Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-26-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 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, Canale, Hornig and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. **********************************TOWN MEETING*********************************** PUBLIC HEARING Cubist, sketch plan for amended PSDUP: Mr. Robert Buckley, attorney, David McGirr CFO of Cubist, Michael Bonney, President and CEO of Cubist, Doug Hartnett, civil engineer, and Robert Michaud, traffic engineer were present. Mr. Buckley said the CD zone created in 1998 was divided into two parcels with separate ownership. The site (parcel A) with buildings 45 & 55 Hayden Avenue is owned by TA, Inc. and the greater part of it leased to Cubist. The site (parcel B) with building 65 Hayden Avenue is owned by Cubist. The proposed changes would apply to the entire site but new construction would occur only on Parcel B. Mr. Buckley explained that any future increase in density on the site would require going back to Town Meeting. The uses would be refined, the drainage system would be enhanced to meet current storm water standards and Cubist would continue to commit to transportation demand management (TDM). Mr. Hartnett said the proposal included a five-level garage with a pedestrian bridge that would be built over the current ground level parking on Parcel B. The storm water mitigations would be brought up to today’s standards and the sewer easement would be modified. The sewer and water system capacities are more then adequate for the proposed additions. Mr. Michaud said the traffic evaluation was done conservatively, based on numbers for office space rather than research and development, although R&D was the expected use for additional square footage, and could be taken in context with other developments in the area. Mr. Buckley said the following would be project benefits: ? Generation of $300,000 in building permit fees within the next 12 to18 months; ? Net fiscal benefit of $500,000 in new taxes annually; ? Create a significant number of permanent professional jobs and some temporary construction jobs; ? Continuation of contributions to Hayden Woods and Lexpress; and 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 26, 2009 Page ? Encourage the growth of an early biotech company in Lexington. Mr. Connery explained the methodology for determining the fiscal impact and how it was consistent with previous projects. Mr. Buckley said that there was an active website to obtain information presented at tonight’s meeting, which was www.cubistlexingtondevelopment.com. Board Comments and Questions: ? Would like to see it happen, but uncomfortable with the split of parcels A & B with regards to the dimensional standards. ? The maximum height definition had been updated and the current definition should be incorporated into the amended PSDUP. ? Illumination should refer to the zoning bylaws for consistency but should not supercede present conditions. ? When referring to parcel A & B use the numbers listed previously. ? Only TDM measures were listed, but there should be a mitigation package included proportional to LTP. Mr. Buckley said they intend to do that after the peer review. ? There were concerns regarding dimensional standards; include all numbers for the existing and the proposed. ? Would storm water improvements be made on the whole site? No, only parcel B. ? If there would be no additional traffic why is extra parking needed? Mr. Buckley said that there was currently a cross agreement to use the parking on the other parcel as long as they were a tenant and if that changed, they needed to preserve the ability to supply parking on their parcel. ? The Planning Board was the special permit granting authority (SPGA) on this site after the original CD rezoning, but the ZBA is listed as the SPGA in the amendment. Staff should check with Town Counsel and get in writing if the Planning Board can not continue as the SPGA. ? How would the project proceed since the site was almost at capacity now? Mr. Buckley said the changes would be detailed in the definitive plan. ? What measure would be used to determine if the project would be LEED certified? Mr. Hartnett said there was a checklist and an internal audit would be done to see what level of LEED certification it would qualify for. Audience Comments: ? There were misgivings about separating the two parcels. Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of August 26, 2009 ? What would the parking garage look like from Hayden Woods? There was nothing preventing listing the materials that would be used from being included in the PSDUP. ? Did the fiscal impact assume that the parking garage would be built? Mr. Connery said yes, but would only account for approximately 1% or $5,000. ? The FAR for the entire site would be increasing from .185 to .26 while the FAR for only parcel B would increase from .17 to .37. By splitting into two parcels it allowed for the possibility of the second parcel to come back and request an increase to a .37 FAR, which would much higher then anything else granted. ? On computing the costs to the Town why not include all the expenses except school such as DPW? Mr. Connery explained the building already existed, all services done would be private and water and sewer were pay as you go. The police and fire departments costs were the only municipal services that would be used. ? Every development would have an incremental impact and should all be taken as part of a whole district like on the Hartwell Avenue TMOD. ? The fiscal impact did not include capital, water and sewer impacts. A formal report should be done addressing that before going ahead with this project. Board Comments: There should be a site visit for the Planning Board scheduled. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to October 7 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************ Site Plan Review: The Planning Board discussed modifications to the draft Rules and Regulations Governing Site Plan Review. Rewording, definitions and notification changes were discussed and also adding back some of the changes by staff and Board members that were left out of the 8/25/09 version. ********************************OLD BUSINESS************************************** Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): The Planning Board would submit a letter to the Board of Selectmen with the comments and additions that had been incorporated to the MOU template for the CD rezoning process. Traffic Calming: Ms. McCall-Taylor said there was some confusion as to what action had been taken on this subject at last week’s meeting. The majority of Mr. Canale’s edits were helpful and had been incorporated into the 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 26, 2009 Page proposed policy. Mr. Canale made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Board of Selectmen adopt the traffic calming policy with his edits. The motion failed for lack of a second. A draft letter would be prepared by staff to submit to the Board of Selectmen and discussed further at the next Planning Board meeting. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** The minutes for August 19, 2009 were deferred to the next meeting. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE ********************* September 9 is the continued public hearing for Lexington Technology Park, September 10 the TMOD kickoff for businesses and residents. Staff would try to schedule the 171 Woburn Street and Cubist site walks for September 12. Board members should e-mail their availability to staff. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk