Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-05-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 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 and Kaufman present. *****************************PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION******************* PUBLIC HEARING Three Ledgemont Center, Rezoning Petition: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. In attendance were Peter Nichols, Senior Vice President of the Beal Companies and Attorney Ed Grant. Mr. Nichols said he would be making a motion at the Special Town Meeting on November 17 to indefinitely postpone the article and would ask for consideration at the 2009 Annual Town Meeting in the spring. He read a letter of explanation to the Board to be entered in the record. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said he was pleased with the Beal decision. Mr. Galaitsis said that the Ledgemont proposal had been on an aggressive schedule so he was relieved. Ms. Manz said it would give more time for preparation and allow more time for interaction. Audience Comments: ?? Congratulations on decision to postpone this to Spring Town Meeting. In the future advise the Chair of the TMMA of any meetings to get the representative and abutters to attend the meetings. ?? This was a step in the right direction. The Board should look into formal commitments made in the past with Ledgemont Two before the Spring Town Meeting. In 2003 the traffic was not the issue at Ledgemont, but rather the proposed building itself. ?? Thank you to the Planning Board and Planning Department for the work they have been doing. Next time part of the public hearing process should be to include a report on Traffic Demand Management and a letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer of conditions to be met. Ms. Edith Sandy, chairman of the TMMA, asked if the plan to be submitted in spring would be similar and would it still be worth doing a site visit on November 16? Mr. Nichols said the plan would be very similar and he would be happy to still hold the site visit. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 5, 2008 *****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*********************** Traffic/Transportation: Ms. McCall-Taylor gave a brief summary of staff recommendations to consider in the new traffic/transportation article. The Level of Service (LOS) could not get worse, traffic-calming measures are incorporated in developments, and a two-tier system of permitted parking with a maximum might be used. Mr. Canale said the Board should apply a traffic bylaw for the whole Town and incorporate additional or differing traffic requirements for the Hartwell Avenue commercial zone. The Board would need to determine what the Town really should specify while looking at peak hour traffic and total traffic, factoring in green house gases, and getting a better sense of traffic calming in neighborhoods. Mr. Galaitsis said that past commercial developments promised that they would result in a level of service (LOS) D or better and that should be the baseline. Parking spaces should have a maximum number and an annual fee of $2,500 or other suitable amount per space should be imposed and maintained until the extra space was returned to grass, thereby creating an incentive to remove extra spaces. Mr. Zurlo supported the idea of setting up a fund for mitigation and thought the baseline should be established based on the goals. Start with revenue as the driver and ascertain what revenue would be sought and determine uses wanted, viability of uses, model impacts, and the baseline that would need to be mitigated. Did the Board get from the Board of Selectmen what the baseline revenue goal was? Mr. Hornig said the Board had previously decided that wasn’t useful. Mr. Canale said the Cecil report stated that the Town should be able to develop with developers bearing the cost and the Town could choose to share some of the cost. Would $2,500 per space be adequate? Perhaps the applicant should pay for the necessary improvements to the infrastructure with the Town matching or some pro-rated amount. Mr. Zurlo said the Cecil report did outline the process, but who would make the choices. Mr. Hornig said in the end Town Meeting would make the decisions on rezoning proposals. Ms. Manz said that since development would occur in stages it was difficult to lay out all the necessary infrastructure improvements and the allocation of funding in advance. The Town would have to contribute as well as developers. There is spillover from Route 128 and pass through traffic from Waltham developments, which add to the traffic problems. She could see requiring mitigation funds for a Minutes for the Meeting of November 5, 2008 Page 3 specific project to address its impacts on the immediate area, but that does not mean additional funds would not be needed from the Town as well. Turning to traffic calming practices rather then making changes to the infrastructure may discourage pass through traffic. Mr. Hornig asked whether or not an improved LOS was the right measure to evaluate additional cut through traffic. The Board should regulate what it cared about such as safety improvements and traffic calming. Parking space fees of $2,000 per space should start at the first space; the funds should be used to address traffic calming, safety and capacity improvements. Performance based TDM with the end effect of how many people no longer use single occupancy vehicles should be considered. Mr. Galaitsis said that the LOS was one of several factors requiring consideration and that the effect of traffic should be measured by a weighted sum of several factors, including LOS, traffic calming and others. He said that the Town need for an increased commercial tax base initiated consideration of an increased commercial FAR; however, the final choice must account for additional factors along with the projections of increased tax revenue. Ms. Manz said that Hartwell Avenue does not have much retail and so it would be all day parking, which would be difficult to use as a standard. The ITE figures are based on full occupancy so it might be better to look at the occupancy of Ledgemont for the past five years to get an average. It was questionable whether $2,500 per parking space would get done what would be needed. At least part of the funds collected should be committed to the addressing the impacts from the specific project to respond to the abutters’ concerns. She would not want to see all mitigation money diverted from the area. Mr. Zurlo asked what would be needed to bring intersections to a specific LOS. Was there a better way to measure traffic and pedestrian safety? It was uncertain if funds from parking spaces would do it. Instead ask developers to give a prorated share of funds for improvements. Mr. Canale said to consider issues of sustainability. Traffic generation was not just from commercial development. If people felt safer walking and riding bikes they might not drive everywhere - how many trips could be reduced? That would reduce green house gases from stopped traffic and there could be health benefits. Mr. Galaitsis said that he would not like to see the first developer at Hartwell Avenue be held responsible for all infrastructure improvements, as has been the practice so far. In that respect, it would be necessary Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 5, 2008 to first define the necessary improvements and determine their cost and then to assign a pro-rated figure to the developers and to the Town for infrastructure improvements. Traffic calming on Hartwell Avenue may need to be done very selectively since measures like speed bumps would impact more then just single occupancy vehicles, for instance buses and bikes. Mr. Zurlo said it would be helpful to understand the tolerance level of the residents. The Board should not be so quick to get rid of LOS. What would happen if developers were responsible for building their own mitigation improvements? Audience comments: ?? It was a dangerous misconception that parking spaces would generate traffic since it would be office spaces that would generate traffic. Would the Town be taking steps to protect the neighbors adjacent to commercial properties and spend the monies needed in the areas in close proximity to commercial developments? There would be a disproportionate impact on the immediate area, while the entire Town would benefit from the increased revenues. This would impact tremendously on the abutters’ quality of life. ?? The high priority should be the environment and our neighborhoods should not be for sale. Planned commercial developments were not fair to their neighbors. Spend the impact monies locally and residents in the area would expect to see the infrastructure improvements first. ?? There had been questions regarding the enforcement of past promises. A letter had been sent to the Zoning Enforcement Officer on October 15 and still there has been no response. ?? There has been noticeable fragmentation over the past year and there should be a larger effort to instill a change in attitudes of the Town such as using walking school buses. Think on the level of societal issues and not fragmented single neighborhood solutions. ?? The Town would need more then the LOS considered so residents could get out of their driveways. Mr. Canale said the comments made were critical and important since there is the potential that the process of balancing of the impacts and benefits to the Town and the neighborhoods could be divisive . Next time the Board meets with the Board of Selectmen it should be addressed. Ms. Manz said the reality was there were very few commercial zones in Lexington and abutters in those areas would feel the impacts the most. It was not realistic to expect improvements be made before increasing commercial development, but mitigation funds could be applied to those areas that would be Minutes for the Meeting of November 5, 2008 Page 5 impacted the most. ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to postpone the consideration of the minutes to the next meeting. *******************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said the project for new housing at the Air Force base has a new developer who wants to use Airport Road in Lexington as the sole entry. The Minuteman National Historic Park is not happy about it and wants to look at the Old Smith Farm easement regarding access to landlocked parcels. Ms. Manz reported on the Lexington Center Committee. As part of a connectivity project the ramp behind the Bank of America to the parking area is being constructed. The Center Committee is looking to propose changes of uses allowed in the center to include spas, health clubs and bakeries. Mr. Hornig said they should bring the article to the Board before placing it on the warrant. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that the transportation mitigation package for the Beal Companies project was in the process of being revised for more specificity. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:02 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk