Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-12-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2019 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Selectmen’s Meeting Room, in the Town Office Building was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Richard Canale with members Ginna Johnson, Charles Hornig, Robert Peters, Bob Creech, and planning staff Carol Kowalski and Lori Kaufman and Kevin Batt, Town Counsel. **********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*********************** PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7 Hartwell Avenue, proposed change to zoning district designation to the CSX District: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. with approximately 20 people in the audience. Mr. Peters said pursuant to advice from the State Ethics Commission, Attorney of the Day he is filing a Disclosure of Appearance of Conflict of Interest as required by Massachusetts General Laws and will be participating in this matter. Present were Kristine Hung and Robert Buckley from Reimer and Braunstein. Ms. Hung presented the reason for requesting the CD-1 zone be rezoned to a CSX District. The Russian School of Math (RSM) has been in Lexington for 10 years and would like to remain here and it took them two years to find a building that they could use. The current zoning is too restrictive and using the CM District would not work because the site is too small and does not meet the dimensional standards. If the CSX District was approved it would be more flexible and the applicant would provide restrictions on uses that would be considered noxious with a restrictive covenant or deed restriction which would run with the land. BSE Engineering was hired to do a traffic study and hope they will be here to address traffic concerns at the next hearing. The client filed a petition with 337 signature and now has 500 signatures in support which will be provided. Individual Board Member Comments:  There was discussion regarding the rezoning, and it was explained that the RSM was an acceptable use but did not want the CSX District due to some inappropriate uses by right and the zoning would likely only be temporary here due to the Hartwell Avenue rezoning initiative and that needs to be taken into account. Ms. Hung said it would be fine to be subsumed with whatever initiative that would take place.  Is this property totally surrounded by public streets and public ways so it cannot be expanded to a larger site by a future owner? Yes. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019  Concern was expressed at the last meeting regarding abutter’s screening on the north end of the property and want to make sure that it would continue to be screened. Yes, that would not be a problem.  Traffic is a concern at this site, is there any proposals to lane striping to allow parents picking up their children to make a left turn onto Hartwell Avenue and it is recommended an additional lane be added to allow people to position their cars to turn left or right onto Bedford Street. Ms. Hung said they would leave it to engineers and their client for a discussion to see if that is feasible. Talk with Town Engineering and Public Works.  There is no problem with the CSX District, but would prefer the CM District.  These restrictions are private use restrictions and not zoning and are not enforced like zoning and is not a direction we would like to go.  There was a long list of uses that you considered noxious how did you decide what uses to put on the list? Were there any complaints? No, we just added what we thought would not be desirable there.  There was concern at the last meeting about having a school there because it would cause too much traffic so be careful what you are looking to restrict.  The uses that are special permit in the CSX District would require a 2/3 vote of the Planning Board. Trim the list to uses allowed by right.  I would be happy with the CSX District without any restrictions.  In the previous petition of support there were 194 signatures with 192 names from Lexington residents and now you have over 500 names on that list. Please provide the petition to see if the ratio is the same and help to see which way the cars will turn.  There was a concern regarding the playground that it would need to have a fence, which would not be attractive and could block site lines for cars. The Applicant would not add a fence as it would detract from the property.  The Hartwell Avenue initiative consultants said they want vibrant uses and this does fit in as an appropriate use.  There was concern expressed that some of the uses allowed in the CM District are appropriate with the school and would like to ensure the school would be a long-term tenant, be successful, and compliment the area to make things flourish. What is the best mechanism to prohibit uses from the CSX District? We do not want to put artificial things in to restrict uses and then have to take them out and want to make sure they are Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 Page 3 enforceable. As the applicant you should propose the best way to put in the restrictions to make the school successful. The School Director of Development said the classes are from an hour to two and a half hours long and the playground would be a chance for children to get out their energy. There are no plans to place fences there. Audience comments:  A parent and Lexington resident said he appreciates that the Planning Board wants to help this school and it is excellent for kids. Whatever needs to be done should be to keep this school in Lexington.  A parent and Lexington resident has twins in the Lexington Schools and said they are going to the RSM which introduced them to math and they love it and is almost like a club and hope they can stay in the community.  A resident who teaches at the RSM said there are 1800 students. No one forces parents to bring the children here and Lexington education is a very high level and this helps the students and contributes to the excellence of this Town’s schools.  A parent and Lexington resident has two children and is a teacher at RSM said the Town needs this school in Lexington for our children. Individual Board Member Comments:  The only sticking point is to figure out what the mechanism to use to limit uses. Meet with staff and come back to the Board with a couple of recommendations.  Another Board Member says they do not need to limit uses right now and before they come back with a mechanism there should be some feedback from the community for specific uses in the CSX District abutters do not want. The applicant would have to figure out what to do to get a 2/3’s vote for Town Meeting. The path seems like a good one.  Talk to staff and come up with some proposals. Ms. Kowalski asked if the Board is supportive of the non-zoning restrictions. The Board responded more clarity is needed on the pluses and minuses, how it would be enforced, and see the mechanics from the applicant before the Board decides. Nothing presented tonight seems to be out of line. Mr. Buckley believes the covenant is the best way to go for the highly emotional charged uses. Were the notices proper? Ms. Kowalski said the notices were proper she will provide the outline for the Form 7 time frame information at the continuance. Mr. Buckley said they also want to address the traffic concerns. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted 5-0, to continue the public hearing to July 10, at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Please note that this public hearing was originally scheduled for June 12, 2019. Due to a publishing error, the second legal ad (the statute requires two) for Bridges was not published in the newspaper. Therefore this site plan review was not properly noticed. Even though the Planning Board cannot open the public hearing on June 12, a public discussion will be held. Because the neighbors were invited by mail to the June 12 meeting, the developer will present information and neighbors will be able to comment. The Bridges public hearing will formally open on June 26 and the presentation and public comment from June 12 will be included in the public hearing on June 26. Neighbors will also be invited to the June 26 public hearing for Bridges. The public hearing for Waterstone is being held tonight as properly noticed. Waterstone at 55 Watertown Street, Site Plan Review: Mr. Canale said due to a newspaper publishing error the public hearing will continue for Waterstone, but Bridges will be a public information session. Public comments taken tonight will be included for the record for the Public Hearing on Bridges, 56 Watertown Street will be held on June 26, 2019. Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. with approximately 40 people in the audience. Present were Mr. Ted Tye, Managing Partner for National Development, Steve Senna, Vice President for National Development, and John Farrington, attorney, and consultants Theo Kindermans, landscape architect, and Rick Bryant, for transportation from Stantec. Mr. Farrington said these properties were rezoned last November and are now in the Planned Development District-3. Mr. Tye said Town Meeting and the Attorney General approved the rezoning for this site. The peer review comments will be addressed within the next couple of days. We have filed for site plan review which is being presented tonight and have applied for the permits and hope construction will begin late in the year. Mr. Tye presented what was approved at Town Meeting. These are fully engineered sets of plans which include the following changes: two additional parking spaces for the trails, the generators were moved to another location, at the entrance to the parking garage there is a small apron which will be used as a service area, the four-bay erosion control and basin for the stormwater plans have been completed, the Conservation Commission discussed the tightness and riprap location and the applicant asked to push the for erosion control out to soften the slope and get rid of the riprap which was approved, minor changes to patio configuration, work within the courtyard and landscape design is completed, minor changes to the Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 Page 5 egress as required and the removal of a retaining wall, and provided some grading in that area. We have reduced the size of the building footprint that was approved at Town Meeting and shortened some retaining walls. We believe this plan is consistent with what Town Meeting approved. Individual Board Member Comments:  The offsite improvements for the sidewalks and crosswalks when will they be completed during or after construction? Mr. Tye said there will be no Certificate of Occupancy until the improvements are completed and will be done during construction.  Will the lighting be on all night for the parking lot? Yes, they will be reduced during the night and will be shielded and facing down only for the door.  Is the planting of hemlocks ok since they have been known to be diseased? Mr. Kindermans said he is comfortable planting them.  It was never discussed the changing of the fence on Golden Avenue any plans for that? No, it has been there a long time and we do not plan to have anyone ever use it.  There was concern with weekend work hours, please consider between June 1 through October 15 only have work done two Saturdays per month, October 16 through April 30 three Saturdays a month. Mr. Tye said they do not plan to work Saturdays on a regular basis, and the Town allows a 7:00 a.m. start and they would work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays that they do work.  Town Meeting has spoken and appreciate all the work that has been done since that time with removing the riprap and the adjustment to the footprint is wonderful. You have my vote and my comments are only suggestions. Do you have an invasive removal and monitoring plan? No. It is listed in regulations and you should consider having one. Is there any place to move the trailhead parking and the generator so when you exit the building you do not see the parking spaces and cars? The Cape Cod berm may get damaged with plowing. Make the modular wall unit from stone. The planting notes stipulate that plants should be native to Middlesex County and some are not so change the colarado spruce to arborvitae or red cedar and the sweet gum should be replaced with hickory to make the eco system better.  This is a very compelling project. The speed limit on Watertown Street it was recommended from Town Engineering to increase the speed to 40 MPH and believe it should try to be reduced with traffic calming or regulations in that area. Within the next two weeks a meeting should be set up with two Board Members, Police and Mr. Bryant to get backing from the Town to have the speed reduced and address inconsistencies of Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 this road especially with cyclists being able to use the whole lane. Mr. Tye said there are some speed calming measures and if the Town would back the speed reduction that would be good to make it safe especially for workers biking to work. The Town would need to take the lead here. PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION: Bridges at 56 Watertown Street, discussion of Site Plan Review: Mr. Tye presented the following changes that were made to the Bridges project which included the following: There is an additional municipal street light in the front for safety, trees were moved back to a safer area to protect from snow plowing, an internal crosswalk was added leading to the sidewalk on Watertown Street, there are more evergreen trees that will be planted for screening by Golden Avenue, below ground utility change, the egress door will be removed and an expanded bio-basin and connection to the roof run-off, and coordinated the sidewalk at the entrance. There is an existing fence and stonewall and a 30 foot no-touch buffer zone with a pathway requested by the Lexington Fire Department. The only thing happening is a residence fence which is eight feet and a locked gate only accessible by the Fire Department for an emergency. There is a five foot fence with a stone wall that runs up against it at Golden Avenue. The pathway is for residents only in case of an emergency in the back of the building. The other side has the tree protection and a 30 foot buffer with an eight foot change of grade. Employees will not be able/allowed to exit from the back and will be prohibited from doing so as a condition of employment. Individual Board Member Comments:  The buffer zone at Bridges does not talk about residential use for that buffer. How are you going to use it and how are you protecting the residents on Golden Avenue? The fence is unsightly and the Board is concerned with the aesthetics of the project.  The buffer for residents could replace the fence with a solid fence or plant screening on abutting resident’s property for safety issues. Mr. Tye will get back to the Board so they can look into that issue. We are hesitant to leave the fence like that.  Please provide the emergency access plan so we can see the detail of the whole area including the area that is not on your property. Audience comments:  Ajay Joseph, 46 Golden Avenue said the fence should be replaced from an abutter and safety point of view and am glad you are keeping a fence. Regarding the noise what will be the amount of decibels that will be added to the existing noise especially on the Bridges side once the project is complete? There is a condition in the MOU that the Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 Page 7 applicant will need to comply with in conjunction with the noise bylaw. The baseline test has been done already. The equipment will be in the back of the building to make it the quietest place for that piece of equipment.  How much light do you believe will bleed onto Golden Avenue? Nothing will spread over the property line and the lights will be shielded and that is why the parking was placed in the back. We do not believe you will see much especially with the grading of the property.  Bob Nacine, 44 Golden Avenue, would you be agreeable to put up a new fence if the residents on Golden Avenue want it. If all the residents want that we will most likely replace it, but want to know what you would like to see.  There is no way anyone can get to the property through the fence including the workers in the back? Yes, we will make it a condition of employment.  How should the neighbors proceed with the construction for the new fence? It can be discussed at the June 26 meeting with the neighbors on what they want at that time. Don’t force a new fence if it would cause a major disruption. Wait for the project to be near completion and see what the residents want on their property and allow plantings to be done strategically.  Bob Pressman 22 Locust Avenue, Where would the additional trees be planted to completely screen the house from the building and the parking lot?  Bijan Afshartous, 5 Green Lane, do you know where bus 76 your is employees will need it? The Ramp on Route 2 people are not heeding the no left turn.  Bill Ford 6 Mayflower Road, Arlington, suggested the access gate for an emergency to not leave it open otherwise people will try to go through it? The opening is only 5 feet wide so vehicles cannot pass there.  Paul Taylor, on the corner of Cory Lane and Golden Avenue, Arlington are you going to have run a gas line up Golden Avenue. There is an existing one on Golden Avenue that is stubbed and can serve them. The excavation of the road keeps destroying the road and am concerned that it will remain in disrepair. Lexington requires the utility company to go to the Board of Selectmen to get a permit and show how the road is to be restored you would need to talk to Arlington and the gas company.  Sarah Joseph, 46 Golden Avenue said that if the little rusty fence is cut open how wide will the opening be? It will be 5 feet wide which would be the standard. Can we wait till after construction and not decide at the next meeting what we need. The resident at 48 Golden Avenue wants the fence. If the applicant sells the property and the new owner Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 would keep the fence there would need to be a lock on the second fence. We like the starting time at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings.  Richard Cronin 3 Briggs Road, the speed limit is trying to be negotiated down, but that is the State’s decision. I did not see anything in the traffic studies for stopping distance, site distance, and crash history done for that area. Mr. Richard Bryant Stantec said they did not research the crash history there. There needs to be a conversation to keep people safe.  Jeff Howry 5 Bennett Avenue made a power point presentation regarding historic stone walls. Are these walls being taken away? Mr. Senna said they will harvest the stone from the wall to be taken down and keep it on the property and the monument will be kept. On a motion of Mr. .Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing for Waterstone to June 26, 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. 56 Blossomcrest, Approval Not Required (ANR): Mr. Creech left the meeting and will return shortly. Mr. Farrington, attorney said this ANR was brought back for internal lot line adjustments for the proof plan circles. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the revised ANR plan showing the property at 56 Blossomcrest Road as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Creech rejoined the meeting. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Planning Board Staff Support: Ms. Kowalski said they posted for an interim Planning Director and have an interview tomorrow and a permanent position has been posted and is opened until the position is filled. We hope to have an interim Planning Director soon. Board Member Updates: Discussion on Hartwell Avenue Rezoning, Board Policies and Regulations-Planned Development Districts: Mr. Canale said on June 10 he met with the Town Manager, chairs and vice chairs for the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and Planning Board and the Assistant Town Manager for Land Use and to address concerns about the unpredictability of procedures that have been used for projects. Some issues discussed were that applicants were not getting consistent readings especially from one meeting to another and between Board Members. Applicants are looking for more predictability Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 Page 9 and more feedback. This may require a rewrite of the Planned Development District (PDD) process. There needs to be a joint meeting on the Hartwell Avenue initiative with the BOS to make sure we are all on the same page and have better communications to encourage economic development. There was also some discussion of commercial development on Waltham Street. The next meeting is scheduled for July 8 with the chairs, vice chairs and administrators. Mr. Peters said the dynamic where we are supported by planning staff but they report to the Town Administrators may have the Board take them a bit for granted and the Board needs to value staff for the function they do and to stop the revolving door for Planning Directors. Tonight the applicant’s attorney for 7 Hartwell Avenue asked the Board what to bring back at the next meeting since we had two Board Members who had totally different opinions. The Board needs to direct applicants on what the sentiment of the Board to provide guidance. The Board used to take votes along the way to see where they are at and should possibly consider doing that again or make sure each Board Member weighs in for each project when guidance is requested. This maybe a reflection that the bylaws are too flexible and the Town needs to decide what uses to allow. The change in staff may have had led to this and adding additional work to staff without consulting the Board may have resulted in the problem. It was asked if there is an adequate number of planning staff to support the Board and handle Town Administrative work they need to take on. Believe that more prescriptive bylaws and more restrictive guidelines will give guidance and help save time and money for the applicant to get a viable starting point? The Board needs to look at Lexington for the long run. The idea of voting along the way might be helpful. Saving time up front would be a way to go. It is not our job to design the project but to make a recommendation to Town Meeting or for a subdivision to say yes or no with conditions. The PDD with no guidance creates a longer process or we can be more prescriptive and may get something more predictable even though some creativity may be lost. Something needs to be done with PDDs with small parcels to address their challenges. This discussion needs to be continued. Discussion of Board policies and regulations-Limited Site Plan Review: The Board should review the draft and bring it forward to the next meeting. Goal Setting and Work Items: The Board should meet with other Board and committees regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation is a yearly thing that should be included. Supplemental funding for the TMO1 District for transportation planning and design for the Fall Special Town Meeting should be requested. There will be a new process using a facilitator for the BOS regarding goal setting. The facilitator will meet with senior management and chairs of committees and commissions. There will be a Page 10 Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 meeting on July 10 at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Canale will attend and is asking the Board Members to submit to planning staff input for that meeting and this item will be added on to the next agenda. Should the Planning Board consider seeking a facilitator to help the Board to achieve their goals? Minutes: On a motion of, Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of May 22, 2019, as amended. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 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. 7 Hartwell Avenue:  Proposed Zoning Amendment (11 pages).  Power point presentation. Waterstone at 55 Watertown Street:  Application (5 pages).  Site Plan (11 pages).  Stormwater Management Report (387 pages).  Site Plan Review updates (4 pages).  Architectural Plans (15 pages).  Memo to Planning Board (2 pages).  PD-3 MOU National Development (30 pages).  PD-3 First Amendment National Development (4 pages).  Power point presentation. Bridges at 56 Watertown Street:  Application (5 pages).  Site Plan (16 pages).  Project memo (4 pages).  Memo on sound disturbance (16 pages).  Stormwater Management Report (568 pages).  Architectural Plans (12 pages). Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2019 Page 11  PD-3 MOU National Development (30 pages).  PD-3 First Amendment National Development (4 pages).  Lexington Noise Bylaw (2 pages). 56 Blossomcrest Road:  ANR Plan revised 6/3/19 (1 page). Draft Limited Site Plan Review regulations (2 pages). Fiscal Year 18 & 19 Work Plan (1 page). Mr. Howry memo dated June 12, 2019 (2 pages). Mr. Howry’s presentation on stonewalls. Robert Peters, Clerk