The Envision Needham Center project working group met Oct. 22 to review how three concept plans for Great Plain Avenue could change on-street parking, outdoor dining and sidewalk configurations in Needham Center.

Members of the working group and project consultants emphasized that the three concepts — a four-lane option, a two-lane hybrid and a two-lane option — carry different trade-offs for parking, pedestrian space and long-term curb placement. The group repeatedly pressed for block-by-block parking counts and clearer illustrations showing where parklets or widened sidewalks could be accommodated.

The working group heard that the town’s Select Board emphasized the group’s role: to provide information, not to make the final decision. Karis (project chair) and project consultant staff reported the Select Board asked the group to update outreach materials and be explicit about possible losses of parking and what each concept would commit to in roadway geometry.

Apex consultant staff and other speakers told members that legal and safety requirements affect what can be changed: sidewalks must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards (generally a five-foot minimum clear width), lane widths must meet roadway standards, and any time the curb line is altered the project must resolve drainage and signalization impacts. As one participant summarized, once the curb is moved “it’s set” — future addition of parklets or bike lanes could be restricted by that new curb line unless the design accommodates them from the start.

Business owners and several committee members said aggregate parking totals were not adequate for outreach. One member who operates a downtown business said that reporting a net count — for example, “98 existing spaces and 101 proposed” — obscures who loses spaces immediately adjacent to their storefront. Multiple participants asked that maps show, block‑by‑block, how many spaces each property would keep or lose so business owners can evaluate the local impact.

Discussing parklets and outdoor dining, the group noted that parklets placed in the street consume parking spaces (consultants estimated the Sweet Basil parklet uses roughly two to three spaces depending on whether temporary Jersey barriers are counted). The working group discussed alternatives: widening sidewalks to accommodate dining without removing curbside parking; designing a four‑lane plan that preserves certain parklet locations; or allowing permanent curb extensions in specific, limited locations. Consultants cautioned that adding bump-outs often requires reworking catch basins and underground drainage, which increases scope and cost.

Participants also raised safety trade-offs. Several members said parked cars act as a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians; others argued that permanent protected curb extensions are safer than temporary structures. The group discussed limiting the number of permanent on-street dining installations in locations that are safe (for example not adjacent to intersections or rail crossings).

The working group asked consultants to prepare a more detailed package for public outreach that includes: (1) a block-by-block parking inventory within the project area; (2) clear illustrations that show where sidewalk widening, parklets and bike lanes would be feasible for each concept; and (3) explicit statements about which amenities (for example bike lanes) are incompatible with the four-lane option. Members said that level of detail is necessary to avoid misleading the public and to reduce anxiety in outreach.

The discussion closed with agreement to continue refining parking scenarios and to return to the committee with more detailed maps and a “worst-case” parking-loss scenario for each concept.

The working group did not take a formal vote on any plan during the meeting.