HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-18PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 18, 1983
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-7, Town Offices, was
called to order at 7:42 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings,
Nichols, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mr. Sorensen was absent as he
was out of town on business.
APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
99. 124 Spring Street, Beal Company; SPS: Irwin Barkan, Vice President of the Beal
Company, Norman Abend, Traffic Engineer, and Gary Larson, Landscape Architect, were
present. Mr. Barkan explained that the additional 100 parking spaces, in excess of
the ratio of 3.5 parking spaces/1000 square feet of gross floor area, were because
the prospective tenant insisted upon spaces for conferences held several times dur-
ing the year. Mr. Larson commented that this occasional overflow parking need would
be difficult to accommodate by parking on the shoulders of the driveways because
there are steep slopes adjacent to many sections of the driveways.
Mr. Larson explained that the system of driveways on the northeast side of the park-
ing garage was really part of the circulation system of the garage. There are no
interior ramps in the garage and to change from one level to another requires use of
the exterior drives. Mr. Barkan said they had not previously investigated the use
of compact parking spaces in the garage but would now do so with the objective of
relocating as many open air spaces into the garage as possible. Norman Abend stated
that a parking space width of 8'-9 feet is sufficient for all -day parking for either
standard or compact sized automobiles. He suggested an average space width of 8.75
feet gives a flexible arrangement.
' Mr. Barkan said they had not really studied the additional 100 foot buffer strip
recommended by the Planning Board. There was discussion about conservation restric-
tions, a walking easement, and protection of the Davis property at 112 Spring
Street. Barkan agreed to submit a plan of the entire site showing all the proposed
restrictions, easements and setback lines.
Mr. Bowyer reported on a meeting with Norman Abend on the methodology issues raised
in the Planning Board's May 11 report. For "trip generation," Abend relied on case
studies of other suburban developments in eastern Massachusetts and southern New
Hampshire; the Planning Department staff relies on the trip generation manual pre-
pared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. On the effect of other addi-
tional development on the intersections in the area, Mr. Abend described these as
general area wide traffic issues and did not consider it appropriate, as the consul-
tant for the Beal Company, to undertake studies of the effects of other develop-
ments.
The other issue dealt with a decline in the "level of service" at intersections. The
Spring Street-Marrett Road intersection is the only one which declines to level of
service "D". Mr. Abend pointed out that decline results from a change of a few per-
centage points in the volume/capacity ratio, based on existing conditions. By the
simple act of placing paint lines to create a left turn lane, that intersection
could be restored to level of service "C", using accepted traffic engineering
calculations.
As for a financial contribution by the developer toward needed traffic and safety
(sidewalk) improvements off the site, Mr. Barkan emphasized the Beal Company did not
consider it their place to pay for traffic improvements in the area. He has agreed
to make a contribution to a fund to be set up by the Town for improvements. The
Planning Board Minutes: May 18, 1983 2
specific improvements have not been determined at this time and will be the subject
of further review by the Town.
Mrs. Smith commented that the Town had essentially two options: 1) to permit addi-
tional development in cooperation with developers who make contributions for traffic
and safety improvements or 2) in the absence of contributions that permit additional
development to be accommodated, to enact limits on additional development.
Mrs. Flemings inquired about concentrating traffic on the Hayden Avenue entrance,
reducing the use of the Spring Street entrance. Mr. Barkan responded that that
would set up internal circulation problems and that the company had an obligation to
lessees to provide access to public streets. Mr. Larson commented that the Hayden
Avenue driveway will be designed as the main ceremonial entrance to the building and
thinks it will attract more traffic. He also noted that there was a 10% grade and a
steep turn from the garage area to the Spring Street exit which should discourage
use of that exit.
Mr. Abend noted there may be a legal question as to whether the Town can regulate
turns at a private driveway. The Town has the power to regulate turns at street
intersections, but driveways may be another matter. He suggested that some towns
have enacted by-laws authorizing official traffic and parking signs to be erected on
private property so that they be enforced by the police.
As for the recommended five-year limitation for further development on this site,
Mr. Barkan commented that he understood the logic of the request but considered it
to be an unfair restriction on the Beal Companies relative to the entire area. It
would not be prudent for Beal to consent to such a restriction.
As for comments at the public hearing about excessive noise from the development,
Mr. Barkan said the HVAC equipment will be entirely enclosed. He will have the pro-
ject engineers investigate baffles and other noise suppression devices.
The Board agreed to prepare a supplementary report to the Board of Appeals which
will: 1) restate the recommendation for a 100 foot buffer strip abutting the RO
district line, 2) state screening objectives to be realized in the buffer strip sub-
ject to a specific plan to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission and the Plan-
ning Department's Assistant Planner, 3) delete the recommended condition of not more
than 700 parking spaces, while restating the adequacy of that standard, and insert a
recommendation that not more than 50 open air parking spaces be located in the ga-
rage area, 4) include a willingness to support variances to permit a higher percent-
age of compact parking spaces and smaller dimensional requirements for compact park-
ing spaces within the parking garage, as a trade-off for the reduction of open air,
at -grade spaces, 5) add a recommended condition about noise suppression of equipment
on the exterior of the building, and 6) provide an explanation of the current status
of the traffic issues raised in the May 11 report.
100. 85 Hartwell Avenue, Boston Properties; SPS: The Board reviewed a draft of
Section 10, Effects of Traffic, which described the cumulative traffic impacts of
the Boston Properties proposal and three other proposals on Hartwell Avenue and
Maguire Road which are in the development pipeline. This traffic analysis would be
used for each of the four proposals and would be repeated in forthcoming SPS
reports. The Board noted some differences among the traffic consultants and the
Planning Department staff as to the assumed directional distribution of trips to the
Planning Board Minutes: May 18, 1983
3
area and in calculations of level of service of intersections. The Board agreed to
make the same recommendation previously made for the Kiln Brook V development, which
is consistent with the Planning Board's policy on additional commercial development
on land currently zoned for that purpose in the Hartwell Avenue -Bedford Street area.
Mr. Bowyer showed on the site plan that a large number of the parking spaces do not
comply with the dimensional standards in the Zoning By-law. The Board agreed that
it would comment on the shortcomings of the parking design and would comment that a
smaller building should be investigated in view of the parking problems.
REPORTS
101. Planning Director
a. Volunteer Intern: Mr. Bowyer reported that Polly Selkoe had volunteered
to work as a Planning Intern on the central business district analysis in
order to obtain experience in planning, a field which she is considering
entering.
102. Planning Board Members
a. Housing Needs Advisory Committee: The next meeting is scheduled for Tues-
day, June 7.
b. Acceptance of Emerald Street: Mrs. Nichols said she had received a number
of telephone calls from residents about the acceptance of Emerald Street which
' came up under Article 40 of the Town Meeting. The Emerald Street proposal con-
sisted of two parts: 1) the construction and acceptance of an unaccepted street
which was presently gravel, and 2) the proposed acceptance of construction of a
paper street which is actually vacant land. The developer is expected to bear
all the costs of the second type. She thought more publicity should be given to
the difference between the two types.
c. Board of Appeals Hearings: Mrs. Uhrig will be unable to attend the hearings
next week. Mrs. Smith will represent the Board at the hearing on May 24 and
Mrs. Nichols at the hearing on May 26.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
,5�6udith J. rig, Clerk