Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-06-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday November 6, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Charles Hornig and Michael Leon, associate member. Board member Robert Peters joined the meeting at around 7:50 pm. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director; and Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia 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 231 Bedford Street – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for a multi- family development in the village overlay district (continued from 9/11) Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant submitted a request to continue the hearing to the next Planning Board Meeting to be held on November 20th because they are still working on the revisions requested. Ms. McCabe also informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a written request to extend the action deadline to December 18, 2024. Mr. Creech moved to accept the Applicant’s request to continue the Site Plan Review public hearing for 231 Bedford Street to Wednesday, November 20, 2024 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom and to accept the applicant’s request to extend the final action deadline to December 18, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 3-4-5 Militia Drive – Public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for a mixed-use and multi-family development in the village overlay district Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for the major site plan review application of 3-5 Militia Redevelopment MM LLC for major site plan review under Zoning Bylaw §135-7.5. Mr. Schanbacher informed the Board that, due to an expected absence in February, Mr. Creech will not be acting as a voting member for this application. He is calling the associate member Mr. Leon to act as a voting member for this application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 2 of 9 The applicant was represented by attorney Frederick Gilgun. The applicant team included: Adam Siegel of SGL Development, Michael Liu, Sam Buckens and Jim Podesky from The Architectural Team, Engineer Katie Enright of Howard Stein and Hudson. Also present was the peer reviewer, Austin Chartier from McKenzie Engineering Group, Inc. Mr. Siegel gave an overview of the project and stated that the project will provide a diversity of housing in an environmentally sustainable way and will offer an opportunity for the current residents to downsize and continue living in the same community. Mr. Siegel added that the site is well connected to public transportation and numerous walking paths. Mr. Liu shared his slides and showed the location, the existing conditions, and the proposed site circulation in detail. Mr. Liu shared the proposed site plan, renderings of the project from different directions, and the details of the commercial space and the amenity spaces. Ms. Enright shared the proposed site plan and went over the pedestrian connections and fire lane extensions. Ms. Enright provided details of the bike racks and gave a brief overview of the proposed drainage and infiltration system. Ms. Enright also shared the Utilities Plan, the Lighting Plan and the Landscaping Plan in detail. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe reported that there is a staff memo from Ms. Eve Tapper and also the Board’s hired professional engineer as the peer reviewer consultant’s memo from McKenzie Engineering Group, Inc. in the Board’s Novus packet and provided to the Board and applicant. Ms. McCabe said that staff is looking for a future submission from the applicant responding in writing with a narrative and a revised submission package. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant is aware that a filing with the Conservation Commission is required for the proposed drainage connection. Ms. McCabe also said that staff felt that the proposed parking is more than what may be needed for this location and asked the Planning Board to consider asking for a reduction in the number of parking spaces to encourage future residents to use other modes of transportation and help to reduce traffic. Ms. McCabe said staff will review the proposed parking details to verify the parking meets the parking design standards; an updated parking plan was submitted on October 30. Ms. McCabe explained that the zoning requires that 30% of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the ground floor of the development to be dedicated to commercial principal uses in order for the height of the building to exceed 40 feet and reach a maximum of 60 feet and that staff are yet not able to confirm if the requirement was met. Ms. McCabe added that with the proposed 6 stories, the Fire Department and Engineering had some concerns regarding various code requirements. Ms. McCabe also stated that when the zoning was being developed, 60 feet was considered to be 5 stories instead of the proposed 6 stories and hence is awaiting more details and responses from the applicant in that regard. Ms. McCabe added that staff have asked the applicant to add some bike racks near the play area and to provide updated lighting plans. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant will provide water and sewer capacity analysis and shared the comments from the bicycle advisory committee. Ms. McCabe summarized the waivers requested by the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 3 of 9 applicant: the width of the bike parking spaces, permitting lifting some of the bikes above the ground level, and stormwater harvesting. Planning Board’s hired Peer Review Consultant Comments: Mr. Chartier summarized his key findings and stated that the major component was the 30-foot-wide sewer and drainage easement and the measures to ensure it was protected. Mr. Chartier added that they had asked the applicant to ensure compliance with Lexington Stormwater Management regulations and Massachusetts DEP Regulations and asked the applicant to provide the necessary details. Mr. Chartier asked the applicant to make calculations for the one-year storm to comply with Sections 5.2 and 5.6 of the Wetland Regulations to ensure that there was no increase in stormwater runoff. Mr. Chartier asked the applicant to model the site essentially as undeveloped in order to comply with the provisions of Section 5.6 of the Wetland Regulations. Mr. Chartier asked the applicant to provide revised plans for the parking garage’s stormwater outlet since the present plan modeled it going into the sewer, which would not comply with the plumbing code. Board Questions Mr. Leon wanted to know the status of the cul-de-sac, whether it was a public right of way and if it had any restrictions or limitations. Mr. Gilgun clarified that it was a public right of way and that there were no restrictions. Mr. Leon stated that he too, like Ms. McCabe, was expecting 5 stories in a 60 feet high building and asked the applicant to provide actual grade calculations in support of their proposed plans. Mr. Podesky and Mr. Liu provided the calculations. Mr. Leon stated that five stories of residential development would fit the site better. Mr. Leon also added that with the location of the development not being visible from the main street, the commercial space might not activate the street space as per the intent of the law and stated that he shared Ms. McCabe’s doubts on the commercial space adding up to 30 % of GFA. Mr. Leon also asked the applicant if he had done any market analysis to realistically determine the tenancy of the commercial space. Mr. Siegel shared the research done by them through multiple retail brokers and their communication with potential tenants. Mr. Leon also asked for clarification regarding the location of amenity spaces and infrastructure of the stormwater and infiltration systems. Mr. Siegel and Ms. Enright provided clarification. Mr. Leon also asked for the details of the parking analysis and Mr. Siegel shared the details. Mr. Leon asked the applicant to share details of the proposed heat recovery systems and Mr. Siegel provided the details. Mr. Leon asked Mr. Chartier if the proposed configuration would permit a turning radius for a ladder fire truck and Mr. Chartier shared the analysis provided by the applicant. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if he had any concerns addressing the issues mentioned in the Staff and Peer Review Memo. Ms. Enright responded that they are already working on some of the concerns and they would all be addressed before their next meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Hornig also asked the applicant if they would be compromising the types of uses in the commercial space in the East building due to the floor height of 10 feet. Mr. Siegel responded that in the commercial space in the East building, there was no units located in the second floor above the commercial uses. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Thompson wanted to know the rear setbacks and more details on the area between the building and Greeley Village. Mr. Siegel shared the setback details. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they had considered some screening in the rear side. Mr. Siegel responded that there will be screening on the rear side based on shadow studies. Mr. Buckens confirmed that based on shadow studies, there will be screening to protect the privacy of the Greeley Village residents. Ms. Thompson also asked for clarifications on the proposed site plan and Mr. Buckens explained in detail and shared the renderings for a better idea. Mr. Creech had general questions about the proposed plans, asked the applicant to consider having some brand-new office space that would accommodate a small business, and asked for details of the location of ledge situated to the west of the garage and the west building; at the base of Robinson Hill. Ms. Enright provided the details. Mr. Creech also wanted details on the ways to access the West side patio. Mr. Siegel shared the plans and explained that access would be through a corridor in the West building and not through the garage. Mr. Creech also did not favor the six-story structure, the proposal to have a pickleball court on the garage roof, and the lack of a path to Custance Place. Mr. Creech also asked the applicant to provide a rendering of the rear of the property along the Greeley Village side of the property to get a better understanding. Mr. Creech asked to elaborate on the reason for the waiver for the stormwater harvesting. Ms. Enright elaborated on the reasoning. Mr. Creech asked the applicant to round up the affordable units, provide more outdoor amenity space and green space, and create a more walkable neighborhood. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if they had reached out to the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) for the potential buydown of inclusionary units. Mr. Siegel responded that they have reached out to them. Mr. Schanbacher asked them to continue having conversations with the AHT. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to clearly distinguish between amenities for residents and the proposed commercial space especially for arriving at the 30% GFA calculation for the height bonus. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant if they planned on providing black iron ducts for kitchen vents for restaurant space. Mr. Siegel responded that that was their intent. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to provide the overall height calculations for each building from the curb at the circle at Militia Drive to get a better understanding of how each floor are stacked inside the buildings. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with all other Board members that the scale of the building is unnecessarily large and expressed his opinion to eliminate a floor from the proposed plans. The Board recessed at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 pm. Public Comments Leslie Liory, 1 Militia Drive, expressed her concerns about the traffic overflow and parking into their building. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, on behalf of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, asked for detailed drawings of bike rooms and asked for more short-term parking for commercial visitors. Mr. Shiple also asked to preserve the connecting path to Custance Place. Keith Stuart, 2 Stratham Road, expressed his concern about increase in traffic due to the development. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 5 of 9 John Bertucci, 50 Hill Street, expressed his concern about the scale of the project and asked to protect the neighboring conservation land from people straying into it. Lisa Newton, expressed her concern regarding the scale of the building and the shadows it might create on nearby properties and wanted to make sure the runoff water is captured and does not go into the neighboring properties. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed her concerns regarding the scale of the building and the depth of excavation to support the building height causing water displacement to adjacent properties. Caileen Foley, Executive Director of the Lexington Housing Authority, echoed her concerns about the size and scale of the project and the effects of increased traffic. Kristine, from Hill Street, wanted to know if the pool would be open only to tenants and felt the development would be out of character in the neighborhood. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, supported the project and felt it would address the shortage of rental properties in the Town. Applicant response to public comments Mr. Siegel responded that they added sufficient parking just so that their residents and patrons do not park illegally on other properties. Mr. Siegel added that the connecting path to Custance Place was proposed to be closed in response to the feedback received from the Custance Place Condominium owners during the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Siegel stated that based on traffic studies they are working on a traffic memo to address some key issues. Mr. Siegel confirmed that they are not going to disturb the conservation easement area. Ms. Enright added that all the concerns of the peer reviewer will be addressed. Mr. Siegel responded to the concerns of the public by saying that they will be going only around 5 feet deep in the ground and that the building will be supported on spread footings and very little blasting would be required. Additional Staff Comments Ms. McCabe added that the applicant has agreed to unbundle parking from the housing units in response to staff comments. Ms. McCabe added that this project would require 47 affordable units, the applicant has provided the proposed locations to the Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO), and the RHSO Director does not have any concerns with their proposal. Ms. McNamara asked Ms. Enright to clarify the concerns of neighbors regarding stormwater runoff and stormwater management. Ms. Enright shared the sub catchment data presented by their stormwater analysts and explained in detail. Additional Board Comments Mr. Creech mentioned a low carbon cement product that can be substituted for Portland cement and sand panels. Mr. Leon asked the applicant to consider taking aggressive measures to manage onsite stormwater generation and management and was not in favor of granting a waiver for stormwater harvesting. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to round up and provide 48 inclusionary housing units instead of the proposed 47 units. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to continue working with the bicycle advisory committee regarding the waiver for the bike parking requirements. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to reconsider the waiver for stormwater harvesting and asked the applicant to consider planting native species that would require minimal irrigation. Mr. Schanbacher added that the applicant has to capitalize the location to build a transit friendly community in the location and agreed with the abutters that the parking lot is exceptionally visible from the affordable housing project at Greeley Village. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to provide a rendering of the overall view to get a better idea of the impact of the scale of the building. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the architect to articulate the units in a more creative and better way. Ms. Thompson asked for renderings to help visualize the view from Greeley Village. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom, to allow the applicant time to respond to questions and comments from this evening's hearing and comments outlined in the staff & peer review memos. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Leon – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Board Administration Consideration of Planning Board Guidelines for local preference for inclusionary dwelling units Ms. McCabe summarized the draft guidelines included in the Board’s packet for their review. At the last meeting there seemed to be consensus for a modest amount of local local preference for larger rental projects. She reminded the Board that local preference only occurs at the initial leasing or initial sale and does need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The draft policy guide includes a 25% local preference on rental projects with 20 or more inclusionary dwelling units. Mr. Schanbacher reminded the Board that this Board Guideline would be reviewed by the Board during each project but would provide a starting point for the Board’s consideration. The local preference is a recommendation that requires EOHLC approval. The Board members discussed a sliding scale of options on the amount of local preference and reviewed sample project sizes of what 25% local preference would look like. Mr. Creech moved to accept the draft Guidelines for Local Preference dated November 6, 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 Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 10.23.24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft October 23, 2024 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0- Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 7 of 9 0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Board Member Updates Mr. Creech reported on his recent MAPC meeting that he attended in Acton. Mr. Hornig summarized a recent webinar he attended about the recent state changes as part of the Affordable Homes Act about accessory dwelling units. Mr. Schanbacher informed the Board about the school master planning committee and MSBA update. Ms. McCabe reminded board members about the 250th countdown clock photo on November 12. She also reminded the Board members about the office hours on November 19 for the Bedford St./Hartwell Ave. design plans. Upcoming Meetings: 11/20, 12/11. The Board confirmed the winter meeting schedule. Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of November 6, 2024 at 9:15 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. 231 Bedford St: Request for Continuance/ Extension of Constructive Approval date dated October 31, 2024 stamped by Town Clerk on November 4, 2024, Full link to application materials: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/88897 Project Narrative dated August 12, 2024, Definitive Site Development Plan Set dated August 12, 2024, Development Review Team Summary Response dated May 13, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.9 dated August 12, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist § 176.12 dated August 12, 2024, Construction Mitigation Plan dated August 16, 2024, Stormwater Management Plan dated August 12, 2024, LEED Checklist Scorecard dated May 10, 2024, Zoning Narrative dated August 12, 2024, Architectural Plans dated August 12, 2024, SITES v2 Checklist Scorecard dated May 10, 2024, Inclusionary Dwelling Narrative dated May 13, 2024, Solar & Energy Efficiency Narrative dated August 12 , 2024, Summary of Neighborhood Meeting dated May 13, 2024, Height Elevation Form and Average Natural Grade Worksheet dated August 12, 2024, Proposed Building Plan dated August 9, 2024 Public Comments 1. Electronic Mail from Barbara Katzenberg, Subject: Comments on updated landscaping plan for 231 Bedford Street, dated November 10, 2024 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 8 of 9 2. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Members of the Planning Board and Planning Director, Subject:231 Bedford St, dated September 14, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton, Subject:231 Bedford St, with a picture of signatures dated September 14, 2024 4. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Members of the Planning Board and Planning Director, Subject: Flood of November 2009-231 Bedford St, dated September 15, 2024 5. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Director and Assistant Planning Director, Subject:231 Bedford St – Letter for hearing on 11/20, dated November 14, 2024 6. Electronic Mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning Board and Planning Staff, Subject:231 Bedford St concerns - Sumitra Sujanani Personal Letter for 6 November Planning Board Hearing, dated October 31,2024 7. Electronic Mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning Board, Planning Director and Planning Staff, Subject:231 Bedford St concerns - Sumitra Sujanani Personal Letter for 20 November Planning Board Hearing, dated November 14, 2024 8. Electronic Mail from Susan Knauer to Planning Staff, Subject:231 Bedford St project -, dated September 11,2024 2. 3-4-5 Militia Drive: Peer Review Memo from McKenzie Engineering Group dated October 30,2024, Memo from Regional Housing Services Office dated October 15, 2024, Revised Staff Memo from Eve Tapper, Planners in a Pinch and Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director dated November 1, 2024, revised November 5 to add fire department comments., Architectural Plans prepared by The Architectural Team, Inc dated November 6, 2024, prepared by Architect Thomas E. Schultz, Architectural shadow studies , prepared by The Architectural Team, dated September 23, 2024, Permit Authorization Letter from Grace Chapel, Inc dated September 12, 2024, Civil Set titled ’ Site plan for Proposed Mixed Use Development 3-5 Militia Drive, Lexington, MA, Construction Management Plan from SGL Development & BMS Partners, Responses to DRT Comments dated July 26, 2024, Major Site Plan Review Checklist , Site Plan Review Design Regulation Checklist, Garage Access Review Technical Memorandum dated August 30, 2024, LEED Vs NC Scorecards dated September 23,2024, Sustainability and LEED Narrative dated September 23,2024, Compilation of Public Comments from Neighborhood Meeting held on August 28,2024, Perspective Renderings from The Architectural Team dated September 23, 2024, Project Narrative prepared by SGL Development and BMS Partners, Signage Plan from the Architectural Team dated September 23, 2024, SITES v2 Scorecard Summary dated September 23, 2024, Supplemental Data Report for Stormwater Management dated September 23,2024, Town Clerk Stamped Application dated October 7, 2024, Tree Plan Inventory titled’ Topographic Site Plan in Lexington MA at 3,4,5 Militia Drive prepared by Summit Surveying Inc, Spreadsheet of Tree Survey dated September 9, 2024, Updated Architectural Plans dated September 18, 2024, Waiver Request Memo from 3-5 Militia Redevelopment MM LLC. Public Comments Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 6, 2024 Page 9 of 9 1. Electronic Mail from Brien Cooper, Subject:231 Bedford St concerns -Militia Drive Development, dated November 1 ,2024 2. Electronic Mail from Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee to Planning Board and Planning Staff, Subject: LBAC Feedback on 3 Militia Drive dated October 14, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Clement Cai to Lexington Officer, Subject: Commons for 3,4,5 Militia Drive Village & Multi- Family Site Plan, dated October 31,2024 4. Electronic Mail from Elizabeth Frank, Subject:231 Bedford St concerns -Proposed apartments on Militia/ Bedford Rd, dated November 1, 2024 5. Electronic Mail from Emir Roach to Planning Board, dated October 15,2024 6. Electronic Mail from Jack Hardy to Planning Board, Subject: Opposition to proposed Developments, dated November 1, 2024 7. Electronic Mail from Jay Luker to Planning Board and Staff, Subject: Militia Drive pedestrian path preservation, dated September 29,2024 8. Electronic Mail from John Stearns, Subject: Militia 3,4,5 project dated November 1,2024 9. Electronic Mail from Keith Stuart, Subject: Proposed Militia Drive Development, dated November 1,2024 10. Electronic Mail from Kristine Wise to whom it may concern, Subject: Militia Drive Development dated November 1,2024 11. Electronic Mail from Mark Desnoyer, Subject: In support of the Militia Drive Development, dated October 31,2024 12. Electronic Mail from Michaela Barnes to Planning Board members, Subject: Militia Drive Construction dated November 1,2024 13. Electronic Mail from Michael Chang to Planning Board Subject: Project at 3,4,5 Militia Drive, dated October 31,2024 14. Electronic Mail from Mary Demaso, Subject: Concerns about Militia Way Project, dated November 1,2024 15. Electronic Mail from Michael Rooney, Subject: Development at 4 and 5 Militia Dr dated October 31,2024 16. Electronic Mail from Rachel Harrington to Planning Board, Subject: Militia Drive Planned Development dated November 1,2024 17. Electronic Mail from Susan Roberts, Subject: Militia Drive Project, dated November 2,2024 18. Electronic Mail from Shinu Singh to Lexington Planning Board, Subject: Militia Drive Proposal dated November 1, 2024 3. Local Preference Discussion: Draft Guidelines for Local Preference dated November 6, 2024, spreadsheet from Mr. Creech showing various project sizes and inclusionary dwelling units based on difference percentages for local preference. 4. Draft meeting minutes from October 23, 2024 meeting