Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-11PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Estabrook Hall of Cary Memorial Hall, was called to order at 7:42 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. 37. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS The Board conducted a public hearing, as required by Chapter 40A, on the follow- ing proposed amendments to the Zoning By -Law: Article 10, Technical Corrections Article 14, Liquor Stores Article 15, Parking Elevations Article 16, Congregate Living Article 17, Health Hazards The hearings were concluded at 9:28 p.m. The Board recessed in order to move the meeting to Room G-15, Town Offices. The meeting was reconvened at 9:42 p.m. in Room G-15. 38. ARTICLES FOR TOWN MEETING Article 11, Planned Residential Development: Former Planning Board members Laura ' Nichols and Frank Sandy were present to share their observations on the proposed amendments as shown in the 2/4/85 edition. Mr. Sandy said his overall impression was quite good and he was pleased to see the comprehensive revision merging six different sections. He identified some specific sections that needed clarifica- tion or work. In 9.2.3, the types of buildings permitted in RD are shown by "yes", but an SPS is required. It was agreed a footnote should be added. In 9.3.2, the distance between intersections with a through public street should be coordinated with the subdivision rules. In 9.3.6, it was agreed the 25% open area requirement would not apply to a conventional subdivision. With the RM district deleted from Table 2, there are no standards to apply to the eight existing RM districts. In 9.2.6, does the impervious surface ratio apply to the initial development or to all subsequent changes? The Board thought it should apply only to the original development. Further work is needed on the proof plan described in 9.2.10 as to whether it is the preliminary type or the definitive type plan. For the conversion of municipal buildings, it was agreed all conversions should use the RD rezoning process. The exemptions from standards now set forth in 9.3.5 should still apply where the conversion occurs within the footprint of the existing building and does not exceed the existing gross floor area. Additions to the structure or an increase in the floor area should utilize the regular RD process, without exceptions. Mr. Sandy also pointed out the proposed amendments deal with the construction of new congregate facilities but do not provide for the conversion of existing buildings into congregate facilities. Planning Board Minutes: February 11, 1985 2 Mrs. Nichols suggested that language be inserted in the objectives section about preserving brooks in their natural location and form. Peter Kelley questioned the proposed density of about 5.3 dwelling units per acre in the proposed amendment. His proposed development has about 7 d.u.'s/acre. He asked whether the existing density of 9 d.u.'s/acre would apply, why the density was reduced and whether any density standard should be stated. Mr. Bowyer re- sponded that there were two problems: 1) All petitioners for residential zoning amendments were required to file a petition in December and furnish plans to the Planning Board by the second Monday in January before the planned residential development provisions were released to the public (February 4, 1985). The pro- posed amendments are still being revised and may be even on the floor of the Town Meeting. It is unreasonable to ask developers to continually adjust plans to conform to a "moving target" and there ought to be a mechanism whereby they can be measured against what was known to them at the time they submitted their plans. 2) the reduction of the density to about 5.3 d.u.'s/acre was part of a package in which a density bonus, for affordable housing, would have resulted in a density back at the 9 d.u.'s/acre now permitted in the RD district. Since the Board has decided to defer presenting the affordable housing density bonus until another year, the reduction to 5.3 is difficult to explain. A poll was taken of the Board as to what density should be allowed in the RD district. Mr. Sorensen said it was not necessary to show any density standard since all RD proposals required a two-thirds vote of the Town Meeting. He was ' content with relying on the Town Meeting vote. He pointed out the CD district does not have any density standard or any other dimensional standards. Mr. Cripps agreed with Mr. Sorensen's position. Mrs. Flemings thought the RD dis- trict should have a density standard but wanted to think further on what number should be presented this year. Mrs. Uhrig questioned what the effect of adopting either the 5 d.u.'s/acre or 9 d.u.'s/acre standard this year would be on the inclusionary housing policy or affordable housing. It was agreed to discuss this question further but to leave the proposal at 5 d.u.'s/acre until the time of the public hearing. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION 39. 917 Massachusetts Avenue, June Augusta, Form A-85/2: The Board reviewed a plan of land located between Massachusetts Avenue and the B&M Railroad right-of- way. The plan showed the division into two lots, one of which, lot Y. did not have sufficient frontage. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously: To disapprove the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated November 16, 1983, by Everett M. Brooks Company, Newtonville, certified by Charles D. Thompson, Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A-85/2 by June Augusta because it is a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdi- vision Control Law and requires approval because proposed Lot Y does not have sufficient frontage on a street. 40. 148 Wood Street, Augustus Schumacher, Form A-85/3: The Board reviewed a plan of the Schumacher land on Wood Street containing 105,784 square feet. The plan shows land being divided into three lots, each with 150 feet of frontage, each with at least 30,000 square feet of lot area, and each complying with the Planning Board Minutes: February 11, 1985 3 circle requirement for lot width. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: To endorse the plan entitled "Compiled Subdivision Plan of 'Land in Lexing- ton, Mass.," by Miller & Nylander Company, certified by Donald J. Forand, Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A-85/3 by Donald J. Forand for the owner, Augustus Schumacher, as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 41. Hamptons, off Concord Avenue, Boyd -Smith; Definitive Plan: Mr. Bowyer explained there had been some minor changes from the plan presented at the public hearing. The grading on Lots 6 and 7 was changed to satisfy the Conservation Commission and an Order of Conditions has now been issued. The sidewalk was changed from the west to the east side of Hampton Road. The Conservation Commission did not obtain a specific commitment from Boyd -Smith to provide a footpath -easement from Hampton Road back to the property of the Lexington Lodge of Elks which would connect eventually to the Town conservation land abutting the Elks property. The Conservation Commission has urged that the Planning Board require that the walking easement be provided. The Planning Board has the authority to do so under its Rules and Regulations. ' On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to approve the definitive plan entitled "The Hamptons," comprising five sheets, with the latest date December 3, 1984, with the modification that an easement - pedestrian path centered on the property line dividing Lots 4 and 5, be deline- ated on the plans. If the easement -pedestrian path is not delineated on the plans and granted to the Town, the definitive plan shall be considered to be disapproved. The Board reviewed a draft of the Certificate of Action. Several corrections were made. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of Action, as amended. Action on the special permit was deferred until the next meeting. 42. Farmhurst Section 5, off Valleyfield Street; Extension of Time: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to approve the request of William Hamilton, dated January 29, 1985, that the time for action on the definitive subdivision plan be extended for 30 additional days, from March 21 to April 19, 1985. 43. Ridge Estates III, off East Emerson Road, Theodore Freeman: Mr. Bowyer reported that on February 6, Mr. Freeman had filed both a preliminary plan and a definitive plan for land abutting the Ridge Estates II subdivision. Mr. Freeman appeared to believe that he had to file a subdivision plan prior to the first notice of the zoning amendment for planned residential development. It was agreed the Board would act on the definitive plan as the preliminary plan is superfluous at this point. 1 Planning Board Minutes: REPORTS February 11, 1985 44. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees 4 a. Hanscom Area Traffic Study: Mrs. Uhrig distributed copies of a letter from Ronald Fitzgerald, Superintendent of the Minuteman School District, to Larry Smith of Nolan Norton Company dealing with the rights to use the access road into the school. She also reported that the Lincoln Planning Board will recommend to the Lincoln Town Meeting that it not approve the use of the school property for the hotel -conference center until the road improvements on Route 2A have obtained approval from the State Department of Public Works for the 75% design stage. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. �� udith J. ig, Clerk