My Take on Planning Board Meeting on January 16, 2024
By Laurie Gray

A few people have asked me to continue my series of summaries on the planning board meetings.  My intention is to summarize succinctly what happened at the meeting and also highlight interesting (to me at least) resident comments as they relate to what happened.

1. Setbacks—conversation on this topic was deferred as the property boundary of the RLF property at the Mall is still unknown.

   • The new 100-unit schematic of the Mall used a front 15’ setback for all its buildings. It hasn’t been explained yet why the decision to alter the setback voted at town meeting was made.

2. Parking—The 100-unit schematic of the Mall prepared by Utile would put a building and residential parking on top of the access easement for the town’s commuter lot, thus blocking access.

3. The Planning Board is considering requiring that 33% of the total building area on the parcel be for commercial use but they are also considering allowing a reduction (by any amount) in that percentage by special permit (supermajority vote which I think is 4 out of the 5 member planning board).  There is a proposed change in the "frontage" requirement.  "Frontage" is the front part of the buildings facing Lincoln Road and facing the access road.  The change is:  60% is required to be "true commercial" (which could include a leasing office for the residential building), the next 20% could be "true commercial" or "street activating," and the final 20% can be anything.  I am still slightly confused as to what is "commercial."  My understanding is that it could include a gym if the general public can buy memberships (unclear at what price).  My understanding is that common rooms and lobbies of residential would not be "commercial" but would be "street activating."

   • A resident and member of RLF board thought that these bylaws would force them to go to town meeting because they want to build something that isn’t allowed “by right” based on what the PB has come up with. (In other words, change these bylaws so they fit what we have planned). She likely is referring to the amount of commercial being required as she then said a set SF amount rather than a percentage is more in line with what the RLF was hoping for.
     
     She said that they needed to be honest with the public, and that their phase 1 design, which will be presented during their forum Thursday, would show the reduced commercial they need to be viable, that these requirements would make development at the mall economically nonviable and mentioned something about bringing the question to Town Meeting to be voted on if the Planning Board's new mixed-use bylaws couldn't accommodate the RLF's goals. She said that they needed to be honest with the public, and that the RLF Phase 1 design, which will be presented during their forum Thursday, 1/18, would show the reduction in commercial they need to be viable.

   • A PB member stated that the RLF needed to tell them more details about what is needed to make it economically viable, since the Planning Board wants the project to be viable.

   • A resident stated that it is unknown if a project is economically nonviable unless a project goes to bid.  More bidders benefit both the RLF and the town by making sure the mall is sold at a good price for what the town gets in return.

   • A resident stated that if a Planning Board member is going to meet with RLF representatives for any discussions related to zoning that all Planning members should be invited and it should be part of the public record. Meeting for discussions without a quorum is a way to get around open meeting laws.

4. Utile presented a slide show showing a 96 unit build-out at the mall and several Codman Road build-out scenarios.

   • A resident commented that there might not be enough parking for commercial customers at the mall as the models only included 1 parking spot per residential unit, whereas a developer might want to offer more than 1 spot per unit.  Setting a maximum number of one spot per unit might save some parking spots for commercial customers.

   • Some PB members stated that the max build-out at the mall looked a bit bleak as there was no green space.

5. Other comments by residents:

   • Residents were concerned about overall design/aesthetics, lack of green space, and trees. One PB Member stated that unit decks over parking could fulfill desire for open space for occupants, but this does not address the absence of common public green space at ground level.

Click below to see the slides presented by Utile.

Zoom Chat comments/questions from 1/16/2024 Planning Board meeting

• Will no open green space be zoned into the Mall development? Parking lot islands and individual unit decks are hardly a substitute for public green gathering spaces. 

• Parking requirements control the actual buildout capacity, and ideally open green space requirement will be another control. The Lincoln zoning bylaws call for 4 parking spaces per 1000 sf commercial space. Utile models show 2.9 spaces per 1000 sf commercial space – not exactly an accurate model unless the zoning bylaw changes to limit commercial parking. Is the Planning Board going to rewrite its parking requirements? 

• It would be a great service to the public if you would share the most recent draft of the zoning and design guidelines. For example, what standards do you propose for issuing a special permit? 

• The phrase was used “It would be up to the developer” as we were looking at the bulldozer buildout plans. How do we prevent that, in perpetuity? 

• How do we ensure that the PO stays? 

• As a current 2nd floor commercial tenant at the mall, I want to stress the amount of economic activity my non-retail commercial use brings in. My staff of 4 (and growing) come from other towns to work here, shop at Donelan’s multiple times per week, patronize Twisted Tree every day, shot at Something Special. This past week alone, we’ve hosted work lunches at the Tack Room 3 times with groups of 4 or more. Please consider keeping non-retail commercial uses as part of the mix. Thank you. 

• I am concerned that the zoning will discourage buildings with interesting facades, and we will end up with boring boxes. I would like to see developments that an architect would be proud to put his or her name on. 

• The use of the side setback for parking is concerning, to say the least. 

• Past practice when we did any work that would affect and impact neighborhoods: we always held neighborhood meetings and special notice to those neighbors. It prevented surprises on the floor of Town Meeting and got lots of buy-in. 

• Why do we not have the property boundary resolved? It came up at the last meeting. 

• I remain confused on the meaning of “by right” – doesn’t it negate the need for a special permit? Also, there was talk at the beginning of the meeting on our goatls – is there a town wide consensus of “our” goals? 

• Will commercial space have depth inside the buildings? Simply adding windows to ground floor frontage – a la the dog training facility -- doesn’t really activate the street or make for a useful commercial space. Harvard Square was planned and designed to make the commercial storefronts transparent, to integrate street activity and in-store activity and to make a lively district. Can the Planning Board zone for this effect? 

• The Codman Road scenarios are super helpful to see and seem to dispel some of the “worst case scenario” conceptual scenarios floating around out there. Thank you. 

• The point of the zoning is to protect the town, and not to increase profitability for a seller, regardless of who that is. 

• Individual letters to the properties that are affected. 

• Release a parcel list and send an official-looking letter. I have talked to residents in the last week that have no idea their property is being considered to be rezoned. 

• Sarah brings up an important question that was not addressed – when will the updated model be available? There are very different numbers presented in the Special Town Meeting vs what the Excel says. 

• The Codman Road/Lincoln Road parcels could be combined and create a relatively dense development…a not inconsequential 40-50 units. 

• Please address the question of the ability of the Lincoln Road oak trees to remain.

• The postcards may have been mistaken for junk mail. What is the harm in sending out a letter in an envelope to owners of parcels being rezoned? This seems like a basic courtesy. 

• We need concrete requirements *from the RLF* for what the RLF considers “economically viable”. It doesn’t make sense for the PB to be doing this much work trying to hit a hidden target. Nor does it give the citizen participants a chance to ask questions about the RLF definition of viability. 

• Per the comments as to what are we to do regarding notification, as I said before, in the past we hosted meetings with those who would feel the most impact. It is insulting to residents to wag a finger and admonish them for not paying attention to their mall. 

• The extremely limited public comment time on such a monumental change to Lincoln is disappointing, to say the least. Please let the town’s residents ask questions and get answers beyond a 10-minute limit.

• Special Permit is concerning to me.

• You have not discussed affordability.

• What will the mall building heights be? Can they go to 48’ by bylaw change? Will they be limited to 36’ on the roadway frontage, with 42’ behind?

• Please do not ignore the questions.

• Have you discussed any of this with the towns that have already implemented or are close to adoption of zoning? Concord, Lexington, Weston, Brookline? They have dealt with this.

• Would you please address some of the chat questions and comments?

•  Parking is a red herring. The current lot is never full save for perhaps 3-4 days per year. More and more people will want to walk and bike in the near future. Let’s not make decisions based on outdated assumptions about transportation. 

• Most recent postcard has dates but not details. A town-wide mailing that includes some level of detail would be beneficial, especially when minutes and videos for meetings since December are still not posted.

• On Sara’s point – please look at “mixed use” bylaws for other towns. Lexington and Concord have extremely detailed bylaws showing exactly what commercial uses are permitted that would be very helpful to mimic.

• When will the minutes and recordings for past meetings be made available to the public?

• Parking is not a red herring. It is consistently more than 80% full. In any case, it is unrealistic to assume one parking spot per unit. 50 units at 1.75 would mean 88 parking spaces, killing 40% of our current commercial parking. That is more than the amount of empty spaces today.

• I work at the mall every day. Do we create parking for the handful of days the parking fills up or a more realistic use case? I say the latter.

• Can you absolutely say that it is always below 50% capacity?

• At some point, you will constrain debate to the point that there will be a real division in the town – there is not a forum to get to “yes” as they did in Brookline.

• How will you deal with public feedback?

• I am concerned about the many genies that can emergre from the zoning bottle the Planning Board is proposing. We have no idea what we are permitting, and will be giving up control! This is all going too fast, and we need to take the time to get this right!!! We have until December. There is no rush to approve this in March.

• We need to see the bylaws spelled out on the website.