Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF March 9, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on March 9, 2022, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 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, interim administrative planner. Charles Hornig, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, at 6:00 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***************************** Mr. Hornig said they would be adjourning to a Select Board Meeting at 8:30 p.m. Continued Public Hearing: Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw – 475 Bedford Street: Mr. Robert Peters recused himself from this hearing. Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Ed Grant, attorney, introduced the project team which included Mr. Ed Nardi from Cresset Group. Mr. Grant explained the changes regarding the applicant’s updated filing with a significant reduction in the proposed building that based on feedback from the public and board at the last meeting and the fiscal impacts to the Town that would change. Mr. Nardi gave a brief presentation on the highlights of the revisions made to the plans submitted for this proposal as well as the reduced traffic analysis. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Schanbacher had no questions.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on why the meeting with Drummer Boy was deferred. She asked for clarification if there were any further changes since the last presentation.  Mr. Creech asked for clarification on the setbacks for the penthouse west facing wall.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification on the garage four corners elevation. He asked if there were any changes to the landscaping for screening on the side of the garage facing Drummer Boy Way. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2022 Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident and Town Meeting member said he is voting no on Article 39. In 2017 three different consultants recommended housing, including affordable housing, as a critical component of the Hartwell Avenue Innovation District. We were told housing would be brought back for Hartwell Avenue and still has not been done. One more biolab is not a critical need, but the housing is. This site should be kept for lower cost housing.  A resident said commercial development brings in more revenue for the town, but the town needs more affordable housing and we already have five biolabs that are in commercial zones throughout town. We do not need another one especially that will be on a residentially zoned site.  A resident strongly recommended this property should not be approved for this commercial rezoning and should remain residential and be used for affordable housing. They can go to Hartwell Avenue for this commercial use.  A resident asked where are the students going to go if they make this more residential housing. Should we consider adding more schools to accommodate the additional children? How will the biosafety level 1 and 2 be secured and what measures will prevent it from going to biosafety level 3 and 4?  A resident agreed with others and is opposed to rezoning this as a commercial use site. What will protect other sites from being changed from residential to commercial which are next to residents who own their homes?  A resident said the proposal destroys the sense of place for this residential community that surrounds and enclose this property. This project does not belong here and there should be moderate and low-income housing here.  A resident said this site for this project is lined with single family homes and is unsafe for children and will increase traffic at a very dangerous location. Consider housing since it is zoned residential or if it is being rezoned require the building to remain in the existing building footprint.  A resident said town meeting had an opportunity to rezone this site as part of the Hartwell Innovation Area and turned it down and kept it residential. It should remain residential.  A resident said a parking garage must remain illuminated for safety reasons so how will they do that and keep it screened from the residents?  A resident felt this biolab is completely out of place here in the middle of this residential community and completely out of character and context with the area.  A resident is opposed to this proposal and said the site should remain residential. Consider other concerns with this proposed biolab; if the building caught fire it would impact the taxpayers.  A resident said the only reason for this rezoning is for fiscal reasons and it does not address housing needs. The massing of this building is huge and inappropriate for this site and asks that board members turn it down.  A resident moved here 10 years ago with their family and said this is a residential neighborhood and strongly opposes this proposal.  A resident said this should remain a residential zone and then we can put several hundred units here for multi-family housing and is opposed to this being rezoned commercial. Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2022 Page 3  A resident said this sets a dangerous precedent that because it was a health club before it naturally sets a way for a biolab or some other commercial use and you do not want to open that door. There was concern expressed about oversight that would need to be done by health department and are not sure staff is qualified to monitor another biolab.  A resident who is a town meeting member said they will be voting it down if it comes to town meeting. This would be ideal for low-rise housing due to its location which is zoned residential and on a bus route. This would be a missed opportunity for dense housing that is needed.  A resident who is a town meeting member is opposed to this and said this is contradictory to proposed state MBTA Guideline for Community Housing.  A resident asked why the housing payments would be going to Lexhab and not to the Town’s Affordable Housing Stabilization fund. Check if the monies can be directed there instead in the MOU. We need to see housing impact and mitigation addressed in the final fiscal analysis for Town Meeting. In the fiscal impact analysis any reference to schools should be removed since it cannot be considered. He was not in support of this proposal.  A resident sent a letter and hoped the Board got it. She had a hard time understanding the fiscal impact analysis.  A resident is against this proposal and does not see who really profits from this and it does not seem to be enough for the amount that would be collected.  A resident was strongly opposed to this rezoning. This corner/intersection is a very dangerous street for the children and residents in this neighborhood. Put this biolab somewhere else where it belongs in a commercially zoned location. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing for Article 39, Amend the Zoning Bylaw, 475 Bedford Street. Bob Creech 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 Deliberations: The Board discussed the proposal for Article 39: 475 Bedford Street.  Mr. Schanbacher said he believed this is an appropriate use and building mass for this location.  Ms. Thompson was really torn about this matter and the abutters are not in favor of changing the rezoning from residential to commercial. She was surprised that this was not proposed on the Hartwell Avenue. She was leaning towards not recommending the change for the zoning on this site.  Mr. Creech presented some suggestions that would need to be done if residents allowed it, for this to move forward which included: narrowing the Drummer Boy Entrance; posting signs for resident vehicles only; planting trees on the Drummer Boy property if they want it; installing a stabilized raised berm with tree plantings; a penthouse with trees. This is about rezoning and not mass of the building, as he had previously thought. He did not agree with all of the resident Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2022 objections but, in good conscience, he could recommend neither approval nor disapproval to Town Meeting. This would be a Town Meeting decision... It is a good project but not at this site.  Mr. Leon said for as long as he can remember it has been used for commercial development and it would be challenging site to be used for residential housing and agrees with Mr. Schanbacher.  Mr. Hornig believed that this is a challenging location for dense housing next to power lines and gas lines. The impact to traffic and would be more significant than the biolab, the massing would be the same and this site would not qualify for the draft MBTA Community Housing Guidelines. The biolab would help with the financing for the new high school that will need to be built.  Ms. Thompson said she notes that it has been commercial use for many years and that it was turned down by Town Meeting to add to the CM Zone in 2020.  Mr. Creech said with his added mitigation he did not see that there would be a negative impact; however, the same footprint could accommodate housing. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board recommend approval of Article 39, Amend the Zoning Bylaw, 475 Bedford Street to Town Meeting. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Mr. Hornig said that he will let the moderator know that the Planning Board is choosing not to make a recommendation on Article 39, but could reconsider that if circumstances change. Town Meeting can take this up after 21 days. There will be an informational report made for this Article. The Board recessed for 2 minutes. Deliberations: Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential Developments (OSRD): Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting. Mr. Hornig said they have three sets of proposed changes from the Historical Commission on preservation incentives. Mr. Peters presented the proposed changes by the Historical Commission. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters said he is in support of all the proposed changes.  Mr. Schanbacher had an issue with part of the second section regarding 6.12.1.5 architectural fit and style for the area and new construction.  Ms. Thompson said she supports the changes if it is for the historic buildings.  Mr. Creech said he would need to hear more about the proposed second change on fitting the new building into the style of the historic house.  Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Schanbacher on the second change and had an issue with the first change and asked for clarification of the definition of historic building and if it would be to expand the eligibility or limiting the applicability for a historic building preservation restriction. The wording of the definition of Historic Building was modified to include buildings “eligible to be” listed on the National Register or Cultural Resources Survey. 6.12.1.5: Changed language to remove the language “and architectural fit and style in the context of the new development”. Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2022 Page 5 6.12.6: Accept the changes from the Historical Commission. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board accept the changes from the Historical Commission as amended tonight for Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Open Space Residential Developments. 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 discussed the alternative inclusionary changes for Article 35. Mr. Hornig presented the changes. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters liked the changes, but was wondering if too prescriptive on changes to the interior finishes.  Mr. Schanbacher said #4 is important for multi-family developments and is important to keep it in.  Ms. Thompson agreed with the interior finishes #2.  Mr. Creech had a problem with the interior features being the same, i.e., they do not have to be over the top quality but they should be good quality. One example that he used was using a readily available pattern granite vs a pattern of granite that was not readily available. Using the less available and more expense granite would add nothing to the quality of the product. Mr. Leon said #2 would be substantially similar quality. He was concerned with locking in a 20% inclusionary for different size developments should be determined project by project. What amenities should be included need to be discussed. The Board ran out of time and will get back to it at the next meeting. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Review Meeting Minutes for February 16 & 17, 2022: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the February 16 & 17, 2022 as submitted. 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 March 9, 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 8:30 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2022 Article 35: Open Space Residential Development:  Matt Daggett revisions to Article 35 dated March 3, 2022 (10 pages). Article 39: 475 Bedford Street:  Cover Letter to the Planning Board in response to Planning Board and public comments dated March 4, 2022 (2 pages).  Revised redline PDSUP dated March 4, 2022 (10 pages).  Revised redline PDSUP dated March 4, 2022 (7 pages).  Revised Regulatory Plans dated March 4, 2022 (6 pages).  Revised Non-Regulatory Plans (part 1) dated March 4, 2022 (6 pages).  Revised Non-Regulatory Plans (part 2) dated March 4, 2022 (5 pages).  Revised Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment dated March 4, 2022 (45 pages).  Revised Fiscal Impact Analysis dated March 4, 2022 (15 pages).  Revised Traffic Impact and Access Study dated March 2022 (170 pages).  Revised Traffic Impact Study attachments dated March 2022 (110 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board