Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-03-PB-min 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 Minutes for the Meeting of April 3, 2006 2 PSDUP, and felt that the supplemental agreement should have more specific information about the applicant’s commitments. Mr. Hornig inquired whether the agreement would supercede the PSDUP, or just supplement it. Ms. Manz stated that the PSDUP controls what will happen, and the agreement should only contain additional commitments and not amend the PSDUP. Mr. Hornig inquired whether the total funding for mitigation was sufficient. Mr. Canale stated that the mitigation should reduce the number of vehicles coming to the site. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the number of vehicle trips projected by the applicant is based on the existing hotel usage, and not on industry standards, and the proposed increase in traffic is only 89 additional vehicles during the peak hours. Mr. Hornig stated that, based on the number of rooms proposed in 1989 versus the current proposal, the amount of funding for mitigation is equitable. Mr. Canale asked how much the Board was willing to compromise by allowing an increase in density without improvements to the infrastructure to accommodate that increase. Mr. Hornig stated that the bulk of the mitigation was going to LEXPRESS, which is an arbitrary measure for reducing vehicle trips. He added that LEXPRESS service to the site would provide the least amount of mitigation, and he felt that pedestrian improvements along Massachusetts Avenue and Marrett Road would provide the most significant benefits. Mr. Zurlo stated that he felt LEXPRESS would serve the hotel well. Mr. Hornig said that the $113,000 proposed for LEXPRESS in the PSDUP was sufficient, and the remaining $87,000 should go toward other improvements. Ms. Manz stated that she had concerns about the recent memorandum from the Design Advisory Committee (DAC), and questioned whether their comments would derail the approval process, especially if the DAC were to present their concerns to Town Meeting. She stated that a number of the DAC’s issues could be addressed at the time the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) reviews the Special Permit. Mr. Hornig disagreed, saying that the DAC wanted to see the 3-story building that was approved before and there is nothing the DAC wants that can be addressed by the ZBA as it is too different from what is allowed in the PSDUP. Ms. Manz stated that she felt the Board should support the project as it is an appropriate use for the site, it will provide revenue for the Town, and the offer has a good mitigation package. She is unwilling to turn away from a good use of the site because of what some feel are building design imperfections. Mr. Hornig stated that he was unhappy with the way the traffic demand management had turned out, but he believes there has been significant progress in the design since the applicants first appeared before the Board last November. He added that the current plans were superior to those approved in 1989, and even better than what would be allowed if the zoning reverted back to the original CRO district. The plans now preserve more of the wooded knoll, have lower building heights, greater setbacks, and pedestrian amenities. Mr. Canale stated that the issues in the DAC memo were brought to the Board a long time ago, and the DAC memo did not come too late in the process. The applicants have chosen not to do a better presentation of the site design. He feels the density is too much for the site and the improvements proposed for the surrounding infrastructure are not enough. If Starwood felt stronger about seeing their project approved, they would have sold the plans better or negotiated more. He is not willing to settle for something inferior. He feels the Planning Board’s role is to negotiate a win-win situation, and this proposal is not there yet. Mr. Galaitsis stated that he concurred with Mr. Canale. The site is a gateway to the Minute Man National Historical Park, and the density should not be as great as that being proposed. He added that he felt that the proposed development size since the rezoning in 1989 has been incremental and ever increasing. If this proposal were for a different location in Town, such as along Route 2 or Hartwell Avenue, he might Minutes for the Meeting of April 3, 2006 3 think differently, but for this site he would rather settle for less revenue to the Town in favor of fewer impacts, especially its visual impact at the gateway to the Minute Man National Historical Park. Mr. Zurlo stated that he currently cannot support the project because the traffic mitigation package had not been successfully negotiated. Mr. Zurlo stated that he had been encouraging the DAC to speak at Town Meeting so issues of design can be addressed. Because matters of design can be a personal preference, the DAC may be able to provide the developer with clear and pointed information how the building’s design can be improved. He was not comfortable with the proposed massing because it may be further exposed to view should the natural vegetation on the site be sacrificed during construction as the DAC members have reported. Ms. Manz suggested that the Board vote on their recommendation to Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3 to 2 (Manz, Hornig) to disapprove the PSDUP. The Board then discussed the reasons to list in their supplemental report to Town Meeting for disapproving the proposal. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* Mr. Hornig inquired about the status of the proposed definitive plans for the subdivision at 177 Grove Street. He stated that the public hearing for the proposed conventional subdivision was still open and the Board had to act by August, which made scheduling the continued hearing difficult due to vacation schedules. He suggested that the Board schedule the continued hearing sooner rather than later. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that the applicant had indicated in recent discussions that he preferred to come forward with a proposal for a cluster subdivision, so acting on the conventional subdivision may be premature. Mr. Hornig stated that his concerns were due mostly to the amount of work needed for review, regardless of which plan the applicant chooses to go forward with, especially given the abutters’ request for peer review of the engineering and stormwater plans. Mr. Schilt noted that the Board had requested more information regarding the conventional plan, but for either plan more soils testing data would need to be provided. It was decided that action on the conventional plan could wait a few more weeks until the Board had an indication as to when the cluster plan would be submitted. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk