Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-12-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2012 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo, Michelle Ciccolo, Wendy Manz and Charles Hornig and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. ********************************TOWN MEETING******************************* CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Article 34, 2027 and 2013 Massachusetts Avenue/Dana Home: Mr. Canale called the continued public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. with approximately 75 people in the audience. Present at the meeting were Trisha Kennealy, the applicant, Gary Larson, landscaper architect, Rick Bryant, traffic consultant, Ed Grant, attorney, and Howard Levin, attorney. Ms. Kennealy presented a power point with updated information and Rick Bryant addressed the revised parking, circulation, and safety issues that were raised by staff, the Town engineering department and the MDM report commissioned by neighbors. There would be no parking on the street, the circulation was improved for on-site parking areas, signs and relocation of the cross walk are being done to address the safety issues. Board Comments:  Board concerns included circulation, water management, conservation issues, intensity of use on the site, buffering, viewscapes, and compatibility with the surrounding area.  The proposal has a plan B for residential use; what is that for? Mr. Grant said that was a backup plan if for some reason the applicant chooses not to continuewith the proposed use as an inn and restaurant. The Plan B proposal keeps the Dana Home close to the current use. It appears that all the uses could occur simultaneously. Mr. Grant said that the intent was to allow the applicant if unable to continue with the inn to have the option to convert to the use permitted by current zoning. The main objective is to get the project approved as an inn. People need to know that even if this gets approved as a restaurant and inn, that might not be built. Those residents that are opposed to the inn might support the residential use. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2012  There need to be more accessory uses defined, check section 16 commercial accessory uses and be generous with them.  What is the intent regarding division of the parcel into lots? Mr. Grant said they would combine the two existing lots for the inn proposal, with flexibility built in for residential uses.  The Dana House will be the only location for the restaurant and that will be added as a restriction.  The parking requirements are one space per room for the inn and one space per six seats in the restaurant. There will be only one employee to park on site.  Only want Section 69C to apply for parking.  Include wireless cell phones article XVI.  Off-site parking was not pursued as suggested by the Board and needs to be addressed as well as employees parking, perhaps in the MOU.  The MOU should required annual reporting on TDM.  Placement of signs in the median is a questionable strategy. The signs should be placed on site in the parking lot. If signs are used, the applicant should pay the cost for the Town to install them. Ms. Kennealy said she agreed to that condition.  Is there a lighting and screening plan and is there screening for overhead lights? Mr. Larson said yes the plan was submitted. There should be timers for the lights and language placed in conditions specifying the requirements.  Worthen Road seems out of alignment; in the MOU the applicant should agree to provide ROW if needed in the future. Ms. Kennealy agreed to that insofar as permitted by Conservation Commission conditions.  A 30 foot truck would have difficulty using the driveway so the MOU should prohibit the use of the driveway for a 30 foot truck. Audience Comments:  As a tourism advisor to the Chamber of Commerce it is hard to send visitors to the Colonial Inn located in Concord for a colonial style experience. Neighborhood concerns were addressed by the applicant and recommends the Board let this proposal move ahead.  This project is not ready, the intensity, scope and size is too large for this site. Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2012 Page 3  Many comments in the February letter have been addressed, but in discussions with the Town Engineer there still remain issues with access to Worthen Road from the driveway. The concern is that that controlling truck size on the site is not possible. The MOU should address refuse management, service vehicle restrictions and Sunday morning functions.  There were changes in the Town in the past that were feared at first and now are wonderful assets. The applicant is trying to work together with abutters and this would be good for the Town.  Letters from the Department of Engineering dated March 20 and March 30 asked for the driveway landing to be leveled and improvement of the turning radius. The Conservation Commission hearing process was closed and there is discontent (?) with the process.  What could justify commercial activity and intensified use in a residential area?  When waiting to be seated in a restaurant there needs to be extra parking to accommodate that. There should be a reservation only policy in place.  There is concern for parking issues since there was failure to find off site parking and town parking lots are more then a half mile away.  This proposal is a threat to the protection of the integrity of the Zoning Bylaw, which provides protection against incompatible uses.  This would be a great neighborhood amenity in this residential zone that has a vibrant mixed use area.  The MOU needs to include specific promises, penalties and should include revocation of the special permit if the MOU is violated. The next meetings are April 18 at 7:30 p.m. and April 23 at 6:00 p.m.  The Tourism committee took a formal position of 8-1 in favor of this proposal. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 2-3, to close the public hearing. The motion failed for lack of a majority vote. A MOU needs to be submitted before closing the public hearing. There should be some negotiation with the Board of Selectmen on the MOU for this project. Clarify the residential use part of the proposal. The applicant will file the amended PSDUP by April 23, 2012. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2012 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to April 18, 2012 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:30 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 11:02 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Proposed amended filing for PSDUP for 2027 and 2013 Massachusetts Avenue, dated April 4, 2012.  Presentation for Inn at Hastings Park, dated April 7, 2012 (7 pages).  MDM report dated April 10, 2012 regarding the Inn at Hastings Park (9 pages).  Letter from Lexington Neighbors for responsible growth, dated April 11, 2012 (22 pages).  Draft report for Article 34 from staff (4 pages). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk