Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION ************************** Wisteria Lane, Release of Covenant: The applicant has provided the As-Built Plans as required by the Planning Board under subdivision control and has requested a release for lot 1 from the performance covenant, and that the remaining surety be released and the subdivision closed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to release Homes Development from the provisions of the covenant executed by Homes Development, on September 23, 2005 and recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in Book 46182, Page 589. 85A & 87 Pleasant Street, Sketch Plan: Present were Gary Larson, from Warner Larson Landscape Architects and the applicants Mr. and Mrs. Silvera and their family. Mr. Larson explained the site is 3.3 acres in the RS zone located in a fairly dense area. The Board at the last meeting had suggested getting a survey of the property, which has been done by Meridian Associates. The site consists of two lots with one existing dwelling on each lot. Vehicle access for the existing house on parcel two is through a driveway over the abutting parcel with an easement to provide access. A steeply sloping driveway from Pleasant Street provides access for the existing house on parcel one. The plan would use green building design techniques and solar energy. The proof plan based on the regulations yields five lots, which would allow a total gross floor area of 36,000 square feet. Mr. Larson said that they were proposing a balanced housing development (BHD). The Board had walked the site and their concerns were the location of the house and minimizing curb cuts on Pleasant Street. The proposed road would be in the middle of the site, the two existing houses would stay and four new ones would be constructed with one at the top of the site to take advantage of the solar orientation and views. There would be a 20-foot wide path for construction access to the top house. Board Comments: Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 7, 2009 Mr. Canale had concerns regarding the sustainability of the building verses the sustainability of the site. What would be the percentage of site disturbance from the regarding, and what would be the amount of cut and fill? Mr. Larson said the tentative limit of work would leave 50% of the site undisturbed and that they would probably be removing materials and trees for the view. Mr. Canale said regarding the views and solar orientation, had they figured out what trees would need to be cut down.? Mr. Larson said at the top of the hill the trees within 20 feet of the structure would be removed. Mr. Zurlo said that he could see this as a site sensitive development (SSD, not a BHD. It does not meet the stated goals of a BHD. Ms. Manz said she was concerned with the steep slopes and the removal of so many trees that buffer the western part of the site. What would be the distance between the garage and the house on top of the hill? Mr. Larson said 80 feet. Ms. Manz said that would require steps and they would need to discuss this with the fire department. Ms. Manz also inquired about sidewalks. Mr. Galaitsis said this was a challenging site and the regular density here could not be applied. He suggested combining smaller units into a single structure to cause less disruption to the site. Mr. Hornig asked where the open space was. It was not supposed to be private space; at the top of the hill it would not be useable to the residents of the development. The right branch of the drive that serves two houses would need to be 18 feet, not 12 feet. There should be a sidewalk along Pleasant Street towards the Bowman School for children The Board had concerns with the upper unit regarding public and fire safety, and creating a problem at some future point. What would be the change of elevation from the bottom to the top of the path? Mr. Larson said it was 34 feet. Public comments: ?? There were concerns by abutters regarding siting, removal of trees, privacy buffers, the environmental integrity of the site, drainage and runoff. ?? Could the Board give guidance on the levels of oversight of the property to protect neighbors and abutters regarding blasting of the large amounts of ledge and how the plans would be monitored? Mr. Hornig said the blasting is under the jurisdiction of the fire department. ?? A resident said there were many trees removed in 2007 that served as a buffer and now she could see the next door property and hear all the noises from there. They need to add back some trees to protect the neighbors’ privacy and prevent headlights from shining into their home. Minutes for the Meeting of January 7, 2009 Page 3 ?? A resident asked for a definition of common open space. Ms. McCall-Taylor read the definition from the zoning bylaws. ?? Another resident asked for the definition of a SSD and a BHD. Mr. Hornig explained the differences. ?? There are large amounts of fill which has resulted in dead trees on the property. ?? There were fire and safety concerns about the property, when would they be considered and would the fire department provide documentation on their evaluation of the site? Mr. Hornig said the Planning Board would listen to the Fire Department’s expert advice before approving or denying a development. ?? Last year the Planning Board asked the applicant to look into access from Moon Hill Road; did they do that? Ms. Silvera responded no. Board comments and concerns: ?? Consider how to get a better plan rather than 74 steps from the garage to the house; consider making the house on top a three-season room. There were serious concerns about a house that far up on the site. ?? The development would be more appropriate as a SSD. ?? This project would have to substantiate if it would be practical to put the house up on the hill. ?? The applicant needed to address safety concerns with the fire department and an emergency access through Moon Hill Road. ?? Nestle the house into the hill and then it could be brought 50 feet down the hill. ?? Address how much site disturbance would be caused when clearing a path for the bulldozers. ?? The open space at the top of the hill was not credible, but rather a backyard. ?? There was a preference to keep the units in front of the steep slope, not on it. Mr. Hornig said to proceed to the preliminary with the Board’s advice as follows: Mr. Zurlo said it should be a SSD; Ms. Manz was comfortable with SSD; Mr. Galaitsis said move to an SSD, but leave the part of the site as is; Mr. Canale’s preference was the SSD; and Mr. Hornig said it could be either way. ***********************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY***************************** Warrant Article Language: Article A; Floor Area Ratio: Amend the definition of floor area ratio (FAR) and make compensating adjustments to the maximum FAR for all districts. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 7, 2009 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to inform the Board of Selectmen to withdraw the placeholder for Article A. Article B; CM and NFI (National Flood Insurance) District Changes: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Lexington to: A. Create a process for site plan review outside of the special permit process; B. Require site plan review for developments in the NFI (National Flood Insurance) and CM (Manufacturing) districts; C. Permit development in the NFI district without a special permit; D. Change the definition of the Y symbol in Table 1 to not require a special permit with site plan review; E. Permit two or more buildings, uses, or establishments on the same lot to share a common parking lot without a special permit; F. Permit the following uses and development standards in the CM district without a special permit; standing signs, B.22, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.15b, 8.3, 8.11, 8.13, 8.17, 8.21, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.16, 10.12; and G. Adjust the dimensional controls for the CM district to: 1. Decrease or eliminate the minimum lot area, lot frontage, yard setback, transition area width, and parking space, driveway and maneuvering aisle setback; 2. Increase or eliminate the maximum floor area ratio, site coverage, building height in stories and building height in feet; and 3. Establish a maximum for the ratio of height of any part of a building to the distance between that part of the building and the centerline of the nearest roadway, or act in any manner in relation thereto. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the language for Article B on the Warrant. Article C; Traffic: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Lexington to define a new Traffic Management Overlay (TMO) district within which the operation of Article XII (traffic) is modified as follows: A. The TMO district will have a district traffic management plan adopted and modified from time to time by the Planning Board after notice and public hearing. This plan will include the following: 1. Regulations to limit the traffic impact of new development proceeding under the plan through trip reduction measures; Minutes for the Meeting of January 7, 2009 Page 5 2. A plan for improvements to mitigate the remaining traffic impact of future development within the district; and 3. Required contributions to a traffic mitigation fund from developments proceeding under the plan. B. Notwithstanding section 135-71B, permits maybe issued and no separate traffic study will be required for developments within the TMO district that select to proceed under the district traffic management plan and are consistent with it, or act in any manner in relation thereto. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1 (Mr. Zurlo opposed), to approve the language for Article C on the Warrant. Article D; Zoning Map Revision: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Map of the Town of Lexington to define a new Traffic management overlay district (TMO-1) within the area bounded by Grove Street, the Northern Circumferential Highway, Massachusetts Avenue, Marrett Road and the Town boundary, or act in any manner in relation thereto. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1-1 (Mr. Zurlo opposed, Mr. Hornig abstained), to approve the language for Article D on the Warrant. Article E; Technical Corrections: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Lexington to maintain consistency with the above changes and update references, or act in any manner in relation thereto. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the language for Article E on the Warrant. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** On February 25 there will be a public hearing on the two citizen’s zoning articles and on March 4 a public hearing on the Planning Board’s articles. Ms. Manz will not be attending the Planning Board Meeting on January 28. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk