Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-25-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis, Canale, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo was absent. ****************************TOWN MEETING******************************** PUBLIC HEARING Article 48, Financial support of Town Transportation System: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Article 48 to order at 7:33 p.m. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. Ms. Dawn McKenna gave a presentation on her proposed article 48 to amend the zoning bylaws of the Town of Lexington to require that one component of the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) be financial support of the town-wide transportation system, currently Lexpress. To accomplish this Article XII Traffic would be amended to add a new section 135-73.1. The goals would be to acknowledge operational costs as an impact of increased development; shift costs of public transportation off the tax levy; decrease single vehicle traffic; mitigate traffic created by increased development; and provide a town-wide transportation option for Lexington residents and employees. Board comments: Mr. Canale said that Lexpress and transit would play an important role as commercial development increased. Audience comments: This article would be better served under the Planning Board’s Article 45 Transportation ?? Management Overlay District. If a 100-unit condominium development was built, would it be an overlay district and ?? 1 February 25, 2009 would this article appy to it? Ms. McKenna said yes. Ms. Arnold co-chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee said that they support the ?? principles incorporated in Article 48 although they have not yet done so officially and were waiting until the Planning Board was finished with their articles. What was being protected outside the tax levy? This was special funding; why are we ?? tying our hands and dedicating this to only one principle and not look at alternative uses that may cost less? On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Article 49, CRO and RO to CD, 95-99 Hayden Avenue and 124-128 Spring Street: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Article 49 to order at 8:22 p.m. Present for the proponent were Mr. Peter Nichols, Mr. Ed Grant, Mr. John Connery and Mr. Charlie Gloski. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. The Beal Companies provided additional information following the informal meeting of February 11, 2009 and a list of changes to its proposal filed on December 22, 2008. The renderings would be linked from the Planning Board web page. Mr. Grant explained the rationale of rezoning the residential portion of the site, which would increase revenue to the Town. The rubble stonewall would have its rocks saved for reuse on the site, the FAR was rounded up to .33, and the exit onto Spring Street would be signed to prohibit a left hand turn from the complex in the evenings. Mr. Connery discussed the fiscal impacts of the proposal, including projected tax revenue. Beal is working on a Memorandum of Understanding with the Town regarding a mitigation package. Board Comments: Mr. Canale said he wanted to make sure there was consistency with the policy to know exactly what the proposal was and that that be reflected in the PSDUP. Why were there land use restrictions/permissions in a traffic mitigation proposal? When would a revised PSDUP be submitted? Mr. Nichols said it would be submitted far in advance of Town Meeting and placed on the webpage. Mr. Hornig said the building must conform to the proposed dimensional controls and told the 2 February 25, 2009 developer to make sure they comply with the building commissioner’s interpretation. Mr. Galaitsis wanted clarification on whether the mechanicals were included within the shown roof envelope. Mr. Nichols stated that some mechanicals would be above the shown envelope. Audience Comments: This is a far better job than what was initially done. This balances the Town’s needs and ?? developer’s needs. Incorporated businesses are exempt from personal property taxes, would there be any ?? personal property taxes produced by this building to be a plus for the Town? Mr. Connery said up to 50% of the offices may be exempt, but he was not sure. With a CD rezoning what was in the PSDUP would be what was done, and the PSDUP ?? needed to be updated to reflect the pictures presented. A plan would need to be developed to protect the Spring Street residential neighborhood ?? from the traffic created by increased commercial development, part of which could address the cut-through traffic. The Spring Street neighborhood has the prospect for increased development from the Patriot Partners site so the impacts are significant even before this CD rezoning. It would be premature to discuss this rezoning before a traffic plan was put forward and agreed upon. What is the total number of parking spaces in the garage? 415 in total and 395 in the ?? garage. A major concern was that the preference of Lexpress was for an annual contribution ?? rather than the lump sum payment proposed. Would they consider doing that or raise the amount of the lump sum payment? Mr. Nichols said they were working with a negotiating committee and they would be open to another possibility. Would you be providing pictures of the impact to the conservation trail? ?? Residents must be heard on this matter; was this the only time the public would be heard? ?? Have the problems regarding past permits such as lighting been resolved? Mr. Nichols ?? said they have ordered screens for new lighting, plus new plantings to minimize impacts and intend to resolve the issue. There would be support if traffic was improved with follow up in six months to one year, ?? 3 February 25, 2009 the building pushed up into the knoll and the size of the building reduced. Has Town Counsel said the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be binding on ?? the development? Ms. McCall-Taylor said Town Counsel has been involved in the MOU and it would be enforceable by taking it to court. Why wouldn’t it be contract zoning, which would be illegal? Ms. McCall-Taylor said that this is common practice in Massachusetts and Town Counsel said it was viable and enforceable. There were concerns that the original objections in November and December have not ?? been met. The impact on the conservation land and neighbors had been reduced by a small percentage, but there are other locations on the site that would have less * impact. This rezoning should be rejected until the Beal Companies looked at other locations on the site for the building. Come back with a new submission, with a new building and location. This plan failed to account for the domino effect of other commercial developers on ?? Spring Street and Hayden Avenue. The Ledgemont property was already above the .15 FAR allowed. Any increase in FAR should be considered only through a comprehensive plan. It would increase commercial revenue but possibly at the expense of the Burlingtonization of Lexington. Other properties in the area would seek an increase in their FAR as well. It was recommended this rezoning be disapproved since it would allow other commercial developers to push for an increase in their FAR. One issue was the appearance of the roof of the building. It should be clearly specified in ?? the PSDUP what would be allowed and what would be restricted. Rush hour at 5:00 p.m. going onto Hayden Avenue to Spring Street to Marrett Road ?? would significantly increase traffic since most vehicles avoid Route 128 at that time. Opposed to Ledgemont due to safety issues, noise pollution, light pollution, the impact on ?? nature and the real estate values of the surrounding homes. Would the monies from the mitigation plan be sufficient for the increased traffic impacts that would be created on Spring Street and Hayden Avenue? The Beal Company had tried to address some of the abutters concerns, but it was not ?? enough regarding real estate zoning changes, which would benefit the developer and hurt surrounding neighbors who would be looking at a building no matter what the renderings show. The bylaws contain content to protect the residents from a nuisance of abutting 4 February 25, 2009 properties that were not in the same zone. A simple solution would be to move the building around the corner to where it would be commercially oriented and not up against the wetlands. In favor of this plan. Regarding the visual impact, the buffer zone would be larger then ?? between the Minuteman National Park and the Lincoln North Office Building, which sits adjacent to the park and cannot be seen at all. There have been no major changes, the building footprint is larger and there are still the ?? same number of parking spaces as before, which determines traffic. The fiscal benefits for the Town have been made apparent, but not the non-monetary costs and the legacy it would leave behind. The Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) only just heard of the change from $10,000 ?? annually to a lump sum of $200,000, which would be used up in 20 years. At this point the committee has taken no formal position on the Beal Company proposal. The Cecil report recommended more traffic studies and there should be a professional ?? traffic study done to consider scenarios and then talk to developers. What would be the shortest distance from the building to the guardrail? Approximately ?? 150 feet. The issue was money versus the quality of life and the neighbors would be the sacrificial ?? lambs. Strongly encouraged that the public hearing not be closed this evening. The scrutiny on ?? this project has not been as intense as it should be. There were still many outstanding questions and items that needed to be addressed for residents and the Planning Board as well. The Chamber of Commerce supports this project and approved the Beal Companies’ ?? willingness to make changes and listen to the abutters concerns. It is important to consider the increased revenue and benefits that would be generated by this project. Employment opportunities should not be overlooked and it would be beneficial to have Lexington residents work in Town. Why not put the building on a side away from the residents? ?? The residents in this area were not anti-development on this site, but were saying this ?? would be the wrong development of this site. It would need to be more sympathetic about 5 February 25, 2009 these changes. On a motion made and duly seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to March 18 at 9:00 p.m. in Cary Auditorium. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk 6