HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-25-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2009
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Robbins Room, Cary Memorial Hall
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz and Galaitsis and
planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. Mr.
Canale had recused himself from the consideration of the Lexington Technology Park
application and so was not present until after that discussion.
**************************SPECIAL TOWN MEETING**************************
Lexington Technology Park: John Hart of Symmes, Maini, McKee & Associates (Civil
Engineer), Eric Fellinger of TetraTech Rizzo (Traffic Engineer)Phil Pennellatore of Schneider
,
& Associates, Steve Rice of Patriot Partners Lexington LLCBob Buckley and Solomon
, and Ethan
of Riemer and Braunstein were present for the development team. There were a half dozen
people in the audience. Mr. Buckley gave a run through of their plans, noting that the floor area
ratio (FAR) would be increased from .15 to .24. Mr. Rice said that while this expansion was not
Shire-driven, they wanted to be able to accommodate Shire on this site should Shire wish to
expand further in the future. Right now, Shire was holding a design competition for the 200
building. He also noted that when fully occupied Shire would only have two employees per
1,000 square feet.
Board Comments: Mr. Galaitsis asked why were Patriot Partners wanted this increase so soon
after seeking a rezoning at a .15 FAR and before even completing the construction of the 0.15-
FAR plan? Mr. Rice said that the town had indicated that they wanted more commercial
development and they were responding. Mr. Galaitsis said that they seem to have many parking
spaces over what they stated they would need. He wanted to know if they built all the spaces and
the traffic situation became untenable, would the applicant agree to shut down areas of the extra
parking to force tenants to carpool? Mr. Rice responded that they could not do that; they would
not be able to get financing.
Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting. Mr. Fellinger clarified that the no-build scenario in the traffic
study included Avalon at Lexington Square, what had already been zoned for this site and what
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 25, 2009
was being proposed for the Beal Companies project across the street.
Ms. Manz felt that this was not the standard WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) CD
proposal, it was much more conceptual. She expressed concern about traffic turning left onto
Spring Street and wondered if they could do anything to keep it off the local streets. Mr. Rice
said that roughly 80% of the trips come from Route 2 and Hayden Avenue. In the past the town
had not wanted signals at Spring and Hayden.
Mr. Galaitsis asked for a cross section at a right angle to what had been provided. He wanted to
be able to relate the elevation of the buildings to what could be seen from Spring Street.
Mr. Zurlo asked if the amended PSDUP contained the conditions of the DSDUP and was told it
did. Mr. Zurlo commented that outlying commercial districts should stay that way. He saw no
need for revenue from projects that had visual impacts on the residential neighborhoods. He
asked them to consider the impacts of the view of the 100 building as one comes up Spring
Street; it would appear as though it were the end of the street.
Mr. Hornig had numerous technical suggestions as follows: the garage space needs to be
calculated within the GFA; this is not an overlay, so remove the first footnote referencing the
CRO FAR; should they want to go back to a conventional zone in the future they may want to
consider the building setbacks; lighting should not be referred to the DAC as a CD must conform
to the bylaw standards; it would be better to use the 100’ setback from residential properties; the
revenue analysis did not discuss the TIF, and both the 200 and 100 buildings are in the TIF area;
the mitigation offer was not in keeping with what had been negotiated with Beal, they should
expect to contribute $1.2 million unless they could make a strong case otherwise.
Mr. Rice noted that they were asking for additional height, 68’ for the 200 building and 80’ for
the 100 building. Given that the elevation drops down toward Spring Street, he felt the tallest
building would be in scale with the other buildings on the property.
Mr. Andy Friedlich from the audience asked about a path along the edge of the property behind
Shade Street. Mr. Rice said they would consider it and had been in talks about it.
Minutes for the Meeting of March 25, 2009 Page 3
*****************************TOWN MEETING*********************************
Hartwell Avenue Area – Mr. Hornig asked for staff’s input on the boundaries of the
Transportation Mitigation Overlay District (TMOD), which the members at Monday’s meeting
had been inclined to expand to include Hanscom Air Base. Ms. McCall-Taylor felt that the
inclusion of the base would make it difficult to develop the traffic plan and then set a mitigation
fee, as the future of development on the base was an unknown.
Mr. Canale joined the meeting. After a discussion of the pros and cons of the three possible
district boundaries, it was moved, seconded and voted, 3-1-1 (Mr. Galaitsis in the negative and
Mr. Canale abstaining) to set the boundaries as in the minimal scenario. This would consist of
the CM district (less the small part of airport property), the CRO district along Bedford Street,
and the two CD districts on Hartwell.
Mr. Galaitsis said he was against uncontrolled traffic impacts and would favor something with
quantifiable limits in the number of trips. He felt that Town Meeting should be offered and
should consider the increased development at Hartwell right along with a traffic control plan.
************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS****************************
Mr. Canale reported that the Traffic Mitigation Group had met and discussed Article 45. They
had voted to support the inclusion of the first of the three principles he had circulated. They also
felt that the purpose was not clear enough. The members had been asked to return any comments
on Article 45 and the traffic plan RFP by the end of the week.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Wendy Manz, Clerk