Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-22 n PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 37 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assist- ant Planner Nordby, Summer Intern Joseph Marino and Secretary Peters present. 203. Approval of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of July 13 and 25, 1988 and for the executive session of July 25, 1988. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 3-0-2 (Mrs. Wood and Mr. Sorensen abstained as they had not attended the meeting) to approve the minutes, as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 1988. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Williams abstained as he had not attended the meeting) to approve the minutes, as amended. ******************************** REPORTS ********************a**************** 204. Planning Director a. Development Regulations : Mr. Bowyer discussed the need for more work on revisions to the Development Regulations, specifically what should be done with an unsatisfactory preliminary plan, i.e. whether to approve, with conditions, or disapprove. Disapproval could require a resubmission of a new preliminary plan. He suggested that the Board develop a policy on cluster development to give direction to developers. b. Wood Street Development The property has been purchased by Joanne Vilasi, who has been in discussion with the Planning Director about what should be done with the three illegally occupied rental units. He has suggested she get in touch with LEXHAB and perhaps work toward some way to legitimize the units by bringing in a small RD rezoning to next year's Town Meeting. Mr. Bowyer added that abuttor, Gus Schumacher, has been in con- tact with him and would like to save the existing barn, if this is pos- sible. Mr. Sorensen recommended a fresh look be taken at the whole proper- ty, as conditions were, before it was divided by Form A. c. Earl Street The Building Commissioner has reported that Mr. Herring , who previously built two residences on two 50 foot lots next to the house built by the Housing Authority on Earl Street, has received a determination from the Building Commissioner that nine lots which he has taken an option to buy can be combined into four building lots, subject to the provisions of the Planning Board's Policy for Construction on Unaccepted Streets. The 1985 Policy allows a builder to construct one house on an unaccepted street; otherwise, a subdivision plan must be filed. The Building Commissioner has determined the grandfathered lots are on an unaccepted street , and since the application is for more than one dwelling , 1 the applicant must submit a plan for improvements to the unaccepted street which complies with the Town standards in the same way as if it were an application for subdivision approval. Mr. Bowyer noted the new aerial photographs show the unaccepted portion of the street is not 1,000 feet Minutes of August 22, 1988 -2- long, and that some of the lots appear to be on a non-street. The Board agreed that when the policy was in conflict with conditions in the field, conditions in the field will take precedence, and they recommended that pictures of conditions in the field be taken immediately by the staff . d. Carriage Drive A meeting was held, consisting of representatives from Planning, Conservation, and Engineering to work out procedures for changes in the field because the Conservation Commission had approved a change in a drainage swale shown on an approved definitive subdivision plan without informing the Planning or Engineering Departments. The change has proven unsatisfactory and must now be corrected back to what was originally ap- proved. The Board agreed the three "arms" of the Town government must act in concert to avoid mix-ups such as this. e. Middlesex Mall, SPS The application for approval of the Special Permit with Site Plan Review for the addition to Middlesex Mall, that was approved at the 1988 Annual Town Meeting, will shortly be filed with the Board of Appeals. Burlington's Town Planner has been in contact with Mr. Bowyer and has expressed some reservations about whether the parking plan conforms to Burlington's Zoning By-Law. She may request that some condi- tions relating to this be included in any decision of the Lexington Board of Appeals. **************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 205. Form A/88-13, 188-194 Lowell Street, McNeil & Associates The Board reviewed a plan showing a transfer of lots A & B from Lot 1 to Lot 2, with no change in the frontage of Lots 1 and 2 and both lots containing more than the required acreage of the zoning district. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, sec- onded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington (Middlesex County) Mass.", dated August 17, 1988, by Briggs Associates, Inc., certified by Raymond Cormier, Professional Land Surveyor, by McNeil & Associates, Inc., with application Form A/88-13, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 206. Orchard Crossing, 188-194 Lowell Street, endorsement of definitive plan and acceptance of covenant Ms. Nordby reported that all necessary work on the approved definitive plan has been completed, and the plans are ready to be endorsed by the Board. On the motion Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to endorse the plan. Ms. Nordby also reported Town Counsel has almost completed his review of the draft covenant presented by the applicant. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to accept the covenant, dated August 22, 1988, contingent on the approval by Town Counsel of the wording of the covenant. L_ Minutes of August 22, 1988 -4- The Board agreed there are still legal questions to be resolved to establish the legality of Lot 2 as expressed in a letter from Attorney George E. Foote, dated March 8, 1988; and letters from Attorney David A. Fitch, dated April 4, and May 26, 1988. They agreed the applicant should be informed of the Board's current thinking, although there has not been a formal review of the sketch plan. ******************** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES ************************ 211. Report on Research Project on Subdivision & Recent Housing Construction The Board heard a presentation of data prepared by summer intern, Joseph Marino, summarizing his work of the summer. In response to a question from Mr. Wil- liams, Mr. Marino stated the intent was to gather information on various subdi- visions and other recent residential construction, including such things as footprint, building size and living space. Mr. Bowyer added that the informa- tion gathered was a by-product of building a data base on all new housing con- struction since 1980. It was found that by simple coding, material could be organized on the basis of subdivisions. Mr. Marino briefly reviewed a 12 page summary of all subdivisions constructed between 1980 and 1988. He noted all the information had come from Certificates of Action and plans, and that this was the first material prepared at the begin- ning of the summer, adding that this information covers approved subdivisions, and ones still in the approval process. Mr. Bowyer noted that this information could produce information on the percentage of the total land area that is devoted to rights-of-way and to paved surfaces. Mr. Marino explained how information from the Approved Subdivision Summary could permit comparison of medians of lot areas, footprints, unit sizes and living spaces by providing a breakdown of some of the characteristics of each subdivi- sion. Also included was a summary of Town House Characteristics. Mr. Marino also said that in comparison to a study done in 1980, the total persons per individual household is down 8%, and the number of school age chil- dren per household is down 30%. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Marino noted that the size of dwelling units is growing each year, especially in conventional subdivisions. The Board agreed the report contained a lot of data and would require much more study to absorb the information. The Board expressed their appreciation for Mr. Marino's research, noting that it would be a valuable resource in the future. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ******************* APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 212. Hearings Scheduled for September 8, 1988 Mr. Sorensen gave an oral review of the following hearings scheduled for September 8, 1988. 125 Burlington Street, Arthur Ryan, Variance, setback of 14 feet instead of the required side street setback of 20 feet. The Board felt the noncomply- ing addition was too large and too close to the secondary street, Long- fellow Road, since other homes on Longfellow Road must maintain a front Minutes of August 22, 1988 207. Turnburry Hill, Hill Street, guidance Ms. Nordby reported she met with applicant Otis Brown after he had received the decision disapproving the preli- minary plan submitted on Turnburry Hill. Mr. Brown asked for guidance from the Board as to how much he must reduce the size of the structures in order to keep the same number of structures. He did not think he could reduce the buildings to the size shown on the sketch plan, and he does not want to give up a unit. The Board noted they liked the sketch plan, but the developer had changed a lot of what they liked when he proceeded to develop the preliminary plan. The Board suggested Mr. Brown and Mr. Colwell be invited to the next Planning Board meet- ing to discuss the questions raised, and what direction they should take. 208. Ridge Estates II, status report: Mr. Bowyer reported that no plan showing the noncomplying construction has been received to this date, but that a meeting has been scheduled by Ms. Nordby for tomorrow afternoon with Mr. Bergeron of Hayes Engineering, who will reportedly bring the existing conditions plan for review. 209. Ridge Estates III, approve revised plan and remove stop work order Ms. Nordby reported that the work-to-be-completed schedule outlined in the letter to Attorney Weiss of Goulston & Storrs, dated August 9, 1988, has been adhered to and work done in the field has been approved by a representative of the Planning Department, so that the revised plans , reflecting this work, can be approved by the Board and the stop work order lifted. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unani- mously to approve the revised plan. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to lift the stop work order. In response to a question from Attorney Weiss, Mr. Bowyer noted that since the latest cost-to-construct submitted was incomplete, the Board could not set surety at this meeting. Attorney Farrington will have a revised cost-to-con- struct list, reflecting the work already completed and any omissions left off of the previous list, ready for the Planning Board's meeting on September 8, 1988. 210. Eaton Road, Duffy, sketch plan: The Board informally discussed the fea- sibility of a two lot subdivision off portions of Blake and Eaton Roads, which are "non-streets" on the Zoning Map. Ms. Nordby pointed out that Lot 3 fronts on a "non-street" portion of Blake Road between Williams Road and Eaton Road that has an existing grade of 16%. She noted that the maximum allowable grade permitted by the Board's "Development Regulations" is 8%. Reduction of this grade would require additional grade adjustment far into the existing portions of Blake Road on either end of the slope, and this amount of disturbance could not be permitted. The Board agreed that this left Lot 3 with no legal frontage. The Board agreed that it would probably be physically possible to create a building lot (shown as Lot 2 on the sketch plan) off an extension of Eaton Road, by showing an acceptable hammerhead at the end of the extension, and measuring frontage for the lot along the right-of-way around this hammerhead. They pre- ferred this section of Eaton Road be kept private. It was noted that since this lot would be off a "non-street" portion of Eaton Road, the lot would have to conform to today's zoning requirements. Minutes of August 22, 1988 -5- yard setback of 30 feet. For consistency with other homes on Longfellow Street, who must maintain a side street setback of 20 feet, the Board agreed the applicant should at least be required to maintain the side street setback of 20 feet. The Board also noted that no hardship relating to topography or conditions of the land appear to exist. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend the variance be denied. 880 Waltham Street, John Weiser, appeal of decision of the Building Commis- sioner allowing construction of a dwelling on a vacant lot. The Board noted the builder does not appear to intend to use the Waltham Street frontage for access. If not, procedurally, an application for a special permit under 7.3.2, second sentence, for the use of a common driveway, should be filed. Unless the builder states he intends to construct access to the lot from Waltham Street, Mr. Weiser's appeal seems to be correct. They agreed that when an application for a special permit is filed, the other points raised by Mr. Weiser can be dealt with on their merits. The Board also noted that another issue to be resolved is whether the existing right-of-way is of adequate construction to provide access. In a letter from Chief Bergeron dated July 27, 1988, it is stated that the existing right-of-way is inadequate for the access of fire apparatus. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to recommend the developer of the lot be required either to con- struct access to the lot from the frontage street, or apply for a special permit to use the existing right-of-way for alternate access. 271 Marrett Road, Patricia & William Debonte, variances from the Zoning By-Law to create a nonconforming lot. The Board noted that on July 25, 1988, they voted not to endorse a plan filed under the "Subdivision Appro- val Not Required" procedure of the Subdivision Control Law. The plan submitted would have divided this parcel of land into two lots, one of which would not have complied with the minimum lot area requirement. The Board agreed it is difficult to see where hardship can be shown to justify granting a variance when there is enough land and frontage to divide this parcel into two lots, that will comply with the Zoning By-Law. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unani- mously to recommend the variances not be granted. 844 Massachusetts Avenue, Philip & Francis Madanjian, SP, to operate a take-out food or fast-food service. The Board was concerned whether the the proposed use would increase the parking demand and conflict with the substitution of use clause now in subparagraph 6.6.1 (formerly 11.1.3), and suggested the Building Commissioner be asked to check the data on the existing and proposed uses. They noted a fast food operation could produce a rapid turnover of customers and cause traffic tie-ups on an already busy street. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to recommend against granting the special permit if it is demon- strated there will be an increase in the parking demand from this substitu- tion of use. Minutes of August 22, 1988 -6- 1^ 191 Spring Street, 191 Spring Street Trust, SP, to permit a driveway on lot 2 to lead to parking and loading on lot 1, and SPS, to develop two addi- tional office buildings with at-grade parking and underground parking Mr. Bowyer briefly reviewed the material filed with the SPS and SP applications to the Board of Appeals, noting that for the first time, a traffic manage- ment plan has been filed, outlining mitigating measures being proposed. The Board concluded 1. That the proposed development is within the floor area ratio permitted by the 1986 Zoning By-law and that the developer should be allowed to build within that F.A.R. limit, provided measures to mitigate the impacts of the development are taken. 2. That this proposal does include the additional landscaping which the Board had requested when it reviewed earlier proposals for the site, and that the elimination of the separate parking structures and the reduction in the amount of floor space is an improvement from earlier plans. They also recommended that 1) additional landscaping be added to reduce the possibility that Building One may be seen from houses across Spring Street and 2) a soft and non-reflective exterior material be used on Building One, which is oriented to the south, so that houses across Spring Street will not be subjected to glare and reflections from the south facing walls of the building. 3. That the proposed traffic mitigating measures, when coupled with those already committed by Raytheon by the February 24, 1988 SPS approval, appear to deal well with whatever traffic impacts the development may have and should result in a net improvement in traffic conditions in the area. They agreed that offers made by the applicant, as contained in their letter to Town Manager Richard White, dated April 1, 1988, should be modified 1) to provide a traffic control officer at the Spring Street - Concord Avenue intersection, in both the afternoon and morning peak periods, 2) for the design and possibly the construction of a method of intercon- necting traffic signals, if constructed, at the Spring Street - Concord Avenue and Spring Street - Hayden Avenue intersections, 3) to remove the ambiguous wording, "if traffic conditions warrant", which leaves uncertain who is to make that determination, and to fix the respon- sibility for the determination with the Town Manager and 4) to start the services of traffic control officers during the construc- tion period when there is an increase in the number of vehicular trips by construction workers and trucks. 4. That it is important that provision be made for the installation and imp- rovement of sidewalks in the area for the safety of pedestrians and bicy- clists. 5. That the Planning Board applauds the submittal of a formal traffic manage- ment plan and the efforts, initiated by Boston Properties, to secure the participation of other South Lexington commercial properties. They noted that while the traffic management plan was not required by the 1986 Zoning By-law, it is a good example of a program to reduce the number of single occupant vehicular trips now required by subsection 12.3.4. 6. That the Planning Board endorses the grant of a conservation restriction over the land in the RO zoning district. The staff was asked to prepare a draft report reflecting these conclusions. Minutes of August 22, 1988 -7- On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Appeals that the SPS and SP applications be approv- ed, with the conditions listed above. The staff will prepare a draft report reflecting this by the end of this week. The Board also agreed they did not object to permitting a driveway on Lot 2 to lead to parking and loading on Lot 1 to service a proposed commercial building. *************************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION *********************** 213. Election of Officers The Board agreed to meet August 30, 1988, 8 00 p.m. for a general discussion of Planning Board organization before electing officers for the coming year. ************************** REPORTS ******************************************** 214. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. HATS II. Mrs. Uhrig reported the next regular meeting will be on September 15, 1988 at 7 30 p.m. in the Lexington Selectmen's meeting room. The meeting was adjourned at 11 08 p.m. Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk