Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2012 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Hall was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo, Wendy Manz and Charles Hornig and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Michelle Ciccolo was absent. ********************************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 50 people in the audience. Present at the meeting were Michael Kennealy, the applicant, Lou Perez, general contractor, Gary Larson, landscaper architect, Rick Bryant, traffic consultant, Ed Grant, attorney, and Howard Levin, attorney. Mr. Grant said the revisions from the last submittal addressed issues that concerned the Board and residents. Ms. Kennealy met with the Chair of the Board of Selectmen regarding the MOU with recommendations made by the Board, which included:  Mr. Bryant’s evaluations and measures to provide safe access to the project site.  Imposed parking restrictions.  Use of only smaller vehicles on site for deliveries and pickups and incorporating large vehicle restrictions.  Transportation contribution to Lexpress of $1,000 annually for three years.  Site lighting fixtures on timers.  The applicant would cooperate in the improvement of the Worthen Road intersection. Mr. Larson added the following changes:  There is a plan submitted showing a complete and effective visual screening.  There is a solid field stone wall 16 inches thick and 2 ½ feet tall.  Adjacent to the wall would be a staggered row of evergreens up to 6 feet high at planting.  There would be ornamental trees in front of the evergreens.  The brick wall and low plantings would provide five feet of snow storage. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of April 18, 2012 Mr. Bryant added the following changes:  Trash pick up would be two to three times weekly with one two-yard bin and one bin for recycling picked up once a week based on data collected from trash haulers.  Pick up would be on Worthen Road and take two to three minutes and that would leave plenty of room for vehicles to pass.  The driveway is safe with adequate sight lines. Some discussion took place about how it could be made safer.  Parking did not include dining guests who would walk to the restaurant. The worst case scenario would require five additional parking spots on the street and no vehicle would be allowed to park on residential streets. Board Comments:  There was concern about the language for residential use? Mr. Grant said the residential use would only be for Plan B and would only happen if the applicant did not go forward with the inn.  It needs to be clear that not all uses would be done at once and the residential plan is a separate plan altogether.  Would the MOU supersede appendix three in the PSDUP? Mr. Grant said the MOU would speak for itself.  Would the five extra parking spaces needed include the employees. The 47 parking spaces would include all vehicles necessary.  Once the Mulliken house is relocated will there be buffering. It is not shown on the plans now, but will be on the final plans. Tree replacement would be done on site.  The combining of two lots into one would be done through what means? Mr. Grant said the proposal combines the lots for the inn and restaurant for flexibility. Audience Comments:  The Tourism Committee voted on March 26 to support the CD rezoning 8-1. Parking issues could be addressed by negotiating with St. Brigid Church for potential parking needs.  There are 54 seats in the restaurant and 40 other seats; why do you not need to count the other seats for the parking count? This was a regulation made by Town Meeting that only seating in the restaurant space would count. Minutes for the Meeting of April 18, 2012 Page 3  If the BOS grants a liquor license will those other 40 seats be served liquor? Alcohol may only be served incidental to food a lounge for drinking is not permissible.  There will be 22 rooms; will individual parking spaces be designated for Inn guests only? No.  There are concerns about on street pick up of restaurant wastes. The surrounding neighborhoods would have to deal with noise issues, blocking traffic and grease trips for the restaurant that would be required.  This inn is a great opportunity, which maintains the charm and character of Lexington and would be a welcome addition to the community.  The applicant is asking for waivers for a CD zone for a hotel and restaurant in a residential area.  There is concern with the increase in impervious surface, which would be double.  This proposal provides residents with a chance to work locally and the Board is urged to vote favorably on this project.  The MOU is not complete:the configuration of the driveway has yet to be resolved; lighting, hours of operation, clarifying the liquor service in the lounge, and no large events would be held needs to be spelled out.  The MOU agreement needs to run with the land.  The Planning Board should not get swept up in the romantic concept of an inn; there are too many flaws regarding parking, trash, environmental concerns, and traffic safety, which still need to be addressed.  The Board should make a decision based on the benefit to the entire Town.  This is a residential area and a CD zone should not be forced upon us for profits of a developer.  This is commercial creep from the Center.  The applicant has done a responsible job responding to neighborhood concerns and appropriate vetting of this project has been done.  To stay a healthy community Lexington has to evolve with changing times and needs. There is widespread support throughout the Town for this proposal.  Town Engineer Brian Livsey asked Conservation to consider safety issues and the drive should be able to accommodate a 30 foot truck. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of April 18, 2012  Trash cannot be picked up before 7:00 a.m. under the Town bylaw. Board Comments: The Planning Board had a general discussion about the items that should be contained in the MOU. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 11:08 p.m. Planning Board Members should forward all comments to staff on the draft report to Town Meeting and MOU. The Board hopes to have the amended PSDUP for Monday April 23, 2012 meeting at 6:00 p.m. and the Board will also meet on Wednesday, April 25, 2012. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 11:24 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Draft report for Article 34 from staff (6 pages).  Memorandum from staff dated April 18 regarding Engineering Comments on In Proposal (2 pages).  Letter from Trisha Kennealy regarding trash pick up at 2027 and 2013 Massachusetts Avenue (3 pages). Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk