Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-29-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2005 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 Harden, Hornig, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of March 30, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written. The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written The Board reviewed the minutes for the executive session of May 18, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Battle Green Inn Rezoning: Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that Mr. Eric Shapiro, owner of the Battle Green Inn motel, has said that the development team for reuse of the site is considering petitioning the Selectmen to hold a special town meeting in November 2005 to present a new proposal for rezoning the property from CB, Center Business District, to CD, Planned Commercial Development. She noted that the team might want to meet with the Planning Board in August. Planning Board Marrett-Spring-Bridge Intersection: Mr. Hornig reported on the workshop for stakeholders led by consultants from Howard / Stein-Hudson at Cary Library on potential improvements at the Marrett Road, Spring and Bridge Streets intersection. Concerns and solutions were raised and prioritized in nine separate working groups. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety were of great concern, though some participants would prefer minimal change to the intersection. Participants expressed a desire for another public meeting. ************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************** SPECIAL PERMIT WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW The public hearing for the Special Permit for the Jefferson Union redevelopment project was reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Representing the applicant team were Mr. John Farrington, attorney; Mr. Steve Sawyer, engineer, of Oak Engineering; Mr. Peter Quinn, architect; Mr. Sean Papich, landscape architect; and Sean Meadows, owner. There were 15 people in the audience. Mr. Farrington gave an overview of the project status since the last hearing. He said that he had provided two environmental assessments to the Planning Department staff for review. Two test pits had been conducted on the site and no evidence of contaminated soils was found. The property owners have records of proper handling of materials in connection with the removal of underground storage tanks. Mr. Sawyer discussed the revised vehicular circulation pattern. The site drive has been reversed to a counter-clockwise direction in response to comments from the Board about traffic flow, and the addition of a left-turn restriction for vehicles exiting the site. The reserved parking spaces at the back of the site, consisting of pervious geoblock pavers, would provide green space when the parking was not utilized. He detailed the design of the proposed retaining wall which runs along 97-feet of the front of the site. The wall would be cast-in place concrete with a fieldstone finish, would be six-feet in height at the tallest point, and would follow the road contour. The wall is intended to improve sight distances at the intersection of the access road with Fletcher Avenue. Some of the existing trees would be lost but every effort would be made to retain as many as possible. Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2005 2 Mr. Sawyer presented the Operation and Maintenance plan for the construction period. Improvements to the site access and Fletcher Avenue would be constructed first to accommodate drainage and erosion control measures during later phases of site redevelopment. Construction materials would be stored in existing parking areas at the rear of the site. The fire department requires on-site circulation to be 18-feet wide. Mr. Sawyer stated that the plans would be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Schilt noted that the applicants have addressed the comments by Hayes Engineering on the previous submittal. Board Questions and Comments: The Board asked whether the sidewalks were at grade or raised, and whether they were ADA accessible. A request was made that fencing be provided around snow storage areas to prevent encroachment onto abutting properties. Concerns were voiced about the potential for blasting of ledge to build the access road. Mr. Sawyer responded that to widen the road some blasting will be needed, but it should be minimal. Asked if the access road could be laid out differently, Mr. Sawyer stated that the current layout is the safest configuration without demolishing part of the building. Further comments from the board were related to the amount of open space on the site, and whether the building at the back of the site had any historic value that would prevent it from being demolished to provide additional usable common space. The applicants noted that reuse of the building has financial value for the project in connection with providing an affordable housing unit. The Board asked if the grade of the access road would limit wheelchair access, and it was noted that ADA compliance is not required for off-site access. The applicants stated that the grade had been lowered from 10 percent to six or eight percent in most areas, but that they would investigate whether more change is feasible. Sean Papich described how the area cleared to accommodate the access improvements would be re-landscaped with lawn, groundcover and shrubs, in addition to maintaining as many of the existing trees as possible to provide screening for abutters. The landscaping at the back of the site was also discussed, including the addition of new trees for added screening. The Board inquired whether the reserved parking at the back of the site was needed. The applicants stated that there were 34 spaces provided, 28 of which are paved, and only 22 are required, The intent is to provide for all the parking needs on-site to prevent spill-over on to Fletcher Avenue. The Board asked about views from the building in the back onto abutting properties. The applicant said that the windows in the redeveloped building would be set above six-feet in height. The Board requested that the applicants consider more open space and less pervious surface at the back of the site. The Board stated its policy to highly encourage provision of affordable housing, and requested two affordable units, given the ten-percent threshold of Lexington's affordable housing inventory. Mr. Farrington stated that the reuse of the back building as a single-family unit would subsidize the affordable housing. The applicant’s intent is to hold a lottery to sell the units, with priority going first to Town employees and then to broader outreach to other working-class citizens. The Board asked how the affordable units would remain price restricted, and Mr. Farrington stated the team’s preference would be to qualify the units for the Town’s 40B inventory. The units would be deed-restricted to households earning 70 and 80 percent of the area’s median household income, with resale restrictions monitored by the Town. Audience Questions and Comments: Audience members had questions about the height and design of the retaining wall related to sight distance requirements, its location in the Fletcher Avenue right-of-way, and whether a variance would be needed. The applicants responded that the Town Engineering Division had approved the wall's location and that further design work would be done prior to obtaining the driveway construction permit. Other audience members questioned the content of the Construction Management Plan and what controls were intended to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties during construction, including delivery of materials and vehicle parking, noise and dust, and rodent control. The Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2005 3 audience also commented upon the environmental assessments, with concerns about the need for further testing for hazardous materials and contamination on the site and in the buildings. Mr. Farrington explained the content and findings of the previous environmental assessments, the lack of evidence of any contamination, and the owners’ compliance with previous remediation activities. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the Planning Board has no authority to review for environmental concerns: that is the Board of Health 's domain. Mr. Farrington added that the results of environmental assessments and recent test pits had been provided to the Board of Health. Audience members and the Board the asked for clarification on the phasing and schedule outlined in the Construction Management Plan. The applicants noted that more details would be provided in subsequent filings. They estimate that the work on the roadway's intersection with Fletcher Avenue would take about three days; they will meet all Town requirements in terms of traffic control and safety during this period. The Board noted that it could place a condition in the Special Permit to minimize construction impacts. Two abutters spoke in favor of the plan, noting the positive aspects of the change in use from manufacturing to residential. A Fletcher Avenue resident asked if surface improvements would be made to Fletcher Avenue. The response was that none are planned. Someone asked what impact analysis was done relative to the land area. Ms. McCall-Taylor responded that this is not a cluster subdivision, but rather a site plan review for the Board of Appeals special permit for the change in use, so the impact analysis was not applicable. Mr. Farrington noted that the special permit from the Board of Appeals is in abeyance until the Planning Board acts on the site plan. The Board asked the development team to re-evaluate the site in terms of its proximity to and impacts on abutting properties, and to return with alternative, less intense development schemes that would maintain the integrity of the site, would be less automobile oriented and provide more open space. It suggested that the team consider demolishing the back building, instead of reusing it, and/or demolishing a portion of the front building to be able to pull the driveway back from the property line, as tactics to accomplish these goals. Mr. Farrington said that while only 22 parking spaces are required, the applicants want to provide 28 spaces to preclude spillover onto Fletcher Avenue and Sherman Street. He emphasized the importance of considering economic viability when balancing the number of dwelling units against requests for more open space and affordable units. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that staff would work with the Fire Department to clarify its requirements and to determine if there are ways of providing emergency vehicle access using pervious materials. She encouraged the applicants to explore options to reduce grading. Mr. Farrington stated that they would work on ways to alleviate impacts on abutting properties. At 10:00 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to adjourn the public hearing and to continue it to Wednesday, August 3, 2005 at 7:45 p.m. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Committee Liaisons - The Board agreed on the following slate of committee liaison assignments: Planning Board Liaisons to other Town Boards and Committees Article 40 Committee Tony Galaitsis Cambridge Reservoir Watershed Advisory Committee Close membership Conservation Commission Tony Galaitsis Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2005 4 Design Advisory Committee Wendy Manz Four Town Planning Group Richard Canale Hanscom Area Towns Committee Richard Canale HATS Developments of Regional Impact Sub-committee Richard Canale HATS Noise Workgroup Tony Galaitsis Historic Districts Commission Wendy Manz Historical Commission Tom Harden Housing Partnership Board Tom Harden Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee Charles Hornig? Lexington Center Committee Wendy Manz Lexington Lighting Options Committee Charles Hornig Metropolitan State Hospital Land Task Force Dissolve Middlesex Hospital (to be formed?) Charles Hornig Senior Center Siting Committee Charles Hornig Sidewalk Committee John Davies Traffic Mitigation Group (to be formed) Richard Canale Transportation Advisory Committee Richard Canale Vision 2020 Tom Harden Regional Planning (Selectmen appointments) Metropolitan Area Planning Council Richard Canale MAGIC Richard Canale Boston MPO Regional Transportation Advisory Council Gail Wagner ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff : Marrett Road/Spring Street/ Bridge Street – Ms. McCall Taylor reported that Howard/Stein-Hudson, consultants for the Marrett Road/Spring Street/ Bridge Street initiative, would be issuing a draft report in July on their study and public outreach on potential safety improvements to the Marrett/Spring/Bridge intersection. Staff will work with HSH to hold an informal presentation to the Planning Board, with notification to attendees of the public workshops, to allow for additional public input on the draft report. Downtown Initiative Workshop: Mr. Schilt reported on a workshop sponsored by he had attended relative to town center improvement initiatives. Mr. Schilt said he would provide the Board with a written description of the highlights of the workshop. He noted that one of the group leaders used a photograph of Lexington Center in his presentation. Board Sidewalk Committee: The Board agreed to invite Mr. Davies to report on the activities of the Sidewalk Committee. Mr. Davies was appointed, and he agreed to serve as, the Planning Board's liaison to the Sidewalk Committee just before he retired from the Board. Town GIS System: In relation to the Planning Board's goals and priorities, Mr. Canale suggested making it a goal to increase awareness in the town of the usefulness of a geographic information system. The Board agreed to devote the meeting of July 6 to reviewing its policies, goals and priorities. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk