Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-24-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Canale, Galaitsis and Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the September 15, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Galaitsis asked for reconsideration of the 8/27/08 minutes. Mr. Canale suggested putting a notation of the statement into the minutes from tonight. Further discussion was put off until after the public hearing. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** PUBLIC HEARING 63 Paul Revere Road, Site Sensitive Definitive Plan: The continued public hearing was called to order at 7:50 p.m. Present were Planning Board members Charles Hornig, Richard Canale, Anthony Galaitsis, Wendy Manz, and Greg Zurlo. Attending from the planning staff were Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman. Mr. Fred Russell, engineer, and Mr. Stephen Genova, the applicant, were present at the meeting. Mr. Russell outlined the changes since the last meeting. They included that the utilities had been moved at least 30’ from the large oak; the grading to the easterly property line had been changed as the new house had been raised slightly with a garage underneath; and, the utilities for the existing house would be placed underground. Since the raised house results in less excess material there will be no filling on other parts of the lot that were outside the limit of work. Board Questions and Comments: What were the dimensional maximums being proposed? Mr. Russell said that in order to have some flexibility he would say the height was 35’ with 4,000 sf of living space and 5,500 sf gross floor area for the new house. Mr. Henry suggested the lot lines be moved to minimize easements since there was no frontage requirement or lot circle test for a site sensitive development. Mr. Russell indicated that he would do so if it could be done on the endorsement set of plans, as he didn’t Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 want to hold up the process. The landscape plan shows native species but the numbers need to be updated to reflect the higher numbers mentioned at the last session. The limit of work on the landscape plan needs to be shown on the site construction plan. There was further discussion of the sizes of the existing house and the proposed house. Members cautioned that the applicant needed to include possible future additions now as a maximum square footage would be set. The current house has a gross floor area of 6309 sf, so they would like to have 7,300 sf; the living area is 3,076 and they would like 4,100 sf. While no one was present in the audience, Ms. McCall-Taylor called attention to the printed email from Mr. Horton supporting the project. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing and the Board began its deliberations. A straw poll showed that the members were leaning toward approval of this proposal with conditions, particularly regarding the size of the houses. After some discussion there was agreement to limit each house in size, rather than a combined maximum. The new house would be no more than 5,500 sf gross floor area and the existing no more than 7,000 sf. There would be no limit on the living area in keeping with the new Special Permit Residential Development bylaw that removed any limits on living area, instead using the gross area to regulate the mass of the structure. The Board discussed other standard conditions such as tree protection and operation and maintenance plans for the drainage system. Comments made in the staff analysis memo would also need to be addressed. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 5-0, to grant with conditions the special permit with site plan review for a site sensitive development. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive subdivision with conditions. Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 Page 3 *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** Reconsideration of Minutes: Mr. Galaitsis made a motion for reconsideration of the 8/27/08 minutes. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1-1 (Mr. Hornig opposed and Mr. Canale abstained), to reconsider the minutes of August 27, 2008. There was discussion of what was an appropriate level of detail in the minutes. Ms. McCall-Taylor said if the Board wanted verbatim minutes they would have to hire a transcription service, for which there is no budget. There was general consensus that brevity in the meeting minutes is preferred as long as the scope of the work of the Board was conveyed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1 (Mr. Hornig opposed), to approve the amended minutes of August 27, 2008, with Mr. Galaitsis’s changes. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said the Transportation Mitigation Group met and recommended the Board of Selectmen continue the bike lane on Hartwell Avenue. A meeting with the Beal Company was set for mid-October. Mr. Hornig said the Conservation Commission met. Items on the agenda included a negative request for determination of applicability on 77 North Street, delineation of wetlands at 93 Hancock Street, and mitigations with the Beal Company. Ms. Manz attended the 128 group session. Burlington and Cambridge both gave presentations and have opposite approaches. Cambridge had very specific regulations set up front. Burlington has had luck with no regulations set in stone because a stable staff and Planning Board has resulted in developers understanding what is expected of them and it works. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** PUBLIC HEARING 341 Marrett Road, Definitive Balanced Housing Development (BHD): Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing from August 27 at 9:15 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 25 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig said that the Board had received letters from David Langseth, Peter and Bernadette Shapiro, Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 Lillian Olmsted, Sandra Wood, Tom Todd with other signatures, and an unsigned letter. Mr. Waitt said the changes from the last plan as follows: ?? The driveway was relocated further left on the lot to save trees; ?? All utilities were relocated; ?? Trees added behind the units and around the perimeter (white pines); ?? Revised cross section showing the white pines; and ?? Architectural renderings. Board Questions and Comments: Mr. Canale: ?? Where were the plans for snow storage? ?? Would there be assigned visitor parking? ?? Trees heights shown were for five years from now? ?? Was there any discussion with abutters since the last meeting? Mr. Lopez said each unit has 2-3 parking spaces and there would be five visitor parking spaces, but none assigned. Mr. Waitt said there was ample room on the pavement for snow storage. Mr. Gwozdz said the white pines were now 7-8 feet and in 5-10 years would be approximately 24 feet. Mr. Waitt said to his knowledge there had not been any meeting with abutters since the last meeting. Mr. Zurlo: ?? Explain the driveway shift. Mr. Waitt said there was a utility pole in the way. ?? Was the intention to completely clear the Wachusetts path of snow as noted in the draft deed? The path would be cleared as much as possible. Mr. Galaitsis: ?? Concerned with the heavy concentration of units in one area. ?? Concern if there would be enough parking. Mr. Canale: ?? Require a Historic Preservation Restriction like on Shade Street. Mr. Lopez said it would be a condition of the approval and any variation would require them to come back to the Planning Board and Historic Commission. Audience Comments: ?? If you divided the lot and draw a diagonal line there were eight units on one half and two on the other. It was not fair to the Waltham Street abutters. Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 Page 5 ?? The Planning Board was serving as a reactor not as a planner. The process was not serving the abutters and Town well. The idea of co-housing had been sent to the neighbors, using the existing structure as a common area, but the neighbors never had the chance to meet with the developer and architect to present this idea. ?? This would be a dramatic and fundamental change to the neighborhood and the abutters had no opportunity to discuss it with the developer outside of these meetings. ?? Numbers for the GFA for the existing structures would be over the limit for density of this site if the Assessors numbers were the data used to obtain the neighborhood profile. Comparing the ratio for the existing neighborhood and then the proposed development shows the density being increased for this area. Mr. Hornig said the Zoning Bylaw contains the definition of what was used to determine the GFA. ?? There has been concern if there was adherence to the Zoning Bylaw Section 135-34 B & C regarding size restriction. Densification was not consistent here and this was the first Town project under the new bylaw and Town Meeting was watching with great interest. ?? The project’s density was insane and would impact negatively on the livability, scale and character of the existing neighborhood. ?? There should be a Historic Preservation Restriction Covenant not to demolish the existing structures. ?? The abutters had hoped to meet with the developer and there should be a statutory requirement for the developer to meet with the abutters. ?? A letter submitted to the Planning Board from an abutter was read. ?? Not enough parking would be available and with the path to Wachusetts Drive that would encourage parking on that street. The proposed buildings were not that attractive and the architectural structure should match the existing buildings on the site. ?? The proposed houses would be cookie cutter homes with cheap materials, minimal quality and would not fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. ?? The project was a tumor; don’t let it grow. ?? The Board admitted they could adjust the top number, this was a difficult site to develop and the entire site was not developable so adjust the numbers accordingly. ?? Generally supportive of development, but this proposal would not fit the scale or character of this neighborhood. Allow 4-5 units with one and one half stories, historical style architecturally, six- foot fence wooden fence along back property line and driveway with 10-12 foot evergreens to screen the driveway, blasting protection. Would there be police details in the mornings for traffic Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 concerns? Mr. Waitt said they would accommodate the trees and fence. ?? The Board members seemed to have made up their minds before hearing the abutters; the whole development would be out of character with the existing neighborhood and they should go back to the drawing board. ?? How would the preservation of the carriage house be guaranteed? Mr. Hornig said one condition would be a requirement to preserve both historic structures with constraints on how they could be rebuilt if needed. ?? How would parking be handled if there were parties? ?? An abutter said she was shocked over the last ten years in the destabilizing of neighborhoods one lot at a time. She would like each Board member’s view of this development. Also wanted to know the total GFA of the site. Mr. Zurlo said although there are elements of the proposals which may detract from the livability of a neighborhood there are several criteria by which proposals are judged. Depending on the project type, each criterion would be weighed differently, so missing the mark on one criterion may not be grounds to disapprove a proposal. Mr. Canale said all the stake-holders views weigh heavily, but when the Planning Board brought proposals to Town Meeting to increase the value of maintaining the character of the Town as was, Town Meeting made it clear that this criterion scored low in comparison to the values of other criteria. Mr. Galaitsis said that the proposed GFA conformed with the maximum limits of the Zoning Bylaw; that the Zoning Bylaw controls the GFA, not the number of units. The historic preservation takes up half the site, knocks out one lot in a conventional development and causes the developer to create a concentrated density on a portion of the site in a proposed cluster. In fairness, the cluster should be based on a multiplier of three, not four, but he cannot expect the developer to assume the cost of the lost unit. Possibly CPA funds could be used for this. Ms. Manz said there was trouble balancing competing concerns since it scored well on most of the nine items. This development has sole vehicle access from Marrett Road, historical preservation constraints, difficult topography, which would create an area of higher density on a portion of the site. Members responded that these units were buffered, screened and far enough away from the abutters. This diversity in housing would prevent much larger homes that could be built. The balanced housing development had lower limits then was previously allowed. The developer had complied with these stricter limits and it would be difficult to say this was unacceptable and must be lower. The total GFA proposed for this site is 28,697 square feet. Mr. Canale said he was reluctant to close the public hearing without a historic preservation restriction covenant on the existing structures. Mr. Harrington said they had no intention of taking down either the Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 Page 7 main house or carriage house. Whatever would be required they would comply with. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Mr. Hornig said if the deliberations were not finished tonight they would continue to October 1. Board Positions: Mr. Canale: In the details of conditions it was likely to have better impacts then the conventional development. Mr. Zurlo: It would be difficult approving the development at this time. A model of the area was requested that would show neighborhood context. There was no persuasive argument that had been presented to show it would fit in the neighborhood. If the nine criteria for project approval were applied and the project graded in that manner, the proposal would not get a passing mark. Ms. Manz: What additional information would provide proof? Mr. Zurlo said all the views are from the development looking inward; the correct renderings to not show views from the abutters properties which is the missing evidence The concerns were there, but the inclination would be to approve the development since it met the criteria set out for it such as new limits, diversity in housing, smaller units, clustering and open space. Mr. Galaitsis: There was enough information at this point and the abutters’ rights should not be overlooked. If the historic preservation requires keeping the two existing structures then the proof plan should allow for three units. He could not approve this development as it was. Mr. Hornig: The development positives are preservation of the two historic structures, clusters would be located in the center of the site where we would want it, new structures would be quite low by current standards, a lot of screening, and prefer unit mix, which was quite small. Mr. Galaitsis made a motion to deny the special permit for 341 Marrett Road balanced housing development. There was no second. The motion died for the lack of a second. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk