Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, associate member Ginna Johnson, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. **********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*********************** 48 Summit Road, Definitive Site Sensitive Development Plan: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 6:01 p.m. There were approximately five people in the audience. Ms. Ginna Johnson, Associate Planning Board Member, was designated to act on this special permit. The applicant requested a continuance. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing without input to July 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Oakmount Circle, Lot 186E, Street determination: Present were Dan Orwig and Scott Kenton of Copley Design, and John Farrington, attorney. Mr. Orwig said the plan before the Board was the final revised plan with the following changes:  The footprint of the house was changed with the garage being moved from one side of the lot to the other side of the lot to provide adequate drainage.  Extreme drainage calculations were used, which increased the storm drainage on the lot and would have no run off from the site.  The driveway was moved six feet from the property line. The plan had two parts to the proposal providing a house on the lot and providing adequate access down Oakmount Circle. The widths vary on the existing street from 12 to 15 feet and 10 feet wide in front of the applicant’s lot. The road would be widened to 16 feet with a cape cod berm. There was an existing sewer stub and water main that the applicant would like to tie into and no trees would be cut. If the circle was made one-way with no parking the 16 foot width would be adequate. The applicant believed that Conservation requirements were met. Board Comments:  The plans submitted were missing the street profile required by the regulations. The applicant would get them to staff tomorrow. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014  There was major concern about maintaining the integrity of Granny Pond. The applicant worked with Conservation and increased the edge of the traveled way on the side away from Granny Pond. There would be no blasting and hammering in only two places.  Have you spoken with abutters about making the street one-way? No. Mr. Farrington said this was a private way and the Town had no jurisdiction so to make that road one- way it would require an agreement with abutters. There is only one small area where it might be safe to park and “no parking” signs would not be desirable on that road.  It would be preferable to act after Conservation was finished with this project to see if any conditions were placed on the site.  Was the berm on the road on the pond side only? No it alternated based on the super elevation of the road.  The road looked like it went outside the ROW. The applicant spoke with the trustees and was advised that was not a problem. The applicant would need to request a waiver.  How much would the grade have to change? Less than one foot.  If you widen the street to 16 feet there would need to be a way to control parking. The Town would need enforcement authority regarding the parking. Audience Comments:  Next time have the graphics projected to make the plans easier to read.  At Conservation there was a letter from DPW that the road would have to be 18 feet wide and within the ROW. An 18 foot wide road was not desirable and would prefer to leave the road where it was.  There was concern about storm water going into drainage and not the pond.  It would be very hard to get unanimity with the Trustees and more information would be needed before moving ahead. How much of Granny Pond land would be encroached upon if the road was moved? The applicant said it would bring down two trees and they were trying to minimize disturbance and had to take the lead from Karen Mullins of Conservation.  The taking of land when no one knew was troubling.  Making this a one-way street when part of which was not paved and being maintained by one abutter every spring would be a large concern.  People do park on the ten foot wide part of the street.  This abutter was not part of the trust, but has significant frontage on the pond and would not support a one-way street. Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014 Page 3  There was concern about the mechanical means being used and the impact on the geology of the site.  Address the issue of the vegetation being removed with the abutter. This item would be continued to July 2, 2014, which would allow enough time for the applicant to straighten out with staff the current set of plans and the encroachment on trust land. 111 & 119 Laconia Street, Definitive Balanced Housing Plan: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 6:39 p.m. There were approximately 4 people in the audience. Ms. Ginna Johnson, Associate Planning Board Member, was designated to act on this special permit. Bill Eycleshymer and Michael Walsh, applicants, Mike Novak, project manager and Jeff Thoma, landscape architect, were present at the meeting. th Mr. Novak said the plan was a balanced housing development with three lots and a 4 parcel for open space. There would be four units one duplex and two single-family houses. The single lot in the back would be for the open space outside the 100 foot buffer of wetlands. The two single- family homes would have their own driveways and the duplex would share a drive. The existing sewer services were good and would be reused and only one house would create street cuts. The setbacks would be similar to the rest of the street and the houses would be staggered. The landscape plan would preserve the existing character of the street. The plan would try to keep as much of the existing woodlands and still have a large open useable space. The number of curb cuts was reduced by using a shared drive for the duplex. Board Comments:  There was very wide driveway for the duplex off set from Solly’s Way, which was odd looking; try to shuffle the units. The reason for the placement of the driveway was the Board wanted the duplex in the middle and have it look like a single family house.  Why was the applicant putting this plan forward? The other plans had four structures and this had three structures with four units, which the Board preferred. Why was this street front created? This layout was used since it would cause the least amount of site disturbance and remove fewer trees by keeping the units closer to the street.  Thought the middle unit would have a shared driveway; this looked more like it was adjacent as opposed to shared. The curb cut had an existing utility pole and access was needed on either side of the pole. There would be complications of relocating the pole. How much of the land between the houses and the street would be paved and how much Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014 landscaped percentage wise? There seemed to be a lot of visual clutter at this point. If there was two separate driveways it might be less pavement, but would create two more curb cuts. The applicant was open to suggestions.  There would be overheard wires that fed off three utility pole and all these houses would be fed off underground wires? Yes.  What would be shared and what would be personal property? The back open lawn and wooded area would be shared open space.  Like three footprints and preservation of open space which would benefit all abutters. The telephone pole would need to be removed that was located in the middle of the shared drive.  Show a plan with the existing dwellings and abutters homes to indicate the scale of the proposed structures.  Try a courtyard parking approach or a radial circular drive that could be shared.  Consider moving the middle unit back and the two end units up, which could create a better shared drive.  Do not like the hammerhead drive.  The preservation of the character of the street would be important with a Massachusetts quality and the native trees presented create the canopy that was good, but use another ground cover other than periwinkle which was an invasive species in the woodland area.  Would there be grading and how was it being addressed? The parcel on top was significantly higher would you be flatting it out? The grading approach was to have as little disturbance to the site as possible so we tried to tie into the existing grading.  Would you be able to preserve any of the existing stone wall on Laconia? Yes, would try to preserve as much as possible. Try to use one location for construction access and stockpile the additional stones and reassemble the wall.  Consider putting a stone wall and gate to the path to preserve the resource and delineate between the grass area and woodland area.  The duplex unit could be done as one or two lots why using one lot? Looking for the flexibility of a condominium.  Have the draft legal documents and easements submitted to staff.  Have the GFA captured on the plans with the details within the recording plans and on the deeds. Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014 Page 5 Audience comments:  This plan looks better with three buildings and not four.  The shared drive would need to be separated. If the duplex was pushed back a little it could help.  Separate the wetlands and useable open space with a fence like the abutter has.  The distance looked unequal to the direct abutters on either side of the development make it equal to be fair to both neighbors. The slope was pushing that issue, but would look to see if it would be possible. Board Comments: Want a commitment that no rocks would be removed from the site. No problem would save any rocks that would be disturbed and keep them on site. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to July 2, 2014 at 7:05 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. *********************************MINUTES************************************ On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of May 28, 2014 as distributed. *****************PLANNING BOARD REORGANIZATION************************* Filling the Board vacancy: The Board of Selectmen will advertise the Planning Board member opening in the paper on June 26, 2014, with applications due by July 11, interviews for candidates would be July 16 and all the information would be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen for action on July 28. Election of Officers: The Board held its annual election of officers. The floor was opened for nominations and Mr. Hornig was nominated as chair, Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti as vice chair, and Mr. Dunn as clerk. There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed. The slate of officers was elected by a vote of 4-0. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to re-appoint Ginna Johnson as the Associate Planning Board Member. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014 Committee Assignments : The Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees and Commissions were discussed and the assignments until a new Planning Board Member was selected would be as follows: Lexington Center Committee Mr. Canale Energy Conservation Committee Mr. Dunn Vision 2020/Executive Committee Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti Sustainability Committee Mr. Dunn On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the above temporary liaison vacancies until a new Planning Board Member was appointed. Adoptions of Procedural Rules: This topic would be discussed next time. Work Plan: The Bank issue would need to be addressed with or without the Board either way it was going to be drafted. The work plan has been done in quarters in the recent past and if there was anything Board Members felt should be added, please advise staff for further discussion at the next meeting. There was an RFP that would be going out for legal services to deal with the Zoning regulations. *******************************STAFF REPORTS ******************************* Any vacation plans Board members have for the summer, please send to staff. Moreland Avenue withdrew their subdivision plan application and there will be a meeting with Community Development on this matter at the end of the week. *******************************BOARD REPORTS ****************************** Mr. Canale said there will be a Transportation Meeting Forum next week. Mass DOT will be holding a public hearing on the Route 2 reconstruction of the Bridge. This would be a two year process. ********************************SCHEDULING ******************************** There will be meetings on July 2, 16 and 28. Minutes for the Meeting of June 18, 2014 Page 7 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Email from James Lowry, dated June 18, 2014 regarding 111 & 119 Laconia Street (1 page).  Email from Thomas Campbell, dated June 16, 2014 regarding 111 & 119 Laconia Street (1 page).  Agenda Item Summary and Staff Recommendation regarding Oakmount Circle, dated June 13, 2014 (2 pages).  Email from Maria Kostorizos, dated June 18, 2014 regarding Oakmount Circle (1 page).  Notice of Intent Plan, dated June 16, 2014 regarding Oakmount Circle (4 pages).  Letter from John Farrington, regarding Oakmount Circle (8 pages).  Cover letter and application regarding 111 & 119 Laconia Street, dated May 8, 2014 (11 pages).  111 & 119 Laconia Street Balanced Housing Development Definitive Subdivision Plan Set, dated May 8, 2014 (10 pages).  111 & 119 Laconia Street Construction Documents, dated May 6, 2014 (4 pages).  Procedural Rules of the Lexington Planning Board dated June 18, 2014 (5 pages). Timothy Dunn, Clerk