Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-02-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 2016 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building was called to order 7:03 p.m. by Chair Tim Dunn, with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. ****************************STAFF MEMBER REPORTS************************** General updates: Staff, with guidance from Town Counsel and the Town Clerk’s Office, has dealt with a complaint regarding the September 7, 2016, Board meeting and the Open Meeting Law. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ 9 Bushnell Drive (287 Waltham Street), Sketch Balanced Housing Development (BHD): Mr. John Farrington, attorney, Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect, Mr. Iqbal Quadir, the site owner and applicant, and Rick Waitt, project manager, presented to the Board. Mr. Farrington explained this site is across the street from the Captain Parker Arms apartments, which has a much higher density then this proposed development. The proposed development consists of 10 buildings with two to three dwelling units each, for a total of 25 units. The home at 9 Bushnell will be kept and remain Mr. Iqbal Quadir residence where he has lived for the last 15 years. The purpose is to create housing for empty nesters so they can stay after their kids are done with school and older residents. Mr. Larson said this project is in walking distance to the Center and could be considered urban. Three single family homes currently exist on the site and two houses are accessed through Waltham Street. The proof plan shows a total of 11 buildable lots. This BHD plan responds to the site and existing conditions. The homes would be limited to 2500 gross square feet. Garages will be underneath the living areas with elevators to the upper levels and there will be amenities for the residents. The common driveway will be 640 feet length, 20 feet wide, with a maximum of 12% slope and able to accommodate emergency vehicles. The gross floor area and impervious surface area will be less than the maximum allowed. This project is made to appeal to those who want to downside for and for older residents who want to remain in Lexington. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 2, 2016 Mr. Henry said staff has reviewed the proof plan and is a valid proof plan. While both plans involve extensive earth work, the BHD alternative requires significantly less than the conventional plan would require. This location is appropriate for this age targeted development. Audience comments: Ms. Fenollosa, member of the historical commission, explained how important this historical house is and was very happy to hear that it would be maintained. This house is eligible to be on the National Historic Registry Board Comments:  What is the GFA of the historic house? A little more than 5,000 square feet.  How do you access? Through Bushnell Drive using an easement and was concerned and that was why the applicant wanted to purchase more property. On a dead-end street with more than 10 units a second access would be required and would like to know more about the history of the easement. Complete streets would require a through street, which may impact the proof plan. Mr. Larson said the easement would be used for emergency access only and more information will be provided on the easement at the next meeting.  There are concerns about topography of the site. On the proof plan, there is a driveway which is off by four feet and the grade change is huge across the site. Some of the grading appears 36 feet and many other locations on the site have large grade changes which are significant and could destroy the integrity of the site. This is shoehorning too many units on the site. This would also compromise the historic house character. How would seniors walk that? Would seniors share meals together and this site cannot support this number of units. Mr. Larson said this is not based on GIS but rather than a field survey and is more accurate especially for a sketch plan.  A Board member walked the site last weekend and would like to see the historic house and as much of the setting preserved especially the impressive trees surrounding it. Doing that will require clustering of the development and reduce the open space to preserve more of the site.  Look at the public benefit proposal to add affordable units to the project.  If a conventional plan was done here it would require a huge amount of grading and would impact the environment much more.  What did you mean that you would be able to have guests there? The applicant said he has three floors and the first floor could be a community room and allowing space for Minutes for the Meeting of November 2, 2016 Page 3 visiting friends and relatives to stay. He is trying to foster a community, but not sure what would work yet.  Access to the site should be addressed regarding the easement for the next plan. There were 12 comments sent to staff and provided to the Board. Public Comment:  Is there a traffic study required? No this does not trigger a study.  Is there any restrictions to not allow children? No.  This development would be more attractive to families and bring more children.  Is there going to be elevators and parking spaces for each unit? The elevators would serve two units for each floor.  Can this be age restricted? Yes. Cut the size of the houses.  It has been noticed that the last decade there has been constant gridlock on the streets and these units will add significant traffic and automobile accidents.  The proof plan shows 11 units would the historic house be included? Planners fall in love with new concepts. Just because it is less dense then the Captain Parker Arms Apartments doesn’t make it ok. This will put a burden on the neighborhood.  It looks like there will be a lot of blasting for this development. The blasting is not just a noise issue, foundations, underground springs, outflows could be impacted, and possibly fracture the bedrock and release radon.  The next-door neighbor who owns the land under the easement Mr. Quadir uses to access his property said there is a 128-foot difference in grade going into a major road especially on an icy road that is very steep. Trees absorb a huge amount of water and removing all those trees on ledge would be a major issue.  This development would not be attractive to seniors due to the grade. Without an age restriction families would go to these units. We will need more schools, teachers and drive seniors out of the community. Check the price point for the existing BHD.  We did not receive any formal notice of this meeting.  Concern was expressed that if there are more houses it will be dangerous for children walking to school.  A 2000 square foot unit is not downsizing.  This is not the first development on this site and won’t be the last. The easement is only to the home owner and not for the other lots, it would overburden the easement.  The amount of blasting required on the site would be overwhelming. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 2, 2016  Those that bought these properties love the forested areas and should be preserved for the animal’s sake as well.  If you play with that grade will you guarantee my house safety?  Drainage is a concern and there is massive flooding in basements and on the front of the property.  What would be the plan for water remediation? Residents are worried about the neighborhood that will be damaged from the proposed blasting.  These high-density housing projects (BHDs) are causing concerns about impact on environment, traffic, and schools.  The BHD bylaw is not working as discussed in earlier meetings and recommend a one year moratorium for the Planning Board to determine what would work. Board Comments:  Recommend the applicant speak with his neighbors.  We would hope the plans would respect the setting around the house would be respected.  There is no need for a moratorium anything the Board approves would be better than what a conventional plan offers. Mr. Farrington said this is a sketch plan to take in information. There is no intention of using the easement off Bushnell for the development and will use access from Waltham Street. 22 Deering Avenue, Street Determination: Mr. Rick Waitt, project engineer and Mr. James Caouette, applicant were present. Mr. Waitt said there are no drainage recommendations and would mill and repave the road and fix whatever needed to be repaired. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that the road is currently not of adequate grade and construction, but will be after inspecting the sub base and making any repairs needed, mill, and repave the road near 22 Deering Avenue. Board of Appeal Cases: 6 Bryant Road make sure the plans do not allow illegal access to the attic. ****************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************* Discussion of Potential Zoning Amendments to: Special Permit Residential Developments: The Board discussed proposed changes to the three development types that currently exist. The biggest change would be the elimination of the public benefit option and simply incorporating an affordable unit inclusionary requirement into BHDs. Other ideas contemplated included limiting Minutes for the Meeting of November 2, 2016 Page 5 the number of units, stronger protections for steep slopes and wetlands, and changes to the proof plan. Allowing Site Sensitive Development (SSD) by right was discussed, but tabled. Ensuring that conventional subdivisions result in more of what the Board would like was also raised. Richard Wolk, a member of the Conservation Commission, expressed concerns that it may become more difficult for them to acquire land with BHDs permitted. Because developers get more units in BHDs, the land becomes more expensive and out of reach for the Town. The Board should consider the implications of approving BHDs reducing their chance to purchase more conservation land. The Board will continue this discussion at the next meeting on November 16. Regional Office District (CRO): The regional market is calling for a greater mix of uses, especially the incorporation of amenities. Cleanup of boundary lines is also included in this proposal. There needs to be discussion with the community regarding this before making those decisions. Look at this town wide and not isolated areas not all of this is due to development. The Board discussed public outreach and will discuss a date for a community meeting at the next meeting. Upcoming meeting schedule and known agenda items: The next meeting is November 16, 2016. Ms. Corocran-Ronchetti, will not be able to attend. The meeting of December 7, 2016, will be devoted to discussion on the proposals for the 2017 Annual Town Meeting. December 14, 2016, will focus on deciding what proposals the Board wishes to include in its request to the Board of Selectmen for placeholders on the 2017 Annual Town Meeting warrant. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:38 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Staff Summary and Recommendations regarding 22 Deering Avenue (1 page).  Cover letter, application and Road improvement plan for 22 Deering Avenue, dated October 19, 2016 (8 pages).  Staff Summary and Recommendations regarding 9 Bushnell Drive/ 287 Waltham Street Avenue (1 page).  Cover letter and application 9 Bushnell Drive/ 287 Waltham Street, dated October 11, 2016 (10 pages). Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 2, 2016  Road improvement plan for 9 Bushnell Drive/ 287 Waltham Street, dated October 11, 2016 (5 pages).  Article B Amend Zoning Bylaw Alternative Residential Developments (2 pages).  Article B Amend Zoning Bylaw Alternative Residential Developments, from Richard Canale (2 pages).  Article D Amend Zoning Bylaw CRO District (3 pages).  Maps changes for Bedford Street, Forbes Road, Hayden Area, Westview Street, Wood Street (5 pages).  Section 135-6.0 Alternative Residential Developments (8 pages).  Section 135-6.0 Alternative Residential Developments, from Richard Canale (7 pages).  Email to the Board from the website regarding 9 Bushnell Drive/ 287 Waltham Street (12 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk