Marriott Residence Inn Hits Roadblock

A plan to build a new six-story 115-room Marriott extended-stay hotel hit an unexpected snag Wednesday night when the City Plan Commission voted to recommend against giving the company permission to proceed with the project.

The commission voted 4 – 1 at its monthly meeting to recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the builder’s application for a special exception to parking rules. The item returns to the zoning board for a vote at its meeting next month.

The Newport Hotel Group, the group that currently owns the Marriott Hotel, is seeking a special exception to lower the amount of required parking for the planned development. The Residence Inn would be located at Elm and Howe Streets on a lot adjacent to the Whalley Avenue Marriott, would technically need 267 parking spaces; on Wednesday, the developer asked to be able to have only 215 spaces.

The Harp administration has supported the project, and in general the city has been supporting easing requirements for parking for new developments as part of seeking denser, less car-centric development. The City Plan Commission’s staff wrote a report advising approval of the Marriott proposal.

A group of neighbors felt otherwise, surfacing last week to voice objection at the zoning meeting. Enough people showed up at Wednesday’s City Plan meeting that the commission decided to consider the item – originally seventh on the list – at the very beginning.

Traffic Objections

Jim Perito (pictured), the attorney representing the Newport Hotel Group, told the commission that people coming to stay at the new hotel would be extended-stay visitors and would not cause a significant increase in traffic. They often come in by train or plane and use public transportation and Zipcar or walk to get around, and are unlikely to enter and exit all during peak traffic hours, he said.

If the exception is granted, the Residence Inn would have the same ratio of rooms to parking spaces as the currently existing Marriott Hotel – 0.68 – which has had no problems with parking capacity, he argued.

Additionally, Perito said, the developer has been in touch with Yale University, which has agreed to help find arrangements for additional parking if the Residence Inn were ever to hit capacity and needed to find extra space.

“We’ve never had any complaint about parking from our hotels,” Perito said. ​“Even on the peak weekends with big Yale events, we are never overparked. … If anything, the Residence Inn will tend to have less parking use than the typical Courtyard Marriott.”

In addition to on-site parking and a garage, the new hotel would have 85 of its 215 proposed parking spaces in a lot across the street on Whalley Avenue. These spaces would be for valet parking; hotel guests would leave their keys with valet parking staff responsible for driving cars to the lot.
Part of the exception the hotel owner is requesting concerns the distance between the parking lot and the hotel: The zoning code allows a maximum of 300 feet of distance between the two. The application is for a 460-foot allowance for the valet parking lot.

Commission members expressed concern that this would create dangerous street-crossing by valet staff and new congestion in an already-busy set of intersections.

“I’ve almost been hit myself a few times in the area. I find Whalley Avenue to be difficult, there are a lot of pedestrians and I see it as an area with a lot of conflicts, so I’m concerned about when it’s night and your [valet] staff are crossing the streets,” Commissioner Adam Marchand said. ​“There’s a potential for difficulty getting across that street safely.”

Perito pointed out that the city’s Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Department issued a report concluding that the new development would not create issues with parking and transportation.

“We’ve never had any traffic issues. You have a report from your own city department that says this,” Perito said.

What About Us?

The proposal has been through months of public hearings, starting with the Board of Zoning Appeals in July. The public hearing was extended; because the zoning board did not meet in August, the second meeting took place last week.

“I think we should note that you have a room full of people here who have informally expressed to us a great deal of concern about the parking issues,” City Plan Commission Chair Ed Mattison said.

Some members of the public wore name tags with ​“NO” written on them to express their opposition. When Mattison asked at the beginning of the meeting how many people were at the meeting because of the Residence Inn item, Dwight Alder Frank Douglass shouted, ​“Stand up!” Most of the 25 members of the public proceeded to stand.

At last week’s Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, some 10 neighbors testified and voiced concerns that the developer had not spent enough time notifying and communicating with the neighborhood. Perito responded that the developer obtained the support of the Whalley Avenue Special Services District but had had mixed ‑up communications with the Dwight Central Management Team, with which he now plans to meet next month.

“I wish you had met with these people and talked to them and responded to their concerns well in advance of this, because it just feels very uncomfortable for us to be moving forward on something of such obviously considerable concern to all of these people,” Mattison said.

Commissioner Audrey Tyson echoed similar concerns about the lack of community involvement when explaining her vote.

“I’m going to also vote no because I’m just not convinced that it’s a good plan, and I always like to have community involvement,” Tyson said. ​“I’ve lived in that area for years and I’ve seen a lot of traffic and a lot of accidents. I’m just not convinced that it will work.”

Commissioner Kevin DiAdamo contested the idea that it is the commission’s responsibility to vote based on whether it believes the developer had done enough outreach.

“I just don’t know if it’s in our purview to make judgments about what went on with the public process,” DiAdamo said. ​“We’re here to detect whether this hotel could provide sufficient parking or not.” He voted against denying a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mattison (pictured) emphasized that the commission’s recommendation isn’t ​“the end of the story.” He said he is open to hearing more evidence on the issue, he said.