Development at Cutter and Summer (next to Rosebud)

[hikermtnbiker.livejournal.com]

Are folks aware of the 4 story, mixed use development planned for the corner of Cutter and Summer next to the Rosebud? Many of the local residents only recently found out about it and are understandably upset.

The plan is to tear down the old gas station and the adjacent 2 family. The building will be 48 feet high (think One Davis) and will consist of 1st floor retail, 2nd floor office and  6 2-bedroom apartments on the 3rd and 4th floors. There will be an underground parking garage (as they will use the entire lot) that will exit onto Cutter. We are really appalled at the size of this building which will dwarf the adjacent  buildings on Summer / Cutter, not to mention the added traffic entering and exiting the garage. It is simply too big for this busy corner at the edge of a residential neighborhood.

The developer is asking for 2 special permits from the Zoning Board; one to provide 7 fewer parking spaces than is required by the zoning ordinance and the other to allow construction of a 6 unit dwelling. A group of local residents is urging the ZBA to deny the special permits with the hope that a suitably sized building that adheres to the parking regulations, and better suits the neighborhood, will be built.

If you are also concerned and wish to express your opinion and / or become more informed here is what you can do:

- Write or Fax the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask that they deny the special permits for 377 Summer St.
- Call or email Ward 6 Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz: Rebekah@rcn.com 617-718-0792
- Attend a neighborhood meeting hosted by Rebekah Gewirtz
          This Monday, June 1
          5:30 pm at Ciampa Manor 27 College Avenue
- Attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
           This Wednesday, June 3, 6pm at City Hall in the Alderman's Chambers

To view the plans for the development and to read the Planning Board report, go to the city web site and planning board page and view info for 377 Summer St.

Thanks

Comments

[cos]

I would try to deny them the parking variance, but not oppose the size variance.

Advantages seem to be:
supplies its own parking, so it brings more people without extra load on local parking
more people living in the square is better for local businesses, especially useful non-restaurant places
mixed use, with retail space at ground level

It's across the street from the Dilboy, yes? Doesn't seem like a bad location for this kind of building. If I were living near it, I think I'd welcome it.

[nathanjw]

Parking regs are already too generous. There should be parking maximums, not minimums.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

You do realise we're talking about the number of spaces the developer has to create, right?

[nathanjw]

Yes. There should be a maximum they can create, and no minimum.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Thus increasing the burden on those people who already do own cars.

I see.

You do realise that the people using that facility will likely have cars, and your wish is that the developer further take from the commons' allotment of parking spaces?

I get that you are one of the "let's do away with all cars" people, but the cars are already here - making developers create off street parking, and having minimums required, ensures that ... you know what, it's like talking to a brick wall.

[turil.livejournal.com]

How about this, there are two sides of the city, one in which everyone gets to have a car, and park it free on the street, or sidewalk, or wherever they feel like parking it. And on the other side of the city, no cars are allowed in at all, except for the occasional emergency vehicle, and maybe delivery vehicles and moving vans, with special permits for temporary use. You get to pick which area of town you live in and visit and work and play and travel through.

I know which one you'd stick to. And which one I'd prefer, as well. To bad we don't have that choice, and have to settle for some unpleasant compromise...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

How about this, you actually deal with reality for a change?

[nathanjw]

I think the developer should be allowed to put in parking if they want. And since, as you note, many people want parking, they have some incentive to do so. But it's a market incentive, not a requirement - they should be allowed to not include parking (as they may choose to not include second bathrooms, or granite countertops or other expensive items), which makes the building as a whole less expensive, and market it to the sort of people who like to live in the middle of a dense, bustling area.

(You do realize that the square as it is today could not be built with the parking requirements currently in effect?)

I recommend reading chapter 5 of The High Cost of Free Parking" on this subject.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I think the developer should be allowed to put in parking if they want. And since, as you note, many people want parking, they have some incentive to do so. But it's a market incentive, not a requirement - they should be allowed to not include parking

Actually, it's part of Somerville law, so, yes, it's a requirement.

You do realize that the square as it is today could not be built with the parking requirements currently in effect?

So, let's get rid of it all, as turil suggests - tear it all down, and have zero parking allowed.

The Square as it exists today, building wise, was not built when cars were as prevalent as they are now.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but look at it this way: If they add, say, 20 new residents to the square, and 7 new parking spaces, the zoning regs say that this is not enough spaces for the number of new residents under the theory that at least 70 percent of those new residents WILL own cars and will leave them parked in the square, thus preventing non-residents with cars from patronizing local businesses. As a practical matter, though, this is not likely to happen in Davis Square because there really just aren't that many places to store cars overnight near that lot. Instead I'm (optimistically) betting a development like this one would be forced to attract non-car-owners to the square, which would be even better for businesses because residents would have to walk through the square to get to the train station.

And I am forced to agree with turil about the concept of a cap (rather than a minimum) on the number of parking spaces for a new development. I see no logical reason that the number of parking lots should be directly correlated to population density. If New York City followed this logic everywhere, fully half of Manhattan would be parking garages! Adding parking spaces invariably adds cars, and attracting a greater non-car-owning population to the square would be better for car owners and non-car-owners alike.

Additionally I might point out that a development *in* the square is precisely where an affluent non-car-owner is likely to want to live, and they will pay a premium for the privilege (I should know, I'm one of them).

Interesting...

[turil.livejournal.com]

I agree that Davis doesn't need to encourage people to bring more cars, by adding even more parking spaces.

But I also think that all "permanent" parking should be privately owned, not publicly subsidized (i.e. no long term street parking). So I kind of think that landowners should be able to put as much space for cars as they like on their own property.

And... I think that if there are any requirements for parking, it should be for bike/scooter/motorcycle parking!

Re: Interesting...

[ron_newman]

The zoning code does in fact require some bicycle parking for developments of this size. For bicycle parking requirements go to the zoning code, scroll left column down to PART III ZONING ORDINANCE, then Section 9.15 Bicycle Access and Parking.


(by the way, I was at the Armory last night, and they need a lot more bike racks than what they've installed so far. People ended up locking bikes to the railings next to the air-conditioning units.)

Re: Interesting...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

But I also think that all "permanent" parking should be privately owned, not publicly subsidized.

Funny, everyone with permits is paying for parking (although, yes, it's ridiculously low).

i.e. no long term street parking

There isn't any such thing in Somerville - 48 hour rule.

Re: Interesting...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

You do realize that the zoning laws require them to provide off street privately owned parking for the vehicles, thus lessening the burden on public streets. If the developer got their way, the burden on the public would be increased, 12 people moved in, bringing 8 new cars to the area, and increasing the on-street congestion.

Not to mention further increasing the density of the city; I am sick of developers tearing down 2 family homes with (albeit small) yards, and replacing them with tall, lot filling monstrosities. I like living in Somerville because of the smaller, less dense development. I don't want to become another Brighton.

[ron_newman]

Whereas I'd do the opposite. Buildings this close to a Red Line station should not be required to provide large amounts of parking.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Seconded. In a city with the density of Somerville I really don't think there's any need to require developers to make more room for cars on their property.

[dent42.livejournal.com]

Fine, then let's not increase the number of people living in the area. The dude is looking to create what, 3x as much housing? If you increase the population of this city, I feel that you should definitely provide private parking for those new residents. Limit the construction to commercial/retail use only, and I'm fully behind it.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

But this assumes that ALL new residents automatically come with cars, and this just isn't true, especially in Davis Square which is one of the few parts of Somerville that is very well served by public transportation. Because there isn't anywhere ELSE in the Square where a resident of this housing is going to be ABLE to park, providing this housing without providing parking is very likely to attract a certain number of non-car-owners to live there.

Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

While its great to hope that only people without cars will be attracted to this housing, I am deeply skeptical this is what will happen. Unless they can somehow guarantee that non-car owners would buy the places (attach a clause denying parking permits to anyone at those addresses?), what will happen is the new residents will move in, bring their 2 cars per household, adding 12 cars to the area, get a Somerville parking permit, and make parking in the surrounding residential streets even more dense. Thinking that only people without cars would move there is really naive.

Also, I wonder what the folks with houses behind this development feel. Replacing a 2 story building with a giant 4 story one is going to completely eliminate sun from some of the neighbor's yards. But who needs greenspace, right?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I'm in full agreement with you about the parking variance, but given this developer's flouting of permits in the past - screw them, no size variance.

[ron_newman]

Wait - do they actually need a size variance at all? This property is within the Central Business District zone, which allows buildings of up to 50 feet and 4 stories.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

they need a size variance, it seems, to create a 6 unit dwelling. What're the zoning laws on that in that district?

[ron_newman]

From looking at the Planning Board staff recommendation, the development needs a special permit (not the same thing as a variance) because it contains 4 or more residential units. It also need a special permit in order to provide 17 parking spaces instead of the normally required 24 for the mix of retail, office, and residential uses.

For the zoning ordinance go here, scroll the left column down to "PART III ZONING ORDINANCE", and click on the outline links below it. Specifically you want "Section 7.11. Table of Permitted Uses.", under the column "CBD" (Central Business District).

The proposal conforms to the dimensional requirements of the CBD zone, most notably 4 stories and 50 feet maximum. (See "ARTICLE 8 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS"). So it does not need any special approval for its size.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Okay got it, I was merely going off the terms the OP used.

So if, as has already been alleged, this developer is the same one as ignored the agreements in place for other sites they have developed in Somerville, does anyone think the developer is going to pay attention to what the law requires, when they can do whatever they want, so long as they give the city a gift?

[msackton.livejournal.com]

Isn't it always a good idea to let any developer who wants to build fewer parking spots do so? The permit-parking streets around Davis aren't so crowded that a few more cars will keep people from being able to park, and as far as I can tell the real effect will be to attract people to the square who don't want 2 cars for a 2 bedroom unit. That's a good thing in my mind.