Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-26-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 26, 2010 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Greg Zurlo with members Charles Hornig, Richard Canale, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Anthony Galaitsis was absent. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** PUBLIC HEARING 147 Shade Street, continued public hearing for site sensitive development: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Fred Russell, engineer, the applicants Chen He and Wendy Whu with approximately 7 people in the audience. Mr. Russell presented the following information included in the definitive plan:  The eastern side of the property by 151 Shade Street has good screening and would retain it;  The existing house would include renovations and an addition in the back;  There would be two infiltrations systems, one for the runoff of the existing house and a second system for the new house; the runoff would be through the driveway; and  The new planting schedule would be modified and enhanced around the infiltration system. There was a suggestion by staff to move the infiltration system under the pavement. Mr. Russell responded that he would like the well to be monitored, did not want to pull up pavement and there was possible ledge in the alternate spot. Board Comments:  How was this plan site sensitive? Mr. Russell responded that he could maintain the vegetative cover on the east side and maintain more of the wooded area on the second lot to buffer the existing homes.  What was the expectation of the process for tonight? Mr. Russell said he expected to come back with final revised plans based on staff and Board comments.  What are you trying to accomplish with the limit of work? Mr. Russell said that he would be trying to maintain as much of the vegetative cover to buffer the existing neighbors. Page 2 Minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2010  Street restoration was scheduled for Shade Street and would be resurfaced; how do you plan to get this done in time? Mr. Russell said he would stub off utilities in anticipation of the Shade Street repaving.  To what extent was the commitment to the plans for the houses? Mr. Russell said the intent was as shown and if some revisions were required he would come back to the Planning Board.  There was concern that the infiltration system in a mound above the level of Shade Street may leak into the driveway or street.  All the water intercepted by the driveway drainage system, including runoff from outside the site, should be included in the calculation of the velocity of the flow to insure it would not increase. Mr. Russell said he was trying to save vegetation and would not be adding to the runoff, but only handling the new impervious surface and would provide the additional information requested.  There was a suggestion to look at a larger site-infiltrator since in the winter ice on Shade Street is a concern. Staff questioned why the existing house needed a new parking area in front of the house; the infiltration system could go there and it would save a tree. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 9:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. 63-67 Paul Revere Road, Roll out: Mr. Russell showed a proof plan showing four lots with access for the back lot off the existing common driveway. Board comments:  Lot 2 was quite a bit higher; how effective would it be to gain access?  If the house on lot 2 sits on top of the hill it would be quite obtrusive; it would have to be brought down toward the street, which would cause less site disturbance;  63 Paul Revere Road does not want a shared drive to be added. The applicant needed to show more of what would be done in a sketch plan;  Three houses seem fine, but more on the site would have to be checked; Minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2010 Page 3  The third owner should be present at the meeting. Mr. Russell said he would proceed with a sketch plan. It was advised he bring in alternatives that would allow for flexibility and set up a meeting with the owners prior to the sketch plan. Audience comments: The property owner of 63 Shade Street said there was concern since this was not the plan that was last discussed with them. Luongo Farm, Amend Performance Guaranty for sidewalk: In accordance with the special permit granted for the development of Luongo Farm, the developer had entered into a tri-partite agreement but was now requesting that he be released from the existing tri-partite agreement with Eagle Bank and enter a new tri-partite agreement with Dedham Bank as well as requesting a two year extension of time to construct the sidewalk. The amount covered by the agreement would remain the same. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to release the developer from the old existing Tri-Partite Agreement with surety in the amount of $150,000 and substitute a new Tri-Partite Agreement for the same amount of surety with Dedham Bank and allow an extension of time to construct the sidewalk to May 26, 2012. The Board recessed for a few minutes. *******************HARTWELL AVENUE TRANSPORTATION PLAN******************* The Board discussed the Hartwell Avenue Transportation Plan. They had received emails from Richard Thuma dated 5/8/10, Elaine Dratch dated 5/6/10, Peter Levy dated 4/6/10, and Bill Levison dated 4/26/10. Board Comments:  There seemed to be a disconnect between this document and what was approved at Town Meeting.  The policy for the infrastructure and traffic demand management should be spelled out.  The Board will meet with the Board of Selectmen for a general run through and discuss policies Page 4 Minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2010 that affect funding mechanisms.  Consider a role for betterments in funding to supplement the developers’ fees.  If the Town depended on the State for the bulk of improvements there would be a long wait. There should be a plan B to get things done sooner, such as sidewalks on the north end of Hartwell Avenue.  The Board of Selectmen would need the 25% design completed by 2012 to possibly be included in the 2016 TIP.  The guiding principles should require equal treatment of multi-modal transportation, sensitive design and a clear process.  The West Lexington Greenway should be included as part of the corridor plan. How should it get factored in? Bedford to the bike path should be included, but what about the bike path to Wood Street?  The north bike path needed to be considered, but there doesn’t seem to a consensus for the bike path to Wood Street.  There should be undergrounding of utilities or at least a conduit. Audience Comments: Would the betterments be for commercial properties on Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street and 1. not for residential? They would be on Bedford Street south side and Hartwell Avenue where the sidewalks would be; the only residential area affected would be Kathadin Woods. The funding issue with the TMOD would create more development and more traffic would 2. come into place before improvements/mitigations could come into play. Funding should consider timing and not allow a multi-year gap. Where the West Lexington Greenway hits Wood Street traffic calming measures could be 3. implemented using CPA funding. It is unlikely that the State would provide monies for Wood Street so it would have to have alternative funding and may happen sooner. There was some CPA funding that should be applicable if the request was done in time. Have not seen a plan for Wood Street in its entirety; the Board was emailed about reducing 4. speed and a truck ban. Not sure if it is possible to reduce the speed limit, but there was a recommendation from the Board regarding truck bans .Street design that would reduce speed Minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2010 Page 5 without enforcement could be an option. Board Comments:  Fees charged should be fair and reasonable.  Right of way takings in residential area should not be done without a consensus that residents would be willing to give up their lawns. A roundabout at the greenway could be possible but not where there is residential property.  Get expert advice on the bike path crossing and pedestrian activated signals. *****************************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS**************************** Cubist Pharmaceuticals, DSDUP and Special Permit with Site Plan Review: The Board discussed the concerns they had regarding the DSDUP before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on this matter. The Board felt that in general Cubist did a good job on presenting a definitive plan that was in accordance with Town Meeting vote. The Planning Board would like the following issues addressed during the public hearing:  While the proposed development was slightly smaller, the site coverage would be 10% higher and the impervious surface increased. These changes should be addressed and justified.  The promised access to the conservation land at the northwest corner was not mentioned. This access should be a condition of approval.  The application was silent as to public parking and access to the adjacent conservation land. This has been provided in the past and should continue.  The landscaping behind the garage was absent. It was supposed to be provided as a screen to shield the view from the boardwalk.  At Town Meeting it was stated that the building would be built to LEED standards but there is nothing specific about the level of LEED or equivalent standards that would be adhered to. The Board hopes they will meet the LEED silver standard at least, even if they do not get certified as such.  The Noise Committee should be asked to review and comment on this proposal. There is concern Page 6 Minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2010 about how the baseline noise level would be established and used for future expansion. The ZBA should seek the advice of the noise committee to come up with a consistent approach. *****************************************MINUTES*********************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for May 10, 2010, as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for May 12, 2010, as amended. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** The Board will have the community meeting on Saturday, May 12, 2010 as planned, but rescheduled the work goal meeting for Wednesday, June 16 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hornig will be out on July 7 and it was requested that the Board send their summer schedules to staff. **********************************STAFF REPORTS*********************************** Lexington was designated as a green community, which makes it eligible for grants. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk