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

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

The owner/developer of this property is the same developer who built the much-contested (went to court and received injunctions against residents' opinions, had to make several concessions because building was not built according to approved plan) building at the corner of Willow and Morrison Aves., he is also the owner of the strip of stores where Out of the Blue and several other businesses USED to be (stop in and chat with the owner of Out of the Blue about this developer), also a much-contested piece of property at the rear of several homes on Lexington Ave. (after 10 years of wrangling finally managed to get permits to build something somewhat suitable, finally started to build and was building according to a completely different set of plans than was approved; neighbors complained and he was forced to halt work.). This man has a terrible track record. You must be organized and vigilant, though, in order to have an impact. Go for it! I've seen the plans and it would also completely dwarf the historical Rosebud Diner. It's a horrible plan, as most of his are...but as we've found out, sometimes the real plan is up his sleeve! By the way, he's also the gentleman you've seen (I think illegally) running a weekly 'yard sale' out of the property in question.

[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.

[cos]

Hmm, what do you think the real plan might be?

[nathanjw]

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

[alphacygni]

If I lived in a standard 2-3 story house, and a building the height and massing of One Davis were built in the abutting lot, I would be very sad. I would miss getting any light whatsoever. But this doesn't just happen anywhere. Unless the special permits he's asking for include height and massing (FAR, floor area ratio) above the standard zoning for that lot, it sounds like the houses in that area would be vulnerable to that very fate. Always check zoning before you move somewhere, if you want to know what can and cannot happen. Much like the only way you can truly prevent something from being built in a lot near you is to buy the lot.

Hearing that this guy has tried to build in violation of approved plans at least twice is disturbing, but as someone just reminded me, I should judge the plans on their face and not on the applicant. The ZBA is also very constrained in what they are legally supposed to consider. No reason for the building inspector, though, not to be on the guy like flies on beer if he's a known problem.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

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

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Always check zoning before you move somewhere, if you want to know what can and cannot happen.

Doesn't always help - there's a guy who used to post here off and on about construction near porter.
edited to correct my statements, and found a link to the discussion.
Non-resident developer failed to meet notice requirements, neighbors had no info building was going up one storey, while in court fighting the issue, developer sped construction up in order to have a fait accompli.

http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/764016.html

[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.

[hikermtnbiker.livejournal.com]

I agree that increased use of alternate forms of transportation (T,walk,bike,ride share, etc.) are to be encouraged and public policies like parking regulations can have a positive effect. So perhaps the parking requirements should be changed after some careful study and with some unified plan. But don't keep allowing exceptions to the current regulations willy nilly. That's like having no plan at all.

The reality is, and as local politicians and business people (like you Ron) point out, Davis Square has become a destination. People some here from all over and not all come by the T. Try to eliminate parking and see what the business owners think. There was quite a vocal response to the extension of the meters until 10pm.

As a landlord, I find that my tenants more often than not, move to Davis to be in Davis, not necessarily to be near the T, although that is a draw. So they need cars to get to work and they must be parked somewhere.

I fully support the idea of car free communities and we should work towards that. But for the time being we have too work with what we have.

[nathanjw]

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

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I remember seeing some drawings for this presented at a Davis Sq Task Force meeting sometime last summer (last spring? it's been probably a year since I went to a meeting), and I was really unimpressed with the design. It was pretty much a giant blocky building, and while the massing might not be all that different from the massing of the bank on the opposite corner, it totally dwarfed the other buildings on the street (Rosebud, the other 1-story businesses), and it had no elegance whatsoever, unlike the bank building. I hope the architects have come up with a better solution, but if the goal is to maximize usable space, I have my doubts :\

I think development on that corner could be a good thing, but in an enormous, ugly lump of a building, the business that it brought in would have to be aMAZing (and I mean "really positive for the community") to make up for the architecture.

[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.

[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.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Ok, the current drawings (http://www.somervillema.gov/cos_content/documents/SummerSt377Plans05.20.09.pdf) are a lot nicer than what I saw last year, but I wish they had included a view looking down Summer towards the corner in question; the views they have included clearly present it in the best way possible, but they are missing an important perspective.

[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.

[ron_newman]

just a minor nit: I'm not a local business person, just a resident. (If you were referring to some other Ron, ignore this comment.)

[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]

I recall that the main response from the people at that meeting was "pull the building back from the corner, don't build right out to it." Whether the developer listened to that with the revised plan, I don't know. People also wanted to see the design be somewhat sympathetic to the nice Art Deco bank building on the other side of Cutter Ave.

[dominika-kretek.livejournal.com]

What worried me about this requirement for new developments to provide parking is that you can end up with a situation where there are all these garage entrances at street level, making the neighborhood extremely unfriendly to pedestrians. It would be much better to approve the construction of one large garage for commercial use.

[ron_newman]

What was he trying to build behind the Lexington Ave. homes, and what (if anything) finally happened there?

[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.

[hikermtnbiker.livejournal.com]

Sorry Ron. I thought that you were the fellow that owns the Davis Square Theatre, who I believe is named Ron Newman. I was not trying to single you out.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

As ugly as most parking garages are, yes. Also, with one large garage, you could make it possible for people to pay to park for more than the 2-3 hour limit on the meters, solving all manner of other problems.

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!

[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...