Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-20-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2010 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, and called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Canale, Galaitsis, Hornig, Manz, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ******************************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS*************************** Mr. Canale recused himself from consideration of the Lexington Technology Park application since he was an abutter to an abutter for the tract as a whole. 200 Patriot Drive Lexington Technology Park, Special Permit: Robert Buckley and Ethan Solomon of Reimer and Braunstein, Peter Corbett of Goulston and Storrs, John Hart and Brian Lawlor of SMMA were present. Mr. Buckley said that they would be submitting a Definitive Site Development and Use Plan (DSDUP) within the next few weeks, but wanted to start a dialogue. They have decided to file the Special permit with Site Plan Review with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in advance of the DSDUP even though it cannot be acted upon by the Board until they file the DSDUP. Mr. Hart gave a brief overview of the proposal to update the Planning Board on the DSDUP that will be submitted to the ZBA and govern the entire CD-10 campus. Board Comments:  Was there any direct line of sight from the residents on Shade Street? Will any lights be emitted from the building? There will be automatic shades on the windows.  Was a noise study done? Will the Noise Advisory Committee review the report? Yes it was in the booklet.  What does 64% transmission of light generated from building mean? Will get back on that. Will there be additional buffering and further landscaping done to buffer Shade Street? Yes, additional landscape will be provided. Like the design but seems incompatible with Building 100; how will it fit? Will you need all the parking approved in the plan, which had 300 surface parking spaces? It will be shown in the DSDUP.  Would like to see all the buildings, are the shades tied to the building systems? Yes the shades have to go down by 8:00 pm.  There was a meeting with DAC, were there any comments? Yes, they like it and are meeting again with them.  The 64% was probably thermal not transmission. Want comments on all metallic finishes next 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2010 Page time they come back. No comments from the audience. A note from Vicki Blier was distributed to the members. Mr. Canale rejoined the meeting. *************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION***************************** Progress review of Stedman Road Definitive Plan: David Romero, Erich Nitzsche, Frederick Paulsen and Alfred Casella were present. Mr. Romero explained the updates to the site construction plan for Stedman Road. It will serve as a driveway with 18-foot wide pavement approved by the Fire Department, a T-type turnaround in an easement, and no parking signs. There is an undetermined right of way (ROW but using the 1906 plan they developed 30-foot ROW, allowing a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the north side with a fixed grade where it transitions to a path, connect to the existing drainage, adding seven street trees, a retaining wall on the north side. The path to Marrett will be improved along the roadway and the rest is in good shape. Audience Comments:  What about phone poles and water hydrants? There would be no additional hydrants as there is one at the intersection with Brookside; the water service is in the road and no new poles the electric is under ground. Board Comments:  The path in general is good, but the transition from the sidewalk to the path has issues; Farmcrest area needs to be looked at, appropriate drainage should be done to avoid erosion. There should be a four season walkway and the sidewalk might better on the other side for connection to the school.  Snow storage needs to be adequate to avoid blocking the path.  Are the stone walls on the west side and east side being changed? Not the west side, but on the east side will rebuild the loose stone wall, keeping all the stones to reuse.  Will there be a crosswalk at Brookside? It is not planned. The traffic pattern is not being changed so that is a question for the Town and the School.  Do you plan on using signage to encourage the pedestrians to use the path? No, only no parking signs.  Is there any option to connect to Farmcrest? No.  In the past the Board has voted against such waivers allowing a dead-end instead of a thru street so Mr. Galaitsis will vote against this plan.  Are there any thoughts about Stedman Road going through by the school? Mr. Paulsen said he feels the waiver would be appropriate since Stedman Road transitions into a public road that was historically a through road until the gate was put up by the school. In addition, the hydrant Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2010 at Brookside is close enough to provide water for fire fighting. Audience Comments:  There used to be a street sign by Marrett Road but it was removed as people tried to drive up it.  Was happy they were doing a tree survey. What mitigation would be done?  There should be a video done of the part that would be affected by the construction.  What is the plan to increase the ROW on Stedman Road? Mr. Romero said there would be 12 trees lost on the lot and 24 within the ROW.One is a 30’’, but the average of removed treesis 15”. They will be replanting seven street tree. Mr. Henry said mitigation would be at the time they go for the building permit since the Planning Board is not the SPGA. Mr. Romero said that the retaining wall on the west side wall will mimic what is there now with a cemented stone wall and on the east side there would be a loose stone wall. The walls in the ROW would two and a half to three feet, while the retaining walls in the turnaround area would be three to four feet high and on the property six feet high. Will photograph the walls and mimic. Mr. Henry suggested they hide the mortar.  They would like to see the detailed plan.  With 24 significant trees being removed there seems like there should be more then 7 trees to replacing them.  Is the sidewalk absolutely necessary? If so suggest they move it to the opposite side. The Board could waive the sidewalk, but not in favor since it would then make pedestrians walk in the road. Board comments:  House number is extremely confusing; go to town to get new number.  Appropriate number of trees in the ROW is up to the Planning Board, but there is limited area to do anything. 1 tree per 50 feet on each side is the usual formula. Mr. Paulsen said the reason for the meeting is to get some direction does the Board want a sidewalk as opposed to the trees?  Move the sidewalk to the east side and could save some trees.  Make the footpath inviting for pedestrians.  Maybe more inviting without the sidewalk, pavement markings “sharrows” maybe more inviting. Mr. Romero said if they flip the sidewalk to the other side they could save the 30” tree at the end.  Could negotiate with school department for easement. ****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED******************************* Solly’s Way, 112 & 118 Laconia Street, ANR: On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2010 Page Lexington, MA”, dated January 19, 2010, prepared and certified by Peter A. Lothian, Professional Land Surveyor, Ayer, MA, with Form A/2010-1, submitted by the William Eycleshymer, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in Lexington, MA”, dated August 25, 2009, prepared and certified by Peter A. Lothian, Professional Land Surveyor, Ayer, MA, with Form A/2010-1, submitted by the William Eycleshymer, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ******************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY********************** Hartwell Avenue TMOD Plan consensus items: The Board continued the discussion of the following items:  Lane width on Hartwell Avenue North of Maguire should be 11 feet or less, street trees on both sides, landscaped median with limited number of breaks with u-turns, bike accommodations on the road, 5 lanes, and West Lexington Greenway accommodated off road on one side;  Adequate pedestrian accommodations at the intersection on Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road;  Discuss hard median with engineering department on Hartwell Avenue south of Maguire;  Need to explore if a signal would be appropriate at the Intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Wood Street and explore the amount of traffic from the base on that road;  Traffic calming on Wood Street keep lanes narrow at 10 to 10.5 feet wide if possible and explore truck exclusion and possibly reroute to Route 128; and  Provide refuge sidewalks at intersections and accommodate bikes with shared lanes with signage and pavement markings. *******************************SITE PLAN REVIEW*********************************** Fees for Site Plan Review: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adopt the Site Plan Review fees as follows: $100 for a minor site plan review and $500 for a major site plan review. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk