Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-27-PB-packet-released ARTICLE __ AMEND ZONING MAP AND BYLAW 45, 55 and 65 HAYDEN AVENUE, LEXINGTON, MA To see if the Town will vote to amendthe Zoning Map and Bylaw of the Town to create the Planned Development District PD- PSDUP Siteer in relation thereto. (Inserted at the request of the property owner, CRP/King Hayden Owner, L.L.C.) PROPOSED MOTION 11.2PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-2 1. Authority to Establish a Planned Development District. This Preliminary Site Development and PSDUPto establish Planned Development DistrictPD-PDD is prepared under the provisions of § 7.3, Planned Development Districts, of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town Town 2016 Zoning Bylawprocess to establish a Planned Development District which are contained in § 8.0 of Chapter 176 of the Code of the Planning Board Zoning Regulations 2. History and Description of District.This Planned Development District consists of Lots 20B and 21A on Town Assessors Map 17, as depicted in the Site. Redevelopment of the Site commenced in 1997 with the approval by Town Meeting of a Preliminary Site Development Original PSDUP Original DSDUP Original Special Permitpproved by the Zoning BoZBA Registry 28123, Page 254. To allow for the addition of the building and parking garage located at 65 Hayden Avenue, the Original PSDUP was subsequently amended by the Amended Preliminary 2009 APSDUP2010 DSDUP Special Permit 54965, Page 45. The Special Permit was modified in 2012 for minor site changes, as recorded with the Registry at Book 27724 Page 170, and again in 2017 for parking and related improvements, as recorded with the Registry at Book 68484, Page 87. This PSDUP supersedes any and all prior site development and use plans and other special zoning for the Site, including the Original PSDUP, Original DSDUP, Original Special Permit, 2009 APSDUP, 2010 DSDUP and Special Permit, as modified. For the avoidance of doubt, the improvements shown on the Regulatory Plans (as hereinafter defined) are considered in conformance with all existing permits and approvals. 3. Zoning Bylaw Applicability and Interpretation 1. In the event of inconsistency or conflict between this PSDUP and any provisions of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw applicable to this Planned Development District, this PSDUP controls. 1 8975196 2. Unless herein noted otherwise, where this PSDUP is silent with respect to any provision of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw applicable to the Site, the 2016 Zoning Bylaw controls. Subsequent amendments to the 2016 Zoning Bylaw do not apply to this PDD unless expressly stated otherwise. Terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings as may be ascribed to them in the 2016 Zoning Bylaw. 4. PSDUP to be effective upon transfer. This PSDUP establishes the zoning for this Planned Development District, and any successors and assigns in interest in the Site are bound to the terms and conditions of this PSDUP. The land within this PDD, now consisting of the two lots as described in Section 2 herein, may be further legally subdivided into separate parcels or lots, for example, for purposes of financing or conveying interests, but any successors shall be bound by the provisions and controls in the PDD unless amended in accordance with the 2016 Zoning Bylaw. Any excess development capacity in this PDD shall be expressly allocated at the time of conveyance or subdivision of land in the PDD if such conveyance or subdivision results in separate ownership of property comprising the PDD. 5. Plans and Documents 1. Regulatory Material. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the text of this PSDUP and the plans and documents incorporated by reference within it, the text of this PSDUP controls Planned Development District PD-Regulatory Planserein as Appendix A and made part of this PSDUP: Regulatory Plans ByDate Highpoint C1 Title Sheet August 23, Engineering 2017 Highpoint August 23, C2 Property Rights & Dimensional Standards Engineering 2017 Plan Highpoint August 23, C3 Site Construction Plan Engineering 2017 Highpoint August 23, C4L-100 Landscape Planting Plan (Trees) EngineeringLemon 2017 Brooke Perkins+Will August 23, Preliminary Site Sections 2017 (Visual Representations) 2. Non-Regulatory Material. All parts of the PSDUP application submitted and not included in Section 11.2.5.1 above, if any, are considered explanations, background information, and justification for the rezoning, and do not supersede the PSDUP.have no regulatory authority. The complete PSDUP application is on file with the Town Planning Office. 6. Permitted Uses 1.Principal Uses. All of the following uses or any combination thereof are permitted in this Planned Development District, subject to, and consistent with, the dimensional, zoning and other standards provided in Sections 11.2.7 to 11.2.10 belowthis PSDUP: a. Institutional Uses 2 8975196 (i) Child care center (ii) Use of land or structures for religious purposes (iii) Use of land or structures for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or its agencies, subdivisions or body politic or by a religious sector or denomination or by a non-profit corporation (iv) Park, playground b. Agricultural and Natural Resource Uses (i) Exempt agricultural uses and structures as set forth in M.G.L. § 40A-3 c. Office Uses (i) Medical, dental, psychiatric office, but not a clinic (ii) Medical, dental, psychiatric office, but not a clinic, with related laboratory (iii)Business or professional office d. Personal, Business or General Service Uses (i) Medical clinic for outpatient services (ii) School not exempt by statute (iii)Nonprofit community service center or charitable organization e. Manufacturing Uses (i) Light manufacturing (ii) Laboratory engaged in research, experimental and testing activities, which may include the development of mock-ups and prototypes (iii)Manufacturing in the fields of biotechnology, medical, pharmaceutical, physical, biological and behavioral sciences and technology, environmental science, toxicology, genetic engineering, comparative medicine, bioengineering, cell biology, human and animal nutrition including the production of equipment, apparatus, machines and devices for research, development, manufacturing and advance and practical application in any such field or area, and including, office, administrative and support facilities related to any of the foregoing activities; all uses must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances including, without limitation, laws, regulations and ordinances governing air pollution, water pollution control, noise and illumination f. Utilities, Communications and Transportation Uses (i) Radio, television studio, but without transmitting or receiving towers (ii) Wireless communication facility g. Temporary Uses (i) Temporary building or trailer incidental to the construction of the building or development (ii) Temporary structures and uses not otherwise permitted in the district, provided the Building Commissioner finds that the proposed structure or use is compatible with the neighborhood The Operating Standards set forth in § 3.4 Table 1 Permitted Uses and Development Standards §§ E.1.01 and E.1.02 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw do not apply. 3 8975196 2. Accessory Uses. The limit and size of accessory uses set forth in § 3.2.2 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw do not apply. All accessory uses or structures customary and incidental to the principal uses or structures included in Section 11.2.6.1 above (which principal uses are also permitted as accessory uses), § 3.2.1 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, and the accessory uses in Section 11.2.6.2 hereunder are permitted as accessory uses, including, without limitation the following (which also include some new enumerated items): a. Beauty parlor, barber shop b. Shoe repair c. Bank or credit union d. Automatic teller machine e. Travel agency, ticket agency f. Photocopying, reproduction services g. Convenience goods often bought on a daily basis such as food, candy, newspapers, etc. h. Cafeterias, dining rooms, outdoor food trucks, conference rooms, function rooms, auditoriums, public meeting rooms, community space and recreational facilities i. Laundry or dry cleaning pickup station with processing done elsewhere; laundry or dry cleaning with processing on the premises, self-service laundromat or dry cleaning j. Parking, surface or in a garage or other structure k. Town-sponsored uses for the neighborhood and public such as outdoor uses for , performances, presentations and other like uses and indoor uses for Town recreational and community use from time to time 7. Dimensional Standards. § 7.3.2.1 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw provides that a Planned Development District does not have predetermined standards for development, and Table 2 in § 4.1.1, Schedule of Dimensional Controls, does not contain standards that apply to a Planned Development District. The following, as affected by the provisions of Section 11.2.8 herein, are the only dimensional controls that apply to this PDD, and § 4 Dimensional Controls of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw do not apply. With the exception of Minimum Lot Area, the following requirements apply to the aggregate of all lots within the PDD. No minimum lot frontage or setbacks are required along internal lot lines in the PDD. Required Minimum Lot Area 5000 square feet Minimum Lot Frontage 50 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 100 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 50 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 50 feet Minimum Site and Rear Yard Facing Residential N/A District Maximum Site Coverage Ratio 25% Maximum Gross Floor Area 1,300210,000square feet Maximum Building Height 9870 feet for occupied buildings 4 8975196 90 feet for garages Maximum Parking Spaces 1800 Notes: 1. The height of a building or structure in this PDD is determined as follows: The vertical distance between the lower elevation and the upper elevation, where the lower elevation is the mean average finished grade of the building as determined by measuring from the four extreme corners of the building, or in the case of a nonrectangular building, from reasonable equivalent locations around the perimeter of the building, and the upper elevation is the highest point of any ride, gable, other roof surface, or parapet, except that structures erected on aas part of the building and not used for human occupancy, such as but not limited to air and exhaust equipment, chimneys, heating-ventilating or air-conditioning equipment, solar or photovoltaic panels, elevator housings, stair tower enclosures, parapet walls for buildings and garages, antennas, skylights, cupolas, spires, mechanical and acoustical screening and provided, except as otherwise stated below, no part of the rooftop structure(s) is more than twenty five (25) feet higher than the maximum permitted height of a building or a parking garage structure and the total horizontal coverage of such rooftop structures on the building or parking garage structure does not exceed sixty (60) percent of the total roof area. Notwithstanding the foregoing: (a) an aggregate area not to exceed three (3) percent of the total roof area may contain rooftop structures that extend up to thirty five (35) feet above the roof line (these structures are included in the calculation of the horizontal coverage limit set forth above). 2. The Planning Board may grant a special permit to exceed the maximum height in feet or the percentage of horizontal coverage of structures erected on a building or structure allowed by this Section 11.2.7 Dimensional Standards provided it makes a determination that the structure is compatible with the scale of the neighborhood and does not negatively impact the solar access of any adjoining lot. 3. Where used, the calculation of Net Floor Area in this PDD is determined by using 80% of the Gross Floor Area exclusive of the Gross Floor Area of areas used for parking and loading (which includes garages and other structured parking). 8. Parcels or LotsAny lot within the PDD 1.The land within this PDD, now consisting of the two lots as described in Section 11.2.2 herein, may be further legally subdivided into separate parcels or lots, for example, for purposes of financing or conveying interests, but any successors shall be bound by the provisions and controls in the PDD, which shall remain in effect as to each parcel or lot, unless amended in accordance with the 2016 Zoning Bylaw. 2.The dimensional standards and other zoning provisions as prescribed herein remain in effect where the boundaries of this PDD adjoin other zoning districts, while the standards and provisions that apply within, but not on the perimeter of the PDD, are modified as set forth below. contain 5 8975196 a. Parking for all uses (both existing and proposed)within this PDD as of the filing of this PSDUP which may be required for one lot may be located ona separate lot in separate ownership (or combined in a common lot), notwithstanding any regulations or provisions to the contrary as contained in the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, so long as where such lot is not in the same ownership, a lease or easement guaranteeing long-term use of such spaces is executed and filed in the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. a. Driveways on one lot may lead to and serve a parking space or loading bay on another lot, or straddle the lot line and serve a parking space or loading bay on two or more lots, notwithstanding any regulations or provisions to the contrary stated in the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, so long as where such lot is not in the same ownership, a binding agreement between the applicable property owners satisfactory in form to the Town Counsel, is executed and filed in the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. b. No required setbacks apply to side and rear lot lines in the PDD for the paved parts of parking spaces, driveways or maneuvering aisles (which may extend up to the side and rear lot lines) except where parking spaces along a lot line coincide with the perimeter of the district (as opposed to spaces along a lot line that is in the interior of the district) for which a ten foot setback from the lot line at the perimeter of the PDD shall apply. 4.The minimum of 20 feet of frontage requirement of any newly-subdivided lot within the PDD may be reduced to not less than 20 feet provided such lot is served by an access drive that is determined by the Planning Board to meet the requirements of the subdivision control such lot. 9. SPGA. The Special Permit SPGA 2016 Zoning Law or where referred to herein is the Planning Board. 10. Other Zoning Provisions 2.1. Landscaping, Transition and Screening. The Landscape Planting Plan, submitted as part of the Regulatory Plans depicts the detailed landscaping for the Site. For this PDD, the standards of § 5.3 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, Landscaping, Transition and Screening, do not apply except for the following: a. The objectives of § 5.3.1 apply. b. The requirements of § 5.3.3 pertaining to the landscaping plan apply. c. The provisions of § 5.3.11 Maintenance; § 5.3.13, Screening of Other Uses within the Lots; and § 5.3.15, Special Permit apply. 3.2. Traffic Standards. This PDD isrelies on findings in the Traffic Impact and Access Study for the site and will be subject to the Transportation Demand Management Plan and Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the Special Conditions below.traffic demand management policies therein. The provisions of § 5.5 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, Traffic Standards, do not apply to this Planned Development District. 4.3. Off-Street Parking and Loading. For this PDD, the standards of § 5.1 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, Off-street Parking and Loading, do not apply except for the following: a. The objectives of § 5.1.1 apply. b. The provisions of § 5.1.3, Parking Plan; § 5.1.7, Preferential Rideshare Parking; § 5.1.8, Bicycle Parking Facilities; § 5.1.10 Driveways (but allowing for more than two 6 8975196 driveways per street line as shown on the Regulatory Plans); and § 5.1.14, Special Permit, do apply. c. Calculation of required off-street parking spaces and calculation of required loading bays in this PDD must be provided in compliance with § 5.1.4, § 5.1.5 and § 5.1.6, with the exception of the following requirements, which shall supersede any other applicable requirements of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw: PARKING FACTOR TYPE OF PRINCIPAL USE (minimum number of parking Note: parking will not be required for accessory uses. spaces to be provided) INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL & RECREATIONAL USES College, technical school As Needed Day-care center, school age child care program, nursery school, kindergarten 1 per 500 s.f. Lodge, community service center As Needed Gymnasium, stadium, field house 1 per each 6 seats Parks, athletic fields, tennis and pool facilities, golf courses, recreation centers, other As Needed institutional uses OFFICE USES All permitted Office uses (except as otherwise 1 per 333 s.f. classified) Medical office, out-patient clinic 1 per 200 s.f. PERSONAL BUSINESS USE Personal services, bank, business services, retail 1 per 250 s.f. sales, and rental uses MANUFACTURING, RESEARCH USES Manufacturing, research laboratory 1 per 500 s.f. Construction, storage, distribution and 1 per 1,000 s.f. industrial service users All other permitted uses As needed 5.4. Additional Parking Provisions a. Maximum Parking. There shall be a maximum of 1675 parking spaces in this PDD. b. No required setbacks apply to side and rear lot lines in the PDD for the paved parts of parking spaces, driveways or maneuvering aisles (which may extend up to the side and 7 8975196 rear lot lines), except that where parking spaces along a lot line coincide with the perimeter of the district (as opposed to spaces along a lot line that is in the interior of the district), a ten foot setback from the lot line at the perimeter of the PDD shall apply. c. Parking for all uses (both existing and proposed)within this PDD which may be required for one lot may be located on a separate lot in separate ownership (or combined in a common lot), notwithstanding any regulations or provisions to the contrary as contained in the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, so long as where such lot is not in the same ownership, a lease or easement guaranteeing long-term use of such spaces is executed and filed in the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. d. Driveways on one lot may lead to and serve a parking space or loading bay on another lot, or straddle the lot line and serve a parking space or loading bay on two or more lots, notwithstanding any regulations or provisions to the contrary stated in the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, so long as where such lot is not in the same ownership, a binding agreement between the applicable property owners satisfactory in form to the Town Counsel, is executed and filed in the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. d.e. Temporary Off-site Parking during Construction. During construction on the Site, the owner, tenants and other users of the Site are allowed to park offsite as reasonably needed. 6.5. Signs. This Planned Development District is subject to the Regulatory Plans submitted herewith. For this Planned Development District, the standards of § 5.2 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, Signs, do not apply except for the following: a.The objectives of § 5.2.1 apply. b. The provisions of § 5.2.3, Exemptions, apply. c.The General Regulations of § 5.2.4 apply. d. The provisions of § 5.2.5, Prohibited Signs, apply. e.The provisions of §5.2.8, Commercial Districts, do not apply. Instead, a maximum of a) two wall signs (that conform to the requirements of § 5.2.8.1 (f-g)) per building that are no more than twelve feet in width and eight feet in height, and b) two standing signs per building that are no more than (i) ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area for standing signs shall be permitted by right. In addition, one directory sign conforming to § 5.2.8.1(e) shall be permitted per building entrance. All new or relocated wall, standing or projecting signs in the PDD that conform with these requirements shall designee pursuant to § 9.5.4 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw. f. The provisions of § 5.2.10, Special Permit, apply. Any wall sign, free standing sign or other legally permitted sign presently existing on the Site as of the submission date of the PSDUPis allowed as-of-right and may be retained and relocated within the Site, so long as it is not enlarged unless permitted by the 2016 Zoning Bylaw. 7.6. Illumination. The provisions of § 5.4 of the 2016 Zoning Bylaw, Outdoor Lighting apply, with all lots within this PDD treated as a single lot for compliance purposes. 11. Special Conditions. This Planned Development District is subject to the following special conditions: 8 8975196 1.Parking and Transportation Traffic Demand Management. The traffic mitigation and traffic demand management measuresdescribed in the Transportation Demand Management Plan incorporated herein and attached hereto as Appendix B shall be implemented prior to occupancy of the proposed buildings shown on the Regulatory Plans. 2.Memorandum of Understanding. Certain obligations related to proposed buildings shown on the Regulatory Plans are memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated October __, 2017, between the applicant and the Town of Lexington through its Board of Selectmen d attached hereto as Appendix C. 9 8975196 APPENDIX A TO PSDUP FOR THE PD-2 DISTRICT REGULATORY PLANS Under separate cover. 10 8975196 APPENDIX B TO PSDUP FOR THE PD-2 DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN See attached. 11 8975196 APPENDIX C TO PSDUP FOR THE PD-2 DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING See attached. 8975196 1 inch = ft. 80 GRAPHIC SCALE BORDERING VEGETATED WETLANDS (TYP.) B BVW 7 52A 0 3 B 1 7 T N E M E S A E S A G N I U 51A 45 HAYDEN AVENUEQ N O BVW G L A BVW 655 55 HAYDEN AVENUE KC ABTE S DR AY TNO RF '0 01 : RIDGEBURY FINE SANDY LOAM, 3-8% SLOPES, EXTREMELY STONY (HSG C) : HOLLIS-ROCK OUTCROP-CHARLTON COMPLEX, 3-15% SLOPES (HSG C/D) : WHITMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0-5% SLOPES, EXTREMELY STONY (HSG D) : PAXTON FINE SANDY LOAM, 3-8% SLOPES, EXTREMELY STONY (HSG C) SOIL CLASSIFICATION - BASED UPON USDA - SOILS CONSERVATION SERVICE TNE MES AE SA G : UDORTHENTS-URBAN LAND COMPLEX (HSG D-ASSUMED) N IUQ NOGL A '05 : UDORTHENTS, WET SUBSTRATUM (HSG D-ASSUMED) WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS SHOWN HEREON BASED ON-THE-GROUND SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED BY FIELDSTONE SURVEY SERVICES IN DURING EARLY SEPTEMBER 2014 AND OCTOBER/ NOVEMBER 2016. SOME PARKING AREAS AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWN HEREON WETLAND RESOURCE AREA BOUNDARY FOR 45-55 HAYDEN AVENUE SHOWN DELINEATED BY LUCAS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ON JUNE 24, 2009 ARE DERIVED FROM PLANS ENTITLED "PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS - 45, 55 & 65 HAYDEN AVENUE - LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS," CONSERVATION RESTRICTION AREA EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION HEREON DERIVED FROM ON-THE-GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELDSTONE SURVEY SERVICES : FREETOWN MUCK, 0-1% SLOPES (HSG D) : SWANSEA MUCK, 0-1% SLOPES (HSG D) WETLAND RESOURCE AREA WETLAND DELINEATION SHOWN ON 65 HAYDEN AVENUE DELINEATED BY LUCAS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. IN JANUARY 2008. SOIL BOUNDARY BVW PREPARED BY HIGHPOINT ENGINEERING, INC., DATED DECEMBER 15, 2016 AND REVISED THROUGH MARCH 28, 2017. C 4 TREELINE 0 P:\\King Street Properties\\17007 (Hayden Lab Planning, 75 Hayden Ave, Lexington)\\04_Design\\Dwg\\02a_PSDUP\\17007_Site_Analysis.dwg Sep 21, 2017 - 10:54am 1 AREA ANALYSIS LEGEND 65 HAYDEN AVENUE 6 307B 104C 51A52A71B73B655656 5 6 C C CC C C C C C C C B 3 C C 7 C C C AND RECONFIRMED IN OCTOBER 2014. C JULY 2009 AND OCTOBER 2014. (DATE RANGE: DECEMBER 1971 THROUGH APPROXIMATE BASE DIAMETER OF TREE (DATE RANGE: MARCH 2010 THROUGH BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND SYMBOL LEGEND TEST PIT EXCAVATION LOCATION GROUND LEVEL BOLLARD LIGHT REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WALL MOUNTED SPOT LIGHT GROUND LEVEL SPOT LIGHT VERTICAL CONCRETE CURB POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE VERTICAL GRANITE CURB TEST BORING LOCATION POST INDICATOR VALVE WALL MOUNTED LIGHT EDGE OF PAVEMENT CHAIN LINK FENCE BOTTOM OF WALL SPOT ELEVATION CAPE COD BERM CONTOUR LINE NOTES FINISH FLOOR TOP OF WALL SEWER LINE 2.3.4. DRAIN LINE 1. MONITORING WELL MAY 2017)MAY 2017) TREE LINE SEWER MANHOLEHANDICAP SPACE DRAIN MANHOLE CATCH BASIN LIGHT POLE HYDRANT SIGN WMSPL GLSPL (18") GLBL PIVWMLBVW RCPEOPVGCCCB PVC100VCC 100.3 SDSSFF BWTW 1 inch = ft. 150 DWELLING (RO) ONE FAMILY GRAPHIC SCALE REGIONAL OFFICE (CRO) PLANNED COMMERCIAL CONSERVATION AREA (RO) (CD-8) HAYDEN WOODS 45-55 HAYDEN AVENUE DWELLING (RO) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER PD-2 ONE FAMILY SUBJECT DISTRICT CAMBRIDGE CONCORD HIGHWAY (ROUTE 2) HAYDEN AVENUE AVENUE 65 HAYDEN P:\\King Street Properties\\17007 (Hayden Lab Planning, 75 Hayden Ave, Lexington)\\04_Design\\Dwg\\02a_PSDUP\\17007_Locus_Context_Plan.dwg Sep 21, 2017 - 10:55am DWELLING (RO) PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CD-14) CONSERVATION AREA OFFICE (CRO) REGIONAL JUNIPER HILL 1 inch = ft. 80 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)PROPERTY MAP 17TOWN OF LEXINGTONDEED BOOK 796 PAGE 169(TOWN OF LEXINGTON)PROPERTY MAP 17TOWN OF LEXINGTONDEED BOOK 796 PAGE 169 PARCEL 1PARCEL 1 N/FPROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE N/F PROPOSED UNDERGROUND TELCOM SERVICE SYMBOL LEGEND (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) TOWN OF LEXINGTON-TOWN OF LEXINGTON- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PROPERTY MAP 16PROPERTY MAP 16 CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION PROPOSED SANITARY FORCE MAIN PARCEL 4APARCEL 4APROPOSED ELECTRICAL MANHOLE EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE N/FN/FPROPOSED WATER GATE VALVE PROPOSED MDC OIL/GAS TRAP PROPOSED TELCOM MANHOLE PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED WATER SERVICE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED GAS SERVICE EXISTING SEWER LINE EXISTING DRAIN LINE EXISTING MONITORING WELL EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING DRAIN MANHOLE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING LIGHT POLE DEED BOOK 893 PAGE 163DEED BOOK 893 PAGE 163 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) HAYDEN OFFICE TRUSTHAYDEN OFFICE TRUST EXISTING HYDRANT PROPERTY MAP 16PROPERTY MAP 16 PARCEL 1CPARCEL 1C EXISTING SIGN N/FN/F GRAPHIC SCALE DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 170DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 170 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) TOWN OF LEXINGTONTOWN OF LEXINGTON PROPERTY MAP 17PROPERTY MAP 17 PARCEL 3CPARCEL 3C N/FN/F ENVIRONMENT I (E-I) PACKAGE SEWER EJECTOR PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL ELEV = 93.0 BELOW GRADE LEVEL ELEV = 89.5 GARAGE HEIGHT = 84.0 FEET 8 1/2 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE 1/2 LEVEL BELOW GRADE TOP DECK ELEV = 175.0 PARKING GARAGE PROPOSED N CONNECT SANITARY SERVICE TO I A RELOCATED SEWER MANHOLE M E C R O F C V P . A I D " 5 . 1 GRAVITY SEWER WYE CHIMNEY CONNECTION FORCE MAIN DISCHARGE MANHOLE (4' DIA.) 8" SDR 35 PVC GARVITY SEWER RELOCATE EXISTING DEED BOOK 11928 PAGE 614DEED BOOK 11928 PAGE 614 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) KITCHEN WASTE SEWER45 HAYDEN AVENUE TOWN OF LEXINGTONTOWN OF LEXINGTONSEWER MAIN PROPERTY MAP 17PROPERTY MAP 17 DOGHOUSE SMH PARCEL 4CPARCEL 4C OFFICE N/FN/F K K D LN A U A P B T FINISH FLOOR ELEV = 100.0 R - S E NDLAB/OFFICE BUILDING M AA R RP O T FPROPOSED 55 HAYDEN AVENUE OFFICE P:\\King Street Properties\\17007 (Hayden Lab Planning, 75 Hayden Ave, Lexington)\\04_Design\\Dwg\\02a_PSDUP\\17007_Site_Utility.dwg Sep 21, 2017 - 10:52am DEED BOOK 797 PAGE 109DEED BOOK 797 PAGE 109 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) TOWN OF LEXINGTONTOWN OF LEXINGTON PROPERTY MAP 17PROPERTY MAP 17 PARCEL 5DPARCEL 5D N/FN/F 65 HAYDEN AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 65 HAYDEN AVENUE LAB/OFFICE DEED BOOK 1420 PAGE 62DEED BOOK 1420 PAGE 62 (TOWN OF LEXINGTON)(TOWN OF LEXINGTON) PROPERTY MAP 17PROPERTY MAP 17 95 HAYDEN LLC95 HAYDEN LLC PARCEL 22PARCEL 22 N/FN/F Copyright © 2017 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All Rights Reserved i S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc ii S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc iii S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 1 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 1 1 A development cap is proposed in the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan/PSDUP for the PD-2 District that includes up to 51 additional parking spaces (1,675 total) and gross building area of 35,000 gsf above the 219,279 gsf nominal development program cited in this TIAS. These incremental development increases are proposed to allow reasonable flexibility in final design of Campus buildings and parking structures and are not expected to generate a materially significant change in impact relative to findings of this TIAS. Projected impacts in this TIAS are based on industry standard trip estimates which are shown to be up to 33 percent higher than actual measured performance of the Campus and no trip credits are taken for the proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. 2 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 3 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 4 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 5 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc o o o o o o 6 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 7 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 8 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts LEGEND: Study Intersections Intersections: 1. Hayden Avnue at East Site Driveway 2. Hayden Avnue at West Site Driveway 3.Hayden Avenue at Route 2 Westbound on-ramp (Unsignalized) 4. Hayden Avenue at Route 2 Westbound off-ramp (Unsignalized) 5. Hayden Avenue at Spring Street (Signalized) 6. Hayden Avenue at Waltham Street/Route 2 WB off-ramp (Unsignalized) 7. Spring Street at Marrett Road and Bridge Street (Signalized) 8. Spring Street at Concord Avenue (Unsignalized) 9. Concord Avenue at Route 2 Eastbound Ramps (Unsignalized) Scale: Not to Scale Figure 1 Site Location Date: September 2017 Dwg No. 887 Figure 1.dwg 9 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Highpoint Engineering Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan Site Plan Source: by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 Figure 2 (9-15-2017).dwg Scale: Not to Scale Date: September 2017 Copyright 10 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 11 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 12 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 13 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 14 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 15 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 16 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc o o o 17 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 18 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Figure 32017 Baseline ConditionsWeekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 2017 Baseline ConditionsWeekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 4 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 19 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 20 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 21 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 22 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 23 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 2 24 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 25 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 26 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 27 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 28 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 29 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 30 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 2024 No-Build ConditionsWeekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 5 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 2024 No-Build ConditionsWeekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 31 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 32 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 33 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Figure 7 Trip Distribution by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright Site Generated TripsWeekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 8 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright Site Generated TripsWeekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 9 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 34 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 2024 Build ConditionsWeekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 10 by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright Figure 112024 Build ConditionsWeekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Scale: Not to Scale Copyright 35 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 36 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 37 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 38 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 39 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 40 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 41 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 42 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Figure 12(Tuesday, May 16, 11:00AM) Existing Parking Summary Peak Parking Demand by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access StudyTraffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, MassachusettsLexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Scale: Not to Scale Date: September 2017 Copyright 43 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc Figure 1345/55/65 Hayden Avenue Existing Parking Demand by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Copyright 45/55/65 Hayden Avenue Figure 14 No-Build Parking Demand by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Copyright 44 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 45/55/65 Hayden Avenue Figure 15 Build Parking Demand by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. Traffic Impact & Access Study Lexington, Massachusetts Dwg No. 887 TIAS02.dwg Date: September 2017 Copyright 45 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 46 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 47 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc o o o o o o 48 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc 49 S:\\Projects\\887 - Lexington (King Street Properties)\\Documents\\887 TIAS02_Final.doc ARTICLE 17 AMEND ZONING BYLAW RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA MORATORIUM To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaws by adding a new Section 135-3.1.7, “Marijuana Establishment Temporary Moratorium,” or take any other action relative thereto: (Inserted by the Board of Selectmen) DESCRIPTION This article would implement a moratorium on recreational marijuana facilities in Lexington while the state clarifies a number of provisions in the legislation approved by the voters in 2016. By adopting a moratorium, the town will have time to review the scope and application of the amended legislation and make a recommendation to Town Meeting in the future. This requires a 2/3 majority vote. PROPOSED MOTION 3.1.7 Marijuana Establishment Temporary Moratorium. 1. Definition. “Marijuana establishment” shall mean “a marijuana cultivator, marijuana testing facility, marijuana product manufacturer, marijuana retailer or any other type of licensed marijuana-related business.” 2. Purpose. By vote at the State election on November 8, 2016, the voters of the Commonwealth approved a law entitled the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (the “Act”), regulating the control and production and distribution of marijuana under a system of licenses and regulations. Currently under the Zoning Bylaw, a Marijuana Retailer or Establishment is not a permitted use in the Town and any regulations promulgated by the Cannabis Control Commission are expected to provide guidance to the Town in regulating marijuana sales and distribution. The regulation of marijuana raises novel and complex legal, planning, and public safety issues and the Town needs time to study and consider the regulation of Marijuana Retail or Distribution centers and address such novel and complex issues, as well as to address the potential impact of the State regulations on local zoning and to undertake a planning process to consider amending the Zoning Bylaw regarding regulation of Marijuana Retail sales and distribution and other uses related to the regulation of marijuana. The Town intends to adopt a temporary moratorium on the use of land and structures in the Town for Marijuana Retail and Distribution so as to allow the Town sufficient time to engage in a planning process to address the effects of such structures and uses in the Town and to enact bylaws in a manner consistent with sound land use planning goals and objectives. 3. Temporary Moratorium. For the reasons set forth above and notwithstanding any other provision of the Zoning Bylaw to the contrary, the Town hereby adopts a temporary moratorium on the use of land or structures for “Marijuana Establishments.” The moratorium shall be in effect through December 31, 2018. During the moratorium period, the Town shall undertake a planning process to address the potential impacts of marijuana in the Town, consider the Cannabis Control Commission regulations regarding “Marijuana Establishments” and related uses, and shall consider adopting new Zoning Bylaws to address the impact and operation of Marijuana Establishments and related uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Ginna Johnson with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. Richard Canale was absent. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr. Henry provided a status update on the Comprehensive Plan and the creation of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. There are 32 applications that are a good mix for age and tenure in town. Staff should be ready to proceed with the good mix received but may want to do a little more targeted outreach to some to get a little more diversity and then hope to have a th draft charge ready by the August 30 meeting. Economic Development Strategies Memo: Ms. Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Land Use, updated the Board on the economic development presentation given to the Board of Selectmen. They were exploring reasons economic development is flat here and discussing ideas to increase development, for example creating another overlay district that would require a high-level transportation management and contributions to the transportation mitigation fund, greater FAR, and by right-mixed use developments. Upcoming Meetings and Anticipated Schedule: The TMMA is trying to set up meeting on Tuesday October 10 and the Board expects one warrant article for sure and are discussing whether to go for prohibitions or moratorium on recreational marijuana. Ms. Corocran-Ronchetti will not be here August 30. The 2020 Vision meeting on September 22 in the morning will be difficult for Mr. Hornig to attend but he will watch the tape. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ Oakmont Circle, ANR: The applicant has submitted a revised ANR plan that was approved before with a few minor dimensional changes and no material lot line changes. The reason for the dimensional change is to go from tenths to hundredths due to the adjoining registered land in Land Court. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 16, 2017 On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 4-0, that the Board voted to endorse the revised Approval Not Required plan, as required by Land Court. The proposed division of land shown on the revised plan does not constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law. Cedar Street Subdivision, proposed street names: This agenda item is an opportunity for the Board to continue its conversation from the last meeting regarding the proposed names for two new streets associated with the recently approved subdivision plans off of Cedar Street. Mr. Fred Gilgun, attorney and Ben Finnegan were concerned about safety approval for Wolf Tree and Poor Farm from Mr. Canale. Did Fire and Police approve? No concerns; both were fine. Mr. Finnegan was upset with the name Poor Farm Road. Board Comments: This site was never a part of the Poor Farm and the neighborhood had no problem with Penny Lane or Abbey Road. Ok with Wolf Tree Lane or Abbey Road. Prefer Penny Lane, Abbey Road or Powderhouse Lane Have issue with the names Penny Lane, Abbey Road, being pop culture and Poor Farm Road is inappropriate. Like Wolf Tree Lane and Farias Court. Mr. Finnegan said neighbors and landowners all liked the Abbey Road and Penny Lane. Power Court and Moore Lane were suggested, but they would have needed to be vetted by public safety. Audience Comments: Live nearby and know residents in the area and know they like Abbey Road and Penny Lane. Mr. Finnegan didnt know to bring neighbors in regarding the approval for the name. On a motion of Ms. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Creech, it was voted, 2-2, Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti and Mr. Hornig opposed) for Wolf Tree Lane for outer road and Farias Court for inner road. Motion failed for lack of a majority vote. On a motion of Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti for Abbey Road and Wolf Tree Lane. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Additional comments and public input for names will be considered by the Board. Minutes for the Meeting of August 16, 2017 Page 3 The applicant will be coming back on August 30 and will discuss further. Staff will send out a list of the proposed and approved names for the Board to show their preference for names. PUBLIC HEARING Brookhaven, site plan review: Vice Chair, Ms. Johnson, opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. with approximately 6 people in the audience. There were recent changes made to the proposed draft PSDUP based on comments received from the Conservation Commission. Engineering and Conservation staff are in the process of resolving some issues with the applicant associated with the placement of water utilities. Mr. Bill Daily, attorney, Mr. Jim Freehling, President/CEO, Mr. James Borrebach, civil engineer, Ms. Diane Duley, architect, Mr. Dave Fisher, landscape architect, were present. Mr. Daily said they will move ahead and plan to get started this fall. This is the same plan as before, but there are three items that needed tweaking, noise study, water looping, and work with engineering on handling the sewage from the project. The applicant would like to come back September 13 after meeting with Conservation Commission and have a resolution from Engineering. Mr. Borrebach presented a document showing a summary of changes to the plan approved at Annual Town Meeting 2017 and is posted in the meeting packet for the north building and the commons. Board and staff comments: The staff does recommend the changes, but the applicant should come back September 13 once they hear from Conservation. What is the action deadline for the July 25 submittal? September 23. Will the base of the proposed abutment be landscaped? Mr. Fisher said there is existing vehation that will screen the structure.. Audience comments: The closest abutter to this project asked for the access road to be moved a few more feet and gated, or a bump installed so people would will not shoot out too quickly. There was also concern expressed about the increase of impervious surface and its potential to flood nearby properties. Not sure the infiltration pond could handle a two year rainstorm and want another study done. The abutter also asked to put soundproofing up for the transformer. The Fire Department did not want a gate at the Waltham Street access, but instead will have signage and would consider a speed bump if the Fire and Police Departments would allow, but there are concerns that every minute counts in an Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 16, 2017 emergency. Mr. Borrebach will be meeting with Engineering and Conservation to discuss runoff and the transformer has sound proofing. There will be a grinder for sewage, but need to find a location. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to September 13, 7:00 45-65 Hayden Avenue, potential Planned Development District: Rob Albert, CEO King Street properties, Ed Grant, attorney, Doug Harnett, Highpoint Engineering, and Bill Harris and Derek Johnson, Perkins-Will, were present. Mr. Albert said their proposal was for an up-zoning of the site at this Fall Special Town Meeting. They presented the draft PSDUP and MOU to the Planning Board for comments. A public hearing on this proposal is planned for September 13. Special Town Meeting is expected to take up this item on October 16 or 18. The design has only one change since the last meeting, which is the garage. There has been discussion on the MOU and hope to have in stronger form within 7 to 10 days. The PSDUP will be filed next week and will run a list as they meet with each board and committee and then have an addendum to read through the changes in one place for the PSDUP. Staff wants to peer review for the traffic report and ask the Board to allow staff to set that up. Board Comments: The regulatory plan needs to cover the entire district, not pieces. Do not understand your accessory uses list; they should be listed as primary uses. Consult with staff. Check the uses in the zoning bylaw. Remove site coverage ratio as in the CM District. Why limit the If you are keeping the FAR and site coverage indicate how the lots would be divided up. In section 10.4 what are the rules for signs that you want? Make clearer. Mr. Grant sa accomplish that. If special permit relief is needed it can be combined with site plan review. Want to hear about the FAR from other Board members. that is not realistic. Receptive to increase to the FAR. Ms. Johnson wanted to alert the Board and audience that Mr. Harris was a client of hers in the past and filed appropriate papers with ethics committee. Minutes for the Meeting of August 16, 2017 Page 5 The height is raised by more than 20 feet which is a significant height difference; want to see documents. Mr. Albert said he has them and will show later. Concerned about the half story below grade because believe it will flood. Concerned about landscape plan want only native plants not decorative plantings. Want information on tree removal. Public parking for the trail heads will that continue? Public use of conservation land should be considered. Do not propose something that will not be built. Other projects have been able to mitigate the water and believe will be able to do that to prevent flooding. There will be swing spaces and allowed for the public parking. Bill Harris and Derek Johnson will submit an electronic set of the plans presented to staff to upload to packet for height construction from surrounding areas and preliminary site sections. Audience Comments: How large is this new parking garage in terms of cars? The new garage is 1,075 and displacing surface parking. Is there just one exit in the garage or alternate way to get out? They met with the Fire Chief about the exit and he did not object to the one exit as provided. Board Comments: Will the submission have a scope issue? Staff will pay close attention to this when the PSDUP is submitted. The required public hearing will be September 13 at 7:30 in the SMR with the PSDUP filed by August 23. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Board Reports: The timeline for the Turning Mill and Lockwood-Byron Road NCDs is for November 1 for a joint hearing with the Historic Commission and Planning Board. Want to make sure that this has been vetted completely so it is not unusable. The Planning Board should see the draft before it goes out to the public to make sure it is not a mess. Board and Committee Assignments: On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the assignments for liaisons listed on the Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Boards & Committees document. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of August 16, 2017 On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Bob Creech, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Ginna Johnson, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry and David Kucharsky present. Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti was absent. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** General Updates: Cedar Street Names will go next meeting at request of developer. Staff to send out materials before that meeting. Received plans for a site sensitive on Mass Avenue staff reviewing and will have for October 4 th. Also have street determination for 10 Rangeway. Applicant asking for waivers as a prior property on the roadway has done some of the work. Recreational Marijuana plan is BOS will propose a prohibition as a general bylaw. If that fails at TM then we will also be proposing a moratorium of the marijuana as a zoning. If prohibition passes then IP the bylaw. Richard - Prohibition requires majority vote while bylaw requires 2/3 vote. Charles - disagree with this approach. Why not have this bylaw replicate what the current medical marijuana states. Ginna Agree with strategy because we have not had public input. Allows us a better process to occur. Richard heard from public twice saying they do not support this use in the town Charles potentially another work item for Planning Board. Have a lot of other work to do. Did Selectmen close warrant yet? Not yet Two volunteers from Board to have meeting about commercial properties in Marrett Spring area. Using the plus one format to do this meeting. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Creech volunteered. New hire to announce at next meeting. Need to go through HR to formalize offer. Onboard soon. Very enthusiastic about this candidiate 25MPH speed has been lowered and will be effective this Friday. Education campaign to begin with role out. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 30, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr. Henry provided a status update on the Comprehensive plan and the creation of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. Looking through list of candidate now ***************UPCOMING MEETINGS, EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS************* Anticipated Meetings: Staff reviewed the upcoming meeting dates. Richard: Rumors that Town Meeting may go longer. Aaron: Will look into that Amend Subdivision & Zoning Regulations: Public Hearing Closed Chapter 175 subdivision regulations lower design speeds of collector roads removed piece and reference the same Require easements for public footpaths and roadways? Have to look at this *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ Updates on Potential NCDs: Turning Mill Neighborhood gave presentation of where study committee is and get feedback from Planning Board members. Gave short report and accomplishments, reviewed timeline and hear from the Planning Board. Very little modifications made to the homes to alter their overall character of the neighborhood. Many trails in the area which allowed committee to walk through the identified district. Will need to coordinate 2 joint meetings in November. NCD Area is identified on the Map but may not include all of the properties located within the construction (21 and Dewey). Minutes for the Meeting of August 30, 2017 Page 3 Charles reviewed his comments. Presenter: Should guidelines be included in the Bylaw? Yes but it should be clarified that they are standards. Other members provided their input and language suggestions. Before send to Town Counsel can you send to staff to make sure we can look through as well. Beth Zonis (4 Guld Rd) appreciate reading this and ensuring it is as inclusive as possible to make residents feel comfortable about opting into this. Perhaps show photos of the homes and the types of tree species used for screening. Is that something that can be placed in the bylaw? Richard Committee is putting together a report which documents the district and the bylaw which explains how it will executed. Charles - Are we speaking about Byron as well. Are they are on the same time line. Will we still be able to see them prior and have a similar discussion. Richard they have a draft report. Their area is smaller and looking for less regulation than Turning Mill. Many properties there are also in the Historic District. They hope to have their st hearing on the 1 as well. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Board Member reports: Richard MAPC organized site visit to a senior housing in Carlisle. 27 units 65 and above about 1/3 reserved for 30% AMI and 1/3 60% AMI and 1/3 100% AMI PB met with BOS to discuss potential workplan for Spring Town Meeting related to economic development. Selectmen identified two participants and we will do the same. How do we view this work? Is it part of Comp Plan are something else? Charles overlaps where we can coordinate the data gathering to inform both as part of plan but a continuation of the work we have already been doing over last several years. Ginna should we postpone the Comp Plan? Do we have enough staff to do both of these initiatives? TM will want all of the data to make their decision. Richard King Street sponsored an open meeting and invited residents. Folks present seemed OK with proposal but main concerns were traffic. 1200 additional trips per day. If whole area increased to .9 what would occur. We said we wanted to pair-down our work plan to concentrate on the comp plan. What if citizen article comes along that wants to address cluster housing we will need to develop an article. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 30, 2017 what the effects are if we move forward with this particular proposal. The commercial development should be part of comp plan. Bob Creech BOS are intent on bringing additional revenue into the Town. Was not aware of TMOD which has not been done. Charles - Pick two representatives to participate this effort Ginna establish a process and schedule which identifies milestones for the Comp Plan Richard ve data collection right away. Aaron - Was requested that committee be involved with selection of outreach facilitator. Bob increasing the GFA and not having over sight over development. By right does not allow opportunity to help How will data collection to identified impacts be paid for. Possibly comp plan and other funds but that has not been determined yet. Richard propose Charles and Ginna are the reps. Yes Minutes Review and Approval: 8-16-17 Minutes were revised and approved Charles moved to approve minutes Ginna seconded On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Minutes for the Meeting of August 30, 2017 Page 5 Bob Creech, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in , was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Ginna Johnson, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** General Updates: Mr. Kucharsky gave an update on TSG meeting agenda for tomorrow. They will be looking at the speed limit on Spring Street, electronic bicycles, and other safety requests. Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr. Henry provided a status update on the Comprehensive plan and he and Ms. Kowalski will be convening the screening group. ***************UPCOMING MEETINGS, EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS************* Anticipated Meetings: September 27, will be the continued the public hearings, recreational marijuana moratorium to be used if Town meeting does not ban recreational marijuana. The Board will need to wrap up everything for Town Meeting. October 4, have recommendations ready for those articles. There is some development items 1106 Massachusetts Avenue, a sketch SSD and 10 Rangeway private way street determination. There are two other possible street determinations. The meeting for the rest of the year are on November 1, 15, 29 and December 13. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ Cedar Street Subdivision-Proposed Street names: The Board was going to determine street names and staff advised the Board that public safety said the Abbey Road name was too close to Abbott Road. This item will be heard in two weeks and there would be no discussion tonight. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 13, 2017 PUBLIC HEARINGS Brookhaven, Site Plan Review: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the continued public hearing at 7:10 p.m. with approximately 7 people in the audience. Mr. Canale has certified that he watched the meeting so can vote on the plan by using the Mullins Rule Statute. Present were Mr. William Dailey, attorney, Jeanne Krieger, Member of the Board of Trustees, Ed Grant, attorney Mr. James Freehling, CEO. Mr. Daley said they met with the Conservation Commission and the public hearing has been closed. There were two issues: Consider changing the issuance of the building permit to the certificate of occupancy regarding public access to the trail. Will work with public safety on where to put the gate, bollards, or speed bumps. Mr. Henry said there was already a gate and public access will need to be agreed upon. Board Comments: In the draft decision special condition 5 is not necessary since it is covered in section 4e in the MOA. Could do a separate MOA or subject to occupancy would be satisfactory. Does Conservation feel 4e is not satisfactory? They were concerned since it was out of their jurisdiction and after speaking with Town Counsel believed an easement would be the best instrument. Condition 5 the wording would be tied to CO not building permits. Mr. Grant said the MOA is enforceable by the Town. This should be about the implementation not the instrument. It should address how and by when for occupancy. Location of the bollards being pushed back is not an issue. Is it possible to meet public safety in the current site design to get the trucks in and off the street? Special condition 3 should not include at the new curb cut. Public comments: Concerned about the existing trail that has a sign for employees only and would like to see parking lot open to the public to allow public access to the trail system. The trail is always open and the sign is just let employees know where to park. Want staff to park there and not to prevent public access. Will add a sign that says the trail access is open to public. Minutes for the Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 3 The resident spoke with an assistant fire chief regarding the access road and believed this warranted a locked gate. The placement of bollards will be determined with input from public safety officials to address access of this road. If there is a problem with residents abusing the access road public safety in the future and come back to the Board to revisit that issue. Mr. Dailey said if there is an issue it would be address immediately. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted 5-0, to close the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the draft decision as amended. *************************SPECIAL TOWN MEETING***************************** PUBLIC HEARING 45-65 Hayden Avenue, Planned Development District: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. with approximately 6 people in the audience. Present were Mr. Thomas Ragnau, principal and CEO of King Street Properties and Mr. Robert Albro, managing director. Mr. Albro said this is to propose a new building that would be 75 Hayden a multiple tenant building, Merck will vacate in two years and will have the building available and the applicant wants this to be a premier life science campus. Taking advantage of Hayden Woods, a café area open to the public and encourage people to stay, including bike storage and amenities. There would be a garage building built on top of the existing surface parking. Bill Harris of Highpoint Engineering, Rick Cue and Derek Johnson of Perkins and Will presented the plans and how the scale of the new buildings is consistent with the existing structures. The new lab/office building will be 57 feet 65 Hayden Avenue is 58 feet high. Mr. Albro presented the project benefits fiscally, environmentally, for town residents, recreation and infrastructure, the addition of 1.65 acres of restricted conservation land which will be in the MOU, and a shuttle bus stop on site and PTMD plan. Board Comments: The petition to change zoning should include how it would be used. The traffic study was peer reviewed by Howard Stein Hudson and MDM is working on addressing the issues listed. Staff will get the information to the Board as soon as possible. The café/meeting room access for the public where would they park and would it be during the day? Open during business hours and residents could use evenings and weekends. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 13, 2017 Where is the conservation restriction? Doug Harnett of Highpoint Engineering showed where that land was. Want the number and caliper inches of trees that will be removed and added. Can the double stacked parking be removed? numbers work. Where is snow storage? When done will have signs at the edge of the road. The final plan is not done. Please share with the Planning Board when it is done. Have concern about the number of cars exiting the garage. What is the traffic mitigation for the 560 additional cars so they can exit? Provide two exit lanes to prevent queing. Bob Michaud of MDM said the volume of traffic on Hayden Avenue does not require more. Height parking garage is 87.5 feet. Make sure the rules cover the entire site. There are things in the traffic study that need to be changed regarding the traffic police. Since this site is adjacent to conservation land ask plant schedule and seed mixes be from Massachusetts and native to Middlesex County. Some things in the report anticipate extended business hours is that the case? This type of space have varying hours and the buildings run 24 hours. How will the zoning allocate any extra space transferred during subdivision? Peter Tamm, co-counsel, said this provides flexibility to allow for sale in the future to make sure it remains compliant in the future. The overall GFA would be capped. If overall who would get to do those changes for amenities? We would have to give this number in the future and we will look at it to make the allocation clear. Are there public easements to park by the Hayden Woods to allow public access? This will be addressed in the future and has been expressed in the existing MOU. We can have it similar to Brookhaven. Make sure you request only what you need not more so the dimensions match. Traffic concerns are a major issue with how many cars are going through the Lexington Center. You need to ensure a balance for quality life for the Town. Do what you can to assure Town Meeting and residents that this will not be dooms day for traffic. Missing from the draft MOU is the provisions in the mitigation packet to treat all employees equitably for different modes of transportation. Minutes for the Meeting of September 13, 2017 Page 5 The zoning proposal has two special conditions referencing the PTDM and the MOU which should be redrafted. Whats the qualification for 100% reimbursement? Mr. Michaud said he was working with the applicant on the language meaning you come to the site three times a week and be a full time employees. Public Comments: Concerned about losing parking spaces anywhere in the parking area. What is being proposed now could prohibit walking in the woods and there should be at least a dozen parking spaces provided in perpetuity. The Waltham Street / Hayden Avenue intersection is a problem even in the middle of the day. It may need a traffic signal how does that work? Are you using permeable pavement? Yes in several areas and adding more except where there is parking. Appreciated the outreach to the South Lexington Civic Association. Concerned was expressed that South Lexington is absorbing most of the commercial development, but the monies should be used to improve south Lexington not elsewhere. Make sure to give the improvements to south Lexington. After 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon Waltham Street becomes a parking lot. Would like to hear from the Town how they will implement what was studied. Send comments to staff and this needs to be completed by the next meeting and if there are any issues please advise staff right away. Staff requested that the applicant send all documents in pieces if need be and they will be forwarded to the Board as they are received. On a motion made Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 27 in the SMR at 7:00 p.m. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Board Member reports: The Turning Mill NCD is meeting on Thursday. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Bob Creech, Clerk