Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-11Ln N O co W a 1 1 115 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Offices, waE called to order at 7:37 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. 73. MINUTES The minutes of the Executive Session of March 18, 1983, were corrected and on a motion by Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, were approved, as corrected, by a vote of 4-0. Mrs. Flemings abstained as she was absent from that session. The minutes of the meeting of April 4, 1983, were corrected and on a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, were approved unanimously as corrected. 74. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis dated April 8, 1983, for cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on April 14, 1983. On a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following applications: 109 Burlington Street, Robert J. Harris: Variance, side yard 11 Wellington Lane Avenue, Louis DiLuna: SP, pool 4 Robbins Road, George Whiteside: SP, maintain existing dwelling; Variance, setback 229 Follen Road, Bruce A. Maloof: SP, accessory use of a dwelling: Mr. Sorensen noted that this application results from an enforcement action. He is troubled by legitimizing a use after enforcement action. On a motion of Mrs. Nichols, sec- onded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 4-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed, to state no objection to granting the special permit provided special conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are included in it. 93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens Inc.: Special Permit, Sunday openings: Mrs. Smith noted that Lexington Gardens is completely surrounded by residential proper- ties. Other garden centers in Lexington, which is Seasons Four, Wilson's and the like, are on major streets. It was concluded that Doran's, which is also in a residential area, is in a different use classification than Lexington Gardens. Mrs. Nichols said that Mr. Milliken, the former owner, had a conviction against Sunday opening and had always taken that position in the neighborhood. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to rec- ommend that the special permit not be amended to permit Sunday opening. 75. Ledgemont Development, Spring Street, Beal Corp.: Mr. Bowyer stated that he is an abutter to the proposed development and that he has offered to disqualify himself from the consideration of this development. Other Planning Board members have disqualified themselves from action on subdivisions of which they were abut- ters. He said there is no financial conflict of interest but there may be an appearance of a conflict. There was a meeting with the Chairman of the Board and the Town Manager to discuss his disqualification. Both the Chairman and the Town Manager thought it necessary and appropriate for the Town to use Mr. Bowyer's tech- nical skill. It was agreed that he would limit his participation to technical and factual analyses and would not participate in discussions or make recommendations. He will also not participate in neighborhood actions on the development. Planning Board Minutes: April 11, 1983 2 113 Mary Ringer, President, and Tina Dirks, Chairman of the Planning Committee, of the South Lexington Civic Association, were present for the discussion. Mrs. Smith reported that in discussion with the Chairman of the Conservation Commission, she has learned that the Commission will push for a 200 foot buffer strip from the resi- dential properties on Munroe and Woodcliffe Road. Mrs. Smith reported she had reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Norman Abend. The intersection most adversely impacted will be the Marrett Road -Spring Street -Bridge Street intersection which would be downgraded in "level of service" by one letter grade. She noted the report identifies Spring Street as an "arterial street" but it is really a residential street. She commented this is the first development of others to follow. The Town cannot afford to "just let the traffic LO happen" or the Hartwell Avenue -Bedford Street situation is likely to be repeated. N O Mrs. Ringer reported that she recently obtained information from W. R. Grace Company Q that 150 additional employees were occupying the new building on Hayden Avenue. Those 150 are in addition to the 300 employees who occupy the buildings already on m that site. Grace has planned for additional buildings that will bring the total Q number of employees to more than 1000. Mrs. Smith reported there had been overtures about construction of an additional building on the Burroughs property. Mr. Bowyer reported that a representative of the Xerox Corporation had contacted him about further development on the Ginn -Xerox site with a preliminary target of 140,000- 160,000 square feet of floor area in a new building. Others noted the recent con- struction of a building at the Raytheon Corporation, the DiNapoli building on Hayden Avenue and the recent proposed rezoning for a major office building by Meredith and Grew. There was discussion about the relationship between additional commercial construc- tion and traffic saturation. Abend's Traffic Impact Analysis indicates there is sufficient capacity remaining in the Route 2 -Spring Street interchange so that the Beal development would not cause traffic saturation. Mrs. Ringer thought those in- terchanges were fast approaching traffic saturation and there is congestion on the interchange ramps now. There is a certain amount of additional development, which needs to be calculated, which might occur before traffic saturation is achieved. How that additional development is handled presents a dilemma. If the Town operates on a "first come, first served" basis, the Beal corporation might use 200,000 square feet of additional development. Some other property owner may lose development potential because all of the area's ability to absorb additional development would have been used up by preceding developers. Another approach might be to calculate the additional development that could be allowed without creating traffic saturation and then distribute that development equitably among the various commercially zoned properties. The amount of additional development permissible might be increased if public improvements, such as traffic signals, intersection improvements, and side- walks, were made. Mrs. Ringer reported on the results of a questionnaire administered by South Lexing- ton residents. Concerns about traffic, safety, sidewalks, and bikepaths were evident throughout the area. Residents of Spring Street, Hudson, Woodcliffe and Winston Roads, Shade Street and Concord Avenue, all of whom might be impacted by this devel- opment, had expressed concern about traffic and safety. She also commented on the inadequate sight distance at the westerly exit ramp of the Route 2 -Waltham Street interchange. Due to the hazard, some of the employees at W.R. Grace use the easterly exit ramp off Route 2 and weave across Waltham Street onto Hayden Avenue. She suggested that the traffic counts in Abend's traffic analysis be compared with traffic counts taken in earlier years to see how much traffic has increased. LJ J N 0 d m d 1 1 Planning Board Minutes: April 11, 1983 3 111 Mrs. Ringer advocated more attention to sidewalks because they benefit residents and pedestrians; traffic signals benefit primarily motorists. She said Spring Street and Concord Avenue, in particular, need sidewalks. Mrs. Ringer reported that after the defeat of the Meredith and Grew rezoning proposal, four homeowners had made major investments in houses on Spring Street. She thought it noteworthy that prop- erty values go up when the Town does not do rezoning. Mrs. Smith observed that the Planning Board's major concerns about the development are off the site, i.e., traffic and safety, and the provision of a buffer for the residential neighborhood adjoining the site. The site planning details of runoff, vegetation, etc., are a focus of the Conservation Commission. She thought the Plan- ning Board had a responsibility to flag the development impact for the Town, for the developer and for other Town boards and committees. The safety and traffic improve- ments needed to protect the residential area from the impacts of the development need to be identified. Mrs. Nichols noted that the Town will have to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalks and traffic improvements. She thought the developer might be persuaded to contribute to those improvements in the spirit of being a "good neighbor." Mrs. Uhrig inquired as to whether more development could occur on the site after this construction. Mr. Sorensen responded that the setback requirements are the principal limitation and more construction could occur. Mrs. Flemings described a provision in Cambridge's development regulations that limit the number of parking spaces; if a development has a high number of parking spaces, less floor space is allowed. REPORTS 76. Planning Director a. 85 Hartwell Avenue, SPS: Mr. Bowyer reported that the SPS hearing for the 85 Hartwell Avenue development had been scheduled for April 28. No traffic information has been submitted about the development yet. The only remaining scheduled Planning Board meeting prior to that hearing is April 19. Mrs. Smith said that time should be provided for the Planning Board to have access to the traffic report and to prepare an adequate recommendation on it. She will speak to Chairman Brodhead of the Board of Appeals about the sched uling. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. G/ Judith J. rig, Clerk