HomeMy Public PortalAboutDecision (rec copy)TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Zoning Board of Appeals
Administration Building
149 Main Street
WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS
Melissa M. Santucci Rozzi, Chairpersor
David Ferris, Clerk
Christopher H. Heep, Member
John G. Gannon, Member
Kelly Donato, Member
Neeraj Chander, Alternate
i
Bk: 65910 Pg 382 Doo DECIS
Page: 1 0118 08/14/2015 10:44 AM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
RECEIVED BY
OWN CLERK'S OFFICE
WATERTOWN, MASS
5 JUN 10 P 3: 3 I
02472
Telephone (617) 972-6427
Facsimile (617) 926-7776
www. Watertown-ma.gov
Louise Civetti, Clerk to the ZBA
On May 27, 2015, with five (5) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) present, case # ZBA-
2014-27 SP/SR, a Special Permit with Site Plan Review was considered. The following is the decision of
this board.
Case #:
Subject Property:
Parcel ID:
Zoning District(s):
Petitioner(s):
Owner:
Zoning Relief Sought:
Special Permit Granting Authority:
Site Plan Review Meeting(s):
Staff Recommendation:
Planning Board Recommendation:
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision:
Recorded with Town Clerk:
PLEASE RETURN TO:
LAWYERS TITLE/COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
COMMERCIAL SERVICES OFFICE
265 FRANKLIN STREET, 8TH FLOOR
BOSTQN, MA 02110
ATTN; � ?�`I FILE NO. CZ� /L11
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
65 Grove Street, Watertown
150123 0
Industrial (1-2) and Two -Family (T) Zoning District
Edward G. Nardi, representing Cresset Grove, LLC
Cresset Grove, LLC, 120 Water Street, Boston, MA 02109
Special Permit with Site Plan Review
§5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than 4,000 s.f.
§5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 26, 2014
Conditional Approval, February 6, 2015
Conditional Approval, April 8, 2015
May 27, 2015
June 10, 2015
63866-z/9
ATRIA COPY ATTEST
TOWN CLERK
JUG. -12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
PUBLIC NOTICE (M.G.L. c. 40A. §111
A. Procedural Summary
Petition ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR was heard by the Planning Board on November 10, 2014, continued to
February 11, 2015, to March 11, 2015, and heard on April 8, 2015. The project was scheduled to be
heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, November 19, 2014 and continued to April 22, 2015 and
heard May 27, 2015. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, sec.11 and the Watertown Zoning Ordinance,
notice was given as follows:
• Published in the newspaper of record (Watertown Tab) on October 31 and November 7, 2014,
• Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on October 29, 2014,
• Mailed to Parties in Interest on October 29, 2014 and March 31, 2015
B. Legal Notice
"65 Grove Street - Edward Nardi, Agent, Cresset Grove LLC, 120 Water Street, Boston, MA 02109,
herein requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in accordance
with Watertown Zoning Ordinance §5.01.3(a.2), New Construction >4,000 s.f. and §5.04, Table of
Dimensional Regulations, and §5.05(d) Side Yard Setbacks, so as to raze a portion of existing structure
formerly known as Ionics and rebuild an attached 3-story/4 level parking garage with 290 parking
spaces, maintaining, non -conforming front and side yard setbacks. 1-2 (Industrial) Zoning District. ZBA-
2014-27"
11. DESCRIPTION
A. Site Characteristics
The site is 3.43 acres (149,186 s.f.) and is zoned mostly industrial -2 (1-2) with two small areas zoned as
Two -Family (T), one of which is identified as a separate lot (7,552 s.f.). The dividing line between the
two zoning Districts is shown on the Site Layout Plan, C-1 and follows the northerly property boundary
of the three houses that abut the former GE Ionics property.
The site contains a single, L-shaped, 3 -story building with a 2 -story brick warehouse addition to the rear
with a total gross square footage of 133,621 and a footprint of 47,200 s.f. The main building on the site
(not including sheds, etc.) dates from 1945, and has a brick veneer and a flat roof. The project site is
largely paved or otherwise impervious.
The building is currently non -conforming to Watertown's Zoning Ordinance for the Front Yard setback
where 16 feet exists and 20 feet is required and parking where approximately 200 formal spaces are
provided and 350 are required.
B. Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located off Grove Street, with the proposed Watertown -Cambridge Greenway and
Multi -Use Path located to the northwest, Crawford Street to the south, the Atrium School as the
immediate abutter to the east. Surrounding streets include Coolidge Hill Road, Arlington Street, Nichols
Avenue and Mount Auburn Street.
Development in the area includes the Atrium School next door, Newlyweds Foods, and the greenhouses
for Mount Auburn Cemetery along the opposite side of Grove Street, with Tufts Healthcare on Grove
ATRIA COPY ATTEST
Page 2 of 18
Tc JeLER1 2015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
and Mount Auburn Streets. In addition to these larger buildings, there are single and two-family homes
along Crawford Street as well as a mix of commercial and industrial uses along Grove Street.
C. Nature of the Request
The proposed project involves the demolition of a 2 -story, 8,270 square foot brick warehouse at the
southwesterly rear area of the main building to be replaced with a larger (approximately 130'x215') 36
foot tall 3 -story, 4 -level open parking garage with 295 parking spaces, along with new landscaping,
regrading with 50 surface parking spaces (reduced from 200+/-), and installation of a stormwater
management system. The project will also renovate the remainder of the existing building (Building
Permit only) that includes fagade updates, energy efficiency upgrades (including a proposed rooftop
photovoltaic solar system), the creation of a new entrance, interior fit -out, and accessibility
improvements.
Open space on the lot will also become conforming with a 24.3% proposed open space where 6.9% open
space exists and where 10% is required. The parking spaces will exceed the required minimum (311),
increasing from 200+ under existing conditions to 345 with the proposed development (32 outside
surface parking, 9 on Cambridge property and 9 shadow parking spaces).
The Petitioner and the abutting Atrium School have agreed to create a shared driveway on Grove Street
for primary egress for the subject property, as well as providing the Atrium School with a remote parking
area (12 spaces) on Crawford Street. The project would retain one access point on Crawford Street for
access to the site.
D. Relevant Permit History
• ZBA Decision —July 2, 1965: Special Permit/Variance to occupy 65 Grove Street to use it as a
research laboratory. Included Lot #2 on Crawford Street. Ionics made equipment for use in the
fields of food, drugs and desalinization. Expected employment of 125. Intend to use 5% of the
building for research and 95% for office and manufacturing.
• Letter from Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer, to Mark Boyle, Planning Director, January
29, 1991: Lot #2 was erroneously rezoned residential two-family (T) in 1988/1989. Lot should
have remained in Industrial (1-2). Ionics parking vehicles along the property line with 40-42
Crawford Street. The 1965 Zoning Bylaw did not require a setback or buffer from property lines.
The 1971 Zoning Bylaw required an 8 -foot setback.
• 2010 and 2014: Permits requested and issued for trenching and groundwater testing connected
to the onsite cleanup work.
Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT
The board notes that at their meeting on May 27, 2015, no public comment was spoken.
In accordance with §9.03 of the WZO, as revised 7/15/14, the Petitioner held a community meeting on
September 29, 2014, where public comment was received as follows:
1. Comments Received at September 29, 2014 Community Meeting:
• Concern about traffic impacts to Crawford Street
• Question about second exit to reduce pressure on residential neighborhood
Page 3 of 18
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
.JUL -12015 T"'cm`
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
• Strengthen alternate modes of travel
• Minimize noise, lighting impacts, including vehicle headlights from the proposed garage
• Screening needed, particularly to shield the neighborhood
• Reuse of existing structure a good idea
• Question about excess parking and shadow parking
• Maximizing green open space
• Traffic impacts versus traffic study capacity
2. Comment Received at February 11, 2015 Planning Board Hearing
• Concerns about traffic impacts, particularly to the adjoining neighborhood
• Comments about creating new entrance and exit on Grove Street to relieve transportation
impacts on neighborhood
• Ensure project provides adequate parking for bicycles
3. Comments Received at April 8, 2015 Planning Board Hearing
• Ensure an adequate passage between the Community Path and the rest of the site
• Concern that a 15 -foot buffer be maintained between the proposed project and a residence on
Crawford Street
• Cars parking on Crawford that are dropping off children going to Atrium School
• Proposed entrance/exit onto Grove an improvement
• Reduce amount of onsite impervious surface and replace with greenscape
• Consider additional shadow parking, particularly in the new courtyard area
• Consider designing the garage to convert to some other future use, if it is not needed
• Ways to shield vehicle headlights shining out of the garage into the neighborhood
• Ways to screen the garage is important
• Collaborative redesign of the entrance/exit helps address impacts to the residential
neighborhood
• Redevelopment of the project is an asset to Watertown
• Concerns about use of bamboo to screen the garage: aggressive and needs a lot of maintenance
• Concerns about security related to parking
• Atrium School representatives endorsed the proposed project and the redesign of the Grove
Street entrance/exit in concert with the School
4. Comments Received at May 27, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing
• More green space can be added
• Good egress process worked out
• Efforts to satisfy neighborhood concerns appreciated
• The collaboration with the Atrium School was a great solution
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Plan Consistency
Met: The Board found the proposed development is consistent with the Town's adopted planning
documents.
Page 4 of 18
A TRL* COPY ATTEST
-—Z= E.S.�
TAW CLERK
IJUL —12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
1. Watertown Growth Management Plan, 12/01/1988
• Recognition that future development will be almost exclusively "redevelopment"
• Continue to designate certain industrial areas for continued industrial use
• Maintain an industrial and commercial base for employment and fiscal purposes
• Proposed new zoning map retains l-2 designation: Designated as those areas in
Watertown where future regionally oriented industrial/commercial development is
most appropriate
The project is consistent with these goals; in that the project is a redevelopment of an existing industrial
building in an area preserved for industrial/office use. The building has been vacant and is an important
aspect of economic revitalization of this industrial corridor and maintaining a balanced tax base for the
community.
2. Watertown Community Development Plan, 07/2004
• Encourage a range of transportation options
• Actively promote walking and bicycling by providing paths, sidewalks, bicycle parking,
and improving the streetscape as well as traffic calming measures
The project supports these goals. The redevelopment of the GE Ionics building will include
improvements to the streetscape, site landscaping and provision of bicycle parking in the proposed
garage. The site is adjacent to the Watertown -Cambridge Greenway and will allow for employee access
to the multi -use path.
3. Strategic Framework for Economic Development, 08/02/2011
• Focused on the Coolidge Hill area as one of five focus areas
• Identified this as an ideal area for small to mid -sized companies
• Cluster of businesses: Tufts Health Plan, WiTricity, Boston Biomedical(closed-Tufts
expansion)
• Reuse of GE Ionics building will restore employment activity in the area and will
complement the [former) Boston Biomedical Institute (Tufts) across the street
• Address concerns about contamination on some properties
The project supports these goals through the redevelopment of the GE Ionics building. The proposed
project has the potential for one larger or multiple occupants in the renovated building in a key location
for a strong economic cluster situated between Coolidge Square and the Arsenal Corridor. The
Petitioner will also address onsite contamination and substantially improve stormwater.
4. Draft Comprehensive Plan, in Progress
Although not yet adopted, the draft Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development section, Goal 1(B)
recommends that Watertown "encourage the provision of flexible, affordable, and right -sized office
space for small, growing and mid -sized firms, and provide expedited permitting incentives that
encourage the inclusion of small-scale, flexible incubator space as a potential amenity.' The
Comprehensive Plan also seeks to find ways to cleanup/remediate contaminated sites, to promote their
reuse and return to the tax base.
Page 5 of 18
A TRITE COPY ATTEST
TOWN CLERK
JUL —12aij
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
The proposed redevelopment is in keeping with these goals. The redevelopment of the GE Ionics
building into a location for multiple occupants meets Goal 1(B) and the Petitioner will address any onsite
contamination as well as containing substantially more stormwater onsite.
B. Special Permit with Site Plan Review §5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than 4,000 s.f.;
and §5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks
Projects must meet the four conditions of approval for a Special Permit set forth in §9.05(b), of the
WZO. In addition, the project is subject to the review procedures under §9.03 Site Plan Review of the
WZO, in which the ten criteria listed in §9.03 {c} must be evaluated.
Special Permit Criteria §9.05(b)
1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure, or condition.
Conditionally Met: The Board found the proposed redevelopment of the former GE Ionics site
includes improvements to the streetscape and site design, as well as supporting a business cluster
and restoring employment activity to the area. The proposed redevelopment also addresses the
existing onsite contamination and lack of stormwater control. The architectural re -design includes a
mix of brick with new, large glass windows.
The addition of a parking structure will bring the site into conformance with parking requirements,
providing more than required under zoning. With the changes in how office space is developed,
there can be more demand for parking than required under current zoning because the amount of
office space per employee has been decreasing. This project will provide parking in combination
with transportation demand management to ensure the parking demand is met on -site. The request
for more parking than required is supported by the suggested employee per square foot proposed.
The Board suggests development of the southern surface parking areas be reserved as shadow
parking until the Petitioner determines if tenants will require the additional parking. The petitioner
has included additional areas along the northerly property line that would also be mostly proposed
as shadow parking. Nine of those spaces would be included in the project, near the parking garage,
at this time.
2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Conditionally Met: Historically, the site was industrial in nature and the neighborhood was used for
access to the site. Vehicles and truck deliveries accessed the site from Crawford Street and Grove
Street the same as the proposed. That historic use included small overnight shifts, as well. The
previous use of the site produced substantial vehicle traffic and parking often spilling into the
neighborhood. The prior use was industrial in nature with associated noise.
The current proposal is an office use, which is a more neutral and less impactful use for the
surrounding neighborhood. Parking has been an issue on the site so the Petitioner has proposed a
garage to ensure that parking can be accommodated onsite, which will minimize overflow parking
into the neighborhood. The garage structure is the primary component of the project that changes
the existing condition.
Page 6 of 18
ATR1,R COPY ATTEST
TCMA4 CLERK
jUL --12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
From an impact perspective, the Petitioner submitted shadow studies as part of supplemental
information, which indicates the project, including the new parking structure, will not cast shadows
on the abutting residences to the south. The garage also removes a substantial amount of surface
parking which was directly adjacent to the abutters to the south and incorporates plantings to
screen the structure from the neighbors.
The increased landscaped areas will contribute to improved neighborhood perception, as the
current parking area is dilapidated and not screened with landscaping. The surface parking to the
northwest is now proposed to be shadow parking where there is currently asphalt up to the
property line. Most of this area will become conforming with an eight foot wide landscaped buffer
adjacent to the residential property. In one area at the corner where the T Zoning District and I
Zoning District meet, the project is creating a landscaped buffer that is more conforming than the
existing condition (approximately 2' where 0' exists)
The existing industrial and office use could continue as is; however, the Petitioner has requested to
bring the parking into compliance, which requires the construction of a parking structure. As part of
that site improvement, the Petitioner has agreed to minimize many of the existing site impacts with
several on and offsite improvements. Initially, the preferred option for site access was proposed to
recreate a two-way access point on Crawford Street. A peer review of that option indicated that this
would significantly degrade the intersection at the Arlington/Nichols so the plan was revised to keep
the existing access points.
Based on recommendations made, the Petitioner has worked with the adjacent Atrium School to
create a shared exit on Grove Street to allow egress/exit for 65 Grove Street. The Petitioner has
agreed to provide the land and create a parking lot for the School in the southern secondary lot near
Crawford Street. This revised design addresses the concern about primary access to the site from
the neighborhood only. There would continue to be access from Crawford Street, primarily ingress
to access the parking garage from the Crawford/Arlington.
The Petitioner has also agreed to provide offsite contributions for traffic improvements of $175,000.
The intent is to use these for traffic, roadway, intersection, and/or pedestrian improvements within
the Grove Street corridor.
The proposal also minimizes the impacts to the neighborhood from noise sources and exterior
lighting with full cut-off lights and screening of all HVAC. These items are discussed in more detail in
criterion §9.03 (c)(10), below.
During construction, the Petitioner proposed a primary construction entrance on Grove Street. The
recommendation is that the use of neighborhood streets for construction purposes be minimized as
much as possible. A construction management plan and an erosion/sediment control plan will be
required as part of the Building Permit.
At the Community Meeting on September 29, 2014, several persons in attendance expressed
concern for noise levels at the site, post -construction, particularly with respect to HVAC equipment
fans to ventilate the garage, and any onsite emergency generator. The MA DEP administers the Air
Quality regulations, and that "noise" is defined in these regulations as "a sound of sufficient
intensity and/or duration as to cause a condition of air pollution." This is typically accomplished by
administrative controls (limits on when construction can occur during the day and week) and
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
Page 7 of 18
JUL - 2 ��
201ST +
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
physical controls (mufflers on equipment, and sound attenuation enclosures for HVAC and
ventilation equipment, and around any onsite emergency generator).
The garage includes several types of lighting including a wall fixture, two types of ceiling lights, a
step light, and a pole mounted light, all of which use LEDs. The step light is of little concern because
it is mounted in the sidewall of the stairwell and is aimed in such a way as to illuminate the stairs.
Of these lights, only those along the parking garage's south face are a concern for lighting impacts to
abutting properties. However, the ceiling fixtures will be mounted in such a manner so the light will
be directed inwards, towards the floor of each parking deck. This and the proposed landscaping
should reduce any off -site impacts. The last garage light style is a pole -mounted fixture used on the
uppermost deck. The Petitioner indicates there will be three (3} double -headed versions of this
light, with the lights side arm mounted, 10 to 12 feet from the finished surface located near the
centerline of the parking deck. The Petitioner also stated at the April 8, 2015 Planning Board
hearing that they could work with abutters to confirm screening options for the new garage, if
necessary.
3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
Conditionally Met: As discussed under Criterion #2, above, the site now has a main entrance and
exit on Grove Street with a sidewalk that connects to Coolidge Square and toward the Arsenal
Corridor. No changes are proposed and this area meets all pedestrian access needs along the
frontage. The proposal also includes a pedestrian connection to the adjacent Watertown -
Cambridge Greenway that runs along the property to the Northeast. Initially, there was concern
that the connection from the site to the proposed Community Path went through the loading zone;
however, the Petitioner has now provided a clear route for multimodal access through this area.
Any connection to the Greenway will have final design review and acceptance by the Department of
Community Development & Planning (DCDP) and DCR.
The parking garage is designed to allow access to the building at the ground level. The main parking
area provides direct access to the rear 'main' entrance to the building in a safe manner. Pedestrian
safety is adequate in this area. The rear parking area to the south does not provide pedestrian
sidewalks; however, the traffic through this area is not substantial and there appears to be safe
options for walking within the drive aisles. The project is required to provide granite curbing and a
sidewalk along the project frontage on Crawford Street. The Petitioner has also agreed to provide
$175,000 in funds for offsite pedestrian and vehicular focused improvements.
4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed
use.
Conditionally Met: The proposal will be required to meet all building, health, and safety
requirements. The Petitioner states the development and renovation will be designed in
accordance with the Massachusetts State Building Code,
The Petitioner's Stormwater Drainage Calculations and Stormwater Management Plan (Plan),
describes the existing condition and proposed new stormwater management infrastructure. The
Plan notes that the majority of stormwater currently drains towards the center of the site, which is
below grade. The Plan states that after redevelopment, the peak runoff rates will decrease
ATRIA COPY ATTEST
Page 8 of 18
�UL -
TOWN LARK
Y 2015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
substantially. The proposed new stormwater infrastructure will include deep sump and hooded
catch basins, bio-retention areas, and "proprietary treatment units" as pre-treatment. These
systems will be augmented by a sub -surface infiltration chamber to achieve the required removal of
80% of the total suspended solids.
The Petitioner also has a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan (SOMP). Department of
Public Works (DPW) staff notes that review and final approval of all roof connections and the
operation of the stormwater system will be required. DPW Staff recommends considering options
for increasing the capacity of the infiltration system and providing smaller systems to infiltrate
runoff from the rear parking area. Infiltration in addition to reducing stormwater flows is a priority
for Watertown because it provides the highest treatment level for phosphorous. The DPW shall
have final review and approval of the stormwater management system design.
In regards to snow removal, the Petitioner has committed to a snow management and removal plan
to be included in the SOMP. Based on DPW staff comments, the SOMP was amended to not allow
deposit of snow in the bio-swales. The SOMP documents will be made available to the DPW, upon
request. The enforcement mechanism for the SOMP shall be reviewed and approved by DPW.
Sheets C-1, Site Layout Plan show the location of the existing transformer and electrical connection
box in the northwest corner of the landscaped area along Grove Street, behind a concrete wall.
Landscape screening should be provided to shield this equipment from public views. Sheets L-2 and
L-3, Planting Plan /Details, indicate that trees are to be planted in this area. The width of this area
may be too narrow to accommodate both the electrical equipment and the proposed trees;
therefore, the screening will be subject to DCDP staff review and approval.
The existing underground water main, fire protection service and municipal sanitary sewer line will
be used. The Petitioner also states a hydrant will be relocated and the sewer service connection will
be inspected and repaired as needed with DPW oversight.
Sheets C-1, Site Layout Plan show the location of two trash containers to the Northwest side of the
new parking garage. The Petitioner states, "The dumpsters will be...screened by planting and fences
from the residential neighbors to the south. This location is about 40 feet farther from the neighbors
than the existing condition." The Petitioner should ensure that there is adequate storage capacity
inside and exterior to the building to provide enough storage for trash and recyclables between
pickups.
As noted above, the Petitioner has provided a proposed Planting Plan/Details, showing various
tree, shrub, and plant species. The final landscaping proposal should be reviewed by DCDP to
ensure species appropriateness, mix, size, quantity and spacing prior to construction.
The Petitioner has provided exterior lighting information, including fixture cuts and a lighting plan.
Exterior lighting is addressed in detail in the Site Plan Review Criteria under the Design criterion.
During the Planning Board Hearing on February 11, 2015, the Board requested that the Petitioner
coordinate with the Atrium School and Planning Staff to look at the potential for a shared egress
onto Grove Street to minimize site -related traffic in the Crawford Street and the Kondazian Street
neighborhood. The Town engaged Gamble Associates to provide a design peer review to examine
the feasibility of a cross -connection with the Atrium School. Gamble Associates created several
A TRUI COPY ATTEST
Page 9 of 18
TQV*4 CLERK
JUL -12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
alternatives for a cross -connection, and on April 7, 2015, the Atrium School Board voted to approve
an option for egress of 65 Grove Street using the existing Atrium School driveway onto Grove Street.
This agreement will transfer the easterly site driveway on Crawford Street for use by the Atrium
School and it would become a parking area and secondary egress driveway for the School. The
Petitioner presented this plan to the Watertown Planning Board on April 8, 2015.
Site Pion Review Criteria 49.03 (c)
Prior to the official fling of the Application, a meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee was held on
August 26, 2014. Present at the meeting were members of the Site Plan Review Committee (consisting
of Town Staff and committees) and the Petitioner, who presented the proposal. The Site Plan Review
members were invited to respond with questions, comments, and suggestions. The Board and DCDP
staff reviewed the ten criteria for Site Plan Review provided in §9.03(c) of the WZO and incorporated
Committee comments where appropriate. The following are the findings as identified through analysis
of the updated project and the Committee's review:
1. Preservation of Landscape: "The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the
general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Adequate landscaping shall also be provided,
including screening of adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape islands in the parking
lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage."
Conditionally Met: The previous use of the subject property included a substantial amount of asphalt
pavement. According to a table on Sheet C -1/C -1(A), the site currently has 6.9% as open space/green
space/landscaped area. The Petitioner proposes to increase this percentage to just under 27%. Sheets
L-2 and L-3, Planting Plan/Details, as well as the Petitioner's supplemental information (11x17 -inch
colored, spiral bound documents) provide details on the proposed new landscaped areas, including
proposed plant species, sizes and quantities.
The Petitioner also proposes screening at the South face of the new parking structure, created by using
two types of bamboo in combination with other plantings. The Planning Board and staff note that as a
result of the revised site circulation plan, the width of the vegetated buffer between the new parking
garage and abutting residences has been increased by eliminating a drive (fire lane only now) between
the proposed garage and the residential area to the southwest. In addition, at the April 8, 2015 Planning
Board hearing, the Petitioner also stated they would work with the neighborhood and DCDP staff to
address any concerns with proposed screening of the garage.
2. Relation of Buildings to Environment: "Proposed development shall be integrated into the
terrain and the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity and shall be in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan or other plans adopted by the Town guiding future development. The
Planning Board may require a modification in massing so as to reduce the effect of shadows on abutting
property in all districts or on public open space."
Conditionally Met: The existing building will have updated fagade treatments but will not be altered
substantially on the exterior. It appears that all of the proposed work for the building would be allowed
through the Building Permit process. The parking structure is proposed to be to the rear of the building
and be screened by the structure from Grove Street. The Petitioner states this criterion is met, because
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
Page 10 of 18
Ec1.9
viaa 2L C'CERK
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
the proposed new garage "is set down within the existing bowl...placed over 35 feet from the residential
property line." The height of the garage, due to the grade change, and partially putting one level
underground, results in a height of 35 feet above average existing grade. The garage is integrated into
the site and allows more landscaping and planting between it and the neighborhood than the existing
conditions. The Petitioner also submitted shadow studies as part of supplemental information, which
indicate the project, including the new parking structure would not cast shadows on the abutting
residences.
3. Open Space: "All open space required by this Zoning Ordinance shall be so designed as to
maximize its visibility for persons passing the site, encourage social interaction, maximize its utility, and
facilitate its maintenance."
Conditionally Met: The proposed redevelopment will increase the amount of open space on the site
through creation of new landscaped areas. The site also has limitations due to the layout of the existing
building. Because of this, the open space is being retained along the front of the site and will be
updated. The interior parking area is being completely reconfigured and open space will provide
stormwater functions as well. The open space will provide a visual presence at a main entrance to the
building from the parking lot. This area was initially proposed to have several drive aisles and smaller
landscape beds and was updated to provide a single drive and a consolidated landscaped area within a
central landscape. In addition, as noted in Criterion #1, above, the site plan has been redesigned to
allow more of a landscaped buffer between the proposed parking garage and abutting residences on
Crawford Street. A portion of the area between the building and the former rail corridor will also be
restored to open space which will add to the buffer of the use and the proposed Greenway.
4. Circulation: "Special attention shall be given to traffic circulation, parking areas and access
points to public streets and community facilities in order to maximize convenience and safety of
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets."
Conditionally Met: In terms of pedestrian circulation, the renovation will create three building
entrances. The existing entrance on Grove Street will be maintained, allowing access to the second
floor. A new main entry will be created facing the U-shaped area created by the existing building and
new parking garage. People entering the building that way will gain access to the first floor. A third
entrance will be created, accessible from the at -grade level of the parking garage, and will be accessible
to pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the future Watertown Cambridge Greenway to the West.
Sheets C-1, Site Layout Plan, now proposes to keep the vehicular site circulation similar to what is
existing. The original concepts retain the one-way in access only from Grove Street but proposed
reestablishment of two-way access from the Southwest on Crawford Street. A Town initiated peer
review indicated that the proposed two-way, or another option of a reversed one-way would not be
acceptable for the operation of the signal at the Arlington Street intersection. The preferred option
would be to have a driveway with in and out on Grove Street. Based on recommendations from the
Planning Staff and Planning Board, the Petitioner worked with the Atrium School, the adjoining
property, making this alternative feasible.
The total amount of parking proposed on the site is initially 345 spaces with 295 in the garage and 50
surface spaces. As previously identified, redeveloped office space often has less area per employee,
which can increase demand for parking overall, even with employee incentives and transportation
demand management. A TRLE COPY ATTEST
Page 11 of 18 �T NOWCLERK
f L ~ 2•n1
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
As a result of the Planning Board recommendation, the Petitioner has agreed to create shadow parking
of the nine proposed parking spaces closest to Crawford Street since they lack direct pedestrian
connections to the rest of the site. The Board suggested and the Petitioner has provided nine spaces
adjacent to the garage (to the north) and has also proposed an additional area of shadow parking, which
if deemed necessary, can be converted from open space into parking. To convert the shadow parking,
the Petitioner would need to provide a request with the reason for additional parking to the Director of
DCDP or DCDP could require the conversion if there are parking issues identified in the occupation of the
building.
§6.07(a)(1) requires a Petitioner to provide "one bicycle parking space for every 15 automobile spaces,
with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 50..." According to the Petitioner, 24 bike parking spaces will be
provided, which is the required number (349 vehicle spaces / 15 = 23.6). The Site Layout Plans [Sheet C -
1/C -1(A)] show a location on the Northeast corner of the new parking garage for bike racks with a 20 -
bike capacity. Also, the Petitioner clarified that inverted "U" bike racks will be provided per §6.07. The
Petitioner has also stated that there will be 30 spaces of secure bicycle storage within the building for
employees.
5. Surface Water Drainage: "Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage so that
removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public storm drainage
system. Proposed developments shall seek to retain storm water runoff on site to the maximum extent
possible, incorporating best practices in storm water management and Low impact Design techniques. In
cases where storm water cannot be retained on site, storm water shall be removed from all roofs,
canopies and paved areas and carried away in an underground drainage system."
Conditionally Met: The proposed redevelopment will improve the existing conditions for surface water
retention, as the site is almost entirely paved; there currently is minimal stormwater management at the
site. According to the Petitioner, the proposed project "will reduce its impact on the municipal drainage
system, and the Charles River through rain gardens/bio-retention areas, proprietary treatment units,
permeable pavers, subsurface infiltration systems..." and an overall reduction in rates of runoff post
redevelopment.
Staff notes that the stormwater management design will require a final review and approval of the
proposed system by DPW.
6. Utility Service: "Electric, telephone, cable TV and other such lines and equipment shall be
underground. The proposed method of sanitary sewage disposal and solid waste disposal from all
buildings shall be indicated."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner has stated in the application "the existing utility services will be
utilized for the redevelopment." This includes the in -place, underground water main, fire protection
service and municipal sanitary sewer line. The Petitioner also states a hydrant will be relocated and the
sewer service connection will be inspected and repaired as needed.
The Petitioner's narrative does not address solid waste or recyclables management, although Sheet C-1
shows the location of two trash dumpsters. Sheet C-1 also show the location of the existing
electrical/transformer pad, in the Northwest corner of the site, close to Grove Street, within a concrete
Page 12 of 18
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
TOWN CLERK
JUL-12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
enclosure and in a landscaped area. The project should be conditioned to ensure that the transformer
pad is adequately screened.
7. Environmental Sustainability: "Proposed developments shall seek to diminish the heat island
effect; employ energy conscious design with regard to orientation, building materials and shading; utilize
energy -efficient technology and renewable energy resources; and minimize water use."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner's application states the proposed redevelopment will "significantly
reduce the heat island effect by..."a new white/reflective roof, replacing some surface parking with a
parking garage, adding landscaped areas, and shade trees.
The Petitioner's application states, "the proposed renovation will utilize energy -efficient systems
wherever possible...including energy recovery roof top HVAC units, energy -efficient lighting, and
automatic lighting controls." Other proposed energy efficiency features will include new window and
curtain wall systems, shading devices on South face to reduce the HVAC Toad, low VOC paints, and low
flow plumbing fixtures.
The Petitioner also states that "roof gardens and photovoltaic arrays are also being considered on
portions of the existing building roof, depending on the tenants expected to occupy the building." The
green roof elements and roof terrace gardens proposed in the Petitioner's August 2014 submittal have
been removed from the October 14, 2014 Control Plans but the entire roof is being proposed for solar.
A green roof still might be an option dependent on tenancy.
8. Screening: "Screening, such as screen plantings, shall be provided for exposed storage areas,
exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures, and
similar accessory areas and structures in order to prevent their being incongruous with the existing or
contemplated environment and the surrounding properties."
Conditionally Met: The existing transformer is shown to be within a landscaped area. The renovated
building also have several rooftop HVAC units, which should be screened, or placed behind or below the
roof cornice so that they are not visible from public views.
Conditional approval should be based on the Petitioner providing the location of mechanical and HVAC
systems with appropriate screening as part of the building permit approval.
9. Safety: "With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces shall be designed to
facilitate building evacuation and maximize accessibility by fire, police, and other emergency personnel
and equipment."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that the proposed structures will be built in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, and with a new fire suppression system, new fire alarm system
emergency lighting, and an elevator with a stretcher entrance. Based on the new site circulation plan
and turning movement plan, the access from Crawford Street and Grove Street can accommodate
emergency vehicles.
10. Design: "Proposed developments shall seek to protect abutting properties from detrimental site
characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution,
noise, odor, heat, flood, dust vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features."
A TRUE COPY A irtbi
Page 13 of 18
TOWN I RK
JUL -12015
65 Grove Street June 10, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that the proposed project "is designed to improve views from
and detrimental impact on abutting properties" and will accomplish this by the revised stormwater
management systems, increased landscaping, exterior facade renovations, and moving the trash
dumpsters farther away from the abutting residences.
Misc. Notes/Comments:
There was environmental contamination at the site, dating from urban fill used to develop the site in
1945. Since that time, the site "closed out" in accordance with Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MA DEP) regulations, with an Activity Use Limitation (AUL) in place that
restricts the site to non-residential use. The Petitioner also states that "since taking ownership of the
property, Cressett Group has initiated additional remedial measures in order to clean up the site beyond
what is required by MA DEP regulations."
V. PLANNING BOARD AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Board suggested more green space in the courtyard and converting the parking in the
northwest to shadow parking, all of which the petitioner incorporated into their final plan. The
petitioner agreed to work with staff and neighbors, if necessary, to ensure that the bamboo, green
screen or other options satisfactorily screen the garage from the abutters.
The Planning Board and Staff recommend that a Special Permit with Site Plan Review be granted.
The proposed project meets the criteria set forth under §9.03(c), §9.05 (b), and is consistent with the
general purpose of the Ordinance outlined in §1.00 of the WZO.
VI. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION:
At their meeting on May 27, 2105, the petitioner outlined the changes recommended by the Planning
Board and incorporated into their final plan — including the entrance/exits onto Grove Street and sharing
the egress with the Atrium School; screening of the garage; shadow parking; roof -top solar panels; and
compliance with Watertown's Stormwater regulations.
The board confirmed the old rail spill (21E) on the property will be cleaned to AUL-3 standards; the
space can be divided to 6 separate tenants; rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened where
appropriate; the bamboo screening of the garage was discussed with evergreens used with a mix of.
deciduous for the remainder of the buffer; garage would not cast shadows on neighbors; license
agreement with the City of Cambridge for parking will be in place by project completion and easement
recorded with the Registry of Deeds; 20% increase in greenspace noted.
Member Ferris motioned to approve the petition under §5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than
4,000 square feet, and §5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setback, with the conditions as amended as it meets
the criteria set out in the WZO. Member Heep seconded. Members Ferris, Heep, Santucci Rozzi,
Gannon and Donato voted 5-0, Approved.
VII. CONDITIONS:
The table below lists the conditions of approval including timeframes for compliance:
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
Page 14 of 18
JUL - 1201 EC. �.-
TOWN CLERK
65 Grove Street
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
June 10, 2015
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
#
•
Condition
Timeframe for
Compliance
To be .
Verified By
1.
Control Documents. This approval is based upon the application materials and
the Control Documents titled "Cresset Development/Cresset Grove LLC,
Addendum Planning Board Submission' initially dated 10/14/14, later updated
10/29/14 and updated on 4/22/15 and 5/13/15 and reissued on 6/10/2015 as
modified by these conditions:
1. Sheet AO, Cover Sheet
2. TP-1, Topographic Plan (7/28/2014)
3. Sheet C1, Site Layout Plan (5/13/15)
4. Sheet C2, Grading and Utility Plan (5/13/2015)
5. Sheet C3, Construction Details 1 (10/27/2014)
6. Sheet C4, Construction Details II (5/13/15)
7. Sheet C5, Construction Details III (5/13/15)
8. Sheet C6, Site Demolition Plan
9. Sheet TM1, Fire Truck Turning Movement Plan (4/15/2015)
10. Sheet Li, Materials and Layout Plan (5/14/2015)
11. Sheet L2, Planting Plan (5/14/2015)
12. Sheet L3, Details (10/24/2015)
13. A0.1 Area Calculations (4/01/2015)
14. Sheet A100, Lower Level Plan (4/01/2015)
15. Sheet A101, First Floor Plan(4/01/2015)
16. Sheet A102, Second Floor Plan (4/01/2015)
17. Sheet A103, Third Floor Plan (4/01/2015)
18. Sheet A104, Roof Level Plan (4/01/2015)
19. Sheet A301, Exterior Elevation (4/01/2015)
20. Sheet A302, Building Section (4/01/2015)
21. Sheet A303, Enlarged Exterior Elevations (4/01/2015)
22. Additional materials are submitted within the 65 Grove Street Zoning
Board of Appeals Supplement, including Renderings, Solar Study, Views,
Exterior Lighting, etc.
23. Traffic Impact, Access, and Parking Study —(4/15/2015)
Perpetual
ZEO/tSD
2.
Plan Modifications. Neither the Petitioner nor any present or future owner of
any interest in the project shall change or modify either the control plans
referenced in this decision, or the project itself, without first filing a formal
request with the DCDP Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Building
Inspector, for an opinion as to whether or not such change or modification
requires further review from the Special Permit Granting Authority. Minor
modifications may be considered and approved by the DCDP Director that are
found to be consistent with the project approval granted by the Special Permit
Granting Authority.
Perpetual
ZEO/
ISD
3.
Permit Expiration. In accordance with WZO §9.13, a Special Permit granted
under §9.04 shall lapse one year from the date of grant thereof if substantial
use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause, or, in the case
of a permit for construction, if the construction has not begun by such date
except for good cause, or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law.
Perpetual
ZEO
Page 15 of 18
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
TOWN CLERK
�UL -12015
65 Gr'ove Street
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
June 10, 2015
Toning Board of Appeals Decision
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Recordation. Upon application for a Building Permit, the Petitioners shall
provide evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this entire decision
has been filed with the Registry of Deeds, and/or Land Court.
Codes/Regulation Compliance. The Petitioners shall comply with all other
applicable local, state, and federal requirements, ordinances, and statutes.
Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection. A copy of the Building Permit with
final approval signatures from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the
Zoning Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project.
Demolition/Construction. The Petitioners and/or Site Contractor shall:
A. Provide a plan for the control and mitigation of accumulation of standing
water for the prevention of vector borne diseases to the Health
Department (Nuisance Control Regulation Section 3F.)
B. Provide a plan for the control and mitigation of on -site noise, odors, dust,
asbestos, and rodent abatement to the Health Department.
C. Provide a plan that includes protection measures for existing trees on and
around the site.
D. Submit a plan for vehicle parking and traffic management during
construction. Minimize use of neighborhood streets for construction
purposes.
As-Buiit(s). The Petitioners shall:
A. Submit a certified "as -built" foundation plot plan showing all dimensional
setbacks at the time of foundation inspection for Building and Zoning.
B. As -built plans, showing site utilities, layout, topography and other
pertinent information, for the project shall be submitted to and approved
by DPW upon completion of construction activities and prior to issuing a
Certificate of Occupancy. The plan shall specify how the completed plan
differs from that shown on the plans referred to in the Permit Conditions.
Two copies of the final as -built plans shall be submitted, one mylar and
one paper copy, and shall be on the same scale as the plan referenced in
the Permit Conditions.
BP
CO
CO
Prior to Demo
Permit
BP/CO
ZEO
ZEO/ISD
ZEO
ISD
ZEO/ISD/DP
W
9.
10.
11.
Signage. No signs shall be permitted except those that meet the signage
requirements in Article 7 of the WZO, and those shall be subject to a separate
review and permit process.
Stormwater. DPW review and final approval of the stormwater plan is
required prior to Building Permit. The Petitioner and/or Site Contractor(s)
shall, at a minimum:
A. Obtain approval of the stormwater management plan from the DPW.
B. Locate all existing roof drains and their points of discharge. Alf roof
drains shall be directed into the stormwater management system and
receive treatment if feasible.
C. Submit an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
for DPW review.
D. Copies of all post -construction stormwater management inspection and
maintenance records and invoices shall be kept for a period of five years
and be made available to DPW upon request.
Sewer/Fire Protection. DPW review and final approval of the sewer
connection and fire service design is required prior to Building Permit. The
Petitioner and/or Site Contractor(s) shall, at a minimum:
A. Provide a report detailing an inspection of the sewer line for the project's
connection to the municipal service.
B. Locate/relocate the fire service hydrant and supply, as needed, as
directed by the DPW and Fire Dept.
Page 16 of 18
Perpetual
BP
BP
Planning
ZEO/DWP
ZEO/DWP/F
ire Dept.
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
JUL -12015 WAN ctERK
65 Grove Street
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
June 10, 2015
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
12
Site Plan/Transportation. The Petitioners and/or Site Contractor(s) shall:
A. Install corner stones, sidewalk, granite curbing and other access/egress,
driveway and hard streetscape improvements as required by the DPW
along the property frontage.
B. Ensure that any connection to the Watertown -Cambridge Greenway is
acceptable to the DCDP and the Department of Conservation and
Recreation.
C. Ensure the HVAC equipment/systems are screened, as appropriate, with
review by DCDP.
In addition:
D. Landscape Planting Plan and Details Plan shall be subject to review and
approval by DCPD Staff for species appropriateness, mix, size, quantity,
and spacing. Add a minimum of four trees to the `courtyard' bio-swale
and along Grove Street.
E. All exterior lighting for the site shall be fully shielded and full cutoff and be
subject to a final review and approval prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
F. Shadow parking provided adjacent to Crawford Street and on the
Cambridge property to the north of the site shall be landscaped open
space (referenced as future shadow parking on control plans) until such
time as it is deemed necessary, with a formal request to DCDP with
reasons for the parking conversion. The parking may also be required to
be converted as necessary by the DCDP based on parking demand.
G. The Petitioner has agreed to contribute $175,000 in offsite transportation
improvements for pedestrian and vehicular safety/capacity as determined
by the DCDP Director and DPW prior to CO..
BP/Perpetual
DCDP/DPW
13.
Refuse/Recycling. The Petitioner shall:
A. Provide on -site recycling for all Department of Environmental Protection
Waste Ban materials.
B. Provide timely collection and removal from the site of solid waste/refuse
and recycling by a private waste management company.
BP/Perpetual
ZEO
Page 17 of 18
A TRLt COPY ATTEST
TOWN CLERK
JUL -11015
65 Grove Street
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
June 10, 2015
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
By the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Melissa M. Santucci Rozzi, Chair
David Ferris, Clerk
Christopher H. Heep, Member
John G. Gannon, Member
Kelly Donato, Member
Neeraj Chander, Alternate
Attest, by,th.p Clerk to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
ivetti
****************************************************************************
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Certificate of Granting
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11
The Zoning Board of Appeals calls to the attention of the owner or petitioner of the above
referenced decision, that MGL c. 40A, sec. 11 (last paragraph) provides that no Variance,
Special Permit, Special Permit Finding or any Extension, Modification or Renewal thereof, shall
take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the Certification of the Town Clerk that twenty
days have elapsed since the filing of said decision and no appeal has been filed or that if such
appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Registry of Deeds
for the County and District in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index under
the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title.
Twenty days have elapsed since the filing of said decision and no appeal has been filed or that if such
appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied:
Attest, by the Town Clerk: ,r Dater P1 105
Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of Southern Middlesex.
Attest, Register of Deeds:
Book Page
This Decision to be recorded by the Land Owner.
The owner or petitioner shall pay the fee for such recording or registering.
Page 18 of 18
A TRLl COPY ATTEST
Eck
TOWN CLERK
JUL - 1 2013