Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-22-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JJUNE 22, 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 Manz with members Canale, Galaitsis, Harden, Hornig, and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Schilt present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of October 26, 2004 and February 24, March 10 and 23, 2005. On a motions duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Canale did not vote on approving the minutes prior to March 23, as he was not on the Planning Board at that time. Mr. Hornig did not vote on the minutes of October for the same reason. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cutler Farm Subdivision, 497 Concord Avenue Sketch Plan: Attorney Ed Grant, Landscape Architect Gary Larson and property owners Marjorie Callahan and Tim Callahan were present for another sketch plan for the land at 497 Concord Avenue. Mr. Grant reported that there had recently been a neighborhood meeting at the Elks Club and that the applicant would work within reason to address the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Larson gave a brief overview of the project noting that it had begun as eight dwellings units, then nine, but it was now seven dwelling units, with two off of Old Shade Street and five off of Concord Avenue. He said that the size of the individual units had been somewhat reduced, two dwelling units had been attached and only one additional unit would use Old Shade Street for access. He characterized the placement of the buildings as well back from the 50’ wetlands buffer. He said that at a previous meeting the dimensions of Old Shade Street were incorrectly represented. He said that at the narrowest the right of way is 22’ and the pavement width is approximately 16’. Mr. Hornig asked about the location of the common open space and whether there were exclusive use areas. Mr. Larson responded that this was a special residential development with much more than the required open space, and that there were some exclusive use areas near the buildings. Mr. Canale said that at previous session on this project, the Board had stated that it wanted no additional houses on Old Shade Street, and he wondered what the rationale was for adding a house. Mr. Larson said that two units had been removed from the proposal and it was not an unreasonable use of Old Shade Street. Mr. Canale then asked about the size and number of bedrooms and was told the units would have a footprint of approximately 2,000 to 2,200 square feet. Mr. Larson was not certain of the number of bedrooms but had thought they would ask for four per unit. Mr. Canale commented that it was hard to give feedback if the number of bedrooms and size of the units was not known. He then asked why only two units were attached. Mr. Larson said it was part of the program and that the owner wanted single-family units. He went on to say that the proof plan shows a possibility of four houses that could be much larger but that the proximity to Route 2 would limit the selling price so that they were proposing more smaller units that would sell for less. While the Board has generally asked that ten percent of the units be affordable in a development, when asked if any were affordable, Mr. Larson said no because ten percent of seven would be three-quarters of a unit. Mr. Hornig said he would not favor an additional unit on Old Shade Street without improvements to the paving and sight lines. He said that the lower part of the development had units that were a bit smaller than previous proposals, but not much, and they were not particularly clustered, nor were they pulled back from the 50’ wetland buffer, but in fact were placed right up to the line. He would like to see the units pushed together, perhaps as townhouses. Mr. Galaitsis said that the number given by the formulas are the maximum and given that this is a difficult site with a long narrow access, wetlands, and it is fragmented by a steep slope, the developer should not be looking for the maximum. He expressed his belief that even as single-family houses these Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2005 2 would not be much larger as no one is going to build a mansion by Route 2. Mr. Galaitsis felt that the figure of 3.13 occupants per four-bedroom unit was too low. He said that the next time he wanted a plan that had only a total of 20 occupants projected. Mr. Harden said he agreed with the other board members’ comments and that in evaluating a cluster development, as opposed to a four-unit conventional subdivision, he saw no public benefit in this cluster. He suggested coming back with a smaller cluster with smaller units and some affordability. He said a conventional development would still be difficult and would require a special permit. He felt there was not much change from the last submission. Ms. Manz said that she saw nothing being given in exchange for a cluster development and she still had concerns about the 16’ pavement width on Old Shade Street. Mr. Larson said that where it is narrowest there are two huge oak trees on one side and a stone wall on the other side. Mr. Hornig asked if something could be done about the sight lines on Concord Avenue. Mr. Larson said the right of way intersects Concord Avenue at 90 degrees so there is little that can be done without needing the abutting landowners’ consent. Board members agreed that the comments from the previous sketch plan really had not been addressed by this submission and that perhaps the developer should explore using the cluster provisions to better use the site, but not to get more units on the site. The neighbors spoke out against the proposal citing the impacts on Old Shade Street and the natural features of the site. They were concerned about having any more cars use Old Shade Street or the driveway access off of Concord avenue. They said that it was already difficult with the traffic coming out of Barberry Road. Board members suggested that the applicant return with another sketch that was more responsive to their previous comments. They felt there was no need for a new letter to be written as the previous comments still applied. Scottish Glen, Summer Street: Mr. Andy Schwab and Mr. Stephen Schwab were before the board asking the Board to consider the replacement of the approved patios with decks. Mr. Schwab said that the purchasers of units 2 and 3 had asked for decks as they felt they would be more useable. Pictures of the units were shown with the locations of the proposed decks marked on them. Mr. Schwab said that the decks would reduce the total impervious surface area on the site. There was considerable discussion about the substitution of decks. All of the members agreed that they did not have an issue with the decks at Units 3 and 4, which were essentially at grade, but the decks above grade might be an issue. Ms. Manz suggested framing the question as “Was there anything about this proposal that they would not have approved if it had come in with the original submission?” Mr. Galaitsis said that project had been considered as a whole and he thought this would open the door for other developers to come in and make changes after the final approval. Mr. Harden said that impervious surface was a big issue in the consideration of the project and this was an improvement. He was sympathetic to the concerns about changes to an approved cluster, but he felt these were legitimate design concerns and he was inclined to approve the changes. Ms. Manz suggested the Board could avoid creating a general precedent for reworking previously approved projects if it based this decision on the specific improvement of less impervious surface offered by this proponent. Mr. Harden made a motion to approve the changes as proposed, with the exception that the size of the Unit 1 deck be reduced to 13 x 18, as a minor revision of the special permit. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion and it was voted, 4 to 1, with Mr. Galaitsis opposed. Minutes for the Meeting of June 22, 2005 3 ************************* LEXINGTON CENTER INITIATIVE ************************** The Lexington Center Collaborative had sponsored a charrette to explore Center issues. The Board members discussed what they thought came out of that effort, as all had attended at least part of the daylong session. Mr. Canale referenced an email dated June 16 that he had sent to the Board that he thought captured what he thought came out of that effort. As an additional thought, Mr. Canale felt that there was general agreement among the participants that the bylaws were not adhered to and enforcement was lacking. In addition, concerns were expressed about the Historic Districts Commission. Mr. Hornig said they had to be careful about the conclusions that could be drawn because this was a self-selected group, but there did seem to be a perception that zoning was a problem, as was parking, and that people were receptive to residential use in the center. Ms. Manz reported that as a follow-up to the session, the Collaborative wanted to report to a joint session of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen. The Board agreed to such a meeting, but the date will have to be negotiated with the Selectmen, as the suggested date of August 29 did not work. Ms. Manz said that the Collaborative members were also seeking a letter from the Board to the Bank of America’s landlord supporting the Gateway Plaza. This plaza would be constructed between the Bank of America and the Carlson Realty office, blocking off traffic from Massachusetts Avenue and providing pedestrian access through to the Depot Square lot. Members agreed that they supported the concept of closing the area to traffic and making it attractive but did not feel they should be writing to the property owner. Instead, they asked Ms. Manz to write a letter of support to the Lexington Center Committee who could then use it as they saw fit. The Board members discussed whether or not they would be looking to bring parking regulation changes to Town Meeting. Mr. Harden said that the Board should consider whether to take a wider view and include changes to allowed uses and allowed height or whether a narrow approach is better. Mr. Hornig said that the Town meeting expects initiatives to look at the center issues of parking, density or height, and housing. He said there is also an edge issue as the Zoning Board of Appeals has allowed commercial uses outside of, but adjacent to, the center. Mr. Horning proposed a transition zone surrounding the center district for “edge business.” Board members agreed that these issues should be addressed at a goal setting meeting that they would schedule in August. Ms. McCall-Taylor agreed to sketch out some options for dealing with parking to discuss at a future meeting. ************************** REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES ************************** Development of Regional Impact (DRI): Mr. Canale said the committee still needs a second nominee from the Conservation Committee. The DRI Committee has a possible project to consider, the addition of a third Massport F.B.O. (fixed base operator). ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Metropolitan Area Planning Council: Mr. Canale handed out three reports from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council on the Metro Future effort. Members agreed to postpone liaison/committee appointments until the next meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk