MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting

Monday, February 27, 2006

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Chair; Rich Connolly; Ed Cassidy; Anne DeSouza-Ward; John Sadowski; Gerry Marcus; Bob Mercado; David Bubier, and Tom Pawlina

ABSENT: None

Assistant City Planner, Holly Regan and Building Commissioner, John Luther were present.

MINUTES

a) Design Review Subcommittee Meeting, December 5, 2005

b) Regular Planning Board Meeting, November 28, 2005

c) Regular Planning Board Meeting, January 23, 2006

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to accept all three sets of minutes. Mr. Bubier SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

SITE PLAN REVIEW AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT

a) Case 05-03, Crystal Lake, LLC, 560 Lebanon Street

Attorney Patrick McAvoy and Bob Zeraski were present.

Mr. McAvoy referred to correspondences between himself, the Planning Board, and the Planning Staff regarding the draft decision for 560 Lebanon Street. He stated that he had some remaining comments regarding the Planning Staff’s most recent memo to the Board, dated February 21, 2006.

In regards to visitor parking, he stated that requiring one or two spaces to be designated as visitor parking is a “big blow” to the developer and will impact the marketability of the units. He noted that one of the spaces is already designated to the incentive zoning program. He stated that he remembers the visitor parking issue being quickly discussed and dismissed by the Board and was surprised to see it in the decision. The Planning Board asked Mr. McAvoy to restate the parking provisions on site. Mr. McAvoy stated that the site provides 16 parking spaces for 10 units, with one of the units and one of the spaces being designated for the affordable housing unit. Mr. Pawlina asked how many bedrooms are in each unit. Mr. McAvoy stated that each unit has two bedrooms. Mr. McAvoy stated that the incentive provided to this developer through the incentive program is the reduction in parking, not an additional unit because this zone does not have a square footage requirement per unit. Mr. McAvoy stated that this is a residential building and thus has different visitor parking demands than the other buildings in the area, which for the most part have non-residential uses. He stated that the municipal parking lot abutting the building could provide visitor parking for guests at night. He added that even if the Board requires that one to two parking spaces be used for visitor parking, the condo association would likely rent the spaces to condo owners and thus the visitor parking requirement would not be enforceable. He concluded by asking the Board to delete this requirement.

At the Board’s request, Mr. McAvoy addressed each of the issues he had raised in his letter dated February 22, 2006, which had also been responded to by the Planning Staff. Mr. McAvoy stated that he believes the structure of the decision had been improved. In reference to the Waterline on Lebanon Street, he stated that he is happy with the change in the language, which keeps the means for addressing a problem in the water pressure open instead of stating a specific cure. Mr. McAvoy stated that he did not think the developer should be responsible for replacing the sidewalk and curbing for the length of the development. Mr. Cassavoy stated that installing the utilities for the development will damage much of the existing sidewalk. Mr. Sadowski stated that if the sidewalk is patched and not replaced entirely, the sidewalk would look like a patchwork quilt. He added that the granite curbing could be removed and reset. Mr. Mercado reiterated that only a small portion of the sidewalk will not be damaged during construction. Mr. McAvoy stated that the developer would take no objection to replacing the sidewalk for the length of the frontage while reusing the existing granite curbing. Mr. McAvoy stated that in regards to the affordable unit, he is concerned with the reference on page 3 of the decision in the finding section to 40B inventory. He is also concerned that the City’s submittal of the LIP application be tied to the occupancy permit. He stated that the occupancy permit should not be tied to action of the City.

The Planning Board revisited the visitor parking issue. The Board discussed that a permit is required to park overnight in the municipal lots. Mr. McAvoy informed the Board that such a permit cost roughly $80 per year. The Board discussed requiring the Condo Association to buy one or two permits for the development. Ms. Marcus asked if cars can park in the lot 24 hours a day. Ms. Gaffey explained that the parking permits only allow cars to park over night and required that cars be removed by 7am. Mr. Sadowski stated that he remembers talking about visitor parking previously, but that it was not an extensive conversation. He added that it is typical for the Board to discuss parking provisions and stated that the Board should not shy away from making something illegal even if it is claimed to not be enforceable. Mr. Cassidy stated this area is one of the most regulated areas in regards to parking. He added that the purpose of visitor parking is to take cars off the street, but in this area, cars will be tagged if the parking restrictions of the area are not followed. And thus, he added, the visitors of this development will be responsible for making alternative plans for parking that follow the parking rules of the area. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that she believes this development does not have enough parking already and thus is not in favor of having designated visitor parking spaces. She added that the Petitioner needed the parking relief afforded through the incentive zoning program in order to build this many units and thus this is the Petitioner’s incentive. She noted that 1.6 parking spaces per unit is low. Mr. Connolly stated that he would be comfortable with the Association leasing parking spots from the Municipal Lot and added that he would prefer to not restrict the parking spaces at the development to visitor spaces. Mr. Mercado asked if the City keeps track of how many spaces in the municipal lot they lease. Ms. Gaffey stated that this is a true problem and that she in unaware that anyone is tracking this. She added the demand for spaces overnight in municipal lots does not appear to be a problem to date.

Mr. Sadowski stated that he was concerned with the connotation of a sentence on page three of the draft decision. Namely, he thought that it should be noted that the applicant has provided information that stated the current design of the road provides adequate site distance and sufficient transition areas, instead of suggesting that this is a fact confirmed by the Board. The Board agreed to change the language to change the meaning as such.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that she does not see why the Petitioner would need to return to the Planning Board if the flow does not meet the required standard for a sprinkler system. She believes the Petitioner could work out the details as to how the pressure will be increased with the Department of Public Works (DPW). Mr. Pawlina stated that he agreed. Ms. Regan stated that the concern is the Board cannot defer their jurisdiction to another entity and that because this is a condition of the decision allowing the DPW to give the final approval would be doing. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated she thought the condition was that the flow test meet a certain standard, how they meet that standard does not need to be addressed by the Board. Mr. Connolly recommended that the second sentence of Condition #1 be changed to the following, “If the flow test does not provide 1,250 gpm, the Petitioner must address the ensuing issues prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.” The Board agreed with the change. Mr. Pawlina noted that this discussion regarding the effect on flow and the previous one regarding parking, really show how the size of this project is creating significant impacts. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the flow test requirement is the same for all projects and does not depend on the size of the proposal.

Mr. McAvoy distributed sheets showing a detail for the retaining wall and the location and height of the retaining wall. The Planning Board discussed the retaining walls and began to discuss the structural soundness of the design. Mr. Cassidy stated that the Board’s responsibility is to review the appearance of the wall and the impacts to abutters; the other details regarding the construction of the wall should be left to the Department Heads. The Board decided to delete Condition 10 of the decision, which requires the retaining wall detail.

Mr. Pawlina stated that he recognizes that the City required the connection to Main Street be removed, but he is now concerned that the infiltration system is not robust enough to handle large storms without such a relief system. He stated that the current design will eventually lead to ponding and flooding onto the sidewalk and the abutting public parking lot. He stated that he would recommend making the system deeper, to give it more volume, and thus prolong potential flooding. He referred to the “enormous” system designed for Green Street. Mr. Pawlina stated that he is not suggesting this should be a part of a condition of the decision but he does strongly recommend making the system three feet deeper or within two feet of ground water. Mr. Mercado added that making the system deeper may undermine the design of the system. Mr. Zeraski stated that he would look into it.

Mr. Sadowski sated that he believes the Board needs to have two separate votes—one for the Site Plan Review Application and one for the Affordable Housing Special Permit Application.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to approve the Site Plan for 560 Lebanon Street, Case #05-03, subject to the terms and conditions discussed and modified this evening. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.

Mr. Cassavoy asked if there was any discussion.

Mr. Pawlina requested to speak. He stated that the Design Review Subcommittee did an excellent job working with the Applicant, who was very amendable to addressing many of the Planning Board’s concerns. He added, however, that this proposal is the wrong project for the wrong location. He stated that the architecture is great and the engineering is good and then listed his concerns with the project. The first criteria of Site Plan Review is for the proposal to be consistent with the Design and Character of the area. He noted that the existing house on the property matches the character of the area, while the proposed building does not. The proposed building has much greater lot coverage, many more bedrooms and a significantly higher ridge line. He stated that the character of the area is not defined by the hospital or the small cape to the north of the property but rather by the typical houses on southern Lebanon. He stated that the Petitioner provided the heights of surrounding buildings, as required, which shows that the typical houses in the area are much shorter. He concluded by stating his concern for the size of the project, the parking issue, and lack of continuity with the character of the street. He added it is a good design in the wrong place.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that she is having trouble getting past the 20% slope of the driveway and needs help from the engineers to understand why this is a prudent compromise. Her other major concern was the parking, which is very tight. She added, however, that she has almost moved past her parking concerns.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that in urban areas we see steep slopes regularly and more often than we would want to. He stated, if the slopes work in urban areas where there is more traffic, they will work here. He added that he feels better that this proposal is for residential and thus the same people will be maneuvering the slope on a daily basis and will learn to adjust to the geometry.

Ms. Sadowski added that this driveway will not be turned over to the City like a subdivision road is. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that she realizes that point and added that she has been in a lot of parking garages and has not seen a 20% grade. Mr. Sadowski stated that the slope is not ideal.

Mr. Sadowski stated that in regards to the first Site Plan Review criteria he stated that the Board has recognized that this zoning district allows a lot by right for residential use. The Petitioner has done a lot of work to scale down the proposal to make it match the area better.

Mr. Mercado stated that he thinks the Petitioner has made a significant effort to improve the project. He stated that he did not support the initial plan. He added that he does not have trouble with the proposed slope and has seen many slopes of that grade. He is not concern about the parking with the agreement to lease spaces in the public lot. He added that the proposal is within the zoning guidelines and he is fine with it.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that this proposal is not within the zoning guidelines; without the parking relief through the affordable housing special permit, the Petitioner could not build this many units. She stated that she is bothered with the sentiment that “it can work.” She added that maybe it can work, but what does the City want to be here for the next 100 years.

Mr. Cassavoy took a roll call vote of the Members on the Motion.

Mr. Connolly voted in favor. Mr. Cassidy voted in favor. Mr. Sadowski voted in favor. Mr. Mercado voted in favor. Ms. DeSouza-Ward passed. Mr. Pawlina voted against. Mr. Bubier voted in favor. Ms. Marcus voted against. Ms. DeSouza-Ward abstained. Mr. Cassavoy abstained. The motion, needing five affirmative votes to pass, passed.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to grant a special permit for affordable housing subject to the two conditions discussed this evening.

Mr. Cassavoy took a roll call vote of the Members on the Motion.

Mr. Connolly voted in favor. Mr. Cassidy voted in favor. Mr. Sadowski voted in favor. Mr. Mercado voted in favor. Ms. DeSouza-Ward voted in favor. Mr. Pawlina voted in favor. Mr. Bubier voted in favor. Ms. Marcus voted in favor. Mr. Cassavoy abstained. The motion, needing six affirmative votes to pass, passed.

OTHER

a) Site Plan Review, Bloor, 727 Main Street

Petitioner, Dr. Nicole Bloor, and her architect Dan Dilullo were present.

Dr. Bloor stated that changes were made to the Site Plan and because she is not familiar with building she did not know she needed to come back in front of the Board. She apologized. She stated that the original plan was to put a stone façade on the porch. They decided to change the façade to wood lattice because stone could not be laid in the winter and because of the exorbitant costs of stone. She noted that because the handicap ramp needed to be extended the total project was costing more than had been expected. Dr. Bloor stated that she likes the way the lattice looks. Mr. Dilullo reiterated the points Dr. Bloor made.

Mr. Sadowski asked if the Petitioner had leverage with the contractor since the original quote should have included a stone façade as per the approved plans. Dr. Bloor said no because the size of the ramp increased. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the proposed stone façade would have blended in well and that the wood lattice sticks out. Dr. Bloor stated that she thinks the landscaping, which will be planted in the spring, will help screen the lattice. Mr. Cassidy stated that added the landscaping and painting the lattice a less visible color will help the façade blend in better. He recommended a pale grey. Dr. Bloor agreed that changing the color of the paint would help. Mr. Cassavoy asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. Dr. Bloor said it would. Mr. Sadowski stated that the landscaping would need to be significant enough, with mature plantings, to mask the lattice.

The Board discussed that this change was of material substance however because the change to the façade of the porch did not change the impact of the project, as defined in the Site Plan Review Criteria, no public hearing is required. Mr. Connolly read the criteria of Site Plan Review. Ms. Marcus added that wood lattice is used on many houses in Melrose, including new construction and including houses used for offices.

Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to approve the modifications in the plan, including the façade of the porch and the length of the handicap ramp, with the following conditions, 1) the lattice façade will be painted an earthen tone color that blends with the building and 2) mature landscaping suitable for masking the lattice façade will be planted and an irrigation system for the landscaping will be installed.

Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

b) Station Crossing

Developer, Nabil Boghos and architect, Tom Galvin, were present.

Mr. Cassavoy made reference to the sheet prepared by the Planning Board that lists the remaining issues regarding Station Crossing. The first issue regards the slope. Mr. Boghos stated that he is having the engineer he used for the project, DCI, prepare an as built which will state the slope of the driveway now. He stated that DCI should have the as-built prepared in two or three days. Mr. Cassidy stated that there is no reason why the information was not prepared for tonight’s meeting and added that it would take a few minutes to determine the slope. Mr. Mercado asked if the driveway is completed. Mr. Galvin stated that the slab and binder are laid but the top coat has not been laid. Mr. Cassidy stated that nothing will change in the slope and asked what is pending. Mr. Boghos stated that he is waiting for as-builts. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the engineers will not be able to provide an as-built until the construction on the road is complete and that would occur after the frost was out of the ground. He added that the engineer will be able to provide a plan showing the proposed construction. Mr. Pawlina stated that this one piece of information is easy to get. Mr. Boghos explained that he needed to make a new contract with the engineer, which has delayed the process but that the engineer is now on board. He added that the contractor is responsible for following the plans and will need to fix any problem that exists with the grade. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the plans will need to be stamped by a registered land surveyor.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the next issue is the roof line.

Mr. Galvin distributed plans showing his proposal for screening the stairway door and elevator shaft. He explained his proposal for building structures that have the appearance of a widow walk. He stated that the railings on the widow walk structure match the railings on the deck. Mr. Cassidy asked what the slope on the bottom of the structure seen on the West Foster elevation. Mr. Galvin explained that the slope is a vent for the elevator. Mr. Pawlina asked what other options the architect considered. Mr. Galvin stated that he only prepared the widow-walk because it matches this period of architecture. Mr. Pawlina stated that the widow-walk design appeared to be consistent with the building and although it was not what the Board originally wanted, it was a good compromise. Mr. Cassidy concurred that the widow-walk design was a good way of addressing the issue. He added that it would improve the design of the widow-walk if the structure were twice as long (20 feet instead of 10 feet), while still centered, on the Willow Street elevation. He added that by increasing the size of the structures the elevator louver could be maintained without taking the fence down. The Board agreed that the current color of white for the fencing would work fine and would blend into the sky. Mr. Galvin stated that the fence would be made of PVC material, no organics and thus no maintenance would be needed. Cementous siding, same as the color of the building, will be used for the base. The Board determined that, while the change was of material substance, it did not change the impacts on the community and thus did not require a new public hearing.

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to approve the change in the original plan as shown on the sheet submitted prepared by Joseph D. LaGrasse & Associates, Inc and dated, July 1, 2004 and most recently revised February 27, 2006, which is concluded to be a material difference but meets the findings of the original decision. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed. Mr. Connolly abstained.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the third issue regards the installation of the utilities. He stated that the plans show the utilities buried underground; however, the utilities are currently installed on the utility poles.

Dan Cameron, an account manager for Mass Electric who is the representative to the City of Melrose, introduced himself and explained that he had not brought an engineer because he felt he could answer the Board’s questions. Mr. Cassavoy asked Mr. Cameron if he has seen the plans showing the utilities underground.

Mr. Cameron stated that either National Grid and Verizon will have custodial authority over the utility poles in a community. In Melrose, he stated, Verizon is the custodian of the poles. If the City of Melrose wanted to relocate the location of the utility poles, and for example place the utilities underground, the Board of Aldermen would need to make such a request to the Custodian of the poles. The Board would also have to agree to a surcharge to the customers. Mr. Cameron stated that only two communities have ever required that over-head utilities go underground. Mr. Cameron explained that showing utilities underground on a set of plans, is not considered an official request by the City. He stated that if Board of Aldermen did ask the Verizon or Mass Electric to place the utilities underground, there exist many reasons why the companies would have not wanted to do so. Firstly, the companies do not like making a practice of having utilities go from overhead to underground back to overhead in a short distance. He stated that street lights would still be placed on poles above ground. Secondly, placing utilities underground for the length of the frontage would affect the companies service to abutting properties served by the same line and would require transformers to be installed. He added that there is no place to locate the transformers. He stated that this becomes a very complicated engineering challenge. Mr. Boghos added that a place for vaults would be needed as well. Mr. Cameron concurred.

Mr. Cassavoy said to Mr. Boghos that he saw him on TV talking in front of the Aldermen about what the Planning Board was going to do. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Board has not been provided an engineering reason as to why placing the utilities underground is infeasible. He stated that he realizes this is not a simple issues and requires the expertise of an engineer. Mr. Cassavoy stated that he realizes placing utilities underground would be expensive and that placing them underground can be done. Mr. Cameron asked for an example. Mr. Cassavoy stated that his companies has places utilities underground for several projects on private property.

Mr. Cameron stated he only knows of two projects right now, one in North Andover and one in Chelmsford where the utiliites are being placed underground. In both of these communities, the residents are covering costs.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Planning Board needs something in writing stating the technical reasons why placing the utilities underground cannot be done. He added that the letter should make reference to the policy which states that National Grid will not place utilites underground in such situations.

Mr. Cameron stated that National Grid doesn’t have this policy in writing, but he will put together a letter explaining the issues. He will provide DTE standards in the letter as well.

Mr. Cassidy asked why the Planning Board is just now hearing that the wires cannot be installed underground, when the Board’s decision was made 1.5 years ago. He added that the Planning Board has been put in a bad position, knowing that purchasers of the units want to move in to the units.

Mr. Pawlina asked when the electrical engineer told the developer that burying the wires was not feasible and why this information was not available earlier. Mr. Boghos stated that he had contacted Mass Electric, Verizon and Comcast to inform them that the wires needed to be installed underground. He said that he heard from them several months later that they had met with the City’s Planning Department and that the Department stated that not installing the utilities under ground would be acceptable.

Mr. Cassidy stated that they had received a copy of the letter from Mass Electric to the contractor at the last meeting and added that the letter is not dated and that the City was not copied on the letter. Ms. Gaffey stated that she had had a conversation with Dan Cameron and had told him that the City was not requiring the utilities to be installed underground and rather it was required through the permitting process. She stated that that was the last she had heard on the issue.

Mr. Cameron stated that in his conversation with Ms. Gaffey he remembers stating that there must have been a miscommunication because the Board must be intending for the wires to be installed underground from the poles to the property, not for the existing wires on the poles to be installed underground.

Mr. Pawlina stated that the letter from Mass Electric to the contractor should have been dated and the City should have been copied on the letter, since the City Planner is referenced in it.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the engineer who stamped the plans is responsible for preparing plans that can be implemented. Mr. Cassavoy stated that a deviation from the approved plans of this nature would require a new public hearing. He added that the public is expecting the utilities to be installed underground and that he has received comments from the public wondering why the utilities are above ground. He stated that he watched the Board of Alderman meeting twice, in which the Board discussed the assent to the easement for Mass Electric, and noticed that the Board of Aldermen stated that they thought the utilities would be buried underground.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that the Board will need to determine whether a new hearing is needed, once the Board understands what changes to the approved plans are being requested. Mr. Pawlina reiterated that the Board would need more information regarding the slope of the driveways to the garage and added that the information should be presented to the Board in writing.

Mr. Pawlina stated that the Board needed information regarding the first and third point on the sheet. He stated that in regards to the third issue, the installation of the utilities, Nabil needs to request a letter from Mass Electric and then Nabil must provide that letter to the Board. Mr. Cameron stated that he believes the City should request the letter from National Grid, not the Developer. Mr. Cameron stated that on behalf of National Grid, he will not accept blame for this issue arising.

Mr. Cassdiy stated that the letter should explain the construction or public safety reasons for why the utilities cannot be placed underground. He added that stating that the company does not like to do it will not suffice. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Board needs to hear from an engineer.

Mr. Cameron stated that he had provided technical reasons as to why Mass Electric does not installed existing above ground wires underground, such as the switching issue. He added that he wishes National Grid and the other utility companies had been invited to the table from the beginning.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for March 13^th and asked Mr. Boghos if he will have the information regarding the slopes at that time. Mr. Boghos responded that he would.

Mr. Boghos asked Ms. Gaffey is she believed a public hearing would be needed. Ms. Gaffey stated that the slope issue, which involves site circulation, is of more concern to her. In regards to the utility installation she stated that she would need more information.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION that the Planning Board will decide if a public hearing is required once they have received additional information. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed. Mr. Connolly abstained.

c) Pembroke

Ms. Regan distributed a spreadsheet listing each of the Conditions of the Planning Board’s Decision regarding Oak Grove Village and listing the status of each of the Conditions. She made reference to the Design Review Subcommittee’s meeting onsite at Oak Grove Village a few weeks ago, to review some of the final Conditions of the Decision. She also stated that she had talked to Tom Walsh of Pembroke about Condition #18D. Ms. Regan stated that Mr. Walsh was looking for an official action from the Board, to solidify the Board’s preference for the bus stop at the intersection of Wyoming Ave. and Main Street to be moved from the approach side to the departure side of the intersection during phase two when the other upgrades to the intersection were required to be completed.

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to no longer require that the bus stop at the intersection of Wyoming Ave and Main Street be a requirement to be completed before phase one occupancy permits are issued and instead require that such action occur before phase two occupancy permits are issued. Ms. Cassidy SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Connolly asked the Design Review Subcommittee how the development looks. Mr. Sadowski stated that the site visit clearly illuminated that Pembroke takes great care in their product. He stated that there is a good balance between budget and care. He added that the developer has been cooperative across the board. Mr. Mercado stated that the Subcommittee was informed that a model unit and the club house would be completed by July of 2006. Mr. Cassidy stated that the project is an example of garden level density with urban design quality of product. Mr. Sadowski stated that the cost per square foot is quite high and the product will be high end.

e) Other

Ms. DeSouza-Ward reported that the Zoning Subcommittee had a productive two hour meeting a few weeks ago regarding modifying the density and dimensional regulations of the medical business zone and referenced her e-mail that summarized what the Subcommittee discussed. She stated that at this point, the Subcommittee is still undecided on several issues and will continue to work on these issues before coming back to the Board for input. Mr. Cassavoy stated that Cambridge has been very clever in the way it handles density. He recommended that Planning Staff call the Planning Staff in Cambridge.

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Meeting adjourned at 11pm.