Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-11-PB-minMinutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Melanie Thompson, Vice -Chair; Tina McBride, Clerk; Charles Hornig; Robert Creech; and Michael Leon, associate board member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Aaron Koepper, Planner; and Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, June 11, 2025 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 Packe- dashboard. The Board will go through the agenda in order. Development Administration 12 Summer Street — Approval Not Required (ANR) Mr. Schanbacher opened meeting with the application of Shelly Henderson for an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan at 12 Summer Street. Jonathan Bollen, surveyor with Stamski and McNary, Inc., represented the applicant. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe shared the ANR plan. She noted that proposed parcels 19, 20, and 21 are not buildable. She further noted that parcels 20 and 21 would be conveyed to the abutting property. Staff recommended approval of this application. Board Questions Ms. McBride questioned the purpose of the ANR. Mr. Hornig suggested that it might be intended to make the neighboring property conform with required setbacks because the neighbor's driveway is currently over the property line. Mr. Bollen confirmed that the purpose of the ANR is to make Ms. Henderson's driveway conform. He advised that the conveyance is the result of a court settlement. Mr. Schanbacher reminded the Board that they would need to come to the Planning Office to sign the ANR plan. There were no public comments on this application. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the ANR Plan for 12 Summer Street submitted by Shelly Henderson. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. 287 & 295 Waltham Street — Special Residential Development Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Lex Terrace LLC for a Special Residential Development at 287 & 295 Waltham Street. The hearing was continued from April 10 and May 28, 2025. The applicant's team included: Iqbal Quadir, applicant and property owner; Frederick Gilgun, attorney Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 1 of 8 with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; Michael Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering; Javed Sultan, architect with EcoHabitat, Inc; and Gary Larson, landscape architect. Mr. Gilgun introduced the team and stated that they are seeking feedback on architecture and conceptual landscape plans incorporating the elevation changes of the site. He advised that Mr. Novak and Mr. Larson have not prepared updated landscape or civil plans at this time. Mr. Sultan shared revised plans. He highlighted the second means of egress on the townhouses and shared the challenges this created for site circulation and fire safety. Mr. Sultan confirmed that all pathways are intended to be ADA compliant. He presented his proposal for an open plaza space in the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Sultan stated that he had narrowed sections of the driveway to reduce pavement and suggested the use of interlocking pavers. He shared revisions to the townhouse garage layout, including bicycle parking, an additional access door, and considerations related to the water heater and sump pump. Mr. Sultan confirmed that current plans are within GFA and height restrictions. He suggested an updated Average Natural Grade form may allow for some revisions to floor heights within the units. Unit 1 is proposed as an inclusionary unit. Mr. Sultan highlighted the bicycle storage added to both garden -style buildings and noted that he needed to indicate a trash storage area and a sprinkler room with direct exterior access for the Fire Department. Mr. Sultan shared his ideas for fagade treatments to break up the massing, groundwater management, and accessibility of the proposed plaza. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Mr. Koepper dated June 4, 2025. She noted that the memo is limited to the architectural plans and advised that there is no new peer review memo for this meeting. She requested a completed Average Natural Grade (ANG) form and a GFA breakdown of every unit to confirm the compliance with the minimum GFA requirements. Ms. McCabe also asked the applicant to identify the inclusionary unit locations on the plans. She asked the Board to provide feedback on the proposed inclusionary units both units proposed in the townhouses. Ms. McCabe noted that Liz Rust, Director of the Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO), supported two townhouse units for the inclusionary units. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to submit one complete packet, including civil and landscape plans, for review at the next meeting and not continue to update once submitted. Board Questions Mr. Hornig urged the applicant to coordinate with the appropriate Town officials and departments to resolve code issues and questions prior to returning to the Board. He questioned the use of sump pumps. Mr. Novak shared the bylaw and suggested that if the pumps are needed, they will discharge to the infiltration system. Mr. Leon appreciated the plaza design behind the townhouses and asked if there would be access to the rest of the property, particularly the wooded area to the northwest of the lot. Mr. Sultan advised that he would review options to increase access. Mr. Creech clarified the slope and purpose of the ramp with Mr. Sultan. Mr. Creech questioned if bicycles would be allowed on the ramp. He requested a narrative for the use of the plaza space. Ms. McBride appreciated the changes Mr. Sultan has made and applauded his desire to go beyond the minimum requirements for fire safety and extra bicycle storage. She suggested vertical massing to break up the boxy appearance of buildings D and E. She confirmed there would be accessible units in D and E and wondered if one of those could be inclusionary. Mr. Gilgun stated that the RHSO indicated a Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 2 of 8 preference for the two townhouse units but suggested the owner would be amenable to one garden unit and one townhouse for inclusionary if that was the Board's preference. Ms. Thompson questioned the traffic flow throughout the site and suggested that the space between the buildings could be reworked to increase safety and facilitate movement. She asked about the ramp around the site. Mr. Sultan advised that there would be more railings than walls as depicted. Ms. Thompson requested a landscaping plan for the plaza area and questioned the intended use. Ms. Thompson asked for the trash and recycling plan and encouraged the inclusion of composting. Mr. Sultan advised that the townhouses would have individual barrels and the garden units would have a shared trash room. Mr. Schanbacher asked if the corners of the proposed buildings had been staked out on the site. He questioned if one townhouse and one garden unit would meet the minimum square foot inclusionary requirements. He indicted a preference for one accessible inclusionary unit, but stated that he would defer to Ms. Rust's judgement. Mr. Schanbacher asked if the proposed ramp would meet MAAB (Massachusetts Architectural Access Board) regulations. He recommended Mr. Sultan consider the area between the back steps of the townhouses and the access ramp, noting that it seemed to be acting as both shared circulation and private space. Mr. Schanbacher questioned design and material choices in the plans. He reiterated the importance of having precise and consistent plans to review. Mr. Quadir confirmed that the tallest retaining wall is expected to be approximately 5' and noted that the proposed plaza and landscaping meets the requirements for open space on the site. Mr. Leon clarified that he would be interested in seeing a walking path or something similar in the wooded area. Public Comments Stephen Kruse, 312 Waltham Street, asked if blasting would be required and questioned the potential impact to traffic on Waltham Street. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, Sustainable Lexington Committee, appreciated the inclusion of solar panels. She suggested colored bricks and additional plantings in the central driveway area to increase safety. Staff Response Ms. McCabe responded that the Planning Board cannot require off-site traffic or road improvements as part of a Site Plan Review; only on-site improvements on this property can be considered. It is her opinion that 15 units would not significantly increase traffic. Applicant's Response Mr. Gilgun suggested that there would be blasting required for the site. He advised that they will comply with all bylaws, including providing notice to abutters and inspections. Board Comments Mr. Creech noted that the visuals do not accurately represent the topography of the site. He requested a clear, concise presentation highlighting updates and including a narrative for the plaza space behind the townhouses. Mr. Creech asked the overall length of the ramp. Mr., Sultan advised that it is approximately 150'. Mr. Creech requested a slide showing the proposed development laid over the existing structures on the site. Ms. McBride agreed with Ms. Jensen's suggestion for colored pavers. She further encouraged curbing, but cautioned against plantings which might reduce visibility. She appreciated the mature trees being retained and confirmed any new plantings would be on Lexington's Preferred Planting List. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Thompson suggested adjusting the placement of Townhouse building B. She suggested it might increase the visual appeal and create additional open space. Mr. Schanbacher recommended the applicant review the affordable housing project on Lowell Street for design inspiration and guidance. He suggested that the current design is fighting the topography rather than working with it. Mr. Schanbacher highlighted inconsistencies and inaccessible areas in the plans and suggested the applicant is not prepared for a substantive conversation with the Board. He requested the applicant return with clear plans and defined design position. Mr. Creech stated his support of Mr. Schanbacher's statements. Ms. McCabe recommended continuing the hearing to August 13, 2025 and confirmed with Mr. Quadir and Mr. Gilgun that they would be prepared with complete and accurate plans. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing to the Board's Wednesday, August 13, 2025 meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Zoom to allow time for the Applicant to submit revised material complete with civil plan and narrative responses. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; Thompson — yes; McBride — yes; Schanbacher —yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to accept the Applicant's request to extend the final action deadline to August 20, 2025. Mr. Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Public Hearing to Amend the Planning Board's Zoning Regulations Ch. 176 Ms. McCabe shared staff recommendations for zoning regulation amendments. She advised that other committees (Sustainable Lexington, Tree) would like to share feedback for the next meeting and recommends this hearing be further continued after tonight's discussion. §176-3.6.4 Field Changes Mr. Leon suggested an addition noting that other bodies such as the Historic Districts Commission or Tree Committee may have jurisdiction over questions related to paint color or other minor changes. §176-4.1.2 Administrative Fee Schedule Ms. McCabe stated that the fees were last updated 2 years ago and four (4) projects in the last year hit the $10,000 maximum fee. Mr. Schanbacher suggested eliminating the maximum and referenced the complexity and scope of larger projects such as 3, 4, 5 Militia Drive. Mr. Leon clarified application fees versus peer review funds. Ms. Thompson wondered about increasing fees for Limited and Minor Site Plan Reviews. Ms. McCabe advised that the Board has not received many of those applications and the scope is smaller; she focused on Major Site Plan Review. Mr. Hornig agreed with Ms. McCabe's judgement and recommended minimal changes without a compelling justification. Ms. McBride supported the proposed revisions. §176-9.3.1 Major Site Plan Review — Solar Ms. McCabe explained that the current regulations for solar canopies only require a minor site plan review without a public hearing. She suggested that solar arrays over 10,000 SF should follow a major site plan review process with a public hearing and abutter notification. Mr. Leon suggested that solar arrays over 5,000 SF should merit a major site plan review. Mr. Hornig stated he was happy with 10,000 SF but would accept a 5,000 SF threshold. Ms. McBride wondered if it would be possible to distinguish between Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 4 of 8 commercial and residential lots. Mr. Schanbacher and Ms. Thompson agreed with 5,000 SF. Mr. Creech supported 5,000 SF in residential areas. §176-9.3.2 Major Site Plan Review Required Submittals Ms. McCabe recommended additional language including outdoor gathering spaces and views from the public way be added to the required renderings in §176-9.3.2.2 as the Board frequently requested these images over the last year. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his support. Ms. McCabe further recommended removing the LEED Core and Shell and SITES v2 checklists from §176- 9.3.2.7 & 8. She stated that applicants are not required to meet the standards and that often the applicants do not have the necessary information at the time of submission. She recommended a narrative requirement instead of the checklists and stated that Maggie Peard, Town of Lexington Sustainability and Resilience Officer, supports a more focused narrative. Ms. McCabe advised that she intends to review this with members of the Lexington Tree Committee as well. Ms. McBride expressed concern with removing these checklists. Mr. Creech stated his support of Ms. McCabe's recommendation. Mr. Hornig highlighted that the checklists have not been referenced in Board discussions and expressed his support of a more focused narrative. Mr. Schanbacher noted Ms. Peard's initial list included questions the Board frequently asks. He shared his frustration as an architect with the checklists when a project will not be LEED certified. Public Comment Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Road, Tree Committee, strongly supported a sustainability requirement, but noted that LEED may not fit all projects. She stated she is looking forward to working with staff. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC), stated that LEED is a standard checklist and should not be eliminated. She noted that SLC helped draft the checklist language and encouraged that they be included in future discussions. Ms. McBride clarified that she would support a narrative requirement. She reiterated her concern that the content would be eliminated completely or ignored and forgotten. Ms. Thompson appreciated Ms. Sofen's comments and supported further collaboration with staff. She recommended continuing this discussion to the next meeting. Mr. Schanbacher advised that he will not hold a vote on any of these items until a later date. He acknowledged that these changes merit a larger discussion with other stakeholders. Ms. McCabe recommended the inclusion of an accessibility narrative including identification of any accessible units and common spaces. §176-9.4 Minor SPR Ms. McCabe stated that this change is in conjunction with the proposed revision in §176-9.3.1. Mr. Hornig proposed minor revisions to the language for clarity and accuracy. §176-9.5 Limited [Site Plan] Review Ms. McCabe explained the intention of the revisions is to provide a public process with abutter notification but limited in scope for protected uses such as religious and educational uses with a Limited Site Plan Review. She noted that the current language only triggers a Minor Site Plan Review which is an administrative process with no public hearing with no abutter notification if the application is for a protected use. Mr. Hornig requested revisions to the first sentence but was agreeable to the change in procedure. Mr. Leon and Mr. Schanbacher supported this revision and both noted that abutters would likely appreciate the opportunity to comment and be included in the process. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 5 of 8 §176-12.4.2 Bicycle and Other Device Parking Ms. McCabe stated that she met with Betty Gau, Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), and Tom Shiple to review the proposed changes. She noted that this section has the greatest number of proposed revisions including: short-term parking location, encouraged bicycle share program in large developments, spacing and maneuvering dimensions, oversized/cargo bicycle parking, e -bike charging recommendations, and an allowance for reduced width if a stacking or lift -assist system is used. She does not recommend any change to the amount of required bicycle parking spaces. She suggested further revisions in the future to define a parking table by use. Ms. McCabe stated that the most common waivers granted over the last two years have been related to the required bicycle parking dimensions and lifted bicycle storage. Mr. Hornig asked that §12.4.2.8 reference the closest off-street, non -[ADA] accessible parking space. It is his opinion that it could unreasonably constrain design if bicycle parking needed to be closer to the door than accessible spaces. Mr. Creech wondered if the space requirements for oversize bicycles would create a burden on development. Mr. Leon asked if there was any guidance from the State on the cargo bicycle regulations or if this is on the recommendation of the BAC. Mr. Creech asked for the rationale behind 75% of parking spaces being at -grade. Ms. McCabe advised that the intent is for the majority of spaces to be at grade, while allowing some flexibility through the use of lift -assist systems. Ms. McCabe stated that she is reluctant to require a -bike charging in §12.4.2.14 through the use of "shall" due to fire safety concerns. Mr. Leon clarified the infrastructure requirements for e -bikes; he cautioned that there may be code issues. Mr. Hornig highlighted that the regulations clearly define "shall" versus "should." He noted that a -bikes do not currently constitute 25% of the bicycles on the road, but agreed on the need to plan for the future. Mr. Creech asked about charging requirements and suggested there may be fire code issues to review. Mr. Hornig objected to moving §176-12.4.3.3 to §12.4.2 as it relates to circulation, not bicycle parking. Ms. McCabe agreed to keep §12.4.3.3 as -is. Public Comment Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, Precinct 9 Town Meeting member, Bicycle Advisory Committee, thanked Ms. McCabe and staff for their collaboration. He stated that the BAC reviewed regulations of nearby cities and towns to identify gaps in Lexington's regulations and expressed their support of Ms. McCabe's proposed revisions. Mr. Shiple repeated the request for a bicycle parking table. He emphasized the need for diverse parking options to accommodate a variety of bicycle sizes and styles. Mr. Shiple noted that his calculations show that a mixed configuration (cargo, lifted, etc.) could reduce the bicycle storage area needs by up to 17%. He advised that typical a -bikes draw minimal power when charging. §176-12.5.3.5 Building Massing Ms. McCabe recommended changing "should" to "shall" for street facing facades designed for pedestrian use. Mr. Hornig expressed concerns with this revision, citing ambiguity in defining what constitutes a street -facing facade, particularly in complex sites like campuses, corner lots, or sloped areas. He emphasized the need to clearly define which fagades and project types would be subject to such requirements. Mr. Schanbacher stated that the Board has gotten good results with "should" and agreed with Mr. Hornig that more precise language is needed to use "shall." Ms. McBride questioned the need for the first sentence, noting that developers already tend to build to the minimum setback. She supported the second sentence's intent to encourage better community space. Ms. McCabe highlighted past projects where large setbacks led to parking -dominated frontage. Mr. Schanbacher noted that the use of "should" in the first sentence offers useful flexibility across varied site conditions. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 6 of 8 §176-12.5.4 Fa4ade Treatment Ms. McCabe suggested additional language requiring transparent windows to support an active streetscape and encouraging vertical divisions to break up large horizontal massing. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his support for engaging the pedestrian space and encouraging more active uses of the commercial space. Mr. Hornig suggested there are situations where transparent windows would not be appropriate and recommended repeating the "publicly oriented" parameter for clarity. Mr. Schanbacher supported rewording the proposal. He expressed his support for encouraging vertical facades and noted that it is consistent with past design feedback. Mr. Leon suggested it was overly prescriptive and preferred to leave it as a case-by-case review. Mr. Hornig noted that the language may duplicate an existing guideline (Item 10) and suggested consolidating or clarifying to avoid redundancy. §176-12.6.9 Outdoor Gathering and Amenity Space Ms. McCabe proposed increasing the required residential amenity space from 24 to 50 square feet per unit and requiring outdoor amenity space for mixed-use developments to be located adjacent to the public way. Mr. Hornig supported the increase but questioned the location requirement, suggesting amenity space should be near the non-residential use it serves, which may not necessarily be at the public way. Mr. Leon agreed, emphasizing that site-specific design considerations vary and that flexibility is important. He supported the residential space increase, particularly for family-oriented units, and noted that non-residential amenities should be evaluated case by case. §176-12.9.5 Drainage and Stormwater Management Ms. McCabe proposed language revision to reinforce that harvesting systems are encouraged, but not required. § 176-14.4 Payments in Lieu Ms. McCabe recommended increasing the payment -in -lieu fee to $375/SF. She advised that input from the Building Department suggested up to $400/SF and that this cost should reflect what it would cost to build an affordable unit. The Board overall supported $400, with Mr. Leon suggesting up to $500 and conferring with the Affordable Housing Trust. Public Comment Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, confirmed that his e -bike requires 1.6 amps to charge. He reminded the Board that the 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue project has their bicycle storage room along the public way and proposes non -transparent windows. Other Regulations Mr. Hornig requested a review of §176-9.2.4 Disapproval. He stated that the zoning bylaw does not permit denial of a Site Plan Review application although §9.2.4 suggests otherwise. He recommended eliminating the denial language or clarifying when it would apply, particularly in by -right applications. Mr. Leon advised that some denial criteria aligns with documented case law. Both agreed they would like Town Counsel to review the proposed language. Ms. McBride expressed a preference to keep the regulation and noted that Special Permits and Site Plan Reviews are not the same. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing to amend the Planning Board's Zoning Regulations (Chapter 176) to Wednesday, June 25 at 6:00 pm on Zoom to review an updated draft based on this evening's hearing. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Member & Staff Updates Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the Select Board meeting on Monday night. She advised that she is waiting on clarification from the Select Board if participation will be allowed via Zoom and encouraged any Board members who wish to speak to attend in person. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 5/7 and 5/28 Ms. McBride confirmed with Ms. Morrison that her revisions were incorporated into the May 28, 2025 minutes. Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft May 7 and May 28, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; McBride — yes; Hornig — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: Wednesdays 6/25, 7/16, 8/13, and 8/27 Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of June 11, 2025 at 9:35 p.m. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson — yes; Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; McBride — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 9:35p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board's Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 12 Summer Street Cover Letter titled 6253 ANR Narrative; ANR Plan titled 6523.LC.ANR 2. 287 & 295 Waltham Street Architectural plans dated 5/29/2025; Deadline Extension Request; Staff Memo 2 dated 6/4/2025 3. Planning Board Zoning Amendments Cover Memo dated 6/6/2025; DRAFT Changes 6/6/25; Fee Comparisons Other Towns 4. Draft Meeting Minutes 2025-05-07 PB Minutes DRAFT REDLINED; 2025-05-28 PB Minutes DRAFT REDLINED Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 11, 2025 Page 8 of 8