Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-05-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Ms. Manz was absent and Mr. Galaitsis arrived at 7:50 p.m. *********************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT********************** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/2007-2, 12 & 16 Solomon Pierce Road: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 12 & 16 Solomon Pierce Road. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land Located in Lexington, Massachusetts, dated August 7, 2007”, prepared and certified by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc., Registered Land Surveyor, Danvers, MA, submitted with Form A/2007-2 by Bernard L. & Ann M. Huang, applicants, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ****************************** STAFF REPORTS*************************************** Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Board members had received in their packets information regarding upcoming meetings including the Walkable Community Workshop on September 26, 2007. There was also a memorandum regarding the Attorney General’s approval of the bylaws from the 2007 Annual Town Meeting. ************************* ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS******************************* The Board reviewed the petitions that would be before the Zoning Board of Appeals in September. 20-24 Garfield Street - On a motion duly made and seconded, 3-0, it was agreed the Planning Director would send a letter to the Board of Appeals regarding 20-24 Garfield Street, outlining that once a special permit is granted allowing reconstruction of a non-conforming structure, the structure is not non- conforming and cannot use §135-29 that would permit expansion outside of the required setbacks. 727 Marrett Road (Starwood Element Hotel): The landscape plans have been changed to use native plants in keeping with the efforts of the developers to gain LEEDS certification. Member agreed that this Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 5, 2007 was not a major change that required reevaluation. Regarding the sign, the Planning Board would like to see a report from the Design Advisory Committee (DAC). Mr. Zurlo said he would get a report from DAC in time for the Planning Board meeting on September 26, 2007. Mr. Galaitsis arrived at 7:50 p.m. and joined the meeting in progress. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board deferred discussion of the minutes of August 15, 22, 27 along with July 11, 2007 until the meeting of September 26, 2007. An electronic copy of these minutes will be forwarded to the Planning Board members to facilitate editing. ******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES******************************** SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Mr. Canale recused himself in anticipation of submitting an application for a reduced frontage subdivision for his property at 29 Shade Street. Types of Developments - 1) Site Sensitive: This development would have the same number of units as a conventional subdivision without requiring the minimum lot size and frontage (includes the reduced frontage subdivision). The only two limits are the number of units and impervious surface based on the proof plan. The issue of needing to waive lot size and perimeter setbacks was questionable. Mr. Hornig said that just waiving the frontage would be adequate just like a reduced frontage subdivision plan. Mr. Henry said that this concept provides flexibility and has no bonuses so it won’t be abused. 2) Impact-Based: Provides a variety of housing types and sizes. Consider requiring a certain percent of smaller units. 3) Development of Significant Public Benefit: This type of development has an affordable component, which offers the developer the option to have increases in the maximum factors by a fixed percentage if affordable housing is provided. For instance allow an increase in all maximum factors of 25% if at least 20% of the units are affordable to those with incomes equal to or less than 80% of the AMI, or at least 50% of the units are affordable to those with incomes equal to or less than 100% of the AMI. Minutes for the Meeting of September 5, 2007 Page 3 Impervious Surface - The calculations are based on the proof plan to derive a maximum square footage. In Impact-Based Developments, the development would have a total square footage of impervious surface for the entire tract. These calculations are derived by applying the percent for lots on the proof plan as for a conventional subdivision, converting it into square feet, and then adding the square footage of the fully complying roads and sidewalks shown on the proof plan. In site sensitive development there will be two figures, the maximum dwelling impervious surface and the maximum total impervious surface. The maximum total impervious surface is same as that for a Impact- Based Development. The maximum dwelling impervious surface is based on the impervious surface allowed on the lots of the proof plan. Having two figures means that developer cannot take impervious surface not used for access (interior drives and sidewalks) and use it in dwelling units. Mr. Hornig said only the total impervious surface is the issue. Mr. Galaitsis disagreed saying any space saved when the Planning Board allows less than standard-width roads should be left green. Therefore, he asked that the two limits be applied separately. Mr. Hornig said site coverage limits would cover that. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the current proposal would not have site coverage limits. Mr. Zurlo said he does not want impervious surface not used in a roadway converted into a house. Mr. Hornig said he saw site disturbance being controlled by impervious surface limits and unit building mass limited by gross floor area. Mr. Zurlo said redefining impervious surface to deal with site disturbance might be beneficial. In response to Mr. Zurlo’s comment, Mr. Henry said that impervious surface is intended to mitigate the effects of storm water but is now also serving as a proxy to limit land disturbance. With the current technology and science available to handle storm water it is possible to have post land development with better recharge rates then before it was developed. The Board needs to be clear about what its intended purpose is in limiting impervious surface. - Open Space RequirementsEliminate the “usable open space” requirement since it will be provided in response to market concerns and increase the percentage of open space to 33% of the developable area. The minimum required open space should be comprised of upland area. Mr. Hornig suggested leaving wetlands out and setting the open space as a percent of the developable area. Mr. Zurlo said you could have varying levels of activity that might warrant including the wetlands as part of the open space, for instance viewing purposes. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 5, 2007 Height - Limit to 35 feet and two and one half stories. Development Impact Factors - Use only a few measures based on data easily obtained and updated. Eliminate living area, site coverage, occupancy, and trip generation. Utilize gross floor area (GFA) and number of bedrooms. Mr. Hornig said that a bedroom quota would be eaten up with the affordable units; the number of bedrooms would be the driving limit and would work against diversity of units. Mr. Galaitsis disagreed and said a benefit/incentive in a cluster is a higher number of units and the total impact is important to him. Mr. Hornig said if you want to minimize the impact you should just have larger units and fewer of them. He felt the goal is not to minimize the impacts, but to encourage diversity. - Impact NumbersRevise the multiplier by making the multiplier then number of units in the proof plan. The new factors would be based on the average size home from new construction. The current factors are th based on the 75 percentile. The chart provided in the memorandum included the updated figures and the Board discussed the updated factors. Ms. McCall-Taylor then asked each board member to state what he wanted the special residential development to do. Mr. Hornig said he wanted something sensitive to the site with a variety of housing sizes. He is only concerned about the size of the house, not the number of bedrooms. Mr. Zurlo said he wanted to see a variety of house sizes and was concerned with GFA, not the number of bedrooms. Mr. Galaitsis said that limiting only the GFA, without limits on the number of occupants and bedrooms, would be a major concern to him. When allowing an increased number of units in a cluster, he would like to see predominantly smaller units for young professionals, those downsizing and widows with children. That’s what the Planning Board told the Town Meeting as well as that comparable impacts were the point. ****************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said that TMG had a meeting last Tuesday, although there was not have a quorum, they did discuss the Planning Board taking ownership of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw revisions and were comfortable with that. MAGIC will be meeting tomorrow and discuss low impact developments with Martin Pillsbury. Minutes for the Meeting of September 5, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Zurlo said this Friday the EDTF would be interviewing consultants for the commercial analysis. Mr. Hornig said the Conservation Commission has posted a hearing for 177 Grove Street for next week. ********************************* EXECUTIVE SESSION****************************** At 9:25 p.m., by individual poll of the Board- Mr. Canale, Mr. Zurlo, Mr. Hornig and Mr. Galaitsis all voting in the affirmative- it was voted to go into Executive Session for exception 6 of the Open Meeting Law and not return to an open session. Richard Canale, Acting Clerk