Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-25-SPRD-min RECEIVED zz 25 Mar, :42 a Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) TOWN CLERK Meeting Minutes of January 25, 2022 LEXINGTON MA Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee Members present for the Public Meeting: Jill Hai, Chair; Scott Cooper,Joyce Murphy, Charles Hornig, Richard Perry, Heather Hartshorn, Wendy Manz, Betsey Weiss. Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Administrative Assistant. Other Attendees: David Trietsch. Ms. Hai conducted a roll call to ensure all the members of the SPRD ad-hoc committee and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Ms. Hai, chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at 8:03 am. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia for future on-demand viewing. 1. Voting on decision points to present to town Counsel Ms. Hai started with a list of open questions to the committee, the first one being the size of the unit, whether a minimum or maximum is required, or a range is a better option and asked Ms. Kowalski to give an overview based on the current pending projects. Ms. Kowalski said that with regards to size, there is no minimum size in the building code as confirmed by the building commissioner other than certain minimum requirements pertaining to the health code. Ms. Kowalski's recommendation to the committee would be to consider no minimum size restrictions other than those specified by the health and the building codes. Ms. Kowalski's reason behind the recommendation being that the market is aware of the size and there is no impact for the public with a small unit inside a building. With respect to maximum size, based on a few buildings like Concord River Walk, which ranges from 1340 and 1760 square feet, Ms. Kowalski was leaning towards the previously suggested 2500 square feet. Ms. Hill said that the committee needs to be specific if the 2500 square feet implies living area or gross floor area. Ms. Kowalski's recommendation was to go with gross floor area and also wants the committee to consider attached town houses and buildings with more than one unit when drafting the bylaw. Mr. Perry agreed with the no minimum area requirement, but wanted to consider it on the basis of living area and agrees with maximum being 2500 square feet. Ms. Hartshorn said that in her opinion 2500 square feet is too large and the maximum should be significantly lower. Ms. Hai pointed that Ms. Loomis had initially suggested 2000 square feet and then it was moved up to 2500 square feet. Mr. Cooper agreed with Ms. Hartshorn saying that 2500 square feet living area is a large unit, and felt that livable is a more useful and understandable standard. And Mr. Cooper also wanted to remind the committee about their agreement on the historical structures being exempt from the maximum limit. Ms. Hai asked the committee if they wanted to consider 'average' as a basis, and the average being limited to 2500 square feet. Ms. Weiss went on to say that she wants smaller units that are viable, and she does not agree with Mr. Perry regarding no minimum area requirement. Ms. Hai asked Ms. Kowalski if the aforementioned 1340 -1760 square feet in Concord Riverwalk is livable area or gross flor area. Ms. Kowalski said she will get the answer. Mr. Hornig agreed with the no minimum area requirement and thinks that average is a better option to control instead of a maximum area. Mr. Hornig said he is not comfortable with the living area mainly regarding the question of what the committee is trying to achieve by it, whether trying to keep it physically smaller or trying to make it less expensive. Mr. Horning feels that with an average area,1500 square feet is a good number and if going with gross floor area, lower 2000s would be a good number. Mr. Hornig said that the smallest units in Lexington Meadows are 1800 square feet gross floor area, maybe around1300 square feet living area and there seems to be a market for them. Mr.Trietsch said that he had not heard the discussion focusing on number of bedrooms and also who the potential occupants would be. Mr. Perry said that he is pretty confident that Concord Riverwalk area presented earlier, related to livable space. Mr. Perry does not totally disagree with 2500 square feet being too large; and feels that the committee could go down to possibly 2000 square feet, but depending on the number of bedrooms, space may have to be more. Ms. Hai contrasted this with the two applications pending before the Planning Board which are at 6000 square feet. Ms. Hornig went on to say that they are both site sensitive developments and new buildings are for 6000 square feet and historic building is much bigger. Ms. Hai said that this is the competition and this is what is got with site sensitive development as designed. Ms. Hai said that we are trying to create something which is profitable for a developer and at the same time the value for the Town. Mr. Cooper liked the idea of having an average which gives the developer greater flexibility, but even with an average, a reasonable consistent maximum has to be determined. Ms. Hai asked Mr. Horning if the Balanced Housing currently has an average with a maximum. Mr. Horning said that it does not and it is based on median, one fourth has to be less than 2700 square feet and a half, which includes the earlier quarter, has to be less than 3500 square feet, the rest are unlimited, but there is a total cap on the entire development. Ms. Kowalski presented a sketch plan presented by the developer to the planning board for 69 Pleasant Street, which is a potential ten lot conventional subdivision under the site sensitive development. Ms. Kowalski said that the committee has not considered the required minimum number of units while drafting the bylaw. Ms. Kowalski said that is particularly important when a percentage of the units plays a factor in determining the number of affordable units, and also considering the proposal, in future, to increase the density in exchange for more affordability. Ms. Weiss, said that since the plan says it is ten units and each being 6000 square feet, if we were to go for a maximum of 2000 square feet, then there will be 30 units. Mr. Perry said that the problem is the definition of sizing, and said that the 6000 square feet proposed in the site plan is gross floor area, and it will not work to bring it to make three units of 2000 square feet of livable space. Mr. Hornig went on to say that a minimum number of units is equivalent to maximum average unit size if the gross floor area is capped. Mr. Horning said that expressing the same limit either as a maximum average or as a minimum number of units, it will eventually be the same. So either the average unit size is regulated or the number of units is regulated, they will be the same. Ms. Kowalski said that a greater number of smaller units was the original intention of the committee, irrespective of the average living area. Ms. Hai said the goal for the committee is to require the creation of a larger number of smaller units, than that would be permitted under the conventional path. Ms. Hartshorn said that the committee needs to remember that the Town Meeting is their audience and the committee has to be clear to the Town Meeting on what they were voting for. Ms. Hai then asked Ms. Kowalski if it would be appropriate guidance for the committee to make a size provision be included in the bylaw, which will encourage or require the creation of an increased number of units smaller than that could be permitted under a conventional development. Ms. Kowalski said she thinks it would be appropriate. Ms. Hai moved that the Special Permit Residential (ad hoc) committee could have language drafted, that provides a requirement to use this path, which would require the creation of a greater number of units smaller than that would be permitted under conventional path and then add the supporting schematics for it. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. (Roll call- Mr. Cooper -Yes) Mr. Cooper added a corollary saying that he agreed with Mr. Horning, but he said that the committee should aim for a number, and more affordable units, though he is not sure if 2000 square feet is the right number. Mr. Cooper likes the goal and agrees with the goal but still feels that the committee should have a number in mind. Ms. Hai wanted the committee to have a framework and wanted to add the range of 2000 to 2500 square feet maximum area, and also whether that would be in terms of gross floor area or livable area. Mr. Cooper wanted a specific number rather than a range, and wanted a maximum number. Ms. Hai said that she wanted the committee to arrive at some common core goals, which the committee wants to be famed as the bylaw, which could be means of encouraging larger density, or smaller units, or a variety of neighborhood developments and once these parameters,which are understandable and comfortable to the committee, are narrowed down, they could be refined with public feedback. Ms. Hartschorn said that in the previous meeting, the committee had agreed on two paths, Site Sensitive Development and Alternative Residential Development and Ms. Manz also agreed with Ms. Hartshorn. Ms. Manz also agreed with Mr. Cooper saying that a number is required and also that more smaller units are required. Ms. Manz was leaning towards living area and though initially she was not comfortable with the idea of average, because it does not give a harmonious community, she feels that will give the builder more flexibility. Ms. Manz favors keeping all the units in a development within a certain range and the range to be considerably lower than in the past. Ms. Hai rescinded her prior motion and posed a few questions to the committee. Votes Taken 1.0pen Space requirements not deeded to individual units— Unanimous. 2.Number of paths -VOTE 7-1 TO RETAIN 2 OPTIONS, SSD AND ARD (Hornig dissenting) 3. Both Paths to be By Right Development with Site Plan Review, NOT Special Permit- UNANIMOUS 4. Both paths to require inclusionary units—UNANIMOUS The other questions that Ms. Hai wanted the committee to consider were, the income level, the size of the unit, the site coverage, whether or not to include design guidelines, whether a path to allow alternative to inclusionary units on site, and the alternative path can be payment in lieu, or offsite development or something else. And also the question of unit size, unit numbers and whether gross floor area or living space is to be considered. And since the present laws pertain to gross floor area, if livable space is made as the criteria, it will make the process onerous. Mr. Perry said that if the committee is going to go with gross floor area, then the decided number for the living space has to be increased by at least by 1/3rd. Mr. Trietsch asked the committee's opinion in going for an offsite alternative or payment in lieu of construction for inclusionary units. Ms. Hai said there were a lot of pushbacks with the last few projects with regards to payment in lieu of construction, and the sentiment of the Town Meeting is that the payment in lieu does not result in an increase in the production of housing. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Perry, from a developer's point of view, and Ms. Murphy, from a marketing perspective, whether gross floor area or livable area should be the standard for calculation purposes. Mr. Perry said that because of the current bylaw, builders are forced into gross floor area calculation. Mr. Perry said that he was under the impression that with respect to Site Sensitive Developments, the committee had decided, on payment in lieu of construction or offsite development. Ms. Hai said that she thinks the committee had discussions on the topic, but did not come to a definitive agreement on the topic. Mr. Hornig said that for the size of the developments under discussion, he feels that there is no need for a payment in lieu or offsite construction option necessary, because the developments were of a size enough to resolve the issue without them. Mr. Hornig said that the term Site Sensitive Development has to be defined clearly. Ms. Hai said that the general understanding of the committee had been that Site Sensitive Developments was for unique parcels, where there were exceptional historical or natural features present, and they were taken into consideration in a level that was not generally done in other developments. Mr. Hornig said that the current Site Sensitive Development is a way to produce large single family homes in a more flexible arrangement to permit preserving site features or historical homes, but it creates large single family homes. Ms. Kowalski said that it emphasizes the need for opportunities to create homes other than single family homes, bringing in more variety in terms of housing. Mr. Cooper said that since the committee had already voted on keeping Site Sensitive Developments, the committee should focus on alternatives to accomplish the goals. Ms. Hai asked the committee the following questions related to SSD under the current zoning law: Votes Taken 1.To remove the requirement to provide only single family homes —Unanimous 2.Payment in lieu of construction for inclusionary housing, payments made directly or tied to a provider of affordable housing such as LexHab, Affordable Housing Trust or Housing Development Corporation or, the creation of a unit, percentage to be determined —Voted — 7-1 (Horning dissenting) Ms. Hai wanted to check with the committee to see if there was a consensus on the to be named alternative path, to lead to production of inclusionary units on site. Mr. Hornig wanted to know the key differences between the two paths. Ms. Hai explained that the original intent of the draft was that the Site Sensitive Path required that some specific feature of the property, whether natural or historic needed to be accommodated in the proposal. Whereas in the Alternative Residential Development, there was no such requirement. Mr. Cooper said that the committee should focus on the Alternative Residential Development to achieve their goals of having smaller affordable units. Mr. Perry said that, as per his recollection, with Site Sensitive Developments, square footage remained the same and that ten percent has to be affordable. The general consensus of the committee was to not make any changes with the features of Site Sensitive Development and focus on the Alternative Residential Development. Mr. Horning said that he does not see any need for a path to facilitate the construction of any large 6000 square feet single family homes. Ms. Manz asked Mr. Horning if he feels that Site Sensitive Development should be eliminated and Mr. Horning agreed to it. Based on the example of the site plan which was shared earlier, of 69 Pleasant Street, Ms. Murphy went on to say that instead of it having single family homes, if it had town homes or attached properties, we could have more number of properties. Mr. Hornig agreed to it and said that there should be a limit to the square feet. Mr. Cooper said that he was under the impression that Site Sensitive Development is still a useful tool to developers even if they were ending up with larger homes, and by eliminating that, something that was useful for many years would be eliminated. Mr. Perry said that site Sensitive Development is an important tool to have and thought that having Site sensitive Development with a component of inclusionary housing is the best option. 2. Discuss next steps Ms. Hai said that the committee has to work on defining some parameters like inclusionary housing, moderate housing, affordable housing, the criteria for inclusionary housing, the ratio of moderate to affordable housing, and design guidelines. 3. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved that the committee adjourn the meeting of January 25, 2022. Ms. Hartshorn seconded the motion.The committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0(Roll call: Mr. Cooper- yes; Ms. Hartshorn-yes; Mr. Hornig-yes; Ms. Murphy—yes; Mr. Perry-yes. Ms. Weiss-yes; Ms. Manz-yes; Ms. Hill —yes). MOTION PASSED. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 am.