Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-22-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Ms. Manz was absent and Mr. Galaitsis arrived at 8:30 p.m. **************VISION 2020 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE************ Ms. Mollie Garberg, the co-chair, along with Gregory Zurlo of the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF), and Susan Yanofsky Economic Development Officer (EDO) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant. They are in the process of getting proposals from consultants and will start the interviewing process with interested parties. The scenarios will include developing a baseline, incremental growth, infrastructure improvements, “blue-sky” economic growth and residential growth. They would like feedback from the Planning Board regarding what economic growth is appropriate, where it is appropriate, the tools and information needed, and the role of permitting. Mr. Canale distributed a handout and gave a brief summary, indicating that he would go over it in greater detail at the next evening’s EDTF meeting. Ms. Garberg asked about the overlay districts mentioned in Mr. Canale’s handout. He felt that the Town should seek higher quality development, rather than just more development, in an effort to increase tax revenues. Mr. Canale said that he wants to see what will bring in higher grade companies to upgrade the facilities, and this is information he wants to get from the consultant. Giving carte blanche would not do what the town needs, and would not be in Lexington’s best interest. He felt that the town needs to get the right kind of development. Mr. Hornig said his employer IBM, the third largest employer in Lexington with 700 jobs, is leaving town. Now people are trying to get Shire to come with 600 jobs yet we have not discussed what we want or need in the Town, is it more jobs, increased tax revenues? The tools and permitting process are used to limit economic development, not drive it. Zoning, tax policy, transportation demand management (TDM) are all in place on Spring Street and yet businesses want a tax break. Perhaps lack of demand is the problem, not our permitting process. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Ms. Garberg said the Appropriations Committee discussed building up the revenue base, creating employment opportunities, etc., all the reasons for economic development, but the perception by the commercial entities is that the Town is not amenable to development. Mr. Zurlo stated his position as a Planning Board member aligns with the direction the EDTF has taken. There are shortfalls in revenue to pay for Town services, and economic growth can help close the gap, but the impacts must be analyzed. Mr. Zurlo continued, the great potential for economic growth can be realized in increasing the quality and amount of building in our largest commercial zones. The comprehensive plan analyzed where potential for growth was and substantiated looking at the larger commercial areas as well. Portions of Hartwell Avenue looked tired and the real estate community will eventually pursue upgrades and modification of these older properties. The Planning Board and Town Meeting can review these future projects on a parcel-by-parcel basis, but if we don’t look at the whole area it can lead to unexpected results. If we don’t choose how we grow as a community, growth will choose for us. Master planning is a critical tool we should be using to achieve a sustained commercial community which is best for Lexington. Ms. Jeanne Krieger, chair of the Board of Selectmen, stated there is a need for commercial development to bring back the balance between residential and commercial properties. Twenty years ago when the FAR was reduced to .15, the commercial properties provided 33% of the tax revenue. Lexington had high value tenants and properties. Lexington needs to be mindful of including sustainable elements when increasing the FAR, perhaps tying bonuses to LEED (Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design) certification, strong transportation demand management (pedestrian and bike), and multi-use projects which include things such as day care and laundry near where people work. Mr. Hank Manz, a member of the Board of Selectmen, said this is a nuts and bolts issue. We need to understand the impact of IBM’s move and understand why Hartwell Avenue has not been redeveloped. Is it because of regulations, lack of interest of viable tenants, or owners “milking a cash cow”? What tools should we use to make or drive changes? We need to understand what causes loss of business, and be able to sort what is caused by factors we can control and what is due to aging out of business factors. He cited the closing of Theatre Camera due to the emergence of digital cameras. Mr. Canale said that since an FAR of .15 was established, Commercial Districts (CD) in excess of .15 have been approved. If an FAR of .3 were adopted this might trigger rezoning from the CDs approved and what would the Town lose? The consultant will help us to figure out what is holding back revitalization Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Page 3 and how much is due to zoning and regulations, and how much is due to comments that Lexington is unfriendly to businesses by the very people who want to promote development. Lexington does have more jobs than people who work. Mr. Zurlo said he has heard from multiple sources it was difficult for property owners to pursue the CD rezoning because of the significant upfront soft cost, which could be $200,000, to bring proposals to Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said to look at the track record of how many CD rezonings have been rejected. Some may be discouraged before they get to Town Meeting, but none have been turned down by Town Meeting in the end. Mr. Canale said perhaps we are too permissive in what is allowed in a CD. What kind of developments might we want to give the tax breaks to? The Town needs to figure out what it wants and set parameters so businesses know. Mr. Hornig said infrastructure improvements are wanted on Hartwell Avenue; what are we looking for? Ms. Susan Yanofsky said she is hearing from businesses that the existing conditions are not hospitable. Why doesn’t the Town service the existing businesses? They want to stay, and nothing on Hartwell Avenue makes it livable. Ms. Garberg spoke of the RFP and the process. In phase one the consultant would interview stakeholders and Boards, look at permitting. The shared base of knowledge would be discussed at a public meeting. This may give us a better sense of how to grow and get businesses interested in the same quality of life issues that the Planning Board is concerned with. Mr. Hornig said the Board of Selectmen spoke about Hartwell Avenue regarding striping and lighting and he asked for an update. Ms. Jeanne Krieger said striping for a bikeway is being recommended by TMG to the Board of Selectmen on Monday. Mr. Canale said these are the kind of things that drive property owners to upgrade and help property owners and employers have a stake in Lexington. Making it more hospitable creates a feeling of being part of the Town. Ms. Garberg said input of the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen was tremendously helpful. The Task Force anticipates tackling each issue and will set expectations so as to get priorities in order. Mr. Canale asked if they had applied for state funds for economic development. Mr. Zurlo asked are they MAPC grants? Mr. Canale said Regional Planning Agencies have monies to look at rezoning. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Mr. Zurlo said the EDTF will continue to partner with the business community during their work. Ms. Garberg said absent Planning Board members are welcome to respond to the EDTF questionnaire. Mr. Hornig said the Board would continue to work through Mr. Zurlo. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the corrected minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 3-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board deferred discussion of the minutes of July 11, 2007 until the meeting of September 26, 2007 in order to discuss members’ edits when all the members are present. ****************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale attended the meeting on the Fitchburg Line Rail improvements. They really did not want any comments from the public. Their proposal was trimmed down and ready to be submitted. The project is to be completed by 2011, making the commute from Fitchburg to Porter Square less than one hour. Mr. Galaitsis joined the meeting in progress. ************************* ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS******************************* 3 Paul Revere Road: This is an appeal of the issuance of a building permit by the building commissioner for a by-right accessory apartment. Members agreed that it does not meet standards for a by-right accessory apartment. Mr. Canale said the applicant would need to apply for a special permit before the Zoning Board of Appeals. On a motion duly made and seconded, 4-0, it was agreed to recommend to the Board of Appeals that the appeal be upheld and that the applicant be instructed to apply for a special permit. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND PUBLIC HEARING 88-110 Shade Street, Continued Public Hearing: At 8:40 Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing. Mr. John Gwozdz, landscape architect of Meridian discussed the four changes made to the plans Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Page 5 since the last public hearing. 1. Name of the project is Journey’s End. The cul-de-sac is called Journey’s End Lane, and they numbered all the units. 2. The landscape plan revision on page 7 reflects additional buffering material and naturalizing material added to the northern property lines of the site. 3. A maximum development impact sheet has been added in response to the comments from the Planning Board. 4. The south campus building connection between the townhouse units has been made into a four- season room in lieu of a porch or breezeway. A unit summary showing gross floor area, living area and bedrooms has been distributed along with architectural information provided by the applicant. Mr. Canale handed out a memo addressing his concerns regarding trees, traffic, and scale and mass. He said that the Tree Committee has recommended that a fund of $25,000 to $30,000 be made available to the Town to mitigate for the impact of tree removal as a result of the development. Mr. Canale wants there to be a condition that the trees be planted within the Shade Street right of way. The number of trees planted should have a total caliper measurement of one-half the total caliper measurement of the number of trees removed from the right of way and from the development site within twenty feet of the Shade Street frontage. He wanted the location of the replacement trees to be determined by the Tree Committee and Tree Warden after consulting with the private homeowners and Town officials. Mr. Cataldo said he had no issue with this. Mr. Canale felt that traffic safety is an issue and, if no mitigating steps were implemented, there would be a decrease in safety on Shade Street due to increased sight lines that may encourage drivers to drive faster. He wanted to see a condition requiring the developer to provide safety improvements to keep the speed limit of vehicles on Shade Street to 25 mph. Possible improvements include providing portable or permanent speed humps and signage. The form of the physical improvements will be determined after a public process conducted by the Town. Mr. Cataldo would only be responsible for improvements on Shade Street necessary to mitigate the impacts of his development. Mr. Cataldo said he had no issue with that. The Board members had comments and questions about the scale and massing of the dwellings. Mr. Cataldo said that in the south campus, the buildings are shown with a height above the finished first floor. The elevation of the ridgeline of the neighbors is 303’ and those on Shade Street in the development are Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 300’. The highest unit is 31½ feet above the finished floor. There are pull-down stairways to the third floor, which cannot be finished. The lower levels will be cellars, not basements, and therefore are not a story. Mr. Canale said he wanted to be sure that Mr. Cataldo could build what he intended to build and does not want to leave anything unspecified. Mr. Cataldo said as the attics could only be accessed by pull-down stairs and the average natural grades seems to indicate the lowest levels are cellars, the dwellings are only two stories. Mr. Zurlo asked if the portion of the structure that connects units 9 and 10 is included in the dwelling summary as living area. Mr. Cataldo said yes. Mr. Zurlo said that it was helpful to see the building elevations, but they don’t help determine how a building fits into its surrounding context as well as a perspective would. For example, units 19 and 20 are stepped back, but the elevation appears flat, which doesn’t help communicate the quality of the building, which steps in and out. The final perspective should include the Needham’s property. While it has come a long way, it is not where he thought it would be. Mr. Galaitsis said that the sketches show no windows in the cellar and is that the intention? Are there windows? Mr. Cataldo said there are basement windows. Mr. Galaitsis said then there are four stories of windows. Mr. Cataldo said the windows would be in wells and not visible and that the building code requires some glass. Mr. Galaitsis said then he prefers the cellar to be counted as a basement. The townhouse will look large with four rows of windows. Mr. Galaitsis said that for him to consider the townhouses as attached there would need to be a big overlap, both horizontally and vertically. What was shown is not sufficient and is in the same category as a trellis or a fence; he would not be able to support it. Mr. Galaitsis said that he sees eleven dwellings and therefore an emergency exit is required, which would impact the density. He feels this type of attachment is just an attempt to circumvent the need for an emergency exit. Mr. Hornig said that is a point of disagreement with the rest of the Board. Mr. Galaitsis does like the cluster units as many of them are small and there is well-defined open space, but he wished the density would be more in line with what he considers acceptable. He hopes to see the changes next time so he can vote for it. Mr. Hornig asked for clarification as some of the trees within the right of way (ROW) are marked with an X for removal, and some trees within the limit of clearing are not marked with an X. He wanted to be sure Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Page 7 that any trees not marked with an X were to remain. Mr. Gwozdz said that is correct, if the tree is not marked with an X, it will remain. Mr. Hornig noted on the plan that sections of the stone wall are not shown; will it be a continuous wall? Mr. Cataldo said yes it would. Mr. Hornig noted the utility easements for gas, electricity and drainage need to be modified to correspond to the actual location of the utilities. Mr. Hornig asked for the wording of the utility and access easements, as he wants to review them to make sure that the wording is acceptable. Mr. Hornig said there is a utility pole at the worst point in the sight line, and what had been the outcome of that discussion? Mr. Cataldo said he spoke with Peter Chaplin who said to leave it as it stands, and prior to the Town’s repaving of Shade Street, which is scheduled for next year, he will evaluate whether or not to have the utility pole moved. Mr. Hornig said he saw no ETC services running to the individual homes and he assumes they are all underground. Mr. Hornig also wanted to discuss construction mitigation conditions on Shade Street. Due to the conditions on Shade Street there should be no construction parking on Shade Street. Another consideration he would like to put before the Board is redirecting traffic in a particular way, perhaps down Cary Avenue. Audience Comments: Janice Rauscher of 47 Cary Avenue asked the Board to consider another perspective rather than just looking at the outcome. This is a major undertaking and they would like to minimize the disruption of the construction impacts on the resident’s quality of life during the construction process. It will be at least five years with trucks on the street, large piles of debris, utility disruptions, early material drop-offs and construction activities. She asked that the Planning Board to appoint a project manager to oversee, coordinate and set time frame for actions. Mr. Hornig responded on behalf of the Town that they are not set up to provide that level of supervision. Ms. Jeanne Canale of 29 Shade Street, chair of the Communications Advisory Committee, informed the Board that the utility pole belongs to Nstar, not Verizon. Ms. Joanne Robbins of 84 Shade Street asked about the distinction between a dwelling unit and a dwelling because she was confused. Mr. Hornig said the zoning bylaw defines a dwelling unit as an individual unit. A dwelling is a structure with multiple units in it. Mr. Henry made a point that the fire department did not want a second access even if there were eleven dwellings. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Lisa Spiro of 45 Cary Avenue sent a letter about public health and safety concerns regarding West Nile Virus and EEE. There is standing water in the detention basin abutting her property and she wants the Town to play a role in monitoring mosquito activity. She asked the Planning Board to consider getting these sites monitored and spraying the area. Mr. Hornig said this is a Board of Health issue and the residents need to work with Ms. Kathy Fox. Mr. Gwozdz said it was designed to Town standards. Mr. Henry said that the standard is for drainage in 48 hours. Ms. Spiro said if a system is not draining within 48 hours, someone should be responsible. Mr. Hornig said that the Homeowners Association is responsible and that he doesn’t want to be sidetracked with the Cary Avenue development He explained that the Planning Board does not have enforcement powers over its projects; the Building Department and Zoning Administrator enforce the building concerns, and the Board of Health handles health aspects. Mr. Canale said when he approved the minutes he forgot about a correction he wanted to make concerning the utilities being brought in. The minutes state that there were three cable providers getting access, but there are four providers. Mr. Cataldo said that they would come off the pole but since there are only three conduits up the pole, he will bring in hand boxes and all four providers will be brought on site. Mr. Canale also said that if the tree adjacent to the semi-knoll is taken down, they should move the poles further back in the ROW. Mr. Henry said the wires must still be in the ROW, which might limit where the poles can be located on the curve. Mr. Hornig asked about the historic restriction. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that Town Counsel had made some changes. In addition, Massachusetts Historical Commission has suggested changes, such as the inclusion of the terrace space, which might still need resolution. Mr. Hornig thought the rear terrace was to be preserved. Mr. Cataldo said the terrace had a bad pitch, was cracked and needs to be replaced. He intends to rebuild it with similar materials. Mr. Galaitsis asked if units 5 and 14 would have one bedroom above the garage and whether the apron was wide enough for three cars? Mr. Cataldo said units 7, 8, 11 and 12 each have a parking spot in the carriage house. Mr. Galaitsis asked if sheet A-2 showed two bedrooms and a loft in unit 18? Mr. Cataldo said the third room is a loft. Mr. Galaitsis said it looks like a bedroom to him. Mr. Cataldo said it had an open gallery rail and no closet. Minutes for the Meeting of August 22, 2007 Page 9 Board Discussion: Mr. Hornig said Ms. Manz would like to participate in the decision, but that would not be possible without an extension of the decision date of August 28. Mr. Canale wondered what would warrant the development getting 100% of the allowable maximums since no affordable units are being given. He suggested limiting the number of stories and restricting the height would make him more comfortable with the scale and massing of the buildings. Mr. Cataldo said the average natural grade has been calculated for all units and the heights have been designed, except for the townhouses and carriage houses. He believes they are all cellars. Mr. Zurlo returned to the issue of project oversight and how the Board can intervene to make the project a friendly neighbor. He wanted to put in conditions prohibiting trucks from parking on the street and require a schedule of construction events be communicated to the neighbors at least once a month. Mr. Canale said this is not the first time there have been issues on Cary Avenue, and the Board should impose conditions to limit the impact of the construction on the residents. Mr. Galaitsis asked the neighbors to remember others were inconvenienced when their homes were being built, but it is only a temporary disturbance. Mr. Zurlo said that specific language should be placed in the special permit regarding construction staging and communicated to the town bodies that have jurisdiction. This would help promote positive accountability regarding general construction activities. Mr. Cataldo said e-mail makes it easier and he can forecast out a few weeks at a time. Mr. Canale said in terms of sequencing and planning, they would start on the south campus and phase in the north campus depending on the market and weather. Mr. Cataldo requested a 45-day extension of the time in which the Board must take action on the definitive subdivision and on the special permit with site plan review. After extensive discussion, on a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0, to extend the action deadline 45 days, to October 12, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 3-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to continue the public hearing to August 27 at 7:30 p.m. at Estabrook Hall in Cary Hall. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Richard Canale, Acting Clerk