Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-08-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday February 8, 2023, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members Present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Committee members present: Jill Hai, Chair, Wendy Manz, Joyce Murphy, Charles Hornig, Scott Cooper, Richard Perry, Heather Hartshorn, and Betsey Weiss. Also present were Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Molly Belanger, Planner and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Robert Peters, Chair of the Planning Board called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, February 8, 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. Mr. Peters recognized Ms. Hai, the chair of the Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Committee to call to order the SPRD Committee. Ms. Hai conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the SPRD committee could hear and be heard. Town Meeting Public Hearing: Article 33 Amend Zoning Bylaw Relative to Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ms. Manz shared her presentation and gave a brief introduction on the formation of the SPRD committee and the need to bring about change. Ms. Manz detailed the committee’s work which was geared towards encouraging smaller, more varied and inclusive housing. Ms. Manz listed the statement of values for the SPRD Committee, which was to seek greater diversity in housing to meet the needs of families and individuals of different circumstances and that new homes should be built to sustainable standards and explained the Goals of the committee in detail. Ms. Manz shared pictures of examples in nearby communities of smaller, affordable and more sustainable homes. Ms. Manz explained in detail about the work done by the committee to draft the bylaw, which included workshops, talking to various members of the building community, town staff and housing advocates. Ms. Manz went over the committee’s recommendations in detail and explained the project review process, which will be Site Plan Review without a Special Permit. Ms. Manz felt that their proposal complements the MBTA Multi- family zoning proposal and explained the need of both to address the housing crisis. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 2 of 9 Mr. Schanbacher wanted clarification on how siting would impact a project and how the process would work, in general and with respect to the Riverwalk project shared by the committee. Ms. Manz said the SPRD committee can only make proposals but cannot control the requirements of any development. Ms. Manz said that Riverwalk was built to create a pocket neighborhood. Mr. Hornig said that the plan provides for the Planning Board to do Site Plan Review and to propose new regulations when they are required. Ms. Thompson wanted to know the market rates for the Riverwalk properties. Ms. Manz said that, the last time she did some research, it was around $800,000, which was expensive and she hoped, with SPRD, smaller and less expensive homes will be built. Mr. Creech wanted to know if covered porches can be excluded from GFA consideration since he felt that pocket neighborhoods will look less attractive without covered porches. Mr. Creech agreed with the goals of the SPRD committee and said he too was wondering about how the process would work. Mr. Creech wanted to know the parking requirements under the proposed bylaw. Ms. Manz said that, in Riverwalk, parking was on site and was not certain if it could be reproducible in other sites too. Mr. Hornig added that Special Residential Developments will have the same parking requirements as any other residential development in town. In response to Mr. Creech’s question on covered porches, Ms. Hai responded saying that the SPRD committee was only charged with revising §6.9. and felt that it was not within their purview to make other changes. Mr. Creech wanted to know how the committee arrived at the number for the density bonus. Ms. Wendy said after much discussion, the committee arrived at a number that would allow builders to have adequate profit with the inclusionary housing considered. Mr. Peters wanted to know the likelihood that it will be used by developers. Ms. Manz said that they don’t have a specific estimate and that it will depend on the parcels, but in discussing with the development community, they did sense some interest in trying it out. Ms. Kowalski said that she had reached out to a number of builders with the basic parameters and most of the builders were interested in trying it. Mr. Peters wanted to know how likely it will be used in comparison to OSRD. Mr. Hornig said that SPRD and OSRD was intended to be complementary and will be attractive on different kinds of sites and added that lessons from OSRD were taken into consideration in crafting the inclusionary requirements in SPRD, to make it more attractive. Mr. Peters appreciated including the payment in lieu for smaller developments. Mr. Leon wanted to know if any analysis had been done on two small parcels being put together in order to understand the results on what to expect. Mr. Leon also wanted to know the current estimated payment in lieu. Mr. Hornig replied saying that based on the expected costs of the Vine Street developments, he estimated it to be around $500-$600 a square foot. Mr. Leon wanted to know the likely outcome in terms of the number of units in a parcel. Mr. Hornig said that few compact neighborhood developments will have less than 6 units and that with two small parcels combined he would expect 2 duplexes; less than 6 units, and the developer would choose to make the payment in lieu instead of building the inclusionary unit. Mr. Leon also wondered whether it was really necessary to eliminate special permits as opposed to site plan review. Ms. Manz said that after considerable discussion, the committee felt that the provisions were very similar in both cases, but the uncertainty associated with special permits made the committee lean towards site plan review to make the process more attractive to developers. Mr. Perry reminded the Board of the hardships he had faced as a developer in executing a project using a special permit and said that he firmly believed site plan review Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 3 of 9 is the way to go. Mr. Hornig reminded the Board that the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan explicitly suggested that the SPRD Committee amend the Special Permit Residential Development provisions to provide by right zoning. Public Comments Ms. McBride,45 Turning Mill Road, wanted to know details about the smallest and largest size unit at Riverwalk. Ms. Manz said that the average size of units is 1760 square feet. Mr. Tad Dickenson, 48 Hancock Street, wanted to know if razing of small house stock can be stopped using the SPRD or any zoning regulations. Ms. Manz said that it is hard to try to regulate the property rights of owners. Mr. Hornig clarified that the scope of the SPRD committee was to regulate developments on large tracts of land which could be subdivided into multiple building lots. Ms. Shubra Chandra, 10 Childs Road, wanted to know if the capacity of the schools in Lexington was being taken into consideration when the Town was proposing these zoning amendments. Ms. Manz said that they have not had any discussions regarding families as the Town is not allowed to legislate against having families with school children. Mr. Hornig added that it is not even allowed to discourage development of housing for families with children, that Article 33 is addressing a small slice of the housing market, and that the increase in school enrollment related to Article 34 has been taken into consideration for the school planning. Mr. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, shared his thoughts that when the zoning was not giving what is desired, then it was time to update the zoning and extended his support for the proposal. Ms. Robin Kutner, 70 Paul Revere Road, felt that Article 33 will not address the problem of razing of the small houses leading to replacement of large houses and wanted to know what options she would have if she were to sell her small house situated on a large property. Ms. Manz said the hope of the SPRD committee was to provide other alternatives to developers. Mr. Alvaro Amorrortu, 9 While Pine Lane, wanted to know how integrated the different committees of the Town were, when making the zoning proposals, and wanted to know if environmental impact analysis was done for 69 Pleasant Street. Ms. Manz said they have been working with different committee members and Town staff in an integrated approach. Mr. Gorka Brabo, 7 Moon Hill Road, felt that for large parcels the Town had to come up with a vision, instead of giving by right options to them. Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the public hearing for Article 33 to February 15 at 6 p.m. over 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 Ms. Hai moved that the SPRD Committee adjourn the meeting of February 8 th, 2023 at 7.52 p.m. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0 (Roll call: Weiss – yes; Cooper – yes; Perry – yes; Hartshorn– yes; Hornig – yes; Manz- yes, Murphy- yes; Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 4 of 9 The Board recessed at 7:53 p.m. and reconvened at 7:59 p.m. Mr. Peters re-opened the public hearing on Articles 34 and 35 to amend the zoning bylaw and zoning map for multi- family housing for MBTA communities with inclusionary housing zoning requirements, continued from February 1st 2023. Mr. Peters gave a recap on the Public Hearing from February 1st. Mr. Peters said that based on the public hearing on February 1st, the Town staff had categorized the broad themes of the discussion. The first theme discussed by the Board was regarding the building height. Mr. Hornig said that for the VMO he was comfortable effectively moving down from 5 stories to 4 stories by decreasing the maximum height to between 52 and 55 feet. Mr. Hornig felt that for VLO, reducing the larger height bonus to 20 feet is reasonable in the commercial areas. Mr. Hornig said that step backs were not a good idea as they make it difficult to meet the new building code. For VHO, Mr. Hornig supported a 45 feet height bonus or mixed use only with a significant commercial component. Mr. Creech said he would go with 52 feet for VMO and wanted to increase the provisions of §7.5.9, transition and screening. Mr. Creech wanted step backs on all street facing sides of corner lot properties in the VLO district. Ms. Thomson was in favor of a four-story building, particularly in the residential VMO district, like 475 Bedford Street. For the Lexington Center - VMO, Ms. Thomson preferred a four story and was comfortable reducing the height from 60 feet to whatever would be a practical height for a four-story building. For the VHO, Ms. Thomson felt that a 70 feet height with an additional increase was fine for the locality. Mr. Schanbacher, said that it would be very challenging to go under 52 feet and still yield 4 stories, and so would accept between 52-55 feet height for VMO. Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig and Mr. Schanbacher. Mr. Peters thought that 52 feet was appropriate and that it would be reasonable to go to 55 feet with a parapet that would conceal some of the roof equipment. For VHO, Mr. Peters agreed to Mr. Hornig’s comments from the previous meeting and felt that the height should at least match the height of the underlying commercial zoning and felt a 45 feet bonus was appropriate in VHO. Mr. Peters felt that step backs would be appropriate and that the height bonus needs to be reduced to 20 feet where the underlying zoning is commercial. Mr. Peters said he had second thoughts about the 15 feet bonus for VLO, if the underlying zoning was residential. The Board agreed upon 52 feet, which is 4 stories for VMO (Center and North Bedford Street) and for VHO, the Board agreed for a 45 feet height bonus for mixed use where CM is underlying zone. The Board also agreed to reduce the bonuses by 5 feet each, so that the commercial bonus would be 20 feet and the residential bonus with a residential component would be 10 feet. Continued Public Hearing: Articles 34 & 35 Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map for Multi - Family Housing for MBTA Communities and Inclusionary Housing Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 5 of 9 The Board also discussed the North side facing across Massachusetts Avenue, on East Lexington having 5 stories and 63 feet. The Board also discussed step backs and Mr. Schanbacher suggested Mansard type roofs to overcome the concerns regarding the shadows. Mr. Hornig explained the difference between the setbacks and the transition areas and explained that the transition area is a strip of vegetation that provides screening between that district and the adjacent area, and setbacks will be 15 feet regardless of the location. Mr. Hornig said that making the screen thicker will not make any significant difference. The next theme discussed by the Board was Parking. Mr. Peters said that based on the public comments received during the previous public hearing, staff recommended that the minimum required parking be increased from 0.5 to 1 parking space per dwelling unit. Mr. Hornig said that the problem is different across different areas and, since the MBTA communities are all supposedly transit oriented, he felt that an option for developers to cater to people who don’t have cars has to be provided. Mr. Hornig noted that that less parking is needed where housing is provided along public transportation and in areas that are accessible to buses or near the bike path. Mr. Schanbacher and Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig, as the intent of the legislation was to create walkable communities. Mr. Schanbacher said he will support one parking spot if need be. Mr. Leon said some degree of flexibility can be provided in order to avoid parking disasters in the future and asked the staff to address this with a waiver possibility. Mr. Peters liked a lower parking requirement and Mr. Creech also wanted to have a possibility of a waiver. Mr. Hornig reminded the Board that the current draft has a waiver provision. Mr. Peters summarized that the consensus of the Board was to increase the minimum parking requirement to one per dwelling unit. The third theme discussed by the Board was the suggestion from the Center Committee – entrance lobbies. Mr. Hornig said a certain width is required for entrance lobbies and entrance lobbies of a reasonable size should be permitted in each center storefront. Mr. Creech agreed that entrance to a building has to be a reasonable size. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and said that it will vary from lot to lot and building to building and it is hard to regulate to precision, so that it has to be a reasonable size. Mr. Peters opened the hearing up to public comments and questions. Public Comment Mr. Jerry Michaelson, Chair of Lexington Center Committee, said that the intention in his draft was to accommodate large size buildings for maintaining a pedestrian friendly walking area. Mr. Leon said that we have to have a standard requirement that could be varied on a site-specific basis. Mr. Hornig said that an attractive, ADA accessible entrance and a minimum should be prescribed. Mr. Schanbacher supported Mr. Hornig’s proposal and reiterated that at least the minimum and then balance with the overall proforma of the building. The Board decided to edit the draft and decided that no more than greater of 20% of the center storefront or 20 feet may be dedicated to residential uses. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 6 of 9 The Board discussed the requests from residents who wanted their properties to be included in the districts. The Board discussed and decided to include properties on Cherry Street, 131 Hartwell Avenue, Concord Avenue adjacent to 331 Concord Rd, 5,7,9 Piper Road and decided not to include properties on 12 Reed Street. The Board discussed the theme of inclusionary housing. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about their proposal of having two separate Articles 34 and 35 and a maximum of 15% of the project total for inclusionary dwelling units. Ms. McCabe added that Town Counsel recommended combining the proposal into one as Article 34 and recommended conditional language that, if approved by the State, 15% of units could be inclusionary with two thirds of them being eligible for the subsidized housing inventory (SHI) at 80% of area median income, so that if unapproved by the State, the default of 10% would be permitted. Ms. McCabe recommended to require more than 10% on SHI, to maintain a safe harbor as new housing becomes available and recommended all 15% inclusionary be SHI eligible. Mr. Hornig had a different suggestion and shared his draft and explained his proposal. Mr. Hornig said that it is important to meet the DHCD rules and said he did not make any changes to section 1. Mr. Hornig felt that section 2 provides the flexibility, if supported by an economic feasibility study, to accomplish more. Mr. Hornig felt that 80% of AMI units will only meet a very tiny portion of this community and drafted the section that does not presuppose a particular kind of affordability, while meeting DHCD’s guidelines and being feasible and adaptable, based on future changes. Mr. Leon felt that the provisions should be simple and amendable and supported the draft prepared by Ms. McCabe. Mr. Peters and Mr. Creech supported Ms. McCabe’s version. Ms. McCabe said that the Town is in the process of executing a contract with the consultant to produce a report by March 20th, in time for the start of the Town Meeting. In the event of the report requiring changes to be made to the proposal, amendments can be made at a future Town Meeting. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to go with Ms. McCabe’s version of the proposal. Ms. Thompson wanted to compare both the drafts. Mr. Hornig wanted to put in a number, which the DHCD would permit and put a second paragraph as a placeholder, and let Town Meeting know about the changes that the placeholder will be changed when the economic feasibility study is complete. The Board agreed with Mr. Hornig’s suggestion. Mr. Creech wanted to remove a few properties from consideration, which included the bus depot on Bedford Street and its adjacent property, 71 and 62 Bedford Street. Mr. Creech felt that the location of the bus depot was ideal for the purpose and there was no other alternative place like it. Mr. Hornig felt that there were a lot of opportunities for redevelopment should the bus contract expire. Mr. Hornig felt that there was no need to include the DPW facility in the district as it is not likely to be redeveloped in the near future. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig. The board decided to discuss this further in the next meeting. The Board recessed at 10.01 p.m. and reconvened at 10.05 p.m. Public Comments Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 7 of 9 Mr. Beckwitt wanted to know the reason why more than 100 acres, which could result in 3000 to 4000 units, are added when the State requires 50 acres and approximately 1200 units. Mr. Peters said that the Board was not aiming towards minimum compliance as increase in housing also coincided with the Town’s recently approved Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, expressed his bewilderment at the Board’s change in height limitations for the different overlay districts. Ms. Melinda Walker, 14 Larchmont Lane, stated that the MBTA Community Act was crafted to address the prevailing housing crisis in Massachusetts. Ms. Renee Becker, 3 Sunny Knoll Avenue, expressed the need to establish stricter rules for delivery trucks and dumpsters. Mr. Joel Herda, 3 Sunny Knoll Avenue, felt that the Board should comply only with the minimum requirements of the MBTA zoning requirement. Ms. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, recognized the need for statewide housing and, affordable and inclusionary housing in Lexington and expressed her belief that the Lexington Center should be part of the zoning for MBTA housing. Mr. Tad Dickenson said that he believed that the Town Center cannot be zoned as mixed use and felt that the Center should be considered as a separate zoning process and should not be conflated with zoning for MBTA communities. Mr. Mitchell Case, 9 Sunny Knoll Avenue, expressed his concern regarding increased traffic and the possibility of 4 story business units, due to the proposed zoning. Ms. McCabe clarified that zoning changes would take many years before any construction may occur. Ms. Doris Wang, 12 Drummer Boy Way, used Lexington Place as an example and extrapolated the proposed zoning and wanted to know the need for 4 to 5 story buildings in the VMOs and VLOs. Mr. Peters reiterated that the need for more housing was based on the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for Lexington survey. Ms. Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, suggested that, with the current zoning proposal, the minimum requirements of MBTA zoning can be met and then later other zoning proposals can be crafted to meet the other goals of the town. Mr. Peters explained that zoning for MBTA communities is one of the tools to add more housing and reminded about the proposed SPRD amendments and the recently amended OSRD regulations. Mr. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, shared his concern about the comprehensive plan and said that it needs further rethinking. Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the Public Hearing for Article 34 and 35 to February 15th at 6:00 p.m. 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 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 8 of 9 Continued Public Hearing: Article 36 Amend Zoning Map – Central Business District Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the Public Hearing for Article 36 to February15th at 6:00 p.m. 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 Continued Public Hearing: Article 37 Extend Action Deadline for Major Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the Public Hearing for Article 37 to February 15th at 6:00 p.m. 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 Continued Public Hearing: Article 38 Minor Modifications to Approved Permits Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the Public Hearing for Article 38 to February 15th at 6:00 p.m. 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 Board Administration Staff Updates Ms. McCabe said that she did not have any staff updates. Board Member Updates Mr. Hornig updated the Board on the upcoming meeting of the SPRD Committee with the League of Women Voters and the proposed public information session. Upcoming meetings: Feb 15, March 1, March 15th Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings on February 15th, March 1st, March 8th, and March 15th and went over the anticipated agenda items for the meetings. Review of Meeting Minutes: 1/6,1/12,1/18 (tentative) Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on January 6th, and January 12th 2023, as submitted tonight. 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. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 8, 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 11.04 p.m. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2023, Page 9 of 9 Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents: 1. Article 33- Amend Zoning Bylaw Relative to Special Permit Residential Developments (SPRD) – Draft Presentation, Proposed Zoning amendment motion. 2. Articles 34 & 35 - Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map for Multi-Family Housing for MBTA Communities and Inclusionary Housing- Presentation dated 2.01.23, Draft Village Overlay Map, Draft VOD Zoning Bylaw language, Draft Zoning Map with Village Overlays. 3. Article 36 - Amend Zoning Map – Central Business District – Draft motion and map to expand CB, presentation. 4. Article 37 - Extend Action Deadline for Major Site Plan Review – Draft Zoning Motion language, presentation. 5. Article 38 - Minor Modifications to Approved Permits– Draft Zoning Motion language, presentation. 6. Article 39 -Technical Corrections – Draft Zoning article, presentation.