Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-13-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF December 13, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor present. Mr. Hornig was absent ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board postponed review of the December 6 minutes until the next meeting. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 177 Grove Street Sketch Cluster Development Plan, Presentation by the Applicant: In attendance to present a sketch cluster development plan for a 3.09-acre parcel of land off Grove Street, were Attorney Donald Borenstein; Mr. James Emmanuel, landscape architect, and Mr. Doug Lees, design engineer. Mr. Zurlo began by asking for an outline of the procedural plan. Attorney Donald Borenstein said that the Planning Board had rejected a prior submission of a cluster. It was appealed in Land Court, which remanded the case back to the Planning Board to see if the two parties could come to agreement. Tonight represents a schematic of a cluster that is to be reviewed prior to the definitive submission. January 5 is the deadline for submission of a revised definitive cluster plan, with the public hearing to be scheduled for January 31 or February 2. The remand sets a deadline of the first week in February 2007 to open the public hearing, with the decision to be filed with the Town Clerk by March 6. The applicant has until April 6 to file an appeal if so desired. The decision on the outstanding definitive conventional subdivision must be filed by April 16. These deadlines can be negotiated by going back to Land Court. Mr. Borenstein stated that during their last cluster submission they had “drawn a line in the sand” at four units and he hoped the Board members would be pleased to see that they were now proposing three units. Mr. Doug Lees, the project engineer, gave a brief overview of the site, pointing out a 20-foot no-cut zone around the perimeter of the parcel, the repositioning of garage and driveway from Dewey to allow a clump of trees to be retained, the removal of paving and the repaving of the existing driveway off of Grove Street to minimize disturbance within the 100-foot wetlands buffer. He explained that there are three open space parcels and a pedestrian easement through the center of the site to allow the residents of Minutes for the Meeting of December 13, 2006 2 the development access to all the open space. Landscaping is proposed to visually define the easement. Ms. Manz asked if there were target sizes for the houses and was told that the footprints of the houses shown were 3,850 square feet, 3,400 square feet and 2,730 square feet and that they were only representational as they wanted to provide leeway for owners to influence the final design. The proposal shows the maximum size that would be asked for but had no architectural details. Mr. Borenstein said that he understood that the Board would want some input but they wanted to retain flexibility. Mr. Galaitsis said that eventually they would need to give specifics. Mr. Zurlo asked if the Board had allowed such flexibility in the past. He was concerned that appropriate screening would depend on the house size and its location, as certain massing might require additional screening. Mr. Borenstein said he would look at the Board’s decision for the Luongo subdivision to see how one can do custom homes with some controls. He noted that this is a secluded site and there are few public views. Ms. Manz said that height was a concern and the Board wanted to avoid the houses towering over the adjoining properties. Mr. Zurlo said that sections would be important; he would want to see not the architectural details, but such things as gross floor area, height and footprints. Mr. James Emmanuel, the landscape architect, gave what he described as the big picture of what was proposed for the site. There would be a perimeter of undisturbed land that was 20 feet at it narrowest. Everything behind the stonewall would be preserved and the appearance of the site from both roads would remain pretty much as it is. The shoulder of the road would be revegetated. The driveways were placed to break up the sightlines into the site as well as to preserve trees. There is a greenbelt around the site as well as a pedestrian access through the site, delineated by planting beds. The big hemlock by the northeastern house will be saved. Mr. Emmanuel mentioned the challenge of providing a buffer of plants that will survive with limited sunlight, since there is such an extensive tree canopy. He will put in evergreens where the southern exposure will allow it. The goal is preserve the current character and buffers. There was a discussion of the easements and ownership for the driveways and pedestrian access. The common open space is in three parcels that all of the residents of the development will have rights to use, but it is not for the general public. While there is a buffer around the perimeter, it is not common open space, as the private areas of the houses tend to be toward the outside of the lot. The middle of the site will have the more formal public space. Minutes for the Meeting of December 13, 2006 3 Comments: Mr. Canale said that the concept plan captured what he was looking for and was on the right track. He suggested looking at Coppersmyth Way to see how an easement for public access is delineated with landscape. He suggested small flush granite pavers might be a good idea. The use of the driveways by pedestrians would minimize the amount of disturbed area. He said the previous “scorched earth” plan had been unsympathetic to the neighbors. He hoped that as plans evolved, they would be empathetic to the surrounding houses. The challenge is the drainage issues and Mr. Canale hoped that low impact, on- site drainage could be used. Mr. Galaitsis agreed that the conceptual plan was a move in the right direction, but he was concerned about the numbers, feeling that they were maxed out rather drastically. He gave as an example the impervious surface area, which is only two square feet less than the maximum. He felt that the houses shown were huge and he wanted to see the applicant deviate from that intention. He wants a house where the back is two stories with no third floor windows. He said he would be very uncomfortable going directly to a definitive plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor explained that the schedule established under the remand did not allow time for a preliminary submission. Mr. Galaitsis went on to say that if the houses are monstrous, he could not support the project. He expressed concerns about work that would be within the wetland buffer and what would the applicant do if the Conservation Committee would not permit the work. Mr. Borenstein said that if the Conservation Commission did not allow the gas line installation, they would simply not have gas on the site. Mr. Galaitsis said he liked the path in the middle. He wanted more information about the size of the houses and wanted to see them buffered from the neighbors. Other board members spoke of their concerns about the height and did not want anything that looked like it was three stories high. Mr. Zurlo suggested that the way the soffit and eave line are defined could help to keep the houses from looking so tall. Mr. Borenstein said that cross sections would be filed with the definitive applications and would help in showing the grades and heights. There was discussion of the driveways and a possible pedestrian walkway beside the driveway. Ms. Manz expressed concern for the safety of pedestrians walking down a curved driveway. It was suggested that continuing the vegetation demarcating the interior pedestrian path along the side of the driveway might make it seem more inviting for pedestrian use. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested using a different pavement treatment along one side of the 18-foot driveway to help define a walkway. This would not add to the impervious surface on site. Ms. Manz said that she wanted to see houses that were unobtrusive. She commented that while there was not detail on it tonight, the drainage was a very important concern and would be a focus of the definitive Minutes for the Meeting of December 13, 2006 4 submission. Mr. John Frankovich of 19 Dewey Road expressed his concern about the height with respect to the grade. Ms. Vita Hom of 175 Grove Street said she is still very concerned about the down slope drainage issues. Mr. Fred Martin of 29 Dewey Road said it is a little known fact but he does have a gas line to his house off of Grove Street. Mr. Galaitsis left the meeting due to illness at the end of the presentation on 177 Grove Street. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING ************************ Ms. Manz said that the warrant for the 2007 Annual Town Meeting will close before the Planning Board meets again so the Board needs to decide what they would to request be put on the warrant. She said Mr. Hornig had some minor changes to the Zoning By-law to make different sections consistent with each other, for example, in defining the minimum number of units in a conventional subdivision. There were also some issues raised by a former Planning Board member that they might want to address. These could all fall under a single warrant article dealing with minor changes. There might also need to be a technical revision article. The Tree Committee will be bringing forward some changes to the tree by-law and this Board will propose some changes in the Zoning By-Law to include consideration of the tree bylaw provisions in approving subdivisions. With the current interest in smart growth there are different model by-laws that might be useful in drafting revisions to the traffic by-law. The consensus was that the traffic by-law is not far enough along to be ready by the spring Town Meeting. The inclusionary housing by-law will be placed on the warrant. An interfaith group is working on presentation material to be used in a campaign to gain support for the by-law. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to ask the Selectmen to place the following items on the 2007 Annual Town Meeting warrant: the inclusionary housing by-law; the tree management related revisions; minor zoning changes; and, technical changes. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Mr. Canale reported that the 2020 Sustainability sub-committee is thinking of sponsoring a resolution at Town Meeting asking the Town to join ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly the Minutes for the Meeting of December 13, 2006 5 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* The Board was asked if they wanted to do a site visit to 11 Suzanne Road, which will be before the Board at its next meeting. Members were interested and suggested it take place at 8:00 a.m. on a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. Ms. McCall-Taylor will arrange it and let them know when it will be. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk