Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-30-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 30, 2003 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in. the Carpenter Room of the National Heritage Museum, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chairman Harden with members Davies, Galaitsis, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, and McCall - Taylor present. Ms. Chase joined the meeting during the discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals cases. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on Mays 8, 2003 Mr. Kastorf gave an oral review of the following applications: a 6 Hancock Avenue — Variance from font and side yard setbacks to construct an addition to a single - family dwelling (continued from March 27, 2003) a 60 Bedford Street — Walgreen's — Special permit to install a new, freestanding, monument -style sign. 0 2600 Massachusetts Avenue — United Methodist Church — Special Permit to install a new standing sign. 0 9 Russell Road — Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition to a single - family dwelling. - 0 55 Taft Avenue — Variance from lot area and gross floor area minimums, and a special permit for the conversion of a one- family dwelling into a two- family dwelling a 1666 Massachusetts Avenue — Nicky's Ice Cream & Delectables — Modification of an existing special permit to allow seating 0 4 royal Circle — Special Permit to construct a tennis court with lighting (continued from March 13, 2003 ) The Board had no comments to forward to the Zoning Board of Appeals. ARTICLES FOR 2003 TOWN MEETING Article 25 Mr. Harden distributed three versions of a possible Planning Board statement on Article 25 concerning the sale or lease of the Public Works facility property at 201 Bedford Street. He recommended that the latest version be used. Mr. Davies said brevity was important. Mr. Kastorf brought up the point that there was potential conflict for the Planning Board to be involved as a regulator of the development after the property is disposed when it has participated in the disposition process. On a motion by Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Kastorf the Board voted 5 -0 to support Article 14 and not support Article 25. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMTNISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Glen Road South, Sketch Plan — Dylan James and Jason Himick of Meridian Associates and property owners John Oberteuffer and Katherine Mockett were present to discuss their plans for 14 Glen Road South, at the corner of Grant Street. The lot is 101,300 square feet with an existing Historic house on the upper portion. There are wetlands in the southeast corner and steep slopes dividing the lot in the middle. The plans presented were to create two additional house lots, while retaining the existing house. Mr. James said they had looked at two concepts using generic footprints to test grading, etc. This had lead them to favor concept B that had frontage on Grant Street for both of the additional lots. The houses would both front on Grant Street and relate to that neighborhood. Board questions and comments - Mr. Kastorf asked about the common open space and Mr. James said that it was the wooded area and would remain in private ownership. Mr. Davies, commenting on the status of Glen Road South said that there were street signs and that it was passable. Mr. Galaitsis ask what could be done as of right and was told that they could lay out a road to create frontage and still get three lots. Mr. Galaitsis said that if the development is to be in keeping with the character of the Grant Street neighborhood would that include the size of the houses? Mr. James said the houses will be larger than most but there is some replacement housing taking place. He noted that the houses have been sited with the narrower face toward the street, unlike the usual box- shaped colonial. Minutes for the Meeting of April 30, 2003 N Mr. Davies said that at first he felt that this was not a cluster but he now thought it was a good idea. He felt that to help preserve the site all three homeowners should own the wooded slope.. Ms. Chase said she was curious as to why one driveway was off Glen Road South and wondered if they had checked the use of Glen Road South with the Fire Department, Mr. James said they had not met with Fire at this early stage, but that they had put the drive off Glen road South as they didn't want two sets of garage doors facing Grant Street. Mr. Harden was concerned about maintaining the scale of Grant Street and that the current plans may be a problem.. The lot steps up the hill and the houses will be higher. He wondered what the applicant's thoughts were in respect to a size limitation. Mr. James said he had no answer now but that it has to do with the value of the land. He acknowledged that the approval would restrict the size but he didn't know at what size. Mr. James said that two moderate houses might bring more value than one big house. Mr. Himick said that a large house would be out of scale and he didn't know who would buy it. The Board questioned the extent to which market factors should determine what was built at the site. Mr. Galaitsis thanked the applicant for bringing in a cluster plan and said that he expected there to be some give and take on the size. Mr. Harden asked if they had conceived of improvements to Glen Road. Mr. James said they prefer not to upgrade the road for reasons of cost and to discourage traffic. Ms. Call- Taylor said that this had some aspects of a street improvement plan as the Board would have to determine that the upper portion of Glen. Road South was adequate for access to the existing house. She suggested that the Board might want to see some information on the current condition of the road with the next submission. Mr. Kastorf said they might want to do as they had done on Rangeway road and have engineering plans drawn up for road future improvements that could be used by the neighbors should they wish to do the improvements. Mr. Davies said .he felt that the road at the top was adequate for one house; the lower road may -need to be upgraded but he was not looking at a through road. Mr. Galaitsis agreed that he did not see the need for improvements past the driveway. Ms. Chase said she wanted to see information on the handling of run -off relative to the two lots. Mr. Galaitsis said that the steep slope of the road may cause erosion and would there be an attempt to mitigate that? Mr. James said that there is an area where it has washed out and then been repaired, but it is the shoulder, not the road. Mr. Kastorf returned to the issue of ownership of the common open space. He is willing to allow all three homeowners to own the land under the houses but he doesn't want to see 6' stockade fences around the houses, blocking rights of access. He also wants the ownership to be spread out to make it more difficult to mare changes in the future. Mr. James said they could have individual lots and then a fourth lot under common ownership. Mr. Galaitsis asked if Mr. Kastorf wanted to preclude fences between the two lower lots and Mr. Kastorf replied that that might be unreasonable. Mr. Kastorf wants to guarantee access and make it difficult to further subdivide the parcel. Mr. Harden said that conservation of the open space is most important and he wants to keep someone from cutting on the slopes. Mr. Davies said he favored the common ownership plan. Ms. Chase said she favored upgrading the road to the drive only, houses of modest size and as much common ownership as was consistent with privacy. Mr. Davies said that this was a creative use of the cluster to respect the site and that he felt the applicant could progress to a preliminary submission. The other Board members agreed. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.