Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-17-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2010 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Hornig, Manz, Canale and planning staff Henry and Kaufman present.. Ms. McCall-Taylor arrived at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. *************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION***************************** PUBLIC HEARING 91-93 Hancock Street, Definitive Site Sensitive Development: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 7:41 p.m. Present were Rick Waitt and John Gwozdz of Meridian Associates, Joe Marino of Homes Development, and John Farrington, attorney. There were eight people in the audience. Mr. John Farrington presented the following information on the proposed development:  This proposed site sensitive development (SSD) would consist of 12 buildable lots and one unbuildable lot;  The site was 482,927 square feet and when it was used by Lexington Gardens over 400,000 square feet was used for greenhouse, retail buildings and operations with impervious surface of 221,765 square feet or 46%.  The Victory Gardens on Lot A would be kept by the developer until the development was complete and then would turn over the maintenance and operation to the homeowners association.  The benefit of an SSD as opposed to a conventional plan was allowing better placement of the homes on each lot, side entrance garages, improved streetscape for the development and better treatment of the Victory Gardens;  The impervious surface ratios from the SSD would be an improvement over a conventional plan;  All driveways would use only pervious materials and several requirements would be imposed to insure the materials remained pervious;  The new road would be submitted to Town for acceptance as a pubic way when completed. It would meet all town standards.  A path would be constructed on the site to, but not on, the school property and paved with the same pervious material;  The developer would ask for one lot release at a time since it would take some time to build the entire development; and  Proposed street names were Arboretum Way, Fernwood Drive, Mulberry Lane and Conservatory Lane. 2 Page Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2010 Mr. Waitt discussed the following for the proposed SSD:  The developer would be working with Conservation to remove the loam piles and use them during construction and to restore the wetlands;  Based on test pits the ground water was 8-10 feet down;  The right of way of the loop road would be 50 feet wide with 24 feet of pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk;  They would extend the sidewalk along the frontage of Hancock Street to the existing sidewalk on Hancock Street;  The proposed path to Diamond School would be handicapped accessible;  Some of the chain link fence along the perimeter of the property to Hancock Street would be removed;  Only building envelopes are being shown, and 11 homes would have cellars and one home on lot seven would have a crawl space;  The water would be looped from Hancock Street throughout the development and back into itself on Hancock Street;  There would be gas and underground telephone, electric and cable;  There would be a substantial reduction in the runoff from the site from the last few decades;  There would be a substantial number of trees planted to average every 50 feet along the loop road and white pines would be planted along the perimeter where the chain link fence would be removed; and  The traffic report put together by TEC made some suggestions to improve conditions in the area such as moving crosswalks from one location to another. Ms. McCall-Taylor joined the meeting in progress. Board Comments:  Would the Victory Gardens be accessible to the public? If the Town wants it public then it would be responsible to maintain it. If the Homeowners Association maintained it then it would remain private.  What were some traffic study suggestions? Low vegetation and five foot wide sidewalks on each side along the frontage and installation of stop signs;  If the Victory Gardens would be an amenity to the development then insure a good view shed for the pedestrians walking by. The path would be at the interior lot line to keep it handicapped accessible and retain trees;  Want to see the Historic Commission’s findings and nothing should be removed from the Victory Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2010 Page 3 Garden area prior to that;  Construct the path at the same time as paving; using pervious materials was a good idea;  What was being proposed for landscaping? Not required to show landscaping for each lot, only perimeter.  Are revised plans on the way? Staff had some housekeeping issues and suggestions from tonight , which would be on the final plans.  Want the five foot sidewalks on the plan;  Timing of the construction of the pathway is a concern, should be constructed with roadway. It would not be available for use until the construction is completed.  How many hydrants? Two.  Would the decorative street lamps be acceptable to the Town? They would be the same as on Wisteria Lane with auto sensors.  Pervious pavement materials require regular maintenance. An operation and maintenance plan for driveways need to be included.  Stormwater section cleaning and sweeping should be four times annually. Mr. Henry said DPW would only do two times annually. Could put in addendum to Homeowners Association to make it mandatory .  Problem with project design at the Hancock Street edge would be building a closed community not integrated into the neighborhood. The preference would be for the houses to face Hancock Street. Audience Comments: The trees should be on the lots and not in the right of way to make better sidewalks that won’t heave. Trim the hedges that obstruct the side walks. There seems to be a minor gas leak odor in the area that should be checked. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to March 17, 2010, at 9:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ******************************EXECUTIVE SESSION********************************** At 9:10: p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, by individual poll of the Board – Mr. Zurlo, Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz and Mr. Canale – it was voted 4-0 to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing litigation against the Town with Town Council, Attorney Kevin Batt, and to reconvene in open session for the regular Planning Board meeting. 4 Page Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2010 The Board returned to open session at 10:00 p.m.. *********************************MINUTES****************************************** The Board reviewed the minutes for the regular meeting of January 27, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes. *******************************TOWN MEETING ************************************** Center Committee Zoning Articles: Present were Jerry Michelson, Howard Levin, Brianna Olsen and Dick Brown. Mr. Levin said the goal of this center zoning change was to encourage a positive pedestrian experience. The following were the proposed changes: Signs: Encourage more blade signs and free standing signs since they were visually appealing. They were currently allowed by special permit and want to propose they be allowed by right. The Historic Districts Commission would still regulate the appropriateness of the signs through their public hearing process. Board Comments:  What if it was not a storefront or one doorway for multiple tenants?  Free standing signs would require a license from the Board of Selectman for encroaching on the right of way. Parking: Change the special permit process to allow one space for different uses if there were different time demands for that space. Board Comments:  Not sure this piecemeal approach would work.  Big concern is how would it fit with §70C and adding a new loop hole on counting spaces that do not physically exist. Everything has weird side effects such as if a business leaves or the lease for spaces was cancelled. Banks: Time constraints prevented the Center Committee from making its oral and power point presentation. Board Comments:  There are many issues and questions regarding this matter; what is so evil about banks?  Can see limiting office space, but not sure this is the way to do it.  Applaud effort based on community issues; what have property owners said about this? What was being given back in return? Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2010 Page 5 Zoning Article Presentation for the Public Hearings and Town Meeting: Article 37, Food related uses - Mr. Hornig Article 38, Impervious Surface - Mr. Zurlo Article 39, Flood Plain - FEMA Article 40, Technical Corrections - Mr. Galaitsis Article 41, Center Zoning - Ms. Manz Article 42, Green Energy - Mr. Canale Article 43, 425 Woburn Street, Land Rezoning - Mr. Zurlo On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk