Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Schilt present. Ms. Manz stated that she would be leaving the meeting early, if Mr. Hornig were willing to take over as chair. She needed to attend the Town Meeting Members Association informational meeting to present items that the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has on the warrant for the Special Town th Meeting on November 27. She stated that the three items were requests for funding through the Community Preservation Act (CPA): $60,000 requested by the Town Clerk for shelves for the vault in the basement of Cary Hall to archive Town records; $25,000 requested by the Historical Society for a preliminary study for structural repairs to the Hancock Clarke House; and, $40,000 requested by the Historical Society to install a freight elevator in the Depot building. She noted that 16 applications have been received by the CPC for CPA funds to be approved by the 2007 Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig stated that most of the applications thus far have been for historic resources, and not many have been for open space or affordable housing. Ms. Manz said that the applications currently being reviewed by the CPC include at least two for open space, one for recreation, and two requests from the Housing Partnership Board. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of November 1, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 92 & 110 Shade Street: Todd Cataldo stated that he has just purchased the properties at 92 & 110 Shade Street, and would like to request input from the Board prior to commencing design work on a subdivision he is considering. He has seen a sketch plan the former owners submitted to the Board earlier this year, and he feels that his concept would better serve a broader market segment. He would like to combine the two parcels, preserve the existing “Journey’s End” mansion, and develop a cluster subdivision on the remainder of the property. The cluster would consist of pods of attached units, ranging from 1,600 to Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2006 2 2,500 square feet per unit, on what is now 92 Shade Street, maintain the open area in front of Journey’s End as common open space, and develop three single family units aligned along the western edge of the property. The previous sketch plan had a proposed access road aligning with Cary Avenue, but, in response to the Board’s comments, Mr. Cataldo would relocate the road further to the east. Addressing sight distance concerns at the intersection of the new road with Shade Street may require removing some trees and blasting ledge. Mr. Cataldo expressed a desire to preserve Journey’s End, and he is considering either converting the mansion into three units, or leaving it as it is. The existing drive on 110 Shade Street would serve the mansion and the three new housing units. Mr. Hornig stated that he would urge Mr. Cataldo to place some sort of historic preservation restriction on the Journey’s End mansion. Ms. Manz inquired about how many units Mr. Cataldo was considering for the entire development. Mr. Cataldo replied that he has not yet determined a number, and it would be based on the size of the units. He noted that the proof plan in the previous sketch plan showed 10 units, and the maximum development potential formula for a cluster subdivision would allow 55,000 square feet of gross floor area on the site. Mr. Canale suggested that the bulk of the development be placed on the eastern end of the property, in order to preserve as much of the character of the Journey’s End site as possible. He further suggested preserving the hill by siting the development within the slopes. Mr. Canale also noted that consideration should be given to preserving the existing streetscape along Shade Street, including the trees, stonewalls and fencing. Mr. Hornig inquired whether the alignment of Shade Street, with a potentially dangerous curve, could be corrected without disturbing stonewalls and fencing. Mr. Cataldo asked the Board if they would be interested in visiting the property, so they could see how the property slopes, and where he is considering siting the development. Mr. Zurlo suggested that it might be more appropriate after the Board reviews a sketch plan. Mr. Cataldo stated that he would prefer to do it before the sketch plan, as with winter approaching, and the holidays, the timing is critical; he would like to be able to respond to the Board’s input when he submits a plan, after they have had the opportunity to th walk the site. It was agreed to schedule the site walk for 9:00 AM on Saturday, November 18. Mr. Canale asked why Mr. Cataldo had submitted for a demolition permit from the Historic Commission. Mr. Cataldo said that he prefers to do that first, so he can meet with the Commission to identify issues and aspects for preservation. When asked about utility work that would need to be done, Mr. Cataldo stated that he was working with the Engineering Division to install the necessary utility stubs prior to the Town Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2006 3 paving Shade Street next spring. ******************* PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************** Ms. Manz asked if other boards or commissions had taken a position on the warrant article for the Special Town Meeting to see if the Town would adopt the Mullin Rule. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that in the handouts for this evenings meeting, there is a letter of support from the Zoning Board of Appeals. She has sent a memo to other boards and commissions informing of the article and soliciting their support. Ms. Manz noted that the article had been submitted by the Selectmen and would be presented by them, but that the Planning Board fully supported it. Mr. Zurlo asked if the Planning Board were going to take a position on the warrant article for the DPW building. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that there should be no reason to do so, as there will be no change in land use. Mr. Hornig stated the Board should be prepared for questions about the matter. Mr. Canale stated that in the recent weeks there had been discussion on the MassPlanners list serve about doing site plan review for exempt land uses. He added that Lexington does not have a by-law for review of exempt uses, and it may be worth it to develop one at some point in the future. th Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that December 6 might be scheduled for Special Town Meeting. If there is no session that evening, a regular Planning Board meeting is scheduled. A meeting will be held on December th 13, and a concept plan for a cluster subdivision at 177 Grove Street will be on the agenda. Mr. Zurlo stated that he would like to have the opportunity for the Board to discuss the proposed inclusionary housing by-law at one of their upcoming meetings, as he was not a member of the Board when the by-law was developed and he has some ideas to include. Ms. Manz suggested th doing it on November 29, prior to the Special Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig stated that he would like the Board to prepare placeholders for the 2007 Town Meeting warrant for any zoning changes it is considering. At 8:10 PM Ms. Manz left to attend the Town Meeting Members Association meeting. Mr. Hornig took over as chair. ************************* ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING ************************ The Board reviewed a work in progress draft of a revision to Article XII, the Traffic By-Law. Mr. Schilt Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2006 4 stated that he had prepared this draft based upon research he conducted into what other communities have for transportation by-laws. He added that the Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) had reviewed the draft earlier in the week, and in the handouts for the meeting he included a revised version based on the TMG’s comments. The TMG felt that there was too much content in the by-law that wasn’t applicable to zoning, and had suggested putting it in a supplemental guideline in order to simplify the by-law. Given that only three members of the Planning Board members were present, it was decided not to go line by line through the draft document, but rather to discuss general concepts to be included. Significant comments included the following: The objectives should reference the transportation network, and not the roadway network, as the ?? by-law should be about more than automobiles. The objectives should also emphasize that improvements be implemented in a context sensitive manor. There should be fewer than 12 purpose statements, which could be condensed to make them more ?? inclusive. The purpose statements should focus more on the ends, rather than the means. The threshold requirements belong in the section on what is required in a study, rather than in the ?? objective and purpose section. If the provisions apply to all special permits, clarity is needed on what is expected of the applicants, especially for smaller projects that won’t have any transportation impacts. A checklist was recommended to identify smaller projects that could require a special permit, but ?? might not require any transportation review. The checklist should be designed to weed out projects where an engineer is not needed, and, therefore instances where a transportation study would not be required. Other waivers could be addressed during the pre-application review, with final waiver requests ?? approved by the particular special permit granting authority. This should be clearly stated in the by-law. There is a need to define the performance measures in order to determine what should be required ?? in a transportation study. The performance measures should give equal weight to what forms of mitigation are provided on-site and what is required off-site. Required improvements should be based on a list of criteria, with developers proposing how to ?? implement them. Consideration should be given to having the pre-application as part of the Development Review ?? Team functions. The Planning staff agreed to revise the draft given the comments received, as well as to craft the performance measures, and provide an update for the Planning Board to review at their next meeting. Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2006 5 ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that she had attended the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Fall Council meeting on Monday of this week. Planning Board Mr. Canale reported that the Legislature has approved the Scenic Byway designation for the Battle Road, and a grant proposal is being drafted to provide funding for the development of a Corridor Management Plan for the byway. The proposal is due February 1, 2007. Mr. Canale reported that he recently presented the findings of the Heritage Landscape Inventory to the Board of Selectmen. The next steps are to identify ways to ensure that the recommendations of the study are implemented. He would like the Planning Board to have a discussion at an upcoming meeting on ways to proceed with implementation. Mr. Canale stated that on December 5 & 6, 2006, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council will hold the latest in it’s series of public workshops for MetroFuture: Making a Greater Boston Region. He encouraged members of the Board to attend. This round of workshops will include opportunities to make recommendations and provide input. There are currently three alternatives on how the region should grow over the next 30 years, and one alternative that shows growth patterns if no action is taken to guide development appropriately. Mr. Hornig stated that the Historical Commission is meeting Thursday, November 16, 2006 to discuss Mr. Cataldo’s application for demolition of the Journey’s End mansion on Shade Street. He encouraged attendance at the meeting to show support for preserving the mansion. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk