Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-12-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 12, 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, Schilt and Tap present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of June 14, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 21, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. It was agreed to act on the minutes of June 26 and 28 at a future meeting. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND Continued Public Hearing: 177 Grove Street Definitive Conventional Subdivision Plan, Rayvon Realty Trust: At 7:45 p.m., Ms. Manz reconvened the public hearing on the 177 Grove Street definitive conventional subdivision plan dated June 26, 2006 and submitted by Rayvon Realty Trust. The hearing was opened on November 16, 2005. Present were Mr. Doug Lees, engineer, Land Engineering and Environmental Services and Mr. Donald Borenstein, attorney, Johnson and Borenstein. There were 24 people in the audience. Mr. Lees presented a plan showing four single-family dwellings served by a new 470-foot long dead-end street off Dewey Road. He pointed out changes from the plan presented on November 16. They included: a drainage swale and level spreader to manage runoff on/from the Grove Street side of the property, the use of stone walls instead of segmented block along the new roadway; two of the dwellings will be connected to existing Town sewer in Dewey Road; a new sewer line will run from the first manhole, as the current line crosses a neighbor’s lot. Board Questions and Comments : The Board had a number of questions about the stormwater management system. Mr. Lees responded to the particulars and indicated that it complies with local regulations. Mr. Hornig asked for roof runoff calculations for each dwelling. Mr. Lees provided a drainage diagram for the roofs. Mr. Hornig voiced some doubt as to the level spreader' capacity for runoff. He believes the proposed system will also intercept ground water that is not included in Mr. Lees' calculations. Mr. Canale asked why Basswood Road had been offered as a street name and what other alternatives had been considered. Mr. Lees contended that he had given alternatives but Ms. McCall-Taylor said they were not received. Mr. Canale said that he would prefer something with more name place recognition. Asked how much material would be removed from the site. Mr. Lees said he expects that about 8000 cubic feet of soil would be removed, mostly for the new roadway, less than an earlier estimate of 8400 cubic feet. Topsoil will be stockpiled on the site. Mr. Lees said that eight test pits have been dug. The conservation commission's professional has not visited the site yet. Mr. Zurlo expressed his concern about the grade of the new roadway; he foresees dangerous conditions in the winter. He also indicated that moving the limit of work line in more would help avoid disruption to the landscape where the water service is shown. Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2006 2 Mr. Galaitsis also noted his discomfort with the 12 percent proposed impervious surface ratio (ISR) on all three lots, the maximum allowed. Mr. Canale concurred, indicating that future homeowners would have no opportunity to add a patio or a room due to the maxed-out ISR. Mr. Lees pointed out that the new homes would be built according to the customers' desires and might be smaller than the maximum shown. Ms. Manz asked why the applicant resists effectively using the cluster by-law provisions. Mr. Borenstein responded that a cluster plan was put forward but disapproved. The applicant does not want to go through any more negotiations or request waivers that someone might appeal. Ms. Manz indicated that waivers would enable them to preserve more of the site and might allow access from Grove Street. The Board is aware that the Conservation Commission is currently reviewing the plans in relation to the proposed tie-in of the drainage system to the town’s storm sewer. In addition, the Commission is having an independent review of the soils on the site, including witnessing of additional test pits in key areas. The Board is interested in hearing the Commission’s findings as they may affect location of structures and infrastructure. It is suggested that a representative from the planning staff be invited to witness the test pits so the findings could be related to the Planning Board in a timely manner. Because of the significant grading and earth removal called for in the plan, and the related drainage issues, consideration should be given to relocating the site drive to Grove Street, rather than Dewey Road. The Board is concerned that some of the proposed road off Dewey will be below the groundwater, further impacting drainage. The grade of the proposed road could create dangerous winter driving conditions. The proposed cut for the road could create a canyon-like feel that is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Access from Grove Street would involve significantly less site disturbance. The Board may grant a waiver for the width of the roadway, but such a concession calls for prudent design to minimize drainage impacts on abutting properties. The Board requested the following to be included in the next submission: ?? The limit of work line should be at least 25 feet from the site perimeter to ensure less site disturbance. ?? The plans should show all proposed impervious surfaces, including steps and walkways. ?? The deeds for each property should detail the amount of impervious surface on the lot and the maximum allowed. ?? The Landscape Plan should show the entire site, particularly any improvements to the area fronting on Grove Street, and indicate proposed restoration work. ?? All utility lines must be shown on the Site Construction Plan, including gas, telephone, cable and electricity. Staff indicated that the Department of Public Works (DPW) and Fire Department prefer hammerhead-, wye- or teardrop-shaped cul de sacs, as these configurations better accommodate snow plowing/storage. The submittal should include revised drafts of all of the required covenants for the development, including an updated Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the drainage system, easements to be dedicated to the Town, and any applicable deed restrictions relating to the homeowners' responsibility to maintain natural areas outside of the limit of work line. The O&M Plan should state that the Town’s rights to maintain and repair the drainage system shall not be limited to structures in the right-of-way, but shall include the entire system, if needed, at the homeowners’ expense. Responding to Mr. Hornig's issues, Mr. Lees indicated that: there is a gas line easement and he will work with Keyspan to provide service to the development; no street trees will be removed from Dewey Road or Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2006 3 Grove Street though installing gas service could disturb some street trees; language will be included in the deeds that detail the homeowners' responsibility to maintain lighting and to commit to a nighttime lighting plan; traffic sight distance information for the Dewey Road intersection will be provided in the next submission; the steps and walkway surface areas, though not shown on the plan, are included in the ISR calculations. Mr. Galaitsis expressed his hope that the public hearing would be continued and that a better proposal without so much site destruction will, be submitted, perhaps with access from Grove Street instead of Dewey Road. Audience Questions and Comments : Mr. Fred Martin, 29 Dewey Road, speaking for the Minimal Impact Group (MIG) group of abutters, said that they have grave misgivings about this invasive proposal. The group hopes the Planning Board will not approve it. He asked the Board to recognize Dr. Rick Westcott who MIG hired to evaluate the developer's stormwater runoff analysis dated August 15, 2005. Ms. Manz indicated that the Board had received Mr. Westcott's report, dated July 7, 2006, and it was entered into the 177 Grove Street subdivision file. Mr. Westcott summarized his findings. In short, the drainage system proposed would not handle all of the runoff from the development and so would not protect the abutters from adverse effects. Ms. Rudy Scheiber-Kurtz, 23 Dewey Road, voiced her objections to the "grand canyon" that the new roadway would create. She also expressed her belief that the proposed drainage swale would fill up with debris and overflow. Her house has not had water problems and she fears this might cause them. Mr. Al Jette, 17 Dewey Road, voiced his belief that the process has failed if a suitable cluster development could not be agreed upon. Mr. Thomas Harrington, attorney for the Hom family, 175 Grove Street, pointed out the adverse effects on the Homs of creating access to the development from Grove Street. He asked about the results of the three test pits performed on the site. Mr. Lees said that more test pits would be dug. Ms. Beth Mazer asked why the developer wants to pursue such an intrusive plan. She expressed hope that a cluster plan will prevail. After some discussion, the applicant requested an extension of forty-five days of the time in which the Board must act. In the meantime, more test pits would be dug and a representative of the Conservation Commission will be present, and the plan will undergo some redesign, based on clear direction from the Planning Board. The Board expressed its preference for a three-unit cluster subdivision with access from Grove Street, a limit of work line at least 25 feet from the site perimeter, and the required amount of usable open space, At 10:00 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Zurlo abstained) to grant an extension of 45 days, from the current August 14 deadline, for the time in which the Planning Board must act, and to continue the public hearing to August 30, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. The applicant agreed to submit revised plans to the Planning Department no later than Wednesday, August 16, to allow sufficient time to coordinate review and input by Town staff. Mr. Canale left the room for the duration of the following public hearing, as his property is within 300 feet of 16 Shade Street even though he is neither an abutter nor an abutter to the abutter. Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2006 4 Continued Public Hearing: 16 Shade Street Definitive Reduced Frontage Subdivision Plan, Seaver Construction: Present for this item were Mr. Scott Seaver, applicant, and Mr. Fred Russell, civil engineer. There were three people in the audience but they did not sign the attendance list. Mr. Russell outlined the revisions made to the plans since last meeting with the Board. The contour lines around the driveway on Lot 2 were been tightened, a limit of work line was established in the front yard of Lot 2 to preserve a hemlock grove, water and sewer lines were relocated to beneath the driveway, and the proposed new lot 1 was adjusted to ensure that the required 25’ side setbacks could be achieved. The driveway will be narrower to achieve an acceptable impervious surface ratio. Mr. Russell provided digitally enhanced photographs that gave some idea of how the new dwellings would appear from off-site point of view. Regarding the footprints and areas of the proposed dwellings, Mr. Seaver explained that in the previous plan the calculations the house on Lot 2 had included the basement area, which is not considered living area so it should not have been included. Correctly calculated, the dwelling's living area on the same footprint is less than the town-wide median of 4,300 square feet. Mr. Seaver stated that the house size on Lot 1 is just 40 square feet over the town-wide median, but he would like to finish the attic, creating an additional 700 square feet of living space. He noted that houses recently constructed on Shade Street range from 5,000 to 8,800 square feet, but they are on lots that range from 13,000 to 32,000 square feet. He also provided a list of comparisons compiled by his realtor, which showed the trend for larger homes on small lots. Mr. Zurlo asked if the attic would be considered as a third story. Mr. Seaver stated that the gable of the roof would be there if the attic were finished or not, so it would not change the aesthetics when viewed from the outside. Mr. Hornig suggested that Mr. Seaver get an interpretation from the Zoning Enforcement Officer as to whether it would be ruled as a third story. Mr. Zurlo stated that the proposal does not contribute in any sense to housing diversity. He added that it was important to consider how the houses would be perceived from the outside rather than from the inside. Mr. Galaitsis asked whether the reduced pavement width was acceptable. Mr. Schilt stated that he asked the fire department and they did not have a problem given that the shared driveway divides to then serve only one single-family dwelling. Responding to Mr. Hornig's questions, Mr. Russell indicated that telephone and electric lines would be underneath the driveway. Water and sewer lines on Lot 2 would be placed next to the driveway to avoid the need to tear up the driveway later for maintenance or repairs. Mr. Schilt stated that the Engineering Department suggested that the utilities for Lot 1 be placed under the driveway in order to avoid blasting through ledge for a direct connection. Water service for Lot 1 could connect to the existing water valve near the curb cut. Ms. Manz stated that while she tended to share Mr. Galaitsis’s concerns about approving larger houses, the proposed lots are significantly larger than the norm, which could reduce the visual impact as would the many retained trees and projected minimal site disturbance. She added that the deeds need to contain language stating the maximum amount of impervious surface on the lots so future homeowners are aware of the limits on expansion. Public Benefit: The Board agreed that its preference would be to use the public benefit money to make improvements to the trailhead for the conservation land that is part the Lexington Technology Park. Minutes for the Meeting of July 12, 2006 5 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 to 0 (Mr. Canale had recused himself) to approve the reduced frontage subdivision plan dated April 18, 2006 and revised on May 31, 2006, to approve the application for a special permit with site plan review subject to the conditions spelled out in the staff analysis dated July 7, 2006 and to approve an increase in the living area of the dwelling on Lot 1 to 5,044 square feet, with no visible change to the building envelope and with a small shed dormer in the finished attic, provided the dwelling is limited to 2 ½ stories. The final plans will reflect these changes. The hearing was closed at 10:55 p.m. Completion of the Johnson Farm Subdivision, Release of Surety: Staff reported that the Engineering Division has verified that the remaining improvements and infrastructure in the Johnson's Farm subdivision off Bedford Street have been completed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve and certify completion of the Johnson’s Farm subdivision and to authorize the release of surety in the amount of $15,200.25, as requested by Mr. Joseph Gelormini, JMG Development, LLC, on March 15, 2006. 727 Marrett Road DSDUP, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Inc.: Staff reported on the definitive site development and use plan submitted by Starwood Hotels and Resorts, for 727 Marrett Road, the property rezoned from CD-7 to CD-13 by the 2006 Town Meeting. The exterior materials were changed per Town Meeting approval. The Board agreed to recommend that a separate lighting plan for the period from 11:00 p.m. to dawn should be instituted. The Board agreed to ask the Board of Appeals to continue its public hearing in order that the Design Advisory Committee would have time to review the plans at its next meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk