Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-18-40B-min.pdf ' Ad Hoc 40B Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 18,2002 Room G-15 Members Present: Stan Abkowitz, Harriet Cohen, Marshall Derby,John Frey,Tom Harden, Jeanne Krieger, Sheila Marian,Bill Passman, Bill Taylor,Ann Whitney Staff Present: Maryann McCall-Taylor, Rachael Herrup-Morse, Ed Marchant Others: Lawrence Cheng, Marjorie Daggett, Philip Fischer,Tony Galaitsis,Ed Marchant, Tom Montanari,Josh Posner, Russell Tanner, Dexter Whittinghill,Norma Whittinghill All in attendance were asked to sign in. Mr. Abkowitz brought up the matter of minutes. He was concerned that the first set of minutes did not reflect what went on at the meetings and he wanted to know the status of the minutes. Ms. Krieger said that they had not been approved and if anyone wanted to suggest changes they should send them to Rachael Herrup-Morse. The minutes will be put on a future agenda for discussion and adoption. Presentation by Rising Tide Development Josh Posner informed the committee that the plans before the committee were not fully re-designed from those of the previous week. Rising Tide Development attempted to address those concerns that seemed most apparent at the previous meeting, such as the size of the back yards on East Street. Mr. Posner indicated that it would be useful to have a continuation of the discussion of group preferences begun on January 11`h. He also expressed a desire to discover what would be particularly unwanted by the neighbors as well as a sense about what development situation would be `livable.' Mr. Posner concluded by informing the committee that the revised model tried to better reflect the actual scale of the perimeter buildings but that a building-by-building measurement had not be conducted. Lawrence Cheng presented the revised model to the committee. He stated that last year's study of the site looked at a mid-rise building in the center. With this model,privacy was greater for the neighbors and the development had a higher density in the middle with a larger, five-story, building and larger dwelling units surrounding. He indicated that the problem with this type of development was the lack of definition and the scattered appearance the complex takes on. There was no `front-door/back-door' to the unit and there was no effective common open space. When looking at other variations, problems emerged with dead ends, emergency vehicle turning space and front-door/back-door relationships. A development that offered one continuous row house with underground parking would not fit in with the neighborhood. Moving back to the revised model, Mr. Cheng stated that, based on the January 1 discussion,they increased the set backs,tightened the ring, removed one 4-plex building and lost some open space. The architects included one 18-unit building in the center of the development with underground parking. 28 units would be arranged around the perimeter for a total of 46 units. The set back now became 25 feet to the face of the building from the perimeter and the distance between the buildings was now at least 30 feet. The 18-unit building in the middle of the site was about 43 feet high. Bill Taylor expressed disappointment at the presence of the 18-unit building in the middle of the site. He indicated that he thought the total number of units was now 28. Mr. Taylor told that committee that he went to the Locke Village development and that the actual set back with the three abutters was a minimum of 45-65 feet which did not make it readily comparable to the proposed Lowell Street development. Mr.Taylor also pointed out the buffer zone present at Locke Village between the abutters and the development as indicative of the differences between the two developments. Finally, Mr. Taylor showed the committee the large amount of commercial/industrial-zoned property next to the Locke Village development and the relatively small residential property. All these differences showed that the Locke Village development could not really compare with the proposed Lowell Street development. Mr. Passman pointed out that the Locke Village development was sunk down in the ground so that neighbors only saw the roof of the complex. Bill Taylor stated that the buildings in Locke Village were similar to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Posner stated that the Locke Village buildings were three stories plus an attic. He pointed out that the pitch of the roof started at the second floor,but that the building continued up for another residential floor and an attic floor. He indicated that the Locke Village buildings were 10 feet higher than the proposed height of the Lowell Street buildings. Mr. Passman indicated that the set back in Locke Village allowed for both 3-4 rows of trees and appropriate backyard space. He stated that it looked like a rational way to put high-density housing next to residential housing. Mr. Cheng confirmed that a higher-density development dictated a larger set back. Mr. Taylor stated that, at 15 feet,the set back intruded on non-East Street neighbors. Mr. Taylor pointed to himself as an example, stating that he and his wife were avid gardeners and spent much of their time in their backyard with flowers and vegetables. Mr. Taylor also indicated that fellow neighbor Tony Galaitsis' house included a pool in the backyard. He stated that people would be looking into abutters' backyard gardens and pools from their bedroom windows—an undesirable situation. The real issue,Mr. Taylor stated, was the intrusion the development would bring into the privacy of neighbor's yards. Mr. Taylor stated that,where through normal zoning laws there would be one,there would now be four families out barbequing with swing sets very close to neighbors' houses. Mr.Taylor indicated that there would be no room for trees with a 15-foot setback- only a fence. Maryann McCall-Taylor stated that the committee was trying to get all the issues out, that the issue of the 15-foot setback was out and that the committee should move on to discuss other issues of concern. Mr. Taylor questioned whether Ms. McCall-Taylor thought he was being obstructionist because he felt he was not being obstructionist. He indicated that the Locke Village development was a good model because it was sunk down. Stan Abkowitz stated that the Locke Village development was completely different from the proposed Lowell Street development because it was surrounded by gas stations and other commercial developments. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked Mr. Posner whether the ledge would effect the development. Mr. Cheng informed the committee that it depended on the rock—if necessary, a backhoe would be used. Mr. Posner indicated that the test pits dug were clean. Mr. Posner asked the committee whether it would be acceptable for him to take photographs. When questioned as to the purpose, Mr. Posner indicated that it would be for Rising Tide's records,and to present to a meeting of Zoning Board representatives from around the state. Mr. Galaitsis(non- committee member)stated that unless he knew specifically what the pictures were for,then he would object. Jeanne Krieger asked if there were members of the committee who objected. Mr.Taylor stated that,as long as the pictures were not made public, it would be acceptable. Ms. Krieger put the matter to a vote that resulted in six in favor and three opposed. Mr. Tanner indicated that with such a close vote,they would refrain from taking pictures. Moving back to the issue of setbacks, Mr. Cheng stated that they could try and look at greater setbacks on all sides,but that it would increase the density and height in the center. He indicated that the company tried to put parking in the basement because it decreased surface clutter. Additionally,Mr. Cheng indicated a desire to give all units a door to the backyard and a path in the front to the road. Mr. Passman suggested putting the access road nearer to the perimeter,which would allow for trees to be planted along the border and would give residents more spacious backyards. Mr. Cheng pointed out that the issue of pollution levels and headlights would then become an issue for the neighbors. Mr. Marchant suggested that the developers not throw that idea out if the neighbors liked it. In response to a question,Mr. Cheng indicated that the layout of the original site has been looked at by the Fire Department and the Town Engineer. They suggested that the plans would be acceptable, however, Mr. Cheng informed the committee that the approval was not official. John Frey stated that, although the perimeter road created more asphalt, it provided a greater distance between the units and the neighbors. Mr. Cheng indicated that if the group felt positively about the perimeter road that the designers would look at a plan that incorporated that element. Mr. Passman mentioned the Morrow Crossing development, a project that utilized a large garage for four units. There,the access road was along the perimeter and pushed the buildings back from the property line. Mr. Posner mentioned Russell Square as another interesting development. It fit in nicely with the neighborhood with some buildings set back 25 feet from the property line. This development had 17 units on two acres with some above ground and some below ground parking. Mr. Marchant stated that the Russell Square development was a good one and that committee members should go and look at the site. Mr. Posner stated that Rising Tide Development did not want to make the Lowell Street development like Locke Village. He indicated that they had looked at the Locke Village idea but that it did not seem like the best type of development for this location. Rising Tide Development wanted to make the Lowell Street buildings similar to others in Lexington. If neighbors want the Locke Village type, Rising Tide Development can make two row houses with landscaping. Mr. Passmen stated that he understood that the developers want to build as many units as they could and sell them for the greatest amount of money. He stated that separate units are more marketable. He indicated that it would be worth looking at the number of 2-plex buildings because he also wanted to see a successful development. Mr. Abkowitz asked whether the developers had looked at the financial viability of different plans. Mr. Posner stated that they had examined the financial viability of different plans but that he was hoping the committee could discuss the issue of setbacks without discussing the financial impact on the development. He indicated that a row house might be acceptable financially but not to the neighbors. Mr. Marchant questioned who would make the first commitment. He pointed out that the neighbors should be thinking about who is going to establish acceptable thresholds. Mr. Passman wanted to know why couldn't the neighbors move around units without being shouted down. Mr. Marchant said that the process wais good and to keep with it. It was suggested that the single-family houses on Porter Lane were similar in massing to the quadraplex units being proposed here. Mr. Galaitsis asked that the model be left so that people could play with it. Mr. Trainer agreed to leave the model in the Planning Department so people could use it. Mr.Taylor said that he would like a better sense of what minimum number of units would yield 16% profit, since if a 16%profit can be done with 20 units,why do 48? Mr. Possner said that 26 is the minimum for land costs, but there are fixed costs for the entire development. He also noted that 16%of a larger development is a larger number. He said that the developers blinked first by putting 48 units on the plans. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that the next meeting be just with the committee,without the developer present to allow the committee to discuss what they wanted to see on this site. Mr.Abkowitz asked if Mr. Marchant could meet the neighbors separately and was told that Mr. Marchant is hired by the town to work with the committee. Mr. Taylor commented that he has no real sense of where the town and the individuals on the committee stand on the proposal. Mr.Posner said he would be moving the official part of the process along. He is about to file. He will be filing 48 units and says that they will continue the discussion. When he asked what was driving him to file now he said that the market was causing nerves. They have assumed$285 per square foot as a sale • r price. Mr. Trainor said that the units are designed with empty nesters and the divorcee market in mind. It is important to have grade level access and direct access to the garage and parking. Ms. Krieger asked if they had a sense of the number of children that might live there, based on the unit mix? Mr. Posner said the affordable units will have families with kids. Of the market rate unit, about half will have children. He expressed concerns about the community if children are only in the affordable units. They will need to market to families. Mr. Derby stated that Locke Village does not have ground level access and children only in the affordable units. There was some discussion about who to target with marketing and whether is might raise fair housing questions. Mr. Marchant said that in a development in Weston the big units still did not get children,they were only in the affordable units. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked how the price of an affordable unit was set. Mr. Marchant said that it was based on a family size 1.5 times the number of bedrooms. The price would be set before the lottery for the units took place. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that to get affordable units that aren't just for families the units would have to be designed to reflect the expected tenant. Mr. Derbay said that LexHab could manage the project units. Ms.Kreiger closed the meeting by saying that the next meeting would be without the developer present. She reminded committee members to get any comments on the minutes to Rachael who will put the minutes on a future agenda. Adjourn Respectfully submitted, Rachael Herrup-Morse Maryann McCall-Taylor