Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-22-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 22, 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 Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo, Charles Hornig, and Wendy Manz, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Michelle Ciccolo joined the meeting in progress. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED 1350 East Street & 6 Holmes Street: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in Lexington, MA” dated May 15, 2011 prepared and certified by Clifford E. Rober, Professional Land Surveyor, Arlington, MA with Form A/2011-1 submitted by Hawks Lane Development Corporation, the applicant, as it does not require approval under subdivision control law. ***********************************MINUTES********************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes for May 25, 2011, as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the executive session minutes for May 25, 2011. *****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE**************** The Board will have another site visit for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue on Saturday, July 9 at 8:30 a.m. in preparation for the July 13, 2011 continued public hearing. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* SPECIAL PERMIT 71-79 East Street, Preliminary Development Plan for a Balanced Housing Development: Ms. Ciccolo joined the meeting in progress. In attendance were Mr. Rick Waitt, Mr. Brian Timm, Mr. Gary Larson, and Mr. Adam Christie of Meridian Associates, Mr. Todd Cataldo, applicant and Mr. John Farrington, Attorney. Mr. Waitt explained that the site is listed with the Historical Commission, which has granted permission to Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 demolish the ranch and placed a one year demolition delay on the other home, garage and barn. The perimeter of the site is largely lined with mostly coniferous trees forming a buffer from the abutting properties. There were eight test pits done with no ground water within 8 feet. Very little of the existing water runoff leaves the site. Since the last meeting the applicant has also been monitoring an existing well and a new one, 2-3 times per week. There are currently three curb cuts that exist off East Street servicing the site. The proof plan allows by right five single-family lots. The plan proposed would be a balanced housing development (BHD). The calculations for this site are 36,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), no limit on the number of units, 37,638 square feet of impervious surface (IS), no limit on site coverage, and a minimum of 60,540 square feet open space. While this presentation is for a BHD the applicant would be open to doing a public benefit housing development (PBHD), which would provide one unit (the barn) as an affordable unit. The PBHD would look exactly like the BHD but would allow an increase of 7,200 square feet of GFA, which would be applied to the four larger lots at the back of the site. A large number of trees are to be saved and only three trees that are protected by the tree bylaw will be removed; they total 32 caliper inches. There would only be one curb cut, the drive would be 20 feet wide and the one-way cul-de-sac would be 16 feet wide. The open space is 61,965 square feet. There are two trees within the proposed open space, which will be reevaluated on whether to keep or remove them. The viewscape on lot A from East Street is being reevaluated. The barn would be 1,000 square foot GFA. The utilities for the new units will be from the private right of way (ROW), and existing services coming off East Street will be kept for the existing dwellings. There will be a looped water main through the property ROW. The fire trucks would be able to make the turn on the cul-de-sac with the installation of mountable curbing. Board Comments:  Would this be a private way or a driveway? Mr. Farrington said this would be a driveway with easements, rights and maintenance obligations. Mr. Cataldo said the thought was the Town would pick up trash, but not plow. This would need to be made clear in the definitive plan.  The water main easement would need to be the whole length of the main for the Town.  Why is there a 2% grade for the length of the driveway, which causes more fill? Mr. Waitt said this is the lowest slope possible to prevent water from ponding at the lower points.  A pedestrian path would be appropriate to have along the common drive.  Do you have a count by caliper inch of trees being removed on the entire site? Mr. Waitt said that would be available at the definitive stage. Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 Page 3  What part of the open space is really accessible and useable? Ms. McCall-Taylor said there is a requirement for open space, but does not differentiate between useable and non useable, it is only for the purpose of density. Mr. Waitt said they could delineate the open space with something behind lot E & F. Mr. Cataldo requested the Board give guidance on whether the preference is for a field or to keep the trees.  The preference would be for the open space to be more useable.  In the teardrop there is concern with the line of sight; the tree canopy should be high so drivers can see children playing.  Who would own the open space? Mr. Farrington said the Homeowner’s Association would own and maintain the open space.  The actual pavement width of 16 feet seems quite excessive for the fire trucks? Mr. Waitt said 16 feet is the minimum the Fire Department would want.  Has any consideration been given on green techniques and water conservation? Mr. Waitt said it would be addressed at the definitive stage.  The potential for the PBHD sounds intriguing.  Making the affordable unit on lot H is misdirected and the applicant should consider lots A or B instead. Mr. Cataldo said that the smaller units on Shade Street were the first to sell and there is a big demand for the smaller units.  Considering the past success on Shade Street with the smaller units there would be support for the PBHD.  How would the assessment for maintenance/condo fees be handled for the affordable units? Mr. Henry said the fees get pro rated.  The creation of an affordable unit is a good idea, but not increasing the rear house sizes by 7,400 square feet total.  Affordable units have been losing ground in the past 10 years. In order to keep above the 10% requirement units should be taken units when offered and this would be a good opportunity. The preference would be for lot A to be the affordable unit, but lot H would be fine and it seems like a fair compromise with the increase of square footage for the larger homes in the rear of the site. Public Comments:  How much impervious surface is there? We seem to be losing ground, if all this excellent soil is being covered with pavement, where would all the water go? Mr. Waitt said that Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 calculations based on a conventional subdivision plan would allow 38,000 square feet of impervious surface.  Last time there were eight units proposed and now there are nine units; why is that? How many bedrooms would be in the proposed houses? Mr. Waitt said it was the same number of units presented last time, the houses have not been designed so there has been no thought yet regarding the number of bedrooms.  For the house very close to the road and approximately 40 feet from the property line of the site, the drainage pit in front of 71 East Street is a concern. The people who rented at 71 & 79 East Street did have water in the basement. Mr. Waitt said developers are not allowed to increase rates of water runoff to any abutting properties or street.  What if the drainage does not go as planned? Mr. Waitt said the same amount of water will fall on this land and stay on this land.  The affordable unit would be a good size unit and there would be a tremendous demand for a unit that size at this desirable location.  There is concern regarding the sewage system on East Street. Some homes on Saddle Club Road got sewage in their basement during the large rains. Mr. Waitt said the topography of this development will not create the same problem in the area.  Is there any consideration for undergrounding the electrical lines? Mr. Waitt said that poles are no longer allowed and the lines would be buried. There are no significant issues with what is before the Board and a site visit is not needed at this stage. Mr. Waitt said the applicant is willing to do a PBHD and requested a consensus from the Board on a proposed PBHD.  The full bonus of 20% increase in density should not be realized since the unit was so small. The preference is for allowing larger houses in the back of the site to prevent losing more ground on affordable units. This is a good opportunity for an affordable unit, if this is not the right site; what would be?  Consider moving the building envelopes closer to the driveway and getting the units in the back closer together to create more open space.  There is a concern about headlights being directed into the house at 74 East Street. Is it possible to move the driveway a little so headlights do not shine into that home? Mr. Waitt will look into that. Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 Page 5 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the preliminary subdivision plan as presented with the modifications suggested by the Board. *****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE**************** Work Plan: The Board discussed the work plan list. Additions to the list should include the Forbes Road area, modifications to the CRO district, and Land Use. The Board was committed to updating the Zoning Bylaw. There is money to work with the consultant for Phase I, which includes reorganization, removal of inconsistencies and violations of current law and case law and adding definitions. Work on the Zoning Bylaw would be done on a monthly basis and the goal would be for Spring Town Meeting if it is ready; however, getting it right is more important then setting a time. Fall Town Meeting would be for rezoning the Dana Home and impervious surface. The Center Committee is looking to Spring Town Meeting to bring forward its initiatives for the Center. Ms. Manz said the Planning Board should meet with the Center Committee by the end of the summer and have the Center Committee bring these proposals to the public in September. Mr. Canale said the Center Committee needs a vision and identity for the Center before it can decide what proposals to bring forward. Has the Planning Department inherited the Streetscape project? Ms. McCall-Taylor said it is being reevaluated based on the Selectmen’s meeting on Monday since this project has grown significantly without being defined. The Planning Staff will be involved which ever way it goes. The street summit and road standards may be slipping back at this time due to other obligations. The Board needs to look at the implementation of the TMO1 on what was recommended and work out the special permit process. Mr. Livsey is working with staff to see if any of the funding from Massworks would be appropriate for Hartwell Avenue. There is a September 1 deadline. What role planning staff will have in transportation needs to be clarified. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the BOS goal setting session is on Monday and this item is on the agenda for discussion. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 Is the traffic study for the TMO2 awaiting the reorganization of transportation? Mr. Zurlo had taken the lead and asked for a volunteer to help work on the RFP for Engineering. There were two parts in the RFP for the South Lexington Traffic Study, a study of South Lexington and development of a town-wide transportation planning policy. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it was not clear if funding was available for the second item. Regarding housing, does the Town want affordable housing? If it does, how much does it want? There needs to be a discussion about the possibility of falling below the 10% requirement in 2020. The Housing Partnership Board should take the initiative to update the Comprehensive Plan housing element. The Board should finish up the loose ends on the commercial piece before going back to housing issues. Mr. Hornig said the existing CRO Districts are not sensible with the current goals and should be redone like the CM districts, with increased density and flexibility, placing them all in future TMOs. Forbes Road needs to be looked at. Mr. Henry said developing a TMOD for Forbes Road would require technical expertise, which would require a funding from Town Meeting. Ms. Ciccolo suggested waiting for an Economic Development Officer to come on board. Mr. Zurlo said the EDAC could be used as a resource. Mr. Canale said the bulk of the Board’s economic development activity should be directed at the Center this year. The highest priorities are the Zoning Bylaw, the Center Committee’s initiatives for the Center, and TMO2 and TMO1. Mr. Canale would like to meet with staff and map out items for discussion at the next meeting. ********************************STAFF REPORTS******************************* Ms. McCall-Taylor asked Board Members to email to staff their summer vacation plans. Mr. Hornig will be away August 17. Ms. McCall-Taylor attended the Bioscale grand opening. Cubist is buying the property where they had been the major tenant. ********************************BOARD REPORTS****************************** Mr. Zurlo said that the EDAC did not have a quorum so a work plan was not adopted. Mr. Canale would like to know who is a liaison and who is a member of the committees on the list distributed. Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2011 Page 7 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0 to adjourn at 10:57 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. Agenda Item Summary & Staff recommendations for 150 East Street and 6 Holmes Road, dated June 6, 2011 (2 pages). 2. “Plan of Land in Lexington” regarding 150 East Street and 6 Holmes Road, dated May 15, 2011 (1 page). 3. Preliminary Subdivision application for 71-79 East Street, dated June 2, 2011 (9 pages). 4. Preliminary Subdivision Plan Set for 71-79 East Street, dated June 2, 2011 (8 pages). 5. Lexington Fire Truck Analysis Sketch plan for 71-79 East Street, dated May 4, 2011 (3 pages). 6. Planning Board 2011-2012 Work Plan Items for discussion (1 page). 7. Letter to Boston MPO from the Board of Selectmen, dated June 9, 2011, regarding the Boston MPO study of Route 4/225 Corridor in Lexington (2 pages). 8. Memorandum to the Board of Selectmen, dated May 26, 2011, regarding goal setting (1 page). 9. This years list 2011 of Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees and Commissions (1 page). 10. Two Board of Appeals decisions, dated June 10, 2011, regarding 15 & 18 Rockville Avenue (17 pages). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk