Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on November 3, 2021, Virtual Meeting at 7:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Robert Creech, Melanie Thompson and Michael Leon, Associate Planning Board Member. Also present were Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director, and Mina Makarious, Town Counsel. Amanda Loomis, Planning Director, joined the meeting in progress. Charles Hornig, Chair, call to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 7:00 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Lex Media may broadcast this meeting live and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Hornig conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present can hear and be heard. Mr. Hornig provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that written materials for this meeting are available on the Town’s Novus AGENDA dashboard. ***************************TOWN MEETING***************************** Article 17, Amend Zoning Bylaw Sustainable Design for Hartwell Avenue, Public Hearing: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Ms. Cynthia Arens did a presentation on her proposed Amendment Zoning Bylaw Article 17 for Sustainable Design for Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Makarious said he reviewed this proposal on the legality and said this is an appropriate use of incentive zoning. Ms. Loomis said there have been a lot of comments that have been forwarded to the Board Members. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for clarification regarding discussions with developers and if anyone expressed concern on the cost to tenants that would be adversely impacted if they were building a project under this section of the proposed bylaw compared to a community that did not have this section of the bylaw.  Mr. Schanbacher had no questions.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on the three Cambridge buildings in the presentation that are state of the art for this type of sustainability on if you spoke with any of the developers, building owners or tenants on how this worked for them? Did you speak with our Building Commissioner?  Mr. Creech asked for clarification on how they got the number on slide 2 on the incremental construction cost? He asked for clarification on slide 6 on what the 5 BTUs per hour per square foot means. He would like to know the result of the meeting at EDAC.  Mr. Leon appreciated the goals and objectives to reduce the carbon footprint but said it was foreign to use zoning as a means for a building requirement as opposed to the building code and related state level issues. He expressed concern on how it would affect Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 the competitiveness of Lexington with other suburban 128 communities for commercial and research development space. He did not want Lexington to be put at a competitive disadvantage. He asked for clarification on why you think the updated building code will not be ready in the next 6 to 12 months. He expressed concern about the several zoning freezes that were being filed with the Town to avoid the proposed zoning change and are we reaching beyond our competitiveness or the market we are trying to satisfy with the best developers. What outreach have you made to the developers? We need to make sure we are playing on a level playing field.  Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on the three buildings you used as examples in your presentation what are their state of occupancy; are they fully constructed at this point; are you aware of any fully constructed buildings at this time? Mr. Hornig also asked if they reached out to the landowners on Hartwell Avenue what feedback did you get. Public Comments and Questions:  Clarification was asked for on what reach back would be on projects that are in the mill and taking the action at risk knowing that this was in the process. He supported this proposal.  We always need to be thinking about building into the future and need to bring forward a good goal and not have buildings that will be obsolete in a few years.  It was asked since the three buildings in the presentation have not been built yet those BTUs in the presentation are only proposed. Please let Town Meeting know that these buildings are only in process and have not yet been finished.  There was very strong support expressed for Article 17 as something we can do right now for climate changes and does so at no harm to anyone and at only a small cost.  A resident applauded the Town of Lexington for bringing this article forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  This is important to take action at this time and be leader.  There is no reason not to support this and Lexington needs to show strong leadership in the area. This would attract new companies.  A resident applauded this effort to bring this kind of smart development to Lexington. You can always exceed the building code and this is common sense in attracting new development.  A Select Board Member I support this and hope that the 6 projects that froze zoning would factor this into their engineering plans and any planned development proposal would use this as minimum standard for the negotiation of a MOU with the Town.  Our students came to us asked us last spring and asked us to declare a climate emergency and Town Meeting unanimously approved it. We can’t just give lip service we need to have action and this is a win-win all around and we owe it to the youth of the Town and the rest of us and ask that this article get supported. th  At the October 27 Board of Health Meeting they did state that reducing fossil fuel combustion is important to public health. There is a climate emergency for all our sakes we have to act on that and support Article 17.  It was requested that the Planning Board work with the Select Board to move on Article 17 compliance and also look at the rest of the properties on Hartwell Avenue even below 65 feet tall to become compliant in using heat pumps or other clean technologies and be in a clean district which would be a great contribution in responding to the climate emergency. Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 Page 3  Clarification was requested about the HVAC systems to be used? The best time to do this is when construction is beginning to be cost effective and that is a motivator for developers to do this at the beginning.  There was strong support for green construction, but was concerned if these goals can be achieved since they have not been completed yet.  We need to look at sustainability for the future and it does not make sense to have buildings that will not meet the needs for future sustainability. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification if these would supersede the guidelines the state will make. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing for Article 17, proposed zoning amendment for Sustainable Design for Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Board Member Comments:  Mr. Peters said the values in Lexington remain the same and the costs are negligible we should take some positive action in response to the climate emergency. The changes to the building code is a slow process and this incentive zoning gives the town the opportunity to take a position and will support recommending Town Meeting approve Article 17.  Mr. Schanbacher agrees with Mr. Peters and being in this industry and the life science boom is happening now and we want to be in the forefront and be leaders that attract the businesses and tenants that support the ideals the Town supports. Developers know they need to build to these standards to attract tenants. He stands in support of recommending Town Meeting approve Article 17.  Ms. Thompson said it was a pleasure to work with people who are so passionate about reducing the carbon footprint and saving our planet. This amendment along other amendments that will be coming along is our future and plans on supporting this amendment.  Mr. Creech said his earlier concerns were addressed and will support this amendment.  Mr. Leon said he appreciates that Lexington wants to be a leader and this is a political statement and aspiration and he has a lot or respect for that but the only concern is that the foundation of the information should be done by reaching out to the best of class developers on where this puts the Town. He was troubled by the zoning freezes that have been filed recently. He sees advantages of doing this symbolically, but politically not sure what impact if any this will have on our new commercial program for this town.  Mr. Hornig said his position is conflicted he agrees with the goals of this and he hopes the builders will do what they can make their buildings as efficient as possible with these and other provisions. He was troubled by the fact the buildings used as examples are not constructed yet and how they will play out in practice and the economic impact is different in the suburbs the in the bigger cities. The thought among professional staff is doing this in zoning is inappropriate and should be done through the local building codes and he has concerns about this. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board recommend approval of Article 17 to Town Meeting. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – no; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Sketch Preliminary Site Development Use Plan (PSDUP) for 95 & 99 Hayden Avenue (2022 Annual Town Meeting (ATM)): Mr. Hornig opened the meeting for proposed sketch plan for a Planned Development District at 95 & 99 Hayden Avenue. Present was the team which included Mr. Peter Tamm, acting as counsel from Goulston and Storrs, Mr. Bradley Cardoso, vice president and director of design and construction at Hobbs Brook, Mr. Joshua Hill, Esq. chief counsel at Hobbs Brook, Mr. Scott Turner, civil engineer at Environmental Partners, Mr. Robert Mishaud, traffic engineer of MDM transportation consultants, and Mr. Tim Bailey architect, from Marguiles and Peruzzi. Mr. Tamm and explained that this was a sketch plan proposal for a new planned development district. Mr. Hill gave an introduction and background on Hobbs Brook Real Estate and projects they have done. Mr. Cardoso presented the site’s existing property and the history of the Ledgemont 2009 PSDUP. He explained the goals are to add value to the property since they are long-term holders of investments and presented the site conditions and impacts. Mr. Bailey presented the proposed three phases of redevelopment project for the property. Mr. Cardoso said MDM will be bringing a comprehensive transportation plan for this project and presented sustainability strategies and public benefits. The Planning Board recessed at 9:04 and returned at 9:09. Mr. Hornig explained the procedure for this or any proposed Planned Development. Board Member Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for clarification on slide 10 for the siting of building number 1. Mr. Peters asked for a comparison of the height of the building proposed in 2009 and the new proposed building number 1.  Mr. Schanbacher asked if the applicant knew about the historic house that sits between buildings B and C. Mr. Schanbacher asked for clarification on if any geotech work was done on where the ledge was located and what is the confidence level with putting parking underneath building 2 and how confident with the slope and how feasible it will be without bust up a ton of ledge? He asked for clarification on why they were tearing down some buildings and not others. He questioned if they were considering additional solar panels on the additional deck? He requested they keep as much existing landscape as possible between building 1 and 2.  Ms. Thompson asked what do you expect the capacity for tenants to be and have you considered walkability and a bike path for the tenants? What are you doing about outdoor eating or restaurant amenities to make it more contained? Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on what would be done to accommodate those who bike or take public transportation?  Mr. Creech said it is a special piece of property and the more you can preserve the better. He said that they need some access points and parking rights for Hayden Woods and expected nice architecture. He asked for clarification on the parking garage being added on to and if you do not need the garage I hope you will not Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 Page 5 build it. Regarding sustainability you should go beyond the LEED certification and check Article 17 from the 2021 Fall Special Town Meeting which would require a certain level of hybrid HVAC. Mr. Creech asked for clarification on a response from the applicant to the issues listed on the staff memo. Mr. Creech asked Mr. Mishaud for clarification from the traffic study regarding additional trips during rush hour and asked if he saw any issues with the increased traffic. He asked if they got any feedback from existing tenants on the traffic.  Mr. Leon he looked at this as a campus expansion and repositioning and asked if they considered their ability to measure the efficiency of the entire campus from a carbon footprint energy efficiency prospective which includes the existing buildings.  Mr. Hornig asked if in the new PSDUP was there be significant changes to the permitted uses. Are there any other changes that would look like backsliding from the older PSDUP? Mr. Hornig asked the applicant to come back to the next meeting due to time constraints and asked Board Members what that want to see at the next meeting from the applicant.  Mr. Peters wanted to see if this is set back enough from homes and the shadows that would be cast by the buildings, responses to the staff memo issues, and the sustainability issues.  Mr. Schanbacher wanted to see a site section for the topography.  Ms. Thompson would like to see a more robust answer on staff questions and issues, accessibility, and amenities.  Mr. Hornig wanted more thought to flesh out the text part of the PSDUP. This discussion will be continued at the Wednesday, November 10 meeting. Sketch Preliminary Site Development Use Plan (PSDUP) for 475 Bedford Street (2022 Annual Town Meeting (ATM)): Mr. Peters recused himself from this discussion. Mr. Hornig opened the meeting for proposed sketch plan for a Planned Development District at 475 Bedford Street. Present was the team Mr. Ed Grant, attorney; Mr. Ed Nardi, Ms. Hannah Nardi, Bill Curtis, and Andrew Castrabeti from the Cresset Group; Mr. John Sullivan from SJA Architects; Mr. Dale Horsman and Mr. Sean Colella from VHB Engineering; and Mr. Robert Mishaud, traffic engineer from MDM transportation consultants. Mr. Grant presented the history of the site, the Cresset Group and rezoning comparison of other sites for a life science building. Mr. Nardi presented the context of the site and background and past life science projects of the Cresset Group. Mr. Sullivan presented the architectural plans, proposed site plan and landscape management plan. Mr. Mishaud presented the traffic metrics. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Schanbacher wanted to see information on the wetlands showing the new and old building on that site. Slide 7 regarding parking provide an outline of the existing parking. He asked for clarification on the setback off of Bedford Street. He would like to make this as tight to Bedford Street as possible. Mr. Schanbacher had issues with loading noises and asked if the applicant considered other locations for the loading docks and said screening and the architectural piece is important for the loading dock and maybe tuck it under the building. He asked for clarification regarding traffic if they were taking into consideration the property at 440 Bedford Street. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021  Ms. Thompson was looking for a vision of what the site and building will look like. Please present an expanded plan and a visual design for the next meeting.  Mr. Creech mentioned a previous mixed use concept that Mr. Nardi had previously shown the board and asked why the proposal had changed so much. Mr. Nardi said that, at that time, probably late last year, a wetlands delineation had not yet been done. As a result, he thought that there was more land to work with that is actually the case. Based upon the wetlands delineation and the resulting smaller amount of developable land, it was concluded that there was not enough room for a a high quality mixed use project and that a choice had to be made between a Commercial Project and a Multi-Family Project. Mr. Creech said to make sure the loading dock is not a problem and make that side of the property looks good in general and will expect great architecture.. He expressed concern regarding evening lighting and that residents will appreciate lighting from the building being reduced automatically after 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. Mr. Creech asked for clarification on truck sizes for deliveries and said that the timing of trash pickup will need to be when they do not disturb the neighbors.. Mr. Creech asked for clarification on what retail piece they are thinking to put there? He would be looking at the use of sustainable features like hybrid HVAC and solar panels. The last thing we want is for vehicles leaving the site taking a right to the jug handle and cutting thought the Drummer Boy Complex. Please keep that in mind.  Mr. Leon said this site redevelopment would lend itself to a mixed-use development with a small residential piece in the back. He asked that they bring back what they presented in the prior proposal before. He said with the parking structure you are eliminating 75 surface parking spaces to restore disturbed wetland areas, but you have a choice to maintain the surface parking area if you want and if so can you reduce the parking structure by one level or dropping it down a half-story. Can you rotate the parking structure 90 degrees and bring it closer to the actual lab building and give more distance between it and the residential areas.  Mr. Hornig said come back next week with the different text part of the PSDUP showing the uses, lighting and parking and what is different from other sites. This discussion will be continued at the next meeting Wednesday, November 10. Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting. Zoning Motion Amendments for Fall Special Town Meeting 2021: Article 12: Structures in Yards Mr. Joe Pato, Select Board Member, presented his proposed amendment to Article 12, Structures in Yards. Board Member Questions and Comments:  Mr. Peters said, given the late timing of this, did you discuss the changes with the Building Commissioner. Mr. Peters said the safety issues make sense, but was concerned about a fence on top of a retaining wall and will hold judgement for now.  Mr. Schanbacher said he was not sure where our in our bylaw this would be allowed to happen for a height greater than 6 feet. The six foot fence is fine. Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 Page 7  Ms. Thompson requested clarification if this amendment was saying the 4 foot wall would be a separate structure from the fence.  Mr. Creech said he needs to give this more thought for topography and safety.  Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on what your intent was? This proposed bylaw was done to clear up the ambiguity. He said we need the language to be very clear on what we are looking for. Mr. Hornig said the Board could come to a final conclusion on Monday before Town Meeting and the Board will make a decision at that time after receiving the revised language. There are two amendments for Article 13 and four proposed amendments to Article 15 which will be discussed on Monday. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************* Board Member Updates: Mr. Creech said CPAC asked the Planning Board to review the goals and will discuss them further at the November 10 meeting. Mr. Hornig said the SPRD ad hoc committee did a presentation on their plan going forward and voted unanimously to ask the Select Board to support Article 15 Open Space Residential Development. EDAC is meeting on Friday to discuss Article 17. Upcoming Meetings: The next meeting tomorrow is a joint meeting with Lexington Housing Partnership Board at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Board will be meeting Monday and Tuesday, November 8, 9 at 6:00 p.m. before the Special Town Meeting. The next regular meeting is Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. We will be meeting before Town Meeting on November 15, 16 and 17. Review Meeting Minutes for October 13 and 20, 2021: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of October 13 and 20, 2021 meeting as submitted. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Robert Creech – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Adjourn Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of November 3, 2021. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Robert Creech – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 11:30 pm Lex Media recorded the meeting. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of November 3, 2021 The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. Special Town Meeting:  Draft Article 17 Sustainable design for Hartwell Avenue dated October 21, 2021 (1 page). 95-99 Hayden (128 Spring Street sketch PSDUP:  Cover letter dated October 9, 2021 (3 pages).  Sketch Plan set dated October 12, 2021 (9 pages).  Traffic memo dated October 14, 2021 (52 pages).  Facilities Memo dated October 15, 2021 (7 pages).  Preliminary Revenue estimate (3 pages).  Application dated October 19, 2021 (5 pages).  Staff review dated October 29, 2021 (3 pages). 475 Bedford Street:  Application dated October 18, 2021 (5 pages).  Staff review dated October 29, 2021 (3 pages).  Sketch Plan Zoning memo dated October 19, 2021 (6 pages).  Conservation Site restrictions dated September 13, 2021 (36 pages).  Transportation Study (36 pages).  Fiscal Analysis dated October 1, 2021 (15 pages).  Sustainability Narrative (1 page).  Site Plans dated October 19, 2021 (5 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board