Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-09-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 9, 2001 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members Bridge - Denzak, Chase, Davies, Harden, Planning Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor present. Ms. Bridge- Denzak left the meeting during the Old Smith Farm discussion. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of April 23, 2001. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Harden, it was voted unanimously 5 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Davis Road Subdivision (Iot 41, Assessors Map 15) - Usually road improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit, but the Planning Board was asked to allow the Developer to post surety for road construction to be completed after the house is built. The Developer estimated the cost to construct to be $22,190. The Engineering Department reviewed the Estimated Cost to Construct and said the amount with the addition of a 5% contingency for a total of $23,290 was sufficient. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted 5 -0 to approve the motions in the consent agenda staff summary /recommendation. The motions were as follows: 1) that the amount of surety for the Davis Road Subdivision be set at $23,290. This level of surety is determined to be sufficient through May 15, 2002 only; 2) If the road improvements are not completed by May 15, 2002, or if little or none of the work is completed by that time, and the current costs of the amount of work to be completed have increased, the ainount of surety will be increased to reflect the costs of completing the work and the developer will be required to furnish additional surety to the Planning Board; 3) to accept surety in the amount of $23,290 in the form of a savings passbook; and, 4) to allow the issuance of a building permit for lot 41 on Assessors Map 15 upon the receipt by the planning staff of a savings passbook in the amount of $23,290. Birdhill Road Preliminary Subdivision -- Fred Russell and Scott Seaver were present for the development team. Mr. Russell presented a sketch plan showing four lots with the existing lot lines shifted to create three lots using the more developable portions of the land. The turnaround at the end of Bird Hill Road is the right angle turn onto Davis Road with a slight extension of Bird Hill beyond. The houses have been added to the lots to show their locations. The developer is proposing a median house size of 3,267 S.F. living area with less than 2,100 S.F. of site coverage. The lots themselves are approximately 20,000 S.F. Mr. Galaitsis asked why lots 4 and 3 were not being joined right now. Mr. Russell said that if they were combined the road would have to be constructed across the frontage so, instead, they are creating a non- buildable lot. Mr. Galaitsis then asked what was the basis of the median house size figures? Ms. McCall - Taylor said that she had used the procedure outlined for the computation in a reduced frontage subdivision. Mr. Jack Raffell of 35 Moon Hill Road asked again as to why the fourth lot was being kept separate. There were further questions about whether the fourth lot could ever be built on. Mr. Galaitsis said that a condition prohibiting building on the lot could be a part of the decision. Ms. Lee Morehouse of 37 Moon Hill Road asked how the lot lines were changing. Ms. Bridge - Denzak said that without the subdivision there would be two large lots and that this would create a third lot and, thus, additional density. She asked the Board to consider if two larger lots are better than three smaller ones with presumably smaller houses. She also asked if the subdivision could be denied on the basis of waiver denial. Ms. McCall- Taylor said that the Board could deny design waivers, Minutes for the Meeting of May 9, 2001 2 but the applicant could then come back with another design. She stated that density is set in the Zoning By -law, not in the Development Regulations. Mr. Davies said he recommended working with Plan B and ignoring Plan A. Mr. Garber said the Planning Board could deny design waivers and therefore deny the plans, but underscored the possibility of alternative designs being proposed. Ms. Bridge - Denzak stated that there were only two buildable lots, not three. Mr. Galaitsis said asked if the Board had the right to negotiate the number of units in return for granting waivers. Ms. McCall- Taylor said she would have to defer to Town Counsel on that matter. Mr. Davies pointed out that if the applicant built only on the first two existing lots he wouldn't have to do anything to the road. Mr. Garber said that some towns allow ANRs on non - public streets but not Lexington. Mr. Galaitsis said the two houses could be built without waivers, and again asked, could the Board trade waivers for controlling the number of lots? Mr. Garber expressed his opinion that attempting to control the number of lots was skating on thin legal ice, but that concerns about road design grades were on firm ground, while limiting density entirely for the sake of density was shaky. Mr. Davies said the Board had three options as follows: 1) deny everything by granting no waivers, which could be challenged in court because two of the lots are grandfathered; 2) allow only the two lots that are grandfathered and lose control over the house size; 3) allow three lots by waivers and maintain some control over the house size, living area and site coverage. Mr. Galaitsis inquired as to whether house plans would be submitted. Mr. Russell said yes, if they were required. Phil Murphy of 25 Swan Lane said he did not see an impact of these houses on the neighborhoods and, in fact, they would have a beneficial impact on the whole neighborhood. He hoped the applicant would be able to do the project. Carol Dlugy of 16 Bird Hill Road said that her lot, which looks over the development, was approximately 10,000 S.F. She is behind this proposal 100 percent and would rather have three units, but does not want Bird Hill to be continued through to Phillip Road. Bill Trautman of 7 Bird Hill Road wondered what would be built if it were just two houses. Mr. Seaver replied that much larger houses would have to go in. Mr. Harden returned to the question of the fourth lot and asked whether the applicant had in mind combining it with lot three. Mr. Russell said that after receiving approval, the lot would be sold with lot 3. Mr. Harden asked if the applicant would be amenable to a conservation easement. Mr. Russell said they would certainly agree to limit the buildability of the fourth lot. Mr. Galaitsis followed up, asking if they would consider using the setbacks on the eventually combined lots 3 and 4 based on the current lot 3 setbacks. Both Mr. Russell and Mr. Seaver indicated that they would have no problem with that. Ms. Bridge - Denzak asked if there could be a no -build easement and Mr. Garber felt that there would be no problem with that. The Board agreed that the next submission for this development should be based on option B, showing the extent of road construction including repaving the existing road and extending the improvement up Davis Road. The developer should submit the application for a special permit with site plan review. The Board favored Mr. Davies' option three that would allow three lots with waivers and maintain control over the house size, living area and site coverage. Mr. Garber suggested a mid -term review that would allow the developer to come back to the Planning Board on a less formal basis. Ms. Chase and Ms. Bridge - Denzak stressed that they wanted to see a development that was sensitive to the adjacent Moon Hill neighborhood and provided a transition between it and the Bird Hill neighborhood. Marvin Street Sketch Plan — Steve Hamilton and Fred Russell were present for this application. Mr. Hamilton walked the Board through the evolution of the plan from four lots and four houses to two houses on two lots, one of which was a combination of two lots. The fourth lot would be used for the turnaround, with the remaining area contributed to the town. Mr. Hamilton said this plan minimized grading by shortening the road as much as possible and thus avoiding the existing steep grades. In Minutes for the Meeting of May 9, 2001 addition, he said that he had offset the road within the right of right to allow the retention of some of the larger trees. The houses were planned to be compatible in scale, size and design with the new house at 104 Winter Street. Ms. Bridge - Denzak asked if this would be outside the special permit with site plan review process as it was just two houses. She was told it would be. Ms. Chase had questions about the grading on the site. Mr. Harden asked if the neighboring Morris Street had any streetlights and was told it did not. Mr. Davies asked if the utilities would be put underground and Mr. Hamilton said he would like to if it could be done without a major disturbance of the vegetation. Ms. Chase said that comparative footprints would be useful. Mr. Hamilton said that the average living area on John Benson Road was 4,825 S.F., on Morris Street it ranged from 1,300 S.F. to 1,850 S.F.; and the new houses would range from 3,100 S.F. to 3,500 S.F. to a maximum of 3, 900 S.F. Ms. Chase commented that she could see why Mr. Hamilton had said his development proposal would serve as a transition. Ms. Bridge - Denzak suggested to the Board that if relief were asked for, the Board should consider granting the relief only if the developer came back for site plan review. Mr. Hamilton said he would not submit to site: =plan review but would specify the trees on the lots, in addition to those within the right of way. Mr. Davies said retaining trees includes caring for the trees so they will survive. Mr. Galaitsis said he was very encouraged by the kind of offers being made and that he was inclined to accommodate the requests. He did wonder how the town could assess if terms and conditions are met. Mr. Hamilton said he would be willing to cap the size of the homes and to retain the sense of landscape integrity. Mr. Garber said that a mid -term review can be requested and that the developer could not be required to do an SPS although the developer could proffer such. The Board agreed to allow the applicant to proceed with the application and that definitive plans should include following: pavement width of 20'; hammerhead turnaround; a determination of whether to include street lighting; no granite curbing; more information on the trees; and, more fully engineered drainage requirements so the board can determine if they are acceptable. The Board felt that the applicant could proceed to a definitive plan as long as there was a mid -term review to look at the issue of trees and size of houses. A neighbor on Morris Street asked that streetlights be included as teens hang out in the area now. He added that he was stunned and pleased at the development as proposed. Old Smith Farm - Mr. Garber explained that a packet of site plan changes has been brought in by the new owner. He characterized the history of the project as troubled and that this was an attempt to clear up the situation. Maurice Paquette, John Pavin, Gary Larson, Bob Ward and Fred Russell were present for the development team. They said that it had been their intent to carry through with the permits already in place but they had uncovered construction problems that would not allow the project to go forward. They would have expected these problems to be picked up in the initial review. They said that they had known about the required renovation of the barn but the Historical Commission's possible requirement to preserve the other structures on the lot bad been news to them. Proposed changes to Road A in the barn area include parking for two cars and a retaining wall to preserve trees and allow a sidewalk. The curve of the driveway into the garage will be adjusted. The infiltration system will require removal of trees, which will be mitigated. Changes off Road B in the rear of units 11, 12, 13 and 14 would address the 16' high riprap by instead using three tiers of retaining walls. The lowest will be 12' from the dwelling and 4 to 4'/2 high with a 6' Minutes for the Meeting of May 9, 2001 4 planting space. The middle wall would be 9 to 10' high, and the top wall would be 2 to 4' high. These changes would result in a change in the area of disturbance and the loss of some trees. Mr. Davies asked if they had any idea of where the existing ledge was, stating that it would be nice to see ledge used instead of walls where possible. Mr. Larson responded that he couldn't say where the ledge is now. Ms. Bridge - Denzak said the package was great and that she liked the new proposal better but wanted mitigation of trees destroyed as a result of the change in plans. She was concerned about the retaining walls with no guardrails. Mr. Garber said that once built the liability would be the homeowner's association. Mr. Larson said that if a wall is a landscape feature the code does not require a guardrail, however there will be plantings at the top to offer some protection. A neighbor said that he wanted to retain the spruces and hedges and he wants to accelerate the demolition of the "chicken coops" that the Historical Commission wants to retain. There then followed a discussion of the situation with the Historical Commission and how the project could have gotten so far along without the issue of retention of the three buildings being raised. Mr. Davies reported that the developer had submitted a letter to the Historical Commission withdrawing, without prejudice, the demolition permit application to allow time for the developer to decide what could be done. Mr. Ken Brady of 29 Marrett Street was interested in the pond and infiltration system as he has a right of way that passes by the pond. Mr. Larson said the pond will be kept as an infiltration system but will be filled to a depth of 6 to 7', flattening the 3:1 slope, and the plantings will be enhanced for security. Mr. Larson said that patios were shown on the engineering, landscaping and architectural plans but not consistently on all plans. The developer would like them for all units. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the patios would increase the impervious surface area over the amount approved. Mr. Garber said that that patios were called for in the submission documents, but not in the plans. He believed they were included in the tables showing the impervious surface, so this might be not problem, but that the staff would verify. On the motion of Mr. Davies and seconded by Mr. Galaitsis it was voted, 4 -0, that the proposed changes, with the addition of a tree mitigation plan for trees removed and verification that the impervious surface of the patios was included in the original calculations, be approved as a minor change. (Ms. Bridge - Denzak had left by the time the vote was taken.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING STAFF REPORT Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Garber postponed his remarks until the next meeting. Ms. McCall - Taylor asked the Board for comments on the LexHab proposal for the use of a lot on Edna Street for affordable housing. LexHab was looking for feedback on the construction of the road. The Board wanted to discuss further the construction of a road without a turnaround at the terminus. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on May 10, 2001: Mr. Harden gave an oral review of the following applications: 48 Blake Road — Variance to replace existing garden shed with new shed with 1 -foot rear and side yard setbacks 6 Carley Road — Variance to construct front entry porch with front setback of 17.6 feet and special permit to add two dormers to second floor of non - conforming dwelling 6 Fair Oaks Drive — Variance from 20 foot secondary street setback to 15.3 feet to construct a two -car attached garage and special permit to construct second floor living space above a two -car garage Minutes for the Meeting of May 9, 2001 5 • 10 Woburn Street — Gingerbread Construction Company- Amend special permit to extend operating hours to 10 p.m., add a sign to the Massachusetts Avenue side of the building, and serve food products through two front windows • 75 Concord Avenue — Special permit to add antennas to an existing radio tower • 475 Bedford Street — Continuation of hearing for a special permit with site plan review to replace outdoor tennis courts with an outdoor swimming pool, hard courts and lawn facility, and to also construct additional parking spaces. The Board agreed to make no comment on the applications except to reiterate their previous comments on 475 Bedford Street. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Board scheduled meetings for May 30, June 13 and June 20. One of the June meetings will have the comprehensive plan as the major agenda item. Board members were asked to compose a brief biography for use on the Planning Board web page. They were given a themo from Elissa Tap with some suggested items to include. ***************COORDINATION WITH OTHER BOARDS, COMMITTEES * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 2020 Implementation Committee — Mr. Harden reported that at this time the committee is trying to make sense of the survey. They will be meeting about once a month. He will be coordinating the committee's efforts with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Galaitsis asked if mansionization could be placed on an agenda. Mr. Garber said the comprehensive plan is about to enter a new phase that would propose policy implementation measures, including mansionization controls. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk J,; ; ak"--