Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-29-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 29, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber and McCall- Taylor present. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of May 1, 6, 8 and 15, 2002. On the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Davies, it was voted unanimously 5 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Clelland Road Sketch Plan — Rasko Ojdrovic and Miljana Bovan carne forward to present their plan for extending Clelland Road to provide frontage for two buildable lots and to improve the existing, unaccepted portion of Clelland. Mr. Ojdrovic, a professional engineer, said that the Town had installed water, sewer and gas service in the road and paved and patched the road. He explained that he would be seeking a waiver of the circular turnaround but that he had designed a hammerhead that could accommodate a 30' by 8' vehicle. He was also considering requesting a waiver to allow the paved roadway to be installed to the southern side of the right of way, rather than being centered. This would require less cut and fill, as well as more room for the proposed swale and drainage system. As to improvements to the existing portion of Clelland, Mr. Ojdrovic said there was physically no room for an 18' road without an 8' to 10` retaining wall on the downhill side. He was proposing to widen the portion near Lizbeth to 14- 16', from 11- 12'. He also felt that curbing would impede drainage into the swale. Moving the pavement to one sideline would allow 9' for drainage structures. Mr. Kastorf asked if drainage would be handled through an open swale running the length of the street, and Mr. Ojdrovic said he hasn't completed the calculations yet, but he felt that he may need underground recharge structures as well. Mr. Kastorf asked if all of Clelland would drain toward Lizbeth, and was told that there was a crest at the light pole and Lizbeth would only receive runoff from the road between Lizbeth and the crest. Mr. Ojdrovic added that if he widened the pavement 2', the increase in runoff to Massachusetts Avenue would be minimal, less than 11100 of a cubic foot per second. Ms. Chase asked about stonewalls she had seen in the vicinity of the property. Mr. Ojdrovic pointed them out on the map and said they would remain. Mr. Galaitsis asked how would he cope with the slope requirements. Mr. Ojdrovic said that he would be below the maximums on the new portion of Clelland, the existing portion was 12 percent, and Lizbeth was from 15 to 16 percent and there was not much he could do about it. Mr. Davies commented that roads didn't get .much worse than Lizbeth. Mr. Harden said he felt that the most pressing drainage issue is the result of building on the lower lot, and asked how that would be handled. Mr. Ojdrovic said that both houses would have drywells for roof drainage; retaining water from the uphill lot would result in less runoff on the lower lot. In test pits, refusal had been at 9 to 11' and the soil was primarily sand and gravel topped with a foot of loam. When asked if this had been reviewed by other departments, Ms. McCall- Taylor said that Deputy Chief Bill Middlemiss of the Fire Department had looked at it. As a result the turnaround had been changed to be somewhat larger, but there were still concerns about the intersection of Lizbeth and Clelland. There ensued a discussion of turnarounds and their design with the board wanting to make sure that any proposed turnaround would meet with the approval of the fire department. Mr. Harden said that the biggest concern is the width and turning radius at the intersection. He wondered if the retaining wall could be raised to allow widening the pavement for the first 5 to 6 feet of Clelland. Mr. Ojdrovic said that there are already tire tracks in that area indicating it was used and he would look into incorporating it into Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 2002 the roadway, 2 Ms. Chase asked how many trees would need to be removed to construct the swale. Mr. Ojdrovic said no trees would be removed for the swale but that there is one within the right of way and a few within the proposed turnaround that would be removed. Mr. Galaitsis asked what was the narrowest street that the Planning Board has allowed. Mr. Garber said 18'. Mr. Ojdrovic said that in Cambridge they are necking down streets but Mr. Kastorf said that had no relevance here and Mr. Garber agreed that traffic calming is not an issue for this project. Mr. Galaitsis said that he would like to see plans with an 18' pavement width. He asked if 16' was the only practical option. Mr. Ojdrovic said that without building a retaining wall it would be very difficult. Mr. Davies asked about cutting into the uphill slope and was told that this was how the road could get to 16 Mr. Davies than asked if there were some way to increase the turning radius at the corner and that he would be satisfied if that could be improved. Mr. Kastorf said he did not like to see 16' at any point, as it is 16' without a shoulder. Mr. Galaitsis said that this was a hard site and as a result the Board might have to ask the applicant to do something hard. Mr. Davies asked what made the one lot unbuildable and Mr. Ojdrovic said it was a title issue, not a physical issue. Mr. Garber clarified that it was not a title issue as there was no cloud on the title, but that it was because it did not meet the mini mum size for grandfathering. Mr. Davies asked if there had been consideration of moving the turnaround 20 or 25 feet eastward and then donating the unbuildable lot to the town for conservation purposes. The applicant responded that lie did not want to reduce the buildable lot area. He would be using part of the unbuildable lot for the provision of a turnaround and that the rest would be added to his house lot. Mr. Davies than co►nme►nted on the widening of the road in front of the existing house and wondered why no parking turnout had been provided for. Mr. Ojdrovic said that where they park now is on part of the right of way. The Board was then asked to provide guidance for the next submission. Mr. Galaitsis felt he would like to see a plan that passed the fire chiefs test first and had fewer waivers. Mr. Kastorf commented that the Board was being asked to grant a lot of waivers and wondered what the public benefit was in doing so. He summarized the concerns in regard to width of right of way, the turnaround design, the inadequacy of Lizbeth, and the high number of design waivers overall. Mr. Harden inquired as to whetherthe applicant considered terracing as an alternative to retaining walls; Mr. Ojdrovic answered that there was insufficient width. He said there was already some terracing and anything more would take up the small yard. Mr. Galaitsis said that another sketch plan should address the issues of the turn from Lizbeth into Clelland, the fire department's concerns and whether swales would be acceptable to engineering if infiltration chambers are not employed. Mr. Ojdrovic asked if the Board would consider waivers of the centerline and curbing and Mr. Galaitsis responded that those would be considered. Mr. Garber asked that the next submission call out all the waivers needed, including those impossible to meet such as sidewalks and landscaping strip. Ms. Chase asked that more thought be given to the drainage on the down hill side. Mr. Kastorf urged the Mr. Ojdrovic keep talking with neighbors so there will be no surprises at the public hearing. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Interns Mr. Garber told the Board that Deb Tyson, the planning intern, will not be continuing for a second year as she is leaving to pursue other interests. She will be missed. Those who applied to replace her were of very high caliber, including people with masters' degrees in planning. After a thorough procurement process, Elizabeth Curtis who graduates with an MCP from M.I.T next month has been hired for the next year. She has had two transportation related jobs while in school so should bring some valuable experience to her work on the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Davies said he thought it was constructive to have the intern sit in on planning board meetings. Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 2002 Mr. Garber reported that the transportation element bids were due on June 6 and the proposals will need to be reviewed quickly. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Metropolitan State Hospital Ms. McCall-Taylor did a rollout of the subdivision plan for the Metropolitan Parkway on the Metropolitan State Hospital site. Board members agreed to meet for a site visit on June 12 at 5:30 p.m. before the regular meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Article 20, House Impact Review Mr. Harden had originally asked the Board to consider what follow -up to Article 20, house impact review, the Board wanted to consider, but this was now a broader discussion of activities the Board and staff would be undertaking in the year ahead. Mr. Kastorf felt the members should go back to the comprehensive plan and see what implementation items they would want to work on. He recommended no work toward Town Meeting 2003 for house impact review actions until after a public information meeting in September. He felt there needed to be an independent group acting to promote some sort of house impact provision to make it worth the Planning Board's while to pursue the topic; if the members did not see a group forming, they should not go forward on their own. Mr. Galaitsis expressed concern about the development community's opposition to the proposal. He felt the Board, should it decide to proceed to a second round of house impact, needed to start early, bringing the development community on board as soon as feasible. The Board would have to decide if any forthcoming proposal was reasonable and useful. Mr. Galaitsis offered to meet with the Precinct 1 members to discuss their opposition and see if they really understood what hadbeen proposed, and if not, to determine if they would have supported it with a better understanding. Mr. Davies felt that isn't wasn't that bleak a picture. Article 20 had gotten a majority vote; it simply needed better citizen support. Mr. Galaitsis said the Board should take the pulse early on to decide whether or not to go forward. Mr. Harden said that even if working on this may not be the highest priority, there will be advocates for house size regulation and the Board should think about whether they want to be proactive or reactive. Mr. Davies said not to forget what a resource the roll call vote could be. Mr. Garber discussed the theoretical option of a citizen's study committee with a short-term mandate to obtain consensus. Mr. Harden felt that builders and realtors might not fully participate and that such a process might confer a false sense of legitimacy to any proposal that came out of it. Mr. Kastorf said he would like to put the house impact provisions behind him for a year and move on, unless an active citizens group pushes a proposal that the Planning Board could act on. He said that in other words, he was looking for an outside event to push this forward and did not see the Planning Board taking the lead. He wanted to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davies reminded them that this was an action mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Garber said that the Board could announce their intent to study the large house issue for 18 months and to come back with proposals for Town Meeting 2004. Mr. Davies thought this sounded defeatist. Mr. Harden said there would likely be a citizen's petition in 2003, no matter what, yet he didn't want to have the staff or the board members put in as much time on the subject as they had in the last year. Mr. Garber stated that a new effort would require a new methodology and data analysis, additional process and more time, thus constituting a greater effort than the one just concluded. The Board then discussed the idea of using FAR to regulate house size. Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors, she had spoken with Don Schmidt of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, who said that the Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 2002 4 attorney general was recently receptive to the use of FAR for residential properties. The logic is that FAR is not regulation of interior size, merely relating house size to lot size. Mr. Garber said that the proactive controlled role would be to go to the 2003 Town Meeting with a new by -law. However he estimated that the planning staff had put in roughly $75,000 worth of work on the last proposal and that there were other initiatives he would like to see come forward. He said that he was particularly interested in the addition of second -story residential use in the center business district, an inclusionary housing provision, and an as-of -right open -space cluster. He was concerned that the Comprehensive Plan would sit on the shelf, On the resource side lie said there is a bit of consulting money in next year's budget. The $30,000 would probably be enough to do one initiative that was less controversial and time consuming. A discussion ensued in regard to the FY '03 comprehensive plan allocation for $50,000, with the total broken down into two parts: $20,000 to add to last year's appropriation of $50,000 for Transportation and Public Facilities (as well as Overall Implementation), and $30,000 for implementation initiatives from the first four elements. Mr. Garber explained that in order to keep the money allocated by Town Meeting 2001 for the Comprehensive Plan, there needed to be a consulting agreement in place by the end of this fiscal year, i.e. before July 1, 2002. As a result, the transportation element request for proposals had gone out as a single element due to the possibility that the $20,000 piece would be cut and the long, protracted course of Town Meeting `02 delaying that decision. In order to do two elements for $70,000 (the '01 allocation and the `02 allocation) they would have to be done together by one consulting firm so as to benefit from major economies of scale. Public participation is a big budget eater, as is data collection and analysis, and if two elements are done at once, the public participation component could be combined. Other items that will be before the Board in the next year are the Met State subdivision and RFP as well as the transportation element and a full slate of regulatory items. The Board agreed to continue the discussion of work priorities at future meetings. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mr. Galaitsis left for this portion of the meeting as the he has recused himself from the Board's deliberations of the 40B project on Lowell Street, Mr. Harden reported that he had received a call from Russ Tanner who wants to present Rising Tide's latest proposal to the Planning Board. The Board discussed their advisory role to the ZBA in this process and how involved they needed to be. The consensus was that the Board already has a full agenda and they would not add Mr. Tanner. Mr. Harden also raised the issue of Rising Tide citing Planning Board decisions as precedents, particularly Coppersmyth Way. Ms. Chase expressed support for a letter cautioning against using Planning Board decisions cobbled together as precedents for a decision on a different project. In the end the Board decided to not write such a letter at this time, but that Mr. Harden might work on a draft letter with Ms. McCall- Taylor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk