Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2005 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 Kastorf with members Galaitsis, Harden, Hornig, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. Mr. Kastorf began the meeting by congratulating the recently elected members, Anthony Galaitsis and Charles Hornig. It will be Mr. Hornig’s first term on the Board and Mr. Galaitsis’ third term. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of February 16, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that the plan for 33 and 29 Prospect Hill Road originally on the agenda will need to be revised if it is to qualify for endorsement by the Planning Board as not needing approval under the subdivision control law. The applicant will be notified of the issue. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* The Board set up the meeting schedule through April so that regulatory matters could be scheduled within the mandated review period. The Board agreed to meet at 6:00 p.m., prior to Town Meeting sessions, on April 6, 11 and 13. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cutler Farm Cluster Subdivision Sketch Plan, Tim Callahan, Presentation by the Applicant: The development team, Mr. Callahan, the applicant, and Mr. Ti Johnson, landscape architect, of Larson Associates, Inc. were present: Mr. Johnson indicated that the plan before the Board tonight responds to comments and suggestions made by the Board on the first sketch plan at its January 5, 2005 meeting. Instead of eight dwellings in two clusters on a roadway off of Concord Avenue, with emergency access off Old Spring Street, the current plan shows nine smaller dwellings, less site coverage and includes a unit that would be given to the town for affordable housing. A neighborhood context plan was provided. Mr. Johnson indicated that a survey of Old Spring Street showed it to be adequate to service the three proposed additional houses and in terms of providing a turnaround. He said it was paved last year. Planning Board Comments and Questions Mr. Hornig asked if there are utilities in Old Spring Street to service the new dwellings, how wide the street is, and if they have rights to improve it. Mr. Johnson responded that Old Spring varies from 12 to 15 feet in width and a hammerhead turnaround could be built. Whether they have a right to improve it is uncertain at this point. As to utilities, Mr. Johnson said that the survey work was not complete at this time. Mr. Hornig expressed concern that the ROW is only 15 feet. Mr. Galaitsis commented that the impacts of the proposed subdivision are at the maximums shown in the cluster worksheet. As he had asked for smaller and some attached units at the meeting in January, it seems to him that the proposal is going backwards in terms of acceptability. Mr. Johnson responded that the dwelling units in the current plan are smaller than those in the previous sketch plan. Ms. Manz asked if the affordable unit would differ from the market-rate units. Mr. Johnson indicated it would not. Ms. Manz and Mr. Hornig expressed reservations about the condition of Old Spring Street and its suitability for providing access for the new homes, especially with regard to public safety due its width and because existing stone walls and trees would be affected. Mr. Hornig asked if the applicant has the right to improve the street. Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2005 2 Mr. Harden asked about the size of the proposed houses. Mr. Johnson said that they are not yet designed but the footprints would be about 40 feet by 28 feet, plus garages at 22 feet by 22 feet. They would have three bedrooms. Mr. Galaitsis indicated that the number of residents would exceed the impacts of a conventional subdivision. Audience Comments and Questions Several residents of Old Shade Street testified to the difficult conditions on that street. There are five mailboxes as there is no mail delivery to the homes, cars back out from several driveways onto the narrow street and many trees would have to be removed if the street were to be widened. Many in the audience expressed worry about the removal of trees for the development that currently mitigate traffic noise from Route 2 as the entire area would suffer. They did not see any public benefit from a cluster subdivision, except for the affordable unit. Concern was also expressed about development within the wetlands buffer line. Direction from the Board: The Board indicated that property has many problems, including the condition of Old Spring Street and noise from Route 2. Mr. Callahan was advised not to pursue the design offered this evening. While a cluster scheme could afford benefits, it would have to be a much smaller arrangement with smaller units, some attached, and with much less site disturbance. A conventional subdivision would have less impact than the current proposal. The Board also advised the applicant to begin to confer with the neighbors. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2005 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 19, Transfer North Street Land to Conservation, Marshall Derby: LexHAB chair Marshall Derby was present to speak about Article 19, the proposed transfer of two town-owned properties off North Street to the Conservation Commission. He said that LexHAB paid for a feasibility study for building a cluster of homes for people 55+ years of age on a portion of the land and hopes to present a plan for such to the 2006 Town Meeting. He indicated that transfer of the land to conservation could wait until then as it currently is designated for recreation uses and is not in danger of being used otherwise. He asked the Board to support LexHAB by recommending to Town Meeting that it not be transferred this year. Conservation Commission chair Joyce Miller was in the audience and described the land as an important and lovely tract of land that is also a wildlife corridor, connecting to the north. In response to Ms. Manz’s question, Mrs. Miller indicated that building near the existing pond would affect the pond life. Mr. Donald Chisholm, representing the Council on Aging, said that the Council supports LexHAB and would like to keep options on the land open, perhaps for a senior center. Mr. Robert Bicknell, chair of the Housing Partnership also spoke in support of waiting before transferring the parcels to conservation permanently. Mrs. Margery Daggett, Town Meeting member, Mr. Richard Canale, and others in the audience spoke in support of transferring the land now. After a brief discussion, Mr. Kastorf moved that the Planning Board support transfer of the land to conservation, Mr. Galaitsis seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a 3-2 vote, Mr. Harden, Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz opposed. The three felt that the town could wait on the transfer until more use options were explored. Article 9 Waltham Street Rezoning, Continued Hearing – Mr. Kastorf opened the continued hearing at 9:45. Present for the development team were Ed Grant, Ernie Rogers, Michael Dryden, Ed Nilson, and Charles Koslauskus. Mr. Grant summarized what had been done since the February 2, 2005 hearing, as follows: An 18’ access drive goes around the building; ?? Disturbance of the wetlands minimized and a conservation restriction was being offered on 5,000 ?? square feet; Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2005 3 While lease obligations and the Waltham zoning prevented automobile access from the adjacent ?? shopping plaza, the fence between the properties was no longer on the plans and a walkway was shown. There would also be repairs of the existing sidewalk along Waltham Street The architectural plans removed the reference to street number 1070, the street number will be ?? assigned later Transportation demand management package includes a $3,500 annual contribution to Lexpress ?? to escalate by the consumer price index; $25,000 contribution to the Town to be used by the Town in making improvements in the area; an agreement to continue to work to get a pedestrian signal installed. Mr. Richard Canale, 29 Shade Street, said he heard that Waltham is concerned about the money it would be spending on improvements to the road that it felt benefited Lexington more than Waltham. Mr. Canale suggested as a gesture of good faith that the Board require the continuation of the proposed island along the frontage of the property. The Board members did not see the value of this, as it would prevent cars from entering the site that is proposed for a drive-in bank. Mr. Kevin Johnson of the South Lexington Civic Association said he would like to see the building reduced to 2 stories. The hearing was closed at 10:20 and the Board deliberated on their recommendation to Town Meeting. Ms. Manz said she felt that it was a reasonable proposal and while the transportation demand management wasn’t perfect it was a reasonable effort. Mr. Harden agreed and said that the revisions had been very responsive. Mr. Galaitsis commented on the three stories, saying it was actually three and a half stories and the fact that it was a relatively small footprint would make it seem even more towering. Ms. Manz said she didn’t have an inherent objection to three stories. Mr. Hornig said the site was appropriate for commercial use and it was better than a vacant trash-strewn lot. Mr. Kastorf agreed that the site design would be a big improvement and that the topography made the proposed height acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Harden, seconded by Ms. Manz, the Board voted 4 to 0 in recommend approval of the article, with Mr. Galaitsis abstaining. Mr. Kastorf said that while the transportation coordinator funding was freely given and gratefully accepted, he was not comfortable with this approach to funding a position. He felt that it was an end run of Town Meeting’s appropriation powers. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:45p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk