1985-03-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, "rig and Planning Director Bowyer present. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING 86. Article 11, Planned Residential Development: On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed, to recommend that Town Meeting adopt the proposed amendment and to approve the report as written. 87. Article 13, FAR, CM, CH Districts: The Board had the final analysis from the Planning Department. Mrs. Uhrig, who is responsible for presenting the article, said the 0.20 FAR for the CM district seemed the most defensible. Mr. Sorensen proposed that the Board recommend 0.25 for all three districts. Mrs. Uhrig said she would have trouble defending a 0.25 FAR because it permitted a 45% increase in a district that is already saturated with traffic. Mr. Cripps and Mrs. Smith agreed with the 0.20. Mrs. Flemings said she preferred 0.25 but would support 0.20. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the FAR for the CM district be 0.20. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the FAR for the CH district be 0.25. 88. Article 8, Housing Resolution: The Board of Selectmen has requested to meet with the Planning Board to discuss the proposed resolution that would place greater emphasis on housing for Lexington residents and to direct the Board of Selectmen to revise the policy. There was general agreement that the housing resolutions adopted by the Town Meeting in 1979 and in 1981 did not need revision and the Town did not need a third housing policy. The Planning Board will con- tinue to report to Town Meeting on progress on meeting goals for low and moderate income housing even though the requirement to report expired in 1984. 89. Article 20, RD, 188 Lowell Street: Mrs. Smith read a letter from William McDevitt saying McNeill and Associates has decided to indefinitely postpone Article 20. 90. Article 21, RD, Woburn Street (discussed after the recess): There was a general discussion of the position to take on this article. Mre. Smith said she was willing to be positive. Mrs. Uhrig did not want to recommend in favor of a plan which might differ significantly from what the Planning Board was proposing in its planned residential development amendment. She realized that the devel- oper was not legally bound to the proposed amendment but since the proposed amendment represented the Planning Board's best thinking, it would be difficult to support a proposal that was not generally compatible with it. She noted that the revisions prepared by landscape architect Gary Larson appeared to make the proposal conform to proposed Article 11. Mrs. Flemings was in favor and Mr. Sorensen was opposed.