Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-09-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 1 of 11 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday October 9, 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, October 9, 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 5-7 Piper Road – Site plan review application Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant has provided a final revised plan set addressing all the issues that were raised at the previous meeting with the Planning Board. Ms. McCabe said the plans were revised to lower the light heights in the play area and eliminate any light trespass on Piper Road. Ms. McCabe said that staff has prepared a draft decision to the Planning Board and the applicant. She said there is a findings related to the bus shelter and added that even though the applicant is agreeable to adding a bus shelter on Piper Road, but that is subject to approval from Engineering and possibly from the State, staff decided to include it as a finding and not a condition of approval that could hold up occupancy. Ms. McCabe also summarized the waivers, the first one being the waiving of the jurisdiction of the Tree Bylaw to be incorporated into the site plan review approval since the applicant gave the tree mitigation plan. The second waiver was to allow the bottom of the car stacker pits to be within 2 feet of the estimated seasonal high groundwater, with the proposed pumping system that was provided to go out into the infiltration system and, the third waiver was for stormwater harvesting. Ms. McCabe also stated that there were 62 conditions and explained them briefly and informed the project’s eligibility for local preference. Board deliberation The Planning Board began their discussion and deliberation on the application of Morgan Point LLC for 5- 7 Piper Road. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Creech said he would like some amount of local preference be provided for this project. Mr. Creech encouraged a smoke free environment to be included in the condominium documents to enforce the no smoking rule in common areas. He added that it would be a lot easier for a future Association Board if this were in place when the units are initially sold. Mr. Creech asked the applicant to consider granting access to the exercise facility in the proposed development to the current residents of Piper Road t. This would be for 4 homes on Piper Rd and for no more than 8 people. Mr. Creech also asked the applicant to communicate with the members of the adjacent Temple to help improve and create a turnaround on Piper Road. Ms. Thompson strongly felt that local preference should not be given to buyers for this proposal as it would restrict the availability for the people who are not local. Since the proposed development abuts a Temple, Mr. Peters suggested adding Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to the list of days where work cannot take place to the list of holidays outlined in the Noise Bylaw and agreed with Ms. Thompson that there should be no local preference for this development. Mr. Hornig agreed with Ms. Thompson and Mr. Peters on not including a local preference for the inclusionary units. Mr. Schanbacher agreed that no local preference should be given for this project and added that holidays followed by the abutting Temple should be included in the list of holidays when blasting cannot be done. The Board members discussed and decided that for this project no preference should be given for locals. The Board recommended this be discussed further at a future meeting outside of a specific project to be discussed as a policy. Mr. Creech moved to waive the jurisdiction of the Tree Bylaw to the Planning Board because the project is best mitigated with the proposed landscape planting plan that meets the Bylaw on this project site and through a condition of approval requiring a tree protection plan prepared by a tree arborist. 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 waive strict requirements of Section 176-12.9.5.3 to allow the base of the vehicle stacker pit to be within 2-ft. of the estimated seasonal high groundwater table because the project is designed with a foundation and drain and sump pump to be directed into a compatible subsurface infiltration system. This proposal along with the condition requiring mechanical design plans with building permits is acceptable. 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 waive the requirement for stormwater harvesting systems due to the condition of the site with large amounts of rock and ledge. 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 draft decision for site plan review and special permit approval with the findings and conditions prepared by staff with the 62 conditions along with the condition mentioned Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 3 of 11 this evening for adding Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to the list of holidays with respect to blasting and any other modifications that were discussed 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 have the Chair sign the decision and correct any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and 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. 329-331 Concord Avenue – Continued public hearing for the site plan review application Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the continued public hearing on the application of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes for approval of a 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 team included: Quinlan Locke the Project manager, Ian Ramey the landscape architect, Steve Prestejohn the architect, Keri Pyke the transportation Consultant and Matt Shaughnessy, the ledge and blasting subcontractor. Also present was the Board’s peer review consultant Mike Carter from GCG Associates, Inc. Mr. Locke shared the revisions made to the plans since their last presentation to the Planning Board, focusing on the changes made to the Building design, Site and Landscape design and Transportation Plan based on comments received from the neighbors, staff and peer reviewer. Mr. Prestejohn shared the revised elevations and went over the changes that were made to address the concerns relating to residential character. Mr. Prestejohn also shared perspective renderings from different sides of the property and compared the revised elevations with the earlier version. Mr. Ramey, shared the revised Landscape Plans and compared it with their previous landscape plans and explained the changes made to the landscape plan in detail. Mr. Ramey shared the courtyard enlargement plan and the plans for the entry plaza and the play area and went over the changes in detail. Mr. Ramey shared pictures of the proposed play area structures, the proposed ideas for front activation and options for fencing. Mr. Ramey also shared the photometrics update and explained the changes made to ensure that there is no light spillage outside the property. Ms. Pike explained the changes that were made regarding transportation based on comments from neighbors and staff. Ms. Pike shared the data related to proposed trips generated and presented the total expected trips on completion of the project. Ms. Pike also shared the data along the Concord Avenue and Waltham Street intersection and suggested optimizing the traffic signal to make the traffic better. Ms. Pike explained the traffic demand management measures to be adopted by them. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Shaughnessy gave a brief overview of the drilling and blasting process and explained the sequence of events that are planned. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the staff memo from Ms. McNamara which detailed the revisions to the plan and provided details of the waivers. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant provided the Tree Planting Plan and that staff was able to confirm that the provisions of the Tree Bylaw were complied with based on the Tree Planting Plan. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant was requesting two waivers for the regulations related to bicycle parking, one related to the sizing requirements and the other one related to bike parking spaces being situated off the ground with a racking system. Ms. McCabe also provided details of Lexington’s hours for blasting and ledge removal to the applicant, which were different than what was referenced in the applicant’s submission (limited to 9 am – 5 pm, week days only, not on holidays). Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant was working with the Town’s Engineering Division to perform a water and sewer capacity analysis. Ms. McCabe also recommended a shuttle service between the proposed development and Alewife station, stating that it would alleviate some traffic issues. Ms. McCabe added that staff felt the need for another van accessible parking space in the surface parking area and also some modifications in the lighting plan to avoid light spillage off the property. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to provide a draft stormwater prevention pollution plan and asked the applicant to file with the Conservation Commission as their proposed drainage connection would trigger a Conservation review. Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Committee for an annual contribution to the Town’s Transportation Demand Management Fund. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to provide details of the location and type of proposed fencing. Ms. McCabe also asked the applicant to share the details of the proposed plans for handling the ledge that has been removed. Mr. Shaughnessy responded that his company is only involved with the actual drilling and blasting and other activities are typically performed by the site contractor. Mr. Locke offered to provide more details in the next meeting. Susan Barrett, the Town’s Transportation Manager, encouraged the applicant to consider participating in the shared shuttle service and asked the applicant to explore options for placing a bus shelter and a shared bus stop for commuters. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Carter shared his comments based on the review of the project’s compliance with stormwater and conservation regulations. Mr. Carter added that the applicant had addressed most of the issues that were raised by him during the previous meeting and that efforts are being made to resolve a few issues that were easily addressable. Mr. Carter asked the applicant to provide revised drainage calculations and focus on the details of downstream drainage. Board Questions Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Creech needed clarification on the chain link fence and the details about notifying neighbors for the pre- blast surveys. Mr. Shaughnessy clarified that they planned to notify the neighbors in advance about the blasting times. Mr. Peters suggested conducting pre-blast surveys beyond the required 250 feet as it is a large site and added that blasting was a very sensitive matter for the Town and asked the applicant to comply with the Noise Bylaw. Mr. Peters asked Ms. Pike if she had factored the proposed traffic that would be added due to the Piper Road development. Ms. Pike responded that traffic from Piper Road was not considered for calculating the projected traffic. Mr. Peters asked Ms. Pike the reason for not making recommendations for speed humps or speed tables. Ms. Pike responded that speed feedback signs are good starters to change people’s behavior in terms of speeding and erecting speed humps and speed tables involving impacts on existing drainage systems and snow plows. Mr. Peters asked Mr. Locke about the proposed Construction timeline especially with regards to the upcoming Piper Road development. Mr. Locke projected a design and permitting time of 9 to 10 months and start of construction afterwards and expressed his willingness to coordinate with the Piper Road development. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Prestejohn to share the architectural plans, particularly the ones where he compared the revised renderings with the earlier proposed renderings. Mr. Prestejohn offered to create more renderings from the Minuteman Apartments side for the next meeting in order for Ms. Thompson to have a better idea of the size of the proposed buildings. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Locke about the reason behind some of the units being very small and asked him if he could make it a little bit bigger. Mr. Locke stated that they are the average unit size in some of their buildings. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant to provide more ideas on different unit sizes and their impact on rent. Mr. Schanbacher asked the reason for the architectural change in the front façade of the building in this revised version. Mr. Prestejohn felt that the revised façade made the building look more residential. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to know the reason behind the applicant not committing to 128 business council. Mr. Locke responded that they were willing to come up with a transportation service that would make sense for the location and its needs. Public Comments Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, liked the project and hoped it would help achieve economic diversity in Lexington and asked the applicant to consider extending the pre-blasting survey radius as houses further than the required 250 feet were damaged in the past. Stephen Quatrano, 76 Bloomfield Street, expressed concerns related to traffic especially due to the proximity of the Piper Road project and wondered how the blasting debris will be removed from the site. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, wanted to know, due to the proximity of the two proposed developments, which project will be held responsible in the event of damage and expressed concerns about blasting near a daycare. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Susan Rubenstein, 10 Brigham Road, stated that it would be helpful if both the parties of the proposed projects coordinated their blasting schedules. Amira Aaron, 235 Concord Avenue, felt that a designated right-hand turn coming up from Concord to Waltham Street would help alleviate a lot of congestion. Cynthia Arens, 7 Kitson Park Drive, agreed that the pre-blasting survey should be expanded beyond the 250 feet radius, and appreciated the traffic demand management measures committed to by the applicant. Danit Netzer, 17 John Poulter Road, felt the proposed development looks like an office building and was massive and asked for fewer units, more open space and green space and asked the developer to remove the retail space. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Committee, reiterated the request for a bus shelter on Concord Avenue, contributions to Transportation Demand Management fund and participation in the business council shuttle. Rena Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, asked for perspective renderings from different directions and asked the applicant to share details of blasting and ledge removal to be shared with abutters. Steve Heinrich, 11 Potter Pond, expressed his disappointment in the applicant still proposing retail space and 200 units and asked the applicant to widen the driveway to ease traffic. Christina Chang, 250 Concord Avenue, asked for details about the location of the shuttle bus stop and asked the applicant to eliminate the commercial space. Tim Lee, 67 Baker Avenue, asked the applicant to provide scaled elevations and asked for some shade element in the play area and asked the applicant if the courtyards will have operable windows. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe expressed her concerns about the site visibility at the entrance and asked the applicant to show the site visibility lines at the driveway onto Concord Avenue and label them to ensure clear views and safe traffic for the residents and neighbors for vehicle’s exiting the development. Ms. McNamara responded that staff have recommended standard conditions about vehicle traffic and that trucks were prohibited from traveling down any minor roads and reminded everyone about the existing truck exclusion along Waltham Street and added that the applicant has committed to adhere to the restrictions. Applicant Comments Mr. Locke stated that they were working with the abutters on providing perimeter fencing and added that they will provide details of blasting and ledge removal along with the next set of plans. The Board recessed at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 p.m. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Board Comments Mr. Peters felt that it was appropriate for the applicant to consider a perimeter greater than 250 feet for blasting and to accurately document the surveys to be used in the event of any claims. Mr. Peters added that he preferred the earlier brick design over the now proposed concrete in the front retail area. Mr. Peters emphasized that the proposed retail space does not serve the original intent of the bylaw to activate the streetscape and felt the project would be a better project if it were fully residential which would also lead to reduction in the size and the number of units thereby addressing a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Peters also added that communicating with the neighbors would benefit both the project and the neighborhood. Mr. Creech agreed with Mr. Peters, that it would be better for the project to eliminate the commercial space and asked the applicant to work with the neighboring temple to address their concerns regarding safety. Mr. Creech added that since it is an MBTA Communities project and was the VOD parcel closest to Alewife, the applicant should consider providing shuttle service to Alewife. Since the adjacent residential property was all brick, Mr. Hornig asked the applicant to come up with a design that was not identical with the immediate abutter. Mr. Hornig also asked the applicant if they felt that any of the comments received from staff, Board or the Peer Reviewer would lead them to make changes to the plan requiring another hearing and further discussion. Mr. Locke responded that they were confident that all the comments from the staff, Board and Peer reviewer were addressable and that they will submit revised plans to address those comments in their next submission. Mr. Schanbacher reiterated Mr. Creech’s views that this being an MBTA Community project, the applicant should provide the occupants maximum access to public transportation and encouraged the applicant to work towards providing a shuttle. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to clearly identify the ground floor space with regards to residential and retail space and added that he was not in favor of the fins. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to utilize the potential to add depth and articulation of the thermal envelope along all sides of the building. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Creech and Mr. Peters that the applicant should consider making the project fully residential especially when the retail space does not activate the streetscape. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to explore and come up with a design that was more creative and progressive and utilized the site in a better way which was consistent with the MBTA Community bylaw. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Prestejohn to provide perspective renderings depicting how the proposed project would fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Creech shared conceptual ideas that would make it possible for people to walk, East/West, through the building and to create more open space. He added that his objective was to make a better project for future residents and that it was not an attempt to reduce the number of units. The Board discussed when the next meeting would be. Ms. McCabe recommended the public hearing be continued to the November 20 meeting and asked that the final action deadline be extended to November Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 8 of 11 26 from November 21. The Chair asked if the Applicant was agreeable to the final action extension and Mr. Locke confirmed that he was and would provide written confirmation. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, November 20, 2024 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom, and accept the applicant's request to extend the final action deadline to November 26, 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 32 Brookside Avenue – Continued public hearing for subdivision amendment (continued from 6/26, 7/31, 9/11, & 9/25) Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the public hearing on the application of Homes Dev. Corp to amend a definitive subdivision plan under §175-6.0 of the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations located at 32 Brookside Avenue. The applicant was represented by Michael Novak, the Civil Engineer for the project. Also present was the applicant’s attorney Fred Gilgun. Mr. Novak shared the layout plans and gave a brief history of the project and an overview of the present conditions. Mr. Novak shared the plan for the proposed reconstruction of the turnaround and the proposed overall drainage plan and explained the design of the infiltration system. He said the proposal is to re-establish the turnaround area within the easement area and update the drainage. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe stated that she still recommended having the original easement as mentioned in the Planning Board approval from 2010. Ms. McCabe added that the language of the existing easement has to be updated to reference the modified plan and should be recorded at the registry. Ms. McCabe also wanted the installation of official no parking signs in front of the turnaround area to inform people. Mr. Gilgun requested the easement be modified. Board Comments Mr. Hornig added that he was comfortable with the design and the requirements of stormwater regulations except for two points. One being to ensure that the new owner assumes responsibility in perpetuity to fix the porous pavement periodically and taking care of snow removal and no parking around the turnaround. The Board and staff discussed and decided that the homeowner has to provide the annual log of inspections upon request. The other concern Mr. Hornig had was the means of modifying the easement since it would have to be released by the Select Board. The Board and staff discussed and asked the applicant to approach the Select Board for modifying the easement and asked the applicant to contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust, which was mentioned at an earlier public hearing. Mr. Gilgun responded that the applicant was not agreeable to providing a contribution into the Affordable Housing Trust. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 9 of 11 Public Comments: None. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing for 32 Brookside Avenue. 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 definitive subdivision amendment proposal for 32 Brookside Avenue as shown on the plans and stormwater report as revised through October 9, 2024 with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit the proposed pavement expansion plan revised through October 9, 2024 at the Registry of Deeds along with the amendment approval decision. 2. The property owner is responsible for maintenance of the roadway and the turnaround area within the easement to be kept clear of snow and ice and will also perform long term maintenance. At a minimum, all components of the stormwater management system shall be inspected and maintained and cleaned regularly in accordance with the approved Operations and Management Plan dated October 9, 2024 and handbook, to ensure long term performance of the systems and inspection and maintenance logs shall be maintained on site and submitted to the Planning Board upon request. 3. Applicant shall install and maintain updated signage in the road and turnaround area for “no parking on either side”. 4. Clean out the catch basins. 5. The improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy. 6. All the conditions of the original decision are still in force and will still apply. 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. 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 69 Pleasant Street/Linc Cole Lane– Request to release lots from the covenant and accept a new performance guarantee. Mr. Schanbacher informed the Board that the applicant for 69 Pleasant street was not ready at this time and hence the Board will not discuss it. Board Administration Board & Staff Member Updates Ms. McCabe updated the Board about the promotion of the Planning Coordinator Kiruthika Ramakrishnan to the Office Manager position in the Land Use Health and Development Department. Ms. McCabe Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 10 of 11 reminded the Board about the Bedford Hartwell Complete Streets 25% Design Public Meeting on October 24th over zoom and the open house to discuss the same on November 19th. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 9.25.24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft Minutes of the meeting held on 09.25.24 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 Upcoming Meetings: Mr. Schanbacher reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings on 10/23, 11/6,11/20, and 12/11. Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of 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 Meeting adjourned at 9.15 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. 5 & 7 Piper Road: Draft Planning Board Site Plan Review draft decision with findings and conditions sent on October 4, 2024 and revised one on October 7, 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 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, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan dated September 23, 2024, Final revised Plan set dated October 3, 2024. 2. 329 & 331 Concord Avenue: Peer Review Memo #2 dated 10.03.24, Staff memo #3 dated 10.04.24, full link to application material - https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/91785. Architectural Plan set, average natural grade worksheet forms, drainage report dated June 17, 2024, LEED Checklist, Response to DRT comments, Neighborhood meeting notes, preliminary construction management plan, project narrative, preliminary signage, zoning summary, design checklist, SWPPP dated June 17, 2024, Inclusionary Dwelling Unit Narrative dated June 27, 2024, Inclusionary Dwelling Units locations Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 11 of 11 dated July 10, 2024, Sustainability Narrative dated July 17, 2024, RHSO Memo for inclusionary units dated July 25, 2024, Peer Review memo dated July 25, 2024, Tree Report dated August 13, 2024, Site Plan Review Application Progress dated August 12, 2024, Non Residential Use letter dated August 13, 2024, Surface Parking Letter dated August 13, 2024, Supplemental Materials Narrative dated August 13, 2024, Comments from Design Advisory Committee dated August 27, 2024, Revised Project Narrative dated June 27, 2024, Definitive Site Development Plan Set dated July 17, 2024, Revised Architectural Plans dated July 17, 2024, Revised Zoning Narrative dated June 27, 2024, Shadow Study dated June 24, 2024, Applicant Responses to August 23, 2024 Staff Memo dated September 25, 2024, Blasting Memo dated September 6, 2024, Civil Plan set dated September 6, 2024, Drainage Report dated September 6, 2024, Fire Truck Outrigger loading calculations dated August 16, 2024, Landscape Plan dated September 25, 2024, Response Memo from Allen Major Associates to Peer Review Comments dated September 6, 2024, Revised Plan set dated September 6, 2024, Transportation Memo dated September 25, 2024, Updated Waiver Request letter dated September 25, 2024 List of Public Comments: a. Electronic mail from Jay Luker to Planning Staff, Subject: Comments on 331 Concord re: traffic, along with a screen shot of MassDOT’s recent Beyond Mobility Report, dated August 28, 2024 b. Electronic Mail from Margo Reder Subject: 329-331 Concord Avenue Proposal- legal case underway on law, dated October 8, 2024 c. Electronic mail from Kunal Botla, Chair, Transportation Advisory Committee to Planning Board Chair and Planning Director, Subject 331 Concord Avenue Comments- Transportation Advisory Committee, dated October 9, 2024 3. 32 Brookside Avenue (formerly 10 Stedman Road): Narrative and Stormwater Report dated 10.09.24, modification plans with snow storage dated 10.09.24, Staff memo dated 06.21.24, 2010 Approval Decision for a Subdivision dated 07.21.2010, Drainage Modification Plan dated 05.24.24 4. 69 Pleasant Street/Linc Cole Lane: Recorded Covenant, Applicant’s cost estimate of remaining infrastructure work 5. Draft Meeting Minutes of 9.11.24.