Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-31-SPRD-min Page 1 of 7 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc committee Meeting Minutes of January 31, 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; Lorraine Welch, Office Manager. Other attendees: Barbara Katzenberg, Tom Shiple 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. Hai raised two issues. Ms. Hai stated they had talked several times about a minimum unit count, in the production of anything under this, and they lost it somewhere along the way. They had talked about having a minimum unit count rather than allowing this increase square footage and potentially permitting even larger houses than they currently are getting. Ms. Hai stated she is going to have people consider that a baseline that will state a minimum unit count equal to the number of units that would have been permitted under the proof plan. Therefore, they need to produce at least as many units as they would have under a conventional plus one. Mr. Hornig stated they want to rethink that. He stated its fine in a CND. In SSD the problem is it not needed. Ms. Hornig stated he doesn’t see any advantage to require anyone to build more dwellings, it’s making an SSD less attractive. Ms. Hai stated they have stated in the warrant the purpose of this is to develop of smaller units. Mr. Perry stated they are getting hung up on dwelling units as opposed to the number of dwellings. He stated you can build a 12,000 square foot building and place that anywhere on the lot you want with regards to setbacks. He expressed his confusion as to how the language reads and whether they are talking about dwellings or dwelling units. Ms. Hai clarified they are talking about dwelling units. She stated in 6.9.6(1) that the number of dwellings shall not exceed the number of dwellings shown on a proof plan in accordance with Page 2 of 7 6.9.4 in site sensitive but in the number of dwelling units there is no maximum. She stated they are saying they should have a minimum because the alternative is they could actually end up with less. Mr. Perry stated you can build up to the maximum gross floor area by right long as you are within the setbacks. Ms. Hai stated that’s right but they have increased that by 30%. Mr. Cooper questioned what the current SSD bylaw provides for minimum number of units. Mr. Hornig stated there is no minimum. Mr. Hornig clarified they are requiring at least one of the dwellings in an SSD be a two-family or more. Ms. Hai stated that was correct. She stated the alternative is to say that they have to have at least a number of units in that proof. Ms. Weiss stated she would go with at least equal to conventional proof. Mr. Hornig stated if someone voluntarily chose to build fewer dwellings they don’t want force them to build another dwelling just to meet an arbitrary minimum. Ms. Hornig stated there is a point where its just a big house and they are no achieving their goals. Ms. Hai stated that’s why they are going with the minimum number of dwelling units not the minimum number of dwellings. They are trying to get more dwelling units. She questioned if this was acceptable. Mr. Hornig stated this was acceptable. Mr. Treitsch agreed that this is consistent with the goal of the committee to increase number of units in Town. Mr. Perry questioned if it would make sense to add language that if the bonus is used then one additional dwelling unit has to be built. Mr. Hornig added they would also have to meet the inclusionary requirement. The point of the bonus was to make up for the inclusionary requirement so all you are doing there is requiring the two-family house because of the inclusionary requirement. Ms. Hai stated it could be two family or accessory. Mr. Hornig clarified it has to be two family, it can’t be a separate dwelling because they have limited the number of dwellings. Ms. Hai stated they will have to change that line because if they are going to require the proof lot plus one then they can’t limit to the proof lots. Ms. Krakauer stated an accessory structure apartment is not a second house on the lot. She stated you are allowed by Special Permit, an accessory structure apartment, which is a separate structure so it does not count as two dwellings on one lot. Page 3 of 7 Mr. Cooper stated he is in favor of the minimum. He is confused as to where they are going with that, whether its proof plus one or just proof. He stated they never intended to deal with single- family residential. Ms. Hai stated one of the things they said they were changing was in the current iterations SSD it requires single-family residences and they have removed that. Ms. Hai stated as a base line they want to require the number of units equal to the number of proof lots and perhaps we add if they take advantage of the additional gross floor area that is permitted that you need to produce one other dwelling unit. Because we are talking about smaller developments someone could get the extra 30 percent of gross floor area and have to make payment in lieu of production, they could end up with one unit that 130 percent of allowable gross floor area. They are trying to incentivize the smaller units by making it an attractive option. Ms. Manz stated they don’t want to provide an option under this model to allow a single large house. Ms. Hai stated they could still build what is being built today as an SSD, they would simply have to make a payment in lieu of the affordable component. Mr. Hornig stated the fact that this requires two-families in SSD as opposed to permitting them is a significant change. Ms. Hai stated she is not sure how this requires two-families. Mr. Hornig clarified if you proof it for three, you have to have for dwelling units and your only allowed three dwellings one of them has to have more than one dwelling unit. Ms. Krakauer stated right now an accessory structure apartment requires a Special Permit but if this is written is such a way it’s allowed it won’t. They need to put it in the proposed bylaw in such a way that they won’t have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit. Mr. Hornig suggested a slightly different direction to relax the requirement of the limit on the number of dwellings in an SSD as opposed to dwelling units. Ms. Weiss questioned if they are doing payment in lieu for SSD do they need to give gross floor area to the builder if it is fewer than six units. Ms. Hai responded that they are. Ms. Hai clarified the proposals. She stated they say there is a minimum they have to meet at least the number of dwelling units as there are proof plan dwellings, the number of units equal to proof plan plus one if they are going to use the base gross floor area, or use number 2 and relax the requirement or somehow build in the allowance for an accessory unit so that it would not require a Special Permit. Ms. Hai stated at this late game she suggested they are better off sticking to proof plan, they would simply be adding, under dwelling unit count, that in a site sensitive development the number of dwelling units shall not exceed the number of dwellings shown on a proof plan. Page 4 of 7 Under dwelling units, they could add the minimum number of dwelling units shall be equal to the number of dwellings shown on a proof plan. Mr. Perry questioned if it would be acceptable if he had a five acres parcel and brought in a proof plan with only one dwelling unit on it and is there any requirements on what the proof plan has to show. Mr. Horning responded one dwelling with one dwelling unit would be acceptable. He stated the dwelling unit is limited to 12,000 square feet so you would be giving up a lot of gross floor area. It can be what you want it be as long as it has two legal lots. Ms. Hai stated in 6.9.6(2) they would add a sentence that says there is a minimum number of dwelling units equal to the number of dwellings and reiterate exactly the language in the paragraph above. Mr. Horning suggested they change limit to maximum and say the minimum is equal to the number of dwellings shown on the proof plan. Mr. Cooper questioned if that permits someone to come in with a one-unit proof plan. Ms. Hai stated no they have to have a minimum of two lots. Mr. Cooper questioned if that is specified. Mr. Hornig clarified that the Planning Board has interpreted the proof plan to required two lots. He stated that is an existing definition. Ms. Hai suggested they add this as a technical correction to spell out the two lot minimum. Ms. Hai stated under 6.9.6(2) they are going to change the word limit to maximum and add that there is a minimum number of units equal to the number of dwellings shown on the proof plan. Mr. Hornig suggested they change it to no upper limit. Ms. Hai moved to add in the minimum number of two lots, with parallel language from OSRD 6.12.2(3) within this bylaw section 6.9.4 to specify a two lot minimum and the in 6.9.6(2) to change to reach there is no upper limit on the number of dwelling units in a dwelling in a special residential development. There is a minimum number of dwelling units equal to the number of dwellings shown on a proof plan in accordance with secti on 6.9.4. Ms. Manz 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, Ms. Manz, Mr. Perry- yes, Ms. Hartshorn- yes, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page 5 of 7 Ms. Hai brought up the question on the story limit/height limit. Ms. Hai stated under 6.9.6(4) they had agreed to 45 feet but she wants to revisit this because the Planning Board is out with their village overlay districts with the VLO at 40 feet. Ms. Hai questioned if they should try to be consistent. She stated that by not requiring a story limit but allowing 45 feet they could get a four-story flat roof building which would not be the neighborhood look or feel that was the intention. Ms. Hai wondered if they should modify to make a three-story limit and a 40 foot limit. Mr. Cooper stated he is fine with limiting it to three stories and 40 feet is acceptable limit. Mr. Perry stated he is fine with three stories. He stated Ms. Hai is correct in that 45 feet you could put them at 4 stories so they would need to add additional limitation. Ms. Murphy stated she is favor of lowering it to 40 feet. Ms. Hai suggested in 6.9.6(4) they change 45 to 40 and add in a three-story limit. Ms. Hai questioned if they need to change the sentence that references 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.5. Mr. Hornig suggested they change it completely to say the height limit in stories in Table 2 is increase to 3 stories. Ms. Hai moved 6.9.6(4) the existing language it to be removed and a new statement that maximum height in stories from table 2 increased to 3 stories of the Zoning Bylaw will be increased to 3 stories. Mr. Perry 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, Ms. Manz, Mr. Perry- yes, Ms. Hartshorn- yes, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Hai stated the Planning Board Hearing on this is next Wednesday and then be in front of the Select Board on the 18th. Ms. Hai request a slide update. Ms. Manz reviewed the slides. Ms. Manz stated they are still looking for various picture options. She stated they will take out the second RiverWalk slide. Mr. Horning stated the Planning Boards definition of Work Force Housing goes up to 150% . He suggested they say 150% or more than 80%. Ms. Hai stated they should use 150%. Ms. Manz stated they have a new floor plan which shows two levels to be more accurate. Ms. Krakauer suggested they change the title of slide to something like difference between GFA and living area. Ms. Hai suggested under definitions, terms they change 80% to say living area is significantly less than GFA. Page 6 of 7 Ms. Hai suggested they flip the coloring on the floor plan but it depends on the title. Mr. Horning stated gross floor area is identical to habitable area. Living area is not used in our Zoning. Mr. Horning questioned what spaces are included in living area. Ms. Murphy stated rooms that are heated and usable, closets would be included. Mr. Cooper suggested they leave the slide with the shading and call it exclusions from GFA. Mr. Hornig stated these are not exclusions from GFA. Ms. Hai stated these are all gross floor area but not all living area. She stated they just need a better title. Ms. Hai stated the point of this slide is that if your build something its actually significantly larger under the gross floor area rule than it is as you experience it. Ms. Murphy stated the thing that has come up is 2,800 gross floor area is a big number. She stated she feels its important that they show they are planning on producing smaller units. Ms. Manz stated she agrees but they don’t need to get into the details. Ms. Hai stated it may be worth putting something in that has an average unit size built in 2022. Ms. Krakauer stated she could get that number. Ms. Hai stated it only needs to be a rough count. Mr. Cooper questioned if 80% is not the correct percentage than do we know, roughly, what the correct percentage is. Ms. Hai stated we don’t know exactly because it varies. If you build on a slab versus a full basement its going to be a lot larger. Mr. Kelly stated the whole issue of bringing this forward is dangerous. He stated if they wanted to use that 80% number that comes from the bylaw, so net floor area, which is habitable area in the bylaw, they state they can use 80% of the gross floor area as a reference number. Ms. Hai they could say the benchmark is 80% but that there is a wide variation. Mr. Horning stated what ever pictures they use they need to figure out the gross floor area of the building that is shown in the picture. Ms. Manz agreed. Ms. Murphy suggested they change the photo on the right on the first slide. Ms. Weiss stated they updated the table, they add existing SSD and broke out new SSD and CND for clarity. Ms. Hai stated this also has the new line in there with minimum number of units. She stated it should say none in the empty boxes. Mr. Hornig stated he would just change the first three cells to say no requirement. Page 7 of 7 Ms. Hai agreed it could say not required. Ms. Hai confirmed who would be available Wednesday February 8th. Ms. Hai confirmed who would be available to help out on Friday March 3rd to present to the League of Women Voters. Ms. Hai stated would look into finding a night to do public outreach, possibly February 23, 2023. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved that the SPRD committee adjourn the meeting of January 31, 2023. Ms. Manz 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. Hartshorn, Ms. Manz, Hai- yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 am. List of documents: 1. Special Permit Residential Development Motion