Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-17-SPRD-min Page 1 of 7 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc committee Meeting Minutes of January 17, 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, 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. Approval of Minutes of Meeting The SPRD committee reviewed the draft minutes of meeting held on 06.15.2022, 7.12.2022, 9.7.2022, 9.21.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.4.2022, 11.17.2022 and 12.1.2022 Ms. Hai moved that the committee approve the minutes of meeting held on 06.15.2022, 7.12.2022, 9.7.2022, 9.21.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.4.2022, 11.17.2022 and 12.1.2022, as presented. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 6-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- yes, Perry-yes, Cooper- yes, Hartshorn-yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Review Draft Motion for ATM Ms. Hai informed the committed they had an updated set of slides and an updated draft bylaw, as well as the motion. They will be needing to submit the advertisement for the Planning Board Hearing this week. The Hearing will be on the eighth. Ms. Hai stated she had some questions she wanted to address in the bylaw. Ms. Hai stated under 6.9.1(1) a question was raised and they have drafted a statement. They need to mirror that language in number one. Ms. Hai stated in 6.9.3 when they are trying to differentiate within special residential development they have two options. They have compact neighborhood and they have site sensitive. They don’t yet have working definitions and restrictions of site sensitive. Ms. Hai explained site sensitive is the maximum building size is larger and SSD, they allow it to be 12,000 square feet whereas the maximum building size in CND is 9,350. They also need to talk about the restrictions of what they mean by site sensitive, what has to be protected, what are the minimum protections and what are the types of protections. In the past they have talked about Page 2 of 7 natural feature and historic features for the types of protections. She questioned where that is stated in the current bylaw and did it get lost. Mr. Hornig stated 6.9.3(2) was a duplicate of 6.9.3(1). Ms. Hai questioned if they say in the description that it is something which is permitted in order to preserve a historic or sensitive natural resource, and therefore allows for efficient patterns of construction to bring down costs and subsequent in the bylaw it therefore allows you to larger building sizes. When somebody comes in with the site plan don’t they have to show what they are preserving. Ms. Hai stated they have to have some of the old language that is in paragraph two. Mr. Horning stated if it’s important to leave it in then they need to figure out what rule they are summarizing. Mr. Cooper suggested they leave in the first sentence. Ms. Hai clarified the goal is to introduce SRD, which allows for an unlimited number of unit numbers and the site sensitive has the building numbers that are limited. Ms. Hai continued that they also want to retain the explanation of what site sensitive is and why they are keeping a second path. They will work with Town council to make that clear. She stated they will then need to talk about what their expectation for what SSD are. Ms. Hai reviewed section 6.9.4. She confirmed with the committee if they are using a proof plan. Ms. Manz stated she believes they are not using a proof plan. However, when creating the slides, they were discussing how much they could add to the gross floor area but they were never clear with what gross floor area they were starting with. They need a base to start from. Mr. Perry stated they need to leave the proof plan there. It is the starting point. Mr. Hornig stated the words development plan came in when people didn’t like Planning Boards interpretation of proof plan to require two lots. The only thing that was different was there was not an implication that were two lots. Ms. Hornig stated they might as well use proof plan. Mr. Kelly stated after doing some examples they have to go proof plan, it’s part of a set of plans that needs to be developed by the developer. Ms. Kelly stated the SSD in the existing bylaw there are several sections about impervious surface, site coverage and common open space. Mr. Kelly stated there are things in the current bylaw that contribute to the site sensitive concept that might need to be carried forward. Ms. Krakauer addressed the question as to why the amount of allowable gross floor area would be different. She stated the base gross floor area, if you look at it as a whole, is just around 9,000 square feet and then a calculation on top of that. If they had a proof plan they may have six 15,000 square foot lots and at 15,000 the base is just under 6,000 gross floor area. So, six times six that a 30,000 square foot base if you do it with a proof plan but if you do it with the lot as whole the lot is only 9,350 square feet. Page 3 of 7 Mr. Cooper stated on site sensitive they need to include what is in the current bylaw, it was working well and developers liked it. Ms. Hai agreed and stated they had voted two changes to SSD, to add inclusionary requirement and to remove the requirement for single family structures only. Mr. Cooper stated they got away from the proof plan concept because they were trying to address the random infill lot. Mr. Cooper expressed he felt they are moving away from original charge. Mr. Horning disagreed with leaving everything in the current SSD. Mr. Hornig stated there are a bunch of provisions in the current SSD that have been problematic and which don’t map over well out of the special permit context. Site coverage and impervious surface are not requirements in a conventional subdivision and if you leave it in as a requirement it will force people in to the conventional path rather than the SSD. Ms. Hai stated it would be helpful to have the specifics of what needs to come out. Ms. Manz agreed they should go with the two-lot proof plan and to clean up those details for the SSD. Ms. Hai stated they have two paths, SSD and CND that all SRD area two lot minimum requirement. She stated to keep the language that helps them describe what site sensitive is and how they are going to require it be protected. Some will be in the summary and some below. Ms. Hai stated in 6.9.5 they discussed the height limitation and not having language there that talked about stories within that 45 feet. Ms. Hai review the total gross floor area in 6.9.5(5). She stated 115% is the market rate gross floor area that is allowed. Ms. Hai read section 6.9.7(1), it states at least 15% of the total gross floor area of all dwelling units shall be incorporated. She stated if she were reading this she would think that includes the inclusionary, they have to say at least 15% of either of the total market rate or of the total gross floor area permitted under 6.9.5(5). Mr. Hornig said every other provision in the bylaw that has an inclusionary requirement expresses it as a percentage of the total. OSRD expressed it as 20% of the total instead of 25% of the market rate, which is why they changed it to 11.5% of the total. Ms. Hai stated they agreed they wanted to add 15% on top of market for market rate bonus and then require 15% as inclusionary. It was too confusing, this is the more transparent way of stating it. Mr. Hornig stated if it’s a percentage of the inclusionary it should be two thirds. Ms. Hai agreed and stated they want to provide a genuine market density bonus. This is what we have voted. Page 4 of 7 Ms. Hai stated under 6.9.6 the number of dwellings in an SSD shall not exceed the number of dwellings shown on a proof plan but there is no limit on the number of dwellings in a CND. Ms. Hai stated there is no limit on the number of units within the building in either case. Mr. Cooper stated the alternative is to increase the density bonus and then apply the inclusionary to get to the same place. Mr. Cooper wondered if it was worth putting in a statement stating if they leave it that the density bonus would not be counted for the calculation of the inclusionary housing. This would make it transparent. Ms. Hai clarified that they add a sentence that states the gross floor area other than inclusionary will not exceed 115% and then to use that language again when talking about inclusionary and say 15% of the base gross floor area, not the 115% not allowed in 5.5. Mr. Cooper stated just to say the density bonus itself is not included in the calculation of the inclusionary housing. Ms. Kowalski stated Mr. Cooper is trying to call it out so you don’t have to infer. Ms. Weiss stated in the slide group they stated you have a total gross floor are permitted, which is an additional 15% inclusionary and another additional 15% market rate. Ms. Weiss stated she understands that falls below the 10% SHI. Ms. Weiss wondered if Mr. Cooper was saying to go higher, 20% and 20%. Mr. Cooper stated to either increase density bonus and then apply the inclusionary or alternatively go back to base gross floor area where they are only calculating the inclusionary based on the base and excluding the density bonus from the calendar of inclusionary. Ms. Krakauer stated they can say 15% of the gross floor permitted under the proof plan and that gets rid of the word base. Mr. Hornig stated there is no direct connection between the percentage of a bonus and the percentage of the inclusionary requirement. Mr. Hornig stated a bigger bonus makes this more attractive and a bigger inclusionary requirement makes it less attractive but the two numbers are related only in the sense that they move in different directions. He stated there is no reason to make them equal, you can make the bonus can be a lot less than the inclusionary requirement and still make this profitable for a developer. Ms. Hai stated they have run this several times, this was the recommendation that came to them. Ms. Hai stated they wouldn’t want to rehash old grounds. Ms. Kowalski stated they didn’t assert that it was a one to one correlation. They did say they would provide a 15% market rate bonus and require a 15% inclusionary zoning based on the amount of initial gross floor area that is allowed, not on the total. Ms. Hai stated she is willing to see if they can run these numbers one more time. Ms. Hai stated they are moving forward with the 15% of gross floor area permitted under the proof plan will be created as inclusionary units of which two-thirds must be SHI eligible and this is all deed restricted so they remain affordable in perpetuity. Page 5 of 7 Ms. Weiss commented on dwelling unit size in section 6.9.6(3). Ms. Weiss stated CND may average 2,250 and it says may not exceed 2,250 this is not correct. Ms. Hai stated the average may not exceed 2,250. Ms. Hai stated if we put in an average and maximum requirement we would be limiting smaller units. Ms. Hai stated what they want is a maximum average size and a maximum maximum size. The committee had previously said a maximum building size, a maximum unit size and maximum median size. That is how we go the average gross floor area may not exceed 2,250. Ms. Wiess stated as long as it’s the maximum average may not exceed that is fine. Ms. Hai stated the maximum for any building in compact neighborhood is limited to 9,350 and the maximum under the site sensitive is 12,000 and within that 12,000 there is no limit on a number of units. Tom Shiple stated he is confused on the 12,000 square foot building size. Mr. Shiple stated there is nothing that requires in the SSD that the building be subdivided into multiple dwelling units. Mr. Shiple stated there is nothing that would prevent from building a single-family house at 12,000 square feet. Mr. Hornig stated that is correct but they would have to give a large contribution to the housing trust. Ms. Hai they would have to provide 15% of the cost of the unit to the housing trust. Mr. Shiple questioned what the intent of that was. Mr. Hornig stated they are giving all the bonuses and keeping the number of dwellings the same. He stated to give the benefit of these bonuses you have to permit the gross floor area that would be in conventional plus 15% plus 15%. Mr. Shiple stated the alternative would be to allow the number of buildings scaled also with the size of the bonus and then keep the size of the building the same. Mr. Hornig stated that moves away from the concept of and SSD. Barbara Katzenberg questioned how they are going to define site sensitive. Ms. Katzenberg stated she is not sure Town Meeting members believe that the existing SSD is really site sensitive. She stated there would be something more concrete in the language, so that people are more trusting that it does something for the Town. Ms. Hai stated the guidelines on SSD need to be worked on. Ms. Kowalski reviewed the slides and some edits that were made. Ms. Hai stated they do not need two RiverWalk slides. Ms. Hai stated the definitions slide title should be changed as it is more than just definitions. Ms. Hai suggested definitions and terms for a title. Page 6 of 7 Ms. Hai stated the GFA vs. Living area slide needs work. Ms. Weiss stated the rows on the slide for comparison of OSRD and new SPRD need to be fixed. Mr. Cooper suggested sperate columns for CND and SSD. Ms. Katzenberg stated the slides don’t address what it means to be site sensitive. Ms. Kowalski stated they will try to draft a slide that summarizes this but they do have to work on creating those standards. Ms. Hai stated they can look at some of the comments from the Planning Board and this committee on where the community feels SSD is falling short. Ms. Hai stated that is a little outside of their purview, it is more the Planning Board. Mr. Hornig stated when it is a Special Permit when you state the broad goals in the bylaw and the Planning Board can apply them in a discretionary way. If its site plan review what the bylaw needs to say is here are the areas and the Planning Board can write regulations. Ms. Hai clarified that they need to put broad guidelines in. Ms. Hai stated they also wanted to talk about continuing outreach. They are scheduled for the Planning Board on the February 8th, 2023 and the Select board on the 13th, 2023. Ms. Hai stated they need to do a video and get documents up for the Town Meeting website. Ms. Manz stated the league of Women Voters is meeting the first Friday of March and they need to recruit members of this committee to make the presentation. Ms. Manz stated the Housing Partnership is Thursday night. Ms. Hai suggested the committee host one event and post it on the website. Ms. Hai asked for volunteers for Sustainable Lexington, Historic District Commission, Historical Commission, Counsel on Aging and Commission on Disabilities. Ms. Hai moved that the committee reconvene on 01.31.2023 at 8 am. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- yes, Cooper- yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Mr. Perry- yes, Ms. Manz, Hai- yes, Hartshorn- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved that the SPRD committee adjourn the meeting of January 5, 2023. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- Page 7 of 7 yes, Cooper- yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Mr. Perry- yes, Ms. Manz, Hai- yes, Hartshorn- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 am. List of documents: 1. Special Permit Residential Development Motion