2008-12-03-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of December 3, 2008 for future discussion. Mr. Canale said that the scenic byway should be more fully explored. Also the recreational mobility potential of roadways, sidewalks, paths and interconnections should be considered. There should also be a Table of Contents. ***************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************* Site Plan review: Initially everyone would need a site plan review. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the current trigger was 10,000 square feet but there should be a higher threshold for a special permit. Mr. Canale said that the MetroFuture implementation strategies best practices had some specifics for criteria. There were certain criteria that could be checked by staff for routine site plan review (SPR). Ms. Manz said it would not be possible to do a full SPR for everything. Up to 10,000 square feet could be signed off by staff and brought to the Board if there was an issue. Mr. Galaitsis said to look at the history of the past. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that that the Planning Board did not do commercial permitting, that was done by the ZBA. Mr. Henry said design what you want and approve the SPR with conditions. It would not regulate what the developers want, but how they are permitted to do it. Ms. Johnson said the Board should be advocating for more SPR, not less. Mr. Henry said that .35 FAR would trigger the special permit, but asked the Board to think about what happens with an FAR between zero and .35. Mr. Canale said that the goal was to increase the vitality of commercial development. If Lexington’s goal was to maximize revenue, the way to accomplish that would be through quality, and standards should be set high. Mr. Zurlo said clear guidelines were needed with appropriate thresholds, or triggers, for either site plan review or special permit with site plan review. His preference would be to have the Planning Department review all projects under prescribed thresholds and the Board to review all items exceeding the rezoned limits. . Mr. Galaitsis said the goal was to ultimately streamline the process with as little regulation as possible. Start with raising the current FAR to a value that would trigger the need for a special permit and retain the SPR below that value, and fine-tune the process as we go along. Mr. Henry said to adopt the SPR bylaw; then regulations could be implemented to further define the process. Mr. Zurlo said that SPR would capture the elements of site design that would be vulnerable. Mr. Canale asked what would be more developer- and town-friendly, prescriptive criteria for everyone, or a more open process? Ms. Yanofsky said that developers were used to SPR. Mr. Zurlo asked whether the goal of SPR was to control site disturbance such as building footprint, plantings, curb cuts, parking and impervious surface? Ms. McCall-Taylor asked the Board to think about what was being regulated and to