Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board Report_80 Elm St_17 June 2015 SM Reviewed TOWN OF WATERTOWN 1630 Department of • Community Development and Planning PLANNING BOARD � Board Members: John B. Hawes,Jr., Chairman - Administration Building Linda Tuttle-Barletta 149 Main Street Jeffrey W. Brown Watertown, MA 02472 Fergal Brennock Phone: 617-972-6417 Neal Corbett Fax: 617-972-6484 www.watertown-ma.gov PLANNING BOARD REPORT On May 21, 2015, with five (5) members of the Planning Board (Board) present, case number ZBA-2015- 06 SP/SPR, a Special Permit with Site Plan Review, to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 24, 2015, was considered. The Board submits the following Report, as requested,to aid the Zoning Board of Appeals in deciding on the application before it. Case Number: ZBA-2015-06 SP/SPR Subject Property: 80 Elm Street Parcel ID: 123880 Zoning District: 1-1 (Industrial) Zoning District Petitioner(s): Cherag Patel, Elm Street Hospitality, LLC Owner: 80 Elm Street, LLC Zoning Relief Sought: Special Permit with Site Plan Review • §5.01.1(i): Hotel Use • §5.04: Table of Dimensional Regulations • §5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks • §5.05(i): Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • §9.03; §9.05; §9.06: Site Plan Review; Special Permit; Special Permit Criteria for the 1-1 and 1-2 Districts Special Permit Granting Authority: Zoning Board of Appeals Site Plan Review Meeting(s): January 6, 2015 Date of Staff Report: May 15, 2015 Date of Planning Board Report: May 22, 2015 Staff Recommendation: Conditional Approval Planning Board Meeting: Scheduled March 11, 2015; Continued to April 8, 2015; Continued to May 13, 2015; Continued to May 21, 2015 Special meeting Planning Board Recommendation: (3-2) Recommend Denial Zoning Board Hearing: Scheduled March 25, 2015; Continued to April 22, 2015; Continued to May 27, 2015; Continued to June 24, 2015 Page 1 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report I. PUBLIC NOTICE(M.G.L.c.40A.§11) A. Procedural Summary Petition ZBA-2015-06 was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Board on March 11, 2015, and was continued to April 8, 2015, continued to May 13, 2015, and continued again to be heard on a Special Meeting on May 21, 2015. The project was also scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 25, 2015, and was continued to April 22, 2015, and is scheduled to be heard on 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 March 6, 2015 and March 13, 2015 • Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on February 25, 2015 • Mailed to Parties in Interest on February 25, 2015 B. Legal Notice "Cherag Patel, Elm Hospitality LLC, % Winnick&Sullivan, 134 Main St., Watertown, MA 02472 herein requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in accordance with Watertown Zoning Ordinance§9.03, §9.05, §9.06 and subject to§5.01.1(i) Hotel Use;§5.04, Table of Dimensional Regulations;§5.05(i) FAR;§5.05(d)Side Yard Setbacks so as to construct a 5-story, approximately 64,300 s.f hotel with parking for 79 vehicles at the site of the former Atlantic Battery company. 1-1 (Industrial)Zoning District. ZBA-2015-06" jig Entrance to Site from Elm Residential Neighborhood Adjacent to the Site; Wheeler Court j `a k'a Adjacent Commercial Development on Elm Adjacent Commercial Development; Looking Street Down Elm Street towards Arsenal Street Page 2 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report II. DESCRIPTION A. Site Characteristics The 35,609+/-square foot(0.789 acre) site was until recently the site of the Atlantic Battery company. The 1-story, approximately 27,109 square foot battery manufacturing factory building was recently demolished. The Petitioner states that a cleanup was performed in connection with the proposed project "removed all of the soils that contained high levels of lead or other hazardous materials and disposed of it off-site in accordance with [the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection] regulations and supervision." As such,the site is currently devoid of buildings and all vegetation. B. Surrounding Land Use The project site is located approximately 2 miles from Watertown Square,just off the Arsenal Street corridor. This area has a mix of uses and building types with Watertown Mall located adjacent to the site to the south. There is a mix of smaller industrial and commercial uses interspersed with residential uses to the north. Wheeler Court is located immediately to the North (See Site Photos). C. Nature of the Request The Petitioner is seeking Site Plan Review/Special Permit for the construction and operation of a five- story, 104-room hotel of 63,691 Gross Square Feet,with a 13,665 square foot footprint, 11 surface parking spaces and 69 garage spaces in a podium garage (total of 80). The plans also proposes six(6) bicycle spaces. The proposed redevelopment includes new landscaping, exterior lighting, site drainage, and a redesigned site access/egress plan. The project has requested a reduction in Side Yard Setbacks to 2.6'to the southerly side and 3.1' on the northerly side. The project is also requesting a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.78 where 2.0 is allowed by Special Permit. D. Relevant Permitting History According to Department of Community Development& Planning(DCDP) and Zoning Board of Appeals records, 80 Elm Street has a permitting history that dates to 1911, showing a house and barn on the site, transitioning to Lydonville Creamery in the 1920's. Atlantic Battery began to do business at the site in the 1950's, with the Petitioner, Elm Street Hospitality purchasing the property on 12/23/13. In terms of Planning or Zoning Board actions in addition to Building Permits,there were only two records: 1. 1957: Variance to permit the Atlantic Battery plant. Conditions were specific to plant operations to prevent nuisance/hazard conditions. 2. 1976: Variance to allow construction of a silo to store oxide powder. Conditions were specific to the size and placement of the tank, and control on deliveries to fill that tank. None of the previous approvals, variances or conditions have any relevancy to the current petition. The Atlantic Battery buildings have been demolished, and the site has been subject to a hazardous materials/waste cleanup beginning in 2014.1 Regardless,the Planning staff recommended a condition stating that previous conditions and variances shall be eliminated as part of an approval. III. PUBLIC COMMENT DCDP staff attended a Community Meeting held by the Petitioner on January 20, 2015 at the Coolidge School Apartments Auditorium. The Petitioner received comments from interested participants related to the hotel's design, site design, adequacy of parking,transportation impacts on Elm Street, pedestrian 1 According to MA DEP records,the first notice of a release on site was 2/15/11. The first release abatement measure noted is dated 11/24/14. Page 3 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report impacts, impacts on abutting residential areas and surrounding streets. Included with the materials provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is a copy of the Petitioner's summary of the Community Meeting and other comments received by DCDP staff. In addition to the required Community Meeting, the Petitioner also held a neighborhood meeting on May 7, 2015 to gather input on the project's revised design. Public comment at the May 7, 2015 meeting seemed to center on traffic concerns and the height of the proposed building, suggesting that a five story building is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Summary of Written Comments Received by the Planning Board Date of Written Comments Email, Elodia Thomas,Concerns about design,scale,traffic impacts 1/5/15 Email, Paul Tamburello, Concerns about increased density,and scale of proposed hotel is not 1/7/15 consistent with the neighborhood Email, Paul Bruemmer: Concerns about building design,traffic impacts,overall lack of a need for a 1/10/15 hotel in that location Letter, Philip R. Holmes, Elm Street Realty Company: Owner of 110-114 Elm Street and 10-16 1/13/15 Chadbourne Terrace: Opposed to building of the hotel Letter, Patricia Stenson,General Manager,Watertown Mall: Issues with proposed project. Concerns 1/22/15 about diverted traffic as identified in the Petitioner's Traffic Study. Potential gridlock in the Mall parking lot. Concern that hotel will be used by the State for subsidized housing. Mall lot not available for any overflow parking. IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A. Plan and Guideline Consistencv Conditionally Met: DCDP staff suggest the proposed development is consistent with the Town's adopted planning documents. While the location is not ideal for a hotel, the hotel can provide a transition from its historically industrial use to a commercial use. 1. Watertown Growth Management Plan, 12/01/1988 • Portions of the industrially zoned areas in Watertown can no longer be considered as prime industrial sites due to changes in transportation systems, markets and industrial production techniques. • Consideration needs to be given to the eventual reuse of some of the less viable industrial sites. • The purpose of Industrial 1 and 2 districts is to designate those areas in Watertown where future regionally oriented industrial/commercial development is most appropriate. DCDP staff suggest that the proposed project is consistent with the first two goals, in that it redevelops a vacant and contaminated industrial site. The proposed hotel is also consistent with the 1998 Plan in that it will provide a regionally oriented commercial development. 2. Strategic Framework for Economic Development,08/02/2011 • The Plan identified the need for a hotel in Watertown without an identified location. DCDP staff finds that the proposed hotel will support economic development efforts along the Arsenal Street corridor. Page 4 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 3. Draft Comprehensive Plan, in progress Although not yet adopted,the draft Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area in terms of the Zoning Ordinance as office/industrial/mixed use. DCDP staff recommends that the proposed hotel use is consistent with this land use designation, and would likely be a supportive use to office/industrial/mixed use projects. 4. Draft Watertown Design Guidelines DCDP staff and Gamble Associates analyzed the proposed project for consistency with Watertown's draft Design Guidelines(as of 5/1/15), as public hearings have been held to discuss the draft Guidelines before project approval. Gamble Associates completed a design review of a revised project design developed in part in reaction to the January 2015 Community Meeting. DCDP staff and Gamble Associates suggest the project as conditioned is sufficiently consistent with and reflective of the draft Design Guidelines. The following is summary of the Design Report highlighting the nine components of the Design Guidelines: 1. Public Realm Interface: • Enhanced interface by orienting ground floor uses to Elm Street • Developed signage on Elm Street(See Component#9, below) • Vegetated buffer on Elm Street with outdoor seating • Appropriately scaled distance between street and building • Parking area screened • Considering an awning/canopy to shade outdoor space 2. Parking and Access: • Parking underground: Beneficial to site • Drop-off area sized appropriately Recommend: Space for car sharing and a car-charging station 3. Sustainable Design: • Using permeable pavers for above ground parking spaces where feasible Recommend: Rooftop solar;Larger caliper trees on South/East sides of building 4. Building Massing: • Emphasizing Southeast corner of the building as a signifier • Stair towers on South and North break up overall massing • Canopy on East fagade extending out for signage (See Component#9, below) • Increase opening size of corridor windows on Elm Street 5. Building Height: • Modest 5t"floor setback helps aesthetics of East elevation • Not running a 51"floor across Elm Street is beneficial; creates visual effect of 4 story building • Increased ground floor by 2 feet in height to improve overall building proportion and lobby 6. Building Setbacks: • Modest undulations in building's exterior beneficial 7. Facade Treatment: • Lobby space vastly improved by shifting it to Elm Street • Lobby use on ground floor appropriate • Greater ground floor transparency: beneficial as ground floor largely public Page 5 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 8. Material Selection: • Using non-synthetic and long-lasting materials • Materials palette consistent and relatively few to help break down massing 9. Signage: Two locations designated for signage: Front entrance on Elm Street and high up on the South fagade. Final sign package not yet developed. DCDP staff recommends that the project be conditioned to include at least one designated car sharing parking space and one vehicle charging station. The draft Design Guidelines also require a rooftop solar assessment for this project(any developments of 10,000 GSF or more). The tree caliper size will be determined as part of the Tree Warden's review. The final signage design will be part of a separate permitting process, and is part of the draft conditions. B. Special Permit with Site Plan Review §5.01.1(i): Hotel Use, §5.04: Table of Dimensional Regulations, §5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks; §5.05(i): Floor Area Ratio (FAR); §9.03; §9.05; §9.06: Site Plan Review; Special Permit; Special Permit Criteria for the 1-1 and 1-2 Districts Projects must meet the four conditions of approval for a Special Permit set forth in §9.05(b), §9.07, and §9.08 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: DCDP staff recommends the development proposal is an appropriate use and is consistent with the 2014 Zoning Amendment for Hotels and Motels within the Industrial Zoning Districts. The first reason given by the Town Council for this 2014 Zoning Amendment was "to address an opportunity for economic development associated with the location of a hotel"in Watertown. The proposed hotel redevelopment will also spur remediation of a site that was contaminated by the prior use. Site remediation has been completed, and it now has an Activity Use Limitation in place.That AUL allows construction of a hotel. The hotel use and location is also somewhat in keeping with the Watertown Mall shopping center located off Elm Street and the Arsenal Project mall across Arsenal Street. If approved,this hotel will also be near the previously approved Marriot Hotel at 570 Arsenal Street. According to elevation drawings and colored renderings included in the Petitioner's submittal, the project design includes a mix of metal panels painted in several colors, and painted cement fiberboard (See Plan A5.01). A canopy in a light green color above the ground floor entry provides another accent. Eleven (11) above ground parking spaces will be provided, with the rest(69 spaces) provided below ground in a podium garage under the hotel building(80 total spaces). Drive aisles allow appropriate site circulation. The entrance lobby is set off from Elm Street, with the hotel building moved towards the South side of the lot, providing a large setback from Wheeler Court. The project was analyzed the proposed project for consistency with Watertown's existing zoning in the 1-1 District and the draft Design Standards (as of 5/1/15). The Design Standards differ from the previously discussed Design Guidelines in that they will become part of the WZO. Page 6 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report DCDP staff notes the proposed project is required to have a Build-To Line, as determined by the SPGA, which is "the line with which the exterior of the building must coincide." Although not stated, the Build-To Line is generally determined relative to the "front." In this case, the "front" is on Elm Street. The I-1 District currently has no Build-To Line. The draft Design Standards propose that "[t]he Build- To Line may be increased[from 10 feet] up to a maximum of thirty(30)feet for proposed amenities such as a plaza, square, [or] courtyard..." The proposed project includes a raised terrace/plaza/courtyard in front of the entrance on Elm Street, such that the building exterior starts at 22.5 feet from the property line. These amenities are encouraged by the new Design Standards, so DCDP staff recommends the requested 22.5 feet to allow amenities adjacent to the sidewalk is appropriate. The design of the proposed hotel is consistent with the 1-1 District whether or not the draft Design Guidelines are adopted. A Setback is "the minimum horizontal distance from the lot line to the nearest part of the structure." The 1-1 District has a Side Yard setback of 25 feet with the ability to decrease it by Special Permit, and a 30-foot Rear Yard setback. As proposed,the project is compliant with the required Setbacks, with a request for relief from the Side Yards to allow 2.6 feet on the southerly Side Yard and 3.1 feet on the northerly Side Yard. In addition to relief from the Side Yard Setbacks, the Petitioner is seeking a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.78 where 2.0 is allowed by Special Permit. Finally,the proposed project is 55 feet in height. The implications of the proposed height are discussed below under Site Plan Review Criteria§9.03(c)(2). 2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Conditionally Met: DCDP staff suggest the proposed redevelopment will improve the neighborhood by eliminating the underutilized and contaminated former Atlantic Battery site, replacing it with a use that will bring people to this part of Elm Street. The proposed development would improve the site's impact on the Charles River, Williams Pond and Sawins Pond/Brook by managing stormwater runoff on-site and increasing site infiltration by managing how impervious surfaces are treated. The Petitioner's Drainage Report states the redesign will include hooded, deep sump catch basins, a bioretention area, and stormwater infiltration. The proposal will infiltrate roof runoff, a cleaner stormwater than parking lot runoff. The 1, 10, 25 and 100-year storm events were analyzed, and the proposed new drainage system will capture and treat the 100-year event,which is consistent with the DPW's draft stormwater management standards. 3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians. Conditionally Met: DCDP staff notes the site currently has frontage on Elm Street, and one curb cut. With the proposed redevelopment, the existing curb cut at Elm Street will be retained, and the site will be completely reconfigured. The frontage on Elm Street will have a patio between the front door and the sidewalk, landscaped area, planting beds and trees in addition to the site entrance. Page 7 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report TRAFFIC REVIEW AND FINDINGS The proposed project is subject to review under WZO §9.06(c) but it has been determined by the Town to use a peer review transportation consultant and identify appropriate mitigation/improvements. The Petitioner's Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS), prepared by Ron Muller&Associates (RM&A), dated October 15, 2014 was subject to peer review by WorldTech, one of Watertown's outside traffic consultants. The TIAS was also supplemented by a January 23, 2015 Memo and a 2/6/15 Traffic Study Summary. These three documents provided the Petitioner's transportation analysis of the project, including proposed mitigation proposals. The proposed development analyzed in the TIAS is a 103-room hotel. The Petitioner's Project Narrative describes the current proposal as a 102-room project. The TIAS includes an analysis of four (4) intersections listed below,two of which have traffic signals and two do not: ➢ Arlington Street at Elm Street ➢ Arsenal Street at Watertown Mall ➢ Arsenal Street at Elm Street ➢ Arsenal Street at Arlington Street and Coolidge Avenue It also included the following development projects approved or currently under review or planned: 202-204 Arsenal Street, Boylston Properties Hotel, 60 Howard Street/40 Bacon Street, 33 Mt. Auburn Street,the Elan project, and the CVS Pharmacy in Coolidge Square. The TIAS included a crash history analysis which showed that crash rates all the intersections in the Study Area were significantly lower than the MassDOT District 6 average and Statewide averages. According to the 2/6/15 Traffic Study Summary,the project is expected to generate trips as shown on the following table: From Ron Muller&Associates 2/6/15 Traffic Study Summary Period Total Trips Trips Entering / Trips Exiting Weekday Daily 550 - Weekday AM Peak Hour 55 32 / 23 Weekday PM Peak Hour 62 32 / 30 Saturday Daily 700 - Saturday Midday Peak Hour 75 42 / 33 RM&A acknowledges an existing Level of Service of D the Elm Street/Arsenal Street intersection. It also states that the project's additional traffic will not change the LOS at this intersection, "but will exacerbate the already over-capacity situation calculated under the No Build Saturday Peak Hour conditions." The Petitioner's suggested resolution is that traffic will self-divert into the Watertown Mall parking lot,thereby exiting on Arsenal Street at the signalized Mall driveway. In concert with this self- diversion into the Watertown Mall parking lot,the TIAS recommends prohibiting left turns from Elm Street onto Eastbound Arsenal Street, with diversion of traffic to the Watertown Mall driveway or signalized intersection at Arsenal Street/Arlington Street/Coolidge Avenue. Page 8 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report Town' Peer Review: World Tech Analysis 1. Traffic Growth and No-Build: The planned office redevelopment at 65 Grove Street should have been included in the No-Build traffic network. 2. Intersection Crash Historv: The four intersections are below the Statewide and MA DOT District 6 average crash rates. At the same time,the right-in/right-out Arsenal Mall driveway approximately 200 feet West of the signalized Watertown Mall driveway is a High Crash Location. 3. Diversions through the Watertown Mall: Proposed traffic diversions are not desirable, and restricting the Southbound left turn from Elm Street onto Arsenal Street is not recommended. Creating cut-through traffic on private property is not recommended, and the Arsenal Mall driveway has been identified by MassDOT as a High Crash Location. 4. Signal at Arsenal and Elm Streets: Diversions of traffic through the Watertown Mall is not acceptable to handle anticipated new project trips. Petitioner should evaluate a traffic signal to provide safe and efficient operations and to mitigate project-generated traffic. 5. Traffic Calming: Provide traffic-calming features at the intersection of Arlington and Elm Streets, and improve wheelchair ramps and crosswalks. Petitioner's Suggested Offsite Improvements RM&A's 2/6/15 Traffic Study Summary further refines the proposed trip generation information and package of offsite improvements. Key points include: A. A contribution by the Petitioner of$100,000 towards proposed future improvements at the Arsenal Street/Elm Street intersection, B. Extend pedestrian "bump outs" at the Arlington/Elm Street intersection ($20,000 estimated cost) to improve visibility for both pedestrians and motorists,to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, and to act as a calming measure by narrowing the width of Arlington Street, and C. A recommendation to adjust the signal controller settings and loop detection for the Arlington Street approach to Arsenal Street WorldTech analyzed the Petitioner's suggested off-site improvements in a 2/10/15 letter to the DPW Superintendent, and states "the proposed off-site improvement measures would adequately mitigate project impacts." WorldTech estimates the construction cost of a traffic signal and associated wheelchair ramp improvements at the Arlington Street at Elm Street intersection, excluding any additional roadway or drainage improvements, would be approximately$185,000, with design cost of approximately$18,500 to $22,200. The Petitioner's contribution is$100,000 or approximately half of the total cost of the improvements. WorldTech's final recommendation in the 2/10/15 letter is that the Petitioner implement a traffic- monitoring program to evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections six months and twelve months after the opening of the hotel. Page 9 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report DCDP staff recommends that the Petitioner's proposed offsite improvements adequately address the project's estimated trip generation impacts. Staff also recommends the project be conditioned to require: a. A post-occupancy transportation assessment, consistent with WorldTech's recommendation, b. Petitioner participate in the formation of a Transportation Management Association, which would include shuttle service serving the corridor, including financial contributions in a proportionate share, and c. Petitioner create an onsite Transportation Demand Management program Additional analysis of the project's pedestrian impacts and proposed solutions is discussed in response to Site Plan Review Criteria§9.03 (c)(4): Circulation, below. 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. As noted above under Criterion #2, project parcel currently has negligible stormwater management in place. According to the Petitioner's, Drainage Report, dated 12/12/14, produced by Bohler Engineering, the majority of the site runoff drains towards the Watertown Mall and receives no stormwater treatment. Ultimately, almost all of it goes into the municipal drainage system via a connection at Elm Street. The proposed redevelopment will manage site and building stormwater with deep sump/hood catch basins, and a vegetated infiltration basin in the Northwest corner of the site. Petitioner will implement a Long Term Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan (Plan)to handle the new 22,825 square feet of impervious area in the redeveloped condition. The Plan proposes to decrease runoff volume and peak rates by increasing site recharge,and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) including site sweeping, catch basin cleaning,twice-yearly mowing of the bio-retention area, and the new structural improvements noted above. The Petitioner also proposes to reconfigure the drainage connection to the municipal system tie-in on Elm Street, and implement construction phase BMPs to reduce runoff during this period. The construction phase BMPs include use of erosion controls. The Petitioner's Drainage Report also includes a Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan, which seeks to reduce pollutant loads in stormwater. This Plan includes controls such as a basic hazardous waste storage and management protocol, which is advisable since the proposed hotel is likely to generate used fluorescent bulbs, televisions, and computers. All of these, when discarded, are Regulated Wastes in Massachusetts, and must be handled separately from general solid waste and recyclables. The project is also likely to generate unusable pool chemicals. Pool shock and chlorine tablets,when disposed of, are potentially classified as Hazardous Wastes as corrosives. Given this, DCDP recommends the Petitioner upgrade the draft Pollution Prevention Plan to deal with these regulated and Hazardous wastes. Sheet 6, Utility Plan, of the Control Documents, shows the locations of the project's electrical transformer and refuse dumpsters. The transformer pad is on the front of the building,just to the Page 10 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report south of the rear fagade. The Utility Plan shows the transformer will be surrounded by a wooden stockade fence. The proposed trash/recycling dumpsters are also shown on the Utility Plan, within an enclosure to match the building fagade,just beyond the rear wing. The dumpster enclosure will also be partially screened from Wheeler Court by a retaining wall for the garage entrance, and a fence. The location and screening for transformer and the trash/recycling dumpsters are acceptable, as they are unlikely to be visible from beyond the property. The Petitioner offers several amenities for guests as shown on A-101, Main Level Floor Plan, including an indoor swimming pool, laundry, fitness room, and an area marked "servery" where guests can get prepared food. Exterior lighting is addressed below in the Site Plan Review Criteria under the Design criterion. Site Plan Review Criteria§9.03(c) Prior to the official filing of the Application, a meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee (Committee) was held on January 6, 2015. Present at the meeting were members of the Site Plan Review Committee (consisting of Town Staff and Committee members) and the Petitioner and his consultant team, who presented the proposal, after which members of the Committee were invited to respond with questions, comments, and suggestions. The ten criteria for Site Plan Review provided in §9.03(c) of the WZO and Committee comments have been incorporated into this report where appropriate. The following are the Findings as identified through analysis of the updated project and the initial Committee 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 DCDP staff note that the previous use of the property,the Atlantic Battery, has been removed to accommodate the onsite cleanup of prior lead contamination. As such,the site is completely cleared, and has no vegetation. There are some existing trees along the abutting properties that the Petitioner states will be protected, and maintained as a natural buffer between the site and the back of the Watertown Mall. As shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheet 9)the Petitioner proposes to provide significant landscaping on the site, including a landscaped buffer along Elm Street. Proposed enhancements include street trees and planting beds. The existing sidewalk along Elm Street will be preserved. The new street trees will need a final review by Watertown's Tree Warden, in conjunction with Planning staff. 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: DCDP staff note the proposed structure is substantial in nature in comparison to surrounding industrial and residential uses, at 53+/-feet in height and a fagade of approximately 150+/-feet in length along Page 11 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report the property line with the Watertown Mall. The project is relying on the proposed Design Standards to allow a height taller than the 50-foot maximum in the 1-1 District. If the Design Standards are not approved,the project must be conditioned to be no taller than the WZO requirement of 50 feet. The WZO does not currently have a maximum fagade length, and as proposed,the project is consistent with Design Standard amendment of Section 5.05(f). The project's consistency with other draft Design Standards (as approved by the Planning Board as of 5/1/15) is also addressed in response to Special Permit Criterion §9.05(b)(1), above. Many of the area residents have expressed concern that the building height is out of character with the neighborhood and suggested a 3 story building height. The project has provided renderings that speak to this issue as well. 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: As noted above under the discussion of site landscaping, the site is vacant and devoid of vegetation. As such, DCDP staff notes the proposed redevelopment will increase the amount of usable open space on the site, through creation of landscaped areas within and around the property boundaries.The table on the Site Plan, Sheet 4, indicates the project will provide slightly more than the required amount of onsite open.The project also provides an outdoor seating area adjacent to Elm Street frontage that is available to the public. 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: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 4 in the Control Documents,vehicular access to the site will be from a single access from Elm Street. DCCP staff note the entrance/exit drive is 24 feet wide at its narrowest point. The total parking for the site according to the Petitioner is 80 total spaces. The Petitioner's project narrative states, "the project does not require a formal loading dock...service deliveries will be accommodated in the center cul-de-sac area. Predominantly, deliveries will be by box truck and similar sized vehicles." §607(a)(1) of the WZO 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 draft Design Standards, the proposed new requirements for bicycle parking for this type of use are "one bicycle parking space for every 15 automobile parking spaces in commercial/office mixed-use developments...with a minimum of six(6)spaces must be provided." [Emphasis added] Based on the Zoning Analysis Table on Sheet 4,the Petitioner proposes to provide six(6) bicycle parking spaces. This is one more than required number based on the proposed 80 total automobile parking spaces (80/ 15 =5.33). Sheet 13, Construction Detail Sheet, indicates the Petitioner will use a single inverted "U" style of bicycle rack, and shows a small schematic that indicates they will be adjacent to a building wall. Sheet 4,Site Plan, shows the location of the racks, near the entrance facing the inner courtyard, on an area of permeable pavers near the disabled parking spaces. Bike/Ped Committee concerns articulated at the 1/6/15 Developer's Conference were: Page 12 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report ■ Increased traffic on Elm Street would make it and surrounding streets less pleasant for pedestrians so traffic calming measures should be considered ■ Increased traffic at the Arlington Street/Elm Street intersection may cause safety issues, so traffic calming measures and lighting would help mitigate this As noted above in response to Special Permit Criteria§9.05(b)(3), the Petitioner has agreed to implement pedestrian "bump outs" at the Arlington/Elm Street intersection, an improvement estimated at $20,000. Finally, while the Petitioner has revised the design to incorporate pedestrian amenities,the hotel as a use is vehicle-centric. As such,the project also needs to provide better transit options by participating, including financially in proportion to the project's impact, in a Transportation Management Association (TMA)that provides shuttle service to supplement the existing MBTA transit available within the Arsenal Street corridor. S. 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, as there currently is no stormwater management at the site. As noted above in response to Special Permit Criteria §9.05(b)(2) and (b)(4),the proposed redevelopment will manage site and building stormwater with deep sump/hood catch basins, and a vegetated infiltration basin in the Northwest corner of the site. The Petitioner will implement a Long Term Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan. Peak rates of run-off are better(less) than pre-development conditions and minimize impacts to the Town's stormwater system. Stormwater design will require a final review and approval of the proposed system by Watertown's Department of Public Works. 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 that proposed electric,telephone and cable TV service will be provided by the existing overhead wires on Elm Street, with the new service to the site put underground. Sanitary sewage will connect to an existing sewer line on Elm Street.The project will also provide interior garage floor drains routed through an oil/water separator which will be connected to the municipal stormwater system. Sewer and water design will require a final review and approval of the proposed system by Watertown's Department of Public Works. 7. Environmental Sustainabilitii: "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 states the new building "will utilize energy efficient technologies wherever possible..."including "energy efficient lighting, automatic lighting controls in common areas, recycled building materials [and] low VOC paints..." The DCDP staff notes the proposed Design Page 13 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report Guidelines will require the project to conduct an energy assessment to determine the viability of a rooftop photovoltaic system. 8. Screenim "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: As noted above under the analysis with respect to Special Permit Criteria §9.05(b)(4),the new hotel will require a transformer and refuse/recycling dumpsters.The transformer pad is on the front of the building,just to the south of the rear fagade, but will be surrounded by a wooden stockade fence. The proposed trash/recycling dumpsters are also shown on the Utility Plan, within an enclosure to match the building fagade,just beyond the rear wing. Sheet A106, Roof Plan and Sheet A5.02, Exterior Elevations (West), which are part of the Control Documents, show the relative position of roof-mounted HVAC systems,The Roof Plan indicates that the HVAC units will be screened by a fence or wall. It also appears, based on the other elevation drawings, that the slope and configuration of the roof will shield views of roof-mounted HVAC equipment. As noted in Site Plan Review Criteria §9.03(c)(4),the hotel will not have a dedicated loading dock, but will use the circular area of pavers just off the main entrance to accommodate delivery trucks. 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." Met: The Petitioner states that the proposed hotel will be built in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws. The hotel will include a fire suppression sprinkler system, alarm system with centralized alarm panels located for ease of use by emergency responders. The building will also be American with Disabilities Act compliant. Also,the drive aisles around the building will be at least 24 feet wide. 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." Conditionally Met: The Petitioner's proposed site lighting design has been analyzed for consistency with the draft new Exterior Lighting standards,these new standards are being proposed as part of the draft new Design Standards and would be incorporated into the WZO. Proposed site lighting shown on Sheet 11,Site Lighting, and is limited to five (5) parking lot pole mounted fixtures supplied by Beacon Lighting. Sheet 11 provides a key that gives a basic description and diagram of proposed fixture, and estimates the foot-candle levels these lights.The proposed parking lot light is to be at a finished height of 20 feet, which is consistent with the draft lighting standard #5,which requires that "developments that abut residential areas or are visible from public roadways shall not utilize parking lot lights exceeding 20'-0"in height(base+pole+head)." The proposed parking lot fixtures are also consistent with the following other proposed exterior lighting standards: • Light source is Light Emitting Diode (LED), • Fixtures are decorative, consistent with the architectural theme of the development, Page 14 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report • Proposed lights are not Flood,Area or Up-lights, which would be prohibited, • The luminaires have a total cutoff of all light at less than ninety(90) degrees from vertical,the fixture is only be visible from below, has flush optics (no drop lens), and • The foot-candle diagram indicates a total cutoff of measurable light at the property lines of the parcel to be developed. Sheet 11 also provides an indication that there will be eighteen (18) illuminated bollards along the front entrance. No details are provided relative to these fixtures. To be consistent with the draft Exterior Lighting standards,the bollards must have shielding that the light is directed downward. Many manufacturers make bollards with louvers that meet this requirement. No details were provided concerning any other proposed site lights, such as wall-packs, recessed fixtures, etc. According to a telephone conversation with the Petitioner on May 5, 2015,the project will also include recessed fixtures in the roof element over the main entrance. A decorative green vertical strip in the fa4ade facing the Watertown Mall from ground level up to the top of the building will be illuminated with white LEDs. These types of fixtures are consistent with the draft Exterior Design standards. The project has also made a number of adjustments to the design of the building on the site, and the architectural features of the building, and in so doing, have made the building relate to Elm Street with a more attractive facade. While a number of neighbors have expressed concern regarding the massing of the structure,the project design does mitigate these impacts to some extent, and this is an issue that the Zoning Board of Appeals will need to consider. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information submitted for the record, DCDP staff finds that 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. DCDP staff recommends that a Special Permit with Site Plan Review under§5.01.1(i), Hotel Use, §5.04: Table of Dimensional Regulations; §5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks, and §5.05(i): Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be granted with the conditions shown below. Compliance To be # Condition Timeframe Verified by Control Documents.This approval is based upon the application materials and the Control Documents titled 'Site Development Plans for Elm Hospitality, LLC: 80 Elm Street Town of Watertown, Middlesex County, Massachusetts: Permit Set"for Elm Street Hospitality, LLC,set dated February 27, 2015, latest revision of 4/29/15, submitted by the Petitioner, by Bohler Engineering and M.D.Smith,as modified by these conditions: 1 1. Sheet 1, Cover Perpetual ZEO/ISD 2. Sheet 2,General Notes 3. Sheet 3, Demolition Plan 4. Sheet 4,Site Plan 5. Sheet 5,Grading& Drainage Plan 6. Sheet 6, Utility Plan 7. Sheet 7,Soil Erosion &Sediment Control Plan 8. Sheet 8,Soil Erosion Control Notes& Details Sheet Page 15 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 7Timefirame ance To be # Condition Verified by 9. Sheet 9, Landscape Plan 10. Sheet 10, Landscape Notes& Details Sheet 11. Sheet 11, Lighting Plan, (to be revised to show all site exterior fixtures) 12. Sheet 12,Construction Details Sheet 13. Sheet 13, Construction Details Sheet 14. Sheet 14,Construction Details Sheet 15. Sheet 15,Construction Details Sheet 16. Existing Conditions Plan of 80 Elm Street by P.J.F&Associates,4 Highland Avenue,Wakefield, MA 01880,dated Deptember 9, 2014[sic] 17. Exterior Rendering(color): 80 Elm Street, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, undated, received by Email on 5/1/15 18. A1.01—First Level Floor Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, 21 Drydock Avenue, Boston, MA, dated 4/23/15 19. A102—2 d Level Floor Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates,dated 3/25/15 20. A103—V Level Floor Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates,dated 4/30/15 21. A104-41h Level Floor Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates,dated 4/30/15 22. A105—51h Floor Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates,dated 3/25/15 23. A106—Roof Plan, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, dated 4/30/15 24. A501—Elevations,South/East, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, dated 3/25/15 25. A502—Exterior Elevations, North/West, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, dated 4/30/15 26. A6.01—Building Sections, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, dated 4/30/15 27. A6.02—Building Sections, by Silverman/Trykowski Associates, dated 4/30/15 28. Street Views/Simulations: Color packet of 9 pages,Silverman &Trykowski Associates, received 5/14/15 29. Project Narrative by Winnick&Sullivan, LLP dated 2/10/15, revised 5/15/15 30. Drainage Report,dated 12/12/14, by Bohler Engineering 31. Traffic Impact/Access Study,dated October 15,2014, by Ron Muller&Associates 32. Traffic Study Summary, dated 2/6/15, by Ron Muller&Associates Plan Modifications. Neither the Petitioners 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, including changes to floor plans that do not change the number of bedrooms, may be considered and approved by the DCDP Director 2 that are found to be consistent with the project approval granted by the Special Perpetual ZEO/ISD Permit Granting Authority. p /DCDP The Control Documents depict the Project's compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, as proposed to be amended by the zoning amendments related to the 2015 Design Standards and Guidelines Project,as initially advertised March 13,2015. Aspects of the Control Documents,such as building height,shall be allowed to be updated to comply with the Zoning Ordinance,as may be amended pursuant to such proposed zoning amendments,through a review and approval process as determined by the DCDP Director,which process shall not require a public hearing. Recordation. Upon application for a Building Permit,the Petitioner shall provide 3. evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this entire decision has been filed BP ZEO with the Registry of Deeds,and/or Land Court. 4 Codes/Regulation Compliance.The Petitioner shall comply with all other applicable CO ZEO/ISD local,state,and federal requirements,ordinances,and statutes. Page 16 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 7Timefirame ance To be # Condition Verified by Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection. A copy of the Building Permit with final 5. approval signatures from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the Zoning CO ZEO Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project. 6 As-Built(s).The Petitioner shall submit a certified "As-Built"foundation plot plan BP ZEO/ISD showing all dimensional setbacks at the time of foundation inspection. Demolition and Construction.The Petitioner shall: A. Follow the required demolition permitting, including, 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 Prior to 7. Regulation Section 3F.)and a plan for the control and mitigation of on-site Demo ISD noise,odors, dust, asbestos, and rodent abatement to the Health Permit Department. B. Submit a plan for vehicle parking during construction to the Police Department Signage. No signs shall be permitted except those that meet the signage 8. requirements in Article 7 of the WZO,and those shall be subject to a separate review Perpetual Planning and permit process. 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 9. has not sooner commenced except for good cause,or, in the case of a permit for Perpetual ZEO construction, if the construction has not begun by such date except for good cause, or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law. 10. Prior Approvals.All previous approvals and conditions of special permits and Perpetual ZEO variances relating to any part of this site shall be nullified as part of this approval. Stormwater. The Petitioner shall: A. Implement a stormwater system and the Long Term Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan and Best Management Practices as described in the Drainage Report listed in the Control Documents,subject to DPW review and final approval prior to Building Permit. B. The Petitioner or its successor shall maintain in good condition and promptly repair all components of the drainage system, in accordance with 11. the Long Term Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan. This shall Perpetual ZEO/DPW constitute a perpetual condition of the Special Permit. i. Copies of all post-construction inspection and maintenance records and invoices shall be kept for a period of five(5)years and be made available to DPW upon request. The Town reserves the right to enter the property to perform inspection and maintenance activities,should the Owner/Petitioner or their successor fail to do so,and to charge the Property Owner for the costs of doing so. 12 Utilities.All utilities servicing the site shall be underground. Sewer and water BP/ ZEO/DPW connections will require final review and approval by DPW. Perpetual Page 17 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 7Timefirame ance To be # Condition Verified by Transportation: The Petitioner shall: A. Implement a Transportation Monitoring Program to document traffic increases. The Program shall provide a report to the DPW and DCDP with daily vehicle counts, accident data,speed data on adjacent streets,as well as pedestrian and bicycle counts. The report shall document any deviations from projections made in the Transportation Impact and Access Study referenced in the Control Documents. Monitoring shall occur six months, 12 months,and 24 months after issuance of the Certificate of Use/Occupancy. B. If monitoring shows that the project has had a greater impact and/or the 6 months/ mitigation measures provided by the Petitioner are insufficient,then the 12 months/ 13. DCDP Director reserves the right to require the Petitioner to conduct 24 months ZEO/IDS additional analysis. Should the analysis identify adverse operational issues after /DPW/DCDP that can be directly linked to the proposed project,the DCDP Director may issuance of require additional traffic mitigation measures off-site. CO/ Perpetual C. If the DCDP Director is of the opinion that an independent peer review of any of the traffic monitoring reports required in this Decision is necessary the Petitioner shall fund said assistance to the Town. D. Participate in the formation of,and continued participation in,a Transportation Management Association,which would include shuttle service serving the Arsenal Street/Elm Street corridor, including financial contributions in a proportionate share. DPW/Site Plan/Transportation: The Petitioner shall: A. Prior to the Building Permit,submit construction plans of all off-site improvements for review and approval by DPW and the Planning Department. All off-site improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the DPW prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. B. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy,submit As-Built plans, showing site utilities, layout,topography and other pertinent information,for the project 14. to the DPW for approval upon completion of construction activities and BP/CO ZEO/DPW prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. i. The Petitioner shall specify how the completed project/As Built Plans differs from that shown on the Control Plans.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 Control Plans. C. Elm Street is a "moratorium street,"and as such,the Petitioner shall provide curb-to-curb pavement restoration within the limits of work at the direction of DPW. Transportation Contribution: The Petitioner has agreed to the following transportation contributions or offsite work: A. A contribution of$100,000 to the Town of Watertown towards proposed future improvements at the Arsenal Street/Elm Street intersection, 15. B. Extend pedestrian "bump outs"at the Arlington/Elm Street intersection to CO ZEO/DCDP improve visibility for both pedestrians and motorists,to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, and to act as a calming measure by narrowing the width of Arlington Street, and C. Adjust the signal controller settings and loop detection for the Arlington Street approach to Arsenal Street Page 18 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report 7Timefirame ance To be # Condition Verified by Landscaping,Site Plan and Screening: The Petitioner shall: A. Install sidewalk and granite curbing along the property frontage on Elm Street per DPW requirements and approval process. B. Provide DCDP a signage program for site way finding. C. Provide all necessary easements for on-site sidewalks/pedestrian/bicycle access, utilities,and public safety. D. Provide screening for roof top HVAC and other systems. 16. In addition: BP/ ZEO/IDS/ E. The Landscape Plan shall be subject to review and approval by Watertown's Perpetual DCDP Tree Warden/Conservation Agent and DCPD staff for species appropriateness, mix,size,quantity,and spacing and provision of structural soil where necessary as approved by the Tree Warden. F. All exterior lighting for the site shall be fully shielded and full cutoff. G. All exterior lighting for the site shall be subject to a final review and approval by the Building Commissioner and DCPD staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Bicycle Parking,Car Sharing,and Vehicle Charge Station: The Petitioner shall: A. Install bicycle parking in compliance with the styles required by§6.07(a)(2), 17 or using a style as allowed by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. CO ZEO/DCDP B. Provide at least one charging station for electric vehicles. C. Designate at least one parking space for car sharing. At the determination of the DCDP Director,this space may be generally used for vehicle parking. Refuse/Transformers. The Petitioners shall: 18 A. Screen the transformer BP/ ZEO/ B. Ensure all trash and recycling are properly separated and collected by a Perpetual DCDP private waste management company. Environmental Sustainability. The Petitioner shall have an energy assessment 19 completed to determine the viability of a rooftop or canopy photovoltaic system. CO DCDP The project shall submit documentation that the project is LEED certifiable, including the necessary checklist indicating items provided. Occupancy: The hotel shall not enter into a contract with the Department of 20. Housing and Community Development for short/long-term housing, nor allow Perpetual ZEO "compression"overflow for student housing from colleges/universities,etc. 21 Snow Storage: Storage or removal of snow shall be coordinated with the Perpetual DPW Department of Public Works. VI. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board discussed the impacts of the project at the May 21, 2015 Planning Board meeting. A summary of public comments/testimony received at the 5/21/15 Planning Board meeting are shown in the table below. Member Corbett asked if the Petitioner has a specific operator for the proposed hotel? He also asked if the ground floor uses would be open to the public? He asked if the site has been remediated? The Petitioner, Cherag Patel said he could not yet make public the specific hotel operator, but suggested the hotel could be a variant of Marriott or Hyatt. Mr. Patel described the ground floor uses, including the lobby/dining area for guests. He noted the limited food service available, but also that the lobby and the outside terrace area would be open to the public. Mr. Patel noted the site had been cleaned up to MA Department of Environmental Protection standards, but that he would remove more soil as part of the project,thereby removing any remaining areas of potential contamination. Page 19 of 21 80 Elm Street June 17, 2015 ZBA-2015-06—SP/SPR Planning Board Report Member Tuttle-Barletta said she did not think the proposed project met Site Plan Review Criterion #2 under section 9.05(b): Relation of Buildings to Environment. This was primarily associated with a large hotel being out of context for the surrounding properties and the existing neighborhood. The Board also had concerns related to the traffic impacts associated with the use in the context of Elm Street and its surroundings. (Summary of Comments Received by the Planning Board at the 5/21/15 Hearing (Size,scale and height of the proposed hotel is too great for Elm Street (Elm Street is narrow,and already impacted by traffic. Can't handle more traffic from the proposed hotel. Concerned about the onsite parking. May not be enough for guests,etc. If so,concerned that overflow cars will park illegally on adjacent residential streets and surrounding properties. Traffic study is also flawed. Location is not ideal. Hotel should be on Pleasant or Arsenal Streets. Only one means of access/egress under building element. What about emergency vehicles? Elm Street can't take more traffic, it's too narrow. Guests won't walk to other areas,so that will create more vehicle trips. Developer should reduce the size of the project so it is more in scale with the neighborhood. Concerned about impacts to Filippello Park. Elm Street will become a cut-through. Hotel is a 24-7 operation, and therefore, it will have more impact on the neighborhood than existing businesses. Hotel is a reasonable use for the site. Walking distance to the Watertown Mall. Pedestrian improvements and traffic signal a good idea. Suggest the design go through one more iteration to break up South and North facades. In favor of proposed development. Better design. Solar assessment and post-occupancy traffic assessment are positives. Adding a vehicle charging station and contribution to TMA positives. Area is in transition: Lumber yard, Target,etc. Additional hotel in Watertown is a benefit because of the room tax. Based on the information submitted for the record and testimony received,the Planning Board (3 to 2) recommends that the proposed project be denied as it does not meet all of the criteria set forth under §9.03(c) and §9.05(b). Page 20 of 21 8 Elm Street June«E2«5 ZAG0506-\PSR Planning Board Report r\/ \ _ /h �\Q922y/ - � lN, ! y/\|■$80kgd/a\/E 2 � # , U) % � (D j O � U) � oI� % W �A ` C) CC) LU Ju = / ` �$ \¥ , 2 & � \ ¥ = o \ OMB § EL M ELM ST MST \ / §§ - \ §| § / | §| � � ; / , IL 7 21 of 21