HomeMy Public PortalAbout1. Appl and Statement Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
149 Main Street
'r Watertown, MA0247b ) 1
(617) 972-6427 www.watertown-magov
TO BE GOIOIPlETED1BY STAGE
Case Number.Notice to Aomlicant: An application may be denied for outstanding taxes or charges to the Town
(Watertown Ordinance, Chapter
Fees received:XVll). Upon deeming the submittal complete, the application will be stamped/fled atthe
Town Clerk's office by DCD&P Staff
Complete subnrittaLx
Town 't'reasurers Approval (As required by Cb. 40. &ction 57)
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Site Address: List application requests below:
32 Church Street Special Permit (SP)Variance (V) Site Plan I�
Watertown, MA 02472
Review (SR)SP/SR
Special Pennit Finding (SPF)
For an amendment to previous relief, provide case ks:
Parcel ID SR (Site Plan Review) meeting date, ifrequired:
Zoning District: R.75
Petitioner(s) : PNG, LLC (By: Patrick Fortin Phone:(508) 810-0702
Address:c/o Century 21 Commonwealth Email:george.patsio@commouunoves.com
10 hVic igan Drive, Nat k M� 01760
Signature(s): ` 1((�[' \ , 1It„ � Date:August 9, 2016
�J \14 , �y
Owner(s): Watertown Masonic Association, Inc. Phone:
Address: 32 Church Street, Watertown, MA 02472 Email:
n
Signature(s): y { t,r Date: 08/09/ 16
AgentSteplren M. Winnick, Esc. 134 Maim St,
Phone/BmaiL•(617) 926-9200
Watertown, MA 02472
Other Contacts: Phone/Emait:winviclus@winnlaw.com
The Petitioner must be thefee simple owner or hold sufficient "interest' in the subject property (in which case evidence must be provided
as to the nature ofthc property interest and thefee owner shall co-sign this application. For legal entities such as corporations, LLC, etc,
list the type and legal status ofownership, the name oftmstecs/oficer members, their affiliation and contact information.
NATURE OF REQUEST
Applicable Sections of Zoning Ordinance (Specify Section(s) ofthe ZONING ORDINANCEfrom which reliefs sought):
W.Z.O., 5 ,01 (q) : SP/SR for 5 residential units
W.Z. O ., 4. 11 : Exceptioned to setback requirements
Brief description of the project as it relates to the zoning relief requested—Include existing dimensions, proposed
dimensions,
and any non-conformities that exist :
Raze existing Masonic Center,
Construct five townhouses in two structures:
Prop. Building A with three (3) units fronting on Church Street, Property Building B with two (2 ) units set back in the rear
accessible from Church Place. All dimensional requirements are satisfied satisfied except as noted above .
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PERSON TO THE ZONING OFFICE
FILL IN THE APPLICABLE PROJECT DATA BELOW
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
❑ Signed Applications (3 original & 17 copies) ❑ Full Set of Plans, collated (20 Copies and PDF version)
El Written Supporting Statement (20 Copies) '• Certified Plot Plan (for all applications)
Architectural Drawings (Floor, Elevations, etc. if applicable)
❑ Release/Indemnification Waiver ( 1 copy signed) 3 . Grading/Drainage Plan (if applicable)
d. Roof Plan (if applicable)
❑ Newspaper Billing Authorization Form ( ! copy signed) S. Parking/Circulation Plan (ifapplicable)
❑ Any additional information relevant for review G. Landscape Plan (if applicable)
7. Site Utility Plan (if applicable)
R. Liglding Plan (if applicable)
NOTE: THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED "COMPLETE" UNLESS ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
ARE SUBMITTED.
FILL IN THE APPLICABLE PROJECT DATA BELOW
Data Required Existing Proposed Staff Comments
A. Use (Article V, WZO)
B. Dwelling Units
C. Lot Size
D. Front Yard Setback f
E. Rear Yard Setback ` 1
E Side Yard Setback (left) '
G. Side Yard Setback (right)
11, Building Coverage
I. Impervious Coverage
J. Heighdll of Stories
K. Lot Area per unit
L. Gross Floor Area
M. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) I y
N. Open Space 4
O. Parking Spaces
Other data:
* See Zoning Summary attached as Ex . !
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PERSON TO THE ZONING OFFICE ON THE 2ND FLOOR
OF THE TOWN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
The %ON1NG 01t111N11 AV o rYm befoned online at: eov
, 7 00 ,
0 -
} 22ƒ } ! z ;!
! ! ] r # ! §
\ `
> §
)
; R , § § , ) ( m
w ; m \ § § 9VZ bog \ /
, \ ; ° ° \ 2 ®
!
, m , 2 2 : ; 0000000 }
0 \ / [
4 !
� { }
7
!
{ �
; (
! / \
, ! POPP. @m ; ; ww ; ; ! # A
§ § & � arm ; : , anw ; n � rwl
{ �
§ : §
§ ezi !41 § § �
\ \ t e \
\
y
; (
Written Supporting Statement
Petition for Special Permit Finding(s) Sec. 4406 (a) (prolect must meet the following criterion)
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PERSON TO THE ZONING OFFICE ON
THE 2ND FLOOR OF THE TOWN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
The ZONING ORDINANCE can befound online at: www.watertown-taa-eov
Petition for Special Permit Finding(s) Sec. 4.06 (a) (project must meet the following criterion)
1 . Is the proposed change substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforniing use, structure, or building to the
neighborhood? YES/NO, Explain why.
N / A
Petition for Special Permit( s )/Amendment sec. 9 . 05 ( b) ( project must meet all of the following
criteria )
I Is the subject site an appropriate location for such use, structure, and/or condition? YES/NO, Explain.
Yes . See Statement in Support submitted herewith .
2. Will the proposed use/structures adversely affect the neighborhood? YESINO, Explain.
No . See Statement in Support submitted herewith .
3 . Is there potential for nuisance or serious hazards to vehicle or pedestrians? YES/NO, Explain.
No . See Statement in Support Support submitted herewith .
4. Will adequate and appropriate facilities be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use? YES/NO, Expla n.
Yes . See Statement in Support submitted herewith .
Petition for Variance(s)/Amendment Sec. 9. 14 (b) (project must meet all of the following criteria for a variance)
1 . Is the variance being sought due to circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures, and
especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located? YES/NO, Explain.
N / A
2. Would enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance involve substantial hardship, financial or other? YES/NO, Explain.
ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR SUBMITTAL
* See Statement in Support submitted herewith .
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PERSON TO THE ZONING OFFICE ON THE 2ND FLOOR
OF THE TOWN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
The ZONINGORDINANCEcmrbejowdonlineat w vwatertotm-mnnov
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TOWN OF WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF PNG , LLC )
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL PERMIT )
WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW (SP/ SR) )
PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 32 CHURCH STREET )
WATERTOWN , MA )
PNG , LLC , the applicant for zoning approvals in connection with
the above-captioned redevelopment project (PNG ) , submits the
following statement in support of special permit with site plan
review (SP/ SR) .
I . STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. THE SITE
The site is the former Masonic Center located at 32 Church Street
in the R. 75 zone abutting Watertown Square to the north from Main
Street . The lot is approx . 17 , 837 s .f. with a 5 , 550 s . f. masonry
structure built in 1959 that serves as a Masonic Hall . It is bounded
by Church Street along the front, and located diagonally opposite
the municipal parking lot with its small shops and restaurants and
other commercial and retail uses ; the Watertown Savings Bank
drive -thru site at the corner of Church and Summer Street ; and the
First Parish Unitarian Church closer south to the municipal parking
lot . On the north side it is bounded by Church Place , a small
private way which is lined with 2 %2 story two -family detached
houses on the north side of Church Place . To the south towards
Main Street it is abutted by a 3 story brick apartment building .
B. THE PROJECT
PNG proposes to raze the existing structure and build five ( 5 )
townhouse units in two separate buildings designated Prop .
Building A and Prop . Building B . As shown on the site plans , Prop .
1
Building A, which fronts on Church Street , will contain three (3 )
townhouse units . Prop . Building B, located at the rear of the site ,
will contain two units . All of the units will be accessed by a 21 . 4
foot two -way curb cut and driveway on Church Place .
Each unit contains 3 bedrooms ; 2 . 5 baths ; a single car garage with
stacked parking for one car in front , and a small garden area . One
visitor parking space is included in addition to the 2 spaces per
unit , for a total of 11 spaces of on - site parking . The 3 units of Prop .
Building A will have attractive porches in the front on Church Street .
The two units of Prop . Building B will have decks .
Both structures are 3 stories with a maximum height of
approximately 33 feet, less than the 35 foot maximum height
allowed .
As shown in the Zoning Summary attached as Ex . 1 to the
application , the project conforms to , or exceeds , all zoning
dimensional requirements .
Re: Demolition Permit - Historic Preservation
A hearing was held before the Historic Commission on July 14 ,
2016 to consider whether a demolition permit would be granted for
razing the current Masonic Center structure and replacing it with
the proposed 5 - unit townhouse project . The Historic Commission
found that the Masonic Center is " not preferably preserved' and
that the demolition permit may be issued with " no delay imposed. "
A copy of the Historic Commission determination dated July 26 ,
2016 is attached hereto as Ex . 1 .
2
Re: Traffic. See Traffic Evaluation Letter from Tighe & Bond , Inc .
(Jason R. Plourde , P. E . , PTP) dated July 8 , 2016 attached hereto as
Ex . 2 . Using generally accepted Institute of Traffic Engineers ( ITE)
methodologies for comparing the existing traffic impacts of the
Masonic Center (i . e . , " lodges and fraternal organizations ") , the
proposed townhouse redevelopment is expected to generate 2 to
16 less daily vehicle trips overall than the existing Masonic Center
use ; and to generate similar vehicle trips as the existing Masonic
Center use both weekday and weekend peak hours . The traffic
evaluation letter concludes : "In summary, ITE trip generation
methodologies anticipate that the additional vehicular trips
associated with the proposed redevelopment project would have
negligible impacts to the adjacent roadway systems during the
weekday AM , weekday PM , Saturday and Sunday peak hours . "
C. ZONING RELIEF
The proposed project requires zoning relief by special permit in
conjunction with site plan review as specified below. No variance
relief is required .
a) W.Z.O. § 5 .01 ( 1) (g) . Townhouse Use . Allowed in the R . 75
zone by Special Permit in conjunction with Site Plan Review (SP/ SR) ;
b) W.Z .O. § 4 . 11 . The project takes advantage of the
exception contained in W. Z . O . § 4 . 11 which permits porches to
extend no more than four (4) feet into any setback. Therefore no
specific zoning relief is requested or required as to those
conditions .
3
D. REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
BASED ONINPUT FROM COMMUNITY MEETING AND
DEVELOPER'S CONFERENCE
As required under W. Z . O . § 9 . 03 (b) for projects with four (4) or
greater residential units , a public information meeting ("Community
Meeting ") was held on Thursday, July 28 , 2016 at the Police Dept .
Community Room . A true copy of a Memo to the Dept . of
Community Development & Planning ( DCD& P) summarizing the
Community Meeting is attached hereto as Ex . 4 .
Also as required under § 9 . 03 for any project requiring site plan
review in conjunction with an application for a special permit (e . g . ,
SP / SR) , a Developer' s Conference on the project was held on
Tuesday, August 2 , 2016 .
As a result of input obtained from both the Community Meeting
and the Developer ' s Conference , an extensive number of changes
to the original plans , both architectural and site engineering , were
made including the following :
Visitor parking reduced from two to one space
Sprinkler room added to Building B area for FAR computation
Area below decks added to FAR computation
The following changes were made to the plan set :
Sprinkler room added to Building B per water department
1 visitor space shown on site plan
Fence heights added to site plan
Trash bins added to site plan
Projecting bays changed to flat roof with cornice
4
Cornice on main building enlarged
Second floor plan reversed to allow more consistent
windows at Church Street
Plans revised to reflect new window locations
Corner windows removed at rear bays
Porch roof pitch lowered to accommodate new window
pattern
Side elevation windows added and re -aligned
Following both the Community Meeting and the Developer' s
Conference the applicant ' s architect and a principal of the applicant
met on Friday, August 5 , 2016 with DCDP' s Design Subcommittee
(Steve Magoon and senior planner Gideon Schreiber) .
Out of that final round of discussions with the DCD& P additional
aesthetic design modifications , primarily to the front fa4ade , were
made which are now incorporated in the final plan set submitted
with this application , as follows :
Extend front bays vertically to align with the main roof
Wrap main cornice around the front and rear bays
Add an additional double hung window at the front bays
Add panel trim on each side of the double hung window in the bay
at the second floor
Changed color palette to medium dark gray on the body, light gray
on the projecting bays , white trim and windows
Correct second floor windows which were incorrectly shown in prior
plans
Add projecting cap trim to paired windows on the front , in the body
portion only
5
II . § 9 . 05 CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL PERMIT
A. The Specific Site is an Appropriate Location for Such a
Use, Structure or Condition
Multifamily 4 + row houses and townhouses are allowed by SP/ SR in
the R . 75 zone . The design is entirely conforming by SP, in
particular as to height (3 -stories / 33 . 43 feet) and FAR of 0 . 61 (less
than the 0 . 75 maximum allowable for the R. 75 zone) .
B. The Use as Developed Will Not Adversely Affect the
Neighborhood
The proposed razing of the Masonic Center, which is not of any
substantial historic or architectural significance (see Ex . 2 ,
determination of the Historic Commission dated July 26 , 2016) , and
replacing it with a modern townhouse residential use designed in
accordance with the Town ' s new design guidelines and standards
which ensure that the structure ( Prop . Building A) fronting on
Church Street with its attractive front porches and landscaping will
serve to animate the streetscape ; and the project overall is
consonant with the modern commercial (offices , restaurants , etc . ) ,
multifamily residential , and mixed - use sites that currently ring
Watertown Square and are its evident future .
The applicant ' s traffic study demonstrates that the proposed town
house use will generate similar or in some instances less traffic
impacts on abutting and neighborhood streets and intersections
beyond those of the current Masonic Center use .
Re : Storm Water Management . Presently all of the site ' s storm water,
both rooftop and surface , drains into the Town ' s storm water
system without any water quality treatment . The proposed site
6
storm water management utilities are designed to capture , treat
and retain on site all of the storm water generated by a 100 -year
storm event using best practices and Low Impact Development
techniques .
C. There Will be No Nuisance or Serious Hazard to
Vehicles or Pedestrians
The project provides required conforming parking for all of five ( 5 )
units (2 spaces per unit) , and i visitor space .
D. Adequate and Appropriate Facilities Will be Provided
for the Proper Operation of the Proposed Use
See subsections B, C and D above . The proposed project will meet
or exceed all building code requirements .
11 . W.Z.O. § 9.03 (c) SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
1. 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.
The change in grade at the rear of the lot will be maintained for
adjacent properties by installing a retaining wall . Other changes in
grade on site do not extend past the property line . The existing
tree on the sidewalk frontage is to be protected during the
replacement of the sidewalk and curbing on Church Street .
7
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.
The proposed buildings continue the established building line on
Church Street . The traditional row house form is consistent with
Watertown building typologies . By centering the building mass in
the site , the shadow impacts on adjacent properties are minimized .
The entry floor grades are kept low to minimize the separation
from the sidewalk .
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.
A continuous front porch close to Church Street is designed to
encourage social interaction with pedestrians . Mature trees with an
open understory create a green buffer between the street and the
buildings while allowing visibility at the pedestrian level . An open
planted yard along Church Place allows views into and through the
site .
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,
8
bicycle and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to
adjacent streets.
Access to the property will be from Church Place , a low traffic
volume private way bounding the site on the north side . A greater
than twenty foot wide curb cut and driveway will access surface and
garage parking . Bicycle storage will be provided within the units
and within private garden areas . Sidewalk pedestrian access will be
provided from Church Street for the Prop . Building A units and from
Church Place for the Building B units .
5 . Surface Water Drainage: Special attention shall be given to
proper surface drainage so that removal of surface water 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.
a) Existing / Original Conditions - The existing grading of the site
causes the water to drain from its north to south side , coming from
the back of the lot to Church Street . No runoff is infiltrated on - site
and it does not receive any water quality treatment before entering
the Town of Watertown drainage system via the catch basins on the
street .
b) Proposed Storm Water Management — The proposed storm
water management system is designed to capture , treat and
infiltrate on site storm water produced from a 100-year storm
9
event . All proposed impervious areas are being infiltrated on site
with the exception of the three small walkways leading to the
entrances of Prop . Building A and the single walkway leading to the
entrance of Prop . Building B . This is achieved through a variety of
Low Impact Development (LID) and structural components ,
including :
❑ Roof runoff is piped directly into an underground infiltration
system .
❑ The entirety of the parking lot runoff is collected via catch
basins , and then routed through proprietary water quality
treatment devices and into the infiltration system .
❑ A swale on the westerly side of the property directs lawn
runoff towards the street and away from abutters and the proposed
buildings .
❑ Drain inlets route storm water from the stairwells at the back
of Building B , which are below grade , to the infiltration system .
Overall , the site' s storm water quantity will be reduced by the
proposed redevelopment, and its quality and on - site infiltration
will be greatly increased .
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 from all buildings shall
be indicated.
• Two 6" sanitary sewer service connections are proposed to
the existing line in Church Place from both Prop . Building A
and Prop . Building B .
10
• Each building will be serviced by a 2 " domestic water line .
Master meters will be installed in each building .
• Each building will be provided with a 4" fire protection line .
• Existing water and sewer lines are to be capped at their
mains in Church Street .
• All excavations into Church Street will require sidewalk to
sidewalk moratorium repair.
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.
One of the project ' s principal goals is to provide significant
improvement to the site regarding environmental sustainability.
The proposed buildings will utilize energy efficient technologies
and systems whenever possible . This includes , but is not limited to
energy efficient lighting , automatic lighting controls in common
areas , recycled building materials , light colored roof membrane ,
low VOC paints and adhesives , low flow plumbing fixtures ,
improved storm water management with infiltration , and green
open space within the site .
8. Screening : Screening, such as screen plantings, shall be
provided for exposed storage areas, exposed machinery
installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility building 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.
11
Evergreen shrubs will be planted to screen grade mounted air
conditioning units . Private garden areas will be enclosed with
fencing , a combination of solid and lattices to screen these areas .
Refuse containers will be located within private gardens at Prop .
Building A and within enclosed niches adjacent to garage doors at
Prop . Building B .
9. Safety: With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed
spaces shall be designed to facilitate building evacuation and
maximize accessibility by the police and other emergency
personnel and equipment.
The Department of Public Works has agreed to a street address
scheme in which the Prop . Building A units will have Church Street
addresses and the Prop . Building B units will have Church Place
addresses . This scheme will facilitate enhanced 911 access to the
properties in the event of an emergency.
The site is accessible on two sides for fire apparatus . The drive
and parking areas are sized to accommodate a fire truck . Prop .
Building A is readily accessible by ladder from three sides while
Prop . Building B can be reached from the front and one side .
The proposed buildings will be designed in accordance with
applicable State and local laws . This will include a fire suppression
sprinkler system , smoke and heat detectors , and CO2 detectors as
required for low- rise residential construction .
10, Design : Proposed developments shall seek to protect abutting
properties from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the
12
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.
The project' s design seeks to protect abutting properties with the
addition of a modern storm water management system ,
improvements to the streetscape , and the implementation of a
planting plan which enhances the natural environment . Lighting will
be designed to avoid negative impacts on abutting properties .
Potential temporary impacts during construction such as erosion
and dust will be limited through the installation of erosion control
fencing and dust control measures . Noise pollution from
mechanical equipment will be minimized using noise reduction
technologies and locating the equipment so as to protect abutting
neighbors from nuisance noise levels .
For the foregoing reasons and authorities the Project satisfies the
site plan review criteria set forth in W. Z . O . , § 9 . 03 (c) .
IV. CONCLUSIONS.
1 . The Project satisfies all of the conditions for the grant of a
special permit pursuant to W. Z . O . , § 9 . 05 (b) .
2 . The Project satisfies the site plan criteria set forth in W. Z . O . ,
§ 9 . 03 (c).
For the foregoing reasons PNG , LLC respectfully requests the
Planning Board to recommend to the Board of Appeals approval of
the Special Permit with Site Plan Review; and thereafter the Board of
Appeals to grant its requested Special Permit and Site Plan Review
13
Planning Board to recommend to the Board of Appeals approval of
the Special Permit with Site Plan Review; and thereafter the Board of
Appeals to grant its requested Special Permit and Site Plan Review
relief; and in conjunction therewith to make the following specific
findings of fact :
1 . The Project satisfies all of the conditions for the grant of a
special permit pursuant to W. Z . O . , § 9 . 05 ( b) .
2 . The Project satisfies the site plan criteria set forth in W. Z .O .
§ 9 . 03 (c) .
Stephen" M . Winnick, Esq .
Attorney for PNG , LLC
Winnick & Sullivan LLP
134 Main Street
Watertown , MA 02172
(617) 926 - 9200
FAX (617) 923 -4575
Email : winvictus@winnlaw. com
Dated : August 9 , 2016
14
EXHIBIT t
1630 Town of Watertown
{ ' Administration Building
149 Main Street
>?. Watertown, Massachusetts 02472
Historical Commission
(617) 972-6426 o Fax: (617) 9721,6484
Christopher J. Hayward, MCA Susan C. Jenness
Tree Warden Clerk
chat/ °lord ? yatertorm-macov slonness�twatertonm-yr,
T ___ ^_L_
1 O : Ken Thompson, Inspector of Buildings
FROM * Christopher J. Hayward, Preservation Agent f
RU: 32 Church St.
DATE: July 26, 2016
The Watertown Historical Commission held a public hearing on July 11 , 2016 to review the
Demolition Permit application for 32 Church St. a charity ball with a lodge style building built
around 1959, with a brick exterior and asphalt roof. Proposed are 5 town house units in two
structures.
It was determined that the structure was Not Preferably Preserved by a unanimous vote. No
delay was imposed as its demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historical or
architectural heritage or resources of Watertown.
Historical Commission (Determination
property Preservation Status I Delay Period
32 Church St. Not Preferably Preserved I No Delay Imposed
( Unanimous Vote)
CC: Stephen Wimrick, Esq.
Christopher Mulhern
David Russo, Chair, HC
Michael Mena, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Gideon Schreiber, Senior Planner
EXHIBIT : 2
TigheMond
Engineers I Environmental Specialists
17- 1802- 1
July 8, 2016
Mr. Christopher Mulhern
Harrison Mulhern Architects
600 Main Street, Suite 300
Winchester, Massachusetts 01890
Re : Traffic Evaluation Letter
Proposed Residential Development
32 Church Street — Watertown, Massachusetts
Dear Chris :
Tighe & Bond, Inc. has prepared this letter to summarize the anticipated transportation
impacts associated with a proposed redevelopment of the existing Masonic Center of
Watertown located at 32 Church Street in Watertown, Massachusetts. As proposed, the
existing t5, 550 square foot Masonic Center of Watertown structure would be razed and
5 residential townhouses would be constructed . Access is provided and is proposed to
remain via a driveway on Church Place. This evaluation has been conducted to summarize
the anticipated traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment project .
To determine the additional trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed
redevelopment project, trip-generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) 1 were researched . The ITE Trip Generation manual provides a land use for
lodges/fraternal organizations (Land Use Code 591 ) . This land use, however, includes only
one data point for a California site that was surveyed in 1977 . Although ITE methodologies
do not recommend using land uses with a limited number of data points to estimate the
number of projected site trips, a trip-generation comparison was made using this land use
to provide a baseline scenario . Available data from the existing Masonic Center of
Watertown indicate a membership of 160 people in 1990 . For the proposed development,
ITE Land Use Code 230 ( Residential Condominium/Townhouse) was chosen . The trip-
generation comparison is provided in Table 1 and the trip-generation data are attached to
this letter.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed residential development is expected to generate between
2 and 16less vehicle trips on a daily basis than the existing use based on the trip-
generation methodology for lodges/fraternal organizations . In addition, the proposed
development is anticipated to generate similar vehicle trips during the weekday and
weekend peak hours as compared with the existing use .
1 Trip Generation Manual. 9th ed . Washington, DC : Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012 .
177 Corporate Drive • Portsmouth, NH 03801-6825 Tel 603.433,8818
www.tiahehond.com
Tighe& ono
TABLE 1
Trip-Generation Comparison : Lodge/Fraternal Organization vs. Townhouses
Time Period/Direction Existing Trips a Proposed Trips " Additional Trips
Weekday Daily 46 30 (16)
Weekday AM Peak Hour:
Enter 1 0 ( 1 )
Exit 1 2 1
Total 2 2 0
Weekday PM Peak Hour:
Enter 2 2 0
Exit 3 1
Total 5 3 (2)
Saturday Daily 30 28 (2)
Saturday Peak Hour:
Enter 2 1 ( 1)
Exit 1 1 0
Total 3 2 ( 1 )
Sunday Daily 30 24 (6)
Sunday Peak Hour:
Enter 2 1 ( 1)
Exit 1 1 0
Total 3 2 ( 1 )
' ITE Land Use Code 591 (Lodge/Fraternal Organization) for 160 members.
b ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) for 5 dwelling units.
c Proposed Trips minus Existing Trips.
The Masonic Center of Watertown building is also used by The Greater Boston Church of
Spiritualism . Therefore, ITE Land Use Code 560 (Church) was also selected to be
representative of the existing site as the description for this land use "is a building in which
public worship services are held, " "houses an assembly hall or sanctuary, " and may also
include "meeting rooms, classrooms, and, occasionally, dining, catering, or party facilities. "
A comparison of the trip-generation characteristics of the existing and proposed uses is
provided in Table 2 . The trip-generation data are attached to this letter.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed residential development is expected to generate between
30 and 180less vehicle trips on a daily basis than the existing use based on the trip-
generation methodology for churches . In addition, the proposed development is anticipated
to generate similar vehicle trips as the existing use during the weekday AM and weekday PM
peak hours . During the weekend peak hours, the proposed residential development is
projected to generate between 18 and 65 less vehicle trips than the existing use .
The ITE Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development states, "In lieu of other
locally preferred thresholds, it is suggested that a transportation impact study be conducted
whenever a proposed development will generate 100 or more added ( new) trips during the
adjacent roadways' peak hour or the development's peak hour. " Additionally, MassDOT's
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines suggest that an intersection should be
evaluated when site-generated trips are projected to increase peak-hour traffic volumes by
100 vehicles or more . Based on the additional site-generated traffic volumes shown in
Table 1, the ITE and MassDOT guidelines suggest that further traffic evaluation may not be
required for the proposed redevelopment project.
2 -
TigheMond
TABLE 2
Trip-Generation Comparison : Church vs. Townhouses
Time Period/ Direction Existing Trips a Proposed Trips b Additional Trips
Weekday Daily 52 30 (32)
Weekday AM Peak Hour:
Enter 2 0 (2)
Exit 1 2 1
Total 3 2 ( 1)
Weekday PM Peak Hour:
Enter 1 2 1
Exit 2 1 _CIA
Total 3 3 0
Saturday Daily 58 28 (30)
Saturday Peak Hour:
Enter 14 1 ( 13)
Exit 6 1 65
Total 20 2 ( 18)
Sunday Daily 204 24 ( 180)
Sunday Peak Hour:
Enter 33 1 (32)
Exit 34 1 t331
Total 67 2 (65)
ITE Land Use Code 560 (Church) for 5,550 sf.
" ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) for 5 dwelling units.
Proposed Trips minus Existing Trips.
In summary, ITE Trip Generation methodologies anticipate that the additional vehicular trips
associated with the proposed redevelopment project would have negligible impacts to the
adjacent roadway system during the weekday AM , weekday PM, Saturday, and Sunday peak
hours .
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free contact me
at (603) 433-8818 .
Very truly yours,
TIGHE & BOND, INC.
7 ?&� 0(e
Jason R. Plourde, P. E . , PTP
Project Manager
Attachments
1 :\H\H1802 Harrison ldu1hern\1_etters\H18021 - Traffic Evaluation Letter 070816,doc
. 3 -
ATTACHMENTS
Trip - Generation Calculations : Existing Use
Trip - Generation Calculations : Proposed Use
Tighe&Bond
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Land Use Code (LUC) 591 - Lodge/ Fraterna► Organization
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs : Members
Independent Variable (X) : 160
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY
T = 0 . 29 * (X)
T = 0 . 29 * 160
T = 46.40
T = 46 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 23 vph ) entering and 50% ( 23 vph) exiting.
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0. 01 * (X)
T = 0. 01 * 160
T = 1 . 60
T = 2 vehicle trips
with 53% ( 1 vph) entering and 47% ( 1 vph ) exiting.
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0 .03 * (X)
T = 0 .03 * 160
T = 4.80
T = 5 vehicle trips
with 47% ( 2 vph) entering and 53% ( 3 vph ) exiting .
SATURDAY DAILY
T = 0 . 18 * (X)
T = 0 . 18 * 160
T = 28. 80
T = 30 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 15 vph) entering and 50% ( 15 vph ) exiting .
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 0 . 02 * (X)
T = 0 .02 * 160
T = 3 . 20
T = 3 vehicle trips
with 63% ( 2 vph ) entering and 37% ( 1 vph) exiting .
SUNDAY DAILY
T = 0 . 18 * (X)
T = 0 . 18 * 160
T = 28. 80
T = 30 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 15 vph ) entering and 50% ( 15 vph ) exiting .
SUNDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 0 . 02 * (X)
T = 0 . 02 * 160
T = 3 . 20
T = 3 vehicle trips
with 54% ( 2 vph ) entering and 46% ( 1 vph) exiting .
Tighe & Bond, Inc. ITE LUC 591 - 160 Members.xls
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Land Use Code ( LUC) 560 - Church
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs : 1,000 Sq . Feet Gross Floor Area
Independent Variable (X) : 5 . 550
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY
T = 9 . 11 * (X)
T = 9 . 11 * 5. 550
T = 50 . 56
T = 52 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 26 vph) entering and 50% ( 26 vph) exiting.
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0 . 56 * (X)
T = 0 . 56 * 5 . 550
T = 3 . 11
T = 3 vehicle trips
with 62% ( 2 vph) entering and 38% ( 1 vph) exiting .
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0 . 55 * (X)
T = 0 . 55 * 5 . 550
T = 3 . 05
T = 3 vehicle trips
with 48% ( 1 vph) entering and 52% ( 2 vph) exiting .
SATURDAY DAILY
T = 10. 37 * (X)
T = 10. 37 * 5 . 550
T = 57 . 55
T = 58 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 29 vph) entering and 50% ( 29 vph ) exiting .
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 3 . 54 * (X)
T = 3 . 54 * 5 . 550
T = 19 . 65
T = 20 vehicle trips
with 71% ( 14 vph) entering and 29% ( 6 vph) exiting .
SUNDAY DAILY
T = 36 . 63 * (X)
T = 36. 63 * 5 . 550
T = 203 . 30
T = 204 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 102 vph) entering and 50% ( 102 vph) exiting .
SUNDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 12 . 04 * (X)
T = 12 . 04 * 5 . 550
T = 66. 82
T = 67 vehicle trips
with 49% ( 33 vph) entering and 51% ( 34 vph ) exiting .
Tighe & Bond, Inc. ITE LUC 560 - 5550 sf. xls
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Land Use Code (LUC) 230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs : Dwelling Units
Independent Variable (X) : 5
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY
T = 5 .81 * (X)
T = 5 .81 * 5
T = 29 . 05
T = 30 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 15 vpd) entering and 50% ( 15 vpd ) exiting .
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0 .44 * (X)
T = 0 .44 * 5
T = 2 . 20
T = 2 vehicle trips
with 17% ( 0 vph) entering and 83 % ( 2 vph) exiting .
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 0 . 52 * (X)
T = 0 . 52 * 5
T = 2 .60
T = 3 vehicle trips
with 67% ( 2 vph) entering and 33% ( 1 vph ) exiting .
SATURDAY DAILY
T = 5 . 67 * (X)
T = 5 . 67 * 5
T = 28 . 35
T = 28 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 14 vpd) entering and SO% ( 14 vpd) exiting .
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 0 .47 * (X)
T = 0 .47 * 5
T = 2. 35
T = 2 vehicle trips
with 54% ( 1 vph ) entering and 46% ( 1 vph ) exiting .
SUNDAY DAILY
T = 4 .84 * (X)
T = 4 .84 * 5
T = 24. 20
T = 24 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 12 vpd) entering and 50% ( 12 vpd) exiting .
SUNDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 0 .45 * (X)
T = 0 . 45 * 5
T = 2 . 25
T = 2 vehicle trips
with 49% ( 1 vph) entering and 51 % ( 1 vph) exiting .
Tighe & Bond, Inc. ITE LUC 230 - 5 units.xls
EXHIBIT 3
MEMO
August 4 , 2016
FROM : Stephen M . Winnick, Esq .
TO : Dept. of Community Development & Planning
RE : PNG , LLC - 32 Church Street Redevelopment Project
As required pursuant to W. Z. O . §9. 03 ( b) for projects with four (4) or
greater residential units , a public information meeting (Community
Meeting ) was held "to provide an opportunity for the public to
understand and comment on the specifics of the project. "
The Community Meeting was held on Thursday, July 28 , 2016 from
7 : 00 P . M . to 9: 00 P . M . at the Police Dept, Community Room . Notices
were mailed to all abutters and the meeting was advertised as
required by law .
It was attended by approximately two dozen abutters , and also by the
following interested officials and parties:
1 . Vincent Piccirilli , District C Town Councillor;
2 . Andrea Adams, Senior Planner;
3. Seller' s counsel , atty Ken Leitner;
4. Principals of the applicant PNG , LLC : George Patsio ; Nick
Patsio and Patrick Fortin ;
5 . PNG's development team including :
Chris Mulhern , project architect;
Jason Plourde , traffic engineer; and
me, Stephen M . Winnick , Esq . , attorney for the petitioner
1 gave a short opening summarizing the project: to raze the existing
Masonic Center building and to replace it with five (5) townhouse
units in two separate buildings, identified on the plans as Prop .
Building A, fronting on Church Street and containing three (3)
residential units; and Prop. Building B , set back into the rear of the lot,
and containing two (2 ) residential units .
The project architect, Chris Mulhern gave a detailed explanation of
the principal site and architectural design and construction elements
1
of the project which include the following :
1 . Each unit will have 3 bedrooms and 3 . 5 baths ; a single car
garage with stacked parking for one car in front; and a small garden
area .
2 . Two parking spaces are provided as required for the 3
bedroom units . Two visitor parking spaces are included in addition to
the 2 spaces required for each unit , for a total of 12 on -site parking
spaces .
3 . Prop , Building A' s three units have attractive porches in the
front on Church Street set close to the sidewalk . Prop . Building B 's
two units have similar living spaces but include decks instead of
porches . Both structures are 3 stories high and approximately 33 feet ,
less than the maximum height limitation of 35 feet.
4 . In all other respects the project meets or exceeds all of the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance .
The project architect also summarized the principal site engineering
elements (drainage, site utilities , landscaping , etc . ) . Of note , the
drainage design provides for adequate drainage to handle a 100 year
flood entirely on site .
Jason Plourde , the project traffic engineer gave a detailed traffic
analysis . In summary , using the Institute for Traffic Engineering ( ITE )
"trip generation" standards and data at peak a . m . and p . m . hours for
the existing use as a Masonic Center (categorized in the ITE data as
a " Lodge , Fraternal Organization or Church" land use) , as compared
to the proposed land use ( i . e . , Condominiums or Townhouses ) ; the
proposed townhouse development's traffic impacts are approximately
the same, or in some instances less , than the existing Masonic
Center use . And these conclusions assume all townhouse users will
be driving and not taking other means of transportation (e . g , public
transportation , bicycle , etc. ) .
The abutters were given an opportunity to present questions to the
project team at the end of each team member' s presentation ; and
again after all of the presentations in a longer group question and
answer period .
It was this author' s sense that the abutters and public officials were
favorably disposed to the project overall , specifically including razing
2
the existing Masonic Center and replacing it with 5 modern
townhouse units in two structures with a height of 3 stories , and Prop .
Building A, with its attractive porches in the front, set close to Church
Street.
But there were a number of comments and suggestions about the
design and construction details including the following :
1 . There should be a construction management plan adopted to
set reasonable daily start and end times and to keep annoyance (e. g . ,
noise , dust, traffic and parking interference) to a minimum ;
2 . Several abutters felt more plan elevations were needed to
see some of the aspects of the design clearly .
3 . Others requested a shadowing study be done to see the
shadow effects on surrounding structures and uses .
4 . Landscaping plans to spell out exactly what type of trees and
shrubs , etc, were being proposed and their locations .
5 . Re : Architectural Design . The porches in the front on Church
Street were viewed very favorably . There .were requests by abutters
for more details in the plans and elevations for the sides of the
buildings , and the types of materials and colors that are intended for
the exterior skins .
Steve
cc: George Patsio ; Nick Patsio ; Pat Fortin
3