Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-28-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 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 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Canale, Galaitsis and Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. ************************************ MINUTES ************************************* Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of November 7, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ****************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*************************** Richard Canale urged members to attend at least one of the meetings on zoning reform. There is one in Acton on December 6. On December 11 there is a HATS meeting in Lincoln covering both the zoning reform act and what is happening in the four communities. Ms. Manz and Mr. Canale indicated they would be attending both forums. Mr. Canale said that at that morning’s MAPC meeting, the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies debuted the model bylaws for expedited permitting. These might be of particular interest to the Economic Development Task Force. Ms. Manz said the first hearing on applications to the Community Preservation Committee is on December 6 at 6:30 p.m. at the library. Mr. Canale said on December 18 there is a meeting with town staff helping to spearhead the West Lexington Greenway effort. There will be three public meetings starting January. ************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** PUBLIC HEARING 960-990 Waltham Street, Definitive Special Residential Subdivision: As the Planning Board had not received the Engineering Division’s review of the project, Mr. Hornig announced that the hearing would not close that evening. He then opened the hearing. In attendance were Mr. Pull, engineer, Mr. Richard LeClair, attorney, Mr. Roger Kallstrom, landscape architect, and Mr. Charles Navratil, architect. Mr. LeClaire started by explaining that the two-bedroom low-income unit was incorrectly identified in the application as a three-bedroom unit. Mr. Kallstrom presented changes to the redesigned entrance. He had met with Wayne Delaney from the Fire Department who did not like the 16-foot road with a 4-foot Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 sidewalk and mountable curb, so the road is now 18-feet wide with a sidewalk and mountable curb. The 40-foot radius was deemed too tight for fire equipment and has resulted in looping of the interior drives. There is added visitor parking and more mounding and trees along the front of the site. Mr. Navratil said there would be 13 units; units 1-4 have two bedrooms and the rest have three bedrooms. There would be an additional three parking spaces arranged to work with the topography. The units at the top are designed to maximize the views to open space and have two-car garages. Isometric drawings with existing and proposed plantings were provided with views from the northwest corner; from the back of the project towards Waltham Street; and along Waltham Street starting from the south. Elevation drawing of units 1- 4 showed the garages under. The surface was broken up with the use of clerestory windows, and a mix of clapboards, vertical siding, and horizontal siding at the lower level. Board Questions: Mr. Canale asked what was the difference between the total caliper of cut trees versus replacement? Mr. Kallstrom said he could generate those figures but since some of the trees are very large, replacement will not be on a one for one basis. Mr. Zurlo asked what caliper size was used in this accounting? Mr. Canale said it should be anything six inches or greater. Mr. Kallstrom said it was measured at one foot off the ground, not breast height. Mr. Canale asked about the site volume table, could they please explain the amount of cut and fill that is listed as a net 206 cubic yards; how much earth is being moved? Mr. Kallstrom said that was computed for the proof plan but wasn’t done for this design. Mr. Canale asked about the slopes for sidewalk to the upper village, and whether it met wheelchair accessible criteria. Mr. Kallstrom said no, there would have to be a sidewalk separate from road, as road is ten percent in some spots, and 8.5 percent is ADA maximum. When asked about the materials for the walking path, he said it was wood chips. What about slopes for the path along Ricci Path? Mr. Kallstrom said it is following the contour, so it is probably not over 8.5 percent. Mr. LeClair said the proposal is to just remove some substrate and put down the chips. Mr. Canale asked about the plan to remove the old foundations. Mr. LeClair said nothing was cleared with the Conservation Commission, but that there are no plans to remove them as it would be disruptive. Mr. Canale commented on the layout of the buildings and the relationship of the two buildings in the lower cluster. The group of two-bedroom units has a substantial profile, eight feet higher than the group of three-bedroom units that is closer to Brookhaven. Mr. LeClair said they would be viewed by looking over the mound, and they are further back. There is a 4 to 5 foot difference between the sidewalk and the mound. Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Manz asked about useable open space. Mr. Kallstrom had provided a sketch to the staff to prove it could be done. Mr. Henry said it seemed fine. Ms. Manz asked about the parking issue. Mr. Henry said the lower village seemed to be short on parking as the upper village is providing parking for site as a whole. While strict adherence isn’t an issue, they might want more parking closer to the lower units. Adrien Mecure said the number of spaces was above the minimum requirement . Ms. Manz said the actual need may exceed the technical requirements and asked if they could do more. Mr. Hornig said they could make the internal driveway one-way, allowing parking along it for visitors. Ms. Manz asked about the utility poles. Mr. Kallstrom they can be relocated 5-6 feet. To understand expectations for the next meeting Mr. Zurlo informed the applicant that the goal of a caliper count was not to go through an accounting exercise alone but to evaluate and quantify the difference to determine how close can a 1:1 reconciliation be realized. Mr. Kallstrom said it is a losing battle, as there are several trees to be removed that are over 30 inches. He appreciated the facade rendering as it showed the façade being visually broken by the lower level trellis and the sloping of the roof away from front elevation. Given there was some discrepancy between the 3-D model and the elevation, he asked if they would agree to the form shown in the elevation. Mr. Zurlo questioned whether the applicant thought an accessible ramp could be achieved given the dramatic slope. Mr. Kallstrom said it would end up with ramps at certain points, but they will study the condition. Mr. Henry said no more loss of trees would be a design constraint. Mr. Canale wanted to explore them to explore the physical costs of having the sidewalk ADA compliant and what could be done to even out the slope. Mr. Hornig asked if they would be sidewalks or pathways to the open space. Mr. Zurlo said both. Mr. Zurlo wanted to know the elevation difference between the Kasparian property and the top of the ridges of units 11 and 13. He asked if the applicants had made contact with the abutters? Mr. LeClair said no. Mr. Galaitsis requested a drawing for the next meeting showing which useable open space was associated with which unit. In the past the Board has asked for floor plans; the plans submitted for 960-990 Waltham Street development are not adequate. He felt that the development was approximately 50% more dense than what should be reasonable approved by the Planning Board for this site. He felt that on average some of the garages would be used for storage rather than parking; therefore, the proposed parking was totally inadequate. Due to the presence of wetlands he would be comfortable with eight units of the proposed size, which would then provide for adequate parking, trees and open space. Mr. Galaitsis pointed out that the proposed development violates core goals of the cluster subdivision. He said that the Town Meeting allowed clusters to have extra units in return for much smaller units, with one Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 or two bedrooms each, to meet the needs of empty nesters or of young professionals without children. He read from the developer’s drawings that the proposed unit sizes ranged in size from 2,211 to 2,375 square feet of living space and he pointed out that that was larger than the homes of most people in the room. He identified people in the room that raised two or more children in homes with less than 1,700 square feet of living space, and stated that units with 2,211 to 2,375 square feet of living space will have many more occupants that estimated by the developer. He said that he expected three times more school-aged children and three times more negative tax impact from the proposed cluster development than from a by- right four-lot conventional subdivision on the same parcel. He said that approval of this plan would have a very undesirable impact given that Lexington seeks new sources of positive tax revenue. Mr. Hornig asked about the lower village parking and was told there are three visitor parking spaces. He said that if the plan is to remove the three existing structures (two homes and a shed) there would need to be changes in the limit of work. Also outside the limit of work are foundations and a fair amount of trash and debris. Mr. LeClair said the question of how much excavation Conservation will allow will determine what they do. Mr. Henry said that the fire department wants a 18-foot driveway all the way to unit 13. Mr. Hornig asked about condo phasing. Mr. LeClair said it is impossible to deliver and complete all 13 units at once. They cannot file condo plans until the units are built, and that is why phasing was even mentioned. Mr. Hornig asked how the infrastructure would be phased. Mr. LeClair imagined the infrastructure would be done all at once. Mr. Hornig said they would expect it done before the release of the covenant. Mr. Hornig then asked about the drainage calculations and where were the outlets in the utility plan? He said they would need more details. Mr. Hornig told the applicant the Board would want a draft of the LIP paperwork prior to approval. Further site details such as preservation of the existing stonewalls, the height of retaining walls and whether they would require guardrails, design of paths, and trees that are covered by the tree bylaw were discussed. On the utility plan, electric and telephone communications are missing. Stew Kennedy of the Conservation Commission said he heard differences from what was presented to the Conservation Commission such as the use of wood chips instead of stone dust and signage for public access. Mr. LeClair said there would be signage to delineate Ricci Path. The path to the back leads to wetlands so is not a connector to town property, but gives a view to the conservation land. Mr. Andy Friedlich, a Town Meeting member, said he stood to buttress Mr. Galaitsis’s remarks on fiscal impacts, saying there was a potentially significant negative financial impact for the Town due to the Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 Page 5 number of school-aged children that would reside in the development. Mr. LeClair said the cluster was used to save open space. He added that he found the school-aged children argument offensive. Ms. Angela Frick, an abutter and a member of the Conservation Commission, said Conservation was concerned about the pathway and thought the easement used “strange language”. Why give an easement to Conservation that “shall be used only for grantors”? Mr. Hornig explained that the path is open to the public, but the easement on the sides is restricted. Mr. Malcolm Kasparian of 965 Waltham Street noted that he had submitted a petition at the last meeting that says they need to protect existing homes. Mr. Hornig would like to know the elevation of the Kasparian home. Ms. Margaret Storch of 33 Concord Avenue wanted to know the impact this would have on the homes on Concord Avenue with regard to height, lighting and tree removal? Mr. Arthur Katz of 18 Barberry Road was shocked that no attention was paid to the traffic issue. The intersection at Concord Avenue and Waltham Street is a problem, as is the lack of pedestrian access or crossing. He felt it was immoral to keep adding to the problem. Ms. Natalie Riffin of Precinct 3 and 1010 Waltham Street said that Mr. Galaitsis has the right idea. Eight units are more than sufficient in terms of scale, mass, setbacks, proportions and material. The three-story buildings should be eliminated. Mr. Keith Omart of 118 East Street and a conservation steward asked for a restriction on the area to south of path to allow a connection to Lot 1 to be done in the vicinity of the pump house structure, crossing over brook to Brookhaven and its trails. Mr. Kallstrom stated the original idea was to allow connection to conservation land that might be used in the future. Mr. LeClair said they could put language in easement to relocate and there is no problem with granting an easement. Mr. Canale was uncomfortable with the scale, massing, and height of Units 1-5, and wants a unit-by-unit schedule of the basement/cellars, number of stories and heights. He felt what was being proposed does not meet his expectations and he suggested removal of one story in the group of nines would be the simplest solution, but that something needed to be done to reduce the scale. Ms. Manz asked for clarification. Mr. Hornig said there is a specific definition of how to measure height in feet and number of stories and the Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 Building Department feels that these meet the requirements. Mr. Zurlo wanted to go on the record regarding density issues. The applicant had been allowed to move forward to a definitive plan in order to provide the Board with a greater level of detail so they could understand how the property would be developed. He said there was little information how the upper units relate to the abutting property and the properties deep off Concord Avenue. Mr. LeClair said the plan had not changed in height or stories. The economics of it are equal to four houses and if Board is asking to cut a floor off. they would like to know now and they will come back with four conventional units. Mr. Zurlo said they are 50% larger then they should be. Mr. Hornig asked how the Board felt about moving forward? Mr. Canale said his opinion hasn’t changed and he had suggested a mid-term review. He felt the building was out of scale, and the ten feet cellars and trellises do not help. Ms. Manz said at the preliminary the number and scale had been approved, but if apparent height could be reduced she would be more comfortable. Mr. Le Clair said living area was approved by the Board and there is no more fat to cut. Mr. Zurlo said they are not looking to go back; the challenge is when you see a number of dwelling units, there are so many ways a development team can manipulate project elements that many times it doesn’t get fully resolved until the definitive stage. The drawings presented this evening do not reflect the side yard condition which was cited in an earlier meeting as being important to study. The developer said he was in shock. He had thought the plan was what had been worked on together with the Board. He had wanted single- family houses but was willing to do a cluster and give an affordable unit in an effort to give the Board what they wanted. On a motion duly made, it was voted made to continue the public hearing to December 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 34 Young Street: Mr. Henry said that the applicant had been told the application was incomplete, but that Mr. K.T. Wong, the architect for the project, requested that they proceed anyhow. Mr. Henry said the regulations require a complete subdivision road plan. Mr. Hornig said the plan should show what they intend to do and a list of waivers that would be needed. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if the frontage were on Rumford Road or Young Street? Mr. Hornig said there is generally adequate grade, but repaving is needed and some possible grading with leveling to the storm drain. Mr. Canale couldn’t say whether the Minutes for the Meeting of November 28, 2007 Page 7 road was adequate. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked what is needed to determine if a road is adequate? Mr. Zurlo said he wanted a street survey and a revised plan to show proper drainage. Mr. Hornig said the road needs to be resurfaced. Mr. Canale and Mr. Galaitsis agreed, and felt that that would be consistent with the previous two cases. Mr. Zurlo asked if §175-68C required a preliminary submission? Mr. Henry said no, it is flexible about details, but about not the design standards. Member said they would like to see contours show crowning and grading, repaving, and where drainage goes, and put off consideration until they received more information. Board Schedule - The Board discussed the report dealing with a proposed change to the start of Town Meeting. Members felt that it was already difficult for newly elected members to get up to speed on issues now and it would be even more difficult with a shorter time between elections and the start of Town Meeting. Board members will review the Community Preservation Committee proposals on affordable housing, open space and recreation applications on December 5, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk