HomeMy Public PortalAbout65_Grove_Street_Staff_Report_FINAL_201502100840178286 �1630 TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Department of
Community Development and Planning
STAFF REPORT
This Staff Report is a technical analysis of the submitted application material and the required findings of
the Watertown Zoning Ordinance. It is based only upon information submitted prior to the public
hearing and may be revised or updated with new recommendations,findings and/or conditions as new
information is obtained by Planning Staff during the public hearing process.
Case#: ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR
Subject Property: 65 Grove Street,Watertown
Parcel ID: 1501—23 -0
Zoning District(s): Industrial (1-2) and Two-Family(T) Zoning District
Petitioner(s): Edward G. Nardi, representing Cresset Grove, LLC
Owner: Cresset Grove, LLC
Zoning Relief Sought: Special Permit with Site Plan Review
§5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than 4,000 s.f.
§5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks
Special Permit Granting Authority: Zoning Board of Appeals
Site Plan Review Meeting(s): August 26, 2014
Date of Staff Report: February 6, 2015
Staff Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Planning Board Meeting: November 10, 2014, Continued to February 11, 2015
Zoning Board Hearing: Scheduled February 25, 2015
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
I. PUBLIC NOTICE(M.G.L.c.40A,§11)
A. Procedural Summary
Petition ZBA-2014-26 SP/SR was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Board on November 10,
2014, continued to February 11, 2015, and by the Zoning Board of Appeals, November 19, 2014 and
continued to February 25, 2015. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, sec.11 and the Watertown Zoning
Ordinance, notice was given as follows:
• Published in the newspaper of record (Watertown Tab) on October 31 and November 7, 2014,
• Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on October 29, 2014,
• Mailed to Parties in Interest on October 29, 2014.
Interior Courtyard Showing Main Building Fa5ade Along Grove Street and Entrance Drive
Access Drive to Adjacent Atrium School Houses on Crawford Street Abutting Site
B. Legal Notice
"65 Grove Street-Edward Nardi,Agent, Cresset Grove LLC, 120 Water Street, Boston, MA 02109, herein
requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in accordance with
Watertown Zoning Ordinance§5.01.3(a.2), New Construction>4,000 s.f. and§5.04, Table of Dimensional
Regulations, and 5.05(d)Side Yard Setbacks, so as to raze a portion of existing structure formerly known
as Ionics and rebuild an attached 3-story/4 level parking garage with 290 parking spaces, maintaining,
non-conforming front and side yard setbacks. 1-2 (Industrial)Zoning District. ZBA-2014-27"
Page 2 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
II. DESCRIPTION
A. Site Characteristics
The site is 3.43 acres (149,186 s.f.) and is zoned mostly Industrial-2 (1-2)with two small areas zoned as
Two-Family (T), one of which is identified as a separate lot (7,552 s.f.). The dividing line between the
two zoning Districts is shown on the Site Layout Plan, C-1 and follows the northerly property boundary
of the three houses that abut the former GE Ionics property.
The site contains a single, L-shaped 3-story building with a 2-story brick warehouse addition to the rear
with a total gross square footage of 133,621 and a footprint of 47,200 s.f. The main building on the site
(not including sheds, etc.) dates from 1945, and has a brick veneer and a flat roof.The project site is
largely paved or otherwise impervious.
The building is currently non-conforming to Watertown's Zoning Ordinance for the Front Yard setback
where 16 feet exists and 20 feet is required and parking where approximately 200 formal spaces are
provided and 350 are required.
B. Surroundinje Land Use
The project site is located off Grove Street, with the proposed Watertown-Cambridge Greenway and
Multi-Use Path located to the northwest, Crawford Street to the south,the Atrium School as the
immediate abutter to the east. Surrounding streets include Coolidge Hill Road, Arlington Street, Nichols
Avenue and Mount Auburn Street.
Development in the area includes the Atrium School next door, Newlyweds Foods, and the greenhouses
for Mount Auburn Cemetery along the opposite side of Grove Street,with Tufts Healthcare taking up
the corner of Grove and Mount Auburn Streets. In addition to these larger buildings, there are single
and two-family homes along Crawford Street as well as a mix of commercial and industrial uses along
Grove Street.
C. Nature of the Request
The proposed project involves the demolition of a 2-story 8,270 square foot brick warehouse at the
southwesterly rear area of the main building to be replaced with a larger(approximately 130'x215') 36
foot tall 3-story, 4-level open parking garage with 290 parking spaces, along with new landscaping,
regrading with 59 surface parking spaces (reduced from 200+/-), and installation of a stormwater
management system. The project will also renovate the remainder of the existing building(Building
Permit only) that includes facade updates, energy efficiency upgrades (including a proposed rooftop
photovoltaic solar system),the creation of a new entrance, interior fit-out, and accessibility
improvements.
Open space on the lot will also become conforming with 6.9% under existing conditions (10% required)
and 26.8%open space under proposed conditions. The parking spaces will exceed the required
minimum (311), increasing from 200+ under existing conditions to 349 with the proposed development.
Page 3 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
D. Relevant Permit History
• ZBA Decision—July 2, 1965: Special Permit/Variance to occupy 65 Grove Street to use it as a
research laboratory. Included Lot#2 on Crawford Street. Ionics made equipment for use in the
fields of food, drugs and desalinization. Expected employment of 125. Intend to use 5%of the
building for research and 95%for office and manufacturing.
• Letter from Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer, to Mark Boyle, Planning Director,January
29, 1991: Lot#2 was erroneously rezoned residential two-family(T) in 1988/1989. Lot should
have remained in Industrial (1-2). Ionics parking vehicles along the property line with 40-42
Crawford Street. The 1965 Zoning Bylaw did not require a setback or buffer from property lines.
The 1971 Zoning Bylaw required an 8-foot setback.
• 2010 and 2014: Permits requested and issued for trenching and groundwater testing connected
to the onsite cleanup work.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
In accordance with §9.03 of the WZO, as revised 7/15/14,the Petitioner held a community meeting on
September 29, 2014, where public comment was received. DCDP Staff was in attendance at this
meeting. The Petitioner provided DCDP staff a summary of that meeting,which is included in the Board
packet for informational purposes.
Summary of Comment Received
Email, Nebiye Woldehaimanot,40 Crawford Street:General view of project is positive. Some concerns that could
negatively impact the neighborhood. Entrance/exits on Crawford Street?Traffic patterns? Why so much parking?
Create incentives for employees to take alternate modes. Minimize noise, lighting impacts, including vehicle
headlights from proposed garage. Screening needed. What are proposed new plantings? Concerned for negative
impacts from construction on existing trees along property line. Possible to add a "green roof"to the garage as
screening/softening? Plans for bike path?
Email,Julie Sousa,53 Crawford Street: Concerned about sole exit from site is directly across from her driveway.
Possibility of second exit to reduce pressure on the one across from her driveway? Concerned about circulation
around the site and traffic patterns. Need for a chart to better describe implications of traffic pattern changes
and increases.
Cover Letter, and Petition, Neighborhood around Site: Community meeting a good idea. General perspective on
the proposed redevelopment is positive. Concerned about impacts to direct abutters. Safety issue from
increased traffic on surrounding streets. Request alternate ways of exiting from the neighborhood be considered.
Concerns about noise,and request noise abatement/mitigation measures. Concerns about lighting impacts,
including from vehicle headlights in the garage. Need for mitigation measures. (35 neighbors signed)
Email, Barbara Ruskin, 140 Spring Street: Pleased with a re-use of an existing structure and architectural
upgrades. Concerned about parking garage. More spaces than necessary. Reduce courtyard area and convert to
green space or"shadow parking."
Email, Deborah Peterson: Concerns about traffic and traffic study. Missing comparisons to existing traffic
conditions. Limited in scope. Need more attention to Nichols Avenue bicycle crossing. Not enough attention on
alternate modes of travel and transit.
Email,Tony Palomba: Concerned about parking garage. More spaces than necessary. Reduce courtyard area and
convert to green space or"shadow parking."
Page 4 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Plan Consistencv
Met:The proposed development is consistent with the Town's adopted planning documents.
1. Watertown Growth Management Plan, 12/01/1988
• Recognition that future development will be almost exclusively"redevelopment"
• Continue to designate certain industrial areas for continued industrial use
• Maintain an industrial and commercial base for employment and fiscal purposes
• Proposed new zoning map retains 1-2 designation: Designated as those areas in
Watertown where future regionally oriented industrial/commercial development is
most appropriate
The project is consistent with these goals; in that the project is a redevelopment of an existing industrial
building in an area preserved for industrial/office use. The building has been vacant and is an important
aspect of economic revitalization of this industrial corridor and maintaining a balanced tax base for the
community.
2. Watertown Community Development Plan,07/2004
• Encourage a range of transportation options
• Actively promote walking and bicycling by providing paths, sidewalks, bicycle parking,
and improving the streetscape as well as traffic calming measures
The project supports these goals. The redevelopment of the GE Ionics building will include
improvements to the streetscape, site landscaping and provision of bicycle parking in the proposed
garage.The site is adjacent to the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway and will allow for employee access
to the multi-use path.
3. Strategic Framework for Economic Development,08/02/2011
• Focused on the Coolidge Hill area as one of five focus areas
• Identified this as an ideal area for small to mid-sized companies
• Cluster of businesses:Tufts Health Plan, WiTricity, Boston Biomedical(closed-Tufts
expansion)
• Reuse of GE Ionics building will restore employment activity in the area and will
complement the [former] Boston Biomedical Institute (Tufts) across the street
• Address concerns about contamination on some properties
The project supports these goals through the redevelopment of the GE Ionics building. The proposed
project has the potential for one larger or multiple occupants in the renovated building in a key location
for a strong economic cluster situated between Coolidge Square and the Arsenal Corridor. The
Petitioner will also address onsite contamination and substantially improve stormwater.
4. Draft Comprehensive Plan, In Progress
Although not yet adopted,the draft Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development section, Goal 1(B)
recommends that Watertown "[e]ncourage the provision of flexible, affordable, and right-sized office
Page 5 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
space for small, growing and mid-sized firms, and provide expedited permitting incentives that
encourage the inclusion of small-scale,flexible incubator space as a potential amenity."The
Comprehensive Plan also seeks to find ways to cleanup/remediate contaminated sites,to promote their
reuse and return to the tax base.
The proposed redevelopment is in keeping with these goals. The redevelopment of the GE Ionics
building into a location for multiple occupants meets Goal 1(B) and the Petitioner will address any onsite
contamination as well as containing substantially more stormwater onsite.
B. Special Permit with Site Plan Review §5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than 4,000 s.f.;
and §5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks
Projects must meet the four conditions of approval for a Special Permit set forth in §9.05(b), of the
WZO. In addition,the project is subject to the review procedures under§9.03 Site Plan Review of the
WZO, in which the ten criteria listed in §9.03 (c) must be evaluated.
Special Permit Criteria§9.05(b)
1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure,or condition.
Conditionally Met:The proposed redevelopment of the former GE Ionics site is in keeping with
Watertown's prior plans and the current draft Comprehensive Plan, as well as the 2011 Strategic
Framework for Economic Development. The redevelopment of the GE Ionics site as proposed
includes improvements to the streetscape and site design, as well supporting a business cluster, and
restores employment activity to the area. The proposed redevelopment also addresses the existing
onsite contamination and lack of stormwater control. The architectural re-design includes a mix of
brick with new, large glass windows.
The addition of a parking structure will bring the site into conformance with parking requirements,
providing more than required under zoning. With the changes in how office space is developed,
there can be more demand for parking than required under current zoning because the amount of
office space per employee has been decreasing. This project will provide parking in combination
with transportation demand management to ensure the parking demand is met on-site.The request
for more parking than required is supported by the suggested employee per square foot proposed.
One suggestion is to defer developing the southern surface parking areas, and reserve them as
shadow parking and determine if tenants will require the additional parking.
2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Conditionally Met: Historically, the site was industrial in nature and used the neighborhood for
access to the site. Vehicles and truck deliveries accessed the site from Crawford Street and Grove
Street the same as the proposed. That historic use was a 24 hour per day, seven day per week
operation in three shifts. The previous use of the site produced substantial vehicle traffic and
parking often spilling into the neighborhood. The use also was industrial in nature with associated
noise.
Page 6 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
The current proposal is an office use which is a more neutral and less impactful use for the
surrounding neighborhood. Parking has been an issue on the site so the Petitioner has proposed a
garage to ensure that parking can be accommodated onsite,which will minimize overflow parking
into the neighborhood. The garage structure is the primary component of the project that changes
the existing condition.
From an impact perspective, the Petitioner submitted shadow studies as part of supplemental
information which indicates the project, including the new parking structure,will not cast shadows
on the abutting residences to the south. The garage also removes a substantial amount of surface
parking which was directly adjacent to the direct abutters to the south and incorporates plantings to
screen the structure from the neighbors.
The increased landscaped areas will contribute to improved neighborhood perception, as the
current parking area is dilapidated and not screened with landscaping. The surface parking to
remain, if eventually constructed, will have an eight foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to the
residential property.
The existing industrial and office use could continue as is, but the petitioner has requested to bring
the parking into compliance, which requires the construction of a parking structure. As part of that
sit e improvement,the petitioner has agreed to minimize many of the existing site impacts with
several on and offsite improvements. Initially,the preferred options for site access was proposed to
recreate a two-way access point on Crawford Street. A peer review of that option indicated that this
would significantly degrade the intersection at the Arlington/Nichols so the plan was revised to keep
the existing access points. Staff continues to work with the petitioner to look at any option that
might reduce the traffic impacts on neighborhood street.
The petitioner has agreed to provide mitigation of$250,000 for off-site traffic/ROW improvements
within the neighborhood. These funds will be used to make the pedestrian and vehicular access in
the surrounding area safer.
The proposal also minimizes the impacts to the neighborhood from noise sources and exterior
lighting with full cut-off lights and screening of all HVAC. These items are discussed in more detail in
criterion §9.03 (c)(10), below.
During construction, the Petitioner proposed a primary construction entrance on Grove Street. Staff
recommends that the use of neighborhood streets for construction purposes be minimized as much
as possible.A construction management plan and an erosion/sediment control plan will be required
as part of the Building Permit.
3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
Conditionally Met: The site has a main entrance on Grove Street with a sidewalk that connects to
Coolidge Square and toward the Arsenal Corridor. No changes are proposed and this area meets all
pedestrian access needs along the frontage. The proposal also includes a pedestrian connection to
the adjacent Watertown-Cambridge Greenway that runs along the property to the Northeast.
Initially, Staff was concerned that the connection from the site to the path goes through the loading
Page 7 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
zone but the petitioner has now provided clear striping for multimodal access through this area.
Staff suggests that any connection to the Greenway have final design review and acceptance by
DCDP and DCR. The parking garage is designed to allow access to the building at the ground level.
The main parking area provides direct access to the rear 'main' entrance to the building in a safe
manner. Pedestrian safety is adequate in this area. The rear parking area to the south does not
provide pedestrian sidewalks but the traffic through this area is not substantial and there appears to
be safe options for walking within the drive aisles. The project is required to provide granite curbing
and a sidewalk along the project frontage on Crawford Street. The petitioner has also agreed to
provide $250,000 in funds for offsite pedestrian and vehicular improvements.
4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.
Conditionaliv Met: The proposal will be required to meet all building, health, and safety
requirements. The Petitioner states the development and renovation will be designed in
accordance with the Massachusetts State Building Code.
The Petitioner's Stormwater Drainage Calculations and Stormwater Management Plan (Plan),
describes the existing condition and proposed new stormwater management infrastructure to be
installed. The Plan notes that the majority of stormwater currently drains towards the center of the
site,which is below grade. The Plan states that after redevelopment,the peak runoff rates will
decrease substantially. Proposed new stormwater infrastructure will include deep sump and
hooded catch basins, bio-retention areas, and "proprietary treatment units" as pre-treatment.
These systems will be augmented by a sub-surface infiltration chamber to achieve the required
removal of 80%of the total suspended solids.
The Petitioner also has a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan (SOMP). DPW Staff notes
that review and final approval of all roof connections and the operation of the stormwater system
will be required. Staff also recommends considering options for increasing the capacity of the
infiltration system and providing smaller systems to infiltrate runoff from the rear parking area.
Infiltration in addition to reducing stormwater flows is a priority for Watertown because it provides
the highest treatment level for phosphorous. Staff notes that the Department of Public Works shall
have final review and approval of the stormwater management system design.
In regards snow removal,the Petitioner has committed to a snow management and removal plan to
be included in the SOMP. Based on DPW Staff comments,the SOMP was amended to not allow
deposit of snow in the bio-swales. The SOMP documents will be made available to the Town DPW,
upon request. The enforcement mechanism for the SOMP shall be reviewed and approved by DPW.
Sheets C-1,Site Layout Plan show the location of the existing transformer and electrical connection
box in the northwest corner of the landscaped area along Grove Street, behind a concrete wall.
Landscape screening should be provided to shield this equipment from public views. Sheets L-2 and
L-3, Planting Plan/Details, indicate that trees are to be planted in this area. The width of this area
may be too narrow to accommodate both the electrical equipment and the proposed trees,
therefore,the screening will be subject to DCDP staff review and approval.
Page 8 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
The existing underground water main,fire protection service and municipal sanitary sewer line will
be used. The Petitioner also states a hydrant will be relocated and the sewer service connection will
be inspected and repaired as needed with DPW oversight.
Sheets C-1,Site Layout Plan show the location of two trash containers to the Northwest side of the
new parking garage. The Petitioner states, "The dumpsters will be...screened by planting and fences
from the residential neighbors to the south. This location is about 40 feet farther from the neighbors
than the existing condition." The Petitioner should ensure that there is adequate storage capacity
inside and exterior to the building to provide enough storage for trash and recyclables between
pickups.
As noted above,the Petitioner has provided a proposed Planting Plan/Details, showing various
tree, shrub, and plant species. The final landscaping proposal should have a final review by DCDP to
ensure species appropriateness, mix, size, quantity and spacing prior to construction.
The Petitioner has provided exterior lighting information, including fixture cuts and a lighting plan,
and exterior lighting is also addressed in detail 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 was held on
August 26, 2014. Present at the meeting were members of the Site Plan Review Committee (consisting
of Town Staff and committees) and the Petitioner,who presented the proposal, after which members of
the Committee were invited to respond with questions, comments, and suggestions. Planning Staff has
reviewed the ten criteria for Site Plan Review provided in §9.03(c) of the WZO and incorporated
Committee comments where appropriate. The following are the findings as identified through analysis
of the updated project and the Committee's review:
1. Preservation of Landscape: "The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the
general appearance of neighboring developed areas.Adequate landscaping shall also be provided,
including screening of adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape islands in the parking
lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage."
Conditionally Met: The previous use of the subject property included a substantial amount of asphalt
pavement. According to a table on Sheet C-1/C-1(A),the site currently has 6.9%as open space/green
space/landscaped area. The Petitioner proposes to increase this percentage to just under 27%. Sheets
L-2 and L-3, Planting Plan/Details, as well as the Petitioner's supplemental information (11x17-inch
colored, spiral bound documents) provide details on the proposed new landscaped areas, including
proposed plant species, sizes and quantities.
The Petitioner also proposes screening at the South face of the new parking structure, created by using
two types of bamboo in combination with other plantings.
Page 9 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
2. Relation of Buildings to Environment: "Proposed development shall be integrated into the
terrain and the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity and shall be in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan or other plans adopted by the Town guiding future development. The
Planning Board may require a modification in massing so as to reduce the effect of shadows on abutting
property in all districts or on public open space."
Conditionally Met: The existing building will have updated fagade treatments but will not be altered
substantially on the exterior. It appears that all of the proposed work for the building would be allowed
through the Building Permit process.The parking structure is proposed to be to the rear of the building
and be screened by the structure from Grove Street. The Petitioner states this criterion is met, because
the proposed new garage "is set down within the existing bowl...placed over 35 feet from the residential
property line." The height of the garage, due to the grade change, and partially putting one level
underground, results in a height of 35 feet above average existing grade. The garage is integrated into
the site and allows more landscaping and planting between it and the neighborhood than the existing
conditions. The Petitioner also submitted shadow studies as part of supplemental information, which
indicate the project, including the new parking structure will not cast shadows on the abutting
residences.
3. Open Space: "All open space required by this Zoning Ordinance shall be so designed as to
maximize its visibility for persons passing the site, encourage social interaction, maximize its utility, and
facilitate its maintenance."
Conditionally Met: The proposed redevelopment will increase the amount of open space on the site
through creation of new landscaped areas. The site also has limitations due to the layout of the existing
building. Because of this,the open space is being retained along the front of the site and will be
updated. The interior parking area is being completely reconfigured and open space will provide
stormwater functions as well. The open space will provide a visual presence at a main entrance to the
building from the parking lot. This area was initially proposed to have several drive aisles and smaller
landscape beds and was updated to provide a single drive and a consolidated landscaped area within a
central landscape. Other open space will be adjacent to the residential neighborhood and will serve as a
buffer to the drive aisle and parking to the rear/south of the garage. An area between the building and
the former rail corridor will also be restored to open space which will add to the buffer of the use and
the proposed Greenway.
4. Circulation: "Special attention shall be given to traffic circulation, parking areas and access
points to public streets and community facilities in order to maximize convenience and safety of
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets."
Conditionally Met: In terms of pedestrian circulation,the renovation will create three building
entrances. The existing entrance on Grove Street will be maintained, allowing access to the second
floor. A new main entry will be created facing the U-shaped area created by the existing building and
new parking garage. People entering the building that way will gain access to the first floor. A third
entrance will be created, accessible from the at-grade level of the parking garage, and will be accessible
to pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the future Watertown Cambridge Greenway to the West.
Page 10 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
Sheets C-1,Site Layout Plan, now proposes to keep the vehicular site circulation similar to what is
existing. Original concepts retain the one-way in access only from Grove Street but proposed
reestablishment of two-way access from the Southwest on Crawford Street. A Town initiated peer
review indicated that the proposed two-way, or another option of a reversed one-way would not be
acceptable for the operation of the signal at the Arlington Street intersection. The preferred option
would be to have a driveway with in and out on Grove Street. Without the cooperation of the adjoining
property this alternative is not feasible. Therefore,the only remaining options (as indicated in the Peer
Review) was to maintain the existing road network configuration with left turns on to Crawford from the
site and in only on to Crawford from the Arlington streetlights.
The total amount of parking proposed on the site is 349,with 290 in the garage and 59 surface spaces,
which is 38 more spaces than stipulated by zoning. As previously identified, redeveloped office space
often proposes less area per employee, which can increase demand for parking overall, even with
employee incentives and transportation demand management.
As discussed,the Petitioner should consider shadow parking of the 18 proposed parking spaces closest
to Crawford Street since they are the farthest from the building, lack good pedestrian connections to the
rest of the site, and will not be lit. If a tenant requires more parking,the shadow parking could be easily
converted to active parking spaces.
§6.07(a)(1) requires a Petitioner to provide "one bicycle parking space for every 15 automobile spaces,
with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 50..." According to the Petitioner, 24 bike parking spaces will be
provided,which is the required number(349 vehicle spaces/ 15 = 23.6).The Site Layout Plans [Sheet C-
1/C-1(A)] show a location on the Northeast corner of the new parking garage for bike racks with a 20-
bike capacity. Also,the Petitioner clarified that inverted "U" bike racks will be provided per§6.07. Staff
also strongly recommends the Petitioner provide secure bicycle storage on the site for employees.
5. Surface Water Drainage: "Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage so that
removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public storm drainage
system. Proposed developments shall seek to retain storm water runoff on site to the maximum extent
possible, incorporating best practices in storm water management and Low Impact Design techniques. In
cases where storm water cannot be retained on site, storm water shall be removed from all roofs,
canopies and paved areas and carried away in an underground drainage system."
Conditionally Met: The proposed redevelopment will improve the existing conditions for surface water
retention, as the site is almost entirely paved;there currently is minimal stormwater management at the
site. According to the Petitioner,the proposed project "will reduce its impact on the municipal drainage
system, and the Charles River through rain gardens/bio-retention areas, proprietary treatment units,
permeable pavers, subsurface infiltration systems..."and an overall reduction in rates of runoff post
redevelopment.
Staff notes that the stormwater management design will require a final review and approval of the
proposed system by DPW.
Page 11 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
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."
Conditionaliv Met: The Petitioner has stated in the application "the existing utility services will be
utilized for the redevelopment." This includes the in-place, underground water main,fire protection
service and municipal sanitary sewer line. The Petitioner also states a hydrant will be relocated and the
sewer service connection will be inspected and repaired as needed.
The Petitioner's narrative does not address solid waste or recyclables management, although Sheet C-1
shows the location of two trash dumpsters. Sheet C-1 also show the location of the existing
electrical/transformer pad, in the Northwest corner of the site, close to Grove Street,within a concrete
enclosure and in a landscaped area. The project should be conditioned to ensure that the transformer
pad is adequately screened.
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."
Conditionaliv Met: The Petitioner's application states the proposed redevelopment will "significantly
reduce the heat island effect by..."a new white/reflective roof, replacing some surface parking with a
parking garage, adding landscaped areas, and shade trees.
The Petitioner's application states "the proposed renovation will utilize energy-efficient systems
wherever possible...including energy recovery roof top HVAC units, energy-efficient lighting, and
automatic lighting controls." Other proposed energy efficiency features will include new window and
curtain wall systems, shading devices on South face to reduce the HVAC load, low VOC paints, and low
flow plumbing fixtures.
The Petitioner also states that "roof gardens and photovoltaic arrays are also being considered on
portions of the existing building roof, depending on the tenants expected to occupy the building." The
green roof elements and roof terrace gardens proposed in the Petitioner's August 2014 submittal have
been removed from the October 14, 2014 Control Plans and only roof-top solar is part of the submittal
(plans are to use the entire rood for solar). A green roof still might be an option dependent on
tenancy.
8. Screening: "Screening, such as screen plantings, shall be provided for exposed storage areas,
exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures, and
similar accessory areas and structures in order to prevent their being incongruous with the existing or
contemplated environment and the surrounding properties."
Conditionaliv Met: The existing transformer is shown to be within a landscaped area. The renovated
building also have several rooftop HVAC units,which should be screened, or placed behind or below the
roof cornice so that they are not visible from public views.
Page 12 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
Conditional approval should be based on the Petitioner providing the location of mechanical and HVAC
systems with appropriate screening as part of the building permit approval.
9. Safety: "With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces shall be designed to
facilitate building evacuation and maximize accessibility by fire, police, and other emergency personnel
and equipment."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that the proposed structures will be built in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, and with a new fire suppression system, new fire alarm system
emergency lighting, and an elevator with a stretcher entrance. The two access points from Crawford
Street are wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles.
10. Design: "Proposed developments shall seek to protect abutting properties from detrimental site
characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution,
noise, odor, heat,flood, dust vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features."
Conditionally Met: The Petitioner states that the proposed project "is designed to improve views from
and detrimental impact on abutting properties"and will accomplish this by the revised stormwater
management systems, increased landscaping, exterior fagade renovations, and moving the trash
dumpsters farther away from the abutting residences.
There was environmental contamination at the site, dating from urban fill used to develop the site in
1945. Since that time,the site "closed out" in accordance with Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MA DEP) regulations, with an Activity Use Limitation (AUL) in place that
restricts the site to non-residential use. The Petitioner also states that "since taking ownership of the
property, Cressett Group has initiated additional remedial measures in order to clean up the site beyond
what is required by MA DEP regulations."
At the Community Meeting on September 29, 2014, several persons in attendance expressed concern
for noise levels at the site, post-construction, particularly with respect to HVAC equipment,fans to
ventilate the garage, and any onsite emergency generator.
Staff notes that the MA DEP administers the Air Quality regulations, and that "noise" is defined in these
regulations as "a sound of sufficient intensity and/or duration as to cause a condition of air pollution."
This is typically accomplished by administrative controls (limits on when construction can occur during
the day and week) and physical controls(mufflers on equipment, and sound attenuation enclosures for
HVAC and ventilation equipment, and around any onsite emergency generator).
The proposed project includes parking lot pole mounted and on-building mounted lights. Sheet L-4,
Exterior Lighting Calculations, details the parking lot pole and on-building lighting. Those closest to the
Atrium School will be on a 14-foot pole, equipped with a shield, to reduce the amount of light thrown
towards that property line.The on-building mounted light is a rounded trapezoidal LED wall-pack that is
full cutoff. . The proposed mount height on the building is 14 feet above grade and on the new garage is
10 feet above grade, except for those at the vehicle entrances. The only lights of concern for potential
abutter impacts are those on the south side of the proposed new garage but the distribution pattern will
reduce the amount of light thrown towards the property line. Moreover, Sheet L-4 estimates a reading
Page 13 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
of under one foot-candle well inside the property line. Finally, the Petitioner has proposed a landscaped
buffer and a planting bed of bamboo directly abutting the South face of the garage. Taken together
these factors should reduce the impact of the on-garage mounted wall-packs to abutting residential
properties.
The garage includes several types of lighting including a wall fixture,two types of ceiling lights, a step
light, and a pole mounted light, all of which use LEDs. The step light is of little concern to staff, because
it is mounted in the sidewall of the stairwell, and is aimed in such a way as to illuminate the stairs. Of
these lights, only those along the parking garage's south face are a concern for lighting impacts to
abutting properties. However, it appears the ceiling fixtures will be mounted in such a manner so the
light will be directed inwards,towards the floor of each parking deck. This and the proposed
landscaping should reduce any off-site impacts. The last garage light style is a pole-mounted fixture
used on the uppermost deck. The Petitioner indicates there will be three (3) double-headed versions of
this light, with the luminaire side arm mounted, 10 to 12 feet from the finished surface located near the
centerline of the parking deck. Whether or not these lights pose an impact to the abutting properties
depends on the viewing angles into the site, and the proposed height of the vegetated screen. The
Petitioner's renderings show the bamboo reaching heights tall enough to screen these lights.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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. Planning staff recommends that a
Special Permit with Site Plan Review under§5.01(3)(a)(2): New construction greater than 4,000 square
feet, and §5.04 and 5.05(d): Side Yard Setbacks be granted with the following conditions:
Page 14 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
# Condition Timeframe for To be Verified By
Compliance
Control Documents.This approval is based upon the application materials and
the Control Documents titled "Cresset Development/Cresset Grove LLC,
Addendum Planning Board Submission"initially dated 10/14/14, later updated
10/29/14 and updated in its entirety,submitted by the Petitioner on 2/4/15 as
modified by these conditions:
1. Sheet A0,Cover Sheet
2. Sheet C1,Site Layout Plan (2/5/2015)
3. Sheet C2,Grading and Utility Plan
4. Sheet C3,Construction Details 1
5. Sheet C4,Construction Details 11
6. Sheet C5,Construction Details III
7. Sheet L1, Materials and Layout Plan
1 8. Sheet L2, Planting Plan Perpetual ZEO/ISD
9. Sheet L3, Details
10. Sheet L4, Exterior Lighting Calculations
11. Sheet TM1, Fire Truck Turning Movement Plan
12. Sheet TM2,WB-50 Turning Movement Plan(Entering)
13. Sheet TM3 WB-50 Turning Movement Plan(Leaving)
14. Sheet A100, Lower Level Plan
15. Sheet A101, First Floor Plan
16. Sheet A102,Second Floor Plan
17. Sheet A103,Third Floor Plan
18. Sheet A104, Roof Level Plan
19. Sheet A301, Exterior Elevation
20. Sheet A302, Enlarged Exterior Elevations
21. Sheet A305, Building Section 2
Plan Modifications. Neither the Petitioner nor any present or future owner of
any interest in the project shall change or modify either the control plans
referenced in this decision,or the project itself,without first filing a formal
request with the DCDP Director,Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Building ZEO/
2. Inspector,for an opinion as to whether or not such change or modification Perpetual ISD
requires further review from the Special Permit Granting Authority. Minor
modifications may be considered and approved by the DCDP Director that are
found to be consistent with the project approval granted by the Special Permit
Granting Authority.
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
3. thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause,or, in the case of a Perpetual ZEO
permit for construction, if the construction has not begun by such date except
for good cause,or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law.
Recordation. Upon application for a Building Permit,the Petitioners shall provide
4. evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this entire decision has been BP ZEO
filed with the Registry of Deeds, and/or Land Court.
5. Codes/Regulation Compliance.The Petitioners shall comply with all other CO ZEO/ISD
Page 15 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
# Condition Timeframe for To be Verified By
Compliance
applicable local,state,and federal requirements,ordinances,and statutes.
Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection. A copy of the Building Permit with
6. final approval signatures from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the CO ZEO
Zoning Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project.
Demolition.The Petitioners and/or Site Contractor shall:
A. Provide a plan for the control and mitigation of accumulation of standing
water for the prevention of vector borne diseases to the Health
Department(Nuisance Control Regulation Section 3F.)
B. Provide a plan for the control and mitigation of on-site noise,odors,dust,
7. asbestos, and rodent abatement to the Health Department. Prior to Demo ISD
C. Provide a plan that includes protection measures for existing trees on and Permit
around the site.
D. Submit a plan for vehicle parking and traffic management during
construction. Minimize use of neighborhood streets for construction
purposes.
As-Built(s).The Petitioners shall:
A. Submit a certified "as-built"foundation plot plan showing all dimensional
setbacks at the time of foundation inspection for Building and Zoning.
B. As-built plans,showing site utilities, layout,topography and other pertinent
information,for the project shall be submitted to and approved by DPW
8. upon completion of construction activities and prior to issuing a Certificate BP/CO ZEO/ISD/DPW
of Occupancy.The plan shall specify how the completed plan differs from
that shown on the plans referred to in the Permit Conditions.Two copies of
the final as-built plans shall be submitted,one mylar and one paper copy,
and shall be on the same scale as the plan referenced in the Permit
Conditions.
Signage. No signs shall be permitted except those that meet the signage
9. requirements in Article 7 of the WZO,and those shall be subject to a separate Perpetual Planning
review and permit process.
Stormwater. DPW review and final approval of the stormwater design is
required prior to Building Permit. The Petitioner and/or Site Contractor(s)shall,
at a minimum:
A. Obtain approval of the stormwater management plan from the DPW.
B. Locate all existing roof drains and their points of discharge. All roof drains
10. shall be directed into the stormwater management system and receive BP ZEO/DWP
treatment if feasible.
C. Install the upgraded stormwater system as proposed in the Control
Documents and the Stormwater Drainage Calculations and Stormwater
Management Plans approved by DPW.
D. Petitioner shall submit an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan for DPW review.
Sewer/Fire Protection. DPW review and final approval of the sewer connection
and fire service design is required prior to Building Permit. The Petitioner and/or
11. Site Contractor(s)shall,at a minimum: BP ZEO/DWP/Fire Dept.
A. Provide a report detailing an inspection of the sewer line for the project's
connection to the municipal service.
Page 16 of 18
65 Grove Street February 6, 2015
ZBA-2014-27 SP/SR Staff Report
# Condition Timeframe for To be Verified By
Compliance
B. Locate/relocate the fire service hydrant and supply,as needed,as directed
by the DPW and Fire Dept.
Site Plan/Transportation. The Petitioners and/or Site Contractor(s) shall:
A. Install corner stones,sidewalk,granite curbing and other access/egress,
driveway and hard streetscape improvements as required by the DPW
along the property frontage.
B. Ensure that any connection to the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway is
acceptable to the DCDP and the Department of Conservation and
Recreation.
C. Ensure t HVAC equipment/systems are adequately screened.
In addition:
D. Landscape Planting Plan and Details Plan shall be subject to review and
approval by DCPD Staff for species appropriateness, mix, size, quantity,and
12. spacing. BP/Perpetual DCDP/DPW
E. All exterior lighting for the site shall be fully shielded and full cutoff and be
subject to a final review and approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
F. The parking provided adjacent to Crawford Street shall be provided as
shadow parking until such time as it is deemed necessary,or shall have
lighting and pedestrian access with DCDP approval of design.
G. Copies of all post-construction stormwater management inspection and
maintenance records and invoices shall be kept for a period of five years
and be made available to DPW upon request.
H. The petitioner has agreed to contribute$250,000 in offsite ROW
improvements for pedestrian and vehicular safety/improvements within
the neighborhood as determined by the DCDP Director and DPW.
Refuse/Recycling. The Petitioner shall:
A. Provide on-site recycling for all Department of Environmental Protection
13. (DEP) Waste Ban materials. BP/Perpetual ZEO
B. Provide timely collection and removal from the site of solid waste/refuse
and recycling by a private waste management company.
Page 17 of 18
6 Grove Street February 6, 205
Z a-0 4-Z 5%R Staff Report
H,
gbS% lA. ,
'El Till E 'm229 1\
!§ � �
\ k ldn \ }
k
.14
\2 0&
O �
�
§2 �` _
�
. a
. w X)
A \; /
a § < w "
® g;w \
CALVIN RD ! , ~■ )
o -
,
>
\|
\ \w \V
AEA kGTON ST ARONGT ON S ARLINGTO»&T \RL-1-N-G+ON&I
\
\) \ \( \ \ (r \ \\ f w
LLJ
�Q ■ /
^ ) 11HE
Page 18 of 18