Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-22-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Zurlo, Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. In order to accommodate the size of the audience, the meeting was recessed to reconvene in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall ten minutes later. *****************************PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION******************* PUBLIC HEARING Three Ledgemont Center, Rezoning Petition: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. In attendance were Peter Nichols, Senior Vice President of the Beal Companies, Attorney Ed Grant, Gary Larson, Joe Gloski, and Charlie Kalauskas from BSC. There were approximately 80 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig explained the commercial development process to the audience. Mr. Grant presented a letter responding to the Planning Board’s questions at the October 1, 2008 meeting. Mr. Nichols discussed the history of the site and said they had met informally with the Board of Selectmen two times and the Planning Board 3-4 times. The applicant was requesting an expansion under section eight of the Zoning Bylaw. The Cecil report cited that the Hayden site had high development potential and that 0.15 FAR was low for the suburbs. The main access would be off Hayden Avenue. The site is 36.2 acres with 7.3 acres of wetlands and 10.8 acres covered by a conservation restriction. The net floor area would be 275,973 square feet; the FAR would be 0.22 with 170 parking spaces on grade and 951 parking spaces in the garage. The site coverage would be 14.3%. Mr. Nichols gave the following overview. Three Ledgemont would have 162,000 square feet and a net floor area of 129,6000. An additional 0.66 acres will be added to the conservation restriction. The FAR would be 0.33 without the wetlands and 0.26 including the wetlands. There would be 387 garage parking spaces and 28 parking spaces on grade, creating a ratio of 3.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The total site coverage would be 17.4%. There is a 90-foot change in elevation from Spring Street to the eastern border of the lot. The building is sited on the perimeter drive to minimize clearing. Lighting would be screened from abutters and parking tucked into the hillside. A video showed the massing of the building. It is located 260 to 450 feet from abutters’ houses. The fiscal impact would add $22,000,000 to the tax base Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 22, 2008 resulting in $609,000 revenue per year, with an average annual net of $472,000. The transportation mitigation plan consists of a fixed amount of money, including an annual allocation for Lexpress, along with a performance-based component. Mr. Grant, responding to Mr. Sandy’s TMMA letter, said if the FAR were calculated using the total gross floor area and the entire area of the site, it would be 0.6428. He said that the answers to Mr. Mehr’s questions on fiscal analysis and abatements were confidential information as per State law and would have no relevance to the assessed value on a yearly basis. Regarding trees, there was no meeting with the tree committee because they do not have jurisdiction. Those with jurisdiction are the Planning Board because of the PSDUP, the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the special permit and Conservation Commission because of wetlands. Mr. Mehr wanted to know the number of trees removed. Mr. Larson explained that because the building would be built over the existing road, which is on 14-15 feet of fill, there would only be secondary growth removed, no major trees. The total count of trees 12-inches or larger is 235-240, and 35 of these would be removed. The building is set 200 feet from the nearest home, which is on Spring Street. Audience comments/questions/concerns: Audience comments, questions, and concerns are summarized below. Italicized text at the end of sentences shows responses by petitioner or Planning Board. ?? The balloons that were supposed be to mark the high corners of the proposed Three Ledgemont building were not there as of today. Mr. Nichols said there were now stakes in the ground and the balloons would be there this weekend for the site walk. ?? Did the calculated FAR of 0.64 exclude the wetlands area from the denominator. Mr. Gloski said it was the gross floor area over site area. ?? Someone observed that the site has many unused parking spaces and wondered why more are needed. Mr. Nichols said they were still in the lease-up period for Ledgemont One and offices were only now starting to be occupied. ?? Would construction affect moisture in the lower areas? Mr. Nichols said a thorough storm water analysis was done and there would be no water runoff onto Munroe Road. It would flow toward the wetlands below the Ledgemont Two building area. ?? Someone suggested to turn the building 90 degrees to lessen the impact. Mr. Nichols said that in 2003 that concept was presented and they had been told that it was not desirable. ?? An increase in commercial development would lower the quality of life with impacts such as increased traffic; other hidden costs would reduce the revenues from the development; the Minutes for the Meeting of October 22, 2008 Page 3 adjacent residential areas need to be protected; there should be mitigation measures set in place such as traffic calming; Spring Street should be used only for emergency access and have speed tables; left turns on to Shade Street should be prohibited between 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; and, traffic details should be utilized to enforce the turning restrictions. Mr. Hornig said that turning restrictions fell under the Board of Selectmen’s jurisdiction. ?? Someone stated that traffic concerns were raised in 2003, and wondered what changed for the better now. He questioned whether one can conduct an accurate traffic study with an empty building on the other side of Hayden, with Shire ramping up, with Ledgemont Two only partially occupied, and with the addition of Ledgemont Three. He also added that the presentation did not include the effect of major bottlenecks such as Marrett Road and Waltham Street, and Trapelo Road and Spring Street. Mr. Hornig said the Town was pursuing a signal at Spring Street and Marrett Road. Mr. Nichols said the traffic study was based on full occupancies. ?? There was opposition to Ledgemont Three being 6-7 stories high, and a statement that the process was being rushed, and that the proposed plan would lead to overdevelopment of the Town. ?? The building would be enormous (86 feet high) and its proposed location was too close to the wetlands as well as very close to residential buildings. ?? There were safety concerns about the children due to increased traffic and also about health issues such as emphysema and asthma. ?? There was a major concern about traffic and that the traffic studies were not representative of the morning back up of traffic on Spring Street as shown in the pictures presented to the Planning Board. There were more concerns about a building on conservation land, and about the building height from bottom to top. Mr. Gloski said the lowest grade would be 245 feet and the top of the building would be 336 feet. ?? The trees could not hide this building and it would be destroying conservation land. ?? Spring Street’s single lane in each direction would cause a huge traffic backup, which would create a large amount of emissions and work against the anti-idling rule in Lexington. ?? Concerns were reiterated about the safety of children and residents due to lack of sidewalks, noise pollution from the building’s industrial fans, light pollution at night time, loss of natural wooded area, and reduced real estate value. The urgency of the process was questioned and the petitioner was urged to wait for Spring Town Meeting. ?? Someone pointed out that it has been impossible to get out of driveway and the usual wait has been five minutes, and the safety for children walking to school is an issue. He added that the proposed plan is premature, and that sidewalks be provided and TDM be done first. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 22, 2008 ?? Someone pointed out that residents would ask for tax abatements, and wondered how that would affect the financial projections. ?? A citizen stated that he bought in Lexington five years ago because liked the woods and open space and now they want to build on conservation land and throw all the rules out the window. He was not opposed to change but asked that all aspects be considered, including protecting the residents. ?? Someone said that people could not be forced to take public transportation and also wondered how compliance could be monitored or enforced. He asked that a TDM procedure be put in place first, that time was a huge constraint, and that the special permit procedure requires that the design be compatible with the natural character of the surrounding area. ?? Another person remarked that he went away for five years and when he came back he was surprised by the amount of traffic. ?? Written statements were prepared by citizens and submitted to the Planning Board. ?? Someone expressed his pleasure about a contribution to LexPress being included in the proposal. ?? One was taken aback by the mass of the building, and wondered whether there was any other building that tall in Lexington. ?? Someone pointed out that the Cecil report indicated that 0.15 FAR was not typical of the towns in this area. On the other hand, he felt that was the point that made Lexington special. ?? Ledgemont is a high quality development, but needs to consider traffic enforcement. ?? Looking at revenue enhancements alone, but without consideration given to the local impacts, the Town would view this proposal as a gain. However, the Planning Board would not be doing planning, if it neglected the impacts. ?? Someone stated that even though the proposed features do not apply to other areas, this CD proposal would set a precedent regarding height and traffic impacts. And, he suggested no haste especially in view of the current vacancies. ?? A Ledgemont-III abutter selling a property in the area would be affected negatively because it seemed the building would be quite visible when the leaves are off the trees. ?? When Phase II was done on this site, abutters were told that the site was built out, that the Phase II development would be the last thing built on the property and that commercial development would not impact on the residential properties. The proposed Ledgemont III building would bring more drivers, and would impact the quality of life of the abutters and the woods, which were supposed to be a buffer zone. ?? Someone disagreed that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction over traffic and stated that Minutes for the Meeting of October 22, 2008 Page 5 it would be unfair to postpone traffic problem solutions until after an approval of a proposed development. And, asked why it was not the Planning Board’s job. Mr. Hornig said it was up to the Board of Selectmen to determine turning restrictions from one public road to another. ?? Route 2 and Concord Avenue were forgotten sections that were widened and now vehicles use it as a passing lane creating a wait time of 10-15 minutes to exit a driveway. The Town would need to prepare the area before adding new development. ?? Create traffic mitigation measures before going to Town Meeting. If that was not possible postpone this until Spring Town Meeting. Create the capacity first. ?? If the building becomes visible to residents, then cheap construction material should not be used and any development should fit the character of the neighborhood. ?? An abutter wondered whether, if he expanded his third floor, he would overlook a commercial property and not the wooded conservation land Mr. Canale asked about the 15 items that the Planning Board discussed and that the letter only addressed three of them. Mr. Nichols said they would work with staff on the other items not addressed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to October 29, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. in Cary Auditorium. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Grandview Avenue, Release of Lots: Mr. David Burns, the applicant has completed the Grandview Avenue roadwork. The as-built plans, along with written certifications from the project surveyor and engineer, have been received by the Planning Department. A field inspection confirmed that all work had been completed and the Engineering Department had signed off as well. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, the Board certified that the ways and municipal services within the subdivision had been installed and release the applicant from the Tri-Partite Agreement. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to require funds be placed into a separate escrow account with the Town, in a form and amount acceptable to the Town Manager (with consultation from the Planning Director and Town Engineer), to assure the replacement or installation of any damaged, dead or missing trees within the right of way. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of October 22, 2008 ********************************* MINUTES****************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the September 24, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the October 1, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the October 4, 2008. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to approve the minutes as amended. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** On Saturday, October 25, 2008 there will be two site visits. The first site visit is at 8:30 a.m. at 131 Marrett Road and the second at Three Ledgemont Center at 10:00 a.m. . In order to keep on schedule, the report on the Three Ledgemont would be approved on 11/12 and distributed on 11/13 for the TMMA session. *******************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Canale said that tomorrow the Boston MPO will decide whether or not to approve the Marrett Road and Waltham Street intersection for 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk