Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2012 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 Wendy Manz, Michelle Ciccolo, Greg Zurlo, and Charles Hornig and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor and Aaron Henry present. There were three public hearings scheduled for the night and since they should all be considered together, it was decided to open them at 7:40 p.m., the latest time advertised. The Board took a moment to honor and acknowledge the contributions to the Town of Donald Graham, a former Lexington Planning Board Member and chairman who recently passed away. ********************************TOWN MEETING******************************* The Planning Board Town Meeting schedule will include Article 34 (a CD rezoning of the Dana Home property) and Article 38 (acceptance of land from a subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board). ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED 2 Opi Circle: Staff provided a memo regarding this ANR. Mr. Hornig expressed a concern that the Board’s discretion was constrained since only frontage can be considered. Lots C, D, & E have inadequate frontage by Lexington standards and when any lot is in multiple towns Lexington treats it as if the entire lot is in Lexington. Language showing these lots have inadequate frontage should be added by the Board’s endorsement, making it clear to the applicant that if an application for a building permit is made for the Lexington portion of the lot, it may be considered a non-buildable lot. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2 (Mr. Zurlo and Ms. Manz opposed), to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in Lexington, MA” dated January 26, 2012, prepared and certified by Joseph R. Porter, Professional Land Surveyor, Newton, MA. with Form A (2012- 2) submitted by Bruno Gallinelli, the applicant, as it does not require approval under subdivision control law, with the addition of language that the endorsement it is not a determination of conformance with the Lexington zoning requirements and that lots C, D and E do not meet the requirements of the Lexington zoning bylaw for frontage. ********************************TOWN MEETING******************************* PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Canale called the three public hearings to order at 7:50 p.m. The order of the public hearings, a brief back ground of the Center and the purpose of these articles, which is to increase the vitality of the Center were presented. The Board is looking for input on these articles tonight before Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor did the presentation for the following articles. Article 35, Residential Use in the CB Zone: Allow residential use above the street level in a commercial building and allow use on the ground floor, but not in a center store front, by special permit. Article 36, Home occupations in the CB Zone: Allow home occupations in residential dwellings in the CB district Article 37, Height and FAR in the CB Zone: Allow an increase in the FAR from 2.0 to 3.0, remove limitation on the number of stories in a building, and raise the maximum height in feet to 45 feet for all buildings. Board Comments:  Allowing residential use is fine, but there is a concern about allowing that use on the street level.  The Board has to decide what it visualizes for the Center with step backs and fine tuning the FAR before setting the actual motions for Town Meeting. Center Committee Comments: Mr. Jerry Michelson said the Center Committee is unanimous in support of moving forward and has the same concerns as the Planning Board. Board Comments:  Parking is not addressed in these Center articles because the Board wants to come up with a unified solution to parking and not add another bandaid to the problem. Next year the Board hopes to come back with a comprehensive plan for parking in the Center.  It is satisfying to see the Board and Committee working together. Flat blocks of buildings are not what will be seen since setbacks and variations in building designs will allow for step backs in buildings. Audience Comments:  Things look good, but with home occupations why make it “Y” instead of “SP”? Mr. Hornig said it was defined by certain limits and “SP” for small commercial uses seemed unnecessary in a basically commercial district.  There is support for most of the articles, but not ground floor residential uses. Is parking for the residences in the bylaws? Yes.  There is concern that existing views maybe blocked and that would be too much of an imposition on Lexington Place and “SP” maybe needed to prevent that from happening.  Is changing the FAR in a district allowed? Yes.  With the increase in height will there be underground parking? Those options are being explored and the market will determine that.  Lexington Place took two Town Meetings and this is a favorable proposal. The CD process is very expensive and a non-CD development opportunity is important. The Planning Board, Design Advisory Committee and Historic District Commission are good and will help maintain quality.  The owner of the CVS block said that in 1928 the Town sold the building with parking for $60,000 and in the 1950’s the Town bought back the parking lot. The building is currently encumbered by leases and the building could not support another story so redeveloping would not be an option unless the leases are lost. The increase of height and FAR is a good idea, but would the building then be assessed based on the increase in potential? Ms. McCall-Taylor will check that out. How much of an increase in the FAR would it take make it worth while to reinvest?  Assessments for the increase in the FAR on Hartwell Avenue did not go up. The TMMA is concerned with requests for rezoning when the developers do not go forward. Board Comments:  Consider limitation of residential access in the storefront façade. Where will the access be for underground parking and how big will residential access be?  Chances are that underground parking will not be prevalent, and off-site and surface parking will be used.  Any one can send their comments within the next ten days to the planning staff; the Board will deliberate on this matter in two weeks. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the three public hearings at 8:55 p.m. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* 71-79 East Street : The applicant is requesting the replacement of the existing garage with a smaller one. There is a gap of 1½ feet between the home and the garage which makes repairs very difficult. Since it is on the cultural inventory list it will go before the Historical Commission, but staff wanted the Board to be aware of this modification and see if the Board would approve the change. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to determine this is a minor change. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, to approve the minor change to the special permit. 34 Colony Road: The applicant has not submitted a street improvement plan to approve, but is requesting to proceed with the construction of the replacement structure with the provision that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the improvements can be agreed upon with the Board, shown on a plan, reviewed by staff and then formally approved by the Board. Improvements may need to be made to the intervening distance, from the 150 foot improvement down the hill to the public way down, where there is a saw cut, as well as installation of two catch basins at the end of the public way that will tie into the existing drainage system on Colony Road. The Board wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that the Board may require that every standard be met. This action does not constitute a pre-approval of any plan. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to determine that the unaccepted street in the vicinity of 34 Colony Road, is not presently of adequate grade and construction and will need to be improved to a level satisfactory to the Planning Board prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Because road improvements will not be possible until spring due to weather conditions, the Board agrees to grant a waiver of §175-68F(2) & (4), Timing of Construction, to allow a building permit to be issued before the road work is complete. In addition the Board conditions that waiver upon the following:  §175-68F(2) & (4), “Timing of Construction.” The improvements to the way will be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the subject parcel.  The applicant will return to the Board with the Street Construction Plan, for final approval, prior to the request for an occupancy permit at 34 Colony Road.  A waiver from the requirements of §175-68C(3)(c),” Information required in a Definitive Street Construction Plan” is granted except for requiring a Site Construction Plan as detailed in §175-68C(3)(c)[2]. In this case, the Site Construction Plan will provide sufficient detail to ensure that the intent of the Regulation is being met. 29 Fairland Street: The applicant has requested an extension of time to December 1, 2012 for the completion of the required street improvements. When this approval was granted it was anticipated by the Board an extension of time would be requested. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted 5-0, to grant an extension of time for the permit to December 1, 2012. Journey’s End: The applicant has been working with the Planning Department to finalize the completion of Journey’s End and is requesting the release of the remaining $30,600 securing the basic infrastructure work. One issue remains open, the future extension of the walkway that the residents have requested not be installed. The applicant is willing to construct them, although he has done other, additional work for the residents. If the project is deemed complete then there need not be any funds left in escrow. The Board members while wanting to encourage walkways and walking paths do not want to force them upon residents. Concerns were expressed about future residents who do not have a voice at this time. Also noted was one member’s belief that street trees are still substandard and do not meet the standards even though there are more trees. The Board members decided to review this in two weeks. This will allow a review of the plan showing the path as well as give the members time to go visit the site to aid in making a final decision. **********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION*********************** February 29 there will be a public hearing on 2013 and 2027 Massachusetts Avenue and March 14 a public hearing on 186-192 Woburn Street definitive site sensitive plan development. The Board will meet on March 21 at 7:30 p.m. and pencil in meetings starting March 26 for the Mondays and Wednesdays at 6:00 pm before Town Meeting. On February 29 the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a breakfast and focusing on the Center Zoning. ******************************BOARD REPORTS******************************** There is an MAPC Council meeting February 29. Monday there was a kick off of the Magic Meeting Phase II for the suburban transit study. Mr. Canale said there have been large turnouts at the public hearings on the T’s two scenarios. The word is getting out that service is important and that modest increases would be acceptable. There needs to be specific actions taken, such as moving around monies for the upcoming fiscal year. There will be another public hearing in Waltham on March 1, 2012. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 9:50 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. Memorandum from staff for 2 Opi Circle, dated February 10, 2012 (4 pages). 2. Memorandum from staff for 71-79 East Street, dated February 15, 2012 (1 page). 3. Letter from Todd Cataldo regarding 71-79 East Street, dated February 9, 2012 (1 page). 4. Memorandum from staff for 34 Colony Road, dated February 10, 2012 (2 pages). 5. Memorandum from staff for 88-110 Shade Street, dated February 10, 2012 (2 pages). 6. Letter from Robert Dangel and Harriet Cohen regarding 29 Fairland Street, dated February 3, 2012 (1 page). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk