The Land Use Committee voted to approve the following (see Report and watch video on NewTV):
- Request for a Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to construct two-story additions to the front and rear of the dwelling further reducing and vertically extending the nonconforming front setbacks at 148 Auburndale Avenue (see Special Permit documents and Draft Council Order)
- Request for a Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to construct an attached two-car garage resulting in three stories, exceeding allowable FAR at 53 Neshobe Road (See Special Permit documents and Draft Council Order)
- Request for a Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to allow parking in the front setback at 344 Woodward Street (See Special Permit documents and Draft Council Order)
The request to rezone 3 parcels — 1314 Washington Street, 31 Davis Street, and 33 Davis Street — (from BU1 to MU4) and request for a Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to allow a building in excess of 20,000 sq. ft., to allow a mixed-use residential building with five stories and 60 feet in height, to allow reduced lot area per unit, to exceed the maximum front setback, to allow a FAR of 2.44 in a five-story building, to waive the setback requirement for the portions of the building exceeding 40 ft. in height, to waive entrance and façade transparency requirements, to allow a restaurant with more than 50 seats with extended hours of operation, to allow ground floor residential use, to waive the requirement of using the A+B+C parking formula, to waive 115 parking stalls, to allow assigned parking, to allow reduced parking stall width and depth, to allow reduced accessible stall depth, to waive end stall maneuvering space requirements, to allow reduced aisle width at the same location, was held.
At the meeting, the attorney for the Petitioner, Stephen Buchbinder, provided updates on circulation, parking, landscaping, deliveries, and loading, referenced the community meeting held in September (see Fig City News article), and provided this presentation which was focused on Sustainability, Construction Management, and Transportation. Following presentations made by their team, the City’s Planning Department outlined the proposal: the relief requested, the criteria to be considered, and the proposed plans.
The Committee then took public comments from approximately 17 residents. Several residents spoke in favor, citing their support for the need for affordable housing, the attractive design, and environmental features incorporated into the design, and the reuse of the building into a restaurant space that will activate the West Newton neighborhood. Tom Gagen emphasized the need to make village centers more sustainable and stated that the City Council should be planning and devising rules to make village centers more appealing and increase housing in our village centers to make them more vibrant and economically successful and urged the Council to approve this project.
Others spoke of their concern about traffic and parking, Mike Halle stated that he really supports the plan. He feels that the new residential use will reduce the traffic demand and parking pool. He added that he was concerned that Highland Avenue’s width would be too tight with the addition of the parking spaces, especially for cyclists getting in and out of the center, and believes that the 10-foot travel lanes are very tight.
Jonathan Kantar, speaking on behalf of the Green Newton Building Standards Committee, suggested that even though there are many aspects of the project they are pleased with — replacing a parking lot with higher and better use, the addition of outdoor seating and new pocket parks — and are encouraged by the “leanings of Mark Development” (an all-electric HVAC and pursuit of passive house feasibility), they believe this project would be a prime candidate for passive house certification. He stated that they were not ready to fully endorse the proposal but look forward to further discussions with Mark Development.
At the end of the public comment period, Councilors also had an opportunity to weigh in. Councilor Bowman said she joined those who were concerned about the addition of parking on Highland Avenue, adding that the spots would narrow the roadway width and could create a dangerous situation, and she prefers not to see them added there. She also would like to see the project be more sustainable and meet passive house certification. Councilor Lucas asked about outreach to the direct abutters and how the parking spaces were counted. Robert Korff responded that he has not had any success in meeting with the direct abutter but has met with the other two residential abutters and has listened to their concerns and stated that several of the changes to the design originated through conversations with abutter, Sachiko Ishihara. As for the number of parking spaces, Randy Hart, Traffic consultant, confirmed that the 308 spaces they have shown are all public spaces. Councilor Greenberg asked if the project would be solar ready and the response was that it would be but would be challenging to actually make it solar because of the mansard roof. She stated that she was very pleased with the changes to the project but hopes that the petitioner would make the 3-bedroom unit more deeply affordable (for families with income below 50% AMI) or consider making one of the 2-bedroom units into a 3-bedroom unit so there would be an additional unit at 50-80% AMI.
Councilor Downs agreed with the comments made by Councilors Bowman and Greenberg but asked about the status of Dunstan East. She said it is currently a construction site and asked when it is likely to be finished. Korff responded that they are in a pretty volatile construction market right now. He said they are “trying to nail down” and get a “guaranteed maximum price with a general contractor who is low enough to get a shovel in the ground.” He added that when they were approved and still in the Schematic Design phase, they were looking at a budget of about $105 million but now fighting today to get the numbers as low as they can and they would be lucky to bring it in at $137 million. He added that this increase has all been within a 12-18 month time period and that is why they are not seeing construction zooming ahead at this point. Downs sympathized but also brought up the concern about having multiple sites in West Newton happening all at once. She said that the concern is that we do not have so much going on all at once that it impacts West Newton Square’s viability as a commercial center and questioned the parking management plan during construction.
President Albright questioned screening for the direct abutter on Davis Street and suggested that they make sure the first house has some screening. Councilor Kelley aligned herself with the compliments made about the most recent changes, looks forward to hearing about their TDM (Transportation Demand Management Plan) and their I and I (Inflow and Infiltration) plans, and made a motion to hold. Before calling for a vote, Chair Lipof provided his own comments on the latest plans, commending the reduction in seats for the restaurant and the structural changes to the design of the building. He suggested that parking does remain a concern for many but added that the fear is not as bad as the outcome typically. The item was held.