Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 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, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt and Tap present. Mr. Zurlo arrived at 7:40 p.m. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of September 6 and September 20, 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 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Subdivision, Release of Lots: Staff reported that the Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the as-built plans submitted by the applicant, and the Conservation Administrator has reviewed and approved the drainage facilities installed in the subdivision. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the applicant’s request to release lots 2, 3 and 4 in the subdivision. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 3 Myrna Road: The Board reviewed an application from Douglas Orr, who is interested in tearing down an existing dwelling and constructing a new house 3 Myrna Road, which is an unaccepted street. Mr. Orr requested that the Board make a determination of adequate grade and construction of Myrna Road. Mr. Schilt stated that he conducted a site visit with staff from the Engineering Division, who determined that the street is generally in good condition, but there are numerous potholes and cracks in the pavement in front of 3 Myrna Road. Mr. Orr has stated that he is interested in improving the road in front of his property, and has worked with staff to prepare a street construction plan and a list of waivers from the design standards in the Development Regulations so that the proposed improvements fit the context of the existing right-of-way. A group of property owners along Myrna Road stated their objection to further improvements along the road, as it would encourage more cut-through traffic. Members of the Board stated that they were not inclined to set a precedent by waiving the requirement for the improvements to be constructed along the frontage of the property and extending toward the nearest public street for a minimum distance of 150 feet. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the infrastructure is improved. It was also noted by the Board that while Myrna Road is an unaccepted street, it is still a public right-of-way that allows for vehicle passage. Mr. Orr stated that his proposal was for a total length of 130 Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 2 feet, as extending for a total of 150 feet would require additional work to raise manholes for the utility lines. The Board noted their preference not to waive the requirements in the Development Regulations for a total of 150 feet. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to determine that Myrna Road, an unaccepted street, is presently not of adequate grade and construction, but will be if the improvements detailed in the staff report are made for a total of 150 feet in length along of the frontage of 3 Myrna Road and extending toward Adams Street. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 960 - 990 Waltham Street, Sketch Plan: Present for this item were Roger Kallstrom, landscape architect, L. Richard LeClair, attorney, and Raymond DeVincent and Jerry Pellorino, property owners. Mr. Kallstrom provided an overview of the plans, noting the applicant had three different concepts and is interested in getting feedback from the Board on which plans they would prefer to see advanced. He described the site as being approximately six-acres in the RO zoning district. The properties have 440 feet of frontage on Waltham Street, and two vacant single-family homes are located on the site. The site has a change in elevation of approximately 60 feet, with many areas on the site having slopes of 15% or greater. Approximately one and one-half acres of the site are in a wetland, the delineation of which has been approved by the Conservation Commission. The site has a number of large trees with a caliper greater than 24-inches, and the site is uniformly wooded. Mr. Kallstrom described the proposed development concepts. One of the concepts was for a four-lot conventional subdivision on a new access road that is approximately 500 feet long. The second concept was for a cluster subdivision of five single-family houses; each of the housing units would be approximately 4,000 square feet with a two-car garage. The units are sited to work with the existing topography, and shared driveways would be extensions of the existing driveways. The third concept was for a fourteen-unit cluster subdivision of townhomes, each with a one-car garage and an average 2,760 square feet of living floor area. The townhouse units would have a common entrance, and eight of the units would be sited in the area of the existing houses. Mr. Zurlo stated that he felt the conventional subdivision concept would entail a significant amount of site disturbance to construct the road. He stated that future submissions should better define how the open space would be designed to take advantage of the existing topography. He stated that he preferred the townhouse concept, as it is an appropriate use on Waltham Street. He cautioned about the way that the existing contours were shown, as he believed that some of the slopes are greater than what was indicated. Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 3 He suggested that the next plan submission should consider a mix of the single-family and townhouse concepts as a way to create variety within the subdivision. Mr. Galaitsis inquired whether the Conservation Commission had approved development within the buffer zones. It was noted by the applicants that only the delineation of the wetland boundary had been approved. Mr. Galaitsis stated that prior to the next submission to the Board, the Commission should have approved the extent to which development will be allowed. He noted his preference that in the tables of development data that the land area within the wetland should not be allowed in calculating the amount of development that could be accommodated in a cluster subdivision. It was noted that this is not a requirement of the regulations. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the usable open space couldn’t include areas with slopes greater than 15%. He stated his preference for the cluster subdivisions, but that the unit sizes are larger than what he would endorse. If the applicants are going to propose larger houses, than a conventional subdivision should be proposed. He also noted that an average size of 2,760 square feet for the townhouse units seemed to be too large to just be a three-bedroom unit. He stated that the next plan should show smaller units and should include some affordable units. Ms. Manz stated her preference for the townhouse concept, but noted that she felt that there might be too many units given that development is proposed within the 100-foot wetland buffer. She stated that the other alternatives show long driveways, which create too much impervious surface and site disturbance. Her preference would be for a diversity in the sizes of the townhouse units, emphasizing that she feels multi-family development is suitable for the location, and the way the units are sited makes sense. She added that the Conservation Commission may not allow development within the buffer, and encouraged the applicant to consider fewer units. Mr. Hornig asked that future plans show the development on the abutting Brookhaven site to provide a more accurate locus. He noted that the conventional concept placed development too close to the wetland, and, even if it is used as a proof plan for a cluster subdivision, nothing should be shown in the buffer, especially the road. He stated that his preference was for the cluster subdivision options, noting that development should not occur at the back of the site as when combined with the abutting town land, it gives a large area of contiguous open space. He noted that if concept two progresses, it should be for only four units and the use of the cluster provisions should be to enable better siting of the structures, and that the back of the site should be left undeveloped. He also stated his preference for the townhouse concept, but the units should be smaller, with a size range of 1,500 to 2,000 square feet. He also stated that the area that was the historic path of Ricci’s Lane should be preserved as a landscaped area. Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 4 Mr. Canale stated that he concurred with the other Board members comments. He liked the townhouse concept, and encouraged diversity in the size of the units. He questioned how Ricci’s Lane had been delineated, and the applicants stated that it was in the location of the existing driveway and then it disappears. Mr. Hornig noted that on the abutting Brookhaven development, a portion of the historic path had been preserved. Ms. Manz questioned as to how restoration of the Lane could be accommodated. Mr. Canale noted that the Lane could be recreated as a public benefit in a cluster subdivision. He added that the Lane has a strong historical significance as one of the first roads connecting Lexington to Boston. Mr. Canale also questioned whether there were opportunities to provide connections to trails on the abutting town open space. Mr. LeClair stated that the economics to develop the site reflected the size and number of housing units needed to make it feasible. Ms. Manz stated that the greatest concern was with how the housing units would be sited with minimal impacts to the wetland buffers. She added that one of the Board’s goals with cluster subdivisions was to favor proposals that provide affordable housing units. She suggested that a range of house sizes could be accommodated on the site in order to recoup development costs. Mr. Canale inquired as to whether the applicants believed that the conventional subdivision would be approvable. Mr. LeClair stated that he felt the concept would meet the state and town regulations for development adjacent to wetland resources. Mr. Galaitsis inquired whether compliance with current regulations would be required if the existing house in the wetland buffer were removed. Ms. McCall- Taylor stated that the Conservation Commission has held that if a house is torn down future development must be in full compliance. Mr. Zurlo noted that the townhouses would be located close to Waltham Street, so streetscape improvements will need to be a key consideration to limit views of the buildings and parking areas. Mr. Hornig noted that units in the 1,500 to 2,000 square foot range are not currently being built in town, and a development of this magnitude would fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 20 Young Street, Sketch Plan: Present for this item were Richard Waitt, civil engineer, Carl Toumayan, attorney, and Michael Collins, applicant. Mr. Waitt provided a brief overview of the site context, noting two of the parcels are land locked and surrounded by town-owned land, and a third parcel would be used to provide access from the development to Young Street. He noted that in response to comments received from Town Counsel that Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 5 the four alternatives previously submitted had legal issues with obtaining access a new plan has been developed to address those comments. The revised plan shows a three-lot conventional subdivision, with each of the proposed lots gaining access via a new subdivision road from Young Street; the applicants feel confident that the design is within the context of what could legally be allowed. Ms. Manz noted that there were still legal questions about whether the language in the deeds would allow the access as currently shown, and stated that the Board is reluctant to make any determination until the legal matters are addressed. Mr. Toumayan stated that this submission was for a sketch plan, and the purpose was for the applicant to receive constructive criticism from the Board and not a determination as to what would be legal. Ms. Manz countered that while the Planning Board does not have the jurisdiction to rule on the access rights, reviewing any plans is counterproductive until the legal determinations are made. Mr. Toumayan replied that the language in the deeds fit within the statutes and case law that give express rights for improvements. He noted that the proposed road is going to be limited to pavement within a 40-foot right-of-way, and if the Town was opposed to the access they could challenge the developer and file suit in the Land Court. Mr. Canale asked if the cluster subdivision concepts that had been provided for the Board to review were still valid. Mr. Toumayan stated that the Town Counsel found that the proposed access to one of the land- locked parcels would not be allowed, and he agreed with Town Counsel, and they decided to revise the plans. Mr. Canale stated that he was concerned about reviewing a plan without having the opportunity to get advise from staff. He suggested that the applicant withdraw the current application, and submit a new one with the revised plans. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that sketch plan review is intended to be a cooperative process, and the Planning Board has raised some very productive key issues pertaining to the legal rights of access. She suggested that the applicant should consider avoiding a scenario of obtaining approval by the Planning Board and then getting sued by the Town, as it would not be in anyone’s best interest. Mr. Collins stated that he is happy to talk to his neighbors [i.e. the School Committee], but the access right determinations are not their decision to make. He feels the proposal is black-and-white from a legal standpoint. Mr. Galaitsis stated that he was not pleased with having no advanced time for review of the revised plans. He suggested that the applicant prepare and submit for the next presentation better defined sketch plans for the 3-unit conventional and for a cluster subdivision with an impact comparable to the 3- unit conventional subdivision. He also asked if Town Counsel had seen the new plans. Mr. Schilt stated that Town Counsel had seen them the day before. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked Mr. Collins if it was possible Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 6 that the design team needed more time to prepare. Mr. Collins replied that the process had been rushed. Ms. Manz asked if the applicant would like to come back before the Board again at a later time. The applicant concurred. Mr. Hornig noted that all of the owners of properties affected by the subdivision must sign the application so that in this instance the School Department must sign. He noted that working cooperatively with the School Department to obtain the appropriate signatures would make any challenges to the legality of the access rights moot. He also requested that the next submission include options for a cluster subdivision, with considerations being given to preserving the top of the hill as common open space. ******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES ******************************* Tree By-Law Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that she had met with the Tree Committee and has asked them to define what should be included in a Tree Management Plan for development proposals. The Committee agreed to do so. The current by-law states that the Planning Board may request a review of plans by any other committees, so there is no need to revise the regulations to specifically reference review by the Tree Committee, although the Committee would prefer that they be explicitly mentioned. Mr. Hornig stated that the requirements for a tree management plan need to have clearly defined standards. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the special permit with site plan review process gives flexibility, and the subjectivity of different types of developments results in the need to not get too specific. Mr. Hornig stated that the text in Section 135-11 of the Zoning By-Law to preserve as many existing trees as possible should also be added to the intent of what should be shown on a Landscape Plan; the Landscape Plan should show existing and new vegetation. Mr. Galaitsis stated that there needs to be a better way to show the different sizes of trees on the landscape plans, perhaps by requiring geometric shapes proportional to tree caliper rather than the usual hard–to-read text. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated this could be a requirement in the Development Regulations. Ms. Manz stated that the Tree Committee will be notified of the submission of plans in the same manner that other committees are, and the new regulations should not give anyone additional veto powers. Traffic By-Law Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that a discussion of revisions to Article XII of the Zoning By-Law should start with a review of the Planning Board’s policies pertaining to transportation, and a discussion of whether the policies were still valid. It was felt that more time to review the policies was needed. Ms. Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 7 McCall-Taylor stated that at the request of the Board, staff had prepared a schedule of steps to revise the By-Law and draft a warrant article for submission to Town Meeting next spring. Mr. Canale noted that the Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) had already begun work to review the By-Law, and is somewhat th ahead of the Planning Board in their efforts. Mr. Schilt added that at the TMG meeting on October 24, the committees represented on the TMG will present their wish lists for by-law revisions. He will pass this information on to the Board. In addition, Mr. Schilt stated that he had been doing some Internet research on transportation demand management by-laws, and had forwarded an interesting research paper for the Board to review. It was decided that the Board would schedule a meeting for Wednesday, October 25, 2006 to devote two hours to review the Planning Board’s policies and information prepared by the TMG. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Senior Planner Interview Schedule. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the application period for candidates for the Senior Planner position has closed, and five candidates have been selected. There will be an initial round of interviews with a panel of staff from different departments, with the intent to narrow the pool down to two or three individuals. She would like assistance from the Planning Board for the second round of interviews. She will keep the Board informed of the status of the interviews. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Planning Board Mr. Canale stated that the Bicycle Advisory Committee is interested in submitting an application for funding through the Community Preservation Act (CPA), and they would like a letter of support from the Planning Board. The Board will review the Bicycle Committee’s CPA initiative to see if it can support it. Mr. Canale reminded the Board that the MAGIC Legislative Breakfast meeting would be held on Friday, th October 20. He is planning to attend, along with Ms. Manz and Ms. McCall-Taylor, and encouraged other members to sign up. Mr. Hornig stated that he was planning to go. Mr. Canale stated that the Department of Conservation and Recreation has finished the report on the Heritage Landscapes Inventory. He can provide a copy of the report for anyone who is interested. Staff Minutes for the Meeting of October 18, 2006 8 Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that she had recently attended an ethics workshop put on by the Town, and there would be a repeat of the session on Saturday, October 21. She stated that the workshop provides some useful information, and encouraged members of the Board to attend. ******************************* EXECUTIVE SESSION ******************************** At 10:20 p.m., by individual poll of the Board – Mr. Canale, Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz, Mr. Galaitsis, Mr. Zurlo – it was voted 5-0 to go into Executive Session to discuss the status of litigation from the appeal of the denial of the cluster subdivision for 177 Grove Street. The Board agreed not to return to open session. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk