Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 9, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Hornig was absent. ***************************************PARKING************************************* MAPC consultant, Parking: Mr. Jim Gallagher of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) gave a presentation addressing parking as a regional issue. He discussed some of the parking practices other towns in the region and nationwide have used to help mitigate parking problems in their communities. MAPC has a sustainable parking toolkit on their website. It provides information, examples and assistance to the communities it serves in determining the best parking strategies. Mr. Gallagher addressed 5 of the 15 Smart Growth Principals such as: ?? Integrate people and places; ?? Promote more transportation choices; ?? Take advantage of compact development design and create walkable neighborhoods; ?? Promote economic development; and ?? Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Strategies for sustainable parking were as follows: ?? Alternatives to minimum requirements; ?? Minimizing negative consequences; ?? Addressing spillover; ?? Reducing the demand; and ?? Paying for parking. Shared parking was also addressed; Mr. Gallagher said it could reduce parking by 50% and increase open space. Board Comments and questions: ?? Were there any communities with free parking structures? Mr. Gallagher said there were no municipal parking structures that he knows of that are free. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 ?? Were there any examples of downtown parking without meters? Mr. Gallagher said most common was with a two-hour limit. ?? Was there any data that showed employee use of parking places? Mr. Gallagher said a lot of employees do take up valuable on street parking places. ?? Ipswich has no parking requirements - how does it work? Mr. Gallagher said the burden is left to the businesses. ?? Does the toolkit show the satisfaction level with regard to the amount of parking available and in relation to the amount of businesses in a community and how does Lexington compare with square footage of the district and the amount of parking? Mr. Gallagher said the study was done in April and aerial photos would be available in approximately one month. ?? Most people want to park at their destination. Mr. Gallagher said an analysis showed that people would be willing to walk a few blocks if there were things to do and it was safe. ?? Are Business Improvement Districts geared to parking and do you know of any? Mr. Gallagher said Hyannis made streetscape improvements, but did not add parking structures and Pasadena improved its downtown by charging for parking. ?? Regarding economic development one community could perceive it as a positive while another as a negative; is there a laundry list regarding these issues? Mr. Gallagher said that parking does play a role. There were people from MAPC to contact for more information if the Board wanted to. ?? Parking maximums would be of interest and would it be better to allow the market to dictate the parking needs; and by keeping the numbers low would that send cars into the neighborhoods? Would it be best to place maximums in the outlying areas instead of the centers? Mr. Gallagher said maximums would be more appropriate in the outlying areas. ?? Looking at commercial development, if maximums were used would there be a need for shuttles? Mr. Gallagher said most minimums are based in ITE standards. Only impose the maximums if the street could handle the additional trips. Set standards by being site specific not by books, one size does not fit all. ?? How much parking should be supplied and how does it affect demand? What were we trying to encourage and what do we not want to encourage? In Lexington, it is cheaper to drive downtown than taking the local bus service. A percentage of parking fees should go to bus and shuttle service. Hearing of precedents and what other towns were doing would be helpful. Was there any other information on funds for transportation? Mr. Gallagher said other states take the parking fees and apply them to other transportation. ?? Were there any studies available showing appropriate rates and figures on availability of parking Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 Page 3 rates? Mr. Gallagher said a book called “High Cost of free Parking” had lots of numbers for proper pricing and statistics. ?? In commercial areas where levels of traffic are high to begin with and an increase in the capacity is not possible, does a fee in lieu of building more than the minimum number of parking spaces have any legal basis and were there any precedents? Mr. Gallagher said Braintree, Northampton and Oak Bluffs use this practice. ?? Looking at parking and traffic demand management (TDM) requirements, it is hard for developers to put meters in their own lots in suburban locations, and thus they would be subsidizing cars by giving free parking. Perhaps cash out programs could be a possibility. Mr. Gallagher said that Stanford University doubled its campus without increasing parking by offering a free T-pass to everyone, charging significant parking fees for limited parking and everyone else gets money for not using the parking. Audience questions and comments: Mr. Jerry Van Hook was intrigued with the cash out option. If there is limited space for parking and incentives were offered for transportation alternatives, that may not be taken negatively by those who still drove their cars. Mr. Gallagher said the MAPC sustainable parking toolkit was mostly complete and only missing a request for newer technologies in fee collections. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked for an explanation of what services MAPC could provide? Does the Board present a list of questions? Mr. Gallagher said a list could work or compile a zoning requirements chart. MAPC could advise the Board on setting up a parking study to look at specific locations and districts. Ms. McCall-Taylor would get an appropriate list complied for further discussion. Traffic Demand Management: Mr. Canale said at the time the parking and traffic bylaw was written it was believed that it was possible to build your way out of traffic difficulty; if the Level of Service was not satisfactory, the developer would pay to improve the roadway. Now it is thought that building to capacity will not cure the traffic problems. The Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) and planning staff are looking at the traffic issue differently. The concern is less about congestion, and just adding roadways was not the solution, but rather looking more Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 to controlling demand. There would need to be incentives and regulations to encourage commercial development without destroying the livability and character of the Town. The Massachusetts Highway’s new design guidelines that ensure walkers and bikers have equal access to the roadway system could be a good resource to work with. Mr. Galaitsis said this whole thing was about managing demands. The floor area ratio (FAR) would go up on Hartwell Avenue and so would traffic. It would not be possible to be selective about who would occupy the space nor could the area be held hostage to the existing traffic problems. Adding a new line to LexPress would not help if everyone still used their cars. If TDM measures were to be put in place they should be quantifiable and measurable. The TDM policy could encourage many good things, but the policy must be enforceable. Mr. Henry said that part of Cambridge’s TDM was active feedback used to refine the policy as it goes along. Mr. Canale said with respect to a new LexPress route being added for Hartwell Avenue and Wood Street; whose cars are actually on the road? Look at that whole picture and try to preserve the capacity we have now. If LexPress ran down Wood Street for residents, would it reduce the auto trips and allow more commercial development? The reason for scrapping the bylaw was because conditions are not being written into approvals or enforced, which would be necessary to make them effective. The bylaws need to be performance-based and more equitable so developers will know what is required of them and make it a more speedy process. Ms. Manz said there was a real opportunity working on Hartwell Avenue with a discrete group of owners who would be willing to work with the Board. The tools are there but alternative means of transportation to the site would be needed with incentives and requirements with practical alternatives to limit demand. Mr. Zurlo said there would be support for alternative transportation. TDM reflects closely LEED model with alternative transportation. The Board should look at LEED requirements to see what could be incorporated, then select from a variety of possible mitigations. Audience comments: Mr. Richard Thuma of 149 Wood Street asked if anyone thought the TDM policy with a 50% FAR increase would reduce traffic below the current level? Mr. Zurlo said that the TDM initiative is not a Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 Page 5 stand-alone document; what was the issue? Mr. Thuma said the current level of service on Wood Street is F and it cannot support increased development without having a negative impact on quality of life on Wood Street. Ms. Manz said incorporating as many measures as possible to prevent traffic from worsening would be necessary, but it was not reasonable to expect the existing congestion to be fixed or resolved before any new development would take place. Mr. Galaitsis said traffic will generally increase but without TDM it will go up proportionally with the FAR. Ms. Jeanne Krieger, Board of Selectmen said there was a Lexington-Waltham corridor agreement looking at uniform TDM policies in the four towns and providing alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. There is expected to be an additional 6,000,000 square feet in the next year and an increase of 100,000 trips daily. Approximately half the traffic was through traffic and would increase. The amount of commercial development would add a small amount to the existing traffic. ***************************COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT***************************** Ledgemont, Beal Company, CD Rezoning: The Beal Company came in to give updates since the last meeting. In attendance are Peter Nichols, Gary Larson, Joe Gloski and Ed Grant. Mr. Larson said plan revisions show the conservation easements and trail easements along the north edge and east edge to Hayden Road, wetlands, and buffers. The Ledgemont 3 building is 50 feet away from the wetlands and creates a center space near the parking that already exists. The area currently has a substantial amount of fill from the past and the location would minimize impacts and allow for less clearing of mature trees. The residential zone line and 100 foot setback establishes the building 200-300 feet away from the property line. All setbacks would be honored on the site. Mr. Gloski said the building would be 140 feet back from Spring Street and then the site drops. The roof elevation would be 336 feet with a mean grade of 280 feet; the building would be 56 feet tall with three floors above the mean grade and three levels of parking below and a 51,000 square foot print. There would be a 12-15 foot enclosure on the roof. This would be a LEED certified building. Board comments and questions: ?? Why would this be a better location then the hilltop near Spring Street proposed four years ago? Mr. Nichols said the design and location were not acceptable at that time. The knolls create a natural setting and entrance to the complex. This would be for the VistaPrint expansion and would keep it closer to the existing building. ?? The concerns were the impingement in the buffer area, the kind of visual intrusion on the Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 residential area; what would the building look like from the residential perspective? Would there be auto blinds to close at dusk? Mr. Gloski said they would have interior sensors and the lights would go off at night. ?? The Board would want to see three-dimensional models. Mr. Nichols said absolutely to see the traffic flow and vegetation. This was just an informal presentation, but a full version would be presented later on. ?? There was a contradiction between the campus style site design and getting more cars on the site. You could make the strategy for ingress and egress flow from Hayden Avenue. Would there be open-air parking? Mr. Gloski said the parking would have some exposure, but a good portion would be below grade so there would be mechanical venting. ?? This encourages Spring Street entrances; like the horseshoe shape, but it should be pulled back from Spring Street, its proximity to the wetlands and imposition to neighbors and too much into the buffer area; want to hear what the Conservation Commission says about the placement of the building. ?? With regards to traffic distribution; how do you get trucks to use Hayden Avenue since there has been a truck ban on Spring Street since 1990? There were more than 400 parking spaces, which seem excessive given VistaPrint’s current utilization. Mr. Nichols said they instruct the trucks to use Hayden Avenue and there was no interest in building more parking spaces than would be needed. Audience comments: Mr. Steve Heinrich said with four floors above grade and three floors of parking the building could be massive. Would the neighbors see four floors? It would be very important to see a model of what the neighbors would have as a view. Ms. Sarah Arnold from the Transportation Advisory Committee suggested they consider a shuttle since a bus would have difficulty accessing the entire site. Board Comments: ?? This development is a prime candidate to require a strong TDM plan. ?? How many steps down is the building? Mr. Gloski said the plans haven’t progressed far enough to know, but the preliminary planning is for a flat roof with the northeast corner of the building being 90 feet from ground to top of building within a single plane. Mr. Canale wants to make sure that a 90-foot wall (plus roof structures) would not be part of what would be visible to the Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 Page 7 neighbors. Mr. Nichols said they would be back when they have more in 3-4 weeks. ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for May 27, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for June 4, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for June 11, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the June 18, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the June 24, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*************************** Mr. Canale said Metrofuture is meeting next Monday in Framingham. The State budget does include money for technical assistance from RPAs. The Board of Selectmen may want to ask for money for Route 128. Mr. Canale reported that there were cold cathode lights at the aloft hotel, which are five times brighter then neon lights. Ms. Manz said the Historical Society is suing the Historical Districts Commission for the following reasons: ?? Decision was delayed too long, resulting in constructive approval of the application; ?? Disapproval on grounds that are outside HDC jurisdiction regarding mass and size; and ?? One member participating in the HDC deliberations was an abutter and made a previous offer on the property, suggesting a conflict of interest. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of July 9, 2008 Mr. Zurlo suggested the Planning Board appoint a liaison to the Climate Action Plan Committee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to appoint Mr. Zurlo as the liaison to the Climate Action Plan Committee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Wendy Manz Clerk