HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-05-MGWG-min.pdf Subject:
DRAFT Minutes - May 5
Date:
8 May 2000 09:12:39 -0500
,
DRAFT MINUTES FOR MAY 5 - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Title of Work Group : Managing Growth: Development and Open Space
Date, Time, and Location of Meeting: May 5, 2000, 7:00 p.m. < 9:00 p.m., Town
Hall Room 111
Members Present:
John Andrews , Larry Belvin, Suzanne Caton, Ione Garing, Glen Garber
(Planning Board), Mike Hanauer, Tom Harden, John Frey, Karl Kastorf,
Mairanne Lazarus, Karen Longeteig, Jerry Moloney, Markus Pinney, Lee Sinai
Members Absent:
Gary Fallick, Josh Murray, Tiffany Papadonis, Donna Rossi, Ed Vail
Date, Time and Location of Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, May 16, 2000, 7:00
pm-9: 00 p.m., Room 111, Town Office Building
The Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tom Harden at 7:05 p.m.
Distributed Information: 1) Updated Goal 5 text by Suzanne Caton, 2) Draft
public outreach questionnaire by Larry Belvin
Issues addressed and agreements made:
PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF GOALS
Tom Harden proposed that we review the goals quickly without trying to
resolve issues, letting the editors respond as they saw fit to the comments.
Mike Hanauer proposed that the Working Group request an extension of our
deadlines so that we could do a more thorough and solid job and to resolve
differences on difficult questions. Some members thought that more time
would be useful. But others felt that the time required to fully resolve all
issues would be excessive and that we should impose enough discipline to
report back in June on those items we had agreement on. It was noted that
other groups would be reporting, and that we wanted our results to be
available for consolidation in the larger Lexington 2020 framework.
Mike Hanauer suggested that the goals include "minority" opinions, even if
supported by only one or two members. He felt that sometimes minority views
were useful and could someday become accepted by the majority. In discussion
some members noted that the purpose of the Lexington 2020 effort was to come
to agreements that could be the basis for action, and that including numerous
suggestions that had little support did not give the Town the basis for moving
forward. The majority of the Group seemed to feel that our goals should
include those items supported by a "solid majority" with the existence of
diverging opinions noted in the narrative as appropriate. However no
specific critera for inclusion was adopted by the Working Group.
REVIEW OF GOAL 5
Suzanne Catton presented the revised version of Goal 5 (Housing). In
discussion there was some concern that the text implied that large portions of
the Town might be rezoned to permit higher densities. it was suggested that
the text mention the concept of "zoning overlays" to make it clear that the
recommended zoning changes might apply only to carefully selected areas.
VISION STATEMENT
Tom Harden noted that the vision statement has gone through four versions
but has not yet been finalized. Mike Hanauer and Marianne Lazarous
volunteered to produce a final draft that can be reviewed and voted upon by
the Working Group.
PROCESS FOR FINISHING GOALS STATEMENT
Karen Longeteig volunteered to be the editor for Goal 2 (Transportation).
Editors will accept comments from all members, make changes that seem
appropriate, and provide revised text to Karl Kastorf by May 11. Editors are:
Goal 1: Jerry Moloney, Lee Sinai
Goal 2: Karen Longteig
Goal 3: John Andrews, Gary Fallick
Goal 4: Larry Belvin, John Frey
Goal 5: Suzanne Caton
Goal 6: Mike Hanauer
OUTREACH QUESTIONNAIRE
Larry Belvin distributed the updated version of the outreach questionnaire.
Larry plans to distribute the questionnaire door-to-door in his neighborhood.
It was also suggested that an electronic version be distributed to the town
meeting members email list. Several suggestions were made for achieving
further distribution. Deadline for return of questionnaries will be Sunday,
May 14. Mike Hanauer volunteered to reformat the questionnaire so that it
could be more easily sent via email. It was moved (Lee Sinai) and seconded
(Mike Hanauer) that the questionnaire be approved for distribution. The
motion was approved by a vote of 12-0.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF GOALS
A discussion of goal 2.5 resulted in several suggestions for revisions to that
goal. It was pointed out that the most appropriate goal was not "increased
evaluation" of commercial property, but rather reduction of transportation
impacts from commercial use. Karl Kastorf noted that the intersection of
Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street was "failing" and would limit any
commercial expansion that depended upon more traffic. Glen Garber pointed
out that Hartwell Avenue was not densely developed compared to Hayden
Avenue. It is traffic-limited and not space-limited. Garber noted that there
has been success with formal, funded regional transportation programs
supported by businesses to provide transportation to commercial areas.
Marianne Lazaraus suggested that Goal 3 include as an action the
establishment of a pay-as-you-throw trash pricing program in order to reduce
waste and increase recycling. John Andrews said that based on information
compiled by the Solid Waste Action Team, this was a very effective and
attractive step to take. Some concern was expressed over whether such
programs would lead to illegal dumping. John stated that when done right,
illegal dumping does not increase under pay-as-you-throw systems.
Mike Hanauer stated that the goals were too heavily focused on mitigating
impacts, and that more should be added about the underlying processes that
produced pollution, congestion, etc. John Andrews commented that local and
global objectives needed different approaches since things done locally might
be ineffectual or inappropriate in response to a global problem.
Jerry Moloney requested that the phrase "protect individuals from unwanted
changes " be deleted from objective 4.2 saying that 'unwanted changes" and
"inappropriate development" (under Measure) are too broad and vague.
Discussion followed regarding the rights of neighborhoods to control
development versus control through town-wide regulation. Concern was
raised that establishing neighborhood councils as an added regulatory layer
would discourage good developers from undertaking potentially desirable
projects. The example of Moon Hill Neighborhood Association was raised as an
example of neighborhood control, but it was pointed out that this control was
set up when that neighborhood was developed and therefore neighborhood
residents are subject to it voluntarily. The imposition of such a control (not
voluntary) would be fundamentally different.
Mike Hanauer requested that 4.3 be changed saying that sidewalks and bike
paths would negatively affect the rural character of some town roads.
Discussion followed in which it was argued that this objective did not require
universal sidewalk construction. The importance of sidewalks for families
with small children was noted. MH requested that 4.3 be revised to real "all
roads be made pedestrian- and bicylcle-friendly and additional sidewalks and
bikeways be added as necessary and appropriate.
Mike Hanauer raised the concern that objective 4.10 would encourage more
traffic and asked for clarification of intent. John Frey stated that the intent is
primarily aesthetic -- to keep parking from being visible and up-front in
major commercial areas. Regarding satellite commercial centers, JF said that
intent was to encourage moving parking to the rear as centers underwent re-
development over the next 20 years. Discussion followed regarding parking
requirements in the zoning by-law and as required by lenders. Karl Kastorf
commented on the amount of unused parking in the Hartwell Avenue
commercial areas and the relationship in general between parking
requirements (as required by zoning and by lenders) and land-intensive
development patterns. It was suggested that parking requirements might be
reduced for a more transit- or pedestrian-friendly development.
MISCELLANEOUS
There will be a meeting of all Lexington 2020 working groups on May 9.
The final report from the Working Group will be due June 17.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30.