HomeMy Public PortalAbout16-02-08 EDP Committee Report on RMUD for February 2 2016Town of Watertown
Town Council Committee on Economic Development and Planning
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Report: February 8, 2016
The Committee met Tuesday February 2, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the Richard E. Mastrangelo Chamber to make
recommendations to the full Town Council on the proposed Regional Mixed -Use (RMUD) zoning ordinance
text amendment. This was a continuation of the January 28, 2016 meeting.
Attending were: Committee members Susan Falkoff, Chair, Kenneth Woodland, Vice Chair, and Vincent
Piccirilli, Secretary; Planning Director Stephen Magoon; Senior Planner Gideon Schreiber; Town Council
President Mark Sideris, Councilors Michael Dattoli, Aaron Dushku, Lisa Feltner, Angeline Kounelis, Anthony
Palomba; and approximately 30 members of the public.
The Committee continued where it left off reviewing the Version 4 document from January 28 (which is
attached to the report of that meeting) as well as additional amendments from Councilor Dushku (see
attached). For each item, committee members were given an opportunity to ask questions, followed by
comments from the public, discussion by committee members and a vote. The votes were as follows
(underlining indicates the changes from the previous document):
1. Dushku Attachment: Section 5.18 (d)(2) Separation of parking: new section proposed:
"2) Separation of parking costs: Any parking spaces offered to residents of the residential component of a
new development must be offered as a fee -based option distinct from charges established for renting,
leasing, or purchasing primary -use space within the development. These fees shall reflect market realities
(i.e. the actual value of parking)."
Accepted 3-0 as proposed.
2. Dushku Attachment: Section 5.18 (d) (3) Smart parking technology: new section proposed:
"3) Smart Parking Technology: For projects with structured parking of over 100 spaces, it is required that
said structured parking install and employ smart parking technology (e.g. equipment to count the number
of vehicles entering and exiting the parking area, availability of spaces, etc.)."
Accepted 3-0 as proposed.
3. Attachment page 8: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f) Paragraph 1, Authority and Procedure:
Voted 3-0 to not accept proposed changes
4. Attachment page 12: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(7)(b) Extension of MPSP, new section, and also
Attachment page 9: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f) second half of Paragraph 4, Authority and Procedure
Voted 3-0 to accept proposed new Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(7)(b) amended with an extension after 10 years
as shown (or similar language proposed by staff):
b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5.18.g.5, ten (10) years from the issuance of a Master Plan
Special Permit, a building for which a Final Site Plan Approval has not been applied, or (if a Final Site Plan
Approval has been issued for such building), construction or principal use outside of a building has not
begun, shall not be constructed, nor shall such principal use be allowed, until the SPGA shall approve an
extension to the Master Plan Special Permit." and to not accept the proposed addition to the second half
Page 1 of 4
Committee on Economic Development and Planning, RMUD Report for Meeting February 2, 2016
of Paragraph 4 Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f).
5. Attachment page 9: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f) Paragraph 3 and first half of Paragraph 4, Authority and
Procedure with deletions and additions:
"A Petitioner may wish to seek conceptual level approval of a large scale mixed use project, with detailed
Final Site Plan Review Approvals of individual buildings under § 9.03 to occur prior to Building Pcrmits for
individual buildings. In order to ensure that nearby and Town -wide traffic, infrastructure, density,
connectivity and visual impacts etc., from such projects are identified and coherently planned to include
appropriate mitigation, the Petitioner shall may seek conceptual, Master Plan level approval of a large
scale Zed use project. This approval shall be followed by detailed Final Site Plan Review Approvals of
individual projects or buildings under 9.03 that are to occur later, before issuance of any Building Permits.
A project level review provides an opportunity to consider and address the cumulative effects of the
individual phases and for the holistic consideration of a large scale mixed use project. The Master Plan
Special Permit with Site Plan Review process provides the opportunity and a mechanism for review of
large scale mixed use projects that may be built in phases. A Master Plan -level review provides the
Petitioner with the benefit of advance conceptual approval for multiple projects to be implemented over
time. It also provides both the Petitioner and the Town with the opportunity and mechanism to consider
and address the cumulative impacts of all individual phases and for the holistic consideration and
mitigation planning for the entire larger -scale, project(s) that may be built in phases."
Accepted 3-0 as proposed, with "shall" replaced with "may" and "mixed use" deleted.
6. Attachment page 9: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(2) minor changes: No action.
7. Attachment page 10: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(2)(c), (g), (i), (j), (k), (1): change as shown.
This also includes Dushku Attachment, last comment on Wayfinding.
"c) Cross section drawings indicating the relationship of the building or buildings to nearby buildings,
buildings on adjoining properties, streets, open spaces, and parklands. Both aerial and pedestrian level 3D
views shall be included to fully depict the visual impact of the design from both public ways and from
several key view points within the project development area;"
"g) Shadow Analysis depicting internal and external impacts of morning, mid -day and evening shadows at
both solstices and equinoxes;"
"i) Verification that adequate sewer capacity is available or that the project will suitably increase capacity
as required.
j) Complete, conceptual level stormwater management plan demonstrating the development's approach to
on -site Storm -water Management and adequacy of connections to regional mains.
k) Open Space Plan, including location, size, characteristics (pervious vs impervious), uses and public
accessibility of all open space areas. Conceptual wayfinding signage for paths, access to parks, and transit,
at a minimum, with detailed plans to be submitted within a signage package as part of a Building Permit.
1) List of required Federal, Massachusetts, or Watertown environmental licenses, permits, filings, or
restrictions, currently in effect or anticipated.
Accepted 3-0 as proposed, with "packet" changed to "package"
Page 2 of 4
Committee on Economic Development and Planning, RMUD Report for Meeting February 2, 2016
8. Attachment page 10: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(3): Review of Application change as follows:
"Review of Application: The SPGA shall hold a public hearing in accordance with procedures outlined in
§9.04. The SPGA shall not approve a Master Plan Special Permit unless it finds that the four conditions for
Special Permit approval set forth in §9.05(b) of this Zoning Ordinance have been met and that the proposed
development is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the RMUD Ordinance as set forth in $5.18.a. The
Petitioner's submission of and the review of the conceptual level plan component of a Master Plan Special
Permit shall follow the procedures set forth in § 9.03. The SPGA shall not approve such a Master Plan
Special Permit unless it finds that the Petitioner has satisfactorily addressed, at a conceptual level, the ten
criteria listed in § 9.03(c)."
Accepted 3-0 as amended by the committee replacing "will satisfy or meet" with "is in keeping with".
9. Attachment page 10 & 11: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(4) first paragraph: Parking reduction change as follows:
"Parking Reduction: In granting a Master Plan Special Permit, the SPGA may reduce the number of required
parking spaces, based on the availability of public transportation alternatives at or near the RMUD master -
planned project, the transportation demand management programs implemented or to be implemented as
part of the RMUD Master Plan, compatibility with any transportation policy adopted by the Town, the
ability of uses with peak user demands at different times to share parking spaces or other factors for which
the Petitioner provides (1). a parking study or analysis prepared under the direction of a Professional
Engineer or Architect with the requisite experience in conducting such analysis, using standards and
methodologies promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Urban Land Institute, or
other appropriate source, and (or including) (ii) a transportation demand management plan prepared to
best practices standards for such plans in Massachusetts."
Accepted 3-0 as proposed.
10. Attachment page 11: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(4) second paragraph: Requiring participation in a TMA.
Voted 3-0 to not accept the change.
11. Attachment page 11: Section 5.18 (b)(8)(f)(4) third paragraph: Requiring a security bond for parking.
Voted 3-0 to not accept the change.
12. Attachment page 16: Section 9.03(c)(7): Environmental sustainability: Significant changes proposed.
This was not part of the advertized notice and includes districts beyond RMUD.
Voted 3-0 to not accept the change.
13. DCDP staff provided an additional sheet of comments received 2/2/16 (see attached).
#1 Local Business set -aside - already discussed. No action
#2a Affordable Housing - already discussed. No action
#2b Local Business set -aside - already discussed. No action
#2c Co -working space - not appropriate for a zoning ordinance. No action
#3 Frontage Limitations - in Design Guidelines. No action
#4 Transparency - in Design Guidelines. No action
The Committee agreed that the Town Council should look at ways to encourage small businesses in town.
Motion by the Committee Voted 3-0: To refer to EDP Committee a discussion how to encourage and
support small businesses.
Page 3 of 4
Committee on Economic Development and Planning, RMUD Report for Meeting February 2, 2016
14. Councilor Falkoff brought up an email from Jocelyn Tager requesting that "Community Solar" be made
part of the RMUD. The Committee determined that this was a town -wide issue, better addressed by the
Town's Energy Committee, and did not take any action on this proposal.
15. Gideon Schreiber raised the issue, after discussion with a resident, that Attachment page 7:
5.18(b)(5)(b) on Height, which this Committee amended on January 28, had some confusing language that
conflicted with language elsewhere. He proposed that we change it as follows:
"b) Maximum height of building: For new construction, 55 feet by Special Permit or 79 feet by Master Plan
Special Permit, or 130 feet by Master Plan Special Permit within a defined mixed -use project, using adopted
Design Guidelines and the allowed FAR of 2.0 to determine height up to a maximum of 130 feet, provided
the project includes a diversity of building heights and furthering the intent and purpose of the RMUD."
Accepted 3-0 as proposed.
There being no more comments from the Committee or the public, Councilor Falkoff closed the meeting.
The Committee has completed its review and will present four Committee reports for acceptance by the
Town Council at the Public Hearing on February 8, 2016.
The DCDP will compile all changes from the last four EDP meetings and show them with tracked changes
from the proposal that was presented to the Town Council at the December 1, 2015 Public Hearing.
The final RMUD Zoning Text Amendment will be reviewed by the Town Attorney prior to the February 8
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm
This report prepared by Vincent Piccirilli
Page 4 of 4
Aaron Dushku Requested Amendments Submitted 10:40 PM on 1/27/2016 with suggested updates by DCDP
Staff
Section 5.18 (d) Parking Requirements:
1) Off-street parking shall comply with the requirements of Article VI of the Watertown Zoning Ordinance.
2) Separation of parking costs:
Any parking spaces offered to residents of the residential component of a new development must be offered
as a fee -based option distinct from charges established for renting, leasing, or purchasing primary -use space
within the development. These fees shall reflect market realities (i.e. the actual value of parking).
shall he leased a olds rately from the rental a rchase Fees For dwclling units For the life eF the
space. Renters er buyers of onsite ieclusienary affordable units provided pursuant to Sestina. 5 07 shall have
r huyers of ether d...ellin.. u nits
3) Smart Parking Technology:
For projects with structured parking of over twenty thousand (,0,000) „ross seuare feet100 spaces, it is
required that said structured parking install and employ smart parking technology (e.g. equipment to count
the number of vehicles entering and exiting the parking area, availability of spaces, etc.).
Section 5.18 (h) Circulation:
1) Special consideration shall be given to infrastructure and design that will create direct public bicycle and
pedestrian path connections with adjacent public bicycle or pedestrian paths, and that minimizes barriers
separating such paths.
2) When appropriate, Applicant shall submit a conceptual wayfinding signage proposal for paths, access to
parks, and transit, at a minimum, with detailed plans shall tube submitted within a signage packet as part of
a Building Permit.
Addendum of additional Comments Received — EDP Committee 2/2/2016
1. Accommodating Local and Independent to bolster the local economy: 'Locally based and
Independent Retail - No more than fifty percent (50%) of new retail space in the RMUD shall be
occupied by retailers who own and operate retail establishments at more than five (5) locations
in Massachusetts at the time the retailer's lease is initially executed.
2. Affordability in housing, office and retail space:
a) 15 % of residential space shall be affordable to lower and middle-class residents: Our
town needs this for all new development to meet requirements. It would be good for
families and good for our affordable housing goals if we could raise the percentage of
affordable housing above the present 12 1/2 %.
b) % of retail space shall be affordable to small local start-ups in office and retail
locations.
c) A co -working space (like Work Bar, Oficio, or Idea -Space) shall be recruited to the
RMUD, or perhaps the developer shall choose to create its own shared -office space)
where local free-lance business folk can share the resources of that office to provide
affordable locations for them to do business outside their homes as needed.
3. Adopt "frontage limitations" for retail including banks and department stores with frontages
between 25'-40' along the street enhances the shopping experience and visual impact.
4. Transparency is another zoning consideration that makes for a livelier streetscape