Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-09-24PLANTaIIZ BOARD MEETING September 24, 1957 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Tuesday, September 24, 1957 at 7:45 P•m• Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Jaquith and Soule and Plan- ning Director Snow. Approved by the Board were the minutes of the September 17, 1957 meeting. The Board also approved payment of the follow- ing bill: Minute -man Publications, advertising --$6.12. Taken under consideration next were the follow- ing Form A applications for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #57-84, submitted on September 182 1957 by Lena A. and Fred E. Hersom; plan entitled "Plot Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated August 24, 1957, Alan C. Wagner, Civil Engineer. ' #57-85, submitted on September 18, 1957 by L.G. Holmes; plan the same as the one accompanying Application #57-99, submitted November 3Q,1956. #57-86, submitted on September 24, 1957 by A. Morris Kobrick, Trustee of Lucky Penny Trust and Meryl Robert Trust; plan entitled "Plan of Land Compton Cir. Lexin7ton Mass.", dated Sept. 20, 1957, Scale: 1" = 4.0', William J. Ford, Jr., Reg. Land Surveyor. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that -)lans accompanying applications #57-842 #57-85 and #57-86 be signed bearing the en- dorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval not required under subdivision control law." Considered next by the Board were the notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals on October 1, 1957. It was decided to take no action on the peti- tions to be heard iti2th the exception of that of Milson Farms, Inc. for permission to continue to operate road- side stand adjacent to No. 6 Pleasant Street, Lexington. ' Mr. Snow suggested that the Planning Board recommend that the continuance of the permit be granted only upon the basis that access to said stand be limited to two points of ingress -egress from Pleasant Street. He MI NUT ES BILLS FORMS A BOARD OF APPEALS pointed out that at the present time automobiles drive off and on to the roadside parking area for a distance ' of well over a hundred feet creating hazardous condi- tions on a narrow road carrying a heavy load of traffic. It was decided that before said hearing Mr. Grindle would discuss this matter with the Chairman of the Board of Appeals. GREEN VALLEY At 8:10 p.m. Mr. Antonio Busa met with the Board SECTION 3 to present his proposal for expanding his Green Valley development by extending Lillian Road in a northwester- ly direction and connecting Circle Road to Lillian Road through the former Daley property, the site recom- mended by the Board for a playground. Mr. Busa re- quested an informal opinion of the Board in regard to his proposal which was presented in the form of a plan prepared by Miller and Nyland er, dated Sept. 17, 1957) and entitled "Plan Showing Proposed Lotting in Green Valley- Section Three Lexington Mass." Mr, Busa also presented an alternate proposal in the form of a tracling paper overlay showing Lillian Road as a dead- end street with a permanent turnaround at the north- westerly terminus of said street. In discussing these plans with Mr. Busa the Board pointed out that the present terminus of Lillian Road was beyond the 500 ft. limit allowed by the town's subdivision rules and regu- lations and that the Board did not consider his pro- posed extension of the Green Valley development had a second recognized means of access. The Board decided to give the plans further consideration and advise Mr. Busa of its decision in regard to his proposal. BILLBOARD Mr. Busa left the meeting at $:30 p.m. at which time the Board considered the application before the State Outdoor Advertising Authority for a sign to be erected in a general business district at 93-97 Massa- chusetts Avenue, Lexington. It was understood the proposed sign was to be 25 feet wide and 12 feet high and that the top of the sign was to be 25 feet above the ground. The Board decided to go on record as being opposed to the approval oz the application and to write a letter to the Authority setting forth its reasons for such opposition. (See addendum). MAJOR Pair. Snow discussed with the Board his recent STREET conference with Mr. Whitcomb, Location Engineer, and PLAN Mr. Hue, Design Engineer, of the State Department of Public Works in regard to the Board's preliminary major street plan and said department's proposals for Route 2 in Lexington. Mr. Snow reported that he had been informed that the department has funds for preparing and recording its final plans for the Route 2 relocation and widening, that these plans were to be drawn at a scale of 40 feet to an inch, and that it was planned to record them by January 1, 1958. He said that in view of what he had found out, he had discussed the matter with Mr. Grindle and at his sug- gestion had met with the Selectmen the previous even- ing, informing them of his conference and requesting a joint meeting this evening between the Selectmen and the Planning Board to discuss the matter further. Mr. Snow stated that he had asked about the possibility of the State Department of Public Works preparing plans to connect with proposed roads, such as Worthen Road and one the Planning Board is recom- mending along Sickle Brook through the southwesterly portion of the Peacock Farm development from Watertown Street to Massachusetts Avenue and beyond, circling the Great Meadows and extending through the northeast- erly section of town. He said that he was told bluntly that as far as the department was concerned these pro- posals were "pipe dreams," that it was the department's policy to connect only to existing roads, and that it would not consider proposals to connect to future town roads for which there had been no plans recorded and no appropriations made for construction within the imme- diate future. ' Mr. Snow also related his conversations in regard to State plans for Pleasant, Waltham and Spring Streets. He said that the department's revised plans call for ramps on the westerly side of Pleasant Street to give access to the Route 2 traffic going west and to east bound traffic on Route 2 access to Pleasant Street. Mr. Snow said that when he asked the reasons for adding ramps to the Pleasant St. overpass, Mr. Whitcomb replied that he thoup:ht the proposal was based on State origin -desti- nation studies. T -r. Snow also reported that revised plans for the Waltham Street intersection call for a four - petal cloverleaf arrangement instead of four straight diagonal ramps. In regard to the Spring Street intersection he said that a two -petal interchange still was proposed, one each in the northeasterly and southwesterly quadrants. Mr. Snow said he told Mr. Whitcomb that Lexington traffic counts showed that there were less than 1000 cars using the inter- section from 7 a.m. to 7 pAm: and that he could not see the justification for the proposed interchange unless a regional shopping center or some similar use were proposed for the adjacent properties. Mr. Snow said that Mr. Whitcomb told him that Lexington had requested the interchange but when asked who made the request Mr. Whitcomb had no correspond- ' ence to indicate who had done so. Er. Whitcomb was also reported as saying that the department would not force the interchange on the town if it did not want it, iurther stating that if the town did not want the interchange , to have elected officials, presumably the Selectmen, write a letter to the Commissioner notifying him of this fact. Mr. Snow stated that he believed the most im- portant problem in regard to the Route 2 proposals had to do with the Watertown Street intersection. He said that he did not see how the State Department of Public Works could justify its proposal on the basis of the proposed angle of the intersection itself, the location of the Peacock Farm Road intersection adjacent to the proposed ramp intersection, the inadequate width of the right-of-way, site distance, and the alignment - both horizontally and vertically - of Watertown and Pleasant Streets, the existing heavy and projected traffic counts on said streets, the increase in traffic prob- lems which would result at the Pleasant Street-Follen Road -Massachusetts Avenue intersection, and - last, but not least - the encouraging of traffic to use Lexing- ton as a short cut to Route 128 instead of directing the through traffic around the town. MEETING The Board met with the Selectmen at 9:15 P•m- WITH to discuss the matters noted above, Mr. Snow giving a ' SELECTMEN brief review of the Board's preliminary major street plan, the State Department of Public Works plan for widening and relocating Route 2 in Lexington, and the conference he had with representatives of said depart- ment. In view of the prospective filing of the Route 2 plans it was decided that Mr. Snow and Mr. Gayer should confer in regard to the Planning Board's pro- posal for connecting the Route 2-Watertowfa Street - interchange with Massachusetts Avenue by means of a new road and as soon as possible to prepare prelimi- nary plans and cost estimates for such a road with a view of recommending to the Selectmen and Planning Board a course of action. The meeting adjourned at 9:4.5 p.m. Thomas S. Grindle Chairman 1 ADDENDUM September 27, 1957 Outdoor Advertising Authority, Rm. 546, 80 Boylston St., Re: Application #405$0 Boston 16, Mass. John Donnelly & Sons Gentlemen: The Lexington Planning Board's attention has been called to the application of John Donnelly & Sons for a sign to be erected on the property numbered 93-97 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington. At its meeting on September 24, 1957 the Planning Board considered this application, decided to go on record as being opposed to the approval of the same, and to write a letter to the Outdoor Advertising Authority setting forth its reasons for such opposition. In the first place the Board would like to point out that while the proposed sign is to be located in a general business dis- trict, it is not one of the usual size, being only 155 feet wide where the sign is to be located and 190 feet at its greatest width. On both sides the business district is bounded by residential districts, the one on the southeasterly side largely being situated on higher land overlooking said general business district. It is the opinion of the Board that in otder to "conserve the value of land and buildings" and "to preserve and increase (the land's) amenities" as set forth in Section 2 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, no sign of such large size, erected at such a height, should be allowed in this particular district. The Planning Board would also like to point out that no free standing sign and no sign of such large dimensions is allowed under the Lexington Zoning By-law. The Board believes that an advertising sign of such size as the petitioner proposes to erect is entirely out of keeping with any use in Lexington and with any standards this town has always tried to maintain. In the opinion of the Planning Board the sign would be a traffic hazard being located on a busy through street into which four other side streets connect within a distance of 600 feet. On October 25, 1956 a traffic survey conducted under the auspices of the Planning Board revealed that in addition to the local traffic generated in the vicinity there were 6206 through cars passing along Tassachusetts Avenue northwesterly of the pro- posed sign location. It is the Board's opinion that this sign would be a distracting influence upon this traffic in addition to that from surrounding residential neighborhood. It is thought that this would be particularly true in the case of ' vehicles entering Kassachusetts Avenue from Taft Avenue. In doing so the vehicles would be traveling northeasterly in a down -hill direction and would be looking directly at the pro- posed sign when the dirvers should be concentrating on traffic at the intersection. 1 Very truly yours, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman 1 1