Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-04-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 4, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:02 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*************************** CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 430 Concord Avenue, continued public hearing: Mr. Hornig called the continued public hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. There were 25 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, Dan Dokken, project architect, Patrick Mallon and Brendon Mallon, site consultants. Mr. Novak said the following changes incorporated into the PSDUP were based on recommendations from the Fire Department and Planning Board:  The emergency access drive would be widened from 16 to 20 feet and included the walkway that would run parallel to the drive; the edge of the island would be changed from grass to pavers to allow emergency turnaround.  The entrance to the existing access road to the sewer easement was lengthened and widened.  The eastern side of the fence would be extended. Mr. Hicks added the following:  There were currently no changes to the landscape plan, but would be open to suggestions.  Lights would be off at 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and the courtyard would have motion activated lights for emergency purposes.  The sewer easement starts off site at Waltham Street and end at the pump station on Concord Avenue. Mr. Grant said that the Conservation Commission had closed their public hearing and there was every indication that there would be a positive vote. Board Comments:  There would need to be two or three bicycle parking spaces added. That would be addressed. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 4, 2014  The MOU should include how the company would encourage workers to use public transportation.  Conditions articulating that roof structures would sit in a well and be under the roof line need to be added to the PSDUP.  How close to the property line would the fence be? It would be eight feet from the property line; the fence would be eight feet tall.  A financial analysis would be required and Town Members would want to see that.  What would be the maximum height for the lights? The parking lot fixtures would be 14 feet and the walks and garden lighting fixtures would be lower.  Was there anything provided tonight showing the view shed would be protected for the neighborhood? Mr. Hicks said not at this time. The MOU should show a commitment since nothing concrete was provided tonight regarding the effectiveness of the screening. One member felt that without that material it would be impossible to vote in favor of this project and that the impact needed to be addressed in some concrete way. Audience Comments:  A final PSDUP would still be allowed to come in at a later date. Could the applicant give a recap of the contemplated changes to this document at the end of this meeting?  The completed settlement was not in place as of yet, but wanted a commitment that the applicant would agree to honor the commitment.  The easement being addressed in Article 4 would be for a public access from the front of the property to the back of the property and wanted that commitment to be honored by the applicant.  The three warrant articles would probably be taken up together since they were inter- related. There were concerns about the history of the area, flooding, easements and litigation between the owner of the property and the Town. What was the updated status on litigation and would that history impact the wetlands restoration? Mr. Grant said there was an outstanding DEP order for the restoration of the filled wetlands. The applicant had committed to the Conservation Committee to restore the wetlands at a cost of $500,000, which would run with the land. The focus would be on the front parcel 430 Concord Avenue.  This was a residential area and this rezoning allowing a for-profit business in the area would have an adverse effect on property values. Minutes for the Meeting of June 4, 2014 Page 3  This area has rising water problems caused by a blockage in the drainage on border of the Waltham and Lexington line and this additional project would add to the water problems of rising water and the swamp area expanding in the area.  This would be a change of zoning on an already over-burdened area in terms of traffic and adding a site with traffic coming and going, ambulances, lighting 24 hours, and big air conditioning units. This could set a precedent of changing residential areas to commercial areas.  This was a start-up project and not an existing company. With 17 projects starting across the country there was concern it could fail.  If this site was rezoned it should only be for dementia and Alzheimer’s patients. This would be different than an assisted living facility and there was opposition to dealing with this company based on its past history.  Was the Town looking to acquire the rear property? The property was still in dispute.  There was concern about the lack of lighting for safety issues for walking around.  Would spouses be allowed to live there? Would zoning allow that? Ms. McCall-Taylor would look into it.  There should be a TDM contribution; would there be any commitment of a contribution to be made directly to LexPress? Mr. Hicks would be happy to learn more and consider it.  The public entities have not dealt with the wetlands problem on this site and were now bringing in a for-profit business to take care of the problem.  There was no outreach made by the applicant and many abutters have not had an opportunity for input. The character of the neighborhood was being compromised by considering a rezoning for a commercial space at this site.  Why does DEP have lots of regulatory muscle on projects in Lexington, but not in Waltham? Lexington should get on Waltham’s case to relieve the flooding taking place in the area.  One of the primary abutters that looked down on the site nine months of the year met with Mr. Hicks several times regarding lighting, traffic, wetlands. This project was coming in with a very nice plan for a good use and would tackle all the issues that needed to be addressed, and believe Artis Senior Living would be a good neighbor and was supporting the project. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 4, 2014  Has the Board seen a plan with the building relative to the size and scale of houses in the vicinity? This would be a change of zoning from residential to commercial and the project would be the size of a small shopping mall. Board Comments:  Would these count as housing units on the SHI? Ms. McCall-Taylor said probably not, but only the State would make that determination.  The original assumption was that only the workers would be driving to from the facility, but there could be a change on the transit component depending on who would be living there. Mr. Grant said this was not a purely residential neighborhood there were commercial and institutional uses in the area.  The Board was looking for a more fleshed out MOU and was concerned about the timing and if it was time to close the public hearing?  There was a lack of optimism that there would be more information by next week available to show any major changes.  Next week the Planning Board would need to have the final report done.  There would need to be a reasonable draft of the MOU for the Planning Board to review by next Wednesday. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Board Deliberations: There will be a TMMA site visit on Sunday from 1-3 p.m. The Board discussed the likely recommendations to help staff draft a report for the next meeting.  This was an appropriate use for this site. Taking on the rehabilitation of the site would be a benefit to the Town.  The visual impacts and appearance were significant issues and that would be enough to not vote favorably on this project.  The clean-up would be a big undertaking and would be a good reason to vote favorably on this project.  The final MOU and PSDUP would need to provide restrictions on roof structures and guarantee they would be below the roof line. Minutes for the Meeting of June 4, 2014 Page 5  How these units would be counted on the SHI was a concern and if they would be considered living units then additional mitigations may be needed depending on who would be allowed to reside there.  The financial analysis would be necessary before next Wednesday.  The housing units put one Board Member on the fence and needed answers before taking a position and the structure was very large for the site and location.  This project and the property was already a commercial use and it would be improved and would only make things better regarding drainage. This project provided a creative way out of a bad situation. Hopefully things will be coming together for next Wednesday and the Board will be able to make a recommendation one way or another to Town Meeting. ***************************OTHER MATTERS ********************************** Center Committee and Banks: Jerry Michelson and Howard Levin made a presentation to the Planning Board regarding banks in the Center. The Center Committee met with the Board of Selectmen and was now before the Planning Board with specific proposals to be considered by the Board. Ms. Deb Mauger, chair of the Board of Selectmen, said there have been many complaints about the number of banks located in the Center and considered this a legitimate concern which could only be addressed through rezoning. There seemed to be an urgency now and this issue was at a tipping point. The Town would be looking to the Planning Board to provide relief. The Board discussed that the Center Committee should consider sponsoring a public forum to get the process started, which would help to define the problem and get feedback if this was the action the Town would want to take. The Board would need to discuss what other items were on the work plan for the upcoming months and discuss if this should be added to the work plan. Sometime next week the Board hoped to address this matter depending on how long Town Meeting ran and then would get back to the Center Committee with the Board’s intensions. Mr. Michelson would be forwarding to the Board information from other communities that have done this, plus data to support this discussion. Mr. Levin would be keeping the Board updated. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 4, 2014 **********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*********************** 47-45 Ward Street, ANR: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to endorse the plan entitled “ANR Plan of Land in Lexington, MA” dated March 28, 2014, prepared and certified by Joseph Webby, Professional Land Surveyor, Plympton, MA with Form A (2014-4) submitted by Jean Charles, Suzanne Deveney and Susan Tiano, the applicants, as it does not require approval under subdivision control law. *********************************SCHEDULING ******************************** The next meeting is June 11 the Board will prepare for Town Meeting and adopt a report on 430 Concord Avenue, June 16, 2014, at 6:00 in the Parker Room and meet before Town Meeting and June 18 at 6:00 in the Planning Office with a public hearing on 48 Summit Road and 111 and 119 Laconia Street, will be opened and continued if there was Town Meeting, Oakmount Circle, Street Determination, the work plan, and reorganization will be discussed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:20 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Letter from Meg Kimball, dated May 15, 2014 regarding 430 Concord Avenue. (1 page)  PSDUP regarding Artis Senior Living at 430 Concord Avenue, Lexington, MA, dated June 9, 2014.  Plan of Land in Lexington, MA for 45 -47 Ward Street, dated March 24, 2014. (1 page)  Report of the Lexington Center Committee, dated May 12, 2014 and supplement dated June 4, 2014 to the Planning Board regarding banks in the Center. (2 pages) Timothy Dunn, Clerk