Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-03PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Cripps, Klaumin- zer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters. 259. Minutes of October 20, 1986: The Board reviewed the minutes of October 20, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Cripps abstained as he had not attended the meeting) to approve the minutes as written. **************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ SUBDIVISION OF LAND 260. Sunset Ridge, off Buckman Drive: Ms. Rawski reported there were about six violations originally identified which are in variously stages of resolu- tion. She referred to a memo dated October 30, 1986 from the Town Engineer which said the field changes listed in a letter from Thoughtforms Corporation, dated October 22, 1986, had been agreed upon by he and Mr. Goldstein, con- struction manager for the development, and were being carried out. She added Mr. Fields said he had not received all the Geotechnical Reports stamped by a ' Professional Engineer with a statement by the developer that a Geotechnical Engineer will inspect the work. In response to a question from Mrs. Uhrig, Ms. Rawski reported the developer had requested approval for a design change to install granite curbing at the end of the hammerhead turnarounds. The Board agreed that the curbing should be installed vertically rather than sloped. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unamimously to permit the developer to install the granite curbing vertically at the end of the turnarounds. Mr. Goldstein asked the Board to notify the Building Department that the developer could begin rough framing on the one foundation they have completed. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the Building Commissioner issue a building permit for the rough framing stage only. 261. Trinity Covenant Estates, Clematis Road: Mr. Bowyer reported the devel- oper is ready to resume work on the subdivision that was approved in 1980, and has asked the Board to set surety at $25,765, the amount estimated by the Town Engineer in his memo to the Board, dated October 15, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to set surety at $26,000. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimous- ly to waive the requirement for granite curb inlets as requested by the devel- oper, Mr. Freeman. 262. Hill Street, Colwell property: Ms. Rawski showed sketch plans submitted 10/30/86, showing various proposals for a cluster subdivision. She will review them and report to the Board. Minutes of November 3, 1986 Page 2 263. 188 Lowell Street, McNeil Associates: Ms. Rawski reported that the developer has requested a waiver from the requirement to file with the Conser- vation Commission for a determination of wetlands prior to their filing their definitive subdivision plan with the Planning Board. In this case, it is not necessary since the Conservation Commission has already established the line delineating the wetlands. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Soren- sen, it was voted unanimously to waive that requirement in Section 5.3.4 of the Development Regulations. 264. Greystone, Boyd -Smith: The Board reendorsed the surety document for this subdivision, to replace the surety document lost by the bank. 265. PUBLIC HEARING: Lincoln Park Drive subdivision: Mrs. Uhrig declared the continued hearing open at 8:02 by reading the Public Notice as advertised in the Lexington Minute -Man, and announcing that Mrs. Klauminzer would not take part in discussion on this subdivision as she is an abbutor. Joseph Steinkrauss, attorney, representing Mr. Hamilton, the developer, noted there was a tremendous amount of opposition to this four -lot subdivision, and they are considering withdrawing their definitive plan and resubmitting a three lot subdivision for the property. He added they were looking for the Board's reaction to an alternate three -lot proposal. Bruce Stamski, of Stam - ski and McNary, Inc., added this would eliminate most of the problems requir- ing the waivers requested for the plan currently before the Board. Mrs. Uhrig said they could only consider the plan submitted with the applica- tion, and only the drainage portion of that plan, since the public hearing was continued for that purpose only. She added the Board would entertain their withdrawal of the four lot subdivision plan. A three lot plan would be con- sidered as a new submission, but could not be discussed now because it is not the subject of the advertised hearing. The developers left the room to caucus, and returned to request the Board permit them to withdraw their definitive plan, reserving their rights, and ask the hearing be closed. The Board agreed to allow the withdrawal of the appli- cation and four lot subdivision plan, and Mrs. Uhrig declared the hearing closed at 8:22 P.M. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 266. Walnut Street, Robert E. Phelan Ms. Rawski explained this was the same plan the Board did not endorse at their last meeting, because it created a lot without legal frontage. This has been corrected and all lots now have the legal frontage required for the zoning district. On the motion of Mr. Soren- sen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously: to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. (Middlesex County)", dated October 27, 1986, by BSC - Bedford, certified by Donald J. Forand, Professional Land Surveyor, with application Form A/86-25, applicant Robert E. Phelan, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Minutes of November 3, 1986 Page 3 267. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: Ms. Klauminzer gave an oral review of applications to be heard by the Board of Appeals on 11/13/86 and 11/20/86. Meeting of November 13, 1986 453 Concord Avenue, the Cotting School, SP, addition: Mrs. Klauminzer reported her concerns which included the bulk of proposed additions on a small site in a residential neighborhood, whether the parking meets the requirements of the Zoning By -Law, and lighting. The Board agreed they could support the application if the following conditions were included: 1) that the number of students, in perpetuity, be limited to the number requested in the application, 2) that the special permit be limited specifically to this use, in perpituity, 3) that no more development, specifically building additions, shall ever be permitted on this property, 4) that the parking be calculated more specifically and if necessary increased above the minimum stated in the Zoning By-law for a school so that it is adequate for the number of teachers required for a special needs school (66 spaces are provided, however, the application states that up to 78 people may be employed), 5) that the parking lot be illuminated only during the hours of operation and that the lighting be limited to low level illumination, 6) that the submission of a more detailed landscaping plan showing screening of parking areas with substantial plantings be required, 7) that hours of operation be limited to reflect the location in a ' residential area, 8) that no trash pickup be permitted before 7 a.m. or after 9 P.M., 9) that snow storage areas be delineated on the off-street parking and loading plan, 10) that both driveways be paved, 11) that the lighting be designed to minimize the ambient light levels (glow) in the neighborhood, and 12) that the applicable conditions of the agreement between the Krebs School and the abutters executed on July 16, 1973 remain in effect. Mrs. Klauminzer added she felt this should have been an SPS application; that it was too large a proposal to be acted on under an application for a special permit. It was agreed that the Zoning By -Law needs to be corrected in this regard . The Board agreed to make no comment on the following case: 1729 Massachusetts Avenue, The Coffee Connection, SP, renovation of former Baskin-Robbins site to a retail food service store Meeting of November 20, 1986 53-55 Bedford Street, A & D Realty Trust, Variance, Yard Setback: Mrs. Klauminzer explained the applicant wished to enclose a loading dock that extended 10 feet into the rear setback, to clean up the area and for security reasons. The Board questioned the purpose of the enclosed loading dock. They felt if it were used for storage, that could result in an effective expansion of the store, and since no door is shown on the plan, only an open side, there is no reason to believe more security will be achieved as the application represents. They agreed to recommend the Minutes of November 3, 1986 Page 4 special permit be denied since there was a potential expansion of the use, and no justification was given for it. 60 Bedford Street, Walgreens, SP, illuminated sign: The Board recommend- ed the special permit be denied unless the following conditions are included: 1) that the hours of illumination of the signs will be from 5 P.M. until closing time, 2) that the signs be externally illuminated only and not internally illuminated, and 3) that the signs be uniform in color and style, i.e. that different signs, with different colors, lettering and logos not be permitted on the same facade. F. 26 Fremont Street, Christin Worcester, Variance, reconstruct deck: The Board had no objection to the application if the deck is reconstructed to the same dimensions as the old deck. They recommended the additional restrictions: 1) that the deck can never be enclosed and 2) that the proposed stairs be relocated so they do not encroach further into the sideyard setback. 323 Marrett Road, Dunkin Donuts, SP,_ 2 signs: The Board agreed to recom- mend the special permit not be granted. This popular business which is overcrowded on an indequate site does not need additional signs of any ' type, whether internally or externally illuminated, to attract business. The Board agreed to make no comment on the following application: 1265 Massachusetts Avenue, SP, increased business hours for Christmas season, and sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. ********************** ARTICLES FOR 1987 TOWN MEETING *********************** 268. South Lexington Civic Assoc., proposed amendments to the Zoning By -Law: Alan Wade, representing S.L.C.A., discussed the two draft amendments they presented to the Board in a memo dated 11-3-86. He reported their purpose was to slow development and decrease traffic. He mentioned the previous "down - zoning" the Board had done, and urged the Board to continue in this vein, and also referred to Selectmen Eddison's letter this past week in the "Minute -Man" recommended the need for restraint in commercial development. Mrs. Uhrig noted that a public hearing is required for proposed zoning amend- ments, and the Board could not take an official position until after the public hearing. Mr. Wade replied they were looking for the reaction of individual members to the following amendments to the Zoning By -Law which would: 1) limit the developable area of an CR District to 0.15, and require that parking garages and parking areas be included within the 0.15, and 2) require there be two separate driveways for developments in the CR Districts. Mrs. Uhrig agreed that any comments would be the opinions of the individual Board members, and noted that the two suits pending against the Town place additional constraints on any comments they might make. Minutes of November 3, 1986 Page 5 Mrs. Klauminzer asked how they had determined the 0.15 figure. Mr. Wade responded they felt this was about as low as they felt they could politically set it. In response to a question as to how well a FAR of 0.25 had held up in reality, Mr. Bowyer said the FAR had been calculated to maintain a balance between how much more development could occur and the traffic -carrying capacity of the streets in the CR Districts, Mr. Sorensen noted that if parking garages were included in the calculation of floor area, the FAR would need to be raised to achieve the same effect as the current FAR calculation which does not include garage floor space. Mr. Bowyer observed that one consequence might be that there would be more effort to use parking lots, which could require much more intensive development of the land, such as the terracing of steep slopes, which should be left alone. Frank Sandy, added that originally the elimination of steep slopes in comput- ing developable area had been included in the computation of the developable area, and had been eliminated during the Town Meeting debate for approval of the FAR of 0.25, so the FAR is actually higher if the figures were not adjust- ed for this. He noted the FAR is 20% in the CM District, and he felt this was a good time to to correct the FAR in the CR District. Mr. Bowyer noted the exclusion of land of more than 15% slope, included in the ' original calculations, was eliminated before Town Meeting, and the figures had been recalculated. He added the FARs were based on the traffic capacity of the streets in the several zoning districts and not on the other dimensional controls. Mrs. Klauminzer asked if safety concerns were the justification for requiring two driveways. She was not sure this would help traffic on the Town's streets. Mr. Sorensen commented two driveways might make traffic conditions worse; one driveway would stack the cars exiting onto the private property, and would slow the rate at which cars could join the existing traffic. Mr. Wade replied they felt safety required two means of access. Mr. Sandy com- mented from the safety standpoint there should be at least a secondary emergency driveway. In response to a comment about the accuracy of traffic studies, Mr. Sorensen noted they are done by professional traffic engineers, whose reputations are on the line, no matter who pays the bill. Mr. Bowyer added that in all the traffic studies required for development in Lexington he has seen, there has never been any evidence that results were slanted toward the developer just because he pays for the report. There is another check because the staff reviews the traffic data in comparison with traffic data from nearby inter- sections. Joy Buchfirer commented that when the 0.25 FAR passed at Town Meeting, every- one had agreed this would be a good figure, but she felt the results from the use of this FAR level have proven it needs to be reduced further. Minutes of November 3, 1986 Page 6 ******************************* REPORTS *********************************** 269. Planning Board, Subcommittees: a. Bikeway Committee: Mrs. Wood reported the committee was at the stage to request proposals for construction. 270. Planning Director: a. South Lexington Study: Mr. Bowyer reported request for proposals had been sent out for the study, and there have been three responses so far. b. Zoning Map: Mr. Bowyer reported the map has been sent back to the printers for the third time for corrections, and should be ready for distribution soon. EXECUTIVE SESSION: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, after an individual poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation of two suits pending against the Town, and to reconvene in open session for the purpose of adjourning only. The Planning Board returned to open session at 10:50 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 P.M. • 1 V Martha Wood, Clerk 1 C 1 PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF NOVEMBER 39 1986 After a unanimous vote of the five members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Office Building, at 10:15 P.M. to discuss strategy with respect to litigation which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. Present were Chairman Uhrig, and members Cripps, Klau- minzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters. The Board discussed two pending court cases resulting from Board of Appeals decisions on the applications for a Special Permit and a Variance by the 191 Spring Street Trust (Boston Properties) to add three additional buildings, parking facilities and stuctures, and other improvements on the site at 191 Spring Street, in which the Board of Appeals denied the Special Permit, and granted the Variance for frontage. The Board discussed the implications on these cases of a legal case regarding traffic issues in Braintree, Mass. The Board also discussed several options that the Town may wish to consider regarding the resolution of this issue. The Board agreed that Town Counsel should be asked to communicate this information to the Board of Selectmen. The Executive Session adjourned at 10:50 P.M. and the Board returned to open session. Martha Wood, Clerk