Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-26-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2020 Held on March 26, 2020, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:00pm Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Charles Hornig, Vice-Chair; Robert Peters, Clerk; Ginna Johnson; and Richard Canale. Also, present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director Robert Creech, Chair, read the agenda into the record, introduced members of the Planning Board and Planning Department Staff, and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 26, 2020. Mr. Creech read the following statement relative to the recent outbreak of COVID-19. Good evening. This meeting of the Lexington Planning Board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker’s Executive Order of March 12, 2020, due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID-19. In order to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings, and as such, the Governor’s Order suspends the requirement of the Open Meeting Law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. The Order, which you can find posted with agenda materials for this meeting allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment. For this meeting, the Lexington Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the Town’s Website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded, and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, and that take care not to “screen share” your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Development Administration 1. 91 Hartwell Avenue, Site Plan Review with Special Permits Robert Creech, Chair opened the public hearing for the Site Plan Review with Special Permits for the property at 91 Hartwell Avenue and then requested a presentation from the Applicant. Present for the Public Hearing: Attorney Ed Grant; Eric Joseph, Paul Finger Associates Inc.; David Godfroy, Dimella Shaffer; Shaun Kelly, Vanasse & Associates, Inc.; John Cappellano, Lincoln Property Company; Michael Foster, Lincoln Property Company; Paul Finger, Paul Finger Associates Inc. Attorney Grant introduced members of the project team to the Planning Board. Attorney Grant provided a statement of appreciation for the ability to conduct a test run prior to today’s public hearing. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 26, 2020 Attorney Grant provided a brief overview of the project, which included a review of past permitting activities and uses of the site, history of ownership of the property, in addition to a review of the existing conditions. Attorney Grant further discussed several meetings that took place with the Town prior to the submittal of the Application to the Planning Board. It was noted that such discussions commenced in February of 2019. Additionally, Attorney Grant further discussed the challenges with the property and how the project would improve overall conditions for the property. It was noted that the project requires review by the Conservation Commission, and that a peer reviewer had been retained by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Joseph provided a review of the site, which included an in-depth look at the site’s existing conditions, the location of the property, wetlands and flood plan boundaries, site circulation, traffic, and uses of the property. Mr. Joseph discussed several meetings with various municipal departments, which included the Fire Department, Conservation Commission, and Department of Public Works. Mr. Joseph stated that the project was designed to have a campus look and feel. Mr. Joseph provided an in-depth review of the proposed stormwater system, in addition to how the project will manage waters from flooding. Mr. Godfroy provided a review of the proposed conditions, which supports the proposed design of the project. Mr. Godfroy provided an in-depth review of the proposed off-street parking garage and office building. Mr. Joseph provided a recap of the presentation, which included a list of benefits the project will provide. Such benefits include improved circulation, street scape improvements, increased buffer areas between existing wetlands and existing off-street parking, stormwater quality improvements, greater flood water storage on-site. Mr. Creech requested comments from members of the Planning Board. The Planning Board provided the following comments.  Richard Canale stated his confusion about the proposed project and where it is in the review process, whether the Planning Board missed a sketch plan. Attorney Grant provided an overview of the proposed filing of the project. Attorney Grant further stated that the Conservation Commission was instrumental for the filing of the project as presented and that the Applicant Team has their next meeting with the Conservation Commission on April 21. He was confident that all of the Conservation Commission’s requirements had been addresses in the plans.  Mr. Canale requested clarification as to who the users that would occupy the new structure would be. Mr. Finger stated that the ideal tenants would be a lab use, in that most lab users have an office component. It was noted that many lab uses have office space elsewhere within the area. Mr. Godfroy further contributed to the discussion, in that the proposed building is intended for lab, and the existing structure would be office space. Mr. Canale requested clarification about traffic and access to the property. Mr. Joseph provided a brief review as to how vehicles would access the property. Mr. Canale Minutes for the Meeting of March 26, 2020 Page 3 questioned how the project would be able to control traffic. Mr. Canale stated that surface parking should be further evaluated to reduce such off-street parking.  Charles Hornig requested clarification as to what relief the project was requesting. Attorney Grant provided a review of all relief requested by the Applicant.  Ginna Johnson stated her appreciation for the interdisciplinary actions taken by the project team. Ms. Johnson complimented the project team on the proposed architecture, in addition to the choices of materials utilized throughout the project. Ms. Johnson requested clarification regarding several plan notes near the roadways on the site plans. Mr. Joseph stated that the project proposed to retain the exiting trees and would be installing wells for protection. Ms. Johnson questioned if the applicant could incorporate a shared trail, along with a boardwalk feature, if allowed by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Johnson questioned if the applicant could review and potentially revise the dead-end driveway.  Robert Peters requested clarification regarding the buildout and phasing of the project. Mr. Peters questioned if the project would be incorporating or considering solar as part of the project, understanding that the project could potentially be under the aviation easement. Mr. Peters stated that he had read in the transportation plan, noting that the plan proposed significant considerations for bicycles. However, the plan did not see any reference to encourage people to use public transportation. Mr. Peters requested clarification for this, and how such off-street parking would be used and managed.  Mr. Creech said that the design was much more interesting than a rectangular building would be. Further, he agreed that it looked and felt like a campus and that he thought that the proposed traffic circulation would work with the campus layout. He also asked about covering the garage with solar panels. The response was that the height restriction dictated by the Hanscom avigation would not permit solar panels on the garage. Mr. Creech said he would still like to see solar panels on a roof on the campus and asked the Applicant not to give up on solar.  Mr. Canale stated the submitted Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan did not meet the requirements of the TMOD for this district. He expects that it will be modified to meet the requirements, especially as this project requires a Special Permit. Mr. Creech opened the floor for public comment. No public comment was provided. The Planning Board and the project team discussed next steps for the project, which included a conversation about the peer review contracted by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Hornig discussed the potential for redesigning Hartwell Avenue, which included a review of Annual Town Meeting efforts. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 7:00pm. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0. MOTION PASSED 2. 11 Pelham Road, Definitive Conventional Subdivision Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 26, 2020 Robert Creech, Chair opened the public hearing for the Definitive Conventional Subdivision for the property at 11 Pelham Road and then requested a presentation from the Applicant. Present for the Public Hearing: Michael Capachietti, EIT, Meridian Associates; Dick Perry; Richard Perry; and Rich DeAngelis, Boston Properties. Mr. Capachietti provided a brief review of the proposed subdivision plan, which is shown on the February 11, 2020 site plans. Mr. Capachietti walked the Planning Board through the existing conditions, the layout of the four (4) lots, the cul-de-sac, infrastructure, street trees, in addition to additional site improvements. Mr. Creech requested comments from members of the Planning Board. The Planning Board provided the following comments.  Richard Canale stated that he did not have any questions at this time. Mr. Capachietti stated that this was once 6 Elliot Street, by was later subdivided off.  Robert Peters requested clarification as to where this property is located.  Ginna Johnson requested clarification regarding tree removal and replacement. Ms. Johnson further questioned if the Applicant would be mitigating for the loss of the trees on the property.  Charles Hornig requested clarification regarding the requested water system waiver. Mr. Hornig stated that, although this is not the project he would like to see, the project does appear to meet the guidelines for such project.  Mr. Creech requested clarifications regarding where the fill would be located in the property. The fill had to do with the old foundation cavity. Mr. Creech opened the floor for public comments. The following comments were provided.  A request for clarification as to what the proposed structures would look like and is such architecture available for review by the public.  A question regarding the installation of a sidewalk and parking in the cul de sac area. It was noted that there is a real parking issue on Pelham and would residents be able to park in the cul de sac. The Applicant stated that that was not the idea.  A request for clarification as to whether the beech tree in the upper left corner of the plan would be preserved. The Applicant has had the tree pruned and will preserve the tree if at all possible.  A request for clarification regarding the number of houses that are being proposed. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to April 7, 2020 at 7:00pm. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 via roll call (Robert Peters – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech – yes) MOTION PASSED Board Administration 1. Review and approval of Annual Town Meeting Reports Articles 2 and 42 Annual Town Meeting Reports will be reviewed on Tuesday, April 7, 2020. 2. Board Member and Staff Updates  Richard Canale provided a review of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting. It was noted that noted that the group voted to release a draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Several projects in the draft TIP were large, costing approximately $25,000,000. Therefore, it was noted that said large scale Minutes for the Meeting of March 26, 2020 Page 5 projects would be put on the long range plan. Mr. Canale provided a review of implications causing large projects to move backwards. Adjournment Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board vote to adjourn. Ginna Johnson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 via roll call (Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; and Robert Creech - yes ) MOTION PASSED The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 91 Hartwell Avenue:  Application packet dated 2.7.20 (32 Pages).  Appendix A dated 2.7.20 (12 Pages).  Appendix B Transportation Impact Assessment dated 2/2020 (224 Pages).  Appendix C Utilities and Flood Plain Memorandum dated 2.7.20 (4 Pages).  Appendix D Notice of Intent dated 1.20.20 (24 Pages).  Appendix E Stormwater Management Report dated 2.7.20 (272 Pages).  Site Plans dated 2.7.20 (28 Pages).  Turning Movement Plan (1 Page). 11 Pelham Road:  Application Pelham/Beechtree Lane) dated 2.11.20 (9 Pages).  Stormwater Management dated 1.21.20 (130 Pages).  Site Plans dated 2.11.20 (10 Pages).  Cover Letter dated 2.11.20 (2 Pages). Robert Peters, Clerk of the Planning Board