Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-17-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Ginna Johnson joined the meeting in progress. ******************************TOWN MEETING********************************* PUBLIC HEARING PSDUP for CD-9 45, 55 & 65 Hayden Ave. (Cubist): Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 7:01 p.m. There were 11 people in the audience. Mr. Robert Buckley, Attorney was present to represent Cubist Pharmaceutical. Mr. Buckley addressed the recent agreement with Merck to acquire Cubist and was told to proceed with the current CD-9 proposal without any changes, but requested that after tonight the public hearing be continued to January 21, 2015. This would give the Town and applicant additional time to work on the MOU, which would govern infrastructure improvements, traffic issues and delineate the responsibilities of the applicant. The current proposal would increase the development on the site over time from the current FAR of .26 to .58 and provide accommodations for Cubist’s projected growth creating additional space for the increase in employees that would be needed. The Planning Board’s comments were incorporated into the November 20, 2014 filing. Mr. Hornig advised the applicant that Ms. Johnson will listen to the recording of this hearing so she can participate with the Board on its recommendations of this proposal. Board Comments:  The current use of the biotech lab was a model and would like to see it carried over to the proposed additional space. If there was a cap on parking spaces how would Cubist address that? Mr. Buckley responded that currently there were 100 spaces in reserve, but a cap could make this property undesirable for possible future uses as times and needs change. There would be more details available when talks with the Town were resumed. The best way to handle this issue would be to set bench marks and incentives using alternative transportation by employees. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of December 17, 2014  Additional transportation modes could be offered. Mr. Buckley said an integrated approach was being explored.  While the noise section of the bylaws and state regulations are required, additional constraints should be incorporated to make sure there would be no noise spill over.  Want to see a 3D perspective on how the buildings impact shade on conservation land.  There was concern expressed regarding the building heights and where they would be located in the building envelopes. A step back limit could be required.  How critical was the second stage of the proposal? There were no concrete plans for stage two, but there would be a need to establish short term and long term plans for growth to allow the company to stay on this site in Lexington.  The proposal showed an increase to 1,927 parking spaces were all those really needed? How comfortable would your clients be pushing down that number? Have the consultants for the company work the numbers down and speak with the Fire Department.  A list of technical comments regarding the PSDUP was provided and reviewed by Mr. Hornig and would be forwarded to Mr. Buckley.  There was concern that part of the run off drains into Hobbs Brook and consultants need to verify that there would be no increase in volume during construction.  Town Meeting would want assurances that this site would not end up like a neighbor’s lot where two different entities own different parts of the parcel. What protection would be provided to not have the same problem?  Would a peer review for traffic include the South Lexington study as a part of it or would there be a separate peer review?  There was an anticipated 2.5 million annual increase in taxes, but how much would be needed for the infrastructure improvements?  What would the increase of value of that parcel be if Town Meeting action approved the amended PSDUP for this site? Mr. Henry said that if the Board would want a peer review make it clear right now.  After the Board reviewed the Cecil Group report there be a discussion of the FAR for this proposal before any recommendations were made. Audience Comments:  There was currently public access to conservation land at the back of the property and there would need to be an easement made to prevent any changes by a future owner. Minutes for the Meeting of December 17, 2014 Page 3  A maximum height of 125 feet was inconsistent with the heights for Shire and buildings in Waltham. Other commercial building heights should be made available in the proposal.  The intersection of Hayden Avenue and Waltham Street was dangerous and there should be a traffic light installed at that intersection before a building occupancy permit would be issued.  If Town Meeting approved the proposed changes for the CD-9 and Cubist decided to leave before any construction and changes to the property were made; could the Board require that all those the changes would then be void? No, the changes would be about the property not the owners.  Would the petitioner consider compensation if they sold the property and have any profit revert to the Town? Could not do that the changes go with the property and the Town would not be damaged.  If a petitioner does not build within 2-3 years of approval could the zoning revert back to the original zoning? No, zoning was for an indefinite amount of time or until Town Meeting changed it. It cannot be a conditional change.  It was believed that one of the benefits of increasing the number of employees was to bring more business to the Center and this plan would keep employees on the site, which was inconsistent bringing in increased business to local stores in the Center.  How many employees would be located here? Not sure.  If a .58 FAR were allowed for Cubist would that require the Town to allow the same for the next applicant? No each site is different.  Have a peer review done for of the entire area with respect to traffic.  Looked at the traffic management report from MDM the data was based on 2010-2012 before Shire updated so this report was outdated.  There was concern with the increase in the number of employees the additional traffic that would be generated and coming off Route 2 through our neighborhoods.  Change the timing of the signal at Marrett Road and Spring Street. If that was the solution Engineering would have come up with that.  This would be a big addition and would have the highest FAR on Hayden Avenue and this would be asking a great deal and therefore would need a higher bar for guaranteeing the company would stay. Without a commitment that the company would stay it would seem a pretty big stretch on how to make it worthwhile. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of December 17, 2014  The Board should consider whether a delay was in order and determine if this needed to be done now.  Cubist was visible from conservation land and the view from the back was visible to residents with the reduced number of trees. The back view was important for those abutters. The number of trees has declined and the wetlands have been significantly degraded an impact study should be done regarding the environmental concerns.  The announcement made last week has changed the concerns and discussion for tonight.  This was a good proposal in a lot of ways, but it is a big proposal. This proposal if approved would add great value to the property, but Lexington may not receive any benefit in tax revenue for a long time. The applicant should consider asking for a much smaller increase for just phase one instead of such a large increase considering all the uncertainty. Lexington wanted Cubist, but now the Town does not know what it would get.  The previous zoning on this site allowed a greater height if true how much expansion was still available under the current zoning? Mr. Buckley said the lab space has maxed out, but the parking space was not built to the maximum. If there was not enough parking space there could be a problem of parking on Hayden Avenue, which would be undesirable. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to January 21 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. The applicant will schedule a number of information sessions and the process will be started after the holidays and the Town notified to put on the website. The Cubist website would have a link made for any meetings being set up for this project. Having a third peer review maybe bringing in too many cooks. The applicant’s traffic consultant and the Town’s consultant have talked and will discuss the differences. There needs to be a Lexington Transportation study part 2 for key intersections throughout the Town for transit improvements. The applicant should take into consideration what was heard today. Better data from the study would be needed. The financial aspect does not need a consultant. The Board should not take action at this point for an additional peer review. The Planning Board should write to the Board of Selectmen to see how these funds would be applied to impacts in the area and not have them diverted elsewhere. Minutes for the Meeting of December 17, 2014 Page 5 POTENTIAL CITIZEN PETITIONS Setbacks: A potential petition was presented to staff proposing changes to the setbacks in the Paint Rock (Turning Mill) neighborhood. The petition was sent to the Board Members for review and if there were any comments or questions, Board Members should send them to staff. CD-14 Amendment (Ledgemont): Mr. Kenneth Johnson would not be going forward with an amendment for CD-14 since this matter would soon be decided by a judge. Medical Marijuana: Mr. Ethan Handwerker outlined his medical marijuana proposal to expand opportunities in various ways throughout the Town. *****************************ZONING BYLAWS******************************* CRO-6 Tracer Lane unzoned parcels: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to request a placeholder on the warrant for the two lots to be zoned to CM and get input from Conservation. Technical changes: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to request a placeholder on the warrant technical changes which include Site Plan Review qualifications, accessory structure apartments and the temporary use table. Small District Changes: Ms. Ginna Johnson joined the meeting in progress. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to request a placeholder on the warrant the new zoning district changes and open space use. Residential Zoning: The Board determined that no warrant articles would be requested for this Town Meeting. ***************************** BOARD SCHEDULING**************************** The next meeting will be January 7 and Mr. Bobrowski will meet the Board regarding the status of the updates on the zoning regulations, January 12 the Planning Board will meet with the BOS regarding banks in the Center and January 21 there will be a public hearing regarding the Cary Avenue subdivision and a continued public hearing on the CD-9 (Cubist). Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of December 17, 2014 ****************************BOARD REPORTS********************************** The CPC will be voting their final positions on potential articles for Town Meeting. *********************************MINUTES************************************ On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of November 5, 2014. *****************************ZONING BYLAWS******************************* RESIDENTIAL ZONING Each Board Member, as well as Associate Member Mr. Leon, gave a brief opinion on the subject of mansionization (Mr. Canale described both “commercial and residential mansionization”) and possible zoning mechanisms to address the negative impacts to the Town. Mr. Hornig suggested Members each prepare a position statement on the subject for an upcoming meeting. It was th agreed that residential zoning will be discussed on January 7 and a public conversation should be held in April. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:28 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Cubist PSDUP submission with traffic impact and access study dated November 20, 2014.  Petition to change setbacks in the Paint Rock (Turning Mill Road) neighborhood dated December 1, 2014 (1 page).  Letter from Isabel Jankelson regarding cubist dated December 17, 2014 (1 page).  Letter from Michael McNabb regarding the Cubist expansion, dated December 17, 2014 (a page).  Staff memorandum regarding proposed technical corrections for the 2015 Annual Town Meeting (1 page). Timothy Dunn, Clerk