Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-10-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 10, 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 and Manz, planning staff Henry and McCall-Taylor present. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Galaitsis were absent. *************************TOWN MEETING WARRANT********************************* Article 43, RD-5 rezoning amendment; Countryside Manor, Woburn Street: Mr. Henry said this is substantively done except for possible tweaks to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Board members indicated that they were inclined to recommend approval but had a few questions about where certain items should go - what goes in the preliminary plan, the covenant or the MOU? Ms. McCall- Taylor said attorneys had worked to get things in the right place and in accordance with the regulations. Mr. Henry said zoning cannot regulate tenure and, rather than risk raising an issue during the Attorney General’s review, the document simply “anticipated” that the restriction would be in the special permit if granted. A Board member asked if there is something in writing from Town Counsel that the Town Meeting vote amending the RD zone would not constitute the 2/3 vote removing the restrictions of the original RD. Further Board comments included:  Is affordable housing in the MOU? No, Only traffic mitigation  Where are the requirements for Rental and 50% affordable from original PSDUP?  The contribution to tree fund was in draft covenant and not carried over. Monies should be in  This adds a type of housing that the Town does not have enough of.  Affordable units are expected to be evenly distributed throughout the building. Mr. Henry said the LIP program will review and may impose requirements.  Take a look at the use of additional square footage on the fourth floor, and, if allowed, should add one market rate and one affordable unit.  Trying to figure what is small and what is not; not too long ago 2,500 square feet was considered jumbo.  What numbers of school aged children are expected and what is the projected increase in taxes? Mr. Addelson is doing a review of the fiscal impact. Motion was made to recommend approval of submission with qualifications. The motion failed for the lack of a second. The Board wanted a chance to review the official document first, but staff needed guidance in order to draft a report. A straw poll was taken indicating that the Board was in favor of the 2 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 10, 2010 article. Article 37, Food Related Uses The Board reviewed the amended motion that included “Y*” for takeout services which indicates that a special permit was required to be operate between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. There was also discussion of whether grocery stores should be allowed in the CM District. The feeling was that they should be allowed by special permit. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support the 3/5/10 version. Article 41, Center Zoning – The parts of the article addressing standing signs and parking were no longer being considered. The motion still dealt with banks and projecting signs. Banks:  There had been concern about the treatment of banks in the last draft, but this did not seem restrictive, instead it raises a red flag for ZBA.  Board would like incentives for uses that people want in the Center.  Banks have dual office and retail functions and while the Center Committee wants to limit first floors to retail this does not address the issue. Property owners want flexibility, why micromanage with respect to one use, part of which is legitimate (retail). It is easy to single out banks but it is premature to address one use.  The hybrid retail/office nature of banks is a reason to call them out.  This is a reasonable proposal, the Center is a special case and there is a desire to have the Center be pedestrian friendly and lively. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-1, (Mr. Canale opposed) to support Motion 2 under Article 41 regarding banks. Signs:  The governing body is the HDC and its documents say projecting signs are reviewed in terms of financial hardship. It might be better to work with the HDC to change this policy if that is what they want. The Center Collaborative supported blade signs, Ms. Manz said the Center Committee hasn’t met with the HDC but is trying to meet and it is expected they would support this. It adds interest and diversity. The HDC should not address blade signs in terms of hardship, but rather as a way to have a more vibrant center. If the zoning says they are okay, the HDC needn’t be so cautious.  This is an opportunity for the Planning Board to figure out what it wants. There should be ongoing lines of communication between the Planning Board, Center Committee and HDC. In Minutes for the Meeting of March 10, 2010 Page 3 the Corridor Management Plan for Battle Road Scenic Byway signage is included- as a zoning matter it makes sense and ZBA does not make independent decisions. A special permit is unnecessary. There is an increasing concurrence that signs are good for center On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support Motion 1 under Article 41 regarding signs. Article 8, Appropriate FY 2011 Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Operating Budget: Ms. Manz discussed the items of possible interest - bike path preservation (a), stormwater mitigation/drainage at the old reservoir where there is a bacteria issues with storm water (b), and Greeley Village and Vynebrook Village as support of affordable housing (d and e). The CPC approved all requests except the Town Office Building and the purchase of the Cotton Farm off Marrett Road, which have not yet been voted.. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support the sections of Article 8 as enumerated. Article 9, Land Purchase off Marrett Road: (Cotton Farm) The Board discussed this proposal and commented as follows:  The proposal is to sell the front land, including the orchard and leave the potential for four large homes. The proposal for approximately $4.5 million would be the full value if developed as homes.  The parcel connects with existing conservation land. Planning Board has seen potential plans, looking at public parcels in the area. There is as synergetic relationship and great public benefit due to the adjacency and the viewscape.  Fair market value is what the CPC should be looking at and what the Community Preservation Act (CPA) envisioned. The CPC should invest in the Town where the Town wouldn’t have been able to afford without CPA funds..  The purchase price cap is based on the appraisal, which is complicated due to restrictions on the lot from a previous land swap.  CPC might consider withdrawing some items from Article 8 to use to preserve this land Article 20, Establish and Appropriate to Specified Stabilization Funds: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support. Article 27, Amend Tree Bylaw: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support. 4 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 10, 2010 Article 29, Adoption of the Stretch Code: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support. Article 31, Support Petition for Municipal Utility Act: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to support. Article 32, Climate Change Committee (Citizen’s Petition): Ms. Manz argued that the Town had a number of separate climate change initiatives such as our Global Warming Action Committee and our Energy Committee, as well as the steps the Town is taking to become a Green Community, and that the previous Climate Action Committee had asked to be disbanded, as they were unable to reach a consensus on recommendations. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-1, (Ms. Manz opposed) to support. Article 35, Resolution on Farming (Citizen Petition: Ms. Manz expressed concern that this resolution was politically freighted, as the Board of Selectmen are in the process of forming a committee to make recommendations on the use of the recently purchased Busa Farm land. She felt this Board should remain neutral on this Article. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-0-1, (Ms. Manz abstained) to support. *****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED***************************** 1690-1710 Massachusetts Avenue - A request for endorsement of an Approval Not Required plan had been received. The plan shows no change in lot lines. The Board’s regulations say they will not endorse a plan that shows the creation of new lot lines. The Board took no action on the request. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** The applicant for the development at Lexington Gardens submitted three possible names for the new road and asked if any would be acceptable. The Board determined that Arborview Lane, Sanctuary Park Drive and Arbor Reserve Circle were not acceptable names and suggested incorporating Victory Garden into the street name. *********************************MINUTES****************************************** The Board reviewed the minutes for the executive session of February 17, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0 to approve the minutes. Minutes for the Meeting of March 10, 2010 Page 5 The Board reviewed the minutes for the regular meeting of February 24, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0 to approve the minutes as amended. *******************************STAFF REPORTS************************************** Morris Street: In 2001 or 2002 the road was rebuilt as required under a determination of adequacy. Several developers were asking what would need to be done in order to do a teardown. Mr. Henry had done a site visit and reported that one small area is cracking, the crown is good and there is no ponding. The developers hoped to get an indication of whether the Board would want further improvements. Is there an issue underneath the cracked area? Ms. McCall-Taylor said they should work with Engineering to develop a plan for the road. The Board might not need a surveyed plan. 16 Tavern Lane: The applicant would like to demolish the house and put in the foundation before working on the roadway. The request for approval of a street improvement plan is scheduled for April 14, 2010. They want to proceed before that, but cannot get a building permit without an implementation of a street improvement plan and would like a waiver. The plan submitted shows curbing around the island and radiuses. This is within the Monroe Tavern Historic District. Mr. Roy Antenelli, representing the Busas who purchased the property in January, explained that they had already gone before the Historic District Commission. It was only when they went for a demolition permit that they found out they needed to go before the Planning Board. Dawn McKenna urged the Board to put this off until the next meeting as Tavern Lane is important. It is used as a walking route from the Munroe Tavern to the National Heritage Museum where people park to use the Liberty Ride. The Board agreed to put this on the agenda for next week. Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that the Attorney General’s office approved the articles from the Fall Special Town Meeting. *******************************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS************************** Lexington Technology Park: The item could not be taken up as Mr. Canale had recused himself on this matter. Without his participation there would no longer be a quorum. 6 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 10, 2010 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk