Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 7, 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, Michael Leon, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** General Updates: Staff requested that Planning Board Member summer vacations dates be submitted as soon as possible. The applicant for the 435 Lincoln Street development was advised at the Conservation Commission Meeting that the City of Cambridge was opposed to the path to be created. The developer is working with staff to understand the issue more fully. Additional materials for 0 Grove Street came in late and will be posted as soon as possible. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ 0 Grove Street/Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development (PBD): Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 7:05 p.m. with approximately 35 people in the audience. Plans were received tonight for the first time and the applicant will present them and there will be limited questions from the Board and public tonight. 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. Mike Rosen, attorney, Ron Lopez, applicant, John Farrington, attorney, Jack Sullivan, project engineer and David Jay, landscape architect were present. Mr. Rosen said there were two major issues the number of units and the aesthetic components. Mr. Rosen said work was done the last few weeks on the project and the applicant made significant improvements based on what they heard. The number of units was reduced to 29. Mr. Sullivan explained that under the zoning Bylaw this is a 13 lot subdivision and not an 11 lot subdivision. Survey work was done in April and got the location of the vernal pool certified. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 7, 2017 Mr. Rosen believes the number of units is appropriate for this site and presented a comparison of Liberty Ridge to Vera Lane and with the reduced number of 29 units and reduced size for the other units as requested by the Board. The applicant could not reduce the number of units as much as requested, but there is a significant reduction in the total GFA, amount of impervious surface, and an increase in the amount of open space area. A comparison analysis was presented and can be found in the Planning Office in the packet for this evening. The updated plans include tree preservation, the trail construction plan and a granted easement. The entrance way renderings were presented to make the project look less like a gated community by removing the wall and made the road look more like a driveway. The area that is sloped will remain a wooded area. There will be a limited the number of curb cuts and protect the natural slopes when the road is being constructed. The 29 units will be located on the northerly side and eliminated the installation of “No Trespassing” signs. In the past decade there have been eight approved projects with similar densities. Individual Board Member Comments:  Appreciate all the work but still too many units and cannot support this, but the project is heading in the right directions No applicant is entitled to the maximums there are limits, which are at the discretion of the Board. Eliminate the irrigation plans. Mr. Rosen claimed that failing to approve the special permit that met the criteria of the bylaw and what’s been allowed in the recent past might be considered arbitrary and capricious by the courts. The bylaw and historical tendencies is all the developer can rely on.  Would like to look at the changes and impacts.  Prefer the Liberty Ridge to Vera Lane proposal, this provides smaller units and less site disturbance. Will review the submitted plan changes before commenting further.  Appreciate all the changes and look forward to viewing the changes on the plan regarding the challenges for this site. Liked the move to greater diversity and reduction in the individual unit sizes and maintains more of the significant wooded nature. Do not know it you tried to screen autos and make this more pedestrian friendly.  Want time to review the plan, but liked the changes presented to address Board concerns.  Like all the changes and will see if 29 units might be acceptable even though wanted 24 units. The generator noise is problematic figure out how could you buffer it or consider finding less noisy pieces of equipment. Audience comments:  The comps are not valid because they are in more congested areas this is a conservation area with a lot of wetlands and a lower density. Minutes for the Meeting of June 7, 2017 Page 3  Get rid of the pump creating sound problem. Just move the road a little closer up and away from conservation land which would reduce costs.  Thank you for the changes but like Ms. Johnson’s plan. There are concerns with properties so close to wetlands and near the vernal pools. Every time you move the road you impact the creatures habitat they do not know boundaries. Road salts and chemicals are a concern.  GFA would be impacted if any crawl space areas are more than 5 feet high and should not be allowed by the Planning Board. Town Meeting approved amended definitions which included that concern, which will be less than in the past.  This is much more aligned with the nature of the site, keep buildings to the front of the site.  In favor since less land is disturbed, more trees saved, houses smaller, and three units for LEXHAB  How many people have walked the property? This is a cliff and all this material and chemicals will be going into the vernal pool. Move the development to the left hand side where it is flat and reduce the number of units. Traffic is a mess on Grove Street already. This is too much to drive into a slope like this without disturbing the land in a massive way.  In favor of PBD like the last set of changes presented and if this plan is rejected 13 large houses will go up as a by right development.  What is the profit margin for 29 small units as to 13 larger units about 16 million or more? Where is the stone wall that will be preserved? Mr. Sullivan said any walls to be built will use that wall’s stones.  The Board should consider one traffic study with no impact and one study where there is impact. What is the truth and the cost per student as proposed was different in each report. Is the truth that people with the big houses will pull down the trees? Ask the Board to check the numbers to see which is correct and make sure the numbers are accurate on all the information. It is hard to determine who will buy the homes, but the Board will look at everything when it comes to approvals with zoning and the regulations and public input.  Most of the comments heard from abutters want the 13 single family homes. Fewer larger houses is the way to go for the neighborhood, traffic, and environment. Mr. Rosen said you can’t please everyone and the question at hand is did the applicant comply with the bylaws. Everyone wants something different. Consider the applicant reduced the GFA Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 7, 2017 substantially and could reduce more if t got rid of the affordable units, but prefers not to consider that. The applicant is taking 45% of the property and stewarding it by protecting it and not out of place for this community. The applicant addressed the 21 points and if the applicant complies with the law that has been acceptable in the past the requirements for the Special Permit application have been met. Any information that has been left out please provide to staff. The noise issue and any materials need to be submitted a week before the date the hearing will be continued to. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Cororan-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to June 21, 2017 in the SMR at 8:00 p.m. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** FY18 Work Plan Discussion : Review Goals & Objective: There are several applicants for the planner job and interviews and hope to have a hire by September 1, 2017. A Board Member suggested hiring someone with low impact and complete street knowledge. The hope is to have an Advisory Committee including the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and School Committee in mid to late September for the Comprehensive Plan. There should be a broad balanced committee from the community in the next four to six weeks. Staff is developing the RFP over the next few weeks. The Planning Board should decide which two members should to be on committee next week. Need to know what would be the time commitment and meeting schedule for the advisory committee and is a priority. Want to make sure the 2020 Committee work plan fits with the Comprehensive Plan. Provide your thoughts on what kind of stakeholders should be involved in this committee to staff. There will be one Fall Town Meeting. There are two NCD proposals with approved draft reports submitted to staff for review and the Planning Board will have a joint meeting with the Historic Commission at the beginning of September to meet the deadline for the Fall Special Town Meeting. King Street property and Marijuana zoning changes (moratorium) are other items for the Fall Special Town Meeting. Staff will follow up on these matters. Review Proposed Meeting Schedule, Implementation items for the 2018 Annual Town Meeting: Individual Board Member Comments:  SPRD the Board has to decide what to do with this Minutes for the Meeting of June 7, 2017 Page 5  Put these things on hold while widening the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan.  Economic Development, but things should not wait for three to five years till the Comprehensive Plan is done and the world can’t stop because of it.  Find Time to discuss Article 40 again.  Look at the items holistically as opposed to moving forward on one or two items.  Discussion on the Depot Lot Development regarding retail and senior housing residential units should be looked at. The BOS looking for our goals:  Comprehensive Plan is the top of the list.  The Town of Bedford has expressed interest in having the State (Boston MPO) conduct a study of the 4/225 corridor. They would like Lexington’s participation in this effort. Board of Selectmen should work to convene a meeting with Bedford to discuss this as well as allocate funds towards developing 25% design plans for the Hartwell/Bedford/Wood Transportation Plan. Board Member Reports: A member went to a MAGIC/AARP the discussion was encouraging seniors aging in place. Review Board and Committee Assignments: Discussion for next meeting. Board members will advise staff what they would like to take on or be removed from. Discuss the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations: Next meeting is public hearing. All projects would be reviewed by Engineering Department which are above thresholds on storm water. For a street determination if requesting waivers omit the requirement for the un-waivered plan. Review and approve amendments to the Planning Board Procedural Rules: Discuss them at the next meeting Minutes: Look at Joint meeting let staff know On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of January 4, 5, & 18 and May 24, 2017. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 7, 2017 The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Fougere Planning and Development, Inc. letter regarding Zero Grove Street, dated 5/23/17 (3 pages).  Letter from Michael Rosen, regarding North Shore Residential Development regarding 0 Grove Street, dated June 6, 2017 (14 pages).  Letter from North Shore Residential Development regarding 0 Grove Street, dated June 6, 2017 (4 pages)  Definitive Public benefit Development for Liberty Ridge, dated 6/5/17 (4 pages).  Comparison of Liberty Ridge, PBD to previous Liberty Ridge and approved Vera Lane Conventional plan (2 pages).  Grove Street abutters within 200 feet from 0 Grove Street (6 pages).  Pictures of Liberty Ridge Entrances (3 pages).  Lexington Balanced Housing developments (1 page). Ginna Johnson, Clerk