Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-27-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the August 6, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Zurlo abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** The scheduled meeting for September 3 was cancelled. Mr. Zurlo asked if the tally sheet for the LEEDS categories could be reviewed in the time freed up by canceling the September 3 meeting. Ms. McCall- Taylor said she would discourage the Board from adopting their own green standards, as it would be too complicated; the Board should work with what exists and not try to reinvent the wheel. Mr. Hornig requested the Board familiarize themselves with the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF) report. Mr. Canale said the Cecil report had a number of recommendations and the policy questions could help to guide the Board in the upcoming discussions. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** 341 Marrett Road, Definitive Balanced Housing Development (BHD): Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. In attendance were Rick Waitt, John Gwozdz and Brian Timm of Meridian Associates, Ron Lopez, applicant, and Dan Harrington, attorney. There were approximately 30 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig said additional information was received from the applicant, including floor plans and elevations. The Board also received letters from the Sidewalk Committee, Mr. Todd, Ms. Klostermann and Guorong Zhu. The North Shore Construction and Development was now the owner of the property. Mr. Waitt briefly reviewed the history of the application and suggested that the Board had denied the preliminary plan because there was no consensus on what guidance to give the applicant. Mr. Waitt said the definitive plan addressed some of the concerns the Board expressed regarding the preliminary plan the last time they met. He said they could do a conventional subdivision based on the proof plan which would Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 including moving the road to the right, a fairly large amount of grading and significant removal of vegetation or they could do the balanced housing development plan currently before the Board. The site analysis plan shows slopes greater than 15%; historic main house and carriage house, which are under a demolition delay and in poor condition; significant tress; overland flow; soil types and flat area with less vegetation. This site plan had changes to the buildings regarding the location, height, massing, a major limit of work line as well as a minor limit of work line that would allow planting of new materials. Units 1-3 would be each be 2,375 square feet and 32.4 feet high; units 4 & 5 would be 3,169 square feet and a height of 33 feet; Unit 6 would be 2,478 square feet and 31.4 feet high; unit 7 would be 2,410 square feet and 30.6 feet high; Unit 8 would be 2,410 square feet 30.9 feet high. This was a significant reduction from the preliminary plan. The gross floor area (GFA) allowable for this site would be 28,800 square feet. Seven units come in under 2,700 square feet each and nine units under 3,500 square feet each and the only larger unit would be the existing house. The Planning Board had asked for diverse housing and smaller units, which this plan accommodated. Pursuant to a discussion with the Fire Chief, the development entrance would be via an 18-foot wide road, expanding to 22 feet closer to the buildings, which was down from 24 feet and reduced the impervious surface ratio (ISR) for the entire site. In the northwest corner a three-foot wide stone dust pedestrian path to Wachusett Drive was added, following an existing path. The detailed landscape plan showed each unit with a private patio and a 6-8 foot privacy fence. There would be foundation plantings, which were not shown on this plan, to increase the screening to abutters. The drainage shown on the site analysis plan showed the water crossing the property to the abutters on the east and onto Marrett Road. There is no curbing in front of locus and the water rushes from Wachusett Drive and abutters onto the site. A soil analysis was done with 9-10 test pits, which went into wells and there was no water pouring from the wells in heavy rain. Some pockets presented, but no flooding occurred. In order to slow down the water flow, reduce the peak rates and volumes of flow, there would be a swale, which was not included as part of the current drainage plan. Engineering concurred with the plan without this swale. The common open space would be 38-40% without the eastern strip. The location of Unit 3 had been moved 30 feet west and 3 feet south and would be located 80 feet from the nearest structure. Unit 4 was moved 18 feet west and 5 feet north. Units 6-8 were moved slightly north a couple of feet, the angle was Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Page 3 changed, and the units were staggered forward as they went up the hill. The applicant said that instead of the model requested at the preliminary plan meeting they provided cuts and sections. The Board was asked to keep in mind that the density and massing on this site would be less than in an approved subdivision on Shade Street. Architectural renderings for units 1-3 have hip roofs without dormers. While the density of the area with units 1-5 would be higher in this development the density on the site would be much greater if a conventional plan was used instead. In a conventional development the footprints would be larger with heights of approximately 40 feet, and there would be significant grading and vegetation removal. Mr. Waitt said this plan has given the Board what it requested in the newly passed bylaw on special residential developments by providing a variety of housing stock; was it valid to discuss density as well? If so, the bylaw should have been written differently. The grading, landscaping and massing were designed well for this site. He argued that the proposal would be preserving resources and providing more open space by clustering. They would consider realigning the entrance drive to preserve more trees, relocating it over the infiltration system, which would provide more space between the units and abutters. Board Comments: Mr. Galaitsis asked if the new proof plan included the preservation of the existing house. Mr. Waitt said they would not preserve the buildings, but would wait out the demolition delay. Mr. Galaitsis asked whether the developer could achieve a 4-lot proof plan if the main house were preserved. Mr. Waitt said that preservation of the existing house would result in a proof plan with only 3 lots and with no house lot in the eastern pocket of the parcel. However, Mr. Wait added, it was never considered to save the house in a conventional plan. He added that the building height would be 40 feet, there would be substantial grading, removal of vegetation and 25-foot setbacks as opposed to 50-foot setbacks. Ms. Manz asked if the pedestrian path would be handicap accessible. Mr. Waitt said it would not be possible due to the incline. Ms. Manz asked how would the main house and carriage house be treated? Mr. Lopez said they would be renovated and a two-car garage would be added to the rear of the main house. Mr. Zurlo asked if the carriage house needed a tremendous amount of repair or would the developer build it from the ground up if needed. Mr. Lopez said the intention was to preserve and maintain the two and work with the Historic Commission. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Mr. Canale said he appreciated the offer to move the driveway. Mr. Waitt said it made sense to save more trees, but the only issue was that the driveway would be over the infiltration system and they would need to move the water system to a place where there would be no further disruption to trees. Mr. Canale asked where would there be parking for unit owners and their guests. Mr. Waitt said units 1-3 would have a one- car garages and a space outside the unit; units 4 & 5 a two-car garage and no outside unit parking; units 6- 8 would have one bay and a drive that accommodates eight compact cars; the existing house would have a two-car garage and the carriage house had no garage, but four spaces near by. The 22-foot wide drive allowed emergency vehicles to get by parked cars. Mr. Canale asked about a snow removal storage plan and did they expect the Town to plow. Mr. Waitt said there was no snow storage plan and plowing would be left up to the Association to dictate, or the Board could require it in the condominium documents. Mr. Canale asked about the preservation of the current structures and wanted to make sure the integrity of the structures was set forth in a historic preservation agreement. He asked if they had spoken with anyone at the Historic Commission. Mr. Lopez said he had not spoken with anyone from the Historic Commission yet, but the intent was to preserve the exterior as it stood now and the interior would change. Mr. Canale said to have some clarity as to what would be done under whatever conditions during the preservation of these structures. Mr. Galaitsis was troubled by the fact that a) a 4-lot conventional subdivision (with the existing house razed) would result in a 25% of the development (1 house) in the eastern pocket of the parcel, b) a 3-lot conventional subdivision (with the existing house preserved) would result in a 0% of new structures in the eastern pocket of the parcel, while c) the proposed plan concentrated about 45% of new development (5 large units in two large structures) in the eastern pocket of the parcel, resulting in a much greater impact (especially visual) on the abutters at that side of the property. He asked whether the developer would consider (with the main house preserved and the carriage house razed) putting units 4 & 5 in the spot currently occupied by the carriage house and then rotating units 1-3 and shifting them away from the eastern border to mitigate the impact on that side. Mr. Waitt said if they lost a unit they would see how it played out. Mr. Dan Harrington said there would be a conflict since they were bound by what the Historical Commission dictates. How could the Planning Board say to knock down the carriage house? The original plan was to only save the main house, then the neighbors persuaded the Historical Commission to require saving the carriage house as well. Ms. Manz asked to be filled in on the historic significance of the structures. Mr. Harrington said it was part of a grand plan for the area. Olmstead drew up plans and a few houses got built, but the entire plan was not completed. Mr. Hornig said usually the Historic Commission liked to preserve carriage houses that match the main house. Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Canale said he would like to see the drive back to 18 feet at the top of the site. Mr. Waitt said he had to defer to the Fire Chief. Mr. Hornig would like a draft of the easements for the water line and the pedestrian path; move the driveway and show snow removal storage. Audience Comments: Mr. Dave Langseth said the submittal sent to the Board and endorsed by the neighborhood might have inaccurate data. If the Assessor’s numbers were off, the neighborhood might be even less dense then presented in the data submitted. The concern with this plan was it focused on only two aspects of the zoning bylaws and ignored a major requirement that it should fit into the neighborhood. Proposing a cap and reducing density could help to deal with other issues. Ms. Klostermann of 343 Marrett Road said her property cuts into the hill. A structure 30 feet tall on top of the bank would be a large presence overlooking her house. There was also quite a bit of ledge and would they be removing mature growth? If they planned to blast, she wanted some accommodations made to protect her house and the tall evergreens on the property line, for example putting up a construction fence. Ms. Margaret Heitz of 335 Marrett Road, a neighbor on the other side of Marrett Road, said she was in agreement with David Langseth’s submission. What was the intent of the new buildings, would they be influenced by the main house and carriage house; would they be tied in together? Was the driveway becoming a street? She had concerns about the landscaping between her house and units 4 & 5, especially if they would be uprooting many trees as it could cause flooding. Mr. Tom Todd of 345 Marrett Road said if the carriage house was to be completely rebuilt, remove it instead and relocate some of the units there. He was also concerned about spring water flow, which was different from a wet summer water flow. Mr. Peter Shapiro of 11 Wachusett Drive said the preservation of the main house and carriage house should have a covenant covering the intent to retain the structures. Faramarz Jamshich of 355 Waltham Street said the concern was water issues and that the Historical Commission wanted the carriage house preserved. Mr. Waitt asked for the consensus of the Board regarding moving the driveway. The Board members were all in favor of moving the driveway. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to September 24, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Mr. Canale advised the applicant to meet with the abutters. *****************************ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT***************************** The Beal Company: Peter Nichols, Senior Vice President of the Beal Company, Ed Grant, Attorney, and Gary Larson, Joe Gloski, Charlie Kalauskas from BSC were present. Mr. Zurlo said the past meetings on this expansion were always informal and the Board never saw a plan before hand; was there a strategy behind that? Mr. Nichols said that everything was moving so fast, but as soon as they had something more concrete they would provide the Board documents to review. Mr. Gloski said the building would be approximately 165,000 square feet, a roof elevation of 336 feet, 56 feet above the average grade; four stories would be above grade and three stories of parking below with 400 spaces in the garage, and 30 spaces outside. The existing parking ratio was 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the new parking ratio would be 3.4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for a combined 3.8-3.85/ 1,000 square feet. The building would be constructed with brick and glass to break down the mass, a recessed entrance, stepped back upper stories, roof terraces and a possible bridge connection to the Ledgemont 2 building. Mr. Larson they would be encouraging traffic entrance off Hayden Avenue and the address would 97 Hayden Avenue. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if there would be a fire lane required. Mr. Larson said he was meeting with the Fire Chief tomorrow but it had not been an issue in earlier meetings with the Fire Chief. Mr. Kalauskas collected new data for traffic studies focusing on reducing vehicle trips through traffic demand management. They have met with the Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) on ways to mitigate the traffic impact with the intent to get LEEDS certification. Mr. Canale said the 128 Group was looking at 2.5/1,000 square feet as a base for parking spaces and said he did not think 400 spaces would be needed. Mr. Grant discussed the schedule in preparation for a Special Town Meeting scheduled for mid- November. He wanted to file the plans within two weeks, by 9/12/08, at least three weeks prior to a public hearing on October 22, 2008. On October 1 they would like to meet with the Planning Board for Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Page 7 discussions and meet with TMG on September 23. Mr. Canale suggested making the Planning Board the special permit granting authority to offer it the best chance to get through Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk