2005-02-24-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Harden, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Grandview Avenue 40B Plans, DEBCO Properties, Review of Application: Mr. David Burns, DEBCO Properties, was present to show the Board his plans for a 40B development for three parcels of land on Grandview Avenue. With him were Mr. Gary Johnson, architect, and Mr. Doug Miller, engineer. Mr. Burns presented his proposal, which he described as a possible alternative to his previous 12-unit plan, for ten apartments in three structures (five units in one building, three and two in the others) on three lots of land. Three units would be affordable to someone earning 80% of the area median income and would count toward Lexington's DHCD Affordable Housing Inventory. Mr. Burns indicated that he put forth a ten-unit plan when town officials expressed concern over the severe impacts on the neighborhood of the 12-unit plan. The 12-unit proposal is still on the table and would have three units affordable at 50% of the area median income. He said that the Board had approved a three-unit subdivision for this property, but the Board noted that this approval had been appealed by the neighbors and the Land Court had held that the subdivision could not go forward without the neighbors signing the application. Mr. Johnson displayed the current plans, saying that they had worked hard to reduce the size and massing of the buildings, which were designed after the New England village style. He claimed that the buildings complied with the setbacks of the RS zoning designation of the area. He noted the open and play space and the provision of parking for residents and their guests on each site. One of the buildings complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Miller described the storm water management system. A majority of the Board's questions and comments had to do with placement of sidewalk, width of street pavement and the potential for overflow parking on Grandview Avenue. They pointed out the existing difficulty for emergency vehicles in negotiating the turn at the end of Grandview and indicated that street parking would only exacerbate problems of access to the dwellings. Mr. Kastorf expressed concern that an emergency vehicle called to another emergency from Grandview would be delayed getting to the other location by conditions on Grandview. In response to a question, Mr. Burns indicated that he does not intend to improve any part of Estabrook Road. Ms. McCall-Taylor pointed out that the tandem parking proposed does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw: tandem parking is not allowed in multi-family developments. She also expressed concern about placement of the proposed retaining walls along the street and sidewalk. Mrs. Manz asked if the sightlines on Welch Road are adequate for cars exiting Grandview. Many audience questions and comments had to do with the density of the proposal and its attendant impacts. Mr. James LaMarca, 9 Welch Road, described it as 2 ½ times as dense as the surrounding neighborhoods. He presented comparative data using a zoning map he had marked to show the locations of other affordable housing developments in Lexington. He described Mr. Burns's proposal as contrary to the Planning Board's 2002 comprehensive plan and not compatible with Lexington's character. Mr. Gary Larson, a landscape architect engaged by the neighborhood to speak about the 40B proposal in terms of his profession, noted some potential public safety problems related to street width, grade and layout, and a concern about a retaining wall being too close to one of the buildings. He recognized that more engineering information would be available at a later stage in the permitting process but was troubled about the close proximity of the drainage structures to the proposed buildings.