Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-08-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 8, 2011 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Greg Zurlo with members Charles Hornig, Wendy Manz, Richard Canale, and Michelle Ciccolo and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 1377 Massachusetts Avenue, Definitive Site Sensitive Development Plan: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. There were approximately 10 people in the audience. In attendance were Mr. Rick Waitt, Mr. Brian Timm and Mr. Gary Larson of Meridian Associates, Mr. Todd Cataldo, applicant, and Ms. Carole Stavenhagen, property owner. Mr. Waitt said the plan shows four lots with few changes on lots A & B and building envelopes shown on lots C & D. There would be an 18-foot driveway designed to address the site conditions by minimizing cut and fill, saving many major mature trees and preserving the views from Massachusetts Avenue and abutting sides. Lot A would have no new services added. Lot B would have new water, sewer and gas services from the common drive. Lots C & D would have new services brought in from Massachusetts Avenue. No light poles are proposed due to the historic nature of the neighborhood. The drainage infiltration system would have two catch basins that would catch all of the driveway runoff. The roof runoff from lots C & D discharges into a kettle hole, which will handle all of the roof runoff. The total runoff from the site would be the same, or less, than before. The distance to entrances to the bike path from Massachusetts Avenue is 1525 feet heading east off the site to the Four Seasons Nursery or 2300 feet to the west going to Woburn Street. There is no viable access possible from the back of the parcel due to steep slopes and wetland constraints. The rope rail is the only access to the bike path from the cemetery. Mr. Breitenfeld, an abutter, had approached Mr. Cataldo the previous Thursday and requested curb cut access from the common drive to his house and that the proposed common drive that Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 goes by the side of his house be moved 8 feet toward the carriage house. Mr. Cataldo will allow Mr. Breitenfeld to have the curb cut access off the common drive if the Planning Board has no objection. Both parties will continue to work together on the possible realignment of the common drive. The applicant requested that the Board close the public hearing that evening and that he would return if the curb cut is added or the driveway is realigned. The applicant submitted four proposed plans to address a possible relocation of the drive and the preferred plan was 3C. The problems with the abutter’s newly proposed road realignment are that it protects fewer trees, requires more cut and fill, and the parking apron for the carriage house would be too short. The applicant would be willing to replant the trees from the path of the common drive onto the abutter’s property to maintain screening without moving the drive.. Board Comments and Questions:  Have the draft documents with appropriate legal language for the covenants and easements been submitted? Mr. Cataldo said not yet.  Will the addresses be Massachusetts Avenue? Yes.  Is the total of 3,400 square feet of impervious surface being reserved for the driveways for Lots C & D? Yes.  Where is it delineated in the drainage system drawings the parts of the depressions P100 and P400 which would be used? Mr. Timm said P100 exists as a depression near the brick patio by the carriage house. There needs to be a condition that P100 not be modified to change the drainage.  The road to be constructed will be a shared driveway and not a street.  Trees will be taken down within the protected tree area, which is in the Board’s jurisdiction under the special permit; is there any calculation of what is being removed and what is being added? Not yet. That needs to be addressed.  The lot deeds must make clear how much impervious surface/site coverage each lot is entitled to.  The Landscape Plan needs to show the caliper-inches of trees being removed and the amount being replaced, for the protected areas and the site as a whole.  There is presently adequate public access available to the bike path. There can be public access through the cemetery to where the rope is. Would all four lots have a designated easement to access the bike path or a blanket statement allowing access? Mr. Waitt said he would look into it.  If public access is provided is it subject to ADA compliance? Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Page 3  What is the height of the existing home? The roof peak elevation is 30 feet and the new homes will not exceed the roof line of the existing house, which is at elevation 247’ or the 40 foot maximum restriction in the zoning bylaw.  If Lots A & B increase the square footage for future development more than the reserved amounts presented today would the property owner have to come back before the Board for minor changes? Yes.  Will there be a meeting with the Tree Warden to discuss reconciliation? Mr. Cataldo said they would meet with the Tree Warden and then go with whatever the Board wants. Public Comments:  Mr. Breitenfeld of 1361 Massachusetts Avenue said his primary concern was the alignment of the new road and not his driveway access from it. When entering the site from Massachusetts Avenue onto the proposed road there are 6-8 feet of tree boughs that will be removed and they serve as significant screening; once the road is built it will only leave tree trunks. There are seven evergreens that were planted as a screening, which were staggered and six of the seven trees will have to be removed because of the alignment of the road. His next-door neighbor’s house will be even closer to the proposed drive. In discussion with the applicant, a request was made for the road to be moved six feet (18 feet from the property line), but he was told that only a two foot realignment could be done. The problem with the two-foot realignment is that it still requires the removal of the same number of trees. His desire is to preserve any kind of existing screening since the common drive would be so close to his home. Mr. Cataldo felt working in the field would be the best way to determine the proper location of screening.  The abutter had been under the impression that the road would be a permeable road such as a gravel road rather than a solid driveway.  The carriage house is currently the garage for the main house so there is a provision to allow for a driveway spur for the carriage house. This would encourage lots A & B to build their own garages. Mr. Cataldo said he planned on selling lots A & B together if possible as a family compound. Board Comments: The Board had advised the applicant to contact abutters in advance. Mr. Cataldo said he sent out several letters and did not hear from this abutter until Thursday. Mr. Cataldo said he had reached out very early to try to accommodate abutters’ needs. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Board members felt that plan 3C for the common drive alignment made more sense, but the amount of screening would be less then what currently exists. Six of the seven trees would be removed. Mr. Cataldo offered to replant the trees on the abutter’s property, but whether the screening will be the same is very subjective. If the current drive for the abutter were to be removed, could the trees be replanted there? Mr. Breitenfeld said there would be no room there and it would not protect the view from the back of his home to Lot C. Could a little loop drive be placed for Lot B to accommodate two cars? Public Comments:  Ms. Barbara Doe of 1359 Massachusetts Avenue had concerns similar to Mr. Breitenfeld as her bedroom window is the closest to the proposed drive. Ms. Doe was not aware that the main house might be sold separately from the carriage house. Board final comments : The Board felt there was agreement on most things, but there were some loose ends to be addressed. The public hearing should be continued until the major issues are resolved. The items to be addressed prior to the close of the public hearing were the draft covenants, delineation of the drainage covenant, possible drainage easement, caliper reconciliation of trees, defining the rope trail location and configuration of the driveway. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. *******************************ZONING BYLAW******************************** Center Committee discussion regarding parking, height and residential uses: Jerry Michelson and Howard Levin of the Center Committee were before the Planning Board to discuss and receive feed back on the Center Committee’s current zoning initiatives. They include the following: 1) Pedestrian and traffic safety- working on a long term parking management plan including lots and access. 2) The Center’s future design - streetscape for the next 10-30 years 3) Problems left over from the 1980’s down-zoning of the Center when there were more people working and living in the Center Building heights need to be addressed; o Residential and non-residential uses need a better balance; and o Parking restricts expansion. It should be a shared resource. o Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Page 5 Board comments:  Height and mixed uses should be looked at and consider a three-story commercial use building;  Parking is hard. Residential units should have designated parking. The study says there is enough now, but increased development would require more parking;  This is a welcomed approach and a good time for the Center Committee to work on these initiatives;  Retail on the first floor, offices on the second floor and residential use on the third floor would be something to strive for;  Parking should be priced according to demand;  The streetscape project is fascinating, but not sure if it is addressing the right things first. Look at how the street is used first and then consider the flourishes. Another issue would be funding, whether it would be from private or public sources. If this is approached on a systems level then Battle Road Scenic Byway project may have some funds available if changes are made in conjunction with rezoning and multi-modal plans;  This is very exciting and would help increase the vibrancy of the Center. Parking as a shared resource is tricky. Residential spaces outside would be difficult for snow removal. Increased heights good as long as it is not overbearing;  How is this being funded and what resources are available? Mr. Levin said they are short on resources, but have plenty of studies and a new parking management plan; The Center Committee needs to discuss how to implement the plans. The Center looks great now, but this is a 20-30 year cycle. The Committee will go to Selectmen as resources are required.  Remember height changes a lot of things and could affect the character of the Center;  Look at peripheral issues as related to zoning changes by looking at other communities and how they dealt with these issues.  Coming to the Board early will lead to a much better process and hope it continues and consider this a joint venture;  There is a large area around the Center area like Muzzey Street and Clark Street. Consider the appropriate uses and make clearer about what is allowed; Mr. Michelson said the Committee will need planning staff help to do this together.  Plan to schedule another meeting with the Center Committee in September. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* 18 Ward Street, Determination of Street Adequacy: Mr. Peter Bemis was present with a definitive road improvement plan for a section of Ward Street in the vicinity of number 18. The plan shows a 20-foot wide paved way with drainage provided on the shoulders of the road. The existing street is not centered in the layout and the plan will follow the same pattern. There is an existing road improvement at the intersection of Ash Street and Ward Street and this would tie into that section of pavement with sufficient drainage. Mr. Henry said there was a few waivers left out of the proposed plan and should be added if the Board approves the proposed improvements, which are § 175-68C (3) (c) [6], [7], [8], and [10]. Board Comments: After looking at the site, the road would be better if moved west 2-3 feet closer to the center line. Hold the eastern boundary constant instead of the center line constant and push the expansion to the west. Moving the road 2-3 feet to the west would avoid the drainage system being pushed into the telephone poles and not impact any trees. Just move the 2-foot drainage condition within the existing travelled way and move the center line west 2-3 feet. On a motion duly made, seconded and voted (5-0), it was determined that Ward Street in the vicinity of number 18 Ward Street is not currently of adequate grade and construction, but will be if the improvements proposed in the plan submitted to the Board are made, with the condition that the proposed roadway be shifted 3 feet to the southwest, closer to the center line of the right of way. Lexington Hills, Lot Releases for Lots 17 & 18: The developer of the Lexington Hills Subdivision has requested the release of Lots 17 and 18. Attorney Don Borenstein representing the applicant said there were five lots previously released. Mr. Borenstein spoke with Town Counsel, Attorney Griffen who requested a stipulation on the lots that were to be released due to the pending appeal. The lots previously released by the Planning Board would be subject to the conventional plan and if the applicant prevails in the appeal those lots would not get the benefits of that Court ruling. The concept was acceptable, but one caveat would be that it only applies to lots with building permits pulled. Mr. Henry said the stipulation was last minute, but staff and Town Counsel are fine with this agreement. Mr. Henry did an inspection of the site and the only concern was that there are some Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Page 7 jersey barriers blocking Stage Coach Lane. Mr. Henry said the entire development should be opened up so there would be no public safety issues. If more lot releases were requested in the future, they would need to revisit construction costs and the developer would be encouraged to switch the form of the surety to cash Mr. Hornig was surprised this was not on the agenda included in his packet and he was not prepared to discuss this matter. However, the item had been carried over from the last meeting and nothing had changed. Since the last lot releases Mr. Hornig felt there had been no progress toward getting the subdivision any closer to being finished, or addressing the existing problems. The sidewalks need to get built and street lights installed. What is the point of releasing more lots when no progress has been made? Mr. Henry said the applicant has a potential buyer for those particular lots. Mr. Hornig felt there should be some assurance that work would progress before releasing more lots. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4 to 1, (Mr. Hornig opposed) to release lots 17 & 18 with a properly executed stipulation agreed to by Town Counsel, with the condition that the jersey barriers be removed and the understanding that the estimated cost to construct would be revisited the next time lot releases are requested. ********************************STAFF REPORTS******************************* Ms. McCall-Taylor said the reorganization of transportation staff is still an ongoing discussion. ********************************BOARD REPORTS****************************** Mr. Canale said a group of people met with VHB to discuss the Master Plan and the 25% design for the West Lexington Greenway. Town comments are going back to VHB next week and in two weeks they hope to have both items completed. Mr. Canale said the Regional Transportation Advisory Counsel met today and discussed projects that might be included in the research study portion of what of the Metropolitan Planning Organization is approving and there was some discussion of a corridor study for Route 4/225 which could include the two proposed roundabouts. The Town of Bedford has formally recommended that project. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Mr. Zurlo said that the document on the Economic Development Advisory Committee’s goal setting will be finalized tomorrow and will be forwarded to the Board when completed. ****************** PLANNING BOARD REORGANIZATION *********************** Election of Officers: The Board held its annual election of officers. The floor was opened for nominations. Mr. Canale was nominated as chair and Ms. Manz as vice chair but she declined the nomination. Mr. Zurlo was then nominated as vice chair and Ms. Ciccolo as clerk. There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed. The slate of officers was elected by a vote of 5-0. Committee Assignments : The Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees and Commissions were discussed and the assignments for the upcoming year were as follows: Conservation Commission Mr. Hornig Historic Districts Commission Mr. Hornig Historical Commission Mr. Hornig Community Preservation Committee Ms. Manz Housing Partnership Board Ms. Manz Lexington Center Committee Ms. Manz Sidewalk Committee M s. Manz Design Advisory Committee Mr. Zurlo Hanscom Area Towns Committee Mr. Zurlo Vision 2020/Executive Committee Mr. Zurlo Economic Development Advisory Committee Mr. Zurlo Community Center Task Force Zurlo/Ciccolo Energy Conservation Committee Ms. Ciccolo Transportation Advisory Committee Ms. Ciccolo Greenways Corridor Committee Ms. Ciccolo Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee Mr. Canale Noise Advisory Committee Mr. Canale (starting in August) Traffic Safety Advisory Committee Mr. Canale Sustainability Committee TBD On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the list of liaisons and representatives to the Town Committees and Commissions. Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2011 Page 9 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0 to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Definitive Subdivision application for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue dated April 5, 2011 (8 pages). 2. Letter from Meridian Associates dated June 8, 2011, regarding 1377 Massachusetts Avenue (4 pages). 3. Memorandum from Engineering, dated June 7, 2011, regarding 1377 Massachusetts Avenue (1 page). 4. Sketch Plan #3A for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue, dated June 7, 2011(4 pages). 5. Site Construction/Landscape Plan for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue updated April 11, 2011 (1 page). 6. Definitive Subdivision Plan Set for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue dated April 5, 2011 (9 pages). 7. Handout from the Center Committee for discussion on zoning changes to the CB District dated June 8, 2011 (1 page). 8. Arial view of 18 ward Street, dated June 3, 2011 (1 page). 9. Definitive Street Reconstruction Plan for Ward Street, dated May 9, 2011 (2 pages). 10. Staff recommendations for adequacy determination for 18 Ward Street, dated May 17, 2011 (1page). 11. Staff recommendations for release of lots for Lexington Hills Subdivision, dated May 25, 2011 (1page). 12. Last years list 2010 of Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees and Commissions (1 page). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk