Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-25-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 1 of 12 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday September 25, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Peters, Charles Hornig and Michael Leon, associate member. 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 25, 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 Road) – Continued public hearing to amend the approved turnaround area and stormwater management Mr. Schanbacher informed the Board that the applicant Homes Development Corp. requested the Planning Board continue the public hearing to the next Planning Board Meeting to be held on October 9th, 2024. Mr. Creech moved to accept the applicant’s request to continue the public hearing for 32 Brookside Avenue to October 9, 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 Kay Tiffany Way Subdivision, off of Reed Street – Minor Modification Request to modify the sidewalk and street trees The Planning Board considered a request from Kay Tiffany Way, LLC to modify the Definitive Subdivision approved in 2020 for Kay Tiffany Way. The Applicant proposes modifications to the sidewalk layout and street trees on the south side of Kay Tiffany Way along #9 Kay Tiffany Way to end the sidewalk before the turnaround, to plant 3 of the 6 trees, and remove one street light. The applicant was represented by Michael Novak from Patriot Engineering. Mr. Novak explained to the Board that the request was for a minor modification regarding a sidewalk installation and added that the request is to shorten the length of the proposed sidewalk. Ms. McCabe shared the approved landscaping plan and the proposed plan and Mr. Novak explained that the proposal was to accommodate neighbors’ Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 2 of 12 requests to shift the ramp slightly and to move the sidewalk to the back of the curb and assured that removed trees will be replaced. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that she did not have any major concerns with the application nor did the Conservation staff. She recommended the Board first make a determination as to if the request is a minor modification request and then vote on the request itself. Public Comment David Grable, 125 Reed Street, expressed his concern about the possible reduction of trees. The applicant Mr. Cataldo committed to plant the same number of trees shown in the original plan. Mr. Creech moved to find that this request is a minor modification to the original definitive subdivision approval. 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 approve the request from the applicant as outlined in the letter dated August 20, 2024 and the sidewalk plan modification sheet prepared by Patriot Engineering dated August 20, assuming that all the trees, number of trees that were originally approved to be planted, will be planted. 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 5-7 Piper Road – Continued public hearing for major site plan review for a multi-family development proposal in the village overlay district (cont. from 5/22 & 8/14) Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the public hearing to hear from the applicant on changes made since the August meeting. The applicant Morgan Point LLC was represented by Philip Porter. Also present were Architect Daniel Riggs from Embarc Design, Landscape Architect Mike Rettenmeier with MDLA and Engineer Michael Novak from Patriot Engineering. Mr. Riggs shared some of the modifications and considerations made to the application since their August meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Riggs gave an overview of the project and shared an aerial image of the existing conditions. Mr. Riggs gave the updates relating to parking count and layout and went over the improved parking design, revised basement plan, and the addition of the garage entry sign. Mr. Riggs gave details of modifications made to civil and landscape plans and shared the changes made to the open spaces. Mr. Riggs also shared and compared the design updates with the previous designs. Mr. Riggs showed the changes made to context rendering based on views from neighboring properties. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the updated memo from Ms. McNamara and noted the addition of the request for special permit for the vehicle stacking system from the parking design standards in the zoning bylaw, Section 5.1. Ms. McCabe also informed the Board that the Building Commissioner had Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 3 of 12 reviewed the revised application materials and has confirmed that the project complies with all the requirements pertaining to maximum height and setbacks. Ms. McCabe also stated that the project has 6 inclusionary units and they are spread throughout the development. Ms. McCabe added that the final specific floor plan would be reviewed by Staff and the Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO). Ms. McCabe stated that the applicant has provided earth movement calculations and the estimated time of construction and site work. Ms. McCabe also asked the applicant to coordinate active truck trips with the holiday timings of the neighboring Temple to avoid any traffic congestion. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant also submitted a preliminary signage package and added that staff recommendation is for the sign to be externally illuminated in order to comply with the newly updated sign bylaw. Ms. McCabe also suggested that the applicant should add some bollards or signage near the loading space on the surface lot to make the loading space safe for pedestrian access. Ms. McCabe also asked the applicant to reduce the height of the light in the play area and make sure that there is no light spillage off the property line. Ms. McCabe added that the Fire Department would review the vehicle car stacker at the time of building permit submission and might have a third party to review the design at that time. Ms. McCabe gave a brief description of the waivers requested by the applicant and explained that one of them was a waiver from the tree bylaw, which was supported by staff as the applicant had provided the tree removal calculations and the tree plantation plans. The second one was a waiver for water harvesting for cisterns or ponds for plant irrigation. Ms. McCabe said that considering the site conditions and the amount of rock that needs to be removed on site, this was not an ideal location for water harvesting. The third one was a waiver allowing the bottom of the car stacker systems within 2 feet of estimated high groundwater and the fourth waiver was for the illumination of signs. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Bartlett stated that the applicant has done additional soil testing and that would enable the infiltration system to comply with Town’s Stormwater regulations. Mr. Bartlett also stated that the applicant had provided revised plans for the trench that was receiving flow at the garage entrance to make the trench go through a treatment device and eventually through a level spreader. Mr. Bartlett added that he has checked the flow out for all extreme conditions and it is an acceptable design. Mr. Bartlett added that the applicant also provided revised total suspended solid (TSS) calculations and calculations for the oil and gas separator for the tank taking flow from the garage. Mr. Bartlett said that the applicant also provided safe stopping distances and a detailed breakdown of the cut and fill amounts, differentiating between soil and rock. Mr. Bartlett stated that the applicant provided details about proposed plans to handle dewatering and handling groundwater during the construction period. Mr. Bartlett said that the applicant has also put some notes on the plan to protect the infiltration system if anything were to happen during construction, if silt were to get into the infiltration system, or the system were to get contaminated by construction runoff, and asked the Town Engineer to enforce it. Mr. Bartlett said the inspection schedule for the Operations and Management plan was also updated and the Lexington Stormwater authority should be notified of any changes in responsibility in the future. With respect to waivers requested to allow car stacking system, Mr. Bartlett stated that he had looked at the proposal by the applicant of putting the sump pump flow into the infiltration system and stated that Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 4 of 12 it is acceptable and will not create a problem for the system. Mr. Bartlett added that it is an internal plumbing feature which has to be designed by the mechanical engineer or plumbing engineer and should be approved by the Building Inspector at the building permit stage. Mr. Bartlett also stated that the proposed oil and gas separator is properly sized. Board Questions Mr. Hornig asked the staff if they felt there were any open issues that cannot be addressed through a condition in the site plan review and might require updates to plans. Ms. McCabe stated that there were no outstanding items from the staff and peer review report. Mr. Peters asked Mr. Porter if he had any conversations with the neighboring Temple Emunah regarding their traffic and security concerns. Mr. Porter responded that he had met with representatives of the Temple and had explained the key components of the construction mitigation plan and tree planting plan and that he is happy to work with them on an ongoing basis. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to provide details about the proposed guest parking and the noise mitigation plan during construction. Mr. Porter responded that they will be complying with the Lexington’s Noise Bylaws and that he felt that there was adequate parking on site to serve as guest parking. Ms. McCabe clarified that Piper Road is a Town road and as Road Commissioners, it is at the discretion of the Select Board to allow or disallow parking on the road. Ms. McCabe added that the Transportation Safety Group is evaluating the earlier request about limiting parking on Piper Road and would then make a formal recommendation to the Select Board. Mr. Leon felt that some of the items that were the subject of discussion between the Temple and the applicant would impact the mitigation measures and suggested that the Board should reconsider adding them as conditions of a site plan approval. Ms. McCabe responded that some of the requests are off-site improvements which are beyond the Board’s purview. She doesn’t recommend any further additional landscape changes and thought that a turnaround at the end of Piper Road was a good idea but the Town currently does not have any plans to expand the road or make a turnaround in this location. Mr. Creech showed some ideas, via PowerPoint, that he had created regarding addressing certain issues. As a prelude he explained that his objective was not to reduce the number of dwelling units but rather to find solutions to the lack of parking and lack of dedicated storage for the 3 ground floor units. He acknowledged that the additional storage may already be being worked by the Applicant team. He also mentioned that it appeared to him, based upon various Staff comments and the Peer Review Report, that the footprint of the building would have to be smaller. He showed slides that converted unit 208 and possibly also units 307 and 407, from dwellings units to combined storage space and amenity space (a lounge). Each unit conversion would result in ‘gaining” a parking space. He also showed a slide that removed the East facing units above the garage drive. This would eliminate units 210, 211, 309, 310, 409 and 410. This would buy an additional 6 parking spaces. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 5 of 12 Public Comments Laura Swain, 29 Locust Avenue, asked the Planning Board to propose to the Transportation Committee that a bike lane be added to Piper Road. Arleen Chase, from Temple Emunah, expressed her concerns about the sight lines on Piper Road and the lack of sufficient guest parking spaces which she feels would affect public safety. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, wanted to know if there will be blasting, rock breaking and the time period it will take place. Susan Rubenstein, 10 Brigham Road, expressed her concerns about traffic, particularly between Piper Road and Waltham Street. Stephen Quatrano, 76 Bloomfield Street, asked if the applicant had any plans to build a retaining or restraining structure on the sides of the site, where the slope is in a bad shape. Howard Levin, speaking on behalf of Temple Emunah, expressed his concern about the traffic safety in the intersection of Piper Road and Waltham Street. Nihad Makary, 10 Piper Road, felt that the Town or the developer should redesign Piper Road to cater to the increased traffic. Applicant’s response Mr. Porter responded that they were working with the Temple in trying to address some of their concerns. Mr. Porter added that the expected timeframe for rock removal is three to four months and the overall construction timeline is projected to be 18 to 24 months. Board Comments Mr. Creech felt that the concerns of the residents regarding traffic were reasonable and asked them to reach out to the Select Board for a solution. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if he felt that based on the meeting discussion he would require any further changes. Mr. Porter responded that he felt comfortable with the Board moving forward as is. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that staff will prepare a draft decision with suggested conditions of approval for consideration by the Board at the October 9th meeting. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing for the site plan review application from Morgan Point, LLC for 5-7 Piper Road. 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. 217, 229, 233 & 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Public hearing for major site plan review mixed use multi-family development in the village overlay district Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of North Shore Residential Development, Inc. for major site plan review with stormwater review. The applicant was represented by attorney Mark Vaughan from Reimer and Bronstein Law. Also present were the applicant Ron Lopez from North Shore Residential Development, Scott Melching, the architect, and Jack Sullivan the civil engineer. Also present was the Board’s peer review consultant, Mike Carter from GCG Associates. Mr. Vaughan gave a brief overview of the project and its location to align with the goals and objectives of the MBTA Communities bylaw. They are proposing a 46-unit five-story mixed use building. Mr. Vaughan stated that they were seeking a waiver for the number off-street parking requirements for the business use and special permit to vary the parking design standards. Mr. Melching shared more details of the proposed development for both the residential and commercial components. Mr. Melching shared the perspective renderings from different sides and went over the various features of the building. Mr. Melching also shared perspective renderings from the MBTA owned bikeway and stated that they are working with MBTA to obtain the required approvals. Mr. Melching also gave a presentation of the floor plans and the access and explained how the garage would work. Mr. Sullivan explained the details of the proposed stormwater and drainage design and explained that they would have to file a notice of intent with the Lexington Conservation Commission. Mr. Sullivan also provided details of the soil testing performed initially and also in response to the peer review requirements. Mr. Sullivan said he will share those details with the Board and that he would strive to meet the MA Stormwater Management policies and also the Town’s Conservation requirements. Mr. Sullivan also shared the details of the proposed infiltration systems. 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 Assistant Planning Director Ms. Page and the Peer Reviewer Mike Carter were provided in the Board’s Novus packet and to the applicant. Ms. McCabe reminded everyone that this was a Site Plan Review in the Village Overlay district and added that the applicant was also applying for special permits seeking relief for parking standards. Ms. McCabe said staff recommended some more three-bedroom units to comply with EOHLC’s policies and that engineering staff had concerns about the sewer easement in the back of the property and did not want any permanent structures on the sewer easement. Ms. McCabe added that staff encouraged the recharge area to be set back ten feet from the sewer easement and from any side of the property lines. Ms. McCabe added that staff was looking for a future submission of a revised plan set and a written response to comments from staff and the peer reviewer and also encouraged the applicant to file with the Conservation Commission before the Board’s next meeting. Ms. McCabe also informed everyone about the public comments and the comments from the bicycle advisory committee, which has been forwarded to the Board and the applicant. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Carter from GCG Associates summarized his report dated September 18. Mr. Carter stated that the applicant had performed some soil test pits and additional ones were performed this week and that he Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 7 of 12 would evaluate to ensure compliance with the Lexington Wetland Protection Code Rules. Mr. Carter recommended the applicant simultaneously file with the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board since the applicant is proposing to add pavement in the riverfront area. Mr. Carter stated that one of the biggest challenges for the applicant would be to have their stormwater system set back 10 feet from the property line, building foundation, and also from the sewer easement. The other challenge, he said, would be the overflow in the back right corner of the lot that would overflow into the bikeway during a hundred-year event and would lead to puddles or icing on the bikeway and asked the applicant to address it in their revised plans. The Board recessed at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 p.m. Board Comments Mr. Leon felt that the retail tenants would prefer having direct street facing public access instead of on the side of the building. Mr. Leon also was puzzled as to why the applicant did not locate the bike storage further to the back of the building instead of the proposed front of the building. Mr. Leon asked the applicant if he had an alternate plan in case there is a delay in obtaining the approval from MBTA for the interface with the bike path. Mr. Leon also wanted to know who had the rights to use the area referred to as the right of way that ran parallel to the bike path and how it would affect the applicant’s ability to develop and use the property. Mr. Leon also wanted the applicant to come up with the data of how many practical on street spaces were available within hundred yards of the property in order to justify the parking waiver sought by the applicant. Mr. Leon also asked the applicant if the new upgraded stormwater regulations would pose additional challenges in terms of qualitative improvements or inground water volumetric measurements on site. Mr. Melching responded that the bike room was placed in the present spot as part of a leasing strategy so that the commercial tenant will have one continuous space as opposed to two separate spaces. Regarding the question of obtaining MBTA approval on time, Mr. Melching said they had hoped to be part of the MBTA project focused on improvements to landscape and sustainability and that since they are not part of the MBTA project now, they hoped the Board will allow them to go ahead with the project without the interface with the bikeway. Mr. Melching stated that they planned to put an easily removable playground structure on the right of way. Regarding on street parking, Mr. Vaughan clarified that they would be creating a few additional on street spaces closer to the curb cuts and that they do not have a formal count on the number of spaces within a hundred yards and would provide that number to the Board during their next meeting. Mr. Melching stated that as of now, he was modeling everything in the current stormwater regulations handbook. Mr. Leon asked the applicant if there was a possibility of increasing the onsite stormwater retention chambers and recharge chambers to be able to accommodate any additional numbers required by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Melching responded that he will do some additional calculations and address the comments from staff and the peer reviewer. Mr. Leon also wanted to know if there were any current stresses on the stream adjacent to the bikeway and flooding during high stormwater conditions that could be mitigated by certain flood storage capacity improvements. Mr. Melching said that they are looking into ways to provide mitigation measures. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 8 of 12 Ms. Thompson appreciated the architectural designs of the project and added that this will be a good facelift for the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to add more three-bedroom units to the project and also come up with creative solutions with regards to parking. Mr. Hornig agreed with Ms. Thompson that this project would revitalize the East Lexington commercial strip and added that he is currently generally supportive of the parking waivers of Sections 5.1.11 (minimum yards for parking) for the parking space near the street and 5.1.12 (screening for parking) but wanted more convincing details from transportation experts to prove that the number of proposed parking spaces and that the sizes work and are sufficient. Mr. Hornig also urged the applicant to present to the Conservation Commission before going too far in the Planning Board process. Mr. Peters felt that the stormwater management and the issues raised by the peer reviewer will have to be addressed satisfactorily for both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Peters said he had concerns about how the parking will fit holistically as future developments could happen in the neighborhood, which could reduce the available on-street parking. Mr. Peters also said he was concerned about the number of compact parking spaces as he felt that it did not align with the type and size of vehicles that people currently purchase and added that he liked the design of the building. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant for details of trash handling. Mr. Melching shared the landscape plan and went over the location of the dumpsters and the proposed plans for handling trash and recycling. Mr. Schanbacher also wanted to know the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Melching responded that it will be on the roof and went over the screening and safety aspects for access to the roof. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant for details on how deliveries would be handled in the building. Mr. Melching responded that there would be a drive aisle outside the building for all deliveries. Public Comments Roman Klovski, 78 Cliffe Avenue, expressed concerns about the lack of sufficient parking and that he was opposed to proposal. Sylvia Fohlin, 10 Cherry Street, felt that the proposed development would not fit with the neighborhood and that it would contribute to congestion. Amy Armitage, 16 Cliff Avenue, expressed concerns about parking, especially in winter and how the development would tower over everything else. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, suggested changes to the interface with the bike path and added that this type of project was what he had envisioned for the neighborhood. Laura Swain, 29 Locust Avenue, expressed her concern about the proximity of the building to the sidewalk and asked for composting facilities to be made available for restaurants. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 9 of 12 Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, stated that he had been hoping for this kind of a development for this neighborhood for a long time and asked the applicant to consider additional pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Ji-Young Kim, 198 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that the proposed development does not blend with the character of the neighborhood and stated her concerns regarding parking, traffic safety and also overcrowding in schools. Melanie Hedlund, 166 Massachusetts Avenue, felt that the proposed development does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Clifford Haas, 4 Charles Street, expressed concerns about the number of parking spaces and the likely increase in traffic. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, wanted clarification on the actual footage for the easement and expressed concerns about the lack of sufficient parking for commercial users. Brian Susnock, 12 Brandon St, felt that the proposed project does not fit in the neighborhood and expressed concern regarding drainage. Laura Swain, 29 Locust Avenue, felt that with vehicles getting bigger, it was not a good idea to shrink parking spaces. Scott Caron, 241 Massachusetts Avenue, felt that the project would give a facelift for East Lexington and that he did not have any issues with parking on Massachusetts Avenue. Karen Myers, 14 Lisbeth Street, expressed concern about the overall footprint and size of the building and that it does not match the character of the neighborhood. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe emphasized that land use decisions cannot discriminate against families with children because they are a protected class under state and federal fair housing laws. She added that the MBTA communities’ law also emphasized zoning could not restrict the number of bedrooms or any provisions to prevent families with children. Ms. McCabe added that the school department is informed by staff about the details of all the proposed developments. Ms. McCabe also stated that this development would provide 6 inclusionary units. Ms. McNamara added that she recommended residents advocate for more bus services by reaching out to their legislator. Board Comments Mr. Creech shared his ideas for more parking and storage for residents by coming up with creative changes to the architectural design eliminating the units that were hanging over the parking. Mr. Creech added Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 10 of 12 that, based on the Peer Review and the comments from Engineering, he felt that the footprint of the building has to become smaller and that would also add more parking spaces. Mr. Hornig said that he liked the overall philosophy of the building for this part of Massachusetts Avenue and encouraged the applicant to stick to the architectural design. Based on the Peer reviewer’s report and staff comments on stormwater, Mr. Peters felt that the size of the building may need to be reduced in size, but considering that the neighborhood requires some rejuvenation, Mr. Peters felt that the commercial space was really important. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to round up the number of affordable housing units to 7 and to work with the Affordable Housing Trust to explore if there were any buy down options. Mr. Schanbacher also encouraged the applicant to talk to a neighbor on 11 Byron Avenue who had constructed an accessible ramp partially or fully on MBTA land and get some pointers on that process from them. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to present renderings depicting the enlarged sections of the street to get a better understanding of the size of the project in the context of the street. Mr. Schanbacher appreciated the applicant’s efforts to include retail space in the project and asked for details pertaining to trash handling and other logistics particularly from the point of a restaurant. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Creech that by eliminating the additional units that hang over the parking, a series of issues related to conservation and parking can be solved. Mr. Schanbacher added that this project has two front facades, as it also fronts the bikeway, and hence both facades have to be carefully considered. Mr. Schanbacher responded to some of the comments from the public related to the need for commercial space and lack of parking by saying that the demand for commercial space will only increase as more multi-family developments come up and public transit is always an option to reach this location. Mr. Schanbacher added that this was the kind of project that he favored as part of the MBTA communities zoning and for this neighborhood in particular, in order to revitalize the community and to create a walkable and livable community. Mr. Creech moved to continue the site plan review public hearing for 217, 229, 233 & 241 Massachusetts Avenue to Wednesday, November 20 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. 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 331 Concord Avenue – Accept performance guarantee for the definitive subdivision and sign the plans Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about their approval of the three lot Definitive Residential Subdivision for 331 Concord Avenue on August 28th. Since the appeal period has ended without an appeal, the applicant has provided a covenant as a performance guarantee. Staff recommended the Board vote to accept the covenant and then vote to sign the covenant and the plans. Mr. Creech moved to sign the covenant from Cabot, Cabot and Forbes for the Definitive Subdivision at 331 Concord Avenue approved on August 28, 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 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Creech moved to sign the property rights plans for the Definitive Residential Subdivision for 331 Concord Avenue approved on August 28, 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 Board Administration Board & Staff Member Updates Mr. Hornig updated the Board about the Housing Partnership Board’s voting to sign the Local Initiative Project application for 32 Edgewood Road. Mr. Creech gave updates about the Community Preservation Committee ‘s meeting to consider allocating funds for various purposes in Town. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the Assistant Planning Director Sheila Page has taken a position with another Town and would be leaving Lexington in a month. Ms. McCabe also informed the Board about the Bedford Hartwell Complete Streets 25% Design Public Meeting on October 24th over zoom. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 9.11.24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft Minutes of the meeting held on 09.11.24 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 Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of September 25, 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 9.55 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. Kay Tiffany Way Subdivision Minor Modification: Staff memo dated September 19, 2024. 2. 5 & 7 Piper Rd: Peer Review Memo #2 dated August 2, 2024, Staff memo dated August 9, 2024, Engineering Staff memo dated September 18, 2024. full link to application material (latest material uploaded here: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/88884 ) Architectural Plan set, Peer Review memo, Staff memo, Neighborhood meeting notes, Project timeline, Fire truck turning radius sketch, RHSO Housing memo for Inclusionary dwellings, construction management plan, request for continuance/ extension of constructive approval date, Site plan submission, Flow test report, project narrative, preliminary signage, zoning narrative, design Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2024 Page 12 of 12 checklist, average natural grade worksheet forms, Stormwater Management report dated April 12,revised July 21,2024, peer review memo response, perspective renderings, Inclusionary dwelling unit narrative, definitive site development plan set, DRT summary response, construction mitigation plan, LEED Checklist, SITESv2Scorecard, solar energy efficiency narrative. Visual sketch of Piper Road turnaround from Mr. Creech. List of Public Comments: 1. Electronic Mail from Nihad Mamdouh to Planning Director Subject: 5-7 Piper Rd, dated September 7, 2024 2. Electronic Mail from Susan Rubenstein Subject: Re: Letter from Rabbi David Lerner of Temple Emunah 2 5/7 Piper Road, dated September 10, 2024 3. 217, 229, 233 & 241 Massachusetts Avenue: Peer Review memo dated September 18, 2024, Staff memo dated September 20, 2024, site development plans, renderings, project narrative, stormwater report, signage, DRT summary, neighborhood meeting summary full link to application material (latest material uploaded here: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/94025). Visual presentation from Mr. Creech, elevation modification slides. List of Public Comments: 1. Electronic Mail from Tom Shiple to Planning Staff and Planning Board Subject: LBAC feedback for 231 Mass Ave dated September 18, 2024 2. Electronic Mail from Adlai Winston Subject: 231 Mass Ave, dated September 17, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Alice Cui to Lexington Planning Board Subject:217,229,233,241 Massachusetts Avenue- Village & Multi- Family Site Plan Review, dated September 18, 2024 4. Electronic Mail from Brian Susnock Subject:217-241 Mass Ave Project, along with 5 pictures of the properties, dated September 19, 2024 5. Electronic Mail from Jane Sheena to Planning Board Member Melanie Thompson Subject: Plan to build a 5 story building in E Lexington, dated September 7, 2024 6. Electronic Mail from Ji-Young Kim Subject: 231 Bedford Street: Comments on the new 46 unit building on Mass Ave dated September 19, 2024 7. Electronic Mail from Melanie Hedlund to Planning Board Subject: 231 Mass Ave development proposal, dated September 17, 2024 8. Electronic Mail from Michiko Haas Subject: Hearing for 241 Mass Ave (Sept.25th) dated September 14, 2024 4. 32 Brookside Avenue (formerly 10 Stedman Rd.: Modification plans prepared by Patriot Engineering (4 pages) dated May 24, 2024, Stormwater and Project Summary dated August 31, 2024, revised September 18, 2024, Prepared and stamped by Michael Novak No: 50696 consisting of 30 pages. 5. 331 Concord Avenue: Subdivision approval decision stamped by Town Clerk dated August 30, 2024, copy of covenant. 6. Draft Meeting Minutes of 9.11.24