Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-02-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Room G-15, Town Office Building was called to order at 8:06 p.m. by Chairman Hornig, with members Manz, Canale, Zurlo and Galaitsis and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. *************************TOWN MEETING****************************** Article 49 Ledgemont 3: Board Discussion: Ms. Manz said one of the main issues that should drive the decision was whether this was the kind of commercial development Lexington was looking for in its limited commercial districts. She felt that it was a reasonable extension of development within one of the three commercial zoning districts and would likely contribute a substantial increase in the tax revenue. The applicant made substantial efforts to make the new building less obtrusive than it started out, but she acknowledged that there was still a genuine concern for the neighbors. While this proposed project would increase traffic the applicant would be channeling traffic away from Spring Street and onto Hayden Avenue and the traffic generated would not be a major source of congestion. On balance, she was in favor of this application. Mr. Galaitsis said when considering an application like this he asks himself four questions. Was it a good and appropriate area? The answer was yes. Would it be good for the Town as a whole? Yes, it would be good for the taxpayers in Town. Was it a good design? He said he had voiced a concern throughout the process that it was not a good design because there were site problems with wetlands, slopes, etc. Finally was it good for the neighbors? It would not be good for the neighbors and therefore he would be opposed to this proposal unless something new was presented. Mr. Canale had two problems with the proposal for the area. The first one was the general context and the second was site specific. Last year Town Meeting discussed increasing commercial development but put if off, as the Planning Board was asked to come back to Town Meeting with a more comprehensive plan for the Hartwell avenue area. There has been no concurrent study of the Hayden Avenue/Spring Street area at all and the Town has no specific plan about what to do with increased traffic, which could be four times the amount of traffic on Hartwell Avenue if all commercial landowners were allowed to develop to a .35 FAR. There were still no real traffic demand management requirements in the Ledgemont Plan, multi-modal balancing has not been addressed, and it appeared that the plan for traffic at the Spring Street exit would force vehicles into the residential area. The only essential thing that had changed since 2003 was the town’s desire for increased economic development. This plan is not as desirable as the 2003 Plan because the presently proposed building site is in the wrong place. Mr. Canale saw no reason to support this proposal. Mr. Zurlo said the applicant did an outstanding job of meeting and listening to neighbors and had sought to make this proposal succeed with its commitment to LEED, design, and site features. While it was their right to come forward with CD rezoning, there were a lot of contradictions to what was being proposed for Hartwell Avenue which makes this proposal challenging. There were still two significant unresolved issues. While there was a significant effort to address abutter's concerns about the visual impact of the proposed building, the Board had not seen enough evidence yet as to how the building is viewed from the Spring St. Without that documentation, his field review leads him believe there would be an abrupt transition from the proposed building to the residential neighborhood. The second was the amount of funds being provided in the mitigation package and what the Town's approach is for implementation. He suggested that $75,000 of funds be made available to the Town once the project received approval from the ZBA to start the process of mitigating the traffic concerns as the Town should not be burdened by funding it on its own. Mr. Hornig said his own feelings echoed Ms. Manz’s thoughts. Mr. Hornig said it was necessary for the Planning Board to reach an agreement with the Board of Selectmen as to how mitigation funds would be used and proceed to do a study and develop a TMO district plan for the area. There was lots of discussion about buffering and about how visible the building would be through the trees. It would still be seen through the trees from the residential development, but it would not be reasonable to expect the building to be invisible. Mr. Hornig said he preferred the siting to be on the slope as opposed to the peak. This application showed the good and bad aspects of the current CD process. While the Board had talked about changing it, they are not there yet. Mr. Zurlo asked who made up the negotiation team. Mr. Hornig said Susan Yanofsky represented the Town and consulted with the Town Manager, Jeanne Krieger, Ms. McCall-Taylor and himself. Ms. Manz said it was unfair to judge this perfectly legal application based on what might be adopted in the future. She said the Board had spent an entire year on the Hartwell Avenue area in hopes of encouraging increased commercial development over 10-20 years, but when offered an immediate project, the Board does not want to support it without a future plan. The Board should judge this project on its merits. Mr. Canale said he wanted to follow up in response to judging a project on its merits. When meeting with the Board of Selectmen, in a response to a comment from a resident a Board member said “we don’t sell zoning”. The Board spends hours looking at height, bulk, and density of a few lots on a small subdivision, but only a few minutes looking at a commercial development that would be 1,000,000 square feet of building. The Board does not apply the same standards to both. Mr. Galaitsis said he agreed we don’t want to sell zoning, and while he appreciated the amount of effort that went into creating the mitigation package, it was not about how much, but rather the amount of good it would do looking at the final effect. The Board should wait to see the completion of the expansion already allowed and then consider more expansion if it was warranted. Mr. Canale said he was trying to understand what the standards were. He was very concerned about the direction the Board was heading. If folks are really serious about growing commercial development they should learn from what happened in the 1980’s and think of the future. The Planning Board has a long-term responsibility. Mr. Hornig said the problem was there are no standards for the CD zone; it was the process that exists now, and landowners use it to come forward with projects. Ms. Manz said it was unfair to imply because this is a CD proposal and the Board is considering adding a building in an existing commercial zone, that a CD anywhere in town would be acceptable. Mr. Canale asked why and asked how they determine what was acceptable and what was not acceptable? Mr. Zurlo said the big difference between Hartwell Avenue and Hayden Avenue was the closeness to the residential area and that aesthetics were an issue. Ms. Manz said if a commercial building in an existing commercial zone being visible would be outside our standards, what was the meaning of a commercial zone? It was the Board’s responsibility to balance the interests of the Town and the interests of the neighbors. Was the Board prepared to turn down all the benefits to the Town of this proposed project because of the aesthetic issues of one street in Town? Mr. Zurlo stated the Town needed to consider if its economic growth policy was to keep up with inflation and rising costs to provide the same of level of service to the citizenry, or was it desired to actually raise the quality of living across the board. Ms. Manz said the following were benefits; increased revenue; job opportunities; increased tax revenue relief for residential properties over time; and some relief to help maintain schools, services and roads. Mr. Galaitsis said aesthetics was only one element, how it related to the wetlands and slopes was an issue. The entire building length would be along the wetlands and it would be visible to neighbors. Mr. Canale said aesthetics and the impact on the neighbors were not the main things, but abuttors do have legal rights that the Board needed to be aware of. There had not been much talk about the public interest and the Board should be stewards of public areas and conservation areas. The Board should have the facts on the traffic numbers, including cut-through traffic and how much of it is locally generated. Mr. Zurlo made a motion to approve Article 49 with the following conditions: one story be removed from the building; all stacks that penetrate the roof be limited to the side of the building not facing residents; and $75,000 be made available from the mitigation funds upon approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion died for the lack of a second. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-3, (Mr. Galaitsis, Mr. Canale and Mr. Zurlo opposed) to support Article 49 at Town Meeting. The motion failed for lack of majority support. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2, (Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz opposed) to not support Article 49 at Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig wanted the report ready for Town Meeting by April 27, 2009. Articles 44-46: The Board reviewed language in Articles 44-46 for clarity with regards to applicability and special permits. The Building Commissioner had suggested some changes to applicability. Mr. Zurlo had an issue with how footnote (h) was applied; it gave the Board too much discretion and he could only support that approach if more specific criteria were set forth in the development regulations through a more intense master planning exercise. He was also concerned with line 8.34 from Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) with regards to site plan review. Mr. Hornig said if changes were needed they could revisit the maximums later. Mr. Hornig said the FAR controls development and the rest were site plan issues. Mr. Zurlo said the spatial properties of the streetscape were important and until a more intensive analysis was undertaken the higher limits should not be taken out of the Town Meeting process. Mr. Canale said that the Board’s role was to provide leadership. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-3, (Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz and Mr. Canale opposed) to eliminate footnote (h) for Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls). The motion was denied. **************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE************ The Board reviewed its upcoming schedule. There will be meetings next week on Monday, April 6, at 6:00 p.m. for discussion on the FAR, Guiding Principles. Monday, April 13 the Board is meeting with the Board of Selectmen. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk