Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-09-08 PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 8,1959 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the office of the Board, Town Office Building, on Tuesday, September 8, 1959 at 7:40 p.m. Present were Chairman Abbott, Members Burnell, Grindle, Mabee and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Town Counsel Stevens was also present from 8:20 to 10:00 p.m. The Board approved the following bills which had been presented for payment : David R. Cooper, pro- BILLS fessional services, August 21. through Sept. }, 1959, and car mileage-4204.10; Minute-man Publications, Inc . , advertising-44.90; Bruce E. Howlett, profes- sional services, Sept . 1, 1959-435.00; Ward's, office supplies-44.68; Wallace B. Mitchell Co. , white prints-40.80; H.B.McArdle, office supplies-- $11.00. The Board then considered the following Form A applications for determinations of Planning Board FORMS A jurisdiction: #59-59, submitted on August 31, 1959 by William H. Hamilton; plan entitled "A C om- piled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale : 1" = 20' , dated Aug. 27, 1959, Miller & Nylander, C .E. 's & Surveyors. #59-60, submitted on September 3, 1959 by Harry M. Sullivan; plan entitled "P19n of Land in Lexington, Mass ", Scale: 1" = 30', dated Aug. 18, 1959, Miller & Nylander, C.E. 's & Surveyors . Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accompanying Form A applications #59-59 and #59-60 do not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plans be so endorsed. The Board endorsed the "Paint Rock" defini- "PAINT ROCK" tive subdivision plan approved on August 10, 1959s ' no appeal having been taken during the customary WAYMINT 21-day appeal period. Mr. Snow was asked to give REALTY said elan to the Town Counsel for recording after TRUST the latter had obtained from the subdivider, Waymint 9-8-59 Realty Trust, an executed instrument conveying to the Town drain and water pipe easements in Grimes Road as shown on said plan. BOARD OF Read to the Board and approved by the same was APPEALS the draft of a letter to the Board of Appeals setting forth the Planning Board's opposition to the granting McCORMACK of the McCormack petition for the erection of a pro- PETITION fessional office building at 789 Massachusetts Avenue. (See addendum and Planning Board minutes of August 27, 1959) . Also read to the Board and approved by the same MAPLE STREET was the draft of a letter to Attorney Edward T. Martin GARDEN in answer to a request for the Board's informal opinion APARTMENT of an alternate site plan for the proposed Maple Street DEVELOPMENT garden apartment development. (See Planning Board min- utes of August 10, 1959. ) At 8:20 p.m. Mr.Stevens came to the meeting. WILKINS LAND He reported that in accordance with the request of the FOR Planning Board (see Planning Board minutes of June 22, RECREATION 1959) he had prepared an option instrument and had re- PURPOSES calved the same duly executed, said option being dated September 2, 1959 and executed by Donald K. Irwin and IRWIN Mary F. Irwin, his wife, covering land on Grove Street now owned by George J. and Sadie D. Wilkins and shown on the plan attached to the option. Mr. Stevens gave the original of said option to Mr. Snow r equesting that he give the same to the Town Clerk for safekeep- ing. A conformed copy of said option was given to the Board for its files. At 8:30 p.m. Mr. Reenstierna, trustee of the WALTHAM ST. Vine Brook Realty Trust, came to the meeting to dis- GARDEN cuss with the Board its memorandum of August 5, 1959 APARTMENT in regard to said trust 's petition for a Board of DEVELOPMENT Appeals determination in regard to the Waltham Street garden apartment development plans. The main points VINE BROOK considered were the relocation of Captain Parker Lane REALTY so that the northeasterly end of said lane would be TRUST opposite the proposed location of John Poulter Road in the Vine Brook Meadows development, the redesign and arrangement of parking areas in relation to the apart- ment buildings, and the ways of obtaining spacious- ness, a quality which the Planning Board believed was lacking in the trust 's previously submitted site plans. In order to obtain a site plan satisfactory to the Board, Mr. Reenstierna stated that he was not adverse to hav- ing eight less apartment units than were shown on the trust 's last submitted plan. It was decided that the trust's architect, Mr. Manasalian would meet with Mr. Snow and through a series of conferences, as would be done in connection with F.H.A. requirements, attempt to develop one step at a time site and building plans which the Planning Board believed it could recommend that the Board of Appeals approve. Thereupon, Mr. 9-8-59 -2- Reenstierna left the meetingat 9:00 p.m.e Mr. Joseph Young appeared before the Board to inquire about plans for a proposed recreation FORMER area to be located in part on former Techbuilt land TECHBUILT proposed for purchase from the present owners, Way- LAND FOR minkRealty Trust. He said that he had shown Mr. RECREATION Snow during the past week a sketch of a lot he was PURPOSES considering purchasing from said trust, the lot and the one adjacent to it being an extension of Lots 6A and 7A on a plan endorsed by the Board on May 11, 1959. Mr. Young stated that he was not interested in purchasing said proposed lot if existing hemlock trees were not included in the extension of said lots or if the town proposed to construct play areas in the vicinity. Mr. Young was told that to its knowl- edge said trees were within the area the Board was recommending the Town acquire. He was also informed that no definite plans for the proposed recreation area had been made and that the development of such areas was controlled by the Selectmen. After Mr. Young had left the meeting, the Board discussed the matter of land acquisition. Mr. Snow pointed out that in his opinion the extension ' of Lots 6A and 7A would partially destroy the so- called Paint Mane area and would take some of the remainder of the old hemlock grove it would be so important to save. It was decided to take steps immediately to negotiate with same authorized repre- sentative of said trust for acquisition of Wavmint land for public recreation purposes. Mr. Stevens was asked to arrange for such negotiation with the law firm representing said trust. Mr. Snow called the Board' s attention to a print entitled "Revised Plan of Part of Section I WINCHESTER Winchester Estates Winchester, Mass." owned and ESTATES developed by Winchester Development Corp.", said - print being undated and prepared by Fred A. Joyce, WINCHESTER Surveyor. He reported that a representative of DEVELOPMENT the Winchester Planning Board had left the print CORP. and accompanying material for consideration by the Lexington Board in that the proposed lotting and road plan as shown on said nrint included land in Lexington as well as Winchester. It was decided that before the Board could consider the plan, Mr. DeVries of said corporation would be requested to submit a preliminary plan to the Lexington Plan- ning Board. Thereupon, the Chairman telephoned the Winchester Board, meeting at the same time, to notify it of the Lexington Board's request. 9-8-59 Considered next by the Board was Mr. Carrig's MINUTE MAN application for approval of the Minute Man Highlands, HIGHLANDS Sec. !r. preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Snow re- SEC. 4 ported that representatives of the State Department of Public Works had informed him that the State had not CARRIG acted on Mr. Carrig's application for an entrance permit across State highway land to Pleasant Street and that said Department planned to make an additional taking of Carrig land for state highway purposes. Mr. Stevens advised the Board to act independently on Mr. Carrig's application for approval of said plan and to so advise the Department. Thereupon, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: That the preliminary subdivision plan entitled "Preliminary Plan of Lots in Minute Man High- Lands Section Four Lexington - Mass.", dated July 9, 1959, which was submitted to the Board on July 13, 1959, be and hereby is disapproved for the reason that the State Department of Public Works has granted no entrance permit to extend "A" Street across state highway land to Pleasant Street. Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. after discussing with the Board matters currently before it. Mr. Snow then discussed with the Board further AVADANIAN studies he had made and a conference he had held with Mr. Carroll, Supt . of Public Works, with reference to PRELIMINARY the preliminary subdivision plan submitted by Mr. SUBDIVISION George Avadanian (See Planning Board minutes of August PLAN 27, 1959) . After consideration of these studies, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the preliminary subdivision plan entitled "Proposed Subdivision of Land in Lexington, Mass. ", dated July 3, 1950, which was submitted to the Board on July 13, 1959, be and hereby is disapproved for the following reasons: (1) the road profiles as shown do not take into consid- eration the existing topography, would necessi- tate in most cases excessive cutting of the land, and would not lend themselves to the proper development of the area; (2) the brook shown on the plan is not to be relocated along the property line but kept in its approximate existing location and enclosed in drain pipe specified by the Town Engineer. With reference tothe odd-shaped lots which had been and were being created along Turning Mill Road and other locations in town, Mr. Snow stated that in 9-8-59II -3- his opinion these were being created at an in- creasingly rapid rate. He recommended that the LOT STUDY Board renew immediately its earlier lot study (see — Planning Board minutes of March 2, 1959) with the PROPOSED idea of preparing a zoning by-law amendment to pre- ZONING vent further continuance of lotting in violation BY-LAW of the intent of said law. He said that he would AMENDMENT not be able to complete such a study himself be- fore a fall town meeting because of an unusual amount of administrative work in addition to the preparation of the Board's report on the long range plan . Mr. Snow asked for professional assistance in this study, suggesting Mr. Perry Norton as a possible consultant . Mr. Snow was authorized to discuss the matter with Mr. Norton reporting the result of his conference at the Board's next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. • and H. 'oule Clerk * * 1. .: # * * * * * ADDENDUM September 9s 1959 Board of Appeals Town Office Building Re: Petition of G.Ruth and Paul J. Lexington 73, Mass McCormack for a Professional office building. Gentlemen: Reference is made to the petition of G.Ruth and Paul J. McCormack to vary Section 5 (b) of Lexington 's Zoning By-law in order to erect a one-story building with basement for pro- fessional offices at 789 Massachusetts Avenue. The Planning Board wishes to be recorded as being opposed to the granting of said petition and sets forth its reasons for such opposi- tion. In connection with its consideration of the McCormack petition, the Planning Board sought the counsel of Mr. Stevens. He ad- vised the Planning Board that among the reasons which could be set forth in opposition to the granting of the petition were the following: (1) A variance for professional office building use in a two-family district is beyond the legal jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals; (2) A variance for such use would be 1 II a change in zoning without a change in the zoning by-law; and (3) There would be no basis for granting a variance on account 9-8-59 of hardship because other use can be made of the property II being discussed. It is for these reasons, therefore, and the following point of view that the Planning Board does not believe the petition should be granted. The Board has given considerable attention to the pro- posed use of land in immediate vicinity of the property on 7,1hich the petitioners seek to erect a professional office building. It is the opinion of the Board that the district now zoned for two-family residential use should continue to retain its residential status in order to conserve the value of land and buildings, to encourage what the Planning Board considers to be the most appropriate use of lands and to preserve and in- crease its amenities in the vicinity of Follen and Sacred Heart churches and the Fast Lexington Branch Library. For these reasons the Board has incorporated in its long range comprehensive plan for Lexington no changes in the present zoning of land in the neighbor- hood involved. For these reasons also the Planning Board would oppose any attempt to rezone land in the vicinity of said buildings from two-family residential to commercial use. Sincerely yours, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /S/ Charles T. Abbott, Chairman September 9, 1959 Mr. Edward T. Martin 31 State Street Boston 9, Mass. Re: Maple Street garden apartment development Dear Mr. Martin: the Reference is made to the conference you and/group you represent had with the Planning Board on August 10, 1959 and your request for the Board's informal opinion in re- gard to an alternate site plan for the proposed Maple Street garden apartment development. Mr. Cole kindly supplied the Board with a print of said plan, dated November 4, 1958, and entitled "Land Use Study" . To bbtain further understanding of the problems involved the Board requested its staff to superimpose on said print five-foot contours from Lexington's topographical data and the boundaries of the Chapman land understood not to be under option. The site plan was then given careful consideration by the Board. It is the opinion of the Planning Board, as set forth below, that it would not recommend approval of the alter- 9-8-59 -4- nate site plan to the Board of Appeals. The north- easterly boundary of the property the Chapman 's wish to retain would extend at one point a distance of approximately 28 feet into the proposed apartment site. This would necessitate moving the proposed ser- vice road to the northeastward limiting the apartment site to a width of 110 feet. The Board is of the opinion that the service road entering onto Maple St. is too close to the intersection of the proposed loca- tion of Emerson Road as shown on the plan. Moving said service road northeasterly 28 feet would make conditions worse. In addition it is believed that in order to carry out the proposed alternate scheme it would be necessary to construct along the northeasterly boundary of the Chapman land a retaining wall approximately 350 feet in length and averaging seven feet in height. The fact that such a wall would have to be constructed indicates that at a later date it would not be possible to de- velop the Chapman land not under option into an inte- grated and well-related garden apartment development . In regard to the service road itself, it is the opinion of the Board that it would only approve such a road located adjacent to the southwesterly boundary of the A 1 district or, on an alternate scheme, a road located in such a manner that a section of it turned to enter Emerson Road at right angles. In connection with said service road, it is pointed out that parking spaces for only 14.6 automobiles are shown on the plan whereas there are 92 apartment units proposed. Use of the service road itself for automobile parking, rather than parking spaces shown on the plan, is not considered to be with- in the intent of the conditions set forth in the zoning by-law. Another point should be noted. The Board does not be- lieve it can recommend approval of the proposed site plan because the Chapman property proposed for elimina- tion from the apartment site has only 63 feet of front- age. Under Sec . 8 (f) l.b. of said by-law it is neces- sary that any single family residence in an A 1 district have 150 feet of frontage. Until this frontage is ob- tained, the Board would not be in a position to recommend approval of the alternate site plan, or a similar one, being discussed. As to the buildings themselves, it is the opinion of the Board that in a number of instances they are too close II together . This is particularly true where the distance between buildings is only 15 and 20 feet. Wile the Board has set no specific distance as a minimum between 9-8-59 buildings, it is believed that these distances should be as generous as possible. It is hoped that the above explanation answers your request in every way. If, however, you or any of your group have any questions in regard to the matters dis- cussed, do not hesitate to communicate with the Board or the Planning Director. With a little advance notice, we are available at most any time to discuss the garden apartment development plans further. Sincerely yours, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /S/ Charles T. Abbott, Chairman 1 1