Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 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 Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, Anthony Galaitsis, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ************************* ************************* SUBDIVISION PLANS PUBLIC HEARINGS Lexington Hills, special permit conversion from conventional subdivision to site sensitive development (SSD): Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. Mr. John Farrington, attorney, Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect, Mr. Joe Casey, project manager and Mr. Habib Aminipour, the applicant, were present. There were approximately 5 people in the audience. Mr. Farrington said that when the special permit for this conventional subdivision was approved in 2007 a Site Sensitive Development subdivision (SSD) was not available. The topography of this site would be appropriate for this type of development and the key modification was in section 11 of the special permit for impervious surface. Mr. Larson said that the original hospital site had 2.75 acres of pavement, .82 acres of buildings and approximately 3.5 total acres of impervious surface. The SSD plan would not require grading changes from the approved conventional subdivision and would yield 20% less impervious surface than what was on the site prior to any construction. There would be a slight adjustment in siting using flexible setbacks and building envelopes, No house would be closer then 50 feet to any other house, with an average distance of 90 feet between homes. The primary change would be the use of pervious pavement for the driveways, which would allow for flexibility of house locations, three car garages on the side of the houses, and the addition of decks and patios, which would improve significantly the character of the development for the developer and the Town. Mr. Henry explained that this project is before the Board because this is the only mechanism short of a variance to allow for flexibility in the setback of the dwellings, and the Board should determine if this Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 2 course correction meets with the criteria of a SSD in the bylaw. Flexibility in the location of the dwellings should not be the issue, whether or not this modification is approved. Board Comments:  There is some confusion about the 20% decrease of impervious surface in the development constructed under the proposed plan, the data guideline shows an increase of impervious surface. The plan that was referenced was relative to the record plan not the conventional plan. There is a net increase from the conventional plan to the SSD plan with the decks and the patios to make up for the pervious driveways. Mr. Larson said yes there would be 125 square foot increase per lot.  There should be surety to make sure the infrastructure would be completed in a timely fashion for the sidewalks, landscaping, and the finish course of the pavement.  At the last meeting there was an expectation that the Board was looking for something more holistic as a SSD and yet this shows only minor modifications with better siting. Why the increase in impervious surface? This does not meet the spirit of the SSD. Mr. Casey said it is for better marketing and to improve the development’s appearances, which is a real challenge.  As lots are conveyed there needs to be a condition of maximum impervious surface permitted for each lot.  This plan does not seem to be more site-sensitive to the land and the intent appears to be to increase the size of the houses by adding three-car garages, decks and porches. There should be some thought to varying and reducing the house sizes. Mr. Larson said they were trying to create spaces enjoyable to live in.  There is issue with increasing site coverage; this is moving in the wrong direction of a SSD. It is too late for this kind of trade, which is looking for the rights of the past and present without restraints.  The intent of pervious pavement is to allow for drainage, not to trade it for additional square footage, which is unacceptable. There would need to be a significant reduction in the amount of impervious surface to keep in the spirit of a SSD and to allow approval of this modification. Board members discussed whether or not to close the public hearing. Mr. Farrington said he would need to look at the data and discuss with the project manager. The consumer for this type of home expects a deck or patio. The applicant needs to understand the impact of what is being given up. The decision Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 3 deadline is 120 days from the close of the public hearing. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to January 12, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. 12 -18 Hartwell Avenue, site plan review and special permit: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:35 p.m. Mr. John Farrington, attorney, Mr. Steven Coangelo and Adam Coangelo, applicants and Mr. Colin Smith were present. There were approximately 18 people in the audience. Mr. Farrington said that the current 30,000 square foot, 40 year-old building was rezoned in 2009 as part of the Hartwell Avenue CM District. Currently there is a significant surplus of office space on Hartwell Avenue. This location would be ideal for the submitted proposal with a combination of retail space and restaurant services, which would accommodate other Hartwell Avenue tenants. There were several letters received from building owners and tenants submitted to the Board expressing support. The Boston Survey Consultants looked at the expected traffic generation pattern. It is spread out and has different peak times over the daytime and weekends, unlike traffic generated by office space with a percentage of trips being pass-by trips rather then a destination trip. The applicants are requesting several technical waivers and special permits, which would allow the smaller building of 6,000 square feet to be used as a restaurant and the larger building of 30,000 square feet to be used for business retail operations and another restaurant. In the future a possible consideration could be for a green grocer in the larger building. The submission shows the construction of a sidewalk from 24 Hartwell Avenue along the front of this site. The applicant is requesting the participation and help of the Town to bring the sidewalk around the corner onto Bedford Street to the bus stop, which would require relocation of three utility poles within the right of way (ROW). The two restaurants on the site would have combined seating of 450; as the zoning bylaw requires 245 spaces, a waiver is being sought to reduce the number of spaces to 209. Mr. Smith said that the applicants were asking for special permits regarding side year setbacks, signage, parking and loading, and retail spaces up to 5,000 square feet for permitted uses, as well as allowing Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 4 issuance of a certificate of occupancy prior to landscape completion if necessary. A preliminary traffic demand management plan has been developed according to the TMOD, which would include a traffic coordinator. Board Comments:  This proposal is quite different from what was anticipated, but very interesting. The only access to the second building with the restaurant is through the main entrance? Mr. Smith said yes, but there would be other access if required by the Fire Department.  Is there any thought of allowing non-retail use in the rear area or adding a story since this site is not at the maximum density? Not at this time, but it could be attractive down the road for office space.  This does not fit the vision the Board had as the TMO-1 plan was developed. It is understandable that under the present circumstances this is the most viable plan. What is being sought right now? Mr. Smith said they were seeking approval of retail space for permitted uses up to 5,000 square feet, which was driven by design of the building since each slot is approximately 2,200-2,300 square feet.  There appears to be some confusion regarding the TDM plan. Please discuss with staff for clarity of the 85% single occupancy vehicle portion of the plan and the requirement to join a TMA plan and not waiting for one to be created.  Want to see more of what the illumination at night will be. Mr. Zurlo asked the Board to hold the rest of their questions for the next session On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to January 12, 2011 at 8:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. EXECUTIVE SESSION *************************************************************** At 9:30 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, by individual poll of the Board – Mr. Zurlo, Mr. Hornig, Ms, Manz, Mr. Canale, and Mr. Galaitsis – it was voted 5-0 to go into executive session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation on Rangeway Extension because an open meeting could have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the body, and to reconvene in open session for the regular Planning Board meeting. The Board returned to open session at 9:50 p.m. Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 5 DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ************************* ************************* SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING Rangeway subdivision: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Ed Grant, attorney, Fred Russell, engineer, Mr. and Mrs. Jim Raymond, Ms. Doris Duff, owner and Fred Gilgun, attorney were present. There were approximately 10 people in the audience. The applicant requested the action deadline be extended until January 31, 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the request to extend the action deadline for the Rangeway Extension to January 31, 2011. Mr. Grant said this is an application for a definitive subdivision plan for the Rangeway Extension and is basically a road improvement plan for frontage for a grandfathered lot at the end of Rangeway. Mr. Raymond is under agreement to buy the lot from Mrs. Duff and would build a modestly sized house at the back of the lot. In 2003 the Planning Board denied the plan submitted and now the applicant is coming forth with a different plan with a new set of circumstances. Mr. Russell and the applicant worked with the Fire Department, Town Engineer and Planning Staff on the current plan, which has the Fire Department approval. The change in the regulatory circumstances, has left this lot surrounded by a condominium project, Conservation Land and Town Land, and on a dead end street. The Stedman Road decision showed flexibility to allow a portion of the owner’s land to be used for a turnaround. Mr. Russell said that this was a 20,500 square-foot lot. They would pick up the road improvement where LexHab left off on Rangeway and run the improvements into a t-hammerhead turn around with a block type retaining wall, which features a three foot high guard rail above grade. This change would allow a fire truck to come to the end and make a three-point turn, thereby making it safer. There is an existing sewer line and manhole that is not accessible and the applicant will bring the manhole up to grade to provide access by the Town. The existing water main in the paper street will be extended to the end of the street and a hydrant added. Board Comments:  There would need to be a new easement for the waterline within the paper street.  Where will access to conservation land be since the retaining wall is at the end of the street? Mr. Russell said the retaining wall is at grade level at one point and does not cover the entire Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 6 frontage of the conservation land.  The plan needs to show the intervening distance to Skyview Street, but it only goes to James Street. Mr. Russell said that the road was reconstructed by Lexhab in 2004, but he will provide that information so the Board can see if it is up to regulation standards.  Requests for waivers of the following were not included: 50 foot ROW minimum; maximum grade of 8%; planting strip; undergrounding utilities; street lighting plan; landscape plan showing trees to be removed and which would remain; and dead-end street width of 20 feet.  There would need to be in writing the justification for the easement for the grandfathered lot.  Clarify who owns the engineering of the retaining wall. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the additional request to extend the action deadline for the Rangeway Extension to February 28, 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. TOWN MEETING ******************************************************************** Traffic and Renovation Article, Request Warrant Article: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to request the Board of Selectmen place on the Warrant for the 2011 Annual Town Meeting an article to see if the Town would vote to amend §175-71B to remove “renovation” of existing properties as a trigger for requiring a traffic study and reformat it with additional technical corrections for more clarity. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to request the Board of Selectmen place on the warrant the necessary articles for the implementation of the TMO-1 District Plan. MINUTES *************************************************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the minutes for November 3, 2010, as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the minutes for November 17, 2010, as corrected. Minutes for the Meeting of December 15, 2010 Page 7 The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Letter from Gary Larson regarding Lexington Hills, dated December 8, 2010 (2 pages). 2. Lexington Hills Definitive Subdivision Record Conditions Plan of Land, Site Construction Plan 1 and 2, (3 pages). 3. Lexington Hills, Development Data Guidelines, dated October 12, 2010 (1 page). 4. 12-18 Hartwell Avenue submission for Special Permit with Site Plan review, dated November 17, 2010 (44 pages). 5. 12-18 Hartwell Avenue submission for Special Permit with Site Plan review, dated December 8, 2010 (17 pages). Mr. Henry’s review memo. 6. Letters from abutting businesses regarding the 12-18 Hartwell Avenue project (7 pages). 7. Special Permit/Definitive Site Development and Use Plan for Hartwell Avenue Square dated November 17, 2010 (22 pages). 8. Revised Special Permit/Definitive Site Development and Use Plan for Hartwell Avenue Square dated December 8, 2010 (14 pages). 9. Letter from the law Office of Ed Grant, dated November 18, 2010, requesting and extension of time for Rangeway Extension. Project (1 page). 10. Rangeway Extension Definitive Subdivision, Supplemental Information, dated December 1, 2010 (20 pages). 11. Rangeway Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan Revised, dated November 24, 2010 (6 pages). 12. Power point presentation by Davis Kling, Ph.D. on the Topography and Ecosystem on 29 Rangeway (8 pages). 13. Rangeway Extension submission for a Definitive Subdivision, Lexington, Massachusetts, dated July 27, 2010 (57 pages). 14. Proposed submission for the 2011 Annual Town Meeting Warrant of the Traffic and Renovation Article (2 pages). On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk