Aaron Dushku Requested Amendments
Submitted 10:40 PM on 1/27/2016
Section 5.18 (d) Parking Requirements:
1) Off-street parking shall comply with the requirements of Article VI of the Watertown
Zoning Ordinance.
2) Separation of parking costs:
In the RMUD, all off-street parking spaces accessory to residential uses in new
structures of 5 dwelling units or more, or in new conversions of non-residential
buildings to residential use of 5 dwelling units or more, shall be leased or sold
separately from the rental or purchase fees for dwelling units for the life of the
dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers have the option of renting or
buying a residential unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single
price for both the residential unit and the parking space. Renters or buyers of on-site
inclusionary affordable units provided pursuant to Section 5.07 shall have an equal
opportunity to rent or buy a parking space on the same terms and conditions as
offered to renters or buyers of other dwelling units.
3) Smart Parking Technology:
For projects with structured parking of over twenty thousand (10,000) gross square
feet, it is required that said structured parking install and employ smart parking
technology (e.g. equipment to count the number of vehicles entering and exiting the
parking area, availability of spaces, etc.).
Section 5.18 (h) Circulation:
1) Special consideration shall be given to infrastructure and design that will
create direct public bicycle and pedestrian path connections with adjacent
public bicycle or pedestrian paths, and that minimizes barriers separating such
paths.
2) Applicant shall submit a conceptual wayfinding signage proposal for paths,
access to parks, and transit, at a minimum, with detailed plans to be submitted
within a signage packet as part of a Building Permit.
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
ARTICLE IV
GENERAL USE AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS
SECTION 4.11 EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
(e)
Developments in the NB, LB, CB, I-1, I-2, I-3, RMUD, and PSCD Districts may be
contiguous on a block: zero (0) lot line and/or shared party wall, subject to
compliance with Section 5.05 note (f) regarding the maximum length of a
contiguous building façade. Corner lots may be developed with two front yards
with yards determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
-----------------------------------------SECTION 5.03 NOTES TO TABLE OF USE REGULATIONS
(8) See §9.07 for Mixed-Use in the I-3 Zoning District. Within the RMUD Zoning District,
Mixed-Use is only allowed for projects of two acres or larger that have filed and received an
approved Master Plan Special Permit under §5.18 and in which neither residential uses nor
retail or service uses constitute more than seventy (70) percent of the gross floor area of
the project.
------------------------------------SECTION 5.18 REGIONAL MIXED USE DISTRICT [RMUD]
Comment [JB1]: This change is to make sure
this section does not override the contiguous
building limits in 5.05(f) and does not allow
blocking connections to public open spaces
(e.g., the river).
Comment [JB2]: This change would assure
that in RMUD “mixed use” will involve more than
a token amount of either residential or
commercial use. This mix would apply at the
project level, not to individual buildings.
Watertown’s Design Guidelines were created “to enhance the economic vitality of selected
commercial areas through attractive, consistent design.” The commercial corridors and squares
of Main Street, Pleasant Street, Galen Street, North Beacon Street, Mt. Auburn Street and
Arsenal Street are being positively impacted by the Design Guidelines and Standards as they
are clarifying expectations about what development should look like and raising the quality of
construction.
As the Town’s primary commercial corridor, the eastern portion of Arsenal Street has some of
the largest retailers in the region. With sufficient private and public infrastructure, this area
warrants greater density in light of the size of the geography and its catalytic and transformative
potential for the region. The scale of development in this area merits greater height, massing
and signage requirements for new construction commensurate with its role as a regional
attraction and destination.
(a) Intent and Purpose
The Regional Mixed Use District [RMUD] has been enacted to assist, promote, and guide the
orderly conversion and redevelopment of the Arsenal Street Corridor. The establishment of the
RMUD is intended to accomplish the following objectives:
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 1 of 6
Comment [JB3]: The following changes to the
Intent and Purpose of the RMUD make them
more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
1) Facilitate transformative development consistent with Watertown’s goal to promote mixed use
development that includes smaller scale retail, office, hospitality, multi-family residential and
research and development uses, and that serves regional demand in the municipalities
neighboring Watertown.
2) Allow development at a density, scale and character appropriate to define a corridor that is a
major gateway for the Town; Additional height may be appropriate in such Gateway Locations
where consistent with Watertown’s economic development goals, and the adopted Design
Guidelines, as they may appropriately apply to development in the RMUD; Additional density
and/or reduced parking space requirements may be appropriate in the District where consistent
with the goal of reducing traffic congestion and improving multi-user transit services and in
compliance with a Transportation Demand Management policy adopted by the Town.
3) Enhance the quality of life, including promoting the development of a high quality public
realm:
• which is aesthetically pleasing and consistent with Watertown’s Design Guidelines,
• that provides a well-articulated pedestrian environment which implements Complete Street
concepts and adopted Complete Streets Policies,
• that promotes porous frontages which create connections to surrounding neighborhoods and
the Charles River,
• which includes public art.
4) Enhance publically available open space networks by connecting to and integrating with
adjacent state, municipal and privately-owned parcels, where appropriate, encouraging private
land owners to permanently preserve open space, being sensitive to the Charles River
reservation, and furthering remediation and public access to Sawins and Williams Ponds.
5) Respect historic assets and architectural features that help define the character of the
community and encourage preservation and restoration of historic buildings.
6) Incentivize real estate investment that will enhance the diversity and maximize the value of
the Town’s tax base.
7) Use ‘green’ building practices that encourage energy efficiency, manage storm water, protect
the riparian habitat and are planned, designed, constructed, and managed to minimize adverse
environmental impacts.
8) Encourage development that accommodates and promotes multi-modal access, transit
between the Arsenal Corridor and mass transit stops, management of transportation
demand to reduce automobile use, and prevents deterioration of the level of affected
intersection service for all transportation modes.
9) Facilitate the development of a continuum of housing options that:
• supports residences within walking or cycling distance to employment and leisure
uses,
•promotes and maintains a diverse housing stock and opportunities for lower- and
middle-income households, and
•enhances a transition between Arsenal Street and the abutting residential
neighborhoods, while discouraging residential development as a first floor use with
direct frontage on Arsenal Street.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 2 of 6
Comment [JB4]: Because of the many
meanings of the word “regional,” this change is
a substitution for the Comp Plan language,
which uses “regional”.
Comment [JB5]: Based on Comp Plan
Comment [JB6]: Based on Comp Plan
Comment [JB7]: Based on Comp Plan
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
(c) Dimensional Criteria
1)…
2) No use in the RMUD shall exceed an FAR of 1.0 without receiving a Special Permit or
Master Plan Special Permit pursuant to § 9.03-9.05 and 9.09-9.13 or and in keeping with
the intent and purpose of the RMUD Ordinance pursuant to §5.18.a, and in no instance
shall the increased intensity of use allowed by Special Permit exceed an FAR of 2.0.
3) ….
4) …
5) Height of Building:
a.
b. Maximum height of building: For new construction, 55 feet by Special Permit or 79 feet by
Master Plan Special Permit, or, by Master Plan Special Permit within a defined mixed-use
project, using adopted Design Guidelines and the allowed FAR of 2.0 to determine height up
to a maximum of one hundred and thirty (130) feet, provided the project includes a diversity
of building heights.
c. In granting a Master Plan Special Permit, and in granting a Special Permit, for a
project which includes a building listed on the National or Massachusetts State
Register of Historic Places, the SPGA shall determine that the height and roof line
of such historic structure shall not be increased.
7) Minimum Open Space: All new developments shall have at least 20 percent (20%) of the
total site area devoted to Open Space; required setbacks shall be considered as part of
the total area for Open Space. The required Open Space shall not be used for parking,
loading, or roadway purposes. Fifty percent (50%) of the required Open Space shall be
publicly accessible. There shall be an 100-foot wide open space area parallel to
Greenough Boulevard. Except as set forth in this §5.18.c.7, no structure shall be
built within this 100-foot area. Through a Master Plan Special Permit, existing
structures buildings which existed within this 100-foot area as of September 25,
2015, may be expanded within this 100-foot area, but in no instance may an addition
encroach closer to Greenough Boulevard than the existing structure or be made taller
within this 100-foot area, and, as part of a Master Plan, a request may be made for
existing or new buildings to encroach up to twenty (25) feet into this area. The square
footage used within the open space shall be replaced by twice as much pervious open
space elsewhere within the Master Plan site and contiguous to publically accessible
open space. This increased open space is in addition to the 20% required open space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 3 of 6
Comment [JB8]: See change to 5.18.g.3,
below.
Comment [JB9]: Clarification: is 55’ height
allowed of right within RMUD?
Comment [JB10]: This change assures that
there will be no change to the height of the
historic main Mall building. Boylston Properties
has stated that they do not wish to change such
height.
Comment [JB11]: This change would prevent
an increase in height of the small portion of 1
Arsenal Marketplace (aka, the Miller Alehouse
Building) within the buffer area. Boylston
Properties has said that it does not intend to
increase the height of this structure because of
a long term lease there, but since the parties
could agree to change the lease the Town is not
assured of this result.
Comment [JB12]: This change prevent
trading off any of the land within the buffer for
other open space elsewhere in the
development. It removes an amendment voted
on by the committee on 12/15.
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
8) Setbacks:
a) Front: Build-to-line of ten (10) to thirty (30) feet as specified in § 5.04 and 5.05(s); per §
5.05(p), the front build-to-line may be reduced to be consistent with surrounding existing
buildings by Special Permit.
b) Side: 15 feet; per § 5.05(d), side yards may be omitted by Special Permit provided that
the side yard does not adjoin a Residential District or a Residential Use in existence on
September 25, 2015, and that access to the rear is appropriate.
c) Rear: 20 feet; per § 5.05(p), rear yards may be reduced to be consistent with surrounding
existing buildings by Special Permit.
d) Special setbacks and stepbacks: Any structure within fifty (50) feet of Open Space
Conservancy (OSC) zoned land, and the façade of any structure which fronts on a
public way, shall be required to incorporate setbacks, step backs, and/or other
techniques, in keeping with adopted Design Guidelines, to mitigate potential adverse
impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and public ways. At a minimum, any
proposed structures greater than fifty five (55) feet in height within this these areas shall
have additional height stepped back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the structure/
building’s façade facing the OSC boundary or the public way, as the case may be, at
a ratio of 1/1 in terms of height of the story to dimension of stepback. The
foregoing special frontage stepback on a public way shall apply to any proposed
structure greater than thirty five (35) feet on any street of the width of Elm Street
or narrower.
------------------------------------------------------g)
Authority and Procedure:
2)
Application:
c.
Cross section drawings indicating the relationship of the building or
buildings to nearby buildings, buildings on adjoining properties, streets,
and open spaces and parklands. Both aerial and pedestrian level 3D
views shall be included to fully depict the visual impact of the design
from both public ways and from several key view points within the
project development area.
g.
Shadow analysis depicting internal and external impacts of morning,
mid-day and evening shadows at both solstices and equinoxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 4 of 6
Comment [JB13]: These changes are needed
to prevent adverse impacts, like canyonization
on Arsenal Street and Elm Street, because the
RMUD straddles or fronts on those streets.
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
3)
4)
i.
Verification of that adequate sewer capacity is available or that the
project will suitably increase capacity as required.
j.
Complete, conceptual level stormwater management plan
demonstrating the development’s approach to on-site Storm-water
Management and adequacy of connections to regional mains.
Review of Application: The SPGA shall hold a public hearing in accordance
with procedures outlined in § 9.04. The SPGA shall not approve a Master Plan
Special Permit unless it finds that the four conditions for Special Permit
approval set forth in § 9.05(b) of this Zoning Ordinance have been met and
that the proposed development will satisfy or meet the intent and purpose
of the RMUD Ordinance as set forth in section 5.18.a. The Petitioner’s
submission of and the review of the conceptual level plan component of a
Master Plan Special Permit shall follow the procedures set forth in § 9.03. The
SPGA shall not approve such a Master Plan Special Permit unless it finds that
the Petitioner has satisfactorily addressed, at a conceptual level, the ten criteria
listed in § 9.03(c).
Parking Reduction: In granting a Master Plan Special Permit, the SPGA may
reduce the number of required parking spaces, based on the availability of
public transportation alternatives at or near the RMUD master-planned project,
the transportation demand management programs implemented or to be
implemented as part of the RMUD Master Plan, compatibility with any
transportation policy adopted by the Town, the ability of uses with peak
user demands at different times to share parking spaces or other factors for
which the Petitioner provides (i) a parking study or analysis prepared under the
direction of a Professional Engineer or Architect with the requisite experience in
conducting such analysis, using standards and methodologies promulgated by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Urban Land Institute, or other
appropriate source, and (or including) (ii) a transportation demand
management plan prepared to best practices standards for such plans in
Massachusetts.
In granting a Master Plan Special Permit, and in granting a Special Permit
for projects with more than 20* residential units or twenty thousand
(20,000)* gross square feet, the SPGA shall require participation in a
Watertown Transportation Management Association (if and when a
Watertown TMA exists) at a quantifiable level of participation as
determined by SPGA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 5 of 6
Comment [JB14]: These are changes
recommended by Gary Shaw which I support.
Comment [JB15]: This change makes the
Intent and Purpose in 5.18.a meaningful and not
just window dressing. It causes the Intent and
Purpose to be direction to the Planning Board of
how to exercise its discretion.
Comment [JB16]: This changes attempts to
assure that the judgment of the Planning Board
about reduced parking will have to reflect any
transportation policies the Town adopts.
Comment [JB17]: This change makes it
explicit that the Petitioner’s case for reduced
parking must include a TDM plan prepared to
high standards.
Comment [JB18]: This change is
suggested because some past requirements
for TMA participation have not been
sufficiently specific. [* Drafting Note: These
quantities are intended to signify large
projects. A different size may be more
appropriate.]
RMUD PROPOSAL AS TENTATIVELY AMENDED AS OF 1-23-2016
BY ED&P COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS NOT YET CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
In addition, the SPGA may allow the Petitioner to temporarily further reduce the
amount of parking provided as part of a master-planned project during a
phase(s) of an approved large-scale mixed-use project if existing parking
spaces will be eliminated during a phase of implementation, to be replaced in
that or a later phase of implementation, for example if a structured parking
facility is to be built on the location of an existing surface parking lot. In
determining whether to grant such a temporary further reduction of the amount
of parking, the SPGA shall take into consideration the security the Petitioner
provides the Town that funding for constructing or otherwise providing
the eliminated parking spaces will be available to the Town in the event
the Petitioner fails to replace such spaces in a timely manner, the factors
set forth above in this subsection and the applicant’s proposals, if any, to
provide substitute off-site parking or other interim measures to reduce the
demand for parking within the master-planned project.
7)
Comment [JB19]: This change allows the
town to create a mechanism to be sure the
temporarily eliminated spaces will be built when
they are needed, even if the Petitioner becomes
bankrupt or fails to build the promised spaces
for any other reason.
Lapse of a Master Plan Special Permit: A Master Plan Special Permit will be
required to include a phasing plan for implementing the Master Plan Special
Permit.
a.
The Permit shall be deemed to have been exercised for purposes of §
9.13 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9 of the Massachusetts Zoning Act,
M.G.L. c. 40A, if, within one year from the date of the grant of the SPGA’s
Master Plan Special Permit, the Petitioner has applied for Final Site Plan
Approval of a building or outdoor use, and if within two years of such date
construction of an approved building or commencement of an approved
principal use outside of a building has begun, in either case except for good
cause. A petitioner may request extensions of the phasing plan and/or
implementation through a request to the SPGA prior to permit expiration. The
time periods referenced above shall not include such time required to pursue or
await the determination of any appeal under M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 17.
b.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5.18.g.5, ten (10) years
from the issuance of a Master Plan Special Permit, a building for which a
Final Site Plan Approval has not been applied, or (if a Final Site Plan
Approval has been issued for such building), construction or principal
use outside of a building has not begun, shall not be constructed, nor
shall such principal use be allowed, until the SPGA shall either approve an
amendment to the Master Plan, approve a new Master Plan, or approve a
Special Permit, to allow subsequent submittal of such Final Site Plan
Approval request, or construction of the building or commencement of the
principal use outside of a building, as the case may be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Respectfully submitted by Jonathan Bockian 1-25-2016
Page 6 of 6
Comment [JB20]: This change is intended to
prevent Master Plans from phasing indefinitely,
even if circumstances in the area have changed
dramatically. It would sunset the ability to
proceed, after only Site Plan Review, with a
building that was to be a phase of a Master Plan
if that building hasn’t been built, or Site Plan
Approval applied for, within a certain amount of
time. The suggestion is that after 7 years, the
Master Plan or building should be thoroughly
reviewed before and unapproved or unbuilt
phase is allowed to proceed.
