Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2010 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 Canale, Manz, Galaitsis and planning staff Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Hornig was absent. Ms. McCall-Taylor joined the meeting in progress. *************************TOWN MEETING WARRANT********************************* PUBLIC HEARING Article 43, RD-5 rezoning amendment; Countryside Manor, Woburn Street: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. In attendance were Brian Kelley applicant, Alan Wrigley, attorney, Rick Waitt and Gary Larson of Meridian Associates, with approximately 25 people in the audience. Mr. Kelley presented the following updated information on the proposed rezoning amendment to RD-5:  There would be an interior sidewalk and cross walk to facilitate pedestrian access to Woburn Street;  There would be an emergency egress footpath from the rear of the building to Countryside Drive;  There would be a second emergency egress added to Woburn Street;  Surface parking altered and limited to reflect a required eight foot interior property setback;  Significant widening of interior drive at points to allow for better emergency access; confirmed with the fire department it would be sufficient;  Landscaping alterations to allow better access and visual buffers; and  Landscape plan specific to the triangle at the Woburn town line, including an internal 30 foot “No Work” buffer per the request of the adjacent Woburn townhouse development. Affordability:  Because of the small size of the units, the Manor House will offer a more attainable market rate option for home ownership in Lexington;  High efficiency of design allows for long term operation affordability;  Lexington’s current “real” affordable housing count was around 5%, while the “qualified” number was around 11.4%; the Manor House would add 11.8% (6 units) of the project to be “real” 40 B qualified.  The applicant has been in contact with consultant Judy Epstein of JTE Realty to facilitate this contribution; TDM: 2 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 3, 2010  The applicant has agreed to construct and maintain a new sidewalk from the Woburn town line to Peachtree Road and a crosswalk at Peachtree Road to the north side of Woburn Street;  There would be a $75,000 contribution to Lexpress;  There would be a $25,000 contribution to support a future transportation study of the Countryside neighborhood; Green Construction:  The design would be targeted to surpass the Stretch Code with a HERS index rating of 65 or better;  The applicant determined geothermal heating/cooling would be feasible on the site; and  The Manor House would be one of the most energy efficient residential housing projects in Lexington. Ms. McCall-Taylor joined the meeting. Board Comments:  Did staff receive a letter from the Fire Department on the requirements of the road? Yes, an e- mail was received, which did state a secondary access would not be required, but that is a zoning requirement that the Planning Board is not authorized to waive. It could go to ZBA for a variance after Town Meeting approved the project;  What about the landscaping and tree numbers? They would be removing trees totaling 600 caliper inches and mitigating by replacement of 179 caliper inches of trees and a payment of $21,050 to the tree fund, which would comply with the tree bylaw. All existing trees would remain within the 30 feet from the property line, and the triangle would be a no clear zone.  Kind of fuzzy on the submittal on the affordability component; and what would be the value of the contribution? Six units would be contributed and sold by the consultant who would be running process and not sure of the value at this time.  Pleased with the improvements, sidewalks, crosswalks and the triangle landscape plan, but what was the issue with the egress? Mr. Kelley said he would like to save the fieldstone wall since the fire department did not require the second egress.  Would $75,000 be enough for Lexpress to extend the service to the site?  Pleased with the mitigations offered, but would be looking at the lasting benefits of this project.  The affordable rate of 11.8% as opposed to 15% requested by the Board was a concern and important. Want to see the size of the affordable units.  Regarding the second egress would stick with the bylaws and want it kept.  This project exceeds the Stretch Code criteria, was the development team in favor of the Stretch Minutes for the Meeting of March 3, 2010 Page 3 Code?  Would the mitigation be in form of a MOU or covenant?  Would there be an on site bus stop? That had not been determined yet.  What would be the placement and size of the affordable units? Not determined yet. Could get more affordable units if added to the top floor. If could add units on the top floor the contribution would be increased. Public Comments:  The access road should be 60 feet wide, certain things could be waived was this something that could be waived? As this is in the regulations it could be waived by the Board.  There was concern that 25 years ago the RD was rezoned to allow 52 apartments and now the applicant wanted to rezone the RO zone and change it to RD allowing another 51 units; has this ever been done before? There have been expansions of existing RD and CD zones.  There was a promise that all those apartments would be kept apartments forever, Mr. Brian Kelley said the agreement would be to keep the original 52 apartments as rentals permanently. Board Comments:  A table for square footage was requested. A maximum of 1,200 square feet was presented, but two units have 1,290 square feet, so the average would be higher then previously stated. Only two units with one bedroom would be a show stopper; there should be a majority of one bedroom units and a smaller project.  The building was still monolithic.  A split on one and two bedroom units would be an acceptable compromise. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-2, (Mr. Zurlo and Ms. Manz opposed) to continue the public hearing. The motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1, (Mr. Canale opposed) to close the public hearing. ************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*************************** TMOD Plan: Mr. Rick Bryant presented a draft report to the Board which included the following:  Construct roundabouts on Hartwell Avenue at Bedford Street and Maguire Road as well as at the 128 off-ramp on Bedford Street;  Construct five lanes on Hartwell Avenue from Bedford Street to Maguire Road;  Construct three lanes on Hartwell Avenue south of Maguire Road;  Make truck restrictions on Wood Street;  Realign the Wood Street intersection to discourage travel between Hanscom and Wood Street; 4 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 3, 2010  Require participation in the TMA with an annual fee and incentives for the reduction of single- occupancy vehicle travel; and  The cost would be shared by the State and Town. The State would provide $11 million and the Town’s share would be $1.4 million, which would be made up by fees charged to developers. Mr. Canale said HATS met last week and the base wing commander hoped to have a traffic survey to the Town soon. The base would like to work with Lincoln Labs and the Town on vehicle reduction and transit. There was zero interest in using Airport Road as an access to housing at the end of the road; Lincoln would lose the school payments and could not tax them. Board Comments:  How many years would it take to get federal monies through the TIP program as there were already many in line for this. What strategies were there for getting funding? Mr. Bryant said DOT seemed willing to get this on the project list.  Like no left turns on Wood Street to Hartwell and Bedford Street sounds pretty good, but how do people and bikes get across the street? There would be a crosswalk at the roundabout and installation of a conduit underground in case signals needed at a later date. Research showed that roundabouts were safer then signals for pedestrians.  The traffic lanes should be 10.5 feet wide if there were to be a four foot wide bike lane; if the traffic lanes were 11 feet wide make the bike lane 5 feet wide. State funding would require traffic lanes to be 11 feet wide.  There was no cross walk between Bedford Street and Maguire Road and there seems to be no safe median spot.  Was lowering or raising the bike path factored into the cost? No. Figure it’s about one miilion based on what was done at HAFB.  Have you phased this plan at all since it would take a while to finish?  Would spot checking be done by police at Hartwell Avenue and Wood Street? Police enforcement would be advisable at the introduction of that change.  There was no striping shown for the bike path on Bedford Street. What happens at the roundabout? There were three options could show a bike lane through the roundabout, eliminate the bike lane and the bikes join the travel lane or lead the bike lane into the sidewalk and walk the bike thorough the bypass.  Does the bypass lane speed up and conflict with the roundabout? Angles help control speed.  Is the level of service for vehicles and pedestrians the same? Would north Hartwell Avenue be three or five lanes? Three lanes would only be feasible if you want the road congested. Would Minutes for the Meeting of March 3, 2010 Page 5 that impede development potential Yes, if Routes 2 & 2A were the only real options.  What was the feasibility with the wetlands and site lines of sinking the bikeway? Is the West Lexington Greenway factored in? There would need to be a breakdown of costs for Bedford Street versus Hartwell Avenue. What should be done first, Bedford Street or Hartwell Avenue?  Want a 30 mph speed limit and should design for it.  The bike committee does not want to see a roundabout at Maguire Road.  TMA costs - pay base fee no matter what, but can exempt up to 50% by reducing single- occupancy vehicles. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** Grove Street, request for extension of time for a special permit: The applicant requested an extension of one year for the Special Permit that was due to expire on March 13, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to extend the Special Permit with Site Plan review for 177 Grove Street that was due to expire on March 13, 2010 for (12) twelve months to March 13, 2011. *********************************MINUTES****************************************** The Board reviewed the minutes for the regular meeting of February 17, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained since he was absent) to approve the minutes as amended. *******************************STAFF REPORTS************************************** The applicant for Lexington Gardens asked if the street name Conservatory Way would be an acceptable name. The Board determined it would not be acceptable as a street name The Zoning Board of Appeals would be meeting on Lexington Technology Park’s Definitive Site Development and Use Plan as well as the special permit with site plan review for 200 Patriot Way. The Board should review the documents online and be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting. *******************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Galaitsis said the Lexington Technology Park came before the Noise Committee. There would be a meeting on noise mitigation next Tuesday. 6 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 3, 2010 ************************************TOWN MEETING********************************* Article 37, Food Uses: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to amend Article 37 to keep the food uses “SP” in the CS zone. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend Article 37 to Town Meeting as amended and with the incorporation on Nyles Barnert’s change proposed at the public hearing. A draft of the motion will be brought back to the Board at the next meeting. Article 38, Impervious Surface: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to indefinitely postpone Article 38. Article 39, Flood Plain: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend Article 39 to Town Meeting. Article 40, Technical Changes On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend Article 40 to Town Meeting. Article 42, Green Energy On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend Article 42 to Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk