HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 02-09-1998 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1998
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall,was called to order at 7:34 p.m.by
Chairman Merrill,with members Canale, Colman,Davies,Planning Director Bowyer,Assistant Planner
Marino and Secretary Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis arrived during Item 40.Mr. Galaitsis left the meeting during
Item 46.
************************** ARTICLES FOR 1999 TOWN MEETING *************************
37 Article 34. Conversion of One Family Houses. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr Merrill opened the hearing at
7:36 p.m.There were 23 people in the audience. Mr. Colman presented the Planning Board's Article 34,
Conversion of Single-Family houses, saying that it is intended to provide the Board of Appeals with guidelines
that are measurable and enforceable for use when they are presented with a petition to convert a one-family
dwelling to a two-family It is meant to ensure that such conversions result in a house that retains the
appearance of a one-family dwelling.A recent conversion on Grant Street is the impetus for this amendment to
the Zoning By-Law By-Law language was not able to prevent the result,which appears as two houses joined
by a garage.
Questions and comments from the audience included: Would previous additions to a house since 1983 resulting
in too much floor area preclude a conversion? [yes];David Kanter,TMM Precinct 7, suggested that specifying
a range of sizes to which the house could be increased, e.g., 5%of the current area of the house,but not
exceeding 40%,would help to enforce the"spirit"of the bylaw Robert Whitman said that, in his experience as
a member of the Board of Appeals,neighborhoods prefer to have a large home built rather than a two-family
house.He also urged the Planning Board to make the objective of the by-law change very clear at Town
Meeting.
` There being no further comments,Mr.Merrill closed the hearing at 8:15 p.m.
38. Article 36.Nonconforming Parking.Lexington Center.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Merrill opened the
hearing at 8:16 p.m.There were 23 people in the audience.Planning Director Bowyer explained the history of
off-street parking requirements in Lexington Center.Until 1984 there was no off-street parking required in
Lexington Center so most of the businesses developed without off-street parking on their own lot. This was
due to the historical development pattern of the Center and the fact that it is geared to pedestrian traffic.In
every other district in the Town,for a long time,new development has been required to provide parking spaces
on the same lot.A key feature of the amendment adopted in 1984 were some policy objectives, 1)to attempt to
avoid further aggravation of an already difficult situation,2)to not increase the parking demand, calling for
more parking spaces,without some compensatory provision of off-street parking. While existing businesses,
with insufficient or no off-street parking on their lot,were allowed to remain,they were not allowed to expand
or to be replaced by a use with a higher parking demand.During the recent economic downtown in the 90s,the
Board heard complaints about how these parking requirements were stifling new businesses from locating in
the Center and that there were vacancies as a result.
The Zoning Bylaw has three broad categories of parking demand retail,office, and restaurant. Restaurants have
a high parking demand,but office space has a higher parking demand than both restaurant and retail uses.
Under the current By-Law, a type of use with a higher parking demand cannot be substituted for a use with a
lower parking demand.The Zoning By-Law is consciously structured to discourage office use.It wants to serve
customer parking needs,i.e., short term,high turnover parking.
1 1 The Board has reviewed this policy and looks at restaurants as being similar to the stores and business services.
The Board believes the Zoning Bylaw should allow more opportunity for substitution of uses over time, and
2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 9, 1998
should recognize that restaurant parking is short term,high turnover parking.This By-law change will give
restaurants more options in where they may locate and expand. The overarching goal is to recognize that the
nn
Center should be an active place. The Board realizes that there will be a modest increase in parking demand
because of this amendment. It should be viewed as part of a larger look at the parking needs of Lexington
Center.-Other actions will be needed to provide additional parking or to so structure the use of the existing
parking spaces,meters in particular,to get more turnover spaces.
This particular article had its roots when economic conditions were not as favorable as they are now It deals
more with providing opportunity for a variety of businesses to come into the center of town or for current ones
to expand than it does with overall parking strategy The Board recognizes that the will increase activity in the
Center somewhat often at off-peak hours. The Board wants to ensure a vibrant center, and filled parking places
indicate a vibrant center.
Mr. Canale noted that Town of Lexington itself is a large employer, which also brings people to Town. They
need to park all day He urged that the Town pursue transportation demand management programs that will
reduce the total parking demand.
Comments and questions from the audience included: This is a piecemeal approach to the parking problem; it
exacerbates the current parking problems in the Center; there are already too many banks and restaurants in the
center It will change the character of the center. Do we have enough spaces now to meet the By-Law's
requirements? [Mr.Bowyer answered that a numerical calculation is difficult because parking demand cycles
with time of day,week,and year.Parking demand is averaged out.] Judith Uhrig,a member of the Lexington
Center Committee, spoke in favor of the amendment, saying restaurants have been hurt by current parking
requirements.Also, in good weather,many restaurant patrons arrive on bike.Frank Sandy,TMM,Precinct 6,
said that he would welcome more restaurants in the center Mr Canale:
Bigelow Moore,Lexington's Parking Control Officer,commented that there is high parking overload at
lunchtime on Thursday,Friday and Saturday He added that there are 90 people on a waiting list for year long
parking permits in the Town lot.A general consensus was that the current parking deficiencies and problems
needed to be addressed first before any new demand was generated.
There being no further comments,Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 8:55 p.m.
39 Article 37 Maximum.Minimum Parking.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.Merrill opened the hearing at 9:00
p.m.There were 23 people in the audience. Mr. Galaitsis explained that with this proposed article the Planning
Board intends to assure that businesses,which are renovating and expanding and want to increase the number
of parking spaces for employees commensurately,will be held to the same standard as new businesses which
have to adhere to the Board's Transportation Demand Management Policy The policy requires businesses to
promote alternative modes of transportation among their employees and not just provide more parking spaces
for single-occupant vehicles.
It would be possible for the business to apply for a special permit to add more parking,up to the maximum
allowed, if needed. Mr Bowyer explained that under the current Bylaw,businesses are required to provide a
certain minimum number of spaces based on the floor area of the building.It has been argued that this results in
an excessive number of spaces and paved area. The current Bylaw also provides that with the granting of a
special permit,and with documentation of lower parking demand,a developer can reduce the number of
parking spaces up to 50%provided it is shown that there is enough land to provide the spaces if needed. The
proposed change will be just the opposite—the number of parking spaces may be increased above the
maximum only on documentation of need. Spaulding& Slye proposed this requirement for its facility on
Hayden Avenue.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 9, 1997 3
Comments and questions from the audience included: Robert Whitman,member of the Board of Appeals,who
pointed out some confusing wording in Exception 3 of the proposed amendment,but said he likes the general
philosophy of the amendment; Charles Hornig,Precinct 8, said that there should always be a safety valve if a
situation arises where it is demonstrated to be necessary to go above the maximum number of spaces allowed.
He inquired whether this amendment will have an adverse effect on commercial uses, e.g. cause them to go
somewhere else?David Kanter,Precinct 7,was concerned that an administrative procedure will be created that
already gives away the protection when the maximum number of parking spaces is approved.
There being no further comments, Mr. Merrill closed the hearing at 9:28 p.m.
40. Article 38. Transportation Demand Management. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr Merrill opened the hearing at
9:30 p.m. There were 23 people in the audience.Mr. Galaitsis explained that The Zoning By-Law now requires
that before new commercial development can occur,a determination must be made that the nearby street
intersections either have sufficient capacity to accommodate increased traffic or that `mitigating measures"can
be taken to improve traffic conditions. Currently, an increase in the amount of floor space is the only trigger
that requires the traffic capacity test.Article 38 would make an increase the number of parking spaces also a
trigger of the traffic capacity test.
Mr Davies added that this would affect not just new projects,but additions to commercial buildings as well.
Beyond suggesting a change in wording to avoid an unintended effect,the audience was generally in favor of
the amendment.
41 Article 39 Procedures Planned Development Zoning Districts PUBLIC HEARING: Mr Merrill
opened the hearing at 9:30 p.m.There were 23 people in the audience.Mr. Galaitsis explained the three parts of
this proposed amendment:
Part A seeks to increase the required number of days, from seven to 14,between the date a PSDUP is filed
in the Planning Department and the date the rezoning petition comes up at Town Meeting. This will allow
the Planning Board sufficient time to analyze the proposal and prepare and disseminate a report to Town
Meeting.Mr. Bowyer added that rezoning articles are assigned a time certain by the Moderator so it is
possible to set a time.
Part B establishes procedures for amending a proposed PSDUP Mr. Bowyer explained that this recognizes
the"package"nature of the PSDUP
Part C names the Planning Board as the Special Permit Granting Authority, instead of the Board of
Appeals. It is intended to make sure that the package voted by Town Meeting is implemented. The
Planning Board studies rezoning proposals, and becomes thoroughly familiar with them,throughout the
application and Town Meeting process.It believes that continuity in the permitting process is the best way
to ensure implementation according to what Town Meeting approved.
Questions and comments from the audience included: Part A. It makes sense. The amendment simplifies the
process. Town Meeting members should not be faced with a package that has been unreasonably disrupted
because no one has had a chance to think through the pros and cons.The audience suggested changing the filing
date to the first session of Town Meeting.Part B: Several in the audience questioned whether the Bylaw could,
or should, specify a 2/3 vote on a subsidiary motion during the Town Meeting. Part 3• Is a system of checks
and balances being discouraged? With the complexity of the issues in rezoning proposals,we are probably not
doing away with a check and balance that is crucial;this point needs to be made to the Town Meeting. Does
the Board of Appeals concur?What is the SPGA's requirement for findings?If a definitive plan is consistent
with the preliminary plan is the developer entitled to a special permit by right or does the plan also have to be
determined to be in the public good?
1
4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 9, 1998
There being no further comments,Mr. Merrill closed the hearing at 10:10 p.m. and recessed the meeting.
Mr. Merrill reconvened the meeting in Room G-15 at 10:20 p.m.
***************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ***************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
42. Lexington Park Subdivision,off Winter Street. Sketch Plan.Jack Snell/Carter Scott. direction to staff to
nrenare a decision: The Board discussed their thoughts on a cluster subdivision proposal for land off Winter
and Sullivan Street,tentatively named Lexington Park,that was presented at their meeting on February 2.The
plans show 18 dwelling units. Mr. Galaitsis questioned the impact measures for the cluster version as compared
to those of a conventional layout. He believes they are higher
The Board voiced concern about the two proposed curb cuts on Winter Street and the amount of impervious
surface shown on the plan. The impression is almost urban in feel. The Board would like to know more about
what public benefit will be offered and will suggest that it would be to the applicants' benefit to submit a
compliance plan. On the whole,they agreed that the plan is a very good beginning.
************************** ARTICLES FOR 1999 TOWN MEETING ***************************
43 Article 32. Wireless Communication Antennas. final draft: The Board continued its review and revision of
the latest draft of Article 32, Wireless Communication Antennas.After some discussion, on the motion of Mr.
Canale, seconded by Mr Davies,the Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to approve the draft as amended. That is
the draft that will be advertised and be the subject of the public hearing.
***************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ****************
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
44 Applications To Be Heard on February 12. 1998: Mr Davies gave an oral review of the following
applications:
181 Spring Street,Boston Properties, SPS to build a 56,000 sq. ft. office building: The Board reviewed and
revised a draft recommendation,dated June 22, 1998. On the motion of Mr. Colman, seconded by Mr Davies,
the Board voted unanimously to send the letter,as amended.
1874 Massachusetts Avenue, Cary Library,variances to build addition: The Board reviewed and revised a
draft recommendation, dated February 9, 1998 On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr Colman, the
Board voted unanimously to send the letter, as amended. �� / /jam,
The meeting was adjourned at 11.26 p.m. / (v s\__
Steven L. Colman, Clerk