Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 09-18-1995 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7.40 p.m. by Chairman Davison, with members Canale, Davies, Merrill, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino present. Mr. Grant arrived during Item 140 *************************** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ************************** 139 Recent Activity a. Munroe Village Subdivision: Mr. Bowyer reported that as construction on the Munroe Village subdivisions started, he noticed there is no path to connect the end of the Munroe Village subdivision street to property the Town will acquire in a land swap approved by the 1995 Town Meeting. The definitive subdivision plan was approved before the land swap was voted and does not include the connection. He said he has alerted the Conservation Administrator who will ask David Williams, former chairman of the Conservation Commission and the principal facilitator of the land swap, to look into the issue. b. New House Construction on Charles and Bowker Street: Mr. Bowyer said he received an inquiry from a Mr. Bowker concerning a house being built at Charles and Bowker Street. Mr. Bowker wanted to know how such a large house could be built on a small lot. Mr. Bowyer responded that the lot in question is probably a grandfathered building lot. c. Day Care Center on Marrett Road: Mr. Bowyer reported there is a proposal for a day care center at 410 Marrett Road. He said that some abutters have expressed concern about locating the center there, citing traffic safety concerns. After a recent change in the State Law, the Zoning By-Law permits day care centers by right in the RO and RS zones. d. 915-917 Massachusetts Avenue. Sketch Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Rollout: Mr. Bowyer rolled out a sketch preliminary plan for the development of land at 915-917 Massachusetts Avenue. It was submitted by Philip Saunders, Jr., Trustee, for Ronald A. Laing, on September 15, 1995 The staff has not yet reviewed the plan in detail. The time for action on this plan expires on October 24, 1995 ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 140 PUBLIC HEARING, Winship Common, Mark Moore Homes: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 7:52 p.m. Present were Mark Moore and Frank Camey of Mark Moore Homes,the applicant; Ronald Wood, landscape architect, of Guidelines, Inc., Malcolm McDowell, engineer and surveyor, of Noonan and McDowell;William Hubner, architect, of Moore Designs; and Fred Conroy, attorney, of Conroy and Coughlin. Also present was Mark Newman, attorney for the Monahan family, sellers of the property, and Gail Kiley and Max Johnson who will move and restore the Winship-Reed farmhouse. Mr. Carney gave a brief history of the planning of this project thus far, and of the changes made in their approach to developing the site. He described the plans and highlighted the notable features of the design. He noted that this is a proposal based on the two plans the Board reviewed at the sketch plan stage in the spring. The 51 Lowell Street property has a total of about 4 75 acres. Four single family house lots,that have frontage on Summer Street and Lowell Street, have already been created by the endorsement of the Approval Not Required plan. Those lots are not part of the cluster subdivision plan and are separate building lots that do not need approval by the Planning Board. This plan involves moving the existing 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 18, 1995 farmhouse about 50 feet south to a new position at the corner of Haskell and Lowell Streets. It will be on a separate Approval Not Required lot that is not part of the cluster subdivision. to Mr. Wood described the features of the-site-and explained that the-cluster proposal involves the construction of seven single family dwellings on individual lots. He said that the changes from the two earlier sketch plans are subtle and mostly involve changes in details from those earlier plans. Mr. Hubner explained that the dwellings would have a farmhouse style with a low roof-line and covered porches. The master bedroom would be on the first floor in a majority of the dwellings. Mr. Carney said that the cluster plan incorporates the stated objectives of the Planning Board and other interested parties in preserving open space, preserving the existing historical structure, in the sensitive treatment of the site, and the addition of variety in the housing stock of the town. They believe their proposal complies fully with to the Development Regulations and the Lexington Zoning By-Law There were questions and comments from the Planning Board regarding the radius of the intersection of the proposed street with Lowell Street, the layout, dimensions and name of the proposed street, the architectural features of the existing farmhouse that would be translated to the new dwellings, and size and architectural features of the proposed dwellings on the cluster and Approval Not Required lots. The Board discussed the siting of the restored and relocated farmhouse, the access to the dwellings on the three Approval Not Required lots on Summer Street, and the proposed ownership, use, maintenance, and access to the open space lot. There were questions and comments from the audience regarding public participation in the subdivision review process; why the applicants have not shown a plan that incorporates how the dwellings on the Approval Not Required lots would be integrated into the overall design of the site;the desirability of a cluster scheme versus a conventional plan; and the plans for moving the existing farmhouse. Members of the audience expressed concerns over what guarantees the Board would receive that the existing farmhouse would survive being moved and restored. Max Johnson, who will purchase the existing farmhouse from the Monahan family, said that he will only demolish a small shed, and that he would faithfully restore the house. Mr. Johnson said that only a few of the existing trees would have to be removed for the house to be moved to its new location. Some members of the audience expressed regret that the farmhouse had to be moved at all and the site developed. There was strong opposition from two direct abutters that the requests for relief from the standard zoning requirements were excessive and that the proposed concenhalion of dwellings would be too great in the area of the site that will be developed. At least one member of the audience thought that this cluster proposal was excessive and that this was not the right location for a cluster subdivision. Another questioned the Board on whether it considered other designs for the site. Planning Board members spoke to the issues raised by the audience. Richard Canale expressed his belief that this plan is preferable to the alternative conventional plan. He said that the Board would not have the control over the site design, and overall use of the site if this were a conventional plan. John Davies agreed and said that the cluster design is a vast improvement over the conventional plan with the same number of units, and that the applicant has demonstrated the legal right to build twelve dwellings on this site. Frederick Merrill agreed and said that the cluster approach is superior to the conventional design for this site. Robert Bowyer, Planning Director, spoke about the different considerations the Board has to make in evaluating a proposal like this. The advantages that the cluster design has over the conventional include: the cluster scheme does not require that the full length of Haskell Street be rebuilt and thus avoids the possibility that it would become a by-pass;that smaller dwellings would be constructed in the cluster; that this proposal includes a different type of dwelling, i.e., one intended for "empty-nesters",than is found in typical new construction in Lexington; that the projected occupancy will be less costly for the Town to service than Minutes for the Meeting of September 18, 1995 3 housing with numerous school children; and that this is a piece of land with some particularly difficult and challenging topography Mrs. Davison declared the hearing closed at 10.10 p.m. The Board reconvened in Room G-15 in the Town Office Building at 10:17 141 108 Grove Street. Informational Hearing_ Mark Moore Homes. Debra Cary. Mrs. Davison opened the informational hearing at 10.18 p.m. Present were Debra Cary, the owner of the land; Frank Camey and Mark Moore of Mark Moore Homes; the applicant, Zoltan Juhaz, engineer, of Meridian Engineering Collaborative, Inc., William Hubner, architect. Mr. Carney presented an alternative to a previously approved preliminary subdivision plan to build one single-family dwelling on land at 110 Grove Street. Also requested is a special permit under Section 7 4.5 of the Zoning By-Law for a common driveway to serve both dwellings. They are submitting a proposal that they believe includes the required: 1) full compliance plan; 2) proof that the proposed plan minimizes disturbance to the site; and, 3) public benefit. The public benefit is the donation to the Town of Parcel A, with an area of 36,656 square feet that would connect to the existing Town owned land. An independent appraisal of that land set its value at $40,000 Questions and comments from the Planning Board concerned the location and size of the proposed dwelling and driveway design. The Board agreed the proposal sets a good precedent for the use of the "Article 25" (frontage reduction) mechanism. Mr. Bowyer reminded the applicants that they would have to apply to the Board of Appeals for a special permit for the common driveway Alan Kirby, the new owner of 106 Grove Street, abutter of the proposed dwelling, was present and expressed approval of the development. Mrs. Davison declared the hearing closed at 10:38. ***************a********** REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES *************************** 142. Minuteman Science-Technology High School and Adult Career Center: Nyles Barnert, a member of the Regional High School Committee, spoke about preliminary discussions the Committee has had about creating space to house manufacturing/training facilities for students in the emerging technology program. The State has suggested that the school look for a technology company willing to build a structure on campus that would incorporate educational facilities for students of the school. Mrs. Davison expressed support but noted that diplomacy, on the part of the school committee and school officials, will be needed in dealing with the Town to compensate for the 1985 hotel, conference center proposal. Questions and comments from the Board concerned zoning provisions, traffic, parking and fiscal impacts. The Board asked to be kept up to date on these plans. ************************************** REPORTS *************************************** 143 Planning Board. Subcommittees a. LEXHAB Ad Hoc Review Committee: The Board noted Mr. Marino's appointment as staff to the LEXHAB Ad Hoc Review Committee. b. Center Committee. Master Plan for the Battle Green: Mrs. Davison asked for a volunteer to represent the Planning Board on a Lexington Center Committee sub-committee formed to prepare a master plan for the Lexington Battle Green. She said she would speak to David Wells, chairman of the Lexington Center Committee, about having a Planning Board member on the sub-committee. c. Cambridge Reservoir Watershed Advisory Committee: Mr. Canale reported that the Watershed Advisory Committee is deliberating on how best to spend the $30,000 the U.S. Postal Service paid in fines as a result of permit violations for storm water management. d. Design Advisors, Committee/Board of Anneals: Mr. Davies reported he attended meetings of the Board of Appeals and Design Advisory committees, both of which dealt with some of the same applications for special permits. He noted that these committees have the benefit of the applicant's presentations when they 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 18, 1995 deliberate on petitions before them. He observed that without the benefit of these presentations, it is harder for the Planning Board to make pertinent comments on applications before the Board of Appeals. I -Mr. Bowyer provided some background on the-Planning Board's role in the application process.He pointed out that part of the Zoning Officer's duties is to attend Board of Appeals meetings and to provide technical guidance. A new zoning officer will be appointed soon. There was further discussion of the Board's role and agreement that the Board's comments should relate to policy and planning issues. The meeting was adjourned at 11.23 p.m. 44i / r 0 —a' = �I Frederick L. Merrill, Jr., Clerk 1