Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-20-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 1 of 17 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday November 20, 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. Associate board member Michael Leon joined the meeting around 8:15 p.m. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director; Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, November 20, 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 329 & 331 Concord Avenue – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review application Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes. LLC for major site plan review at 331 Concord Avenue. The applicant’s team included: Quinlan Locke, Project manager; Matt D’amico, Director of Development; Ian Ramey, landscape architect; Steve Prestejohn, architect; Nick Dellacava from Allen and Major Associates; and Susan Murphy, the legal counsel from Dane Torpy. Also present was the Board’s peer review consultant Mike Carter from GCG Associates, Inc. Mr. Locke gave a brief overview of the project and shared the revisions made to the plans since their last presentation to the Planning Board, focusing on the changes made to transportation and ledge removal, based on comments received from the neighbors, staff and peer reviewer. Mr. Locke also reported that they filed a request for determination of applicability with the Conservation Commission and received a negative determination, which completed that application. Mr. Locke stated that the project team has committed to a variety of conditions and mitigation efforts, including traffic mitigation efforts like signal timing in the nearby intersection and installation of speed feedback signals. Mr. Locke added that they have also committed to a few other traffic demand Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 2 of 17 management measures, inclusionary housing commitments, and ledge removal mitigation. Mr. Locke added that they are also requesting four waivers related to the tree bylaw, bicycle parking, and surface parking for commercial use. Ms. Murphy stated that the applicant was willing to accept most of the conditions put forth by staff except for the condition that related to occupancy of the commercial space being tied to the occupancy of the residential space. Ms. Murphy added that the applicant was willing to comply with the regulations and keep the Board apprised by providing marketing materials and updates on that space, but did not agree with any conditions that would tie occupancy of residential units to commercial space. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe mentioned that the staff memo prepared by Ms. McNamara dated November 14th was shared with the applicant. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant had addressed all the concerns of the Bicycle Advisory Committee relating to bike parking spaces. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant was agreeable to incorporating the conditions mentioned in the draft decision prepared by staff and that the applicant was working with the Engineering staff regarding sewer and water capacity analysis. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant has agreed to become a member of the 128 Business Council and that they would work with the Town to make a contribution towards a potential shuttle in the future. Ms. McCabe stated that the applicant had committed to a one-time contribution of $10,000 to the Town’s Transportation Demand Management Fund and agreed to evaluate traffic signal timing and implement the recommendations prescribed in the report. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant had also provided updates and information about the blasting company and the pre-blasting surveys and that the applicant has agreed to go beyond the State’s requirement of 300 feet to conduct the pre-blasting surveys. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the latest submission from the applicant complies with the Zoning Bylaw and regulations, that the applicant is requesting minor waivers related to bike parking spaces to be lifted off the ground in a two-tiered racking system, and to incorporate the tree bylaw into the Planning Board review. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant was also requesting a waiver to allow 19 parking spaces in front of the building and that she recommends approval. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Carter from GCG Associates stated that the applicant had complied with all of the Peer Reviewer’s comments except one related to ensuring adequate site distance looking to the right when exiting the site up the hill and that it was conditioned in Ms. McCabe’s draft decision. Board Questions and Comments Mr. Peters appreciated the applicant’s willingness to contribute to Transportation Demand Management Fund. Mr. Peters stated that from the initial conception of the project he had concerns about the practical viability of the commercial space proposed by the applicant and the intent behind it. Mr. Peters clarified that the original intent of including the height bonus as an option in the Zoning regulations was to preserve Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 3 of 17 and enhance the commercial properties and to activate the streetscape and add valuable amenities to the neighborhood. Mr. Peters noted that the currently proposed commercial space may practically only contribute to amenities for residents and expressed his doubts about its practical viability and ability to be readily leased. Mr. Creech asked the applicant to establish a website to facilitate ride sharing amongst the residents of the proposed development. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to share the recent changes to the plan. Mr. Prestejohn shared the elevations. Mr. Locke responded that the changes made were primarily to the civil design to address some of the peer review comments. Mr. Dellacava confirmed that there were no major changes to the plans and the changes were made to address concerns regarding stormwater management. Public Comments Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, stated that this project will provide diversified housing options in terms of both cost and types of housing and asked the applicant to consider extending the houses that will get the pre-blast survey. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, asked the applicant to share more details about ledge removal, rock breaking, and hammering. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, stated that this project meets the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan to diversify housing options and stated that the demographics in the country have changed and that more than 60% of households do not have kids. Christina Chang, 250 Concord Avenue, wanted to know if there was a covered area on the property serving as a bus stop. Rena Maliszewski, as Director of the South Lexington Civic Association (SLCA), noted that they submitted a letter and wanted to know details of how the applicant would communicate with residents and organizations like SLCA and how will the monitoring of compliance with the noise bylaws and weight limits for construction vehicles take place. Ms. Maliszewski also wanted commitment from the applicant to not process or crush rocks on site during all phases of development and wanted details of the timeline of the project. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed her opposition to the commercial space in the project. Rena Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, expressed her concern about the applicant ignoring the comments from neighbors and Board Members about the commercial space. Arleen Chase, from Temple Emunah, wanted to know if a Civil Engineer had evaluated the risk to Temple Emunah due to blasting and ledge removal. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 4 of 17 Staff Response Ms. McCabe explained that this application was reviewed under the original 2023 Zoning bylaw and the applicant had submitted a zoning freeze plan before the zoning amendments in 2024. Ms. McCabe responded that there are suggested conditions in the draft decision regarding the truck routes during construction and for setting up email and text notification systems with neighbors. Regarding the commercial space, Ms. McCabe added that though staff did not think it was an ideal location to have the commercial space, since it was permitted in the zoning, it cannot be legally denied by the Planning Board. Ms. McNamara asked the applicant to give an estimated timeline of the construction process and Mr. Locke shared that they hoped to break the ground around fall of 2025 and finish construction by spring of 2028. Applicant’s Response Mr. Locke responded that they are exploring options to create a space for the bus to pull into the site and added that they are willing to set up a website to facilitate ride sharing. Ms. Locke stated that he will be the main point of contact for project updates and for communicating with neighbors and members of the community. Mr. Locke said that onsite hammering and drilling will be reduced as much as practically possible. Mr. Locke added that they will come up with a noise and vibration plan as part of the construction management plan that will be presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Locke said that they are working with their geotechnical engineers to analyze impacts of ledge removal on Temple Emunah. Mr. Locke expressed his confidence for leasing out the commercial space as of date and added that things might be different when the building is ready for occupation. Public Comments Jeffrey Cheng, 324 Concord Avenue, expressed his concerns regarding increase in traffic and the effects of blasting to his property. Ms. Maliszewski, expressed her concern about rock breaking on site and asked the applicant to respond to the requests of neighbors for renderings of the proposed building in the context of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response Mr. Locke responded that they will be providing pre-construction surveys to people within 300 feet of the property line and are also working with a geotechnical engineer regarding blasting. He also mentioned the commitments made towards Traffic Demand Management. Mr. Locke also mentioned the Noise Mitigation Vibration Plan and their commitment to follow that plan. Mr. Prestejohn shared the renderings from different directions of the building that were presented at the October 23 meeting. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 5 of 17 Board Comments Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if they were willing to accept a commitment to market the space and be transparent about the progress of their marketing efforts. Mr. Locke agreed to it. Mr. Creech asked the applicant if they could make an indentation on the street for the bus to stop, asked the applicant to delete the commercial space as he strongly felt that commercial space was not ideal for this location, and supported Ms. McCabe’s condition to tie the occupancy of the residential units to leasing the commercial space. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech on conditioning the occupancy of the residential units to leasing the commercial space. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to go over the details of the inclusionary units. Mr. Locke shared the details of the total units and the mix, assured that they will be identical to the market rate units in every aspect, and the residents of the inclusionary units will be able to enjoy the same amenities as the residents of the market rate units. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his dissatisfaction with the parking located in the front of the building and the use of minimal commercial footprint to get an extra story of the building, which was not the intent of the bylaw. Mr. Schanbacher added that the proposed project would address the housing crisis and though he mostly supports this project, he wished for a better design that would suit the location. Board Deliberation Mr. Hornig shared his suggested conditions targeted at the commercial space. Mr. Hornig suggested adding a requirement that the applicant should engage a broker and the marketing plan of the broker be submitted to the Planning Office for review. Mr. Hornig also suggested adding an ongoing and continuous condition that the applicant would market any vacant commercial space and keep the Planning Office informed of progress. Mr. Peters asked Mr. Hornig to add time deadlines for reporting vacancies to the Planning Office. Mr. Locke said that they can inform the Planning Office within 90 days of vacancy and share their marketing plan. Ms. McCabe shared her suggested conditions that would require the applicant to engage a commercial retail broker prior to the first occupancy permit for residential units and also to submit a marketing plan. Additionally, Ms. McCabe wanted to add a condition that prior to final certificate of occupancy no more than 80% of residential dwelling units can be occupied unless at least 70% of the commercial space was occupied. Ms. McCabe added that the applicant may request the Planning Board to modify the condition and the Planning Board may remove this condition if the applicant provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicants have followed through with the marketing plan and has made diligent efforts to secure a tenant for al least 6 months. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 6 of 17 The Board members discussed their views on both set of conditions and decided to ask the applicant as to which set of conditions he would agree with. Mr. Locke said he preferred Mr. Hornig’s version as that option was something they had full control over. Ms. Creech asked the applicant to consider leasing the commercial space below the market rate in the event of extensive vacancy. The board discussed this further and Mr. Locke accepted a condition that includes alternative contingencies such as marketing the commercial space below the market rate if it were to remain vacant for a long period of time. Ms. Murphy stated that they would employ alternative marketing strategies in the event the commercial space remains vacant for a long period of time. Mr. D’Amico confirmed that they agree with this condition. Ms. McCabe summarized the discussion and with a condition that the applicant submit the marketing plan prior to any of the residential units being available for any occupancy, which should include specifics on reducing rent or other such strategies. Mr. Locke stated that they have worked with the Temple and arrived at the time frame for blasting as between 9.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. Regarding notification for blasting, Ms. McCabe also wanted to notify residents within 300 feet and the South Lexington Civic Association. Ms. McCabe also wanted to add conditions prior to final certificate of occupancy and that always they have to diligently market it. The applicant was agreeable. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing for the Major Site Plan Review application for 331 Concord 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 waive the jurisdiction of the Tree Bylaw to the Planning Board because the project's tree removal is best mitigated with the proposed landscape planting plan that meets the Tree 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 the strict requirements of §176-12.4.2.7 requiring each bicycle parking space to be at least 2 ft by 6 ft. The Board finds this proposal meets the intent and purposes of this requirement by providing easy access. 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 strict requirements of §176-12.4.2.9 prohibiting bicycle parking from being lifted off the floor. The Board finds this proposal is acceptable to meet the intent and purposes of this requirement by providing easy access for bicycle storage. 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 November 20, 2024 Page 7 of 17 Mr. Creech moved to waive the strict requirements of §176-12.4.6.2.f discouraging parking in front of the building. The Board finds that due to the amount of ledge on the property, the sloped topography and shape of the lot, which extends over 500-feet to the main parking area, and the lack of on-street parking options on Concord Avenue, 19 parking spaces, including a van accessible space, serving the commercial tenant and the lobby leasing area are acceptable. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – No; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Creech moved to approve the draft decision for major site plan review with the findings and 63 conditions as modified 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 The Board recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:16 p.m. 217, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review application Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued 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 Braunstein 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 introduced the team. Mr. Melching updated the Board about the major modifications and design updates they had made in response to comments from staff and the peer reviewer. Mr. Melching also shared the revised building area calculation, details of inclusionary housing, bicycle storage and parking. Mr. Melching shared the updated images that reflected these revisions and explained the changes in detail. Mr. Sullivan shared the proposed site plan and highlighted the changes that were made to the drainage and infiltration designs. Mr. Sullivan shared details of additional soil testing that was conducted to address some of the concerns raised by the peer reviewer in the previous meeting. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the memos from staff and Peer Reviewer and informed the Board about the Conservation Commission asking for details of more mitigation measures. Ms. McCabe added that the Conservation Commission had also asked the applicant to add more native species in the riverfront area. Ms. McCabe stated that the proximity of the bike path makes this proposal an ideal walkable mixed-use project. Ms. McCabe added that staff has asked the applicant to provide revised Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 8 of 17 lighting plans to confirm all the exterior lighting complies, making sure that there was no light spillage off the property. Ms. McCabe added that staff requested more short-term bike parking in front of the building. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Carter from GCG Associates informed the Board that representatives from GCG witnessed the soil testing on site and agree with the established water table elevation. Mr. Carter stated that no infiltration system can be set up within 10 feet of a property line or building and he will evaluate the proposed infiltration system on that basis. He said there are still major stormwater obstacles and concerns that need to be addressed before this project can proceed. He added that reducing the size of the building’s footprint to be narrower would help solve the stormwater challenges. Board Questions Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if he felt that he will be able to address all the issues raised by the staff and the Peer Reviewer. Mr. Melching responded that he believed that all the issues raised by the peer reviewer are addressable. Mr. Leon wanted clarification regarding the practical difficulties in maneuvering vehicles on the perpendicular parking spaces at a challenging grade and expressed his concern. Mr. Melching clarified that the handicap space is on a lesser grade. Mr. Leon also wanted clarification on how a sloped groundwater recharge system would function to retain stormwater. Mr. Melching stated that he is working on coming up with a unique type of drainage system to solve the concerns, that the drainage system itself would not be sloping, and there will be an upper drainage field and a lower drainage field which will be at different elevations. Mr. Leon wanted to know the details of the access and the proposed plan for trash and recycling handling, particularly for the commercial space. Mr. Melching said he is working with business owners in Lexington Center to come up with a system that was feasible. Mr. Leon told the applicant that they are not maximizing the streetscape and asked the applicant if they considered the possibility of moving the bicycle room storage to the back of the commercial space and providing two street facing commercial spaces. Mr. Melching responded that they are working with a retail consultant and making revisions based on his suggestions. Mr. Leon asked the applicant if he had explored options to develop a secondary outside space for families which was not facing the north side. Mr. Melching responded that they were looking at a few options. Mr. Creech wanted to know if MBTA gave the applicant any timelines for addressing their request. Mr. Vaughan responded that they did not give any firm timelines. Mr. Creech wanted to know if the roof deck was available to all residents and Mr. Melching confirmed that it would be. Mr. Creech wanted to know the details of the catch basin and Mr. Melching provided the details. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to consider reducing the scale of the project and wanted the applicant to make sure that he was not encroaching the sidewalk. Mr. Melching confirmed that there will be no encroaching on the sidewalk. Ms. Thompson also wanted to know the ways to access the apartment behind the commercial space. Mr. Melching explained the ways to access it. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to consider rounding up the inclusionary housing. Mr. Melching responded that they are considering to do so. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to know if the applicant had communicated with any trash operators to check the practicality of the proposed trash handling and told him that he did not see the black iron duct for the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 9 of 17 restaurant space in the revised set of plans. Mr. Melching responded that his structural engineer is working on it. Mr. Schanbacher also wanted clarifications about the ramps on the bikeway and the raised plaza on the front of the building towards Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Melching provided the details and added that it was raised to deal with the challenges with grade. Public Comments Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, speaking on behalf of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, appreciated the applicant’s proposal to put oversized bike parking spaces and bike charging racks and asked the applicant to consider increasing the number of short-term bike parking spaces. Sylvia Fohlin, 10 Cherry Street, wanted to know if the affordable units would be equally distributed and equally attractive. Ms. Fohlin also expressed her concerns for the bike path being shaded due to the proposed development leading to snow and ice accumulation on the bike path. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, thought the project was a good redevelopment opportunity for the neighborhood and added that the neighborhood businesses were looking forward to the development. Greg Greenwald, 19, Sutherland Road, expressed his concern regarding the scale and the appearance of the proposed project and asked the applicant to come up with a design that would fit with the neighborhood character. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, wanted to know who will be responsible for the tree planting in front of the building and asked about the street trees. Mr. Melching responded that the trees will be planted by the builder and maintained by the Town. Karen Meyers, 14 Lisbeth St, expressed her concern that the large maple tree that is presently in front of the building would not survive the changes due to development. Robin Kutner, 70 Paul Revere Road, expressed his appreciation for the development providing more varieties of housing and that the proximity to the bike path would create a walkable community. Ms. Jensen wanted to know the details of the size of the building on the left side and asked for trees to be placed on either side of the building. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, expressed her concern about the scale of the building and also favored the idea of planting trees on the side of the proposed building. Staff Comments Ms. McNamara responded to the comments regarding to traffic and safety concerns by stating that the existing site has four curb cuts and the proposed development will have only 2 curb cuts and hence from the pedestrian experience, it will be much safer compared to the present situation. Board Comments Mr. Creech asked for clarification regarding the loading space. Mr. Melching asked the Board if they would be supportive of a waiver for the setbacks for parking. Mr. Schanbacher said he will be supportive of the waiver, as it will be parking at the scale of a car and not at the scale of a pedestrian. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 10 of 17 Mr. Peters added that he would be supportive of van parking in that configuration and would appreciate a foliage buffer. Mr. Peters also asked the applicant if he foresees a conservation approval before their next appearance to the Planning Board. Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Melching said they hoped for that. Mr. Leon wanted to know the details of the proposed plans for snow removal. Mr. Melching responded that they are working on coming with a plan for snow removal. Mr. Leon asked the applicant to come up with a creative solution to tackle the challenge. Mr. Schanbacher applauded the applicant’s efforts to not have the parking in front of the building and to add retail space to the project. Mr. Schanbacher added that the design of the lobby still lacks a clear visual connection to the street and asked the applicant to come up with a more progressive and innovative architectural solution. Mr. Schanbacher also asked the applicant to come up with a path to compliance with the Conservation regulations in order for the Planning Board to approve the project. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for the site plan review and special permit for 217- 241 Massachusetts Avenue to Thursday, January 30th, 2025 at or after 6 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 The Board recessed at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 231 Bedford Street – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review application Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of 231 Bedford St LLC for major site plan review. The applicant was represented by his attorney Mark Vaughan from Riemer & Braunstein LLP. Also present were the applicants Richard Beliveau and Kris Proule, Chris Prudhomme from Zephyr Architects, and Civil Engineer Alberto Gala from Gala Simon Associates. The Planning Board’s Peer Review Consultant, Dylan O’Donnell from Environmental Partners, was also present. Mr. Vaughan gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Prudhomme went over the summary of changes since their previous Planning Board Meeting and explained the changes that were made in response to comments received from staff and Peer Reviewer. Mr. Prudhomme added that the most significant were the ones related to relocation of the trees and the short-term bike parking and also provided details of the architectural updates with the renderings. Mr. Gala added that the plans have been revised to address the flooding concerns and are still working with Conservation staff on mitigation efforts. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe reported that a staff memo from Ms. McNamara and Mr. O’Donnell was in the Board’s packet and stated that Conservation staff would like naturalized mitigation improvements in the buffer zone. Ms. McCabe added that staff also had some additional stormwater management concerns that need to be addressed and asked the applicant to approach one of the nearby property owners to come up with a solution for overflow parking space. Ms. McCabe also added that the stairs in the front have to be Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 11 of 17 removed due to setback requirements an asked the applicant to provide a detailed trash and snow removal plan. Peer Reviewer Comments Mr. O’ Donnell, from Apex (formerly Environmental Partners), summarized the review and shared the substantive outstanding comments of the peer review they had conducted. They have concern about the porous pavers and that the green roof may not provide enough mitigation for large storm events as some assumptions may be overly optimistic. Board Questions Mr. Leon asked Mr. O’Donnell if he had considered the possibility of a small amount of compensatory flood storage when evaluating the flooding concerns of the abutters. Mr. O’Donnell responded that the issues pertaining to the bordering land will be considered during the Conservation Commission’s meeting and will be discussed further next week. Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if they were confident that all the issues raised by the peer reviewer and staff were addressable by them. Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Prudhomme and Mr. Gala responded that all the issues were addressable. Ms. Thompson felt that the proposed number of parking spots were not sufficient for the size of the proposed building. Mr. Vaughan stated that due to the proximity of the development to MBTA bus routes and the bike path residents could have lesser number of cars ad added that the applicant is also exploring options to have overflow parking in the neighboring property. Mr. Creech also encouraged the applicant to have a conversation with the owner of the property across the street to arrange some guest parking spaces. Mr. Creech also encouraged the applicant to have bike charging stations. Mr. Creech also encouraged the applicant to come with a feasible snow removal plan. Mr. Schanbacher asked Mr. Prudhomme the reason for abandoning the single egress stair. Mr. Prudhomme stated that based on the average natural grade calculation the project became a three-story structure and hence the single egress stair was no longer required. Public Comments Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed her concerns about the scale of the project and wanted to know the life of the waterproof garage and the type of backup sump pump proposed for the project. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, on behalf of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, asked the applicant to explore options to include e-bike charging stations in the property. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 12 of 17 Heike Arendt, 23 Ledgelawn Avenue, wanted clarification on the proposed plans for snow removal and the monitoring agency for the snow removal plan and the plans for access to emergency vehicles given the location is in a busy street. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, wanted clarification of the terms of the suggested overflow parking arrangement in the neighbor’s property. Ms. Sujanani also expressed her concerns regarding the proximity of the property to the water table. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, expressed his dismay about the reduction in units and the loss of the commercial space. Mr. Luker also stated that only by reducing the number of parking spaces, residents will be encouraged to explore modes of transportation other than a car. Susan Amsel, 21 Ledgelawn Avenue, explained her concerns regarding light trespass and asked for blackout shades to lessen light trespass. Albert Solomon, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, requested screening in the backyard and no smoking in the backyard balconies, and reiterated the request for blackout shades to reduce light trespass. Ruixia Song, 11 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed her concern about the scale of the building and the lack of sufficient parking. Jian Wang, 31 Ledgelawn Avenue, stated concerns regarding lack of sufficient parking and the risk of harming the local ecosystem. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, asked the applicant to consider reducing the scale of the building and adding more trees. Board Comments Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech that the project should be reduced in size and asked the applicant to consider decoupling parking from units so that people can make their choices for units and parking space based on their lifestyle. Mr. Peters asked the applicant to explore options for overflow parking. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to consider a different space for the backup transformer and thanked the applicant for addressing his earlier concerns pertaining to the front entry and the way the building meets the ground. Mr. Schanbacher said that he had no concerns regarding the scale of the building or the proposed number of parking spots as he felt that this project would suit people looking for different modes of transportation. Mr. Schanbacher said the applicant should work towards compliance with the requirements of the Conservation Commission and not return to the Planning Board until they have a clear path towards approval with Conservation Commission. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for the site plan review for 231 Bedford Street to Wednesday, January 15th, 2025 at or after 6 pm on Zoom. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 13 of 17 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 The Board asked if the applicant was agreeable to extending the final action deadline to allow time for the applicant to make progress with the Conservation Commission. Ms. McCabe suggested February 3, 2025. The board also asked for the request in writing. Mr. Creech moved to accept the applicant’s request to extend the final action deadline to February 3rd, 2025. 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 15-17 Fairland Street & 185 Lincoln Street / Common Court – Special Permit Residential Development – Request to release development from covenant and accept a new performance guarantee Ms. McCabe summarized and gave a brief overview of the project and explained the reason for the request to release the development from the covenant and to put up a new performance guarantee for $183,422.14. Ms. McCabe recommended the Board to vote to release the project from the covenant and to accept the cash deposit in its place. Mr. Creech moved to accept a cash deposit in the amount of $183,422.14 as new performance guarantee to complete the ways and the municipal services to serve the 16 units on Common Court and all units associated with the Balanced Housing Development, in accordance with the exhibit last revised November 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 all 16 dwelling units including 14 on Common Court and the two at 185 Lincoln Street (Map 42, Lot 205) from the covenant recorded at the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds on April 27, 2023 in Book 81466 Page 585 for the Common Court Special Permit Balanced Housing Development. 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 Member & Staff Updates Mr. Creech updated the Board saying that the Community Preservation Committee has taken applications for the usage of the Community Preservation Fund and shared details of the proposals. Mr. Hornig informed the Board about the meeting of the Housing Partnership Board on November 21st to provide feedback to the Regional Housing Services Office on the five-year housing needs assessment. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 14 of 17 Ms. McNamara thanked the Board members who attended the Bedford/ Hartwell Complete Streets 25% Design Open House on November 19th. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 11/06/24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft November 6, 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 Upcoming Meetings: 12/11, 1/15. Mr. Schanbacher reminded everyone about the next Planning Board Meetings scheduled for December 11th 2024 and then on January 15th 2025. Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of November 20, 2024 at 11:16 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 11.16 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. 329 & 331 Concord Avenue: Draft Planning Board Site Plan Review draft decision with findings and conditions sent on November 20, 2024, Staff memo dated October 4, 2024, revised on November 14, 2024, Peer Reviewer Memo dated October 31, 2024, full link to application material - https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/91785, General Blasting Sequence from Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc, Drainage Report from Allen & Major Associates, Inc stamped and signed by Timothy Williams dated October 31, 2024, Response from Allen & Major Associates, Inc to Staff Memo dated October 23, 2024, Sketch of Stopping Sight Distances prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Revised Site Plan Review prepared by Allen & Major Associates dated October 23, 2024, Renderings of elevation, Test Pit results and Revised drainage plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated June 17, 2024, Inclusionary Units location and breakdown chart. Public comments: Letter from South Lexington Civic Association Board of Directors sent on November 20, 204; email from Margo Reder to Town Manager, email from Christina Chen to Planning Board sent October 10, 2024; Letter from Bicycle Advisory Committee to Planning Board dated November 14,2024, email from Keith Witmore sent October 29, 2024. 2. 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue: Staff memo dated November 15,2024, Peer Review Memo dated November 14, 2024, full link to application material (latest material uploaded here: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/94025), Applicant’s Response to Bicycle Advisory Committee dated November 12,2024, Updated renderings dated October 30,2024, Landscape Bikeway Connection renderings dated October 30, 2024, Response to Planning Staff Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 15 of 17 Memo dated October 30, 2024, Revised Project Narrative dated October 30, 2024, Renderings dated November 5, 2024, Revised signage package dated November 5, 2024, Construction Management Plan, Construction Management Plan and Schedule dated August 7, 2024 and revised October 29, 2024, Applicant’s Response to 09.18.24 Peer Review Comments dated October 29, 2024, Copy of Registry information for 10 foot wide Easement at rear of property, Stormwater Report dated August 22, 2024, revised October 30, 2024, Hydrant Flow Test Summary Sheet dated September 26, 2024. 3. 231 Bedford Street: Staff Memo dated November 15, 2024, Peer Review Memo dated November 15, 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 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 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 16 of 17 4. 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 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 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 17 of 17 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 5. 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. 6. Draft meeting minutes from November 6, 2024 meeting