Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Canale, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent and Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. ***************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************* Design Advisory Committee: In attendance were Ginna Johnson, Betsy Whitman and Colin Smith. Mr. Smith spoke for the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) with the following recommendations to the Planning Board. ?? Engage a consultant to assist the Planning Board in the creation of planning and design guidelines. ?? Permitted uses for manufacturing and office supported by personal service businesses. ?? Encourage mixed uses. ?? Dimensional Controls front setbacks to 40 feet; side yard unchanged; and rear yard 30 feet. ?? FAR base should be .30 FAR and increase based on the level of LEED standards implemented. ?? Maximum heights base four stories and 52 feet and could increase with new buildings with underground parking and sloped roofs and another increase with stepped front yard setbacks beyond 80 feet. ?? Change the office parking requirements to one parking space per 333 square foot. ?? Traffic recommendations determine funding sources, a comprehensive mitigation plan and development of the West Lexington Greenway. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The Board discussed the DAC recommendations. Mr. Hornig thanked the DAC for their time and input. Mr. Canale said he hoped they would be attending the public hearing next week on the Ledgemont Center rezoning to offer input. *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** The discussion of the minutes would be put off since Mr. Zurlo did not get his changes in until 6:30 p.m. today and Mr. Galaitsis was not present. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 15, 2008 ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** Mr. Hornig said the Board discussed holding a public meeting in the fall to present the main points of the Board’s progress regarding the Commercial Development on Hartwell Avenue and elicit feedback from the public. The forum would take place on Saturday, November 22. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that the Board plan on a second session regarding the Ledgemont rezoning. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Lexington Hills withdrew their request for lot releases. 341 Marrett Road, Sketch Plan: In attendance were Rick Waitt, and Brian Timm of Meridian Associates, Ron Lopez, applicant, and Dan Harrington, attorney. Mr. Waitt said that they had withdrawn the previous plan and are back with a sketch plan with several different options. The sketch plan includes the Balanced Housing Development (BHD) options and the proof plan. Balanced Housing Development Options A-C would have nine units. In Option A the duplex units were stepped, in Option B the units would be on a level plane and Option C would have the carriage house removed. If the conventional option were used there would be increased clearing and the grading would be more severe. The architectural structures of the BHD would have hip roofs, windows and shingles resembling the existing structures and the height would range from 30-33 feet maximum. Board Questions and Comments: Mr. Canale ?? BHD Options A-C - do they have the same GFA? Mr. Waitt said they have approximately 1,500 square feet less GFA than the ten-unit plan. ?? There was lack of communication with abutters in the past, what has changed? Mr. Waitt said they met with four representatives from the neighborhoods. While the meeting was cordial the neighbors would prefer more of a reduction and were not willing to support any particular plan. Mr. Zurlo ?? The first choice would be Option B and second choice would be the proof plan. With the conventional plan the homes would be similar to the surrounding neighborhood. ?? Eliminate one townhouse and divide the main house into two units. Mr. Harrington said that could not be done. This plan was totally in compliance with the new bylaw, please be sure to Minutes for the Meeting of October 15, 2008 Page 3 apply the new rules to these plans. Ms. Manz ?? Pleased with the option showing somewhat reduced impact on abutters, but felt it would be unfortunate to use the proof plan. ?? Liked Options A or B, but felt Option A would be less intrusive on abutters. ?? Not realistic to expect this development to be invisible to the abutters. It seemed to be a reasonably designed plan and having smaller units was good. Mr. Hornig ?? Preferred the ten-unit plan because Options A & B have larger units. ?? Accept the Historical Commission’s determination that the buildings should stay. Audience Comments: ?? At the meeting only saw Option A, a letter was sent to Mr. Lopez and the Planning Board. The preference would be Option A since it would pull the units to the center of the site, it removed one unit, and preserved the existing building; however, they could get more money from a duplex then triplex. ?? Option A would be the best and this would be a good time to determine which trees were Norway maples and which were sugar maples. ?? There are three neighborhoods involved and there has been concern with traffic; fewer units would be better. The aesthetics were moving in the right direction; this could be an ideal situation for a co-housing development. ?? Option A would be the preference; what would be the unit heights? Would prefer the back of the building to have fewer windows and balconies. Mr. Waitt said the height would be the same as in the ten-unit plan and the windows would be the standard window size as in existing homes. ?? A conventional plan would be highly damaging to trees. How many trees would be taken down in each option? Mr. Waitt said he did not have a count here, but it would be a little less than in the ten-unit plan and if the conventional plan were to be done it would have at least 100% more trees taken down. ?? What would be the parking situation with the new options? Mr. Waitt said Option A would have 35 spaces, Option B would have 34 spaces - almost 4 spaces per unit, and the ten unit plan would have 28 spaces. ?? Options A & B were moving in the right direction especially regarding aesthetics. If the applicant proposed an eight-unit plan they would get neighborhood support. Please call attention to the energy efficiency of Journey’s End. Earlier neighborhood participation would have resulted in a Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 15, 2008 better project. ?? What would be the historic preservation requirements? Mr. Hornig said it would be only on the exterior of the structure. Mr. Waitt said he did not know where this would lead since the project required 4 out of 5 board member votes. He would like some guidance to file a definitive plan and, lacking a clear consensus of where to go, he is concerned that it could go to a conventional plan. Board Positions: Mr. Canale ?? The Board takes the new bylaws extremely seriously and the ten-unit plan did not meet the standards of the new bylaws, the conventional plan would not be desirable, and there would be no value to Option C. Options A & B were better then the ten-unit plan. Mr. Zurlo ?? In Option B the size of units 1 and 2 increased; why weren’t they kept the same size as in the ten- unit plan? If a townhouse unit were removed an increase in the size of the other units would make up some of the value. The development fell short of the nine criteria it needed to meet and it could be better to go with the conventional plan if they are unable to bring down the number of units. Mr. Hornig ?? Draw their own conclusions about how to proceed. If doing a BHD it could go to the definitive stage, but if a conventional plan they should proceed with a preliminary. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it would be hard to write a sketch letter without further guidance. Mr. Waitt asked if they reduced the units back to 2,500 square feet would they support a nine-unit plan. Mr. Zurlo said it was not the nine units that were the issue, but since he would not be able to get viewscapes from the abutters’ perspectives the only tool left would be to remove a unit since there would not be enough evidence to determine the impact on the neighbors. Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz were comfortable with Options A or B; Mr. Canale was a little less comfortable with them, but thought they could work, and Mr. Zurlo preferred Option B with changes, otherwise he felt that the conventional plan should be considered. Minutes for the Meeting of October 15, 2008 Page 5 ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Scheduling a site visit to Ledgemont - Mr. Canale and Mr. Hornig would be available Saturday mornings, Mr. Zurlo would be available Saturdays October 25 through November 22 or Friday October 24 & 31 in the morning. Mr. Zurlo said the EDTF and Planning Board function went well, had a good turnout and got people talking. Mr. Hornig said the Conservation Commission was considering some changes to 960-990 Waltham Street regarding the drainage plan. Mr. Canale said the Bicycle Advisory Committee celebrated the induction of the trail into the National Bicycle Trail Hall of Fame. Mr. Hornig said there was a celebration of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s acceptance of Lot 1 and Journey’s End celebrated its Energy Star and LEEDS status. Ms. Manz said the Chamber of Commerce voted to support the Beal project. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk