Minutes
of October 31, 2006
Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice
Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette.
These minutes are prepared as verbatim as possible.
Continuation Public Hearing –
Clerk, Donald Anderson, read the Police report dated 10/30/06 into
the record.
Mr. Anderson then read a memo from Bob Peirent, Tighe & Bond
dated October 31, 2006 who apologized to Robyn for not getting back to her by
midday on Monday as planned he wanted to give Mark Sullivan a chance to take at
a look at the information that Bob Michaud sent out late Friday afternoon before
he responded. Hopefully it is not too
late to pass on the summary to members of the Board before their meeting on
Tuesday evening.
Subdivision rules and regulations, most of their previous comments
have been addressed by BEC, the revised cul-de-sac layout is an improvement
over what was originally submitted, however there are a number of additional
adjustments that could be made to further improve the layout.
The sticking point is the impact of these improvements on the
required 6 to 1,000 square foot ratio and they anticipate recommending that the
applicant re-evaluate available parking opportunities with the goal of
implementing as many of the additional improvements to the proposed layout as are feasible within the available
property.
Traffic, their most significant unresolved concerns are related to
traffic impacts, while MBM’s analysis indicates that the over all level of
service (LOS) designation of the Harkness and Heritage Plaza intersections do
not degrade significantly as a result of the proposed development. The focus on overall intersection performance
does not highlight the combined impact of this development and projected future
growth on the performance of
The net effect of this project is that the applicants proposed
modifications to the geometry and the signalization of the
Chair, Louis Calabrese said that Bob Peirent and Mark Sullivan
representatives from Tighe & Bond were present that evening.
Mr. Bob Peirent – I would like to say a few words and think it is
probably best I’m not certain if the Board has seen the applicant’s revised
plans so some of the comments may be difficult to take in context. The email I wrote to Robyn this morning I
think pretty well summarizes the overall comments I think we have. We have meet on 2 occasions with the
applicants and the applicants’ representatives and I think we have achieved a
lot of progress practically relative to the layout of the site itself, and the
plans I expect you will see this evening are definitely an improvement in what
was originally submitted to the town.
The details of the additional improvements that are referred to I think
are better talked about perhaps with the plan in front of me because it would
be very difficult to understand the context.
On the traffic issues jump in to, set me straight if you need to Mark,
it really is 2 issues it’s a little bit of background that Tighe & Bond had
worked with the town about a year and half 2 years ago to make improvements to
the corridor to North Main Street to synchronize the lights so that vehicles
can move very quickly and very efficiently through the North Main Street
corridor. To do that basically gives
that corridor preference, preference over the side street, preference over the
shopping center entrance, etc. We think
that it has been very successful to date.
Vehicles move through very quickly at this point and that priority and
those improvements should be maintained as much as possible within the proposed
development that occurs along that corridor and that’s really the context of
our comments which is trying to keep the traffic flowing because it is a very
important route, making certain that the impacts to that route are fully
understood. As I indicated, the analyses we are comfortable with, we believe
they are technically correct, they may not necessarily present the entire
picture when you take a look at intersections and take a look at the level of
service at an intersection it’s a combined impact on all the different
approaches to the intersection. If there
is particular intersection access point that of a greater concern you really
need to look at it specifically and we really think that should be looked
at. The second point that we are making
is recognizing that the applicant has overall mitigated the impacts of the
project and has done that by some
improvements that the applicant and Mark could probably speak to in greater detail,
but by doing so they perhaps may have limited the town’s ability to mitigate
future impacts as the town continues to grow and property continues to increase
along the North Main Street corridor. It is really a question of understanding
what’s being proposed, understanding what the impact of what’s being proposed
will have on the town and the town’s corridor.
He thinks it’s better to respond to questions and details that come up.`
Attorney Freyman said that they just want to clarify what they are
addressing tonight are the issues that were brought up in Tighe & Bond’s
memo and that we are in agreement that other issues, that we don’t have to
address them because they have been satisfied to their satisfaction and their
satisfied with how we have addressed them.
Mr. Nat
Arai, Baystate Environmental Consultants – We have 2 sets of plans revised
today and they have a date of 10/31/06.
As chairman Calabrese said Baystate Environmental Consultants is the
site engineer representing the applicant Eden’s & Avant for subdivision
development proposal behind the existing
The
entrance to the proposed subdivision road will be aligned opposite
Since
the original submission we added several sheets of the plans, we added a sediment
and erosion control plan, the roadway signage and pavement marking plan,
conceptual utility and emergency access plan, the Heritage Park site plan and 2
truck plan simulator. The plan is a 1” =
20 feet scale illustrating the proposed cul-de-sac of the subdivision so for
construction of the road we would have erosion controls along the down grading
areas, we would protect existing stormwater inlets within the parking lot using
hay bales and filter fabric or specific products, bags that are manufactured
specifically for capturing sediment, for construction of the project there will
be a stormwater pollution prevention plan prepared and the applicant’s
contractor would be required to apply for a general construction permit under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program run by the
EPA. Construction total for development
of the road (he pointed out on the plan) for the initial construction.
I
apologize for not having the plan prepared for display this evening. This particular plan here is the second plan
that we added, plan 22A which is the roadway signage and pavement parking plan,
this was encouraged by working meetings with the town officials to add signage
and directional markings to the plan and it also reflects a major revision to
the cul-de-sac plan from the initial submission so we got the new entrance
coming into the center off of the cul-de-sac road with a entrance for access to
the lots and an entrance dedicated only for truck vehicles accessing the
loading docks primarily for Stop & Shop.
I’ll
give you a summary and I don’t have all these boards up here and I apologize
for all the new sheets added. We have
had long discussions with town officials about water supply issues on the
existing center and for servicing the future development lots of the
subdivision. The existing center has a
water system that has a single dead end line that comes into the center, the
Department of Public Works has asked us to create a looped system with meters
in 2 locations on the street. We have
resolved that by proposing to create this loop here by extending a line from
the end of the existing system up to the street and adding the required meter
pits which would will be to public works standards.
The
other issue was emergency access from these interior lots to either Westwood or
North Main Street, the concern being that if there is ever a blockage of the
roadway along here the passage out of the site get egress from the site to the
curb, so there is an emergency access road which will run down to Westwood
Avenue that will only be used for emergency purposes, it will be maintained and
will be plowed to stay clear in the winter time. It will have pull out areas for cars to pull
over in an emergency even if they are egressing from the site or if emergency
vehicles are attempting to enter, each of those locations will be lighted. Then either end of the access road will be
gated with access boxes for Police and Fire.
There
are a number of changes to the plan set and would like to read through those
real quickly. The Board had requested
that we have matched lines to the plans, we did that, we changed the name of
the proposed street name from
Mr. Bob
Michaud, Principal for MDM Transportation Consultants - My primary area of
practice is transportation. We have gone
through a process for this subdivision that follows industries standards, we
have looked at and identified existing traffic conditions, we’ve projected
growth within the town to include normal area background growth over a 5 year
period. We’ve also added in traffic
associated with identified permitted known projects like the village center to
identify future needs if you will of the
Mr. Calabrese
– Mark would you like to comment on any of that.
Mr. Mark
Sullivan, Engineer for Tighe & Bond – I want to make it clear that we
checked Bob’s work and that ‘s what we were hired to do and it’s all been
properly and in accordance with acceptance standards. The point that Bob from MDM made and we
wanted to make clear was that the improvements that Bob referenced and clearly
explained to you that are required are going to use up a resource that the town
has to accomplish. The town should
probably look out 5 years, the town obviously from a planning perspective has
to look much further than that, if the resources that it would be required to
make the necessary improvements 10 years from now has been used by someone else
the town is at an disadvantage when they have to do the necessary work that
they have to. We just wanted to make
that clear that the additional westbound land which does improve traffic flow
along North Main Street won’t be there for the town to use when there’re trying
to mitigate traffic delays the towns people are unhappy with. I think Bob made the point very clearly that
traffic is getting worse and it’s not necessarily associated solely with their
project, so addition of a westbound lane mitigates that traffic very nicely but
it would be nice if you were adding a westbound lane to take care of your
traffic and have that there to do. We as
it’s been used to mitigate traffic as part of the development as well some
other traffic, there won’t be enough right of a way for you to add a third
westbound lane which is ultimately where you’ll be some day and you’ll need to
buy real estate from somebody to accomplish that. I think that’s our point level service D as
industry standard that’s fine, town of East Longmeadow enjoyed a level of
service F & D for a number of years and decided that level service D wasn’t
where they were content being, and hired Tighe & Bond to coordinate the
signals to get them back to A which was desirable, we were only able to achieve
a B at present day. As pointed out it
will degrade over time as traffic grows in the area that summarizes our point
and I think Bob did a great job showing what’s going to happen in the future
and we don’t dispute that so I also think that shows the reason to be concerned
about the resources we have available, 5 seconds of green time,15 seconds of
green time you can argue back and fourth.
The point is green time is a resource as well, green time is the amount
time you can send towards Springfield any of that is used by an opposing
movement that’s just like coal and oil you dig out of the ground, it’s gone you
can’t get more green time without
shutting everybody else down and as pointed out we’ve already shut everybody
else down. Everybody has to wait their
turn to get onto North Main Street, once there’re on we try and keep them
moving but I think we’ve maximized that already, we can’t hold people up
anymore on the side streets so green time is at a premium now, it should be
treated as a resource as well.
Mr. Morrissette
– How would you propose that we work with this development and plan for the
future then with this extra third lane.
Do you have a solution that will work to take care of the issues you’re
taking about.
Mr. Sullivan – I’m not sure it’s our place to direct the
developer where to go, but when our resource is used for someone’s benefit
taking from another use for the second party’s benefit it’s mitigated, it
happens in wetland issues but that’s really the brunt of what we are
suggesting. We look at mitigating the
resources that are being used along the corridors of the town is as the same
tradition they are today with regard to what they can do in the future.
Mr. Peirent – From a long term planning solution at some
point you’re going to need to increase the
right a way width throughout that corridor if the traffic continues to
increase. Is there an opportunity to increase
that right of a way width today since you have an applicant who is modifying an
existing property that abuts your main street.
Could an expanded right of a way be needed over the town for instance
not necessarily built and not necessarily utilized but an expansion for
instance in front of the Stop & Shop parking so that in the future when and
if the town has to construct something it doesn’t have to acquire that property
at a later date. Part of this
subdivision involves modifying the site plan so that the existing site plan and
the subdivision are one of the same at this point and does that provide an
opportunity for you to get back the capacity that you currently have. The current signalization system is a
synchronized system each signal talks to each other to keep everything
synchronized so if there is a power failure it reverts to the same
synchronization so you get the whole platoon of cars that move through the
corridor. The next step of improving
those traffic lights is something known as a closed looped system where you
actually tie all theses signals together with computerized control system that
is operating on a real time basis and is constantly making adjustments to the
way those signals interact with each other.
What’s out there right now is designed for the peak hours and it’s a
static solution that does a very good job during peak hours but it doesn’t
modify itself on a continued basis to adjust for changes that will occur over time.
Mr. Morrissette – You’re talking about the system that has
the cameras that shine down.
Mr. Peirent – Cameras are typically done for mainly
enforcement purposes. The closed looped
system is a point were you actually physically connect light to light to light
and then you connect that network to a computer control system and that
computer control system on a real time basis is able to analyze historical data
and make adjustments continually as needed to adjust for future conditions that
might come up. Those are 2 of the ideas
but eventually either the road has to be wider or you have to make the signals
as efficient as possible on long term.
Ms. Richards – With respect to using up the remaining
capacity for this particular project and making it more difficult for the town
to respond to future growth. Are we at a
point in this project where if we’re unable to answer that question is this
project maybe a little bit greater than the town can accommodate in terms of
it’s infrastructure. We are looking at a
project that has eliminated the shoulder of the right of a way where even the
cyclists have no place to go. To me that
is a big thing and are we looking at a project that’s too big, would it be
appropriate to ask them to down size, would that make a substantial difference
in what we’re struggling with or with the existing site plan, in order to
designate a certain area for future growth they would have to mitigate the
needs of that site plan some place else on the parcel. That’s substantive in my opinion, but for us
to go forward and agree to something knowing that we have no future with the
expected growth of the town I think is not appropriate step to take. So are we looking at something that is just
too large based on our infrastructure.
Mr. Peirent – Part of the answer to that question is a
decision you’ll have to make yourself.
The other part of the question is certainly if you make things smaller
you decrease the impacts. The way to
look at it again is you have an opportunity recognizing you’re going to have to
make improvements in the future. Do you
plan for the need for those improvements relative to the right a way or do you
wait until later where potentially you might have three or four different
property owners that you have to deal with individually to address the right of
a way. At least of portion of the
corridor the applicant can give you back what you currently have and make that
property available for future use by providing an additional right a way, it
won’t solve the entire problem on the entire corridor you’re going have to deal
with the rest of the corridor at a at later date but it’s an opportunity at
least to deal with the plan for this piece of it for the future.
Mr. Przybylowicz – Mark could you touch base on the
importance keeping the left hand turn lanes aligned.
Mr. Sullivan – I think the significance there as part of the
analysis that ‘s required and preformed by MDM was to evaluate that actually
history of the various intersections along the corridor. Three of the four intersections that were
analyzed showed that the accident history is well below the state average,
which we held as the standard. Harkness
as it currently is was above the state average, so it is an intersection that’s
in need of improvement to try and reduce the inherent danger to operating a
vehicle through it. Misaligned
intersections as well skewed aren’t as safe aligned at 90° perfect crosses
intersections. Lots of other things
contribute to accident history at an intersection, it could be something simple
as a sign even if the intersection was aligned perfectly, but the deal was
we’re building something new, it’s new construction there’s nothing
constraining where it’s put, may as well
put it in the ideal location. It might
not change the accident history if it were located 8 feet further to the east,
were not talking a significant amount but the idea was why not start at the
best spot you could. The impact is the 2
left vehicles that approach each other they didn’t conflict with each, they
didn’t actually cross paths under the initial proposal and if there’re aligned
there’re that much further apart, 6 feet further apart when they pass each
other making a left hand turn.
Mr. Anderson – I just want to explain to the people in a
simple way you’re hearing about this level of service and according to the
highway capacity manual and the green book, an A means free flow, B means
reasonably free flow, C is stable flow, D which been referred to the
operational standard that I’m struggling with is approaching unstable flow, E
is unstable flow and F is forced to break down flow. I’m concerned because it wasn’t that long ago
that there was talk that Kelly Fradet is thinking about putting a shopping
plaza in that area. So the future to
quote the late George Allen “the future is now” and we need to consider that
and I think the goal would be as best we can is trying not to have D as our
operational standard but try and move it to C if possible. Not to give up on the entire corridor area for
one project, to try to work for the project, to make it a responsible well
built project but to be mindful of the fact it’s not a pie in the sky idea that
something near by could be developed as a shopping plaza and will definitely
impact it. Clearly if this, which is relatively
far away from that corridor is having a significant impact if in fact Kelly
Fradet or something similar gets developed that will have even a greater
impact, so I think that is something that we have to work on from a planning
point of view.
Attorney Ellen Freyman – Our plan satisfies the subdivision
regulations and I’m not aware that we are required to build for future
projects, future growth that hasn’t been identified. The project satisfies the requirements that
are set fourth in the regulations and what you need to look for subdivision
regulation. We are not required to build
for future projects I think that projects that come along have to take into
consideration our project and others that have been approved and ours have been
implemented but to be restricted to have to plan for a project that is not even
conceptualized yet and isn’t put forth I think that’s beyond anything that
we’re required to do or anticipate that we should be required to do beyond the
regulations.
Mr. Przybylowicz – I think you bring up a valid point that
any project going forward has to go take in account your development, but by
the same token you’re taking a part of our future capacity and by the sounds of
what our engineers have said is that your taking it solely for your benefit and
you’re not providing us with any future possible expansion of that roadway,
mitigation.
Attorney Freyman – If you could just point out where that’s
a requirement.
Mr. Anderson – 5.71(read the requirements). So there is some
area where we are concerned about the future and the other concern also is the
fact was mentioned that is that bicycle traffic is going to be greatly either curtailed
or in jeopardy. They have bicyclists and
so forth and we’ve received something years ago from the state of
Massachusetts, I can’t put my finger on it, I remember something indicating do
what you can to encourage less use of motor vehicles. We’ve done things like really gotten stronger
against drive thru’s and so forth and tried to encourage that and tried to
encourage more pedestrian traffic and the town has been working on a bike trail
but to completely remove that safety corridor.
Now again there is a thought that doesn’t necessarily, I think they
could work together is to create something maybe even in the Stop & Shop
Plaza is creating another safety corridor so that the town can still protect
theirs but to have something else, to say bicycle traffic or this development
at it’s optimal desired size, it’s tough from a planning point of view to say
that because and I’m not even granting, that if the T’s are crossed, the I’s
are dotted that automatically out weighs the interest of towns people if they
want to use bicycles, in fact on the emergency access thing where there was
going to be this locked area I was going to suggest that there was some ways to encourage people
may want to walk to the project or may want to bicycle to the project that area
still allows people coming in from Westwood or to bicycle in. What is suggested is to make bicycle riding a
less safe or even obliterate it at that corridor.
Attorney Freyman – In reading this I don’t see this
extending to future development in town.
Mr. Anderson – Future residences not development .
Attorney Freyman – Of the subdivision so were talking about
the subdivision and who is going to travel in and out of the subdivision. So I think we satisfied this and I don’t
think it’s a requirement that we look beyond for future projects that may exist
in the town with out even having anything before the town at this point.
Mr. Michaud – For the chair if I might also just clarify
this issue of the bicycle path or route.
It was a point we discussed with Tighe & Bond and I think it
deserves some attention. We are aware
that intersection was reconstructed by Mass Highway in early 2001, 2002 and we
actually have the design plans which I can put out. Essentially their design never anticipated
any element of any bicycle path route or otherwise, I just want to make sure
that’s clear. This is the Mass Highway
design and what happened was they actually
implemented a series of loops, vehicle detecting loops. They implemented those right at the Big Y
Plaza, right at Harkness Avenue, they maintained the curb edge on the north
side of North Main Street, they held that and made some adjustments to the
south side. We did a lot of research to
determine what master plans may be contemplated to accommodate bicycle travel
in East Longmeadow. There are no plans,
master plans or otherwise, no route designations, no signs, no controls that exists
for any section North Main Street in this area.
There happens to be on the west side of intersection near Jiffy Lube a
shoulder area, it’s not a path per say it’s a shoulder area that was the
outcome of the design in 2000, Mass Highway and their attempt to possibly place
an additional lane there in the future, it was not designated as anything more
than shoulder. We also recognized it is
important to the extent it’s feasible to accommodate pedestrian movements, it’s
one of my objectives as an engineer to make sure there is some balance between
pedestrian vehicular movements and that they are safe. So in the design of the intersection Tighe
& Bond, I’ll give them credit for this, suggested maybe it would be nice to
add another piece of infrastructure that currently doesn’t exist. If you look at the intersection now there is
no cross walk here for the west, it doesn’t exist, the applicant will build
that to actually enhance the pedestrian infrastructure as part of this project
that it will make it more direct across from the north side to the south side
of the street without having to go all over the place to the same thing. So we are proposing to improve pedestrian
infrastructure, we’re not degrading it and of course this be designed to comply
with current ADA standards, there will be tech tile warning strips on the
ramps, those currently aren’t provided on any other ramp along North Main
Street, but they’ll be provided here. The only element that will be affected by
this design and it’s not a reduction in safety, it’s not an elimination of a
safety feature it’s the transition of that paved area which now has a 6 to 8
foot shoulder for short segment over here into essentially a travel lane that
transitions back down couple hundred feet past the intersection. So I wanted to make sure that was clear to
the Board that, we are actually enhancing the pedestrian environment at this
intersection relative to existing conditions and I’ll also say as it relates to
operational standards I want to make sure that the Board understands that we’re
not, even though I’ve mentioned a level service of D if we look at the
operations on North Main Street, there is A level now in the morning, they will
be A in the future with growth with our project. In the evening similarly they’ll be at level
service C or better, whether or not out project happens, so I want to make sure
that the Board understands that in a customary way of analyzing projects in the
past we do need to take in account future growth. We have to take into account known projects
it would be very difficult to plan for projects we don’t know can be built, we don’t
understand density requirements and those proponents presumably would need to
do what we’re doing know. They would
need to prepare their own report, their
own analysis to demonstrate how they could meet safety standards, how they can
accommodate pedestrians, how they can accommodate operational standards that do
not degrade the nature of travel on North Main Street. I think that in fact we’re not degrading it,
we’re actually improving it in the westbound direction, were more than
offsetting our own project impact. Were
not just meeting the standard that says gee lets just add enough capacity to
accommodate our own need, were adding very little traffic in the westbound
direction, we’re adding less traffic in the westbound direction than the
Village Center project is in this very same area. Less traffic than Village Center but 50%
improvement in capacity.
Mr. Anderson – So you disagree with their comment that this
is going to be exhausting resources.
What’s your thought with Tighe & Bond talking about
here’s a resource to the town that’s going to be pretty much exhausted or close
to exhausted by this one project. You’re
argument is were taking this situation
with this level and not only are we not derogating, were either at or improving
it , we’re adding safety sidewalks, were maintaining or improving traffic flow. So because of what your doing it’s improving
that area and not this concept of exhausting resources, you challenge.
Mr. Michaud – I think it’s important to recognize that there
are residents of the Town of East Longmeadow, there are businesses that operate
within the town that also have needs for access, that’s one of the reason the
subdivision rules & regulations exists to make sure that commercial
development can be accommodated with certain standards, principals and criteria
guidelines. The notion that were some
exhausting infrastructure I don’t think is a correct statement, I think what
were demonstrating is that is that there is ample capacity along North Main
Street to accommodate more growth than what we’ve already projected would occur
within the standards we’re obligated to follow.
Were talking about level service A conditions in the morning level
service C or better conditions in the evening along all elements of North Main
Street as it fronts this area. I
mentioned level service D standard because it’s not to say growth might not
occur 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we don’t have a crystal
ball. That future condition may be a
subject to a master plan that the town pursues as far as a build out analysis
for the town. It’s beyond normal and
customary practice nor is it cited anywhere in the subdivision rules &
regulations where we need to some how do a build out analysis for the entire
town to figure out what the long term 20+ year design criteria or needs might
be for the corridor and how we fit in to that. It’s simply not appropriate, it’s not within
the normal purview of these types of processes to do that. Level of service C or better is pretty good darn
operating level to put it laymen terms and where we’re adding impact, we’re
talking about a few seconds, I don’t think it would be a perceptible change on
how North Main Street functions, whether or not our project was there. One thing that would be perceptible and that does
represent an improvement above and beyond the impact we have is the travel in
the westbound direction which today currently backs up to Big Y and tomorrow
won’t. Will do so less frequently, we
are actually reducing the amount of delay there, we’re actually providing
capacity for future development above and beyond what we’ve accounted for in
this development.
Mr. Anderson – Why are the police still struggling then? I haven’t picked up that there’re completely
on board because of it.
Mr. Michaud – To my understanding I’ve read through that and
we’ve worked hand in hand with them through a number of working sessions and I
think they’ve signed off on all of the improvements that were actually
discussed. I think there is a statement
in that suggested that there needed to be some clarification of a discussion
Tighe & Bond and MDM had a recent working session in terms of what the
actual impact is to North Main Street. I
think that led to this very analysis, that’s why we did this analysis and I
think that Tighe & Bond would acknowledge that is technically correct. In fact it would be my position that this is
the absolute worst case and even under the absolute worst case we’re showing
improvements in levels of service or delay in some cases and in others we might
have a 1 or 2 second impact, maybe 3 or 4.
Mr. Morrissette – I wanted to ask Bob do you agree with his
assessment that his post construction is a better scenario than it currently
is.
Mr. Sullivan – Traffic engineering is a very complicated
business and I think one of the things that sort of confuses people when
traffic engineers talk about level of service that’s a fairly intangible element. You were on the right track describing what
levels of service, for intersections it’s actually broken down even more
measurable to seconds, A is less than 10 second delay on average for everybody
who gets to the intersection, B is 10 to 20, C is 20 to 35, D is 35 to 55 and
then E 55 beyond. That’s an average on
everybody that approaches the intersection and what’s going to happen here,
Sean Kelley from the town asked what’s my experience going to be and basically
the corridor will function the same as it does today. But he’s twice more likely to hit a red light
at the Harkness intersection and what’s happening is twice as much storage is
being provided for cars that hit that red light. In the mean time at that light heading towards
Springfield that drives the whole corridor from Mapleshade everything is
designed around that one intersection, there’s not enough time to allow the
vehicles coming out of Harkness to make a left turn currently, there just
isn’t, the improvement is 2 left turn lanes out of Harkness to reduce the
amount of time that has to be devoted to Harkness. This is the likely scenario to improve
westbound traffic without eliminating the ability to service Harkness and the
proposed facility, but in doing so the reason there is twice as much storage is
there is going to be twice as many vehicles stored there. Traffic engineering doesn’t look at the
individual users experience it looks at everybody’s experience. It’s important that Robert has done his job
correctly and our goal is to help understand the indications of that.
Mr. Morrissette – Knowing that my next question is if
they’ve used all of the resources and in the future we need more can they be
reallocated still reworking this intersection or this section of roadway to
address what ever new development has come down the road without having to
acquire more space. Yes the town can do
a master plan, I’m sure we’re not just talking about just a small section, I don’t
know how much frontage you have on North Main Street, lets say a 1,000 feet,
you‘ve got to be able to make the street wider no matter all the way down not
just in front of their area. So can that
section be reallocated, can the lanes be changed, we still have control over it
as a town don’t we?
Mr. Sullivan – There’s still some opportunity, things can be
done but fewer things will be able to be done.
Mr. Michaud – The notation that it’s going to be twice as
likely to have to stop on North Main Street is simply not correct and this is a
point that our analysis demonstrates.
I’d indicated a couple of print out sheets that shows on average how
things are going to work. Essentially I
showed you 2 conditions, we don’t build a project the subdivision road isn’t
there, if you’re on North Main Street you’ve got an average of 35 seconds of
green time. What happens is any green
time that’s not allocated as a pedestrian phase remains on North Main Street so
if a pedestrian hits the button it’s going to take 16 seconds everyone stops,
if they don’t that same 16 seconds goes on to the main line to keep it flowing
as well as it can. If we build this
project that won’t change at all throughout most of the day except for a 2 hour
period, between 4 and 6 at night, 4 and 6 at night it goes to just under 30
seconds, it means that perhaps every 10 times you travel on North Main Street
you might have to stop an extra time at the signal, you are not twice as likely
to stop at the signal as a function of what we are proposing to do. We’re talking about a reduction and the
average amount of green time that’s needed of 5 or 6 seconds and the reason
that is because you have 2 lanes to accommodate the flow. You can get through more efficiently you’re
not going to stop more often, you need less green time and we’re not proposing
to have people stop more often on North Main Street, we’re simply not doing
that. I want to make sure that the Board
understands that very clearly our analysis demonstrates that won’t occur the
signal system can be designed and operated in a way that does not require that people
stop more often. As it relates to the
coordinated operation I wanted to also clarify that the system that exists now
is a coordinated system that runs on radio control it operates in an identical
manner to closed looped signal system, it’s the difference between a Y5
connection to the internet and a fiber optic cable connection to the internet,
that’s difference. The loops that I
showed exists in the street will exist tomorrow they work on an actuated system
they’ll do that today, they’ll do that under the proposed project that we’re
describing here. There’s no added
benefit to having a closed looped system on the basis of the technology or the
actual functioning of the system. I want
to make sure that the Board understands that as well.
At that time the Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for
any questions.
Attorney Elizabeth Dougal, North Main Street – I direct my
question directly to the Attorney for the developers. A group of us are working to have East
Longmeadow buy this land at a fair price from the developer and I have a kitty
already started for that with some pledges.
Possible pledges from George Kingston from the East Longmeadow
Conservation Commission, from The Nature Conservancy, from the State of
Massachusetts and from the private sector. I wanted to know who within your
organization would be a person that I could talk to about, I looked at also
getting a from our stand point getting a evaluation of the 40 something acres.
Mr. Calabrese – Madam I’m going to have to cut you off
because that’s not relevant to what we’re here for this evening. After the meeting you are welcome to speak
with them and get that information ok.
Attorney Dougal – Ok.
You talk about a park Pecousic Park what kind of park are we talking
about. That’s my question.
Esther Rosati, Gates Avenue – I come out Dearborn Street and
it now takes me anywhere to go from my home to the town line anywhere from 12
to 15 minutes. I don’t know how they
decide that you can do it in any less time.
If I’m going to my dentist who is right back of Friendlys it took me 12
minutes and almost missed my appointment.
The entrance way being blocked on Westwood how is that actually going to
impact the proposed bicycle path and in last town report there is somebody
being paid to be over seeing that so don’t tell me there is no plan for it,
because there certainly is somewhere along the line. I called the state to find out about the turn
over on the light and they said for every 12 cars that go by it adds time to
east/west for every car so that the reason you stay and wait longer to get into the line.
Russell Sabadosa – On the alignment of the intersection
Tighe & Bond if I heard them correctly said that it was more safer than the
alignment and your position was that it doesn’t necessarily need to be aligned
because your just making the intersection bigger. I’m not sure if you responded to his comment
on safety.
Mr. Michaud – You could do it either way but there are
trade-off’s. If you’re a pedestrian and
you want to get across the subdivision roadway you can do that more
easily. Here’s what we originally
proposed it shows a traditional 90% alignment of the subdivision roadway with
North Main Street and it’s done in a way that has direct alignment of the
throughway to Harkness Avenue. Harkness
Avenue is at a slight skew so we had to design this that way to ensure that
aligned properly and there about maybe a 3-4 foot misalignment, if you will to
these left turn lanes. If you project
this line you’d come into the middle of this lane. So the concept here is even though there’re
not perfectly aligned there is a reason because Harkness Avenue is at a skew
and we did this analysis to demonstrate is not problem. In offset intersections which do relate to
the subdivisions rules & regulations, if this intersection was over and you
were attempting to make left turns there would be an over lap in the area they
need to maneuver. We looked at
physically aligning the projection, this is Tighe & Bonds recommendation,
what this does is it provides about 2 or possibly 3 foot additional separation
of vehicles, what is does it adds about 5 or 6 feet of crossing distance for
the pedestrian.
Russell Sabadosa – That’s your trade off?
Mr. Michaud – That’s the trade off.
Mr. Sabadosa – So what’s the point of the safety on
accidents and intersections.
Mr. Michaud – I think that the closure of this driveway will
eliminate potential rear end conflicts that we know exist today by allowing for
a direct cross movement to the subdivision road and the plaza.
Mr. Sabadosa – My question is your proposal on the alignment
versus theirs. Theirs tell me that it’s
safer and I am not sure if you agree or disagree with their proposal.
Mr. Michaud – There’s no material difference on these how
are from a safety perspective.
Mr. Sabadosa – So you disagree.
Mr. Michaud – Either scenario is safer than it is today.
Mr. Sabadosa – My question distinctly is his proposal, he’s
making a claim it’s safer than yours, do you agree or disagree.
Mr. Michaud – I wouldn’t agree that it’s safer, no.
Mr. Sabadosa – Thank
you. Next question is there sidewalk on
the westbound south side? There is one
now is that going to go away because of the expansion?
Mr. Michaud – We are replacing it with a concrete sidewalk.
Mr. Sabadosa – The access road, can a bicycle still pass,
will there be a pillar they can go through or not, does the design accommodate
that?
Mr. Michaud – Presumably you have a couple of bollards with
a gate and most instances that I’m familiar with you can go around the bollard
whether you’re a pedestrian or a bicyclist. I don’t believe there will any
impediment to doing that.
Mr. Arai – The emergency access road will be paved to be
able to accommodate emergency vehicles and vehicles exiting egress in the site
in a emergency. Those concepts that I
displayed up there are just concepts that are committed to by the applicant for
once future development of those interior lines precedes the details of the
gate and what the Police Chief suggested is putting guardrails on either side
to keep motorcycles, ATV’s and four wheel drivers from going in and out of
there. That’s their intent and those
details will be worked out presumably under site plan review before the
Planning Board.
Mr. Sabadosa – Because
the bike path that is under way will stop directly across the street so
bicyclists may come to the end and may want to progress on through getting on
the sidewalk and progressing right onto Springfield. So I looking if that can be accommodated
through your final development. Last
question, the right of a way, I think something else being discussed was can
there a right a way granted to the town so if they have to make future
developments they don’t have to deal with five property owners, they can just
deal with the right a way potential. Is
that something you guys are considering and if so how many different scenarios can
be considered.
Mr. Morrissette – I think what you are asking is are they
allocating future space to be able to be dedicated to the town for additional
right of a way. Tighe & Bond
suggested we consider seeing about getting an additional piece of right of a
way from them and what that will be is their green area, I think I’m right, all
their trees along that side of the parking lot on North Main Street would be
the area that you would have to allocate for that to take away.
Mr. Sabadosa – I understand that if that right a way was
granted then that would preserve the capacity and not utilize the resource.
Mr. Morrissette – Right, that’s compromise.
Mr. Michaud – I want to make sure that it’s clear that there
is no definitive basis for needing another lane at this point. We simply don’t know whether that’s needed or
not.
Mr. Calabrese – Just to keep things in order this evening I
would prefer if you could pose your questions to me and I’ll get the answer to
that, rather than to continue dialog going back and forth because I’m sure
there are other people want to speak and the Planning Board members still have
questions.
(In audible), Ridge Road – One of my concerns is does any of
this have to have any zoning voting by the Town or is this acceptable as it
stands now to the Town.
Mr. Calabrese – There is no zoning requirements it’s a site
plan review that we’re dealing with at this time, subdivision approval
basically. Their subdividing the land to
accommodate for future development of that land. So we’re operating within the confines of the
zoning that’s in place now.
? Ridge Road – Is this cul-de-sac area going to be
considered residential. I also would
like to understand if the State Department of Environmental Protection has been
in and studied all of this land to allow what’s going on. This town has had some very very severe encroachments
of the environmental act and it distresses me to see. I know when that Mr. Stanley owned the a lot
of that land and my brother was a contractor they talked about doing some things
way back and Stanley said I would be an idiot it’s wet down there. So it’s one of my thoughts is has the state
been asked to come in and evaluate this.
Mr. Calabrese – No it’s going to be business and commercial. I believe that the Conservation Commission
along with the State has been on this site in previous workings. What we are
dealing here tonight is mainly the subdivision of the land.
? – But there’s no sense trying to plan a subdivision if you
have some problems with the environmental.
Mr. Calabrese – When it comes to building that’s when that
will be addressed.
? – Where is the proposed entrance to Westwood.
Mr. Arai – Probably about 500 feet from North Main Street
down right where the existing railroad is.
That is emergency access only to be gated for police and
fire access.
? – What’s happened about the bike path, there’s suppose to
be a mandate in the town.
Mr. Calabrese – I can’t answer a question regarding
that. Robyn could answer it if would
like.
Ms. Macdonald – The bike path is still under way. The
Department of Transportation has to okay the money and they are still working
with the Town, they just need to make a couple more changes to the plans. There was no plan for a bike trail on that
property we had spoken about it and Eden’s & Avant had said they would be
willing to talk about it also, but the bike trail is on the other side of
Westwood.
Phil Abair, 5 Fifth Street – Nat you mentioned drainage on
the entrance street draining into a swamp area.
Has there been any impact studies as far as the increase volume into
that area and the surrounding areas.
Mr. Arai – We‘ve designed a subsurface detention system
which consists of about 260 linear feet of 48 inch diameter perforated pipe to
be installed under the ground. Before
water enters that system it will be pretreated with a partial separation device
called a storm sceptor. This system is
designed to detain up to the 100 year storm event so there will be no increase
in peak flows from the increased pavement of the area.
Mr. Abair – Is the existing area or plaza going to add to
this inlet, how is the current situation.
Mr. Arai – The current situation is that this existing area,
the existing parking lot extend to about right here right now, there are 3 or 4
inlets right along the edge of the curb and slopes down to the back of the
parking lot and they all drain into this drainage pump. So really what will happen with the proposed
development situation is that only 1 of those inlets will be altered and will
be relocated along this stretch of the new entrance road off of the subdivision
road and that there will be the 4 new inlets and the new system that will
handle all the roadway drainage.
Mr. Abair – Basically you are draining into an existing
holding area.
Mr. Arai – It will discharge to this drainage sump that’s
right behind Stop & Shop that’s there now and protected with riprap, it’s
just a hole protected with some stone there’s pipe coming in from here, there
used to be a drainage pipe that passed underneath the shopping center that’s
been abandoned and the it exits through a pipe system that crosses to a
connection and then out to the wetland.
Mr. Abair – Is there any impact to wetland due to this
increase volume.
Mr. Arai – No because we are not increasing peak flows over
what’s existing today. We are also
pre-treating the water entering to remove suspended solvents and meeting
Massachusetts Strom Water Management Policy.
Todd Witwer, North Main Street – I just have traffic flow regarding
coming form Harkness going left onto North Main, will that be increased. Does the average take into consideration that
the right turns will be spedup, the left turns could be decreased making it the
same it was or worse.
Mr. Michaud – We’re actually reducing the amount of delay to
that. I can actually pull up the board
and show you. Folks who are going to the
plaza today a portion of which are making that left turn would be inclined to
do so a little more directly through the subdivision road and even if a very
small percentage of folks do that there will be less traffic on that left turn
lane than there currently is.
Mr. Witwer – You think they’ll be more inclined to go
where.