Proposed addition to RMUD Section 5.18.g.2) Application
(l) List of required Federal, Massachusetts, or Watertown environmental licenses, permits, filings or
restrictions, currently in effect or anticipated.
With the following checklist to be provided to the applicant by DCDP as part of the Special Permit or Site
Plan Review checklist:
Provision
Filing/Site #
Not Yet
Submitted
Not
Applicable
Mass Wetlands
Protection Act
Watertown Wetlands
Protection Ordinance
Rivers Protection Act
(Riverfront Area)
Watertown
Stormwater Ordinance
Mass Contingency Plan
310 CMR 40
Activity & Use
Limitation
Chapter 91 Waterways
Mass Environmental
Protection Act (MEPA)
NPDES Construction
Stormwater Permit
NPDES Stormwater
Construction Permit
NPDES Stormwater
Multisector General
Permit
… to be completed – with more precise program citations, additional requirements (e.g. for air
regulations, Federal hazardous waste, and other regulations, etc.
Submitted by Nancy Hammett 1/25/2016
Amendment to Proposed REGIONAL MIXED USE DISTRICT (RMUD) Zoning
Height:
Purpose: Prevent building heights greater than 79’ / 7 stories, whether by special permit or
of right, and to provide step-back transitions in height at sensitive buffer zones or setbacks.
Section 5.18.c.5 - Height of Building:
a. Unchanged
b. Maximum height of any building excluding those covered in paragraph ‘c.’ below: For new
construction, 55 feet/ 5 stories, by Special Permit or 79 feet / 7 stories or within a defined
mixed-use project, shall employ a Master Plan Special Permit and use adopted Design
Guidelines and the allowed FAR to determine height. However, in no instance shall the height
exceed 130’.
c. Maximum height of buildings abutting Arsenal Park or the Greenough Blvd 100’ buffer: For
new construction or additions to existing buildings, the maximum height shall not exceed 55’
within 20’ of the required setback. Further, building height beyond 20’ of each applicable
setback shall be allowed to increase to the maximum allowable height so long as each aspect of
the building remains below a 45 degree angle originating 20’ from the setback and 55’ above
grade at that point.
1/23/16
Amendment to Proposed REGIONAL MIXED USE DISTRICT (RMUD) Zoning
Master Plan Requirement:
Purpose: To require that proponents of projects, potentially involving multiple buildings on
multiple parcels smaller or greater than 2 acres, first receive approval of a conceptual
Master Plan showing the entire intended or likely development plan on all parcels as it is
envisioned to implemented over time.
Section 5.18 (g) – Authority and Procedure:
Any project requiring relief per 5.01 of the Ordinance shall be subject to 9.03 and 9.05 of the
Watertown Zoning Ordinance. For any common development plan involving one or more
buildings on one or more parcels greater or less than 2 acres, the Petitioner/Project shall first seek
a Master Plan Special Permit under 5.18(g) encompassing all projects envisioned to be developed
within a ten year period.
Master Plan Special Permit with Site Plan Review:
The revitalization and redevelopment of the property in the RMUD may involve new uses and
buildings, additional structured parking, enhanced landscaping, and other significant changes. The
projects may occur over time and in phases. In order to ensure that nearby and Town-wide traffic,
infrastructure, density, connectivity and visual impacts etc., from such projects are identified and
coherently planned to include appropriate mitigation, the Petitioner shall seek conceptual, Master
Plan level approval of a large scale mixed use project. This approval shall be followed by detailed
Final Site Plan Review Approvals of individual projects or buildings under 9.03 that are to occur
later, before issuance of any Building Permits.
A Master Plan-level review provides the Petitioner with the benefit of advance conceptual
approval for multiple projects to be implemented over time. It also provides both the Petitioner
and the Town with the opportunity and mechanism to consider and address the cumulative
impacts of all individual phases and for the holistic consideration and mitigation planning for the
entire large-scale, mixed-use project(s) that may be built in phases. This ordinance acknowledges
that changed circumstances over the 10 year period may require adjustments to the original
development vision. Such adjustments can be accommodated by the filing and approval of an
amended for a minor or major revision to the Master Plan in advance of submitting for Site Plan
Review on the adjusted project component(s).
1)
No change
2)
Application: A Petitioner proposing to construct one or more buildings (which may
include structured parking and may include alterations to one or more existing buildings)
as described above, shall first seek approval of the overall project through a Master Plan
Special Permit process. An application for a Master Plan Special permit shall include, at a
1/23/16
minimum, for each proposed new building, structural alteration of an existing building, or
principle use outside of a building:
a. No change
b. No change
c. Cross sectional drawings indicating the relationships of the building or buildings, to
nearby buildings, buildings on adjoining properties, streets, open spaces or parklands.
Both aerial and pedestrian level 3D views shall be included to fully depict the visual
impact of the design from both public ways and from several key view points within the
project development area.
d. No change
e. No change
f. No change
g. Shadow analysis depicting internal and external impacts of morning, mid-day and
evening shadows at both solstices and equinoxes.
h. No change
i. Verification that adequate Sewer capacity is available or that the project will suitably
increase capacity as required.
j. Complete, conceptual level storm-water management plan demonstrating the
development’s approach to on-site Storm-water Management and adequacy of
connections to regional mains.
Notes:
• The remainder of Section 5.18 (g) is unchanged.
• There other sections that would require minor language adjustments to coordinate
with the wording proposed above. These include but may not be limited to:
5.18 (c.2), (c.5), and (c.7)
1/23/16
Amendment to Proposed REGIONAL MIXED USE DISTRICT (RMUD) Amended Zoning
Environmental Sustainability:
Purpose: To amend the site plan review criteria to provide options which encourage higher
levels of sustainable design on major commercial, mixed-use projects where such higher
environmental standards would substantially contribute to furthering the goals of the
‘Comprehensive Plan’ by reducing Watertown’s carbon and environmental footprint.
Section 9.03 (c) 7. – Environmental Sustainability: Proposed projects within the RMUD
District shall seek to diminish the heat island effect; employ passive solar techniques and design
to maximize southern exposures and shading; maximize the use of sustainable materials; utilize
energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy resources; and minimize water use. All mixed
use developments in NB, LB, CB, I-1, I-2, I-3, and in the AODD, PSCD and RMUD Districts
must meet either of the following requirements as outlined by the United States Green Building
Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), current addition applicable
at time of Site Plan Approval submission, as a minimum standard:
Option A: The design of new buildings and the renovation of existing buildings shall achieve full
LEED certification at LEED Silver. This shall apply to the ‘Core & Shell’ component of the
project only. The project’s developer shall commit to strongly encouraging tenants to develop
their interior spaces to a similar or enhanced level of sustainability. The petitioner/developer shall
also commit to implementing sustainable operational practices in the completed project.
Option B: The design of all new buildings and major alterations of existing buildings shall be
designed to be certifiable at LEED Gold. This need only apply to the ‘Core & Shell’ component
of the project. In such ‘Core & Shell’ projects, the developer shall commit to strongly
encouraging tenants to develop their interior spaces to a similar or enhanced level of
sustainability. The petitioner/developer shall also commit to implementing sustainable operational
practices in the completed project.
With either option above, the petitioner shall submit documentation to the Town that
demonstrates that project will achieve the LEED points required within each of the options. Such
documentation shall include but not be limited to a Project Sustainability Narrative describing
how the project design intends to achieve the selected LEED credits, and a completed LEED
Checklist with criteria and points that show how the required total credits will be achieved. The
petitioner shall also commit to updating this documentation and submitting it along with the
construction permit application materials. When a petitioner has elected Option A above,
evidence of final LEED certification shall be submitted to the Town within one year of project
occupancy.
1/23/16
Schreiber, Gideon
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Schreiber, Gideon
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:31 PM
Falkoff, Susan; 'Duff, Dennis'
Magoon, Steven
Dennis Duff Comments
Dennis Duff called and asked that the following comments be considered:  Split the RMUD into separate areas – RMUD 1 and 2 – concern in regard to height  Concerned about the amount of green open space that might be provided and tree canopy was discussed, also  Consider rooftop gardens where feasible or green roofs (access for people is important) Also for urban farming on rooftops  Consider park maintenance  Look at linkage fees  Question about taxes and the benefit to proposal 1
Schreiber, Gideon
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Barbara Ruskin [[email protected]]
Wednesday, January 27, 2016 3:30 PM
Falkoff, Susan; VincentPiccirilli; Woodland Kenneth; Schreiber, Gideon; Magoon, Steven
jon bockian; Gary Shaw; Nancy Hammett
Another item for amendment consideration
Dear Officials, I have another concern that should be clarified in an amendment, or we will suffer the same problems that we have had along the river in the PSCD jump up on other public lands, eg conservation/community path, buffer zone, and parklands. People who walk along the beautiful river walk all through town should not have to view cars driving and parking underneath buildings (or in the parking lots at Stop and Shop and Home Depot, for example). It’s bad enough that on Pleasant Street we have the rear ends of the buildings closely fronting the river and community path, but we also have cars going to park and the parked cars are visible. What a shame to spoil our natural treasure that runs through our entire town when entries could be configured to go at the side of buildings without traversing the land facing the river. That way, barriers could be designed to hide the cars. There is a new project plan that has a parking turn around just beyond the legal limit on Pleasant Street. This should be placed where it is not visible from the river, or buffers. We have enough traffic along Greenough Blvd, Charles River Road, and Pleasant Street. In RMUD it needs to be spelled out now, particularly since one major BP building, Bldg G, will touch on both Arsenal Park and the buffer, and the open central space they’ve configured should have no visible parking lots (I suppose some short term parking is necessary in sections with retail). Elsewhere in RMUD, other land abuts Conservation land and the Community Path and should be visually protected from cars. Barbara Ruskin 140 Spring Street 1
Schreiber, Gideon
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Barbara Ruskin [[email protected]]
Monday, January 25, 2016 12:20 PM
Falkoff, Susan; VincentPiccirilli; Woodland Kenneth; Schreiber, Gideon
Magoon, Steven; Mark Sideris; Jameson Janet
Zoning Overhaul: a model from the City of Somerville Website
http://www.somervillema.gov/alerts/zoning‐overhaul‐meeting‐date‐changes‐(This is Zoning topics for community discussion); http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Response to all Public Comments.pdf. Susan, et al, A well‐run meeting Saturday, January 23, but pretty frustrating for the big picture. Gideon, you said at one point that the DPCP envisioned development opportunities for the corridor and implemented them through the RMUD. The problem is, the public didn’t have a chance to see/participate in that visioning. Most people have no idea what, for example, infill is, what was imagined when you envisioned the huge area, how it would connect to the existing neighborhoods, and what it could look like. Those who have an idea who have spoken with me, and with whom I agree, want to see a network of streets with housing that takes the form of new neighborhoods in the RMUD’s many properties. For example, if you can’t have residential entrances on Arsenal Street for some urban planning reason, then let’s make sure there are plenty of entrances onto a new street in back so it’s less Disneyland and more Watertown. And there will have to be breaks in that infill so residents and neighbors can walk through to Arsenal Street and the shops and entertainments in the area. People feel that the Comprehensive Plan took their ideas, but ended up a very complicated aspirational document. People want to be involved in its implementation through zoning—and the envisioning that the Department did, but which the public has not had a chance to do. Hence the deep frustration. Sustainable Watertown’s Citizen‐Initiated Conversations on RMUD have touched on this aspect, but there we are in the process of learning together in a few meetings in a month’s time to fit into the Council’s voting schedule. Writing amendments without fully understanding that envisioning process the DPCD did is pretty impossible, and in a truncated time frame as well. Luckily, there are a few professionals willing and able to analyze some areas of concern. The rest of us, I think, feel a deep lack of respect for our position from town officials and a deep regret that the Council may vote without giving us an opportunity to understand what is envisioned and might be envisioned for this area. Perhaps the Councillors will, at least, give us a chance to understand their vision for the site’s many parcels so we can see what you have been advised to accept and are voting to allow in the RMUD before the vote, and make time at the Subcommittee meeting Thursday, January 28. Perhaps Gideon would do the same. The link above shows Somerville’s commitment to involving the public in the zoning as well as the planning process. We valued the opportunity to participate in the Comprehensive Plan. Why not zoning? Here’s another Somerville example of process for zoning. http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Response to all Public Comments.pdf. Barbara Ruskin 140 Spring Street PS: Perhaps the Library can be given 20 copies of the Comp Plan book with some put on reserve, if they are not already there. The Zoning Ordinance as a companion book as well. It’s never too late, I suppose. 1