Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-31-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 31, 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 Schilt present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 3, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 92-110 Shade Street (Journey’s End) Sketch Plan: Present for this item were Mr. Chris Spilios and Mr. Arthur Spilios, the property owners, Mr. Michael Snow, landscape architect, and Mr. Richard Waitt, civil engineer. Mr. Snow provided an overview of the proposed sketch plan, noting that the site is approximately 8.09 acres and it is zoned RO. The properties to the west of the site are zoned CD and the properties across Shade Street are zoned RS. Members of the Board noted that the property to the north was rezoned last year, and it is now zoned CD and not RD as noted on the plans. Mr. Snow noted the correction. He continued with a description of the existing site conditions, stating that there is a single-family dwelling on each of the existing lots, and a barn is sited on the Journey’s End property (at 110 Shade Street). The Journey’s End property is currently on a septic system but it is served by the Town’s water system. There are steep slopes along the back of the property, with slopes of 15 percent or greater transitioning down to the Patriot Partners development to the rear. There are large open areas in the front of the property, which provide significant views of the property from Shade Street; the areas on the southern and western perimeters of the property are heavily forested. The wetlands that exist on the property, and on the adjacent property, are currently being delineated to determine their location, and the topographic survey is currently being redone as well. Mr. Hornig noted that he had walked the site, and at 92 Shade Street some of the slopes seemed greater than 15 percent. Mr. Snow stated that the applicants have provided four conceptual subdivision layouts for the Board to consider, however three of the layouts (two 10-unit conventional concepts, and one 10-unit cluster) proposed were two-dimensional concepts only, and are not preferred by the applicants. The proposed sketch plan shows combining the two parcels, and extracting three lots through an Approval Not Required (ANR) process; one of the ANR lots would be approximately 136,000 square feet and would retain the existing Journey’s End mansion. Of the remaining land, the applicants are proposing a three-lot conventional subdivision, with frontage on a new cul-de-sac that would align with Cary Avenue across Shade Street. Two of the lots would be at the end of the cul-de-sac at the rear of the property; the other lot would have frontage on Shade Street, and could potentially become another ANR lot if the current survey and future design work determines that enough frontage could be provided. Mr. Galaitsis inquired why a cluster was not one of the preferred alternatives, with open space that would be accessible from all of the new lots. Mr. Snow replied that the applicants preferred a conventional layout to protect the integrity of the Journey’s End property, which they intend to maintain. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the property currently has any historic protection, and Mr. Spilios stated that it did not and that the family would not want to see the mansion torn down. Mr. Waitt described the proposed cul-de-sac, which would be approximately 300 feet long, and would align with Cary Avenue with a 75 degree offset to the centerline in order to preserve wooded areas Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 2 adjacent to the new road. He noted that the overall objective for the proposed layout is to preserve the existing house and views, along with the retention of as much of the existing wooded areas as possible. Only two of the proposed new lots would require a significant amount of clearing. The proposed cul-de- sac is located in the area of a rock outcrop and would require little grading. The location of the proposed house sites has been based on the location of areas feasible for construction with minimal disruption, and the lots were designed around the house sites. All of the lots will have large setbacks to accommodate larger houses. It was also noted that there is frontage on the new cul-de-sac for the Journey’s End lot for additional development potential. Mr. Zurlo inquired as to why the proposed road did not directly align with Cary Avenue. Ms. McCall- Taylor added that the regulations require the road to be directly aligned or separated by at least 150 feet. Mr. Waitt stated that the centerlines do intersect, but that a curve was added for safety reasons. The applicants did not want to give the appearance that Cary Avenue would directly extend across Shade Street, creating the potential for motorists to drive across Shade Street without realizing that there is an intersection to stop at. Preserving existing trees was another objective in the design. Mr. Zurlo suggested that the road should be aligned with the curve shifted slightly further into the site. Mr. Zurlo inquired how the living area of the proposed houses would be calculated. Mr. Waitt replied that designs for the houses had not yet been determined, but would be estimated when a preliminary plan is submitted for review. Mr. Spilios stated that the recent trend along Shade Street and Cary Avenue has been the development of very large houses, and it is his intent to provide homes of a more modest size, however land values will ultimately determine what size the houses will be. He added that he anticipates a price of $1.5 million would be the target for each of the new houses. Mr. Zurlo stated that he felt the proposal was a sensitive design for the site and the neighborhood, and encouraged more diversity in the proposed housing units. Mr. Spilios noted that his family wants to preserve the five acres for the mansion, and hopes to find people who are like-minded to purchase the property. Mr. Galaitsis asked for the designers, in their next submission, to show how much vegetation would be removed to construct the road. He stated that he supports the proposed larger lots, and would not want to see them reduced in size. He cautioned that the slopes on the site should be verified, and encouraged the applicants to make sure that the homes will fit within the existing site context. Mr. Hornig stated that he supports the minimal site disturbance proposed. He added that he would prefer to see the new road directly align with Cary Avenue. He would prefer to see that the existing knoll be kept, but understands that to construct the roadway as proposed would require the knoll to be removed. He cautioned that if the Journey’s End lot was to be subdivided at some point in the future, that access from the new subdivision road should be looped through the site to connect to Shade Street in another location. Mr. Canale indicated that there is a large maple tree along the frontage of the property at 92 Shade Street that should be preserved. He cautioned that traffic volumes on Shade Street are higher than one would expect, and for safety reasons the alignment of the new road should not be too direct, and considerations should be made to ensure sufficient sight distances. Mr. Canale noted the distinction of the Journey’s End mansion and its unique character, and he has concerns about the future development potential on the lot. He suggested the applicants explore placing a conservation restriction or an historic restriction on the proposed lot. Mr. Waitt noted that this would be a consideration for the preliminary plan, and it is something that the Spilios family would likely support in order to retain the mansion. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that Town Counsel has recently determined that if three lots in the same ownership or development control are proposed it would still require a special permit with site plan review, even if the subdivision is an ANR. Mr. Waitt indicated that they would probably do two of the Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 3 ANR lots early on. Mr. Hornig suggested that the applicant not go forward with the ANR process for the proposed lot at the southern end of the site until the particulars are resolved for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Waitt asked if the Board would be interested in a site visit of the property prior to the submission of a preliminary plan. The design team could flag the layout of the proposed new road for the Board to see how the alignment would work. Ms. Manz noted that she preferred the slight offset of the alignment for safety and aesthetic reasons. Mr. Hornig stated he saw the risk factor being too high with an offset alignment as it could provide limited sight distances. Mr. Waitt noted that there are thousands of trees in the wooded areas on the site, and asked if the Board would waive the requirement that each of the mature trees be denoted on the plans, especially in areas that will be outside of the limit of work area. The Board noted that it would be acceptable to show only the mature trees that would be within the work area. Mr. Canale asked about the status of the existing accessory unit on the Journey’s End property and if it were actively used. Mr. Spilios noted that it was currently vacant, but that it would be retained and marketed as an in-law or an au pair suite. Mr. Snow asked whether the Board could support an alternative to the looped turnaround if the proposed cul-de-sac would only serve two housing units. Ms. Manz stated that the Board generally supports alternatives to reduce impervious surface, and that use of tear-dropped shaped turnarounds has recently been the preferred method. She added that she welcomed the invitation for the Board to conduct a site visit. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously voted to recommend that the applicants return with a preliminary plan for a conventional subdivision. AvalonBay at Metropolitan State—Name of Interior Drive Ms. McCall-Taylor provided the Board with a list of names provided by AvalonBay for the new interior drive to serve the redevelopment of the former Metropolitan State Hospital site. She noted that the Police Department did not support the use of the name of Avalon in any of the proposed street names due to possible confusion with the other AvalonBay development off of Waltham Street. Mr. Hornig asked if the proposed interior drive would show on the zoning map, and Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that there is no consistency in how interior drives for multi-family developments appear on the map. Mr. Hornig asked about the difference in interior drives that serve as subdivision streets as opposed to interior drives that serve as driveways. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that driveways lead to parking spaces; this would be an interior drive that would serve the purpose of giving the units addresses. Mr. Canale stated that he was opposed to setting a precedent of naming streets after developers, and felt that branding was inappropriate in Lexington. Ms. Manz suggested that the name should signify the former hospital use. Mr. Zurlo stated that if branding were to apply, that maybe the Town should be branded to the development in order to give it a town identity. Mr. Hornig stated that he was not opposed to tying the name to the development but was opposed to naming it after the developer. Mr. Zurlo asked if there were some unique feature on the site that the name could be based on. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that she would contact AvalonBay and request that they submit additional suggestions for the Board to consider. ****************************** UNACCEPTED STREETS ****************************** STREET LIST Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the Board that Planning Staff has contracted with a consultant who is Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 4 digitizing the zoning map for use in GIS. As part of this process, staff is updating the list of streets that do and do not appear on the zoning map, and adding streets from recent subdivisions that are currently not shown on the map. She added that there are some interior drives that are built to town standards that do not show on the map; this is mostly due to the fact that there is no definition for an interior drive so it is subjective as to whether the drives are actually street or not. Ms. Manz stated that she prefers that all roads that lead to houses should be included on the map, but that they should be differentiated as to their classification. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that all streets are unaccepted until Town Meeting accepts them, and she added that all of the paper streets that may exist in town are not accounted for on the list. Mr. Hornig stated that interior drives that do not have a right-of- way and are not identified on a subdivision plan should not be shown on the map or on the list. He noted that because of the definition stated in Section 175-67 of the Development Regulations, what should be shown on the map boils down to roads that have a right-of-way line. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that the list should have a separate section for interior drives not shown on the zoning map. Ms. Manz asked what purpose the list serves. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that it is used when proposals come in where the Board must determine whether an unaccepted street is of adequate grade and construction, noting that the courts have given many non-streets legal status. She added that many towns do not have an official zoning map due to complications such as this. Mr. Hornig said that he felt that non-streets should not be included on the list, and that some interior drives should be on the non-street list. Ms. Manz asked how many streets in town do not have a right-of- way, and Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that further research would be needed to confirm the number. Mr. Galaitsis suggested adding an introductory paragraph to the list that explains the rationale and classifications of the list. He added that the category for each street should also be defined. Mr. Hornig stated that he had noted some inconsistencies in the list that he would forward to staff. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 32 James Street, Mr. and Mrs. Wen-I Li, Request for Determination: Mr. Schilt apologized to the Board, noting that at the past meeting he had not been in attendance and the information that should have been provided to the Board was not included for their review. The information provided by Mr. and Mrs. Li documents the pavement width and the improvements to James Street completed in July 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was determined that James Street is of adequate grade and construction in order to provide frontage for the property at 32 James Street. ********************* TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION ********************* Marrett/Spring/Bridge Intersection Improvement Recommendations Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the Planning Board that Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates has prepared final recommendations for improvements to the Marrett Road/Spring Street/Bridge Street intersection. Of the three concepts, the modern roundabout did not receive public support due to the land takings involved. The other two concepts, geometric improvements and installing a traffic signal, are compatible and could be easily combined into a two-phased project; the infrastructure for the signals could be constructed as part of the geometric improvements, with the signal installed at a later time. The Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) has recently voted to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that the traffic signal is the preferred recommendation, and that the Selectmen should move forward to have the project placed on the Massachusetts Highway Department’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TMG also recommended that the Selectmen consider appropriating additional funding for the project if needed. Mr. Zurlo asked about the history of the project, and whether there was any public input after the July Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 5 presentation, and if there will be further opportunities for public meetings on the design. Ms. McCall- Taylor explained that the study had lasted a year and that there had been considerable attendance at a charrette last summer and at a public meeting this spring. Mr. Hornig inquired whether the Board should endorse the consultant’s recommendations for the signal. Mr. Zurlo indicated that he recalled there was more public support for the geometric improvements at the public hearing. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the major difference is that the geometric improvements would only ensure pedestrian safety, whereas the signal would help to improve the level of service and decrease congestion at the intersection. Mr. Zurlo stated that the improvements should be tied to the improvements at the Marrett Road and Waltham Street intersection, and he was not certain that the signal would actually help improve the traffic flow. Ms. Manz noted that some people did not want to improve the flow of traffic out of fear that more drivers would opt to use the intersection and bring more traffic into the area. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the change would not increase traffic without widening Spring Street. Mr. Canale stated that the project is tiered; the geometric improvements are a necessary step before the signals could be put in place, and the lights are really marginal improvements. Putting the infrastructure for the signals in place as part of the geometric improvements would reduce costs in later phases of work. Mr. Hornig added that he would not like to see the funding committed by Patriot Partners for mitigation disappear if the project is not done. Mr. Zurlo stated that he was not comfortable with the signal, and preferred a phased approach. Mr. Hornig noted that the basis for the report was to allow the Town to move forward with the concept, and that more planning and design work will be conducted before anything happens. Ms. Manz suggested that the Planning Board write a letter of support to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Canale agreed, and emphasized the importance of having the project placed on the TIP soon. Mr. Hornig agreed, and asked if the Town should move forward on its own to fund the project. Mr. Zurlo stated that he did not see any statistics in the report to justify the signal. Mr. Hornig stated that he believed that there had been analysis done, and that Howard/Stein-Hudson should be contacted to see if the data could be provided. Mr. Canale stated that it would be important for the project to include multi-modal accommodations in line with the new MassHighway Design Guidelines, adding that if the Town waits for everything to be put in place, we’ll be waiting for a long time. Ms. Manz inquired whether the Board would endorse moving forward with both the geometric improvements and the signal, as recommended by the Transportation Mitigation Group, and whether the Board felt the Town should consider funding the improvements. Mr. Zurlo stated that the letter to the Selectmen should somehow address provisions for not providing a signal. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 to 1 (Mr. Zurlo in the negative) to endorse recommending to the Selectmen that the Town proceed with both the geometric improvements and the traffic signal. Mr. Zurlo requested further information about the necessity for a signal and what the town would gain from it. Ms. Manz asked staff to draft a letter for the Board to approve at their next meeting stating that the majority of the Board endorsed the project, with a side discussion about one member’s reservations about the signal. Mr. Zurlo stated that he was comfortable with a 4 to 1 vote on the endorsement, and he could speak about his concerns at a later time. He did ask to see if the consultants would provide more of the data from their analysis. *********************************** VISION 2020 ************************************ Economic Development subcommittee of the Vision 2020 Committee: Mr. Zurlo stated that the Economic Development subcommittee of the Vision 2020 Committee will hold a scoping session as part of their goal setting initiatives. He must reply to a questionnaire prepared by the subcommittee and would Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 6 like the Planning Board’s input on the nine issues being discussed. Evidently there are some conclusions being put forward by the subcommittee to solve problems that are not yet articulated. Mr. Galaitsis noted that some of the issues appeared to be more business related rather than planning oriented. Ms. Manz concurred, noting that the Planning Board should weigh in on matters outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Canale added that previous efforts of the Economic Development subcommittee had floundered, and that people are not aware of the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that Mr. Zurlo encourage the subcommittee to review the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Zurlo noted that the subcommittee will address the parameters of the new Economic Development position if it is approved in the override election. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Goals and Work Plan for the Coming Year : Given the late hour, the Board agreed to postpone its discussion on a work plan for the coming year. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested the Board submit comments on the handout provided to her by e-mail, and she will prepare another draft for future discussion. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Mr. Schilt stated that the applicants for the cluster subdivision at 177 Grove Street had not scheduled the additional test pits to be conducted on the site, when it had been agreed at the public hearing that Town staff and representatives of the abutting property owners would witness the tests. Mr. Doug Lees, the applicant’s engineer, told staff that he did not recall agreeing to the abutter’s representative being present to witness the tests, and he is concerned that the representatives would dispute the findings based on their predetermined assumptions. The applicants stated the reason they were not ready to conduct the test pits is because they did not want to incur the costs of the tests and analysis until the Planning Board approves the locations of the houses, drainage infrastructure and other impervious surface areas. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that representatives from Patriot Partners were in the office recently, and it is likely that development on the site will be moving forward soon. They were inquiring whether they could make minor modifications to the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan and the Special Permit with Site Plan Review. Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the applicants that they could do so administratively without going back to Town Meeting as long as the amendments were within the parameters of the approved plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the Board that a meeting had recently been held regarding marketing the affordable units for the AvalonBay project at the former Metropolitan State Hospital. As per the Reuse Plan the local preference requirements would be split equally among residents in Lexington, Belmont and Waltham. Planning Board Mr. Hornig provided the Board with an update on negotiations between the developers of the Jefferson Union site and the Historic Commission pertaining to the two-year demolition delay the Commission placed on the site. The Commission was looking for changes to proposed decks and the deck access, window placement, some architectural details and the color. The Commission wanted to preserve as much of the remaining structure as possible, and to replicate the building elements that were demolished prior to the stop work order instituted by the Building Commissioner for exceeding what had been approved. The attorney for the developers wants input from the Board about what could be supported in terms of what would constitute minor modifications to the approved Special Permit. They do not want to reopen the special permit process. Mr. Canale informed the Board of the draft Beaver Brook Management Plan being proposed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Public comments on the draft Plan are due June 9, Minutes for the Meeting of May 31, 2006 7 2006. It is questionable about whether there will be time before the comment period ends for the Metropolitan State Hospital Task Force to convene and discuss the Plan. Mr. Canale suggested that the Board support the Plan, and emphasize to DCR the importance to the Town of the Western Greenway and the preservation of Lot 1 of the former Middlesex County Hospital as part of the greenway. Ms. McCall- Taylor noted that the proposal to construct the visitor center in Lexington would be a violation of the reuse plan for the Metropolitan State Hospital property, and that the center should be on the site proposed for a golf course in Waltham. Mr. Hornig concurred, as constructing the center in Lexington would have impacts on traffic and existing wetlands. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 to 1 (Mr. Zurlo abstained) to write a letter to DCR to support the Beaver Brook Management Plan, with the recommendation that the preservation of the Western Greenway and addition of Lot 1 to the reservation be key elements in the Plan and that the visitor center be sited off the Metropolitan Parkway South as originally planned. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk