Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-31-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 2018 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Ginna Johnson, Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** Upcoming Meetings & Anticipated Meetings: The next meeting is February 14. Comprehensive Plan Update: The initial meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) was last night. Mr. Henry gave a brief explanation of the elements that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan. The overall timeline and process was presented and input on the RFP should be in to staff by next week. Mr. Canale gave a summary of the first CPAC meeting. He noted that the meeting was recorded by Lexmedia for online and cablecast viewing. He urged that all Planning Board members and the public view this recorded meeting. The next several CPAC meetings will present an important context from which the public will be more informed for the next Plan phase in which public involvement will become an integral part of the Plan development. He urged that residents and other stakeholders attend or view these future meetings. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ 18 Oakmont Circle - ANR: The lot is on a private way and the road seems to be of adequate grade and construction and appears not to need anything done to it since it was paved in 2008. Staff would like to confirm ownership of the land. The Board requested adding a note on the plan indicating lot 4 cannot be the site of a building and that title was not conveyed. Mr. Waitt said their research showed that Ms. Marine does not own that lot. Staff will review and confirm the accuracy of this ANR before signing. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted, 5-0, to authorize the Planning Director to endorse the revised mylar on the behalf of Planning Board adding the note that lot 4 is not a buildable lot. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1106 Massachusetts Avenue: Definitive Site Sensitive Development (SSD): Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. with approximately 20 people in the audience. Present were Rick Waitt and Mike Novak, of Meridian Associates, Todd Cataldo, applicant, and Jackie Trainer, landscape architect. Mr. Novak said this is a three lot SSD and described the items that currently exist on site. The applicant is trying to bring everything on the site closer to Massachusetts Avenue due to the slope, and showed a three lot proof plan and landscape plan showing the invasive species. Mr. Novak presented the plan changes based on the meeting with the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) and they are meeting with one more time tomorrow evening. The stonewalls will be used as part of the foundation of the barn, they are trying to stay away from the existing beech tree to make sure it is not disturbed and will do their best. The existing services will remain intact. Mr. Novak showed the renderings of the barn. Individual Board Comments:  Put the abutting footprint of the surrounding structures around the site.  Move the driveway to the rear of the building.  Narrow the central driveway it seems too wide and do not see why it needs to be wider than 12 feet? The Fire department requires it, but will ask them.  Want to see elevations on the structure proposed on Massachusetts Avenue.  Want additional plantings on the property line.  Make a commitment to remove the invasive species and paint them and plant tublings.  Consider getting an archeologist for things that might be dug up from the past.  Liked the houses were moved away from the lot line. Audience Comments:  There has been a pretty good back and forth with the applicant and am pleased. They agreed to put more landscaping to screen their house at the perimeter of their house and want to bring in another landscape architect to review what they are proposing. Ms. Trainer presented the plantings they propose. Want larger trees brought in and what can be done to bring in more trees. If you need more information come in to meet with staff. You should probably work with the applicant and staff to propose something.  Good suggestion to bring in an archeologist/ historic preservationist. Consider a fence for headlights screening. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Cocoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 28, at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ***********************2018 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING************************** Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 42, Special Permit Residential Development: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. with approximately 20 people in the audience. Mr. Matt Daggett, the petitioner, presented his proposal, which included comparison of the zoning amendment presented to Town Meeting last year, and a feasibility analysis, standards, and goals of the proposed amendment for the 2018 Annual Town Meeting. Individual Board Comments:  One important piece is the model you provided.  Is there any change for the SSD? There is no intention to change the SSD.  Ms. Johnson did comment on the article before the presentation with Mr. Canale’s permission. The SSD can be used effectively to preserve the New England character of the Town.  This requires more open space, smaller units, and other amenities to the Town.  The two times multiplier is a concern.  Good presentation.  Want to see the raw data for the model you presented.  Instead of age-restricted use accessible housing.  Who will choose the multiplier of 1.5 or 2.0? The applicant will have to prove to the Board what would be the best option for a particular site. The 1.5 or 2.0 multiplier will be firm.  The impervious surface is the intent to use the same formula for the SSD? Yes.  The ownership of the common open space should be at the discretion of the Conservation Commission/Town to decide if ownership is desirable for the Town.  There needs to be more incentives for the shared benefit development to be desirable. There can be another level of incentive. Audience Comments:  Primary problem with the current bylaw is the size of the units and should be counting any basement or crawl space over 5 feet as living space. 2100 square foot units should be 2100 not 2800 square feet. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Cocoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018 Article 38, Small Commercial rezoning Marrett Road/Spring Street: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. with approximately 20 people in the audience. Present was Mr. Minasian presented his zoning amendment to change and add some zoning uses to fill vacancies for his property and wants the same uses that are allowed across the street for his property. He would like to add the 63 uses that are allowed across the street, add 11 additional uses that used to be allowed many years ago, and add four development standards. Audience Comments:  Concerns were expressed about inadequate engagement with community, traffic issues and safety issues and less than 24 hour notice before the public hearing is not an acceptable amount of time to address any issues. We are asking the Planning Board to not approve without more public input.  Concerned about increased commercial density which is in contrast to the existing comprehensive plan. Should look how to ease the impediments with more input from the residents.  Would you allow recreational and medical marijuana there? No there is a daycare there and do not want that use. Individual Board Comments:  How many people attended the meeting yesterday? 16 people showed up, which was productive. Does it make sense to go to Town Meeting at this time?  There was concern expressed and this requires a lot of careful thought, but will keep an open mind.  Without more of a public process why would you need changes to the dimensional controls and you might continue to add more changes in the future and this is only a stop gap decide what you really want? I believe you have an uphill battle especially when you need to reach out to more abutters and make a final determination for what you really want and how this impacts the neighborhood.  Believe this is too much change for this neighborhood and the zoning is different on one side of the street as oppose to the other because of the residential neighbors.  The previous article there was no public outreach and we should be consistent about deciding based on outreach to neighbors or lack of outreach. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Cocoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018 Page 5 Article 37, 331 Concord Avenue PD-3: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. with approximately 45 people in the audience. Present were Robert Buckley, attorney from Riemer and Braunstein, Ted Doyle, Marketing and Communications for Development LCB Senior Living, Lee Bloom, Director of Development LCB Senior Living, Ed Grant, co-counsel and Erin Fredette of McMahon Transportation. Mr. Buckley explained the traffic report is out for peer review. Mr. Doyle has been out talking with neighbors and will be meeting with other Boards and Committees to discuss the benefits this project offers to the Town. Mr. Bloom described the site and development of the land and what you see from the street is a house and the site is very deep with 160 units and underground parking for employees. The next time the applicant will bring updated plans. Erin Fredette explained how they determine traffic conditions, the traffic impact study, and analysis. They concluded this would add one vehicle every 1 to 2 minutes and are waiting on the peer review of their findings and will address any issues they may have. Audience Comments:  Compare this Brookhaven to help understand the project density; how many acres do you have and units?  Our area is becoming more commercial, the proposed street parallels April Lane, the buildings are too tall and impacts our complex, we do not need more lights and traffic in this already congested area and this will make it worse.  Concerned about traffic especially with the Goddard School opening and traffic is going to be a problem. The PSDUP has a discrepancy and 160 units is too much density for this small sloped 6 acre site.  Opposed to this project and not appropriate project this is way too dense. There already two senior housing complexes nearby, the Cotter School is right across the street and then adding this to the traffic would be a major problem and ask the Board to not support this project for the Town Meeting.  This is asking for 160 units on land that should have only 7 houses. The density is too much and not fair to the abutters.  This project is way too much for a residential area. The traffic study shows 5-6 as peak hours.  Temple Emunah is concerned about security and noise. The Temple has a preschool, services twice daily, and constant activity and they will have a meeting to make sure they will show up at Town Meeting. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018  Noise, light pollution, waste generated by the kitchen, snow removal, emergency vehicles, trash trucks are all impacts that will be felt by the abutters. This does not have a residential feel and the former owners ran a landscape business and it felt like a part of the neighborhood. How many days was used for the traffic study? Artis and Hayden are not even built yet. You have not taken our concerns to heart in this current proposed plan.  Due to the density and height of the building my unit is very close and I do not know if I will see any sunlight on the first floor of my unit and other units will have the same problem.  The next meeting should be scheduled earlier. Individual Board Comments:  Care about affordability and 10% is not enough.  Provide better modeling showing the height and bulk of the development buildings.  How will residents be able to do activities and recreate on the site? What will they say; is it terrific? On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Article 44, Medical Marijuana: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. there was one person in the audience. Present was Ethan Handwerker who presented his proposed warrant article. Individual Board Comments:  Mr. Hornig will discuss with Mr. Handwerker details of his proposal to make simpler and bring forward to the next meeting. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Cocoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets.  Staff Summary and recommendation for 18 Oakmont Circle (1 page).  ANR plan for 18 Oakmont Circle (1 page). Minutes for the Meeting of January 31, 2018 Page 7  1106 Massachusetts Avenue Cover letter and application for a Site sensitive development (7 pages).  Definitive subdivision plan set for 1106 Massachusetts Avenue (11 pages).  Marrett Road Commercial District presentation (7 pages).  Marrett Road Commercial District Schedule of changes (8 pages). Bob Creech, Clerk