Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-25-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. *****************************ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT***************************** The Beal Company: Peter Nichols, Senior Vice President of the Beal Company, Ed Grant, Attorney, and Gary Larson and David Warner of Larson Associates were present. Mr. Nichols said they were coming before the Board early and informally to share some thoughts. Recent studies have resulted in changes to the building location, but no footprint as of yet. The Ledgemont 1 building was first and was mostly life science research; the Ledgemont 2 building space is currently occupied by offices for Vista Print. A planned commercial development (CD) for a Ledgemont 3 building was proposed to Town Meeting in 2003-2004. The applicants inferred that Town Meeting did not want it in the area of the lot near Spring Street and they withdrew the application and the warrant article. Vista Print Headquarters wants to expand and that would be the reason for a new building Ledgemont 3. Mr. Gary Larson continued the presentation and stated he was involved with the Ledgemont 2 facility and was familiar with this property. There were two parking structures; a main entrance off Hayden Avenue, and a looped driveway center to the facilities, which was highly vegetated. The issues of the campus were 8-10% slope; wetlands; and a conservation restriction, and the applicant was looking at the north corner between the garage and the wetlands where they could utilize the grade and existing road and relate it to the existing parking. Mr. Nichols said it was a 36-acre site with wetlands that made up 30% of the site. He felt that there was a disadvantage as the wetlands are excluded from the developable area and that would be quite a penalty and he hoped to encourage the Town and Planning Board to reconsider how the wetlands calculations factor into the FAR on this site. It was noted that there was an old colonial road to the Hayden Woods area and a meadow that needs some restoration work. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF) was looking at a number of things to revitalize commercial development. They are evaluating the CD process and its shortcomings in order to make the process smoother, and address the issue of developers having to provide costly plans without clear guidelines and assurances that the plans would be acceptable. He wants the Board and Beal to work Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 closely together so that by the time it gets to Town Meeting it will have Board support and conditions for approval. He suggested that the Planning Board be the special permit granting authority (SPGA). When asked if they would be rezoning the boundary portion of their property which is zoned residential to commercial, Mr. Nichols said it was possible, but they would not build any closer than they could now. Mr. Canale said there has been a shift in the Town’s concept of acceptable floor area, traffic, size and location, but he was not sure a building closer to residents would be a better choice. The Conservation Committee’s Open Space Recreation Plan was a month away from final approval and is expected to document the importance of Oxbow Road from Watertown to Concord. A piece of this old road is located on the property and Mr. Canale hoped that it would be restored as a publicly accessible pedestrian path. Mr. Zurlo asked how much square feet exist on the site today? Mr. Nichols said Ledgemont 1 has 123,000 square feet and Ledgemont 2 has 156,00 square feet. Mr. Zurlo asked if there had been any updated traffic studies. Mr. Canale said the four year old Patriot Partner study was updated with a two- page document this January. Mr. Nichols said they had hired BSC to do a study. Mr. Zurlo said he was interested in not seeing a shift in vehicular access to Spring Street and wanted to keep the main entrance at Hayden Road. Ms. Manz wanted to know how many stories would be built. Mr. Nichols said four stories would be stepped up and built into the cliff. Ms. Manz asked if would it be outside of the 100-foot wetlands buffer. Mr. Nichols said it would be built within, but they would work with the Conservation Commission. The buffer between the building and residential properties would be no closer than the garage is now. Ms. Manz said that there would probably be more objections from the Woodhaven neighbors than if the building was closer to Spring Street because of visibility and lighting issues. She preferred the entrance to be from Hayden Avenue. Mr. Galaitsis said it would be helpful to have sketches with footprints and an indication of how they would accommodate the extra parking. He would like to see the old plan, new plan and something in between. Stepping up the building might make it more visible and he would like to see what the residents’ winter views would be. An evolution of the old plan to the new proposal should be made available. Mr. Nichols said all the new parking would be within the structure and they don’t want to build more than they would need. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Hornig said thank you for coming in so early in the process. It would be important to work with the Board as the plan evolves and come back in well before any public hearing. He asked that they have the traffic engineers look at the interior flow when contemplating access. Density was not as much of a concern for him as site sensitivity. Mr. Zurlo stated that at the Board of Selectmen meeting the applicant stated the building would be LEED certified, and asked if a target level was selected. Mr. Nichols said until he had more information he could not comment. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** Interviews of the Potential Associate Planning Board Member: Interviews with Chris Kluchman and Ginna Johnson were conducted. After the interviews were completed the Board members discussed their preferences, noting that both applicants were highly qualified and either would be an asset to the Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to appoint Ginna Johnson as the Associate member of the Planning Board. Letters would go out to both candidates. ******************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*************************** Recaps of the Planning Board’s Hartwell Ave. Neighborhood and Landowners Meetings: At the landowners’ session the transfer of development rights with a maximum cap was discussed. This could encourage quicker buildout and provide some landowners an incentive to redevelop. Several landowners stated that Lexington is not a top commercial draw like Waltham or Burlington. Mr. Hornig thought the neighborhood meeting went well. There seemed to be a feeling that there would be acceptance of commercial development with better zoning and traffic mitigation. Ms. Manz said she was pleased at the generally constructive tone of the meeting. Mr. Galaitsis did not get that same impression, but Mr. Canale said he heard that as long it was done reasonably and fairly the residents would accept the changes with traffic calming and mitigation set in place. Ms. McCall-Taylor said there was a request for the e-mail list from the public forum. The Board decided to not set up such as list as they did not want to compromise the privacy of those who signed. The sign-in list will not be utilized by the Board and will be disposed of. A postcard will be sent to all who received a notice of the forum explaining the situation. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** 341 Marrett Road, Preliminary Balanced Housing Development (BHD): In attendance were Rick Waitt and Brian Timm of Meridian Associates, Ron Lopez, applicant, Doug Rae and Dan Harrington, attorney. Mr. Zurlo had recused himself originally because he had lived in the carriage house and made a development proposal approximately six years ago. There was also a matter of a personal debt to the previous property owners which had been forgiven by one of the parties. The State Ethics Commission said he recommended full disclosure but recusal was not required. Mr. Hornig said the main discussion points were where the bulk of the development would be located, either in the flat area or moved towards Wachusett Driveand perhaps with less gross floor area (GFA). Mr. Galaitsis said because of the slope the buildings with the cellars would appear to be four stories. He wanted the bottom floors to be counted as basements. Mr. Canale said in terms of the specific site and close proximity to Marrett Road and Waltham Street he wondered if this was an appropriate type of housing arrangement and was especially concerned with the excessive bulking of units 1-5. The applicant should reach out to the abutters. The next step no matter what it was should be looked at closely with regards to the height and bulk of the structures for units 1-5. Ms. Manz asked if there was a possibility of moving the units into the center and minimizing the roadway. Mr. Hornig said there were a lot of minor changes need such as the path and adjusting the location of the units. He was uncomfortable with the massing. Mr. Galaitsis said as the project now stands units 1-5 were massed against the property line on flatter ground. This area would contain 40-50% of the development, whereas with a conventional subdivision it would only contain 25% of the development. Mr. Zurlo said there was a significant issue with what was happening concerning units 1-5 and it could affect the number of units allowed. There needed to be significant work done to resolve these issues. He thought they might need to remove a unit, reposition the buildings, or change road access and grading. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 Page 5 Ms. Manz asked what guidance was the Board giving? Mr. Zurlo said they had not presented enough information for the Board to provide useful guidance. The applicant was asked for models and sketches, which the Board had not received to date. Mr. Hornig said he did not want the unit size to go up. Mr. Zurlo said in order to promote diverse unit types in town the Board members had to be advocates for density. He too did not wish to see the unit size increase. Mr. Galaitsis said the zoning by-law stated what the maximum was, but anything less could be approved. Mr. Hornig said that the Board was not giving good guidance to the applicant. Ms. Manz said maybe the Board needed more concrete renderings, perhaps smaller units rather than fewer units would be an option. Mr. Henry said what’s left for the definitive stage if the Board asked for a full set of plans at this level? Leave something for the definitive stage. The bylaw was just revised trying to truncate the process and now the same problem was starting again. Mr. Hornig said if there were issues, the Board needed to be specific, otherwise they would be going in the wrong direction. The Board should state what is needed and leave the rest to the applicant. Mr. Galaitsis said the site could not support five units at the current size with the driveway and parking. The recommendation was to go to half the size or half as many units. Mr. Hornig said that would mean approximately 7,000 square feet out of the development, or a 25% reduction. Mr. Zurlo said that if the applicant built a mass model the applicant would be able to see the opportunities which would result in a better project overall. The Board would need to see more before moving forward. Mr. Hornig asked if the Board could approve this project with this amount of square footage if it were well designed. Mr. Zurlo said approval needs to be tied to the mass of the building and whether the structures fit into the character of the neighborhood. Square footage informs us of one aspect of the project. There should be as much information as early as possible so to allow the applicant to redirect his efforts before too much is invested Mr. Canale said he agreed with Mr. Zurlo about being fair to the applicant, but he could not say at this stage that 2,000 square feet fewer or clustering would make the project acceptable. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 Mr. Hornig said this was a preliminary plan and the Board does not ask for renderings at this point. Mr. Canale said there were flags up at this point, the developer could go forward but we should give as much information as possible. Mr. Hornig asked do the Board should move forward with the preliminary, definitive or informal? Mr. Zurlo suggested using the Design Advisory Committee and then step into the definitive. Mr. Harrington said the applicant would not do that. Ms. Manz said they just revised the zoning bylaws and standards and the applicant met the standards. She said the Board needed to be more transparent and be reasonably clear as to what they want, and asking for a visual model earlier than the definitive stage may help the Board do better in giving guidance as to what they are asking for. Mr. Zurlo said he was not asking them to come in several more times and is interested in helping the applicants move forward but this site has a great deal of complexity including underground water, dramatic elevation changes, and the layout of the property lines. Mr. Galaitsis said there were three difficulties - slopes, the shape of the lot and the two existing structures, which was why they could not be at the maximum. Mr. Hornig said at this point he was at a loss as to what the Board wanted. Mr. Galaitsis said to deny the preliminary plan as it was now due to the deficiencies of the site, which included the shape, slopes and constraints of the two existing buildings. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that denial of the preliminary plan would not prevent the applicant from coming back with a definitive plan. Mr. Canale said the Board had flags regarding this project and he would vote with Mr. Galaitsis. Mr. Zurlo said the denial would result in an interim review so they could work something out and assure better success at the definitive stage. Ms. Manz said that since the Board at this stage was not prepared to be united and approve with conditions she would go with the denial. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Hornig opposed) to deny the preliminary plan for 341 Marrett Road. Mr. Harrington said the Board had been forthright and they got the messageThey met with neighbors in the past but would do so no more and would pursue the definitive plan or other options. The development regulations are being revised. There would need to be discussion about what was required at each stage. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked the Board to read section 175, especially section 11, so they could discuss how they would like the development regulations to be modified. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 Page 7 *****************************REGIONAL INTERTOWN ISSUES************************** Mr. Canale said for informational purposes he was sharing a copy of the draft of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding a corridor study. Mr. Canale said at Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) meeting they discussed that Metropolitan Planning Organization was about to release the Transportation Improvement Plan for Waltham and Marrett Street and also the Unified Planning Work Plan studies in anticipation of what might fund Massachusetts Avenue and Maple Street. He also invited TMG to the Planning Board meeting for July 9. ***************************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION********************** Planning Board Committee Assignments: The changes made were as follows: ?? Mr. Zurlo would be the liaison for the Design Advisory Committee; ?? Ms. Manz would be the liaison for the Historic Districts Commission; ?? Ms. Manz would be the member for the Housing Partnership Board; and ?? Mr. Zurlo would be the liaison for the new Economic Development Advisory Committee. All other assignments would remain the same from the previous year. A letter would go out to the chairman of each group for notification of the Planning Boards representative to these committees/commissions. The Planning Board schedule will include the discussion of the development regulations on the week of July 16, but would start on July 9 with the traffic piece. The Planning Board meetings are on July 9, 16, 23, 30 and August 6, 13, & 27. *********************************** STAFF REPORTS********************************* (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) The Staff reports that the MORE Grant funding of $1,100,000 was presented to Lexington earlier today. Ms. McCall-Taylor went to a LID (Low Impact Development) conference. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if the “frequently asked questions” should be put on the website. Mr. Canale said he would like to first review them. They would be emailed to the Board. ******************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*************************** Mr. Canale said there were going to be MetroFuture Workshops in Arlington and Framingham. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 2008 Mr. Zurlo said as of yet the Planning Board had no stated goal for its work regarding rezoning the Hartwell Avenue/CM district and recommended staff draft a statement for the Board to review. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk