Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-19PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Flem- ings was absent as she was out of town on business. 77. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the minutes of the meet- ing of March 28, 1983 were approved unanimously as written. The minutes of the meeting of April 11, 1983 were corrected and on a motion by Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, were approved unanimously as corrected. 78. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis dated April 15, 1983 for cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on April 28, 1983. On a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following applications: 24 Parker Street, Kenneth James: SP, pool 537 Lowell Street, Hugh Leichtman: SP, use of accessory structure ' 85 Hartwell Avenue, Boston Properties:SPS: Mrs. Smith reported that the Planning , Department had received a copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis for this development on April 15, 1983. The traffic impact analysis is the most significant document in the proposed application. She had checked with Town Counsel who indicated that the 35 -day period, in which the Planning Board has to submit a report to the Board of Appeals, should run from the date the application is complete. He did not think the application was complete until the traffic impact study was filed. Mrs. Smith had talked with woodruff Brodhead, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, and indicated the Planning Board would take up the report on this case at its next scheduled meeting, which is May 2, 1983. Mr. Brodhead will talk to the applicant and request that the hearing scheduled for April 28 be reconvened later. Members suggested that the full hearing be held at a later date and not held on April 28, without the traffic information, and adjourned to a later date. It was agreed the Chairman would send a letter to Mr. Brodhead confirming these points and indicating the Planning Board's report had to be coordinated with the analysis of the Engi- neering and Public Works Departments. On the two related Hartwell Avenue cases, dealing with a variance for parking and a special permit in the flood zone, the sense of the Board was that the recommenda- tions contained in the staff recommendation were acceptable. Action on them will be deferred until the next Planning Board meeting. 1 Planning Board Minutes 2 Meeting of April 19, 1983 April 19, 1983 79. Board of Appeals Procedures re: Plot Plans Mrs. Smith reported she had attended a meeting, at the request of the Board of Appeals, about the type of plan documents to be submitted with applications. The Building Commissioner now requires that applicants for building permits submit a plan based on an instrument survey. The Board of Appeals has permitted applica- tions to be accompanied by a so-called mortgage survey plan. Those plans deal pri- marily with the locations of buildings and have proven to be inaccurate in some cases in the location of lot lines. The purpose of the meeting was to develop some consistency among the boards and departments requiring plans. In its approval -not - required plans and subdivision plans, the Planning Board requires an instrument survey. The sense of the Board was that a plan based on an instrument survey should be required in all cases. On a related matter, Mrs. Nichols suggested that amendments be made to the Subdivi- sion Rules and Regulations to require that an iron pipe, set in concrete, be required at each change of bearing on each lot in a subdivision. 80. ARTICLES FOR 1983 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Article 38 - Parking Improvements -- The Board reviewed a draft of a report, dated 4/14/83 on this article. It was agreed to change the first paragraph to place more emphasis on the policy approved by the Board of Selectmen and the Center Revitali- zation Committee which calls for more "turnover" parking. The remainder of the report appeared acceptable. Article 39 - Expansion of Meriam Street Parking Lot -- Mr. Sorensen commented that a major issue with this proposal was the impact on abutters. He agreed that the spaces are needed. He also noted that lack of parking appears to be a limit on development. He thought there should be an assurance that creating 26-28 new public spaces wouldn't be offset by the disappearance of more private spaces from the area. Mrs. Smith noted that when the parking fees were increased and the permit parking program put into effect, the Town had made a commitment to use the receipts from the increased fees toward a capital improvement program for parking. This project is part of that commitment. On a poll of the Board, each of the members said they were in support of the pro- posal. Mrs. Smith reported that Mrs. Flemings was in support of the proposal. It was agreed to prepare a short report, outlining 4-5 major points, in favor of the article. That report and the revisions to the draft report on Article 38 will be distributed to the members by the end of the week. Members may make comments by telephone; if the comments so indicate, a meeting will be scheduled to work on the report. Otherwise, it can be printed and distributed. 81. Other Articles a. Article 30, Water Systems Analysis: The Board agreed it was inclined to sup- port this article but needed more background information. It was agreed to invite DPW's Superintendent, Walter Tonaszuck, to the May 2 meeting. Planning Board Minutes Meeting of April 19, 1983 3 April 19, 1983 b. Article 37, Inflow -Infiltration Program: The Board agreed to make a favorable comment on this request for an appropriation for the design phase of the inflow - infiltration removal program from the Town sewer system. C. Article 40, Streets for Acceptance: It was agreed to defer taking a position on this article until the Board of Selectmen decides which streets to present to the Town Meeting. The Planning Board will then review the list and be prepared to comment at the Town Meeting in light of the priority list. On the issue of renam- ing Meadow Brook Avenue and Wellington Lane Avenue, it was agreed to continue to support the renaming to simply Wellington Lane, as recommended by the Board in December. If a major controversy develops over that naming, the Board would be prepared to accept an alternative, including the present name. d. Article 41, Street Construction: The Board agreed to defer a decision until more information is available on this article which provides for borrowing for a street construction program. e. Article 44, Conservation Purchase, Tophet Swamp: The Board agreed to defer a recommendation on this article until more information is available. f. Article 45, Conservation Purchase, Pleasant Street: This article may be indef- initely postponed as more negotiations are needed with the Mimno Family. It was agreed to defer a recommendation until more information is available. g. Article 46, School/Municipal Computer Network: Members questioned whether the connection of the Town offices to the School Department computer would provide a ' means for centralizing data collection. Mrs. Smith commented that the Planning Board needs access to a consolidated data base. More information is needed on this article. h. Article 47, Lexpress: It was agreed to make an oral statement in favor of the appropriation for the Lexpress program. i. Article 50, Hanscom Field Traffic Study: Mrs. Smith stated that the appropria- tion of $2500 is Lexington's contribution to an inter -town sub -regional study. It would protect our investment in the Hartwell Avenue -Bedford Street traffic planning project. It was agreed to support the article orally. j. Written Reports: It was agreed to prepare written reports on Article 38, Park- ing Improvements, and Article 39, Meriam Street Parking Lot, and possibly Article 30, Water System Analysis and Article 40, Street Construction. The Board will not make written reports on the other articles mentioned above but may make oral reports. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 82. Housing Element, Comprehensive Plan: Members of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee were present to discuss their work to date and to discuss a draft of the comprehensive housing policy. Chairman Smith thanked the members of the Committee for the Conference on Affordable Housing which the Committee conducted in October, 1982, their support of the objective of affordable housing in the conversion of the Muzzey School property, their participation in the development of the concept of Planning Board Minutes Meeting of April 19, 1983 4 April 19, 1983 LexHAB, and their support of the accessory apartments zoning amendment. She ex- tended special thanks to Arturo Gutierrez who was responsible for typing and repro- ducing the procedings of the October conference. One of the responsibilities of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee is to prepare a housing needs assessment. Mr. Bowyer reported that the report on housing trends being prepared by the staff will provide all the factual data needed for a housing needs assessment. The Committee and the Board may wish to use that data as the basis for advocating certain housing objectives. The report on housing trends is intended to be a neutral exposition of data. In contrast, he said, the needs assessment could be an advocacy document. The Board and the Committee then reviewed a draft of a "Housing Policy Statement." Members recognized that the draft was in its early formative stages but thought it represented some progress in getting ideas down on paper. Mrs. Smith commented that more attention might be focused on the housing needs of the elderly. Mrs. Uhrig noted that one goal focuses on the types and ages of families and another goal focuses on income and ability to afford housing. She suggested that the two be woven together more effectively. At the Committee's suggestion, Mr. Gutierrez presented an approach he had devel- oped. His premise is that when any town board, or the town meeting, permits an increase in density, a higher land value results. He suggested that the increase value be computed and that the town share in the increased value. As an example, he suggested that 25% of the increased value be made available to the town and applied to housing needs. He suggested that the contribution be in cash rather ' than in the provision of units. He thought that would be easier for developers to handle rather than taking on the responsibility of providing low or moderate income units, either on the site that benefits from the increased density or elsewhere in town. He thought developers would be reluctant to have the lower priced units on the same site, for marketing reasons. It was agreed that copies of the conference summary would be printed and distrib- uted to Town Meeting Members at the May 4 session. It was also agreed that the Planning Board would be notified of meetings of the Advisory Committee so Board members could attend if able. REPORTS 83. Planning Director a. Unaccepted Street, Aaron Road. Mr. Bowyer reported on inquiries about the development of vacant land which has access to Aaron Road. To qualify for the building permit, a new public street would have to be constructed to serve the land. The policy of the Engineering Department is that for a new public street to be accepted by the Town, it must connect to another public street. In this case, a public street would have to be constructed to serve the lot, the existing 100 foot section of Aaron Road would have to be rebuilt to public street standards, and the length of Jean Road (an unaccepted street) between Aaron Road and Massachusetts Avenue would have to be reconstructed as a public street. All of that means it is not eco- nomically feasible to develop the vacant land off Aaron Road. 1 Planning Board Minutes Meeting of April 19, 1983 5 April 19, 1983 b. Unaccepted Street, Hayes Lane: Mr. Bowyer reported there had been inquiries about the development of two lots on Hayes Lane, an unaccepted street. The parties interested had been pushing for a Planning Board determination of the adequacy of the grade and construction of Hayes Lane. The position he took was that the proposal would not be presented to the Planning Board, nor would the interdepartmental review be undertaken, until an application for a building permit was filed. There is consider- able work required by the Planning Department and Engineering Department staffs in making a formal determination. The parties have been furnished with the Planning Board's policy on unaccepted streets with the recommen- dation that a civil engineer be retained to do the design and prepare cost estimates. The Board agreed that was a suitable way to handle such cases. 84. Planning Board Members a. 124 Spring Street, Beal Company, SPS: Mrs. Smith reported that she and Mrs. Nichols had attended the Conservation Commission's hearing on the proposed development. Much concern was expressed by residents about traf- fic impacts. She questioned why 800 parking spaces were needed to serve 200,000 square feet in the proposed building while 330 parking spaces serve the existing1490,000 square foot building. b. Board of Appeals Hearing: Mrs. Nichols reported on the hearings held April 14, 1983. The Board of Appeals denied Lexington Gardens' request for Sunday openings. There was much neighborhood opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ;.udith J. U ig, Clerk