HomeMy Public PortalAboutStatementNarrative in Support of Special Permit and Variance Amendment Application
Repton Place
The Project received special permits and variances pursuant to the Existing Decisions.
As summarized in the Zoning Compliance Chart on Sheet C-1 of the Plans submitted with this
application, the minor changes to the Project described in this Application do not require new or
additional zoning relief. The Petitioner has reviewed the minor changes to the Project with the
Department of Community Development and Planning and the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Specific Conditions Contingent to Findings section of each of the
Existing Decisions, the Planning Department and Zoning Enforcement Officer confirmed the
proposed minor changes require an amendment of the Existing Decisions.
The Petitioner respectfully requests the ZBA (i) approve the plans filed with this
Application as the Control Plans, as such term is defined in the Existing Decisions, for Phase II
of the Project; (ii) approve the minor project changes described in this Application as an
amendment to the Existing Decisions; and (iii) confirm that the requirements in the Existing
Decisions, as amended, which apply to Phase I will be enforced only against Phase I and the
Phase I owner, and that the requirements in the Existing Decisions, as amended, which apply to
Phase II will be enforced only against Phase II and the Phase II owner.
Special Permits
The proposed modifications to the Existing Decisions meet the criteria for the issuance of
Special Permits under Section 9.03 and 9.05 of the Watertown Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 9.05 Criteria:
1. Is the subject site an appropriate location for such use, structure, and/or condition?
The ZBA found that the Project site is an appropriate location for the Project in Section
II.1 of the Existing Special Permit Decision, finding specifically that "the redevelopment
of the site for housing, with appropriately designed structures and site layout, will
improve the Pleasant Street corridor." The proposed modifications to Phase II
substantially maintain the previously approved location and site layout (except for the
addition of a pool and slight changes to an access drive and parking numbers) and
therefore, continue to meet the requirement for being an appropriate location.
2. Will the proposed use/structures adversely affect the neighborhood?
The ZBA found that the Project will not have not have an adverse affect on the
neighborhood in Section II.2 of the Existing Special Permit Decision. In making that
finding, the ZBA reviewed the FAR, height, and traffic impacts of the Project. The
height impacts of Phase II with the proposed changes will not change and, as stated
above, the previously approved location and site layout is not changing. As stated in the
updated traffic assessment analyzing the proposed modifications to Phase II enclosed
with the Application, the projected slight increase in traffic resulting from the change
from condominium ownership to rental in Phase II will not result in a material increase in
GSDOCS\2140654.5
vehicle delays or queuing over previously approved conditions. We note also the required
off site traffic mitigation measures required by the Existing Conditions have been
completed. Therefore, with the proposed modifications, Phase II will continue not to
adversely affect the neighborhood.
3. Is there potential for nuisance or serious hazards to vehicles or pedestrians?
The ZBA found that there would be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or
pedestrians in the Section II.3 of the Existing Special Permit Decision. In making that
determination, the ZBA took into consideration the parking and access provided at the
site and the on and offsite traffic improvements to be constructed by the applicant. The
specified off site traffic improvements required by the Existing Decisions have been
implemented, as have the on site improvements for Phase I. Phase II will incorporate the
previously designated on site traffic improvements in the Existing Decisions as well,
provided that it will make the access drive between Building 1 and Building 2 one way so
as to limit the potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflict in the area of the proposed
pool. Therefore, with the proposed modifications, Phase II will continue to not create a
potential for nuisance or serious hazards to vehicles or pedestrians.
4. Will adequate and appropriate facilities be provided for the proper operation of the
proposed use?
The ZBA found that there would be adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper
operation of the Project in Section IL4 of the Existing Decision. In making that finding,
the ZBA took note that the site is serviced by adequate utilities, provided adequate
drainage facilities in compliance with state and local standards, complied with fire safety
requirements for the buildings and site layout, provided sufficient vehicular and bicycle
parking and trash facilities. The proposed modifications to Phase II maintain those
facilities, and, therefore, the ZBA's finding remains valid.
Section 9.03 Criteria- Special Permit for Site Plan Review:
1. Preservation of Landscape.
The ZBA found in the Existing Special Permit Decision that the previously existing site
had few natural open areas and that the Project was installing a significant number of
shade/street trees, flowering/ornamental trees, deciduous shrubs and evergreen shrubs.
The Existing Special Permit Decision found that the Project had three courtyards, a 1.25
acre urban entry court; 1.5 acre enclosed "garden" courtyard; and a 0.8 acre garden
courtyard, which provides for sitting and passive uses. The proposed modifications to
Phase II include the replacement of the ".8 acre garden courtyard" that was surrounded
on all sides will access drives with a pool and terrace area separated from access drives
by landscaping and a retaining wall. This modification will preserve and enhance the
landscape by creating a landscaped area separated from drive aisles and offer residents a
significant amenity.
2. Relation of Buildings to Environment.
2
GSDOCSI2I40654.5
The ZBA found in the Existing Special Permit Decision that the residential structure
relates well to the nearby retail uses such as Russo's and Stop and Shop and to the office
uses. The proposed modification to Phase II, including the refinements to the exterior
materials and design and the addition of the pool will continue to relate well to the nearby
uses and will also compliment the uses on the Phase I portion of the Project.
3. Open Space.
The ZBA found in the Existing Special Permit Decision that the Project's site plan
provided for a substantial amount of open space and plantings, which will comprise 44%
of the parcel, where 20% is required. The proposed modifications to Phase II will
continue to provide open space in excess of that required (approximately 32%) and will
also include a pool and terrace area that will be a significant open space feature for
residents. The Phase II Project will maintain the previously approved street landscaping
that the Existing Special Permit Decision noted will complement the landscaping of the
Russo's site. As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, Phase II will continue to
maintain the design of a series of paths interconnecting buildings with such paths
providing an opportunity for enjoyment of the open space and landscaping.
4. Circulation.
The proposed modifications to Phase II will keep the majority of the circulation and
access features noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision. Phase II will also maintain
the previously approved emergency access from Stanley Avenue. Phase II will increase
to number of protected bicycle parking spaces on the Phase II lot from 31 to 33 protected
bicycle parking spaces. The modifications to Phase II include converting the previous
two way access drive between Buildings 1 and 2 into a one way access drive. This
modification will allow residents to locate parking spaces allocated to each unit through
convenient access to surface and garage spaces. This modification will also reduce the
number of vehicles passing along the proposed pool and terrace area, which will reduce
the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict.
5. Surface Water Drainage.
As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, the Project, and Phase II, have been
designed to comply with the Stormwater Management Policy of the Mass DEP and DPW
requirements. Phase II will continue to capture and treat stormwater runoff as noted in
the Existing Special Permit Decision.
6. Utility Service.
As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, utilities are available to the Project and
Phase II lot either on or at the edge of the site and will be extended underground as
needed to service the Project.
7. Advertising Features.
3
GSDOCS12140654.5
As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, signs for Phase II will conform to the
Zoning Ordinance and will be subject to a separate sign permit review process.
8. Special Features.
As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, each building will have a trash room
with compactor. The maintenance building located on the Phase I lot will also service the
Phase II lot through a cross easement agreement. Snow will continue to be managed as
necessary to maintain the required number of parking spaces.
9. Safety.
As noted the in the Existing Special Permit Decision, the Fire Safety Captain reviewed
the plan for emergency vehicle access and fire safety of the buildings. Phase II will
install the life safety improvements noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision. The
Petitioner plans to review the access drive modification between Buildings 1 and 2 with
the Fire Safety Captain prior to the ZBA's public hearing on this Application.
10. Microclimate.
As noted in the Existing Special Permit Decision, the buildings' placement on the site
maximizes light, air and views for residents. Phase II will not change the buildings'
placement on the site and each building will continue to have HVAC condensers located
on the roof, screened as necessary. Any at grade HVAC condensers will be appropriately
screened.
Variances
The proposed modifications to the Existing Decisions meet the criteria for the issuance of
Variances under Section 9.14(b) the Watertown Zoning Ordinance as follows:
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?
Based on the proximity of the site to wetlands, the poor soil conditions on site and the
topography of the site, in Section II.1 of the Existing Variance Decision, the ZBA
determined that "[c]ircumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of
such land or structure are unique and especially affecting such land or structure but not
affecting generally the Zoning District in which it is located." None of those facts have
changed or will be changed by the proposed modifications to Phase II; therefore, the
Project would continue to meet this test.
2. Would enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance involve substantial hardship, financial or
other?
4
GSDOCS12140654.5
In Section II.2 of the Existing Variance Decision, the ZBA determined that compliance
with the literal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would require substantial and
unnecessary changes to the site plan, which would cause substantial economic hardship
to the applicant. The proposed changes to Phase II do not change the aspects of the
Project for which variances were requested and granted. Therefore, the Project would
continue to meet this test.
3. Would granting of the desired relief be a substantial detriment to the public good?
The ZBA determined that the changes permitted with the requested variances would not
be a substantial detriment to the public good but would benefit the public good by
increasing the residential aspect of the Project and creating more visual interest as well as
providing for various off site traffic improvements that would benefit the public as a
whole. As the proposed changes to Phase II do not change the aspects of the Project
variances were requested and granted, the ZBA's said finding in Section 11.3 of the
Existing Variance Decision remains valid.
4. Would granting the desired relief nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of this
Zoning Ordinance?
In Section II.4 of the Existing Variance Decision, the ZBA found that the Project met the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance to encourage the most appropriate use of land, provide for
adequate light and air, lessen traffic congestion and encourage housing for persons of all
income levels. Again, the proposed changes to Phase II maintain the same use of land
with the same site plan and traffic provisions and the same number of affordable units
and the same affordability levels. Therefore, the ZBA's said finding remains valid.
As noted above, the Petitioner respectfully requests the ZBA approve the proposed
modification to Phase II of the Project, accept the Phase II plans as the Control Plans for
such phase, and confirm that the requirements in the Existing Decisions, as amended,
which apply to Phase I will be enforced only against Phase I and the Phase I owner, and
that the requirements in the Existing Decisions, as amended, which apply to Phase II will
be enforced only against Phase II and the Phase II owner.
5
GSDOCS12140654.5