Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-19-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on January 19, 2022, Virtual Meeting at 7:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Robert Creech, Melanie Thompson, and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present was Eve Tapper, Administrative Interim Planner. Charles Hornig, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, January 19, 2022, at 7:02 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia may broadcast this meeting live and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Hornig conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Hornig provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that written materials for this meeting are available on the Town's NovusAGENDA dashboard. *******************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION******************** 75 Outlook Drive, Public Hearing for a Site-Sensitive Development Special Permit: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Present were Michael Novak, project engineer; Eduardo Alvarez, applicant; and Jeff Thoma, landscape architect. Mr. Novak presented the plan for the proposed project. Mr. Thoma presented the proposed landscape plan showing what was being preserved for the existing mature landscape surrounding the historic house, the new landscape plan for the rest of the site, and the open space. Mr. Novak addressed the issues and concerns from DRT and planning staff and said they are th on the agenda for February 16 for the Historical Commission and will delineate the open space as requested. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for the status of the street adequacy determination. He asked if the applicant met with abutters regarding the stormwater runoff. Mr. Creech asked that the applicant to respond to the questions in writing. He asked for clarification on how much fill they would be bringing on to the site. He asked that at the next meeting to bring information on the impact of removing the foundation dirt from the site as opposed to spreading it out on the site to deflect water. He asked for clarification if they were mimicking the existing architectural style, in a general manor. He asked if a street name would be proposed and, if so, then he proposed John Lewis Lane. Mr. Hornig directed staff to run this name by the Police and Fire Departments. Ms. Tapper said the applicant proposed the name of Effie Place for the wife of George Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 Briggs which is affiliated with the lot itself and Fire Department was fine with that proposed name. Mr. Hornig asked staff to also run by the Fire Department the name Mr. Creech proposed before the next meeting.  Mr. Schanbacher asked for clarification regarding the existing gardens and on what they would be demolishing and then rebuilding due to the stormwater detention pond. He requested more information be provided at the next meeting about the western edge on managing the stormwater next to the abutter on Outlook Drive.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on what would be done with the main house in the middle (carriage house). She said the main house would be surrounded by the shared driveway and asked for clarification if there was only one way in and out to Outlook Drive.  Mr. Hornig wanted the applicant to discuss a Historic Preservation Restriction with the Historical Commission at their next meeting on the main house and some of the landscape elements and update the Board at the next meeting. He asked if they reviewed the special permit design regulations in section 12 to figure out which waivers you might want to request? Address the staff memo from Engineering regarding the street construction.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification if the northernly lot was a stand-alone from the rest of the project including the stormwater management perspective. He asked for clarification on how ownership obligations like a Home Owner’s Association (HOA) would be set up for road and stormwater system maintenance. He requested clarification on if all four homes were to be subjected to the HOA obligations. Will there be any common owned areas? Make sure the stormwater requirements are exceeded. Ms. Tapper asked if the steep slopes would be part of the common open space on a separate lot. Ms. Tapper asked if there is any visitor parking? Public Comments:  An abutter was upset about this project and that Mr. Alvarez said he only heard about stormwater concerns. The neighbors are upset that the value of the natural space is not being preserved and that once it is changed it cannot be undone.  There was concern expressed that Outlook Drive is a very narrow street and this large driveway being created will cause issues with delivery trucks, parking of vehicles on the street, and snow which makes this road so narrow only allowing only one car to pass at a time.  It was asked if this project will be reviewed under 9.4.2 the old or new version? If new this does not meet the criteria for diversity in the Town.  These are very large houses on this property and the applicant will need to deforest and cut a lot of trees on the property which is happening a lot here. House number 1 is very close to the lot line. There was a question that the hill has a lot of ledge how much ledge work is anticipated for this project. There is concern since there is a lot of ledge in the neighborhood and there will be a lot of Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 Page 3 work needed about damage that can be done to the houses nearby. People are working from home now and that is an issue.  There was concern expressed that one house would have another new access directly to Outlook Drive and would create a safety issue for children when they are out walking. Snowplows do not do a good job in winter and this makes it difficult for cars to pass on the street.  There was concern that there will be a lot of runoff going onto the street.  This project does not seem to be site sensitive with all the deforestation that will be done to the site. He asked for clarification on why the developer is putting so many big homes on the site.  The tree warden should pay better attention to removal of trees. I had to notify them on another home.  The applicant should consider selling parts of the lots that are not needed to the neighbors. Board Member questions for the next meeting:  Mr. Peters requested they bring a preliminary evaluation on the amount of tree caliper inches that you expect to be removed compared to what you will be replacing. Take a look at pedestrian safety on Outlook Drive mitigations and speak with the Police Department and public safety for some ideas for mitigation.  Mr. Creech requested the developer do something with top-of-the-line insulation that is better then what the code requires plus use triple glazed windows.  Mr. Schanbacher had nothing at this time.  Ms. Thompson does not like conflict with developers and neighbors and the applicant should work with abutters so there is satisfaction all the way around and when you come back show how you are working well with the neighborhood.  Mr. Leon asked three questions: Is it feasible to prevent a second curb and have access to the northerly lot from the common driveway? Can you put more guest parking on the site? Can you make this project more energy efficient and make a net-zero development with electric heat pumps and have all four houses? Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for the special permit application for 75 Outlook Drive to Wednesday March 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED 69 Pleasant Street, Sketch Plan 2 for a Site-Sensitive Development Special Permit: Mr. Hornig opened the public meeting. Present were Michael Novak, project engineer; Todd Cataldo, applicant; and Jeff Thoma, landscape architect. Mr. Novak presented the nd 2 sketch plan with the changes made to the proposed project and explained why they can’t share driveways for some units due to the existing slope of the driveway for the Fire Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 Department. Mr. Thoma showed the trees to be removed and explained that they are trying to save as many mature trees and tree canopies as possible including a Norway Maple canopy tree. Mr. Novak said they will save the existing house with additions and the barn will be removed. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for clarification on what the grade on the main driveway would likely be. He asked for clarification on why you would be saving the Norway Maples which are invasive trees. Can you provide the number and size of the trees to be removed and to be replaced?  Mr. Creech said he wanted energy efficient buildings with the insulation inside and perhaps an exterior layer of rigid insulation. Heat pumps might also be used. He also suggested a street name of John Lewis Lane. He said that Board members and the Applicants have time to consider this street name before any discussion takes place.  Mr. Schanbacher asked to minimize the paving for the project as much as possible and to minimize runoff.  Ms. Thompson asked if this is the only entrance from Pleasant Street for this project and was concerned about traffic safety at that location. She asked if there was any affordable house provided.  Mr. Leon was concerned about the proposed location of this driveway which is near a challenging design intersection. Ms. Tapper said Engineering was redesigning this the road intersection and the applicant should stay in touch with Engineering.  Mr. Hornig said check in with the Tree Warden regarding the Norway Maples. He said preserving the existing house is the only reason to do this as a site-sensitive development and would be looking for a historic preservation/deed restriction from the Historical Commission so the applicant should meet with them before coming back with a definitive proposal. He believed this would be a better as a public benefit development. Public Comments and Questions:  There was an abutter concern about runoff to the east of the development that would be problematic. The abutter suggested doing cluster housing and not huge houses. The abutter asked for clarification on access uphill through Milliken Road.  There was concern was expressed about the Watertown and Pleasant Street intersection which is dangerous, especially during commuter hours. He believed this intersection will get worse with this development.  He applauded the developer for trying to keep the trees along Pleasant Street but was concerned about traffic at the existing intersection. Board Members Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters said he would rather see a Public Benefit Development here and hopes the developer will give it some consideration. Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 Page 5 **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Discussion of Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Funding: Present were Mr. Chris Herbert and Sarah Felton co-chairs for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC); Daphne Politis, consultant; Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; and Molly Belanger, planner. Mr. Herbert said this was to update the Planning Board on the status of the plan. Ms. Politis presented the Comprehensive Plan Outline and the proposed schedule for the upcoming meetings was discussed for Thursday, February 17 and Wednesday, March 9 to discuss the plan. ***************************TOWN MEETING***************************** Amend Zoning Bylaw for Sustainable Residential Incentives: Mr. Hornig said the materials are not ready yet and may be discussed at the next meeting th or at the public hearing on February 16. Amend Zoning Bylaw and Map for Mixed-Use Developments and Multi-Family Housing: Mr. Hornig presented the draft proposal for the Board to decide whether or not to bring it forward to a public hearing. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters said his inclination was to go forward with two open questions: If we do commit to this path would it affect our ability to implement the MBTA Community Regulations in the future? Will the Comprehensive Plan have anything that would be contradictory in those two projects going forward on different tracts? He said he felt it does make sense to move this forward and asked what date would the public hearing be held and was concerned about outreach.  Mr. Creech had a concern if 65 feet is the correct height. He would like to see adequate due diligence to include more research on this project. He had concerns and said there is more work that needs to be done and did not want to rush this through. He would rather bring it forward in the Fall Town Meeting or the 2023 Spring Town Meeting.  Mr. Schanbacher said we need to be mindful of typical dimensions from a development standpoint. He had concerns about getting this into shape for Annual Town Meeting in March, but this could be used as part of the public outreach process. Having a public hearing in February would be good to get the public comfortable with this.  Ms. Thompson said she felt it was not ready for a public hearing and we need more information and details before bringing it to a public hearing.  Mr. Leon said this needs a lot more work not just between now and the public hearing. Would this draft bylaw allow for a strictly/mostly multi-family building? He was concerned that parking is a complicated issue. What should happen to town-owned property north of the bikeway? He says this is a critical issue and we need more input from stakeholders. We should do a workshop sooner rather than Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 later and provide an agenda for a timeline and hold an official public hearing sometime over the next nine months.  Mr. Hornig said his inclination was to take this to a public hearing since it is hard to get public engagement without a public hearing.  Ms. Thompson asked what would be the objection to a workshop that she believed was a good idea?  Mr. Peters agreed that it should be brought to a public hearing to get public engagement for feedback.  Mr. Creech felt we still need to do a public engagement with people first and not do a public hearing and not bring it to the upcoming Town Meeting as a concept.  Mr. Schanbacher believed we should bring this to a public hearing in February and decide after the meeting whether or not to bring forward to the 2022 Annual Town Meeting. Public Comments and Questions:  Mr. Michelson said the Center Committee heard the draft earlier and believes the concept is good, but there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. We need to be prepared to do this but get it right on the first try. If we partner together we can get more engagement and urge you not to bring it to the public yet.  A member of the Center Committee said seven years ago there was a comprehensive proposal to add residential housing to the Center and it was shut down due to the height limit that was under 65 feet due to shadowing. Maybe go back to the proposal from seven years ago and see what was proposed and what was objected to and consider the MBTA guideline coming soon as well as the CPAC guidelines and then see where it goes from there. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board bring this amendment for mixed-use developments and multi-family housing as substantially presented tonight to a public hearing. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-2-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – no; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – no; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Board Member Updates: Mr. Creech gave an update on the MAGIC meeting last week. Mr. Hornig said the will be another SPRD Committee meeting next week. Mr. Hornig also said there will be another webinar about the MBTA Community Guidelines run by MAGIC on February 1. Upcoming Meetings: The next meeting is February 2 with four public hearings. Mr. Schanbacher will present the Technical Corrections article at the public hearing. Mr. Peters will present the Open Space Residential Development article at the public hearing. The next meeting is February 16 for two public hearings for zoning articles. February 17 will be a meeting with the CPAC. March 2 will Minutes for the Meeting of January 19, 2022 Page 7 be for continued public hearings on residential developments. March 9 and 16 will be additional meetings through Town Meeting. Review Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2021: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of December 15, 2021. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Adjourn Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 19, 2022. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm Lex Media recorded the meeting. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 75 Outlook Drive:  Subdivision application dated November 15, 2021 (5 pages).  Model Home elevations dated November 30, 2021 (4 pages).  Staff Memo on subdivision dated January 12, 2022 (5 pages).  Plan set dated November 15, 2021 (11 pages).  Stormwater report dated November 15, 2021 (170 pages).  Town Engineer subdivision comments dated January 6, 2022 (2 pages).  Street determination Application dated November 15, 2021 (5 pages).  Historic Home elevation plan (4 pages).  Staff memo dated January 18, 2022 (2 pages). 69 Pleasant Street:  Subdivision application dated November 15, 2021 (5 pages).  Civil Engineer form dated August 9, 2021 (1 page)  Plan set dated August 9, 2021 (5 pages).  Landscape Architect for dated August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Staff review dated January 12, 2022 (2 pages).  Applicants response to staff comments dated 11/15/21. Town Meeting:  Draft motion for Mixed-Use Developments and Multi-Family Housing dated January 14, 2022 (2 pages).  Staff memo dated January 14, 2022 (3 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board