Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 23, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ***************************** HARTWELL AVENUE STUDY AREA********************** Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Mr. Hornig asked the Board members to give their positions on the transfer of development rights. Mr. Canale: ?? TDR is strictly for the study area; ?? If TDR is workable on Hartwell Avenue it could be expanded; ?? Identify maximum development in the area; and ?? Define the upper limit and may get there sooner; ?? Need to right size development. Mr. Zurlo ?? Based on Mr. Smith’s chart .35 floor area ratio (FAR) has potential for development; ?? Three to four properties would need a significantly higher FAR to justify redevelopment; ?? That would open the door to more players; ?? Pick and choose where density should be in a master plan sort of way; ?? The advantage would be a quick build out and it could also be a disadvantage as well; and ?? What would be the maximum? Mr. Galaitsis ?? TDR could be fine, but keep dimensional standards, height and setbacks; ?? TDR and dimensional standards would both be addressed. Mr. Hornig ?? Don’t believe TDR would be particularly useful in this area; ?? Only reason to use TDR would be to implement a hard cap and a fairly low one for this area; ?? The effect of TDR would be preserving one-story obsolete buildings, not open space; ?? There would be just high density and low density buildings; ?? If wrong cap is set, it would be hard to move to a new level; ?? Set a soft cap based on capacity of parking spaces and then have developers contribute to a fund for improvements necessary to handle more development; and Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 23, 2008 ?? Wants to see all of Hartwell Avenue developed as high density. Ms. Manz ?? Sees Mr. Hornig’s point that some parcels might be underdeveloped; ?? TDR could be a tool for traffic demand management (TDM) using parking structures, channel parking and using shuttle busses; and ?? From Maguire Road to Bedford Street could handle more due to wetland restrictions from Maguire to the base. Mr. Galaitsis ?? TDR could accelerate the development that Town wants; ?? Give the capacity to developers to do something significant; ?? There should be a cap, which could be changed at Town Meeting; and ?? However, we’ll need to predict traffic impact accurately if we are to implement effective traffic impact mitigation measures; Mr. Canale ?? Will allowing combinations of different density developments compared to a single equivalent density yield net increase in revenue? Cecil and partner seem to disagree, may be a wash or not; ?? What is the maximum we want? What kind of infrastructure needed and how much should be funded by developers and how much by the Town? ?? Town should have a master traffic study done and save individual developers from having to perform a costly micro-study; and ?? Use MAPC figures of 2.5 parking spaces per 1k square fo, with a surcharge for more parking spaces. Mr. Zurlo ?? Not sure TDR serves our needs; ?? If greater density is desired come up with a maximum to use to make a recommendation to Town Meeting; ?? This would be an opportunity to create our own plan with one level as of right and additional goes through the regular process, ?? How much development and where it would be best located; ?? A traffic study would not remove the need for developer’s individual traffic study; information on commercial development needs to be site specific. ?? Uncomfortable about getting away from the CD process Mr. Hornig said the TDR discussion should come after we know what we want. How many parking Minutes for the Meeting of July 23, 2008 Page 3 spaces are we willing to take on Hartwell? Traffic demand is roughly comparable to the number of spaces. Development will significantly increase traffic and we should work to mitigate that additional traffic. Ms. Manz asked from what point do we start - tax revenue, number of cars, trip generation - what would be the determining factors? Mr. Zurlo said the Board would need a benchmark to begin setting goals and the rest would follow. Revenue goals would be achieved by additional square feet, which will determine the number of automobiles and parking spaces. Mr. Zurlo stated money should be the starting point unless a compelling alternate was presented. A letter should be sent to the Board of Selectmen asking for input. Mr. Hornig said he never heard at Town Meeting that there must be a certain minimum of revenue, but there would be a maximum of traffic impacts the Town would be willing to accept. Mr. Galaitsis said that the increased development at Hartwell is being considered because the percent residential tax burden has increased over time, and a solution is needed now to increase commercial revenue in order to restore the balance between residential and commercial tax. Some guidance should be requested from the Board of Selectmen to determine what amount would be a desirable figure and use that as a starting point. Mr. Hornig said the only sensible thing to do was use percentage goals on residential taxes versus commercial taxes. Mr. Henry spoke with the commercial appraiser Rob Lent in the Assessor’s Office and asked for data on Hartwell Avenue on what the area is generating now and the trend. Mr. Zurlo said he would like a presentation on the split and a benchmark from the Board of Selectmen on shared goals. Ms. McCall-Taylor said we already went to the Board of Selectmen and they didn’t give any response. Perhaps the Board should offer them three alternatives. Mr. Hornig said 33% was the high end, but was there information from the Board of Selectmen that would help the Board go forward? Mr. Zurlo said there would be benefit setting parameters first and submit to the Selectmen. Having a joint goal with the Board of Selectmen and their support would be helpful. Ms. Manz said to write a letter to the Board of Selectmen sharing some of the projections the Board Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 23, 2008 intends to look at taken from the Cecile report. Get a confirmation from the Board of Selectmen that if it was within the range they had in mind. Mr. Canale said Mr. Hornig had convinced him not to ask the Board of Selectmen, as it seemed to be considered the Planning Board’s problem by the Selectmen. The Board should review the assessor’s data and go from there. Mr. Hornig said the Board should look at a couple of scenarios including high maximum development caps of .9 FAR, how much can you get from the area limited by natural constraints, .35 FAR which is well charted, and no change in the scenario baseline. Look at limits versus goals. Mr. Zurlo said the Board should inform the Board of Selectmen of the scenarios and projected revenue. The Board should also consider the type of recommendation forthcoming from the EDTF final report. Traffic Studies: Ms. McCall-Taylor said there was $10,000 made available to use for traffic studies. Mr. Canale said in terms of traffic management the concern should be traffic limits and calming on Wood Street, Eldred Street, and Winter Street. Mr. Hornig wanted to get scenarios showing how to meet traffic mitigation goals and to have the consultant run models to determine what the level of service would be with certain changes. Mr. Canale said to figure out what we want and if more funds were needed write to the Board of Selectmen asking for what is needed to accomplish the goals. Mr. Hornig felt the goal of a traffic system would be to limit cut-through traffic on residential and mixed streets like Eldred and Wood Street. Mr. Canale said the level of service for pedestrian, bicycles and automobiles should all be equal. The Board articulated that LOS for other transportation modes shouldn’t be lower than auto LOS but they could be better. He would like to see scenarios that would accommodate a better level of service and traffic calming on residential streets that would bear the brunt of traffic. Mr. Hornig said if the Board has specific goals for the traffic system they should forward that information to the staff to collate. *****************************REGIONAL INTERTOWN ISSUES************************** Ms. McCall-Taylor said that Patriot Partners are proposing a major development project in Burlington that abuts narrow Lexington Conservation easements bordering a Lexington residential neighborhood. There are significant issues of access to deal with before any actual development goes forward. Minutes for the Meeting of July 23, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Canale said Lexington, Lincoln, Weston and Waltham are involved in developing common TDM policies. Burlington and Bedford were invited to join in. Capacity on Route 128 has been used up and they were trying to find what was in the pipeline; where we to go from here; what would be the next steps to get funding? The bill to transfer Lot 1 to DCR was currently sitting on the Governor’s desk. Mr. Canale said the Beal Company came into TMG to discuss present plans for expansion and asked to discuss traffic issues. When discussion involved potential accessory uses, one member of the Board of Selectmen and the Economic Development Officer said they do not want to discourage noontime trips. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** The meeting schedule is as follows: ?? 7/30/08 Permitted Uses/Traffic Goals ?? 8/6/08 Permit Process ?? 8/13/08 Subdivision Administration 63 Paul Revere Rd/ 48 Summit Avenue ?? 8/27/08 Subdivision Administration 341 Marrett Road; LEED/Green site design Ms. McCall-Taylor asked about the outreach to Westview neighbors. Mr. Hornig said to send a letter reaching out to the Westview residents inviting them to participate in the process and see where it goes from there. Mr. Hornig asked the Board if they wanted to continue their site walk on Hartwell Avenue on a Saturday morning. The Board should e-mail the staff which Saturday mornings in August they would be available. *********************************** STAFF REPORTS********************************* Lexington Hills: The applicant was seeking lot releases. There was uncertainty regarding the continuity of sewer services and it was recommended that until a legal right to use the Waltham sewer system was signed off on by Waltham and Lexington there should not be any approval for lot releases. Diehl Road: The applicant requested the Planning Board grant the release of surety and allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued on this parcel. A vote regarding the release of surety, which was a passbook in the amount of $31,155.00 was deferred pending the receipt of additional information from staff. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of July 23, 2008 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to modify the approval for the Diehl Road reconstruction, removing the condition that would prevent the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy prior to the release of surety, and allow the Building Department to grant a Certificate of Occupancy to the applicant. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk