Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-13-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION ************************** Rowland Avenue Extension, Release of Covenant: The applicant requested a release of the subdivision covenant having completed the construction of the extension of Rowland Avenue and providing the As- Built Plans as approved by the Planning Board under subdivision control. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to release CDR Realty Holdings LLC and Rowland Avenue Realty Trust from the provisions of the covenant executed by CDR Realty Holdings LLC and William E. Palant, Trustee of Rowland Avenue Realty Trust, on November 8, 2005 and recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in Book 46657, Page 197. ***********************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY***************************** The Board discussed the Hartwell Avenue site visit made Monday, August 11. Ms. Manz said she was surprised that there was less then expected traffic on Hartwell Avenue. She spoke with Town Manager Carl Valente who was amenable to the idea of trying to obtain more funds for traffic studies. She recounted that Selectman George Burnell said that unless you brought it up to the $100,000 figure you would not get anything more. Ms. McCall-Taylor explained that they were not looking at an intersection design, which would be expensive, but could put the money towards other information that would be useful for this project. Mr. Canale said the Cecil Report had some specifics on infrastructure improvements and mitigations that would be needed. Mr. Galaitsis said it was good to complete the tour so he could better appreciate the single and three story buildings and how to accommodate increasing development efficiently. He indicated that increased traffic resulting from increased development might require some of the currently unused right-of way for extra lanes. As a result, he wondered whether the changes could be implemented in two steps: first, increasing the floor area ratio without decreasing setbacks: and, second, increasing the floor area ratio further while reducing setbacks if needed in the future. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** PUBLIC HEARING 63 Paul Revere Road, Site Sensitive Definitive Plan: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. on 63 Paul Revere Road. Mr. Fred Russell, engineer, and Steve Genova, the applicant, were present at the meeting. There were six people in the audience. Mr. Russell said that he had revised the graphic depiction of the trees to be relative to their actual sizes, trimmed back the grading on the site construction plan, added easements under the driveway, widened the driveway to 18 feet along the common portion, revised the landscaping, added more native vegetation and removed the terrace in back of the second house, which would have required approximately 700 cubic yards of cut. Mr. Canale asked for the data on the maximum house size. Mr. Russell said it would be 5,000 sf gross floor area (GFA) and 3,500 sf living area (LA) for the new house and the footprint would be approximately 1,800 square feet. The neighborhood profile shows a GFA of 4,947 sf and living area of 2,700 sf. Mr. Canale asked if all the applicant was committing to was site coverage and number of stories. Mr. Zurlo said the maximum living area on the plans would be 3,650 square feet on the new house. Mr. Genova said it would not exceed 32 feet in height. Mr. Henry said to the applicant to make sure they were measuring per the bylaw. Mr. Russell said they would be cutting, so it would be measured from the finished grade. Mr. Canale asked how many trees diameter-wise were they cutting and what was the replacement. Mr. Russell said they would be removing eight mature trees and replacing more than what would be removed. Mr. Canale asked if this were a caliper for caliper replacement. Mr. Russell said they were using the 2.5 standard for replacement. Mr. Canale asked if the utilities were still going through the trees? Mr. Russell said they moved the electric service approximately 10 feet, between the water and sewer under the driveway. Mr. Hornig said the drip line was still well over the driveway. Mr. Russell said he could probably move it a little more towards the house. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the foliage diameter of the trees was under-represented in the landscape sketch. He asked for a more realistic size of drip lines in future submissions. Mr. Canale asked if they were removing 710 cubic yards how many trucks would be used? With each truck 30-35 cubic yards would be removed, so approximately twenty trucks. Mr. Genova said he would like to use some of the fill to flatten some areas. Mr. Hornig said that appeared to be outside the limit of Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 Page 3 work so the Board would need new plans showing that change. Mr. Zurlo said in the rear of the house they might get greater area for the back yard if they remove the major part of the wall by the house. Mr. Russell said he could slope more but now there were two useable terrace areas. Mr. Zurlo said he would prefer to keep the natural contours as much as possible, even if it meant regrading after to return to the existing grades. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the proposed grade was the straight line around the house at 308 feet and was that how the house would actually look? He said wanted to ensure that the two and a half story house shown in the plans with only dormers above, an invisible basement and the garage below grade, would not be replaced by house that looked like a three and a half story building. Mr. Russell said that the relationship of the first floor to the finished level was accurately represented in the drawing. Mr. Hornig said he did not want to see overhead utilities. Mr. Russell said they would be underground for the new house. Mr. Hornig also wants the utilities a good 30 feet away from the trunk of the tree, under existing pavement would be fine. He noted that if the grade is changed in other areas of the site, it must be within the limit of work and accounted for in the drainage plan. Audience Comments: Ms. Janet Defore of 31 Columbus Street asked if the front existing house was staying? Yes. Where was the retaining wall? She was also concerned with the foliage. Mr. Russell said it would be 50-60 feet from the lot line to the limit of work and was not likely to be seen from the neighbors. Mr. Hornig said you might see it through the trees in the winter. Mr. Genova said there were a lot of pines and you may see a roofline but it was on the other side of the slope. Mr. David Horton of 68 Paul Revere Drive said the plan looks fine. He liked the renovations already done and supported the plan. Mr. Lionel Fray of 2361A Massachusetts Ave. wanted to know how the height of the new house related to his. Mr. Hornig said it was two and one half stories and 32 feet instead of 40 feet. Mr. Fray wanted to know if the house could be lowered. Mr. Russell said this house would be 16 feet below the highest elevation on the lot and there would be 150 feet between the houses. Mr. Zurlo said to reduce the amount of cut and move closer to Paul Revere Road. Mr. Canale said this Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 plan would avoid a bigger house on a subdivision street and was 32 feet high instead of 40 feet with minimized impacts. Mr. Zurlo said to move the house a few feet and orient it toward the contours or rotate the house, but not the garage. Mr. Hornig said some of the issues to address were as follows: ?? Garage and driveway grading will affect drainage; ?? Using soil removed from one area as fill elsewhere on the site will affect drainage; ?? Grading in rear- how much and where; ?? Utility rerouting; ?? Underground utilities for existing house; ?? A way to disturb site less by having house set into the hill. Mr. Zurlo said the rear retaining wall should remain as a feature of the property while removing the wall running parallel to the house and bringing the grade back to the house, creating a sloped back yard. Mr. Genova said he made the cut to have a useable yard. Ms. Manz said she was concerned the Board was going to a level they do not need to go to. Backyard design was up to the landscape architect. Unless it involves substantial cut or fill or imposes on neighboring properties, it is not our jurisdiction. Mr. Hornig said the current plan was not approvable. He wanted to allow the applicant to change the plans so the Board can make a decision. Mr. Russell wanted specifics for the rear yard since he thought he had complied with the requests from the preliminary decision. Mr. Zurlo said they could go further in protecting the site. Having one area of slope would be better then two areas of slope. Mr. Galaitsis said knowing that internal setbacks could be waived might allow them to explore rotations or change the placement. Mr. Hornig asked how long it would take to get revised plans? Mr. Russell said by September 5, 2008 he would have them to staff. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to September 24, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. 48 Summit Road; Mid-term Review: Mr. Fred Russell, engineer, and Yuan-Shion Tung, the applicant, Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 Page 5 were present. Mr. Russell said the revised plans were made in response to the Board’s comments from the last meeting with changes to the turn around design, water looping, the amount of mitigation needed and removing the walking path, which abutters did not favor. He was now looking for guidance. Mr. Russell said that since the Preliminary Subdivision Plans were approved zoning had changed and the applicant was now going in the direction of the site sensitive development (SSD). Ms. McCall-Taylor said she did not recall the neighbors being opposed to a pedestrian path, only to a through road. Mr. Russell said if they went with a site sensitive development there would be a lot less disturbance, grading and loss of vegetation. Board Comments: Mr. Hornig: ?? The site sensitive development was a better option; ?? Improvements would have to be done to Summit Road, including widening it to 18 or 20 feet and creating a turnaround of some sort at the end; and ?? Put in a pedestrian/bike path. Mr. Canale: ?? On the surface it seemed obviously better; ?? See no reason for wider streets than necessary. Ms. McCall-Taylor said she took the proposal to DRT and the Fire Chief said a driveway was fine, but the private way part of Summit Road is 16 feet and needed to be 18 feet. Ms. Manz: ?? This plan would be preferable and go with the recommendations of the Fire Chief wants; and ?? Add a pedestrian path. Mr. Henry said he was not sure what the Town was doing regarding the water and needed to know how they would be coordinating this issue. Mr. Hornig said Summit Road was currently a private road and asked if this would this be the last chance to make any improvements to the road. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that depended on if it were a subdivision or SSD. She was not sure but this could be the last opportunity to require improvements to Summit Road. Mr. Galaitsis summarized his position as follows: ?? Agreed the SSD would be the way to go for minimum disturbance of this difficult site; ?? Surprised the Fire Chief did not require a broader pavement for an easier backing-out of emergency vehicles; ?? Pointed out that the long building is shown near the peak of the site, and that the curvature of the site needed to be accounted for carefully to avoid the look of a very tall-looking house; Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 ?? Asked for cut away sections of the site and the footprint as it would be built; ?? Asked for pedestrian pathway connection; and ?? Stated that improvements to the existing road would be nice. Mr. Russell asked if they could file a definitive SSD plan. Mr. Hornig said the Board would consider this the sketch. He advised Mr. Russell to consult with the staff and address the issues and then file the preliminary plan. Lexington Hills, Release of Lots and Change in Plans (sewer): The applicant requested a modification to the definitive approval to allow a gravity sewer system. There was a motion made to consider the change a major modification, which would require a public hearing. Mr. McCord, attorney, Mr. Joe Casey, construction consultant, Mr. Habib Aminipour, applicant and Mr. Lerman, Trustee joined the meeting. Mr. McCord said this parcel was all part of the Middlesex Hospital in Lexington and Waltham and had the sewer lines and connections since 1932, which serviced all the hospital buildings. Mr. McCord explained the history of this property and said he would provide the Board with a letter detailing the information presented regarding the property and all supporting documentation, including the deeds regarding the sewer use and connections. All the deeds talk about the right to connect to the sewer. Some questions came up about how they could connect to the sewer. He maintained that the rights to connect existed and still do. The original pipe was never disconnected and they just wanted to replace and update the old pipe, not create a new connection. Lexington would provide the water and Waltham the sewer pipes and therefore should receive some benefit. There would need to be an inter-municipal agreement worked out specifying who would get what money. Mr. Hornig said there needed to be a letter providing this information for the board’s records. There was a concern at the hearings as to whether Waltham agreed with the analysis, and documentation from Waltham would be required. Mr. Henry said he got a letter from Town Counsel that Waltham was opposed to this connection. Mr. Hornig asked whether an inter-municipal agreement would be needed. Mr. McCord agreed that Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 Page 7 would be an appropriate way to go. Mr. Hornig said that Town Counsel did not agree with Mr. McCord and felt that he could not adequately guarantee that services would not be discontinued. Mr. Aminipour said he had applied to the Lexington DPW and received a letter that he could connect. Mr. Hornig said Town Counsel said they could not guarantee there would be no changes to the sewer services and the Board must protect the rights of the future owners. The staff said this should be considered a major change. The motion on the table is for a major change. Mr. McCord asked who would initiate the process? Mr. Hornig said to work with staff to apply and then hold a public hearing. The motion for the change proposed is was a major change, which would need to go through the appropriate process. The condition in the special permit required the approval of Waltham. Mr. Lerman said he was in communication with Town Counsel and that he had the right to connect through the right of an easement. Town Counsel was working on a draft for an inter-municipal agreement. If both parties agree then there would be no need for a major change. Mr. Lerman was asking the Board to accept or reject the application. Mr. Henry said that §175.55 of the Development Regulations states that the covenant shall provide the future households with access to utilities. In absence of the agreement with Waltham, the Board cannot go beyond this point. Mr. Canale said the alternative would be to make it a minor change and reject the plan since it was not covered in the Certificate of Action. Ms. Manz said that the procedure for considering a major change provided a method to show the Board that sewer service would be available. She suggested that the applicant hold off applying for changes until you have an agreement with Waltham in place. Mr. Galaitsis said Town Counsel felt that there would not be enough assurances of a lawful connection and a document in writing as evidence would be required. As a result, until the documents required by the Town Counsel are submitted, and the Town Counsel’s objections to this approach are retracted, Mr. Galaitsis said that he would not be able to support the petitioner’s request. Mr. Zurlo would prefer not to have a minor/major conversation but rather see an agreement. Mr. McCord said they would like to withdraw their request for the Board to take a position tonight. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the withdrawal of their request and allow the applicant to come back to the Board when they are ready. Mr. Canale withdrew his motion. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of August 13, 2008 ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested scheduling the public hearing on the Development Regulations on September 10, 2008. September 24 is the continued public hearing on 63 Paul Revere Road. Mr. Zurlo suggested there be a public outreach event with Vision 2020 and the Planning Board for the sharing of goals and the Economic Development Task Force’s (EDTF) final report. He was thinking the first week in October perhaps on Saturday, October 4. Mr. Canale said it would be good to let other groups own part of this process. The Board would try to keep September 17 free if possible. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*************************** Mr. Zurlo said he went to the Climate Action Plan Committee and discussed their motion for 100% carbon neutral footprint. They discussed some targets, and what the motion really meant. Mr. Zurlo said that the EDTF is issuing its final report this Friday at its last formal meeting. Mr. Canale said the Beal Company is meeting with the Traffic Mitigation Group this month. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk