TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 7, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Appointment of Master Plan Committee
Mr. Whitehead reported that the Chairs of the various constituent committees have put forward the names of representatives and that applications have been received from two residents for the three available ‘at large’ member positions.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint to approve the list of members of the Master Plan Committee as compiled by Mr. Whitehead. Passed 5-0.
Hawkins, 69 Page Road
The Board signed the decision for a site plan approval for a new residence.
Selden, 21 Huckleberry Hill
The Board signed the decision for a site plan approval for an addition to a residence.
Exempt Institutional Uses
The Chair reported that the Board of Selectmen are interested in exploring this topic and have suggested a joint public discussion. In view of the Planning Board’s ongoing attention to the subject (including the recent discussion of legal aspects with Joel Bard), the preference was for further work by the Planning Board, possibly followed by a newspaper article.
8:00PM: PUBLIC HEARING: PETER AND SUSAN PEASE, 40 Huckleberry Hill (Map 88/ Lot 14), site plan review for addition to single family residence in the R-1 zone.
The proposal is for a rear porch addition to a single family house, together with a patio and hot tub. It was reported that the proposal has already been presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA determined that the floorspace of the expanded house triggered the need for site plan review by the Planning Board in addition to its own deliberations. Neighbors, Art and Susan Kluge of 111 Old County Road, wrote to the ZBA expressing concern about the possible effect of the development on the stability of the very steep slope between the proposal and their house which is at a lower level. In response, the applicant commissioned a report from an engineer. Copies of the neighbors’ letter and engineer’s report were provided to the Planning Board.
Peter Pease presented the proposal. Mr. Domnitz asked how the property lines related to the engineer’s sketch. The applicant stated that the near-vertical slope is approximately on the property line. The Board referred to the Assessor’s map. The Board determined that the porch addition will take the building closer to the lot line, and that the hot tub will be close to the slope, but noted that it was the house floorspace rather than the patio and hot tub that raised the need for site plan review. The applicant said he considered that the engineer’s report addressed the neighbor’s concern satisfactorily. The Board discussed the extent of its responsibility under site plan review in relation to the stability issue. It concluded that it could reasonably examine whether the form of the proposed development was likely to
cause any long term problems for neighboring lots, analogous to its consideration of water run-off issues. It considered that the submitted engineer’s report addressed the issue and that its recommendations should be followed. The Board noted that approval from the ZBA would still be needed and that safety during construction was a matter for the Building Inspector.
The Board examined the likely visual impact of the proposal. Mr. Domnitz commented that in a non-conforming situation it seemed rather aggressive to seek to expand closer to the lot line. The Board asked about the amount of fill and discussed elevations and sightlines. The applicant stated that even when viewed from below, the porch will stay below the house roofline and that the difference in the level of the land reduces the visual impact. The Board wished to defer to the ZBA on the advisability of allowing a reduced setback but noted that the unique topography mitigates the impact on the abutter at 111 Old County Road.
The Board asked if lighting was proposed. The applicant said he intended to have downlights under the porch roof and possibly a light in the hot tub.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint to approve the site plan as presented, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit lighting selections and positioning for approval prior to the issue of a building permit;
The applicant shall follow the recommendations of Miller Engineering and Testing, Inc., in their report of March 22, 2006.
Passed 5-0.
8:40PM: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION: RURAL LAND FOUNDATION, Mall Project, 145 Lincoln Road (Map 95/ Lot38), discussion of requirements for South Lincoln Overlay Zone preliminary development and use plan.
The following people attended for this item:
Stephen Peabody Cresset Development
Ed Nardi Cresset Development
Carol Kendrick William Jackson Associates
Bill Jackson William Jackson Associates
David O’Neil O’Neil Pennoyer Architects
David Albrecht Rizzo Associates
Colin Johannen Rizzo Associates
Geoff McGean Rural Land Foundation
Sarah Andrysiak RLF
Kathy Ramon Lincoln Woods
Neil Feinberg
Mr. Whitehead explained that the Rural Land Foundation (RLF) wished to have a preliminary discussion about the types of information required for a preliminary development and use plan under the South Lincoln Overlay District (SLOD), for changes to the Mall at Lincoln Station. Geoff McGean said that the RLF is hoping to submit a preliminary plan in July. He introduced the prospective development team.
The Chair asked whether there were specific matters that required the Overlay District approach. Mr. McGean responded that the planned parking and signage would not comply with current zoning, and height may also be an issue. He believed the buildings would meet the standard setbacks. He reported that the Chair of the RLF has discussed the Overlay District approach with Pam Green (ZBA Chair) and she is comfortable with it. Sarah Andrysiak commented that the RLF considered that the open public discussion involved in the SLOD process would be beneficial.
David Albrecht presented a schematic proposal and compared it with the current site plan. The proposal is for a new Post Office in the southern corner of the site and a café/ restaurant adjacent. The café is to be set back from the road with a ‘village green’ in front of it. Access points from Lincoln Road are to be changed, with a new two-way driveway at the northeast corner, a main access /egress point near the main retail block and a point for egress only, plus emergency access, close to the railroad crossing. Service trucks will use the main entrance, and back into the loading area at the rear of the supermarket.
In terms of parking, the current idea is to make allowance for as much parking as was included in the recent special permit layout approved by the ZBA, based on 4.2 spaces per 1000sq ft, but to keep eight of the spaces in reserve in a landscaped area. This is because it is not certain that the full number of spaces will be needed and the site could be more attractive with fewer. If the spaces are needed, a porous pavement will be used. Also it is proposed to make the employee parking spaces at the rear of the supermarket narrower than standard, at 8.5ft wide. Otherwise, parking dimensions will conform to the bylaws. Crosswalks and traffic calming devices will be incorporated in the layout of the parking areas. No angled spaces are proposed.
Mr. Hurd asked for information about any effects on adjacent parking lots. The RLF thought there would be some impact on the entrance to the commuter parking lot. Mrs. Wolf asked about loading arrangements for the small stores in the Mall. The RLF stated that they could park in the main parking lot and cart goods in. The new Post Office will have a loading bay that vehicles will back up to, and mail boxes will be located at the driver’s side of the egress point. Relocation of the bank’s ATM will be considered.
It is intended to reconstruct the parking lot and provide new lighting. The existing drainage hardware will be inspected and replaced as necessary, and sections of pipe under the sites of buildings will be re-routed. Drains lead to the northern corner of the site, where a water run-off filtration mechanism will be inserted. There is a drainage easement into the wetlands. Roof runoff from the new buildings will go to a detention/recharge structure underground. This has not yet been designed but ground conditions have been checked. It may be able to capture some of the runoff from the existing buildings. Mr. Whitehead asked about the green space between the buildings; the RLF indicated that there is a septic tank here that is no longer used. Mr. Snell asked for the RLF to consider snow removal and Zone II watershed issues in their
design.
Turning to lighting, the RLF showed an illustration of pole lighting for the parking lot. The poles carry downlights with arched necks. Photometrics will be supplied. The poles may be 12 to 15 feet high depending on the results of the photometric studies.
Bill Jackson discussed sewerage for the new buildings. Lincoln Woods is under using its system. In 1998, an agreement was established for the Mall to tie in to their treatment plant. Charges are based on the percentage of flow, and some capital payments have also been made including a share of the cost of an upgrade in 2002. Kathy Ramon, Chair of Lincoln Woods, stated that the upgrade was triggered by a monitoring system that is in place. She supplied a letter confirming that Lincoln Woods is working cooperatively with the RLF on the sewerage aspect of the proposed Mall expansion. Lincoln Woods has 125 residential units but the exact number of residents is not known. Based on the flow history, the anticipated additional flow and the permitted maximum, there is not expected to be a capacity problem, but calculations based on the number of
bedrooms could lead to a different conclusion. If the Department of Environmental Protection requires an upgrade to the system due to the proposed Mall expansion, then the RLF will be expected to pay for it. The Planning Board asked Mr. Jackson to keep them informed of progress.
Architectural designs or concepts were not presented, and the RLF asked if the Planning Board would welcome a preliminary discussion of architecture and landscaping. The Board indicated that it would welcome this if there was time in the process. The designers said they would aim to produce a model for the public hearing, to help with assessment of the design. The Board reminded the RLF of the guidance it had given at the previous informal discussion in January.
Mr. Domnitz asked how the setback from the road compared to other buildings in the area. The RLF said they believed other buildings were close to the road but offered to collect information on this. The Board asked about proximity to the railroad tracks. The egress driveway as shown is only two feet from the property line at its closest. In relation to commuter parking, the Board drew attention to the fact that cars tend to queue in the aisle at present, maybe when waiting to pick up commuters.
The Board asked whether any options were considered regarding the positioning of the buildings. The design team affirmed this but said they had chosen to revert to an earlier design. Its advantages were in allowing incorporation of a ‘village green’ at the entrance to the Mall, and keeping the Post Office’s loading area out of the way of pedestrians and traffic. They stated that the proposed restaurant will need signage to compensate for its low visibility to passing traffic. This also applies to Donelan’s as its visibility, which is already low, will be reduced.
The Chair expressed a concern about the ‘dead end’ parking area in the northeast portion of the site, as this layout can cause people to have to back out when the area is full. The RLF responded that they did not expect it to be fully used, and that a turning space would be marked. The RLF reiterated that they had sought to accommodate in the new layout the number of spaces that matched the ZBA requirement, but said they would welcome feedback on the need for this. They reported that their surveys had shown significant under-use. Upon discussion it was agreed that the new development may help to attract more customers. The Board considered that the approach to parking numbers seemed reasonable but that circulation arrangements will need to be examined carefully.
Mr. Feinberg commented that twenty spaces can be lost to plowed snow and that as eight spaces are to be dedicated to the Post Office and the restaurant may need twenty to thirty, there could be a shortage. He asked whether snow haulage was planned. The RLF thought this could be introduced if the need arose. Mr. Feinberg also asked about the adequacy of the geometry for maneuvering trucks; Mr. Albrecht responded that the design layout mimicked the existing radii that appear to work.
Mr. Snell asked about coordination with Nick Boynton’s plans for his property across the road. The RLF said that they were concerned to maintain progress on their own plans that were already further advanced than Mr. Boynton’s. Mr. Domnitz suggested ensuring that there is passing space at the egress by the Post Office and also suggested some signage or marking to prevent left-turning vehicles from being blocked when the railroad crossing barriers are down. Mrs. Wolf asked if any second floor space was to be added to the existing Mall buildings. The RLF indicated that this was not proposed, although a canopy may be added to increase visibility from the street.
Mr. Whitehead asked if the RLF sought any other guidance. The amount of traffic analysis needed was discussed. The bylaw asks for various sets of counts and estimates. If the RLF team considers that some are unnecessary, they need to present a rationale. This applies similarly if they wish to request a fee waiver.
A site visit was suggested. The Board felt they would like to see the architectural ideas first. Further discussions before Town Meeting were encouraged so as not to overload it with unresolved issues. Mr. Whitehead reported that the Special Town Meeting is likely to be in November, and he provided the RLF with a copy of the Planning Board’s schedule for the next few months.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Inclusionary Zoning
July 12 was set as the date for a public hearing into the rules and regulations for inclusionary zoning.
New England Deaconess (BIIC site)
Mr. Whitehead reported that issues surrounding the provision of affordable housing units were being discussed.
Fence permit application
Mr. Whitehead alerted the Board to an upcoming fence permit application where it has been difficult to advise the applicant which route to take and the Board may need to consider how much flexibility it has under the fence bylaw.
Minuteman Commons
Mr. Domnitz asked whether this development was finalized yet. Mr. Whitehead indicated that there were still matters to be resolved.
Brooks site plan application, 39 North Great Road
The Chair indicated that the proposed discussions between the applicant, Minuteman National Park and himself had not yet taken place.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended August 9, 2006
| 
