Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 23, 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, Michael Leon, Associate Planning Board Member. 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 Tuesday, February 23, 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********************************** CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Public Hearing: Article 45, Hartwell Innovation Park (C-HIP): 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; Ms. Loomis said that Town Counsel, Mina Makarious was present at the meeting tonight. Mr. Creech opened the continued public hearings for Articles 44 and 45. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Ms. Loomis presented the substantial revisions for both articles, mostly made to Article 45. The changes were based on the public hearings, public information meetings and comments and letters from others. The big one was for 7.5.4.7 Sustainable Building and Site Design. She explained that the goal was to focus on all aspects of sustainability, encourage new sustainable development and allow for flexibility of type redevelopment vs. new construction. Ms. Loomis asked if they would want to add incentives for LEED gold standards minus the transportation requirements. Mr. Makarious said at this time there were some limitations on the ability of the Town to require sustainability measures. The Town could include at the beginning that project proponents shall be encouraged to incorporate these sustainable measures and if you do the project would be looked at more favorably or could get incentivized relief. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Creech asked if the current wording presented a problem. Mr. Makarious said it depended on what you get if you don’t meet the criteria. If you can still build on the lot even if it didn’t meet these criteria would make it easier to defend. Mr. Hornig was comfortable with this language, but said doing the gold standard without transportation was basically LEED Silver. Mr. Canale asked when the language for Article 16 was submitted by the Town Clerk to the Attorney General. Ms. Loomis would check with the Town Clerk as to the submittal date. Mr. Canale requested clarification of what would be problematic for the transportation requirements for the Gold standard? Mr. Hornig provided the explanation. Mr. Peters asked Ms. Loomis if there was another set of standards that were preferable or better than LEED for sustainability. He was comfortable with this language. Ms. Johnson was not sure what was being proposed. She said the language was very general with no metrics for a future Planning Board to use. Ms. Johnson said since there was also a Platinum level for LEED we should use the Gold standard which would be a reasonable level to achieve for sustainability. Mr. Leon said he liked this language because this framework should be regulatory and not in the bylaws and would provide a level of flexibility but the method of measurement was something that was not going to be established today for the next ten years. Ms. Johnson asked what would be the incentives being added for the Gold LEED certification? Mr. Hornig said that they have not been decided yet, but would go in the regulations and not the bylaw. Mr. Creech asked for clarification if there were any incentives tied to this at this time. Audience Comments and Questions: Mr. DeAngelis of Boston Properties said the sustainability team looked at this earlier today and said the transportation criteria would be very difficult if not impossible to Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Page 3 meet. The LEED standard for Gold was unrealistic and the proposed language without reference to the Gold would be workable. Cindy Ahrens from the Lexington Sustainable Committee explained the point system for LEED Gold and said the real focus was on the indoor air quality, energy, and atmosphere sections. We want more resilient, healthier and lower emission buildings. LEED was chosen as a framework. Incentives could include building height and sustainability should be a part of this. Mr. Voss from the Lexington Sustainability Committee asked for a chance to review the latest proposed changes and asked if the discussion could be continued. Mr. Creech asked if we could incentivize LEED points with the height of the building. Mr. Makarious said it depended on the situation. Ms. Jensen said do not forget what we agreed on in Article 16 on electrification. We should keep the language as close to what was approved in Article 16 and wait to hear from the Attorney General. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Hornig said he was fine with the language. Mr. Canale said this could be our place holder for now. Mr. Peters was comfortable with the language. Ms. Johnson agreed with the process, but said it was unfortunate that these very important features of monumental deregulations were just being discussed now with the process being so rushed. We should wait to hear the Attorney General’s answer. This should really be in the bylaw to give it some teeth. Audience Comments and questions: A concern was made that after Article 16 was crafted to the satisfaction of the Sustainable Lexington Committee and Planning Board and passed at Town Meeting that now would consider replacing the height of the buildings that was approved, it was clearly incentive zoning. Ms. Loomis said LEED Silver was only for buildings over 65 feet but thought we would want all buildings and projects to be sustainable. We would need to look at the actual sites for all projects. Tina McBride said that the thought that transportation may never be created was actually ignoring some programs that were in place and there are other potential programs that were being worked on right now. The number of trips being required could be achieved. Incentives would need to be in place to encourage builders to give us what we desire. Ms. Jensen said keep the 7.5.4.7(a) for the whole town, but bring back the article 16 for Hartwell Avenue. Town Counsel left the meeting Dimensional Table: Ms. Loomis presented the changes to the Dimensional Table for the minimum lot Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 frontage in feet. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Ms. Johnson asked why the 150 foot lot frontage was reduced to 125. She preferred the 150 foot lot frontage. Ms. Loomis explained the changes to the maximum height in feet and stories for public and institutional buildings.  Ms. Johnson said the footnotes should be included on the plan when presented at Town Meeting.  Mr. Canale asked for clarification on the height of the first floor to understand about the height of the buildings and what would be allowed on the roof?  Ms. Johnson said that the height maximum could be waived by the Planning Board and go much higher.  Mr. Peters asked for clarification of incentive uses permitted on the first floor. Ms. Loomis responded that recreational space like gyms, restaurants, flex open space, post office, dry cleaners and retail and shops that would be open to the public.  Mr. Leon said the language should have a percentage that is meaningful of the ground floor building footprint facing the street to qualify for the incentive. Public accommodations should not include office space to qualify for an incentive since the whole building was for office space. A small change should be made and be specific on uses to achieve the goals to activate public transient and public activation to qualify for the incentives.  Ms. Johnson was concerned about very tall buildings being built up to the right of way on Bedford Street. There were residents directly across the street from these potentially tall buildings without buildings being set back. We were thinking in terms of ideals and not thinking about our neighbors and Town people. Audience comments and questions:  Mr. DeAngelis said to consider Mr. Hornig’s original proposal of 115 foot buildings or six stories which passed for lab and life science buildings. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Ms. Johnson was hoping to have a footnote that would exempt buildings from being allowed taller with a waiver then what the dimensional table would allow for on Bedford Street since this was the main gateway to Lexington and to protect the character of Lexington and the residents who live along there.  Mr. Hornig provided information on the protections that are already established there and were not a real concern for six-story buildings. Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Page 5  Mr. Creech recommended that staff give more thought to the 85 foot height. Discussion to Amend Section 7.5.1 Purpose and Intent: Ms. Loomis presented to the Board with amendments made to this section to provide clarification. Ms. Loomis will forward these to the Board these amendments for them to review. Discussion to Amend Section 7.5.4.2.c Ms. Loomis said this was an addition that parking structures would not be allowed directly on Hartwell Avenue. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Canale said this was a good addition.  Mr. Hornig said this would need more thought on how it would impact shared parking structures.  Mr. Peters was in favor, but it would need additional discussion and we should carry over the discussion.  Ms. Johnson said we do not want parking structures on Hartwell Avenue it would be a character killer and this was a good addition.  Mr. Leon agreed with Ms. Johnson and forcing parking structures behind buildings would not impact people trying to get where they need to go. Amend Section 7.5.3 Design Regulations and Guidelines: Ms. Loomis presented the new language in the section to put all Planning Board regulations and C-HIP guidelines in one location to make it clear. Amend section 7.5.4.1 Height Limits Ms. Loomis presented the footnotes. Amend section 7.5.4.4 Outdoor Amenities Ms. Loomis said this would provide additional clarification Add a new sections 7.5.4.5 Surface Off-street Parking Ms. Loomis presented an addition of landscaping and trees to be added. They could also be allowed to decrease the size of the loading bay areas by special permit. Planning Board Comments or Questions: Mr. Hornig said the language could be tightened up, there are some things duplicated from Article 44 section 5.1 and there were some unique items we would need to remove from the language of items from Article 44 so there was no overlap and was concerned about the implementation of some items. He asked for clarification on the waiver? Ms. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Loomis said it could be amended. Amend section 7.5.7 Hartwell Avenue Innovation Park Review: Ms. Loomis said they were putting in a path to review at least every five years and to make sure the Town would keep up with the new trends. Continued Public Hearing: Article 44, Amend the Use and General Regulations including Table 1, Permitted Uses and Development Standards; § 5.1 Off-street Parking and Loading; §9.5, Site Plan Review; and §10, Definitions) and updates from the 2020 Special Town Meeting (such as Short-Term Rentals and requirements from the Attorney General review); or act any other manner in relation thereto: Ms. Loomis presented the few amendments being presented for N. Manufacturing, Research and Development, Life Science and Technology Principal Use N.1.05 and N.1.06 and P. Open Air, Seasonal and Special Events Principal Use P.1.03 were changed. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Canale asked what interactions were had with the City of Cambridge Water Board with respect to the changes with the uses in the CM District. Staff would check with the Building Commissioner on the proposed changes. Ms. Loomis presented changes for the General Regulations Table of Loading Requirements; which was to confirm the removal of items as per the last discussion. Ms. Loomis also discussed the clarification regarding the orientation of building (diagonal) loading bays being located in the side rear of the building with the front being adjacent to the principal right-of-way. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said expecting to not see the loading bays was not reasonable, but adding screening as we have done for parking between the bay and the public ROW could be done.  Ms. Johnson said it was good addition.  Mr. Leon said it is a good idea for the screening or design that would preclude the view of the loading dock. Mr. DeAngelis said the loading bays could also be partially within the building. Discussion to Amend§135-5.1.13 Ms. Loomis said that this was very important since the technology was constantly changing and for parking spaces infrastructure and the number of charging stations that should be required. Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Page 7 Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said the concept was fine and should stay town-wide with a decently high threshold.  Ms. Johnson wanted to hear what the Sustainable Lexington Committee had to say about it. Audience Comments and Questions:  Mr. Brisbin of the Sustainable Lexington Committee said sustainability was not being integrated as something that would represent the vision we had for sustainability in this type of development on Harwell Avenue. It was too bad this process was so rushed with the language set forth tonight our Committee does not believe that the expertise from their committee was being employed tonight. This was overwhelmingly disappointing.  Ms. Cindy Ahrens said with regards to Electric Vehicles (EV) charging stations that four (4) percent chargers should be installed to begin with and 75% EV infrastructure ready for the total off-street parking spaces.  Ms. Jensen said at the last Sustainable Lexington Committee meeting there was concerned what EV-ready would mean. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Ms. Johnson was comfortable with this if Ms. Ahrens was good with these numbers.  Mr. Hornig said if we are requiring chargers we need to specify what kind of chargers in the regulations if not in the bylaw. Ms. Loomis said we would continue to move forward and circulate the language to the Board tomorrow morning. The goal was that all buildings would be sustainable with the compliance of a LEED level and if six stories or a 65 foot high building you would need LEED Silver/HVAC system operation. Mr. Hornig would work with staff on the wording for this Article.  Ms. Johnson said item c would need to be adjusted since the Table of Dimensional Controls had a six stories maximum. Mr. Hornig said item c would only apply to a special permit for over six stories Ms. Johnson wanted it to say four stories.  Mr. Canale liked the change.  Mr. Peters was good with the change. Audience Comments and Questions:  Mr. Voss of the Sustainable Lexington Committee asked that the Planning Board Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 consider using and referencing the expanded check list that was developed. Mr. Voss asked for clarification on how we were requiring developers to comply with LEED standards to get the incentives other than just submitting a checklist as opposed to meeting a specific threshold. Ms. Loomis said they would work on this for tomorrow.  Mr. DeAngelis said introducing item c did not take into account all the language that has been worked on. He suggested they look into it further. Ms. Loomis said they could not be incorporated and pass with the Attorney General. Mr. DeAngelis said then item c should be removed.  Mr. Brisbin said if it did not go through the Attorney General you should be targeting LEED Gold. Could you detail what the paperwork submission would be required to show the project was certifiable? Ms. Loomis said they would find an expert.  Ms. Loomis asked the Board if they wanted move forward with this direction and with this language. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig was concerned this was not the best way to work things, but was concerned that we were running out of time. He would prefer to either drop item c or put it forward as is.  Mr. Canale and Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Hornig.  Ms. Johnson says item c does not make sense unless it is limited four or five stories and add emergency generators are not included. Audience Comments and Questions:  Mr. Brisbin asked why building a better than code building would conflict with the building code. We were trying to have safe buildings built that comply with our goals for our local community and globally.  Mr. DeAngelis suggested staff look at the language again and said this would not be workable for lab buildings, but the compromise was and he would be happy to discuss this further with staff. Mr. Creech said the Board consensus was fine to move forward and look at the wording Mr. DeAngelis suggested. Mr. Leon said we were running up against the limits for the Planning Board’s authority on regulatory items and the building code. Ms. Loomis would make some amendments and send some revisions to the Board. Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2021 Page 9 Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearings for Articles 44 and 45 to Wednesday, February 24, 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 Board recessed at 9:53 and returned at 9:58 p.m. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Discussion of “Memo regarding Accessibility for Foot Bridge between 91 Hartwell Avenue and 81/83 Hartwell Avenue” The Board discussed whether to send a letter to the property owner at 81/83 Hartwell Avenue to ask them to work with the property owner at 91 Hartwell Avenue for an accessible foot bridge. The Board decided a letter would be fine, but should first reach out to the owner of 81/83 Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Creech would reach out to the property owner first and go from there. Board Member Updates: Mr. Canale said MAPC had a Zoom meeting on housing and housing submarkets and how to increase affordability and equities for lower incomes. It should be posted on their website. Robert Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 23, 2021. Richard Canale 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 10:28 p.m. Ginna Johnson, Clerk of the Planning Board The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. 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, February 22, 2021 (7 pages).  Draft Article 44 Town-wide changes dated, February 22, 2021 (6 pages).