Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-10-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 1 of 8 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday January 10, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, associate member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator; Sandhya Iyer, Economic Development Director; James Kelly, Building Commissioner. Robert Peters, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, January 10, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia is filming this meeting and will record it for future viewing here. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus Packet dashboard. Development Administration 4 Percy Road (Map 39, Lot 15A) – Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan The Board discussed the application of Dalfior Development, Inc. for an Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan for 4 Percy Road. Michael Novak from Patriot Engineering represented the applicant. Plan proposes to split the lot into two lots in the RS zoning district. Plan proposes the existing lot's frontage will now be on Tavern Lane and the new lot will have frontage on Percy Rd. The required frontage is 125- ft. and new Lot E1 proposes 125.58 ft., and new lot E2 proposes 184.18 ft. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the staff received the requested update to the ANR plan from the applicant and reminded the applicant to comply with all the requirements including an application to the Historic Districts Commission. Ms. McCabe added that Tavern Lane is an unaccepted road and the Board will need to determine if the road is suitable for vehicular traffic for the proposed use. She explained the new buildable lot will front on Percy Rd. which is a public way and the existing house will now have frontage on Tavern Lane. The Assistant Fire Chief and planning staff went to Tavern Lane and found it to be 20-ft in width along the frontage of 4 Percy Rd. and she recommends the Board find that Tavern Lane is suitable for vehicular traffic and adequate to provide access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Hornig wanted to know if the existing house will meet the gross floor area requirements under the Zoning regulations after the reconfiguration. Mr. Novak said that they are aware it will need to comply with the new GFA and the building permit will have the GFA calculation provided by an architect. Mr. Hornig asked if an arrangement between the neighbors existed for the maintenance of Tavern Lane. Mr. Novak was not aware of any arrangements and Mr. Hornig recommended the applicant be cooperative with his neighbors for any necessary maintenance of Tavern Lane. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Krakauer Moore wanted to know details about the setback from the existing structure to the secondary road noting that the new dwelling and existing house and structures will need to meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Novak said that it will be 20 feet in accordance with the setback requirements. Mr. Schanbacher moved to find that Tavern Lane has sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the land and the buildings at 4 Percy Rd. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Schanbacher moved to endorse the ANR Plan for 4 Percy Rd. (Map 39, Lot 15A) submitted by Dalfior Development Inc. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED 2013-2027 Massachusetts Ave. – Site Plan Review Public Hearing for the Inn at Hastings Park The Board discussed the application of Trish Perez Kennealy for the Inn at Hastings Park. Applicant requests approval of a site plan review under §135-9.5 of the Zoning Bylaw. Project proposes to modify the 2012 approval condition limiting the number of seats for the restaurant at the Inn at Hastings Park from 54 to 128. The Property is located at 2013-2027 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA (Assessor’s Map 49, Lot 2A) in the Planned Development District 7 (PD-7) formerly known as the CD-15 (Planned Commercial District). No exterior alterations are proposed with this application. Ms. Kennealy explained that this application is to expand the numerical capacity of the Inn because the 2012 special permit with site plan review approval limited the number of seats at the restaurant to 54. Ms. McCabe recommended approval of the application as a follow up to the zoning amendment approval at Special Town Meeting to increase the allowable seating capacity. She noted that the zoning amendment is still pending the Attorney General submission so this approval is subject to that approval. She noted that the applicant is required to modify the past approval with the Conservation Commission, update food establishment permits with the Board of Health, and Building Department will require an accessibility and egress assessment. Ms. McCabe said that a draft decision with suggested conditions of approval is in the board’s packet. Mr. Peters opened the public hearing up to any public comments, and there were none. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on the Site Plan Review application for 2013-2027 Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Schanbacher moved to approve the application from Trisha Kennealy for The Inn at Hastings Park as outlined in the draft decision prepared by staff with the four conditions of approval. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Town Meeting Zoning Amendment Work Session for Town Meeting The Board discussed the articles for the Zoning bylaw amendments for consideration at Annual Town Meeting 2024. Mr. Peters informed that this was a work session and that the public hearing was scheduled for February 7th,2024. The Board began their discussion on § 7.5.5.10.a - Maximum Building Height in Village Overlay. Ms. McCabe explained that a meeting with an applicant for the Village Overlay had necessitated this amendment to facilitate a better understanding of the Board’s intention with regards to the height bonus in Village Overlay districts adopted last spring. Ms. McCabe asked the Board to consider adding an additional warrant article for the Select Board’s consideration for the Annual Town Meeting. Ms. McCabe shared the draft motion with the suggested revised language and went over the changes and the reasoning behind that. The intent is to clarify when a project gets the maximum height depends on the underlying zoning district and how much commercial uses are proposed. Three options for proposed updated language were presented for the Board’s consideration. Mr. Peters and Mr. Creech emphasized that the original intent of the Board was to have active commercial tenant space. Mr. Creech preferred the second option in the draft motion as he felt that it clearly stated the requirements for height bonus. Mr. Hornig said he preferred the first option that bases the eligibility for the height bonus was based on the total net floor area of the building rather than the net floor area of the first floor, since the first floor of a building may be much smaller than the other floors on sloping sites. Mr. Hornig also preferred Net Floor Area as the basis of the calculation and wanted the flexibility to include institutional uses. Mr. Schanbacher preferred the second option as that referred to gross square footage instead of net square footage. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Leon felt that the second option was more specific and hence preferred that and using gross floor area. The Board members discussed their views on the three options. Mr. Peters emphasized that the Board has to come up with an option that would prevent people from building retail space that may not be effectively used, just to take advantage of the height bonus. Mr. Creech stated that he wanted the commercial uses to be more inclusive. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Creech about the commercial uses being more inclusive. Ms. Thompson stated that being more specific about the uses will help the applicants to have more clarity. Mr. Hornig felt that in larger developments, first floor childcare facilities and exercise facilities would be appropriate uses and should not be banned. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and added that it should be based on the specific location of each individual application. Ms. McCabe said that she is leaning towards Gross Floor Area as the basis for calculating the percentage of commercial uses in the first floor, for determining the maximum height of a building and agreed to have strong language and remove optional terms. Mr. Hornig said that the intent of the Board should be to create a strong incentive for people to use it and if it is made hard to meet by making it very specific, Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 4 of 8 applicants will be discouraged from using it. Mr. Horning wanted it to be clear on how to consider parking if in a structure how it would apply to gross floor area for a commercial or residential use. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to any public comments. Public Comments: Lin Jensen 133 Reed Street, wanted the definition of Principal Use in the Zoning Bylaw to be clear and specific and agreed with Ms. McCabe that gross floor area should be the basis of calculating the percentage of commercial uses in the first floor. Pam Hoffman, Precinct 7, Town Meeting member, mentioned that planners and architects met with a few residents and came up with suggestions for ideal first floor models and asked them to be included in future discussions too. Mr. Creech reiterated that he favored the second option and that he preferred commercial uses to be specifically mentioned. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech and felt that daycare facilities in the right location would be an appropriate use. The Board then discussed § 10.0 Definitions for Floor Area (Gross & Net Floor Area). Ms. McCabe shared the proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw pertaining to Floor Area definition and reminded the Board about their discussion in the previous Planning Board meeting and went over the updates since then. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his concern about the timing given the recent reduction to residential gross floor area as a result of amendments made in Annual Town Meeting 2023. Mr. Leon added that the purpose is to provide an incentive to add porches and he did not favor excluding uses. Mr. Creech agreed with Mr. Schanbacher that this was not the right time to discuss this section. Mr. Hornig felt that if this section was not discussed now, there would not be any porches built on new constructions. Ms. Thompson felt that though porches add value, the Board has to discuss more to move forward with it. Though he agreed with Mr. Hornig, Mr. Peters felt that this section had to be presented at a future Town Meeting. Mr. Schanbacher moved to add the maximum building height in the village overlay to the warrant. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Schanbacher moved to withdraw the definitions for floor area from the warrant. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – No). MOTION PASSED The Board discussed § 3.4 Table 1 Permitted Uses and Development Standards and §10.0 Definitions. Ms. McCabe shared the proposed amendments and reminded the members of their discussion in the last meeting. Ms. McCabe said that after the last Board Meeting, she met with the Zoning Administrator and the Economic Development Director and they looked at samples from other communities. Ms. McCabe said that the proposal was to remove the definition of fast food service and then revise the definition for a restaurant. Ms. McCabe said that fast food establishment is now considered a restaurant and establishments whose principal businesses were sale of prepared goods or beverages for consumption on premises, including cafes, cafeterias and brew pubs will also come under the definition of restaurants. Ms. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 5 of 8 McCabe said that a new definition for Craft Beverage establishment was added, which would include establishments that produced less than 465,000 gallons or 15,000 barrels of beer per year for consumption on premises. The Board discussed the language and agreed upon removing the reference to beer. Ms. McCabe shared the staff’s recommendation on the Table of Uses and added that the proposal was to allow restaurants and takeout food services in more locations. Ms. Krakauer Moore informed the members that drive-through food services are not allowed anywhere in the Town. Mr. Hornig supported the proposed amendments and wanted clarification on the parking component for the establishments, with reference to the allowed gross floor area per establishment. The Board members discussed the provisions and made changes to the proposed amendments. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Jerry Michelson, Chair of Lexington Center Committee, had a question regarding Craft Beverage establishments serving food and the parking factor for them. Ms. McCabe clarified saying that Craft Beverage establishments are not required to serve food. Ms. Jensen, felt that by removing the definition of fast foods, the unintended consequence would be welcoming chains like Burger King and McDonalds. Mr. Michelson clarified that since no drive-up windows are permitted, it was not possible to have a McDonalds or Burger King. The Board recessed at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m. The Board next discussed § 5.2 Signs, §10.0 Definitions. Ms. McCabe shared the amendments pertaining to Signs. The Board discussed the scope of exemptions, and gave their suggestions. Ms. McCabe explained that no internal illumination of the signs was permitted as per the amendment and that no part of any outstanding sign shall be located within 10 feet of the edge of pavement of any street. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Mr. Michelson commented that the Stop and Shop parking lot has banners and it was not overpowering and added that internally illuminated signs may not work well in a small commercial area, but might work in businesses facing highways. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Michelson that in some places internally illuminated signs might be a better use than a brightly lit sign. Mr. Hornig suggested that it is best to have the internal illuminations prohibited in general restrictions but not in the prohibited signs, and leave it to the discretion of the ZBA. Mr. Hornig also said that he is not comfortable banning banners completely and suggested the same treatment as internal illuminations. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Hornig. Mr. Creech wanted to know why 20 square feet signs and a maximum of four signs would be needed in a residential area and shared pictures of examples. Mr. Schanbacher reminded the Board that the signage that would be required in future for the Village Overlay districts has to be considered while making the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 6 of 8 amendments now. Ms. Thompson added that the number and period for which the signs can stay should be regulated. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech’s view on the length and number of signs permitted in residential areas. Mr. Michelson wanted to know when someone was advertising a home business by putting a sign in their front lawn, if that will be considered as a commercial sign. Mr. Michelson also wanted to know if the signs on Waltham St for Brookhaven, which are less than 10 feet from the pavement, would be considered residential or commercial. Mr. Hornig replied saying that Brookhaven would be a residential facility. A majority of the Board was learning towards an overall square foot from 20 to 16 feet and decided to discuss in a future meeting on the number of residential signs to be permitted. Ms. McCabe gave an overview of the proposed amendments to nonresidential signs, with examples from a few shops in Town. The Board members discussed various scenarios in establishments with different heights and discussed the requirements for secondary wall signs. Mr. Hornig stated that there should be one secondary sign per entrance or parking area. Mr. Hornig added that for big buildings with multiple entrances, there should be a directory sign for each entrance. Ms. McCabe shared the updates on awning signs and said it will be limited to 16 inches in height and the sign area shall not exceed 30 square feet. Mr. Creech wanted clarification on the current language for standing signs. Ms. McCabe shared pictures of standing signs from current businesses with the Board and the Board debated if more than one standing sign should be allowed per property. Mr. Hornig shared pictures of standing signs from local businesses and felt that at least one small standing sign should be permitted for each establishment in areas other than CM and CRO districts. Mr. Michelson expressed the need to regulate standing signs based on the zones they will be erected in. Mr. Creech agreed to Mr. Michelson’s suggestion. Mr. Hornig stated that the provisions pertaining to pre-existing non- conforming signs should be in such a way to make them completely conforming and hence would have signs to be subject to the general rule for non-conforming structures. Mr. Kelly felt that the rules for the permanent signs was good but portable signs was not a good idea because they cluttered the street and was impossible to enforce and recommended removing the section on portable signs. Mr. Creech agreed with Mr. Kelly. Mr. Hornig felt it was not reasonable to ban portable signs for others when the Town uses it often. The Board decided to revisit this provision at the next meeting to review the current language. Mr. Michelson added that most of the portable signs in Lexington Center are on public land and hence the language should address the portable signs on private land. The Board next discussed § 5. 10 Short Term Rentals. Mr. Hornig wanted to know if the Board was comfortable with the 5-year penalty for violations of the bylaw. Ms. McCabe said that she was waiting to hear from the Town Council on that provision, and it was decided to discuss it in detail in the next meeting. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 7 of 8 The Board then discussed § 7.5.12 Inclusionary Housing in Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Ms. McCabe shared her screen and informed the Board about the supplementary report from Fougere Planning and Development Inc., and the details of the report that starting at 12 units, 15% affordability is feasible. Ms. McCabe added that the recommendation is for 10 or 11 units, 10% of dwelling units shall be inclusionary units and starting at 12 or more dwelling units, at least 15% of the dwelling units shall be inclusionary dwelling units. Ms. McCabe said that after reviewing the language with the Town Council, she planned to submit it to the State and request pre- approval before Town Meeting. The Board members discussed the way it should be phrased to make it clear and concise. The Board discussed Technical Corrections to various sections of the zoning to correct any errors. Mr. Hornig stated that in the entire bylaw, the reference to Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) should be replaced with Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). Ms. McCabe informed the Board members that two-land owner zoning map amendment petitions were received from 507 & 509 Bedford St. to be added in the Bedford Street North MFO zoning district and Ms. McCabe gave further details to the Board. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Tina McBride, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, wanted clarification on the required affordable housing ratio. Ms. McCabe explained the affordable housing requirement in detail. Ms. Jensen wanted to know if the Board was contemplating changing the requirement for affordable housing differently for different MFO districts. Mr. Peters responded that the Board is bound by the State statute and State regulations. Ms. Jensen added that it was possible to estimate the density of developments based on the lot size in different MFO districts. Keranie Theodosio, 38 Drummer Boy Way, agreed with Ms. Jensen, that it was possible to estimate the density of developments and expressed her concern that despite the efforts to spread the affordable units throughout the Town, they might still be clustered on the outskirts of the Town. Board Administration Review and comment on Select Board’s draft alcoholic beverage regulations Ms. McCabe informed the Board that for the sake of consistency, it is best to address this later so that the Zoning language matches their policy. Board Member Updates Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2024 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Hornig informed the Board about the Affordable Housing Trust’s meeting on Tuesday January 16th at the Community Center to talk about their proposed housing development on the intersection of Lowell and North Street. Review of Meeting Minutes: 12/13/2023 Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the draft Minutes of the meetings held on 12/13/23 as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings scheduled for January 24, February 7 and February 28 and Mr. Peters went over the proposed agenda items. Ms. Mccabe informed the Board that additional meetings might be required to discuss some potential applications and told members that she would reach out to them with more details soon. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 10, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10.10 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 4 Percy Road (Map 39, Lot 15A) – Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan: Aerial View of Percy Road and Tavern Lane, Photographs of Tavern Lane-Unaccepted Road, Revised ANR Plan dated 1.10.24 2. 2013-2027 Massachusetts Ave. – Site Plan Review Public Hearing for the Inn at Hastings Park: Planning Staff Memo dated 12.29.23, Draft Decision dated 01.10.2024 3. Zoning Amendment Work Session for Town Meeting: List of Zoning Articles dated 12.14.23, Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Maximum Height for Village Overlay District dated 1.11.24, Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Floor Area Definition, Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Permitted Uses and Definitions, Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Signs, Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Short Term Rentals, Updated Economic Feasibility Study for Inclusionary Zoning for MBTA Communities, Draft request for making Technical Corrections in the zoning bylaw, Combined Owner Petitions to Select Board requesting Zoning Map changes. Draft request for amending zoning bylaw related to Inclusionary Housing for Village and Multifamily Overlay Districts, Slide show from Mr. Creech, Slide Show from Mr. Hornig