Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-04-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2009 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 Manz, Canale, Galaitsis, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. *******************************TOWN MEETING************************************* Public Forum; Hartwell Avenue Rezoning Proposals: There were approximately 25-30 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig presented the Planning Board’s Hartwell Avenue rezoning proposals - Article 44 CM and NFI District Changes, which included a new site plan review process independent of a special permit and Article 45, Traffic, which included the creation of a Transportation Management Overlay District (TMOD). Audience Comments: Richard Thuma asked what (4)(a)[4] “connectivity” meant in Article 45; the order of the goals should be reversed to show priority; and he did not see the benefit of the sky view setback. Mr. Thuma also said the TMOD was a huge improvement over the existing zoning bylaw and patchwork of various groups, but “the devil was in the details”. He liked the idea that a plan was on the table developed by an elected Board that would be accountable to the residents in the next election. Mr. Stewart Kennedy of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) asked if the sky view included roof top mechanicals. Mr. Hornig said yes. Mr. Kennedy read a draft letter from the BAC and said that a signed copy would be submitted to the Planning Board after adoption at the next BAC meeting. Mr. Zurlo explained connectivity offered more choices to vehicles to move around, and the more options available the better. He also suggested that the BAC should give some consideration to a bike loan program in the center, connecting outlying business districts to the center.. Mr. Keith Omart speaking on behalf of the West Lexington Greenway Task Force was requesting provisions be made for the safe crossing of pedestrians and bicyclists at intersection where the proposed West Lexington Greenway Trail would intersect Wood Street. Mr. Andy Friedlich liked the flexibility to go above the .4 FAR. If the FAR was capped the Town might not be able to get sufficient monies for mitigations. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 Mr. Frank Sandy was interested in the new policy pertaining to the level of service (LOS) at intersections. He liked the new policy since it would keep cut through traffic from increasing by not improving the intersections LOS to D. He was concerned that currently a consultant hired by the Town for Spring Street was trying to improve the intersection and increase the traffic flow, which would increase cut through traffic. Mr. Hornig said congestion was problematic, and the proposed amendment would allow the Town to look at other options and not focus exclusively on LOS. Mr. Canale said the Board ’sarticles were good, but were still only drafts. He would like input from the neighbors. Ms. Sarah Arnold co-chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) said the TAC was concerned about the lack of clarity on how this proposal addressed support of transportation services. Hartwell Avenue would be a good candidate for a Transportation Management Association (TMA), but would require commitment from the businesses to participate. How would that fit in the transportation plan? Mr. Hornig said in the current draft plan had TDM measures required within the district and imposed on those building under this proposal. Like the current scenario, there would be no predefined set of requirements since we do not know what would be needed for mitigations in the area. It could include a TMA and physical improvements to enable shuttle buses, but the plan has not been developed yet. Ms. Arnold said that she was concerned about ongoing transportation services, which need to be addressed. Ms. Elaine Dratch said the selling point for Article 45 was with the increase in the FAR. She pointed out that the development along Route 128 would increase cut-through traffic on Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street, this plan for the first time would provide funding to address long-standing problems. Mr. Larry Smith said the traffic article left the tripwire in for some control and would allow the Town to come forward with a plan that could help get state and federal funds. This would also be a mechanism to get funding from developers and should be implemented in other areas of Town. Looking at Article 44, there were all pluses and one minus and both articles were great packages. Without them the Town would not be seeing any increase in commercial development take place. Mr. Galaitsis advised everyone to read as much as possible to keep track of all the changes. He was concerned that the Board only focused on increasing the commercial development, but had not come up with explicit measures for controlling the impacts. He felt that if these articles were to pass they would essentially (a) remove all ceilings on development size, and (b) provide no quantifiable standards for addressing the traffic impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods but only a promise to develop a Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 Page 3 mitigation plan sometime in the future. Mr. Canale said he wished to address Mr. Thuma’s “connectivity” question. The Town will look at how the benefits would be applied from the increased development with regards to the neighborhood that would get the majority of the impacts and burdens. Wood Street is a street that carries a large amount of “cut through” traffic despite its role as a thickly settled residential street. Connectivity concerns itself with considering the effects on the greater area planning traffic circulation if cut through traffic on neighborhood streets were encouraged to increase or decrease. It is a real issue that will need hard decisions to be made. Mr. Fred Martin said he voted against this plan last spring because the Planning Board said they did not have the information for traffic and he wondered if they were in the same position now. Mr. Zurlo said the issue with the traffic article last year was Larry Smith’s proposal would have removed the tripwire, which would have removed the one threshold that would balance commercial growth with traffic impacts. In this new proposed plan the Board left the tripwire in place and would look at the area overall, create a plan and determine how to offset the mitigations needed in the area from the increased commercial development. Mr. Sam Berman asked if there was a time limit with a special permit. Mr. Hornig said two years to implement it *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for December 17, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed the minutes for January 7, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes. The Board reviewed the minutes for January 14, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the minutes. The Board reviewed the minutes for January 21, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Zurlo abstained), to approve the minutes. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** The Planning Board will meet on February 18 to discuss the Hartwell Avenue rezoning proposals. February 24 is the first public hearing for the citizens’ articles and March 4, the second public hearing for Planning Board Articles. *********************************** BOARD REPORTS******************************** Ms. Manz said a subcommittee of the Center Committee discussed expanding the uses allowed in the center. Commercial Brokers were invited to discuss the kind of businesses looking for space. A few categories that came up were bakeries, hardware store, and spa/health club that may be useful and needed in the center. She had encouraged the Center Committee to bring forward an article to Town Meeting next year to expand the use table. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if they had considered first floor activities versus other floors. The rationale was to keep active uses on the first floor and she wondered how spas and other uses would be considered. Ms. Manz said they did not get that far. Ms. Manz said they also discussed parking regulations in the center and the Historic District Commission’s limits. ****************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************** 91-93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens, sketch plan: Joe Marino, John Esserian and Rick Waitt were present. Mr. Waitt said this was sketch plan three and they had met with Design Review Team (DRT) as per the Board’s recommendation. DRT showed interest in the athletic facility, which would be approximately 280 feet by 300 feet. Based on that information shared by DRT they came up with this third plan, which included 26 units, a 36-foot right of way with 24 feet of pavement and common open space in the rear, which was approximately 3.25 acres and including the wetlands and corner piece would be approximately 4.25 to 4.5 acres. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that DRT had reviewed the 20-unit plan and felt that a playing field was a crucial element.. Mr. Waitt said some of the benefits being proposed in the new plan were sidewalks on Hancock Street and the exterior of the loop road that would be directly connected to the common open space and a possible path to Chiesa Farms through the common open space in the back. Also they proposed no right turn on the northern end of the loop and, saving the Victory Gardens in the common open space. Mr. Waitt said a neighbor was concerned about the athletic field and that there were already problems with heavy traffic from the Diamond School activities. A new plan was created to address those concerns. The new plan would have 26 units, a 36-foot ROW with 24 feet of pavement, and smaller lots. The existing streetscape would be open and kept as common open space for abutters and the development residents use. This plan would have 80 feet of common open space as frontage off Hancock Street and Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 Page 5 would have the same amount of common open space. It would be a Balanced Housing Development (BHD) with smaller house sizes then a conventional plan. John Marino said the second option narrowed the gap in house sizes to approximately 500 square feet as opposed to 2,100 square feet in the former plan. The houses would be more uniform in size, style, and marketed as high end smaller sized homes with 3-4 bedrooms and all units would be less then 3,500 square feet. The house setbacks would be 20 feet in the front and 10 feet for the side and rear yards. The traffic generation analysis showed the impacts were much smaller then with what Lexington Gardens generated. The Planning staff did not see the benefit to the Town with the newer plan and DRT had only seen the 20- unit plan. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said more information was needed on this new plan; and asked if the continuous access to the school could be done with the first plan. Mr. Marino said no because of the layout. Mr. Canale asked had there been discussion regarding the traffic circle with anyone in the Town? Mr. Marino said no. Mr. Canale said the developer should have an interest in ensuring safety, which would need to be addressed whether financially or another way. The conventional subdivision would not be as attractive in meeting the Board’s goals in supplying a range of housing types. Jerry Van Hook, chair of the Sidewalk Committee, said the rotary had features that were less than ideal and a letter was sent to the Planning Board outlining the concerns. There had to be better conditions set up for children crossing on the west side and the Committee would want to see some participation from the developer to help improve the rotary. Mr. Zurlo said the open space in the front seemed like passive frontage. Mr. Marino said this new plan offered a visual amenity. Mr. Zurlo said he was concerned when a development turned its back on the street and had a fence on the streetscape, which would be less desirable. Ms. Manz said that the newest plan was quite disappointing. The previous plan had use to the middle school and to the Town, while the frontage open space had no use. The street layout was simply a conventional subdivision plan with smaller houses with more impervious surfaces and also backed up two lots against the school lot. The traffic generated for this use would be less then the previous nursery use, both plans provide sidewalks, make gradations of house size more gentle, but the newest plan does offer access from Hancock Street to the Victory Gardens; why can’t that be on the first plan? Mr. Marino said it Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 could be possible to create an easement for a path to the Victory Gardens on the first plan. Ms. Manz strongly preferred the first plan because there was less impervious surface, more open space in a configuration useful to the Town and no more traffic. Mr. Galaitsis said the accessibility to the back open space was good, but the narrow open play space along Hancock Street was an accident waiting to happen and that eliminated the newest plan from his consideration. The first plan showed a small unit would have 2,300 square feet of living area and 2,600 square feet for a medium unit and then unregulated units. He wanted to see much smaller units having 1- 2 bedrooms instead of 26 units that would be occupied by full-size families with school aged children. With smaller units they could be attached to one another with fewer lots and leave more open space and lower house prices, which would be more attainable. Also with an increase of 2.5 times the number of units allowed in a conventional subdivision, there should be some affordable units provided to maintain the 10% affordable ratio the state requires. As much as he would like to see some open space set aside, both of the proposed BHD plans would have a significant negative financial impact the Town’s resources and he could not support either plan. Mr. Hornig said he was happy with the unit sizes reflecting the neighborhood across the street. The preference would be with the first plan over the second and requested that the applicant work with the school for an improved plan. Mr. Canale asked if these houses would have crawl spaces. Mr. Marino said yes. Mr. Canale asked what was the height being considered. Mr. Marino said they would be under seven feet as required. Mr. Canale asked if the first floor elevation would be lower than with a cellar or basement, allowing for a lower profile. Mr. Waitt said yes and also it would not require as much fill being brought in. Mr. Canale suggested they keep the profile of these homes lower. Audience Comments: ?? The last plan was a 20-unit plan and now had gone up in density to 26 units despite the loud outcry at the last meeting saying the density was too much at 20 units. Was anything other then a conventional subdivision appropriate for Lexington? ?? The gross floor area (GFA) did not include the crawl spaces. What would be the GFA if you did include the crawl spaces per unit? Mr. Waitt said 700-1,000 square feet per unit. If the crawl space is three feet high that would be fine, but if it was close to seven feet high it should be included in the GFA numbers. Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2009 Page 7 ?? There were concerns with the importance of the traffic impacts on the rotary on school mornings. ?? A resident said that he had never seen anyone use the front area for recreational uses. Due to time constraints not more public comments could be taken at this meeting. The Board decided to continue the matter to February 18, 2009 from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk