Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-29-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2008 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. *****************************PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION******************* PUBLIC HEARING Three Ledgemont Center, Rezoning Petition: Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing at 7:35 p.m. In attendance were Peter Nichols, Senior Vice President of the Beal Company, Attorney Ed Grant, Gary Larson, Joe Gloski, Walt Woo and Charlie Kalauskas from BSC. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. Mr. Grant submitted to the Board responses to the peer review of the traffic study, an update on the lighting provisions, responses to the comments from the October 1, 2008 Planning Board meeting regarding traffic, and the mitigation provisions draft. Mr. Nichols said since the last meeting the Planning Board had a site visit on October 25, an abutter meeting on October 27 and a meeting with the South Lexington Civic Association on October 28. Mr. Larson presented revisions addressing concerns about the site plan. ?? There would be additional plantings in the back of the building to enhance the buffer for abutters. The plants would include western cedar, which grows 60-80 feet and 15-20 feet in diameter and would be planted at a substantial size and rhododendrons for in-fill, which could grow to 25 feet. ?? There would be an extension of the pedestrian trail from Munroe Street to Spring Street. The path layout would require an adjustment of the easement and there would be a meeting with the Conservation Commission to confirm the location. The Beal Company would pay for the construction of the path. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ?? While impossible to screen out the entire building, the materials on the upper level would be more organic, such as copper with patina, to better blend into the natural setting. Mr. Nichols said lighting control would include power shades, interior timers, lower exterior lights, and no exterior lights on the outside of the building except for exterior egress doors. The Ledgemont Two Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 parking area and garage deck would have the existing lights replaced. Mr. Nichols said the perspective of the proposed building from the Spring Street driveway showed a low presence and was greatly buffered by landscape. The Traffic Mitigation Package included a contribution of $300,000 to the mitigation fund, limiting left turns on Spring Street during peak hours, and annual contributions to Lexpress of $10,000 with CPI adjustments for 50 years as long as operating in Town and servicing the Ledgemont Center. A one time performance-based contribution to the Traffic Mitigation Fund of $500,000 would be held in escrow for five years to be paid at the end of the fifth year if they did not meet performance measures regarding single occupancy vehicle trips and LEED silver certification for the proposed building. Planning Board Questions and Comments: Mr. Galaitsis ?? Was there a drawing showing the limit of work (LOW) line? Mr. Larson said it was not specified, but was adjacent to the building and there would be a 25-foot no disturb line along the wetlands. ?? Would the construction equipment operating between the building and the 25-foot no-disturb line along the wetlands impact the root systems of the trees? Mr. Larson said that the oak trees have deep root systems and would be able to deal with it and there would be a no disturb area with a 270° circumference area surrounding the roots. ?? Was the conservation restriction easement part of a past approval? Mr. Larson said it was there before. Mr. Grant said in 1983 the Zoning Board of Appeals asked for a 150 foot buffer strip for Ledgemont Two and that would be honored as well as the conservation restriction. ?? Does the FAR include that strip of land? Mr. Grant said all the land was included except the wetlands. Ms. Manz ?? There was some thought about restoring the road that runs parallel to the easement and Old Shade Street. Mr. Nichols said that Old Shade Street was not on their property, but on the abutter’s property and he noted the location of the sewer line and easement. There would be an extension of the trail easement from Munroe to Spring Street. ?? The automatic blinds and turnoff for lights were good ideas, but what would be the blackout time? Mr. Nichols said it would be from 9:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m., but he would like to make it earlier if possible. ?? The TDM policy provided five years to achieve the LEED certification and the traffic Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 Page 3 performance measures to recoup the monies from escrow; what were the traffic performance measures? Mr. Nichols said it would take some time after occupancy to achieve some of the necessary credits for LEED certification credits and the traffic performance measures were a reduction of 10% for projected single vehicle trips based on square footage not parking spaces. Mr. Zurlo ?? Based on the Table of Dimensional Controls the current difference of 33% between gross floor area and net floor area seemed high. Was there documentation to show how that number was derived? Mr. Nichols said the building interior layout is very inefficient and he would share the calculations. The proposed building’s net floor area would be 15% of its gross, but 20% was used for the fiscal impact. Mr. Nichols said the assessment is based on the rental income, which is based on the rentable square footage. ?? Was there anything in the PSDUP showing the commitment from past approvals such as the lighting? Mr. Nichols said he believed that previous commitments were met. ?? Wanted to see architectural plans showing the use of 50% roof coverage. Mr. Nichols said the plan showed what was the anticipated use. It would be more if there were labs involved. ?? When would the tax revenue start? Mr. Grant said there was generally a time lag of 1 to 5 years. ?? Had there been any discussion of looping Lexpress into the property as an express service during lunch hours to reduce vehicle trips? Mr. Nichols said to date there had been none, but would like to have that discussion and have it as part of the TDM policy. ?? The meeting with the Design Advisory Committee will be a good opportunity to deal with the mass of the building beyond just the surface treatment. Mr. Canale ?? There were more issues that were raised at the October 1 meeting than were answered. Mr. Nichols said he would respond to those questions at a later time. ?? What would be the rationale for rezoning the portion that is residentially zoned to a commercial zone since leaving it residential would not affect what was being proposed? Mr. Nichols said it was to establish a commercial property and it would not affect development plans since it would all be in restricted areas; it would affect the FAR. ?? There are concerns about the expansion of commercial zones if they don’t advantage abutters, the applicant, and the Town. ?? There was a feeling that the 2003 proposal is better than the proposed plan, the FAR is not as concerning as in 2003, but the intrusion of the commercial area on Spring Street was problematic, as it is with the present plan. There are concerns about the proposed building and that it should stay off the steep slopes, out of the 100-foot wetland buffer, that this would be the tallest building Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 in Lexington, and the removal of the historic stonewall. Certain things were also left out of the PSDUP. Mr. Nichols said the 2003 proposal failed in part because the Planning Board opposed it and he did not hear from the Planning Board that this site was the wrong place. Mr. Canale said he had specified the 2003 proposal was a better site. ?? The number of trees being cut has not been provided as of yet. The six-inch trees in the buffer zone, which were also considered protected, were not included in the landscape plan. Mr. Nichols said if it was that important he would provide the information. Mr. Canale asked if the diseased Town street trees along Spring Street that had been removed would be replaced? Mr. Nichols said no, they would be hard to replace on the slope. ?? Is it true the existing tenant occupancy rate was at 50% of the ITE numbers so maintaining the present mix of tenants in the existing buildings would allow you to easily meet the 10% performance standard even if the new space were to be 100% office use? Mr. Kalauskas said the performance standard was based on all the space being used as offices so it was true that if the present mix remained in the existing space they could easily meet the performance standard without any additional traffic reduction efforts. ?? Daily trip generation numbers were increasingly important and not just peak hours because of carbon emissions and health effects, as well as traffic effects. What was the daily average trip generation, about 3,000? Mr. Kalauskas said he could get the exact numbers. Mr. Canale said 20% of the traffic on Spring Street was from Beal and Lexington Technology Park Were there any figures on cut through traffic? Mr. Kalauskas said people would take the path of least resistance. Mr. Canale said there was concern about right turns on Spring Street especially at afternoon peak time. All exiting traffic should be onto Hayden Avenue. Mr. Hornig said he suggested the RO rezoning so it would be one zone. When should the Board expect the revised PSDUP? Mr. Grant said the week before Town Meeting, November 10 at the latest. Mr. Hornig said the Board was beginning to work on the report so the sooner the changes were in, the better; at least have it in hand by November 5. The formula for traffic mitigation needed some work. Town Official Comments: Ms. Jeanne Krieger Board of Selectmen said that the traffic mitigation package addressed two principals of concern: ?? Traffic town wide was problematic. ?? Have sustainable developments to minimize the impacts. No developer should be expected to bear the entire cost to fix traffic and the Town should share the cost along with state funds. To make developments sustainable, encourage alternative modes of transportation Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 Page 5 and make the 10% reduction meaningful and not take advantage of it. Audience Comments and concerns: ?? Was there anything in the PSDUP to prohibit parking spaces from being converted to office space or a Ledgemont Four? Mr. Nichols said the documentation was clear that any expansion would require a Town Meeting action. ?? Regarding trees why did you choose 12 inches as opposed to 24 or 36 inches and when would we be informed about the six inch trees? Mr. Larson said the survey showed a few eight- inch trees between the wetlands and the larger trees would have a greater impact when removed. The number of trees six inches and greater would be available early next week. ?? The assessed value should represent a fair market value. Why, if the construction cost of this building would be an estimated $45,000,000, the final value would be only $22,000,000? Mr. Grant said Mr. Connery used methodology that was used in the past and had done many rezoning financial analysis prior to this and he would be the one to ask. Mr. Hornig said the Town sets the value not the owner ?? Abutter concerns were that the process was very rushed, it would be the highest building in Town, and on a steep slope. The Traffic Mitigation Plan would not have Town seeing any portion of the monies from the escrow account. Other things to consider would be taking a floor off the parking, change the location, meet with the neighbors, and think about bringing this to Spring Town Meeting. Mr. Nichols said reducing the parking amount would make it hard to be competitive in this market. ?? Those who live adjacent to the commercial developments understand the desire to increase the commercial base and revenue, but feel the abutters’ acute pain. Other considerations should include conducting a traffic study first to determine capacity and tolerance; not telling the residents you would figure it out later; putting the monies from the traffic mitigation funds to a specific mitigation for the area, not just in a general fund; and extending the period for the performance measures. ?? The walkway from the proposed building to Ledgemont Two should be shielded. Mr. Gloski said that haven’t gotten that far, but would apply the same standards. The hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. but the lights remain on all night long. ?? The provision on page four in the PSDUP was to divide the site into separate lots - why and how would it impact on the densities? Mr. Nichols said it was because of financing purposes and the limits were for the property as a whole. ?? Who would be in charge in case conditions were not being met? Mr. Hornig said you would go to Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Zurlo asked to have surety to guarantee compliance with the special permit. Mr. Hornig said the Zoning Board of Appeals would be in charge of the special permit process. ?? When calculations were done for the FAR, was the residential land included? If it was not included, what would be the FAR? Mr. Nichols said yes it was included and he was not sure what the difference would be if it were not included in the calculations. ?? There should be no right turn instead of no left turn onto Spring Street. Send the traffic to Hayden and Route 128. Get traffic off Spring Street for the safety of children, dogs and cyclists. ?? The idea that traffic falls equally on all was ridiculous, the arterials get the direct impacts. ?? It was amazing the lack of preparation, this was being rushed and no one had any answers. Mr. Hornig said the Town Government works under the laws and different departments have different responsibilities. ?? What has been done to make the neighbors comfortable? Mr. Nichols said they have proposed community benefits such as additional plantings and the trail easement for residents from Shade Street to access to Hayden Woods. ?? It was nice to add the trail, but the proposal would be taking away the view. The shades being set on the timer for 9:00 p.m. would not be early enough. The flyover view showed the building towered over neighbors and trees. ?? Regarding the trees - how many are there and what are their current elevations? How long till they reach their maximum growth and at the time of planting how large would they be? Mr. Larson said the existing trees were 80-90 feet. The trees being planted would be 18-20 feet, located at the corners of the buildings and at the atrium. ?? Would cars be allowed in the fire lane? Mr. Nichols said no it was only an emergency lane. ?? There has been noise pollution at 3:00-4:00 a.m., there was humming noises from the current building. Mr. Nichols said the new building would comply with noise ordinances. The proposed building would be newer and quieter and the mechanical equipment encased in a penthouse. Recently some old equipment from the existing building was replaced and that may have solved that problem. ?? The Zoning Bylaw dimensional table allowed for three stories and 45 feet and here they were talking about seven stories and the roof coverage should be 50% rather then 25%. Mr. Hornig said the building could be 57 feet and 4 stories by the Zoning Bylaw definitions. ?? What percent of employees would be from the north and why LEED silver and not gold or platinum? Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 Page 7 ?? Was there a defined criterion where this proposal would not be allowed? Mr. Hornig said under the commercial development criterion that would be up to Town Meeting there was no predefined limit. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2, (Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz opposed) to continue the public hearing to November 5, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** Solly’s Way Subdivision: Mr. Henry asked for some guidance from the Board on Solly’s Way. He presented a quick update of the memo distributed to the Board regarding a utility pole, sidewalks and where trees should be relocated. The Board found the proposed recommendations from the staff acceptable. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** The Board should send suggestions to staff regarding November 22, a meeting to present the Hartwell Avenue rezoning. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk