Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-22-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2001 The meeting of the Lexington. Planning Board held in the Guard Room of the Lexington Police Station was called to order at 8:10 p-m. by Chairman Colman with members Chase, Davies, Galaitsis, Planning Director Garber, and Assistant PIanner McCall- Taylor present. Ms. Bridge- Denzak was absent_ MINUTES ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes The Board decided to postpone consideration of the minutes until the next meeting * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS Morris Street Definitive Street Construction Plan, Cornerstone Concepts, Sign Decision The Board signed the Morris Street Definitive Street Construction. Plan Decision that had been approved and voted on at the January I0, 2001 meeting. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 32 Roosevelt Road, Special .Residential Development, Preliminary Plan. Ron Lopez, Public Information Meeting Ronald Lopez, of North Shore Construction and Development, Edmund Grant, attorney, Dylan. James, engineer, Daniel Harrington, attorney, and Richard Lakutis, landscape architect, the development team for the 32 Roosevelt Road proposal, were present. Mr_ Grant began with a brief overview outlining how he felt this development fat into the guidelines for cluster and special residential developments_ He said that the seven "modest ", one and a half story townhouses, clustered in 2, 2 and 3 attached units, fit into the neighborhood. The three buildings are designed to look like single family units. Mr. Grant reported the development team had met with ten to fifteen of the neighbors the previous week. He said Mr. Lopez had made, and would continue to make, a concerted effort to work with the Board. Mr. Lakutis, the landscape designer for the. project, presented the landscape plan_ The parking and access are placed on the Route 128 side of the lot. He characterized the lot as wooded and said that most of the trees would be retained. Each unit will have a patio with a fence screen to the rear, away from the noise of the highway. The border between the development and the neighborhood will be planted with 8' -10' high white pines, while the opposite border will have a fence with arborvitae tree plantings. Mr. James, the project engineer, said that the issues raised in the town engineer's review will be addressed in the definitive plan_ None represent major design constraints or changes_ He pointed out that there would be on -site infiltration of the run -off from the roofs and the interior drive. Board Questions and Comments Ms. Chase stated that she had walked the property again and was concerned about the 5" caliper trees, as there are many on the lot. Would they be retained? Mr. Lakutis said that the large majority of the trees were around the perimeter and would be retained. Mr. Davies said he was troubled by the request for the waiver of the 15% maximum site coverage as well as the fact that the usable open space per unit is only slightly over the rninirnurn_ He questioned how really usable the open space was, given its configuration. He wondered whether this development pushed the envelope too far. He did like the small size with single car garages_ He then asked if the stone wall along the northeast border could be saved and not be hidden behind the arborvitae_ He also questioned the use of a hedge of white pine. .Mr. Lakutis responded by saying that pine would work if sheared and that other options weren't readily available. Mr. Davies ended his comments stating that the main issue with him was the intensity of development_ Minutes for the Meeting of January 22, 2001 2 Mr. Galaitsis said the cluster option was good but the magnitude as proposed is too big on this site.. He said that he did not really look at landscaping and other issues because he felt that until the intensity of development was reduced, it was not a serious proposal. He pointed out that Section 9.6.3.2 of the By- law says there is no entitlement to maximum development, and this proposal even exceeds some of the maximums. The impervious surface has a 20% limit yet this has 25 to 35% and the site coverage exceeds the 15% maximum. Mr. Colman asked Ms. McCall- Taylor to explain the Special Residential Development_ She said that the Special Residential Development allows the units to be placed on a single lot but is similar to a cluster in the use of maximum development impact measures_ Mr. Colman stated that he liked the smaller units but had issues with the site coverage and impervious surface ratios. He wondered if the developer was considering noise- damping construction. Mr. Lopez said it was still early in the design, but that the windows were minimized in the side facing Route 128. Mr. Lakutis pointed out the use of the wooden fence and plantings along Route 128 and that the abutting state property is heavily wooded. Audience Comments. John Wilson, 24 Wilson Road, said he was not opposed to development, just the magnitude. He presented the Board with a plan showing the total impervious surface highlighted. He questioned how long the dry well system would function. He was concerned about the increased traffic on the cul -de -sac. He felt this would increase the burden on the school system, even if the three bedroom units attracted empty nesters, those empty nesters would come from within the Town and their former houses would have new families. Mr. Wilson also said that there is a sewer problem at the end of Roosevelt that requires frequent flushing of the sewer .lines. He also felt that the length to the end unit might be a fire protection problem in winter when snow could limit access_ Doug Davis, 31 Roosevelt Road, said that he had 6 -8" of raw sewage back up in his.house a few years ago_ Now, weather permitting, the lines are flushed monthly. Karl Wright, 20 Roosevelt Road, said that the intersection of Wilson and Roosevelt was extremely dangerous. Cars park up and down Roosevelt and he was especially concerned about parking during the construction. Tim Wheaton, 20 Wilson Road, said the impervious surface was way over the maximum as it is really at 37% with the inclusion of the interior drive. He felt the neighborhood average lot size was over 12,000 S-F., not the 10,00 S.F. figure the developer used. He felt that scope was the issue and that realistically, relatively inexpensive three - bedroom units would attract families with school age children so the occupancy numbers that the applicant used were low. Bob Ryan,` 1 Wilson Road, stated that when he moved in thirty years ago the place was swarming with kids. By his count, there are currently 30 houses with seniors that will be bought by families and will increase the traffic, even without the addition of the seven units_ Steve Yost, 68 School Street, reiterated the concerns about traffic and said that there were not sidewalks on Roosevelt Road. He felt the proposal would add to the burden on the Hastings school. Malcolm. Crawford, 19 Ellison Road asked what size were fire units and was told that they were 1750 S.F. Brian. Bernstein, 12 Ellison Road, felt that 1750 S.F. was not necessarily small and was in fact the size of his house. He recounted that soave mansionization had already occurred in the area and it was decreasing the amount of open space. In addition, he was concerned about the impacts on traffic, schools and drainage. There were already flooding issues. Mr. James said that the water on the site. flows toward Route 128, not Wilson Road. The development is designed to collect run -off and will decrease groundwater run -off off site. Mr. Garber said that this was a preliminary plan, not a public hearing under subdivision control law- The board would deliberate and produce a guidance document with a fair amount of detail. Should it go on to a definitive plan, then there would be a public hearing_ If there is a subdivision of land involved, there Minutes for the Meeting of January 22, 2401 would be dual decision documents, a Certificate of Action and a Special Permit. The Special Permit is the one that gets into the site issues. Mr. Michael Schroeder, 2 Welch Road, asked if the Planning Board would make available the Cluster Development Guidelines impact criteria. He was told yes_ He then asked if this was a preliminary plan and was told that it was. Mr. Grant thanked the Board for its time and said that the developer was looking forward to getting good directions on how to proceed. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Met State Hospital Reuse Update. Mr. Garber reported that there were continued deliberations on the second amendment to the re -use plan. Lexington is still not happy with the language. There are questions on whether Lexington has veto power over multi -town permitting and the transfer of land to Waltham for its golf course_ He is most worried about the fact that there is not a particular sequence of events that ties the transfer of the golf course land to the Waltham re- zoning that is needed for the development of housing. In addition, the water and sewer for the Housing in Lexington will come from Waltham. Once these issues are resolved, it could make the second amendment signable, which would then move Met State rapidly toward implementation, but that the process was not there yet. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Board reviewed the schedule of meetings for January and February. Due to the candidates' night scheduled for February 28, the public hearing on the zoning warrant articles will be switched to March 1 _ The meeting was adjourned at 925 p.m. Sara B_ Chase, Acting Clerk