Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2011 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Room 207, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Greg Zurlo with members Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, Anthony Galaitsis, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Wendy Manz joined the meeting in progress. TOWN MEETING ******************************************************************** Article 40: Rezone 1095 Massachusetts Avenue from RS to CRS: Mr. Tom Fenn, attorney was present to represent Doug Chapman, applicant, who was not at the meeting. This parcel has been used as a gas station for almost 100 years. Mr. Chapman has owned it 25-30 years and may want to retire and sell it. The only way to be able to sell or lease the property would be to rezone so that it could be changed from a gas station to some less restrictive alternative option. Mr. Fenn said notices were sent to neighbors without any negative responses. Board comments:  This is a residentially zoned property; why rezone to a CRS instead of using the CD process? Mr. Fenn said this property has always been a commercial property and the CRS zone would offer the most options.  The traffic at this intersection has always been problematic; have you spoken with the Town regarding curb cuts? Mr. Fenn said not yet, he first wanted to speak with the Planning Board and Engineering. A CRS zone could increase the number of cars at this busy intersection.  When the Board is asked for a rezoning there is usually a plan to show what would be placed on the site. It is important to get an idea for the new use and not write a blank check.  Making this lot a commercial zone with flexibility of uses is a good idea, but could it meet the setbacks for a CRS zone? Mr. Fenn said there was no rear setback. Could a conforming structure fit on the site? Rezoning may give less than thought, especially with the possibility of having to reconfigure the intersection within the next few years. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011  If this property was rezoned to a CRS zone a new use would require site plan review, which would be a more comfortable situation. There is a problem holding a property owner hostage to the intersection, which is the Town’s problem.  CRS zone requires 30 foot rear and front setbacks and 20 foot setbacks on the sides, which leaves little room for a structure. DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ************************* ************************* SUBDIVISION PLANS 341 Marrett Road, revision of easement and grading: The Board already determined that the changes requested to be made to the special permit for 341 Marrett Road were considered minor and are shown in the submitted as-built plans. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to modify the special permit with site plan review allowing the relocation of the path. 1377 Massachusetts Avenue, sketch plan for a site sensitive development: Mr. Rick Waitt, Mr. Brian Timm, and Mr. Gary Larson from Meridian Associates, Mr. Todd Cataldo, applicant, and Mr. and Mrs. Stavenhagen, property owners were present. Mr. Waitt said the property is in a RS zone and the front of the property is in the Monroe Historic District. There are three existing buildings on the property a house, garage with living space above it and a small shed. The property has wetlands delineated by the consultant and there is a substantial kettle hole in the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing a site sensitive development (SSD), keeping the existing house and garage and adding two more houses for a total of 4 houses. The use of the SSD helps to protect the landscape. The Fire Department approved an 18-foot wide drive at the entrance, which would go down to 12 feet for the last house; the existing driveway would be maintained for access to the existing house and garage in order to keep more trees. The plans showing house placements will be put on file with the Planning Department. Board Comments: Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011 Page 3  Is it feasible to use a single curb cut? Mr. Larson said they explored one curb cut and it would compromise the stately nature of the property and could impact the large tree they were trying to preserve.  A SSD is heading in the right direction; the embankment down to the bike path maybe problematic but access would need to be provided.  A big concern is that the new structures might become a backdrop to the existing home. Visuals need to be provided.  Sensitivity to architectural details is important; how will they be incorporated into the new dwellings? Consider the neighbors view shed and the height of the new houses.  Use only 75% of the maximum impervious surface and site coverage allowed. Audience Comments:  There are drainage problems with standing water in the springtime. There is a concern that drainage will run down the bike path,. The viaduct at Four Seasons is silted up, and a concern about additional water running downhill. Mr. Waitt said there will be different strategies implemented to make sure there is no additional runoff as required by the Town.  The garage is a historic carriage house, there is a vernal pool under stress in the back and the sewer system is a concern as there have been problems in the past. Putting a road between the two historic houses is not good and the carriage house should not be separated from the main house.  Does the Board hear the neighbors? The Board does take into consideration the neighbors input, however, the applicant has the right to develop. The Board can make sure the project is done with minimum negative impacts. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to recommend the applicant move to a preliminary submission. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING Rangeway Subdivision: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Ed Grant, attorney, Fred Russell, engineer, Suzanne Raymond, Ms. Doris Duff, owner, and Fred Gilgun, attorney were present. There were approximately 8 people in the audience. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011 Mr. Grant offered the following:  The Fire Department approved the substantial road improvement as stated in the 11/5/10 memo;  This plan would finish Rangeway, offer substantial road improvement and connect with the LEXHAB road improvements;  Recent precedent was set with the approval for Stedman Road;  The revised plan submitted shows the extension and has been surveyed up to Skyview Road the nearest public way; and  A list of waivers was submitted. Board Comments:  Waivers that are missing are 45E(9) provision for a shoulder and 49B street trees are not spaced as required.  There needs to be some access to the existing Drummer Boy Path. There will be a meeting with Conservation to discuss that issue. There should be no problem providing an access to the path.  There needs to be a sewer easement at the end of the road to allow Town vehicles access. The manhole cover will be raised and accessible.  No vehicles can be parked in the turnaround.  Who will be responsible for drainage system operation and maintenance? The property owner.  Where will there be snow storage? On the shoulder space and DPW could remove snow when it builds up. The plan could designate the side of driveway for snow storage.  There needs to be a drainage plan, where will the over flow go?  There are 16 waivers that need to be justified.  There is a problem with the 15% grade leading down to the dead end. Is there something that can be done to adjust the grade such as adding fill? The applicant is not proposing that as that portion of the road exists now. To reduce the grade would require easements on adjacent lots.  This is a subdivision plan, not a road improvement plan so more is required. The regulations require a 24-foot wide street; an 18-foot wide street is not adequate for fire trucks to pass one another. Pavement from James Street to the dead end would need to be at least 20 feet wide. If this makes or breaks the approval the road could be widened to 20 feet. Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011 Page 5  The previous decision was based on advice of Town Counsel. Have the rules changed? Would like to be on firm ground before making a decision on this matter. Mr. Batt said that if land is taken from the lot, it loses its grandfathering. The Board can waive the regulation that requires the turnaround to be in the right of way. This application does ask for a waiver to provide the turnaround on an easement.  Could the 15% grade section of the road be reduced and how does the Fire Chief see it working? According to the applicant, the Fire chief feels the 18 foot width works on the rest of the road and the turnaround would be a public benefit.  Where is the letter, dated January 21, 2011 from Ed Grant? A copy will be provided to the Board for review.  This project may have some parallels the Stedman Road plan except that this one would be a permanent easement.  How will this change the character of the neighborhood? Audience Comments:  There is a lot missing on the plan.  There is a petition signed by 22 abutters that this project will change the character of the neighborhood and will set a legal precedent of using turnarounds; do not grant more waivers. When an abutter had purchased his home he had been told by the Town that the Duff’s lot was undevelopable.  If the turnaround is built, is that public land? Removing trees could that affect drainage. A 20-foot wide road may encroach on conservation land.  There is concern about the grade, the path, drainage and gullies in the back yard. The condominium management will need to see this plan.  If trees are lost, there is a safety concern that with the 15% grade people may go off the road.  This does not benefit the neighborhood and is not worth it. This should be Conservation Land. Board Comments:  The easement needs to prohibit the obstruction of the turnaround.  The Board needs to see a copy of Mr. Grant’s letter.  The applicant needs to show how the character of the neighborhood would be maintained.  A covenant for operation and maintenance of the drainage system will need to be submitted. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011  The applicant needs to justify the 16 waivers.  Show the two changes, which are the access to the pathway for the sewer system and the widening of the road to 20 feet and the recalculations. Mr. Russell wanted to see where the Board stood on whether or not to widen the road to 20 feet. Three members said 18 feet was acceptable, one member said 20 feet, and one member wanted to see the letter submitted by Ed Grant and was uneasy about tying this to Stedman Road and setting a precedent. Mr. Grant wanted the Board to see the letter he submitted to the Planning Department and wants a copy of the abutter’s petition. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the request for an extension of time for a decision to April 14, 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to March 23, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., in room G-1, Town Office Building. ZONINGBOARD OF APPEALS *********************** ******************************** Change of street name from Patriot Way to Shire Way: Mr. Canale recused himself since he is an abutter to an abutter of the property. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1, (Mr. Zurlo opposed) to support the change of name from Patriot Way to Shire Way at Lexington Technology Park to avoid the confusion of two similar addresses, i.e. Patriot Drive and Patriot Way, for public safety. The meeting was recorded by staff. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Property record card for 1095 Massachusetts Avenue. 2. As built plan for 341 Marrett Road and photographs, dated January 21, 2011 (4 pages). 3. Sketch plan application for 1377 Massachusetts Avenue, dated January 13, 2011 (9 pages). 4. 1377 Massachusetts Avenue sketch plan, dated January 13, 2011. (3 pages) Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2011 Page 7 5. Picture submitted by abutter at 5 Hollow Lane showing drainage problems in the area. 6. Proposed easement and Grant utilities for Rangeway extension (4 pages). 7. Rangeway Extension-definitive Subdivision revised January 14, 2011 proposed waivers. (2 pages) 8. Definitive subdivision plan for Rangeway extension (2 pages) On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk