Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-14PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of November 5 and 26, 1984, and January 7, 1985, were corrected. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the meetings of November 19 and December 10, 1984, as written, and the meetings of November 5 and 26, 1984, and January 7, 1985, as corrected. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING 9. Article A. Technical Corrections: The Board reviewed the draft dated 1/11/85, particularly the new wording on special permits with site plan review. The Board approved the 1/11/85 draft and it is ready to be placed on the warrant. 10. Artcle B, Planned Residential Development: The Board continued its review of the comprehensive revision working from the draft dated 1/11/85. There was extensive debate about the amount of freedom and flexibility to be afforded developers. Mr. Bowyer explained that in the concept of "density zoning," the ' principal criterion is density permitted with less reliance on numerical and geometric standards. He also pointed out the proposed use of qualitative cri- teria for evaluating development proposals. Mr. Sorensen objected to this approach because: 1) a developer could not deter- mine in advance what specific standards would be applied and 2) many of the criteria were subjective, dependent upon human judgement and could fluctuate in their application depending upon which people were serving on the board which applied the criteria. While dimensions may not always produce the best designs, they are a common reference point and both the applicant and the board can agree on their application. Mrs. Smith commented that such of the remaining land for development in Lexington is marginal and that flexibility is needed to deal with the problems inherent in those sites. Mrs. Flemings commented that negotiation and public agency review is a common part of the development process in the 1980'x. It was agreed that a waiver from the dimensional requirements should be allowed by a special permit if the development complied with the qualitative criteria. It was agreed to have proposed density bonus provisions in Article C, Specialized Amendments. It was also agreed to discontinue the use of the RM zoning district for new multi -family residential development. 11. Schedule For Public Hearings It was agreed to group the fourteen petitions to amend the Zoning Map or the Zoning By -Law into five sets of hearing. Five amendments involving minor changes in the text will be held on Monday, February 11; three hearings for multi -family residential development along Lowell or Woburn Streets will be held on Wednesday, February 13; the planned residential development and specialized amendments to it Planning Board Minutes: January 14, 1985 2 will be heard on Monday, February 25; hearings on conversion of one -family dwellings and the FAR proposal for the CM/CH districts will be held on Thursday, February 28; and a South Lexington night of two CD proposals plus the Franklin School Conversion will be held on Monday, March 11. 12. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 6 North Hancock Street, Richard Folsom: SP, take out food service: Mrs. Smith, who formerly lived on North Hancock Street, said she was opposed to an operation that has cooking on the premises. Mr. Sorensen, who lives adjacent to Lexington center, stated that despite all claims about ventilation controls, food odors from restaruants still permeate the area. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, sec- onded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend against granting the special permit if there is any cooking allowed on the premises. 70 Westview Street, Kiln Brook IV: Thomas and Frederick Dupree were present to discuss the addition included in the special permit approving the Kiln Brook IV development. The Duprees stressed that the type of physical limitation on the use of parking spaces, which was applied to buildings such as Signatron, Nolan Norton, and Itek, was undesirable for their development which consisted of sever- al tenants. They proposed to monitor the situation and negotiate with their tenants to insure compliance. The Board insisted on a specific plan in the event the monitoring effort did not produce compliance. There must be more than a good faith effort. The Board ' suggested an independent traffic monitor be retained to take surveys not more than two months apart. The developer would pay for the traffic monitor who would report to the Town and to the developer. If there were violations in two succes- sive reporting periods, the developer would have to use a predetermined alterna- tive plan. That could be physical restraints on the use of parking spaces during peak hours or some other specific plan agreed upon in advance. The Planning Board did agree that designating the 4:00-5:00 p.m. one-hour period during the afternoon peak hour was acceptable. The Board and the Dupree brothers could not reach agreement. The Duprees object- ed to identifying a specific alternative to restrict traffic movement if the traffic monitoring system shows non-compliance. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was agreed to report to the Board of Appeals that the Planning Board and the Dupree brothers did not reach agreement, to outline the positions of the two parties and to refer the matter back to the Board of Appeals who would have the responsibility to: 1) develop a system of compliance, and 2) to identify enforcement actions if the compliance is not achieved. It was agreed this communication would be a report and not a recommendation. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 13. Pine Meadows Golf Course, Preliminary Subdivision: The Board reviewed a draft of a decision on the preliminary subdivision plan. It was agreed to reor- ganize the report into two sections, one tied to specific provisions in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations with which compliance is required and the Planning Board Minutes: January 14, 1985 second to more general requirements of the information desirable to permit a thorough search further the provision of recreation ties such as streets, which are outside the COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES Subdivision Rules and Regulations and review. The staff was asked to re - space and connection to public facili- subdivision boundaries. 14. Lexington 2000: The Board discussed the proposal by the Board of Selectmen to convene a committee to plan for "Lexington 2000" which Selectmen McLaughlin has described as a "strategic planning" process. Mrs. Smith had a package of material which had been submitted by boards, departments and committees under the Selectmen's jurisdiction. She noted that most of the issues identified will be addressed in a comprehensive plan. The Board was unclear as to what is the focus of Lexington 2000. It was agreed to raise the following questions in the meeting with the Selectmen: What is the relationship of Lexington 2000 to the Planning Board's comprehensive plan? Will there be two parallel planning efforts? Will the Town provide financial support for the Planning Board to continue with its comprehensive planning effort if it is also providing money for Lexington 2000? REPORTS 15. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Board of Appeals Hearings: Mrs. Smith reported on the Board of Appeals hearings held on January 10. In contrast with the vigorous neighborhood opposition to the conversion of 225 Waltham Street into a two-family house expressed at the Planning Board meeting of January 7, there was virtually no opposition at the Board of Appeals hearing and the conversion was approved unanimously. The hearing on the roadside stand at 52 Lowell Street pointed to the need for clarification and improvement of the special permit provi- sions dealing with roadside stands in the Zoning By -Law. The Board of Appeals appears to be wavering from its earlier policy of requiring that a certified plot plan be submitted for any yard setback variance or the special permits for non -complying buildings. The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. GJudith J. Uhr , Clerk 1