2008-01-24-DAC-MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LEXINGTON DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 24, 2008 To: Board of Appeals Re: 125 Spring Street- Patriot Partners /Shire Freestanding Sign At its regular meeting on January 8, 2008, the DAC was presented with modifications to the PSDUP (approved by Town Meeting in 2004) for 125 Spring Street, by Patriot Partners /Shire. It should be noted that the DAC is largely concerned about the proposed design as it relates to Building 200 and adjacent parking facilities. Building 400: 1. The siting and building design layout was reviewed and found to be acceptable. 2. The height of the proposed mechanical penthouse was reviewed and found to be acceptable and there were no significant concerns with respect to the height of equipment ventilation stacks. 3. It was presented to the DAC that the future expansion space will not require additional mechanical penthouse, an element that would become overbearing on the site if it were to expand; the current design takes into account this additional lab area. 4. The proposed parking lotto the north of the building requires significant site grading. The applicant is strongly encouraged to consider structure parking in this location to reduce the impervious area, to centralize parking nearer the main entry, and to reinforce the notion of a common courtyard space for all buildings which was expressed to be of concern. This parking area should be considered as it relates to the concerns with Building 200 expressed below. Site Issues & Building 200: 1. The DAC is very concerned about the impact the proposed parking lot for Building 200 has on the site. While a large parking lot was approved at Town Meeting in the PSDUP, there have been a series modifications made to the site plan that create an additional burden on the front lawn facing Route 2. a. The Gross Floor Area of the development has grown by an additional 60,000 SF since the PSDUP was filed. While the net floor area may be the same as the PSDUP, there is a great site impact. b. Building 400 with it's expansion space has required more parking spaces be moved out of the wooded area and into the front lawn. c. Building 200 has rotated on the site in a way that doesn't allow for the same parking spaces at the front of the building. This has increased the parking requirement on the front lawn. d. A "ring road" has been introduced around the development that increases the impervious area and visual impact along the front lawn. 2. A parking structure in the "piano lot" would greatly reduce the impervious area of the site, centralize parking, screen from public view and create a common entrance courtyard space the applicant expressed an interest in creating for the building fronts. 3. Consideration needs to be given to the location of Building 200 and whether or not it should be flipped with the proposed parking lotto help screen and centralize the parking. 4. The Town needs to work very closely with the applicant to determine the exact number of parking spaces required, in an effort not to overbuild the site