Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo, Charles Hornig, Michelle Ciccolo and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Wendy Manz was absent. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* 186-192 Woburn Street, sketch plan: Fred Russell, project engineer, and Steve and Jackie Hamilton, the applicants, were present. Mr. Russell explained this proposed plan is a merger of three lots. The proof plan shows a cul-de-sac that will allow five lots without any waivers. The house at 192 Woburn Street would remain, the house at 186 would be replaced and three new houses built. The plan proposed is a site sensitive development (SSD). Staff sent a report regarding some issues with the proof plan and the cul-de-sac right of way (ROW), which should be 50 feet wide since it would service five houses. Mr. Russell explained that the cul-de-sac would only be servicing three lots and the two lots up front would have frontage off Woburn Street. Board Comments:  Is there sufficient frontage for the two lots on Woburn Street? More definition and details are needed on the proof plan to see if the proposed development qualifies for four or five lots.  The footprints on lots one and five are smaller then the footprints to the rear of the property; are the smaller homes in the front and larger homes on the rear of the property? Mr. Russell said yes.  Lot three clears a lot of trees, what would be the reconciliation be for replacement? Mr. Russell said there was more thicket and brush at that location than mature trees. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 7, 2011  This site needs to be visited due to the interesting topography before making substantial comments. The dwelling on lot five does not appear to be suitably sited because of the steep slopes and should be relocated nearer to lots two and three.  The house on lot four appears to have inadequate setbacks.  This is a challenging site and this proposed plan is not as sensitive to the site as it should be, especially lot five. If five lots are permitted there will need to be better a configuration of house locations.  Based on the proof plan presented the ROW should be 50 feet wide unless there is more data that can be provided to show it is not required.  There is a lot of fill material behind the barn, how will that be dealt with? Natural features that should be retained need to be addressed in this sketch plan. Mr. Henry said this proof plan raises policy issues on how to treat corner lots on proof plans and the layout of streets. Staff is looking to the Board for guidance on how to interpret the rules and regulations on these matters. The regulations want frontage on the quieter street, but this plan shows the corner lots using Woburn Street for frontage. To avoid having five lots using the cul de sac for access, thereby requiring a 50’ROW rather than a 490’, would the corner lots on Woburn Street be prohibited from accessing the cul-de-sac? There was correspondence from Mr. DaSilva regarding this plan. Audience Comments:  A resident residing at 17 Utica Street said it was her understanding that this was wetlands and prior development proposals were denied for that reason. The Conservation Commission deals with wetland issues; has the applicant checked with the commission regarding the wetlands delineation? Mr. Russell said not yet. Board Comments:  The regulations on street classification reference streets that serve lots and access, but frontage is not mentioned. The question is whether Cornerstone Lane would be serving five lots and how to apply the regulations; frontage does not enter into it. Minutes for the Meeting of September 7, 2011 Page 3  What topographic changes need to be done so lot one can have adequate access to Woburn Street? Mr. Russell said even if lot one is served by the cul-de-sac it would still be serving only four lots.  The SSD is the preferred plan, but there needs to be better siting of the houses, especially on lot 5.  The first step would be to determine how many lots would be allowed and then consider the siting of those homes.  Provide data showing a frontage line of 125 feet for each of the lots on Woburn Street. The Planning Board Members decided that a site visit on an individual basis would be needed and then a group site visit if necessary. 171-183 Woburn Street, sketch plan #2: Mr. Fred Russell, project engineer, and Mr. Gerald Cupp, applicant, were present. The Board has expressed the following concerns raised by a previous sketch plan that needed to be addressed:  The operation of the greenhouses;  How it fits in with the zoning;  The auxiliary use for soil storage; and  The noise generated by the operations on the site. Mr. Russell said that the impervious surface and site coverage are provided on the plan that shows it is compliant. The access to the green houses is shown by the T-turn driveway. There is only one free standing the green house, the rest of them are tied into the 171 Woburn St. building for services, so that building would have to remain. The applicant would continue to operate the greenhouses commercially. The Homeowners Association would own the stand-alone greenhouse and Mr. Cupp would operate that greenhouse for a fee to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Cupp said the noise generated on the site is from the landscape company, which will no longer be there. Board Comments:  The greenhouse operation is permitted in a residential area so that is not a concern. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 7, 2011  Do the greenhouses have some salvage value? Mr. Cupp said they have a negative salvage value.  It is unclear if one or two curb cuts off Woburn Street would better serve the proposed development.  The overall character of this development gives nothing to the neighborhood and creates a barrier. The backs of the homes should not face Woburn Street it breaks the rhythm of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Russell said at the next phase a landscape architect would come in to address the layout of the development.  The proof plan should not include the acreage under the greenhouses.  There are questions if the greenhouses are incorporated into the gross floor area and more information will be required regarding that issue.  It would be preferable to incorporate the greenhouses into the plan without making the site too dense.  More research is needed to try to get a viable dwelling plan while retaining the commercial uses. Mr. Russell said the house footprints will be much smaller, this is a rough draft, but Mr. Cupp said the greenhouses will go before losing a dwelling.  Who is benefiting from the greenhouses?  If the greenhouses are being kept as a public benefit should they be visible from Woburn Street and provide better access to ensure success? Ms. McCall-Taylor said the public benefit development only pertains to affordable housing.  How much of a reduction in the number of dwellings will there be if the greenhouses are retained? Mr. Russell said it would reduce the number by half.  There needs to be more investigation on what options are possible before making any recommendations to the applicant. Mr. Russell asked if they could progress to a preliminary stage for the next proposal. It was suggested the applicant wait until staff meets with Town Counsel.  Would there be significant changes to the layout if the greenhouses were removed? Mr. Russell said nothing drastic.  If the greenhouses can stay there will still be concern about their future ownership, the number of vehicles in and out for the use of the greenhouses relative to the number of residential units, and there must be an exit plan that works for the neighborhood. Minutes for the Meeting of September 7, 2011 Page 5  Can the applicant sell his land twice by using the square footage of the green house to produce more housing untie and then eventually selling that square footage? This would be a terrible precedent that could be set here. Staff will draft a letter after the meeting with Town Counsel. ********************************ZONING BYLAW****************************** Update: Ms. McCall-Taylor got the draft zoning bylaws from Mr. Bobrowski and will forward it to the Board within a few weeks with a guide to the changes. ***********************************MINUTES********************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Ms. Ciccolo abstained), to approve the minutes for August 24, 2011. *****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE**************** Preparation for 9/12/11 Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting: The Board discussed agenda items for the 9/12 joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen from the Potential Agenda list submitted at the meeting by Mr. Canale. Based on the input from Planning Board Members Mr. Canale will discuss with Mr. Manz, Chair of the BOS, the final topics to be placed on the agenda for that evening. ********************************BOARD REPORTS****************************** Mr. Zurlo met with the Drummer Boy Condominium Association to discuss the progression of the economic development initiatives and infrastructure improvements in the TMO-1 District. The Association has an annual meeting in spring and updates should be provided to them on the Town’s progress. Ms. Ciccolo said the Traffic Advisory Committee is meeting tomorrow night to discuss Lexpress staffing and operational issues and on working collaboratively with 13 communities on suburban mobility. An application to the Sustainable Communities Consortium will be submitted to request funds to further the intercommunity mobility study from last year. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of September 7, 2011 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Area Map of Woburn Street properties 171-183 and 186-192 (1 page). 2. Memorandum from Planning Staff, regarding 186-192 Woburn Street sketch plan, dated September 2, 2011 (5 pages). 3. “186-192 Woburn Street, Sketch Subdivision Plan Set”, dated August 6, 2011 (5 pages). Distributed at meeting. 4. Sketch subdivision application set for 186-192 Woburn Street, dated August 11, 2011 submitted by Stephen W. Hamilton of Cornerstone Concepts, Inc. (12 pages). 5. Memorandum from Planning Staff, regarding 171-183 Woburn Street sketch plan, dated September 2, 2011 (2 pages) 6. Letter submitted from Frederick W. Russell, PE dated August 9, 2011 (3 pages). 7. Sketch Subdivision Plan proof Plan Layout and Balanced Housing Development for 171- 183 Woburn Street, Lexington, MA, dated December 3, 2010 (2 pages). 8. Two emails from Tom DiSilvia, dated September 4 and 7, 2011 (2 page). 9. Mr. Canale submitted a Potential Agenda/Discussion items for the Planning Board meeting with the Selectmen on September 12, 2011 (1 page). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk