Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-18-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 18, 2001 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 Bridge - Denzak, Chase, Davies, Harden, Planning Director Garber, and Secretary Tap present. Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor was away on vacation. * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 32 Roosevelt Road Definitive Special Residential Development, Ronald Lopez CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Present for this item were Mr. Ronald Lopez, North Sbore Construction and Development, applicant; Mr. Edmund Grant, attorney; Mr. Daniel Harrington, attorney; Mr. Dylan James, Meridian Engineering, Inc., engineer. There were a dozen people in the audience. Mr. Grant remarked that density seems to be the issue, even though Mr. Lopez has made a good faith effort to satisfy the Board's desire for fewer units. And he compared the modest size units that Mr. Lopez is planning to build to the current high square footage of new construction in Lexington He wondered why six units still is a problem for the Board. Mr. Galaitsis countered that the real issue is not density so much as it is the high amount of impervious surface. He asked for questions from the Board. Mr. Davies asked if the applicant had considered six units in two building, instead of three buildings so the open space would not be so fractured. Mr. Lopez answered in the affirmative. He also said that the open space is more like the existing neighborhood in the three - building layout. The units would be taller than those in the current plan, where most of the living area is on one floor, and not an optimal design for empty - nesters. Mr. Harden expressed a concern, also voiced by the neighbors, about impacts on the trees between Wilson Road and Mr. Lopez's project. He asked .Mr. Lopez to clarify where the limit of work line would be. Mr. Lopez noted that though there are two places where work will be close to the abutters' properties, most of the vegetation is outside his property lines. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the proposed decks are considered impervious surfaces. The answer was no. He also asked if Mr. Lopez would agree to install pull -down stairs to the attic. Mr. Lopez agreed to this. Regarding the proposed decks, Mr. Davies said they are "pervious" surfaces. Ms. Bridge - Denzak stated her disagreement with this. Mr. Garber offered to look into the issue. Ms Bridge - Denzak shared Mr. Galaitsis' concern about site coverage. In this project, the interior drive was not part of the impact calculation for impervious surface. Mr. Galaitsis said that in future projects the Board will make it clear that the interior drive will be used in the calculation. Landscape Plan: Mr. Harden pointed out that the open space in this development will act as a buffer against Rt. 951128, more than as usable open space. Ms. Bridge - Denzak regrets the extent to which the site will be disturbed during implementation. Ms. Chase suggested turning the building closest to Roosevelt Road slightly toward the circle so the blank end of the house does not face the street. Mr. Harden suggested that the street view of the house could be improved with architectural details; turning the house would not be needed. Mr. Galaitsis suggested reducing the amount of visitor parking. Mr. Lopez said that the neighbors don't want cars parked on the Roosevelt Road circle. Attorney Harrington stated that Mr. Lopez could get eight units on the site. He further stated that if the Board is unhappy with the open space they should repeal the Minutes for the Meeting of July 18, 2001 special residential development by -law. A discussion, including some abutters, ensued about the size, configuration and number of units in the buildings, the possibility of the interior drive coming off Roosevelt Road at another point on the road (it cannot), and ways to reduce the impervious surface. Mr. Harrington objected to having Mr. Lopez's plan torn apart at the definitive stage. They had thought that the continued hearing was just to bring up any new issues before the Board makes its decision. He said the message the Board is sending by hassling the developer now is that the Board will not negotiate fairly for alternative housing types and open space. Mr. Galaitsis responded that the Board has asked from the beginning for better siting to allow less impervious surface. Mr. Davies also took exception to Mr. Harrington's statements. Mr. Harden added that the Board is dealing with difficult trade -offs. Mr. Harrington stated that the plan is within the 10% open space specified in the Zoning By -Law Comments from the audience: Sara Flatley, 20 Wilson Road, spoke against the thrce- buildings proposed. Douglas .Rae, a realtor, said that the empty - nester units Mr. Lopez proposes are badly needed and asked why the Board was discouraging this developer. No one else is building them. Mr. Galaitsis responded that the Board does want the Special Residential Districts to gain alternative housing types, but not at any price. Martha Wright, 29 Roosevelt Road, thanked the Board for their efforts. She said they addressed the issues that the neighbors were worried about and have taken some heat in the process. Attorney Grant remarked that it is not easy for the Planning Board. Attorney Harrington described the applicant as "diligent ". He and Mr. Mazerall, the owner of the site, needed an economically sound deal. They asked for no waivers from the regulations. Mr. Galaitsis asked for information from Board members toward crafting a decision on the proposal or to ask for a redesign. Ms. Bridge - Denzak said she still wants to see less site - coverage. Mr. Davies accepts the six units, but would like to see improved open space massing by making small adjustments to the placing of the middle and end units. He likes the parallelism of the houses. Ms. Chase commented that a developer considers the economics of a project while the Board considers other aspects. She believes requiring a massive redesign at this stage is inappropriate and seconded the changes suggested by Mr. Davies. Mr. Harden said that he is glad to see smaller than average living units and that the Board should think about trade -offs that might allow this. He believes the edges of the site are important to both the abutters and the buyers of these homes and suggested one - for -one tree mitigation. Perhaps gravel walks could be considered to lessen impervious surface. He said the shape of the open space concerns him less than the buffer around the site. Mr. Galaitsis summed up by saying that this development should not be seen as precedent setting due to the confusion about the impervious surface calculation. In the future the interior drive will be part of the calculation. He asked that the last two units have pull -down stairs to the attic and a deed restriction should Minutes for the Meeting of July 18, 2001 3 be written in against adding a fourth bedroom. He would like to see the visitor parking surface be gravel. He wants to widen the distance from the rear of two of the buildings to the property line. Ms. Bridge Denzak asked if the visitor parking could be removed altogether. Mr. Garber said the fire chief should be consulted. She agreed that the restriction against a fourth bedroom should be in writing. She asked to have the faeade of the house facing Roosevelt Road improved. She would like to see that intent expressed in a letter. Mr. Galaitsis adjourned the hearing until August 8, 2001. A number of neighbors approached to thank the Board members for their efforts on the neighbors' behalf. Marvin Street Definitive Subdivision PIan, Steve Hamilton, Mid -term review The Board studied Mr. Steve Hamilton's plans for a development on Marvin Street. Ms. Bridge - Denzak questioned the amount of fill proposed to be used on the site. She said it will damage many of the trees shown on the plan as to be retained and asked if the tree by -law may be invoked. Mr. Garber gave a brief explanation of the divergent aims of the subdivision control law and the tree by -law. The Board agreed that Mr. Hamilton's next plan should verify that the trees will be retained. Ms. Bridge- Denzak noted that the proposed fill would also raise the overall height of the dwelling units. She would like to change the definition of height in the zoning by -law so that height would be measured from the original grade of the site. Other members concurred. After more discussion, the Board agreed that the following language should be included in the letter of direction to Mr. Hamilton: If landscape strip waivers are necessary, it is the intent of the Board to encourage maximum retention of existing trees in a baud parallel to the street, on the private lots, and a minimum raising of the grade. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on July 19, 2001 Mr. Galaitsis gave an oral review of an application for a variance to allow an application for a permit for an accessory apartment with an exterior stairway in a dwelling at 121 Concord Avenue constructed after 1983. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed that it is not opposed to the accessory apartment, but agreed to recommend to the Board of Appeals that the appeal be denied and the applicant asked to seek a way to put the stairway inside the dwelling. REPORTS Planning Board, Subcommittees 20120 Vision Committee Mr. Harden reported that minutes of the 20120 committee meetings are available to anyone and that the committee has produced a timeline of proposed projects. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. y Sara B. Chase, Clerk