. Mr. Tim Nealon stated the applicant originally discussed a conventional subdivision plan with the Board, but due to the size of the parcel, an OSLPD application had to be filed. He stated the Board rejected the plan based on the nature of the future open space parcel. He stated the current application proposes to create one single building lot with access from North Mill St., a public way. He stated that instead of building a road in compliance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the applicant proposes a 12 ft. wide driveway that would follow an existing cart path. He noted the Nealons propose to set aside 7 acres of permanent open space and are currently talking to Sudbury Valley Trustees, who will walk the site within the next few days. He stated he feels this is a very good use for the land, which would restrict development to just one home and a barn with a driveway using an existing cart path. He noted the applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) which was well received by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Tim Nealon stated the NOI hearing was continued, but he is confident the application will be approved as submitted due in part to the applicant’s efforts in protecting wetlands and buffer zones. Mr. Tim Nealon stated they are requesting a number of waivers from the Subdivision Rules & Regulations because they propose to build a driveway instead of a 20 ft. wide paved subdivision road to provide access to the house and barn. Ms. Altamura asked about the length of the proposed driveway. It was stated that it would be 660 ft. from North Mill St. to the house. Mr. Abate stated this is a combined scenic road and subdivision hearing and asked whether the applicant wants to discuss both issues together. Mr. Tim Nealon responded yes, and Mr. Abate asked that the applicant address the scenic road application first. Mr. Tim Nealon explained the scenic road opening. He stated there is no need to disturb the existing stone wall but there are a couple of large trees that need to be removed to accommodate the access way. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 2 Ms. Altamura asked if it is possible to shift the driveway to save the trees. Mr. Nealon replied no, because of the wetlands. Ms. Altamura asked about shifting the road in the other direction. Mr. Nealon stated it would encroach on an existing septic system. Ms. Altamura stated the ash tree is diseased but the oak is basically healthy except for some trunk wounds, and possibly shifting the driveway a little could save the tree. Ms. Wright stated the ash is dying but the oak is fairly healthy. She stated this is a big, old tree which significantly contributes to the scenic quality of North Mill St. and does not seem to block anything. She stated she cannot see taking down a basically healthy tree if not absolutely necessary. Ms. Altamura stated the proposed development involves only one house. Ms. DeVeuve stated she thinks the issue is the turning radius for emergency vehicles. Mr. Marquedant stated they might be able to change the curb line to save the tree. Ms. Altamura stated the tree should only be removed as a last resort. Mr. Tim Nealon referred to a waiver request with respect to drainage. He stated there will be roof infiltration drains and there would not be sheet flow leaving the site in the direction of North Mill St. Ms. Wright stated it appears Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST), the Board’s engineer, did not have information regarding actual flow. Mr. Tim Nealon stated they are looking for a waiver of sidewalk requirements because the driveway will only serve one house. He stated they are requesting a waiver of the design standards for road construction and stormwater drainage requirements because the bulk of the property (7 acres) will remain unchanged. He referred to a request to waive monuments and proposed to install iron pins to mark the boundary line with an abutter and the open space parcel only. He also asked for a waiver of the requirement for as-built plans and submission of an environmental analysis. He stated Ms. Schmitz is able to answer questions regarding impact on wetlands. Mr. Tim Nealon stated the plan also needs a waiver regarding length of dead-end street. He referred to the open space parcel and the size of the development and noted the plan will have minimal impact on the wetlands. He discussed the nature of the retaining wall proposed along the driveway and asked for a waiver of the requirement that it be designed by a structural engineer. He stated the applicants might use different materials based on what can be seen from the street and the house and would like the Board to keep in mind that the road will be privately maintained. He stated the owners will also install markers indicating wetland boundaries and the limit of construction within a certain distance from the wetlands. Mr. Weismantel stated he is in support of the proposed development of this property as discussed in preliminary meetings with the Board and the OSLPD filing which was denied. He stated trees slated for removal were not marked on site, but he was able to figure it out by process of elimination. He stated he thought the Tree Warden was supposed to mark the trees proposed for removal. He stated the Board has seen this plan several times now and hoped at the next hearing all paperwork and waiver requests will be straightened out. He stated he was surprised to see that so much documentation was missing after the amount of guidance given by the Board. He stated there was not a lot of value in the submitted materials. It was noted that the applicants would like to start building soon, and Mr. Weismantel stated the construction season is almost here and he does not want to drag this out. He noted the key issues are a waiver from the dead- end street length requirement in exchange for open space, what entity will have the conservation Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 3 restriction and how they would get access to the parcel. He stated the property is subject to the stormwater regulations via the wetlands regulations under the Conservation Commission and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations under the Planning Board. He noted the Conservation Commission has done more work in this area and should take the lead in this respect. He asked the Planning Director what will trigger authorization to build the lot and by whom. He added he does not want this to be an unresolved question resulting in more delays. Mr. Weismantel stated he does not have a problem waiving the requirement for boundary markers along the driveway, and markers between adjacent lots and between the building lot and the open space parcel should be sufficient. Mr. Abate stated he is concerned about the lack of fire suppression and bothered by what the Acting Fire Chief Ken Clark’s letter does not say. Ms. Wright asked whether there are hydrants in North Mill St., and it was noted North Mill St. does not have municipal water. Mr. Tim Nealon stated this is common for a lot of rural Hopkinton roads. Mr. Abate asked about a cistern. Mr. Goncalves questioned the need for a cistern for just one single family home. Ms. Wright stated it would not hurt to talk to the Fire Department. Mr. Abate stated it does not appear that Mr. Clark in his letter has signed off on anything. Mr. Weismantel stated there are 40+ homes along North Mill St. and none of them have fire protection. He stated the Board has heard him talk about the benefits of providing Town water to new development, but this is not one of those cases and there is a pond nearby. Mr. Weismantel stated water for fire fighting will probably come from Cold Spring Brook. Ms. DeVeuve stated the Board required fire suppression in the case of the Drowne Family subdivision. Mr. Weismantel stated the Drowne Family subdivision is a multi home development. Mr. Abate stated that makes no difference because fire suppression is fire suppression and he wants to hear Mr. Clark’s opinion. It was suggested that the Board invite Mr. Clark to a meeting to discuss the issue. Mr. Markey stated Mr. Clark is doing what is in his jurisdiction and he doesn’t think the Board has to escalate this matter to a joint meeting with the Acting Fire Chief because the Board can address this issue through an approval condition. Ms. DeVeuve stated she does not see a difference between the Drowne Family subdivision and this proposal. She stated she feels it is worth talking with Mr. Clark and there should be some degree of fire protection such as sprinklers, as she is not comfortable with having nothing at all. Mr. Goncalves stated a lot of homes in Hopkinton are like this, and Ms. DeVeuve stated she is not sure whether that standard is acceptable at this stage. Ms. Altamura stated in the Drowne case the nearest pond was too far away. Ms. Wright recommended scheduling a discussion some evening with Fire Department officials to find out what they feel is needed. She stated the Board has vague letters from the Fire Department and she would like to hear from them what exactly they would do. Mr. Markey stated education from the Fire Department is great but the Planning Board has the authority to impose conditions. Ms. DeVeuve stated the application has a lot of pending items and there is time for a discussion with Fire Department officials. Mr. Goncalves stated he would like to get the Fire Department’s expertise. Ms. DeVeuve referred to the Conservation Commission and FST comments and recommendations. She stated the Conservation Commission letter states the project is exempt from DEP stormwater standards but FST says the proposed system shall be designed in accordance with stormwater standards. Ms. Lazarus stated the Subdivision Rules and Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 4 Regulations are under the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and any subdivision has to comply with the requirements whether or not it is within the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction. The applicant requested an extension of time for the Board to act on the scenic road application. The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearings for the 30 North Mill St. subdivision and scenic road application to May 11, 2009 at 8:30 P.M. 2. Continued Public Hearing – Master Plan Special Permit Application – East Main St., Clinton St., Frankland Rd., Wilson St. – Legacy Farms, LLC – Topic: Traffic Steven Zieff, Boulder Capital, and Richard Holworth and Robert Nagi, Vanhasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), appeared before the Board. Mr. Abate stated the Board would like to finish the traffic/transportation topic this evening or maybe continue it one more meeting, but the goal is to start finishing up this topic so that they can move on to the next element of the application. Mr. Markey asked whether the Board prefers to address the Route 135/Route 85 intersection in more detail or review easier intersections which will also be affected by the Legacy Farms development. He stated sequence might make a difference in the efficiency of the review process and they may be able to check off other intersections in order to finish up the traffic topic faster. Mr. Abate stated the Board should recognize it is talking about a Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) application, not individual site plan review, and recommended looking at the traffic topic in a more holistic way, staying away from granular details because they will look at this in more detail if and when the applicant comes with individual site plan review applications. Mr. Markey stated the Board does not have details on what exactly is going to be built and as a group should keep in mind what conditions they are talking about for the intersections. Mr. Weismantel stated at the end of the process the Board owes the applicant and the Town a definition of the worst case scenario and a summary of what might need to be done. He stated the Board and applicant need to know what their limits and expectations are. He stated the Board needs to design for the worst case, particularly for intersections outside of the limits of Legacy Farms (the Board will be able to deal with those through subdivision and site plan review), encourage the staff to work on legal wording to allow site plan review for off-site areas at a later date agreeable to the applicant, and, as the Board comes to a consensus, start drafting that section of the Special Permit while it is still fresh in the Board’s mind and present draft language at the next meeting for review. Ms. Lazarus stated the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) application offers the only opportunity for the Board to look at the impact of the entire development in terms of needed off- site mitigation. She stated the Board can look at the details for a particular site plan later but cannot leave determination of off-site mitigation to the end. Ms. Altamura stated this is a long term development plan which will take 10 years or more to finish. She asked if the Town will have recourse if somewhere down the line, for instance, it turns out back roads start taking on a lot more traffic but the Board has not addressed that possibility. She asked if in situations like that the Town can then require a traffic light at problem intersections. Ms. Lazarus stated this can be addressed through a MPSP condition Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 5 requiring periodic checks for monitoring purposes and it will have to be decided what to do with that information. Mr. Abate stated they should look at off-site impacts now but look at it broadly to see which major roadways in Town will be most impacted by Legacy Farms, go from there and refine the discussion later. Mr. Zieff noted the important aspect of the traffic/transportation issue is that all parties share the same concerns and are all in it together. He stated it is important that transportation works effectively for the Town and the Legacy Farms development, but he wants to talk in general terms now and look at specifics later. He noted they have been proposing regular monitoring, annually and in connection with every phase that comes back before the Board. Mr. Zieff stated that back in 2007 FST and VHB talked and together with Town officials came up with a model traffic generation potential as a result of the Legacy Farms development. Mr. Zieff stated the applicant realizes there are other traffic generators and growth potential might change, but proposes this base line to show what they think will happen. He noted they talked to the legal people at Goulston & Storrs and Miyares & Harrington to figure out how this would work to the benefit of the Town and provide clarity for Legacy Farms. He noted that one of the things brought up by Mr. Nagi is how estimates will coincide with actual activity as it relates to off-site conditions. He added on-site issues are easier to handle and asked whether the Planning Board has the authority and scope for off-site conditions. Mr. Zieff stated the traffic experts have done a good job analyzing concerns in Hopkinton and adjacent towns. He stated he thinks they have addressed everybody’s concerns and hope to turn the traffic estimates into a model so they can provide necessary mitigation. He added he thinks Mr. Nagi and Mr. Moseley have created a projection that is more conservative than what will actually happen. Mr. Zieff stated other issues such as geometric requirements, sight distance and the pedestrian connection from the development to Ray St. will be discussed later. Mr. Nagi stated the monitoring program is the easiest thing to tackle. He noted the project will be built out in increments enabling them to report on a prior phase as they come back with each new site plan. He stated for the initial phase of the project there will be no preceding traffic impact data but there will be some predictions. He stated if the next phase does not take place within a year, then that particular phase will have actual vs. estimated numbers so they can make adjustments and consecutive phases will always provide the ability to look back and re-project the numbers. He stated they will also be able to do actual on-the-ground traffic counts and determine Level of Service (LOS) numbers and impact on the local street network. He noted this will give them an idea what type of improvements will be needed. He added he does not think Legacy Farms will generate the amount of traffic mentioned in the first transportation report and for which they are planning. Mr. Markey asked about simple improvements such as crosswalk striping which are things the Board wants done early on in the project for immediate benefit even if not actually triggered until later. Mr. Nagi referred to a February 3, 2009 document responding to FST’s comments. He stated he would like to refer Mr. Markey’s question to Mr. Zieff but does not see why minor items cannot be done right away. Mr. Zieff stated he sees no problem as long as it can be Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 6 coordinated with other activities like the downtown re-signalization, fits in with the schedule and is incremental in nature. Mr. Weismantel referred to the proposed monitoring program. He stated that Legacy Farms is allowed to have a restaurant but might not get one right away, resulting in a first phase of the project without this use. He asked how the Town would look at the fact that it could end up with the restaurant at some point because it is a permitted use and mitigation is needed because of the strong potential. Mr. Nagi stated they would have to come back and make changes to the site plan, and he does not think they can swap out a use. Mr. Weismantel stated conversely there are a lot of assumptions regarding pending projects in abutting towns beyond the Town’s control. He noted a 500-unit project in Ashland is off for now but something like that still might happen in the future and then the Town will be stuck. Mr. Nagi stated from his perspective site improvements are not triggered by phase or by trip generation numbers but by how much traffic a project actually is generating in the downtown area. Mr. Nagi stated if the intersection rating goes from Level of Service (LOS) E to LOS F, the requirement for improvements will technically be triggered but in the meantime they will monitor how traffic is actually growing in the downtown area. He stated the monitoring process is important and will follow the impact of the Legacy Farms development as well as other area background activity. Ms. Altamura stated that even before one single unit is sold, there will be a lot of construction traffic, and traffic conditions in Town will take a nose dive. Mr. Nagi stated traffic monitoring will include construction traffic in addition to residential and commercial. He noted construction traffic will be temporary but the development will take a long time and there will be several construction periods. He suggested reporting back to the Board periodically to determine whether a threshold has been reached and decide on improvement measures if needed. He noted they want to monitor all main roads right now but will come back to the Board to address unforeseen elements and, if any of the side streets are more significantly impacted than anticipated, they will identify the reason and try to find a solution. Mr. Auslander stated the fear is that there will be a negative impact right away which will get worse. Mr. Abate stated it appears they are too busy analyzing numbers to look at solutions. Ms. Altamura stated she lives on a busy street with a lot of truck traffic and this could be a horror. She noted if the northern spine road is built first, the Board could include a condition that trucks should use it instead of Main St. because otherwise the center of town could be paralyzed. Mr. Zieff noted the development site has most of the raw earth materials on site so there won’t be a need to truck in gravel and loam but other items like concrete and lumber will have to be brought in. Ms. Altamura stated she would like to see this issue addressed at some point in the Board’s decision in order to prevent gridlock downtown. Mr. Weismantel stated he has no problem with the monitoring/prediction plan that uses a Legacy Farms trip number as a basis. He stated he thinks when the development nears completion and the applicant feels no additional mitigation is needed, they would end up asking the Planning Board to release them from requirements deemed necessary now. He stated trying to implement a formula will end up being very complicated. He noted some of the mitigation needs to be done right away but the intent is to impact the downtown intersection once or twice but not more. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 7 Mr. Zieff stated if the criteria are based on trip generation and the threshold is never reached, there will be no need for another hearing. Mr. Weismantel stated he is not just worried about Legacy Farms but also about the upcoming activities in surrounding towns five years or so from now. Mr. Zieff stated this goes to the issue of where Legacy Farms’ obligation ends and other parties’ responsibility starts. He stated Ashland and Southborough feel the development will impact their towns and they would like Legacy Farms to work with them. He noted it was felt Legacy Farms would have a 2 to 3% impact and they are willing to do their part to the extent they can. Mr. Markey stated the ultimate buildout is not known and the Planning Board’s approval is based on different tiers. He noted approval conditions should address improvements up front and they should not wait until the project is built out. Mr. Weismantel stated they should make the improvements as soon as the need for these is triggered. Mr. Nagi showed an older presentation board used during the Legacy Farms rezoning effort. He stated Route 135 will see the bulk of traffic impact, especially in the beginning. He noted they had talked about doing the southern spine road first and as suggested by the Police Chief install the street signal at that time to be activated when needed. Mr. Abate stated the Planning Board would prefer the northern spine road put in early on in the development as it would alleviate the traffic impact. Mr. Zieff stated the Host Community Agreement (HCA) asks for implementation of downtown signalization improvements which would put the Town in good shape, but now it appears the Planning Board is looking for Legacy Farms to build the northern spine road first. Mr. Abate stated the Board would like to see the connection from East Main St. to Route 85 as soon as Legacy Farms starts putting in roads and infrastructure. Ms. Altamura stated the northern spine road should be built early on in order to take a certain amount of traffic off Route 135. Mr. Weismantel stated he feels if the northern spine road is put in too soon, it would starve the downtown of business traffic. Ms. Altamura stated she cannot imagine it would hurt downtown business and it is not like they are talking about shutting down Route 135 going through the center of Hopkinton. Mr. Goncalves stated construction traffic coming off of Route 9 will have a problem coming down Route 85 because of the low bridge in Southborough. Ms. Altamura stated it appears that trucks will have to go through the downtown intersection. Mr. Nagi stated he thinks most heavy earth moving traffic will traverse East Main St. between the north and south portions of the property, and other things such as concrete or lumber deliveries will have to use the local street network. Mr. Zieff stated Southborough feels the low bridge on Route 85 will shield them from an increase in truck traffic. He stated they anticipate a certain amount of construction traffic and are trying to figure out how to deal with it. He noted starting with the northern spine road will be expensive and controlling the roadway including speed monitoring will also be an issue. He stated they always planned to start the development on the south side of the property as shown in the MPSP but if the Town prefers the north spine road to be done first they might have to go back and reconsider that some aspects of the planned mitigation approach might not be right. Mr. Markey stated the approach is good with signal improvements as agreed in the Host Community Agreement. He stated a discussion is now Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 8 opening up with respect to the timing of the northern spine road and people need clarity and have to be comfortable with what will trigger construction of the northern spine road. Mr. Zieff stated Legacy Farms contemplates 9 distinct construction phases. He noted there are 5 phases associated with the MPSP including the southern spine road, some of the construction associated with the south side development, and the new Village Center. He stated the phasing schedule was adjusted to start with sections adjacent to existing public ways and water and wastewater treatment facilities. He stated the commercial elements are mostly on the northern section of the property and the majority of the trip generation is from the East Main St. commercial development, Weston Nurseries Village Center and Legacy Park. He stated the residential portion of the development on the north side will work out ok with a lot of empty nesters and snowbirds generating fewer traffic trips than residents of single family subdivisions. Mr. Markey stated with respect to approval conditions the Board needs to know the three buildout scenarios and, if it turns out Mr. Zieff is right and the south side development does not trigger the need for improvements right away, should be prepared to put some type of stake in the ground about the timing of construction of the northern spine road because of more traffic on Routes 135 and 85. Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., questioned how the development is going to be revenue-positive from the beginning. He stated the Legacy Farms development was presented to the Town as being revenue positive. Mr. Abate stated it is a good question but the Board needs to focus on the traffic at this meeting. Mr. Zieff stated the new Weston Nurseries Village Center and East Main St. commercial area will provide tax revenue. He noted they have to talk about identifying a credible trigger for the need of construction of the northern spine road. Mary Arnaut, 51 Teresa Rd., asked where the spine road will intersect with East Main St. It was noted it is in the Peach St. area. Ms. Arnaut referred to proposed roadway widening in the downtown area that would eliminate several parking spaces along Main St. and the objections to this proposal from neighbors and businesses. She stated she hopes the Board will not go along with this as it will negatively impact downtown businesses and asked what the Board’s position is. Ms. Arnaut asked if the Board will commit now that it will make sure there will be no property takings as it probably would evolve that way. Mr. Abate stated that ultimately some parking spaces in the downtown area will go away as a result of restriping. Ms. Arnaut asked if this has been decided already. Mr. Abate stated that so far it is just a proposal and no one has made the decision, but eliminating spaces will be inevitable. He stated he is not in any position to speak to the question regarding the possibility of eminent domain. Jim Schroeder, 15 College St., asked for an executive summary of what actually will trigger the proposed improvements. Mr. Zieff stated someone hacked in to the Legacy Farms website so it had to be shut down, but copies of the transportation report are available at the Library and the Planning Department. Ms. Lazarus stated the information is also available electronically and can be emailed. Mr. Goncalves stated the triggers have not been set yet and nothing is set in stone. He stated these are proposals and the Board has not had a chance to make decisions. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 9 Mary Pratt, 102 Fruit St., member of the Bd. of Selectmen speaking as an individual, stated there is no need to eliminate parking spaces or widen roads and referred to other cities and towns such as Boston, Westborough and Needham as examples. Mr. Markey stated they have not agreed on what will trigger the proposed improvements, but he would hate to see parking spaces eliminated. Jennifer Lund, 15 College St., addressed the Board. She referred to two articles, one from Newsweek and the other from Scientific American, distributed by her to the Board that explain that closing streets will speed up urban travel and avoid traffic jams. She stated the applicant and Board members are focusing on how to move cars through Hopkinton faster while they should be concerned about protecting Hopkinton. She stated the applicant’s proposal will not work. She stated it will devitalize downtown, and commuters, new residents and everybody else, will use the town as a cut-through. Mr. Nagi stated these are just proposals and some of them tend to have a polarizing effect. It was noted that the downtown improvements under the Host Community Agreement are already happening without adding one single trip from the new development and proposed full build-out level improvements include the elimination of parking spaces. He referred to Mr. Weismantel’s comment suggesting they reopen the special permit when the project is about done and re- evaluate the need for full build-out mitigation. He noted these are the options on the table and they can assign specific trigger thresholds or use a sliding graph with a wide margin of numbers. Fred Moseley, FST, Traffic Engineer, stated he understands the concept of the sliding graph, and the conditions on the ground can be reviewed as the project builds out. He stated there are a lot of assumptions and maybe conditions will not deteriorate as much as anticipated, thereby eliminating the need for intrusive improvements. Mr. Markey asked if this means there is a way to address this in an upfront condition in the MPSP or whether the Board should require the applicant to come back to assess the actual impact and decide later. Ms. Altamura stated this should be addressed to some extent in the Decision as long as there is flexibility. Mr. Markey stated this is the time to condition off-site impact of the overall project and he does not want the Planning Board to miss this opportunity. Mr. Abate stated when the Board is finished it should ask the experts to come back. Ms. Wright stated the Planning Board at that point can look at the conditions on the ground which might be livable even if it looks awful on paper. Mr. Nagi stated they tackled the Route 135/Route 85 intersection first which is the hardest while others are more simplistic. Ms. Wright asked what was agreed on regarding the immediate improvements at the intersection. She noted a “smart” light is good but conditions at 2 o’clock in the morning are not the problem. She emphasized the need for green arrow turning lights for opposing turns. Mr. Nagi stated there were two options, including (1) the HCA option with in-kind, state-of the- art equipment with flexible timing for peak and off-peak hours, and (2) a (Town) option allowing green arrow, north/south movement which sacrifices some efficiency but provides more safety. It was noted that split phasing is the preferred option. Ms. Wright asked if people trying to make Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 10 a turn will have assistance of the traffic light, and Mr. Nagi responded yes. Ms. Pratt stated that cameras are also needed, not just split phasing. Dale Danahy, Colella’s Supermarket, stated the re-signalization is supposed to be done this year. Mr. Zieff stated the design was submitted a while ago and the go-ahead has not yet been given. Mr. Holworth stated they wanted to wait until after the Marathon and substantial progress was made with further improvements but the design has not yet been released. Ms. Lazarus stated it is a DPW/Board of Selectmen issue and she does not know whether there is a firm date, although both entities are working on it. Mr. Gaucher stated they are waiting for VHB and FST’s comments, but once the design is released, the work will go out for bid and a decision will be made on standard vs. ornamental poles. Mr. Nagi stated they are working on it and the bottom line is that the work will get done as agreed in the HCA. Mr. Nagi stated they could come up with reasonable trigger thresholds for other off-site intersections on the east side of Town but this will be formalized later. Ms. Wright stated most of the discussion on street intersections with Route 135 analyzes east- west traffic flow making sure the traffic is