Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-11-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 11, 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 Galaitsis and Manz, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Canale and Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. *************************************MINUTES******************************** The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for January 26, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for January 28, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Ms. Manz abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Canale joined the meeting. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for February 4, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. **********************************SPRING STREET***************************** Marrett Road and Spring Street Intersection Improvements: Mr. Hornig said the Board of Selectmen would be considering the proposed improvements and signalization at the Marrett Road and Spring Street intersection on Monday, March 16, 2009. In 2006 Howard/Stein-Hudson, the Traffic Mitigation Group, and the Planning Board were on record in support of the signalization of that intersection and he wanted to confirm the Board still had the same opinion. Mr. Canale said that based on the last Spring Street improvements meeting, the consultant seemed unclear as how to address pedestrian safety issues. It appeared this plan had not been thought through and did not indicate that pedestrian safety would be improved nor did it address Page 2 Minutes for the meeting of March 11, 2009 other multi-modal issues. The Board should approach transportation more holistically and not support the signalization at this intersection. Mr. Hornig said the signalization would benefit the Spring Street northbound traffic, which was at Level of Service F while other traffic was getting through the intersection. As traffic on Marrett Road increases the intersection would only get worse and, even without increased commercial development, there would be a need for signalization. Ms. Manz agreed with the need for a light and asked Mr. Canale what additional pedestrian measures would he want in order to be comfortable with this proposal? Mr. Canale said the town engineer John Livsey had outlined two proposals, first, the signalization of the intersection, and second, two signalized crosswalks, which both fall within the scope of the grant funding. The way the consultant presented the information implied that there was not enough time allocated to balance the level of service for pedestrians and motorists, which would encourage pedestrians not to pay attention to the lights. Mr. Zurlo said the Board made a recommendation and should allow the consultants to work out the details. Mr. Galaitsis asked if could they tweak the timing at some future date, after they determined a good compromise between pedestrian safety and vehicular safety. Traffic would get worse if the intersection were left as is and he felt the level of safety would increase with the presence of a traffic light and therefore supported the concept of signalization. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Canale opposed) to support the improvements to the intersection with signalization, making sure pedestrians concerns were addressed, including phasing with adequate consideration of pedestrian services, and adding the condition that the intersection be evaluated within a two-year period, looking at the balance of the level of service for pedestrians and automobiles. Mr. Canale said he planned to speak before the Board of Selectmen and present with data that showed it was dangerous for pedestrians at that intersection. He wanted to continue the discussion followed by another vote before the end of the meeting. Minutes for the meeting of March 11, 2009 Page 3 ****************************TOWN MEETING********************************** Article 9, Planning Board Consulting Services: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 9 at Town Meeting. Article 11L, Affordable Housing: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 11L at Town Meeting. Article 12, Land Purchase off Vine Street: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5- 0, to support Article 12 at Town Meeting. Article13, Land Purchase Busa Farm: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 13 at Town Meeting. Article 15K, Traffic Mitigation TMG: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 15K, at Town Meeting. Article 20, Pitcairn Place: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 20, at Town Meeting. Article 21, Wisteria Lane: The Board decided to defer until they heard from the Building Commissioner. Article 25, Stabilization Funds (mitigation, TDM): On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to support Article 25 at Town Meeting. Article 36, Expand the Historic District: This would expand the historic district to include Parker Street and Jackson Court. The neighbors should be approached to see if they have community buy in. The Board decided to defer taking a position until after the presentation from the proponents at Town Meeting. If necessary they can caucus and vote on a position on Town Meeting floor. Page 4 Minutes for the meeting of March 11, 2009 Article 37: Page Road Easement: The Board wanted to hear more about the history before voting on it. Article 48, Financial Support for Transportation: Mr. Hornig said based on the work done by the Board it sounded as though there would be a question of legality. The proponent was working with Town Counsel to make that determination. Mr. Canale said he had did not feel the Board should recommend this article to Town Meeting. Mr. Galaitsis said he would rather wait for Town Counsel’s input. Mr. Zurlo said that there were still issues to be fleshed out, and most likely it would not be done before Town Meeting. He felt the Board should not support this article. Ms. Manz said this article was not helpful to the Board’s plan, especially considering the legal issues; while the Board was in support of Lexpress, this would not be the right course of action to take. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-2, (Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Canale abstained), to not support Article 48 at Town Meeting while expressing the Board’s strong support of Lexpress, which was taken into consideration in the Planning Board’s proposal. **********************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*********************** Article 44: CM and NFI District Changes: Overall Goals: Mr. Canale’s handout explained what the Board’s goals were for Article 44. Mr. Zurlo asked what Mr. Canale meant by equitable. Mr. Canale said it was what the Cecil report addressed regarding the sharing of benefits and detriments and how to balance them. Ms. Manz said the language made her a little nervous and asked for an example. Mr. Canale said if a district had limited resources for transport it would get additional transit. Mr. Galaitsis said he liked the language, which fell in line with his thinking. Ms. Manz was concerned about the implied promise in the bylaw. Mr. Hornig said it would not be in the bylaw, but rather a goal used in producing the bylaw. Mr. Canale said an example of infrastructure would be putting sidewalks on both sides of the street not just one side. Mr. Zurlo said he could support what was written as reflecting what the Board’s goals were. Minutes for the meeting of March 11, 2009 Page 5 Build Out Analysis: There was a handout with a table providing the best available data considered by staff showing what would be the additional GFA if the CM district were completely built out. Mr. Canale said he would like the chart to reflect the by-right comparable to other communities. There would be footnotes with sources added to the table for clarity. Sky View Ratio: Mr. Zurlo said he had a substantial change to height; he wanted to limit a building to not exceed its existing footprint without a special permit. He wanted to eliminate the sky view ratio and height restriction altogether and use site coverage for limits. Mr. Hornig said the consensus of the Board was to drop sky view ratio from the bylaw and address possible canyonization in the site plan review standards within the regulations. Site Plan Review Exemptions: Mr. Hornig asked if all the exemptions should be added to the bylaw or should some exemptions be placed in the regulations. Mr. Zurlo suggested no exemptions, but keeping the language open to consider adding some to the regulations later. Ms. Manz said a threshold needed to be established to be able to have some exemptions for the future. Mr. Hornig said staff should do some rewording and some things could be placed in applicability. Mr. Hornig said at the public hearing there was some concerns expressed regarding notice for public meetings and time limits for site plan review. The requirement for public meeting notices would be sent to direct abutters and abutters of abutters within 300 feet along with one notice in the paper. The time limits would be 60 days for minor site plan review and 60 days for major site plan review. In section 43B (4)b the applicant would be required to provide data regarding flood levels in the NFI zone in order to obtain a building permit. Article 44: The Board should review the printout distributed for all the changes made prior to tonight. FAR: Mr. Canale asked what limit did the Board want to establish before requiring a developer to go to Town Meeting. Mr. Canale said the Board would need to be very clear establishing recommendations that promote predictability and consistency for developers. Mr. Henry suggested in section 175-64 adding a statement of intent of the Board’s policy and additional findings could be incorporated. Mr. Hornig said the limit could not be a hard and fast cap. Mr. Page 6 Minutes for the meeting of March 11, 2009 Zurlo said the Board had not looked at the capacity of the infrastructures so what commitment could be put in place now? Ms. McCall-Taylor said that after this passes, the Board could work on standards for the granting of special permits; and until that determination was made, the Board would advise developers that special permits would not be granted except in the most extraordinary circumstances, in keeping with Mr. Hornig’s “special permits are special”. Mr. Galaitsis said for the record there was still the absence of a trip wire and he would be offering an amendment to create a trip wire as per the document he handed out. ***************************SPRING STREET************************************ Mr. Canale said the Board had not been consulted or included in the process and the neighborhood was unified against the light and he was concerned about the Board's credibility. Mr. Hornig said if there was to be increased commercial development a light would eventually be needed. Ms. Manz withdrew the earlier motion. Mr. Canale made a motion that unless the Planning Board was specifically asked for a position none would be offered. The motion failed for the lack of a second. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Canale opposed), that the Board support the improvements and signalization at the Marrett Road and Spring Street intersection with the added conditions that the timing sequence of the light address pedestrians and automobiles fairly, and that there be a review of that function within two years in order to ensure the optimal use of all modes of transport. *******************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE************** The Planning Board schedule was distributed through April 29, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk