2005-03-17-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by acting Chairman Harden with members Canale, Hornig, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************************* ARTICLES FOR 2005 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 9 – Waltham Street Rezoning – The Board discussed the issue of traffic mitigations for this development proposal, and in general. While the Traffic Advisory Committee had taken a lead role in the longer process the previous year Board members felt that the Planning Board should be the body to determine an appropriate level of mitigations. Mr. Hornig said there was a need for a mitigation policy but that was for a future discussion. The question of whether a separate Development Agreement was needed, or if the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP) could contain a commitment to funds was considered. The members felt it was a question for legal counsel. On the motion of Ms. Manz, seconded by Mr. Hornig, the Board voted 3 to 0 to accept the report on Article 9 with the changes discussed. Mr. Canale abstained from the vote. Article 5 – Center Parking – Copies of a draft report were distributed. Ms. McCall-Taylor commented that the amendment would not put restaurants on a par with retail uses in the center as retail was one space per 325 square feet while the amendment would put restaurants at one space per 250 square feet. Ms. Manz expressed her displeasure that this issue was just coming up now, after she had worked with the Center Committee since the last Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said that he would have preferred to look at the whole parking situation in the center rather than dealing with just one aspect but as a new member had been willing to support this article. Mr. Hornig said it was nice to have some parking requirement for new construction and he would like to attempt to resolve the underlying problem. He wondered if there was a reason to go forward with the article at this time. Mr. Harden said that he did not know the intricacies of the zoning board of appeals process and whether the changes still might offer some advantage to restaurants seeking permitting, but had to conclude also that the parking amendment would not go far enough to accomplish the board's intent of leveling the playing field. Mr. Canale thought going forward with this article might have a negative effect on Article 4, as there would be uncertainty about impacts during the construction period. On the motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, the Board voted 4 to 0 to move for indefinite postponement of the article. Ms. Manz said she would go back to the Center Committee and let them know that a good faith effort had been made. All agreed that as worded the amendment did not achieve the stated goal of putting restaurants on a par with retail uses. Mr. Harden said that although it had not been a perfect article it had been a step in the right direction and he wanted to continue to work on the issue. Mr. Canale made a motion to bring an article to the 2006 Town Meeting as a Board priority. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion saying that it would be a comprehensive approach to the center parking. It passed 4 to 0. Article 4 – Battle Green Inn – Mr. Shapiro had offered to review the financials of his development proposal with a small group of people skilled in the review of pro formas. This was in response to Mr. Patrick Mehr’s assertion that the developer stood to make a huge profit on this development. Mr. Harden said that he was annoyed that this was coming up now given his prior request for financial information. Ms. Manz said she had a problem with the philosophy: the goal is not to soak every developer to the maximum but to mitigate the impacts. She does not see the need to come before Town Meeting and prove that a project will not make a profit. Mr. Canale said that having units to be sold is okay and justifiable, but when the developer says he is adding units for financial reasons that is different. Mr. Hornig commented that the developer can approach others if he wants to have someone speak to this issue at Town Meeting. Board members agreed that they did not need to see a pro forma to decide on the project.