Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-29-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 29, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Hornig, and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Kaufman present. Mr. Canale and Mr. Galaitsis were absent. **********************************TOWN MEETING*********************************** PUBLIC HEARING Lexington Technology Park: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order on Lexington Technology Park at 7:30 p.m. There will be a series of public hearings tentatively scheduled on this matter for 9/9/09, 10/7/09, and 10/14/09 depending on how it goes. There were approximately 20 people in the audience. In attendance was the development team consisting of Robert Buckley and Ethan Solomon of Reimer and Braunstein, Phillip Pennellatore and Adam Bickelman consultants with Patriot Partners, Brian Lawlor of SMMA, and Rick Bryant of Tetra Tech Rizzo. Mr. Buckley said that Patriot Partners were looking to amend the PSDUP for Lexington Technology Park approved by Town Meeting 2004. The proposed changes would include the following: ?? The removal of some uses by right and special permit; ?? The increase of net square footage from 505,800 to 806,555; ?? The increase of the maximum building height from 54.5 feet to 68 feet; and ?? The increase of parking spaces from 1,903 to 2,465. Mr. Buckley discussed some tax benefits and additional benefits to Lexington outlined in the memorandum of understanding (MOU). Mr. Bryant discussed the traffic issues and said there were five updated traffic reports since 2003. They added three intersections to the study based on a list received from concerned citizens. The numbers forecasted in the reports were higher than what was actually occurring. The mitigation package would include funds to help analyze the data so as to identify the potential uses for the mitigation monies. Board Comments: ?? In section II (A) there was an objection to importing permitted uses of another zone (Regional Office CRO into this CD zone for future potential changes. ?? Physical changes to the intersections need to be discussed and a level of comfort would have to be determined with the changes. 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 29, 2009 Page ?? The change in the PSDUP should be for the whole development and not different CD zone’s for each lot on the site. ?? There is a peer review regarding the two impact studies from LTP and Cubist which would take approximately three weeks to complete. It is an opportunity to look at the area in its totality. ?? Is the traffic study requirement a part of the MEPA review process? Mr. Buckley explained, MEPA would scope the impacts on the environment based on data submitted and would review the submission and may want supplemental materials or accept the report as is. The scoping session would be done in a public session allowing the Town Boards and surrounding towns to give input at those sessions. ?? Would the landscape buffer regarding visibility of the garage be detailed in the PSDUP or the DSDUP? Mr. Buckley said it would be in the PSDUP as an obligation but the final articulations should wait for the DSDUP to allow working with abutters after Labor Day. ?? With regard to the trail would the applicant be doing the design of the plan or only offering the easement. Mr. Buckley responded they would do the plan since it must be safe and for security reasons. ?? The list of uses in 3.3 mentions medical offices, but does not allow clinics. Mr. Buckley stated that was to allow for flexibility in changing times. No clinics would be allowed, but it would allow for medical testing. ?? Could the building footprints be anywhere within the building envelope? Mr. Buckley said yes to allow for flexibility. ?? The Design Advisory Committee should be involved for guidelines and to address possible issues. ?? Board would like to see the uses tabulated in language and numeration as it appears in the zoning bylaw Audience Comments: ?? The current traffic study was all based on biomanufacturing use, but if some office use, what would be the mix? There was no manufacturing use now and were currently using ITE statistics. ?? Would the Massachusetts Highway Department permit request be an opportunity to get state and federal monies if needed to improve traffic mitigation? Mr. Buckley said that the permit request filed with MEPA would require The Massachusetts Highway Department to issue a 61 finding, which would outline mitigation and be incorporated as a condition. Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of July 29, 2009 ?? On the PSDUP section 4-B paragraph 3 about setback rules with new parking would the new landscape requirements apply to the perimeter lines. Mr. Buckley said it would apply only to the internal lines. ?? Would the available mitigations be enough to handle the additional traffic? ?? Traffic during recession and the summer reflects reduced numbers and how were these lower numbers being adjusted? The data collected was in 2008 and not during the summer months, which was prior to the full impact of the recession. Also the Beal study was used. The Massachusetts Highway Department had permanent and on-going traffic counts. ?? We are not impressed by assurances that are not written and would like built in protections for changes of use requirements. ?? If MEPA said that certain things must be done would that come out of the MOU funds? Mr. Buckley said in the past it had come out of the applicant’s pocket after the funds had been depleted. The Town has the discretion to determine what the MOU funds could be used for. ?? Would there be any changes from the previous proposal in projected tax revenue? Mr. Buckley said there was an increase in the net revenue from $1,600,000 to $2,300,000. Would there be any changes to the funding in the MOU? Mr. Buckley said not as submitted. Regarding the traffic study it was estimated that 60% of traffic was from Route 2, but there was no direct access from Route 2 to the property site so there would be discharge on to the streets that do access the property. Board comments: The Board revisited the list comments cited in the early part of the meeting with the intent it serve as a guide for the applicant in its subsequent filing revisions. The list of comments from the Board would be compiled and sent to the applicant on this development. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 9 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ************************* SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** Rolfe Lane, Street Determination: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, that the Planning Board had determined that Rolfe Lane in the vicinity of 8 Rolfe Lane, was presently of adequate grade and construction having sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 29, 2009 Page the needs of the vehicular traffic in relation to the use of the abutting land, and for the installation of municipal services to serve such land and the building to be erected thereon. Blueberry Lane update: At the last meeting the Board encouraged the applicant to file a site sensitive development (SSD), but the applicant was reluctant to seek a special permit which is subject to appeal as opposed to a by right conventional plan. The applicant wanted a conventional plan with waivers, which the Board was reluctant to approve since a SSD was available. The Board felt that the applicant could file both a SSD and conventional plan at the same time so if the SSD was appealed they have a conventional plan to fall back on. *********************************SITE PLAN REVIEW********************************* Planning Board Working Group standing meetings: The meetings were scheduled for Thursday mornings at 8:30 a.m. in the planning office. Rules and Regulations: The Board reviewed and discussed briefly the draft proposed by the consultant with staff modifications and some minor modifications were suggested. Performance Standards: The document was distributed for the Board to review and any modifications should be made with the name of the reviewer and the date modified to prevent confusion of multiple circulating copies. ****************************************TRAFFIC************************************ Traffic Calming Policy: Mr. Canale was the author of the majority of the edits and was not present. The final review of the policy was deferred to August 19 when he returns. TMOD Transportation Plan: The consultant suggested that instead of working groups for the TMOD the Board should have open meetings. Suggestions for additional outreach may include distribution of a calendar to the TMMA in advance with the date and times for the meetings and post it on the website, and publishing upcoming calendar events on the weekly PB agenda within the page footer. Article XII and CB Zone: The current standard to bring the intersection to a level of service D was not appropriate and would make it difficult to tenant the buildings in the Center. The CB District could be exempt from traffic section. If a TMOD were done for the Center it would address that issue. What was trying to be protected needed to be determined. This section discusses what generates traffic and then stops development. The CB District could be exempted and then the Board could return at a later date to Page 5 Minutes for the Meeting of July 29, 2009 reform section XII, since there was no time to address it by the special Town Meeting in the fall. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of the minutes for June 24 and July 8 was deferred to the next meeting. **********************************STAFF REPORTS*********************************** Green Communities: Ms. Jeanne Krieger, Board of Selectmen explained that the Green Communities Division was making planning assistance available for communities wishing to be designated as Green Communities. Green Communities would be eligible for up to $10,000,000 annually in grant funding to cities and towns that meet specific criteria. Ms. Krieger said that this would be an excellent program for Lexington, and the Board of Selectmen would like the endorsement of the Planning Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, that the Planning Board supported the Town of Lexington’s application to the Green Communities Grant Program offered by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and recommended that the town move forward on the grant application. The Board would support attempts to meet all of the requirements necessary to become a Green Community. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk