Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-11-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 11, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Manz, Galaitsis, Hornig, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. Planner Eve Tapper arrived at 7:20 p.m. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* PUBLIC HEARING, 31 Fletcher Avenue, Conversion of Jefferson Union Building to Residential Condominiums: Mr. Harden called the public hearing on the conversion of the Jefferson Union Building at 31 Fletcher Avenue to residential condominiums to order at 6:10 p.m. He explained that the applicant is seeking a Special Permit with Site Plan review from the Planning Board, as it is a residential development with three or more dwelling units. Jefferson Union has been a manufacturing concern for over 100 years. The Board of Appeals approved the proposed substitution of a less non-conforming use in the RO zoning district. The applicant is acquiring a 8,791.5 square foot parcel adjacent to the rear of 31 Fletcher Avenue. Representing the development team were: Mr. John Farrington and Ms. Karen Jennings, attorneys; Mr. Steve Sawyer, engineer, of Oak Engineering; Mr. Peter Quinn, architect; Mr. Sean Papich, landscape architect; Mr. David Friend, traffic engineer, and George Meadows, owner. There were 17 people in the audience. Mr. Farrington gave a brief outline of the building's history and the owner's current proposal. Most of the building will be renovated and thirteen residential condos created. The Historical Commission reviewed the proposal and expressed its pleasure that the building is being restored and at the proposed character of the structure. Traffic impacts would be negligible and studies of the site revealed no environmental hazards. Having reviewed the drainage plan, the Conservation Commission suggested some changes. The development team proposes keeping some parking spaces in reserve, and not constructing them unless needed. A smaller existing structure on the site would become a single-family dwelling. Mr. Sawyer reviewed the site plan, which shows a loop drive with a clockwise circulation pattern ending at a stop sign at Fletcher Avenue. Patterned bituminous surfaces delineate pedestrian ways. Along the front of the site a proposed stacked block retaining wall would be softened by new plantings. Mr. Sawyer commented that the drainage system would actually reduce runoff from the site. He will file a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission at the appropriate time. The project will connect to the existing town eight-inch water service. He indicated that the Town’s Engineering Division agreed with his assessment that the triple gate suggested by independent engineer Laurence Hayes would not be needed. Mr. Papich presented the proposed landscaping plan, which shows retention and augmentation of the wooded character of the property with plants that would provide seasonal color and interest. The lighting plan is designed to prevent spillover light. Rail lights at the walkway steps and low lighting at the south edge would provide attractive and subtle illumination. There would be wood fences along the east, north and south edges of the property Mr. Quinn described the arrangement of the building space into four areas that would allow each unit to have a small outdoor space and a separate entry. They would have sidewalk connection. Other features would include dormers, shed roofs and metal and wood railings. Nine two-bedroom and four three- bedroom dwellings would range in size from 1,400 to 2,600 square feet. Existing asphalt siding on the building would be replaced. Mr. Friend presented the results of his traffic study and analysis. Cars exiting the site have adequate sight distances on Fletcher Avenue. The expected 115 trips/day generated by the Jefferson Union development would be less than that of the 1970s factory use. The study indicates that no operating issues or queuing would occur. Minutes for the Meeting of May 11, 2005 2 Board Questions and Comments : The Board expressed its concern about the one-way circulation pattern and the entry/egress at the site during construction and after the residents move in. Particular concern was expressed regarding the proposed retaining wall along the front of the site, as it could easily reach seven feet in height. The Board does not want to see the parking situation on Fletcher Avenue worsened and asked how guest parking would be dealt with. The Board asked the development team to minimize all potential impacts on the abutters. Audience Questions and Comments : Comments from the audience had to do with: the perceived excessive density proposed and the lack of open space, – traffic and parking issues, – disturbance from the construction process, particularly blasting – potential hazardous materials on the site. Environmental reports were requested. – the retaining wall, which was considered to be out of character in the neighborhood – A number of residents described the high amount of on-street parking in the neighborhood by employees of center businesses. Direct abutters to the site asked for maximum screening and protection from impacts. The Board asked the developer to provide: a written response to Mr. Hayes' engineering comments, – an accurate representation of the proposed front retaining wall and the front elevation, – a better circulation plan, – more information on the demolition phase and a construction management plan – a draft O & M plan – copies of environmental studies – a grading and landscaping plan, with section drawings of critical areas – At 8:20 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to adjourn the public hearing and continue it to Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 7:45 p.m. 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, Sheldon Corporation, Continued Public Hearing: Mr. Harden opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. on the definitive cluster subdivision plan of the Sheldon Corporation for land on Cary Avenue. Present were Mr. Todd Cataldo, Sheldon Corp., and Mr. Michael Dryden, landscape architect. There were 15 people in the audience Mr. Dryden detailed the revisions made to the plans since the hearing opened on April 27, 2005, and addressed the specific issues requested by the Board at that time. He noted that Mr. Cataldo had agreed to try to work with the neighbors including the back abutter Mr. Zitkovsky to address off-site water issues, but that there are constraints on this cooperation related to property rights and potential construction close to a wetland. Audience Questions and Comments: Jane Buckley, 46 Middle Street, asked how many house lots would be in the development. Mr. Dryden responded that there would be 4 house lots and that there were currently 3 legal lots. Mr. Jeff Chitouris expressed concern that there would be additional 900 cubic yards of fill. Mr. Dryden responded that the grading numbers are before the existing fill was added and that there would be only 600 cubic yards of additional fill. Mr. Chitouris said that there are a lot more smaller trees coming down than were counted by the applicant and he would rather have 3 lots and houses and would like to see a lot of tree screening and that, in general, Lexington is getting dense like Arlington and Belmont. There is a lot of impact on the neighborhood since there may be another development coming in across the street. He also expressed concerns about water runoff. Mr. Dryden stated that they are not claiming to make the water problem better, only that they will not make it worse. Another resident asked how you could get 4 houses on 3 lots. Mr. Harden responded that a cluster subdivision Minutes for the Meeting of May 11, 2005 3 allows this with site plan review. The owner has a right to subdivide. Jamie Rauscher, 47 Cary Avenue, wants to make sure that the open space stays open and wondered whether it includes the detention basin. She asked if the homeowners association would be able to enhance the open space with landscaping on or near the basin and whether this would affect water runoff. Mr. Dryden responded that the grade of the open space cannot be changed. Mr. Harden, Ms. Manz and Ms. McCall-Taylor all responded that the covenant would have deed restrictions. Mr. Hornig responded that the special permit itself is enforceable. Mel Scott, Middle Street, noted that the existing trees are helping the area by “sucking” up the water. John DeMoyer, 20 Middle Street, asked whether the wetland extends to an adjacent property. He noted that any water pumped into the wetland would go across property lines. Ivan Zitovsky said that his drainage system is overgrown with trees. He wanted to know how to get a permit to clear the drainage system and whether this off-site water issue could be tied to the project being discussed. Ms. Manz suggested that Mr. Zitovsky talk to his neighbors. Ms. McCall-Taylor cautioned that it is not a good idea to tie an off-site issue directly to this project. Jerry Moore, 39 Cary Avenue, wanted to know how far away the driveway must be from the property line. Mr. Harden responded 5 feet. Mr. Moore noted that he would much rather have a cluster subdivision than a conventional. Mr. Lahill, 51 Cary Avenue, asked if anyone can put in a cluster. Mr. Harden responded that you need 50,000 square feet of land. Mr. Lahill noted that this development will change the character of the neighborhood. Right now there is one house along the road on these streets in the neighborhood. A resident of 45 Cary Avenue asked if the detention basin is in a depression. Mr. Dryden responded that it is a dry detention basin 1.5 feet deep. It will be a slightly depressed grassy area. The resident asked if the basin could be coupled with Mr. Zitkovsky’s system. Mr. Dryden noted that from an engineering perspective it could be done but reiterated that there are other regulatory issues that would have to be addressed. Mr. Chitouris said that he does not see the benefits to the neighborhood. Mr. Dryden responded that the benefit is as compared to a conventional subdivision. He stated that the benefit matches the size of the property. Mr. Harden added that the benchmark from the Board’s perspective is the benefits of a cluster versus a conventional subdivision on this site. Another resident noted that the open space is wooded and will not be an open field where children can play. Board Questions and Comments: Mr. Hornig was concerned about the 30’ street tree and whether it will be saved. Mr. Dryden responded that he thinks the tree will survive and that no pruning will be needed. Mr. Hornig asked for an easement for the Town to repair the infiltrators in an emergency. He also discussed the issue of a basement versus a cellar. The Board is not allowed to waive §135-46B in a cluster and if the houses on Lots 1 and 4 actually have basements, then they are 3 or 3 ½ stories. Mr. Cataldo responded that it is only an issue on Lot 4 and if it is a problem, he will remove the accessory apartment. Mr. Canale asked when the fill under the specimen tree would be removed. Mr. Cataldo responded that would be part of the first phase of the construction. Mr. Galaitsis asked whether the project could meet the open space requirement without including the basin area. Mr. Dryden said the open space doesn’t include the wetlands but does include the basin. The Board and the applicant discussed the off-site water issues. Mr. Harden closed the hearing at 9:50 pm. Mr. Hornig said that an approval of the subdivision would require a list of conditions including requiring easements on each of the lots to allow the Town access to the property for maintenance of the stormwater Minutes for the Meeting of May 11, 2005 4 infiltrators, if necessary. He also wanted to be sure that the dwellings would be similar to the sketches included in the application and would comply with the Zoning By-Law with respect to height and number of stories permitted. This means that if the accessory apartment cannot comply with §135-46B the applicant may remove it. The members also wanted to make sure that the upper levels were attics such and would not be converted to living space. Ms. Manz felt that there should be a condition that the covenant containing the Operations and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater management system include an annual clean out and annual inspection and certification by a licensed engineer. Mr. Hornig suggested a condition of approval be that the 40” maple tree be protected using best practices as outlined in the arborist’s letter submitted by the applicant. The Board, citing the public benefits this cluster plan offers – less adverse effects than a conventional subdivision, open space, possible improvement of neighborhood stormwater runoff issues, on a motion duly made and seconded, voted by a margin of 4-1, Mr. Galaitsis opposed, to: 1) Approve the definitive subdivision plan, entitled "31,33 &35 Cary Avenue", dated February 14, 2005, revised March 25, 2005 and May 5, 2005 with conditions; 2) Grant a special permit to modify lot area, lot frontage, and lot width as allowed for cluster subdivisions in §135-48F(1); 3) Grant a special permit with site plan review (SPS) for a subdivision with three or more dwellings with conditions as cited in the decision; and 4) Grant a special permit to allow a driveway to straddle the lot line per §135-69C of the Zoning By- law. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/2004-7, 330 Lexington Street, Woburn/Woburn Street, Lexington: Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that Robert J. Murray, who submitted an approval not required plan for land at 330 Lexington Street, Woburn/Woburn Street, Lexington and which the Planning Board approved on July 7, 2004 has asked the Board to rescind that plan, as it was not acceptable to the Land Court. Mr. Murray submitted a new plan, which is before the Board tonight. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to rescind the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated January 6, 2004, revised March 16 and April 30, 2004, prepared and certified by Daniel D. O'Neill, Burlington, MA, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A/04-7, submitted by Robert W. Murray, applicant. Form A/2005-4, 330 Lexington Street, Woburn/Woburn Street, Lexington: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 330 Lexington Street, Woburn and Lexington. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Woburn and Lexington, 330 Lexington Street (Middlesex County) ", dated January 26, 2005, prepared and certified by Daniel O'Neill, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A/05-, submitted by Robert W. Murray, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Richard Canale, Clerk