Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-04-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis, Canale, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. ****************************TOWN MEETING******************************* PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 44, CM and NFI District Changes; Article 45, Transportation Overlay District (TMOD); Article 46, TMOD Zoning Map: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Articles 44-46 to order at 7:35 p.m. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig gave a presentation on the proposed articles, regarding the goals, process, guiding principles, site plan review, special permits, additional uses, dimensional controls, traffic (TMOD) and impacts. Audience comments: Nyles Barnert, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, said abutters should get ?? notification by mail for the public meetings with regards to site plan review and not just a notice in the newspaper. The changes to the overlay district had deleted the language that an applicant had to apply for a building permit. He asked if the Planning Board would be the SPGA for commercial development only? Mr. Hornig said yes. With the new sky view calculation what would be the slope of the diagonal and did it ?? assume a level street? Mr. Hornig said it was a ratio of the height of the structure and the centerline of the right of way. The Board talked about mitigation fees and the Town’s obligation to take action to ?? accomplish the goals for which the fees were collected. The concern was it would not be 1 March 4, 2009 appropriate to dictate to Town Meeting the future use for those fees. Mr. Hornig said that the monies collected could not be spent on another use since it would violate state laws. Do the existing requirements in the NFI zone run parallel within the overlay district and ?? which would be followed? Mr. Hornig said that within the NFI zone both would be followed. Would there be absolute authority by the Board to say no without any regard for reasons ?? in the process for site plan review? Mr. Hornig said that site plan review was a creature of case law in this state. The project must be approved unless it was an extreme case that violated all regulation, but the approval could have conditions attached. How could Town Meeting approve the proposed changes without seeing the new ?? regulations and trust the process would be within scope? The “R” for site plan review required in the chart for structures with less then 10,000 and ?? more then 10,000 square feet applies to all structures? Mr. Hornig said it only applies to the CM zone. How was it different from last year? Mr. Hornig said this year there were only changes to the CM zone, an increase in the FAR, setback changes and the tripwire was left in for traffic. Elaine Dratch of the Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) expressed concern about the ?? language of the bylaw under the transportation mitigation fees payment use, which excluded TMO payments from being collected for Lexpress, transportation management associations, and for personnel and operational costs. She also expressed concern that there was also no reference made to the old language of the TDM policy. The idea behind Articles 44 and 45 was excellent. It would create rules that were well ?? defined and consistent. The problem with Article 46 was it implemented boundaries before rules were created. It would be wise to indefinitely postpone Article 46 until a traffic plan was in place. The zoning articles put forth today were better then those presented last year and he was ?? 2 March 4, 2009 disturbed by the lack of trust that existed for the Planning Board. John Farrington, attorney, on behalf of the Colangelo Family at 12 & 24 Hartwell Avenue ?? requested that the Planning Board extend the CM zone to lots with frontage on Hartwell Avenue. There was a trust issue and the Board was not trusted to make the right decision on these ?? articles, but the Town Meeting process could be trusted. Mr. Zurlo left the meeting. Pam Shadley represented the Center Committee and wanted to offer their support. While ?? the Committee understood the need for amenities to service the area, they wanted to make sure it would not compete with the center and recommended lowering the requirement for a special permit from 2,000 to 1,500 square feet per establishment. If the setback was decreased to 25 feet would there still be room for sidewalks and a ?? bikeway? Mr. Hornig said yes, those would be in the right of way. Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, said they supported the increase in ?? commercial development, which was different from last year. The .35 to .40 FAR was not that much of an increase, but would offer a greater economic incentive to landowners to upgrade their existing buildings. Eight functionally obsolete buildings on Hartwell Avenue, which were about to be vacant, would not have enough of an economic incentive for landowners to redevelop their properties without these articles in place. There were two proposals on Hayden Avenue and Spring Street and no commitment from ?? the Planning Board to consider the CRO district within the next year. The Planning Board’s help is needed with these huge developments. Mr. Galaitsis said he had expressed concerns about the articles on Hartwell Avenue.. If there were to be increased commercial development (per Art. 44), there would be increased traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhoods. The existing bylaws had certain controls, but the proposed Art. 45 would, in essence, eliminate the tripwire. The increased development 3 March 4, 2009 parameters along with measurable traffic impact limits should be part of the same plan and clearly defined before we proceed. Mr. Canale said he expected he would support these articles and hoped they would all be presented at this Town Meeting. The goal should be to present a framework in which reasonable required conditions were established that encouraged sustainable increased commercial development, which in turn increased Lexington’s quality of life. The framework should ensure the plan was streamlined, predictable and transparent for all stakeholders to understand how the increased development would impact them. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. Article 7, Technical Changes: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Article 47 to order at 9:35 p.m. The technical changes were about updating names of committees and department and correcting references resulting from changes made last year. There were no comments from the audience or Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Board Discussion: Mr. Canale asked if the Center Committee’s concern about establishment size was something new? Ms. Manz said there was concern at the Center Committee about creating competition for the center. They just wanted to ensure this would not make Hartwell Avenue a destination shopping area. Mr. Galaitsis said 2,000 square feet was fine with him and that Hartwell Avenue had appeal to only to those working in the area. Ms. Manz said to show examples of 2,000 square foot establishments at Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor said she would press to obtain the sizes of typical establishments. 4 March 4, 2009 Ms. Manz said the Board should address Mr. Barnert’s comments. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the notification for site plan review a notice should be published in the paper as the standard notification for abutters within 300 feet of the property would not be effective since the properties were so large often only one abutter would be notified. Perhaps the language could be more explicit. Ms. Johnson said she was delighted with the way things were going, but was concerned with the traffic plan. Mr. Zurlo rejoined the meeting. Ms. Manz said it might be a good idea to flesh out the Board’s intentions more. Ms. McCall- Taylor said that the RFP would be available before Town Meeting and given to the Board. Mr. Zurlo asked who would be sitting at the table with the Board when the plan was being developed? He thought that creating a task force to aid in the plan’s development might be a good idea. Mr. Galaitsis said there was concern about the order of the articles being presented at Town Meeting. What if Town Meeting did not like the plan that was proposed then there would be no way out. Perhaps language could be added that unless Town Meeting liked the plan the articles would not go into effect. That would help to address all concerns. Ms. Manz said this would be done by regulation rather then bylaw changes, but felt there could be more meat put on the bones of Article 45 for Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said financial projections should be done for other FARs and to make sure the Town gets quality developments. He stated that the Cecil report showed the developments become less efficient after .35 FAR. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the staff was in the process of doing a constraint analysis. Not all lots would be able to achieve a .35 FAR and some might be higher. *****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE************** The Board will meet March 11 at 7:30 p.m., March 18 at 7:30 p.m. and the continued public hearing on Article 49, Three Ledgemont at 9:00 p.m. The reports would be done for April 1 or 6. ***************************** BOARD REPORTS****************************** Mr. Canale said the HATS meeting discussed LUPA versus CPA2. The HATS Selectmen were 5 March 4, 2009 skeptical of LUPA and preferred many elements of CPA2. They also discussed the Governor’s Transportation Finance Reform Package. MAPC was in the process of making a comparison chart of MAPC's past stands on transportation finance reform/revenue issues along with the Senate's proposed reforms without revenue, and the Governor's reforms and revenues On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk 6