Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-27-SPRD-min Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee Members present for the Public Meeting:Jill Hai, Chair; Taylor Singh, Clerk; Scott Cooper; Charles Hornig; Wendy Manz; Joyce Murphy; Richard Perry; Betsey Weiss, Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Amanda Loomis, Planning Director: Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director Other Attendees: Mike Hurt; Barry Orenstein Jill Hai, Chair of the Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee, called the meeting to order at 8:30am Jill Hai recorded to the town cloud account as LexMedia was not present. 1. Discuss Joint Meeting with Planning Board Taylor Singh noted that Mr. Creech mentioned sustainable building techniques at the joint meeting. She said we need clear directives written into our bylaw. Amanda Loomis stated that the Planning Board has site plan review that has sustainability. Scott Cooper asked how OSRD would interplay with SPRD? He asked what the committee's focus was. Jill Hai relayed the different paths the committee could take with regard to OSRD and SPRD: A path to supplement SPRD with the additional OSRD bylaw; a path to have them in parallel and adjust SPRD based on addition of OSRD; a path to replace SPRD with OSRD and remove SPRD. Betsey Weiss stated that we need Developer input. She also noted that she would like to see amendments to SPRD that include 10% moderate or attainable on BHDs + linkage fees on Site Sensitive. Richard Perry stated that Developers do not want to weigh in until we are close to a final draft. Charles Hornig asserted that once we advertise a public hearing, we cannot change much to the bylaw. 2. Discuss Open Issues Charles Hornig gave a review of changes. Jill Hai relayed the 6 open issues: 1. GFA vs livable square footage 2. By-right vs. Special Permit 3. Use of a proof plan (vs. formula) 4. Percentage of scale of inclusive housing 5. Percentage of open space 6. Minimum tract size 1 Scott Cooper appreciated the addition of the maximum unit size, though he questioned whether that maximum size should apply to historic structures. He requested a consistency of architectural design stating that he did not want the affordable to be distinguishable from the rest. He is concerned that 50% open space may be too high. Richard Perry said that because of the 50% open space requirement, he does not see a lot that would entice a developer to go this route. Jill Hai requtesed that Richard Perry take a project he has done and run it through what it would look like as an OSRD. Charles Hornig pointed out that Fairland Estates is 43% developable open space and Liberty Ridge is 57% developable open space. Taylor Singh asked what can the Planning Board require through site plan review? Charles Horning said the Planning Board can write regulations based on 2021 Spring Town Meeting's Article 44's review standards. Site plan review is about setting reasonable conditions to meet the regulations as long as it doesn't have the effect of making the project unbuildable. Taylor Singh asked if Sustainable Lexington will be consulted about this article and Charles Hornig said he would ask that committee during his meeting with them that evening. Taylor Singh stated the minimum tract size is 2 lots in the RS, which equals 15,000 sq ft, therefore the minimum tract size would be 30,000 and Charles Horning said the minimum lot size in the RS is 15,500 sq ft. The theorhetical minimum size of an OSRD is 31,000 sq ft. Taylor Singh asked if the tract size could be smaller than 31,100 sq ft and Charles Horning stated that the smallest SPRD the Planning Board has seen was 40,000 or 50,000 sq ft. Taylor Singh asked how high the highest peak of an OSRD development could be and Charles Hornig said 40ft. Taylor Singh asked what 6.12.3.6.b meant and Charles Hornig said that is used to compare units in the OSRD to the Conventional. Taylor Singh asked how does the 5,250 sq ft maximum unit size would affect historic structures and Charles Hornig said we could write it so that the 5,250 sq ft does not apply to historic structures. Taylor Singh asked what 6.12.3.6.e meant for historic structures and Charles Hornig said it gives a GFA bonus to preserve historic structures. Taylor Singh noted that Mr. Creech mentioned the Massachusetts model for OSRD and that goes up to 70% open space. She asserted that she is glad open space is up to 50% in this draft. Charles Hornig said he was happy to review the state's model. Taylor Singh stated that both 6.12.5.1.c and 6.12.6.2.c both refer to historic structures and asked for clarification on the verbiage. Charles Hornig replied that the idea is trying to give a bonus for preservation of historic structures. He noted there are 3 different bonuses: GFA, Open Space and Inclusionary Housing. 2 Charles Hornig stated OSRD is one of three separate proposals coming forward: OSRD is an alternative to conventional subdivisions; MBTA Community required under the State's Housing Choice legislation will be a separate proposal; Missing Middle is a third proposal the Planning Board will be looking into. Betsey Weiss stated that she wants to see what the livable square footage is in a 2,625 sq ft GFA unit with a basement and a garage. She said echoed what Scott Cooper said about affordable homes being of the same architectural style, but also wants them of the same size as the market rate units. She noted the Jefferson Ridge development has similar size. Charles Hornig responded that affordable units in an OSRD are based on GFA not the number of units. He said there is no incentive to build small affordable units as you'd just have to build more of them. Betsey Weiss asked if the bylaw could be named "Beneficial Residential Development" or some other name other than OSRD. She said 50% open space is too high. Carol Kowalski asked who benefits from the open space? She noted there is a trade off. Jill Hai stated that the committee will need to take a vote on OSRD at some point. She noted that the committee may want to take what we like out of OSRD and apply it to SPRD. Wendy Manz stated that our mission was not to create more open space, it was to create a diversity of housing. Jill Hai asserted that the committee needs to discuss the inclusion of a proof plan; Charles Hornig said he could relay at a future meeting why he selected to continue to use a proof plan; Richard Perry said he would prefer to use a formula over a proof plan. 3. Plan for Public Outreach Jill Hai said the committee needs to start taking positions on each of the 6 open issues. She asserted that the committee does not need a finished product to start gathering public input on direction. 4. Approval of minutes This minutes for 6/1/21, 6/29/21 and 7/14/21 were unanimously approved. Next Meeting set for Tuesday, August 17th at 8:30am EST 3