Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Canale, Galaitsis, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. ***************************TOWN MEETING******************************** Article 49: Ms. Susan Yanofsky, Economic Development Officer, said the Town and Beal Company had reached an agreement for a mitigation plan for the Ledgemont project. The agreement was a total package of $800,000 with the first payment of $500,000 at the issuance of their building permits and the balance of $300,000 upon receipt of the certificate of occupancy. $200,000 of those monies would be designated to transportation services. The Board of Selectmen will be presented with the document on Monday night. A copy of the agreement was just distributed to the Board for review. ************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION********************** 91-93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens, continued public input on the sketch plan: Joe Marino, John Esserian and Rick Waitt were present. Audience Comments: Mr. Hornig said he would recognize Mr. Clough and Mr. Oldenburg as they represented groups from the neighborhood. Mr. Clough said there were three plans on the table. The neighborhood’s first concern would be aesthetics. The houses should be set back from Hancock Street. There would be very large houses on small lots and the public benefit should be considered not only in terms of a playfield desired by the Town, but also in terms of the aesthetic value for the neighborhood. The fabric of the neighborhood has always been defined by the open space of Lexington Gardens and should 1 February 18, 2009 be maintained. Plan B with modifications addressed many of the issues on aesthetics. The next issue was safety and the green space on the frontage provides good sight lines for traffic entering and exiting the development. A petition supporting plan B with modifications such as a single curb cut and fewer units was given to the Board. Plan A would be unacceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting. Mr. Oldenburg said there were three concerns traffic, open space, and the look and feel of the character of the neighborhood. The concern with plan B was it proposed 26 homes, which would be a greater number of houses than on any other surrounding street, the units would be larger and closer together, and there would be impacts to traffic especially with the two curb cuts and one being close to the rotary and the Diamond School access road. It would be better to have a single curb cut further away from the rotary and he proposed a modified Plan B to be called C-1 with one curb cut located as far away from the rotary as possible. The open space along Hancock Street would serve an important local community function. The playing field maybe a benefit to others in the Town, but not to the local community since there were already local playing fields. The local neighborhood should benefit first, and the Town second. A traffic study would be a good idea, perhaps funded by the developer. Ms. Ada Wong owns a ranch house across the street from where the curb cuts would be. She was concerned that as her bedrooms are in the front, she would not be able to sleep with all the lights from traffic. Mr. Jerry Van Hook, chair of the sidewalk committee, said there had been discussions regarding the Hancock Street roundabout and there was concern about children going to the school, especially in the morning since half the children come through the west side entry. He wanted to reinforce requiring a professional traffic study. Mr. Jerry Sacks was not aware of what the developer was going to do. What was the Planning Board’s goal for this land - more taxes, more people, new playing fields? What would be the gain of 26 units versus 11 by right? What do we need open space for and who would maintain it? How was it that that the zoning rules could suddenly be relaxed? How can we cram so many 2 February 18, 2009 houses in this space? Mr. Hornig said the Planning Board goals are set forth in section 44 of the ZBL and nothing had yet been decided regarding this development. These homes approximated the average Lexington house size and would have fewer people than if they were larger homes. Preserving open space and protecting the wetlands were some of the Board’s goals. The changes to the residential developments were approved at Town Meeting last year. He invited those with more questions to contact the planning staff. Mr. Bill Carlson said a traffic study should be completed and cover Hancock Street and nearby streets. Mr. Gary Larson said speaking as a resident he favored plan C-1. Mr. Larson liked open space along Hancock Street, which maintained the existing character and balanced the houses across the street. The grass and trees offers a spacious feeling and would serve as a buffer between vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic along Hancock Street and the houses. This plan offered a more pleasant entrance into the development and the line of sight would be much better and safer. While he supports additional playfields, having them integrated into a residential development would not be a compatible use since users would have to enter and exit through the development. Ms. Leda Zimmerman wanted another plan proposed. While she fully endorsed Clough’s description of the reaction to the current plan, the traffic and safety issues still need to be addressed. The density is too great and there needs to be a better balance of open space and homes. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said there were some good attributes as well as drawbacks to plan C-1 and he wanted to clarify the Planning Board’s authority on this matter. The Board could encourage the developer to work with Town officials to try and get the traffic problems fixed, but could not require it. The Board of Selectmen was in the process of determining what to do with streets in 3 February 18, 2009 the Town to make them safer. This type of road was designated as an Urban Minor Arterial and any efforts to calm traffic at the rotary would need to be addressed by the Board of Selectmen. Houses on Hancock Street as shown in plan C-1 should be avoided and the crawl spaces should not be higher then 5.5 to 6 feet. Mr. Zurlo asked the staff to discuss the density regarding the 26 units for a balanced housing development (BHD). Mr. Henry said the bylaw regulates gross floor area (GFA), not density. Mr. Zurlo said overall one curb cut makes sense. The applicant was complying with the overall unit size for the BHD, but was that number discretionary. It would be a good idea to ask for additional traffic information. Mr. Hornig said the Planning Board was not required to approve a BHD, the discretion was either in the approval or non-approval of a development; however, a denial could not be arbitrary or capricious. Ms. Manz clarified that the zoning bylaws had been amended to encourage a variety of housing, as opposed to homes larger then 7,000 square feet. A plan with more density encourages development more in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods, provides more useable open space, keeps down the impervious surface ratio, and, in this particular development, provides a playing field. She was uncomfortable with plan C-1 because of the increase in the impervious surface and the front open space with houses backing up to it along Hancock Street. The Board was being mindful of traffic and moving the entrance and having one curb cut would be good. She also supported a traffic study by the developer with data regarding any substantial increase in traffic from the proposed houses. Mr. Galaitsis said since the developer could always fall back on the conventional option, the increased number of units of a BHD is a major incentive, which provides the Board authority to negotiate. If the units were to stay at this proposed size there should be fewer units. As proposed, they were all very large homes and would be occupied by full-sized families increasing traffic substantially and so he would favor a traffic study although one was not mandatory. He would favor units with two bedrooms for empty nesters as well as some units to be combined and attached, which would increase open space. 4 February 18, 2009 Mr. Hornig said the bylaws require a traffic study be done when an additional 50 units were added to a site, otherwise it considered the traffic impacts as negligible. Things to consider for the developer were the schools’ and recreation department’s interest in a playing field and the length of the road with a single curb. The development would probably be improved with a reduced GFA and could offer more flexibility. Mr. Marino said all the units would be under the 3,700 square-foot size limit for moderate homes. He pointed out that plan C-1 was not theirs and they were not proposing it. Mr. Waitt said a conventional development could be built, but instead they were looking for the framework for the next step. ******************************TOWN MEETING***************************** Article 48: If Ms. McKenna gets something to the planning staff it will be put in the packets Friday. Article 49: Mr. Canale said the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) met and they were surprised at the TDM agreement, which was less than what was originally offered. ********************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************ Article 44: The Board discussed the changes in the definition of the CM zone to reflect the proposed changes.. FAR: Mr. Canale wanted clarification as to what the Board wanted to permit by right. A few weeks ago it was .35 FAR and to now throw out an FAR of .40 without any basis would be an extreme error on the Board’s part. The second issue would be regarding special permits. The Board needed a goal for the district build out beyond the .35 FAR and should have an idea of what that number would be and present it to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig suggested the Board seek input at the public hearing before determining what would be brought before Town Meeting for the FAR. Sky view: It was suggested that the sky view be removed because it was too complicated. Ms. Manz said she did not find it too complicated. Mr. Zurlo said to remove it because it does not do what the Board wants. There was no consensus to remove at this time. 5 February 18, 2009 Site Plan Review Exemptions: The EDAC was interested in what would be allowable. Mr. Zurlo said the Board needed to define what were considered major and minor site plan reviews and allow for a shorter time for minor site plan reviews. Mr. Galaitsis said to leave it the same. Ms. McCall Taylor said that the current bylaw takes up to 155 days and that the 60 days was heading in the right direction. Mr. Hornig said for now he hears the consensus is to leave it at 60 days. Site Plan Review Regulations: Mr. Canale volunteered to tackle the transportation principles for the site plan review regulations. Article 45: Mr. Hornig said the changes were made to clarify that the improvements could happen within the area that serves the district, not just the district itself. Mr. Canale said the TAC was very concerned that transit operations were not clearly spelled out and allowable in this provision. Mr. Hornig said changes were awaiting input from the Attorney General’s office. Mr. Henry said he had an upcoming phone call appointment to discuss this and other matters regarding what would be acceptable with the Assistant Attorney General. The changes would be based on the input of the Attorney General’s office and will be discussed if needed next week. Guiding Principles of the Transportation Plan: Mr. Canale prepared guiding principles and would like to use them as part of the presentation in two weeks. Ms. Manz was worried about number two, which creates unrealistic expectations and would be a formula for failure. Mr. Canale said all this would do was level the playing field when considering a project and make sure all input would be taken into account. Ms. Manz said to enter language saying “a good faith effort” to create a balance would be put forth. Mr. Hornig said this would not go into the bylaw, but this would be a statement of intent. Mr. Galaitsis asked how the Board could create an image of trust that all these matters would be addressed. Mr. Hornig said this plan was to give people a level of comfort as to the intent of this plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor said staff was developing a RFP to be made available before Town Meeting that would be used to hire a consultant to develop a transportation plan should the articles pass. Article 46: The boundaries of the Transportation Management Overlay District (TMOD) would incorporate 6 February 18, 2009 the following zones: CD1; CD2; CM, two CRO zones and a small residential area. Mr. Zurlo said only parcels in the CM Zone should be included and remove all others from the district. Mr. Galaitsis said it would be a good definition if we were trying to identify the source of the problem, but not the affected areas. Mr. Hornig explained the principle was to consider collectively the impacts of development district-wide. The boundaries had been discussed in the past; did the Board now want to change the boundaries? Planning Board Goals: Mr. Canale said that the Board’s goals should be reviewed before presenting them. Ms. Manz said the Board does need to present goals but might resolve disagreements by not prioritizing them. Mr. Hornig said he could use the goals presented earlier and explain they were not in any specific order of priority and they would not be numbered as originally presented. Mr. Canale said this would also serve as a guide for the Planning Board in granting special permits in the future. Mr. Hornig said the Board needed a statement of intent, which could be discussed before Town Meeting. Mr. Canale asked if there was something the Board could give Town Meeting containing numbers and a maximum FAR. Mr. Galaitsis said the absence of the maximum limits for special permit was a concern to him. ****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE************** February 25 is the public hearing for the citizens’ articles and March 4, the public hearing for Planning Board Articles. March 11 the Board will reflect on the public hearings and discuss the final drafts. ****************************STAFF REPORTS****************************** The minutes will be made available to the Board for editing on Google Docs. The Board Members will receive an invitation through e-mail when the minutes are ready for editing. **********************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION********************** 341 Marrett Road; balanced housing development plan: The signature sheet for the special permit with site plan review approved last week was signed by the Board members. Grandview Avenue, Lot B modification: Mr. David Burns, applicant, requested a modification to 35 Grandview Avenue (Lot B). The purchaser’s preference was to rearrange the second floor and 7 February 18, 2009 expand the area by 289 square feet. The proposed change would be less then 10% of the gross floor area and net floor area with no change to the footprint. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1, (Mr. Zurlo abstained), that the requested modification was considered minor and the requested changes as shown were approved. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk 8