HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-06-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 6, 2009
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Planning Office, Town
Office Building was called to order at 6:20 p.m. by Chairman Hornig, with members
Manz, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. Mr. Galaitsis was
absent. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress.
**********************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY***************
The Board discussed guiding principles that had been circulated by Mr. Canale. Mr.
Canale said they should show what the Board wanted to get out of the transportation
plan that would be required under the bylaw being proposed. Ms. Manz asked if it was
his expectation that the plan would be submitted to Town Meeting. He said no, it
should show what was important and provide guidance to the consultant and an
example for Town Meeting of what was expected. Mr. Hornig said it was a statement of
policy without legal significance. (Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting.) Ms. Manz preferred
to frame the items as a list of concerns or important areas to consider, rather than
specific goals or commitments. Mr. Zurlo asked when would the Transportation
Management Association (TMA) for Hartwell Avenue be formed. Mr. Canale said it
would be at the beginning as it is a crucial part of the plan. There were some concerns
expressed about particular sub-principles, but the feeling was that they were basically in
keeping with what the Board hoped to achieve.
Mr. Hornig then asked the Board to think about their vision for Hartwell Avenue. He
commented that early in the process the vision had been discussed but it may have been
forgotten in press of recent work. Mr. Canale said he was guided by the Cecil report,
which said as density increases there are more impacts and more need to mitigate. He
wants to give landowners incentive to increase the value of their land, which will lead
to increased taxes. The proposal is at a level that is probably more favorable to
developers than any other town. The whole area can’t develop to .9 FAR but quality
development under the special permit process should be allowed. He wanted to see as-
of-right development at a level that will still make developers want to expand; that
would be .3 or .35 FAR according to Cecil. Property owners complain about
uncertainty and unevenness, so the Board should semi-master plan the area. In
determining what should be the base and what should be the ultimate buildout, don’t
lose the incentive for more quality development.
Mr. Hornig said within the constraints of the capacity of an improved transportation
system he would like the area to be as dense as it can be. This would actually allow
TDM. He also looked at the financial goals which lead him to look for an additional
two million square feet, roughly an FAR of .6. This was based on the Hartwell area
containing roughly a third of all commercial development. He wants by-right at a high
enough level so there is incentive to expand but then there would be a jump. He felt an
FAR of .4 would not shut out quality medium density development.
Ms. Manz said that she had a less precise vision. In thinking of what was an appropriate
cap, she thought that .4 would be sufficient to get developers to a take a look at the use
of their property and consider expansion. She would like to see some control after that,
whether the CD process or special permits. With mitigation measures only density
supports substantial improvements.
Mr. Zurlo said he had some difficulty with the special permits piece, but didn't want
this issue to prevent the board supporting its own articles. He could support increasing
limits by special permit if the plan were in place. Assumptions about zoning revisions
made by the Board this year can be tested through a master planning exercise that
would address how building density would be distributed and how the inter-parcel
connections would be organized. Hartwell is linear and the assumption that shared
services could be possible may be limited. He further stated the Board should consider
the kind of physical streetscape they wanted to create. Could form-based zoning be
used?
Mr. Hornig felt there were better opportunities to have an overall plan on Hayden, but
Hartwell had small sites and many owners, making it difficult to develop a master plan.
Mr. Canale felt that there is no guidance for CD development, while the special permit
could be guided by the regulations. The regulations could let the landowners know that
they will receive approval if they do 1, 2, 3 and 4, or the Board could say they won’t
approve until they have an overall plan and know what they want. He felt that in 60
days if would be difficult to evaluate and shape a project. Mr. Zurlo said the big issue
outstanding with him was how to deal with the special permit. He was uncomfortable
with the footnote (h) relating to dimensional controls; perhaps special permits will have
to be next time.
Mr. Hornig said he felt that the special permit ability to waive dimensional controls was
very important, but he could be flexible about the .4 FAR. He did want to see islands of
density. Mr. Canale said that if the FAR were .35, he could support all three articles. If
an FAR of .4 were put forward, he would move to amend that on the floor of Town
Meeting. Mr. Zurlo said he had reached out to the Economic Development Officer, and
others, but felt the case had not been made for an FAR of .4. Mr. Canale said to be
consistent and credible they should use the .35 FAR; some would not go ahead with the
special permit until that was addressed. He felt the special permit lets landowners know
what has a better chance of success. Mr. Zurlo felt that the special permit was taking
the CD process away from Town Meeting.
Mr. Hornig said he thought there was a consensus to go down to the .35 FAR and asked
for a motion reflecting the same. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted 4-0 to support a by-right FAR of .35.
Mr. Zurlo then moved that the footnote (h) be removed from applying to the FAR. Mr.
Canale seconded the motion, but it lost by a 2-2 vote, with Mr. Zurlo and Canale in the
affirmative, and Ms. Manz and Mr. Hornig in the negative.
Mr. Hornig then asked if the Board was going to bring the articles forward to Town
Meeting, even if some of the issues weren’t totally resolved and might result in
amendments on the floor of Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it
was voted 4-0 to bring Articles 44–46 to Town Meeting.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Wendy Manz, Clerk