Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-16-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 16, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Zurlo, and Canale and planning staff Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ***************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************* Green provisions on Hartwell Avenue: Mr. Henry said he sent the memo regarding the density bonus for green provisions for the Board’s review and he also spoke with Jeanne Krieger regarding the possibility of a green audit of the entire code including the regulations and bylaws to look at the big picture. Mr. Hornig asked the Board Members for their positions on the green provisions. Board comments: Mr. Canale ?? Discuss density bonus, what developers could do by right and at what threshold would bonuses kick in; ?? Without specifying materials in the building code; develop performance standards in terms of energy conservation savings methods and items that limit floor area; ?? Develop site design strategies that encourage energy savings and considerations for buildings; ?? Ensure a reasonable density development on Hartwell Avenue; and ?? Consider factors that would keep neighborhoods in Lexington livable. Mr. Zurlo ?? Are we willing to take a lead on green initiatives and be aggressive about it? ?? LEED is not the only measure of green regulations, but has been successful in setting the stage; ?? Use traffic management and strategies; and ?? Need to learn more about the types of performance-based incentives in order to incorporate them effectively. Ms. Manz ?? All LEED standards may not work with our Hartwell Avenue goals, but the use of LEED-type standards for structure could be helpful in setting the stage; ?? Should deal with site design incorporating transportation demand management (TDM) practices, encouraging shuttles, public transportation and shared parking; Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2008 ?? Shared structure parking should be considered for jughandle end of Hartwell Avenue; ?? On building design, we should focus on energy conservation; ?? If tradeoffs for density bonuses were used there would be no reason not to demand certain green practices; and ?? Use performance standards to make sure buildings would be as efficient as possible, avoiding waste. Mr. Hornig ?? Not require the use of certification of standards since some might not be applicable for Hartwell Avenue; ?? Site design items that do apply to green practices should be required without automatically attaching bonuses, that should remain flexible; ?? Materials and construction practices should be in another part of the zoning bylaws so not to impact the original guidelines; and ?? There is a lack of municipal guidelines and structures and no examples to model; the Board would have to develop it’s own system and would not be able to follow in anyone’s footsteps. Mr. Canale ?? The hope would be the Board and Town would reduce the burden on the developers for the number of hoops they would have to jump through; ?? Take responsibility for traffic and do a traffic study on Hartwell Avenue and set the parameters once we know total impacts; ?? From the Town’s perspective how smart is the location and could it be made smarter? ?? Developers should be responsible for the individual site, but we should take the responsibility for the bigger picture. Mr. Canale said MAPC sent a letter to MEPA regarding the site at 175 Wyman Avenue, Waltham, regarding the developers’ request to double the number of parking spaces to five per 1,000 square feet. MAPC’s response was the 2.5 per 1,000 square feet was sufficient, but the if developer wanted an increase they would be required to show proof of the need and then pay a surcharge to build more spaces. Mr. Zurlo said caution should be used with performance-based design that it be specific enough to provide predictability for developers. LEED standards bring to the table choices of areas where you may be judged. There may be a hard time meeting goals unless there was a good rewriting of the development regulations. Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2008 Page 3 Audience comments: Mr. John J. Krawczyk said the Climate Action Plan Committee (CAPC) met and discussed Lexington’s carbon footprint and its goal, which was to reduce it. If the new buildings being built on Hartwell Avenue resulted in an increased use of fossil fuel and electricity it would counter the CAPC’s goal of trying to reduce the carbon footprint of Lexington 100% by the year 2020. There could be a trade off on density in return for clean energy generation such as filling the roofs with solar panels. Mr. Hornig said at Town Meeting the Board received its marching orders to increase commercial development and that does work against CAPC’s goals and could that hurt the CAPC’s plan. The Planning Board would do what it could to help working within the limits of the charter. Mr. Sacks said part of what was being worked on is based on an assumption of what Boards could do. The kind of footprints, site plans and businesses for the profile have yet to be determined. Encourage businesses that are local to create goods for local use. There are a lot of open questions that would have to be addressed as we go along. Ms. Otto from the League of Woman Voters asked about the goals regarding water conservation. She said to her knowledge there was no broad range of systems for gray water. Perhaps do a demo on Hartwell Avenue with one building offering an incentive to use kitchen and cafeteria water for irrigation. If it would be under the Planning Board’s jurisdiction, she would like to see the Board consider gray water systems for residential use. Mr. Sacks said Woburn High School uses gray water. We should do our best to reduce carbon emissions to zero. Mr. Henry asked the Board about action items that the Board would like to discuss further. The list includes: ?? It may not be necessary to require certification by external standards, but create our own checklist, point system and prerequisites; ?? Energy efficiency; ?? Site design that facilitates traffic management, cooperative parking; ?? Reduction of automobiles 20%; ?? Maintain quality of life in Lexington; ?? How much of the standards go in the bylaws and how much in the development regulations; ?? Ensure it serves as fair notice and what would be required from developers/applicants; and Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2008 ?? Look at the rating system chart for new construction, major renovations, existing buildings, core & shell, and neighborhood development. Mr. Zurlo asked if staff could send the rating system documents to the Board and accompany it with a review sheet for which one could indicate a preference to what topics may be applicable to Lexington. The collective responses would be reviewed to focus future discussions. ******************************* DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS************************ Proposed Amendments to Sketches, Proofs and Site Plan Analysis to the Development Regulations: The Board discussed Mr. Henry’s memorandum regarding the following proposed amendments to the development regulations. 1. Referential changes: To ensure that all citations to the zoning bylaw, be they terms, sections, etc are corrected. 2. Required revisions: The best examples of significant changes pertain to the Site Analysis Map requirements, the Sketch Plan and Proof Plan. These sections will probably be where the most amounts of time and effort will need to be spent. 3. Recommended changes: The proposed amendments that staff have noticed over time, like outdated references to the “MS DOS” operating system, updating submission requirements to mirror the Board’s practice and perhaps as extensive as updating the road standards. Mr. Canale said he did not see in the memo the one conversation at Town Meeting from Mr. Fenn requesting an amendment be made regarding public notice to abutters in earlier stages. Mr. Henry said it could be put into the development regulations to notice abutters at the sketch plan stage. Mr. Hornig said that it could be a post card being sent or the soliciting of public input from abutters at that early stage. Mr. Canale said we would want to hear about neighborhood concerns. Mr. Hornig said then the key changes to the sketch plan were public input early on and removal of the construction plan at that stage. Mr. Henry said these changes would help developers by giving them direction, being more direct and asking for more on site plan analysis, specifically on trees and slope. This could also help the developers not spend monies where they would not need to. Mr. Henry said that staff noticed there are some things in both the development regulations and the bylaws, which could cause confusion. It might appear that certain items could be waived if reading the development regulations, but then they appear in the bylaws making them not waivable. The goal would be to make the regulations and bylaws consistent with one another. Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2008 Page 5 ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Grandview Avenue, Tri-Partite Agreement Reduction in Surety: Mr. Henry said Mr. David Burns, the developer of the Grandview Subdivision, requested another reduction in surety based on the installation of the drainage system, and pavement, and the completion of electric, telephone and cable work. Engineering had done a review and he had gone to check the site himself and found the request reasonable. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to grant a reduction in surety for $98, 926.00 for the release of funds for the water and sewer installation work competed on Grandview Avenue. ************************************** STAFF REPORTS******************************* Information on Models/Mockups: Mr. Henry looked into the cost of photo mockups (digital photo) and a ballpark figure was approximately $10,000. This could be used as an option to see what the proposed site might look like. Mr. Zurlo said photomontage is somewhat different from a massing model. The photomontage is a fixed vantage point rendering which is superimposed into a photograph. $5,000 may be the cost for the rendering and would typically require a strong involvement of an architect. Mr. Zurlo continued, the massing models allow for manipulation during the approval process but one would be able to see the footprint and volume of the building within its context early on. For more complicated projects, the Board should require them to do that at the preliminary stage. Mr. Hornig said now that there is some idea of what cost was being added, the concern is with small site sensitive development and these types of upfront costs. Mr. Henry said this could be put in the development regulations if the Board wanted to require this. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Ms. Manz said she attended the MAPC meeting in Framingham and had nothing to report because it was taken up with concerns of Framingham town meeting members. Mr. Canale said he heard that the tenor of the MAPC meeting in Arlington was very different from the Framingham meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk