Loading...
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.