CITY OF MEDFORD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION OF THE BOARD NO. A-2016-18 & Site Plan Review RECEN, Jo Ss aig Name of Petitioner: Equity One (Northeast Portfolio) Inc. Location: 61 Locust Street, Medford, MA Petition for (from Permit Refusal dated April 11, 2016): The Petitioner seeks to demolish 2 existing structures and construct 3 mixed use buildings consisting of 490 residential dwelling units and 7,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in an Industrial Zoning District ~ Not Allowed ~ Section 94- 148(d), Table of Use Regulations Item 19, with insufficient Lot Area, Usable Area, Landscaped Area, Front, Rear and Side Yard Setbacks - Section 94-171, Item 4; Off-Street Parking - Sections 94-191(b) (1), 94-148(d) - Item 19; Distance between structures ~ Section 94-17(b) (4) a; Also exceeds maximum allowed height and lot coverage ~ Section 94-171, Item 4; This project is also subject to site plan rev-ew - Section 94-331, and Linkage Fees - Section 94-381. Chapter 94- City of Medford zoning ordinance Date of Hearing: May 31, 2016 Members of the Board Present at the Public Hearing: Anthony M. Arena, Chairman Maureen Tardelli, Clerk Francis J. Sullivan Scott D. Carman, Alternate ‘Yvette Claudia Velez, AlternateDecision of the Board: On motion of Maureen Tardelli, seconded by Francis J. Sullivan, the board voted unanimously: Variances granted Special Permit for Site Plan Review approved, pursuant to Section 94-331 Linkage Fees to be assessed per Section 94-381 Approvals granted subject to petitoner’s compliance with the conditions, limitations, and recommendations of the various City of Medford Department Heads as described and set forth herein below. In addition to un-sworn testimony and power point presentation offered at the public hearing, the board has also considered the following documents and submissions: a) Permit Refusal, Paul F. Mochi, Medford Building Commissioner, dated April 11, 2016; b) Application for Variance, Equity One (Northeast Portfolio) Inc., dated April 16, 2016; ©) Application for Site Plan Review dated 04/07/16; d) Transmittal Letter dated April 19, 2016, from Lauren DiLorenzo, Director, Office of Community Development, to City of Medford Department Heads, regarding Application for Site Plan Review; e) Plan entitled “Site Plan for Development of 61 Locus Street, Medford, MA”, by RJO’Connell & Associates, Inc., Including Cover Sheet (C-O), Revised 04/13/2016; Certified Area Plan (AP-1), Revised 04/13/2016, Richard J. O'Connell, RPE; Certified Plot Plan dated 03/22/2016, Steven M. Horsfall, PLS; Overall Site/Zoning Plan (ZP-1), Revised 04/13/2016, Richard J. O’Conrell, RPE; Building A Elevations (A-201), Revised 04/13/2016, Nancy Jane Ludwig, RA; Building B Elevations (A-202), Revised 04/13/2016, Nancy Jane Ludwig, RA; & Building C Elevations (A-203)), Revised 04/13/2016, Nancy Jane Ludwig, RA; f) Certified Area Plan dated 04/04/2016, prepared by RJO’Connell & Associates, Inc,, Richard J. O'Connell, RPE g) Stormwater Report dated April 7, 2016, prepared by RJ.O’Connell, RPE; h) Transportation Impact Assessment dated March 2016, prepared by Vanasse & Associates, Inc,, Jeffrey . Dirk, P-E., PTOE, FITE; i) Zoning Evaluation Sheet;}) Certified List of Parties in Interest for 61 Locust Street, dated April 19, 2016, Edward O'Neil, Chairperson, Medford Board of Assessors; k) Letter dated May 31, 2016, from Mystic River Watershed Association, Amber Christoffersen, Director, 1) Termination of Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, dated May 17, 2016, including Exhibits A & B, and Secretary's Certificate; m) Letter dated May 19, 2016, from City of Medford Community Development Board, John DePriest, Chairman; n) Letter dated May 17, 2016, from City of Medford Office of Community Development, Lauren DiLorenzo, Director; 0) Memorandum dated May 18, 2016, including attached Complete Streets Policy Medford, Massachusetts May, 2016, from City of Medford Engineering Division, Cassandra Koutalidis, P-E,, City Engineer; p) Letter dated May 4, 2016, from City of Medford Board of Health, Karen L. Rose, Director of Public Health; q) Memorandum dated May 18, 2016, from City of Medford Office of the Building Commissioner, Paul F, Mochi, Building Commissioner; and 1) Letter dated May 16, 2016, from City of Medford Fire Department, Frank A. Giliberti, Jr., Chief of Department. Facts, Findings and Conditions: Equity One (Northeast Portfolio, Inc.) petitioner (the “ Appellant”), is the owner of the property known and numbered as 61 Locust Street, Medford, Massachusetts (the Locus’). Appellant proposes to demolish the former Shaw’ s Supermarket building and the Eastern Bank building presently located on the Locus, and construct three (3) buildings comprising, in the aggregate, approximately 562,508 square feet, including approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space to be operated by Eastern Bank, approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor amenity space, and approximately 4,000 square feet of ground floor flex space. The proposed project will contain approximately 490 dwelling units, accessory parking for approximately 781 vehicles (of which approximately 735 spaces will be reserved for residents), plus an additional 46 spaces reserved for visitor parking, customers of Eastern Bank, and the flex space. The proposed development will also include various arrenities and site improvements.More particularly describing the p-oposed project (from Written Statement included with and attached to Application for Site Plan Review); Proposed Uses Building A, a 5-story, approximately 166,000 square foot building to be constructed at the western end of the Project Site, will contain approximately 145 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor space to be operated by Eastern Bank, approximately 98 parking spaces in a covered garage ‘A resident amenity space will offer access to a raised landscaped courtyard. Building B, a 6-story, approximate'y 301,000 square foot building to be constructed at the center of the Project Site, will contain approximately 239 dwelling units and approximately 547 perking spaces in a covered garage, with accessory lobby, amenity, and flex spaces and an outdoor courtyard/ recreational area. The central building on the side, Building B includes a large landscaped courtyard, gracious ground-floor amenity and flex space along the length of Locus Street, and an amenity room on the third floor, opening into a patio on the courtyard. Building B will respond to ad.acent building heights, stepping down in height along Locust Street from four staries to three. Building C, a 4-story, approximately 125,000 square foot building to be constructed at the eastern end of the Project Site, will contain approximately 106 dwelling units and approximately 109 parking spaces in a covered garage. The Proposed Project will have a combination of studio, one, two and three bedroom units, ranging in size from approximately 440 square feet to 1,300 square feet, subject to final design, market demand, and project phasing. Building Design and Materials Exterior building materials include brick and cast stone base, with panel and siding systems above, The top floors either step back from the street, or invoke a material change to distinguish the penthouse level. A varying cornice line provides interest where the building meets the sky. Balconies and “Juliet” balconies with metal rails allow residents to enjoy views and fresh air. Each of the open podium courtyards on Buildings A and C have a perimeter metal guardrail, providing, visual connection to pedestrians on the sidewalk. Along Locus Street, tall windows and doors with fabric canopies accent the commercial and amenity facades, enhancing these active spaces. Residential building entrances will be marked with an architectural canopy and a roof feature. The facade of the commercial space in Building A will feature building signage.Circulation With entrances on Locust Street, two new private drives will offer an attractive pedestrian experience for residents and visitors. These drives will offer parallel on-street parking, broad sidewalks with pedestrian-scaled lighting, and seating areas in appropriate locations across the Project Site, Each building will be served with elevator and stair cores for vertical circulation and accessibility. Appropriate adding areas will be provided adjacent to the service line, with grade-level access towards the rear of the Project Site. Accessibility The development program for the Proposed Project is designed to comply with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Boards accessibility requirements (621 CMR) for new construction projects. Pedestrian sidewalks will be designed with cross slopes of less than 2% and ADA compliant access ramps provided at the driveway curb cuts. Accessible parking spaces will be provided on alll Ievels of the parking structures at a rate of 2% of the total parking provided on-site, with a minimum of one van accessible space for every eight spaces provided. Parking stalls will be located at the access/ egress locations for the residential units, and each accessible parking space will be appropriately signed and painted with the International Symbol of Accessibility Sustainability The Proposed Project will incorporate numerous sustainability measures, designed to increase the project's efficiency while reducing burdens on available public resources. These measures include installation of energy-efficient light- emitting diode (LED) fixtures, use of high efficiency mechanical units, installation of bicycle racks, low maintenance landscaping (water recycling), construction and operations recycling measures, and a comprehensive transportation demand management program designed to take full advantage of the Project Site’s adjacency to bus route and proximity to other modes of transit. Inclusionary Development (Affordable Housing) 10% of the Proposed Project dwelling units will be reserved for moderate and middle income households, furthering the City’s affordable housing goals and increasing the City’s affordable housing stock. Relying on the Permit Refusal Letter and the other submissions listed herein above, with two exceptions, the board finds that the proposed project would comply with all of the City of Mediord Ordinance requirements for the Industrial Zoning District in which the Locus is situated, the two exceptions being building height and use. Appellant seeks the following variances applicable to Multiple Dwellings: © Use, Multiple Dwelling not over 75 feet or 6 stories (94- 148(d)(19); © Maximum Distance Between Structures (94-171(b)(4)(a);Maximum Building Height (feet) (94-1710(6)(e)(1); Maximum Building Height (stories) (94-1710(6)(e)(1); Maximum Lot Coverage (94-171()(4); Lot Area per Dwellirg Unit (94-171(c)(4); Minimum Usable Open Space (24-171(c)(4); Front Yard Minimum Depth (94-171(¢)(4); Side yard Minimum Depth (94-171(c)(4); Rear Yard Minimum Depth (94-171(¢)(4); Minimum Off-Street Parking (94-191(b)(1) & 94-148(d); Since the original permit refusal citing less than the required 10% minimum landscaped open space, Appellant has made adjustments to the landscaping plan and now conforms to the open space requirement (94-171(c)(4); The proposed project is also subject to site plan review (94-331). Upon review and consideration of the testimony and submissions referred to herein, and Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10, the board makes the following Findings: @ There are circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of the project site that especially affect such land but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the project site is located; Soil Conditions - Historically, the Project Site has been devoted to numerous industrial uses, including machine shop and storage use, truck repair shop and a motor freight station use, and refrigeration and air conditioning equipment manufactaring. Prior to its redevelopment in the 1990's for supermarket and retail banking use, the Project Site was occupied by a truck servicing and repair facility. To support these historical uses, the Project Site at one point contained several accessory underground storage tanks. In the 1990's, soil containing concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other constituents was identified on the northern portion of the Project Site, lending to the implementation of an Activity and Use Limitation (“AUL”) that restricts the Project Site's potential to accommodate residential housing with gardening, playgrounds, andrelated features. These unique soil and environmental conditions drastically increase the cost of rehabilitating this underutilized site for reasonable and desirable uses, including multifamily use, requiring that the Appellant make full use of the Project Site’s available development to effectively balance the cost of environmental remediation While other properties in the Industrial Zoning District may have been occupied by uses comparable to those occupying the Project Site present exceptional redevelopment challenges that are unique to the Project Site and do not generally affect the Industrial Zoning District, justifying the requested variances. Lot Shape - The Project Site is also affected by unique lot shape constraints that are not typical of other lots in the Industrial Zoning District. The Project Site consists of a large, 6.8 acre, rectangular lot with frontage on only one street: Locust Street, alternative means of vehicle access are not available. As a result, a network of internal driveways and pedestrian walkways must be constructed to allow for appropriate pedestrian, automotive, and emergency vehicle circulation, as well as to provide for sufficient light and air for building occupants. Needed in order to mitigate the lot’s unique shape constraints, construction of these internal driveways and walkways will occupy a substantial portion of the Project Site's available lot area, requiring that the yard setbacks be no greater than what are required in the Industrial Zoning District. Enforcing the Multiple Dwelling setback requirements would severely restrict the Project Site's ability to accommodate the proposed uses, rendering the Proposed Project economically infeasible. ‘Topography - In addition to the aforementioned soil and lot shape challenges, the Project Site is constrained by unique topographical conditions. Specifically, the depth to groundwater at the Project Site varies from approximately one (1) to six (6) feet below ground surface. The high water table prohibits construction of an underground parking garage, requiring that the Proposed Project accommodate its(ii) required off-street parking stock entirely at grade or in a structured garage. Farther, the Project Site slopes significantly from approximately six feet, eleven inches (611) at the Project Site's southern boundary to approximately fifteen feet (15’) at its northern boundary, These topographical challenges severely limit the Project Site's vertical develosment capacity, requiring that construction occur horizontally towards the lot line. Asa result, while the Proposed Project will comply with many of the Industrial Zoning District requirements, a substantial redevelopment of the Project Site cannot occur without relief from certain of the Multiple Dwelling ordinances, including the minimum setback, distance between structures, and usable open space requirements, and the maximum lot coverage limitation. A literal enforcemen: of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Appellant; The Proposed Project satisfies all of the Industrial Zoning District requirements except for building height and use, and requires relief mainly from the more restrictive “Multiple Dwelling” requirements. The Multiple Dwelling ordinances apply to dwellings citywide, regardless of zoning district, and, as such, do not properly account for contextual factors, such prevailing uses in the vicinity and setbacks provided by neighboring structures. If strictly enforced, these citywide limitations would serve to prohibit a desirable redevelopment project that is eminently compatible, in both use and scale, with surrounding land uses. A literal enforcement of the Industrial Zoning District's height and use limitations, and the Multiple Dwelling dimensional controls, would significantly reduce the Project Site's capacity to accommodate multifamily use, resulting in a substantial loss of dwelling units, including much-needed affordable units. The Project Site's development constraints are compounded by the high water table and the lot’s unique shape, whick together prohibit construction of an underground parking garage and require construction ofii) suitable vehicular and pedestrian driveways to ensure public safety, These characteristics severely limit the Project Site's vertical development capacity, requiring that construction occur horizontally. Absent the requested relief, the Project Site would contain only a very limited development capacity, resulting in the elimination of many of the proposed affordable housing units and significant reductions to the proposed ground-floor retail and related spaces, Collectively, these changes would render the Project infeasible. If strictly enforced, the applicable zoning constraints would prohibit mixed-use, transit oriented development at the Project Site, frustrating the Appellant's ability to put its property to reasonable and desirable uses that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Medford, to lessen the danger from fire, congestion, and confusion, and to improve and beautify the city. By providing desirable uses, constructing much-needed affordable housing, generating new jobs and tax revenues, and revitalizing an underutilized site, the Proposed Project will promote public good in furtherance of the intent and purpose of the zoning, ordinance. Desirability - The Proposed Project will replace the vacant Supermarket Building with a vibrant mixed-use, transit- oriented development that will construct housing, including 10% on-site affordable units in furtherance of the City of Medford housing gereration goals, generate new jobs and tax revenues, and increase property values throughout the neighborhood, By p:oviding a more attractive retail location for Eastern Bank and introducing new ground-floor uses,the Proposed Project will enhance the prevailing residential and commercial characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, producing a more active and attractive pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses ~ The Project Site is situated in the immediate vicinity of numerous shopping complexes and residential developments. Asa redevelopment site, the project site provides an ideal location for a mixed-use redevelopment project. The Proposed Project is eminently compatible with the uses prevailing in the surrounding neighborhood, including the retail shops located immediately to the south of the Project Site across from Locust Street and the residential uses to the north of the site. Although located in the Industrial District, the Project Site adjoins the Apartment-2 District to the rear and is surrounded by numerous residential uses. It is significant to note that the Medford City Council rezoned the Project Site to an Apartment-2 District in 1986 to allow the construction of an approximately 400 unit residential project. The project was ultimately abandoned and the Project Site was later reincorporated into the Industrial Zoning District to allow the construction of the Supermarket Building. Since that time, the Project Site's immediate vicinity has grown increasingly residential and less industrial, including with the construction of the adjacent Lumiere Apartments in 2014. These contextual changes render the Project Si:e a particularly appropriate location for the proposed residential and ground-floor uses. ‘The proposed design, scale, and building materials have been designed so as to create an attractive and cohesive aesthetic that is compatible with the neighborhood. At present, approximately 87% of the Project Site consists of an impervious bituminous surface parking area. The redevelopment of the Project Site will result in an overall inctease in landscape open space by approximately 15,000 sq. ft, and the proposed Project will provide an additional approximately 65,000 sq. ft. of usable open space, ensuring adequate light and air for building residents. 10Health and Safety - The Proposed Project Store will be served by adequate parking, access, vehicular circulation, and utilities, as defined in the plans, reports and materials included with the application and others on file with the Community Development Board. The proposed uses will incorporate first-class construction materials, design elements, and other safety and security elements that have been professionally engineered to be consistent with applicable building end health codes, other relevant city, state, and federal regulations, and industry best practices. The Proposed Project will be professionally operate and maintained, and will provide adequate parking, loading, driving lanes, signage, wayfinding, lighting, landscaping, and adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles 50 as to minimize potential hazards to patrons and pedestrians and reduce any potential detrimental effects on adjoining properties. As detailed on the accompanying materials examined 2y the board and the various city department heads, the Proposed Project will provide adequate spacing and separation from surrounding properties, Exterior lighting has been designed to provide safe illumination wrile minimizing neighborhood impacts. Relying on the Traffic Impact Assessment dated March 2016, prepared by Vanasse & Associates, Inc.*, the board finds that the Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on motorist delays or vehicular queuing over existing or anticipated future (2023) conditions without the Proposed Project (No-Build conditions), and the Proposed Project can be accommodated within the confines of the existing trans2ortation infrastructure in a safe and efficient manner. The board further relies upon the Vanasse conclusion that the proposed parking ratio of approximately 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit will adequately serve the proposed development in light of the numerous transportation modes available in the Project Site’s immediate vicinity. Accordingly, the board finds that the Proposed Project will provide adequate parking and will ensure safe and efficient vehicular circulation on the Project Site. ul“Over the years, Vanasse & Associates, Inc. has con ducted traffic impact assessment studies for numerous projects within the City of Medford, for Tufts University and in connection with numerous major development projects. ‘The instant assessment was certified by Jeffrey S. Dirk, P.E., PTOE, FITE. Relying of the Stormwater Report dated April 7, 2016, prepared by RJO'Connell & Associates, Inc,, the board finds that the Proposed Project will provide improved stormwater management measur2s in accordance with state and local requirements, and will be serviced by adequate sewer, water flow and pressure, and other infrastructure capacity. An essential element to the Site Plan Review process, on April 19, 2016, Lauren DiLorenzo, Director of the Office of Community Development, sent copies of the instant Application for Site Plan Review to the Mayor and to the various city department heads, together with an invitation to examine the Application and other materials associated with the proposed project. The director's cover letter also invited the department heads to submit written Recommendations to the Board of Appeals, with copies to the Office of Community Development. Pursuant to the director's invitation, and following examination of the plans, reports and other materials submitted with the Application, the various city department heads met with the Applicant and members of the project development team. In some instances, the parties met on multiple occasions as changes and refinements to the original submissions were discussed and reviewed. The result of this stage of the Site Plan Review process was the delivery of letters and memoranéa from the department heads to the Board of Appeals with recommended corditions to approval of the proposed project. The grant of the Variances requested, and the Special Permit for Site Plan Review, are both subject to the Applicant's compliance with each and every Requirement and Condition recommended by the department heads. Those Requirements and Conditions are set forth in the following correspondence, copies of which have been delivered to the Applicant, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof: © Letter dated May 4, 2016, from Karen L, Rose, Director of Public Health, indicating no opposition to the preposed development, setting forth approximately fourteen (14) conditions to approval; 12Memorandum dated May 18, 2016, from Cassandra Koutalidis, P.E., City Engineer, indicating general suppcrt of the project, with several comments and recommendations which the board includes as conditions to the variances and special permit herein granted; Letter dated May 19, 2016, from Join DePriest, Chairman, Community Development Board, reporting the unanimous vote of the CDB to recommend that the Board of Appeals approve the site plan review applications subject to compliance with fourteen (14) conditions, including adoption of recommendations and conditions of the Office of Community Development, Fire Department, City Engineer, Building Commissioner, and the Director of Public Health; Memorandum dated May 18, 2016, from Paul F. Mochi, Building, Commissioner, requiring compliance with several conditions; Letter dated May 17, 2016, from the Office of Community Development, recommending compliance with nineteen (19) conditions; Letter dated May 31, 2016, from the Mystic River Watershed Association indicating that the project could be a model transit-oriented development with functional and beautiful green infrastructure that benefits residents and the surrounding environment. The board urges the Applicant to consider implementing the recommendations set forth in the letter; Termination Notice of Activity and Use Limitation. The board requires on-going compliance consistent with a Permanent Solution and maintaining a condition of No Significant Risk, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached to the Notice entitled “Activity and Use Limitation LSP Opinion.”; and Letter dated May 16, 2016, from Frank A. Giliberti, Jr, Chief, Medford Fire Department, recommending seven (7) conditions. Zoning Board of Appeals Cure *‘ ‘Anthony M. Arend; Chairman Francis J. Sullivan 13THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS -medtora Giver tow RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS Ju WS sk ANS Date: * june 14°» 206 "CITY CLERK Gertficate of Granting of Variance ot Special Permit MEDFORD. MASS" General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11) . The Board of appeals of the City or Towit of | “*0Fora: A hereby certifies that a Variance or Specjal Permit Has been granted muity One yg : ‘ T Gio Park Avenue = Suite 1220 Adaress Mew York, NY 10022 Gity oF Tow atféoting the tights of the owner with respect to land or builétigs at 361 Locust street, And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and _conect copy’ 6f jts decision ranting said variance — special petmit, and that copies of said dectsfon, and of all pléns referred to in the decision, have been filed with the slamming board aid the city or town clerk. : ‘The Board of Appealsalso calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11. (ast paragraph) provides that no variance or special permit, or any ¢x- tension, modification or renewal thereof, shall teke effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of tlie town or city clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the city or town clerk and no appeal has been filed or that, if stich appeal has bees filed, that it has beet! dismissed or denied, is recorded in the registry of deeds for the county and digtrict in which the land is located and indated in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is tecorded aud noted on the owner’s vertificate of title. The fee for such recor-" ding or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant Ore —