2006-04-03-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-1, Town Office Building, was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Hornig with members Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Schilt. Chairman Manz joined the meeting at 8:25 p.m. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Scottish Glen Subdivision Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the Board that an abutter had notified the Planning Director that undergrowth had been cleared outside the limit of work area on the site. This work appeared to be initiated by the property owners, not the developer. Ms. McCall-Taylor reviewed the plans and informed the Building Commissioner, Mr. Steve Frederickson, of the problem. Mr. Frederickson is working to resolve the problem. Ms. McCall-Taylor will keep the Board apprised of the situation. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 7, CD-7 to CD-13, 727 Marrett Road, Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide: Mr. Schilt informed the Board that the Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) had met with the applicant’s representative to negotiate mitigation of transportation impacts, but there was no resolution yet. Starwood is holding firm to the amount of funding they will commit to for mitigation, and they do not want a long-term commitment, as it is not attractive to potential lenders or investors. Starwood had proposed a flat contribution of $200,000 for mitigation, to be divided among improvements to the Marrett Road intersection with Massachusetts Avenue, striping and signage for pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Massachusetts Avenue, and contributions for LEXPRESS, as well as commitments to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program and participate in a traffic management association (TMA) in the area. The TMG was not satisfied with the flat fee, and wanted another response from the applicant that allocated specific amounts to the various mitigation projects, as was stated in the PSDUP. Mr. Schilt reported that the latest offer from Starwood was a total contribution of $220,000, including a one-time payment of $200,000 for LEXPRESS, $10,000 for improvements to the Marrett Road and Massachusetts Avenue intersection, and $10,000 for the improvements along Massachusetts Avenue. It was noted that design plans for the intersection improvements were estimated to cost at least $25,000, and the $10,000 for the Massachusetts Avenue improvements would not cover funds for future maintenance. Mr. Hornig stated that his interpretation of the agreement was that the allocation of the $200,000 was negotiable. Ms. Elaine Dratch, of the Transportation Advisory Committee, noted that the latest proposal was a great leap from what had been proposed by the TMG. She inquired why the original $100,000 requested by the TMG for the intersection improvements had been reallocated to LEXPRESS. Mr. Schilt stated that Mr. David Cannon, Assistant Town Engineer, felt that if the applicants prepared 25 percent design plans for the intersection it was likely that MassHighway would fund the construction, thus freeing up money for other elements. Mr. Hornig stated that the status of the ongoing negotiations by the TMG left the Planning Board with little to base a decision on. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the TMG would not have time to host another meeting as public notice requirements would not allow the group to meet again before Town Meeting. The Board compared the changes in the current mitigation proposal to the original commitments in the PSDUP, noting the discrepancies. Ms. Manz inquired as to whether funding that went into the LEXPRESS gift account would earn interest. Ms. Dratch stated that the LEXPRESS gift account was part of the general fund, which does earn interest. Ms. Manz queried the Board about how they felt about the proposal. Mr. Hornig stated that the off-site improvements were the most important mitigation initiatives and he preferred more flexibility in deciding which projects to fund. Mr. Canale noted that he was not entirely clear on what was actually stated in the