Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 3, 2015 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chair, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, with members Tim Dunn and Richard Canale, and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Charles Hornig was absent. Ginna Johnson joined the meeting in progress. ***********************************MINUTES********************************* On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to approve the minutes for May 6, 2015, as submitted. ***********************ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE************************ Upcoming meetings: thth June 9 there is a meeting of the Residential Policy Ad-Hoc Committee, June 10 the Board of Selectmen (BOS) is having a public hearing on the signalization at Massachusetts Avenue and th Woburn Street. On June 17 is the Planning Board reorganization meeting, July 1 and 15 and th August 5 and 19 are the scheduled summer meetings. Mr. Canale will miss the July 15 meeting th and Ms. Johnson will miss the August 5meeting. Ms. Johnson joined the meeting in progress. ***********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************** PUBLIC HEARING 17 Colony Road, definitive subdivision plan: Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called the public hearing to order at 7:14 p.m. with 14 people in the audience. Patricia Nelson, attorney, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, the applicants, Mike Kosmo, engineer and Dan Solien, landscape architect were present. Ms. Nelson explained that the applicant had two conforming lots except for frontage, which were granted variances for the frontage by the Board of Appeals. Most engineering issues have been resolved and the few that remain will be resolved when the applicant’s team meets with Engineering. The main issue before the Planning Board was a request for a sidewalk on one side of the road. Ms. Nelson explained that the construction of a sidewalk would not be a wise idea because this road has a sharp curve and steep grade, which would be creating a dangerous Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015 situation for pedestrians. The sidewalk would go from nowhere to nowhere. A new sidewalk would create additional issues with loss of vegetation, damage to neighbors’ properties and sustainability. The abutters were not in favor of a sidewalk and wanted to maintain the character of their neighborhood and keep the road as close as possible to what currently exists. Michael Kosmo discussed the upgrade of road which currently varied in width from under 20 feet to over 20 feet wide and had a steep grade. There was a drainage issue and the applicant would crown the road with catch basins on the uphill side as requested by Engineering. The applicant also looked at reducing the slope for most of the road to 10% with a few minor exceptions that would exceed this standard. Dan Saline explained the landscape plan identified the trees within the LOW, the type, size, condition of the trees, and how they would be impacted. There would be the removal of 17 trees, 11 trees were invasive species, four were in poor condition and only two trees were in fair condition and would be removed for construction. There were 15 protected trees, 12 trees outside the work zone, three flowering tree added and provisions made to preserve the existing landscape. The proposed sidewalk would be disturbing the existing landscape and retaining walls on abutter’s properties. Sustainability would be impacted by adding hardscape where there was formerly vegetation. Board Comments:  There was no tree caliper count offered for replacement. Mr. Salien said that he would get the numbers, but did not feel there needed to be a lot of replacement of trees.  There was an objection to a waiver for a sidewalk. The road could be made narrower, signed for one-way and a sidewalk provided which could still maintain the character of the neighborhood.  Thank you for removing Norway Maples, six other trees were to be removed and should be replaced and there would be soil disturbance so shrubbery or ground cover should be planted.  Wrapping would not protect trees from damage, they would need to be fenced or kept outside the LOW.  Designate the stockpile away from the trees.  Make sure there would be transition to meet existing grade for drives off the street.  Would the applicant be asking the Town to accept this part of the road? No. Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015 Page 3  Can the grade approaching the subdivision be reduced to below 10%? The street was too steep and would cause considerable disruption.  The waiver for permanent bounds would it be for the new lots configuration? No, it would be for the entire ROW not the lots.  The intent would be to sell the lots? Yes. Mr. Henry said the vacant lot could be held under covenant as a performance guarantee until the way was constructed if that was what the Board wanted.  This would not be a sidewalk would go to nowhere; the Town was built in increments and eventually would all paths and sidewalks would connect. If many of the abutters did not want a sidewalk it might be a reason to reconsider that issue. The slope of the road with the landscape and trees would be difficult. The alternative would be not to build a house. The Board should consider fairness since an approval for a street determination was given for this road not too long ago. Audience Comments:  An abutter adjacent to one of the properties said the sidewalk to nowhere would be a sidewalk to his property. There were no sidewalks on this street or around the neighborhood and it felt pretty safe and the project seemed unworkable adding a sidewalk. How would it be decided if the street would become one-way and how would abutters get their voices heard? This was not a public street and legally not possible to become a one-way street and would not be a practical solution.  How much longer would it be till all paths and sidewalks were be joined. Only a handful of people use this as foot traffic and there has never been an issue with cars.  This would be waste if tax payers money.  What would be the width proposed for ROW? It is variable now, but would be paved to a 20 foot width. Would it be even on both sides? It would be widened on the uphill side. The street should be even on both sides.  What trees were planned to be removed? A majority would be in front of the applicant’s property.  How far to the east would the road be extended? It would be extended five feet at the greatest point. That would be a lot of land for one side, propose two and a half feet on each side.  Why was the applicant taking trees in front of other people’s property? The changes would be within a legal ROW and the sidewalk was requested by the Planning Board. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015  A lot of abutters did not get notices.  Would an applicant need to go through a process to cut down a tree? There was a tree bylaw governing trees on the lots. Board Comments:  The issue of fairness was raised regarding the prior street determination on this way, which was be different because this would be a forever plan and the street determination was not. The variance was not subject to the subdivision control law. Pat Nelson said that applicant could have come in with an ANR plan after the variances were granted. The applicant was guided to this process for additional flexibility. This would then have been the functional equivalent of an unaccepted street plan.  The Board would like to hear from more abutters and the applicant should reach out to the neighbors on Colony Road so the Board could hear from the majority of the abutters.  This project should ensure motorists and pedestrians have equal access.  There could be a consideration to waive a sidewalk with enough backing from abutters. Mike Kosmos planned to meet with Engineering to address the comments and would need more time to complete the plans. The sidewalk committee would be meeting with the applicant’s team on Monday. Mrs. Anderson, the applicant, said this was a hardship and they have bent over backwards to meet with the Planning Board’s requests. These lots have been granted variances and were buildable. We have been trying to comply with the Board’s requests and were just going around in circles with a large dimension of unfairness.  There either needs to be a change of plan or change of consensus of the Board. Audience comments:  The objections of the abutters were not being heard by the Board. The consensus of abutters was they like the street as it currently exists. A rush to push a sidewalk plan would have a lot of objections and did not like the way things have gone. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to June 17 at 7:00 p.m. in the SMR. ****************************LONG RANGE PLANNING************************** Payment in Lieu of parking (PILOP), Discussion with the Economic Development Officer: Melisa Tintocalis, the Economic Development Officer came before the Board to discuss the framework of the PILOP policy. This policy was a comprehensive plan that would provide Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015 Page 5 alternatives to meet parking requirements especially in the Center (CB district). A PILOP framework document was submitted to the Board and would be on file in the Planning office for this meeting. The goals, when PILOP would be applied, the mechanics and how the funds would be used were provided in the document. Board Comments:  This was a good concept, but what incentives would be used to make the Center more vibrant? Not sure this would be the right program to control things.  What would the money would be used for and how much cooperation would be received by private lot owners for creating new parking? Revenues to enhance the current parking and create better layouts would be good, but need to have a better sense of what uses should be incentivized.  How would we get private landowners interested in this policy?  There were concerns about the disconnect between the desires to encouragement economic growth, yet not urbanize the Center.  If this policy was rushed it could ruin something that would be good. There would need to be more pieces in place first to move forward with this policy.  This was a great first step and would be willing to work with the committee and others on this process.  At the MAPC meeting Secretary Pollock discussed how to get people to use multi-modal forms of transportation. For long trips three plus miles it would be hard to get people to use anything but single occupancy vehicles, but for less than one mile find a way to incentivize people to get to the Center by means other than with cars. Ms. Tintocalis said she came away with that the bullets listed for the framework document as submitted should remain, encourage multi-modal forms of transportation through the Center, and Ms. Corocoran-Ronchetti would work on the development of the PILOP policy. She would get feedback from the Center Committee and BOS and then return with something more robust for the Planning Board’s input. This policy was on a time line and would look to come back in September with a proposed new policy. **********************ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE************************ Discussion of Housing Forum/Appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee and Membership and Charge: There were updates submitted from Ms. Johnson regarding the Residential Policy Committee charge to the staff’s revised version. The Board approved the new name of Residential Policy Ad Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015 Hoc Committee and added a report from the committee would be submitted to the Planning Board with its recommendations. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the charge as amended. On a motion made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the following additional members of the committee Ms. Jeri Foutter and Mr. Tom Harden. The Board accepted the notes as the formal meeting summary for the listening session. th The first meeting will be June 9. There will be a section on the website with the notes from the th meeting on May 20, the formal charge, and other important information regarding this committee. Board of Selectmen’s (BOS) Annual Goal Setting: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, the Planning Director would send a letter with the updated list of items that the Planning Board would like the BOS to consider as they set their goals for the next two years. A copy of the letter would be forwarded to Planning Board members. Discussion of Housing Forum common themes: It was expressed at the housing forum that the Planning Board should consider being more active with the ZBA petitions? There were common themes that came up, but not all conform to what the Planning Board could do or should not be done. There was a sense that a portion of the community did not understand the legal limitations of the Board and hope the committee could to reach out to inform the community on as to what the Planning Board does, how it was restricted on certain policies, and how residents could weigh in on the process. Categories that were discussed were affordable housing, senior housing , change zoning that does not work, the adverse impact of development, preservation of trees, sustainability, access to open space, traffic, school enrollment, green building, energy ratings, preserving town character, and not all development was bad. There was questions about the public process Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015 Page 7 There were many comments regarding the failure of the cluster development, concern about the FAR and setbacks. Lexington has very few constraints on regulating the process to balance the development impacts and individual property owner’s rights. Take a look at what other communities that are prosperous have done with regulations on redevelopment. A joint meeting with the Board and the committee should be scheduled to look at what the Planning Board approved in the past 3-5 years and representative teardowns in the field to give the Board a sense of what was successful. Discuss senior housing separate from the affordable housing and look into neighborhood conservation districts. ********************************BOARD REPORTS***************************** The Lexington Housing Partnership presented a draft document that was put together on a tenant based housing program. Some comments were made to the draft. The Parking Management Group tentatively approved a meter head for the trial period. The Grain Mill Alley Committee was introduced to the past plans and was updated on what would be next. 2020 Vision talked about their next initiative. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 10:12 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Submittal of definitive plan application for 17 Colony Road, from Patricia Nelson, dated March 27, 2015 (27 pages)  Definitive subdivision plan set for 17 Colony Road, dated March 3, 2015 (5 pages).  Staff Summary and recommendation regarding 17 Colony Road, dated June 3, 2015 (2 pages).  Memorandum from John Livsey, Engineering for 17 Colony Road, dated May 29, 2015 (1 page).  Mr. Hornig’s comments on 17 Colony Road, dated May 29, 2015 (1 page)  PILOP Frame work from Melisa Tintocalis (1 page). Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 3, 2015  “Lexington Planning Board Residential Policy and the Lexington We Want” Committee charge from staff with edits from Ginna Johnson (2 pages).  Proposed draft memorandum to the Board of Selectmen on goal setting from staff with edits from Tim Dunn and Richard Canale, dated June 3, 2015 (3 pages).  th Residential policy Listening session audience comments from the May 20 meeting by staff (4 pages). Timothy Dunn, Clerk