Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-24-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Harden, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Grandview Avenue 40B Plans, DEBCO Properties, Review of Application: Mr. David Burns, DEBCO Properties, was present to show the Board his plans for a 40B development for three parcels of land on Grandview Avenue. With him were Mr. Gary Johnson, architect, and Mr. Doug Miller, engineer. Mr. Burns presented his proposal, which he described as a possible alternative to his previous 12-unit plan, for ten apartments in three structures (five units in one building, three and two in the others) on three lots of land. Three units would be affordable to someone earning 80% of the area median income and would count toward Lexington's DHCD Affordable Housing Inventory. Mr. Burns indicated that he put forth a ten-unit plan when town officials expressed concern over the severe impacts on the neighborhood of the 12-unit plan. The 12-unit proposal is still on the table and would have three units affordable at 50% of the area median income. He said that the Board had approved a three-unit subdivision for this property, but the Board noted that this approval had been appealed by the neighbors and the Land Court had held that the subdivision could not go forward without the neighbors signing the application. Mr. Johnson displayed the current plans, saying that they had worked hard to reduce the size and massing of the buildings, which were designed after the New England village style. He claimed that the buildings complied with the setbacks of the RS zoning designation of the area. He noted the open and play space and the provision of parking for residents and their guests on each site. One of the buildings complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Miller described the storm water management system. A majority of the Board's questions and comments had to do with placement of sidewalk, width of street pavement and the potential for overflow parking on Grandview Avenue. They pointed out the existing difficulty for emergency vehicles in negotiating the turn at the end of Grandview and indicated that street parking would only exacerbate problems of access to the dwellings. Mr. Kastorf expressed concern that an emergency vehicle called to another emergency from Grandview would be delayed getting to the other location by conditions on Grandview. In response to a question, Mr. Burns indicated that he does not intend to improve any part of Estabrook Road. Ms. McCall-Taylor pointed out that the tandem parking proposed does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw: tandem parking is not allowed in multi-family developments. She also expressed concern about placement of the proposed retaining walls along the street and sidewalk. Mrs. Manz asked if the sightlines on Welch Road are adequate for cars exiting Grandview. Many audience questions and comments had to do with the density of the proposal and its attendant impacts. Mr. James LaMarca, 9 Welch Road, described it as 2 ½ times as dense as the surrounding neighborhoods. He presented comparative data using a zoning map he had marked to show the locations of other affordable housing developments in Lexington. He described Mr. Burns's proposal as contrary to the Planning Board's 2002 comprehensive plan and not compatible with Lexington's character. Mr. Gary Larson, a landscape architect engaged by the neighborhood to speak about the 40B proposal in terms of his profession, noted some potential public safety problems related to street width, grade and layout, and a concern about a retaining wall being too close to one of the buildings. He recognized that more engineering information would be available at a later stage in the permitting process but was troubled about the close proximity of the drainage structures to the proposed buildings. Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2005 2 Mr. John Clough, 19 Grandview, commented that it was hard to make any sense of Mr. Burns's application materials as they were so disorganized. Key pieces of information missing and Mr. Burns did not provide requested items to the neighbors. Mr. Burns responded that at this stage he is not required to. Attorney Emily Sample spoke in behalf of the neighborhood. Her points had to do with the proposed density and its effects on the area, child safety relative to the play space on one lot, some comments made by the independent reviewing engineer, Hayes Associates, and the absence of a subdivision plan. She questioned Mr. Burns's use of engineering data from his three-unit subdivision plan in this 40B application. She said the neighborhood seeks due process with all the necessary information available. Mr. Howard Silver, 19 Welch Road, commented that this proposal would distort all of the regulations that are meant to maintain a livable environment. The Board summarized its thoughts on the proposal, saying that the proposed density creates nearly all of the problems that were raised tonight. Given the limited information provided the Board could not determine if a 20’ road would be adequate to serve this number of houses. Proposed off-street parking appeared inadequate since it depends on tandem spaces to be shared by residents of different units. Enforcement of no parking on the site would be an issue and well as the proximity of large structures to existing modest homes. One of the proposed buildings received favorable comment as to its appropriateness and in a development with, for example, six dwelling units, could be acceptable. But with insufficient data being offered the current proposal seems unacceptable. There was concern about the adequacy of the infiltration system, particularly the unit handling the stormwater runoff of the proposed road. Mr. Kastorf stated that the Board needs to see how Mr. Burns plans to solve the problems of stormwater management and public safety. The Planning Board has approved other subdivisions that include affordable units, but those plans provided information about impacts and ameliorations on which informed decisions could be made. He felt there was very little of that here. He said that the Board originally approved three units on this site and knows that that number can work, but given the lack of information for other numbers of units, the Board is unable to know if the impacts can be appropriately mitigated. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/05-1, Piper Road at Waltham Street: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at Piper Road and Waltham Street. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated February 16, 2005, prepared and certified by James R. Keenan, Winchester, MA, Registered Land Surveyor, with Form A/05-1, submitted by Joseph A. Marino, Homes Development Corp., applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2005 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 4, CB to CD, Battle Green Inn, Mitigation of Impacts, Discussion: The Board discussed the merits and mechanics of an appropriate level of mitigation measures to be expected of the developer of the Battle Green Inn property which might include affordable housing, financial support of Center connectivity project, and of Lexpress. Members agreed that at least ten percent of the units should be affordable but debated as to whether or not the units should be rental or homeownership opportunities and what would be the best way of assuring the permanence of affordability. The Board felt it would be appropriate to ask to have four units donated to LexHAB and require that all efforts be made to have the units qualify for counting on the 40B inventory by applying under the Local Initiative Program (LIP). The Board felt that asking for a contribution to affordable housing was appropriate. Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2005 3 Other mitigations were discussed, including having the developer be the point person in gathering support for a Business Improvement District (BID), or at least providing some seed money to be used for the same. The Lexington Center Committee is seeking funds for implementing connectivity projects in the center. The developer might be asked to come up with a specific connectivity plan valued at approximately $50,000. The Board wondered if there was a nexus for requiring traffic/transportation mitigations as the traffic study said there would be no impact from the change in use. They could see having six-month LEXPRESS passes made available to the new residents upon the purchase of the unit, but did not see a basis for a long-term commitment to LEXPRESS funding as there was no tie to an impact. Mr. Canale felt that the Transportation Advisory Committee should weigh in before making a decision. Mr. Harden said that the construction activity would have an impact but that there appeared to be no long-term negative impact due to traffic relative to the existing use. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk