Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2011 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo, Wendy Manz, and Charles Hornig and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Michelle Ciccolo was absent. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* Dana Home, Discussion of the draft Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP): Present was Ms. Trisha Perez Kennealy, applicant, Mr. Louis Perez, contractor, Mr. Ed Grant, attorney and Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect. Ms. Kennealy is before the Board for an informal presentation to discuss the draft PSDUP submitted for a proposed rezoning of the Dana Home. Mr. Larson said that the building site coverage for the Dana Home will increase by 675 square feet and the single family home will increase by 1240 square feet and parking spaces will increase by 18 spaces. New water and sewer services will be run to the single family home, native plantings will be added for screening and invasive species will be removed. The gum tree damaged in the storm will be replaced. Lighting will reflect the period of the architecture. The Conservation Commission has continued its meeting to 12/13/11. Board Comments:  Off site parking is good, but why at St. Brigid in the RS zone since it is not zoned for that? Mr. Grant said that the Town already set a precedent with the Church of the Redeemer. St. Brigid already has parking there irrespective of the zoning bylaw.  Consult with staff to clear up ambiguity in the PSDUP, which only covers the parcels at 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue. If you want to use St. Brigid for parking have it rezoned or change what is allowed in the RS zone.  On page 6 add all uses permitted in the RS zone since parking for the single family house was left out.  Site coverage should be listed as a percentage in case you subdivide the lot. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011  Leave enough wiggle room in the floor area ratio (FAR) and site coverage in case you need something extra.  Parking is marginal, but acceptable with the off-site parking.  A 75-foot sight line is fine if cars travel at 15 mph, but has that been tested? Ms. Kennealy will work with Tetra Tech Rizzo on getting that data.  Would parking with the parish include valet parking? Ms. Kennealy is looking into it, but said it could generate more traffic.  The level of service (LOS) for pedestrians and bicycles, as well as, cars needs to be addressed. The report says there would be no change in the LOS but what is the current grade? There is doubt that the restaurant use would not generate more traffic.  There needs to be final drawings to show signage, lighting, vent stacks and dumpster locations.  Would there be alcohol displayed at the bar? No, drinks will be prepared in the kitchen. The wording should reflect that in the PSDUP.  Intensity of use is an issue and there are no apparent changes in the parking layout to address the Board comments and suggestions made at the last meeting. The berm will not screen the cars in the front of the parking lot. Remove four parking spaces, two front spaces on each lot and move them to behind the building façade.  While trying to be supportive of this project it is disappointing that questions from the last session have not been addressed. Valet parking should have been more thoroughly explored and if not appropriate the reasoning behind it.  There were a number of issues with respect to parking space locations, viewscape and streetscape. Sketches would be helpful to show how the streetscape would look.  The impacts of the CD need to be included in the PSDUP.  Provisions are needed for bicycle accommodations.  Check with the consultant on parking regulations and the rationale for the 50% discount with two table turns daily at dinner. Audience Comments:  There were questions on the accuracy of the traffic report on page 6. There is an error in the calculations for parking spaces for the restaurant and hotel. The lounge is an ancillary Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011 Page 3 use only if closed to the non-dining public and may require some overlap of use to be added to the calculations.  The specific hours of service need to be included to preclude Sunday brunch in this area since there is other heavy uses in this area Sunday mornings. Ms. Kennealy said Sunday brunch is what people are looking for.  A petition on behalf of the Lexington Residents for Responsible Growth was submitted to the Board. All the documents on the Dana Home draft PSDP submission will be available tomorrow on the group’s website. This is a defining moment, to create a CD zone totally surrounded by residential zones is breaking with tradition and setting a new precedent in Lexington. The lack of engagement with the neighbors on the part of the applicant is a major concern. Neighbors sent emails to the applicant two months ago and have yet to receive a response to their concerns.  Is the parking agreement with St. Brigid in perpetuity? Ms. Kennealy said as long as the Inn exists. There needs to be an agreement that would allow parking at all times that is enforceable and does not rely on specific owners.  When is the best time to submit comments and concerns? Mr. Canale said as soon as possible since there is a meeting next week.  The proposal needs to reduce the intensity, put a limit on liquor and food being served in the conference, lounge and music rooms.  Parking is a big theme and the traffic study stated there is plenty of overflow parking on Massachusetts Avenue and Parker Street, but the applicant said there would be no parking on Massachusetts Avenue and Parker Street, which is it?  Why is a busy neighborhood on a busy street allowed to be imposed upon by making it busier?  The Town Engineer was to do a report on Worthern Road was it completed? The DRT report in June mentioned there were concerns regarding the Worthern Road access and if it could ever be made safe. Ms. McCall-Taylor will mention this tomorrow at the DRT Meeting. Mr. Henry said the traffic study was received by staff and will be reviewed. The traffic study has brought up concerns; could there be a peer review of the study? Mr. Canale said that would be taken under advisement. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011  Snow storage will be in handicapped parking spots; are there others to fulfill the requirements? Mr. Larson said two handicapped spaces will be used for temporary storage and the snow will be removed within hours.  Breakfast will be served to guests and outsiders, which will compound traffic during school hours. Ms. Kennealy said she would respond to as many questions as possible and looks forward to written comments. Board Comments:  Will there be catering there? Ms. Kennealy said no.  Is there parking along the Worthern Road side of the project? Yes. East Street, Endorse Plans: The applicant has requested the Planning Board accept a performance surety secured by a deposit of money in the amount of $211,417 and endorse the plans to be recorded at the registry. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept a deposit of money in the amount of $211,417 to insure the performance of the subdivision, as detailed in the agreement entitled “Performance Secured by Deposit of Money” dated December 7, 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the plans for East Street. Mr. Zurlo left the meeting. Pine Meadows, Bond Reduction: The applicant has requested the reduction of the bond for the performance guarantee from $70,000 to $10,500. Mr. Henry said most of the work at the site has been completed other then the pathway that would lead to nowhere. The Board was concerned that the developer had not constructed the path according to the plans. There is no delineation of the easement on the private land, no passable surface to walk on and some minor landscaping needs to be completed. It is important to ensure the bond would cover the cost to construct the path (not with stone dust) even if it is not constructed now as it could be required sometime in the future by the conservation stewards, to have the easement delineated, and complete the rest of the landscaping. It was Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011 Page 5 determined that the $10,500 bond would be enough to cover the cost of the final items mentioned above. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 3-0, to accept the reduction of the bond from $70,000 to $10,500. 497 Concord Avenue, Conventional subdivision plan: Present was Mr. Michael Peirce, attorney, Mr. Robert Ozcan, property owner, Ara Belikian, primary attorney, and Mr. Cliff Rober, site surveyor. Mr. Peirce said that the property has been before the Board in the past regarding development. The property is a 72,000 square foot flagpole lot with 50 feet frontage on Concord Avenue that was carved out of a 19 acre parcel in the 1930’s or 1940’s. A house was built in 1948, and the lot was reduced by takings on Route 2 at the back of the property. In the 1956 a land locked property east of the driveway with a single family home was granted perpetual rights to pass over the throat of this property to get to Concord Avenue. These special circumstances are what triggers the request for the two waivers and the applicant would like input from the Board.  §175-45B Distance of a proposed road to be 125 feet from an existing intersection. The proposed street to the development is 55 feet (on-center) from Concord Avenue and Barberry Road intersection; and  §175-45E(1) Right of way curb roundings must have a minimum amount of rounding at intersections. There will only be three houses that would be served by the proposed road so it has low density. Barberry Road has two egresses and entrances on Concord Avenue. The roundings would require 90 feet of frontage, which is not possible. When exiting the property, Concord Avenue is straight for 300 feet to the left and 400 feet to the right. The issue of setting a precedent is very different in this circumstance since the road already exists and this is a safer way without a big increase in density. The applicant will be going before the Conservation Commission for wetland issues. Board Comments:  Engineering has proposals to build sidewalks and bike lanes on Concord Avenue, will that impact this site? Ms. McCall-Taylor said she did not believe it would, but would consult with Engineering,  The visibility of a car turning from Barberry Road is a problem especially on a rainy day. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011  Look into getting an easement to control vegetation on the curb corner.  Who has the legal right to use the existing right of way? Mr. Peirce said that lot number 6 is the only is one have legal access. The Kantor property is also using it so it serves four homes and Goodwins could also add another lot, which could bring to five.  There was discomfort with the shape of lot two and its marginal square footage.  It is conceivable the road would be acceptable access for three dwellings, but the potential for five dwellings would be problematic. Audience comments:  Ms. Kantor said they have a document showing the property has access rights, but had not shared that information until this time. Mr. Peirce will be at the DRT meeting tomorrow to address other concerns. Lexington Hills, Change in surety: Mr. Joe Casey, project manager, and Mr. Borenstein, attorney, were present. The applicant has requested a revision of the performance guarantee from a covenant to a tripartite agreement with Rockland Trust. They are asking to secure the remaining work with a cash surety and for the Board to release the lots held under the covenant. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to accept a deposit of money in the amount of $172,374 to insure the performance of the subdivision, as detailed in the agreement entitled “Performance Secured by Deposit of Money” dated December 7, 2011. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, in consideration of the alternative performance security to release the Planning Board’s interest in the covenant, dated August 7, 2007. **********************************ZONING *********************************** Colangelo proposal for additional uses in CM Zone: The Board discussed the proposal from the Colangelos for additional uses in the CM Zone. The Board felt that the uses proposed were taking this to a retail area, which was not the vision for this area. The Board advised staff to relay to the Colangelos that the Board was not supportive of this proposal, but it could be pursued through a citizens’ petition. Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011 Page 7 Bio-digester on Hartwell Avenue: Ms. McCall-Taylor said the RFP is being drafted, but the Board of Selectmen (BOS) did not reach a decision yet. Ms. McCall-Taylor met with the Town Manager and discussed that it might be a little ambitious to bring the 2012 Annual Town Meeting. This parcel is not straight forward and has wetland considerations and frontage issues. The details would need to be worked out. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the BOS would like to have the zone in place before the final drafting of the RFP. Public Comments:  The purpose of the rezoning was to make this a higher rent district and now the Town is considering locating a bio-digester in this area, which is a garbage facility.  A solid waste use requires a site assignment from the Board of Health and State permission.  The Town is operating a landfill, is a closure plan in place? Mr. Canale said that the Board will wait to hear from the BOS and let them know them know it maybe too late for the 2012 Annual Town Meeting. *****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE**************** 2011 Annual Report: The annual report draft in the packets highlighted what was done for the year. If Board Members feel there is anything else that should be added, please advise staff. 2011 Work Plan update: The Board needs to discuss the zoning bylaw proposal for what would be brought forward in 2012 Annual Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor said she was waiting to speak with the consultant regarding the updates and will forward it electronically on Monday. Town Counsel asked about the impervious surface. The Board should consider that issue and discuss it at the December 14, 2011 meeting. The next meetings are January 11 & 25 and the public hearings would be in February for the warrant articles being brought forward to the 2012 Annual Town Meeting. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011 ***************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS************************** Mr. Canale said he spoke informally with Mr. Dempsey from the Architectural Access Board and was advised that the Board should do what it needs to do. If the applicant is required to meet a standard, they would need to apply for a waiver if the standard cannot be met. If the private way is left alone on Rockville Avenue the Board could require a smooth transition or to build a wall. It would be unwise to require a compliant path. Mr. Henry met with Mr. Russell and discussed a gentle transition from the end of the road to the manhole cover, which is 30-40 feet and would make the pitch less severe. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to adjourn at 11:09 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Draft of the PSDUP for rezoning the 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue (Dana Home) (7 pages). 2. Letter from Ed Grant dated December 1, 2011 regarding 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue (8 pages). 3. Table of Contents regarding 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue PSDUP (16 Pages). 4. PSDUP plan set for 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, dated November 15, 2011 (9 pages). 5. Floor plans for 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, (9 pages). 6. Drainage Analysis for 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, dated September 21, 2011 (59 pages). 7. Petition from residents local to 2013 & 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, dated November 30, 2011 (4 pages). 8. Planning Board Staff report regarding 497 Concord Avenue sketch plan review, dated December 2, 2011 (1 page). 9. Letter from attorney Michael Peirce regarding 497 Concord Avenue, dated October 28, 2011 (2 pages). Minutes for the Meeting of December 7, 2011 Page 9 10. Exhibit plan for 497 Concord Avenue, dated October 25, 2011 (1 page). 11. Letter from JMG Development Corporation regarding Pine meadow Farm Bond reduction, dated November 28, 2011 (1 page). 12. Planning Board Staff report regarding Lexington Hills performance guarantees, dated December 2, 2011 (1 page). 13. Letter from Lexington Management Incorporated, regarding CM Zoning Modifications, dated November 30, 2011 (2 pages). 14. Draft Planning Annual report 2011. 15. Zoning initiative 2012 Annual Town Meeting. Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk