Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-12-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 12 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor, and Tap present. Ms. Chase arrived at 7:40 p.m. Present also was Kimberly Cryan, court reporter, who transcribed the proceedings for an abutter. Mr. Galaitsis asked everyone to state their name before speaking and to speak clearly. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 29, 2002. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Harden, it was voted unanimously 4-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. Ms. Chase joined the meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES Metropolitan State Hospital Reuse Mr. Kastorf reported on the Conservation Commission's hearing on the State Department of Capitol Asset Management's Metropolitan State Hospital subdivision plan, prepared by Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. The conservation commission asked for additional. information about the drainage system, which the engineer said he would provide. ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on June 13, 2002 Mr. Galaitsis gave an oral review of the following application: 47 Reed Street — Variance from side and front yard setbacks to construct an addition, and Special Permit to construct a portico over a nonconforming front entry The Board agreed to make no comment. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Interviews with Candidate Firms Mr. Garber reported that Mr. Davies consented to taking part in the interviews with two firms who responded to the Request for Proposal for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if any other members would be available and said that the process must move quickly. Staff will provide information to the Board on the proposals, both from very strong candidates, Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 25 Summer Street Preliminary. Cluster Subdivision Plan, Scottish Glen., Curran Construction Publi Information Meeting Present for this item were Mr. Andrew Schwab, Curran Construction, the applicant; Mr. Ronald Wood, Guidelines, Inc., landscape architect; Mr. Malcolm McDowell, Noonan & McDowell, Inc., engineer; and Mr. William Hubner, Incite Architecture Inc., architect. There were 20 people in the audience. Mr. Wood presented a preliminary cluster subdivision plan for a 1.2 -acre parcel of land at 25 Summer Street. It shows four attached and two single - family condominiums. He showed how the plan differs from the sketch plan presented to the Board on December 5, 2001. There is less impervious surface and Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2002 2 the units are smaller, suitable for empty - nesters: the attached homes would have about 2,400 square feet of "gross living area ", the single - family homes from 3,200 -3,400 square feet of "gross living area ". They are looking into using alternative, pervious, surfaces for driveways and patios. The impervious surface coverage in the plan comes to just over the allowed 15 percent, assuming all driveways and walks are pervious. Mr. McDowell explained the storm water drainage system, saying there would be no increase in runoff. He proposes a structure to be built that would collect, clean, store and recharge the water into the ground. The pert tests indicated this would be possible. Mr. McDowell said a traffic study showed no change that would affect Summer Street. As Summer Street is a state highway, a curb cut permit will have to be applied for, which they will do at the definitive plan stage. Mr. Hubner presented some preliminary elevation drawings of housing styles that the design team is considering. The houses are clustered to reduce impervious coverage and will have a New England character, with porches. Roofline edges will be kept as low as possible and will certainly conform to the new height definition in the Zoning By -Law. He said that some of the upper windows shown do not necessarily mean there is livable space behind them but they will "animate the fay.ade ". Planning Board questions Mr. Harden asked for more particulars about the storm water system, especially in relation to a culvert and the Arlington Reservoir. Mr. McDowell explained it further and said that they had gone ahead with a full analysis, usually not done until the definitive stage. The system meets State Department of Environmental Protection regulations. There were several questions about open space in the plan, both common and usable, vis a vis condo ownership and privacy considerations. There were questions about the figures for living area. Mr. Garber wanted to be clear about them. He said that in the application, living areas are said to be 2,200 square feet. Responding to a question about their experience with alternate pervious surfaces such as reprocessed asphalt, the development team, except for Mr. Schwab, had not had any experience with them. Mr. Schwab said reprocessed asphalt is quite successful in use over a period of years, but he also added that it is not as pervious as soil. Questions from the audience Mr. John Kepler, 19 Summer Street, and others, asked about the ability of the drainage system to handle all of the water from the site. Mr. McDowell assured them that it could. He said the system would not raise the groundwater. He said he would check out whether freezing conditions would affect the permeability of the pervious surfaces. In answer to a question about maintenance of the catch basins, Mr. McDowell said that the DEP requires an operation and maintenance plan for such systems and that would be part of the condominium association's responsibilities. The Town would not do it. Mr. Eldon Epp, 10 Litchfield Road, asked about tree retention. Mr. McDowell said that trees of over S" caliper will be saved. Additional planting will be done for privacy screening as well. Responding to Mrs. Eldoris Epp, Mr. McDowell said that he would be liable if valuables in their basement at the Winship Common were damaged because of the runoff from Scottish Glen. There were questions about the setbacks, dredging of a nearby brook, and where the children living in the new development would play. Several abutters objected to the density of the development, saying that it was quite unlike the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Schwab, in a final statement, said he believes the common open space in the proposed subdivision buffers the neighbors from the houses and that the houses are a compatible size. Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2002 Mr. Kastorf said that this application has met some of the challenges, but he cannot accept four points that relate to open space and density. Mr. Davies commented that if the design depends on the use of partially pervious surface materials, then much more information about them must be provided. Mr. Galaitsis said that just reducing the runoff with pervious surface is not enough. The size of the development must be in scale with the site. Mr. Harden said that the plan is too dense and requires too many waivers. He asked what the corresponding public benefit is? Ms. Chase also expressed concern about the density and impervious surface. She said affordability is a good goal, but more must be known about pervious materials. As for low roofs, that remains to be seen. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Kastorf, the Board voted unanimously to disapprove the preliminary cluster subdivision plan for 25 Summer Street, dated, 2002, but not to preclude filing of a definitive plan. The hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. King Street Definitive Conventional Subdivision Taylor Made Carpentry Continued Public Hearin Present for this item were Mr. Daniel Taylor, Taylor Made Carpentry, the applicant, Mr. Christopher Emilius, GEOD Engineering, Inc., engineer. There were 20 people in the audience. Mr. Emilius responded to comments the development team received to date, particularly those made by the fire department and the town engineer, as follows: The engineer was troubled by the use of curbing as required by the subdivision regulations, but which would channel storm water to Fern Street. Mr. Emilius proposed installing gravel along the edge instead, using 1 '/2 to 3 inch stone. • In accordance with the fire department's wishes, a hydrant would be installed at the front of lot one, the berm height was reduced and they submitted an operations and maintenance plan. Six other points were also responded to. The plan still requires a waiver of the maximum grade of the road as it is not possible to reduce the grade. Mr. Emilius said that in addition, the road would be 18 feet wide, and the boundaries of lot one were changed to include a stray piece of land and 1 %a inch valves will be used. Mr. Emilius said that the increase in water flow from the development would be a very small amount greater than zero. He asked if the Board could accept that. Mr. Emilius also responded to the comments of an engineer, hired by an abutter, relative to soil type, the perk rate, sizing of the filtration system and the stone road edge. Mr. Emilius commented that the requested undergrounding of utilities would affect the economics of the project very adversely. He noted that the applicant, responding to the Board's earlier request, reduced the subdivision to two lots from three, a substantial change. Questions from the Board Mr. Davies, Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Harden asked questions about the drainage system. Mr. Emilius replied that his calculations indicate that it will work as required, that it will not cause problems to the abutters on Bridle Path, and that the engineering division seems to concur. Mr. Harden suggested snaking the gravel edge flush with the road so it will not wash out. Mr. Galaitsis asked if undergrounding the utilities is a "deal breaker," in view of the fact that the plan requires many waivers. Mr. Emilius responded that they have tried to respond to issues of safety of the improved road by widening it and moving the utilities poles. Questions from the Audience Mr. Gordon Conrad, 16 Bridle Path, introduced Mr. Michael O'Neill, attorney of McGregor & Associates. Mr. O'Neill introduced the abutters he was representing. He listed the issues these neighbors are concerned about and said that basically, the applicant does not have the right to extend King Street, a 1902 plan showing that the street right -of -way ends at the Gschwend Minutes for the Meeting of June 12, 2002 4 property, 9 King Street. Mr. Philip Gschwend, 9 Bridle Path, listed his concerns: The development's effect on Bridle Path properties The waiver for the required sidewalks Underground utilities are needed: in icy conditions, cars on King Street would inevitably slide into utility poles Ms. Judith Jackson, 18 Bridle Path, presented photos showing the ways they have had to thwart copious flows of storm water over the years. She said that with each new nearby development, the ledge in the hill gets new cracks and her water problems get worse. Mr. Mishack Yegian, 8 King Street, stated that he believes the applicant's plans are not correct. He has hired an engineer whose analysis disagrees with Mr. Emilius's. He said that laying pavement over the existing King Street Surface would not work. The abutters do not want to accept the responsibility for maintenance of more roadway. They don't approve of this development. Mr. Galaitsis asked the audience if they could accept this development if it were done correctly. Attorney O'Neill said that judging from what they see at present, no, they would not. Mr. Galaitsis said that legal guidance is needed. Mr. Harden said that the Planning Board cannot determine the legality of extending the road, but the issues of drainage and public safety are major ones, along with the broader issues of cost and risk to the neighbors in the future. Mr. Davies said he could not vote in favor unless the utilities were put underground. Mr. Kastorf said he believes this is an unsafe road as the grade is too steep. Mr. Galaitsis agreed about the utilities being underground and that too many waivers are requested. Mr. Kastorf commented that the abutters, if they make additions to their own houses in the future, would have to deal with these issue also. Mr. Conroy noted that the abutters would bear some of the cost of undergrounding the utilities, perhaps $10,000 each. And he reiterated the point that the developer has dealt with some of the safety issues already. On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted unanimously to disapprove the definitive King Street Subdivision plan dated March 8, 2002 and May 31, 2002. The public hearing was closed at 11:10 p,m. On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. A� i - ..... Sara B. Chase, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2002, SITE VISIT The Lexington Planning Board met for a site visit at the Trapelo Road entrance to the Metropolitan State Hospital site at 5:30 p.m. Planning Board members Galaitsis, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, and McCall- Taylor were present. Also participating in the visit were Joyce Miller of the Conservation Commission, Bill Maher of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Robert Cohen and Michael Thomas of DCAM, and a representative of Gadsby and Hannah, LLP. MINUTES Mr. William Maher of Judith Nitsch Engineering, who had done the survey work for the subdivision application before the Planning Board, lead those present on a tour of the Metropolitan Hospital site. The Board paid particular attention to an area of the parkway where the Conservation Commission had requested they consider allowing a steeper slope at the side of the road. This would allow more vegetation to remain undisturbed as well as less removal of ledge. Mr. Maher went over the drainage plan for the parkway, pointing out the location of storm drains and detention basins. The Board also stopped at those areas of the parkway that would require a waiver from the maximum grade. They then drove through the developed area of the campus. This is the area that at a later time will be developed for residential use. The site visit concluded at 6:50 p.m. i T Harden, Acting