HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-06-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2019
A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Ginna Johnson with members Richard Canale, Charles Hornig,
Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Bob Creech, and planning staff Sheila Page and Lori Kaufman were
present.
*****************************STAFF REPORTS**********************************
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Update:
The CPAC met yesterday evening and formed subcommittees on housing, transportation, and
economic development and will be forming two more for open space and historic/public facilities.
The subgroups will be holding public outreach meetings between March and May.
**********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION***********************
186 Bedford Street, Pubic Hearing for a Planned Development District:
Chair, Ms. Johnson, opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Present were Ed Grant, attorney, the
applicants Philip Ciampa, Joe Ciampa and Tony Ciampa, Doug Harnett, of Highpoint
Engineering, Robert Michaud, of MDM Transportation, Michael McKay of McKay Architects,
Mike Radner of Radner Design and Howard Levin, attorney. Mr. Grant said that they are
requesting to rezone the parcel from RS to a Planned Development District. The Ciampas own
and operate a salon across the street at 189 Bedford Street and they also own 185 Bedford Street.
They plan to move the salon to 186 Bedford after the project is complete. The Ciampas have
operated a successful salon business in Lexington for 40 years. He presented the history of the
property and described the changes that have been made since the sketch PSDUP was submitted
in the fall. The Property while zoned residential was most recently used as a health clinic allowed
by Special Permit. They have reduced the number of dwelling units to 13 and preserved the
historic building and barn. The property was considered tax exempt because of it institutional
non-profit use. The proposed change creates a taxable property which would bring approximately
$88,000 in taxes to the town. The traffic generated by this project will have little impact. They
believe the project is in line with the 2020 comprehensive plan as this project will provide a
supply of small rental unit which helps diversify the housing stock.
Mr. Hartnett explained how this revised project came closer than the proposed sketch plan to the
goals of the Planning Board. He compared the original sketch to the current submission with
location of the building, curb cuts, proposed addition, and parking. The second floor will have 13
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 6, 2019
dwelling units. Three units would be affordable units. He presented the grading, drainage, and
utility plan and he explained that stormwater would remain on-site. The utilities will come off
Vaille Street. This was decided in consultation with the Town’s Engineering Division.
Mr. McKay presented the architecture plans and floor plans. The design compliments the historic
building but not copy it. The height of the new addition will match the existing historic building.
Retail and office space will be on the first floor. The residential units are on the second floor
ranging in size from 500 to 750 square feet. Some units will have internal stairs to lofts on the
third floor.
Mr. Radner presented the landscape plan which included the preservation of trees and green
space. He said they will meet the requirements of the tree bylaw. They plan to remove
approximately 45 inches of tree caliper and will replace them on site.
Mr. Michaud presented information on transportation, traffic, and baseline conditions for the peak
weekday morning and evening hours for impacts for the site. Then presented the trip generation
summary which resulted in a negligible impact. It was explained that a Dover-allowed use such as
a daycare could create more significant impacts. The Transportation Demand Management
Program proposes to have an on-site transportation coordinator, on-site bike accommodations,
public transportation information and a promotion for preferential parking and provide incentives
for low emission transportation uses, and connections to pedestrian infrastructure.
Board Comments:
Food use - why would it be ok for a Starbucks, but not a Dunkin Donuts? The proposed
allowed –use permits coffee and tea. The member suggests replacing that use with fast
food by special permit and let the SPGA decide? Mr. Grant said that 10 years ago a
Dunkin Donuts requested a special permit and was turned down. Since it was not popular
they did not want to push fast food.
This is a step in the right direction.
What is the distance to the property line? 28 feet-Mr. Harnett
A sign maybe necessary at the emergency access stating “no entrance”.
The caterer use may not a good idea since they sometimes start as early as 3:00 a.m.
The Board asked about the timeline leading up to Town meeting as the report deadline is
March 11, 2019. You will still be talking to the Historical Commission and making some
changes how do you see the schedule working? The. Mr. Grant said this is the first time
Minutes for the Meeting of February 6, 2019 Page 3
he has heard of a deadline. They want to hear comments from the Planning Board and to
amend the PSDUP based on the Planning Board. Historic Commission will only require
a demolition delay if the partial demolition is not approved.
One member said they were okay only one space per unit. If there was a restaurant on site
what would be the parking schedule; what happens if all the spaces are taken? Mr.
Harnett said a parking study would be needed for a restaurant and would be based on
availability and zoning.
Office space should be limited since the rationale of this rezoning should be to create
vibrant retail space.
How does accessibility work with the barn as the second floor would not be accessible?
The applicant said that the Barn would be used for their offices so access to the third
floor would not be necessary.
Would a left hand turn be safe from this property on to Bedford Street? Mr. Michaud said
based on properties like this that area has a low crash rate.
What is the snow storage plan? There would be 5-7 feet around the perimeter of snow
storage.
The Board received three abutter letters from expressing concern about the scale of the
project.
23% affordable units are proposed. Can the Applicant provide 25% of the units as
affordable?
When will you be able to disclose the MOU? Mr. Grant said Ms. Kowalski is discussing
with Town Counsel at this point.
Public Comments:
Support this project. There is a critical need for modest size and modest income housing
options and recommend the Planning Board recommend approval to Town Meeting for
this project. The applicant has listened to the concerns of neighbors and boards and are
preserving the barn.
Believe this mixed-use plan should be carefully looked at. This does not meet the
historical criteria. There is too much activity for a relaxed style, no snow storage, no
place for outside activity. The size is way too excessive for this site with a bottle neck at
the Reed Street, which is narrow. This quiet neighborhood will be greatly impacted. They
should reduce the size of this project.
Take a very careful look at the parking situation because narrow roads that surround this
site.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 6, 2019
Appreciate the reduction in the number of units, but the project is too large for the site.
Concern with the precedence this sets for this 1.3 acre lot for a mixed-use in a residential
neighborhood. This is too rushed to make a wise choice.
The existing gothic revival building does not work with what is being proposed.
This home abuts an entire neighborhood with 300 homes.
Where will the deliveries be? What impact will the emissions have on the environment
and people?
The Historical Commission was not in favor of the proposed plan.
What will happen with the property across the street of 185 Bedford Street when they
move the businesses to 186 Bedford Street?
Once this project gets built all the privacy in this surrounding neighborhood will be lost.
Mr. Pressman from Lexington Partnership said the Board of Selectmen (BOS) was in
favor of this project. This meets a need seniors to downsize. He is in favor of the project.
While not perfect is a good option.
Lexington Mavens are printing inconsistencies about this project.
A laundry mat and dry cleaners already exists do not want more.
The snow plow will just push the snow against the fences and damage them more.
Board Comments:
The timing of this project is a concern as there is not a lot of time before Town Meeting.
The proposed mixed-use is promising. It would be good if the applicant can quickly
amend the PSDUP.
Push back the new addition so that it does not overwhelm the existing building and
provide a better sense of what it would look like.
Open space is missing for the tenants of the building. Do you really need as many
parking spaces as you are presenting?
Is this ideal for the neighborhood.
Generally in favor of the project and making the zoning change is good.
Unless we have specific things we require, the Board should close the public hearing and
let the applicant come up with responses.
The Board is addressing the project presented and is not considering other project that
may have a more negative impact.
This plan is mostly building and parking and not impressed with the green spaces. The
trees that the applicant is trying to save may not survive.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 6, 2019 Page 5
Consider providing double loaded parking spaces, setting the building back, and rotating
it to provide more open space with a court yard. Maintain the historic structure and
design the new structure with simple lines.
There is not enough room for this project. It diminishes the character of the property.
Limit office uses to 10% to allow room for retail operations. There were some uses that
should be eliminated. Strike line “G2”. The maximum site coverage is too high. Would
like to see proposed signs.
We should not rush the process to meet the March 11 deadline.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public
hearing to February 27, 2019 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:10 p.m.
*************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION****************************
Board Member Updates:
BRSB was postponed to next Thursday. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meets
tomorrow. The Residential Special Permit Review Committee meeting is tomorrow.
MAGIC agricultural forum.
Planning meeting roles for February 12 Planning Board Workshop:
Ms. Johnson and Mr. Canale will prepare the power point presentation and send to staff on
Monday and staff will forward to the Board for the Workshop.
Mr. Creech did a “post-it note” demonstration for the workshop.
Upcoming Meetings and Anticipated Schedule:
There will be meetings February 13 and 27.
Minutes:
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 5-0 to accept the minutes of
January 23, 2019 as submitted and January 9, 2019 as amended.
On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 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.
186 Bedford Street:
186 Bedford Street Preliminary Plan Cover Letter (2 pages)
186 Bedford Storm Water Report (118 pages)
Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 6, 2019
186 Bedford Street Preliminary Proof Plans (1 page)
186 Bedford Environmental Impact and Infrastructure Assessment (12
pages)
186 Bedford Zoning Amendment (6 pages)
186 Bedford Edmund C. Grant's Letter to the Planning Board (9 pages)
186 Bedford Non-Regulatory Plans (3 pages)
186 Bedford Regulatory Plans (8 pages)
186 Bedford Petition for Change of Zoning District (3 pages)
186 Bedford Application for a Proposed Mixed-Use Development (2 pages)
Historical commission draft meeting minutes (5 pages)
Conservation Department Comments_1_30_2019 (2 pages)
Stormwater Handbook Excerpt to go with Conservation (24 pages)
Engineering Comments amended January 31, 2019 (2 pages)
Staff Summary January 31, 2019 (6 pages)
Fiscal Analysis (11 pages)
Traffic Analysis (72 pages)
Email from Karen Dubrovsky dated February 5, 2019
Email from Nancy Cowen dated February 4, 2019
Email from Teresa Wright dated February 6, 2019
Robert D. Peters, Clerk