Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-12-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 12, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:03 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: Mr. Henry said there was a press release and applications are being accepted for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. Upcoming Meetings and Anticipated Schedule: The next meeting is July 26 and August 16 and 30. *******************ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION********************* Stephanie Cronin, Executive Director, Middlesex 3 Coalition: The focus was on best practices for permitting procedures and provided a matrix to help each community benefit from other communities expedited permitted best practices, to make regional improvements. Jay Donovan, Assistant Director, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments: Massachusetts Permitting best practices: The purpose is to give communities areas where they can improve to be able to market themselves to encourage economic development. They were looking for input and responses from the Board regarding the matrix information and corrections. They are working with MAPC and transportation agencies they serve to try to bring them together. Transportation & Land Use Study, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments: This study was done to find out what was going on in other communities with transportation in the region and to make it work better for this area. The hope is to coordinate funding through partnerships in businesses and communities. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ Proposed Planned Development District: 46-65 Hayden Avenue: Present was Tom Ragno, CEO from King Street Properties, Rob Albro, Managing Director for King Street properties, John Farrington, attorney and William Harris, head architect. The applicant was looking to create more lab and office space and a second multi-story, above- grade parking garage. The goal was to create an environment that is attractive to tenants, which Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017 would reduce traffic with on-site amenity services, and also a transportation management plan to get employees to and from public transit and which could be used locally during business hours by the residents of the Town. The potential financial benefits would be $1.8 million in tax revenue to the Town. There will be significant improvements to the wetlands; the applicant is working with Karen Mullins and the Conservation Commission and were looking for Board input. Individual Board Comments:  Would these commercial site amenities be available to the public? Looking for concierge service, but would look to include that possibility.  Amend this district now to include the most you want at one time rather than keep coming back piecemeal. It is hard to imagine where else to put anything.  The back of the site is incredibly wet how will you handle a storm like tonight? What are the height of the buildings? Not sure of the answer now, but will check and share at the next meeting.  How will the buildings height be mitigated? Doing work on the architecture to see what would be visible off site. Will have answers next time. Mr. Harris said they were creating a very nice campus and set back from the edge of the conservation land. Developing perspectives would be helpful.  Where did the 500 spaces come from? A ratio is being used based on life science building. How many cars will be on the roof top? Not sure.  Encourage people to stay by providing services and not travel during peak commuting hours.  Will this building be Leeds certified? Yes, probably silver.  Looking for what people on Concord Avenue will see and what people will see with lighting.  How much of the new building will be lab and office space and what is maximum number of parking spaces? Right now are they all office spaces? Yes. They will be 50% lab and 50% office space.  Could you invite the Board out to look at what you have done and want to do? Will work with staff to make that happen.  Share what will make this thrive next time. Audience Comments: Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017 Page 3  Is it possible to make a bus stop shelter on both sides and a cross walk? Will try to do that.  The main concern is the impact on traffic in this area. What kind of mitigation will be proposed to try to prevent SOVs? There is support for additional development in the area but need to be careful with the traffic impacts. The Lexington Civic Association will be addressed by Mr. Farrington around Labor Day.  Traffic is gridlocked at 7:45 a.m. and needs serious mitigation in this area. Wednesday, October 18 will be the Special Town Meeting. Want the Board to complete the report by October 4. The public hearing will be after Labor Day on September 13 and continue to September 27 and then finalize the report. The PSDUP needs to occur the second half of August. Provide a draft PSDUP submitted by August 11 for the August 16 meeting for feedback and then do a formal filing after feedback. PUBLIC HEARING Subdivision Regulations & Zoning Regulations: Chair Richard Canale opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing without discussion to Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. 0 Grove Street, Public Benefit Development: Board Deliberations: Mr. Creech recused himself and Mr. Leon, Associate Planning Board Member joined the Board for the special permit deliberation for 0 Grove Street/Liberty Ridge. The draft decision was discussed, particularly the rationale on the findings necessary to issue the permit. Staff reminded the Board that the decision will also be submitted to town counsel for review before a final decision is made. The Public hearing was closed at the last meeting on June 26, 2017. Individual Board Member Comments:  Are all the comparisons noted on how the development meets the criteria and how it compares to the conventional plan? All the criteria need to be compared; it gives it context.  Read all the comments people have talked about. The context is there that a 13-lot subdivision that was approved and looking at both projects the building of the special permit application would have less of the impacts that people were concerned about. The Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017 overriding goal of diversity of housing with some modifications will be a better plan then the 13-lot conventional subdivision.  Read at least 100 emails sent to Board Member’s and believe many are based on misconceptions and will respond to the comments made at an appropriate time.  None of the email and information received after the public hearing was closed can be used in consideration of a decision. The public cannot make comments to be considered.  Can this be continued to the next meeting to allow time to review since the draft decision was not received till today? The thought was that there were three undecided votes.  The schedule will be problematic in August and the Board should go through comments we have at this time.  Need to put comments in now that the Board has and then review further the next time.  The preservation of five acres of contiguous open space and housing benefits for diversity and affordable units is important. The marginal increase in traffic flow and public safety requires more details to put into context. Water pressure, sewer pumps station noise and storm water management system issues should be mentioned. More specific information on the current character of the neighborhood should be provided and compared to the range of housing sizes for the units in the special permit Show that the houses in the special permit are smaller than the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. The vernal pool will be protected by state and local regulations, but the special permit does offer a greater degree of protection with the contiguous open space as opposed to being stripped clear by a conventional plan.  Zoning decisions are not based on more children in school but the Board does take into account impacts on the Town, but there are Federal and State Fair Housing laws that must be considered.  Open space needs more references of the project clarifying the information on the proposed lot coverage and proposed open space element that was referenced, provide more focus on the public accessibility of the public open space.  The historical reference to 1950 is not helpful.  Concern of crowding in the schools was more important than costs. The two analyses presented were subject to debate but there are regulatory and legal perspectives that must be taken into account regarding this issue.  Staff will get the information about special condition 1 for the next meeting and the record will be reviewed. Be very specific with all numbers for each unit. Add a condition that none of the units have overly high crawl spaces more than 6 feet 8 inches. Numbers Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017 Page 5 will need to be adjusted on the plans for this condition and should be allowed. Just want to make sure we are getting smaller units.  Asking the applicant to redesign units after the public hearing seems arbitrary.  Our goal is for smaller units not just density. Be very specific for GFA for affordable units.  Provide language to ensure testing of the generators has to happen.  More specific requirements for the condo association need to be added.  Each structure should be tied to the GFA in the plan and each structure limited to the size identified on the plan.  Occupancy limits should be removed.  A construction plan should be submitted for review and then approval. No parking on Grove Street or street parking in the area should be permitted.  No light spill off site.  A clear statement of what chemicals are permitted and prohibited.  No signs permitted without permission from the Planning Office.  Liberty Ridge would cause confusion for the name with Liberty Heights. Staff will discuss the street name since it has to be in the condominium documents to be approved by the Town.  A Board Member read a statement on why this special permit development should be denied. Board Discussion:  If we turn down this proposal, we will get a better plan. Want 22 units of which two will be affordable and save more trees.  All the emails were read and believed a lot were based on misconceptions. There is no reason that a conventional subdivision would not be built on this site. The conventional subdivisions usually clear the site of trees to put on solar panels and new developments are just clear and open space.  If the applicant doesn’t build a conventional someone else will.  The incremental increase in traffic does not impact here, school overcrowding should not be based if they pay their fair share this is a community. The Board of Selectmen chose not to purchase the land -- this is what we are left with.  Will continue to advocate for limited height of crawl space. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017  The Board is not compelled to issue a special permit but the project will be developed and the Town might not get affordable units. This is an abundance of contiguous open space being preserved forever. Looking at the site this would not have a notable impact on this neighborhood and it would be difficult to tell how dense and number of units that would be built there. Board Members should read and send additional comments to staff. This decision will be discussed in two weeks and any comments sent will be read, but not be part of the record. Burlington Street, ANR: On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, the Board voted to endorse the proposed Approval Not Required plan, as the proposed division of land shown on the plan does not constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law and authorize the Planning Director to sign on the Board’s behalf. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Board Member Reports: There was a follow up meeting from the Economic Development forum. The discussion of what was going to be brought up for 2018 and 2019 Annual Town Meetings. There was agreement to bring to the Boards as to whether to bring Economic Development first or the Comprehensive Plan. Should we bring the Hartwell Avenue FAR to 2018 Annual Town Meeting to consider a .9 FAR to achieve the goals desired that the existing FAR is not achieving? Want a sense of the Board what they wish to work on for the 2018 Annual Town Meeting and will discuss at the next meeting. Individual Board Comments:  There is concern where taxes will go by residents.  Need to look at the big picture and should look to the comprehensive plan and not just one piece of the puzzle. Get the data together on how to solve the problems and present them to Town Meeting and should not focus on one topic at a time.  It makes sense to move forward with Economic Development and not wait for the entire comprehensive plan to be completed.  There has been a lot of letters concerning town character and talking about hundreds of cars in the town for economic development and we need to get input from residents addressing the costs for an increased FAR. Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2017 Page 7 Audience comments:  Work on the comprehensive plan and economic development separately, but at the same time.  With the right infrastructure improvements economic development can increase and minimize the impacts and can be done within a 9-12 month period. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to appoint Mr. Canale and Ms. Johnson as liaisons to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. On a motion of Ms. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, the Board voted, 5-0, to appoint Mr. Hornig as a member of the CPC till the term expires June 30, 2019. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Bob Creech, Clerk