Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-20-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2004 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Room G -15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Galaitsis, Harden, Manz and planning staff McCall - Taylor, and Tap present. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of September 21 and October 6, 2004. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND PUBLIC HEARING: Grant Street at Glen Road South, Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, Oberteuffer /Mockett: At 8:00 p.m., Mr. Kastorf opened the public hearing on the Grant Street at GIen Road South definitive cluster subdivision plan dated May 26, 2004 and revised on September 9, 2004. Present were Mr. John Oberteuffer, the applicant, Mr. Richard Waitt of Meridian Engineering and Mr. Robert Phelan, consulting contractor. Mr. Waitt presented a plan showing three dwellings, two proposed and one existing, on the 2.4 -acre site. The new dwellings would face Grant Street. One driveway would enter onto Grant Street and the other onto Glen Road South. No new roadway construction is proposed, especially as the Town very recently paved about 100 feet of Glen Road South from Grant Street. Mr. Waitt described how the current plan responds to the six conditions the Board listed in its approval of the preliminary plan. I. Minimize the extent of pavement. The plans show paving a small portion of Glen Road South but this has been preempted by the paving done by the Town this week. 2. Explore the option of having the garage for lot three face Glen Road South, rather than Grant Street. The garage doors face Grant Street while the driveway leads from the garage to Glen Road South. Mr. Waitt said the placement maintains the screening and minimizes the paving of Glen Road South. 3. Relate the new houses to the predominant scale of those in the neighborhood on Grant Street. Mr. Waitt had provided the Board with elevation drawings of the proposed homes and said that the accompanying chart provided the correct measurements. He indicated that their floor area ratio is less than that of many surrounding houses and that many large additions to existing houses and large replacement houses are changing the neighborhood scale. 4. Include the footprints of the houses on the other side of Grant Street on the plans. This was done. 5. Include a breakdown of living area for the new houses. Due to the engineer's misunderstanding of figures provided by the architect, it might appear when looking at the square footage figures that the house sizes have increased, but the only change between the preliminary and definitive plans is a reduction of 250 square feet in the footprint of Lot 2. In the preliminary submission the living area had been mistakenly identified as the gross floor area. 6. Provide documents that show the open space will be accessible to and controlled by all three lots Mr. Waitt said that the open space will be part of the owners' lots but a restrictive covenant would ensure its use only as common open space available to all owners in the cluster subdivision. Board Questions and Comments: A majority of the Board strongly questioned the decision to keep the open space in individual ownership, even with a restrictive covenant. Mr. Oberteuffer indicated that he prefers the house lots to be larger for marketing purposes. Ms. McCall - Taylor noted that the definition of common open space in the Zoning Bylaw includes the wording "not in individual ownership ". A variance from that provision would likely be needed. Minutes for the Meeting of October 20, 2004 2 Mr. Galaitsis asked for "iron clad" assurance that the original 61,000 square foot lot will never be redeveloped. Mr. Waitt replied that he thought redevelopment of land in the subdivision would be impossible. Mr. Davies indicated that the plan is acceptable to him. Other Board members regard the proposed houses, at 5,000 to 6,000 square feet of gross floor area, as somewhat too big. Audience Questions and Comments: Mr. Edward Ganshirt, 48 Fletcher Avenue, indicated that the proposed houses seem visually very large because of their design. They are not simple rectangles like existing dwellings in the area. Marianne Boswell, 31 Oakland Street, expressed her appreciation for the buffer of trees between Grant Street and the proposed new dwellings. She also indicated her belief that common open space in individual ownership would be better cared for by the homeowners. Ms. Laura Sanford, 6 Glen Road South, asked that the driveway to Glen Road South lead instead onto Grant Street. Responding to her concern about blasting during construction, the Board referred to the controls on blasting, which is overseen by the fire department. Mr. Phelan indicated that four test pits on the site revealed no ledge to a depth of nine feet. Ms. Jan Connery, 21 Glenn Road South, echoed the abutters' wishes to keep the special character of their street and their appreciation that so much of the site would be left in a natural state. Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that, according to Town Counsel, the portion of the roadway that provides frontage to the existing home on the site would need a Planning Board determination of adequacy of grade and construction, or an approved street construction plan. Mr. Kastorf and Mr. Galaitsis indicated that they would vote against approving the plan before them tonight if a vote is taken, as it does not respond adequately to the six conditions Iisted in the preliminary decision and there is too much confusion about the development data provided. Mr. Harden commented that he likes the plan overall in that the site development plan is spacious and the scale of the proposed houses is nearly acceptable. Mr. Davies wants to see the corrected development data, but on the whole likes the plan. Ms. Boswell commented that this plan is so much better that what is happening elsewhere in Lexington that she hopes the Board will approve it and let it be an example of good development. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to continue the public hearing to the evening of November 17, 2004 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Wendy M Cl�` rk