Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 8:02 p.m. by Vice Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Canale, Galaitsis, Associate Planning Board Member Ginna Johnson and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Hornig was absent. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Cotton Farm, 121 Marrett Road, sketch plan: In attendance were Brian Timm, project manager, and John Gwozdz, landscape architect from Meridian Associates, and Todd Cataldo, applicant. Mr. Zurlo explained that Ginna Johnson, Associate Planning Board Member, was sitting in on the special permit because Mr. Hornig had recused himself from this project. Mr. Timm explained that there were two proof plans; the first showed a 50-foot right of way with 12 lots on the front parcel and two lots on the back parcel, the second showed two cul-de-sacs with 18 lots. This was used to show that 14 lots could be created within the restrictions stated in the deed for the rear parcel. The two parcels located in the RS zone are approximately ten acres, six acres in the front lot and four acres in the back lot. The RO zone is across the street. There are wetlands located on the east and west ends of the site. The site analysis shows a relatively open grassed site, a few steep slopes, mostly to the west, and a 50-foot and 100-foot wetland buffer zone. Mr. Zurlo said the goal of the sketch plan was to give feedback to the applicant on the type of development that the Board felt best suited for the site. Based on the site visit the site sensitive development (SSD) or balanced housing development (BHD) would be the preference. The nature of the land needed to be preserved including the stonewall, apple orchard, trees along the border, the slopes, which are higher in the north, the view shed, and the buffer zone. Mr. Canale asked if they were razing or keeping the existing house. Mr. Cataldo said they would be keeping it for his parents’ lifetime. Mr. Canale said he did not want to see a conventional development and would prefer the SSD or BHD and wanted the orchards preserved as much as possible. He wondered where the housing would be accommodated.Mr. Zurlo said the spirit in which the restriction was written for the back parcel would determine how much of the back lot could be built out. Mr. Galaitsis said that he could not see how one could fit more than 13 with the two back units included. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of December 3, 2008 Ms. McCall-Taylor said her understanding was that the back lot could contain more than two buildings, but that the use of that lot in combination with the front lot could not create entitlement to more than two additional houses, but she would look into it further. Ms. Manz said either the SSD or BHD could work on that site, but she leaned towards the BHD. She noted that doubling the number of units would equal the density of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Cataldo said that the plan he was showing was from the 2003 preliminary, which was never submitted, and used only six acres. Now he would use all ten acres for the SSD, which would use the same roadway, preserve the view scape in front, and maintain the front east corner by Marrett Road as is. The homes would be large single-family homes with two and one half stories and forty feet tall. He felt the BHD would be too intense for the area and would not allow for the preservation of the natural features. Mr. Galaitsis asked what was the floor area of these homes? Mr. Cataldo said they were approximately 6,000 square feet. Mr. Galaitsis asked Mr. Cataldo to consider building 11 large units and divide the remaining three of the structures into small units; for example, build 11 units at 1,500 square feet. This would reduce the impact of the development on the school budget, while providing housing much needed housing for empty nesters and young professionals. Ms. McCall-Taylor warned that there are legal issues in trying to regulate the number of children or who would be occupying the units. Mr. Zurlo said that affordable units would allow additional density. The old cluster bylaw had set the context for looking at the occupants of the units. Mr. Canale asked how pedestrians would access the path and what was the advantage to having it along the edge or out to the roadway. Mr. Cataldo said that path would come across the property and go to a dedicated area, which would be between the roadway and the property line. Ms. Johnson said that the 2003 plan egress makes sense. The beautiful apple orchard would be a benefit to the Town; would there be any other open space? It would be nice to use rural configurations for this site by eliminating sidewalks and having a gravel driveway with a common drive for shared access. Mr. Timm said the gravel becomes a maintenance issue and swales do not work in the winter. Mr. Zurlo said he heard a strong preference for the SSD, was there any strong advocate for the BHD? These following items were Board preferences: ?? Maintain the rural character of the site; ?? Use a sustainable design; Minutes for the Meeting of December 3, 2008 Page 3 ?? Use LEED standards; ?? Have a complete reconciliation of calipers for the trees; and ?? Move on to the preliminary to show the ideas fully developed. Mr. Henry said to remember to maintain the stonewalls, which were protected by MEPA. Ms. Manz said she would like to preserve the features of the site, but in no way could the rural character be preserved with 14 units at 7,200 square feet. Having gravel roads and no sidewalks would create a safety issue with children, which was a more important issue. Mr. Zurlo asked the Board if they supported a recommendation that the applicant proceed to the preliminary stage. Mr. Canale said to leave it to the applicant. Mr. Galaitsis would prefer another sketch. Mr. Cataldo said the lotting for the site would change with the roadway layout. He would speak with Meridian to determine the next step. *************************************REZONING************************************* Three Ledgemont, Rezoning: The Beal Companies came in for an informal update on the PSDUP being drafted. Mr. Nichols said they were not here to show designs, only to update the Board. The Beal Companies had met with the Conservation Commission last night and the public hearing was closed and they are awaiting a decision on the trees and limit of work area to retain. They were working with the Town on traffic mitigation regarding monies to fund at the beginning, performance based contributions, Lexpress monies and traffic demand management measures. Mr. Nichols shared a copy of Design Principles prepared in response to input from several Town constituencies and will continue to work on implementing into their final PSDUP. Mr. Zurlo asked when would the PSDUP be ready. Mr. Nichols said within two weeks. Mr. Zurlo asked what other public meetings were scheduled regarding the PSDUP language. Mr. Nichols said they were meeting on a regular basis to refine concepts and the PSDUP would be completed before the first public hearing. Ms. McKenna asked about the current thoughts in terms of building siting - would it be tucked behind or in front of the knoll? Mr. Nichols said there were no plans yet. Ms. McKenna said the neighbors felt that the garage should be eliminated and the building put behind the knoll with the short end towards the neighbors. She said to keep in mind that building on Spring Street would detract from the award winning site design. **********************OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN*************************** The Board members now have a copy of the open space and recreation plan update in hand to review it Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of December 3, 2008 for future discussion. Mr. Canale said that the scenic byway should be more fully explored. Also the recreational mobility potential of roadways, sidewalks, paths and interconnections should be considered. There should also be a Table of Contents. ***************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************* Site Plan review: Initially everyone would need a site plan review. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the current trigger was 10,000 square feet but there should be a higher threshold for a special permit. Mr. Canale said that the MetroFuture implementation strategies best practices had some specifics for criteria. There were certain criteria that could be checked by staff for routine site plan review (SPR). Ms. Manz said it would not be possible to do a full SPR for everything. Up to 10,000 square feet could be signed off by staff and brought to the Board if there was an issue. Mr. Galaitsis said to look at the history of the past. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that that the Planning Board did not do commercial permitting, that was done by the ZBA. Mr. Henry said design what you want and approve the SPR with conditions. It would not regulate what the developers want, but how they are permitted to do it. Ms. Johnson said the Board should be advocating for more SPR, not less. Mr. Henry said that .35 FAR would trigger the special permit, but asked the Board to think about what happens with an FAR between zero and .35. Mr. Canale said that the goal was to increase the vitality of commercial development. If Lexington’s goal was to maximize revenue, the way to accomplish that would be through quality, and standards should be set high. Mr. Zurlo said clear guidelines were needed with appropriate thresholds, or triggers, for either site plan review or special permit with site plan review. His preference would be to have the Planning Department review all projects under prescribed thresholds and the Board to review all items exceeding the rezoned limits. . Mr. Galaitsis said the goal was to ultimately streamline the process with as little regulation as possible. Start with raising the current FAR to a value that would trigger the need for a special permit and retain the SPR below that value, and fine-tune the process as we go along. Mr. Henry said to adopt the SPR bylaw; then regulations could be implemented to further define the process. Mr. Zurlo said that SPR would capture the elements of site design that would be vulnerable. Mr. Canale asked what would be more developer- and town-friendly, prescriptive criteria for everyone, or a more open process? Ms. Yanofsky said that developers were used to SPR. Mr. Zurlo asked whether the goal of SPR was to control site disturbance such as building footprint, plantings, curb cuts, parking and impervious surface? Ms. McCall-Taylor asked the Board to think about what was being regulated and to Minutes for the Meeting of December 3, 2008 Page 5 what end. Perhaps with the FAR of .0 to .15 the staff would review; .15 to .25 FAR would be minor and the Board would review; and anything equal or greater than .35 FAR would require a special permit with site plan review. Regulations would control site disturbance limit, as well as triggers for a special permit with site plan review. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of November 17, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained) to approve the minutes as amended. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Grove Street, Endorse plans and extension of time: The applicant had submitted plans to be endorsed for the definitive subdivision plan at 177 Grove Street and requested the Board grant an extension of the special permit to June 6, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the definitive subdivision plans for 177 Grove Street. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to grant a time extension of one year for the special permit for 177 Grove Street to March 13, 2010. 63 Paul Revere Road, endorsement of definitive subdivision plans: The applicant had submitted plans to be endorsed for the definitive subdivision plan at 63 Paul Revere Road. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the plans for 63 Paul Revere Road, definitive subdivision plans for a site sensitive development. *****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED****************************** Solly’s Way, 112 Laconia Street: On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in Lexington, MA”, dated October 28, 2008, prepared and certified by Peter A. Lothian, Professional Land Surveyor, Ayer, MA, with Form A/2008-7, submitted by the William Eycleshymer, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk