Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 38 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Nordby and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Wood arrived during Item 328. 324. Approval of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 5, 1988. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer it was voted 4-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ***************** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 325. Form A/88-21, 58 Middle Street, Thomas and Virginia Cahill The Board reviewed a Land Court plan showing the separation from lots 451 and 452 of the rear portions of these lots, which are labelled Lots 453 and 454, and which are to be combined with Lot 174. An opinion that Lot 174 has "grandfathered" sta- tus, thereby making its frontage of 50 feet legal, has been rendered by the Lexington Building Commissioner in a letter to the Cahill's attorney, George E. Foote, dated November 1, 1988. The combined lot consisting of Lots 170, 453 and 454 will have a lot area of 35,350 square feet. The remaining portions of Lots 451 and 452, which have been combined by note on the drawing, will have a lot area of 24,700 square feet, both lots conforming to the lot area requirements of the RS district in which they are located. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 to endorse the Land Court plan entitled" Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. (consisting of two sheets) , dated December 13, 1988, by John R. Snelling, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A/88-21 by Applicants Thomas and Virginia Cahill, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 326. Hearings Scheduled for January 12, 1988 Mr. Sorensen gave an oral review of the following hearings scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals. 99 Hayden Avenue, The Beal Companies, SPS, to install a retail cafeteria. The Board agreed that installing a cafeteria for the convenience of employees is a positive way to reduce the number of automobiles on Lexington streets during working hours. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 to recommend the special permit with site plan review be granted with the condition that there are no external signs advertising the cafeteria. The Board agreed to make no comment on the following application 40 Ledgelawn Avenue, Lawrence A. Dominey, Variance, to allow a new front porch and steps. - Minutes for December 19, 1988 -2- The Board continued their review of the Board of Appeals hearings scheduled for January 12, 1989 following the Public Hearing on Turnburry Hill (Item 328). SUBDIVISION OF LAND 327. Pheasant Brook II, Robert Cataldo The Board reviewed for the first time, prior to staff review, a preliminary plan filed December 12, 1988 for a 12 lot subdivision off Butterfield Road and Maple Tree Lane. 328. PUBLIC HEARING, Definitive Subdivision Plan, Turnburry Hill Mrs. Uhrig opened the hearing at 8 07 p.m. by reading the Legal Notice and outlining the procedure followed by the Board at public hearings. Approximately 27 residents were present. Applicants Otis Brown and Leonard Colwell, with Engineer Frank DiPietro from The BSC Group - Bedford, presented the proposal. Mr. Brown commented briefly on the evolution of the definitive plan now before the Board. He noted that for the past 14 months they have been working on a planned residential development for the site. Previously they had proposed a conventional subdivision, with seven single family dwelling units. Following a recommendation of the Board, they had resubmitted a sketch plan for a planned residential development. In the preliminary plan submission, the Board had objected to the large size of the units and the closeness of some of them to the property line. Responding to these objections, they have resubmitted a plan with the dwellings clustered closer together, the footprints reduced from a total of 15,263 square feet to 14,674 square feet, and a 50 foot setback around the entire perimeter of the site. The exception to the 50 foot setback, that was allowed by the Board, will be units 6 and 7, which can not be less than 47 feet from the property line, and the garage. Moving the garage further away from the property line would present a problem with the grading above the entry road. Mr. Brown reported building footprints now cover 9% of the site, and total impervious surface coverage, which includes the roadway and driveways, is appro- ximately 18% of the site or 28,000 square feet. He noted that since the drain- age calculations are based on a total impervious surface coverage of 32, 100 sq. ft. or 20% of the site, the proposed drainage system should be more than ade- quate for the development. He also stated that the entire project will be under a condominium form of ownership, with all road and utilities upkeep to remain the responsibility of the condominium association forever. Mr. DiPietro stated that they propose a roadway approximately 200 feet long with two driveways off it to serve the seven units. They met with the Conservation Commission on December 13, and since then, they have had numerous conversations with the staffs of the Engineering and Planning Departments and the Conservation Commission. He reported there have been some changes with the plan and profile of the roadway at the request of the Engineering Department. They will require vertical granite curbing, where the applicant had requested a waiver to use sloped granite curbing. He added that in response to a concern expressed by the Engineering Department, the applicant will further investigate the drainage system in Hill Street since little information is available for this system. The developer needs this information before a proper connection can be designed. Minutes for December 19, 1988 -3- Mr. DiPietro said that no retaining wall will be higher than five feet. He also said that because the site is so well treed, it had been agreed by the develop- er, the Planning Board and the Tree Warden, that landscaping requirements would be evaluated after the site and road work were completed The Tree Warden would then make recommendations for additional plantings --- to be noted on the plan Mr. DiPietro described the waivers requested, and stated the reason for most of the waivers was to save as many trees as possible, maintain existing site fea- tures and reduce the amount of excavation required. The requested waivers are 1) from the maximum permitted 8% grade to a 10% grade; 2) to maintain a 24 foot wide pavement in the right-of-way, with a five foot shoulder on each side of the pavement; 3) to waive the requirement that the sidewalk be placed within the street right-of-way; 4) to waive the requirement, 1 1/2' horizontal to 1 ' vertical slope in cut, and to allow stone walls to be constructed at the side of the driveway shoulder; 5) to waive the requirement for vertical granite curbing and allow the use of sloped granite curbing except where the slope is greater than 6%. (The Engineering Dept has said it wants vertical granite curbing) and 6) to waive the requirement for installation of a fire alarm. In response to a question from Mr. Sorensen as to whether a 50 foot easement will be granted to the Town around the entire perimeter of the site, Mr. Brown said that he understood there would be a condition in the Certificate of Action requiring this, but he did not recall the word easement being used. The Board noted they had discussed a deed restriction against building anything in the 50 foot setback that would require a building permit In response to a question from Mr Williams, as to the location of the common open space required by the Zoning By-Law, Mr DiPietro located it on the plan, and noted that approximately 22% of the site, roughly 35,000 sq. ft. with slopes less than 10%, will be left open for passive recreation Hester Sperduto , 8 Diana Lane, expressed concern that an existing spring, which has been closed off in the southeast corner of the site, may be reactivated by blasting and other construction disturbances, and asked how any problems result- ing from this would be dealt with. Mr. Williams recommended that she express her concerns to the Conservation Commission, who can add conditions dealing with this problem. Ms. Nordby suggested that, during construction, the developer inspect this area on a daily basis, noting this procedure on the Proposed Plan, so that any indication of flow may be dealt with immediately. John Zvara, 8 Childs Road, read a letter listing the neighbor's concerns with the subdivision, and urging the application for approval of the subdivision be denied He also asked that, if the Board approves the subdivision, there be a deed restriction against any increase in the size of the structures , from what has been approved. David Sperduto, 8 Diana Lane, read a copy of a letter he submitted to the Con- servation Commission outlining his concerns about the destruction of a "climax" beech forest , which also suggested ways to ensure their protection during the construction phase. Other concerns expressed by the residents focussed on 1) the number and large size of the buildings proposed; 2) why the developer felt it necessary to Minutes for December 19, 1988 -4- include 2-family units in a single family residence district; 3) feelings that the development will not preserve the existing quality of life there and 4) that future additions, such as decks and porches, will eventually encroach into the 50 foot perimeter setback. Mrs. Uhrig adjourned the hearing at 9 18 p.m. Later in the evening, the Board gave direction to the staff for preparation of a decision on the definitive plan. They agreed they were leaning toward approv- al of the application if restrictions are imposed against any increase in the size of the dwelling units and any encroachment into the 50 foot setback around the perimeter, except as indicated on the plan. Town Counsel will be consulted as to the best way to achieve this. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS (continued) 326. Hearings Scheduled for January 12, 1988 Mr. Sorensen continued his oral review begun prior to Item 328. 44 Downing Road, Sally Nye Sestokas, SP, to use a portion of a residence as an office for a Stress Management Consulting Practice (Non-Group). The Board noted the property is 50 feet wide with side yard setbacks of less than 10 feet on both side lot lines. They also noted Section 11.6.1 of the Zoning By-Law states that a driveway must be set back five feet from a side yard lot line. This would leave approximately four and one-half feet in width, an insufficient amount, for a driveway to the rear of the property. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the special permit be denied because the lot is too narrow to service the rear parking area. 870 Waltham Street, Fine Homes Realty, Variance, to allow a corner lot with 150 feet combined frontage in the RO district, forming an interior angle of less than 135 degrees, to satisfy lot frontage requirements. The Board commented they believed that the application had been done in the wrong order, but given the existing circumstances, i.e. the house has been built, there is little to do but grant the variance. On the motion of Mr. Soren- sen, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the variance be granted. 455 Lowell Street, St. Pauls Evangelical Church, SPS, for proposed church & associated buildings, parking and site improvements. The Board discussed the Proposed Conditions Plan prepared by The BSC Group - Bedford, which showed the parking and building layout , and raised the following questions and concerns 1) whether the neighboring homes, which are relatively small in scale, would be overwhelmed by the large size of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall/school building. The Board believed that the appli- cant should be asked to consider reducing the bulk of the buildings by making the fellowship hall/school building two story. They also recommended a restriction be placed against any future expansion of the buildings; Minutes for December 19, 1988 -5- 2) why was the delivery area located away from the building it serves; 3) where the air conditioning equipment would be located, if there is air conditioning; and 4) will there be any week-day use of the building, and if so, for what? Mr. Sorensen reviewed the traffic study for the Board. They agreed their primary concern was whether there would be parking spillover on to Lowell Street because there is insufficient on-site parking. They recommended the street be signed and posted for no parking in that area, because of the large amount of traffic occurring on Lowell Street in that area. Mr. Williams moved, and Mr. Sorensen seconded, that the Planning Board recommend the special permit not be granted. The motion was not adopted, 1-4, with all but Mr. Williams voting in the negative. Discussion continued in which the Board agreed that, although the proposal appears to meet the provisions of the Zoning By-Law, they had serious con- cerns about the intensity of the site development. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 4-1, (with Mr. Williams voting in the negative), to recommend the special permit be granted with the following conditions 1) that no expansion of the buildings, either upward or outward, be permitted; 2) that the loading bay be relocated nearer the building it serves and 3) that the on-site parking proposed be reexamined to ensure it will be sufficient for the complex, and that Lowell Street be signed and posted for no parking in that area. ********************** ARTICLES FOR 1989 TOWN MEETING ************************ 329. Planning Board Articles The Board reviewed a draft letter to the Select- men requesting that they reserve space in the Warrant for four articles for zoning amendments and one non-zoning article for the 1989 Annual Town Meeting. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 5-0 to send the letter, as written. 330. Citizen's Petition, Robert Domnitz Mr. Domnitz asked if the Board would consider presenting a revision to the parking regulations that would correct what he called a loophole in that section. Currently, parking for restaurants is calculated on the basis of how many seats and how many employees there are in the restaurant. This leads to the number of employees being underestimated, in order to lower the number of parking spaces required. He suggested the number of parking spaces required be related only to the number of seats in a restaur- ant. The Board agreed it was too late to prepare an article for this year's town meeting, and recommended he begin collecting data for next year's town meeting very soon. ************************** REPORTS ******************************************* I 331. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. HATS II Meeting Mrs. Uhrig reported on their meeting of December 15, 1988 where an Air Force presentation was made of their Comprehensive Plan for expansion at the base in the next 15 years. The plans will result in Minutes for December 19, 1988 -6- an increase of over 1,000,000 sq. ft. of additional office space. Mrs. Uhrig also reported that MAPC has offered to donate one free week of con- sulting time to each abutting town to monitor expansion at the base. She added that each town will be asking its town meeting to appropriate $10,000 for consulting fees in addition to the MAPC offer. 332. Planning Director a. Middlesex County Advisory Board/Land Use Committee Mr. Bowyer report- ed that the Committee met this evening with the Selectmen, and that some of the uses being discussed for the Middlesex County Hospital land were af- fordable housing and uses that would generate revenue for the County. b. Construction Noise By-Law Mr. Bowyer reported that the Selectmen also met this evening with the South Lexington Association to hear their propos- al for an article to regulate construction noise. In response to a quest- ion from Mr. Eddison, it was noted that a building permit can not now limit hours of construction. This by-law would enable the town to set beginning and ending working times, at construction sites, that are reasonable for the neighborhood. Mr. Bowyer reported the Selectmen agreed to sponsor an article to deal with noise impacts from construction sites. The meeting was adjourned at 11 13 pp.m./ ( ( &/11 i'u lit 1C_ """ ti. l/'..GLIC`--- 1/4 1 Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk L_