Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-24 Joint BOS, PB, and EDAC-min Joint Meeting Board of Selectmen, Planning Board and Economic Development Advisory Committee October 24, 2019 A Joint Meeting of the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and Economic Development Advisory Committee was called to order on Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 7:01 p.m. in the Cafeteria, Hadley Public Services Building, 201 Bedford Street. Present for the Board of Selectmen (BOS): Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato; Ms. Barry, Ms. Hai and Mr. Sandeen were present as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms.Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; and Ms.Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Present for the Planning Board (PB): Mr. Creech, Chair (late arrival); Mr. Hornig; Mr. Canale; Ms. Johnson; Mr. Peters; and Mr. Leone, Associate Member. Present for the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC): Mr. McWeeney, Chair; Mr. Burnell (late arrival); Mr. Pronchick; Mr. Bhatia (late arrival); Mr. Smith; Mr. Tullmann (late arrival); as well as Ms. Tintocalis, Economic Development Director. Also present: Ted Brovitz, Zoning Consultant from Brovitz Community Planning and Design. ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Hartwell Avenue - Zoning Initiative and Transportation Improvement Project The purpose of the meeting was to discuss zoning initiatives Hartwell Avenue and Special Town Meeting (STM) Article 8 - Appropriate funding 25% Design of Route 4/225 Bedford Street/ Hartwell Avenue/Wood Street Transportation Improvement Project.  Overview of Zoning History on Hartwell Avenue—Charles Hornig Mr. Hornig (PB) reported that the Hartwell area has been designated as a manufacturing zone for 95 years, starting in 1924. Bedford Auxiliary Airport (Hanscom Field) was built in 1941 but was quickly taken over by the US Army during WW2. A section of that property was later re-named Hanscom Air Force Base. In 1949, the M-1 Hartwell manufacturing district was expanded; in 1950, Route 128 was built. In 1952 MIT Lincoln Labs was established. In 1960, the Wood Street-Bedford Street connector, now called Hartwell Avenue, was built. By 1987, there were 33 commercial properties along the corridor. In the 1980s, zoning bylaw amendments were passed that Mr. Hornig said were intended to halt or slow rapid commercial development. Over time, various studies have been conducted about the area and zoning changes have been proposed or adopted. By 1996, only one additional property had been constructed. In 2006, the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) was formed and zoning amendments, intended to streamline commercial development, were proposed and/or adopted. 1  Hartwell Avenue Zoning Initiative-Ted Brovitz Ms. Tintocalis, Economic Development Director, introduced Mr. Brovitz and noted that the zoning consultant work he is doing for Lexington is subsidized by a grant from the executive office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Changes being considered along Hartwell Avenue are based on smart growth concepts, including higher density and the potential for mixed commercial/industrial/residential development. Mr. Brovitz characterized tonight’s presentation as a rough draft zoning outline. He is now vetting the draft with Town staff, with the goal of presenting a more polished first draft by the end of October 2019 to Town boards and the public. One of the questions Mr. Brovitz seeks to answer is “What would Hartwell Avenue look like if the zoning opened it up to other uses?” For potential answers, he has spoken to a number of Hartwell Avenue property owners who are enthusiastic about the possibilities beyond the current uses (research and development, lab, and office space) such as office, retail, restaurants, recreation, and a limited amount of residential development. Mr. Brovitz noted that the deep setbacks along Hartwell Avenue provide room for potential infill development. Other improvements to the Hartwell Avenue corridor include streetscape upgrades and multi- modal transportation. Facilitating pedestrian use is desired, as is designing “gathering places” throughout the industrial park. Mr. Brovitz said the project will require cooperation between public and private interests. Public realm standards— like sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and landscaping— will need to be coupled with private property investments to upgrade current buildings and create infill construction. Mr. Brovitz named nine of the project elements he is examining:  ZONING MAP/REGULATING PLAN: Current CM, CRO, CD districts would become HIP (Hartwell Industrial Park). The current GC would become CNP (Civic Nodes and Parks) which includes so-called Pedestrian Frontage Infill Zones.  GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Dimensional standards— including height variations, height easements, and building setbacks— would be amended to achieve the desired effects and avoid “canyon-ization” which would create too urban an effect for Lexington.  ALLOWED USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Mixed-use buildings— including eating and drinking establishments, seasonal and special events spaces—would be allowed by right. Multi-family residential dwellings would be allowed by Special Permit.  FRONTAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT Includes building placement and orientation, surface relief with architectural features, 2 infill building frontage types, and infill building façade types.  SITE DEVELOPMEMT STANDARDS Includes re-examination of current parking requirements to establish more flexibility; expansion of parking models including stacked, tandem, valet, ride sharing, off-site; site landscaping; establishing transitional buffers; providing utilities; using sustainable site design standards.  OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE Includes thoughtful use of the wide right-of-way where it exists; pocket parks; community gardens; forecourt trails; rooftop terraces; plaza/seating; civic spaces; private open spaces; outdoor playgrounds; athletic fields or ball courts; neighborhood parks; street side terraces; pedestrian pathways.  PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS Includes street design standards; public realm components and activation; travel throughway zone; street enhancement zone; furnishing and utility zone; pedestrian throughway zone; public frontage zone.  DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Base residential density; non-residential intensity; density bonus requirements tied to public amenities.  DESIGN WAIVERS AND SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA Purpose; review criteria; conditions. Mr. Brovitz stated that zoning is only one piece of the overall effort. Other factors include how the project connects with the larger district plan; effects on traffic volume and intersections; and potential impacts on neighbors.  Comments on the presentation Mr. Burnell (EDAC) asked why a residential component is included and what the prime objective of the project is. Mr. Brovitz replied that there is a strong market for residential and the thinking is that the residential element would add vitality to the area. The prime objective is to revitalize the Hartwell corridor to make it more appealing and competitive for business/commercial investment. Mr. Burnell said 30% residential seems like a lot; he believes it should be zero. He believes the main objective is to revitalize the commercial/industrial appeal, not to reach beyond into other uses. He does not believe pedestrian improvements are appropriate. Mr. Tullmann (EDAC) asked how many of these controversial changes— that citizens are apt to object to—are necessary to maximize commercial development. He believes controversy will complicate and delay Town Meeting approval. Mr. McWeeney (EDAC) said only 6% of Lexington’s land is dedicated to commercial development. Adding non-commercial elements will not maximize commercial zoning benefits. 3 The EDAC would like more flexibility for the Planning Board to use in site plan reviews, making it possible to work with developers to reach mutually beneficial agreements. If the permitting process is too lengthy, businesses will go elsewhere, something EDAC wants to avoid. Returning to the zoning parameters of the 1960s, and making a few tweaks, would be a more simplified approach. Mr. Smith (EDAC and Cranberry Associates) noted that many conversations about Hartwell have occurred over time. He believes the priority should be commercial development. Once that is in place, it would be alright to bring in low density residential. The Special Permitting process, is it stands now, is too lengthy and discourages businesses from coming to Lexington. Mr. Bhatia (EDAC) agreed with the other EDAC comments, adding that property owners along Hartwell are not risk takers. Mr. Leone (PB) said the concepts presented by Mr. Brovitz are interesting but the current owners along the corridor might not have an appetite to make these hoped-for investments. Costs associated with creating additional parking spaces, for example, have to make the expense worthwhile. He agreed that getting public approval for some of the controversial elements will take time. Mr. Peters (PB) said there are many good things about the plan. He supports mixed-use development including a modest residential component which would expand the diversity of Lexington’s housing stock. Mr. Hornig (PB) is eager to move forward with improvements on Hartwell Avenue. He hopes at least some of the elements of the project can be approved and advanced to Annual Town Meeting, even if the entire vision in not embraced. He sees signals from Lexington commercial property owners that they might consider structured parking, even though the cost of construction has been thought of as too high. Mr. Creech (PB) said the residential component of the plan interests him because the area would be more alive at night. He is in favor of convenience retail, not destination retail. He hopes there will be aesthetically pleasing architectural design. He is not sure Hartwell property owners are able and willing to finance quality upgrades. He wants the Planning Board to have leverage to deny projects if they are not attractive. Mr. Canale (PB) said he is pleasantly surprised and optimistic by what has been presented. He thinks form-based zoning will create the kind of development the Town wants. He believes telling developers what the Town wants—and being consistent— will expedite permitting. The Hartwell project is an opportunity to create housing for young professionals, downsizers, and the Town’s workforce. Strong residential and transit components are necessary to qualify for federal funding. Ms. Johnson (PB) asked if a mechanism can be created to bring the property owners together so there is a unified effort and result. She fears if the Town does not generate the structure for redevelopment to take place within, the results will be disjointed. The public space improvements can be accomplished upfront by the Town and they will set the standard for 4 private property improvements. She hopes the project will be coordinated with the Town of Bedford. She strongly approves of the residential component. Ms. Hai (BOS) said it is important to emphasize a cohesive approach rather than focusing just on elements like dimensional standards. She believes the town wants to create a neighborhood. She asked for more information on how residential and life sciences can co-exist. She also wants to make sure Lexington coordinates with the Town of Bedford. She believes it is important to carefully consider how Special Permitting would be structured, either by providing a blanket special permit for the zone or by approving special permits for each property. Mr. Pato (BOS) said he is excited by the direction the project is taking and believes the neighborhood concept in this instance is a multi-use neighborhood in which the residential would be located where it makes sense. He agrees that the Town of Bedford should be included in the process, not only because the project would impact traffic but because the development is a regional concern. Mr. Lucente (BOS) said he was grateful for the Hartwell history lesson because it made him more comfortable with reaching ahead further. He is hesitant about the level of residential proposed. Hotel guests or recreation visitors would be potential customers for the amenities businesses want to have close by. Ms. Barry (BOS) asked for clarity on the timeline for this project. Besides Bedford, Hanscom AFB, Lincoln Labs, and adjacent neighborhoods should be included in the process. She emphasized that it is important to choose and vet even the small the elements of this project carefully. She pointed out that a commercial property on Hayden Avenue recently built a 7-floor structured parking garage. Mr. Sandeen (BOS) is enthusiastic about the commercial development possibilities. He would like to see a current and a projected tax revenue assessment. He believes there are ways to achieve the Town’s climate and environmental goals for this development. Given the history of Hartwell, he believes the project should be built with the next three generations in mind.  STM Article 8 - Appropriate funding 25% Design of Route 4/225 Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue/Wood Street Transportation Improvement Project—Carol Kowalski The goal of the Route 4/225 Bedford Street; Hartwell Avenue; Wood Street Transportation Improvement Project is to create a street that is safe while improving traffic flow. Traffic was the number one concern of residents who attended preliminary meetings about this proposal. The state is expected to pay for construction but the Town needs to fund the 25% design in order to begin the process. The 25% phase includes detailed traffic, safety, and operational analyses. These analyses, plus public input to create design alternatives, are used to narrow down the proposed design that would include provisions for improved access for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, plus cross sections and horizontal and vertical alignments, proposed easements, traffic signs and pavement markings and a preliminary construction estimate. If Town Meeting did not support the $1.5M for the 25% design phase, Lexington would not be 5 eligible for federal funding. There is a detailed public outreach plan included in the 25% phase. The Town has affirmed with the State its intention to move forward with the project within the 2025-2029 timeframe, which is sooner than it previously was slated. The long-range transportation plan is expected to be adopted in May 2020. It is imperative to find solutions to improve safety conditions, especially with Hanscom and Lincoln Lab expansions regardless of decisions for Hartwell zoning. Board Discussion Ms. Barry (BOS) asked who nominates members for a 25% Design Advisory Committee. Mr. Lucente will put this on a future agenda. Ms. Johnson (PB) said she agrees that a community-based conversation will be crucial to the success of the Hartwell improvements. She said medians on Hartwell Avenue are not desirable because they are hard to maintain, cause problems for plows, and increase crossing distances. Mr. Creech (PB) asked if the traffic studies will show how much more traffic can be tolerated. Ms. Kowalski said the study would analyze the base year and project future traffic under different scenarios, including with various zoning changes. Mr. Canale (PB) stated that the need for a traffic study is indisputable. A committee should be formed but the membership should not be confined to residents of the immediate area because a project of this nature will affect the Center and other parts of town. The road project has already been delayed and should not be further postponed. Mr. Burnell (EDAC) hoped that the road project (Article 8) would move ahead regardless of the Hartwell proposal. Mr. Canale (PB) said the traffic study will also drive the thinking behind the Hartwell trade-offs. Mr. Malloy (Town Manager) said that regardless of previous 25% design phases that have been done, the new 25% design will have to be based on current design standards in any case. Mr. Hornig (PB) said the intent is to do the 25% design and the re-zoning of Hartwell in parallel but the traffic work is needed no matter what. Mr. Canale (PB) noted that if Lexington did no roadway improvements, Mass DOT would construct roundabouts near the north- and south-bound exits from Interstate 95 because it feels that is the best solution. Mr. Sandeen (BOS) supports the Article 8 to address the traffic problems. He asked that measurable objectives be made clear for the investment.  Outreach Plan/Next Steps 6 Mr. Malloy will continue to keep the Town of Bedford informed. Two meetings about the 25% design are scheduled for Tuesday, October 29, 2020 8 p.m. at the Hadley Public Services Building and Wednesday October 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. at the Community Meeting Room at the Cary Memorial Library. Ms. Tintocalis asked if the zoning initiative advisory committee would also be formed. The Boards caucused individually. The Board of Selectmen reached consensus to move forward with both proposals. If the Hartwell proposal does not feel ready to advance by Annual Town Meeting, it won’t be successful. The EDAC said that moving ahead with the roadway was desirable but signaled dissatisfaction with the zoning proposal. The Planning Board expressed enthusiasm for moving ahead with the roadway project but felt that the zoning project would not be ready in time for Annual Town Meeting 2020. Ms. Barry (BOS) said the Board felt strongly that Hartwell project needs to move forward. An assessment can be made in late February about whether the project is ready to be included on the 2020 Annual Town Meeting warrant. Mr. Smith (EDAC) noted that even if the zoning were to pass, changes would not be made overnight. Not moving ahead on zoning would send the message to the development community that Lexington is not interested in attracting commercial development. Ms. Johnson (PB) said that she is very unsure the zoning article can be ready in time for Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Tintocalis said an advisory committee of residents and property owners would help with the outreach process. Mr. Lucente said he would put a discussion about this on a future Selectmen’s agenda. Mr. Canal asked if there will be two advisory committees, one for each project, and how many meetings for each are envisioned. Mr. Lucente said that would be part of the Selectmen’s deliberations. Mr. Burnell (EDAC) asked when drawings of the traffic plans would be ready to view. Mr. Malloy said these would come after the 25% phase. Mr. Creech (PB) asked the EDAC if the zoning article could be postponed until Special Town Meeting in the fall of 2020. Mr. McWeeney (EDAC) said that in order to be in the running for labs that want space, Lexington needs to move forward as quickly as possible. Mr. Sandeen (BOS) said the need for a new high school is another factor that economic development affects. The cost to residential taxpayers will be steeper if a better offset is not available from the commercial tax base. Mr. Malloy said staff, with Mr. Brovitz, is currently working on a zoning bylaw that is close to a final draft. This should improve readiness for Annual Town Meeting. 7 ADJOURN Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. The Planning Board and Economic Development Committee likewise voted to adjourn. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert Recording Secretary 8