HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-03-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 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 Canale, Harden, Hornig, and
planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
SPECIAL PERMIT WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW
Public Hearing: 31 Fletcher Avenue, Conversion of the Jefferson Union Building to Residential
Condominiums: Ms. Manz called the public hearing for the Jefferson Union redevelopment project to
order at 7:45 p.m. She explained that the applicant is seeking a special permit with site plan review from
the Planning Board, as it is a residential development with three or more dwelling units. The public
hearing is a continuation of previous hearings on May 11, 2005 and June 29, 2005. 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 Mr. Mike Meadows, property owner.
There were a dozen people in the audience; a sign-up list is on file at the Planning Department.
Mr. Quinn presented the revisions to the plans based upon comments at the previous public hearing, and
stated that the applicants had tried to address every comment. A portion of the front of the building
adjacent to Fletcher Avenue has been removed due to the need for reconstruction, which reduces the
footprint by approximately 320 square feet and allows for relocation of the site drive away from the slope
of the property toward Fletcher Avenue. The grading for the access road has also been revised, and now
has a slope of 6.8 percent, rather than the current ten percent. Consequently, the need for the retaining
wall is alleviated, and the height of the wall is now proposed to be an average of two-and-one-half-feet,
with a maximum height of four-feet. This will allow more trees along the property frontage to be retained.
A portion of the concrete–block building has been removed in order to provide the 18-feet width for the
access road and improved site lines requested by the Fire Department on the northern end of the site. A
portion of the building at the rear of the site has also been eliminated in order to conform to the required
setback, resulting in less intrusion on the abutting property as well.
The reserved parking spaces that were previously shown at the back of the site have been eliminated, and
the area is now shown as common open space, which is proposed to include a community garden. The
revision results in a net decrease of approximately 3,800 square feet of impervious surface.
Planning Board members expressed appreciation for the improvements to the site plan, including the
provision of more open space, but questioned whether the 22 parking spaces now provided would be
sufficient, especially to accommodate visitors. There was a request from the Board to extend the
pedestrian walkway at the south end of the building to connect with the walkway at the back end of the
building leading to the common open space.
The applicant team then presented revisions to the construction management plan and schedule, including
provisions to prevent sedimentation and erosion, a blasting schedule of two days, and the anticipated
amount of truck-trips to remove earth should be no more than 30 to 40 trips. The management plan
requires all delivery traffic and construction vehicle parking to be provided on site. The schedule
anticipates the entire construction process to be complete within 18 months. The Board asked if the
development team could commit to waiting until all the access improvements are made before beginning
work on the building; the applicants stated that they would add this as a note on the Construction
Management Plan. The Board also inquired as to the amount of traffic generated by removal of debris
from demolition.
Minutes for the Meeting of August 3, 2005 2
Mr. Farrington stated that the applicant team has a bias toward promoting ownership opportunities for
affordable housing, and that providing 10 percent of the units as affordable would create a fractional unit.
The team felt that rounding from 1.3 to 2 units was excessive. The team proposed restricting in perpetuity
one unit at a price affordable to a household earning 70 percent of the area median income, and a
contribution of $200,000 to LexHAB or an alternative buyout for the second unit. Planning Board
members stated the proposal sounded reasonable and wanted assurances that the affordable unit would be
deed restricted.
Audience Questions and Comments
: Comments from the audience were related to the construction
management plan, review of environmental assessments and testing, asbestos abatement, and parking
impacts on Fletcher Avenue. Planning Board members requested that within a year after the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy a review be undertaken to determine whether more parking is needed on the
site and to consider modifications to the site plan if needed. Additionally, the Planning Board requested
that the contractor provide a liaison and contact information to the neighbors to address any issues or
concerns during project construction.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to grant a special permit with site plan review
(SPS) for a planned residential development, with conditions that all verbal agreements made during the
hearing would be addressed. Additional conditions included the provision of one affordable housing unit
deeded in perpetuity to households earning no more than 70 percent of the area median income along with
a contribution in the amount of $200,000 to LexHAB, or another option acceptable to the Planning Board.
Ms. Manz thanked the applicant team for being so responsive to the Board's requests. She closed the
public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
Clelland Road: Mr. Bryan Levy wishes to demolish and construct a new dwelling on the existing
foundation at 17 Clelland Road, which is an unaccepted street. The road is in the process of being
improved as part of an approved subdivision, but the work is not yet complete. Usually the road
improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit, but the Planning Board
agreed in principle at its meeting of July 28, 2005 to allow the posting of surety for the road construction
to be completed after the house is built. The owner has agreed to submit a passbook with a balance of
$9,683 to cover the minimum amount of the surety to complete the work.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0 to make the determination that Clelland Road is
not presently of adequate grade and construction but will be of adequate grade and construction if the
improvements shown on the subdivision plan entitled “Clelland Road Street Construction, Lexington,
Massachusetts, Definitive Plan” are completed. In addition, work for the road improvements shall be
completed by August 1, 2006 or additional surety may be required, and the issuance of a building permit
for 17 Clelland Road will only be allowed upon receipt of a surety in the amount of $9,683 in a form
acceptable to the Planning Director.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
1359 Massachusetts Avenue, Sketch Plan: Present for this item were Mr. Mike Dryden, engineer, of
Meridian Engineering; Mr. George Foote, attorney; and, Mr. Jeff Hitson, property owner. There was no
one in the audience who signed in to speak on this item. Mr. Hitson stated that the abutting property
owners had been notified of the meeting.
Minutes for the Meeting of August 3, 2005 3
Mr. Dryden stated that this sketch plan was a revised version of the one presented to the Board in May
2005. It shows a three-lot subdivision on two parcels totaling approximately 1.5 acres located behind an
existing dwelling which fronts on Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Foote noted that there were some legal
issues related to the rights to establish a right-of-way, but Mr. Hittson has rights of access to
Massachusetts Avenue from his property. The revised plan shows a 40-foot right-of-way to Mr. Hitson’s
property. Access to abutting properties has not been provided to avoid the need for a co-applicant for the
subdivision. The applicants are of the opinion that no other parties are affected in a legal sense. There are
some questions related to providing public access to the bikeway on what is now private right-of-way,
and this aspect still needs legal review.
Mr. Hornig noted that the right-of-way narrows to 30-feet at a pinch-point, and it should be shown as 40-
feet for the entire length. Mr. Dryden asked if it would be possible to request a waiver for the right-of-
way width, and Mr. Hornig stated that it should remain at 40-feet. He further noted that there are
constraints to providing a turnaround at the end of the roadway, which should have a 120-foot right-of-
way, and the use of a stub of the road for the back lot’s frontage calculations is not allowable. Mr. Hornig
also questioned whether the road, which is currently a private right-of-way, could be extended as a legal
unaccepted subdivision street without the signatures of abutting property owners. He further stated that he
is of the opinion that if the road is improved to provide access to the abutting property to the back of the
subdivision than there should be a right of public access to the bike path. Mr. Foote stated that if the deed
is silent, the abutters own to the centerline of the right-of-way, but if the lot is defined with specific
bounds it can be debated that the lots to the rear have rights to use the right-of-way. He said it appears that
the title to the road area is to the lots to the rear. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if the applicants were
potentially over-burdening the rights of one lot. Mr. Foote replied that they appeared to have the benefits
to construct the road for all purposes for which public roads are used.
Mr. Hornig asked whether the right-of-way line could be the drawn to show only single ownership, with
the limits of the subdivision expanded to include the right-of-way to Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Dryden
stated that there was potential for six dwelling units to be served by the roadway, maybe seven, and asked
whether a waiver could be requested to limit the pavement width to 20-feet in order to retain existing
trees. Mr. Hornig stated that the waiver was possible, but the preference would be for the road to be open
to the public with a sidewalk and a buffer to provide access to the bikeway; he further noted that in
Lexington streets were either accepted or unaccepted, not public or private.
Mr. Canale stated that if it were assumed that the legal issues were resolved, this instance would be
similar to that of Coppersmythe Way and Ellen Dana Court, where unaccepted streets with sidewalks
provide public access to abutting public land. He noted that he would prefer to see access to the bike path
as a condition of subdivision approval. Mr. Harden asked whether the right-of-way could be adjusted to
avoid impacts to the abutters and still provide access rights for the property to the rear of the site adjacent
to the bikeway. He also asked about the applicant’s communication with his neighbors about his plans.
Mr. Hitson stated that he had left messages for two of his neighbors, and the others indicated that they
were not supportive. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the legal issues regarding the property rights are not
for the Planning Board to determine but are matters that need to be addressed by the Land Court.
Ms. Manz stated that she was inclined to request the applicant to submit one more sketch plan after the
legal issues have been resolved, which should address the lot frontage issues and the layout of the right-
of-way. Mr. Hornig stated that he was not sure another sketch was needed. Mr. Dryden said that the team
would revisit the issues and decide whether to come back with another sketch or a preliminary plan. Ms.
McCall-Taylor stated that the dimensional standards should be evaluated for the turnaround, and Mr.
Dryden inquired about a waiver for the 120-foot radius to a 100-foot bulb.
Minutes for the Meeting of August 3, 2005 4
After a query of the Board by Ms. Manz, it was determined that the applicant should submit another
sketch plan.
************************************* REPORTS *************************************
Tour of Existing Cluster Subdivision Sites: Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that the Board meet in the late
afternoon on the day of an already scheduled regular Board meeting for the purpose of visiting the sites of
existing cluster subdivisions in Lexington. It was agreed to meet for the site visits at 5:00 p.m. on August
10, 2005.
It was noted that with the upcoming joint meeting with the Selectmen and number of projects known to
be in the pipeline, additional meetings would be needed in September. It was agreed to post meetings for
September 7, 14, and 28, 2005.
Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that there was not enough funding available to go forward with the next phase
of work by Howard-Stein/Hudson on the Marrett Road/Spring Street Intersection study. Ms. Manz noted
the importance of keeping the momentum going on the project given the significant public input received
already. Mr. Canale stated that buy-in from the Selectmen is very important to obtain the additional
funding needed. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that approximately $6,000 is needed for the next phase of work.
She indicated that she would work with Jeanne Kreiger to find out when Patriot Partners' next scheduled
payment of traffic mitigation funds is due and to request an advance on that payment, if necessary.
Mr. Canale stated that the HATS committee has been very busy due to a proposal by Crosspoint to
construct a new terminal at Hanscom Field. The project is undergoing MEPA review and the HATS
committee is writing letters to the Governor and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs to request a mandatory Environmental Impact Report. He noted that the proposed terminal would
double the capacity of the existing F.B.O. (fixed base operators) facilities at Hanscom, but that it had not
been identified in the Hanscom Environmental Status and Planning Report.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk