Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Galaitsis, Canale, and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. Mr. Hornig joined the meeting in progress. ******************************MINUTES*************************************** Mr. Galaitsis requested the minutes for February 18, 23, and 25 be deferred. Mr. Galaitsis said this new system would take him more time to use; he will try it but may have to go back to the attachments. Ms. Manz requested that they defer the minutes as well since she did not review them. Mr. Zurlo said to give the new system a few weeks then decide how to proceed. Mr. Hornig joined the meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of February 11, 2009 as amended. **********************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************* Porter Lane Easement: Porter Lane subdivision abuts the Fiske School, which was trying to make a handicapped accessible ramp. Because of slope issues the Town proposed to take an easement from a private residential lot on the back corner for the ramp, but that would put this lot above the impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 12%. Staff believes the right course of action would be to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. The owner was willing to give an easement, but did not want to be non-conforming or in violation of their special permit. Mr. Hornig said if they do not want to be non-conforming they would need a variance and a modification to the special permit. On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance and the Planning Board then modify the special permit. Journey’s End: Mr. Henry said that a condition of the SPS had been that if the Town determined within a year of the approval of the development that certain improvement on Shade Street were Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development, the developer would provide such safety improvements. Since a year had passed without the Town taking action, Mr. Cataldo, the developer, want to give notice to the Board that he had fulfilled his obligations under this condition. Mr. Canale said the Town did not act and Mr. Cataldo did what he was supposed to, but asked staff to look into the street trees, which were also a special condition. Ms. McCall-Taylor said they were discussed last fall and staff would pursue it once again. Mr. Henry said stonewall would also addressed and was still on the radar screen. *********************HARTWELL AVENUE STUDY AREA************************ Site Plan Review Exemptions: Mr. Galaitsis would prefer that all exemptions be listed so that anything not listed would require site plan review. Mr. Hornig asked the Board if there were any concrete issues to add or subtract to applicability? Ms. Manz said a 500 square foot increase was too small, and changes to loading areas or dumpsters should not require them to come to the Board for a hearing. Mr. Zurlo said loading bays relate to the view shed of other buildings and that began to cross a threshold. Mr. Canale said that smaller items could be handled administratively and exactly what those were could be determined later. Mr. Galaitsis made a motion that the list of exemptions should remain and to cross out applicability. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2 (Mr. Canale and Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to add in Section 135-13.1B(1)(e) the word “exterior” before lighting. A motion duly made and seconded, to add to the applicability list, a Section 135-13.1B(1)(f) for any exterior project with an estimated value of $20,000 or more, was denied by a vote of 2-2-1, (Ms. Manz and Mr. Hornig in favor, Mr. Canale and Mr. Zurlo opposed and Mr. Galaitsis abstaining). A motion duly made and seconded, to approve adding a section “f” stating that any other exterior change not listed in section 2 “Exemptions” required a site plan review, was denied by a vote of 1- 2-2, (Mr. Galaitsis in favor, Ms. Manz and Mr. Hornig opposed and Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Canale Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 Page 3 abstaining) Article 44: Mr. Canale would like the public meeting advertised in the local paper for two successive weeks prior to the meeting and had an issue with the Table 2 FAR being listed as .40 since it was not applicable to LEED purposes. A motion duly made and seconded, to change the FAR from .40 to .35 in Table 2, was denied by a vote of 2-3, (Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Canale in favor and Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz and Mr. Zurlo opposed). ******************************TOWN MEETING******************************** PUBLIC HEARING Article 49, CRO and RO to CD, 95-99 Hayden Avenue and 124-128 Spring Street: Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing on Article 49. Present for the proponent were Mr. Peter Nichols, Mr. Ed Grant, Mr. Gary Larson and Mr. Charlie Kalauskas. There were approximately 20 people in the audience. Mr. Nichols reviewed the amendment sheet for the PSDUP. Mr. Larson discussed the landscape changes which included changes to the parking entrance; a reduction of five surface parking spaces, moving them into the garage; reduction of impervious surface area approximately 3,500 square feet; driveway aligned closer to the Ledgemont 1 garage by as much as 25-40 feet to reduce construction disturbance; additional trees planted along Spring Street, at the end of Munroe Road along the conservation trail and the property line of the Spring Street abutter. There would also be more trees planted to buffer headlights from the Ledgemont 2 garage and the emergency access drive would be paved. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said after the TMMA information meeting some members were puzzled about the differences between the building height in terms of stories, floors and feet. For clarification this building while having only four stories exposed on any side, would have seven floors, and the maximum height measured by Planning Board regulations would be 51 feet, but at one spot it Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 would be permitted to rise to 106 feet from the base of the garage to the top of the structure. The correction to the GFA for the entire site, which would be over a million square feet, had not been done. He asked what percentage of glass surface would be covered by mechanical shades, including the atrium. Mr. Nichols said 100%. Mr. Canale asked if he was correct that there were 40 new bicycle spaces for a total of 154. Mr. Nichols said he would get back to him. Mr. Canale asked during the construction how much excavating would be done in terms of truck-loads? Mr. Nichols said he did not have the figures, but there would be a construction management plan. Mr. Canale said he would never vote for a CD rezoning when there was inequitable treatment of employees regarding transit choice. He would require in writing that they would subsidize the pedestrians and transit users as they do with free parking. Mr. Zurlo asked what was the purpose of the planter boxes? Mr. Nichols said that the planters were not very effective to buffer the appearance, but felt it would be more effective to plant more substantial plantings elsewhere. Mr. Zurlo asked questions about the special permit with site plan review process. Mr. Grant said they were not asking for any waivers from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Mr. Hornig said they would need an additional special permit and the ZBA would have to make the findings for the additional special permit. Ms. Manz asked what the purpose of moving the surface parking spaces inside? Mr. Nichols said it was a recommendation from the Design Advisory Committee. Mr. Galaitsis asked about the accuracy of the traffic study models. Mr. Kalauskas said that Mass Highway approved these models and the study was peer reviewed as well. Mr. Galaitsis said the models were only as good as the input and what if the solutions did not work; who would be responsible? Mr. Nichols said it was not a perfect world, but he did expect them to work and the results could be even better then predicted. Audience Comments: Regarding traffic, Shire was planning on an additional 600 employees on the present site ?? and only small fraction are there now. Mr. Kalauskas said they looked at full occupancy for the Lexington Technology Park and the Beal Companies and took vacancy rates into account for the five-year projection. Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 Page 5 The images that were made public in were not representative of what the neighbors’ view ?? of the proposed building would be. They need to redo the images. There is still no view shown from Spring Street. Ms. Arnold of the TAC said they would prefer last fall’s proposal for the funding of ?? transportation with annual contributions for 50 years. Monitoring and accountability over time is a concern. Would there still be an annual survey for the first three years? Mr. Nichols said yes. Ms. Arnold suggested that they should continue that survey beyond that time to give something tangible to look at on a regular basis with quarterly meetings to promote TDM and incentives for the tenants to encourage public transit. Put the comments into the PSDUP. Concerned with the TDM piece and the Beal Companies’ TDM package as a whole. It was ?? not as rich as the one offered last fall with $500,000 up front along with annual contributions for a value of $1.3 million dollars. Now it is $800,00. Is the $20,000 to be used for a clean up of the nature trail an appropriate part of TDM? Ms. McKenna asked the Board if they had given any consideration to their article in case ?? Article 48 passed for Lexpress? A request was made for an outside expert to be brought in to examine the images from ?? the Beal Company and get a formal written submission. The images were not necessary, just look and you can see how much could be viewed ?? from the homes and roads. There was a concern about viewing the stacks from Route 2. Mr. Nichols said the stacks ?? have grown over the years by different tenancies but new construction was more organized and consolidated for the future construction. The Spring Street sidewalk meetings show a level of service F even with a traffic signal ?? at the Marrett Road and Spring Street intersection, which conflicts with the current traffic projections presented. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 There was no way to shield that wide expanse of the parking deck of Ledgemont 2 from ?? the abutters. The Planning Board took great care and time to plan the Hartwell Avenue; why was ?? South Lexington not given the same consideration? This process seemed very rushed. There needed to be overall planning, not just piecemeal commercial development rezoning. What species of trees would be planted at the property line of the last house on Spring ?? Street and at the end of Munroe Street? Mr. Larson said western red cedars. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. th The intent at this time is to bring up this Article at Town Meeting on May 4. ****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** There is a meeting on March 23 at 6:00 p.m. to address the minutes for February. March 25 is a presentation by Lexington Technology Park at 6:00 p.m. (Mr. Canale will recuse himself). Monday March 30 is the open space recreation plan. April 16 will be public hearings for the Special Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said before the Board votes, it should discuss the strategy for writing a report and how to present it at Town Meeting if it was not a unanimous vote. Ms. Manz said rather than debating the accuracy of the images submitted by the developer, just assume that the building would be partially visible to the neighbors and go from there. Mr. Hornig said based on the discussions from last year the report should reflect the issues presented to the Board and considered both for and against, present the recommendation of the Board and should support that recommendation, and reflect the issues on both sides. Mr. Galaitsis said it should be an objective document since a 3-2 vote should never presented as a recommendation of the Board. Mr. Hornig said the moderator requested that if a Board member chooses to speak in opposition to the Board’s position to advise her beforehand so she is aware of what is going on. There was a discussion about the memorandum of understanding and traffic mitigations and the lack of a plan and process available for this article. Minutes for the Meeting of March 18, 2009 Page 7 ******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************* Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Board of Selectmen are having an extra meeting tomorrow night on the Vine Street property being considered for acquisition using CPA funds for a combination of both affordable housing and conservation use. She will be attending the meeting. The State has given notice that Supportive Living Inc. has been accepted for listing in the National Registry of Historic Places. Staff got a notice from the Board of Selectmen that the Special Town Meeting warrant will close at 4:30 p.m. on March 23 and the first session will be Wednesday, May 6. The Board members were given a scope of services excerpt from the RFP and asked to read it over to make sure it includes everything they want or if anything should be taken out. *****************************BOARD REPORTS******************************** Mr. Canale said the MAPC executive committee met and adopted the initial Metrofuture campaign topics and identified priorities to work on. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk