Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF January 3, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Estabrook Room of Cary Hall, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig, Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. ******************************** MINUTES *********************************** Review of Minutes: The Board unanimously approved the minutes, as amended, of December 6, 2006. The minutes of December 13, 2006 were also approved, with Mr. Hornig abstaining as he was not present at that meeting. ************************* TOWN REPORT PICTURE **************************** The Board, along with the Planning Director, posed for a picture to be included in the Town’s 2006 Annual Report. **************** COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PRESENTATION ***************** Resident Michael Tabaczynski of 12 Essex Street spoke to the Board regarding the master planning for a proposed greenway to connect the Minuteman Trail to the Battle Road, the West Lexington Greenway Corridor. The Greenway would appear to be eligible for funding via the Community Preservation Act; therefore the support of the Planning Board, which has a seat on the Community Preservation Committee (the CPC), was being sought. Mr. Tabaczynski represents a coalition of those supporting the proposed project including the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Conservation Committee, and the Traffic Mitigation Group among others. The applicants have requested $125,000 from the CPC to complete the planning and cost estimation necessary to move towards implementation. The Planning Board wondered if a phased approach to the planning would be better, but upon explanation, agreed that since Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 construction would require phasing, it was most economical to complete this aspect of the project as one task. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously to provide the proponents with a letter of support to the CPC. ********* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Suzanne Road, Reduced Frontage Subdivision, Presentation by the Applicant: In attendance to present a preliminary subdivision plan for two lots between Suzanne Road and North Street were design engineer Brian Tims and landscape architect Michael Snow. Mr. Snow began the presentation by presenting the existing and proposed conditions. The plan, as presented, calls for the existing two lots to be reconstituted as a reduced frontage subdivision with both lots claiming legal frontage off Suzanne Road but with Lot 2 being accessed via North Street. Lot 2 has approximately 51 feet of frontage on North Street; not enough to become a buildable lot under conventional dimensional rules but useable for access if legal frontage is attained elsewhere. The proponents have redrawn Lot 2 with an appendage that connects it to Suzanne Road where it expands to the required 75 feet called for under the reduced frontage bylaw thereby making Lot 2 buildable. Board Comments: Mr. Zurlo stated a special permit was discretionary and must demonstrate a benefit to the neighborhood or Town in order to warrant Planning Board approval for reduced frontage as set forth in 135-44A and 175-17B. Even though the Mr. Zurlo stated he preferred a proposal that incorporated two separate entrances, the benefit of this proposal compared to the conventional has not fully been evaluated because the conventional was submitted largely as a Proof Plan without complete investigation by the applicant. Of particular concern for Mr. Zurlo was the use of the reduced frontage along Suzanne Road in conjunction with providing actual access off North Street, resulting in a gerrymandered Lot 2. It was his opinion approval of this shape and lot location will set an undesirable precedent as Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Page 3 property boundaries are not as clearly defined albeit described on paper. In addition to using these provisions together, Mr. Zurlo expressed a need for further interpretation of Section 135- 37.B, which allows alternate access from a non-frontage street, because his understanding was it refers to emergency vehicle access. In context of reviewing the proposal presented, Mr. Zurlo felt the basement and first floor elevations should be evaluated relative to proposed grade elevations to limit the need to bring in new fill to the extent presented. Mr. Galaitsis didn’t believe that the Board had totally agreed that the plan presented was the best version of a reduced frontage subdivision and recalled there being two concepts discussed at a previous meeting. Mr. Galaitsis wondered if the benefit of this plan was splitting the traffic between Suzanne and North, rather than having both driveways off Suzanne Road. As proposed, Mr. Galaitsis feels that another revision is warranted and he echoed previous concerns about the size of the proposed homes, expressing desire to see the new homes in the 100 – 125 percent range of the neighborhood housing size profile, rather than the 150 percent and above currently sought by the applicants. Richard Canale felt the siting of the proposed home on Lot 2 was problematic as well. Also at issue is the proposed height of the homes, the exact nature of the “mounds” on site, and the large amount of fill that would be brought to the site. The protection of the stonewalls bordering the property and Willard’s Woods should be accounted for, as should the retention of the existing path to the Woods. Charles Hornig raised concerns about the possibility of there being cultural and/or historic remains on Lot 2. Also at issue would be the size of the proposed homes. Of primary importance to Mr. Hornig was the amount of fill proposed for the site and the necessity for retaining walls to hold it. The size and height of the proposed structures is clearly a concern. Mr. Hornig felt that the fill would elevate the house above the area and impact the character of the area unnecessarily. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Ms. Manz said that she was not as concerned as the other members of the Board, as she felt that this plan was better than the conventional, but did share the concerns of the members regarding the size and height of the proposed houses, especially on Lot 2. Mr. Zurlo again reiterated his concern over the reduced frontage and access, expressing his desire to hear Town Counsel’s view on the validity of the proposed plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor pointed out that at least one previous subdivision with a similar configuration had been approved by a previous board, after review by Town Counsel. Audience Comments: Mr. Don Goldmann of 79 North Street, an immediate abutter, voiced concerns about the proximity of the proposed house on Lot 2 as well as its height and offered his opinion on where it could be sited to minimize his concerns. Mrs. Harriet Hathaway of 66 North Street said there were many accidents at that corner of North Street and expressed concern over the safety of vehicles accessing or exiting Lot 2. Mrs. Hathaway was also concerned about the parcel’s runoff and the proximity of the pond and brook to the site. She also raised the issue of gravesites on Lot 2. Mr. David Hathaway of 66 North Street rose to reiterate the public safety concerns on North Street. Ms. Claudia Cassettari of 4 Suzanne Road was concerned that Lot 2 could at some point in the future use the Suzanne Road access as a driveway. Ms. Joan Goldmann of 79 North Street stated a concern over the possibility of disturbing a gravesite on Lot 2, although she indicated that some gravestones had already been removed from the area in the course of renovating her home on the adjoining lot, and were currently stored in her garage. Having heard from the public and providing the applicant with several of its own suggestions, the Board agreed to continue the matter until its meeting of January 24, 2007. Doran Green, Preliminary Subdivision Plan – Cluster, Presentation by Applicant: The project was introduced by Attorney John Farrington. Gary Larson, the landscape architect for the project walked the Board and public through the cluster subdivision plan. The proposed plan calls for the razing of the green houses located at 150 East Street and for the parcel to be combined with the two abutting lots on East Street (168 and 172 East Street) to form a clustered Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Page 5 condominium project of eight (8) units on 3.61 acres, incorporating the existing structures at 168 and 172 East Street, supplemented by the new construction of six (6) units. As presented the plan exceeds the bylaw maximum for impervious surface and occupancy impacts. The plan, while dramatically reducing the amount of impervious surface from its present use, remains approximately 1,500 SF above the maximum site coverage percentage of 18 percent. The plan also exceeds the number of allowed occupants by three (3), projecting 29 potential occupants rather than the maximum allowed number of 26 based on the impact figures established by the Planning Department. Attorney Farrington expressed the applicants’ desire for the Planning Board to support their variance request in front of the Board of Appeals for relief on these two factors. He also explained their current thoughts on providing cash in lieu of an on-site inclusionary unit in the amount of approximately $175,000 to $200,000. He offered further that this money could be combined with the payment from the proposed Jefferson Green project so that the Town might have enough to purchase a market-rate dwelling and attach an affordability deed rider to it. He volunteered to help draft such language for the Town at no charge. Mr. Hornig explained that he did not think that the Board could waive the maximums and that they would indeed need to either revise the plan or seek a variance, but he was not inclined to support such a request. This is especially problematic given that the project is at or over so many of the maximums. Mr. Canale concurred with Mr. Hornig and was specifically troubled by the proposed change to the existing house at 172 East Street which was previously presented as a two family but is proposed as a single family home. Mr. Galaitsis was very disappointed with the plan’s evolution from the final sketch. In short, his position was that the preliminary plan does not cluster the units enough and would seem to be a very conventional looking proposal, especially the number of detached single family homes and the presence of large (3400 sqft living area) single family homes in lieu of attached and small household units as called for in the bylaw and development regulations. He then used 8 charts (providing copies of each to Mr. Farrington, the petitioner’s attorney) to elaborate on the following points: Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 ??First, he noted that if conventionally developed, the tract would qualify for a maximum of single-family homes. He said that in reviewing the proposed development he would favor a plan with impacts comparable to those of four single-family homes, as stipulated in the zoning by-law. ??Chart 1 of Mr. Galaitsis’ presentation was the front page of the Planning Board’s report to the Town Meeting with two figures illustrating the type of open space sought by the cluster subdivisions. One figure showed that in a conventional subdivision, the building lots are uniformly distributed over the tract and of nearly equal size. The second figure showed a cluster subdivision on the same tract, with a substantial portion of the tract set aside as open space to one side of the parcel, and with the entire development concentrated on the other side of the parcel. Mr. Galaitsis underscored that the substantial and credible open space mandated for a cluster requires a cluster development to be concentrated (i.e., “clustered”) and not spread over the entire tract. ??Chart 2 was a copy of the proposed development showing that the eight proposed dwelling structures were spread evenly over the entire lot. He stated that the proposed distribution of lots over the entire tract a) Mirrored closely the “Conventional” development of Chart 1, and b) Shared no significant layout features with the concentrated “Cluster” development of Chart 1. ??In Chart 3 (copy of the proposed development) Mr. Galaitsis drew straight like segments halfway between adjacent structures. This resulted in the definition of eight “cookie- cutter” style, nearly equal-sized lots, each containing one dwelling structure. Mr. Galaitsis stated that this situation is typically encountered in conventional subdivisions, but it is not intended for cluster subdivisions. ??In Chart 4 (again copy of the proposed development) he drew attention to the four units proposed for the northern half of the tract. He used arrows to show that these four units were pushed away from each other (contrary to one of the basic cluster tenets), instead of being “clustered” towards each other as intended by the by-law. ??Summarizing charts 1-4, Mr. Galaitsis stated that the layout of the units on the tract is based on a conventional subdivision approach and has little in common with a cluster subdivision. Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Page 7 ??Chart 5 was page 6 of the Planning Board’s “Cluster Development Guidelines” document that is available to all developers from the Planning Office. Guidelines on this page state: - “Not more than a third of the dwellings (buildings) should be detached single family dwellings” - “At least two thirds of the dwelling units should be for small households – as described below” - “Dwelling units for small households are those that do not have more than two rooms designed to be used primarily as bedrooms” Mr. Galaitsis pointed out that: a) The proposed eight structures were detached, therefore, they contradicted the first of the above guidelines; b) At least six of the dwellings were proposed with three or more bedrooms, therefore, they contradicted the second/third of the above guidelines ??Chart 6 was page 7 of the Planning Board’s “Cluster Development Guidelines”. One guideline on this page states: - “Building types that look like single family dwellings but have more than one dwelling unit are desirable” Mr. Galaitsis stated that if the petitioner desired eight units on the parcel, he might consider using this guideline in his proposal, provided that average unit size is much smaller than proposed. ??In Chart 7, Mr. Galaitsis suggested that the four detached units on the northern portion of the parcel are conventionally sized because of their 3400 sqft or more living area per unit. Therefore, he claimed, these four units by themselves already impose the impact of a four single-family home conventional subdivision on the site. He suggested that the petitioner consider eliminating two of these large units to achieve a comparable impact with a four single-family home conventional subdivision. ??In Chart 8, Mr. Galaitsis suggested that, if the petitioner’s prime goal was to have eight units on the tract, he could consider dividing each of the two large units remaining on the northern portion of the tract into two smaller units. In conclusion, Mr. Galaitsis stated that a cluster development would be both suitable and desirable for this site but the proposed plan must be revised significantly to gain his support. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Mr. Zurlo voiced his support of the preliminary plan. He stated he supported a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the impervious surface ratio presented based on the applicant presenting an affordable unit component as part of the project. He stated his expectation was the Board will hear more Cluster proposals should the Inclusionary By-law article pass at Town Meeting and it makes sense to support slightly greater density for the creation of affordable units. Because the increase the ISR factor is only slight he expressed his preference to have it reduced to comply. Mr. Zurlo stated the plan presented uses the definition of Open Space better than many other Cluster proposals presented in the past year because of deliberate definition of the open space, the use of two separate open space areas, and the delineation and construction of the public path access. The open space here is not being proposed from the residual area created by limit-of- work or buffer areas. Although he expressed an appreciation for the housing types presented which assists in maintaining modest house size inventory, Mr. Zurlo stated it was a better proposal when the two small units were shown to remain at the previous hearing. Ms. Manz also liked the plan, but did ask about the width of the driveways as it would appear they are narrower than what the Fire Department has allowed for under previous plans. Mr. Larson agreed to check with the Department on their width requirements. The Board then discussed the applicant’s request for support at the Zoning Board of Appeals, which it did not feel inclined to do because the applicant could revise the plan to come in under the amounts. Diane Johnson of 136 East Road expressed her feelings that the plan was too dense for the area. Donald Husman of 8 Holmes Road was concerned about an existing catch basin on site that leads to the rear of his property and how the proposed development would impact this pipe. Applicant responded that the pipe would be removed and on-site drainage should be dramatically improved Minutes for the Meeting of January 3, 2007 Page 9 from present conditions. Larry Kernan of 7 Doran Farm Lane voiced his support of the plan. Martha Groves 144 East Street also supports the plan. The applicant then requested an extension of time for the Planning Board to act of 45 days. This motion was duly made, seconded and passed unanimously. The matter was continued to the Board’s meeting on January 24, 2007. PINE MEADOW FARM – Surety approval: The Board set the amount of surety at $126,272 for completion of the street and municipal facilities for the Pine Meadow Farm Subdivision as the amount of surety is sufficient to complete the remaining improvements and infrastructure in the approved subdivision. The motion to set the surety amount was duly made, seconded and voted unanimously. GROVE STREET SUBDIVISION: The applicant is seeking an extension of 10 days from both the Town and the Court in order to complete required work. A motion to accept this extension was made, seconded and approved unanimously. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk