Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-21-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 21, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Greg Zurlo, and Timothy Dunn and planning staff Maryann McCall- Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. **************************SPECIAL TOWN MEETING**************************** PUBLIC HEARING 430 Concord Avenue, PSDUP: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 7:06 p.m. There were approximately 40 people in the audience. Present was Ed Grant, Attorney, Jay Hicks, Senior Vice President of Artis Senior Living, Mike Novak and Rick Waitt of Meridian Associates, and Gary Larson, Landscape Architect. Mr. Hicks said the proposed facility would be a 34,500 square foot single story building, with 72 units for residents, and 35 parking spaces. There would be three rotating shifts per 24 hours with a maximum of 18 employees per shift. The building would have a central core with four wings on a 5.5 acre site. There would be barber and beauty services, and nursing staff on site, but no on- site rehabilitation services. The existing access would be maintained and transition to a circular drive. The applicant met with the Fire Department and was advised that a wider circle would be needed for emergency access and provide adequate space to allow the fire trucks make their turns. There would be a perimeter fence around three sides of the property and substantial screening would be done to hide the parking lot and building from the abutter’s view. The applicant would do a restoration plan of the wetlands with DEP, and remove the existing mound on the site. The building would comply with all noise and lighting bylaws. Board Comments:  There was concern that the screening would not be enough for the abutters and a 3-D model would be helpful.  How would off-site landscaping be guaranteed? The MOU would usually address items like off-site agreements? Where does the Town stand with the MOU process? Ms. Deb Mauger, chair of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) responded that the BOS were waiting to hear more at the public hearing and from the Planning Board before starting that process. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 2014  This project would be in the middle of a residential area and more stringent standards should be required for the noise bylaws. The equipment should be specked out in advance to make sure there would be no issues. Mr. Hicks said he would make out a detailed commitment regarding noise for the air conditioners and emptying dumpsters.  There were concerns about light trespassing. Mr. Hicks said there would be an eight foot fence that would screen the light.  This would be a 24/7 facility and would expect lights to be turned down at certain times and what activities and events and shift changes would take place on the facility site? Mr. Hicks said that shift changes could be adjusted, there would be unrestricted access to the outdoors for patients and there would be no parties or events on site. Ambulances would be anticipated approximately once a week since traditional health care would be administered by an RN and LPN on site.  The plan filled a need, but 72 units seemed intensive and perhaps less would be better and try to ensure affordability for 10% of the units. Mr. Hicks said this facility would all be private pay. The 72 units would be the maximum allowed and what would be needed for the site restoration.  What would be the deadline for the final submittal? Mr. Grant said June 9.  Why propose only a one story instead of two story facility for less site coverage? Mr. Hicks said it was for operational purposes and allowed freer movement within the facility for patients.  There was concern about the location of the generator and transformer because of noise that would impact abutters.  There would be no loading dock how would large deliveries be made? Mr. Hicks said a condition restricting the size of any vehicles on the site would be acceptable.  There was concerns expressed about the property ownership.  Would the southern part of the site be left untouched? Mr. Hicks said there would be wetlands restoration, replanting, cleanup and maintenance there.  The uses allowed were extensive and all fundamentally inconsistent uses with this structure should be removed from the PSDUP. Audience Comments:  There would be quite a few roofs on this proposed facility; have solar panels been considered? Mr. Hicks had not considered it, but would look into that possibility. Minutes for the Meeting of May21, 2014 Page 3  The past few CD’s the property owners received a windfall because the Town failed to recognize the immediate increase in value for the rezoned property. The Planning Board should require the increased value to be recognized in 2016 so the Town would not lose a lot of money. The Planning Board understood the concern, but the value would be set by the Board of Assessors based on their policy.  Would there be sufficient frontage to service this property? The 28 foot frontage would all be used for access, there were no pre-defined standards established.  This sounds like a seven million dollar project; what was the track record of this firm? How many facilities were currently operating? Mr. Hicks replied none this would be a startup there were currently 17 projects being developed none have been completed yet. There should be stringent requirements if the project fails since this would be a start-up.  The abutter’s new view should not look like a mini mall.  The past few CD’s the developer gave something back to the Town. Would the Town be asking for anything to be given back for this rezoning? Board comments:  How would the snow be plowed through? There would need to be language to protect from over spill. Mr. Hicks would welcome the condition.  