1983-05-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 10, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Offices, was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. 94. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 124 Spring Street, Beal Company, SPS: The Board reviewed a draft of the SPS report dated May 11, 1983, which had been revised from the previous night's meeting. In item 10, discussion focused on the level of service at the three intersections impacted by the development. Mrs. Smith agreed with the position stated in the Town Engineer's report dated May 3, that a decline in the level of service at intersec- tions was not acceptable. She pointed out the Town is now spending large amounts of money to correct the traffic situation in the Bedford Street -Hartwell Avenue area. Mr. Sorensen observed that either improvements have to be made in the area to accom- modate the increased development or the area should be down -zoned to permit less development. Mrs. Smith commented that with respect to the real estate taxes gener- ated by new development, the Town has to decide that either the additional taxes are so important that it is willing to make the necessary improvements to accommodate development or if not willing to make the improvements, then a reduction in permitted density should be made. Mr. Sorensen suggested that the appropriate standard is to not permit a lowering in level of service from "C" to "D". The Board agreed that language should be added to Section 10 indicating that it agreed with the Town Engineer's report that any decline in level of service below "C" is unacceptable and that the developer should work with ' the Town on ways to remedy traffic problems. The Board wants to include language about the provision of sidewalks for the safety of pedestrians who are also a "traffic" consideration. Mr. Sorensen expressed concern about sections of the Town Engineer's report which seem to imply that one developer had to do a traffic study or solve all the traffic problems in the CR districts. After discussion, it was agreed the Planning Board would recommend that the developer bear a proportionate share of the obligation to deal with traffic problems. Item 5.b. dealt with the provision of a 200 foot buffer strip from the residential properties. Mr. Bowyer reported that the staff had sought a suitable place to end the 200 foot buffer strip. Assistant Planner Arslan found there were 89 parking spaces located in the proposed buffer strip area. As the Board had agreed to recom- mend a maximum of 700 spaces, resulting in the elimination of 102 spaces, the 89 spaces could be removed from the buffer strip area, leaving another 13 spaces to be removed elsewhere. It appeared the driveways in the buffer strip area could be eliminated because there was other access available, but that should be studied by the applicants. Mrs. Nichols said she preferred a buffer strip 150 feet wide in the garage area. Mrs. Uhrig thought the Board should not give up on the 200 foot strip until it is proven encroachment into it is necessary. The Board agreed it would continue to ask for a 200 foot buffer strip but be willing to reduce it to 150 feet in the area of the parking if necessary. One of the recommendations called for the Beal Companies to defer applying for any more development on either of the lots it owns for a period of at least five years. Mr. Sorensen said he had problems with the whole idea of a five-year limitation. He thought the same standards should apply to this property as to all other land in the