Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-28-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on April 28th, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Melanie Thompson; and Robert Creech. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director. Mr. Hornig stated that this remote participation meeting was being held in accordance with Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Executive Order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law to allow remote participation during the State of Emergency due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Mr. Hornig provided instructions to members of the public, who were watching or listening to the meeting via the Zoom application, regarding the process for making a public comment. ******************** DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************* 15 Fair Oaks Drive: Street Adequacy Determination: Mr. Hornig said the Board would be passing over this agenda item since this project was not ready for consideration by the Board. Continued Public Hearing: 109 Reed Street (Kay Tiffany Way) Modification of Approved Subdivision: The applicant requested to stake out a new proposal for how to deal with the sidewalk and put this request off for consideration for two weeks. Mr. Hornig used his power under the COVID-19 proclamation to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. 12 Summit Road Residential Development Sketch Plan Review: Attorney Frederick Gilgun for DND Homes, applicant, and Michael Novak, engineer were present. Mr. Gilgun said this proposed project was for a public benefit development for 10 town homes with one unit for affordable housing. He presented the basic benefit information that would be for the town for this proposed sketch plan project. Mr. Novak presented the sketch proposed plan set showing the gardens, retaining walls by the steep slopes, two current curb cuts and the conventional proof plan. He explained the intent would be to save the main portion of the existing structure for units 6, 7, & 8 and they would like to preserve the existing edges of the landscape. Planning Board Member Questions:  Ms. Thompson wanted more detail before asking any questions. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of April 28, 2021  Mr. Schanbacher asked for clarification on how they could preserve the existing garden, retaining walls and a beautiful redwood tree in the sunken garden as they move forward on the proposed project.  Mr. Creech thanked the applicant for the last-minute site visit. He asked how much cut or fill would they need? Mr. Novak said he did not know at this time. How would the retaining wall be constructed? Mr. Novak said probably through a tiered wall and gain some slope through foundation. Mr. Creech asked is there anything at all regarding HVAC and energy efficient systems, which is a big deal for the town. He was looking for extra effort on that. Mr. Novak said he did not know, but would consider it as the proposed project moved ahead.  Mr. Peters asked for clarification regarding the proof plan. If they constructed a single family home on lot B, would it be built into the hillside? Mr. Novak said if conventional, that would be the case. Staff memo had a concern about the shared curb cut with 8 Summit Road. Mr. Novak said he would look into the history and would adjust if needed.  Mr. Hornig asked Mr. Gilgun about the research done regarding the legal status of Bridle Path for the applicant, other people and the public right to access. Mr. Gilgun did not know at this time and would look into it. Public Comments: There was a group presentation made by several abutters regarding this property.  The resident at 22 Summit Road said since they heard a developer purchased the property they formed a neighborhood association of 26 homeowners. The neighborhood is strongly opposed to the proposed development and believe the historic landscape and villa should be preserved. A neighbor on Summit Road and preservation architect presented the history of the 12 Summit Road house. They believe that both the house and landscape are historically significant and preclude the granting of a special permit for this historic property. The resident at 31 Summit Road presented concerns regarding neighborhood impacts. This is a street with mostly foot and paw traffic and was concerned that this would double the traffic and impact the character, scale and livability of our neighborhood. The resident at 52 Follen Road discussed the buildable land on the proposed property rd was less than 2/3 of the lot area and his property was 50 feet below the villa. There was concern about water runoff and instability of the houses built on fill. The resident at 132 Follen Road discussed the significance of preserving the historical integrity of this property. Mr. Hornig said there were several letters that were sent to the Planning Board regarding this property and the Historical Commission.  A resident values the character of the neighborhood and if the special permit was granted it would allow the developer to exploit our Town’s vision in order to maximize their personal profit. This does not help achieve the goal of affordable housing and should not be approved.  The resident at 11 Summit Road said the neighbors on our street are long-time residents who love the character of this neighborhood which has remained the same for many years. When the street was paved it was made narrower and there is no drainage on the street and they have no cures for that. Minutes for the Meeting of April 28, 2021 Page 3  The resident at 4 Summit Road was respectfully opposed to taking something totally whole, beautiful, historical and functional and destroying its original form. The resident was upset with the removal of 100 year old trees and at the cost of reducing the quality of life for those who have lived here for 40 to 60 years and believe they will feel rushed to leave. This is not a time to dismantle a neighborhood but rather a time to build a community and take care for our neighbors.  The resident at 29 Tower Road lived on the other side of the neighborhood and said this is a place that is magical and a place for my kids to explore safely.  The resident at 48 Summit Road, looked at the history of this property and think the applicant is mistaken about the original floor plan of the villa. When will the Tree Warden go out to the site to inventory the heritage of the old growth trees to protect them? Mr. Hornig explained about the tree bylaw and when the applicant requests a demolition permit and or a building permit they will have to submit a plan showing which trees that are on the property and mitigation for trees that are protected.  The resident at 205 Follen Road has lived here since 1968. The proposed development is appalling to the character for neighborhood and should never happen. For the good of the neighborhood and all of Lexington this permit should not go through.  The resident at 127 Follen Road said the conventional building allowed for three houses; how would the special permit now allow five structures and ten households. How does this proposed project keep within the character of the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods?  The resident at 11 Plymouth Road expressed concern that rich people will buy these houses and never live here and use only as an investment and was worried with what will happen with those properties in later years.  The resident at 104 Follen Road lived here for 48 years and wanted to thank the neighborhood committee for the stellar report on this property. Hope this special permit is not passed and we have diversity on the street. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Ms. Thompson thanked for all the comments from the abutters and asked the applicant what his response is to the project based on the comments. She wanted more information from the Board.  Mr. Schanbacher would like to hear more about this project being as sustainable as possible, more affordable, and being sensitive to the Olmsted historic gardens and the difficult topography of the site.  Mr. Creech said his main concern was on the environmental impact, the impact on the topography, the landscape, and the loss mature trees minimized. The applicant’s proposal is worth considering with some changes as opposed to the conventional plan. Mr. Creech shared screen showing a different layout (attached) with one less house and open space on the north side of the property. Mr. Creech suggested eliminating two houses to reduce the need for fill and to possibly reduce the length of the retaining wall. One house might be relocated. The end result would create some open space and reduce the environmental impact. Mr. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of April 28, 2021 Creech’s layout also proposed some additional parking spaces on the property for visitors given the tight space on Summit Road.  Mr. Peters thanked the neighbors for the presentation on the property. He was not convinced that the proposed sketch plan meets the standards for the livability scale and character, but is still worth exploring further. Does the property owner have any information on the age on those two addition wings? Consider replacing the wings and moving units nine and ten so they occupy that space to preserve some of the historic gardens and protecting the redwood tree in the front of the house. The concern with the by-right subdivision was there would be no historical preservation of the house and gardens. The existing house would be demolished and the three large conventional single-family houses would obliterate the gardens. He was still not convinced that the applicant has demonstrated that livability scale and character of the neighborhood would be preserved with the public benefit plan. The applicant should work with the Historical Commission and the neighbors on what would be the next step.  Mr. Hornig said the public benefit development concept is more desirable than three more large houses that would completely demolish the existing house and grounds and preserve nothing. The Planning Board would have no control at all on that development. He would like to see as much of the hardscape fencing and walls preserved and have as little driveway and housing take up the landscape. The large lawns on the north of the house is where the new house footprints should be placed instead of the front to preserve the streetscape. He would like to see fewer buildings: three or fewer and possibly adding to the current house. He liked the public benefit development for housing diversity and the applicant should consider making the units smaller. Try to preserve as much of the landscape and the main house as possible.  Ms. Thompson said she hoped that the applicant would consider what the neighbors and the Historical Commission are saying to preserve the historical character as much as possible.  Mr. Peters hoped they would also make a unit that is attainable as well as an affordable unit to this proposal to make it more appealing. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Discussion of Vision for Lexington Committee “Vision for Lexington Survey Questions”: Mr. Peters said the Vision for Lexington Committee is putting out its survey, as it does every five years. Some questions go from one survey to another. The economic questions remain to see if the attitude of the Town has remained the same. He asked if the Board wanted to add another question or substitute a question regarding mixed use, residential/commercial or a question related to the new housing choice law. The Board discussed some questions they had on what he presented. The results will probably be in the fall of 2022. Mr. Peters said since there were no objections to the Minutes for the Meeting of April 28, 2021 Page 5 questions it was assumed the Board was comfortable with this survey. If any Board Members have comments they should submit them to Mr. Peters. Staff Updates: The next CPAC will be May 11 at 7:00 p.m. Board Member Updates: It is Fair Housing month and CHAPA has a symposium at 1:30 p.m. April 29, 2021. The West Metro Home Consortium is having a fair housing workshop at 7:00 p.m. April 29, 2021. There is a webinar on the Housing Choice Law Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The Planning Board Meeting for May 12 will include 109 Reed Street if possible. Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Land Use, will come to the Board to discuss creating an Affordable Housing Trust or a Housing Development Corporation or both to deal with housing in a more effective way. The next meeting is on May 26, 2021, which will include the work plan discussion. Review of Meeting Minutes April 14, 2021: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the April 14, 2021 meeting as distributed. Bob Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of April 28, 2021. Bob Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 12 Summit Road:  Summit Project narrative dated March 23, 2021 (1 Page).  Sketch Plan Application dated March 19, 2021 (5 pages).  Form G-CE dated March 19, 2021 (1 page).  Form G-LA dated March 19, 2021 (1 page).  Historical Commission Decision dated February 28, 2021 (1 page). Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of April 28, 2021  Plan set dated March 19, 2021 (4 pages).  12 Summit Road Lexington Treasure (16 pages).  Revised Staff memo dated April 15, 2021 (2 pages).  Bob Creech shared screen ( 1 page). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board