Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-16-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo was absent and Mr. Canale had recused himself from the consideration of the Lexington Technology Park application since he was an abutter to an abutter. **********************SPECIAL TOWN MEETING************************ PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 2, Amendment to PSDUP at 125, 131, and 141 Spring Street (Lexington Technology Park) Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Article 2 to order at 7:35 p.m. In attendance was the development team consisting of Steve Rice, Ethan Solomon, Pat Sacco, Joe Zink, Eric Fellinger, Shawna Sullivan, John Hart and Robert Buckley. There were approximately 35 people in the audience. Mr. Rice of Patriot Partners said they have had meetings with the abutters since the last time they came informally to the Board. There were meetings set up for April 18 and May 3 with abutters and the South Lexington Civic Association. Lexingtontechnologypark.com is the website to view all the updated information. The proposal included the development of an additional 380,000 square feet of gross floor area; an increased overall FAR from .15 to .24; two additional buildings; increased maximum height of buildings 100 & 200 to 68 feet; building 600 would be 45 feet plus the penthouse; and two additional three-level parking structures. The number of parking spaces would be increased from 1,903 to 2,646. Mr. Rice said the benefits from this proposal would be an estimated $1,600,000 in new gross annual tax revenue to the Town; expansion of the Town’s total assessed commercial valuation by approximately $66,000,000; it would attract clean low-impact life science companies and would have lower traffic impacts. Mr. Fellinger, traffic engineer, said they looked at several intersections in the area. Based on estimates from the transportation engineers and the number of proposed additional square feet there would be an increase of 400 afternoon peak trips so the impact would be only slightly higher then that of the already approved space. A new mitigation plan for this proposal would include an annual contribution to Lexpress, a contribution to the Town for a corridor study, and a contribution to a roadway improvement fund. Mr. Rice said a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) would be proposed to the Town tomorrow, which included immediate monies for a traffic study and a significant contribution to the traffic demand management fund based on the number of parking spaces. Board Comments: Mr. Galaitsis asked if approved, was a completion date envisioned? Mr. Rice said no, absent a tenant in these economic times they would not build. Mr. Galaitsis questioned if it would be better to iron out the problems with those who would be affected before getting the new proposal approved? Mr. Rice said that the area was well studied and close to being built out and the applicant was working with the neighbors, but if approached now by a company the permitting needed to be in place to go forward. Mr. Galaitsis suggested finishing the project that was already approved and see what the results were of the mitigation. Ms. Manz questioned the numbers on the traffic generation trips projected and why with the current buildout were they less than anticipated? Mr. Rice said that they had been conservative in their estimates and assumed there would be some office space, which would increase the number of generated trips over bio-tech space, but that did not happen. Ms. Manz asked if there were any issues they were working out with abutters. Mr. Rice said screening, landscaping, traffic calming on Shade Street and nature trails on the open space. Ms. Manz asked how much of a buffer was there between the garage and residential property line? Mr. Rice said approximately 50 feet to the buffer line with the current zoning. Ms. Manz wanted to know what kind of traffic calming measures were being considered? Mr. Rice said speed tables, chicanes and three way stops, but only with Town approval and process. Mr. Hornig asked if the intention of the amended PSDUP was to remove the value of the 100 building from the TIF. Mr. Buckley said yes, they would need to establish a baseline value and would amend the language to reflect that. Mr. Hornig said to make sure all the changes were reflected in the updated PSDUP. Audience comments: A letter was sent to the Planning Board for the record, expressing great ?? displeasure that the Board of Selectmen called a Special Town Meeting for such a huge proposal with no time to review the materials needed. There was no urgency or rush for this and the Planning Board should not recommend this proposal to the Special Town Meeting. One year ago the Town entered into a $8,000,000 TIF to get tenants and now a ?? year later they you are asking for a major expansion, are they willing to rescind the TIF first? Mr. Rice said the TIF was between the tenant, the Town and the State. The TIF looked like it was a successful investment. He favored the greater ?? height, which would increase density and leave more open space and help with traffic mitigation. In 2004 other uses were included that generate more traffic, were they still going ?? to remain? Mr. Rice said they require the flexibility to attract tenants, but Shire has a 15-year lease. What would be the tallest building on the site? Mr. Rice said 68 feet with a ?? mechanical penthouse. Would you be willing to designate some parking spaces for people who want to ?? use the 128 shuttle? Mr. Rice said he would consider it. Would the current LexPress conditions be the same in the new proposal? Mr. ?? Rice said yes. We know there will be commercial development in Lexington, but are we ?? putting the cart before the horse? Conduct a study first like on Hartwell Avenue. We are rushing this and for that reason I am opposed to this proposal. At the public meeting you agreed there was nothing one developer could do to ?? address the traffic since there was so much of it. There was no immediate need to build now and so there was not a good reason to rush this through. Abutters were concerned with environmental impacts. Mr. Rice said no industry ?? was more heavily regulated then biotech and this was only rated at a biohazard level 1 or 2. A direct abutter had been working for a long time with the Patriot Partners and ?? felt this was really fast. There were details that needed to be worked out. When you say $100,000,000 revenue goes to Town over 20 years what methodology were you using? Mr. Rice said that information was on the website. Whatever revenue the Town would get would not solve next year’s problem. On Shade Street when people cut through they go 50 miles per hour in a 20 mile ?? per hour zone. There needed to be mitigation to solve the traffic issues not only regarding volume, but also regarding speed. The Shade Street cut-through was a problem even though the traffic study ?? projected it would have 0 increased trips. The Shade Street impacts projected by Patriot Partners do not gel with reality. This was happening way too fast. Mr. Fellinger said the traffic study did not include a projection for traffic on Shade Street. It was a more conservative approach to put it through Spring Street and Marrett Road, which had more traffic and needed more mitigation. We could talk to the Town regarding traffic calming on Shade Street. This was happening too quick to decide; did the Planning Board have all the ?? information they needed by the end of this meeting to make a decision? Mr. Hornig said when everyone was done the Board would address that concern. If it was possible to have a one-month turn around for a favorable action then ?? there was no reason why this could not wait for an actual tenant if warranted. There was time to wait and review this proposal more thoroughly. How could there be a recommendation without the MOU; isn’t that improper? ?? Mr. Hornig said it could be a conditional recommendation. This was being pushed through so rapidly and was a bad system. ?? Ledgemont was not as large a project and there was more time to review that ?? proposal. There needed to be time to consider the biotech pollution, traffic, and noise. It should be postponed, or the Board should recommend not to approve this proposal to Special Town Meeting. Mr. Rice said this process was started in December. Last week there were absolute numbers that do not match the projections. We ?? need to request a more diligent traffic study. The public meeting was rushed and there is a problem with the PSDUP process ?? since it only costs $2,000 for the applicant. The application process should be revised to include an increased fee and limited to one submission every five years. The Board’s report should reflect that while there was some support, more time ?? was requested for the review of this proposal. What was the applicant’s reason for the rush; was it to take advantage of the ?? fiscal downturn and taking advantage of the lower traffic counts. Board Comments: Ms. Manz said it would be difficult to make a decision without the MOU. The goal was to make a recommendation on April 27 and it would appear to not be feasible, since our absent Board member needed to weigh in on the decision. Mr. Galaitsis said he assumed that Mr. Zurlo may have questions and the public hearing should be continued. Ms. Manz said to close the public hearing and not deliberate at this time. Mr. Galaitsis said this gave more credence to the fact that this proposal was being rushed through. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to close the public hearing. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. Mr. Canale joined the meeting. Article 3, 12-18 Hartwell Avenue and 24 Hartwell Avenue petition of Zoning Change: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing on Article 3 to order at 9:03 p.m. Mr. John Farrington, attorney represented the owners of the properties at 12-18 Hartwell Avenue and 24 Hartwell Avenue. The property located at 12-18 Hartwell Avenue was in the CRO zone and the property at 24 Hartwell Avenue was split between the CRO and CM zones. If the Hartwell Avenue Articles changes go through, these properties would be in an inequitable position with the other Hartwell Avenue properties regarding the FAR. Mr. Farrington said it would be sound land use policy to have similar properties in the same situation in the same zone. Audience Comments: Would there be any tax implications with the switch? Mr. Farrington said no. ?? What would be the inequities? Mr. Farrington said nothing could be done with ?? either of the existing buildings if the new zoning were not approved and they would be the only two properties on Hartwell Avenue that would not benefit. If it made sense to the Board to change these two properties why not the ?? properties on Bedford Street? Mr. Hornig said these Hartwell Avenue properties were not as close to residential areas. Why didn’t the Planning Board propose these lands be rezoned? Mr. Hornig said ?? the property owners had the right to choose if they wanted their properties rezoned and not have it imposed upon them. Was the property on the corner tax exempt? Mr. Hornig said yes it was a non- ?? profit hospital and tax exempt. The resident supported the change of these properties to the CM zone. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend the approval of Article 3 at Special Town Meeting. Article 2, Amendment to PSDUP at 125, 131, and 141 Spring Street (Lexington Technology Park): Board Discussion: Ms. Manz said she would need to see a MOU before making a recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig said there could be a conditional approval based on a MOU proportional to the one in place for Ledgemont 3. Ms. Manz said that the purpose was not to delay the process, but was undecided because there were too many outstanding issues that had to be added to the petition. Ms. Manz said the Board could deliberate on the 22 and did not need to give a written report, which would allow Mr. Zurlo to nd deliberate with the Board. Mr. Hornig said the Board would continue this discussion on April 22. Mr. Galaitsis said there was not enough time to digest all this material. **********************ANNUAL TOWN MEETING************************ Articles 44-46: There were three versions of the report - the one from the last meeting, the one with Ms. Manz edits and Mr. Henry’s version with a brief description of the changes, a background narrative, and why the site plan review was so important. The Board recessed for 15 minutes to allow the members to read the versions. The Board returned from recess. Mr. Canale liked Mr. Henry’s version, but wanted in the background section the removal of the sentence with the reference to the 0.4 FAR being assumed. Mr. Galaitsis said he did not include what he thought would be important, but would present it in his minority report. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1 (Mr. Galaitsis opposed), to recommend Articles 44-46 to Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to combine Ms. Manz and Mr. Henry’s drafts of Article 44-46 for publication. Article 9: Mr. Canale said the Board’s job was to inform Town Meeting of what its expectations were and then leave to it to the staff to ensure it was done accordingly. Ms McCall-Taylor suggested putting in information from the RFP in a memo to be made available to Town Meeting. Presentation of the Articles at Town Meeting: Mr. Hornig said he would present Article 44, but asked the Board about the other articles. Mr. Canale said depending on the presentation he may wish to make a supplemental statement to ensure a balanced view of the articles presented to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig said in the past the Board divided the articles. Ms. Manz said Mr. Hornig should present Articles 44-46 and then distribute the rest. Mr. Canale said he would speak with Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Galaitsis regarding the presentation of Articles 47, 48 & 49. Mr. Hornig said Ms. Sandy was proposing to delay the implementation of Articles 44- 46 until Town Meeting could pass on a final traffic mitigation plan. Ms. Sandy said the idea was not to delay, but to give Town Meeting time to ratify the implementation of Articles 44-46 pending their view of the final traffic mitigation plan. She suggested amending Article 46 so that it would be implemented when the Planning Board presented a mitigation plan to be approved by a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting. Mr. Galaitsis said the infrastructure was there and he had no problem with the numbers, but did have issue with only the promise of a plan in the future. *************************** BOARD REPORTS************************** Mr. Hornig said there was an Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow morning; he would be attending. The Conservation Commission approved the Concord Avenue sidewalks. ****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE********** The Planning Board will tentatively be meeting on May 4, 6, 11 and 27. Blueberry Lane will come before the Board in early June. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk