|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2008-02-13-PB-min
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Planning Board-PB
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
2008-02-13-PB-min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2019 2:46:50 PM
Creation date
1/6/2009 11:10:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - PB - Planning Board
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 8 <br />Minutes for the Meeting of February 13, 2008 <br /> <br />Article 57, Development Standards: Ms. Manz said she did not see the conflict in the current bylaw. <br /> <br />Mr. Galaitsis said there is no backup to explain why this is being done. Why should the Town give away <br />these controls? He wanted more information before making any decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Canale said there could site plan review with by right uses, if the Town could set up specific enough <br />parameters to create what the Town wants in the districts. What the Town wants in the districts would <br />have to be determined. <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig said that section B where the changes are from SPS to Yes, it would need to have the <br />threshold to match the traffic studies. Currently there is only a process for site plan review in conjunction <br />with a special permit. A new process would have to be established for site plan review. Currently <br />residential zones have approximately a 20,000 square foot threshold and that could be used for <br />commercial development. <br /> <br />Article 58, Transition Areas and Setbacks: Mr. Galaitsis said he has no objections to buildings being <br />closer to the street, but does not want to give blanket permission. <br /> <br />Mr. Zurlo and Ms. Manz said they agree with planning staff comments. Mr. Hornig said he has no <br />problem, but it may be better as part of a comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Article 59, Parking and Bicycle Facility Standards For Office Use: Ms. Manz said the biking facilities <br />part is fine and there is a tendency to approve liberalization. <br /> <br />Mr. Zurlo said bicycle spaces could be worked on versus the number of cars. He knew it worked in <br />Bedford. He could support this and saw nothing adverse. Mr. Galaitsis said he likes this it was <br />evolutionary, not revolutionary. Mr. Canale said he supports anything that encourages less parking, but <br />there need to be incentives and penalties to ensure there would be no discrimination in mobility choices. <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig said from personal experience having insufficient parking is bad, it encourages parking in fire <br />lanes and access drives and there should be a parking maximum of at least four per 1,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Article 60, CB Parking Standards for Retail Sales: Ms. Manz said this change doesn’t go anywhere; it <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.