Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-27-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 27, 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, Galaitsis, Harden, Hornig, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt and Tap present. ******************************* TRAFFIC MITIGATION ******************************* Marrett Road Intersection Study – Tom Stokes of the consulting firm Howard/Stein-Hudson (HSH) was present to give a summary of the Phase I of the study of the intersection of Marrett Road/ Spring Street/ Bridge Street. The project had been funded through the traffic mitigation funds made available to the Town upon the rezoning of the Lexington Technology Park. There were approximately twenty people in the audience. The focus of the first phase was a comprehensive public process with broad outreach to interested parties. This included meeting with stakeholders, town officials and interested parties and culminated in a workshop attended by approximately 90 people. Mr. Stokes said that the intersection had peak-hour issues, especially in the evening on Spring Street. Other issues were speeding on Marrett, pedestrian safety, the location of the bus stop and the amount of confusion at the intersection - the area is awash in pavement. At this stage no single improvement is a clear favorite, nor has any improvement been ruled out. There are families of improvements that will continue to be considered, from small items such as striping to the larger scale ones such as a roundabout or a signal. Phase 2 will be a conceptual plan. Board Comments and Questions: Mr. Harden commented that it is a question of process; the Board of Selectmen must act to approve the second phase. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that data collection was mentioned in the memo and she wondered if it was in the Phase 2 scope. Mr. Stokes said that it was and that traffic counts and turning movements would be studied. Mr. Harden asked if there had been communication between HSH and the Sidewalk Committee and the Safe Route to School group. Mr. Stokes said that Ms. Krieger, chair of the Sidewalk Committee, was aware of the project throughout the process. He noted that Marrett Road has a sidewalk going in. Mr. Galaitsis asked about the steady increase in morning peak hour traffic. Mr. Stokes said the evening peak volumes have always been there and the evening peak is maxed out, while the morning peak volumes have had room to grow. If a signal goes in, there may be more traffic, as the intersection capacity will increase. Mr. Canale commended the memo, feeling that it captured the essence of the issues. He asked that the next phase try to anticipate the effect on side residential streets. He wondered how the Marrett/Waltham intersection could be linked to this intersection in order to make both more competitive for funding from Mass Highway, as it would be a regional problem, rather than just a local one. Mr. Stokes said that the process with Mass Highway regarding the Waltham/Marrett intersection is still early. After a public hearing on the Waltham/Marrett intersection improvements it will be at the 25 percent design phase. Ms. Manz asked if the present scope included looking at impacts on the side streets and was told it did not. Audience Comments and Questions: Concerns were expressed about the lack of data analyzed in the study, the regional impacts of the employment centers located on Hayden Avenue, and the impacts any course of action might have on the neighbors and if there is in fact a problem. Mr. Tom Fiore of 74 Spring Street felt that any improvements would have long-term negative impacts on the neighbors and the Town couldn’t solve a regional problem. Mr. Dan Dudek of 414 Marrett Road asked what was it that was being solved, was it pedestrian safety, general safety or relief of congestion? Ms Deena Dubin wondered whether at rush hour the goal was to make it easier for people to get to businesses, or for residents to get out of their driveway. She said that Hayden Avenue was underutilized and felt traffic should be encouraged to take Waltham Street to Hayden Avenue by prohibiting left turns onto Spring Street during rush hour. Mr. Canale said that they had to worry about all users and find a balanced answer. The Town is zoned residential and commercial and it can’t close off roads to the public. Ms. Vicki Blier, 41 Shade Street, Minutes for the Meeting of July 27, 2005 2 asked who would ultimately decide what will happen. Ms. Manz said the Board of Selectmen will decide after the Planning Board weighs in. Mr. Bill Levison said that officially the purpose is to try to improve the level of service at the intersection from F to D. Ms. Cassandra Goldwater, 404 Marrett Road, said the premise is that increased volume is from the businesses on Hayden Avenue, but do we know if the volume of traffic is in fact going to these businesses? She felt that it was a regional problem, including people taking their children to school. She felt there was no basis for the study and this would be another study and then a decision to not do anything. Ms. Manz said that one of the narrow goals is to improve the level of service and that Lexington Technology Park will contribute to trying to improve the situation. Mr. Dean Curtin, 419 Marrett Road, said this was making a mountain out of a molehill and that the Town should prohibit parents from dropping their children at the High School and Clarke Middle School, as school traffic is a big part of the problem. A resident of Bridge Street felt that a signal at Hayden and Spring would create gaps in the traffic and might solve the problem along with blocking off Bridge Street. Mr. Kevin Johnson of the South Lexington Civic Association thanked the Board for the open process and asked whether or not the Board would make a recommendation about continuing to Phase 2. Mr. Canale recommended going ahead with Phase 2 but wanted to ensure some effort to look at the larger Lexington piece including impact on adjacent streets and tying it into the Marrett/Waltham intersection. He wanted to get Woodhaven and Shade Streets included in the study. Mr. Hornig thought they should go forward only if they wanted to have significant improvements that could be implemented. He felt there was nothing one could do that would not have both support and opposition. The goal is to make changes, or not to go forward with it. Mr. Galaitsis said the money was from a developer for the purpose of improving the intersection. He didn’t know yet what that should be but he wanted the option that makes fewer people unhappy. He cautioned about trying to add too many other intersections as then nothing would get done at Marrett and Spring. To help in the process, Mr. Harden wanted to go forward and see some plans. He said that traffic is always the number one or two issue for any project and there must be some steps to improve the situation. Ms Manz said she agreed with the idea of doing something concrete here to deal with traffic flow, general safety, and pedestrian safety. The consensus of the Board was to th proceed to Phase 2 and they will discuss this at the joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen on the 17. A letter will be sent beforehand urging the Selectmen to proceed. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* Continued Public Hearing: Rowland Avenue Definitive Subdivision – The development team of Mr. Richard Perry, Mr. Rick Waite, Mr. Rick DeAngelis and Mr. Gary Larson were present. Mr. DeAngelis went through the revisions that had been made to the plans including the relocation of the hydrant, the sewer easement and the Lot 1 infiltrator; a change in a lot line; and, in response to the Conservation Commission, changes to the side slope of the swale. The infiltration system for street drainage has been discussed with Mr. Peter Chalpin, the town engineer. It will be placed within the right-of-way extension but maintenance will be the responsibility of the owners with no obligation on the part of the town. Mr. Hornig wanted to be clear that the operation and maintenance agreements would survive even if the Town takes the right of way. Mr. Galaitsis wanted the infiltration system placed outside the right-of-way, but Mr. DeAngelis responded that it was for the street drainage. Mr. Waite said that starting about five years ago the Town no longer accepted infiltration systems, even when the road was accepted. The waiver application requested a variable width of the right-of-way; reduction in the paved travel lanes from 11’ to 10’; minimum paving width of 20’, reduced from 24’; and, modification of curbs and gutters to allow an area with no curbing, and some sloped granite curbing in other locations. These waivers were further explored by noting the locations on the plans and how the waivers allowed the new road to tie into the existing public way. Ms. Emily Sample, an attorney representing the abutters, said that she had represented them when there was an attempt to create a one-lot subdivision at the end of Rowland Avenue, which was eventually Minutes for the Meeting of July 27, 2005 3 withdrawn. She felt there continued to be problems relating to ownership of the land, as there was no present division of the land. Ms. Manz said that this was only a technical objection that could be remedied simply with a conveyance. Ms. Sample said it was more than a technical objection because if it were not remedied the Planning Board had no jurisdiction. She said the abutters to land on the sidelines have a legal interest in Rowland Avenue, but that the lot at the end doesn’t have rights to access the roadway. Mr. Hornig said that Rowland is a public way so abutters do not have rights to the middle of the road. Ms. Sample said that the application was misleading with regard to the right-of-way rights and interests of property owners along the roadway. She did not think the applicant had the right to make improvements and cited Massachusetts General Law section 186-58. Mr. DeAngelis, the attorney for the applicant, said that Rowland Avenue had been laid out 22 years before the existence of statute being cited. Ms. Manz asked if there were other issues beyond the legal requirements. Ms. Sample said the issues were not those normally a part of site plan review, as this was not a site plan review. Mr. Galaitsis said he would try to simplify the situation, if possible, by asking if, in Ms. Sample’s opinion, “Do I have the right to build on two lots in one ownership?” Ms. Sample said her answer would be no. Mr. Hornig asked if she were claiming that the Town did not have fee simple interest in the public layout of Rowland Avenue. Ms. Sample said for the record that she had not seen the plans currently before the Board and asked the Board to resolve the threshold issue before taking action. Mr. Katz said that he resented the Planning Board’s stand that the neighbors were only trying to throw a wrench in the process and that he had no objection to the plan if it were legal. Ms. Manz closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board began its deliberations. Mr. Canale said that what they heard was informative but he was not convinced that there is a doubt as to the legality of the plan. Mr. Hornig agreed that he had not heard anything to question the legality. Mr. Galaitsis asked if it would be useful to ask Palmer & Dodge if it agreed with Ms Sample. Mr. Hornig said if the Board takes action and it has no jurisdiction, it would resolve itself. Mr. Harden said that the jurisdictions argument did not make sense to him and he felt the Board should go forward and act on this plan. Ms. Manz agreed, stating if the jurisdiction of the Planning Board does not exist, then nothing will go forward and that the matter will be readily resolved. Mr. Hornig moved that the subdivision be approved and that the following waivers be granted: ?? Reduce minimum right-of-way width; ?? Reduce the width of travel lanes; ?? Reduce minimum pavement width; ?? Curbs and gutters (limited section of no curbing on existing Rowland Avenue, and vertical and sloped granite curb as shown on Site Construction Plan (4 of 13). These waivers are being granted so that the roadway extension would be constructed in a manner consistent with the existing conditions of the Rowland Avenue right-of-way, which are of a variable width with no curbing, and to avoid damage from snow plowing/storage at the end of the roadway extension. In addition, a covenant, running in perpetuity with the land, will be recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds regarding the street drainage infiltration system within the layout of the Rowland Avenue Extension. The covenant will obligate the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and their successors in title to maintain the infiltration system so that the Town of Lexington will not have the obligation to maintain that system in the event that the Town were to accept the Rowland Avenue Extension. This motion was seconded by Mr. Canale and voted in the affirmative, 5-0, by the Board. Minutes for the Meeting of July 27, 2005 4 49 Summit Road – On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 5-0, at the request of the applicant, to extend the time in which to act on the preliminary subdivision to September 30, 2005. Cary Avenue Definitive Subdivision – The Board endorsed the plans as the appeal period had expired. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 17 Clelland Road – Mr. Bryan Levey wants to demolish and then rebuild the house at 17 Clelland Road. As the property is on an unaccepted street the Planning Board must make a determination that the road is adequate prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board felt the road is currently not adequate but it is in the process of being constructed under a subdivision plan previously approved by the Planning Board, and when that construction is finished the road would be adequate. However, since the road is not yet completed, they wanted to have surety posted, in an amount sufficient to complete the roadwork, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the house at 17 Clelland. Mr. Levey will return with the information necessary to set the surety amount, and the Board will take formal action at that time. The item was continued to August 3, 2005. ************************************ MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 1, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff – Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that the Attorney General had approved the Accessory Apartment bylaw passed at the spring Town meeting except for Section 135-19F that limited the Certificate of Occupancy to 3 years. A Certificate of Occupancy was considered to be a Building Code function, not a zoning issue, and so was deleted from the Bylaw. If the Planning Board wishes to have a three-year occupancy limit, it can address it through the special permit process. Mr. Schilt reported that the comment letter on the MEPA for Met State had been sent in. It emphasized the desire to have bicycle and pedestrian access through the site, with connections to Trapelo Road. Planning Board, Subcommittees – Mr. Canale said that the HATS Developments of Regional Interest (DRI) Committee had a second membership slot that was to be filled by someone representing the interests of the Conservation Commission and Mr. Charlie Wyman was interested in serving. The DRI agreement was unclear as to who appoints the members, so both the Selectmen and Planning Board are being asked to make the appointment. On the motion of Mr. Canale, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted 5-0 to appoint Mr. Wyman to the HATS DRI Committee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk