Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-12-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Room G-15, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Ms. Manz joined the meeting in progress. *****************************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS**************************** Mr. Nyles Barnert, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), had requested a meeting with the Board to discuss some possible modifications to the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Barnert said the following items were the issues at hand. ?? If an undersized lot has been determined not to be buildable by the Building Commissioner residents currently go to the ZBA to seek to overturn the determination of the Building Commissioner. Garry Rhodes, the Building Commissioner, said that was not legal and that the resident should be appealing the denial of a building permit, not the determination that a lot was not buildable. The ZBA felt that the negative determination was a denial of the building permit, and it would be an unfair burden to have applicants spend more money to apply for a building permit that would be denied. The Rorke v. Rothman decision made this more complicated. He said that the ZBA overturns 50% of the Building Commissioner’s determinations that come before them. Mr. Hornig said he was uncomfortable making this informal process formal through the Zoning Bylaw. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to find the source in state law that makes the Building Commissioner’s determination final and binding, as well as the appropriate appeal process. ?? The ZBA would like clarification of the definition of a structure as “fixed on the ground”; what does it mean? Mr. Hornig said the Board should look into how the State Building Code defined it. ?? Applicants have converted their cellars to play rooms and exercise rooms and were asking the ZBA for a variance to add bathrooms in the cellars based on change of use; the ZBA has been denying those requests. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that §46.B changed with the Special Permit Residential Developments and that portion was removed. ?? Sheds are considered structures and need a variance for setbacks. For sheds under 100 square feet the ZBA would like to see a special permit process instituted. Mr. Hornig said that in areas where many variances are approved there should be a special permit Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 12, 2008 process. Hartwell Avenue Zoning: Mr. Hornig said the Planning Board wanted to discuss some issues with the ZBA regarding Hartwell Avenue. They are contemplating relaxed dimensional controls and requiring fewer special permits, using site plan review instead. Site plan review would allow the imposition of conditions but could only be denied in the most extreme situations. Mr. Hornig said there was some thought that the Planning Board should be the Site Plan Review Granting Authority. There is a presumption that Site Plan Review should be granted and variances are to be hard to obtain. Mr. Canale said the EDTF felt that the Lexington process was different from surrounding communities and that Lexington should be more in keeping with the other communities. He suggested that making the Planning Board the SPGA for commercial projects would be a way to move toward more consistency with other communities. Ten years ago Town Meeting decided they wanted more influence and turned it down. Mr. Zurlo said there should be a summit on the CD process. There should be a joint recommendation on how to proceed with this process for resolution. Mr. Hornig said the Board was not proposing any changes to the CD process, but rather implicitly saying that you do not need a CD to do anything except something that was extraordinary. Mr. Canale said that the wireless bylaw and regulations need changes and updates. Mr. Barnert said to come to the ZBA and discuss it with them. ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for October 15, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained) to approve the minutes of October 15, 2008 as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for October 22, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of October 22, 2008 as amended. Minutes for the Meeting of November 12, 2008 Page 3 *****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*********************** Traffic/Transportation: Mr. Henry presented the Traffic Changes Summary, which included the following proposals for consideration: ?? Supply management - set maximums and after that pay fee; ?? Revisit existing traffic studies and be less prescriptive; ?? Incorporate mitigation and “do no harm” ?? Neighborhood mitigations, what conditions would trigger them ?? Traffic demand management, getting a balance. Board Comments: Mr. Hornig summarized the requirements as the developer does what he has to do for his own use; don’t cross LOS (Level of Service) lines; have mitigation fees based on parking spaces (some spaces would be free and then fees for any number of spaces above a set maximum); incorporate TDM; and, neighborhood mitigations should be proportionate to what was being developed. Mr. Henry said establishing a fair share may be problematic; Hartwell Avenue may work using a betterment but this would be town-wide by-law. Mr. Hornig said while it was town-wide it could incorporate zone-wide solutions. Developers add additional traffic, and mitigation should be proportional to that traffic. The mitigation fees would go into a fund to cover all improvements such as traffic calming and intersections. He said the fee could start at the first parking space and be a lower fee per space. Having a CM zone-wide mitigation fund set up would be simpler and fairer. Mr. Galaitsis said he did not want the last developer to be responsible for alleviating the collective traffic problems created by pre-existing developments in the district. Increased density would benefit all businesses and the Town as a whole; therefore, all businesses and the town should fund net improvements would be for the nearby residential areas. He felt that the level of service should not be lowered below a currently permitted minimum level D. Parking spaces should all have a nominal fee up to the maximum permitted number. Parking requested above the maximum permitted number should be discouraged by charging much higher fees. Regarding mitigation, instead of fixing what becomes broken, he would prefer to identify impending problems and plan solutions in advance. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 12, 2008 Ms. Manz said that while she sympathizes with requiring LOS D for affected intersections, that requirement would become a block. She was uncomfortable with banking CM mitigation funds to be used townwide, rather than reserving at least some portion of the funds for the zone immediately affected. Betterments should be considered to bring in monies for improvements sooner. It might be necessary to use all three approaches for substantial improvements. It might be necessary to charge for virtually every parking space to get enough monies for needed improvements. Looking at Beal’s TDM proposal for performance incentives, there needs to be a determination as to whether the Town wants funds or wants a reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips. She would prefer actually discouraging trips. Mr. Zurlo said the Board needs to understand more of the details and would prefer promoting the work being done in the area over collecting funds. Mr. Canale said “do no harm” would be a bad policy considering the existing LOS for pedestrians and bicycles. The wording should promote equality for all mobility options. With regards to Hartwell Avenue there needs to be a determination of what would happen at buildout, what would be needed, how much it would cost, and how to share between the developer, Town, State and Federal funding. Whenever applicants put funds into the mitigation account the Town should match the funds. A traffic study should be done that is more concerned with the average daily trips than peak hours. The base level of parking could first be established. The Board should determine what type of activity would be desirable, such as laboratory over medical use, and set the minimums based on that rather than a bonus for trip reduction levels. Ms. Ginna Johnson, Associate Member, said Lexington should set a standard of excellence. Why should less perfect standards be allowed to impact the quality of life for residents? Decide what intersection LOS should be and the cost to bring it to that level. Ms. Susan Yanofsky, Economic Development Officer said with any plan the Board would need to consider workability, enforceability and how it would affect our competitiveness. Mr. Larry Smith said a practical example would be if you increase the square footage to three million. The monies for mitigations per square foot would go into a fund matched by the Town rather then burden new developers. Developers are limited on the tab they could afford. He did not like trip wires for LOS or using average daily traffic. That would make it far too complicated. Minutes for the Meeting of November 12, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Hornig said the consensus seemed to be to have a generic solution for a district rather than individual developments. There should not be general rules across the board, just make specific provisions for the CM zone. Intersection capacity should not be based on a good LOS as it would encourage cut through traffic. Mitigate existing impacts and make improvements or keep a number of small trip of wires and take monies for what improvements were needed, not LOS. Neighbors were not as concerned with the LOS as other things. Mr. Canale said to bring up the LOS for pedestrians and bicycles first. We have no idea as to what was cut through or additional traffic and we need to get a better handle on it first. Mr. Zurlo said LOS should be part of the discussion. It would not be the most important measure for all intersections, but would be for some. Mr. Hornig asked if the problem was not getting through the intersection, or too many getting through the intersection? Ms. Yanofsky said that if an intersection was bad you might not get a quality development. Mr. Hornig said there was skepticism about a predetermined LOS, that a more flexible standard would be desired. Mr. Galaitsis said that LOS should not be the only metric of traffic impact, but if a standard included LOS, then the LOS be improved. Mr. Canale said that if there was a minimal LOS it should be for all modes of transportation and there should be no more then half hour head time for mass transit. Mr. Hornig asked if we could not meet the standard did that mean it could not be built? Mr. Canale said have a plan in place with a commitment from town. Once in place trip wires would no longer be needed and it could be revisited on a regular basis. Ms. Manz said she agreed with having a plan in place, but development could be sporadic and could be in small spurts; who would pay for what? Mr. Hornig said the plan would tell you what to do when based on factors established early on. It would start with an initial phase and move on from there. Mr. Galaitsis said he would like the improvements to be front-loaded. Mr. Zurlo said a fund tied to a plan could work, starting with capacity and new ways to measure traffic impacts in addition to LOS. The plan would define measures that were important and fund them directly. Ms. Yanofsky said to think about outcomes and craft a bylaw and then check with the engineers. Mr. Hornig said for Hartwell Avenue the Board could move in the direction of having a fund and plan with no specific burdens on developers except funding. Mr. Galaitsis said a plan must exist and be accepted by Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 12, 2008 Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said that a commitment from Town officials was important to the developers for creditability. Mr. Hornig said the improvements the neighbors want, such as not allowing turns at intersections and traffic calming measures, were not expensive, and the neighbors did not seem to set a high priority on LOS. The measure of development contribution should be proportional and enough to cover mitigations, which might occur over a period of time. *******************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said the Boston MPO would vote on the 2011 TIP next year. They will wait until January or February to discuss the Waltham Street and Marrett Road intersection. Mr. Zurlo had asked Susan Yanofsky to give an update on the EDAC. She told him that John McWeeney would be doing a report to Town Meeting and that the EDAC was requesting a meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Hornig said the Conservation Commission continued the hearing for the Beal Company. The owner of 960-990 Waltham Street met with the Conservation Commission; the plan was approved with conditions. The applicant will have to come back to the Planning Board to get approval for the changes made at the Conservation Commission meeting. Mr. Hornig asked if the Board would like to take a position on a land purchase proposed by the Conservation Commission using CPA open space funds. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support the land purchase by Conservation Commission. Ms. Manz presented a gift from the Board to Mr. Henry for his new daughter Olivia. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk