Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-23-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday October 23 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 and Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, October 23, 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 28 Meriam Street & 32 Edgewood Road – Minor modification request to change color of buildings from tan and gray to white Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant is requesting a minor modification from the May and June 2024 site plan review approval to change the exterior color of the buildings. She explained that the approved plans showed the historic house as the tan color and a gray for the new buildings noting that the colors were shown for illustrative purposes but not specifically referenced on the plans. The applicant’s request is to change the paint color to white for all buildings. Ms. McCabe explained that it was not typical to regulate color through the Planning Board or zoning process so the Planning Board does not really have any reason to not accept the color change. A Board member pointed out that usually only historic districts review and approve the colors and this project is not in a historic district. Another board member said that repainting of properties by future homeowners would happen a lot and the Planning Board shouldn’t try to regulate that. Some of the board members liked the original color to add variety but generally agreed that paint was beyond their purview. The Board members agreed and concluded paint color change did not warrant a formal modification request to the Board. The applicant, Mr. Finnegan, informed the Board that he is working with the neighbors to come up with colors that are mutually acceptable. It was the consensus of the Board that this did not warrant a formal modification request. The Board directed staff to follow this going forward with future request. Ms. McCabe responded they could Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 2 of 10 include reference to colors and not requiring a formal application to the Board the next time the Board updates their Regulations. 17 Hartwell Avenue – Public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for multi-family mixed-use development in the Village High Rise Overlay District Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the public hearing for the major site plan review application for the proposal at 17 Hartwell Avenue continued from the September 11 meeting. 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 Board’s peer review consultant from Nitsch Engineering, Mr. William Maher. Mr. Carr gave a brief overview of the project and went over the major changes in the plan to address some of the concerns raised by staff and the peer reviewer in the last meeting. Mr. Carr stated that the number of parking spaces was reduced by eight and the bike parking increased to a total of thirty-six. They have withdrawn the earlier request for a special permit for parking and driveway within the front yard setback. Mr. Carr also added the request for a partial solar canopy over the garage and stated that they were planning on setting up compost bins adjacent to trash rooms to become part of the composting program in Town. Mr. Carr added that, as per the recommendation of the Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO), they have increased the number of three-bedroom units to 10.6% of the total units and they were working with the RHSO director on the exact location and unit mix for the inclusionary units. Mr. Carr mentioned that they were seeking waivers for the bike parking and that they have incorporated the recommended bike racks from the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Mr. Carr shared new renderings that highlighted the views from different directions of the proposed building and explained in detail. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe stated the applicant has submitted updated plans and material and also the proposed locations of inclusionary dwelling unit that are currently under review by the RHSO Director. Ms. McCabe added that the majority of the units (45%) are 1-bedrooms, and more 3-bedrooms were added to account for 10% of the total project’s units. Ms. McCabe stated that the Special Permit request for the parking in the setback has been withdrawn and parking relocated outside the setback. Ms. McCabe said there was an updated staff memo from Ms. McNamara in the Board’s packet dated October 18. The memo asks the applicant for updated plans to show the EV charging stations to confirm compliance of the minimum of 4% and added that there is some light spill over property line and asked for an updated photometric plan to confirm there is no light trespass and to show all the light fixtures on the plan. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to consider the Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations for the façade to make the building look more residential and make changes to the architectural designs. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant for a revised landscape plan and a tree planting plan that would include shade trees in the front of the building to make the area walkable. Since the project also required Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 3 of 10 Conservation Commission review, Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to file with the Conservation Commission for a review during one of their November meetings. Peer Reviewer Comments Mr. Maher highlighted the changes made by the applicant to address some of the concerns raised by him in the previous meeting. Mr. Maher recommended the domestic water service for retail building be connected directly to the main water line. Mr. Maher asked the applicant to update the plans to reflect that the wall drain was above the ground surface. Mr. Maher also asked the applicant to provide details of some sort of storage on the top floor of the garage and how it would be handled. Mr. Maher asked the applicant to perform a study to determine the capacity of stormwater handling of the 30-inch drain pipe in the front of the property. Determining the condition of the 30-inch drain line to make sure it is sufficient is the biggest outstanding item. Board Questions Mr. Peters asked Mr. Carr to clarify if the solar canopy would be built contemporaneously with the construction of the project. Mr. Carr confirmed that it would be. Mr. Peters wanted to know the details of the increase in the garage height with the addition of the solar canopy. Mr. Carr said he will share the details when they are available to him. Mr. Leon asked the applicant for details for parking demand for transient retail use and wanted to know if the applicant had done any analysis to determine if the proposed parking space will be appropriate. Mr. Carr responded that they had obtained the opinions of retail brokers to determine the ideal number of retail parking spaces. Mr. Leon also wanted to know if the applicant sees the demand for the proposed residential parking. Mr. Carr responded that they do foresee a fair amount of car usage and hence felt the need for the proposed parking for residential units. Ms. Thompson asked for clarity on the proposed number of inclusionary units that will be three-bedroom units. She also asked the applicant to consider moderate income units in the project. Mr. Creech had the same question as Mr. Leon about the appropriateness of the number of retail parking spaces. Mr. Creech also asked the applicant if the mix of unit sizes was appropriate for the market. Mr. Carr stated that based on their neighborhood research, they were confident of the mix of unit sizes. Mr. Creech also wanted clarity regarding the walkability around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Carr shared a rendering of the proposed building and explained that the perimeter was walkable and added that he will provide more details regarding this in the next set of plans. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if they had any conversations with the Affordable Housing Trust about the potential to buy down the rents of some of the units. Mr. Carr responded that they have had an initial conversation with the Affordable Housing Trust. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if there were any architectural changes made in the plans due the change in the mix of unit sizes. Mr. Carr responded that there were no changes to the exterior and the changes were all in the interior specific to the three-bedroom units. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Creech asked for some clarity relating to the amenity space. Mr. Carr explained the layout of the building in detail based on the plans. Public Comments Elaine Tung, Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, said that the Trust was interested in buying down the affordability of some units with interest in some units being available at 60% of the Area Median Income and wants to continue discussions with the applicant. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, asked the applicant to consider installing bike charging stations and more inverted U- shaped bike racks. They would also like to see the required number of bike parking spaces be provided and two-thirds of them to be at ground level. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, expressed her concern about the lack of sufficient parking in the proposed plan, importance of the 15-foot setback, and asked the applicant to come up with an improved architectural design that was more residential. Applicant response to public comments Mr. Carr responded to Ms. Tung that they were happy to work with the Affordable Housing Trust and responded to Mr. Shiple’s and Ms. McKenna’s comments that they will continue to study and work on them. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe clarified staff’s recommendation for retail parking and that they want parking for retail customers but did not support parking in the front yard setback. Ms. McCabe added that this proposal does not fully fit the vision of the Board for the Hartwell Area. She is glad to see the applicant added the retail space but would still like to see the building closer to the street and more commercial space to create an active street front. Ms. McCabe added that staff’s recommendation is to expand the retail space and provide parking could be directly behind it. She also added that staff was not supportive of the bike waiver requests and supported the Bike Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Board Comments Mr. Creech thought the building was a good-looking building. Mr. Hornig stated that he did not have any big problems with the waivers and asked the applicant if they felt that any of the concerns raised by staff and the peer reviewer were not addressable. Mr. Carr responded that the light spillage and the bicycle passageway might be some things that they might want additional waivers. Mr. Hornig said that he felt the proposed building presents as a large apartment building as opposed to a commercial building. Mr. Peters asked the applicant to look at the recommendations provided by the Design Advisory Committee and supported Ms. McCabe’s recommendation to move the retail space further along the frontage. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Leon asked Ms. McCabe if she felt that the relocation of the retail space would solve the parking challenges. Ms. McCabe clarified that she had always envisioned that the retail building could be out front close to the street with the parking directly behind it and a separate residential behind the retail space. Mr. Leon asked the applicant if they thought there was potential for expansion of the retail area. Mr. Carr felt that was not feasible and added that the primary use and purpose of the development according to them was residential. Mr. Schanbacher stated that he was not supportive of the waivers regarding bike parking and believed that the parking should be on one side of the building and added that the project should prioritize an occupiable streetscape and not parking. Mr. Schanbacher added that he is not in favor of the hulking parking garage at the back of the building and the amount of space dedicated to cars in the front of the building. Mr. Schanbacher strongly felt that the future of Hartwell Avenue is more transit oriented and that this project should start the initiative in that direction. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his disappointment in the applicant not coming up with a more innovative architectural design as he had asked them in the previous meeting. Mr. Schanbacher stressed that the applicant should make the project more transit oriented and come up with a good architectural design. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, December 11 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 5-7 Piper Road – Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan to combine the two lots at Assessor’s Map 10, Lots 58A & 59A Ms. McCabe reported that an ANR Plan to combine the two lots at 5 & 7 Piper Road has been submitted. She explained this was a condition of the recent site plan review approval and she had no concerns about the ANR Plan and recommended the Board endorse and then come to the office to sign. Mr. Creech moved to endorse the Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan 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 69 Pleasant St./Linc Cole Lane Special Permit Residential Development & Definitive Subdivision – Request to release lots from covenant and accept a new performance guarantee Ms. McCabe reported that the Applicant, Mr. Cataldo of Sheldon Corporation, has requested all the lots be released from the covenant and that you accept a cash surety deposit as the new performance guarantee. She reminded the Board that the Applicant may request a change in the performance guarantee and the covenant is usually in the beginning and then when the applicant is looking for building permits and occupancy the type usually changes. A list of outstanding infrastructures and utility work has been submitted and reviewed by Lexington Engineering. The total cost estimate is $136,413.19 and is provided in the Board’s packet. She recommended the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 6 of 10 Board vote to release all the lots from the covenant and accept the cash deposit. The Board members will then need to sign the covenant release. Mr. Creech moved to accept a cash deposit in the amount of $136,413.19 as a new performance guarantee to complete the ways and the municipal services to serve the lots on Linc Cole Lane, in accordance with the attached exhibit revised through October 15, 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 Mr. Creech moved to release the 10 lots (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I & J) from the covenant recorded at the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds on October 25, 2022 in Book 80866 Page 389 for 69 Pleasant Street, the Linc Cole Lane Special Permit Definitive Subdivision. 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 Discussion about Local Preference for Inclusionary Dwelling Units Ms. Rust, Director of the Regional Housing Services Office, was present for this discussion. The Housing Partnership Board also joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. Weiss called the meeting of the Housing Partnership Board to order on a roll call vote at 8:00 pm. Ms. Rust provided a memo to the Board members in the Board’s packet. She explained the regulatory framework for Local Preference comes from the State’s Chapter 40B Guidelines and is on a project my project basis. She said that local preference can only be a maximum of 70% of a project’s total inclusionary units and only at the initial leasing or initial purchasing. She said that local preference applies to people that live in town but also employees of local businesses in the town, families that attend the local public high schools and municipal employees. She also added that a community’s permit granting authority can make a recommendation on local preference but it then has to be detailed in the affirmative fair housing marketing plan and approved by the state as the monitoring agent. Board discussion: Mr. Hornig said he would not want to see local preference in the ownership projects but could support some local preference for rentals but smaller than the maximum of 70%, in the 15-25% range. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 7 of 10 Ms. Thompson was not supportive of local preference. She felt it is important that the inclusionary dwellings be truly inclusionary and available to everyone that applies and is qualified. If there was to be local preference she would want it only for rentals and significantly less than the 70% maximum. She felt it is too important for the ownership units that build equity that those be truly equitable. Mr. Peters said he could support a percentage of local preference but thought maybe a different percentage based on the size of the project. Mr. Creech felt that some level of local preference was appropriate. He added that he felt that the Chapter 40B rules regarding local preference were well thought through and fair. Mr. Leon also supported a low amount of local preference percentage. Mr. Schanbacher felt a local preference only in rental projects that have a large number of inclusionary units, such as over 40 inclusionary units, to keep the opportunities available. Members of the Housing Partnership Board were generally supportive of having local preference, of at least 25%. Public Comments: Ms. McKenna asked the Board not vote on this tonight. Mr. Sandeen asked that the Select Board have a chance to weigh in on this. Mr. Schanbacher asked staff to prepare draft guidelines for the next meeting for the Board’s review on November 6 because some other projects will be before the Board soon will they will need to give a recommendation in any application approvals. Board position on any warrant articles submitted for Special Town Meeting STM 2024-1 - Article 8: Delay MSBA Filing Resolution The Board discussed if they should take a position on Article 8 at Special Town meeting. It was the consensus of the board not to give a formal recommendation. A member asked that it be pointed out that the impacts for the MBTA zoning would not be known in two years. The board did not take positions on any other Special Town Meeting Articles. Discussion of potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for Annual Town Meeting (time permitting) Ms. McCabe said it has been discovered that the required inclusionary dwelling unit gross floor area for special residential developments is based on the maximum build out because it’s based on the total lot area. She would like to see this adjusted to be based on the total proposed units. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 8 of 10 She said the way it is written incentivizes the maximum buildout. Mr. Hornig agreed this was an important change but would like to see the inclusionary dwelling requirement remain required in gross floor area. The Board discussed updating the accessory apartment section of the Zoning Bylaw to comply with the recent state changes in the Affordable Homes Act. Ms. McCabe said she recommends waiting until we have more guidance for the state and right now she does not feel we are ready to bring this forward. She recommends this not go forward this spring. Mr. Hornig felt it was important that this be brought forward in the spring because the state law will be in place this winter. Mr. Creech felt we should be cautious about any proposed changes. Mr. Leon recommended waiting for the state’s guidelines and in the interim staff will have to follow the law when it goes into effect. Ms. McCabe also said she would like to revisit the parking design standards in the zoning bylaw. During the recent residential applications, it was discovered the existing parking standards allow for tandem/stacked parking only with a special permit. There is also a provision that requires a special permit if a parking space requires moving a vehicle to access it, which may be outdated with new parking systems. Public Comments: Mr. Shiple also asked about updating the bicycle parking requirements to include the bike parking requirements in the zoning because it is now currently in the Planning Board’s Regulations and residential requirements aren’t in the zoning. He also asked if the Board would consider updating the threshold criteria for special residential developments. Ms. McKenna recommended the Planning Board not take on too many zoning changes because it’s a lot for Town Meeting members to digest. Board & Staff Member Updates Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 10.09.24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft October 9, 2024 meeting minutes 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 Review winter Meeting Schedule – Please review the draft and get back to staff. Upcoming Meetings: 11/6, 11/20, 12/11 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 9 of 10 Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of October 23, 2024 at 9:52 pm. 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 9.52 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. 28 Meriam St. & 32 Edgewood Rd: Approved Architectural Plans dated January 25, 2024 revised June 14,2024 Proposed Color Change Renderings dated October 18, 2024 2. 17 Hartwell Ave: Peer Review Memo dated 10.17.24, Staff Memo dated 10.18.24 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 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,revised October 5, 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, revised October 5, 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, revised October 5, 2024, Development Review Team Notes dated June 12, 2024, Response from the applicant’s consultant, VHB to Peer Reviewer’s comments dated October 7,2024, Egress path diagram dated October 5, 2024, Height Calculation form dated October 5, 2024, Inclusionary Dwelling Unit floor plans dated October 16, 2024, Landscape Illustrative Plan dated October 5, 2024, Site Lighting Plan dated October 5, 2024, Operations and Maintenance Manual for Stormwater Management System dated October 7, 2024, Sight Distance Figure dated October 7, 2024, Site calculations dated October 5, 2024, Site Plan Review Response Letter dated October 7, 2024, Stormwater memo from applicant’s consultants VHB dated October 7, 2024, Response to Peer Reviewer’s Memo regarding Stormwater Rules and Regulations dated October 7, 2024, Unit Mix and Building Summary dated October 7, 2024, Updated Requested Waivers Memorandum dated October 7, 2024. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Page 10 of 10 3. 5 & 7 Piper Rd: ANR Plan dated September 27, 2024. 4. 69 Pleasant St: Covenant dated October 1, 2022, Cost estimate dated October 2, 2024 and revised October 15, 2024, Draft lot release performance guarantee 5. Memorandum from RHSO Director Elizabeth Rust, Re: Local Preference Update, dated October 14, 2024 6. Draft Meeting Minutes of 10.09.24