Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-19-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Galaitsis, Canale, Hornig and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. *****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED****************************** Vine Street : On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “ Plan of Land in Lexington, Massachusetts (Middlesex County)” dated March 18, 2009, prepared and certified by James Richard Keenan, Professional Land Surveyor, Keenan Survey, Winchester, MA, with Form A/2009-4, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of June 24, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of July 8, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1, to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Hornig abstained as he had not been present at the meeting. ****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************ A survey has been sent to Hartwell Avenue area businesses. The results will be presented at the kickoff meeting on September 10. Boston Properties has made space available for the meeting at 91 Hartwell Avenue. ****************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************* PUBLIC HEARING Murray Hills Subdivision, Blueberry Lane; definitive subdivision: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 7:45. Present for the applicant were Ms. Phyllis Etzell, Mr. David Romero of Commonwealth Engineering, Mr. Richard Lakutis of Landtech Associates, and Attorney Hamilton Hackney. There was a brief presentation pointing out the changes that had been made on the definitive conventional subdivision plan in response to Board comments at the public hearing on June 10. The actual plan had not been submitted to the Board. The applicants indicated a willingness to apply for a special permit for a site sensitive development while keeping the option open to pursue the conventional should a special permit be granted and then appealed. Board members indicated a preference for a site 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 19, 2009 Page sensitive development. The applicant requested a continuation of the public hearing to a date that would be after the public hearing on a site sensitive development and an extension of the time by which the Board must take action on the conventional application. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the request to extend the decision deadline for the definitive conventional subdivision to October 28, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to continue the public hearing on the definitive conventional subdivision to October 14, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. DEVELOPMENT ROLLOUTS Woburn Street: The roll out showed five plans- existing conditions; a proof plan of seven lots; a site sensitive development with seven lots; a balanced housing development with 14 detached units, including the existing house at 183 Woburn Street; and, a public benefit development of 16 units. In general the Board felt that the site sensitive had little advantage over a conventional subdivision. They would prefer a balanced housing development with a layout showing units clustered toward the street line and not all single-family units. A site visit will be arranged. ***********************************TOWN MEETING********************************** Memorandums of Understanding The Board discussed the use of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) in the CD rezoning process. The framework of the MOUs negotiated with Lexington Technology Park and Ledgemont III for the Special Town Meeting in May was the basis of the discussion. They explored whether or not the template would be usable in other rezonings, such as Cubist’s current request, or whether each CD was so different as to require different issues to be addressed in the MOU. In general, it was agreed that a template was helpful but needed some additional work as follows: ?? The negotiations should be more transparent and done in public. ?? The MOU should concentrate on the financial matters, physical mitigations should be included in the PSDUP. ?? Concern about how to calculate the actual costs of improvements that may be required so as to achieve fair proportionality in mitigation contributions ?? Predictability important for the developer, make sure it is equitable from one site to another ?? How to address the need for upfront planning ?? Traffic mitigations addressed, but what about other infrastructure impacts, such as water and Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of August 19, 2009 sewer? ?? Better delineation of build-out and goals for the area. Need a traffic management plan for the Spring/Hayden area to inform traffic demand management (TDM) measures and provide a better vision of how to do TDM. ?? Clearer justification for the allocation of mitigation funds between traffic mitigation measures and traffic demand management, including public transportation ?? What will be used to measure results? What is the actual benefit after the money is put to use? The Board then discussed the specifics of the Lexington Technology Park MOU. Mr. Canale recused himself for this part of the discussion. The Board felt the Board of Selectmen should consider the following changes in the MOU with Lexington Technology Park: ?? Rewrite section IV describing when mitigation payments are made and how they are calculated. A table could go a long way in making this clear. ?? Do not include the requirement for the buildings to be green design, i.e. built to LEED standards, in the MOU; it should be in the PSDUP; is LEED certification really unreasonable? ?? Clarify what is meant in Section VI about working “to explore opportunities to provide the public with service from the Property (or a location nearby) to Alewife Station …” ?? Section VII is missing or the formatting is off. Mr. Canale rejoined the meeting. *****************************TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY****************************** The Board discussed the draft of the Traffic Calming Policy and what their recommendation would be to the Board of Selectmen. After extensive discussion they agreed to recommend that the Selectmen adopt, as an interim measure, the Traffic Calming Policy with the edits that had occurred since they reviewed the policy last winter. The Board recognized that much work had gone into the drafting of the policy with review by many people and committees. ?? The document is very long, consider rewriting for brevity and clarity. ?? This version is heavy on process; does it need to be so prescriptive? ?? It is difficult to understand the steps. A flow chart should be developed to help explain the process and also to aid in evaluating whether or not the process makes sense and is as streamlined as possible. 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 19, 2009 Page The staff was instructed to draft a letter with comments to forward to the Board of Selectmen along with the policy. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk