Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 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 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Canale and Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2007. 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 meeting of August 15, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 2-0-2 (Ms. Manz and Mr. Zurlo abstained) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-0-1 (Ms. Manz abstained) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of August 27, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. ******************************** SPECIAL TOWN MEETING**************************** Article Positions: Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Mr. Hornig asked to what extent does the Board have an opinion as a Board regarding the TIF agreement. Ms. McCall-Taylor said they could vote next week prior to the meeting when they have more information. Mr. Canale said to wait until next week and it would be helpful to him to have a copy of the Planning Board report from the original rezoning report. Ms. Manz stated that the current proposal doesn’t exceed the CD rezoning. It is within the FAR and biotech is a clean industry, has less traffic, fewer employees, and shift work. It is the kind of industry the Town wants to invite and a successful business, which could be an anchor to similar types of businesses. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 Mr. Hornig questioned if biotech manufacturing is an appropriate land use for this parcel. Ms. McCall- Taylor said the property as previously zoned allowed bio-tech research and the manufacture of prototypes; when the property was rezoned in 2004 manufacturing was the only added allowed use. Mr. Canale asked that the record show that he is an abutter to an abutter within 300 feet. Mr. Hornig said the Board should put forth a position regarding the desirability or lack of desirability of the biotech manufacturing. He felt that it needed to be clear where they stood as a Board. Mr. Canale said that the Board Chair should say the Planning Board made these recommendations and Town Meeting approved it. Mr. Hornig asked if the Board still had the same position as in 2004 that the preference would be a manufacturing plant rather than an office building? Mr. Canale said the financial considerations and tax consequences were part of the original decision that was presented at Town Meeting and approved. Mr. Hornig said there are three aspects to the TIF, which are land use, the money piece and the additional mitigation piece. Mr. Canale said there are problematic parts to the TIF. TIFs are generally bad public policies, however in this instance it maybe an appropriate use of a TIF. There are circumstances where mitigation can make them workable. Other groups in Town have better information on the economic aspects to determine if this is a good or bad deal financially. If the Town doesn’t approve the TIF agreement the Town won’t get State money. Ms. McCall-Taylor said we don’t know the State package and we are not sure what the State will come through with, but it is a joint effort and local initiative. We might know more next week. Ms. Manz said the Board has to decide if what we get is worth what we put out, not whether the State is doing more. We just need to determine if is it a good deal for us. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Town will forego approximately $5,000,000 in incremental revenue, and that is not going to change. Mr. Canale asked what would happen if Shire doesn’t get the TIF and does not relocate? What are some of the principles of the TIF in general? Mr. Zurlo said biotech has a 20% higher property value and generates greater revenue then office space. Mr. Canale would like to see numbers since a personal property tax break is being given. Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Hornig said he is hoping for more numbers and he has questions regarding the financials. Ms. McCall-Taylor said tomorrow evening there is an open house where Carl Valente and Rob Addelson will be available to answer financial questions. Mr. Canale said TMG discussed the proposed traffic mitigation, which gives the Town $2.6 million it might not get without the TIF. Originally to get the project completed sooner the Town would have picked up the cost of the design of the Waltham Street and Marrett Road improvement, and it would have been completed in 2011-2012. With this new deal involving Shire it might be completed by 2009 with a guarantee that Shire would make up the difference if the State did not fund the project. In addition, if the Town does not receive the funds from the State, Shire will guarantee the funds to the Town to build sidewalks on Spring Street, Waltham Street and Hayden Avenue, and perhaps Concord Avenue. Mr. Zurlo was concerned with the cost of the new sidewalks since tree replacement and materials have not been defined. He would like to see as concrete rather than asphalt; these funds would not be sufficient. Ms. Manz said that the Board agrees on the land use piece. Mr. Hornig said the members of the Board might want to speak as individuals as well. If a Board member chooses to speak as an individual they need to be clear they are not speaking for the Board. The Board will not take position on the other articles. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** There will be a meeting on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 in the Planning Office at 6:00 p.m., prior to the Special Town Meeting, to continue the discussion on the Board’s position on the article regarding the TIF when more information may be available. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said that the MAGIC Legislative Breakfast is October 22, 2007 at the National Heritage Museum in Lexington from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Mr. Canale handed out an agenda for the MAPC Policy Summit: Equitable Development, which will take place on October 23, 2007 at the Omni Parker House, Boston from 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 Mr. Zurlo said the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF) voted to endorse the TIF with an added condition that it must be LEED (Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design) certified. The Cecile Group has been selected as the consultant for the commercial analysis study. Mr. Zurlo said the Vision 2020 Executive Committee has created a new demographic scoping group and asked if any Planning Board Members had ideas of data that might be useful that the scoping group could provide. If so they should relay it to him so he can advise the group. This Friday is a First Friday Forum of the League of Women Voters on the topic of economic development. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 88-110 Shade Street, Endorsement of Definitive Plans: The Board unanimously voted to endorse the previously approved plans for the Special Residential Subdivision. ******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES******************************** Special Residential Development: Mr. Canale had recused himself and left the meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor reviewed the Residential Development Bylaw revisions. These revisions were based on Board’s discussions of the residential development section of the Zoning Bylaw. Input from Planning Board members is greatly encouraged for more appropriate names for the types of developments. Types of Developments: 1) Site Sensitive: This development has the same number of units as a conventional subdivision without requiring the minimum lot size and frontage (includes the current reduced frontage). The only limits are the number of units, impervious surface and site coverage, all based on the proof plan. 2) Alternative Housing Development: Provides a variety of housing types and sizes. In this type of development there is a requirement of a certain percentage of smaller units. Limits are the total gross floor area, impervious surface, and a requirement to provide a certain number of smaller units. 3) Public Benefit Development: This type of development allows for an increase in the maximum limits under the Special Residential Housing Development if a certain percent of units are affordable. Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 Page 5 Impervious Surface: The change in definition will be addressed in the Stormwater Bylaw and applied to the Special Residential Development Bylaw. There was a discussion about a recently developed pervious pavement that is porous. This will be addressed at a later time when more test results are available. Open Space: Eliminate the “usable open space” requirement since it is likely to be provided in response to market concerns. Increase the percentage of open space to 33% of the developable area. Height - Limit to 35 feet or two and one half stories. Currently houses can be up to 40 feet, which is more then the Board seems interested in allowing. The Board needs to determine if the Table 2 Dimensional Controls should be modified or should the height change just be applied to residential developments. Mr. Hornig said that he felt the 35 feet height restriction should be applied to all residential structures across the board. Height should be taken out and addressed as a separate warrant article. Impact Numbers:Most of the current impact numbers would be eliminated in favor of a few measures derived from data easily obtained and updated. Living area, occupancy, and trip generation factors would no longer be used. Gross floor area and site coverage would still be factors, but site coverage would be calculated based on a percent of the entire site, rather than on a fixed amount per lot. Impact Multiplier: The calculation of the multiplier for use with the impact factors would be revised. The multiplier would be the number of lots in the proof plan, not as presently derived by dividing the development area by minimum lot size. The proof plan would be a lotting plan, which would be affected by the presence of wetlands and the shape of the lot. Site Coverage: This will only be regulated in the Site-Sensitive Developments. It is used to maintain impervious surface that is “saved” by not having to construct a fully complying subdivision road from being used to allow larger dwellings. The allowed site coverage is derived by applying the percent of site coverage to the proof plan lots and then converting it to a square footage, establishing a maximum for the development as a whole. Recognizing that some of the impervious surface on lots in a conventional subdivision are used for driveways, walks and patios rather than just structures, the limits will be set using a site coverage of 15 % in the RS zone and 9% in the RO Zone. Currently site coverage is limited by impact measures and is 2,900 square feet times the multiplier obtained by dividing the total development th area by the minimum lot size; it is not based on the proof plan. The updated 75 percentile would be 3,345 square feet. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 There is a general provision in “Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls” that limits site coverage to 15% for uses allowed by special permit in the RS and RO zones. The site coverage percents being proposed would be consistent with that, as it would not establish site coverage in excess of the maximum impervious surface as now appears to be the case. Gross Floor Area: This will not be regulated in Site-Sensitive Developments. In Alternative Housing Developments, the total gross floor area is a maximum for the development as a whole, to be distributed among the units. The maximum is calculated using the number of lots in the proof multiplied by the thth impact factor of 8,016 square feet. This reflects the updated 50 percentile. If an updated 75 percentile were to be used, it would be 9,580 square feet. th One of the accompanying work sheets did use the 75 percentile figure to give the Board an idea of what th the effect of that would be. One developer had already expressed the opinion that using the 50 percentile figure was too restrictive and would drive developers to conventional subdivisions. Size and Number of Units: Site-Sensitive Development: No limit on the size of units, except as limited by impervious surface and site coverage. The number of units is limited to those possible under the proof plan. Alternative Housing Development: The total number of units is not limited, but there are limits on the size of some units, and on the total impervious surface and gross floor areas. (Restrictions on the total number of bedrooms in a development are no longer being considered.) There will be a requirement that at least 50% of the units provided be smaller in size. There are no requirements on the type of unit, e.g. townhouse, attached or detached, simply the size of the unit. The developer may choose to attach units or not. “Smaller” is defined by looking at the size distribution of all single-family houses in Lexington and requiring that at least half of the units in the development be of a size that does not exceed the size of 75% of the existing houses in town, and further that a quarter of the units do not exceed the size of 50% of the existing houses. The remaining 50% of the units in the development can be any size within the limits of the gross floor area and impervious surface area maximums. Based on the current existing houses sizes, 50% of the units must be of a size not greater than 4,700 square feet and 25% must not be greater than 3,500 square feet. Public Benefit Development: This would allow a 25% increase in the maximums for impervious surface area and gross floor area as established in an Alternative Housing Development if at least 20% of the Minutes for the Meeting of October 3, 2007 Page 7 units were affordable. An affordable unit must be deed restricted to remain affordable to those with incomes equal to or less than 80% of the Area Median Income. It is suggested that the number of units built above those shown on the proof plan would not be subject to the house size restrictions, except as limited by increased total gross floor area and impervious surface area. Board Comments: Mr. Hornig raised an issue about the site-sensitive developments and permitting accessory apartments. He would like it to be clear that accessory apartments would be allowed, just as they are in a conventional development. Mr. Hornig asked the Board if there were any substantial conceptual or structural concerns with the revisions presented. The planning staff still needs to close in on the numbers. The Board needs to determine what they want as a Board, rather than responding to what they think might be what the public wants. That will be determined at the public hearings. Mr. Hornig asked if any Board members had a problem the numbers being worked with. The Board expressed support for the revisions being proposed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk