Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-08PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1987 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminaer, Sorensen, Williams, Woods, Planning Director Bowyer, Assis- tant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters present. 165. Minutes for the meetings of 3/23/87 and 5/26/87: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of March 23, 1987. �In item 102, page 6, Mr. Sorensen felt, and the Board agreed, appropriate language should be added to make it clear that statements attributed to Town Counsel were Mr. Bowyer's report to the Board of his discussions with Town Counsel. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Williams abstained as he had not attended the meeting), to approve the minutes as corrected. The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of May 26, 1987. In Item 160, the Board requested more information be added clarifying Mr. Roger Estey's relation- ship with Terri E. Junior, the applicant who signed Form A/87-15 and Form A/87-16 on behalf of Oakmount Realty Trust for land off Oakmount Circle. Mr. Williams said that he remembered Mr. Estey saying at the 4/25/87 meeting that he had just received the deed for the "bow -tie" lot, (lot 4), and Mr. Williams asked that this comment be added to the minutes. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes as corrected. ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************** 166. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting of June 11, 1987: Mrs. Uhrig gave an oral review of the following appli- cations to be heard by the Board of Appeals. 537 Lowell Street, Hugh Leichtman, SP, continued use of barn as living quarters: Mrs. Uhrig reported this is a renewal of an annual permit. The Board agreed it has no objection to the renewal of this permit, provided the same conditions are included as were contained in the existing permit. 130 Pleasant Street, Lexington Montesorri School, SP, temporary use of modular unit for two classrooms: Mrs. Uhrig reported they are planning an addition of two classrooms in the near future, and have over -enrolled until the construction is completed. Mrs. Wood questioned whether the Board should recommend approval for the use of temporary units without any specif- ic plans before them. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unanimously to recommend the special permit be grant- ed with the following conditions: 1) provided the use of the trailer is incidental to the proposed construction of additional classrooms, 2) provided the permit is limited to two years, and 3) provided neighbors do not object. At 8:00 p.m., the Board interrupted its review of these applications to conduct a public hearing for the Ledgemont Center, preliminary plan, scheduled for that time. Minutes of June 8, 1987 Page 2 After the public hearing, the Board resumed their review of the Board of Appeals cases for June 11, 1987. Meeting of June 11, 1987: 64 Garfield Street, Harriet Mann, Variance, front yard setback to add porch: Mrs. Uhrig read a letter from the applicant giving her reasons for requesting the variance. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Williams abstained) to recommend the variance be denied since no hardship has been demonstrated. 8 Columbus Street, Louis & Barbara Bentley, Variance, rear yard setback, contin- ued use of deck: Mrs. Uhrig reported the deck had been constructed without obtaining a building permit, and intrudes nine feet into the setback. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorenson, it was voted unanimously to recom- mend the variance be denied since no hardship has been demonstrated. The Board also felt construction done without a building permit should not be tolerated, and is no basis for a claim of hardship. Greeley Village, Tewksbury Street, Variance, rear yard setback for construction of a special needs residence and educational unit in the RM district: The Board reviewed plans of the proposed building. They agreed that even though the site is in the RM district, which requires a 40 foot setback, the building is essen- tially a single family home, and not a multi -family dwelling, and appears compat- ible with its surroundings. A 20 foot setback, which is more than the 15 foot ' setback required for a one family dwelling in the RO and RS districts, seems a sufficient setback to require. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to support the application for a variance, since the building will have the appearance of a single residence. The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following applications: 80 Maple Street, Amina Nahabet, SP, to allow Saturday openings at Care -a Lot Child Center. 2 Mason Street, Hannah & Gustav Papenek, Variance, side yard setback to construct an addition. Meeting of June 25, 1987: Mr. Williams gave an oral review of the following cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals: 114 Burlington Street, James & Helen Pitarys, Variance, side yard setback to add a greenhouse: Mr. Williams reported the applicant felt the location was the only suitable one and they had already made a sizable down payment on the greenhouse. The Board agreed the incursion into the setback, leaving only a 7.2 foot setback, was too great, and recommended the variance be denied. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to recommend the vari- ance be denied as no hardship has been demonstrated. 52 Lowell Street, Rosina Busa, SP, continued operation of roadside stand: The application is for a renewal of the special permit granted last year. Apparently there were some reported violations of the permit, but none were ever verified by the Building Commissioner. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to recommend the special permit be granted Minutes of June 8, 1987 Page 3 provided: 1) the same conditions are included in the permit as were in the existing permit, and 2) the Building Commissioner certifies these conditions are being met. 14 Muzzey Street, Muzzey Street Realty Trust, Variance, front yard setback and Variance, providing two compact car size parking spaces: The Board agreed they did not find the small triangular portion of the building too great an intrusion into the front yard setback. However, they noted the "tower" portion of the building is higher than allowed in the Zoning By -Law. The Board recommended the variance be granted if the height of the building could be brought into compli- ance with the By -Law. They also recommend the variance be granted allowing two compact parking spaces to save some trees. However, they noted that the location of the loading bay does not serve the building well. They felt the variance should be granted only if the loading bay is relocated close to the entrance of the building. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unanimously to recom- mend the variances be approved if the height of the building can be brought into compliance with the Zoning By -Law, and if the loading bay is relocated. 1729 Massachusetts Avenue, Coffee Connection, Inc., SP, projecting sign: Mr. Williams reported they applied for a projecting sign because they felt the re- building next door could obscure a sign on the building. The Board was opposed to granting a special permit for a projecting sign because it does not meet the ' criteria required by subsection 13.4.3. They noted there are no other projecting signs in the immediate area, and other businesses have operated successfully in this highly visible location without projecting signs. Mr. Williams moved the Board recommend the special permit be approved. There being no second to the motion, no vote was taken. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 4-1-0, with Mr. Williams opposed, to recommend the special permit be denied. 440 Bedford Street, Days Inn Lexington, SP, to change the existing signs: Mr. Williams reported that one of the goals in the design of the new sign was to make make it visible from Route 128. The Board vigorously opposed this objective. They also noted that internally illuminated signs are not permitted by the Zoning By -Law. on the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to recommend the special permit be granted only if the new sign is no higher or larger than the existing sign, externally illuminated and no reader board is allowed. The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following applications: 14 Parker Street, James and Susan Lalone, Variance to rebuild steps, and SP, to replace flat roof. 58 Oak Street, Myla Kabat-Zinn, Variance, to add a bay window and rebuild the front porch landing. Minutes of June 8, 1987 Page 4 SUBDIVISION OF LAND 167, PUBLIC HEARING, Ledgemont Center subdivision, preliminary plan: Mrs. Uhrig opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Bowyer did not participate in the hearing, as he is an abuttor. Peter Nichols, representing Beal Companies, gave a brief summary of the reasons for filing the application, the main one being to freeze their present FAR (Floor Area Ratio) at .25. With the passage of Article 48 at the 1987 Town Meeting, the FAR has been changed to .15. He commented this would mean the loss of between 15,000 to 209000 sq. ft. of office space with the FAR reduced to .15. He added they must file a subdivision plan, get it approved and built in order to preserve future office expansion options for eight years. In response to a question from Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Nichols reported the total floor area of the buildings was between 270,000 to 280,000 sq ft. Mr. Nichols introduced Gary Larson, of Larson Associates, who reviewed the site development plans. The two existing lots will be resubdivided so that the Ledge- mont One parcel will derive its legal frontage from the proposed subdivision street. The Ledgemont Two parcel will have approximately 114 feet of frontage on the proposed street and retain approximately 503 feet of frontage along Spring Street. The frontage of both parcels on Hayden Avenue will remain unchanged. Mr. Larson explained the existing interior drive layout and explained how it would connect with the proposed 145 foot long cul-de-sac. He noted some severe cuts, through ledge, would be required for the street. ' Mr. Nichols asked for direction from the Board as to how to proceed in their preparations for filing a definitive plan. The Board noted they did not like the shape of the "lolly -pop" turnaround, and suggested the applicant explore other shapes, such as a hammerhead turnaround. They also had concerns about excessive cuts through ledge. Mr. Williams asked whether it was worth tearing up what was in place in order to preserve their right to build an additonal 15,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. of office space. The Board also had concerns about who would be responsible for maintenance of the turnaround. The hearing was closed at 8:52. Later in the evening the Board continued their discussion of what direction they wished to give the developer in the preparation of a definitive plan. They agreed to encourage Beal Company to try an alternative turnaround, perhaps a modified hammerhead turnaround that integrates more smoothly with existing drive- ways. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unanimously to approve the preliminary plan with the following conditions and recommendations: 1) that in accordance with the Engineering Department's memorandum dated October 22, 1986, the applicant must use the standard detail sheets of the Engineering Department; if a special structure is required that is not shown on the standard detail sheets, a detail of the special structure shall be provided. Minutes of June 8, 1987 Page 5 2) that the comments of the Engineering Department, as set forth in their memorandum dated June 1, 1987, be incorporated into the definitive plan. 3) that the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the street be borne by the current e.,: future owners of the property, and that this condi- tion be placed in the deed of each property. 4) that the areas in which the proposed building expansion would occur, be designated and that the lots be resubdivided so that the proposed expansion would comply with the dimensional controls and other requirements of the Zoning By -Laws. Comments, Recommendations: The Planning Board recommends that the applicant study alternative ways of integrating the subdivision street to the existing roadway system, in a manner that would be less disruptive to the site while offering an improved internal circulation pattern. Mr. Williams requested the developer research whether the subdivision road must be built. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood it was voted unanimously to approve the Preliminary Plan with the conditions, comments and recommendations listed above, and to authorize the Assistant Planner to sign the decision on behalf of the Board. ' 16g; Graystone subdivision, Boyd/Smith, release of remaining lots: Ms. Rawski reported there is ample surety remaining to insure completion of the subdivision, and the developer has requested the remaining lots be released. On the motion of Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to release lots 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9. 169. Grassland St. Development, Robert Phelan, endorsement of definitive plan: Ms. Rawski reported the plans were ready for the Board's endorsement. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously that the Planning Director be empowered to endorse the plans for the Board when all the required legal documents have been received. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 170. CUS/1, Earl Street, Landrier: Ms. Rawski reported the applicant wishes to comply with the policy and seeks direction from the Board as to how to accomplish this. The Board agreed he must widen the existing street enough to qualify it as a street, build a good quality 12" gravel base from his lot to end of the paved section of Earl Street, and provide adequate documentation that he has the neces- sary rights to make the improvements within the layout of Earl Street. The applicant asked the Board to consider two alternatives and the Board preferred connection of the improvements to the end of the paved section of Earl Street rather than connecting along Ash Street to its intersection with Ward Street. The length of improvements is approximately the same in either alternative. 171. CUS/2, Ward Street, Campagnone: The Board discussed Ms. Rawski's memo dated 6/5/87 related to this property. The Board recommended a restriction be added to the deed stating it will be the property owner's responsibility and not the town's to maintain the road. Mr. Sorensen noted that the area is densely Minutes of June 8, 1987 Page 6 populated and the road really should be brought up to town standards, i.e, paved with a good quality gravel base. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to require the applicant to put in a good quality 12 " gravel base all the way to Garfield. 172• CUS/3, Valley Road, Massucco: Ms. Rawski reported the applicant has sub- mitted a page from a 1942 Atlas from the Registry of Deeds which shows Valley Road on it, 2) an opinion of an attorney that the lot can be built upon and 3) an affidavit of Arthur D. Massucco stating the road has been in existence and passable since 1914. He has not submitted an opinion of an attorney indicating he has the right to make the improvements, and has not addressed the provision requiring maintenance type improvements in the intervening distance between his lot and the point at which Valley Road becomes a public way. Ms. Rawski noted the applicant is willing to improve the road and they have submitted plans to improve approximately 400 ft. of Valley Road, which is more than they are requir- ed to do by the policy, but they have not addressed any maintenance type improve- ments in the intervening distance as required by the policy. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to require the applicant, in addition to what they have proposed to do, to improve the road for 400 feet, do maintenance work on the remaining stretch of the road, including, at a minimum, filling the potholes, and provide proof he has the right to make the improvements to the road. 173. Revision of Policy on Construction Standards for Unaccepted Streets: ' Mr. Sorensen made a general comment questioning whether the town can require construction standards for unaccepted streets that are more severe than what the town has required for existing accepted streets. After more preliminary discussion, Mr. Williams proposed, and the Board agreed, that due to the lateness of the evening, further discussion of this item be deferred until the beginning of the next meeting on June 29, 1987. ************************* PLANNING BOARD WORK SCHEDULE ************************ 174. Discussion of Upcoming Projects: The Board discussed Mr. Bowyer's memo dated 5/20/87, to Town Counsel entitled "Research Project, Zoning Nonconformity". Mr. Bowyer reported the memo had been prepared to provide an outline of work for a summer intern at Palmer and Dodge, as they are looking for worthwhile research projects for interns to "be tested on". Mr. Bowyer will meet with Mr. Cohen in the near future to discuss the memo. In response to a question from Mr. Wil- liams, Mr. Bowyer noted the end product is to provide a draft of a new Section 6, of the Zoning By -Law, dealing with nonconformity. ***************************** REPORTS*****+t********************************** 175. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. Board of Appeals: Mrs. Wood reported the Board of Appeals approved all the applications before them on May 28, 1987. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Martha C. Wood, Clerk