Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-23-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2001 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G -15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Bridge - Denzak with members Davies, Harden, Planning Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCalI- Taylor present. Mr. Galaitsis and Ms. Chase were absent. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** Lexington Park Cluster Subdivision Halyard Builders: On the motion of Ms. Bridge - Denzak, seconded by Mr. Harden, the Board voted to endorse the plans for Lexington Park. These plans reflect minute changes that were required in order to register the plans in Land Court. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on April 26, 2001: Ms. McCall - Taylor gave an oral review of the following applications: 41 North Hancock Street --- Variance to construct a one -story addition to a nonconforming single - family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 11.2 feet. 519 Appleton Street, Arlington — Special permit to install, operate and maintain an unmanned wireless communications facility on an existing lattice tower 675 Waltham Street — Amendment to an existing special permit to allow golf driving range lighting. -. In the case of 675 Waltham Street, the Board felt that the information provided by the applicant was insufficient for the Board to determine if the facility would comply with the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Zoning By -Law. It was the understanding of the Board that more information will be available to the Board of Appeals at their meeting and the Planing Board would rely on the ZBA to d.eternine if the lighting standards are being met. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** May Meeting Schedule The Board reviewed the meeting schedule for May. There will be a comprehensive plan workshop on May 2 at the Museum of Our National Heritage. May 9 will be a regular meeting, and May 21 will be a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen for the presentation of the MAPC buildout. There may be a brief meeting before the Town Meeting session on May 14. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * SUBDIVISION OF LAND Old Smith Farm, 160 -1.70 Wood Street, Stabile Companies Mr. Davies reported that at the last meeting of the Historical Commission it was discovered that three structures of stone and wood on the Old Smith Farm property were listed on the Cultural Resources Inventory and might be subject to the demolition delay by -law. He felt that such action could put the Schumacher Barn at risk as it might collapse if the project is delayed through two more winters. Sally Zimmerman was present from the Historical Commission and said that Commission members had not been aware that the project involved the removal of the structures. She said the Commission was required by law to hold a demolition hearing and they will do so as quickly as possible. Mr. Harden asked if the decision was made at the hearing and was informed that is was. Ms. Zimmerman said that the Commission would consider surrounding factors in making a decision. Mr. Garber said that the Planning Board has been struggling with this project for six and a half years and in that time the focus has been on the Schumacher barn. The project was permitted a year and a half ago and these structures were never discussed. He feared what would happen if the current developer walked away. The Planning Board reviewed the draft letter and supported it. Ms. Bridge - Denzak would like Ms. Chase's input before finalizing the letter and sending it. The Board voted on the motion of Ms. Bridge- Minutes for the Meeting of April 23, 2001 2 Denzak, seconded by Mr. Davies, to accept the letter with any changes that might be suggested after Mr. Galaitsis and Ms. Chase had a chance to review it, to authorize the staff to sign the letter, and to authorize Mr. Davies to speak with Mr. KelIand, chair of the Historical Commission, on behalf of the P1aiming Board. 87 Hancock Street — Krista Murphy from Larson Associates was present to explain the proposed changes to the site plan. The half basketball court within the old foundation had previously been approved and the new owners now wanted to expand it to a multi -use tennis court. The court had been situated to save a 100 year -old sugar maple at the rear of the historic house. There is a grade change between the base of the foundation and the edge of the property. A six -foot wooden fence will be placed above the foundation. It is specially designed for noise control. Ms. Murphy explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals had denied the requests for variance to allow the court within the 15' side setback and to not enclose the entire court with fencing. There were now several proposals with different locations of the court. All would involve the taking down and rebuilding of the walls, which need refurbishing in any case. Ms. Murphy pointed out that the approved site plan had included getting rid of the west portion of the wall. Mr. Harden asked what was the height of the level of the pavement at the end of the court, relative to the existing grade. Ms. Murphy replied that it was 9' above the existing grade at the end. Mr. Davies asked if the wall was considered preferably- preserved by the Historical Commission. Ms. Zimmerman said she didn't know, but the Commission might have some concern about the treatment of the walls. However, since the Zoning Board of Appeals did not grant relief that would have preserved the walls she would defer to the ZBA. Mr. Moloney, the developer of the property, said that the wall was not in the cultural inventory and preservation of the wall was not in the original decision. He pointed out that a large part of the wall would have been removed to build the originally approved plan. Ms. Bridge - Denzak asked what was the Board being asked to consider? She felt that this was a major change and that the previous change to not add to the back of the house and put in basketball court was also a major change. It was her understanding that the idea behind the original site plan had been to preserve the existing landscape, both the existing gardens and the natural landscape. She did not feel she could support this dramatic change. Ms. Murphy distributed a listing by Matt Foti of the condition of the trees that would be removed if the multi -use court went in. Mr. Moloney reminded that Board that this was a reduced frontage subdivision and that if he had done a conventional subdivision much more of the site would have been disturbed. He wondered how the special permit is intended to work over time. Did the Board expect all changes on the site to come back to the Board in perpetuity? He questioned whether the change being proposed was that different than a landscape change that might happen in five years. Mr. Garber said it will always be a judgement call as to whether a change is minor or major and the issue here is, is this a minor or major change? Mr. Davies moved that the proposal be deemed a major site plan change and Mr. Harden seconded the motion. Ms. Bridge - Denzak said she was not comfortable with the project. The Board voted 2 to 1, with Ms. Bridge- Denzak voting in the negative. The vote was moot as it did not have the support of a majority of the Board. However it was the sense of the board that this proposal should come back to the Board as a major change in the site plan. Marvin Street Sketch Subdivision Plan, Cornerstone Concepts Steve Hamilton, the applicant, and Fred Russell, the engineer for the project, were present to discuss the sketch plan that had been filed for a subdivision on Marvin Street. It showed four alternate layouts for a road providing frontage for four grandfathered lots. Mr. Hamilton reported that he had met with all the direct abutters and they would rather see a country road. setting over a full subdivision road. He said that he had contemplated a land Minutes for the Meeting of April 23, 2001 swap with the Town as one lot has town -owned lots on each side but that conservation thought it might take an act of the legislature to do so. He explained that he was presenting what he had acquired rights to but that he might be willing to donate a lot to the Town to get relief from the road construction standards. He said that this development would provide a transition from the large house on John Benson Road to the Morris Street neighborhood. Mr. Davies said he liked the creative combination of donated land and street design. Ms. Bridge - Denzak agreed. Mr. Hamilton said there are still some rights remaining for lots on a paper street and while he felt a combination of lots 35 and 34,with houses of approximately 3200 square feet and 3500 square feet, would be delightful, he was not sure the project could support it. He handed out a draft letter /agreement that outlined the various things the Planning Board might consider to make it possible to go ahead with less than four houses. This included reduced width paving, no granite curbing, no strectlights, and limited design review of individual houses. Board members felt that some of the items listed were not within their jurisdiction and that others might not be something they would waive, but they were interested in a creative approach to the project. Board members would like a walk - around of the site, which Mr. Hamilton had offered to do. It was the sense of the board that another sketch plan should be brought back to the Board. REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES Metropolitan State Hospital Reuse: The Access Sub - committee had met April 13. Mr. Garber reported that the issue raised by the City of Waltham in regard to the sequence of approvals had been a major block to moving forward, until he suggested that there be a concurrent permitting process. The various towns could hold hearings and votes at the same time. He expects the state Department of Capital Asset Management to file definitive plans by the end of May. The Planning Board will be asked to hold a hearing on the lotting and roadway design by late .tune. Mr. Garber said that the Lexington housing piece Iacks the barest development and financial feasibility analysis. The DCAM RFP to the development community should go out this year. Affordable housing groups, including Lexhab and Habitat for Humanity, have expressed interest in the site. As of now, the two parkway segments are unimpeded in terms of access to the parking core. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING STAFF REPORT Mr. Garber gave an overview of major projects that will be before the Planning Board in the upcoming year, some are elective and some are not. Zoning Amendments - There has been a consistent call for a zoning amendment to control big houses as well as corrections to the definitions section. There will also be technical corrections, some as a result of the codification process. Ms. Bridge - Denzak wondered whether the Board should be looking at the subdivision control standards in order to be able to more closely regulate the character of a site. Mr. Garber explained that the ability to regulate the character of a site lies under the zoning special permit powers. The comprehensive plan may come up with some innovative controls. Comprehensive Plan --- There is another appropriation to do additional elements. The transportation and public facilities elements will be very different from what is being done now. They will need public input up front to aid in scoping the RFP. It will. be more complicated with much more early public input. Mr. Garber said that the Board might want to consider doing only one additional element. Middlesex Hospital — The privately owned parcel has been sold. The Board can expect that the project will be coming before it this year. _Undergrounding of Wires -- Patrick Mohr has taken on as a project the undergrounding of all wires in the Town. Chapter 166 of MGL places the soft phase of undergrounding with the Planning Board. Mr. Garber expressed his concern about the impact that such a project would have on the workload. In addition, he wondered why with all the other pressing capital needs; this project was more important. Minutes for the Meeting of April 23, 2001 4 Ms. Bridge - Denzak said that there was a lot to digest and she suggested that the Board members think about the various projects and that the topic be placed on the May 9 agenda. MINUTES Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of April 2, 4, 9, and 11 of 2001. On the motion of Ms. Bridge - Denzak, seconded by Mr. Davies, it was voted unanimously 3 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 4-1-- lormn 4 Harden., Acting Clerk