Would there be any commitment to a sustainable design or consideration for a LEEDS certified building? Mr. Hicks said they have not gotten that far yet but that would be considered.  The revised PSDUP would need to show hoe the lights standards would be met, show the sidewalk, and show an easement that would go to the back of the property and the Town would be considering getting additional rights within the easement. There would be no problem with that.  th There should be a site visit before the June 4 meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to June 4, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Warrant review: There would be a report only on Article 2. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 2014 **********************DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS*************************** 138 Laconia Street, ANR: The applicant had requested a 14 day continuance and extension of the action deadline. This would push the matter to the next meeting on May 28, 2014, and the action dead line to June 6, 2014. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the applicants request to extend the action deadline to June 6, 2014. 1 Park Street: The applicant was issued a demolition permit by the Town in spite of the Planning Department’s comment to the contrary. This disruption to the normal permitting may require some flexibility and understanding on the Board’s part. The applicant was now requesting the building permit be released to them while an improvement to the road was being worked on. The following are the improvements that would be required:  Fully reclaim the existing pavement;  Repair the sub-base, as required by the Town Engineer;  Adjust the grade to create a crown;  Install a new binder course with a minimum thickness of 2.5 inches; and  Install a new wearing course, with a minimum thickness of 1.5 inches. And that the Board waive compliance with the following Regulations: § 175-68.C(3) – A Definitive Street Construction Plan. § 175-68F(2) – Timing of Street Construction and Dwelling Construction. § 175-45E(1) – Minimum Pavement Width. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that the Board determined Park Street, in the vicinity of 1 Park Street, was not presently of adequate and construction to provide for the needs of the vehicular traffic and for the installation of municipal services in relation to the proposed use, but would be adequate with the improvements discussed and listed above along the parcel's frontage with a pavement width of 18 feet (and rounding at the intersection with Reed Street): Minutes for the Meeting of May21, 2014 Page 5 41 Bloomfield Street and 22 Slocum Road, Approval Not Required: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to endorse the plan entitled “ ANR Plan of Land 41 Bloomfield Street/22 Slocum Road in Lexington, MA” dated May 15, 2014 prepared and certified by David Alves, Professional Land Surveyor, Salisbury, MA with Form A (2014-3) submitted by Speedwagon Partners LLC, the applicant, as it does not require approval under subdivision control law. 11 Suzanne Road, major or minor determination: The applicant for 11 Suzanne Road has requested an addition of 857 square feet to the footprint dwelling above what the special permit allowed. Since it would change some specific terms of the Special Permit that authorized the development the Board needed to determine if this was a minor or major change. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, it was determined by the Planning Board to be a major change and would require a public hearing and the change to drainage issues would need to be addressed at the hearing. *********************************MINUTES ************************************ On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the minutes as submitted for April 23, 2014. *********************************SCHEDULING ******************************** May 28, 2014, continued public hearings for Edna Street and the Subdivision Regulations, Laconia Street ANR and street determination for 14 Tavern Lane; June 4 the continued public hearing for 430 Concord Avenue and the Center Committee, June 11 is tentative possibly prepare for Town Meeting, June 16 meet prior to Town Meeting, June 18, open two public hearings, street determination for Oakmount and the Board reorganization. In July the Board will meet on ndth the 2 and 16. ******************************BOARD REPORTS******************************** There are two giant boulders at the top of Stedman Road that are too close together that prevent bicycles from going through. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 2014 The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  PSDUP regarding Artis Senior Living at 430 Concord Avenue, Lexington, MA, dated April 24, 2014.  Proposed Rezoning of land to CD Planned Commercial District 430 Concord Avenue, dated, April 24, 2014 (8 pages).  Map of 138 Laconia Street (1 page).  Town Warrant for Special Town meeting (5 pages).  Agenda item summary and staff recommendation regarding 1 Park Street (1 page).  Map of 1 Park Street (1 page).  Two photographs of Park Street.  ANR Plan of Land 41 Bloomfield St/22 Slocum Road, dated May 15, 2014 (1 page).  Record conditions plan of land 11 Suzanne Road, dated April 18, 2008 and cover page (2 pages).  Four letter of support from abutters dated March 20, 2014 for 11 Suzanne Road (4 pages).  Letter from Mr. Benjamin Solky, dated April 29, regarding 11 Suzanne Road (1 page).  Copies of house for 11 Suzanne Road (7 pages). Timothy Dunn, Clerk