HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-18-PB-packet-releasedAGENDA
Lexington Planning Board
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Cotton Room, Cary Memorial Hall
6:00 PM
Staff Reports
1. General Update (as needed)
Upcoming Meetings & Anticipated Schedule
1. Anticipated Meetings
Development Administration
1. Pierce - Lockwood NCD
2. Endorse Final Plans
Special Town Meeting
1. Revote STM -3, Art 2 Recommendation Report
Board Administration
1. Board Member Reports
Adjourn
L �� rIqf
COANNIJINf� Meeting broadcast by LexMedia
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
General Update (as needed)
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
Aaron Henry
SUMMARY:
This is a standing agenda item and is updated for each meeting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
No action on part of the Board is required for this item.
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Anticipated Meetings
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
Aaron Henry
SUMMARY:
This recurring agenda item is to inform the Board and public of the proposed meeting schedule. The
anticipated meetings dates after STM are:
• November 1
• November 15
• November 29
• December 13
SUGGESTED MOTION:
There is no need for the Board to act on this item.
FOLLOW-UP:
Should Board members have any known conflicts with any of the proposed dates or wish to request an item
be placed on a meeting agenda, please follow up with staff.
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Pierce - Lockwood NCD
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
SUMMARY:
This item is for the Pierce - Lockwood NCD Study Committee an opportunity to provide the Planning Board
with an update on its work. Included in the packet material is a draft of the proposed NCD bylaw as edited by
Town Counsel's Office.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Pierce - Lockwood NCI Backup Material
DRAFT 98 May 31, 2017
PIERCE - LOCKWOOD
CHAPTER 78B: NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Article XXXX Pierce - Lockwood Neighborhood Conservation District
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of the of the Town of Lexington by adding a new Chapter 78B
entitled "Pierce- Lockwood Neighborhood Conservation District," or take any other action in relation thereto:
§ 78B -1. PURPOSE
Pursuant to Chapter 78 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, this Chapter 78B describes the regulations and
procedures associated with the administration of the Pierce - Lockwood Neighborhood Conservation District
( "PLNCD "). The goals of the PLNCD are to preserve the architectural style and general size of the homes, the
communal spirit of the neighborhood and to emphasize the role the PLNCD played in the historical
development of Lexington. The goals can best be described with the words, "coherence," "proportion," and
"aesthetics."
Coherence is defined as having a sense of logical interconnectedness, consistency and harmony among parts.
There is a balance between a home's uniqueness and its commonality with surrounding houses. This balance is
vital to the neighborhood's identity. Architectural changes should maintain a harmony among parts, as well as a
consistency with the architectural style of the surrounding homes.
Proportion is defined as having a comparative proper relation between elements or magnitudes such as size,
quantity, ratio and number. A change in size leading to a large massing in relation to the size of surrounding
Buildings and Structures means, taken as a whole, the Building or Structure is out of proportion to the
neighborhood. Further, an addition that creates a change in size may detract from the original shape, affecting
its aesthetics.
A neighborhood's sense of beauty is indeed its homes' uniqueness within commonality and includes
considerations such as architectural style, shape, original windows, open porches and landscaping that fits
within the natural beauty surrounding the Pierce - Lockwood PLNCD. It is defined by the history of the area, its
relationship to the east Village historic district and to historical Lexington.
§ 78B -2. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall mean as follows when used in this Chapter. All Capitalized terms not defined in this
Chapter are used as defined in Chapter 78.
Commission — The PLNCD Commission established pursuant to Chapter 78134.
HDC — The Lexington Historic Districts Commission
Commented 1MSM11: What is meant by this? Purposes
should be reflected in the architecture regulated by this
Chapter, and it is hard to do that with this kind of standard.
§7813-3. DESIGNATION OF THE PIERCE - LOCKWOOD PLNCD
The PLNCD shall comprise the area shown on the boundary map of the PLNCD recorded with the Middlesex
South Registry of Deeds pursuant to Chapter 784A.
§ 7813-4. PLNCD COMMISSION
A. The Commission shall be appointed pursuant to the terms of Chapter 78 -4.
B. The Commission shall meet at least twice annually and by request of a property owner in the PLNCD.
Property owners in the PLNCD are encouraged to request an informal discussion at a formal meeting of
the Commission to discuss possible plans for alterations to their property prior to initiating a formal
review with the Commission.
§ 7813-5. COMMISSION REVIEW
A. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no Building, Structure, or Setting within the PLNCD shall
be Constructed, Demolished, orAltered unless exempt from review pursuant to Chapter 78 -5(c) or this
Chapter, and no permit shall be issued for such construction, Demolition, or Alteration, unless the
Commission shall first have issued a Certificate of Compatibility, a Certificate of Non - Applicability, or a
Certificate of Hardship. Without limitation, review shall be required for the following:
1. Alterations to Buildings or Structures including, but not limited to, current roof lines, additions,
style and size of windows, and the enclosure of porches;
2. Alterations to Buildings or Structures requiring the issuance of a variance from the requirements
of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington;
3. Proposals to change the orientation of the Building or Structure in relation to its current position
on a street;
4. Installation of solid fences that would extend beyond the corners of the Building or Structure
toward a street; or
5. Additions of garages or paved parking areas.
B. When an application for a Building Permit is filed for a property in the PLNCD, the Lexington Building
Department will notify the applicant that the property is subject to the PLNCD regulations and
guidelines. Application will then be made to the Commission for review pursuant to the procedures in
Chapter 78.
C. In addition to the application, such plans, elevations, specifications, photographs, description of
materials and other information as may be reasonably be deemed necessary by the Commission to
enable it to make a determination will be required.
D. The following shall be exempt from review pursuant to this Chapter:
1. Any Building, Structure, Setting or activity exempt from review pursuant to Chapter 78 -5(c);
2. Skylights and solar panels installed in the same plane and in close contact with the plane of a
roof;
3. Fences or entry gates of a height of four feet or less; and
4. Handicapped accessible ramps.
§ 7813-6. DECISION CRITERIA
A. In passing upon matters before it, the Commission will consider the following criteria in addition to
those in Chapter 78 -6:
1. The architectural, aesthetic, social and historical value and significance of the particular
Buildings, Structures and Settings affected, as well as the effects of the same on the PLNCD.
Retaining the basic bungalow, Dutch colonial and Federal colonial style of existing homes,
including window and door styles, roof lines, and open front porches is encouraged.
2. Architectural features such as windows, front doors, exterior siding, garage doors, and roofing
materials should be replaced in kind; chosen for consistency with original design; or, at least,
compatible with abutting properties. The installation of solid fences which would "wall off' a
home from the neighborhood will be discouraged.
3. The suitability of the Construction's or Alteration's general design, arrangement, and
composition of its elements on the distinctive character of the PLNCD.
4. The effect on the cohesiveness of the PLNCD with respect to the scale and massing of the
proposed changes relative to nearby Buildings and Structures in the PLNCD.
5. The type of construction, style, textures and materials of the features involved in the proposed
Construction or Alteration. Limiting the size and mass of any proposed additions, with or
without previous additions, is encouraged.
6. Changes in the orientation of a Building or Structure will be discouraged.
7. Attached garages and increasing the amount of paved surface will be discouraged.
8. The Setting and landscape characteristics, including their relationship to the street, topography,
and existing vegetation, including mature trees, of the particular site involved in the Construction
or Alteration, as well as the effect of same on the PLNCD. Proposed additions that will shade
abutting properties will be discouraged, such as, for example, precluding the use of yards for
gardens, or shading existing windows or porches.
9. For demolitions, the Building, Structure, or Setting proposed to replace those demolished.
B. In making its determination, the Commission shall, among other things, allow for appropriate
architectural diversity and encourage the compatible updating, expansion and restoration of Buildings
and Structures in the PLNCD consistent with the distinctive characteristics of the PLNCD.
C. Although not used as decision - making criteria, the following are suggested additional guidelines for
consideration when planning Alterations to Buildings, Structures or Settings within the PLNCD:
1. Discussion with abutters concerning the installation of all allowable fences is encouraged.
Hedges, split rail or picket fences may be acceptable fencing options.
2. If trees must be removed, the replanting of native trees is encouraged, except where shading will
have a negative impact on abutters.
§ 7813-7. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Homes on Massachusetts Avenue and three homes on Lockwood Rd. are within both the PLNDC and the East
Village Historic District and certain alterations to these homes may also be subject to review by the HDC.
Applicants to the Commission that have undergone HDC review and received a Certificate of Appropriateness,
may submit such paperwork and plans to the Commission as part of an application.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Endorse Final Plans
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
Aaron Henry
SUMMARY:
This agenda item is to endorse approved plans and, as appropriate, accept performance guarantees. Staff is
looking for endorsement of the following:
• Cedar Street, conventional subdivision, to be secured by Tripartite Agreement;
• Vera Lane, conventional subdivision, to be secured by covenant; and
• Liberty Ridge, public benefit development (no security)
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Staff recommends that these plans be endorsed by the Board and that the suggested performance guarantees
be accepted.
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Revote STM -3, Art 2 Recommendation Report
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
SUMMARY:
This item is requested to provide all Board member the opportunity to vote on the Board's recommendation to
Town Meeting on Article 2.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Revised Report (proposed) Ik ckup Material
PLANNING BOARD REPORT
TO TOWN MEETING
STM -3 ARTICLE 2, PROPOSAL TO CREATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TWO
45, 55, & 65 HAYDEN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board recommends that the motion under Article 2 be APPROVED.
The Board recommends this project to Town Meeting because we believe the project will be
beneficial to the Town. Our reasons include:
• The proposed project is an appropriate use of the site;
• The proposed site design and architecture is of high quality;
• There is a positive fiscal benefit to the community for the foreseeable future; and
• Although there is a transportation impact on the area and throughout Town, the Town has
negotiated a mitigation package.
To arrive at this conclusion the Board utilized the documents and plans listed below, as well as
the testimony at the Public Hearing. The Board encourages Town Meeting Members and
interested residents to review them as well — this report is not a substitute for the submitted
materials. This report only discusses the issues identified during the Board's public process as
significant. The documents cited below are viewable on the Town's website
www.lexingtonma. _gov/ planning - office / pages /45- 65- hayden- avenue - proposed -p /planning- office /pages /45- 65- hayden- avenue - proposed -pdd.
The first- submitted Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan ( PSDUP), dated August
23, 2017. The PSDUP is an application for a comprehensive rezoning of a site and
comprises both regulatory and non - regulatory material. The non - regulatory material is
there to substantiate and justify the reasons for the rezoning and guide the Town's actions
on Site Plan Review and other related matters. The regulatory material includes the
proposed zoning text, the zoning map amendment, and architectural renderings that will
guide the Board through the site plan review process should Town Meeting create the
new zoning district.
The revised PSDUP, dated September 29, 2017. The revised PSDUP reflects all the
changes made to the proposal since the original application was filed. This version
reflects the proposal that Town Meeting will be voting on.
The Memorandum of Understanding, signed October 2, 2017 (the MOU). An MOU is a
voluntary, binding contract used by the Town to refine the scope, substance, and certain
-I -
Town of Lexington
PLANNING BOARD
u � '
Richard L. Canale, Chair
1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Ginna Johnson, Vice Chair
Lexington, MA 02420
Robert Creech, Clerk
APRILU
Tel (781) 698 -4560
Charles Hornig
planningglexin tonma. gov
Nancy Corcoran - Ronchetti
www.lexingtonma.gov /planning
Michael Leon, Associate
PLANNING BOARD REPORT
TO TOWN MEETING
STM -3 ARTICLE 2, PROPOSAL TO CREATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TWO
45, 55, & 65 HAYDEN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board recommends that the motion under Article 2 be APPROVED.
The Board recommends this project to Town Meeting because we believe the project will be
beneficial to the Town. Our reasons include:
• The proposed project is an appropriate use of the site;
• The proposed site design and architecture is of high quality;
• There is a positive fiscal benefit to the community for the foreseeable future; and
• Although there is a transportation impact on the area and throughout Town, the Town has
negotiated a mitigation package.
To arrive at this conclusion the Board utilized the documents and plans listed below, as well as
the testimony at the Public Hearing. The Board encourages Town Meeting Members and
interested residents to review them as well — this report is not a substitute for the submitted
materials. This report only discusses the issues identified during the Board's public process as
significant. The documents cited below are viewable on the Town's website
www.lexingtonma. _gov/ planning - office / pages /45- 65- hayden- avenue - proposed -p /planning- office /pages /45- 65- hayden- avenue - proposed -pdd.
The first- submitted Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan ( PSDUP), dated August
23, 2017. The PSDUP is an application for a comprehensive rezoning of a site and
comprises both regulatory and non - regulatory material. The non - regulatory material is
there to substantiate and justify the reasons for the rezoning and guide the Town's actions
on Site Plan Review and other related matters. The regulatory material includes the
proposed zoning text, the zoning map amendment, and architectural renderings that will
guide the Board through the site plan review process should Town Meeting create the
new zoning district.
The revised PSDUP, dated September 29, 2017. The revised PSDUP reflects all the
changes made to the proposal since the original application was filed. This version
reflects the proposal that Town Meeting will be voting on.
The Memorandum of Understanding, signed October 2, 2017 (the MOU). An MOU is a
voluntary, binding contract used by the Town to refine the scope, substance, and certain
-I -
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 2 of 7
special conditions of proposed developments seeking a rezoning. It is an agreement
between the Town, through the Board of Selectmen, and the applicant. The MOU was
negotiated on behalf of the Town by senior staff. The MOU generally contains non -
zoning items related to the redevelopment of the site, memorializing community benefit
items and mitigation payments.
SITE AND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
As explained by the applicant in their application, the purpose of the proposed rezoning is to
permit the development of a new laboratory -office building, of approximately 219,000 gross
square feet, and an associated structured parking building, of approximately 361,000 gross
square feet of square feet resulting in a total of 597,000 gross floor area of lab office building
gross floor area and 564,000 gross floor area in garages.
Relation to Natural Features
The Board identified on -site natural features directly impacted by this proposal; the proposed
plan will uncover (called daylighting) an on -site stream and restore its banks and associated
wetland resources, increasing the overall amount of green space on the site by 30,000 SF, and
permanently preserve another 1.6 acres of land through a conservation restriction. A concern
voiced by residents focused on the public's right to park on the site and access the Hayden
Woods' trail network during business hours. This is discussed separately below.
Developn
lent Intensity
Gross Floor Area Summar
Existin
Pro osed
BUILDINGS
45/55 Hayden Ave
178,430 SF...�.
65 Hayden Ave
198,960 SF...�.
75 Hayden Ave — NEW
219,279 SF
TOTAL BUILDING GFA
596,669
SF
GARAGES
�.
45 Hayden Ave
19,368 SF...�.
65 Hayden
Ave
183,632 SF...�.
75 Hayden Ave - NEW
360,883 SF
TOTAL GARAGE GFA
563,883 SF
Contingency
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........
....
49,448 SF
.... .... .... ...
PROPOSED GFA ZONING CAP
1,210,000 SF
Adequacy of Vehicular & Pedestrian Access, & Internal Circulation
The applicant's treatment of traffic and parking was one of the primary issues discussed by the
Board, the public, and the applicant during the public hearing. It was also an area of emphasis
for the Planning Office.
Given the size of the proposed project and the relatively short timeframe the Town had to review
the PSDUP application, the Planning Office had a third -party peer review conducted of the
Traffic Impact and Access Study. This review, conducted by Howard Stein Hudson at the
applicant's expense, revealed several minor issues (subsequently addressed by the applicant and
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 3 of 7
reflected in the amended PSDUP application dated September 29, 2017) and one larger issue
described in more depth below.
Staff's initial review revealed a discrepancy in the modeling of Hayden Avenue's intersections
with Waltham Street and the Route 2 WB off -ramp. The applicant's traffic consultant initially
modeled both locations as having a police detail during future No -Build and Build peak hour
conditions, when in fact there are no plans for this. The consultant revised their model to reflect
no traffic controls at either location, which resulted in significant delays during both the No-
Build and Build conditions. The Board recommends that, to the maximum extent possible, the
transportation mitigation payment outlined in the MOU be used by the Town to address the
redesign of these intersections, and especially including safer bicycle and pedestrian access as
outlined in the South Lexington Transportation Study.
The proposed Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies are outlined in the amended Traffic
Impact and Access Study (TIAS). Should Town Meeting approve this article, the Board will
refine and finalize the TDM plan during its review of the site plan at the time building permits
are sought. This site has a record of strong TDM and the new owner of the site has an excellent
record with the Town at its Hartwell Avenue properties. This Plan presents an opportunity to
transform twentieth century TDM policies into twenty -first TDM implementation with the
increased on -site density.
On -site Environmental Effects
Should Town Meeting approve this rezoning request, the applicant will be required to file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Conservation Commission. As mentioned above, this approval
will likely finalize the plans for the daylighting and restoration of the on -site stream and nearby
resource areas, as well as the overall stormwater mitigation plan. The applicant met informally
with the Commission (August 7, 2017) and identified nothing facially problematic with the
scheme shown on the plans. The Commission is expected to hold the rights to the conservation
restriction on the 1.6 acres of open space mentioned above.
Potential Effects on Nearby Properties
The Board's review identified the proposal's proximity to the Hayden Woods conservation area
as a concern, specifically how the public's ability to park and access the trails would be affected,
as well as concern with potential increased on -site noise activities that could affect the
conservation area's ambience. The applicant has agreed to a noise protocol that will be
developed and incorporated in the Site Plan Review stage.
Currently, the public may park on site to access the trails, but there is no formal agreement as to
the number of spaces that may be used or where on the lot they may be. Per the signed MOU,
there will be four dedicated spaces available to the public from dawn to dusk, seven days a week,
at the trailhead, with additional parking to be made available outside of regular business hours
(i.e., 9 AM — 5 PM).
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 4 of 7
The applicant has stated publically its willingness to go beyond what is stated in the MOU to
allow additional parking during business hours. The Board intends to negotiate this additional
parking, during regular business hours, under the site plan review process.
The applicant has also stated an intent to work with the Town to explore the possibility of
establishing a transit shelter as part of an area -wide transit plan. The Board will work with the
applicant to finalize the site's Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures during
site plan review.
The Quality of the Proposed Design
The Board felt that the quality of the proposal was excellent and would continue to reflect well
on the community; however, a final review of building elevations and site features such as
landscaping should be left to the site plan review process, should it get that far. The Board
principally concerned itself with the overall site design and site planning issues.
The applicant included conceptual renderings of the proposed development in the PSDUP
application. There was no public comment on this point, nor did the Board recognize it as a
point of concern.
Impact on Public Facilities & Services
The Board concerned itself with the essential municipal utilities of water and sewer. Other
services, like police, fire, and public works were discussed under the fiscal analysis. Initially, the
Board relied upon the Engineering Division's review of the proposal plans given during staff s
Development Review Team meeting. As no issues were identified, the Board issued no report.
However, as the process developed, concerns were raised by the abutters and the Board to revisit
this issue. A request was made that the Engineering Division conduct a consolidated review of
the water and sewer demands in the area. Again, Engineering did not identify any problems.
Analysis of Town Fiscal Considerations
The applicant included a detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts on the Town, prepared by Mark
Fougere Associates, a private planning firm. The analysis points to a net benefit of
approximately $1.8 million per year of additional tax revenue. Put another way, for every tax
dollar brought in by the site, the Town will only spend 20 cents to service it. The project will
also generate several hundred thousand dollars in one -time building permit fees during
construction. The analysis did not include impacts on the roadway infrastructure, which are
addressed elsewhere.
Policy Analysis
How this proposal fits into other published Town policies on land development, land
management, and land use was not fully debated among the Board members nor was it raised by
many members of the public. That said, this type of project seems to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's opinion that future commercial development should seek redevelopment
opportunities within existing commercial zones rather than the expansion through the increase of
the geographical bounds of commercial districts.
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 5 of 7
The South Lexington Transportation Study outlines the transportation infrastructure inadequacies
in the South Lexington area. The Town has not yet developed an implementation plan to address
the current deficiencies. The Board believes that the overall benefits of this proposal outweigh
the increased traffic issues and recommends that the applicants financial contribution, noted
above, be used towards developing such a plan. The Board urges the Town to complete a plan
before any new general levels of zoning intensity are implemented in this commercial area.
The study also identified that, due to the Town's existing traffic operation standards (calling for
peak hour conditions no worse than Level of Service D) the potential for additional growth
would be constrained, beyond the growth already approved at the time the study was conducted.
The study went on to note that if the Town desired additional development in the area it should
adopt an alternative standard, for example that utilized by Massachusetts' Environmental
Protection Agency (MEPA), which requires that major traffic impacts, associated with a
proposed development, be no worse than "no- build" conditions without said development. As
the Town is embarking on a complete revision of its Comprehensive Plan, there is an opportunity
to allow residents to advocate for a new standard that balances different levels of economic
development against acceptable levels of transportation impacts throughout the Town.
Purposes of Rezoning
The applicant submitted a narrative explaining why they are seeking to increase the intensity of
their development (see the cover letter of the PSDUP). This statement is consistent with the
purposes of zoning as expressed in the Massachusetts Act of 1975, Chapter 808, §2A. Beyond
that, the Board feels that this project maintains an appropriate balance between land use,
transportation impacts, and the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the Hayden Avenue corridor.
The importance of this point was not commented on generally but was the focus of specific
issues noted elsewhere in this report.
Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Zoning
Generally, the uses proposed do not significantly differ from those in the existing CD District;
the rezoning is principally to allow for the two new structures. Further expansion is not possible
under the current zoning. The allowable uses are proposed to broaden slightly in response to
market demands that campuses like this provide a small amount of amenity space to employees,
such as cafes, workout spaces, locker rooms, etc. The proposed zoning text that would control
both the dimensional standards and uses allowed in the district can be found in the PSDUP text,
Section 6.
The Board believes that the applicant envisions at least 50 % of the net floor area in the new
building to be first -class lab space including associated office space.
Other Planning Considerations
There were few if any other issues raised during the Board's review of this proposal, including
the informal meetings with the Board over the summer, unrelated to those discussed above.
There are several non - zoning related items being addressed in the MOU, which is an agreement
between the applicant and the Board of Selectmen. The MOU, which was endorsed by the
applicant and the Board of Selectmen on October 2, secures funds for off -site transportation
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 6 of 7
impacts, annual payments to the Lexington Nature Trust Fund, and a one -time lump sum
payment to the Cary Memorial Library Foundation. Again, the Board recommends that the
transportation mitigation payment be dedicated to further develop the recommendations
identified in the South Lexington Transportation Study. In addition, the MOU references travel
demand management policies that will be finalized during Site Plan Review, provides for the
additions to the conservation area and related access improvements, and limited access to the
facility for community meetings.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing on this application opened on September 13, 2017, and continued to
September 27, 2017. The minutes of these meetings are on file with the Planning Office and
summarized below.
September 13, 2017
The hearing was opened at approximately 7:45 p.m., with approximately six people in the
audience. Present from the applicant team was Mr. Thomas Ragno, principal and CEO of King
Street Properties, Mr. Robert Albro, King Street's Managing Director, Doug Hartnett of
Highpoint Engineering, and Rick Cue and Derek Johnson of Perkins and Will, the project
architects.
The new building (which they call 75 Hayden) is to be a multiple tenant building and to help
transform the site into a premier life science campus. An associated parking garage will be built
on top of the existing surface parking lot. The team presented the plans, demonstrating how the
scale of the new buildings is consistent with the existing structures. The new lab /office building
will be about 57 feet tall.
Mr. Albro concluded by describing the project's benefits, including fiscal and environmental,
noting the addition of 1.65 acres to the existing conservation restriction, and a strong PTDM
proposal.
The Board then asked a number of questions about the proposal, touching on transportation,
public access to the trailhead, the height of the proposed garage, the proposed community space,
the landscaping. The public in attendance raised questions about the parking for the trail, and
traffic issues in the area, particularly at the Waltham Street and Hayden Avenue intersection.
September 27, 2017
The hearing was opened at approximately 7:15 p.m., with approximately five people in the audience.
Present from the applicant team was Mr. Thomas Ragno, principal and CEO of King Street Properties,
Mr. Robert Albro, King Street's Managing Director, Doug Hartnett of Highpoint Engineering, Christian
Lemon and Brooke Whiting Cash of Lemon Brooke LLC, the landscape architects, and Robert Michaud
of MDM Transportation Consultants.
The applicant refined their PSDUP submission based on feedback received during the September 13
Planning Board meeting. The project team reviewed the updates made to the submission, which included
identifying maximum dimensions and parking spaces, an update on the traffic analysis, landscaping plans,
and provided an update on the status of the MOU.
Planning Board Report on Article 2, PDD -2 (45, 55, & 65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 7 of 7
There was discussion between the Board and the applicant on the specifics of what Zoning Regulations
would govern the review of the site plan, if Town Meeting approves the project. There was also further
conversation about the details on the public access and parking for the trailhead to Hayden Woods.
It is expected that the applicant will file a formal amendment to its PSDUP application by September 29,
in order to allow the Planning Board to see all the comments that have been discussed throughout the
hearing, including the MOU for its meeting of October 4, at which time the Board is expected to take a
position on this article.
RECORD OF VOTE
On October 18, 2017, the Planning Board unanimously recommends approval of Article 2 to
Town Meeting. i
Members in Favor of the Recommendation:
Please note that the Planning Board had previously voted (4 -0) on this matter October 4, 2017, but was missing a
member. To provide the opportunity for that member to join the recommendation, the Board revoted its
recommendation at its October 18, 2017, meeting.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Board Member Reports
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
SUMMARY:
This is a standing agenda item to provide an opportunity for Board members to share with colleagues and the
public any relevant updates regarding the work of the many Boards and Committees the Planning Board has a
relationship with.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Generally, the Board does not need to take any action on this agenda item.
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/18/2017