Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-20-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2011 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 Gregory Zurlo with members Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, Anthony Galaitsis, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Wendy Manz joined the meeting in progress. MINUTES *************************************************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for the December 15, 2010, executive session. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for December 15, 2010. TOWN MEETING ******************************************************************** The Board discussed the zoning issues on the warrant, which include removing renovation as a trip wire that required a traffic study and a special permit, rezoning a small piece of RO land on Hartwell Avenue to CM (not at the instigation of the property owners), and the rezoning of a property on Maple Street and Massachusetts Avenue from a RO zone to a CRS zone. The Board would like written confirmation from the property owner on the rezoning of the RO zone land on Hartwell Avenue, indicating that they are on board with the proposal. PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* ****************** th The Board will post meetings on February 9, 16, & 23. Mr. Zurlo is not available on the 16 so that meeting is tentative. STAFF REPORTS ******************************************************************** Mr. Henry said the applicant for 341 Marrett Road was requesting a field change regarding the easement, a grade change and a five-foot retaining wall. The Board needs to determine if the changes are major or minor revisions. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, that the changes were minor, but the Board did not commit to approving them until they receive documentation on the before- and after-layout, and photographs of the wall. Two sketch plans have been submitted, 1377 Massachusetts Avenue and 171-183 Woburn Street. BOARD REPORTS ******************************************************************* Mr. Canale said the West Lexington Greenway Task Force, the bike committee and the sidewalk committee want better coordination and linking of conservation areas and the West Lexington Greenway and were proposing the creation of a Greenway Committee to the Board of Selectmen. The Tree Committee submitted a change to the general bylaws to remove exemptions for special permits that affect the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Manz joined the meeting. DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ************************* ************************* PUBLIC HEARINGs Lexington Hills - Special permit to convert a conventional subdivision to site sensitive development (SSD) Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. There were approximately 8 people in the audience. Mr. John Farrington, attorney, Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect, Mr. Joe Casey, project manager, and Mr. Habib Aminipour and Mr. Joseph Lerner, the applicants, were present. Mr. Larson said the revisions since the last meeting had been to reduce the size of five houses to less than 9% site coverage consistent with an SSD, while the site coverage for the remaining 14 lots would remain the same as approved in the conventional subdivision. The cumulative footprint of the houses would be reduced 633 square feet, reducing the total site coverage ratio. The numbers would be allocated to the project as a whole and would result in a significant reduction under the conventional plan while being slightly under the SSD allowances. The use of porous materials for the driveway would allow for reduction 6,300 square feet of impervious surface area and would allow an increase of 750 square feet of impervious surface per lot, which would allow for decks within the site coverage limits. Board Comments:  Add a column to show the size of the patios that would be added. Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011 Page 3  Would the site coverage increase with patios? Mr. Larson said that patios would fall under the impervious surface ratio, decks are site coverage, not impervious surface. Mr. Henry said they were trying to get confirmation from the building department on that matter.  A variance had been sought for the only house yet built to permit a third floor, which would result in large, tall buildings. There is concern that would be done for each house. Mr. Casey said that it was just for that first house for cosmetic reasons and would not be considered for other houses. The variance had been denied.  Would there be an increase in site disturbance with more grass being dug up if this modification were allowed? Mr. Larson said yes.  There are currently no driveways constructed? Mr. Larson said correct.  Even though the numbers are better for site coverage, this plan does not fit the spirit of a SSD. What could be done to allow the applicant some relief and benefit the Town by getting lower numbers on this site? Mr. Henry said the Board could provide flexibilityin the siting of the houses, bump up site coverage to 12 %, and allow decks if they were determined to be site coverage but not impervious coverage. One issue is the applicant is trying to utilize the more generous maximums allowed by each type of subdivision, conventional and SSD. Another solution would be to reduce the house sizes. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Board Deliberations:  This plan is not the way it would have been if it had started a SSD. The changes may not cause any harm, but this should not become a habit. There should be conditions put in place, but maybe this would allow this project to be completed in a timely fashion.  This proposal makes it difficult to justify approving the conversion of the conventional subdivision to an SSD. The Board could see some of the suggested improvements being incorporated into the project, although it may not be satisfactory to the applicant.  While this is not an SSD, the preference would be to see it built and improved. The inclination is to allow some flexibility to move the house locations and increase site coverage within the conventional plan up to 12%. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011  This is a conventional plan, not an SSD and the request is unreasonable, especially with the increased house sizes, which is what actually limits the landscaping potential.  An SSD is the only way to allow the use of porous pavement for the driveways and not count as impervious surface. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Hornig opposed) to deny the existing special permit for Lexington Hills to be converted from a conventional subdivision to a site sensitive development. On a motion duly made and seconded, by a vote of 5-0, the Board determined the following modifications to the previously approved conventional subdivision were considered minor changes:  Modify special condition 11 to increase the impervious surface to .12;  Allow the increase in the maximum site coverage to .15 for any single lot , but to maintain an average of .12 for the entire site; and  Allow the location of houses to be flexible, but maintain the 25 foot setback. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that the Board would approve the above minor modifications to the special permit for the Lexington Hills conventional subdivision plan. Although the Board could not require it, they encouraged the use of porous pavement for the driveways, even though it would still count towards impervious surface. 12 -18 Hartwell Avenue, site plan review and special permit: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 9:30 p.m. Mr. John Farrington, attorney, Mr. Steven Coangelo and Mr. Adam Coangelo, applicants, and Mr. Colin Smith, architect were present. There were approximately five people in the audience. Colin Smith discussed the following revisions made since the last hearing:  The bus shelter was not part of this special permit request and it is within the 25 foot yard setback, but could be the subject of a future special permit;  1,000 square feet was removed from the back of the large building and added to the south side of the out building; Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011 Page 5  Modification of parking, which would yield an additional two parking spaces; and,  An additional waiver was being requested regarding the TMA membership requirement since there is no TMA that services the Hartwell Avenue area. Board Comments:  The outbuilding would require a variance for the side yards.  Reduced parking was based on 450 maximum seats in the restaurants; will the maximum seating for the restaurants be 450?  Shared parking with 24 Hartwell Avenue - would there be a problem with an agreement in writing? If property changes hands there needs to be a written agreement. Mr. Coangelo said they do not want to tie into a requirement for additional shared parking and want to remove that from special conditions.  The second access was removed based on a discussion with the Fire Department as they did not require another access for the site. There would be pedestrian access, which would require restriping the parking. However, this was more than a fire issue and the connection to the adjacent lot should be maintained.  A reduction in loading bays would be fine.  No problem with signs, but don’t need the second standing sign now.  There is no problem with retail up to 5,000 square feet rather then 2,000 square feet.  The Board has not seen an updated landscape plan yet. Mr. Smith said the landscape architect is still working on it and they will be meeting with the Conservation Commission February 8, 2011. The changes are minor and in response to conservation requirements.  Regarding the TMA membership waiver, the 128 Business Council has expressed an interest in providing services to the Hartwell Avenue area and the Transaction Association serves the Air Base. Had they been contacted? Mr. Farrington said the 128 Business Council only services Hayden Ave. The applicants were asked to contact them for a membership consultation as the Council provides other services. Without contacting either agency and confirming that no services are offered in the Hartwell Avenue area, the Board would not entertain a waiver of the requirement to join a TMA.  The sidewalk on Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Farrington said they intend to extend the sidewalk from 24 Hartwell Avenue, past 12-18 Hartwell Avenue and go around the corner onto Bedford Street. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011 They would need to involve the Board of Selectmen to go around to Bedford Street since the sidewalk is within the Town taking and the three telephone poles need to be moved and undergrounded. Bedford Street would involve the State; once the proposal was ready and had both the applicants’ and Town’s support, they could approach the State regarding this matter.  This appears to be a good project for many reasons and matching the property needs with the Town’s goals and reaching out to neighbors to provide the amenities desired makes it a positive for Town as a whole. One concern is that only the large building would get built, there would be no tenants in the back of the large building and the out building would never get built. The applicants were asked to discuss phasing and their openness to commit to doing all or nothing. Mr. Coangelo said this proposal wasn’t designed to be a phased plan and they had never offered up a phased option.  What is the commitment to the architecture and footprint shown on the plans for this site? Mr. Coangelo said they want some control and want to maintain high quality and a good project. There needs to be some kind of design guidelines to keep what’s important, but allow some flexibility.  The out building - why is the setback relief needed? Why not slide the building down? Mr. Smith said the additional square feet did slide it closer to the large building. It is important to consider the turning radius for loading, visibility for a retailer in the back and visibility for customer parking. A waiver for the setback seems unnecessary since the building site could slide down. Mr. Smith said access around the entire building was important.  The traffic analysis was not required but was offered for information and testing assumptions.  Is there anything that exists about the same size and scale to show possible success? Is there any other site that has a similar size for tenants? Mr. Smith said they were all strip mall types; there is nothing like this.  Why was the original vehicle access by the out building eliminated? There was a conflict with Westview Avenue.  Is there another meeting scheduled with the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC)? Mr. Smith said not at this time. Was there anything they asked for? The fiscal impact, which was submitted and then the EDAC approved the proposal at the next meeting. The final comments are in the submission. Mr. Farrington said the Board still needed the landscape plan and exploration of participating in the TMA, was there anything else to submit? The Board wanted to see design guide lines, exploration of why the Minutes for the Meeting of January 20, 2011 Page 7 connection to 24 Hartwell Avenue for vehicles no longer exists, how shared parking may be advantageous for future development, and information on meeting requirements for trip reduction, which could be part of contracted services for the TMA. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 9, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. BOARD REPORTS ******************************************************************* Ms. Manz said the Center Committee was recommending to the Board of Selectmen a consultant for infrastructure and sidewalk improvements to the Center. The Economic Development Officer is requesting $38,000 from the Town Meeting budget for implementing the Nelson Nygard parking study. The Center Committee will not bring a warrant article this year, but will pursue a zoning article for the 2012 Town Meeting on height and residential use in the Center. 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 January 7, 2011 (2 pages). 2. Lexington Hills, Development Data Guidelines, dated January 10, 2011 (1 page). 3. List of Zoning requirements and waivers for the Hartwell Avenue Square, dated December 28, 2010 (5 pages). 4. Trip generation summary with 25% adjustment for Hartwell Square (2 pages). On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk