Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-02PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 2, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 85. Article 38, Parking Improvements: Tom Fortman, Town Meeting Member in Pre- cinct 6, was present to discuss a proposed amendment to Article 38 that would rec- ognize the deteriorating parking situation in Lexington center and direct the Planning Board to prepare an amendment to the zoning By -Law to be presented to the 1984 Town Meeting. The amendment would prevent the loss of existing private off- street parking areas and require future developments, expansions and changes in use to provide increases in the parking supply. Mr. Fortman said he is concerned about Article 39, the expansion of the Meriam Street lot, as well and thinks the Town may be wasting its money in providing more parking spaces if more development occurs and fills those spaces. His objective is to give the Planning Board a man- date to do something about the parking situation in the center business area. Mrs. Smith thought a mandate from Town Meeting would be helpful. The Planning Board is already committed to study the problem but may need the support of a Town Meeting endorsement within the Town administration. On a poll of its members, the Board was unanimously in favor of the amendment and will support it in the Town Meeting. ' Mr. Sorensen observed that there were two major reasons that previous proposed amendments on this subject were not adopted: 1) the attitude among property owners and business people that economics should rule with minimum intervention by Town regulations; and 2) limitations tend to penalize those who have not yet developed which means that those who have aggravated the situation may escape the limitation. ARTICLES FOR 1983 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 86. Article 30, Water System Analysis: DPW Director Walter Tonaszuck and Town Engineer Francis Fields made a presentation explaining the proposed engineering analysis of the water distribution system. Mr. Tonaszuck explained that the computer model would assess the existing water system and have the capability to analyze the effects of new development. He said the primary justification for improvements to the water distribution system are fire protection and adequate supply and pressure. While slides he used graphically portrayed tuberculation in the pipes, improving water quality is a secondary objective of the study. Mr. Fields said that the major cost of the study is in field work with a minor per- centage in computer time. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to go on record in favor of the article and to support it on the floor at Town Meeting. 87. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 124 Spring Street, Beal Company, SPS: Mr. Bowyer explained three tables contain- ing data on the commercial buildings in the two CR districts in South Lexington Planning Board Minutes: May 2, 1983 2 which have access to Spring Street and Hayden Avenue. The tables showed that only a small fraction of the development potential permitted by the Zoning By -Law has been used to date. Mrs. Smith suggested two actions: 1) the Board of Selectmen should be alerted to the growing development problem in South Lexington and 2) the capital costs of accommodating additional development should be identified. The effects of full, or partial, development on traffic, water service, pedestrian safety and the like should be analyzed. The Board discussed ways that an effective buffer could be provided for nearby residential properties. There was discussion of providing a 200 foot buffer strip on the north side of the development. It was agreed that the staff would prepare a plan showing the location of the RO district line and various potential setback lines for buffers. The Board discussed the use of trees to screen the view of res- idents from the garage and office building. It was agreed that Assistant Planner Arslan would develop some language stating the objective. The developer would be requested to propose a specific planting plan to implement the objective. Atten- tion will also be given to outdoor lighting as it affects adjoining residences. Mrs. Smith noted that the Conservation Commission had requested that the surface parking be eliminated. The Board agreed that 3.5 parking spaces for 1000 square feet of gross floor area is an appropriate standard, rather than the 4/1000 square feet proposed by Beal. After discussion of both minimum parking requirements and maximum parking requirements, it was agreed that it was appropriate to ask for adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking. ' The Board then discussed the size of the proposed development relative to the pro- jected capacity of the nearby streets to accommodate additional traffic. Part of the question was whether to recommend some limitation in this development in the Board's recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the SPS. Mrs. Flemings thought the Board should have a policy on the treatment of all developments in the CR dis- trict before attempting to limit this development at this time. She was reluctant to attempt to apportion future development opportunities among the several land owners in the absence of a policy. She noted there was only about one week to put a policy together. The Board needs such a policy but has to act on this applica- tion within the time allotted. Mr. Sorensen commented that we need to have ideas on how to accommodate development, to solve the problems posed by development and what the costs of those solutions might be. He was not optimistic that focusing only on restrictions and limitations would be successful. Some in Town government think that additional commercial development is beneficial for the Town's tax sit- uation. The Town needs to know its potential cost in accommodating development. Mrs. Flemings stated she was in favor of a sidewalk improvement program that would provide a sidewalk on Spring Street. Mrs. Smith said there needed to be a dialogue with residents of Spring Street who had previously expressed opposition to con- struction of a sidewalk. Mr. Bowyer noted that the opposition to a sidewalk, in 1970, may have been because it was part of a package involving the widening of Spring Street to 30 feet and the wholesale destruction of mature trees. Mrs. Nichols said it would be desirable to have the developer contribute money for off-site improvements, such as sidewalks, traffic signals, and other public facil- ities. She said it was difficult to proceed with a program of contributions for off-site improvements without a policy. 1 1 Planning Board Minutes: May 2, 1983 3 The Board discussed future limitations on further development on either of the Ledgemont lots assuming the proposed 200,000 square foot building is approved. It was agreed that a limitation would be appropriate because it is such a large development and other property owners should have the opportunity for expansion before the remaining traffic capacity is used up. It was agreed that the suggested limitation should be included in the general remarks in the report but not pro- posed as a condition to the granting of a special permit. REPORTS 88. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Hanscom Area Traffic Study: Mrs. Uhrig reported that the HATS Committee is attempting to obtain a commitment from the Executive Office of Transporta- tion and Construction for the study of area traffic conditions. b. Board of Appeals Hearing: Mr. Sorensen reported that at the hearings on April 28, 1983 the three applications for 85 Hartwell Avenue were postponed until May 24 and will be subject to a new advertisement. Boston Properties indicated they were not eager to develop the site now but wanted to preserve their special permits which would expire in August. c. Board of Appeals Rules: Mr. Sorensen reported that the Board of Appeals had continued its discussion of whether to require an instrument survey or a certified plot plan for applications. Two cases are pending which involve special permits for use in which no building is being constructed. The Board of Appeals would prefer to require an instrument survey only where a building is proposed to be constructed and to either not require, or permit a waiver of the requirement of an instrument survey, where an application does not require dimensions from lot lines. The Planning Board agreed this is an appropriate procedure. d. Ruling on Frontage: Mr. Sorensen commented on the potential interpreta- tion of the requirement for frontage which is mentioned in the staff report dated April 29, 1983. He thought that frontage should mean a right of access. He requested that Town Counsel render an opinion on this matter. If necessary an amendment to the Zoning By -Law could be prepared. 89. Planning Director a. Spencer Street Construction, Allyn Property: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had received a communication from MBTA which had been approached about a pro- posed eight -lot subdivision on the Allyn property across the railroad right- of-way from Spencer Street. The subdivision sketch shows a new street passing through an existing lot, with a house proposed to be removed, to connect to Spencer Street. He had calculated the distance of the dead end street, which by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, may not be more than 650 feet long, and determined that the distance from the nearest through street, Massachu- setts Avenue, was about 600 feet to the northerly side of the railroad right- of-way, leaving only 50 feet for the subdivision street. The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. l2�/ udith J. U g,lerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 4, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Vice Chairman, Mrs. Nichols, with members Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Chairman Smith was absent as she was out of town on business. ARTICLES FOR 1983 TOWN MEETING 90. Article 38 - Parking Improvements: On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to recommend favorable action on the arti- cle and to approve the report as written. 91. Article 39 - Expansion of Meriam Street Parking Lot: Mr. Sorensen stated that he could argue both ways on this article. He recognizes that the parking spaces are needed. On the other hand, he has two major concerns: 1) there is no guarantee the expansion of the Meriam Street lot will result in a net increase in parking spaces serving the center because there is nothing to prevent the development of additional floor space which would wipe out the gain in spaces, and 2) the parking spaces are quite close to residences and the buffering may not be sufficient. He said he would abstain from voting. On a motion by Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-0, with Mr. Sorensen abstaining, to recommend favorable action on the article and to approve the report as written. REPORTS 92. Planning Director a. 124 Spring Street, Beal Company, SPS: Mr. Bowyer reported that Irwin Barkan, Vice President of the Beal Company, had called him and there was discussion about the Planning Board's concerns. Barkan indicated that as developer, he was quite agreeable to 3.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area, but the tenant felt 4.0/1000 spaces were needed. One approach may be to permit the 3.5/1000 spaces to be built with a "reopener" to permit more spaces if the need can be demonstrated. Mr. Sorensen suggested that a condition might be included in the special permit prohibiting parking on drives or grass areas. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. udith J. Uixfig, Clerk