Planning Board debates beacon placement and refuge island for redevelopment, asks engineers to finalize placement

The Planning Board met in continuation of its review of the Kmart/Plaza comprehensive permit application to resolve traffic-mitigation details, chiefly placement of a pedestrian hybrid beacon (—5HAWK—6), left-turn lane widths, shoulder dimensions and whether to require a raised refuge island.

Chair called the meeting to order and said the board would continue deliberations on a previously distributed 31-page draft decision. The board identified drawing 1022 as the working baseline for traffic-related conditions and directed counsel to reference that exhibit consistently in the final decision. The applicant and board agreed that the construction detail should be precise enough for later engineering verification but flexible enough to accommodate minor field adjustments.

Much of the discussion centered on where to locate the HAWK in relation to the existing intersection. Consultant testimony cited alternative layouts, and the board heard that engineers had advised a crossing set roughly —5—6two car lengths—6—1from the intersection could still meet safety criteria rather than sit directly at the corner. Board members agreed they preferred the beacon as close to the desire line (near the driveway/intersection) as feasible, but they did not set a fixed dimension; instead they asked for a written condition that the final location be agreed by both the applicant's and the city's consulting engineers.

Board members discussed shoulders and lane widths: the body of the board reaffirmed support for a 10-foot left-turn lane with five-foot shoulders shown on the preferred drawing and asked counsel to retain that as a requirement in the draft decision. The HAWK timing and pedestrian crossing interval were described as adjustable by engineers and operations staff; the board did not set a numeric timing in the decision, noting municipal traffic engineers can specify appropriate intervals during design.

Members were divided over requiring a physical refuge island (a raised median) near the crossing. The refuge island discussed at the meeting was described in the draft exhibits as roughly six feet wide, but several members expressed concern about added cost, potential need for additional roadway widening and whether the configuration would fit the existing geometry without further property takings. Others noted a refuge island can reduce jaywalking and channel pedestrians to a safe crossing.

The board ultimately declined to mandate a refuge island at this stage, instructing counsel to keep the record'ed option on the plan and to allow for future adaptation if final engineering (or a later amendment) demonstrated a refuge was feasible. The board instead emphasized a flexible decision text: require the HAWK and the left-turn/shoulder geometry shown on the baseline drawing, and allow the two consulting engineers to agree on final placement and minor dimensional adjustments.

The board also addressed sidewalks, bus-stop coordination and conduit capacity. Members confirmed a six-foot minimum sidewalk on the north frontage and asked that the south-side sidewalk at minimum connect the crosswalk to the MEA bus stop (where MEA dimensional clearances apply). Members declined to require mast poles now but requested conduit sized to allow future signal upgrades.

Rob, participating by Zoom, noted he had been following and confirmed the engineering approach; later the meeting recessed to other agenda items and then reconvened. The board asked the applicant and counsel to produce a redline of the 31-page draft incorporating the agreed traffic language for review at the next meeting.

The meeting closed after procedural items and a motion to adjourn that passed unanimously.