moving. She stated they have not touched on the ability of side street traffic entering the flow, and in view of the anticipated increase in volume it appears the entire eastern half of the Town has no way to enter the main artery to go to Route 495, Massachusetts Turnpike, Upton, or Wood St. She stated it is difficult now, especially at Pleasant St., and it will only get worse. She referred to proposals from the Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC) and DPW to narrow Main St. at the Town Common but would like to suggest keeping that area wide enough to create two lanes in front of the Korean Church to allow traffic to merge. Mr. Nagi stated they looked at many of these intersections and he agreed it is very hard to make a left turn out of a side street and he is familiar with the Main St./Pleasant St. intersection. Ms. Altamura noted people really have no choice but to go to a signalized intersection. Mr. Nagi noted that adding left turn lanes will attract more traffic to the side streets. He noted the Police Chief has asked to activate the proposed traffic light on East Main St. sooner rather than later and this will create some gaps in the traffic although it will not fix every intersection. Ms. Wright stated that the increased traffic volume and higher speeds will quickly fill the gaps provided by the traffic signal. Mr. Nagi stated that Ash and Front St. residents do not have an option to get around to a signal, and Ms. Wright stated she does not want to see that happen. Mr. Nagi stated that as a traffic engineer he wants to get people to the main arteries as quickly as possible. Ms. Wright stated it is a safety issue because kids play street hockey and such in the side streets. Mr. Weismantel asked if the applicant has looked at this as a corridor study. Mr. Nagi stated they looked at a certain core group of intersections but not from East Main St. all the way to West Main St. as a holistic corridor. He added they focused on the east side of Town and probably should summarize what is going on the other side. Mr. Abate asked for a list of all intersections by name, what will trigger the need for improvements, and their recommendations. Mr. Nagi stated they will make a list of suggestions and ideas and take it from there. Mr. Goncalves referred to recent studies and work done on the South St./West Main St. intersection and suggested the applicant review the material, including information regarding the Wood Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 11 St./Main St. intersection. Mr. Nagi stated they would look at work done in the past and what they are currently proposing. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Legacy Farms northern spine road. He stated he has talked about this before, but would like the applicant to look again at the proposed 30 mph speed limit. He stated that given the amount of curb cuts a 40 mph speed limit seems more appropriate in the area north of the North Club development which is more in line with conditions on Hayden Rowe St. and East Main St. He noted they could further minimize the number of curb cuts through minor site plan changes, and a higher speed limit would take off a lot of pressure. He stated they could bring it down to 30 mph by the Northeast Village and Village Center. Ms. Danahy referred to the improvements proposed for the downtown area and asked that Legacy Farms go back to the drawing board to look for a solution that is less detrimental to business. She stated she does not want to lose 11 parking spaces in the downtown area. She noted the design might look great on paper but there will be an impact on business. Mr. Markey stated this intersection has been studied for a long time and although there is no formal downtown plan, there are recommendations from the DRC as well as the DPW with respect to what the Town wants to see there. Mr. Markey hoped the applicant will look at these plans as the work should be coordinated. He noted the VHB proposals do not reflect the DRC recommendations from 2004 or changes proposed by the DPW for improving conditions near the triangle at the Common. Mr. Zieff stated he does not have a desire to push his own agenda and wants to make it work. He noted they will go back and look at alternative/sensitive solutions including some for pre- existing conditions. Robert Falcione, reporter, asked if anyone has tried to talk to Mr. Burns, the owner of the empty lot next to Action Copy on Main St., about its potential for using it as a parking area. It was noted that several people have approached Mr. Burns without positive results. The Board discussed a date for continuation of the hearing. It was decided to schedule a Planning Board meeting on May 19, 2009. The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on the Legacy Farms MPSP to May 19, 2009 at 7:30 PM. It was decided to schedule nothing else for that evening in the hope of finishing the traffic topic. 3. Administrative Business 1. Bills – The Board voted to authorize payment of outstanding bills. 2. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board of Selectmen’s public hearing on streets proposed for acceptance at the annual town meeting will be held on April 14, 2009 at 7:45 P.M. She stated comments from the DPW director on the streets proposed for acceptance have been distributed to the Board. Meeting adjourned: 10:05 P.M. Hopkinton Planning Board – Minutes – April 13, 2009 12 Cobi Wallace Administrative Assistant Approved: May 11, 2009