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