Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-11-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 1 of 14 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday September 11, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Peters, and Charles Hornig. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Planner; and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Lex Media is filming this meeting and is recording it for future viewing here. The Chair explained the process and the procedure of the meeting. Mr. Schanbacher conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Schanbacher provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus Packet dashboard. The Board will go through the agenda in order. Development Administration 32 Brookside Avenue (formerly 10 Stedman Rd.) – Continued public hearing to amend the approved Definitive Subdivision to modify the driveway, drainage system, and turnaround Mr. Schanbacher informed the Board members that the applicant has requested to further continue the public hearing to the Planning Board’s next meeting on September 25th and hence the application will not be considered tonight. Mr. Creech moved to accept the applicant’s request to continue the public hearing for 32 Brookside Avenue to Wednesday, September 25th at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom to allow time to make the requested revisions to the drainage proposal. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 231 Bedford Street – Public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for multi-family development in the village overlay district Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of 231 Bedford St LLC, for major site plan review under Zoning Bylaw §135-7.5 [Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts] and §9.5 [Site Plan Review], and Stormwater Management review under Article VI of §181-71. Richard Beliveau introduced himself and his project team. Also present were Chris Prudhomme and Pedro Lucas from Zephyr Architects, Civil Engineer Alberto Gala from Gala Simon Associates, Wetland Scientist Richard Kerby from LEC, and Attorneys Mark Vaughan and Melissa Cushing from Riemer & Braunstein LLP. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 2 of 14 The Planning Board’s Peer Review Consultant, Dylan O’Donnell from Environmental Partners, was also present. Mr. Beliveau gave a brief history of the project from its initiation and explained the feedback received from neighbors and the changes made to the initial plans based on the feedback. He said the project began as a mixed-use five story proposal with a business on the first floor. Mr. Vaughan summarized the project and shared the details of the proposed development in the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Prudhomme shared pictures of the existing building and also an aerial view and explained the topography of the site. Mr. Gala went over the soil testing that was performed to evaluate the groundwater table and the quality of the soil in order to come up with a stormwater management plan and the surveys done to delineate the wetlands. Mr. Gala added that the project requires a Conservation Commission filing and they will be submitting that application. Mr. Prudhomme shared details of the proposed green roof, the planting plan, and the floor plans. Mr. Prudhomme also shared the elevations and went over the proposed plans. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe informed everyone about the Planning Board hiring a peer review consultant to review the application for utilities, compliance with the stormwater regulations, and the regulations of the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. Ms. McCabe said the memos prepared by Planner Ms. McNamara and the Peer Reviewer Mr. O’Donnell were provided in the Board’s Novus packet and to the applicant. She said staff has asked for some clarifications and that staff was looking for a future submission of revised plan set and a written response to comments. Ms. McCabe stated that the staff asked for a photometric plan to make sure that there is no light trespass on abutting properties and wetlands. Ms. McCabe added that the project meets all the zoning dimensional requirements and that she believes that the height requirements are also met based on the average natural grade and building height calculation forms submitted by the applicant. Ms. McCabe asked for additional landscaping details for behind the building, the green roof, and to consider relocating the street tree locations. She added that she was supportive of the street trees as they encourage walkability but they are currently shown in the MassDOT right of way. Ms. McCabe also thanked the applicant for providing a bench that would encourage street activity and asked the applicant if the bench would be available for the public as well and if there will be a need for an easement. Ms. McCabe said the applicant had revised the initial plan based on the comments received from staff and the community and added that staff liked the new design and proposal. Ms. McCabe mentioned the recommendations form the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee on proposed bike rack details for both long-term and short-term bike parking. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to present to the Conservation Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 3 of 14 Commission before coming back to the Planning Board to ensure that the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission are looking at the same proposal. Ms. McNamara added that the applicant is not required to provide any inclusionary housing since the current proposal of 7 units is below the threshold criteria of providing inclusionary units for developments proposing 10 units or more units. Susan Barrett, Transportation Manager, added that this development would encourage people to adapt to a less car-focused lifestyle. Owners would know that they had one parking space before purchasing the unit and guests could use the underutilized parking lot across the street if shared parking can be arranged between property owners. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. O’Donnell from Environmental Partners summarized his report dated September 5. Mr. O’Donnell asked the applicant to submit calculations showing compliance with the Lexington Wetland Protection Code Rules and also to perform soil test pits within the limits of the proposed subsurface stormwater infiltration chamber system behind the building. Mr. O’Donnell added that they do not recommend locating porous pavers on slopes steeper than 5% and that the proposed driveway is steeper than 5%. Mr. O’Donnell also emphasized that for any proposed pervious pavers of porous asphalt, it is important that they are maintained properly to ensure that they function as intended. Mr. O’Donnell also recommended the applicant use the University of New Hampshire design specifications for porous asphalt and infiltration beds and asked the applicant to submit recharge calculations that would conform to the standards of the Massachusetts State Stormwater Management and the recharge requirements of Lexington’s local stormwater management regulations. Mr. O’Donnell also asked the applicant to submit water quality calculations consistent with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook. Mr. O’Donnell expressed his concerns regarding the subsurface stormwater infiltration system, specifically with its proximity to both the building and the proposed retaining wall. Mr. O’Donnell requested the applicant coordinate with the vendor and add an impermeable liner to the sides of the system to protect the building and the retaining wall and recommended adding an emergency overflow to the chamber system. Board Questions Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if there was anything in the memo from the staff or the peer reviewer that he felt that cannot or should not be addressed by him. Mr. Prudhomme responded that as of now he did not believe that there were any issues that were not achievable but will need more time to go through all the items with the project team. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if there were any parking areas for guests. Mr. Beliveau responded that there were no assigned spots for guests and that guests will have to use other means of transportation or find their own legal parking spots. Ms. Thompson asked for there to be EV charging stations in the parking garage and to notate them in the next set of plans. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Peters shared Ms. Thompson’s concerns regarding lack of visitor parking and asked the applicant if he was planning to have the parking spaces deeded per unit or if it would be controlled centrally by the condominium association. Mr. Beliveau responded that parking can be handled by the Condo Association. Mr. Peters reminded the applicant that since Bedford Street is a State Highway there is no parking permitted, visitors may be forced to park in the neighborhood. Mr. Peters also asked the applicant to consider setting up facilities for compost collection. Mr. Peters also asked Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion on the workability of the proposed buffer as demonstrated on the plan. In response to a comment from the applicant about updated plans, Mr. Schanbacher informed everyone that no revised plans have been submitted so Mr. O’Donnell review was limited to the plans submitted. Mr. Creech asked for details on trash handling and Mr. Beliveau responded that trash will be handled through their management company and that the trash room is located in the garage. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if the bamboo in the back of the building was a running bamboo. Mr. Prudhomme confirmed that it was and they intended to remove it from the property as it is invasive. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if they were aware of Lexington’s specialized stretch code and Lexington’s fossil fuel free bylaw. Mr. Prudhomme responded that they will be designing the building to make sure that they will meet the specialized stretch code and Lexington’s fossil fuel free bylaw. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if they had constructed a building with a single egress stair in the past and asked the applicant to work with the building department to ensure all the building code requirements are complied with. Mr. Prudhomme said that they will provide a code analysis to make sure the code requirements are complied. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant for the proposed planting details on the garden roof. Mr. Prudhomme responded that they are working on the plan. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to meet with the Conservation Commission and asked for the details as to why the mansard portion of the roof does not slope in the back as it does in the front. Mr. Prudhomme responded that the roof does not slope at the back in order to give enough head room for the stairway. Public Comments Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed her concerns regarding flooding in reference to a major flood 15 years ago the lack of guest parking, and stated her opposition to the proposed project. Jill Baker, 7 Nichols Road, shared her concerns about the lack of visitor parking and parking for construction vehicles, delivery vehicles, and moving trucks and also her concerns regarding flooding. Jerry Frank, 7 Hillside Terrace, expressed his concern about the single egress and felt that the overall massing is huge. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, extended his support for the project and added that he loved the location and the mix of units. Jennifer Logan, 40 North Hancock Street, expressed her concerns about flooding and the lack of parking, especially with the existing reduced MBTA bus services leading to more dependence on cars. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 5 of 14 Peter Saradjian, 259 Bedford Street, wondered if the applicant had sufficient insurance to cover any flooding caused by construction or overloading of sewerage system and asked solar and EV chargers be implemented in the proposed building. Somnath Subramanyam, 33 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed his concerns about parking and the safety of children and felt the 7-unit proposal was not reasonable. Stephen Parus, 19 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed his concern about the lack of turning space for delivery vehicles and trash pickup trucks and felt that a smaller number of units could be a good solution. Kunal Botla, Chair of Transportation Advisory Committee, reiterated the Committee’s support for installing a bus shelter on Bedford Street. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, shared the flooding history of 231 Bedford Street and asked if there will be a handicap ramp and a handicap parking space available in the proposal. Gary Yue, 11 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed his concern about the noise from the utility units and stated that the proposed building did not match the character of the neighborhood. Heike Arendt, 23 Ledgelawn Avenue, wondered about how the applicant would be permitted to build within the 50-foot buffer when she was not allowed in the past and also added her concern regarding lack of parking for delivery vehicles. Ruixia Song, expressed her opposition to the project citing fears of flooding and noise from the mechanical systems. Julita and Andreas Kussmaul, 5 Ledgelawn Avenue, shared their concerns regarding parking and traffic during construction and beyond. Jennifer McKinley, 4 Upland Road, reiterated the comments of other neighbors about complying with the wetland restrictions and asked if there were any other green roofs in Lexington and how the town would ensure proper maintenance of green roofs. Al Solomon, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, stated that he has serious concerns about the project. Ms. Newton asked for a shadow study and asked to reduce the size of the project to reduce light trespass on wetlands which may affect the wildlife there. Rachel Ritter, 156 Reed Street, stated her concerns regarding lack of parking for guests and deliveries and asked for shadow and light study. Ryan Will, 83 Winter Street, felt that the development would be an ideal place for empty nesters and people desiring to use multimodal transport. Cheng Zhu, 9 Ledgelawn Avenue, opposed the proposed construction due to its size and proximity to the North Lexington Brook. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 6 of 14 Robin Kutner, 70 Paul Revere Road, stated that as homeowners, people do not have control over light on other people’s properties and noise from utility systems. She encouraged people to be tolerant and accepting in order to meet the goal of increasing housing in Lexington and cognizant of the level of scrutiny on multifamily developments. Monica Young, 30 Valley Road, reiterated the concerns about flooding, increase in traffic and insufficient parking spaces in the proposed development. Jay Luker agreed with Ms. Kutner’s remarks about the scrutiny of multifamily developments. Gary Yue reiterated that the proposed building does not match the character of the neighborhood. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, wanted clarification as to why an abutter was prevented from building a home addition due to proximity to wetlands in the past and stated that she too opposed large single- family developments. Robin Kutner asked if there was the same opposition for the large development on Pleasant Street. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe responded that one of the parking spaces is an accessible space and that the Public Works Building has a green roof. Ms. McCabe added that all applicants will be treated alike and that the Planning Board will review the application for compliance with Stormwater Regulations and the Conservation Commission will review the application for compliance with Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MWPA) and the local Conservation Commission regulations. Ms. McCabe recommended that the applicant submit their comments and revisions and also file their application with the Conservation Commission. The Board recessed at 7:56 p.m. and reconvened at 8:01 p.m. Board Comments Mr. Creech suggested the applicant reach out to the owner across the street about renting parking spaces for guests. Mr. Hornig agreed with staff’s recommendation that the applicant appear before the Conservation Commission prior to coming back to the Planning Board to get a better understanding of the compliance requirements of the MWPA and local Conservation regulations. Mr. Peters liked Mr. Creech’s idea about using the parking spaces across the street and also agreed with Mr. Hornig that the applicant has to appear before the Conservation Commission before coming back to the Planning Board. Ms. Thompson also agreed with Mr. Hornig that the applicant should next go to the Conservation Commission before they come back to the Planning Board. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 7 of 14 Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to consult an acoustician regarding noise created by mechanical equipment. Mr. Schanbacher also asked for details regarding the elevator machine room, the electrical room in the basement, and the location of a transformer. Mr. Schanbacher said that he will not be in favor of the waiver for not meeting the bike standards considering the site’s proximity to the bike path. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to come up with a comprehensive design approach for the walkway up to the front door and that it should include access to the parking garage. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to be realistic in the renderings and offered simple solutions that would resolve some of the oddities created by the landscape in front of the property. Mr. Schanbacher appreciated the applicant’s efforts to reduce the overall bulk of the project by going from five to three stories. Mr. Schanbacher asked staff and the applicant about the next meeting date and about extending the final action deadline. Ms. McCabe recommended the next hearing be on November 6 and the final action date be extended to December 16 to allow time for the applicant to revise plans and go to the Conservation Commission. The Applicant and the applicant’s attorney said that they were agreeable to a November 6 hearing date and extending the final action deadline. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for 231 Bedford Street to Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom in order to allow the applicant time to respond to comments and submit revisions and to accept the applicant’s request to continue the final action date to December 16, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 17 Hartwell Avenue – Public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for multi-family and mixed-use development in the village high rise overlay district Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of BP 17 Hartwell LLC for major site plan review under §135-7.5 [Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts] and §9.5 [Site Plan Review] of the Zoning Bylaw and Article VI of §181-71 [Stormwater Management Regulations]. The applicant also requests a special permit, pursuant to §135-5.1.14 to permit parking spaces closer to Hartwell Avenue than permitted by right. The applicant team included: Rick DeAngelis, Chris Carr, John Randall, Tom Carleton, Ben Myers, Rebecca Stoddard, and Jennifer Kuo from Boston Properties; Brian O’Connor, Andrea Hester, and Chris Santoro from Cube 3; Sarah Morton, Matt Kealey, and Nick Skoly from VHB; and Landscape Architect Christian Lemon from Lemon Brooke. Also present was the peer reviewer from Nitsch Engineering, Mr. William Maher. Mr. DeAngelis, project attorney, gave a brief overview of the project and introduced the project team. Project Manager Mr. Carr shared his presentation and described the project in detail. Mr. Carr explained that the proposal is for a 312-unit rental property consisting of 5 stories and a 2,100 square foot retail space. Mr. Carr added that there will be 47 inclusionary units ranging from studios to 3 bedrooms which Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 8 of 14 will be dispersed throughout the property. The project will meet passive house standards, which would comply with the specialized opt in stretch code. Mr. Carr gave an update of their previous meetings with the Town staff and abutters and added that their goal is to activate the community. Mr. O’Connor shared the project design goals and explained their Planning and design strategies. Mr. O’Connor shared perspective renderings for a better understanding of the project. Mr. Lemon shared the landscape plan and went over the proposed site features in detail. Mr. Lemon also shared the proposed planting plans and stated that the majority of existing trees along Westview Street will be protected. Ms. Hester shared the proposed floor plans and explained in detail. Ms. Hester also shared details of the proposed materials and explained the reason behind their selection of materials. Mr. Carr went over the environment and open space benefits of the project and also the benefits related to sustainability. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe informed the members about the staff memo prepared by Assistant Planning Director Ms. Page, a memo from the Peer Reviewer Mr. Maher, and a memo from the Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO) Director Ms. Rust that were in the Board’s Novus packet and provided to the applicant. Ms. McCabe said that Ms. Rust recommended adding more 3-bedroom units to the current proposal. Ms. McCabe mentioned the recommendations of the Lexington bicycle advisory committee (LBAC) and asked the applicant to make changes in the next set of plans to reflect those recommendations and added that, due to the proximity of the bike path, the development should have plenty of bike parking spaces. Ms. McCabe added that staff could support the waiver request pertaining to all the bike parking not having to be lifted, and the LBAC had provided recommendations on the types of bike racks to ensure that bikes can be secured and easily lifted by residents. Ms. McCabe thanked the applicant for rounding up the number of inclusionary units and that staff is happy about the addition of retail space though they would prefer it to be increased to at least double the size. Ms. McCabe stated that staff supports only one curb cut though the applicant would like to have two curb cuts. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to consider stormwater harvesting for plant irrigation and also to provide an updated photometric plan for the entire property in the next submission. Ms. McCabe added that the outdoor seating would be beneficial to the community but asked the applicant to have a backup location because it is in the right of way of the Hartwell Bedford reconstruction project. Ms. McCabe also stated that staff recommended the building be moved closer to the street and the majority of the surface parking be situated in the side or the back of the building. Ms. McCabe also conveyed that the Design Advisory Committee had some suggestions to help minimize the massing and to add a green roof to the building. Ms. Barrett appreciated the applicants for providing a bus shelter and asked them to consider contributing to a shared shuttle service. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 9 of 14 Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Maher asked for updated materials and calculations for drainage and discharge pipes from adjacent properties coming into the proposed development to know the impacts on the project’s stormwater system. Mr. Maher felt that there is an opportunity for the applicant to provide some sort of country drainage and more low impact development techniques on the site to provide recharge into the ground through exfiltration, given its topography. Mr. Maher also asked for additional details for the proposed subsurface infiltration system and revised trench calculations and additional calculations to confirm that the rainfall events comply with Lexington’s stormwater regulations. Board Questions Mr. Peters wanted to know the economic factors that drove the applicant to choose multifamily as opposed to bio labs. Mr. Carr responded that it was a business decision made about a year and half ago to prioritize multifamily developments as one of their sectors and thought that residential development is more apt for this location. Mr. Peters agreed with Ms. McCabe that the amount of commercial space could be increased in order to truly activate the streetscape and asked for details about the height of the garage building. Mr. Carr responded that the intention is to have an accessible four and a half story garage with a solar canopy on top of the garage. Mr. Peters added that he strongly encourages the solar canopy and also to set up composting facilities. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if he felt there was anything on the staff memo or the peer review memo that he would not be able to address. Mr. Carr said that staff not supporting their request for a special permit for having 7 of the parking spaces in the front would make it functionally challenging to activate the streetscape as retail customers would have to park around the corner and not adjacent to retail. Mr. Hornig also wanted to know the reason why the proposed sidewalk was to be near the pavement instead of the edge of the right of way. Mr. Carr responded that a portion of that was to accommodate some of the outdoor seating area and also to incorporate the potential changes that would arise at the time of the long-term redevelopment of Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Creech asked for the number of parking spaces on the side that would be dedicated for retail customers. Mr. Carr responded that as of now it would be 9 parking spaces and potentially more on the other side if needed. Mr. Creech wanted to know if the fiber board product they are using was a maintenance free product. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that they were maintenance free. Mr. Creech wanted to make sure it was possible for someone to walk the entire perimeter of the property. Mr. Carr responded that, except for a small portion near the garage from the Westview entrance to the dog park, the remainder of the perimeter was walkable. Ms. Thompson asked for details about the size of the courtyards and what would be in them. Mr. Carr shared details of the proposed plans for the courtyard including a heated pool, outdoor fitness, outdoor grills, and private seating areas. Ms. Thompson also wanted to know if the inclusionary units will be similar to all the other units and Mr. Carr confirmed it. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant’s thoughts about reducing the overall massing of the building. Mr. O’Connor stated that the building will match the rhythm and texture of the street and will blend with the commercial corridor it is situated in. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if he explored options for underground parking on the site. Mr. Carr responded that they did explore but did not pursue as it was economically non-viable. Public Comments Peter Saradjian, 259 Bedford Street, asked the applicant to consider installing solar panels not only over the garage, but also over the residential units. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, stated that the addition of 47 inclusionary units was huge and stressed the need for more rental opportunities in the Town. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, welcomed the addition of 47 inclusionary units and reiterated Ms. Barrett’s suggestion to participate in a shared shuttle service. Rachel Ritter, 156 Reed Street, was thrilled to see the proposal which would rejuvenate Hartwell Avenue. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe said that one of Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC)’s policies is to have at least 10% of the total units to be 3-bedroom units, which is consistent with what other projects have been proposing. Board Comments Mr. Creech shared his screen and suggested some architectural details to convert the space in the front to be used as a pop-up market place or a semi outdoor space for residents. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to provide a section of Hartwell Avenue with the proposed lab building across the street to form an opinion regarding the front parking. Mr. Schanbacher added that it is important to come up with the right decision since this project would set a standard for future developments in Hartwell Avenue and the intent is to create an active walkable community. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to increase the retail space as it would activate the space and make it more vibrant and asked the applicant to have a futuristic perspective. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to come up with a design that would reflect Lexington’s innovative architecture and design. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for 17 Hartwell Avenue to Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom to allow the applicant time to respond to comments and submit revised material. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 17 Hartwell Avenue – Public meeting on a preliminary subdivision application to subdivide the lot into three lots on a small cul-de-sac The Planning Board considered the application of BP 17 Hartwell LLC for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan under §175-5.0 of the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 11 of 14 Mr. DeAngelis explained that the application for a preliminary subdivision was to freeze the zoning as it exists today with the multifamily overlay districts. Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the staff memo prepared by Ms. Page and that staff did not have any major concerns. Ms. McCabe added that this was a 3-lot subdivision and that staff requested some changes to be incorporated in the definitive subdivision plan. She said there was a 2022 definitive subdivision and asked that the applicant agree to rescind the 2022 approval when the apply for the next definitive subdivision to eliminate confusion. The applicant responded that they were agreeable to that. Mr. Creech moved to approve the draft preliminary approval decision prepared by staff with any changes made this evening. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Creech moved to allow the Chair to sign the decision and make any non-substantive corrections of any typos, errors, grammar, or for consistency. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Board Administration Board & Staff Updates Ms. McCabe informed the Board that there will be a public meeting on Thursday October 24th, 2024 in the evening to discuss the Bedford Street Hartwell Avenue Reconstruction 25% design Plan. Mr. Creech gave a brief update from the Town Manager search screening committee’s meetings and added that an offer has been made for a new Town Manager. Mr. Creech also stated that at the recent Minuteman Advisory Group on Inter-local Coordination (MAGIC) meeting, they discussed the MBTA Communities experience and that he shared the various projects before the Planning Board with them. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 8.28.24 Mr. Creech moved to accept the draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes of the meeting held on August 28, 2024 as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: 9/25, 10/9, 10/23, 11/6, 11/20, 12/11 Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings on September 25 and October 9th and reminded the members about upcoming site visits. Adjournment Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of September 11, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 231 Bedford Street: Planning staff memo dated September 5, 2024, Peer Review memo dated September 5, 2024. Full link to application materials: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/88897 Project Narrative dated August 12, 2024, Definitive Site Development Plan Set dated August 12, 2024, Development Review Team Summary Response dated May 13, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.9 dated August 12, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.12 dated August 12, 2024, Construction Mitigation Plan dated August 16, 2024, Stormwater Management Plan dated August 12, 2024, LEED Checklist Scorecard dated May 10, 2024, Zoning Narrative dated August 12, 2024, Architectural Plans dated August 12, 2024, SITES v2 Checklist Scorecard dated May 10, 2024, Inclusionary Dwelling Narrative dated May 13, 2024, Solar & Energy Efficiency Narrative dated August 12 , 2024, Summary of Neighborhood Meeting dated May 13, 2024, Height Elevation Form and Average Natural Grade Worksheet dated August 12, 2024, Proposed Building Plan dated August 9, 2024 List of Public Comments: 1. Certified mail from a group of abutters to Lexington Planning Board, also received an electronic copy of the same, dated April 6, 2024 2. Electronic Mail from Jill Baker to Planning Board, dated April 18, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Board, dated April 6, 2024 4. Electronic Mail from Barbara Katzenberg to Planning Director Subject: 231 Bedford Street: Comment re landscaping at back of parcel, dated May 17, 2024 5. Electronic Mail from Transportation Advisory Committee to Planning Board Chair Subject: 231 Bedford Street comments- Transportation Advisory Committee dated June 12, 2024 6. Electronic Mail from Trish Carey Subject: 231 Bedford Street, dated August 25, 2024 7. Electronic Mail from Jennifer Logan to Planning Board Subject: development at 231 Bedford St, dated August 26, 2024 8. Electronic Mail from Jorge Camargo Subject: 231 Bedford St, dated August 27, 2024 9. Electronic Mail from Thomas Diaz to Planning Board Members Subject: Objection to 231 Bedford Street Proposal, dated August 31, 2024 10. Electronic Mail from Tom Shiple, on behalf of Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee to Planning Staff and Planning Board, Subject: LBAC Feedback on 231 Bedford dated September 3, 2024 11. Electronic Mail from Gary Yue, Ruixia Song and Elaine Yue to Planning Board, Subject: About the construction project at 231 Bedford St dated September 3, 2024 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 13 of 14 12. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Staff and Planning Board, Subject: 231 Bedford Street, along with three videos dated September 3, 2024 13. Electronic Mail from Karen Fu to Planning Board, Subject: Proposed development at 231 Bedford dated August 28, 2024 14. Electronic Mail from Susan Amsel to Planning Board, Subject: 231 Bedford dated September 5, 2024 15. Electronic Mail from Jill Baker to Planning Board, Subject: 231 Bedford Street dated September 5, 2024 16. Electronic Mail from Matthew Saradjian to Planning Board and Planning Staff, Subject Comment on 231 Bedford St. Major Site Plan Review (for Sept.11 2024 hearing) dated September 5, 2024 17. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Board and Planning Department, subject 231 Bedford Street- Letter from Concerned Residents dated September 5, 2024 18. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Board and Planning Department, subject 231 Bedford Street- Backyard Abutter Concerns dated September 5, 2024 19. Electronic Mail from Stephen Parus Subject: 231 Bedford Street proposed development- dated September 5, 2024 20. Electronic Mail from Susan Knauer to Planning Board Subject 231 Bedford Project, along with 3 photographs dated September 5, 2024 21. Electronic Mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning Board and Planning Staff, subject 231 Bedford Street concerns- Sumitra Sujanani Personal Letter dated September 5, 2024 22. Electronic Mail from David Sperduto to Planning Board, subject 231 Bedford Street stormwater comments, with an attachment titled: wi-96 #231 Bedford St stormwater review wid 9-5-24a, dated September 5, 2024 23. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Board and Planning Department, subject 231 Bedford Street Proposal, along with an attachment titled 231 Bedford- Flooding 7-9-24 - dated September 5, 2024 24. Electronic Mail from Heinke Arendt to Planning Board and Planning Department, Subject 231 Bedford Street dated September 5, 2024 25. Electronic Mail from Gwendolyn Clafin subject 231 Bedford Street dated September 5, 2024 26. Electronic Mail from David Sperduto to Planning Board, subject 231 Bedford Street stormwater comments with an attachment titled: wi-96 #231 Bedford St stormwater review wid r1 correction 9-5-24, dated September 5, 2024 27. Electronic Mail from Barbara Katzenberg to Planning Department and Planning Board, subject : Landscaping plan and existing bamboo at 231 Bedford Street, along with an image of the running bamboo. 2. 17 Hartwell Avenue: Major site plan review; Staff Memo dated September 6, 2024, Peer Reviewer Memo dated September 6, 2024, Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO) Director’s memo dated September 7, 2024, full link to application material - https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/94127, Project Narrative dated July 26, 2024, Definitive Site Development Plan Set dated July 26, 2024, Development Review Team Summary Response dated July 26, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.9 dated July 26, 2024, Major Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Page 14 of 14 Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.12 dated July 26, 2024, Construction Mitigation Plan dated July 26, 2024, Stormwater Management Plan dated July 2024, LEED Checklist Scorecard dated July 26, 2024, Zoning Narrative dated July 26, 2024, Architectural Plans dated July 26, 2024, SITES v2 Checklist Scorecard dated July 26, 2024, Inclusionary Dwellings Narrative dated July 26, 2024, Preliminary signage Package dated July 26, 2024, Solar & Energy Efficiency Narrative dated July 26, 2024, Waiver Request Form dated July 26, 2024, Summary of Neighborhood Meeting dated August 2, 2024, Site Plan Set depicting Perspective Renderings dated July 26, 2024, Geotechnical Stormwater Management Narrative dated July 26, 2024, Lighting Fixture Package dated July 26, 2024, Traffic Summary Memorandum dated July 26, 2024, Site Plan Set -2 & 3 dated July 26, 2024, Abutter Meeting Summary dated July 30, 2024, Site Lighting Plan and Sight Photometric Plan dated July 30, 2024, First Floor Plan dated July 30, 2024, Tree Protection Plan dated July 30, 2024, Revised Bicycle parking dated August 8, 2024, Average natural Grade worksheet dated August 27, 2024, Development Review Team Notes dated June 12, 2024 List of Public Comments: 1. Electronic Mail from Tom Shiple, on behalf of Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee to Planning Staff and Planning Board, Subject: LBAC Feedback on 17 Hartwell Avenue dated September 3, 2024 2. Electronic Mail from Design Advisory Committee dated August 6, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Nancy Sofen on behalf of Tree Committee dated August 13, 2024 3. 17 Hartwell Avenue: Preliminary Subdivision: Staff memo dated September 5, 2024, full link to application material - https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/94320, Project Narrative dated July 25, 2024, Preliminary Subdivision Plan set dated July 25, 2024, Stormwater Management Plan dated July 25, 2024, Geotechnical Report dated July 25, 2024, Subdivision Drainage Memo dated July 25, 2024, Stormwater Management System Manual dated July 25, 2024. 4. 32 Brookside Avenue: Proposal narrative summary dated September 1, 2024, Layout Plan dated September 31, 2024, Proposed Pavement Expansion dated September 31, 2024, Truck Access Exhibit dated September 31, 2024, Drainage and Detail Plan dated September 31, 2024, Set of 4 Pictures dated July 30, 2024, full link to application material- https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/71069 List of Public Comments: 1. Electronic Mail from Cooper Toulmin, Subject: Objection to Stedman Road Proposal dated August 1, 2024 5. Draft Meeting Minutes of 8.28.24.