Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-04-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 4, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:01 pm Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Ginna Johnson, Clerk; Richard Canale; and Charles Hornig. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director. Robert Creech, Chair, read the agenda into the record, introduced members of the Planning Board and Planning Department Staff, and called the meeting to order on Thursday, February 4, 2021. Mr. Creech read the following statement relative to the recent outbreak of COVID-19. Good evening. Consistent with Governor Baker's Executive Order of March 12, 2020, suspending specific provisions of MGL. c. 30A, §18 due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID-19, this meeting of the Lexington Planning Board is being conducted remotely. In-person attendance is not permitted at this time. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access real-time proceedings via technological means. In the event access cannot be provided, an audio or video recording of this meeting will be available for review on the Town of Lexington website or through LexMedia as soon as possible after the meeting. For this meeting, the Lexington Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Specific information for remote participation by the public can be found on the Planning Office’s web page. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. At this time, I will provide a brief review of the meeting proceedings. 1. For each public hearing, the Planning Board will request a presentation from the Applicant or petitioner, followed by an opportunity for the Planning Board to ask questions or provide comments. Then the floor will be open for public comments. 2. All comments during public participation need to be limited to 2 minutes or less and must be respectful. 3. When the time comes for public participation, if you are dialing in, you may use *6 to mute or unmute yourself and *9 to raise or lower your hand. 4. If at any time during the meeting you have a question, please use the Q&A feature, and staff will respond. Town Meeting a) Public Hearing: Hartwell Innovation Park: Amend Zoning Map to create a new Hartwell Innovation Park (HIP) Zoning and further amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw by adding new Special District Regulations, and amend related zoning sections of the Zoning Bylaw, including the Table of Use; Dimensional Controls; General Regulations; Site Plan Review; and associated zoning amendments. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Ms. Loomis presented Article 45, HIP, which would add a new C-HIP zoning district, with new dimensional regulations, off- street parking and loading, signs, landscaping, transitions and screening. Ms. Loomis Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 presented the changes that would be made to the Table of Uses that would include a new column for C-HIP. Ms. Loomis reviewed new sections for the C-HIP District, including Purpose and Intent, Compliance, Design Guidelines, Development Standards, Parking, Transportation and Circulation, Review of Uses and the Hartwell Park Review. Ms. Page presented the changes to parking, transportation, and circulation. Board Questions and Comments: Ms. Johnson presented the following concerns: Purpose and Intent: would need to include the town goals of sustainability and preservation of the town character. Ms. Johnson recommended that the Town enter into a contract with an on-call interdisciplinary design consultant (landscape architect, civil engineer, and architect) to perform design review for development submissions. It would be difficult for the Planning Staff and Planning Board to perform the necessary in- depth and comprehensive reviews on a 60-day basis for large projects, especially if there are multiple submissions for HIP (or elsewhere in Town). The guidance of a consultant team could complement the Town’s Development Review Team or be focused on specific issues as requested by the Planning Board or the Staff Development Review Team. She also said that Town Meeting should be aware that the Hartwell Innovation Park Zoning and Design Guidelines have not been modelled physically or digitally, and that each development project will in effect be a built experiment that the Town will have to learn from as regards the Town goals for the district. She urged Town Meeting to adjust the Zoning Bylaw regularly, for instance by reducing the dimensional controls, reducing the uses and dimensional controls that could be waived, etc. because only then can the environment, the abutters, and the Town profit as expected from this unprecedented degree of zoning deregulation. . Signage allowed should not be standing signs because there could be one every 50’ (with the 50’ min. frontage), or more as multiple signs are allowed in the current language, and this would look terrible in appearance. In addition, this signage would not be possible for accessibility clearances or desirable along the vibrant sidewalk and streetscape that has been envisioned. Appropriately-sized building-mounted signage—perhaps one front cantilevered sign -or- two side building mounted signs—should be allowed instead. . The Design Guidelines had no teeth as the Boston Properties memorandum sent to the Planning Board today indicated. Leaving the design of Hartwell to the individual property owners would not be good governance. Therefore, 135.9.4.2 Special Permits - Criteria in and 135.9.4.3 Conditions for Approval of a Special Permit should be amended to include:  Compliance with the HIP Design Guidelines  Town’s goals for Net Zero, Climate Resilience and Sustainability  Landscape architectural design, including materials and planting  Preservation and restoration of ecosystem services, including tree preservation and tree planting. Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Page 3 Likewise, 135.9.5.5 Site Plan Review - Review Standards should be amended to include:  Compliance with the HIP Design Guidelines  Town’s goals for Net Zero, Climate Resilience and Sustainability  Landscape architectural design, including materials and planting  Preservation and restoration of ecosystem services, including tree preservation and tree planting. Ms. Johnson was glad that the CM district would remain so that the parcels along Waltham border can remain in the CM district at this time. On tables, footnotes should be included and defined at the bottom of the page. The content of the tables is incomplete without the footnotes. Mr. Canale said at the beginning the potential developers were looking for predictability for what the Board wanted them to do. The EDAC yesterday had a number of concerns about some guidelines that might be coming through and since the guidelines were so loose and would not give the potential developers the predictability they were looking for. There was no incentive to do Bio Lab as opposed to office space. There was still a lot of work left to do. Mr. Hornig said we definitely needed to continue the public hearing to allow time to review the updated information received which was substantially different from before. Staff was still working on a revised version based on tonight. He would hold off on comments until he worked with the next revised draft. There should be a new provision to restrict building height near streets and residential districts that would provide extra protection for Katahdin Woods. Mr. Creech liked the material that has been made available on the website. Regarding purpose and intent it should reference accessibility for all people. Design guidelines needed to make certain things required. The parking garage conversion needed to be addressed. Mr. Peters said he saw the updated amendment version and the memo from Boston Properties and would like time to process it and respond next week, but wanted to hear public comments. Public Comments: Mr. Barnert of precinct 4 said there used to be a pedestrian amenity area that was removed and wanted to know why? Ms. Loomis said staff was looking into if it was needed or not. He expressed concern that Planning Board could go beyond the use table without it going to Town Meeting. A resident requested that staff make public the comments that were received outside the public hearings. Ms. Iyer said they would add the comments to the website. Mr. Creech asked any public comments should be sent to staff. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Leonard Morse-Fortier asked if there was there enough town property owned to make two narrower roads and a grassy medium with plantings to make it more attractive and to slow down traffic there since it was a very wide boulevard. Looking for a real proposal to see if that is possible. Ms. Page said it did have the potential to be a wonderful corridor and we were embarking on the 25% design to redesign that roadway. The general plan would be narrow the road to increase safety and to separate cyclists and pedestrians for next fall. Victoria Buckley expressed concern that when she googled the Planning Board meeting tonight it stated this would be on Wednesday and it could be confusing. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing to Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED The updated document based on tonight’s public input would be available to the public next Friday afternoon on the planning website, in the Novus packets, and on the hiplexington.com website. b) Review of proposed Amendment to General Bylaws regarding Trees, Chapter 120 Mr. Creech left the meeting for a few minutes to restart the computer and would rejoin the zoom meeting. Article 32 Appraised Value for Removed Trees: Mr. Gerald Paul and Mr. Mark Connor were present. Mr. Paul presented a summary of the proposed Article 32 regarding Town Trees to require an appraised value for trees removed, have wider postings, and allow for extenuating circumstances. Board questions and comments: Mr. Peters asked for clarification on any ideas or suggestions for the expanded public postings. Mr. Canale said this proposed article made sense and should be done. Ms. Johnson liked this proposal and asked were there any other ways to spread the word to make sure there would be no ambiguity. Mr. Hornig recommended that they check the language for notice in the bylaw for site plan review where it was believed was the best language and definitive as to what was needed. How would this apply to the town pruning and removing one of its own trees? Mr. Paul said the extenuating circumstance should allow for that, but they were still waiting to hear from Town Counsel. Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on if the town departments comfortable with having money removed from their budget for those removals, how would hazard trees be handled, how Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Page 5 would utilities be handled, and was any distinction between native and invasive trees made? Mr. Creech asked for clarification on preventive measures to remove trees that could fall on power lines that could have residents lose power. How would an appraisal be done and what would be the cost? He asked what was a typical reason was why a town tree would be removed? Ms. Johnson said this proposed article would make the Town consider retaining trees to preserve the tree canopy as opposed to plant many new trees. Article 34 (a-d), Tree Removal Mitigation: Ms. Nancy Sofen presented the proposed amendments for Article 34 (a-d) on tree removal mitigation changes to encourage retention and replanting of large shade trees. The history of previous tree bylaw amendments were reviewed and why these amendments were necessary. Board Member questions and comments: Mr. Canale said the two things that would impact trees being removed in town would be mansionization projects and the second piece is encouraging solar power on residential lots and due to solar arrays. We have lost a lot of tree canopies which will degrade the environment for cooling in the summer and the carbon dioxide renewal so it is extremely important to retain these large canopy trees. Mr. Canale supported this article. Ms. Johnson said the changes were very important for public health and natural habitat and supported this article Mr. Peters asked for clarification on the impacts of a small lot being changed from a small to large house and are there examples of competition between solar installations and tree canopies? Mr. Creech asked for clarification on the minimum size being considered for tree removal in this proposed article. Mr. Creech supported this article. Article 33(a) Data Collection: Mr. Mark Connor presented the proposed Article 33 (a) for Data Collection regarding the bylaw trees relative to development for trees and total inches of trees being removed and confirmation of compliance. This would encourage and enhance the documentation required for developments by gathering pre- and post- removal information for a construction site and now could be done in a digital way. Board Member questions and comments: Mr. Canale said this sounded like a reasonable proposal. Ms. Johnson recommended that they change the last line” burden of data entry being offloaded to the applicant” and replace with coordinate at an efficient moment for entry of data. This article made perfect sense and thank you for bringing it forward. Mr. Connor responded that the end of the process was where it went blind and we could change the language. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on whether this would be for the entire lot or just within the limit of work for demolition and/or major construction. They would need to discuss the existing practice with the Building Commissioner and you offline. Mr. Leonard Morse-Fortier said there should be a line stating that no trees would be altered beyond this boundary on the plans and then have someone to confirm that on site for compliance. The key would be what you took down and what you would leave behind. This should be a required condition before you get an occupancy permit. Article 33 (b) Data Collection and Education: Mr. Paul presented Article 33(b) which would ask property owners to notify the Town if they planned on removing a tree. He showed pictures mature trees that were removed that were not diseased and may have only needed pruning. This proposed article would be to educate property owners on the value of large tree retention. He presented an overview of the process and what the applicant would experience, along with alternatives to tree removal. They have not determined what size tree would be used at this point. Board Member questions and comments: Ms. Johnson said this represented a paradigm shift that we need to go through on trees that grow on private property and now we have to be aware and steward trees on private properties as part of a public health issue and work with property owners to protect our mature trees. Ms. Johnson said 6 to 8 inches would be a reasonable size to consider. Mr. Peters had expressed some concerns about this proposal since some trees were planted in a location years ago that now may become problematic. Sometimes there could be issues that would require immediate removal and would not allow for prior notification. Mr. Paul responded could just go on his computer to enter it with no penalty. Mr. Hornig said his take on size was the value of a tree increases as it gets older and bump the tree size up closer to 12 or above inches where you would need a tree cutter to do the work. Is it true if you ignore this there is no consequences? Mr. Paul said yes. Change the word from shall to may since this will be voluntary. Mr. Paul said they would look into it. Mr. Canale said the paradigm shift is the key and the value of this proposed article is to bring forward the long-term implications of mature tree removal to the residents and neighborhoods. Mr. Creech asked if the data would be done by address, neighborhood or precinct. Mr. Paul believes it would be by address. Mr. Hornig expressed concerns about the difficulties of using viewpoint cloud and would the increased volume be handled and scaled up to accommodate the increase use. It would be important to notify the tree company professionals since they would be providing the information needed for this notification. Mr. Paul said there would need to be FAQ and tutorials made available to the public to promote this proposal. Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Page 7 Lin Jensen appreciated the hard work and supported this article and asked was there a way to send an email to property owners on how many mature trees were on their property, to thank them and show them the value of those trees and tips on how to trim and maintain them? Mr. Paul said in the past the Planning Board took a position on Tree Bylaws proposals and was asking if they would do that this time as well. The Board would vote on the proposed motions after the new Planning Board members are elected. Ms. Johnson wanted to express her support of these proposed Tree Bylaw Articles with the suggested changes for the 2021 Annual Town Meeting since she would not be on the Planning Board when these articles are brought up again in March. Mr. Creech said article 33(b) could be a concern. Mr. Hornig has no major issues with these proposed articles concept but he raised various details with each of them and hope they can be addressed in a satisfactory way. Mr. Peters expressed concerns with the proposed Article 33 (b). General Bylaw-120 Trees Ms. Loomis recommended that the Planning Board not take this on at this time since it would be a large impact on the entire community and we really only want to focus on the Hartwell Avenue Area. Ms. Johnson was concerned that we would lose a significant number of trees and the entire parcel would be opened to development and the trees would be clear cut. If we want money to replace tree canopies lost we have to insert it in to the tree bylaw. It would be an enormous loss if we let every tree be cut down. Mr. Hornig said he felt that staff was saying this a good thing, but maybe not now at this time and try to bring it next year. Ms. Johnson said there is a huge amount of tree canopy on Westview and other locations on that parcel that would be lost. I think that is valuable to come up with something for the Hartwell Avenue area. It was asked if there had there been any conversation with property owners about trees. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board vote to recommend that Town Meeting indefinitely postpone Article 38. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – abstained; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Board Administration a. Review of Meeting Minutes for January 13, 2021. Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board vote to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2021 meeting minutes as distributed. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – abstained; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED b. Board Member Updates Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2021 Mr. Hornig said candidate season is kicking off Saturday. Tuesday 7:00 p.m. is a session on Article 29. Adjournment Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 4, 2021. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. Town Meeting:  Draft Article 45 Hartwell Innovation Park dated January 21, 2021 (9 pages).  Draft Table of Uses dated January 21, 2021 (9 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk of the Planning Board