Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-11-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. ******************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION********************** PUBLIC HEARING 112 Laconia Street, Solly’s Way, modification of subdivision: On application the owner/developer Bill Eycleshymer of Eyecon Construction was seeking to modify the approved subdivision plan of 112 Laconia Street (Solly’s Way). The amendments sought were to reduce the pavement width from 20 to 18 feet, a release from obligation to construct the sidewalk within the development in exchange for the reconstruction of the sidewalk along the project's Laconia Street frontage, and the approval of one above-grade utility pole. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to take surety of $6,000 to cover the removal of the utility pole in three years when a street opening permit could be granted. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to reduce the pavement width of Solly’s Way from 20 to 18 feet. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to modify a condition of the special permit and allow the reconstruction of the sidewalk along Laconia Street instead of along Solly’s Way. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to allow the street trees to be moved back from the pavement edge so they would not need to be removed if the road were extended at some future date. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to waive the requirements of §175-57 with regard to changes/amendments to the site construction plan. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to allow the Planning Director sign the certificate of action on behalf of the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING 341 Marrett Road, Balanced Housing Development: In attendance were Ron Lopez, applicant, Daniel Harrington, Attorney, and Rick Waitt and John Gwozdz of Meridian Associates. There were eight people in the audience. Mr. Waitt presented the new updates, which included seven new dwelling units and retention of the main house, rebuilding the carriage house (as one of the seven new units), extensive landscaping of the perimeter, and a stone dust pedestrian path to Wachusett Drive. Mr. Todd requested the well be preserved and asked that the proposed trees be designated to be hickory trees. Mr. Waitt said the well would be preserved and he would look into the possibility of using hickory trees. The State had required two leaching catch basins be placed at the end of the drive on Marrett Road, which the revised plan reflects. Mr. Hornig said that he received letters from abutters indicating that their issues have been addressed and they support the project as presented. Board comments: Mr. Canale said he was concerned about the draft master deed limiting the use of the stone dust path to unit owners and residents of Wachusett Drive; it should be used for public access. Mr. Harrington said the reason for not opening it up to the public was liability issues. Mr. Canale said other subdivisions have similar conditions and he would not support the plan without it. Mr. Zurlo asked if they had met with the design advisory committee (DAC). Ms. Manz said the liability issue could be dealt with by posting a small sign indicating passage was at their own risk. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the units would have basements or cellars. Mr. Waitt said cellars. Mr. Galaitsis questioned if slopes at the entrance of the property were excessive or were they now less then two percent. Mr. Waitt believed it was 4-5% on one side and 2-3% on the other because of how Marrett Road was pitched. The reason was to keep the fill amount down and dealing with an infiltration system. Mr. Galaitsis asked if there would be a provision for an affordable unit. The response was no. Mr. Hornig wanted to make sure the restrictive covenant on the main house still existed. The response was yes. Audience Comments: The children have been using the path over the years and it would be much friendlier to let ?? them use it than putting up a no trespassing sign. Pleased with the changes that have been made over time. ?? If a color had not been selected for the houses the suggestion would be to choose a spruce ?? green to blend into the trees. The main issue with the pathway was that it remain a pathway and not be expanded to ?? something bigger. The plan was acceptable to most and they wanted to thank the Planning Board for its action ?? requiring the developer to work with the neighbors. One abutter said there was no line of trees along the border of his house and he would like a ?? fence to there to shield against car headlights. Mr. Gwozdz said there would be a fence in that section and arbor vitae along the pavement edge. What material would the fence be made of? It would be cedar. ?? A packet was submitted to the Planning Board with signatures of 30 neighbors supporting the ?? project. One resident said the mature hemlock hedge was dying and they may want to consider other ?? screening there. Mr. Harrington said they would open up the path to the public with a cautionary sign. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Board Discussions: Mr. Hornig said the following were potential conditions for approval of the special permit: The applicant present an easement for the public pedestrian path to Town; ?? A historic preservation agreement be presented for the large existing house; ?? The required covenants for the drainage system and landscaping need to be submitted; ?? A requirement of an affordable unit being offered; ?? The pedestrian pathway conditions need to be discussed; ?? The requirement of DAC input; and ?? The slopes within the first 75 feet of the entrance. ?? He asked for the position of the Board members on this development. Mr. Galaitsis said his concern was that the units not increase the burden on the Town. When fewer units were requested, it was indicated that the number of larger units be reduced, not that the smaller units be eliminated. The idea was to provide units appropriate for empty-nesters and young professionals without children. Ms. Manz was in favor of this BHD with conditions including an easement for a path, not a finished sidewalk; historic preservation of the main house; water management that meets the peer review conditions; and the addition of specific provisions such as the wooden fence and tree preservation. Mr. Zurlo had a few fundamental questions regarding obtaining affordable units and how to approach that issue. The Board would need to add to regulations, otherwise the Town would not get affordable units in the future. Mr. Canale said he would approve with conditions since it had improved over time. He wanted to make sure that the slopes from Marrett Road going up the drive to the units would be suitable for handicapped access. Mr. Hornig this project was acceptable with the earlier conditions, but the issues of affordable units and the driveway slope should have been brought up sooner. He was uncomfortable doing this at this late date. Mr. Zurlo said that that the path was a great connection, but was it was too natural for this connection and they should consider a wooden log step instead of the gravel path for safety issues. Ms. Manz said the path should not become a sidewalk, as that might create requirements for handicapped access, which would not be feasible. Mr. Hornig said it would be a stone dust path and it would be the burden of the Homeowners Association to maintain. Mr. Zurlo stated that throughout the process he had asked for the DAC to review the plan and for models. The applicant came forward with only pictures. He wanted to know how the Board would approach projects and when would the DAC get involved with these projects. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the DAC had been notified of the development and could have commented if they so chose. Mr. Zurlo asked when did the Board feel it appropriate to send the applicant to DAC. Mr. Canale said with respect to the pedestrian path, the easement could provide for access to the path and require markers. Regarding signage for use of the path, this could be reviewed by planning staff or some other town officials to guarantee it would be appropriate. Mr. Zurlo said the issue was when should the Board require the applicant to go before DAC for their comments. Ms. Manz said the Planning Board had jurisdiction over the site plan and DAC advice maybe helpful, but not binding. Mr. Hornig said the following special conditions would be required: The applicant present an easement for the public pedestrian stone dust path to be maintained · by the Homeowners Association; A 10 x 10 x 42 inch granite post mark the path with an arrow to Wachusett Drive and be · reviewed by the planning staff; A historic preservation agreement be presented for the large existing house; · The required covenants for the drainage system and landscaping plan; · On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) by poll of the Board to approve the special permit with site plan review for the balanced housing development plan at 341 Marrett Road with special conditions. ******************************TOWN MEETING******************************** Three Ledgemont, plan updates: Present were Gary Larson, landscape architect, Peter Nichols, of the Beal Companies, Ed Grant, Attorney, and Joe Gloski, architect. Mr. Nichols highlighted the changes and noted that the DAC said the plan had come a long way with the design. Mr. Gloski said there still were 162,000 square feet of office area and 415 parking spaces. The mass of the building was moved away from the south end and the wetlands. The penthouse was removed and most of the mechanicals were placed within the building except for elevator overruns and ventilation and exhaust structures. The atrium and office spaces face the wetlands. Some of the elevation was removed off the south end and additional square footage was relocated creating more exposure on the Spring Street elevation. A green wall would be installed to further screen the atrium. The building elevations were stepped back and would only expose four stories at any side. The top roof level would be at or below the tree canopy. Mr. Larson said 20% of the mass was moved parallel to Spring Street. Mr. Nichols reviewed the design principles that he handed out and said they were committed to getting LEED certified. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said the public hearing was in two weeks and that amendments to the PSDUP would be necessary to ensure compliance with what they were now presenting. He asked if they had anything to hand out tonight. Mr. Nichols said he would submit them on February 25. Mr. Canale suggested that be made available well before the hearing. Mr. Canale asked about the mitigation and TDM plan changes and when would they be ready. Mr. Nichols said by February 25. Mr. Canale asked what would be the increased value of the property after it was rezoned, but before the building was constructed. He found the wording not acceptable; they should adhere to the minimal standards in the present bylaws. All lighting should meet present standards according to the PSDUP. Mr. Zurlo said the project had come a long way and would like to hear about the ongoing traffic mitigation discussions. Mr. Zurlo asked if a zinc non-reflective solid metal panel would be used since it was not listed specifically in the PSDUP. Ms. Manz said she was pleased with the changes in moving the building away from residential areas. She asked if the developer had met with their abutters regarding these changes. Mr. Nichols said a meeting was being set up shortly. She requested an update on the traffic demand management discussions . Mr. Nichols said they are still in discussions. Mr. Galaitsis was pleased with the way the building was morphing away from the abutters. He would like information given to the Board a week in advance of the public hearing. There should be validation of the financial net benefit to be realized by the Town. The information should be obtained from an official in the Town or an independent party with an explanation of how the numbers were derived. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the other impact on the residents in the area is traffic; this has been a perennial problem. Promises for improvements had been made in the past and yet no sustainable improvements have been achieved as of yet. When improvements were implemented in the past, conditions had always deteriorated after a short while. Mr. Canale said since there would be more exposure of the building on Spring Street, they should replace the street trees that had been cut down due to disease. The funding for Lexpress should be for the duration of the special permit not just 50 years. Mr. Hornig had one technical point regarding gross floor area (GFA), which by definition should include parking areas. Did the Beal numbers include the parking areas? Mr. Nichols said no, only office space. Mr. Hornig said to update the information to match the definition in the bylaws. *****************************BOARD REPORTS***************************** Mr. Canale, as authorized by the Board, had spoken with the Tree Committee and other groups regarding the Scenic Road Byway. It appeared trees in the right of way would be protected, but not the stonewalls. He was going to speak with engineering to see if there were a solution, and if none were made available, he would ask the Board to sponsor an article for next year. Mr. Zurlo asked the status of the traffic calming policy. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it was in the hands of the Town Manager. Mr. Galaitsis said the Noise Advisory Committee was indefinitely postponing its warrant article. Mr. Hornig said the Conservation Commission was in deep discussion on the two-lot subdivision off Blueberry Lane. Mr. Canale said there would be a tree hearing on Shade Street trees next week. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk