October 28, Somerville Board of Aldermen Somerville Planning Board City Hall 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143

Transcription

1 Octber 28, 2016 Smerville Bard f Aldermen Smerville Planning Bard City Hall 93 Highland Avenue Smerville, MA Dear Aldermen and Members f the Planning Bard, Thank yu fr the pprtunity t prvide written feedback n the prpsed Unin Square Overlay District (USOD) zning amendment. We are excited t see Smerville advance redevelpment planning in Unin Square, and we believe thughtful and careful zning is a critical element f this verall effrt. We have reviewed the July 2016 versin f the prpsed zning amendment and wish t express questins and cncerns with the plan. (See Attachment A.) We seek t understand these issues and request clarificatin and crrective language prir t passage f the zning amendment. Given the cmplexity f the USOD zning amendment, we cntinue t examine its scpe and implicatins and intend t further engage with the Bard f Aldermen, Planning Bard, and Office f Strategic Planning and Cmmunity Develpment (OSPCD) t ensure it represents ur cmmunity s gals. Sincerely, Rb Buchanan, Chairpersn Unin Square Neighbrs Unin Square Neighbrs Steering Cmmittee: Rb Buchanan (chair), Suzanne Bremer, Stuart Dash, Sam Engelstad, Andy Greenspn, Stephanie Hirsch, Jim McGinnis, Annette McGlin, Philip Parsns, JT Sctt, Tim Talun, Shu Talun, Bnnie Tminack CC: Jseph A. Curtatne, Mayr, City f Smerville Smerville Bard f Alderman 1

2 Attachment A: Unin Square Overlay District Prpsal Questins and Cncerns Unin Square Neighbrs Questins and Cncerns Enfrcement Prject Phasing: Based n ur review f the zning amendment, it des nt appear that there are any enfrcement mechanisms t require r incentivize a develper t cmplete all f the prject phases included under a Crdinated Develpment Plan special permit. What prevents a develper frm building the prtin f the develpment with the highest financial return (i.e. residential) and delay building cmmercial, arts and enterprise, pedestrian circulatin space perhaps indefinitely? Sale f lts in Crdinated Develpment Plan area: What happens if a develper nly builds residential prtin f a CDP and sells remaining lts t new wner? D the required elements f Crdinated Develpment Plan still apply t new wner? Density D1 / Civic Center Blck : The prpsed zning amendment wuld enable cnstructin f Pdium Twer Building up t 20 stries ttal n We recmmend that that enfrcement mechanisms are added t the Crdinated Develpment Plan special permit prcess t incentivize cmpletin f building phases. These mechanisms include: Link t Occupancy Permit: Require that applicant/develper meet pre-determined cnstructin milestne(s) fr cmmercial and pen space prir t issuing a certificate f ccupancy fr residential units; the linkage between these uses is imprtant t titrate. Cambridge uses such an apprach t ensure develpers deliver n residential prjects in areas that are experiencing high demand fr cmmercial space. Require a Surety Bnd: Require applicant/develper t place funds in escrw t be repaid upn cmpletin f all phases f Crdinated Develpment Plan Nullify base zning: Disallw the applicant/develper frm subsequently develping Crdinated Develpment Plan lts under base zning rules Deed restrictin: Currently deed restrictins are used in Smerville t guarantee affrdable husing units (int perpetuity), enfrce histric preservatin rules fr listed prperties, and enfrce memranda f agreement between the city and develpers. We recmmend that such an enfrcement mechanism be cnsidered t ensure that the elements f the Crdinated Develpment Plan remain intact in the event a develper sells sme r all f the land within an apprved Crdinated Develpment Plan special permit area. We recmmend that a change t high rise designatin f D1 t smething that aligns with the Neighbrhd Plan. 2

3 the D1/Civic Center Blck. This is in cnflict with the Unin Square Neighbrhd Plan. Maximum height limits: Height limits are expressed as the number f stries that may be built, but d nt indicate a maximum number f feet. Examples: 20 stries x 13ft/flr (average) = 260 ft 20 stries x 18ft/flr (average) = 360 ft Applicant Eligibility Ownership: The zning amendment wuld allw develper(s) t prpse prjects n land they d nt wn if the Smerville Redevelpment Authrity is listed as c-applicant (e.g. Unin Square Revitalizatin Plan parcels). What implicatins des this have fr land wners whse prperty is invluntarily included in a Crdinated Develpment Plan? Open Space Insufficient pen space: The zning amendment requirements fr pen space d nt appear t align with the gals f SmerVisin r the Neighbrhd Plan. There is nt an pen space requirement tied t apprval f an verall Crdinated Develpment Plan, and the requirements fr individual lts appear insufficient. As defined, civic pen space is inclusive f such elements as sidewalks and ther pedestrian circulatin spaces that mst bservers wuld nt necessarily characterize as green r pen. "Public" spaces created as part f private develpment are ging t be privately wned Open space created under the requirements f this rdinance will likely be privately wned public space, which allws fr private wners t cntrl hw the space is used. The public shuld have cntrl f as much f the public realm as pssible, nt just permissin t use it. Sme new civic space shuld be publicly-wned public space, nt privately wned public space. Specify maximum building height Clse lphle that wuld allw mezzanine flr-type cnstructin as a way t circumvent limit n the number f stries Specify that lts included in a Crdinated Develpment Plan applicatin must be wned r under a Purchase and Sale Agreement by the Crdinated Develpment Plan applicants. Given the imprtance and cmplexity f pen space requirements, we plan t cntinue t wrk with the Bard f Aldermen, the Planning Bard, and Office f Strategic Planning and Cmmunity Develpment (OSPCD) t ensure that we are cnfident that the requirements stipulated in the zning amendment deliver n the prmises made t Smerville and the Unin Square cmmunity fr new pen space. D-1 and D-2 are already publicly wned. In crdinatin with US2, the City shuld retain wnership f the prtin f each site that is t becme civic space and required a payment in lieu f pen space fr the remaining prtin being sld t US2 t cver the cst f the land retained by the City. The civic space culd still be designed and built by US2 as part f their prject, hwever the civic space wuld be true public space. 3

4 Off Site Cmpliance As written, Sectin 6.7.6D.1 f the zning amendment des nt require that ff-site cmpliance be met within the lts subject t a single Crdinated Develpment Plan. Based n OSPCD s mem regarding the rdinance s intent, we believe this may be a drafting errr and seek clarificatin. Strike within the USOD (and within the district ) frm Sectin 6.7.6D.1 and replace with within the lts subject t a Crdinated Develpment Plan Special Permit Specify ther parameters fr ff-site cmpliance. Examples: Our cncern is that this culd result in separate buildings designated fr affrdable husing versus market rate units (i.e. incme segregatin) and/r delay (indefinitely?) f cnstructin f ffsite cmmunity benefits (i.e. affrdable husing, pen space, arts/enterprise space). Minimum percentage f affrdable husing units that must be prvided n a Generating Site Include a requirement that the CDP special permit stipulate phasing f pen space, t hpefully result in an pen space sequence that made verall sense, bth in quality and character f the space and with the cnstructin sequencing while ensuring that it is nt all left until the end. Include a prvisin that the verall percentage f pen space prvided thrugh any phase cannt be less than the verall required percentage. This wuld still allw the flexibility t shift pen space between sites, but wuld have the effect f ensuring that pen space is prvided during earlier phases. Discretinary Review vs Administrative Review Administrative Review: Under the zning amendment, the Planning Bard has discretinary review fr Crdinated Develpment Plan Special Permits but nly Administrative Review pwers fr Design & Site Plan apprval. It is nt sufficiently clear what may be cnsidered as part f an Administrative Review prcess, and ur cncern is that cmmunity cncerns will nt be sufficiently addressed during the Design & Site Plan apprval phase. Timing f Neighbrhd Meeting(s): Applicant/develper is nly required t rganize a Neighbrhd Meeting after the Crdinated Develpment has been apprved by the Planning We recmmend that there be mre clarity with respect t the Planning Bard s authrity and respnsibility fr exercising its Administrative Review pwers during the Design & Site Plan prcess. There needs t be further clarificatin and assurance that cmmunity cncerns will be incrprated during this develpment phase. Specify that an additinal Neighbrhd Meeting must be held prir t submissin f Crdinated Develpment Plan applicatin 4

5 Bard (but befre the Planning Bard reviews Design & Site Plan(s) 5