Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-21-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Bob Creech, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. Michael Leon joined the meeting in progress. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** General Updates: Board of Appeals (BOA) applications for the July 13 meeting will be scanned and sent to Board Members to review and return comments to staff before July 13 so they can be submitted to the BOA. The Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and Economic Development Advisory Committee summit is tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m. in Estabrook Hall. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ PUBLIC HEARING 167-177 Cedar Street, Definitive Subdivision Plan: Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 7:05 p.m. with approximately 30 people in the audience. Michael Novak and Rick Waitt from Meridian Associates, Ben Finnegan, applicant, and Gary Larson, landscape architect were present. Mr. Novak went through the changes submitted. The road names were removed and new names were submitted, the changes made were based on comments from the Board at the last meeting. Engineering requested an eight inch water line from a six inch water main. Mr. Finnegan met with both abutters regarding screening during and after construction and they are here at this meeting. Individual Board Member Comments:  Does the hooking into existing water main need to cut into the road? No.  Drainage structure overflow do you have them? Mike said yes they are on the upper outlet above elevation and act as an emergency overflow and bounded by riprap.  Are you confident the Trager’s residence will not increase runoff to their basement? The runoff will decrease from what is currently existing. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017  Will the stone walls remain on site? Yes, they will be relocated on the site for any part of the wall that will be disturbed. Work with staff on relocation of those parts of the stone wall from lots 7 and 8. Audience Comments:  Concerned about the water system where will they be located? They will be within the lots. There will be a lot more impervious surface and a slope of in total 15-17 feet where the runoff can go on to our property. What else can be done to mitigate the water from heading that way? We are making sure no water will cross off the site onto the property we are only making it better by adding additional infiltration systems to address the additional hardscape. Planning staff and Engineering spent a lot of time to make sure this would not create more water runoff even though there is more hardscape. Individual Board Member Comments:  Reduce impervious surface and plant large canopy trees such as black willows that will absorb lots of water on the site.  Like the new street names submitted in the memo and the Board will discuss after they hear back from the Police and Fire Departments first. Board Conclusions:  Ms. Johnson, Mr. Creech and Mr. Canale were in favor of the original plan with the changes as shown for the sidewalks On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0 to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Staff should draft a decision with the waivers for sidewalks, keep stonewalls on site, and name of the road waiting to hear from the Police and Fire Departments. Individual Board Member Comments:  Will there be an easement for the golf course regarding the back land. There have been no other talks with golf course and have no answer regarding the small corner of the back land.  Will wait for input on street names till the next meeting. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive plan with the changes discussed above and the street name to be resolved before plan endorsement. Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 Page 3 Subdivision Regulations & Zoning Regulations: On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing without discussion to Wednesday, July 12 at 9:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. STREET DETERMINATION 2 Rolling Lane, Street Determination: Mr. Farrington, attorney, and Fred Russell, civil engineer were present. This is an unaccepted street and background is presented in a letter from Mr. Farrington dated May 12, 2017 for a street determination for 2 Rolling Lane with requested waivers. These ways have been used for the past 116 years by the Town and neighbors. Mr. Russell showed the proposed road with a width of 19 feet 1 foot wider than the staff’s request. The installation of cape cod berms to prevent erosion was requested by staff, but the slope is less than 2% so the likelihood of erosion is low and feel a berm is unnecessary. The construction of a sidewalk would not be necessary given the impervious surface and would make the project cost prohibitive to the owner. A catch basin at the end of the School Street intersection needs to be reconstructed. Individual Board Member Comments:  Like to defer to Engineering regarding the installation of the berm. Is there a need for it?  Why would you not put the sidewalk on the south side of the street? To protect the tree and utility pole behind it. Figure out a way to put in the sidewalk since it serves a lot of people for pedestrian access.  There is a problem with climate change and less pavement reduces climate warming.  Put a berm on the north side to allow safe refuge for pedestrians.  On the opposite side of school street there is a gravel pathway.  Want safe access for the children from school with the asphalt berm.  Do residents want a sidewalk on Fairland? Do not need that. Audience Comments:  During construction there is concern that vehicles will park and prevent access for on the part of the road that cars can’t get by. This could create a plowing problem if the pavement does not match. If there was a gravel path how will it be maintained? Residents who want to speak with the contractor to pay for the rest of the street to be improved can do so, but this out of the purview of the Planning Board. Town Engineering and staff will work with the contractor on ensuring that the Town is satisfied but can only be advisory. The only concern is if you asked the Town to get involved you would get a much more Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 expensive project. Mr. Farrington said they would coordinate the contact for abutters. The other process is ask the street to be accepted, but could be expensive. Individual Board Member Comments:  Four foot sidewalk from School Street to Deering on the north side of the street and one foot of asphalt berm and 18 foot wide-street as per Engineering and staff. Mr. Farrington said they would price it out.  Discuss with neighbors about price sharing for the road. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, that with the following changes that include cape cod berms to prevent runoffs, reconstruction of the catch basin on the south side of the intersection of School Street, and the construction of a four-foot wide sidewalk from School Street to Deering with material acceptable to Engineering and AAB the road will then be of adequate grade and construction. PUBLIC HEARING 0 Grove Street, Public Benefit Development: Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 8:40 p.m. with approximately 70 people in the audience. Mr. Creech recused himself and Mr. Leon, Associate Planning Board Member is sitting in on this special permit process for 0 Grove Street/Liberty Ridge. John Farrington, attorney, Ron Lopez, applicant, Mike Rosen, attorney, Jack Sullivan, project engineer and David Jay, landscape architect were present. Mr. Sullivan discussed some of the changes which included: added snow storage areas on the landscaping plan, define the amenity area where the drainage infiltration area with a kids play area and grass field open space, the driveways will be porous, a restrictive covenant will be given to the Town, and revised drainage calculations accepted by Engineering. The permeable driveways are being counted as impervious surfaces. There will be 25 trees planted off site in Lexington. The applicant is open to doing a more detailed noise study. Lots 4 and 5 can be built and meet the Conservation Commission requirements. Lot 3 and 6 could build outside the 100 foot buffer zone which is not near the vernal pools. Mr. Farrington said another issue about construction of a sidewalk from Liberty Ridge to Grove Street which would require 30 major trees to come down and a large about of grading would be required. Individual Board Member Comments:  Can you extend the list to include prohibitive plants and trees? Yes. Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 Page 5  Occupancy restrictions could be problematic and the Board should not be involved in the decision.  Would the bus shelter and common amenities be maintained by the condominium association? Yes.  How long would the generator noise be 5-8 minutes?  Will the propane tanks be underground in the buffer zone? They would be underground and outside the buffer zone.  The LOW looked very close and too narrow to be able to do the work is it changed from the last proposal. No, the work can be done and no grading would be necessary.  Which units are the affordable ones? Units 14, 16 and 26 are the affordable units.  Concern was expressed about the impact on noise for units 8, 9, & 10 from the generator would only run 10 minutes a week and only in an emergency. The noise level disclosure would need to be done for those units or a way to reduce the noise. Mr. Farrington said these generators are used throughout Massachusetts. We will get that information.  The public can access the street from the constructed trail on the site. Mr. Rosen said access was provided and there will no signs stating “No Trespassing”, but the public must abide the same rules the condo owners would have. In the past easements were used, but Town Counsel is working on a different approach and staff waiting for the attorney’s feedback.  Is the table of development GFA correct?  Will the developer use the new guidelines approved at Town Meeting? No this project is exempt from those requirements. What would be the change based on the new rules for GFA?  What are the condo fees for the affordable units? It is based on the value of the home as an affordable unit? DHCD determines that information and the units will remain affordable. Public Comments:  Several people wrote to the paper that they are concerned about such a high density on this site.  There were 2000 signatures on a petition about concern of with the high density in a conservation area, overcrowding at schools. This would be changing the character of the neighborhood. How many letters have been received with concern about density and Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 conservation space, and changing the character of the neighborhood and this is setting a precedent which is a concern.  Where is the rock wall? It is shown on the existing conditions page.  Glad to see three affordable units and a conservation restriction for five acres of land.  What is the footprint? It would be about 1300 square foot. These are being called affordable, but that is not real and a concern.  Just because recently there are less letters received doesn’t mean there is less concern. Want assurances that the plans will be monitored for compliance. The closest retail services are over a mile away and are not approachable for affordable units. These are households that are making decent money and do not count on public transportation.  This project does not fit in the community and on a winding road.  This is not a local issue it is a fiscal impact issue for the Town. Has the fiscal analysis been revised and there were no changes the past two weeks. The consultant reviewed the comments and stands by his methodology. The consultant is wrong on his assumptions and data.  During the nine years serving on the Planning Board there had been a lot of work done. This project years ago would have been very desirable and am very enthusiastic about this project and urge the Board to approve this plan to provide more diversity.  Our road will be a cut through and become very busy and cars will be speeding up and down the road. Prefer the Board consider Ms. Johnson’s plan.  This will not be a pedestrian friendly development. The runoff will be reduced if moved closer to the front.  Public benefit is still at 10%.  Some of the roads are in such disrepair that people stay in during six hours of heavy traffic. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Individual Board Member Comments:  This is clearly a superior project to the 13 unit conventional subdivision.  Want to take some time to see if there are any conditions to include to make more acceptable over the next two weeks. Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 Page 7  The Town has an excellent bylaw that has failed. At every turn the numbers are being manipulated and transformed. After being threatened by the applicant the Planning Board Members should deny this plan in hopes of getting a more balanced development.  Have concerns that these special permit developments are floating zones. Because this is what the bylaws permit and while not the best plan for the site and could be better and do not feel it is not a threat. Understand the concerns about density, but at the same time it is concealed and looking at the project not sure the direct impacts would be a concern. Like affordable housing which is making the town more diverse in housing. Would like a few less units, but challenge anyone to tell how many units there are by looking and inclined to approve this project.  Pleased the developer listened about trees and am leaning toward the affordability piece of this project. We should be willing to get behind those people who would not be able to afford this community otherwise. Staff will work on a draft decision and the Board will vote at the next meeting. 17-19 Colony Road definitive Subdivision Plan Close Out: There are some improvements to be done which will be held against the Certificate of Occupancy. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Creech abstained) to release the surety as the project is complete. Audience comments: A meeting attendee wanted to make clear that he took issue with comments made by residents attending the meeting as well as some Planning Board Members. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Board Officer Nominations and Elections (reorganization): The Board held its annual election of officers. The floor was opened for nominations and Mr. Canale was nominated for chair. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to appoint Mr. Canale as Chair. Ms. Johnson was nominated for Vice Chair and Mr. Creech was nominated as clerk. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to appoint Ms. Johnson as Vice Chair and Mr. Creech as clerk Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 Review and approve amendments to The Planning Board Procedural Rules: On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to approve the changes as submitted. Board Member Reports: Mr. Hornig and Mr. Creech attended a conference on fair housing. The MPO meeting discussed Title 6 compliance and looking at equity. There will a Planned Development and an article to address marijuana for the Fall Special Town Meeting. Staff will try to get the applicants to come in as much as possible to meet with the Planning Board. The Bike committee met with Engineering regarding a protected bike lane on Waltham Street associated with the Hayden property mitigation. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Staff Summary and recommendation for 2 Rolling Lane, dated May 15, 2017 (1 page).  Memo from John Farrington, dated May 12, 2017, regarding 2 Rolling Lane (2 pages).  Street improvement Plan and Profile for 2 Rolling Lane, February 14 2017 (1 page).  Form B regarding 2 Rolling Lane dated June 5, 2017 (7 pages).  Planning Board Procedural Rules dated June 21, 2017 (5 pages).  Memo from Be Finnegan dated June 14 regarding 167-177 Cedar Street street names (5 pages).  Application cover letter for 167-177 Cedar Street dated June 14, 2017 with attachments (14 pages).  Definitive subdivision plan set for 167-177 Cedar Street dated June 14, 2017 (12 pages).  Staff memo regarding Liberty Ridge, dated June 20 (2 pages)  Two memos from Michael Sprague from Engineering regarding Liberty Ridge dated June 16 & 20, 2017 (2 pages).  Letter from Citizens for Lexington Conservation dated June 16, 2017 regarding Liberty Ridge (1 page).  Supplemental submission from Ronald Lopez regarding Liberty Ridge dated June 14, 2017 (4 pages).  Comparison of Liberty Ridge and Vera Lane revised June 14, 2017 (2 pages). Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2017 Page 9  Noise study from Noise Control Engineering LLC dated June 13, 2017, regarding 0 grove Street (11 pages).  Liberty Ridge Definitive subdivision renderings dated June 14, 2017 (5 pages).  Amenity area at Liberty Ridge (1 page).  Definitive subdivision plan set for Liberty ridge revised June 14, 2017 (15 pages).  Letter from Ronald Lopez regarding Liberty Ridge dated June 20, 2017 (2 pages).  Vera Lane Conceptual Plot Plan Lot 6 dated June 19, 2017.  Liberty ridge Drainage report dated June 12, 2017 (87 pages).  Liberty Ridge updated sheet 5 and 12 for development plans dated June 19, 2017 (2 pages).  Vera Lane Conceptual Plot Plan Lot 3 dated June 13, 2017 (1 page).  Letter from Michael Rosen, Esq. dated June 6, 2017, regarding 0 Grove Street (15 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk