Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-11PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters present. 10. Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 21, 1987. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mrs. Klauminzer abstained since she did not attend the meeting) to approve the minutes as corrected. ****************************** REPORTS *********************************** 11. Planning Director a. Massachusetts Housing Partnership: It is expected Lexington's application for designation as a Partnership Community will be acted on this week. b. Rezoning, Middlesex Mall, Northland: They have filed today, the information required for the petition, to rezone a portion of their property off Lowell Street from RO to CD. c. 14-16 Hartwell Avenue: Michael Colangelo met again with Mr. Bow- yer. Mr. Colangelo wished to learn what recommendations the Planning Board would be making to the Board of Appeals before he filed an appli- cation. The Board agreed it would not conduct any review or take any position until the application had been filed with the Board of Ap- peals. The Board may want to have a presentation by the developer but only after a full application had been filed. ******************** ARTICLES FOR 1988 TOWN MEETING ********************** 12. Article C, Nonconforming Situations: The Board began their review of a draft dated 1-1-88. They discussed the difference between non -conforming and non -complying situations, and reviewed the changes to the existing Section 6 of the Zoning By -Law. 13. Article B, Adjustments: The Board continued their discussion of the draft dated 12-17-87. They agreed more work was needed on Sections A, dealing with outdoor off-street parking of commercial vehicles, and Section C, dealing with subsection 9.2.9, Density, of the Zoning By -Law. The Board also agreed to delete Section B, dealing with 9.2.1, Minimum Area of Tract to be Developed, and Section D, dealing with documentation required to determine maximum density in a Planned Residential Development. 14. Article E. Incentives for Affordable Housing: In response to a ques- tion from Mrs. Uhrig, Mr. Bowyer said the purpose of the article was to pro- vide a mechanism to allow a density bonus to developers who build affordable housing. Mr. Sorensen thought it would be difficult to guarantee, even with deed restrictions, that the affordable housing would keep its status as af- fordable housing. They also discussed allowing it in the RO district only. Meeting of January 11, 1988 -2- ******************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ****** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 15. PUBLIC HEARING, Ledgemont, The Beal Company, definitive plan: Mrs. Uhrig opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. by reading the legal notice. Present for the developer were: Peter Nichols, The Beal Company, Gary Larson, Larson Associates and Francis Di Pietro, BSC - Bedford. Mr. Nichols presented the site plan, showing the resubdivision of the site so that Ledgemont I can derive its legal frontage from the proposed street, and Ledgemont II will have approximately 129 feet of legal frontage off the proposed street and retain approximately 290 of legal frontage off Spring Street as well. Mr. Nichols commented the reason for filing his definitive plan for approval by the Board is to freeze their rights for redevelopment under the 1986 Zoning By -Law which allowed an FAR of .25, rather than the amendment passed at the 1987 Town Meeting allowing an FAR of .15. He added they are presenting a "waiverless" plan and an "alternative" plan requiring approval of six waivers, which they say is a better plan. Mr. Larson described the existing traffic patterns as confusing and pre- sented two proposed roadway systems, explaining why the "alternate" hammer- head plan is the better one. ' Mr. DiPietro reviewed the existing water and sewer lines on the site. He stated there will be sufficient water lines to serve both sites, and that they would be adding an 8" sewer main. He added the drainage plans have been reviewed by the Engineering Department and found to be "substantially in compliance" with the Town's Development Regulations. In response to a request from Mr. Williams, Mr. Nichols said they would study the feasibility of constructing a sidewalk along their property on Spring Street. They also agreed the subdivision road would remain a pri- vate road and be maintained entirely by the developer. The hearing was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. 16. Turnbury Hill, off Hill Street, Otis Brown: Landscape Architect Clif- ford Prentiss, representing the developer, presented additional information requested by the Board. He reported approximately 16 trees would be lost if the maximum permitted slope of the road was 10%, and approximately 24 trees would be lost if the maximum permitted slope was held at 8%. He added the road width would be 24 feet, although they ask consideration of a 22 foot road, since it will be a private drive. He also said they would use granite curbing where the roadway grade is greater than 6% In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Prentiss noted that in addition to excessive loss of trees, there would have to be excessive depth of roadway cuts and blasting if the waiver from the 8% slope is not granted. Mr. Sorensen recommended the 8% grade limit not be waived, since it will be difficult for the Board to enforce this regulation in the future, given the precedent this action will set. Meeting of January 11, 1988 -3- In response to a question from Jane Liberman, 17 Diana Lane, as to how many trees will be lost from the site as a result of the subdivision, Mr. Pren- tiss estimated approximately 58 trees out of a total of approximately 250 trees will be lost. The Board will act on the sketch plan at their next meeting. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 17. 131 Spring Street, Raytheon recommendation on SPS and Variance: The Board discussed a letter from E. Leonard Kane, Raytheon, dated January 7, 1988 offering mitigating measures to alleviate any problems caused by addi- tional traffic. They agreed the proposed development was suitable if the applicant provided the mitigating measures proposed in the letter. The Board reviewed a draft report. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to recommend the SPS be granted provided the conditions recommended in the Planning Board report dated January 11, 1988 are incorporated in the decision. The Board discussed the variance from Section 10.3 to provide landscaped transition and screening area adjacent to the property line, requested because the abutting residential property owners do not wish any screening to be placed between them and Raytheon. Mrs. Uhrig noted three out of four ' have requested this in writing because the difference in elevation between Raytheon and the abuttors makes any screening unnecessary and would eventu- a11y block their excellent long distance views. She suggested the fourth abuttor, Mr. Johnson, be given the option to request screening if he wishes. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 3-2-0 (Mrs. Klauminzer and Mr. Sorensen voted in the negative) to recommend the variance be granted, except that Mr. Johnson be given the option to ask for screening between his property and Raytheon if he so wishes. 18. 409 Massachusetts Avenue, Toyota, Otis Brown, additional information: The Board reviewed schematic plans presented by the developer. Mrs. Uhrig reported that the applicant preferred Scheme "C", which will result in the loss of 23 full-sized parking spaces. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to recommend: 1) that the variance be granted waiving compliance with dimensional standards for parking spaces used for the storage or dis- play of automobiles that are for sale, but that parking spaces used for customer and employee parking be required to conform to the dimensional standards set forth in the Zoning By -Law; 2) the slight variance from the front yard setback be granted; and 3) that the new regulations covering the front yard screening and landscaping requirements set forth in Section 10 of the Zoning By -Law be addressed to the maximum extent possible, given the intense use of the site and the awkward layout of parking spaces. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk