Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-19-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. *****JOINT MEETING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE***** Discussion on the Hartwell Avenue Study Area: The following members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) were present: Larry Smith, Joe Zink, George Burnell, Peter Kelley, Sheryl Mahoney, John McWeeney, Jerry Michelson, Rick DeAngelis and Sigmar Tullmann as well as Economic Development Officer Susan Yanofsky and Town Manager Carl Valente. Mr. McWeeney said that the EDAC wanted to work together with the Planning Board to derive the best solutions to increase Lexington’s commercial revenue. Mr. Hornig said the Planning Board was looking for a plan to increase commercial development on Hartwell Avenue while balancing the Town’s interests. There will be a rollout on December 10 for feedback, a January/February review of the draft bylaws, a public hearing in March and then the article at Town Meeting in late April. The plan would include relaxing dimensional controls, the use of site plan review for the run of the mill development and special permit for extraordinary plans, a traffic mitigation plan (which the Board would be discussing tonight) and the development of district wide plans. Such a plan would determine improvement costs and how to fund them, and have every developer contribute to the solution. Mr. McWeeney asked if the site plan review (SPR) process required a majority or super majority vote? Mr. Hornig said SPR approval required a majority vote. The SPR was not discretionary, but reasonable conditions could be imposed. Increased FAR could trigger the requirement for a special permit. Mr. Canale said there were better ways to capture value for uses and impacts rather then FAR. Mr. Hornig said the FAR was there because there was a sense that development should be capped and it would fairly allocate the by-right buildability. Mr. Galaitsis said that FAR was a necessary trigger. Ms. Yanofsky said that the trigger of a certain amount of square footage and usage that the Board wanted was a concern because some properties were small and could not add more square footage. Mr. Smith said he felt the FAR would be the right trigger and because of the wetlands being excluded an FAR of Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 0.35 should be used rather than 0.30. In terms of the traffic mitigation issue, linkage payments or an advanced betterment fee should be used along with town contributions since the burden would be too large for developers and the neighborhood. Mr. Hornig said that dimensional controls as well as height were included in the warrant. The language in the warrant would put everyone on notice about the scope of the motion without the actual motion being included. Mr. McWeeney said do not stop development until there is a master plan in place, but for the future the Board of Selectmen needed to guarantee that the funds for mitigation would be there waiting for the work that would be needed. Mr. Hornig said minor changes could be done, but the goal was to have all properties have approved site plans and those could be modified as either major or minor changes. The Board would be discussing transitional plans and how to fund them. Mr. Galaitsis said smaller developments should not incur the same costs as larger developments. However, the idea of whether or not to let development roll forward without a plan in place was still an issue. Mr. McWeeney said that much of the impacts have to do with Waltham and Route 128 and were generated outside of Lexington. Development should not be stopped in order to accommodate Waltham traffic driving through Lexington. Ms. Manz said the Board was aware that not all traffic problems were generated locally and that solving the problems would cost money to improve the infrastructure. Development would be a way to increase revenue, but money may need to be spent to make money, keeping in mind how the infrastructures changes would be funded. Mr. Zurlo asked if the zoning articles to be proposed by the Chamber of Commerce were the same as last year? Mr. Smith said he was approached after the last vote, which was eight votes shy of passage, and asked to file for the 2009 Town Meeting in case the Planning Board’s articles were not palatable. Mr. Zurlo said it would be best to focus the time and energy on the combined efforts of the EDAC and Planning Board. Mr. Canale urged them to look at cut-through traffic. The Howard/Stein-Hudson report indicated that 75% of the traffic was locally generated or received and only 25% was cut-through. Level of Service for automobiles may decrease for a while, but access equity improvements for pedestrians and bikes should be considered. Ms. Manz said that the Board had not settled on making the height restriction more lenient, but what would be the breakpoint for height to impact the FAR? Mr. Zink said with the .35 FAR excluding the Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 Page 3 wetlands he would like to see one more story allowed to prevent huge massing of buildings. Doing an analysis and having all the residents in the area participate in a betterment would be a great concept. Let people know what to expect; speeding up the process would be important to attract the top tier development. Mr. McWeeney said using garages and the proposed increase in height would help stormwater management by the reducing the impervious surface. Mr. Smith said five stories would be the breakpoint, as six stories would require different construction. Mr. Bhatia asked if the $40,000 just added to the Planning Department budget at the special Town Meeting would be used for a traffic study. Mr. Hornig said the $40,000 now available was for the presentation materials and additional analysis for the 2009 Town Meeting, not for a traffic plan. Mr. Sigmar Tullmann said that indicators were needed that would help to make sense of all the data. They should quantify and rank height, square footage, traffic and parking to determine a starting point. Mr. Hornig said the goal was to have clear guidelines, but he wanted to leave room for exceptional projects. Mr. DeAngelis asked about sensible economic development checklists and standards and how the Board would establish those standards. He said to give thought on how to proceed, perhaps establish a working committee to develop an outline for zoning by-law changes. Mr. Hornig said that was what was being worked on for the past year. Mr. Zurlo asked if that suggestion was to advocate for wholesale teardown. Mr. DeAngelis said teardown was different in commercial development and he was not advocating that, but rather showing that it was a reality. Mr. Smith suggested they should come up with incentives for developers to tear down buildings, rather then doing small additions for those on the cusp. Mr. Hornig said that the Board would be in favor of every owner redeveloping at an increased FAR, but the residents would need to be reassured. The impacts would need to be addressed by a reasonable mitigation plan, along with addressing the political and technical issues. The Board would welcome advice on the topic. Mr. Kelley said that Hanscom Air Force base attracts daily traffic and with additional development being considered and the only access on Hartwell Avenue, he was sure Hanscom Air Force base would welcome a partner in upgrading the area. Mr. Canale asked how much development could the town get without creating overwhelming impacts; the Cecil report scenarios included 0.3 to 0.9 FAR and stated that 0.9 would not be feasible. There was talk of cap and trade; how much disincentive would a special permit be? Mr. Smith said looking at the make-up Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 of owners on Hartwell Avenue most were small and won’t go for a special permit. Mr. McWeeney said Hartwell Avenue redevelopment would be a slow process. Mr. George Burnell said the Board of Selectmen did not want to see competing proposals from the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Advisory Committee and the Planning Board. The Planning Board should take the lead and not repair the past damage, but rather look at what was needed for the future. Mr. Patrick Mehr asked if this was what the town wanted. He felt that the town should be more like Lincoln. He said the town should encourage fewer students per lot as this seemed to be the key to Lincoln being able to provide excellent services without a commercial base. *****************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************* Lexington Gardens, 91 & 93 Hancock Street, Sketch Plan: Present were Joe Marino from Homes Development, John Esserian, the applicant, and Rick Waitt and Brian Timm from Meridian Associates. Mr. Waitt explained that 91 Hancock was a single-family home and 93 Hancock was Lexington Gardens. The site has 10.95 acres with a 6,000 square foot piece of land that may become part of the parcel (it was not clear at this time). The parcel is zoned RO but across the street is RS. The proof plan shows an 11-lot conventional subdivision including a 50-foot right of way with sight distance in excess at both entrances. If a balanced housing development were used the GFA would not exceed a total of 79,200 square feet and impervious surface would be limited to 91,866 square feet. The conventional was also in consideration for this development. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said he hoped that the applicant would not do a conventional plan. A balanced housing development or site sensitive development would be better. It would be important to preserve the Victory Garden as a feature, which would not be possible with the conventional plan. The parcel borders school and conservation land. The road configuration at the rotary was an issue; improving it and making it safer would make the development more attractive. Mr. Zurlo asked if the impervious surface was 50% with the planting beds. Mr. Waitt said that was an estimate since there was a lot of pavement between the planting beds. Mr. Zurlo said a balanced housing development would be attractive with an affordable component. The types of general housing unit mix the Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 Page 5 Town desires are not as well understood as the State mandated affordable housing requirements are. Ms. Manz said she was interested in the public benefit development and was also interested in a playing field as another possible public benefit since the site was flat. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the public benefit development had been rewritten to only allow affordable housing as the public benefit. Mr. Galaitsis said the lot was sizeable and had flexibility. Saving the Victory Garden with a site sensitive development would be an amenity to the Town. The balanced housing development was an option but, at an increased density, he would like to see 10% of the units affordable with or without the bonus square footage to maintain or improve the Town’s percentage of 40B-affordable units. The development should have neutral impacts on town finances and, preferably, not have only large homes. Instead he favors around 11 homes for families and around 11 very small units with one or two bedrooms, suitable for empty-nesters and young professionals. Mr. Hornig was concerned about the circulation on site; the intersection was already complex and adding two more intersections could be an issue. Other options to consider would be to integrate the school drive and traffic circle with site access, add a bicycle path to the school and pedestrian access to conservation land. There would be a preference for diversification of housing types. Mr. Canale said to reduce the entry onto Hancock Street to one outlet and the other for emergency access to Hancock or School Road. Going forward seek out the sidewalk committee for input. Mr. Henry presented some figures at 20, 32 & 40 units that were as follows: 1. The 20 units would have an average size of 3,800 square feet; 5 small units, 5 moderate units and 10 units at 4,800 square feet; 2. The 32 units would have an average size of 2,500 square feet; 8 small units, 8 moderate units and 16 units at 1,850 square feet; and 3. The 40 units would have an average size of 2,000 square feet; 10 small units, 10 moderate units and 20 units at 860 square feet. A balanced housing development would most likely settle at 32 units and public benefit housing at 40 or more units. Mr. Canale said if this site was further from the school it would be considered appropriate for a balanced housing development, but the additional cars would be a problem since they were located close to the Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 school. Mr. Waitt said he was not finding direction from the Board regarding density and was there any limit on the balanced housing development, a density that the Board would not be interested in seeing. Mr. Hornig said the Board is diverse. He felt no unit would be too small but assumed that they would not want to go smaller than 2,000 square feet. Mr. Waitt said if he could not get better direction then they would go with the conventional. Mr. Galaitsis said he did not want to adversely impact the Town finances by increasing student population on-site above what would be expected with a conventional subdivision; and he did not want a higher density development to lower the 40B-affordable ratio of the Town. He could support a site sensitive development or balanced housing development, but he wanted to see specific numbers on a spread sheet for the proposed units before making any commitments. Ms. Manz said she did not have a limit on the lower numbers and would fine with single, attached or townhouses as long as they were smaller homes. Mr. Zurlo said he would favor a balanced housing development, but what were the goals of the developer? Mr. Waitt said that he was not in favor of 40 units at 2,000 square feet. Mr. Canale said he had no problems with 11-40 units, but there were particular issues he was trying to envision. He wanted to see more neighborhood participation. How does the close proximity to the school and the major walking route play out? Audience comments: ?? There were concerns about the children walking to school;, fix the rotary and Diamond School problems first before developing. ?? The children in K-5 would go to Estabrook School and driving those children would be adding to the traffic problems already present. That 40 units might be added on one road was horrifying; it would be a nightmare. Make that road entrance as far away from the rotary as possible. Mr. Hornig said there was a mix of enthusiasm on the Board for high density and not a lot of enthusiasm for the conventional plan. A significant improvement to traffic would allow them to do what they would want. Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Zurlo asked what number of units would require a traffic study. Mr. Hornig said 50 units would trigger a traffic study. Mr. Hornig said that the conventional seemed to be the only way to go. Ms. Manz said if the Board did not want a conventional plan they needed to take a more proactive stand. Mr. Canale said concerns were expressed and if it has to be one way or another, a site sensitive development would be the way to go. It was quite possible that any problems could be worked out to the advantage of all. Perhaps the Board should do outreach. Mr. Canale would like to see if this site could be worked out as a balanced housing development, but it was not there yet. Mr. Galaitsis said that he would like to get away from the conventional plan, would prefer the site sensitive development, and he did not have enough information on the balanced housing development. Mr. Canale recommended that the Board seek input from the sidewalk committee, school committee, TSAC or DRT and do more outreach to ensure stakeholders were not left out of the process. Mr. Waitt said that 40-45 units could be used to spur on conversation. He was not exactly sure which way to proceed. Mr. Zurlo said that the Board needed to see more data similar to Mr. Henry’s presentation and hopefully some affordable units would be offered. The applicant should come back with three or four tabulated scenarios for the balanced housing development. Mr. Hornig said to come back with the tabular information for the balanced housing development or a preliminary conventional plan with site sensitive development for improvements. *****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*********************** Traffic Study by Howard/Stein-Hudson: Liz Peart presented the traffic study done by Howard/Stein- Hudson. Board comments and questions: ?? We may have to distinguish between good and bad level of service (LOS) F at some intersections and estimations of queue were important. ?? If we do nothing, traffic would still be problematic, but increasing commercial revenues would provide a mechanism for improvements. ?? Roadway capacity and driveway movements needed to be looked at. ?? How accurate were the numbers from the BSC report regarding traffic generated from Hartwell Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of November 19, 2008 Avenue, cut through traffic and Hanscom traffic? ?? Would there be a point where developers would not develop due to a poor LOS? ?? Would increasing the number of lanes make an intersection better then LOS F? ?? Remove the (L) from the FAR as it implied there was a problem with the way Lexington does things. ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for October 29, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of October 29, 2008 as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for November 5, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of November 5, 2008 as amended. **************************REGINAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES****************************** Mr. Canale said the MAPC meeting is on December 2 in Boston. On Friday, Move Boston is meeting to discuss traffic and the health risks. The State Corridor Management Study was signed by MAPC. Mr. Galaitsis said the Noise Advisory Committee needed to do more work prior to proposing a bylaw change. Mr. Hornig said the developer from 341 Marrett Road went before the Historical Commission and asked that the demolition delay for the carriage house be removed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk