Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-05-141 1 1 PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 14 1956 A closed meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday, May 14, 1956 at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Adams, Members Abbott, Burnell, Grindle, Hathaway and Jaquith, Planning Director Snow and the Secretary. Town Counsel Stevens was also present from 9:50 to 10:10 p.m. The Board took under consideration first the notices of BOARD OF hearings to be held by the Board of Appeals on May 15 and 24, APPEALS 1956. It was decided to take no action on the petitions to be heard with the exception of the Lexington Medical Center, Dr. Short, and the Hodgson petitions. In regard to the Lexington Medical Center's petition for permission to erect on the old Raymond property on Clark Street a building to be used as offices for physicians, it was decided to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that in view of the fact that no building or site plan had been filed with the petition and that consequently there had been no opportunity to review any plans, the Planning Board wished to be placed on record as opposed to the granting of said petition. Regarding Dr. Short's petition to use his residence for physicians' and dentists' offices, the plan accompanying said petition was viewed by the Board and found to be lacking details as to a driveway, parking lot, and other essential items. It was decided to include th the aforesaid letter an additional paragraph concerning the Short petition stating that the Plan- ning Board found that the sketch of the proposed building and the plan accompanying said petition were incomplete and that un- til such time as adequate plans for this proposal were presented, the Planning Board also wished to be placed on record as being opposed to the granting of said petition. In considering the petition of Mary A. Hodgson to sub- divide a parcel of land numbered 789 Massachusetts Avenue so that the new subdivided lot would have frontage on Barnes place, it was decided to send a letter to the Board of Appeals notifying it of the enactment into law on April 27, 1956 emergency Legis- lation in regard to the definition of a subdivision as indi- cated under the 1956 Act of the General Court, Chapter 282, and to further notify the Board of Appeals that in accordance with the definition of a subdivision as forth in the amended law, the Planning Board believes Barnes Place does not have sufficient width or adequate construction to provide for the needs of addi- tional vehicular traffic in relation with the proposed use of land served thereby, and that the Planning Board believes, there- fore, that the proposal of Mary A. Hodgson constitutes a subdi- vision. LEXINGTON MEDICAL CENTER DR. SHORT MARY HODGSON STUDENT Mr. Snow reported on his search for a student assistant ASSISTANT for full-time summer and part-time fall and winter work, stating that of all possible candidates the most worthy of consideration was a Canadian student in the Harvard Graduate School of Design and one who had had some previous experience working for planning agencies in Canada as well .as in the Chicago area. It was decided that Mr. Snow should make an immediate attempt to employ this man as an assistant. The rest of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of certain aspects of town planning and the organisation of the Boards work to complete a long-range plan for Lexington. As a theme for this work Mr. Snow suggested that the Board read Mr.. Flavel Shurtleff's address, "The Planning Process in Modern Society," given at the 41st Annual Conference of the M.F.P.B. held at Salem on Nov. 4, 1955. The Board's attention was called especially to the last paragraph of said address, copies of which were given to each member of the Board. (See Addendum). PERRY In order that the Board might have an understanding of NEIGHBORHOOD one of the ways some planners approach the preparation of THEORY physical plans for cities, Mr. Snow discussed with the Board the neighborhood unit theory developed in 1929 by Clarence A. Perry, presenting the following outline and suggesting ways by which it could be adapted in developing a long-range plan for Lexington. 1. Neighborhood, in its physical concept, considered to be the minimum planning unit and is defined as "the area within which residents may all share the common services, social activities and facilities required in the vicinity of the dwelling." An elementary school generally used as the most convenient frame -work for environmental stand- ards and for various needed planning calculations. 2. Size of a neighborhood governed by the area required for all its land use components; by population required to support necessary community facilities and services; by the accessibility of such facilities and by the existence of suitable physical boundaries. Desirable neighborhood population is about 5,000 persons; schools should be within 1/2 mile walking distance; normal neighborhoods average 250 acres in area. 3. Logical neighborhood boundaries often more_significant in determining its actual area than considerations of popula- tion and over-all dimensions. Topographic barriers, traffic arteries, railroads, commercial districts, undeveloped land and other elements frequently form borders of neigh- borhoods. 4. Neighborhood unit usually has a park or recreation area as its center with the elementary school the focal point. In this arrangement children in lower grades would not be re - L1 J 1 1 quired to cross major traffic arteries on their way to school. Mr. Snow suggested that, even though it was difficult to achieve an ideal physical arrangement, every proposal for a long- range plan be examined with regard to the Perry theory. He said that in doing this all types of elements which comprise a housing environment might be included in the neighborhood and added that these elements might be grouped in the following principal cate- gories as outlined in the booklet "Planning the Neighborhood," published by the Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1948. 1. Residential facilities - buildings and land devoted exclusively to dwelling and directly accessory uses. 2. Neighborhood community facilities - educational, social cultural, recreational and shopping facilities used in common by families in the neighborhood. 3. Utilities and services - water, light, and fuel supply; telephone; storm water, sewage and other waste disposal; fire protection and police service. 4. Circulation - all the installations required for the surface transportation of persons and goods to and from ' the dwellings and between dwellings and community facilities. Mr. Snow next reviewed the outline for a master of long- MASTER PLAN range development plan adopted by the Board in January, 1955. He stated that the immediate problem before the Board was that of completing some part of this over-all plan and integrating other parts as they are completed. He noted that the four proposals selected by the Board for immediate studies involve the planning of a major street system, a school site program, a recreation and public open space program, and an industrial district. Mr. Snow then pointed out, in addition to these, there were certain general and continuing responsibilities which he believed various members of the Board should assume. He presented the following outline of these responsibilities together with those involving the immediate studies: 1. Chairman - Principal assignment: Leadership in Town Planning Affairs through the medium oft�tblic Relations sometimes classified as "information and education." a) Liaison between Board and other town agencies and offi- cials. Purpose - to coordinate all town planning ' activities and programs SPECIAL b) Liaison between Board, citizens and citizen organiza- ASSIGNME9TS tions. Purposes - to acquaint public with Lexington's FOR BOARD gen&ral and specific planning problems, to promote HERS greater participation of citizens in preparation of Lexington's long-range development plan, and to inform public of progress in Board's work. 2. Clerk Principal Assignment: Organization of Board's Adminis- trative Work through the development of a set of Rules of Procedure and the formulation of a tentative policy in regard to: a) Agenda for meetings, including appointments, accept- ance of Form A applications, etc. b) Establishing rates of fees for petitions to amend the Zoning By-law and for applications for definitive approvals under Subdivision Control Law. c) Preparation of minutes for Board approval. 3. Member Principal Assignment: Organization of Board's Le_ tLiative , Program to effectuate the town's long-range development plan. a) Carrying thrcugh proposed Historic Districts legislation filed with the General Court. b) Revision of Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Zoning By-law._ c) Formulation of a tentative Board policy in regat'd to en- forcement of Zoning Bir -law. 4. Member Principal Assignment: Organization of Board's School Plan- ` nines Program in conjunction with the School Committee and citizen groups. a) 'Liaison between Board and School Sites Committee b) Formulation of a tentative Board policy in regard to selection of future school sites and use or further= development of existing sites. 5. Member ' Principal Assignment: Organization of Board's Park and Recreation Programa a) Formulation of a tentative Board policy in regard to type of areas needed, selection of sites for same and use or further development of existing sites. 6. Member Principal Assignments Or anization of Boardts Program for Business, Commercial andZndustr— ial Districts. a) Formulation of a tentative Board policy in regard to types of areas needed, selection of sites for same and use, development or redevelopment of existing sites. In addition to the program set forth above, Mr. Snow recom- CITIZEN mended that as a general policy each member of the Planning Board COMMITTEES should work with a citizen committee appointed by the Board to assist it in formulating policy and act as a liaison between the citizenry and board. He suggested that committees of four or five would be sufficiently large, the Planning Board member guiding the committee and serving as a liaison between committee and board. Mr. Jaquith suggested that the Chairman delegate responsi- bilities as outlined to each member of the Board, pointing out that at meetings there is often broad discussion of various matters but time wasted when nothing is done about them. It was his opinion that the Board could accomplish a great deal more than it did if ' each member would assume obligations assigned to him working with Ax Snow in such matters and outside of board meetings. After further discussion, the Chairman delegated Mr. Burnell. as clerk, to assume his special assignment. It was de- cided that he would not need to work with a committee at this time. Mr. Jaquith was asked to organize the Boardts legislative program. Mr. Abbott was assigned to the school planning program, it being agreed that, as a member of the Town School Sites Committee, he would not need to work with an additional committee at this time. Mr. Grindle was requested to be the Board's representative in re- gard to recreation matters and Mr.Hathaway in regard to industrial matters. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Levi G. Burnell, Clerk 1 I appreciate that there is always some distraction in this busi- ness of planning, that a commission which has the job of making a plan, a mandated job, is carried off into side shows. I suppose I ought not to call zoning a side show, or subdivision control a side show; but let me go back to Olmsted's speech again. "And the third part of the plan is that control over private development in so far as we can control it. " Well, that is the thing we do control now. We control it better than we do any other part of the plan. We have enacted zoning laws that are strict controls over private development. We have gone into subdivision control. That is equally strict in the matter of mass private development. What Mr. Olmsted hesitated about has now become almost a primary function of the planning commission in some communities. Both zoning, and cer- tainly subdivision control are taking great pieces of time that the plan- ning commission can ill afford to spend. Their prime job of making the plan and their equally important job of interpreting the plan have been shelved. Didn't Mr. Downe say this morning, "if the community had a plan?" How can there by any proper zoning or proper sub- division control without a community plan. I would emphasize over and over again that unless the plan commission has the time at its disposal, without distractions and side shows like amending the building code and suggesting street names and doing many other things that other agencies are just as competent to do, unless it gets the plan made its job is not well done. Have the planning agency lay down the foundations true. Let them be as clear.as crys- tal, and let the public understand that the planning commission does not build bridges or build roads, that its duties are rather advisory and they are based always on the concept of Olmsted, the making, the interpreting, and the amending of the plan. If you need a broader understanding in the public and I am sure that in most of the communities you do, let it come through doing and learning by doing. Take planning to the schools. I spent five years going about among the high schools of eastern Massachusetts with Roger Greeley, the well-known Boston architect. We were trying to make civic workshops in the schools and giving them the plan of their own city or the lack of plan as the subject matter. Those young people took to it like ducks to water. There wasn't anything more interesting to them if they had the right teacher. That is a big IF. I found usually that the most attractive teachers got married after the second year and knocked the project into the middle of next week. I was getting along fine with Miss Tones and she was getting along wonderfully with her scholars when some man entered the picture. It was all over. I had to educate another young woman, sometimes equally attractive. Put the plan in the schools, if you have not done it, try it, and I think you will find there again you get dividends in a future voting public which knows its planning. AQWSLUSON PRINTING CO y 4 140VOMDOr 12100 The text of what I would like to say about the "Planning Pro- without which you are not planning at all, and those are the princi- Olmsted made forty years ago at an early national planning conference. cess in Modern Society" comes from a statement of Frederick Law�' pies that Olmsted announced — making the plan; digesting the ideas; and composing them all into a unit or development plan which He looked ahead about fifty years, and his words are remarkably changes. Secondly, interpreting the plan. What do we call it now? prophetic. "Some official body will be charged with the responsibility We can it referral or courtesy referral in Massachusetts, for I under- nderfor forthe custody of the plan, the interpretation of the plan to the city stand that under the laws of Massachusetts you still must refer to officials and to the public, and for the amendment of the plan. We the planning commission only thoroughfare changes, but all other conceive of this plan as a live thing, as a growing and changing ag- referrals are matters of courtesy. That's the process that should gregation of projects all consistent with each other and each surviving now be going on, the making and the interpreting and the changing, in the plan by virtue of its inherent merits and its harmony with the and all based on a sound understanding of the plan by the public. rest." He divided the plan into three parts calling the first, "circula- tion or the determining of the spaces in the city which would be Where have we got with the last? When I came into Salem this used for all means of transportation and communication." His second morning, I parked right next door and the man in charge said, "What division was public open spaces or/and public building sites and his are all these cars here for?" and I said, "Well, there is a conference "What third division, which he was quite hesitant about was the control going on." kind of a conference?" "A planning conference." over private development. His words were "control over private de- "Oh," he said, "that is just what Salem needs." So I thought I had velopment in so far as we have any control over them." It was before better let him talk on to see if he were a planner or if he thought zoning. It was before subdivision control. it was something like a building code or changing streets names and "We on he went. He said, need to have our traffic straightened out and Why do I quote from Mr. Olmsted? As far as the concept goes they are doing it in Salem and in other places. They are creating we have not advanced an inch in my judgement, from his philosophy parking areas." Well, he had the beginning of a planner in him. And and his concept of planning. We have changed some of the names. I find as I go -about today that there is curiosity in the public gen. We have formalized, we have made legal, we have enacted statutes erally about this magical thing called "planning." What is it that is and ordinances. For instance, we do not talk so much about circula- so distinctive in what they are asking? Why has it caught the fancy tion as we do about a "thoroughfare map." We now talk about a land of our authorities so that city after city is establishing a planning use map, and although those names are changed, the concept is the commission and giving it this job? If there is this curiosity, we should same as Mr. Olmstead laid down in his three divisions. And he wraps be satisfying it a whole lot more than we are. I have that criticism up those three divisions into what we now call the "Master plan" or of our planning profession. I have that criticism of the general run better the "Development Plan." of planning commissions. They are not taking the public in as part- Now if we have not advanced much in the concept neither have ners in the enterprise quite as much as they could with no more ex- we, I believe, advanced much in the general process of planning. That pense and with little more effort. seems to be a rather foolish statement when you think that his words were uttered forty years or more ago. But test it yourself in your ' I am not questioning at all that we talk planning in conferences. We have lectured about planning, we have written volumes about plan- own community. Have you gone any farther, for instance, than saying ning. There is a steadily growing literature of planning both for the to your planning commission "It is your duty to create a plan." We public and for the professional, but I do not believe that is the best do not expect you to create this plan as a single event but we ex- way to reach the public. I would make the public or that part of it peat you to gather in all the factors and ideas that are germane in that wants to get into this game a participator in fact, not a listener to planning, whether they be physical or social or economic, to digest words, not even participating in panel discussion, although that is those ideas, to analyze them with the greatest care, and to wrap them excellent, but I would make them doers, actually learning by each up into,a development program. Not a fixed program which is going doing a little and by listening a whole lot. I believe in workshops, to be static but an evolving program. What did Olmsted call it? "A ps planning is a part of the function and I in civic worksho where live thing." Have we gone much beyond that? Don't we say that to know it works and you know it works if you have tried it. It may our Commission now as he said it forty years ago. There was one take a little more effort. It may take a little supervision on the part other thing that Mr. Olmsted announced. In order to get ahead with of the technical person perhaps, at least to get it started, but I have this planning, make your foundations firm, get your development seen for example committees of one hundred and less representative plan in good shape, digest the ideas that come into the planning office of the entire public, cooperate in the actual making of a land use map, but have a broad basis for support of planning in a general public both existing and future. It turned out excellently and I wouldn't understanding of what you are talking about. If I had any message care whether it turned out excellently or not. It is the educating for you, if there was any such thing as a keynote in this talk of mine, as they go along in the making of the map that brings the large it would be, first of all, to keep in mind the principles of planning dividend.