Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-10-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 10, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building was called to order 7:02 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Bob Creech, and Ginna Johnson, Michael Leon, Associate Planning Board Member and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** General Updates: Next week is the bike walk and bus week and the events are listed on the Town website. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 0 Grove Street, Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Housing Development: Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 7:05 p.m. with approximately 65 people in the audience. Mr. Creech recused himself and Mr. Leon, Associate Planning Board Member sat in on this special permit process for 0 Grove Street/Liberty Ridge. Present were Mr. Michael Rosen, attorney, Mr. Ron Lopez, the applicant and president of North Shore Residential Development, Jack Sullivan, engineer, and David Jay, landscape architect. Mr. Lopez presented an updated landscape plan and a summary of how the plan presently met the bylaw criteria for gross floor area, impervious surface, and open space. A comparison was presented between Liberty Ridge and Vera Lane for construction and development plans showing the site impacts, benefits to the Town, an updated Greenway Trail extension, land easements, fiscal impacts, a five-year home price comparison from 2012 to 2016 from the multiple listing service, traffic impact, and photometric plans were shown. Additional renderings were provided for the gazebo, children’s play gym, a fenced in dog park, sports court, and units that would be constructed. Mr. Sullivan presented the updated utility plans, a detailed drainage study was provided showing each building would have an independent drywell, a looped water main would be installed, town water would be used, three fire hydrants would be provided and the water pressure problem would be fixed during the summer, the development would not be allowed to tie into the water system until the water pressure problem was totally resolved, which the Town Engineer said Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of May 10, 2017 would be fast tracked over this summer and was already out to bid. A rainwater harvesting system for emergency drought would be installed with a well to store rain water for the irrigation system. A pump station design was submitted to the Engineering Department. Mr. Jay said some shared driveways would be installed and all common space plants native. The applicant would save as many trees as possible and many determinations would be made in the field. Mr. Jay presented a tree preservation chart for the two projects with the Liberty Ridge project showed that more trees would be saved and there would be less clearing of trees. Board Comments and Questions:  The Board would need to decide on what they wanted to see for this project and determine if the special permit would be better than the by right plan.  Ms. Johnson did a presentation which explained her point of view and is included in the folder for tonight’s meeting. With regards to the tree removal, the conventional would probably not be as bad as the diagram prepared by North Shore, since homeowners would want to keep some of the trees. The proposed regrading on the Liberty Ridge plan would destroy all of the trees. Some of the proposed species of trees would not be native and could spread to the wetlands areas. The design was not inspired by New England semi- rural character described in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan (i.e. black aluminum decorative fences). There should be no proposed common area paved where there are now extraordinary natural resources. With the retaining wall at the top of Grove Street it would look like a gated community. The path through the tall mature pines should be preserved. The housing and roads should be kept to the west side where there were no steep slopes and the open space should be put on the east side where the steep slopes are located. The proof plan showing 13 lots for a conventional plan was not realistic, two of the lots do not appear to be buildable. A plan for 11 units for a site sensitive development or maximum 22 units for a public benefit development including minimum two affordable units would be realistic. Preserve the existing stonewall and use as a limit of work (LOW) line.  The cross walk to McKeever drive was not accurate on landscape plan the one on the site plan has the correct location.  The trail work would be within 100 feet of conservation land and would required the filing of a notice of intent, identify the trail work and be clear of what you expect to do outside the LOW . Minutes for the Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 3  This plan would need to be decided based on the existing bylaws since it was not changed at the 2017 Annual Town Meeting.  Were the calculations for drainage using the Cornell Units method? No.  Would storm water discharge have impact on wetlands? The design was for a 10-25 year storm.  Have you tried to reach a slope of 8%? Yes, but with the 10% it would reduce size and amount of retaining walls needed. Going with a 10% slope would be a safety concern.  The plan was a very auto centric development and would like to see a more innovative design with different placements of garages and driveways.  The existing neighborhood lot sizes should be provided before deciding the density of this project.  The proposed generator for the sewage pump would be operating and the noise would impact habitat and residents.  The proposed irrigation well could lower the groundwater in the wetland during times of drought.  There would need to be restrictions on floodlights to avoid impact on adjacent natural areas.  Show renderings from abutting properties on the visual impact on adjacent residential areas.  Leaning towards conventional regarding tree removal. Too many trees are being removed and more should be saved.  Provide other options that the Board would be happy with.  The sidewalk access from Grove Street to the bottom of the hill should follow the existing grades of the roadway. The applicant could look at circulation and check for other crosswalks.  Look to provide public access to the trails on the site. There would be access for the public, but not through the development. That would be problematic and would not want to create the appearance of gated communities. A public way would be built for access to the trail with a parking area right next to the development for other neighbors. Mr. Henry will check with the Conservation staff about that access. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of May 10, 2017 Public Comments:  Robinson Road is fully occupied as of March. Regarding the tree saving the special permit would only apply to during construction once there was private ownership the owner could do what they want.  Does the community want more two-million houses?  Parking was not discussed with the applicant for the Greenways Committee. The Conservation Commission was aware of the trail access being proposed. The trail would be better with the special permit project and would be better with Ms. Johnson’s proposal.  Mr. Locher made a presentation that can be found in the Planning Board packet for this meeting. The topics included the contiguous forest, historical significance of the Indian trading post and burial mounds, wetlands degradation, impervious surface, and in 1989 a vernal pond was documented. There was questions regarding North Shore’s fiscal impact on the Town compared to the presenter’s analysis and claims the public benefit development would cost significantly more a year on the schools and Town’s finances compared to the conventional development.  The public benefit would impact the environment, wildlife, and walking in the woods.  The plans have changed very little over the last 11 months despite the concerns of the neighbors. Build less homes.  Chris Cunningham’s presentation on the fiscal impact for school costs was discussed. The burden to prove the study should be on the applicant. He believes the fiscal impact by the applicant was flawed on the numbers and their application of the number of students.  The pump to be used in the drought situation should not be used to water lawns.  This would not be in my backyard but as a concerned citizen there was issue about putting this number of homes plunked into a forest. The public benefit development does not come close to what should be allowed and would put burdens on to Lexington’s bottom line. We institutionalize tradeoffs to benefit the developers.  This developer has not given any other affordable units and consider 6 units for this site to consider the other developments he had built. Construction of 1300 square foot units would make sense for downsizing not 2400 square foot units. Board Comments:  Believe that 22 units with 2 affordable units should be the maximum number on this site. Minutes for the Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 5  There appeared to be a strong support for the conventional plan, while the conventional would destroy the lot more than the public benefit development plan.  Stay away from the resource areas and the stone wall should be preserved.  The diversity of houses and affordable units were important.  There was lack of creativity in diversity and housing on this site and 22 units and maybe a little more could be on this site if the applicant was more creative.  Want to see as much preservation of the natural habitat and trees as possible.  What is the sense from the applicant about what was heard tonight? Mr. Rosen said more time would be needed to come back with a plan that would incorporate some of the suggestions made and can be done with great ease. Would be open to some conditions, but the numbers are the issues and the rock wall in the middle of the site and could make some of the units smaller and would like to reconvene in June 7. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, June 7, at 7:00 p.m. in Selectmen’s Meeting Room. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Updates: There will be meetings May 24 and June 7 and 21 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. June 21 the Board will reorganize. June 22 is an Economic Development summit at 8:00 am There was a request from the Board of Selectmen for goal setting and staff should send what we had last year. The Board needs to do a work plan and workload for the Board and staff. Board Member Reports: Charles Hornig said there was a MAGIC breakfast last week and he is going to smart growth conference next week. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Presentation by Ms. Johnson, regarding Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development, (13 pages).  Presentation by Mr. Locher, regarding Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development, dated May 10, 2017 (35 pages). Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of May 10, 2017  Presentation by Mr. Cummingham, regarding Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development, dated May 6, 2017 (9 pages).  Comparison of Liberty Ridge to Vera Lane from North Shore Development (11 pages).  FRMA pump station design, regarding Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development, dated May 2, 2017 (14 pages).  Photometric Detail, regarding Liberty Ridge, Public Benefit Development from North Shore Development (13 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk