Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-27PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 27, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:43 by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mr. Sorensen was absent. Mrs. Nichols joined the meeting during item 261. Mrs. Flemings left the meeting due to illness. 261. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS 1 Cranberry Hill, off Marrett Road, Nolan Norton: SP: Larry Smith of Nolan Norton was present and showed slides illustrating a proposed change in the exterior mater- ials of the building. The Board reviewed a draft of a report on the special permit and agreed to make several changes. Mr. Smith distributed a letter from architect Eduardo Catalano explaining the calculation of building height, which varies from 53 feet to 69 feet with an average of 59.9 feet. Mr. Bowyer explained that method of calculation is permitted by the definition of building height in the Zoning By - Law. Next, Mr. Smith explained the selection of a brown -toned pre -cast architectural grade concrete panel which they propose to use in place of the brick specified in the Site Development and Use Plan. Mr. Bowyer noted that Section 8.2.4 of the Zoning By -Law permitted minor deviations from the plan approved by Town Meeting provided they do not conflict with the intent of the plan. Mrs. Smith commented that the substitution produces a better result rather than a reduction in quality. It was agreed to comment in the report that the Planning Board has no problem with the substitution. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-0 to rec- ommend in favor of granting the special permit and to approve the report as corrected. Mrs. Nichols joined the meeting at this point. 92-100 Hayden Avenue, Boston Properties: SPS: Mr. Bowyer reported on updated information that showed the building had 55,000 square feet of gross floor area, resulting in a parking deficit of 36 spaces. He also reported on a conversation with Norman Abend, traffic engineer, who said that level of service "C" could be maintained at the Spring Street -Concord Avenue intersection by minor traffic im- provements dealing with right turns. There was some discussion about the developer making a financial contribution toward traffic improvements in the area. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously: 1) to recommend that if specified conditions relative to parking (or the reduction of floor space), screening of the site from Route 2 and a contribution to traffic improvements, are met, the Planning Board would be in favor of granting the special permit with site plan review, and 2) to approve the revised report dated December 27, 1983. 92-100 Hayden Avenue, Boston Properties: Variance, Parking Dimensions: Mr. Bowyer reported that Boston Properties had requested a variance for the width of aisle in the parking lot. The layout and dimensions of the parking lot comply with the standards in the Planning Board's proposed revision of the parking requirements in the Zoning By -Law. It was agreed that the Board would make no objection to grant- ing the variance requested because it is consistent with the Board's proposed amendment to the Zoning By -Law. Planning Board Minutes of December 27, 1983 2 Mrs. Smith presented an oral review of cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on January 12, 1983. It was agreed to make no recommendation on the following two cases: 959 Waltham Street, Lexington Lodge of Elks: SP, temporary trailers 2317 Mass. Avenue, Michael Rizzo: Variance, retain steps Piper Road and Waltham Street, H. E. Erikson: Variance, undersized lot: Mr. Bowyer observed that the eligibility for a variance depended heavily upon whether there was a hardship resulting from the amount of the damages paid in the 1964 eminent domain taking that included part of this former lot in the Route 2 right-of-way. If the State's compensation was based on the remaining land being a non -buildable lot, there would be no hardship now. Mrs. Smith commented that under the eminent domain procedure, an owner has the opportunity to seek compensation for damages. It is not the Town's responsibility to rectify the situation now depending upon the action or inaction of the owner in pursuit of compensation. Mrs. Smith noted the applicant argued that the lot was "really" more than 21,000 square feet because there was so much State-owned land adjacent to it. The Board agreed that under no circumstances should land not owned by a petitioner be taken into account. Mrs. Flemings observed that the present owner, who acquired the property in 1974, knew that he was purchasing an undersized lot and, hence, would have no hardship. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Nichols commented on the rocky nature of the site and the ' difficulty of constructing a house conforming to suitable design grades. Mrs. Smith said that requests for other variances appeared inevitable and the Town should know the whole package now. Mrs. Nichols observed there could be a poten- tial cost to the Town if the proposed septic system fails and the Town has to pro- vide sewer service. She said that permitting a new house to be built with a septic system was contrary to the Town's policy of providing sewer service for all dwellings. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to recommend against granting the variance for the undersized lot. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 262. Blossomcrest Subdivision, Final Release of Surety: The Board was in receipt of a letter from David F. Eagle, received November 17, 1983, requesting release of surety and a memorandum from Francis X. Fields, Town Engineer, dated December 12, 1983, stating that a final field inspection had been made and all work had been completed but a set of as -built plans had not yet been received. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to release all surety held on the Blossomcrest Subdivision upon receipt of a set of as -built plans which are satisfactory to the Town Engineer. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING 263. Lot Frontage, Lot Width: Mr. Bowyer explained that the key change in the lot frontage was to acquire a legal right of access. That would eliminate the ambi- guity in the By -Law by which one might claim frontage on a limited access State highway, such as Route 128. The second part of the article would introduce a 1 Planning Board Minutes of December 27, 1983 3 minimum lot width requirement which would work against irregularly-shaped "pork chop," "rat tail," and "dumbbell" lots. Mrs. Uhrig thought it was important that the minimum lot width apply to both commercial and residential properties. It was agreed that more technical work needed to be done on the article. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 3-0 to submit the article for inclusion in the warrant. 264. Technical Corrections: The Board reviewed a proposed article making house- keeping corrections to the Zoning By -Law which do not carry any substantive change. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 3-0 to submit the article for inclusion in the warrant. 265. CR District, Floor Area Ratio: It was agreed that further technical work needed to be done but the Planning Board should go forward with the article. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-0 to submit the article for inclusion in the warrant. 266. Streets for Acceptance: The Board continued its discussion of the unaccepted streets proposed for construction by the Board of Selectmen in their letter dated December 8, 1983. Mr. Bowyer reported that the Board of Selectmen had not adopted criteria for upgrading unaccepted streets but had discussed the criteria recom- mended by the Planning Board and the Public Works Director and had "more or less" used them in selecting the streets for the 1984 Town Meeting. Mr. Bowyer reviewed the memorandum to the Town Manager dated October 5, which set forth criteria for upgrading unaccepted streets to Town streets. Mrs. Smith urged that the Planning Board's letter to the Board of Selectmen make a strong plea for the Town to develop its own priority list of streets to be up- graded and not to depend on petitions from abutters. If the petitions of abutters coincide with a street on the Town's list, all the better, but they should not be a substitute for the Town's priorities. She also noted that there were a large num- ber of streets in category "A" in the Master Plan for Unaccepted Streets prepared by the Engineering Department. There need to be criteria for selecting streets from among that group. Those streets should be grouped into packages such as annual appropriations, that would reflect those criteria and priorities. With regard to the specific streets, the Board agreed to make the following recom- mendations: Only Sunnyknoll Avenue is of major importance; none of the other streets would be in the same priority group. Sunnyknoll Avenue -- The most important street in the group, receiving strong support from the Planning Board. Tower Road -- Is a worthwhile candidate for acceptance. It may direct more neighborhood traffic to Locust Avenue which intersects with Massachusetts Avenue at a signalized intersection. That may result in less traffic using Independence Avenue. Ellis Street icant number Oak Street, -- Is an acceptable candidate because it would service a signif- of houses on Taft Avenue by providing a connection through to another public street. Planning Board Minutes of December 27, 1983 4 Norton Road -- There are other more worthy streets requiring Town expendi- tures. Norton Road is a dead end street that appears to be in good condi- tion. There may be some difficulties in laying out a turnaround at the end of the street. The one advantage of Norton Road is that it leads to the Great Meadows and might improve access for fire equipment. Emerald Street -- The Board is not in favor of including Emerald Street among the streets for acceptance. Town money should not be used to create a public street where there are opportunities for new residential construction. As in the subdivision procedure, the developer should pay for the installation of the street and utilities. About one half of the "street" proposed to be con- structed is not an unaccepted street. For zoning and building purposes, it is a paper right-of-way which has the same status as a piece of vacant land. With so many segments of unaccepted street to be improved, it is not a good precedent for the Town to be spending money to build a street on vacant land. In addition, fill has recently been placed in the paper right-of-way. The Town ordered the fill removed from in front of the Town -owned lots; apparent- ly there is private legal action as well. It is not advisable to proceed with construction of this street until these matters are resolved. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 267. Planning Grant Application: The Board reviewed a draft of an outline of work on a economic development analysis. With the amount of money likely to be avail- able from the Executive Office of Communities and Development, it seems advisable ' to submit an application for planning funds for one component of a comprehensive plan. Mr. Bowyer explained that economic development analysis is one area which he does not currently have programmed for work. If money can be obtained and a con- sultant hired, work on this item can go forward. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-0 to proceed with an application to EOCD for a grant to undertake economic development planning. REPORTS 268. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Housing Needs Advisory Committee: On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 4-0 to appoint the following additional members to the Planning Board's Housing Needs Advisory Committee: Joel Adler, 22 Village Circle Tina Dirks, 5 Field Road David Kravetz, 3 Abernathy Road Esther Lobell, 26 Drummer Boy Lane Frank Parsons, 12 Warren Street Those persons will serve with Sherry Edmonds, Arturo Gutierrez, Eleanor Klauminzer and Ruth Nablo who now make up the membership of the Housing Needs Advisory Com- mittee. Planning Board Minutes of December 27, 1983 5 b. Minuteman Voc Tech Hotel -Conference Center: A meeting with representatives of the Minuteman School District will be held on January 9 with the Board of Select- men. The Board discussed its concerns and agreed to raise the following issues: 1) Has there been a feasibility study of providing the same type of hotel -restau- rant training in conjunction with existing hotels and restaurants without building a new hotel -conference center on the site? 2) Has a site analysis been conducted which would identify wetlands, the amount of impervious surface, and other natural features? A site analysis is a prerequisite for sound development. 3) Will any existing playfields and recreation areas be lost? 4) What is the traffic impact of the additional development? Even with a reconstruction of Marrett Road, the traf- fic level of service in the area will barely be restored to "C". 5) Using public resources to produce a hotel -conference center, appears to be counterproductive to the use of other public resources, by the National Park Service, to recreate an 18th century character. 6) Ther% needs to be a legal opinion on how far the educa- tional use can be stretched with respect to zoning regulations and real estate tax exemption. c. HATS: Mrs. Uhrig reported the Hanscom Area Traffic Study Committee would meet on January 3 for a discussion of alternatives for circumferential traffic routing around Hanscom Field. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m..Uhr' Cler'i rj ith Jk C