HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-28-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2007
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in Estabrook Hall of Cary Hall and called to
order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Zurlo, Hornig, Canale and planning staff McCall-
Taylor and Henry present. Mr. Galaitsis joined the meeting while in progress.
************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT*****************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Doran Green: Present were Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect, and Mr. Guy Doran and Ms. Elaine
Doran, the property owners. The Board briefly discussed the project, which had been the subject of a
public hearing at the last Board meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 4-0, to
grant the special permit with site plan review for the property known as Doran Green with the following
conditions: the plans will be changed to reflect the changes outlined in the letter from Mr. Larson dated
June 1, 2002 as well as the changes requested by the Town Engineering Department; the provision of an
affordable housing component as outlined in the letter of June 11, 2007 from Attorney John Farrington; a
preservation easement will be granted for the exterior of the house at 168 East Street; and, covenants will
be provided covering the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management systems and the
landscape plans. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board, by a vote of 4 to 0, approved the
definitive subdivision shown in the plans dated March 29, 2007 and titled “Doran Green.”
Grandview Avenue - The Board voted to accept the covenant and endorse the plans for the Grandview
Avenue Subdivision. The subdivision was originally approved in 2000, but had been the subject of
litigation, which has now run its course.
**************************BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS*******************************
Lexington Technology Park - Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that the state, through its Economic Assistance
Coordinating Council, had that morning granted the Town’s application to designate part of Lexington as
an Economic Target Area (ETA). This is the first step in consideration of designating an Economic
Opportunity Area (EOA) with the possibility of negotiating a Tax Incentive Financing (TIF) agreement
with Shire Pharmaceuticals, which is considering relocating to Lexington. Mr. Hornig said that he was
skeptical of TIFs and was concerned about the affect on Hartwell Avenue if the floor area ratio is raised.
Mr. Galaitsis joined the meeting.
Page 2
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007
Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that Don Borenstein, the attorney for the Grove Street development, had
indicated that they would be withdrawing the litigation as well as the conventional subdivision
application once they receive the letter from the Town Clerk certifying that the appeal period on the
modified special permit with site plan review for the cluster subdivision has expired with no appeals
being taken. Mr. Hornig added that the Conservation Commission had again continued its public hearing
on the cluster subdivision.
The staff said that the new downtown parking lot behind the NStar building had opened that morning with
a ribbon cutting. Mr. Henry reported that the CHAPA-sponsored presentation on the tensions between
affordable housing and conservation interests in the use of Community Preservation funds had certainly
confirmed those tensions. He will make the PowerPoint presentation from that program available to the
Board. The Affordable Housing Roundtable was held last night. There was a good conversation among
those in attendance, including Town Meeting members who had voted against the inclusionary housing
amendment. There seemed to be an interest in developing housing to keep young families in town as well
as units that would count on the state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. There will be a follow-up meeting
in the fall. Mr. Zurlo asked if there had been any movement at the state level on making inclusionary
housing mandatory. Mr. Henry said no.
************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT*****************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
11 Suzanne Road - Reduced Frontage Subdivision - Ms. Manz called the public hearing to order at 7:45
p.m. Present for the development team were Mr. Rick Waitt and Mr. Michael Snow of Meridian
Associates, and property owners Mr. Ken Lord, Ms. Sue Lord and Mr. Wayne DiCarlo.
Mr. Waitt began the presentation by stating that the present plan addressed the concerns raised at the
sketch, preliminary, and mid-term submissions. The approach has always been to avoid a conventional
subdivision that would have a street off of Suzanne Road, and instead have two houses with driveways
from Suzanne Road and North Street. The mass of the houses is as previously discussed, with footprints
of 2,950 square feet on Lot 1 and 2,550 square feet on lot 2. The houses will be limited to two floors with
a cellar and an attic and they are willing add a restriction that there be no full dormers. Drainage has been
handled as asked, and the amount of fill was reduced with each submission. The impervious surface ratio
has changed with the reduction in driveways. The gross floor will be 7,300 square feet on Lot 1, and
5,907 square feet on Lot 2. This is within one and a half times the neighborhood profile. The living area
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007 Page 3
proposed is greater than the one and a half times the neighborhood profile with 5,000 square feet for Lot 1
and 4,000 square feet for Lot 2. Mr. Waitt argued that it doesn’t make sense to have a living area less
than two times the footprint. In addition, he pointed out that there were errors in the assessors’ database
that undercounted the living area of houses in the neighborhood and there would be financial difficulties
in building a house with less living area than proposed.
The public benefit is broken down into three projects. The first would be to upgrade the access to Willard
Woods from the North Street lot for a cost of approximately $4,300. The second is an extension of the
guardrail on Adams Street for about 430’ at a cost of $20,000 plus $2,000 for the police detail. The third
project would be reconstructing designated paths in Willard Woods up to a cost of $34,800. The three
projects would total roughly one half of the cost of constructing a subdivision road so would be in
keeping with the Board’s guidelines.
Mr. Michael Snow then highlighted the changes from the preliminary plan. On Lot 1, which gains access
from Suzanne Road, the footprint is the same but moved two feet to the left and the driveway is now
completely on the lot, rather than encroaching on Lot 2. They have not been able to lower the first floor
elevation due to the groundwater level but have kept the grading close to the house by using a retaining
wall. The stormwater management includes diverting the roof runoff to a leaching basin. The limit of
work line is the limit of grading. There is a limit of clearing line as well.
On Lot 2, with access from North Street, the house will be 76 feet from the abutter at the closest point.
Due to the groundwater the house has been raised a half-foot, but the grading remains the same. The
focus has been on saving the trees and supplementing with fairly big trees.
Board Comments and Questions - Mr. Galaitsis asked what was the difference between one and a half
times the neighborhood median and what was being proposed. Mr. Waitt said that the gross floor area
was within the 1.5 times the median, but that the median living area for Suzanne Road was 3,382 square
feet, and for the North Street neighborhood, 3,333 square feet. Mr. Galaitsis then asked if there would be
cellars and dormers. He was told there would be cellars but no full dormers. He said that he did not want
to see windows on four stories and they would need to choose between windows in the cellar or having
dormers. He felt 3,300 square feet for the living area was pretty far from the proposed 4,000 to 5,000
square feet. Mr. Wait said he did not think windows would be an issue.
Mr. Zurlo said the plan was responsive to comments, working with the site, preserving trees and working
Page 4
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007
with the neighbors. He wondered if the benefit proposal had had a formal response from Recreation and
the Conservation Commission. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it had not, but the Development Review Team,
which has staff from both departments, had reviewed it. Mr. Zurlo then asked about the run-off to 9
Suzanne Road. It appeared that there was sheet flow into the wooded area between 11 and 9. Mr. Waite
said the approximately 3,400 square feet of roof area now runs across the land, and with redevelopment
that will go into a leaching basin. There will be about 4,000 square feet in impervious surface that will be
infiltrated now that was not infiltrated in the past. Mr. Zurlo commented that they had crowned the entire
site. Mr. Wait said they have proposed retaining walls to limit the amount of fill. Mr. Zurlo wanted to
retain the jogs in the proposed structures, so wanted to subtract a corner from the building envelopes to
ensure that the full width was not utilized, and to keep the garage set back slightly on the other lot.
Mr. Hornig confirmed that the attic met the definition in the Zoning Bylaw. He asked if the applicant was
willing to state a maximum height above the finished first floor elevation, or were they using the full
height as allowed by zoning. He asked for clarification of the limit of clearing - was there grading beyond
the clearing line, and was the intent to save trees between the clearing and grading lines but not shrubs
and undergrowth? Mr. Snow said yes. Mr. Hornig said there was no gas service to Lot 2 and was told
there is no gas service in North Street. He said he would prefer to see gas service on the plans. He also
did not see the electric service to Lot 1 and felt that the poles shown may require a change in the limit of
work. He noted that the average natural grade on Lot 1 seemed to indicate that it is a basement. Mr. Waitt
asked that the question of how to measure stories be resolved with the Zoning Administrator so that the
hearing could be closed at this session. Mr. Hornig then asked about the drainage on Lot 2. Mr. Snow
responded that there is no outlet, just a depression that functions like a swale, and it would drain dry in 24
hours. Mr. Hornig said that the language in the access easement came perilously close to denying access
from Suzanne Road to Lot 2 and he wanted to remove the “no vehicular access” provision as the owner of
Lot 2 has the legal right to access to Suzanne Road.
Mr. Canale said that between the landscaping plan, the limit of work and the limit of clearing it appeared
it was up to the Board to decide what trees to save in the gray area. He asked if they had looked at the lot
setback areas vis-à-vis the tree by-law. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that this was under the jurisdiction of
the Planning Board and therefore not subject to the tree bylaw. Mr. Canale agreed, but said that it was
good practice to look at the intent. He wanted the guardrail to have wood facing on both sides. He noted
that the scale, massing and height of the houses were a concern. He would like something less than 40’
but that would be a board decision.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007 Page 5
Ms. Manz wanted to confirm that the intent was to do all three projects mentioned as a public benefit and
was told that that was the case. They had received actual quotes on the first two, so knew it was possible.
She suggested removing the first sentence in the paragraph numbered 2 in the easement and pointed out a
typo in paragraph number 1. Ms. Manz said that in a previous decision they had limited the height to 34’
and she was considering the same for this project. Mr. Galaitsis said he wanted a minimum raising of the
basement/cellar floor elevation in order to restrict the amount of grading and raising of ground contours
that would be required for a cellar designation. Mr. Hornig said he was reluctant to set a lower height
limit without knowing the effect. Mr. Zurlo agreed that it would be difficult to impose a restriction with
so many other factors at play.
Audience Comments - Ms. Joan Goldmann, 79 North Street, wanted the mounds staked out to insure their
preservation; Mr. Snow indicated that that would occur before work begins. Ms. Goldmann also asked
that the placement of the new trees be staked so she could confirm the placement. Mr. Snow said he
would be glad to deal with them. Ms. Lord said she was concerned with restricting the person who will
be buying the lot, wondering if would they have to check with Goldmanns when they did landscaping.
Ms. Manz said the restrictions are only on the original placing of trees and the limits of clearing to protect
existing trees. Mr. Donald Goldmann wanted a clarification of how to avoid the mass effect and if there
would there be full dormers. Mr. Zurlo responded that it is just a concept but suggested taking a corner
out of the building envelopes as shown to insure that the buildings would have some jigs and jogs. Ms.
Carol Millard, 85 North Street, wanted to know if there would be traffic-calming measures in this area.
Mr. Waitt asked for an interpretation of the bylaw. If a basement is determined by half of it being above
the level of the adjoining ground he saw no sense in looking at the grade before construction. However, if
they do use the natural grade they are within inches, and they can lower the basement a half-foot without
a problem.
The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Hornig said he was thinking of the following conditions:
no dormers; show the electric line to Lot 1 that doesn’t involve the removal of trees; limit the houses to
two stories with no windows in the cellar; modify the landscape easement so that Lot 2 retains the right of
access as required by 38B; and, a landscaping covenant that requires trees to be retained outside the limit
of clearing, except for sick trees. Mr. Canale suggested that trees of 6” or greater be required to be
retained. Mr. Hornig then asked what did the Board want to do about the floor elevation on Lot 1? Mr.
Canale suggested making it the maximum. Mr. Zurlo said they had committed to two stories and an attic.
Mr. Canale said he wanted to let the owner lower the elevation; therefore they should set a maximum
Page 6
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007
finished first floor elevation. Mr. Zurlo said he also wanted to allow a decrease in the amount of grading
but still have the stone retaining wall. Mr. Zurlo suggested a restriction on the building envelope that
would take out a piece on the eastern edge of the house on Lot 2, and a sliver in front of the garage out of
the envelope on Lot 2, Mr. Canale said that the living area is consistent with the footprint and the gross
floor area is within 1.5 times the neighborhood median. While the living area is not within the 1.5
median, it is just a guideline and with the discussions they have been having about the cluster bylaw, he
thinks this makes senses. Mr. Galaitsis said they need criteria; if the members agree to ignore the policy,
so be it, but it is written down. Mr. Henry commented that buildings have become more efficient over
time and this is getting into interior design. The Board should be looking at the bulk and massing, not the
interior. Mr. Hornig said the bylaw allows them to limit the size, and they are limiting the height and
gross floor area, just not the living area. Ms. Manz felt they were not departing from limiting the size of
the house. Mr. Zurlo said he agreed with that and he was looking at the gross floor area for the reduced
frontage impacts for this particular case. Mr. Canale wanted a condition that would require the guardrail
to be faced in wood on both sides.
It was duly moved and seconded that the special permit under 38-E be approved with the conditions
discussed and the public benefit as offered. The Board voted 5-0 to approve the special permit.
It was duly moved, seconded and voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive subdivision with appropriate
conditions and standards.
88, 92 and 110 Shade Street Ms. Manz called the public hearing on the Shade Street definitive special
residential subdivision to order at 9:50 p.m. Present for the development team were Todd Cataldo of
Sheldon Corporation, Michael Snow of Meridian Associates, and attorney Mark Vaughn. Mr. Snow gave
a brief overview of the project that combines three lots totaling 9.3 acres and will contain a maximum of
20 units in ten buildings. Units will range in size from the 800 square-foot cottage units over the garages
to the Journey’s End mansion. The secondary access on the south campus has been eliminated as the
assistant fire chief has said it is unnecessary. The impervious surface is summarized in the development
table and is close to 18 percent.
Mr. Snow wanted to raise the issue of the interpretation of the definition of impervious surface that talks
about a surface that prevents the absorption of stormwater into previously undeveloped land. He noted
that there were approximately 20,000 square feet of previously developed land, of which 11,000 square
feet would remain. There is a minimum perimeter setback of 25’ and the limit of work is shown. Mr.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007 Page 7
Snow said that the requested clarifications from the Engineering review would be incorporated into the
plans. The footprints are accurate as they were obtained from the architect.
Board Comments - Mr. Galaitsis asked how many dwellings did there have to be before an emergency
second access was required. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that it was for more than ten buildings. She asked
for clarification on the connection of the town houses and Mr. Cataldo said there was a trellis connecting
them. Mr. Galaitsis stated that he did not consider the trellis a valid attachment for two buildings.
Therefore, he concluded that there are 11 structures in the cluster, which would required an emergency
exit and, in turn, impact the Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR). Mr. Galaitsis then asked if the guest parking
and paths were counted as pervious or impervious and Mr. Snow said pervious because they permit
partial water infiltration. Mr. Galaitsis indicated that a partially pervious surface is counted as impervious
by the bylaw, and requested that the ISR figures for the next presentation be amended accordingly.
Mr. Hornig said he wanted the paths to the open space clearly demarcated to avoid exclusive use areas
being created. He asked what was meant by pedestrian-scaled lighting and was told that it was lower
poles, 12’ rather than 20’, and was meant to identify the location of the driveway, not illuminate the entire
area. Mr. Hornig then asked how the roof runoff would be dealt with. Mr. Snow said it was part of the
overall system of infiltration; there was a catch basin for winter conditions and no curbing. Mr. Hornig
said the preservation restriction had been reviewed by a member of the Historical Commission who had
some additional comments. He thought the designation of trees was unclear, as some were marked for
removal and some were not, although it appeared that they would be removed. Mr. Snow said he would
take a closer look at the limit of clearing line. Mr. Hornig would prefer the trees within the setbacks be
preserved. His final question was whether or not the houses would have Shade Street numbers or would
there be a street name? They thought it would have a street name, as there are not enough numbers
available for a Shade Street address.
Mr. Canale questioned the reason for raising the grade along the northern border, as it would interfere
with the preservation of trees. He asked for a figure on the amount of fill and whether it would be net fill
in or out. He asked if there was a possibility of keeping the entire driveway to the mansion as crushed
stone rather than using asphalt from Shade Street to the new garage at the end. Mr. Cataldo said that if
the mansion were purchased as a single unit they could keep the crushed stone but otherwise it would be a
problem with plowing. Mr. Canale asked how the open field would be regraded and how it would be
used as a bio-retention field. Ms. Snow said they would regrade it as part of the storm water system and
there would be layering of material in the ground. Mr. Canale asked if people could play on it, what does
Page 8
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007
it look like, and how much maintenance does it require? Mr. Snow said the area is a shallow depression
about 20’ by 40’ within the 259’ contour. Mr. Canale said that a trellis does not make the buildings one
and then asked about the island in the south campus. It will be grass with supplemental vegetation and
have walkways through it. Mr. Canale said he wanted an easement to the property line to allow access to
a walking trail in the adjacent Lexington Technology Park if such a path is made available. Mr. Canale
commented that most of the trees along Shade Street are within the public right of way, but are the trees
along the driveway to be maintained? Mr. Snow said if they did not have an “x” through them, they
would be retained.
Ms. Manz returned to impervious surface ratio and said she understood that the parking and paths were
not included in the calculation. Mr. Snow said they could be pervious, but Ms. Manz pointed out that
they could not by the bylaw definition. She also stated that a trellis does not an attach buildings. She
asked that the paths and parking be included in the impervious surface.
Audience Comments - The resident of 101 Shade Street asked about the location of the northern driveway
and was told it is in the same location as the existing one. The resident went on to say that the number of
parking spaces for guests was too low and would cause problems on Shade Street. In addition she wanted
to know if units ware allocated for moderate-income people. Mr. Snow said there are no restrictions, but
because of their small size they would be more affordable. The resident at 28 Shade Street asked if the
stone wall along Shade Street would be retained and was told it would be preserved. Ms. Jeanne Canale
of 29 Shade Street asked about lighting and was told there would be four locations with ten to twelve foot
poles. Mr. Bryan Flaherty of 90 Cary Road was concerned about children with the number of cars that
would be added to the roads. Ms. Alison Flaherty asked about the size of houses on the north side. Mr.
Snow said that they would be on approximately half-acre lots and have about 4,500 square feet of living
area.
The Board felt that there were many issues that need to be worked on including the preservation
restriction, the limit of work line, the plan for the preservation of trees, the need for an emergency access,
the trellis attachment, pedestrian trails to the Patriot Partners land, and the issue of pervious and
impervious surfaces. A motion was duly made, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to July 25 at
7:45 p.m. in the Selectmen’s’ Meeting Room.
********************************** BOARD MATTERS*********************************
Due to the late hour the board reorganization was put off until the next meeting. The Board did agree to
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 2007 Page 9
have Ms. Manz continue for the next year as the Board’s representative on the Community Preservation
Committee.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Gregory Zurlo, Clerk