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

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

It does look like they've done a much better job responding to both the size of the Rosebud and the form of Art Deco bank building. I'm just frustrated that they didn't include a view that really shows how it looks next to the Rosebud, as if you were walking down Summer to the place.

I'm also really irked that they're only providing TWO bike parking spots, which are hidden next to the garage entrance - rather than placed near the entrance to the retail place - and behind a planter!! Asinine. You'd have to already know it existed to find it. I guess they figure if there are people biking there, they can just chain up to the meters or something, but two spaces is pretty crappy for a place that might have 12 residents and presumably a significant number of customers.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I don't think there will be meters there, there aren't right now.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Just wait until T&P finishes their great and glorious master plan.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

How, while still keeping within their own requirements of no parking within 20 feet of an intersection, and no parking within 2 feet of a driveway?

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I'm sure they will find a way. After all, the city needs the money!

But if they don't (and in this case, they probably won't), then this make the lousy number of bike spaces provided by the developer - and the city's own requirements! - even lousier.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

So you know, I agree - I'm not just all about "won't anyone thing of the children CARZ!"

I know there are people who bike for work, and also have cars - I'd be all for the city giving them a special permit that exempts them from the 48 hour rule.

[ron_newman]

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.

The governing rule appears to be 1 bike parking space for every 10 required car parking spaces, so 24/10 = 2.4 which rounds down to 2. I agree that this is miserly.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

It's clearly a response to how few people bicycle around here. OH WAIT.

It's a complete failure of the developer and/or architect to think about what kinds of transportation the residents, employees, and visitors/customers might be using other than "car" (we mustn't forget the cars!) and "T". Considering they are going for LEED certification, it's also pretty crappy of them to neglect this aspect.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Considering they are going for LEED certification

Really? Are you sure? That's one good thing I suppose...

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Point 7 in this document (http://www.somervillema.gov/cos_content/documents/SummerSt377_StaffReport.pdf) says, "The Applicant is building to achieve LEED certification." So . . . we'll see.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Wow. I wonder if they'll actually do it...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

This rule used elsewhere in the square definitely seems to have resulted in a lot of bikes chained to parking meters and fences.

[ron_newman]

As a member of the Bicycle Committee which helped recommend the rules, I'll just point out that getting any requirement at all into the zoning code was a major accomplishment at the time. Yes, it could and should be better. But until about four years ago there was no requirement at all.

I think the rules were modeled on similar ones in neighboring Cambridge and Arlington.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

God forbid we ever try to be *ahead* of the curve on these things, especially given that Cambridge tends to constantly increase the number of required provisions for bicycles, so by the time Somerville gets around to copying Cambridge's regulations, Cambridge's regulations have gotten stricter.