Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 1989-03-20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1989 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7: 37 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Nordby and Secretary Peters present. Public Participation, Robert Cataldo, Pheasant Brook II: Mr. Cataldo reported that he met with the Conservation Commission last Tuesday, March 14. He wanted to tell the Planning Board that he was not surprised or unhappy with the decision that the Board had made on the Preliminary Plan, and that he felt it had acted in a professional and timely manner. He reported he planned to file a definitive plan for a 10 lot conventional subdivision. ***************************** REPORTS *************************************** 85. Planning Director a. 246 Concord Avenue, George Issaians: The Board reviewed, prior to staff review, a plan for a two lot subdivision. Mr. Williams noted the applicant had told the Conservation Commission they would never ask to subdivide the property, and had subsequently twice applied to the Board of Appeals to do so. Staff will research any Board of Appeals informa- tion that may pertain to this application. b. Massachusetts Land Use Coalition: Mr. Bowyer reported this is a coalition, including groups such as the Mass. Federation of Planning Boards, the New England Chapter of APA and the Mass. Association of Planning Directors. They have an interest in zoning and subdivision legislation and plan to monitor and analyze bills filed with the State Legislature on land use issues. They are asking for local support to be more effective as a planning oriented lobby group. ******************* ARTICLES FOR 1989 TOWN MEETING *************************** Mrs. Uhrig announced she will attend the Moderator's meeting of article sponsors tomorrow evening to report who will make the motion and give the presentation for each zoning article. 86. Article 41, Technical Corrections: The Board reviewed the draft amend- ment and Planning Board report, dated 1/31/89, making corrections . On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 5-0 to: 1) recommend the Town Meeting approve the amendment as contained in the motion, as corrected; and 2) approve the report, as amended, containing the Board's recommendations. 87. Article 42, Half Story: The Board reviewed the draft amendment and Planning Board report, dated 3/16/89, making corrections. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 5-0: _ 1) to recommend the Town Meeting approve the amendment as printed in the ___i Minutes for the meeting of March 20, 1989 2 Warrant; and 2) to approve the report, as amended, containing the Board's recommen- dations. 88. Article 43, Institutional Uses: Joining the Board for discussion of this article were Peter Kelley, representing the Forest Street Neighborhood Assoc- iation, and William Spencer, Chairman of the Lexington Housing Authority. The Board reviewed the draft amendment and Planning Board report, dated 3/16/89, making corrections. Mr. Spencer asked what would effect this amendment would have if, in a one family residence district, a residence were converted to an institutional use, such as a community or group residence. He asked what would be required for side yard setbacks, etc. if the existing setbacks are non-conforming. Mr. Bowyer noted any proposal for more than four non-related residents would not be permitted as of right in a one family district, except when it is classified as an educational institution. He noted the courts have broadly interpreted what constitutes an educational institution. In response to additional questions from Mr. Spencer, Mr. Bowyer added that if an approval not required plan is filed, the applicant is exempted from use restrictions only, for three years. If a definitive subdivision plan is filed, the applicant has an exemption from all changes in zoning for eight 1 years, provided the plan is approved by the Planning Board within seven months t ) of submittal. He added that these are the only ways to vest use rights. He noted the time to vest other rights has passed, since the notice of public hearing on the proposed amendment has already been published in the newspaper. Mr. Bowyer also noted that the part of the amendment that deals with parking does not affect the example referred to by Mr. Spencer in that the parking regulations in effect now, dealing with off-street parking, will not be changed. The Board discussed with Mr. Kelley what effect this amendment would have if the proposed Grace Chapel building on Forest Street were subject to the provisions of this amendment. ' The Board agreed there needed to be some method for controlling the size of a structure used for the two uses discussed above. 89. Article 46, Affordable Housing in RS: The Board reviewed, making corrections, a draft Planning Board report, as of 3/16/89. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 5-0 to: 1) recommend the Town Meeting disapprove the amendment contained in the Warrant; and 2) approve the report, as amended, containing the Board's adverse recommen- dations. 90. Article 51 , Subdivision Construction Deposits: The Board reviewed, making corrections, the Planning Board draft report as of 3/16/89. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to: { t4 Minutes for the meeting of March 20, 1989 3 1) recommend the Town Meeting accept the next to last paragraph of Section 81U of Chapter 41, Massachusetts General Laws and 2) approve the report, as amended, containing the Board's recommendations. 91. Article 45, Hilton: Joining the discussion were Attorney John Farring- ton, Architect Peter Floyd and Steven Colangelo. They distributed to the Board copies of a report summarizing and further explaining the previously filed traffic report. Mr.Farrington noted two unresolved items of Planning Board and Hilton posi- tions remain: 1) the amount of the financial contribution Hilton is propos- ing, and 2) an acceptable FAR. He explained the difficulty of basing the amount of any financial contribution on percentage of construction costs. Mrs. Uhrig commented that Town Meeting will focus on FAR and traffic problems. Mr. Farrington felt they could not reduce the FAR to .25 and still have a viable hotel that could compete in the quality hotel market. He felt the hotel, as proposed in Article 45, could be the first step in general improve- ments along Hartwell Avenue, and that the traffic study shows that the change in use would produce a reduction in peak time traffic. He further commented that the FAR limit of .15 in the CRO regional office district will have the effect of forcing any new construction into a CD rezoning. Mrs. Uhrig commented that Town Meeting will focus on FAR and traffic problems. Mr. Williams thought that new tax revenues generated by the hotel will also be a factor in Town Meeting consideration. Later in the evening, as direction to the staff, for the preparation of the Planning Board Report on Article 45, Mrs. Uhrig, Mrs. Klauminzer and Mr. Williams said they favored the proposal because: 1) the hotel is a better use of the site which can provide some services for the area; 2) of the increased tax revenues generated by the room tax and increased property taxes; and 3) of a reduction in peak hour traffic levels. 92. Article 58, Old Allen Street: The Board discussed what position they would take on this article at Town Meeting and agreed that Town Counsel should be consulted for answers to the following questions before they could reach a position: 1) who should get the land if the Town agreed to release its ownership, and 2) what is the value of the land? They agreed it was up to the Selectmen to negotiate for the disposal of the property if Town Meeting agrees to abandon Town ownership of the land. They also agreed to not take a position on the article until answers to their questions have been obtained from Town Counsel. 93. Articles 55 and 56: The Board agreed that they did not have enough information at this time to take a position on Articles 55 and 56. They ` ) 9 Minutes for the meeting of March 20, 1989 4 agreed to recommend that Article 56 be indefinitely postponed if there is not a proposal of substance offered under Article 55. 94. Article 2, Planning Board Report on 1979 Affordable Housing Resolution: The Board agreed to review what ranges they wish to establish for rental housing, and to consider whether the definition of "Moderate" income should be revised to agree with state housing program definitions. 95. Article 2, Joint Report with the Board of Selectmen on Article 50, 1987 Town Meeting, Affordable Housing: Mr. Bowyer noted this is the last year this report on the status of affordable housing in Lexington is required. *************************** REPORTS **********************fie********fie******** 96. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. North Suburban Chamber of Commerce: Mrs. Uhrig reported on a letter, dated 3-14-89, updating the Board on the NSCC Route 128 Corridor Traffic Study. b. Lexington Center Committee: Mrs. Uhrig reported they will meet with the Traffic Safety Committee on March 30, 1989, regarding pedestrian safety in the center, at 7: 30 a.m. at the Police Station. The Center Committee will also meet with the Design Advisory Committee and David Dixon Associates on April 11, 1989 at 8: 00 p.m., Selectmen's Meeting Room, to hear their recommendations for improvements to private sector of the Center. Mr. Williams reported on the Center Committee meeting jheld March 16, 1989. A report was given on the proposal to change the crosswalks in front of the library, and an interim report was given on the work being done by David Dixon Associates. 97. EXECUTIVE SESSION, Litigation Against the Town: At 10: 03 p.m. , on the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, and after an individual poll of the five members present, it was voted 4-1 (Mr. Williams voted in the nega- tive) to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litiga- tion which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town, and to reconvene in open session only for the purpose of adjourning. The Board returned to open session at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 31 p.m. Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk 1