Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-28ft PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 28, 1984 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING 69. Article 14, Parking Requirements: The Board reviewed the revised motion to be offered under this article and made several changes. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to approve the motion to be offered, as amended. 70. Article 16, Parking, Central Business District: The Board reviewed a revised draft of the motion to be offered under this article and made additional changes. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to approve the motion to be offered under this article, as amended. The Board reviewed the revised draft of the report and changes were made. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the Town Meeting approve the amendments, as set forth in the motion to be attached to the report, and that the report on Article 16, as amended, be approved. The Board reviewed a final draft of the "Land Use and Development Policies for Lexington Center" and changes were made. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to adopt the "Land Use and Development Policies for Lexington Center" as amended. These policies will be distributed to Town Meeting members as a companion to the Planning Board's report on Article 16. 71. Article 18, CR District,;Floor Area Ratio: The Board was in receipt of a letter dated March 26, 1984, from Norman Richards representing the Xerox Corpora- tion and signed by Lee Mapletoft for W. R. Grace and Michael Manzo for the Beal Companies, which offered a compromise proposal acceptable to all three property owners. The proposal was to delete from the definition of developable site area wetlands, areas of steep slopes, Wetland Protection zoning district, and other residential districts and to set the floor area ratio at 0.40. The effect of that compromise proposal was the floor area ratio would be 0.40 based on lot area, with no land excluded in the calculation of developable site area. Lee Mapletoft, of W. R. Grace, was present and explained this letter responds to a Planning Board request to determine what all the property owners would agree to. He wanted the Board to understand he had signed that letter because it was what all the property owners would agree to. W. R. Grace's position is still that an FAR of 0.35, based on developable site area, i.e., with wetlands not included in the calculation, was acceptable. Mr. Sorensen reported on some calculations of traffic impacts that he had run on his computer. He had used the traffic data from Norman Abend's three reports, for clients on Spring Street and Hayden Avenue, and the floor area data developed by the Planning Department staff. Using the methodology outlined in Abend's report, he had assigned the trips generated from the additional floor space to the four intersections in the area that are affected. Citing the Spring Street -Hayden Avenue intersection as an example, he showed that the floor area ratio of 0.25 would result in about 2,600 trips entering the intersection in the morning peak Planning Board Minutes of March 28, 1984 2 hour. The compromise alternative proposal of the three property owners, i.e., an FAR of 0.40 based on lot area, would result in more than 4,000 vehicles entering the Spring Street -Hayden Avenue intersection. He had made other calculations with alternative FAR scenarios such as 0.30 and 0.35. He concluded that even at an FAR of 0.25, as proposed by the Planning Board, the Town will have problems at several of the intersections and will have to make improvements to bring the capacity of those intersections up to acceptable levels. Mr. Bowyer reported that he had talked with traffic engineer Norman Abend about the comments contained in the Beal and Company letter of March 12, 1984, that suggested there was sufficient traffic carrying capacity at the intersections and that the Planning Board had not had the benefit of "professional traffic advice." Mr. Bowyer said that he and Abend agreed on a common set of data for the analysis but that Abend had three points with which he differed in the interpretation of the data: 1) Abend doubted that the amount of floor area used in some of the calculations would ever be built because congestion would act as a brake on the amount of development, 2) mathematically assigning increased trip generation to the one-hour peak period overstated the case because as congestion increases, traffic will avoid the con- centrated peak period and will spread out over a longer time period, and 3) the level of service calculation and the traffic carrying capacity of the intersections would be changed by improvements such as traffic signals, channelization and other traffic operations techniques. Mr. Bowyer commented that the trip generation estimates used by he and Mr. Sorensen were probably understated because the lower peak hour trip generation, characteris- tic of professional offices, was used and no allowance was made for development in nearby Waltham or elsewhere in Lexington or on Route 128 generally. Abend's second point might be true but the effect would be to spread the period of congestion longer and to increase the impact on residential streets. He agreed with Abend's third point but questioned whether the money would be found, if it involved Town expenditure, to make the needed traffic improvements. Mrs. Smith asked if any members of the Board wanted to change the Board's proposal; none indicated any desire to do so. It was agreed a proposal would be made at a floor area ratio of 0.25 based on net developable site area from which land in other zoning districts and in wetlands would be excluded but land in steep slopes would still count in the calculation of developable site area. The staff was requested to prepare a report on Article 18. 72. Article 19, Special Permits, Traffic Considerations: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to recommend to the Town Meeting that this amendment be approved and that the Planning Board approve the report, as written. 73. Article 20, Lot Frontage, Lot Width: On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the Town Meeting approve the amendments and that the Planning Board approve the report as written. 74. Article 22, Setback for Swimming Pools: In a poll of the Board, four members were not in favor of the amendment proposed by Eric Clarke; Mrs. Uhrig was in favor of the amendment. It was agreed that the report would state that it was primarily a judgement matter for the Town Meeting on which the Planning Board did not have strong feelings. Planning Board Minutes of March 28, 1984 3 75. Article 24, CD, Hayden Avenue: Mr. Sorensen thought there were essentially two issues: 1) if the CR floor area limitation does not pass, then clearly the Board would have to be against the Temple, Barker, Sloane proposal, and 2) the CR district calls for a five acre minimum lot area and this proposal has about two acres. Mrs. Smith thought that the sight line from the Route 2 off ramp had to be guaranteed and the Town should have concrete proof that the sight line can be improved. Other members expressed concern about the amount of pedestrian traffic between 16 Hayden Avenue and the company's existing building at 33 Hayden Avenue. The consensus of the Board was that commercial use was appropriate for that location. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. udith J. Uhr Clerk 1