Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-02-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 2, 2022, 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 Member. Also present was Eve Tapper, Administrative Interim Planner and Sheila Page, Acting Planning Director. Charles Hornig, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, at 7:01 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia 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 could 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 NovusAGENDA dashboard. ***************************TOWN MEETING***************************** Public Hearing: Article 38: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – 95 & 99 Hayden Avenue (128 Spring Street) Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Peter Tamm, attorney from Goulston and Storrs, introduced the project team which included Brad Cardoso, director of design and construction from Hobbs Brook; Tim Bailey, project architect from Margulies Perruzzi; and Bob Michaud, traffic engineer from MDM. Mr. Tamm presented the background and the process, outreach to neighbors, and meeting with EDAC and the Select Board to discuss mitigations that will be included in the Memorandum of Understanding for this project redevelopment. He said they will be meeting with the Conservation Commission regarding an updated wetlands delineation. Mr. Cardoso presented the existing site conditions and project goals. Mr. Bailey presented the project overview of the redevelopment and proposed site plan phasing. He reviewed the proposed building elevations, development data, preliminary specifications and compliance table, parking and loading proposals, elevated renderings for the buildings, and landscape design. Mr. Michaud presented a transportation overview, elements of the of the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Program, access and pedestrian improvements, a possible new trail to connect to the existing trail network and possible trailhead parking spaces. Mr. Cardoso presented sustainability strategies for this project and public benefits it will provide to Lexington. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Board Comments and Questions:  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on how tall is the proposed mechanical penthouse? Ms. Thompson asked for how the public would access the trail system and the proposed trail connection and will there be parking for the public or shared parking with the building.  Mr. Creech pointed out that some residents had said that multi-family housing should be part of the project. He hoped that the Applicant had given this some thought and he asked to hear about the Applicant’s point of view with respect to a multi-family component for the project.  Mr. Schanbacher asked if all the buildings are life science labs? He requested clarification on how tall is the building off Hayden Avenue and how much taller are the proposed buildings than the existing buildings. Clarification was requested on if there are any other specifics for alternate modes of transportation.  Mr. Peters asked for clarification on if there is a target for the percentage of reduced parking on site for single occupancy vehicles (SOV)? He asked if there is a possibility of restoring the existing historic house. He asked if the applicant was looking to operate 100% electric on site and would you need HVAC back-up using fossil fuel.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification of the stack heights above the penthouse and how many stacks are there? How does the height of the proposed buildings in 2009 that were not built compare to the proposed buildings now and have you done a shadow study? He asked for clarification on the aggressively low parking ratio they are proposing.  Mr. Hornig said the regulatory plans need to cover details of the building at 95 Hayden Road (the whole site). In 6.1 (uses) list all possible uses that you may want to fit on to the property in the future and not just the things you want to do now. Convenience uses are usually permitted as principal uses instead of accessory uses, especially solar energy systems. Regarding private schools you should not exclude music schools. He asked for clarification on why no food uses were included. You should add the food uses and parking to the list of principal uses. He suggested they go through the current use table and update your language to match what is in your proposed use table. For dimensional standards you have N/A for lot area frontage which is an issue since you may want to subdivide sometime in the future. Your site coverage area is off and you should review it. In section 7.2 you should explicitly exclude all rooftop structures and increase the height of the building from 40 to 50 feet to include the rooftop structures. Solar energy structures should be exempt from roof top coverage limits. For parking permit as much as you will need for anytime in the future. The dimensional standards for parking should be identified. Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident asked for what biosafety level the building will be built? What if the alternative transportation plan does not work out, what will happen if there is not enough parking.  A suggestion was made to allow residents to come to your location and park to get on the shuttle to get to Alewife.  Regarding the projected $3.7 million annual revenue to the town, when will it Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Page 3 begin and is that net new revenue or total revenue?  A resident asked how many more people will work in these new buildings.  A resident asked if the applicant can do a balloon test to show a visual of the proposed height of the buildings. He requested that a larger coordinated outreach be done to the surrounding neighborhoods. There was concern expressed about how the light spill was going to work and asked the applicant to provide a report on that.  The current facility is very noisy and wanted to know who they can complain to and what will be done about that noise. The traffic is really bad on Woodcliffe Road and is used as a cut through and the cars go very fast down this road and requested a sign be put up that only allowed residents on the street during certain times of the day.  Clarification was requested if the 2009 plans would still be valid.  Clarification was requested on the floor area ratio (FAR) increase.  What is the material on the exterior of the buildings? It looks like there will be a lot of glass how much glass will there be and what will that type of reflection impose on the residents in the area. Noise is already an issue and people have been dealing with noise from the facility across the street from you. How will you address the noise from your proposed buildings?  We appreciate the improvements of siting of the development as opposed to the 2009 plan. There is concern about what might be potential future use or expansion of this site.  Will there be any provision for potential onsite daycare space?  There was concern expressed about traffic. Next time the applicant should provide a report on how you will equalize subsidy for people who arrive by other means of transportation than SOV. He requested clarification on how you would encourage people to use Route 2 rather than travelling through Lexington streets. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on Article 38 Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – 95 & 99 Hayden Avenue (128 Spring Street) to Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED The Board recessed at 9:05 and resumed at 9:10p.m. Public Hearing: Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – 475 Bedford Street Mr. Robert Peters recused himself from this hearing. Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Present were Mr. Ed Grant, attorney, who introduced the project team which included Mr. Ed Nardi, Mr. Andrew Castraberti and Mr. Bill Curtis from Cresset Group; Mr. John Sullivan, architect of SGA; Mr. Erik Bednarck, landscape architect from VHB; and Mr. Robert Michaud, traffic engineer from MDM. Mr. Grant gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Mr. Nardi presented a previous Cresset Group projects overview, the current project overview, the proposed project benefits which include revenue to the Town, MOU mitigations, sustainable building design, environmental benefits, and other community public benefits. Mr. John Sullivan explained the details of the proposed site plan, preliminary massing views from Bedford Street, and the building components. Mr. Bednarek presented images of the proposed the landscape areas, the front patio, the promenade, the community amenity area. Mr. Sullivan shared the studies done as this plan was put together in collaboration with the Town with regard to distances to abutters, topography of the site in determining the location of the buildings, the preliminary massing view from Drummer Boy Way, shadow studies from the winter which show the shadows cast are mostly on their site, and lab safety regulatory agencies requirements they need to meet for biosafety levels, chemical use and waste. Mr. Michaud presented the Project Transportation Summary which include the Comprehensive Parking Study, Trip Generation, Traffic Operations, Parking, Corridor Improvements, and Transportation Demand Management. He also presented the Trip Generation Comparison, Parking Ratio, Concept Access Improvement Plan, and Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan. Board Comments and Questions:  Ms. Thompson asked what is the size of the building since it looks a little large for the site and asked if the applicant had thought about having a campus type style with multiple smaller buildings instead. How big would the retail space be and what would go there?  Mr. Creech presented a few slides that compare other lab developments and a suggested proposal. Mr. Creech suggested that the applicant come back with a reduced scale of the lab/office proposal from five to three stories and a smaller footprint, add multi-family housing to include 20% inclusionary units, and scale the size of the parking garage accordingly.  Mr. Schanbacher asked that the height of the existing buildings be added in the building section.  Mr. Hornig said list all possible uses that you may want to fit on to the property in the future and not just the things you want to do now. Convenience uses are usually permitted as principal uses instead of accessory uses especially solar energy systems. Regarding private schools you should not exclude music schools. He suggested they go through the current use table and update your language to match what is in your proposed use table. Round up the building height to give a little room. Make sure you have enough parking that will work in the future. Put the sustainability requirements in the MOU.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification on the change to the current proposed parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per thousand square feet. He asked for clarification about the left turn in to the site from Bedford. Audience Comments and Questions: Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Page 5  A resident from Drummer Boy Community is completely opposed to this rezoning for this site. It is a massive intrusion to a residential neighborhood of modest homes. This would be a good site for moderate income housing. Please vote against this proposal.  This proposed building does not fit into the character of this neighborhood and encourage the Board to vote against this proposal.  A resident finds this proposal attractive, but would rather see multi-family housing on this site.  A resident of Drummer Boy Development has an issue with the proposal for a biolab which with mechanicals will be 96 feet tall, is in a neighborhood of low- rise homes, and will be visible to the residents. He was concerned about increased traffic, noise, and the loading docks near the Drummer Boy homes and asks the Planning Board to vote against this proposal.  A resident of Drummer Boy Community is opposed to this commercial industrial proposal which is sharply out of character with this neighborhood and ask the Board to vote against it.  A resident likes the building, but it belongs on Hartwell Avenue and not at 475 Bedford Street. It is a residential area and this will create a totally different feel in this area. I encourage the Board to vote against it and the applicant should come back with a proposal for a multi-family housing project.  A resident is opposed to this project for the reasons of traffic conditions, pedestrian safety, and community cohesiveness.  The nearest neighbor is appalled to hear that a massive structure like this is being dropped into a residential neighborhood. This is not Hartwell Avenue and it will impact traffic which is already bad and there is strong opposition to this in the neighborhood. Consider other options. Mr. Hornig said there will be other opportunities for the public to speak at the next meeting. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on Article 39, Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – 475 Bedford Street to Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:00 pm. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting. Public Hearing: Article 37: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Technical Corrections Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing and Mr. Schanbacher presented Article 37. There were no comments from the Public or the Planning Board on this Article. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing on Article 37: Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Amend Zoning Bylaw – Technical Corrections. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board recommend to Town Meeting approval of Article 37: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Technical Corrections in substantially the form as presented. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED Public Hearing: Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential Developments: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Mr. Hornig said this will be continued to February 16 without testimony. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential Development to Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED Article 8: Comprehensive Plan Implementation Mr. Hornig discussed this article briefly about asking Town Meeting for money to help implement the Comprehensive Plan even though it is not complete yet. The Board needs to decide whether or not to ask the Select Board for this money for implementation or give it to someone else since the plan is not yet complete. Board Members all agreed that we should request the money for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan for the budget. Article 30: Amend Special Act – Planning Board and Town Meeting Mr. Hornig will look for someone to present this at Town meeting. Article 36: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – Mixed-Use Developments and Multi-Family Housing There were no comments or discussion on this matter. Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Sustainable Residential Incentives There were no comments or discussion on this matter. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Board Member Updates: Mr. Hornig said they are doing the first round of interviews for the Planning Director. Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022 Page 7 Mr. Peters said the Housing Partnership Board voted to support Article 35, to Amend the Zoning Bylaw for Open Space Residential Developments as it was presented at their meeting. Upcoming Meetings: Mr. Hornig said the Board will be meeting on February 16 for several public hearings. He asked the Board to keep February 23 available for an additional meeting for overflow of public hearings from February 16. The Board decided to meet February 23 and postpone Articles 35 and 36 public hearings to that date if there is staff that is available to support the meeting. The Board will meet on Thursday, February 17 regarding the Comprehensive Plan. There will be a meeting March 2 to finish public hearings, a special permit residential development, and a report. March 9 and 16 will be additional meetings. Town Meeting will start March 28. Review Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2022: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the January 5, 2022. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Adjourn Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 2, 2022. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:57 pm. Lex Media recorded the meeting. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 95 & 99 Hayden (128 Spring Street):  Application Form B (5 pages).  Petition to change zoning (5 pages).  PSDUP text (9 pages).  Regulatory Plans dated December 15, 2021 (6 pages).  Non-Regulatory Plans part 1 dated December 15, 2021 (6 pages).  Non-Regulatory Plans part 2 dated December 15, 2021 (5 pages).  Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment (part 1) dated December 15, 2021 (125 pages).  Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment (part 2) dated December 15, 2021 (126 pages).  Fiscal Impact Analysis dated December 15, 2021 (15 pages).  Traffic Impact and Access Study dated December 15, 2021 (62 pages).  Traffic Impact Study attachments dated December 15, 2021 (170 pages).  Cover Letter dated December 22, 2021 (4 pages). Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2022  Counsel Letter of Support dated December 22, 2021( 4pages).  Responses to sketch plan comments dated December 20, 2021 (3 pages).  Preliminary Specifications and Compliance Table (2 pages).  Staff memo dated January 28, 2022 (6 pages).  Applicant response to staff memo dated February 2, 2022 (5 pages). 475 Bedford Street:  Application Form B dated December 21, 2021(6 pages).  Letter to the Planning Board for PSDUP dated December 21, 2021 (6 pages).  Responses to sketch plan comments dated December 22, 2021 (9 pages).  Petition to change zoning (3 pages).  Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment dated December 22, 2021 (7 pages).  Regulatory Plans (part 1) dated December 22, 2021 (4 pages).  Regulatory Plans (part 2) dated December 22, 2021 (2 pages).  Non-Regulatory Plans (part 1) dated December 22, 2021 (6 pages).  Non-Regulatory Plans (part 2) dated December 22, 2021 (5 pages).  Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment dated December 2, 2021 (45 pages).  Fiscal Impact Analysis dated December 15, 2021 (15 pages).  Traffic Impact and Access Study dated December 2021 (170 pages).  Traffic Impact Study attachments dated December 2021 (110 pages).  Staff memo dated January 28, 2022 (4 pages).  Final draft Fiscal Impact report dated October 1, 2021 (15 pages). Town Meeting:  Draft Zoning Amendment Technical Corrections dated January 12, 2022 (1 page).  Draft Zoning Amendment Open Space Residential Developments dated January 12, 2022 (3 pages).  Draft Zoning Amendment Mixed-Use and Multi-Family dated January 19, 2022 (2 pages).  Draft Zoning Amendment Sustainable Residential Incentives dated January 26, 2022 (3 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board