Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-18-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday January 18, 2023, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech; Charles Hornig; and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present were Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Abby McCabe, Planning Director; and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Robert Peters, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, at 6:00 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia is filming this meeting and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters 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. Development Administration 24 Wachusett Drive – Street Adequacy Determination (SAD), continued from December 21 David Feldman represented the applicants Fred and Rhoda Feldman, who were also present. Mr. Feldman gave a brief overview of the proceedings from the earlier meeting and shared a road map of Wachusett Drive, detailing the depths of pavement around 24 Wachusett Drive. Mr. Feldman shared the details and results of surveys done since the last meeting with the Board. Mr. Feldman said the survey results indicated the base was in adequate condition and the only places where full construction was required were places where the road had to be widened. Mr. Feldman said that the applicants conferred with the Planning Staff and agreed to repave the street for 280 feet. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the Town staff met with the applicants and supported the applicants’ proposal as submitted. Ms. McCabe said the Town Staff were in agreement with the waiver request to only widen the road to eighteen feet with the intent of saving some mature trees on the sides and confirmed the fire department’s safety aspects are being met. Ms. McCabe said that the only condition to be fulfilled by the applicant is to post the surety amount based on the estimate provided by engineering. The Chair confirmed with Ms. McCabe that all of the proposed paving work was within the existing right of way. The Board members expressed their appreciation and support that a solution was reached between the applicants and the Town staff in an amicable way. Mr. Leon suggested the Board revisit the regulations of Street Adequacy Determinations and compare it with the provisions of neighboring communities. Mr. Feldman wanted to know, if the Street Adequacy Determination process were to be eliminated in the near future before they repave the road, will the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 2 of 9 Board’s decision to require repaving Wachusett Drive be reconsidered under the updated provisions? Ms. McCabe said that typically the regulations that are in place at the time of the application are what will be applicable and asked the applicant to stay tuned to the Planning Board’s proceedings to be updated on the SAD regulations. Public Comments Mr. Peter Shapiro, 11 Wachusett Drive, thought that regulation §176-7 related to Street Adequacy Determination was a mistake and was glad that the Board was thinking of revising it. Mr. Morteza Asgarzadeh, 8 Wachusett Drive, recalled that, in 2001, all the residents of the private road contributed and uniformly paved the road. Mr. Asgarzadeh said that, since the Town took over in 2010, there has been a lot of confusion as to who was responsible for the maintenance, and the patch work due to the SAD process has led to a lot of damages. Mr. Asgarzadeh wanted the SAD process to be revoked. Mr. Hornig said that SAD regulations have been in place at least since 1996, residents are always welcome to make improvements to private streets when they desire, the Town does not involve itself other than when SAD applications come before it, and it does so to maintain expected standards. Mr. Fred Feldman thanked the Board for considering their application, informed the Board about their next steps in the process, and their plan to come back to the Board in the event of the SAD process being revoked. Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board determine that Wachusett Drive, in the vicinity of 24 Wachusett Drive to Prospect Hill Road, is not presently of adequate grade and construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic, but acknowledges the substantial cost of the roadway improvements required by the Town’s street standards, and limits the required improvements to widening the road to 18-ft. for ~280 feet from the property frontage of 24 Wachusett Drive as shown on the submitted road construction plan prepared by Frederick W. Russell dated January 3, 2023 with the conditions as outlined on Novus by the Planning Staff. 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 Presentation and consideration of updated Transportation Management Overlay District Plan for TMO-1 (Hartwell Avenue) Area Mr. Peters informed the Board that the presentation and consideration of the updated Transportation Management Overlay District Plan for TMO-1 (Hartwell Avenue) Area is being postponed and will be rescheduled at a later date. Review of Planning Board sponsored zoning amendment articles submitted for Annual Town Meeting: Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 3 of 9 1. Village Overlay Districts Zoning Bylaw & Map Amendments for multi-family housing Mr. Peters reminded the Board about their work on the maps during the previous meetings and started the review of the draft of the Zoning bylaw. Ms. McCabe shared the draft of Article 34. The Board reviewed the proposed changes made that were based on the consensus reached in the previous meeting. Ms. McCabe discussed the changes that were made to the Permitted Uses section. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board’s discussion regarding tying the possible nonresidential uses to the underlying zoning district. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to know if the Board would consider limiting the commercial component to ground floor only in the VLO and if a developer wants to develop subsequent levels of commercial, it has to be done by special permit. Mr. Creech felt that was a good idea. Mr. Hornig wondered if for practical reasons if it is allowed on the ground floor it will be appropriate to allow it in the basement for storage purposes. Mr. Schanbacher said it would be perfectly acceptable. Mr. Hornig said he had interpreted Mr. Schanbacher’s suggestion to only apply for uses permitted in the VLO and not to the general commercial districts. Mr. Schanbacher said Mr. Hornig’s interpretation was correct. Mr. Peters said he agreed to Mr. Schanbacher’s suggestion. The Board discussed the list of uses that were not permitted, particularly package liquor stores. The consensus of the Board was to remove package liquor stores from the list of non-permitted uses. The Board talked about the dimensional controls. Mr. Hornig wanted to make some changes to clearly explain the provisions mentioned in §4.4 of Dimensional Controls. Mr. Hornig wanted to mention each sentence separately, as he felt that each of them addressed different issues. Mr. Hornig wanted to remove the clause which said that the maximum nonresidential floor area ratio cannot be more than the residential portion of any development. Mr. Schanbacher and Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Hornig in removing the clause. Mr. Creech wanted clarification on §4.3.5 regarding the applicability of the height of dwellings near lot lines. Mr. Hornig explained this provision was added to limit the height of dwellings on narrow lots and added that this limitation could not apply if the required density for MBTA zoning is to be achieved. The Board discussed the maximum height of buildings in VLO, VMO and VHO districts. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about their agreement of going with 40 feet for VLO, 60 feet for VMO, and 70 feet for VHO with a density bonus for VLO. Mr. Hornig said that since VHO has the CM district as the underlying district with a height limit of 115 feet, giving 70 feet as height requirement will disincentivize and in order to encourage more housing, a higher height has to be provided. Mr. Creech shared slides which showed the contours of Drummer Boy Way and 475 Bedford Street and said he preferred 48 feet in VMO and also felt 60 feet is too high in Lexington Center. Ms. Thompson asked for more actual visuals showing the comparisons of different heights. Mr. Leon was of the view that heights should not be based on abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and Mr. Leon and added that 60-70 feet height perfectly aligns with building codes and construction techniques and makes it more acceptable to developers, which would help achieve the goal of increasing the housing stock in Lexington. Mr. Schanbacher said that since the last meeting he has done some research regarding VHO and the height restrictions for High Rise Developments and said that the next threshold to 70 feet was 120 feet Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 4 of 9 in terms of building height and said that 70 feet for VHO is probably correct. Mr. Peters felt that 70 feet was appropriate for VHO and 50 feet for VMO. Ms. Thompson wanted to know how many stories will be in VHO for 100 feet. Mr. Schanbacher said it would be 8 stories. Ms. McCabe shared a slide created by Mr. Schanbacher which showed the effect of shadows created by buildings of various heights in Lexington Center. Mr. Creech shared pictures from developments in Quincy and Somerville. Mr. Hornig reiterated that, unless the height limit in the VHO was comparable to the height limit in the underlying CM district, there will not be any users. Mr. Peters said he was comfortable going up to 90 feet in VHO and Mr. Schanbacher gave his support for the proposal. Mr. Creech said he will support 70 feet. Public Comments Ms. Geneveive Wang, 1 Patriots Drive, felt that going from the present 3 stories to 5 stories would feel like an extreme change in character and said that though she supports additional residential units, she was against a major shift that would change the culture of the Town. Ms. Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, wanted clarification on what would constitute the height limit. Mr. Hornig said that for a gabled roof, it measures to the top of the gable and for a flat roof, it measures to the parapet, but a limited amount of equipment is allowed on the roof. Ms. Hoffman wanted to know if in Lexington Center, a VMO of 60 feet would allow 60 feet building to the parapet and additional 20 feet of roof equipment. Mr. Hornig said that the base height is measured to the top of the parapet and read the section that applied to the structures on a building for additional clarification. Mr. Hornig concluded that things that are not habitable parts of the structure that are up to a quarter of the roof area and up to 20 feet tall can be present and confirmed to Ms. Hoffman that the highest point of the structure might be as high as 80 feet. Ms. Kowalski also clarified that the structures above the roof are uninhabitable. Ms. Hoffman said she was in favor of putting the center back into VLO and keeping the heights at 40 feet. Ms. Hoffman said she favored 475 Bedford Street and the Armory to be in VMO and reduce their height to 48 feet. Ms. Doris Wang, 12 Drummer Boy Way, agreed with Ms. Hoffman that 48 feet would be a good height for 475 Bedford Street and with 60 feet tall buildings, the Lexington Center would lose its character. Mr.Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, commented on the allowable building heights in VMO on Bedford Street. Mr. Shiple said that before seeing Mr. Creech’s visuals, he thought 60 feet was a good compromise and on seeing Mr. Creech’s visual he was convinced that based on the 20 feet difference in topography, a 60 feet building would look like a 40 feet building, which is prevalent in town. Mr. Shiple also wanted clarification on §7.5.4-3, with reference to the 30% Net Floor Area (NFA) of the building, whether the reference was to the NFA of the total building or the NFA of just the center store front. Mr. Hornig said that he had meant the center store front. Mr. Andreas Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, wanted to know if the height limits for the structures on top of a building would apply for 475 Bedford street too. Mr. Hornig said that would apply. Mr. Theodosiou felt that since the structures would still be visible, 48 feet would be a reasonable compromise. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 5 of 9 Mr. Peters asked the Board members’ preference for the height. Mr. Hornig said that he proposed 40, 60, and as much height as possible, for VLO, VMO, and VHO respectively. Mr. Schanbacher, Mr. Leon and Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Hornig. Mr. Creech preferred 40, 50, and 70 for VLO, VMO, and VHO respectively. Mr. Peters said he preferred 40 and 50 for VLO and VMO and 70 up to 90 in VHO. Mr. Schanbacher explained the importance of VMO being at 60 feet, in order to achieve some results. Mr. Schanbacher said that, particularly in the Lexington Center, incentivizing the sort of redevelopment to create a walkable community is crucial, and the additional height will provide a lot of much needed businesses. Mr. Schanbacher said that this would be a good opportunity to provide a place for a diverse socioeconomic mix of people and for the younger generation. Ms. Kowalski reminded the Board that Lexington historically had much taller buildings ranging from 40- 54 feet and shared some pictures. Mr. Peters summarized that, based on the straw vote of the Board, the proposal for the public hearing would be a height of 40 feet for VLO, 60 feet for VMO, and 70 feet or higher for VHO. The Board discussed the density bonus and Ms. McCabe went over the changes that were made based on the discussion in the previous meeting. There were no comments from the Board members. The Board recessed at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m. The Board discussed the provisions related to Off-Street parking and Loading. Ms. McCabe said that based on the discussion with the Town Counsel, the provisions of §7.5.7 and §7.5.8 were removed. Ms. McCabe went over all the changes that were made to the draft. The Board discussed the provisions of Inclusionary Housing and went over the changes that were made based on the recommendations from Ms. Liz Rust, Director of Regional Housing Services Office. The Board discussed the provisions and made a few minor changes to the draft. The Board discussed the provisions relating to landscaping. Mr. Hornig said §5.3.5, the provisions related to required depth, does not apply and there was ambiguity with respect to VMO and VHO. Since there were no further comments, Mr. Hornig’s phrasing was adopted. Mr. Creech wanted to revisit the provisions of the parking factor and wanted to know if it can be made discretionary. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Schanbacher added that there are other towns in the area that have no parking requirements for residential units. Public Comments Ms. Genevieve Wang said, though she liked the pictures of historical Lexington Center, she felt that 40- 45 feet looked good, but did not favor the five stories and 60 feet in the current proposal. Ms. Wang also said she is concerned about the parking factor of half a space per dwelling unit. Mr. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, said that less parking would encourage alternative means of travel to the center. Mr. Luker also felt that if the inclusionary units were to start taking effect with eight unit buildings, there would be a lot of seven unit buildings. Mr. Peters replied saying that based on the Board’s discussion, the threshold has been increased to ten units and Mr. Hornig reminded the DHCD Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 6 of 9 guidelines requiring 10% of the units at the most. Mr. Luker also wanted to know the necessity of mandating playgrounds. Mr. Leon said that the intent was to develop diverse family friendly developments. Ms. Helen Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, hoped that there was substantial similarity between all the units including inclusionary units, expressed her concern about the resulting increase in traffic due to the proposed increase in density, and wondered why the need for traffic impact studies were removed. Ms. McCabe said that traffic impact studies are usually done only for Special Permit applications and added that they are beyond the scope of the proposed bylaw. Mr. Schanbacher moved that the draft of the zoning amendment proposal will be forwarded by the Planning Board to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. 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 2. Supplemental Inclusionary Zoning Requirements for Village Overlay District Ms. McCabe explained the reason for including this article in the Zoning Bylaw, whereby stricter inclusionary housing requirements for multi-family housing can be added. Ms. McCabe explained the next process would be to get a third-party certification to comply with the State’s guidelines. Mr. Hornig shared his proposal for at least 15% of dwelling units rounded down, with two thirds of the 15% rounded up eligible for inclusion on DHCD’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. Mr. Hornig expressed his confidence that the percentage can be 20%, added that the Board should ask for as much as possible based on the study, and that 20% would only be feasible because of the densities currently chosen in Article 35. Public Comments Mr. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, wondered why the economic analysis would depend on the zoning language because the zoning language would not be final until approved by the Town Meeting. He wanted to know how the economic feasibility study will be done in the interim. Ms. McCabe said that the economic feasibility study was not needed until after the Town Meeting adoption and submission to the State. Ms. Hoffman had a question regarding the uncertainty that would prevail in the interim with regards to the percentage of inclusionary housing and wanted to know if it could be applied retroactively. Ms. McCabe said that whatever zoning changes are adopted, it will have to go through the approval process from the Attorney General, it would take effect from the date it was voted in the Town Meeting, and all the concerned parties would be informed that the bylaw will technically be effective only when the Attorney General approves it. The Board discussed and agreed to adopt Mr. Hornig’s version of Article 35 and to consult Town Counsel to draft the Article using appropriate language. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 7 of 9 Mr. Schanbacher moved that the revised language of Article 35, proposed by Mr. Hornig, be forwarded by the Planning Board to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. 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 3. Amend Zoning Map – Central Business District Ms. McCabe shared a map of the area around the Depot Parking lot and explained the proposed inclusions to the Central Business district. Mr. Hornig informed the Board that it was specifically requested by the Center Committee. Public Comments Mr. Jason Du, 1 Oakland Street, feared that this zone change could affect the parking situation in Town. Mr. Du also wondered if the proposed zoning change will affect the historical district. Mr. Hornig said that the proposed zoning would only give additional options for the Town and that the proposed zoning does not affect the historic districts in any way. Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Zoning Map Amendments related to Central Business District brought before the Planning Board be forwarded to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. 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 4. Modify Action Site Plan Review Procedures Ms. McCabe shared the draft language showing the proposed changes to extend the current 60 day deadline for Major Site Plan Reviews to 150 days from the date of submission of a complete application, with no changes proposed for Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Schanbacher moved that the modified draft language related to the change in deadline for Site Plan Review Procedures, brought before the Planning Board be forwarded to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 5. Add Provisions for Minor Modifications to Approved Permits Ms. McCabe shared the Article, reminded the Board of the Zoning Board Chair’s suggestion to make the proposed changes, and went over the changes this proposal would bring about. Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Zoning Amendments related to Minor Modifications to Approve Permits brought before the Planning Board, be forwarded to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. 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 6. Technical Corrections and Housekeeping Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 8 of 9 Ms. McCabe shared her screen and explained about misspellings to §135-9.5.5.3 and §135-6.7.3.2 and proposed corrections to these sections to create consistency. Mr. Schanbacher moved that certain amendments to edit the Zoning Bylaw to correct any typos that are clerical in nature, brought before the Planning Board be forwarded to the public hearing to be held on 02.01.2023. 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 Staff Updates Ms. McCabe shared the Conservation Committee and the Conservation Staff’s interest in meeting with the Board to discuss the updates they have made on the Open Space and Recreation Plan. Ms. McCabe also informed the Board about the recent kick off for updating the Climate Action Plan by the Sustainability Director. Ms. McCabe also mentioned about the Housing Partnership’s meeting on 1.19.2023 and mentioned that she will provide them with updates regarding multi-family housing and village overlay district proposals. Board Member Updates Mr. Hornig updated the Board about the SPRD committee’s progress in drafting Article 33 and reminded the Board about the SPRD committee’s public hearing on February 8th. Upcoming meetings: Feb. 1, Feb. 8, Feb. 15, March 1 Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings on February 1st and February 8th , and went over the anticipated agenda items for the meetings. Review of Meeting Minutes: 01/4, 1/6 (tentative) No meeting minutes were reviewed. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 18, 2023. 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 9.48 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents: Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023, Page 9 of 9 1. 24 Wachusett Drive – Street Adequacy Determination (SAD) – Road Construction plan dated 1.03.23, staff memo dated 1.13.23 2. Village Overlay District – Draft Village Overlay District Zoning Bylaw 3. Supplemental Inclusionary Zoning Requirements for Village Overlay District - Revised Zoning Bylaw Amendments dated 1.11.23, draft motion dated 1.18.23 4. Amend Zoning Map – Central Business District – Draft motion dated 1.18.23 5. Modify Action Deadline for Major Site Plan review –Draft motion dated 1.18.23 6. Add Provisions for Minor Modifications to Approved Permits- Draft motion dated 1.18.23 7. Technical Corrections and Housekeeping – Draft motion dated 1.18.23