Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-17-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 17, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Galaitsis, Hornig, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. ************************************ MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of March 22, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 32 James Street, Mr. and Mrs. Wen-I Li, Request for Determination: The Board reviewed the application of Mr. and Mrs Li, along with supporting materials, for a determination that James Street is currently of adequate grade and construction to provide frontage for the property at number 32. The Board agreed not to act on the request at this meeting, as there was insufficient information about the width of the pavement. Furthermore, the contractor's list of materials purported to have been used to improve the street did not refer to James Street or to any location where the surfacing work described was done. SUBDIVISION OF LAND Public Hearing, 177 Grove Street Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, "Goodman Estates", Rayvon Realty Trust: Ms. Manz opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Present were Mr. Douglas Lees, engineer; Mr. Donald Borenstein, attorney; and Mr. Arthur McCabe, attorney. There were 30 people in the audience, including Attorney Thomas Harrington, who represents the Hom family of 175 Grove Street. Mr. Lees began by announcing that the definitive plan that was the subject of tonight's required public hearing, was now to be regarded as a mid-term review plan. He said that when it was pointed out to him that the Board had expected to see a mid-term review plan—it was one of the 11conditions of the Board's approval of the preliminary plan—before a definitive plan was filed, he decided to incorporate changes in the definitive plan, responding to issues raised in the staff analysis of the April 14 plan, which was provided as a courtesy to Mr. Lees. Procedurally, it was decided to keep the public hearing open, allow the applicant to present the plan as is and then continue the hearing to a date and time certain. Ms. McCall-Taylor indicated that legal notice of the continued hearing would be published twice in the Lexington Minuteman and notices sent to abutters stating the date and time. The applicant agreed to this scenario. Mr. Lees briefly summarized the plan, noting that much of the utility plan has not changed from earlier submissions. He contended that conditions for drivers at either of the intersections of the two driveways with Dewey Road and Grove Street are probably even safer in terms of sight distance and traffic intensity than was estimated in earlier submissions, as the vehicle trips generated by the subdivision will be divided between the two interior drives. The open space is configured as a circle about ten feet wide around the site's perimeter, outside of the limit-of-clearing (LOC) line, where it will serve as a visual buffer for the residents of the new homes and the abutters. He commented that the open space area is sufficient, though it might not meet the Planning Board's definition of usable open space exactly. Regarding the stormwater management plan, he noted that Mr. Lawrence Hayes, of Hayes Associates, who performed an independent engineering review of the April 14 plan, characterized the drainage calculations as conservative. Minutes for the Meeting of May 17, 2006 2 Mr. Lees noted that the width of the driveway pavement would be increased to 18 feet, per the Fire Chief's request, noting this would change the impervious surface calculations. The four house footprints shown represent the actual houses they propose. Asked why four units are shown, not three, as the Board requested, Mr. Borenstein responded that economics and marketing were the deciding factors. He added that if the applicant decides to build three units, he would use the three-lot conventional subdivision plan filed in November 2005 in order to avoid the liabilities of a cluster subdivisions and to move more quickly through the permitting process. Ms. McCall-Taylor indicated that a conventional development proposal with three or more units also requires Board approval of a special permit. Board Comments and Questions : Mr. Canale and Ms. Manz, in turn, asked Mr. Lees to clarify the meaning of the label "limit-of-clearing" on the plan and stressed the Board's desire to retain as much existing vegetation as possible. Mr. Lees indicated that the line represents the outer boundary of site construction. No measures are contemplated to protect any of the vegetation within it. Mr. Lees remarked that all the trees could be saved if no houses were built there. Mr. Hornig made a number of requests: 12-foot wide pavement for the non-shared portions of the driveways; access to the open space and permanent delineation between the lots and the common open space; staking the perimeter of limit-of-clearing for the benefit of the abutters/neighbors; and, deeper setbacks for the four dwellings and siting them closer together so the surrounding open space can be 25 feet wide, not ten. Mr. Galaitsis said that he did not see liabilities to using a cluster and he felt that what was presented looked like a conventional subdivision; the land was divided in four almost equal lots, the houses are spread apart and nearly centered on their lots, and have similar size and footprints. He told Mr. Lees to look at 135-44B of the bylaw. He will see that the cluster is meant to be more small units. If there are going to be four units on this parcel, Mr. Galaitsis wants to see one that is much smaller. He felt that the cluster provisions give privileges, not liabilities. Mr. Lees said that the Conservation Commission will review the plans on June 13, in particular the implications of connecting the drainage system for the access drive to Dewey Road to the town sewer service in Dewey Road. The Board indicated its desire to hear the Commission's reaction to this. Audience Comments and Questions : Mr. Thomas Harrington provided the Board with copies of a letter from Mr. Jacobs, a hydrologist retained by the Hom family, 175 Grove Street, and made a brief presentation enumerating Mr. Jacobs' findings. He described the soils in the area as hydric soils, which support wetland-type vegetation, though the area is not a designated wetland. Based on the test pits Mr. Jacobs dug just outside the edge of the proposed development site, he believes it would be impossible to build the proposed development without negative impacts on abutting property. Many of the residents also spoke, expressing great concern about drainage. The area already suffers problems with run-off. After this testimony and exploring options with the applicant, it was agreed by all that more test pits need to be dug in areas likely to be disturbed. Mr. Galaitsis stated, for the audience's information, that the applicant is not required to improve conditions for the area; he is required to not make them worse. The Board said that the following issues must be addressed and/or information provided in the next submission: 1. The landscape plan must identify trees within the limit-of-clearing area which could be retained and the measures to be employed to protect them and the Board prefers the term limit of work; 2. An accurate tree removal plan; Minutes for the Meeting of May 17, 2006 3 3. Additional test pits: it was agreed that Ms. McCall-Taylor would be present along with representatives of the applicant and the neighbors when more test pits are dug in areas of the site that will likely contain drainage infrastructure, structures or other impervious surface; 4. More information on the assumptions used to calculate dry well capacities; 5. Draft deed restrictions that reference the landscape plan relative to the homeowners association's responsibility to retain and maintain the vegetation in the common open space; 6. Draft deed restrictions as to the homeowners association's responsibility to maintain the drainage infrastructure must be included the next submission; 7. The common open space must meet all requirements for usable open space in a cluster development. The plan must show access to the open space for each of the dwelling units. The Board also requested of the attorneys for the parties that they share information. Mr. Harrington and Mr. Borenstein agreed to this. Responding to comments by the proponents as to the perceived liabilities of a cluster development, the Board observed that the cluster provisions offer privileges, not liabilities. Used intelligently, the character of the land and the surrounding area can be honored instead of destroyed. This is because a subdivision street does not need to be built, more open space and wild-life habitat are preserved, the surrounding neighborhoods can be spared excessive degradation of their environment, the moderate-sized homes clusters are meant to intrude less aggressively than the usual very large dwellings being built today. Cluster developments help maintain community spirit instead of disrupting it. Mr. Galaitsis, quoting a former Planning Board chairman, described Mr. Lees' proposed cluster development as "a conventional subdivision in drag". He indicated that for him, the proposal is a 'non- starter': it offers nothing in the way of diverse housing or creative land use. Mr. Canale indicated that he could see no justification for four units. The proposal offers nothing that the cluster provisions are meant to provide. Mr. Zurlo said that it is difficult to evaluate the proposal: it does not consider the particular character of the site or the surrounding area. It is a cookie-cutter development being imposed without regard to arranging its mass in a way that responds to this location. Ms. Manz stated that Goodman Estates is not a desirable cluster plan and it might be just as well to proceed with a conventional development. Mr. Hornig expressed his hope that an acceptable cluster can be salvaged from this proposal. At 9:30 p.m. on a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to continue the public hearing on 'Goodman Estates' to June 14, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing on 16 Shade Street Reduced Frontage Subdivision Plan, Seaver Construction Company: Ms. Manz opened the public hearing on Mr. Scott Seaver's definitive reduced-frontage subdivision plan for 16 Shade Street. Mr. Seaver and engineer Frederick Russell were present. There were 7 people in the audience. Mr. Russell briefly went over the existing site conditions, the proof plan and what the two-lot preliminary plan had shown. He then presented a definitive reduced-frontage two-lot plan. Mr. Russell noted that he adjusted the placements of the new dwellings per the Board's request, and he included more homes in the neighborhood profile. While the proposed houses are larger than those listed in the profile, the area of the proposed lots is larger than others in the neighborhood. Mr. Russell provided cross-section and elevation drawings as well as a vegetation-removal plan, which proposes clearing along Minutes for the Meeting of May 17, 2006 4 the Shade Street frontage to improve sight lines for drivers. He stated that the proposed drainage system would actually reduce the amount of runoff from the site. Board Comments and Questions : In general, the Board reacted favorably to the changes the applicant made to the plans, but made several substantive comments. Mr. Zurlo expressed concern about how the houses will look from the street and asked that the perceived mass of the houses be lessened. He said that it would be easier to assess the visual impact of the dwellings if 3-D views could somehow be provided. Mr. Seaver responded that he does not have that capability at present but that that the two dwellings could have farmer-style porches, helping to mitigate their vertical appearance. He also indicated that the design of the house on Lot 2 was conceptual though its size would be as presented. Mr. Galaitsis stated his view that the houses appear to have three stories, and the two houses would look like one long building when viewed from a certain direction. He protested as misleading the use of the image of a large oak tree in all of the section drawings. Mr. Hornig noted two changes that he viewed as negative: the increase in the limit-of-work area on Lot 2 and the orientation of the garage on Lot 2. Mr. Seaver responded that the view of the garage that Mr. Hornig is concerned about is actually from a commercial parking lot. The living area of the proposed house on Lot 2 appeared to the Board to substantially exceed the limit stated in the Board’s policies and guidelines for reduced-frontage subdivisions, even if the Board allowed the use of the town-wide median house-size of 4,300 square feet of living area instead of the neighborhood median. While other new homes in the area are quite large, the proposed houses are significantly larger than those immediately adjacent. Mr. Russell said he would confirm with the architect how the area was calculated Audience Comments and Questions : Comments from the audience had to do with how the development would look as one entered Shade Street from Spring Street; measures to protect neighbors from the effects of blasting; and where connections to the Town’s water and sewer service would be made. Regarding the required public benefit in the reduced-frontage development provisions, Ms. McCall- Taylor noted that the Development Review Team had suggested improvements, such as a small parking area and signs at the trailhead at the Patriot Partners property. The Board made the following requests: to reduce the amount of fill and change the limit of work line to follow the existing contour line of 326 feet; that deed restrictions be placed on land outside of the limit of work line to protect vegetation in the future; and, to resolve the size of the driveways and provide accurate figures for total impervious surface/house area. Mr. Galaitsis asked that the total height of the houses appear on the plans. As a means of representing the proposed house mass Mr. Zurlo asked Mr. Seaver to replicate the height of the proposed houses with helium balloons and provide photographs to demonstrate how the massing would be viewed from off-site. It was recommended that Mr. Seaver share CAD files with Mr. Zurlo who could prepare a 3-D model of the plan to allow for a better understanding of the how the house would appear from various vantage points when built. When asked if he could have revised plans ready in time for a continued hearing on June 14, Mr. Seaver responded in the affirmative. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to continue the public hearing to June 14, 2006 at 9:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. Staff said it would inform the abutters of the continuation. Minutes for the Meeting of May 17, 2006 5 ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Met State Hospital/Metropolitan Parkway: Ms McCall-Taylor reported that a fire in one of the old Met State Hospital buildings in Waltham revealed a problem in getting emergency access to the site. The Lexington fire truck had trouble negotiating the traffic-calming roundabout in the parkway. The driver found the mountable curbing was not easily negotiated. Ms. McCall-Taylor and Fire Chief Middlemiss inspected the roundabout and determined that the problem would be mostly mitigated when the final road surface material is applied, but they also determined that the proposed tree planted in the center of the roundabout would present a hazard as it grew. Using pavers in the center seemed to be the best solution. The AvalonBay closing is tentatively scheduled for May 31 and building permits have been applied for. Planning Board Reports Ms. Manz said that the Center Committee and the Historic Districts Commission have expressed their preference for the use of wire cut bricks for sidewalks in the center. She wondered if the Board wanted to weigh in on the discussion. The Board said they would not comment as they felt adequately represented on the committees which were discussing this. Mr. Hornig reported that the Conservation Commission is staking the wetlands at the Winning Farm property off of Blueberry Lane. Mr. Zurlo reported that the 2020 subcommittee, a scoping task force for the economic development officer position, was being organized and hoped to meet in mid-June. He also noted that he attended the first Energy Conservation Committee meeting. Ms. Manz said she would be attending the Housing Partnership meeting May 18 to discuss a strategic plan for passage of the Inclusionary Housing amendment. Mr. Canale stated that the MAPC annual meeting was being held in Burlington on May 24 and to let him know if anyone wanted to attend. It would include a presentation of Burlington’s center rezoning. He also said that the Communication Advisory Committee intends to come forward with revisions to Section 15 of the Zonings By-Law, but they were likely to be just technical corrections. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk