Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-19PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 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 Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Nichols, Sorensen and Planning Director Bowyer present. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 251. Piper Road at Waltham Street, Herman Erikson: Form A-83/18: Mr. Bowyer explained that this parcel of 21,370 square feet resulted from a land -taking by the State DPW when Route 2 was widened in 1964. It would not be possible to determine whether this is a building lot for zoning purposes because it would have to be determined how the owner was compensated in the eminent domain taking. The plan contains a notation that the Planning Board makes no determination of the status of Lot A as a building lot for zoning purposes. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0 that: The plan entitled "Compiled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass." dated December 8, 1983, by Miller & Nylander Company, Lexington, Mass., certified by Donald J. Forand, Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A-83/18, by Herman H. Erikson, does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 252. 92-100 Hayden Avenue, Boston Properties: SPS: The Board reviewed a prelimi- nary draft of a report on the SPS dated December 19, 1983. There was some uncer- tainty as to the amount of floor area in the building; the staff will determine that. In reviewing the difference of about 60 parking spaces between what would be ' required if the proposed zoning amendments are adopted and the amount of floor space on the site, it was agreed to recommend that the amount of floor space be reduced to match the 271 parking spaces. It was also agreed that the developer should participate in curing the projected decline in level of service from "C" to "D" at the Spring Street -Concord Avenue intersection. A final draft will be pre- pared for the next meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION On the motion by Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 4-0, by poll of the Board, to go into Executive Session with representatives of the Conservation Commission to consider the purchase or exchange of real property because such con- siderations, if held in Open Session, may have a detrimental effect on the nego- tiating position of the Town. At 8:06 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to Open Session at 8:39 p.m. Seven representatives of the South Lexington Civic Association were present for the discussion of items 253 through 256. 253. 191 Spring Street, Xerox Site: Ronald Kulpinski, Manager of the real estate division of the Xerox Corporation, and Mark Kisiel, Leggatt, McCall and Werner, were present to inquire about the Board's receptivity to an industrial subdivision that would require a waiver of the maximum length of a dead end street from 650 feet to 1100 feet. Mr. Kisiel explained their conceptual development plan, pre- pared by Sasaki Associates, called for dividing the 33 acre parcel into three lots PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 2 with the existing Ginn -Xerox building occupying one of the lots. Mr. Kulpinski explained additional development of up to 150,000 square feet of floor area on each of the other two lots was anticipated. Mrs. Nichols noted that proposed parcel II was a "pork chop" lot which does not appear to have direct access to a street. Mr. Kulpinski explained that access to the building site would be by a roadway through parcel I. Much of the discussion centered on the traffic impact from the development of an additional 300,000 square feet of floor space, making a total of more than half a million square feet of floor space on the site. There was discussion as to whether a single roadway could adequately service that many vehicles. Mrs. Smith commented that their approach appeared to be an attempt to put the maximum amount of develop- ment on the property. The Planning Board would not look favorably on intensive development because of the traffic impact on local streets which are already exper- iencing growing traffic congestion. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING 254. CR District, Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The Board reviewed a draft of a pro- posed zoning amendment dated December 8, 1983 which would introduce the floor area ratio technique as a method of limiting the intensity of development in the CR dis- trict. Mr. Bowyer explained a statistical analysis of properties in the existing CR district that showed where the floor area ratio was more than 0.25, the site appeared crowded. The Board thought that the floor area ratio technique was useful but had reservations about requiring an absolute maximum on the floor area on a lot ' because it might result in more commercial subdivision. It was agreed that the Board should submit an article for the warrant but the particulars of this amend- ment need more work. Mrs. Uhrig joined the meeting at this point. 255. Special Permit, Traffic Considerations: The Board reviewed a draft of an article dated December 9, 1983 which clarifies the intent of the amendment adopted in 1982 requiring that the Special Permit Granting Authority make a finding that there is sufficient traffic carrying capacity in intersections to accommodate addi- tional traffic from a development. Mr. Sorensen was not in favor of submitting the article because he thought the existing language of the By -Law was clear enough; the Board of Appeals chooses to ignore it. Mrs. Flemings thought it would be help- ful to make it more explicit. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 4-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed, to submit the article for inclusion in the warrant. 256. 16 Hayden Avenue, CD: The Board reviewed the draft of a letter to Gregory Muzzy of Temple, Barker and Sloane, representing the Board's response to the con- cept plan presented at the October 24 meeting. Mr. Muzzy and Roger Altreuter of Spaulding and Slye were present for the discussion. Mr. Bowyer reported that Assistant Planner Arslan and Mrs. Nichols had reviewed the site plan carefully and found several objectionable features, such as a long stretch of stone rip -rap facing Route 2. Mr. Altreuter reported that the State Department of Public Works preferred to respond to a formal application for the development of a sight line adjacent to the Route 2 off -ramp, but the staff of the District 4 office generally agrees on the desirability of that improvement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 3 Mrs. Smith commented that the intensity of the proposed use was an important issue. While residential use may not be appropriate, that does not meet intensively devel- oped office space is appropriate. She informed Mr. Muzzy that the Board's willing- ness to support their articles was dependent on the success of the Planning Board's two proposed amendments affecting the CR district. If those are not adopted, the Planning Board will not support the rezoning for 16 Hayden Avenue. After deciding on several changes, it was agreed the Planning Board would transmit the letter, as amended, to Mr. Muzzy. 257. Parking Articles: Mr. Sorensen advocated, and the Board agreed, that in addition to the public hearing sessions, meetings should be set up with groups or individuals to discuss the proposed parking articles. The Board discussed the articles briefly with Mr. Sorensen pointing to several sections that needed addi- tional work. 258. SOUTH LEXINGTON CIVIC ASSOCIATION Jacquelyn Davison and members of the Steering Committee of the South Lexington Civic Association invited the Planning Board to a meeting to be held on January 12, 1984 at Clarke Junior High School. The purpose is to update residents of the area on a variety of development proposals. The SLCA requested that the Planning Board report on the status of its study and its proposals for Town Meeting. REPORTS 259. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Streets for Acceptance: Mrs. Nichols reported on her inspection of the streets which the Board of Selectmen propose to construct. She noted that Ellis Street may have some merit because it would connect two public streets, Taft Avenue and Oak Street, in a densely developed neighborhood. Norton Road is a dead end street off Brandon Street and could provide improved access to the Great Meadows for fire equipment. She questioned whether there was room for a turnaround. She did not look at Tower Road. The Board agreed to support the construction of Sunnyknoll Avenue, which meets a number of cri- teria and has been advocated by the Board for several years. The Board will not support the construction of Emerald Street. Mr. Bowyer reported that the Selectmen have not adopted criteria for propos- ing unaccepted streets for construction. Mrs. Smith will contact Chairman Politi to determine what criteria the Selectmen used. b. Subcommittee on Approval Not Required Plans: Mr. Sorensen, acting as a subcommittee of one person, reported on a meeting with Norman Cohen and Stephen Anderson of Palmer and Dodge. The situation on Approval Not Required Plans is not clear because of several strange cases that produce a radically different result than a reasonable interpretation of the definitions in the Subdivision Control Law would suggest. The "Smalley" case appears to say that a "lot" under the Subdivision Control Law does not mean the same as a "lot" meeting the zoning requirements and the more a lot is non -conforming with respect to zoning, the greater the Planning Board's obligation to en- dorse a plan under the Subdivision Control Law. He said that case after case PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 4 shows that an approval not required plan is a means of making a reference for recording purposes; it is not a zoning test for the use of a lot for building purposes. It is also not clear what effect notations placed on the plan may have. They are probably not enforcable and merely show the Planning Board's intent at the time the plan was endorsed. If a plan has sufficient frontage, the Plan- ning Board must endorse it. One of the larger problems for the Planning Board is that many people misin- terpret the endorsement. It is not an "approval" and does not confer any zoning status. c. Center Revitalization Committee: Mr. Sorensen reported that the CRC re- viewed proposals for articles for the 1984 Town Meeting. There were a number of problems with developing a large parking lot off Park Drive. Objections were raised by the School Department, the Recreation Commission, Conservation Commission and residents of the Forest Street area. Further investigation will be made of a more limited parking lot in that area. Mr. Sacco's move to revive the School Administration parking lot proposal was defeated by a 3-4-1 vote. Mrs. Nichols reported that the CRC's Land Use Subcommittee, which she chairs and of which Mr. Sorensen is a member, had taken a position opposing additional business district parking on recreation land and in residential areas adjacent to the center. d. Minuteman School Hotel -Conference: Mrs. Smith distributed a summary of ' the hotel proposals submitted to the Minuteman School district. Mr. Bowyer reported a meeting had been tentatively arranged for January 9. Mrs. Smith suggested the meeting be coordinated with the Board of Selectmen who also wanted to meet with the school district. e. Maple Tree Village Subdivision: It was agreed to schedule the public hearing on the subdivision on January 16, 1984. 260. Planning Director a. Hanscom Field Restaurant -Access Road: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had received several telephone calls from a representative of MassPort about the development of a new restaurant on Hanscom Field land in Bedford. One pro- posal to provide access is to construct a road that would connect with the Kiln Brook V development and, thence, out to Maguire Road. While he has had several telephone calls, he has not seen a plan showing an alignment. Such a proposal would pose a number of questions about desirability of the road, its traffic impact on Maguire Road and Hartwell Avenue, whether it should be a public street and presented to the Town Meeting for acceptance, and the con- struction standards it should meet. Those questions may now be moot because the proposal received an inhospitable response in Bedford and may never be presented to Lexington as proposed. b. Retirement Village, East Village Nursing Home: Mr. Bowyer reported that James Gapstur had approached him several times with a proposal to construct a retirement village -congregate living center on land adjacent to the East Vil- lage Nursing Home off Emerson Gardens Road. Mr. Gapstur was in the process of acquiring an option for land. He approached officials in the Town of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 5 Arlington about acquiring development rights for a section of the Great Meadows. Mr. Bowyer reported that he discouraged Mr. Gapstur from making any representation that Lexington officials favored or required any such arrange- ment. After discussion with the Planning Director in Arlington, Mr. Bowyer found that Mr. Gapstur had not received a favorable reception there either. C. Housing Needs Advisory Committee: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had attended a meeting of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee which was also attended by several new people interested in becoming members. Acting Chair- man Eleanor Klauminzer will recommend that several new persons be appointed to the Committee. d. Planning Grant: Mr. Bowyer reported that the Executive Office of Commu- nities and Development'is entertaining applications for financial grants to assist towns in updating comprehensive community plans. The deadline for submitting a grant application is January 6, 1984. As Lexington could only hope to receive between $15,000 and $30,000, the work would have to be limited to one component of a master plan. f The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. �i J ;d;i:th J. Uh Clerk 1 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES EXECUTIVE SESSION OF DECEMBER 19, 1983 After a unanimous vote by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session in Room G-15, Town Offices at 8:07 p.m. to consider the purchase, or exchange of real property, discussion of which in open session may have a -detri- mental effect on the Town's negotiating position. Present were Chairman Smith and members Flemings, Nicho]G-, Sorensen, Planning Director Bowyer and Chairman David Williams and member John Oberteuffer of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Williams explained that the Conservation Commission had just begun to negotiate seriously with the owners of the Pine Meadows Golf Course on a four-part deal 1. Acquisition of a nine -acre, triangular parcel near Bates Road, across Route 128; 2. Acquisition by the Town of the development rights of the Pine Meadows Golf Course, which has about 90 acres of which about 40 acres are wet; the golf course would remain; 3. The Town would grant the right to Pine Meadows Golf Course to lay out nine more holes on the Town -owned school site in the Meagherville area adjacent to the golf course; the golf course has no immediate plans to construct more holes but would have an option to do so; 4. The Town would swap the school site, retaining a conservation easement, for the triangular parcel adjacent to Bates Road. The Conservation Commission is obtaining an appraisal of this deal. It appears that -,the package would be in -excess of $1,000,000. It is estimated that the devel-+- opMent r ghts represent about 70% of the full market value. In discussion of the proposal, the following points were made by members of the Planning Board, Conservation Commission or the Planning Director: 1. The "super block already has a considerable amount of Town -owned land and does not lack for open space. 2. This is a very large parcel with a significant amount of fragile land. 3. A public (available to the public)golf course is rare inside Route 128. This type of golf course is a recreational asset. 4. The Town should obtain legal rights to use the property in the winter for . sledding, skiing, and other recreational activities. 5. Development of the land for housing would place a heavier traffic burden on Cedar Street, an old, narrow Town street. If the area were developed for housing, the Town could incur significant costs to reconstruct Cedar Street. An analysis of the costs and benefits might show that the net costs might look more favorable than the apparent initial acquisition cost. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION OF 12/19/83 6. Some towns, e.g., Brookline and Cambridge, own golf courses which are recreational assets. Operation of a course could be leased to private parties. The Town should think about acquiring the golf course if it is not able to be operated under private auspices. Mr. Sorensen questioned spending the estimated 70% of value without ,acquiring ownership. He suggested investigating complete acquisition of the property and then leasing it back for golf course operations. The Planning Board agreed the Conservation Commission should pursue the matter further and investigate several alternatives ranging from acquisition of develop- ment rights to outright purchase. The Board generally favored retention of the property as a community recreational asset, subject to further details on negotia- tions. The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. and the Board reconven innJ open session. dith J. Uhr' Clerk mss.