Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 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 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Galaitsis, Hornig and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Canale has recused himself from consideration of the Lexington Technology Park application since he was an abutter to an abutter. He joined the meeting in progress. ***********************************TOWN MEETING********************************** PUBLIC HEARING Patriot Partners, Lexington Technology Park: Mr. Zurlo called to order the continued public hearing for Lexington Technology Park at 7:32 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in the audience. In attendance was the development team consisting of Steven Rice, Robert Buckley and Ethan Solomon of Reimer and Braunstein, and Rick Bryant of Tetra Tech Rizzo. Mr. Buckley said that the PSDUP was revised and included clarification of uses concerning in/out patient treatment centers, traffic, and the MOU was revised regarding the CPI adjustment for the mitigation payments. Also being addressed were abutters’ concerns regarding the current exhaust fans on the site, which would be remediated, the height on the southerly side of Patriot’s Way with screening up to 25 feet and up to 35 feet for the exhaust. Board Comments: ? The MOU had been revised since the Board raised issues regarding clarity. ? For Building 100, the height could go up to 68 feet and up to 103 feet including the mechanicals? Yes. ? Was there a meeting with DAC? It was scheduled for that evening.. Audience Comments: ? What is the height of the building at 125 Spring Street? It is two stories and 35 feet high. The height could be increased to 45 feet and 35 feet for the stacks? The building height would not be changed, but would allow for 60% covering for roof mechanicals and an additional five feet of height for screening. ? Could the ZBA approve a higher maximum without a public hearing? No, it would need a variance and would require a public hearing. ? There was a good meeting with applicants and abutters, but if something was not included in the PSDUP it may never happen. The PSDUP would need to address the use of non-reflective 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 7, 2009 Page materials, automated shades and make sure that lights from the garage and the cars entering and exiting from the garage would not shine into the abutting residents windows. A model showing the relative heights should be produced. ? The noise was a real concern and with two additional buildings would increase and therefore it would need to be in writing that the noise level would not cross property lines. There must be language stating what the design needed to achieve. Mr. Buckley agreed language to address these issues would be incorporated and completed by the next meeting. ? The noise covenant should apply to all uses on the site, not just manufacturing. ? Because of the traffic, Spring Street and Shade Street need special consideration. ? The Beal Company had agreed to do things in the past and it came out that they had not been done until they wanted to increase development on their site. ? The lack of an overall plan to address traffic and this piecemeal approach would only make an intolerable situation worse. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Mr. Canale joined the meeting in progress. The Lexington Center Committee, proposed zoning changes: Mr. Howard Levine explained the edited proposed zoning changes for the Lexington Center to the Board, which incorporate some of the Board’s input. Some language was dropped or edited, indoor athletic use parking spaces, and store front changes were some of the updates presented. The Board expressed concerns about the rationale for changing the storefront requirements and its possible consequences. There was also some opposition to office space on the street level. The Center Committee will be back on October 21 for the public hearing on the proposed changes. There is a Center Committee Meeting on Thursday October 15 at 8:00 a.m. in room G-15. PUBLIC HEARING Cubist, amended PSDUP: Mr. Zurlo called to order the continued public hearing for Cubist at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Robert Buckley, attorney, David McGirr, CFO of Cubist, Doug Hartnett, civil engineer, and Robert Michaud, traffic engineer were present. Mr. Howard Muise of VHB who had been hired by the Town to do a peer review of the traffic study was also present. Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of October 7, 2009 Mr. Buckley said the revised PSDUP had been filed that day. Town Counsel would receive a draft of the MOU, which would follow the same template. The seven story parking structure would not be pursued, but instead a five and one half story structure with 300 spaces was proposed and the MOU would be redrafted to reflect that change. The applicant requested the continuation of the public hearing in order to allow for review of this document. Since the last presentation the traffic was evaluated within the context of the other developments and still fell within the impacts allowed in the original permits. There was no material change in the level of service at the intersections studied and the largest delays occurred at the driveway itself. There would be an increase of 220 parking spaces on the site. Board Comments and Questions: ? Data would be needed showing the total impact on traffic from all developments. ? How high would the five and one half stories be? 68 feet with a zoning requirement allowing 70 feet. ? The annual Transportation Monitoring report was informative; was there fleshing out of the TDM program requirements? Would they continue with the current obligations? Previous obligations would still be in effect. TDM measures would need to be spelled out to ensure any successors on the property would maintain the levels acheived. ? What documentation would be used to present compliance with green building standards? Mr. Buckley said they would provide documentation and the town could determine if it was adequate. ? The TDM Lexpress contribution started at $4,000.00; how much has it gone up? Mr. Buckley said they were reviewing records to determine that. Mr. Michaud of VHB said the traffic evaluation was done based on numbers for office space rather than research and development and considered the other developments in the area. Procedures and methodology were appropriate when the counts were done and probably overstated the impacts. Audience Comments: ? There would be a mitigation fee of $1,900 per parking space, what would be the cost to construct per space? Approximately $20,000-25,000 per space. It would be a fee for mitigating traffic not a penalty. ? There are some concerns about the TDM policy. This agreement predated the escalation clause. 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 7, 2009 Page Do any of your employees use Lexpress? Close to zero. Try to encourage employees to go off campus and spend money. ? Since office space is allowed on this site this is not an accurate representation of the traffic potential On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to October 14 at 8:15 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ****************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************* PUBLIC HEARING Murray Hills Subdivision, Blueberry Lane; definitive Site Sensitive development: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 10:15 p.m. Attorney Hamilton Hackney, Ms. Phyllis Etzell, Mr. David Romero and Eric Nitche of Commonwealth Engineering, and Richard Lakutis were present. Mr. Romero said they would be replacing 28 new trees, using mostly evergreens. The utilities and sewer were added to the utility sheet as requested by the Board. Ms. Etzell mailed a courtesy copy of the plans to Ms. Rogowitzt telling her to call with any questions and Ms. Etzell had not heard from her. The plan would be to work in the field with abutters to best place the trees. Board Comments and Questions: ? An effort was made to comply with the tree bylaw and the driveway screening appeared acceptable. ? A better legend would be needed for the 28 replacement trees as well as the 45 saplings in the replication area. Audience Comments: ? Maple trees would not provide a good shield, it would be better to have spruce or hemlock trees. ? There were concerns about run off onto abutting property. There would be a drainage divide along the property line and the runoff would go into the wetlands. ? There are a 22” red maple and 13” white pine close to the property line and there were concerns the work could impact them. ? There was confusion about the Planning Board versus the Conservation Commission regarding the tree canopy and wetlands issue. The Conservation Commission deals with the protection of the wetlands. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. Page 5 Minutes for the Meeting of October 7, 2009 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the special permit with site plan review for the definitive site sensitive development plan for Murray Hill in accordance with the draft document as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive subdivision plan with the appropriate subset of conditions and standards. Journey’s End, Modification Request to Special Permit: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that the conversion of a two unit dwelling to a three unit dwelling would be a minor change to the Special Permit with Site Plan Review for the 88-110 Shade Street Subdivision. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the modification to the special permit with site plan review, which would allow the conversion of a two unit dwelling to a three unit dwelling for the 88-110 Shade Street Subdivision. **************************** STREET CONSTRUCTION PLANS************************* Stedman Road, Street Construction Plan: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the request of the applicant to extend the decision time for the Stedman Road Preliminary Street Construction plan to December 18, 2009. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board deferred discussion of the August 26, 2009, September 9, and September 10 minutes until the next meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk