2007-01-24-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Estabrook Room of Cary Hall, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Canale, Hornig, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. Planning Board member Anthony Galaitsis was absent. ********** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 88, 92 & 100 Shade Street, Sketch Plan for Cluster/Special Residential Subdivision: Michael Snow, the applicant’s landscape architect provided the Board with a brief description of the sketch plan submittal, including the existing conditions of the site, the proof plan for a conventional 12 lot subdivision and the proposed development plan of 26 housing units of varying size and style. The 26 units are split into two areas of development, a northerly area consisting of three new single- family homes on individual lots and the existing structure. The existing home, named Journey’s End, may or may not end up being divided into three units, the applicant hopes it can be sold as a single family home, but for the sake of this proposal is depicting it as divided so as to include the maximum proposed development. The southerly area would be a more typical cluster style development with detached single-family homes along Shade Street and attached single-family, townhouse and one-bedroom carriage house units further in the site. Board Comments: Mr. Canale began by voicing concern over the proposed Lot 7 seemingly segregated from the rest of the (southern) cluster. Also of major concern were the impacts of the development on Shade Street. Mr. Canale suggested that the total development impacts would be better in the 60% range rather than 100% range that the current sketch plan depicts, and that 20 units total would be better than the 26 proposed. He felt that were Mr. Galaitsis present he would voice the same concerns. The applicant responded that he was simply trying to build a mix of unit types that the Board has indicated they want. Mr. Hornig was concerned about the access to the units and the necessary site grading. He would prefer a loop street through the southern cluster rather than a dead end, but does have some concerns about site lines. Mr. Hornig likes the housing mix and wants some sort of preservation restriction on the existing home, Journey’s End. Mr. Zurlo likes the housing mix, but would prefer lot 7 to be more integrated into the cluster. He stated he would prefer if the cluster impacts employed 12 units to generate the maximum figures, rather than the 13.56 units derived from the cluster by-law formula. Mr. Hornig thought that access to the