Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-05-SPRD-min Page 1 of 6 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc committee Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2023 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, Betsey Weiss, David Treitsch, Wendy Manz, Heather Hartshorn. Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Sharon Coffey, Administrative Assistant; Julie Moore, Zoning Administrator; James Kelly, Building Commissioner. Other attendees: Tom Shiple, Barbara Katzenberg 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 8:02 am. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia for future on-demand viewing. 1. Review Draft Motion for ATM Ms. Kowalski stated the motion is that the Zoning bylaw be amended with the following changes. She stated the section of the Bylaw with the table of permitted uses row A.1.05 will be replaced with two changes. Mr. Hornig noted the A.1.06 already exists and the new one should be A.1.07. Ms. Kowalski read through the purpose of Special Residential Developments. Ms. Kowalski stated there are two forms of Special Residential Development. She read what a compact neighborhood development is and stated this assumes that a CND would only be possible on a tract of land that could support a conventional subdivision. Ms. Kowalski stated previously the committee had talked about allowing CND’s on parcels that are smaller than would be required for a conventional development. Ms. Hai clarified that this would be allowing development on a lot that would not currently qualify for a conventional subdivision and this is infill development, something they talked about. Ms. Hai stated they are are far down the road and their charge was looking at Special Permit Residential Development as it existed. She suggested they put together a supplemental list of things they would like the planning Board to address. Ms. Hai stated that it’s a good idea to consider but not sure they have time now. Mr. Hornig stated it could go either way but 6.9.3(1) and 6.9.3(2) should have identical language. Mr. Hornig stated that they have CNDs saying conventional development plan which would allow a one lot proof plan and 6.9.3(2) says conventional subdivisions which implies a Page 2 of 6 proof plan and at least two lots. Mr. Hornig stated development plan could mean a single lot and subdivision implies dividing things, which means it’s at least two lots. Ms. Kowalski stated the intention was this could be applied to any tract of land, not just one that was large enough to support a cul-de-sac and a number of large conventional lots. Ms. Kowalski recommended they go with conventional development plan. Mr. Kelly stated the first thing is to get the proof plan so it would always be a subdivision plan. Mr. Kelly stated that if that’s not the case, then you could take two non-conforming lots and create a CND. Mr. Hornig explained there are three levels they could do. He stated they could require it be a conventional subdivision, then it would have to be two conforming lots. They could say all it has to be is one conforming lot or they could say it just has to be a lot. Mr. Cooper pointed out that the last sentence of 6.9.3(2) is later addressed in 6.9.6 and that clearly requires a proof plan. Mr. Cooper recommended that they eliminate 6.9.3(2) and address it later. Mr. Cooper stated he found it confusing as to what the differences were between SSD and CND. He suggested two different sections that address those. Ms. Kowalski stated they may not need a proof plan but a development plan. Mr. Hornig stated the Planning Board interprets a proof plan to be a plan that shows at least two fully complying buildable lots. Ms. Hai stated they were going to stick with something that would comply with two buildable lots. Ms. Hai gave the example of someone owns a double lot and wanted to divide it into two smaller lots, and whether that would comply or not has to do with what the underlining zoning is. She asked if they want to move forward with something that requires two conforming lots, which is what Special Permit Residential Development Requires and determine later provisions to subdivide smaller lot sizes for another day. Ms. Hai suggested that they look at two conforming lots or more as the minimum. Mr. Cooper agreed and stated the mission was to improve and replace the current bylaw. Mr. Hornig stated he will not be expressing an opinion. Ms. Manz, Ms. Murphy, Mr. Perry, Ms. Weiss, and Ms. Hartshorn stated they are inclined to allow the development lots. Ms. Hai stated the wording would be changed to “permitted in a development plan for the same tract of land”. Ms. Hai stated otherwise, this is going to allow development on parcels that are less than two conforming lots for CND. Mr. Kelly stated if someone had a single lot that is conforming they can propose a CND and build three dwellings on that lot or a triple-decker. Ms. Murphy stated she is not comfortable with that density. Ms. Hai stated this is going to be a much harder sell to Town Meeting. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Cooper stated this is a last-minute change that may have some adverse ramifications that have not been thought about. Ms. Hai stated they have talked about the alternative to conventional subdivision. Ms. Hartshorn stated she has no problem with that density. Mr. Hornig stated he is not expressing his opinion. Ms. Manz stated she has no problem with the heavy density. Ms. Murphy stated that she is struggling with the larger subdivisions, which adversely affect neighborhoods. She stated allowing these developments on 15,500 SF lots leads down a path of residents going up against changing existing neighborhoods dramatically. Ms. Murphy stated she is not going to comment. Mr. Perry stated they don’t want to bring that to Town Meeting. Mr. Perry suggested they should stay to a sub-dividable piece of land. Ms. Weiss supported the density but worried about bringing it to Town Meeting. Ms. Hai stated the group as whole is in favor of permitting density but they have a practical concern about whether or not allowing this on a single lot is political suicide. Ms. Hai suggested to put a pin in it and resolve. Ms. Kowalski reviewed section 6.9.4. Ms. Kowalski reviewed 6.9.5. Ms. Kowalski questioned what the builder is going by in terms of feet for height and if it’s stories. She also questioned how many feet are in a story. Mr. Hornig stated there is a limit in feet, 40 feet, and height in stories, 2.5. Mr. Hornig stated it’s not that a story has a certain number of feet but it’s two separate limits and they both apply. Ms. Hai and Mr. Hornig agreed to take out number 5. Ms. Manz questioned number 3 and what was meant by yards required. Mr. Hornig stated it means the setback and they could change it to say minimum required yards. Ms. Kowalski clarified that 6.9.6(1) is correct, that the number of dwellings in an SSD shall not exceed the number of dwellings on a proof plan. She clarified a conventional subdivision plan versus a CND having no limit. Ms. Hai said her understanding is that they have added an inclusionary requirement even under SSD and if they added an inclusionary requirement then they cannot make that inclusionary requirement deductive from the allowable units, or they will be encouraging people to build conventional. Ms. Hai stated the number of market dwellings on an SSD doesn’t exceed dwellings on a proof a plan, they have said consistently that the inclusionary requirement will not be a reduction from the allowable market units, they will be additive. Mr. Hornig stated they need another section under 6.9.6 about the number of dwelling units which will say there is no limit on the number of dwelling units in either an SSD or a CND. Page 4 of 6 Ms. Hai questioned what led them to the 6,750 square foot calculation. Ms. Kowalski explained it is parallel to the maximum building size and OSRD, it is the number that our average can fit into. Mr. Hornig stated this is intended to permit only three-plexes not four. Mr. Hornig suggested to incorporate the OSRD limit for CNDs. Ms. Moore suggested wording for that piece about what amount of square footage is required for the inclusionary housing in 6.9.7. They could eliminate their percentage completely and just say a square footage equivalent to the bonus is required to also be built as inclusionary. That way they don’t have the odd percentages. Basically, the inclusionary square footage is required to be an equivalent to the bonus. Ms. Hai stated that takes one percentage out. She said they will give 15% market rate bonus over the allowable gross floor area and they must then provide equal amount of square footage in inclusionary housing. Ms. Manz states that would be the simplest way to express it. Mr. Hornig stated that means in the end when someone builds one of these developments, 11.3 percent of the gross floor area will be inclusionary, not 15. There is no tie in the math between the percentage in bonus and the percentage in inclusionary, and whether something’s feasible. OSRDs which have a 20 percent inclusionary requirement and no bonus still look feasible. Ms. Hai stated they have to recognize they talk to the people who actually are doing the building, not just the math. Mr. Cooper stated whether it’s feasible or not the developer still gets to build the same number of market units that it was bargaining for and we are just adding the affordable units on top of that. Ms. Weiss expressed the concern of going to Town Meeting with less than 15%. Ms. Hai stated they have created zoning that will provide smaller more diverse units, created an alternative to conventional subdivisions, added in an inclusionary requirement in any SSD development and have created a path that will provide for inclusionary housing in every compact neighborhood, as well as the small units. Mr. Treitsch stated they have balanced the goals of the committee and this is the best shot. Ms. Hai stated they have shown the number of developments that have happened over the last 10 years that have provided 0 inclusionary housing. Ms. Hai stated they are going to be providing something that will guarantee 15% above what the base gross floor area is in every project and whether that comes out be 11.3 or 13.9 percent its still better than 0. At the moment they are saying they are going to provide a requirement of 15% of the base allowable gross floor area will be required inclusionary housing, and of that 10% must be SHI eligible. Simultaneously they will permit a bonus market rate gross floor area development equal to the amount of inclusionary housing that is required under that calculation. Page 5 of 6 Mr. Cooper, Ms. Hartshorn, Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz, Mr. Perry and Ms. Weiss stated they understood. Ms. Hai stated they are going to check with counsel to make sure that there are site sensitive protections in a site sensitive development. Mr. Hornig stated 6.9.8 and 6.9.9 are no longer needed given the other changes made. Mr. Hornig stated they both came over from the old bylaw. Barbara Katzenberg of 37 Moon Hill Rd questioned if they are considering suggesting that in the case of an SSD they would reserve some of the land as open land and then protect it. Ms. Kowalski stated in some bylaws if you say you want the site protected, you have some direction in the bylaw and you also have some kind of a restriction so that it stays in the future. Prior SPRDs had some open space but if it’s not protected it doesn’t stick around. As the Committee tries to consider how to make the site sensitive part of the bylaw provide for protection of what is valuable on the site they have to figure out what they are going to give the builder in exchange. Ms. Katzenberg stated she is in favor of this and questioned if there was a way to generalize it and get it into this bylaw. Ms. Kowalski stated the builder needs to note very clearly what is expected of them. Tom Shiple of 18 Phinney Rd stated in the purpose section number five has nothing specific in the bylaw that would give incentive to preserve historic buildings. Mr. Shiple stated there is nothing about parking requirements, in OSRD there was a visitor parking requirement. Ms. Hai stated in the SSD they are carrying forward everything that currently exists, if they lost something they will check with counsel. Ms. Hai stated they want to make sure imbedded into this is the requirement for any inclusionary housing built will be deed restricted in perpetuity for affordable housing. Mr. Hornig stated the committee decided there would be no open space requirements. Mr. Hornig said in section 9.5 there is ample authorization for the Planning Board to adopt reasonable regulations that will achieve the goals of the site sensitive development. Ms. Kowalski stated Town Meeting may wonder what was in the regulations that prevented more of 69 Pleasant Street from being preserved and is going to want some assurance. Ms. Hai read Mr. Cataldo’s comments. Mr. Cataldo stated in 6.9.6 the average dwelling size of an SSD being 2,250 assuming you can’t have multiple dwelling units in a dwelling and questioned why would anyone do this. Ms. Hai stated they have clarified you can have multiple units. Ms. Hai stated Ms. Cataldo’s second point was on the inclusionary components and that it is unclear as it’s written. Mr. Cataldo stated the definition on the last page mentions open common space. Mr. Cataldo questioned the requirement for common space. He stated SSD should be left alone, they don’t want to see more conventional subdivisions. Page 6 of 6 Ms. Hai stated their next meeting is on January 17th and the Planning Board meeting is on February 8th. Ms. Hai moved that the committee reconvene on 01.17.2023 at 8 am. Mr. Cooper seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 6-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- yes, Cooper- yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Ms. Manz, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved that the SPRD committee adjourn the meeting of January 5, 2023. Mr. Cooper seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 6-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- yes, Cooper- yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Ms. Manz, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 am. List of documents: 1. Special Permit Residential Development Motion