|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2002-01-18-40B-min.pdf
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
DISSOLVED COMMITTEES
>
40B Review Committee-40B
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
2002-01-18-40B-min.pdf
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2022 1:57:51 PM
Creation date
10/4/2022 1:57:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Year
2002
Keywords or Subject
Ad Hoc 40B Review Committee - 40B - minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
pollution levels and headlights would then become an issue for the neighbors. Mr. Marchant suggested <br /> that the developers not throw that idea out if the neighbors liked it. In response to a question,Mr. Cheng <br /> indicated that the layout of the original site has been looked at by the Fire Department and the Town <br /> Engineer. They suggested that the plans would be acceptable, however, Mr. Cheng informed the <br /> committee that the approval was not official. John Frey stated that, although the perimeter road created <br /> more asphalt, it provided a greater distance between the units and the neighbors. Mr. Cheng indicated <br /> that if the group felt positively about the perimeter road that the designers would look at a plan that <br /> incorporated that element. <br /> Mr. Passman mentioned the Morrow Crossing development, a project that utilized a large garage for four <br /> units. There,the access road was along the perimeter and pushed the buildings back from the property <br /> line. Mr. Posner mentioned Russell Square as another interesting development. It fit in nicely with the <br /> neighborhood with some buildings set back 25 feet from the property line. This development had 17 <br /> units on two acres with some above ground and some below ground parking. Mr. Marchant stated that <br /> the Russell Square development was a good one and that committee members should go and look at the <br /> site. Mr. Posner stated that Rising Tide Development did not want to make the Lowell Street <br /> development like Locke Village. He indicated that they had looked at the Locke Village idea but that it <br /> did not seem like the best type of development for this location. Rising Tide Development wanted to <br /> make the Lowell Street buildings similar to others in Lexington. If neighbors want the Locke Village <br /> type, Rising Tide Development can make two row houses with landscaping. Mr. Passmen stated that he <br /> understood that the developers want to build as many units as they could and sell them for the greatest <br /> amount of money. He stated that separate units are more marketable. He indicated that it would be worth <br /> looking at the number of 2-plex buildings because he also wanted to see a successful development. Mr. <br /> Abkowitz asked whether the developers had looked at the financial viability of different plans. Mr. <br /> Posner stated that they had examined the financial viability of different plans but that he was hoping the <br /> committee could discuss the issue of setbacks without discussing the financial impact on the <br /> development. He indicated that a row house might be acceptable financially but not to the neighbors. <br /> Mr. Marchant questioned who would make the first commitment. He pointed out that the neighbors <br /> should be thinking about who is going to establish acceptable thresholds. Mr. Passman wanted to know <br /> why couldn't the neighbors move around units without being shouted down. Mr. Marchant said that the <br /> process wais good and to keep with it. It was suggested that the single-family houses on Porter Lane were <br /> similar in massing to the quadraplex units being proposed here. Mr. Galaitsis asked that the model be left <br /> so that people could play with it. Mr. Trainer agreed to leave the model in the Planning Department so <br /> people could use it. <br /> Mr.Taylor said that he would like a better sense of what minimum number of units would yield 16% <br /> profit, since if a 16%profit can be done with 20 units,why do 48? Mr. Possner said that 26 is the <br /> minimum for land costs, but there are fixed costs for the entire development. He also noted that 16%of a <br /> larger development is a larger number. He said that the developers blinked first by putting 48 units on the <br /> plans. <br /> Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that the next meeting be just with the committee,without the developer <br /> present to allow the committee to discuss what they wanted to see on this site. Mr.Abkowitz asked if Mr. <br /> Marchant could meet the neighbors separately and was told that Mr. Marchant is hired by the town to <br /> work with the committee. Mr. Taylor commented that he has no real sense of where the town and the <br /> individuals on the committee stand on the proposal. <br /> Mr.Posner said he would be moving the official part of the process along. He is about to file. He will be <br /> filing 48 units and says that they will continue the discussion. When he asked what was driving him to <br /> file now he said that the market was causing nerves. They have assumed$285 per square foot as a sale <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.