<-- back to sign up for neighborhood issue email lists

Agassiz email — sample

From: Craig Kelley [mailto:craig@craigkelley.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:17 PM

Subject: Councilor Kelley's Lesley Rezoning Update

Folks:

The Ordinance Committee (which is a subcommittee of the City Council) met on Wednesday, 27 May for about 3 hours to review the Lesley Overlay District Proposal, hear from the City planning staff, listen to the proponents and allow members of the public to share their thoughts.

As it currently stands (and assuming I understand it correctly), the basic zoning proposal is for the City to create an overlay district that covers all of Lesley's property in the Cambridge area of Porter Square. This property consists of University Hall (the former Sears Building) and its associated parking lot, the adjacent North Prospect church and its associated yard and two parking lots on the other side of Mass Ave (next to the Gourmet Express).

The proposed overlay district would primarily allow Lesley to:

1. To bring the Art Institute of Boston (AIB) to the Church site by changing that property's Residential B zoning to Business C and bringing it within the proposed Overlay District, thus allowing institutional use. Lesley's primary plan, which isn't finalized, would be to modify and move the Church to one side of the property (with the approval of the Historical Commission should the building be landmarked by the City Council on 22 June), build a new building on the other side of the property and put a connector building between the two buildings. This new complex would house arts classrooms, display space, a library, photo labs and so forth, all the things necessary to run an art institute. It may also house space for the Maude Morgan arts center, though those details are not yet finalized either.
2. Build an additional building behind University Hall at some unspecified point in the future
3. Build two three story structures on its now-vacant parking lots (a reduction in height of 10 feet on the eastern halves of those lots)
4. Build, overall, an additional 198,000 square feet of development on the Lesley Property that is not possible now (though by the time setbacks and height limits and parking and so forth are figured in, the actual potential new development could be much less than that)
5. Transfer development rights within its property to bulk up the eastern side of its Porter Square campus with development taken from its two parking lots on the western side (these are called TDRs)
6. Provides an incentive for Lesley to provide retail by not counting much retail space against a building's allowed size.
7. Require Lesley to maintain current parking levels (there has been some discussion of the cost of underground parking, which generally seems to come out to a bit less than 100K per spot) and then add more for various future projects.

These things would be allowed via a Special Permit, granted by the Planning Board, for which Lesley would have to apply prior to going forward with any projects. In general, the barrier to granting a Special Permit isn't all that high, so people shouldn't expect the Planning Board to actually deny project proposals as much as for the Board to help modify them prior to approval.

In general, there seems to be a lot of support for brining the AIB to Porter Square, but the details of the zoning proposal are still somewhat contentious. Some people think the proposal as submitted is worthy of support, others would like to see more of a focus on open space overall and contiguous open space behind University Hall (linking that back area to the T station). Some folks think that there is too much building proposed for the Church lot, others don't think the Church should be touched, still others like the idea of restoring the Church to what it looked like before its various additions. There is concern that future retail in Lesley's properties may serve Lesley more than the local neighborhoods (a concern underscored by Lesley's failure to renew the lease of a key Japanese market in University Hall). And there is a consistent theme that construction impacts should be mitigated and post-project parking impacts should be minimized. Another fairly consistent theme is that Lesley is getting a big increase to what it can build (and to its property value) and it's not clear to everyone what the City, and local residents, are getting in return. Finally, while some people think the AIB would bring more vitality and greater street safety to the area, others think that we've got enough students in the area already and worry about pressures put on housing and parking and still more shuttle bus use as Lesley students move between its main campus, its Brattle Street Campus and its Porter Square campus.

From a timing perspective, the zoning petition will expire in early July, so the current plan is for the Council to vote on it on Monday, 22 June, the same night we vote whether to Landmark the Church (landmarking does not keep people from changing something, it only provides for a review process through the Historic Commission that may allow changes under certain circumstances). If the Council can't figure out what we want to do that night, we could still vote on it the following Monday, 29 June. If we don't vote by then, odds are that, unless we have a special Council meeting in early July, the petition would expire and Lesley would have to refile it and start the whole hearing procedure again.

Also, and this is important, the Council can modify this proposal up until our final vote, so don't think anything is cast in stone until it's all over. And please don't think last minute changes are necessarily the result of dishonest or backroom deals, it's simply the way the timing winds up working with these zoning proposals, which are run under a calendar established by state law.

You can share any thoughts you might have about this zoning proposal with the Council on Monday, 22 June at our meeting, which starts at 5:30 PM. You may also email the whole Council at Council@Cambridgema.gov .

A whole host of local residents have filed formal opposition to this proposal, so it's possible that the zoning may require seven votes of the Council to pass. Otherwise (if not enough relevant neighbors have filed opposition statements- I'm not sure how close you need to be to count or whether the relevant percentage is based on number of owners, number of properties, overall square feet, etc) it will only need 6 votes.

From a personal perspective, I like the idea of the AIB coming to Porter Square, though I'm not as excited about it as other people seem to be. Between Lesley and Harvard, we have a variety of institutional uses and museums in the area, plus some smaller educational outfits in various places around Porter Square. Despite some people's concerns that the AIB might wind up in Watertown (for example) and that Lesley would then sell the Church and parking lots to developers who would turn those properties into townhouses or condos, I'm not ready to vote for this petition yet. In particular, I would like

1. To see clear language that existing setback and height restrictions on the western lots will still apply under the proposed overlay district
2. To see clear language that helps define what future retail can be, to keep Lesley from building or changing retail uses to serve its student and faculty community over the general public
3. To see the retail floor-area ratio (FAR) bonus counted as an allowed increase in building size (right now, retail of up to 25,000 square feet is not counted at FAR. I find that sort of math too fuzzy and think we can more openly create an incentive for retail by allowing density 'bump ups').
4. To see any side agreements- such as space for the Maude Morgan programs, pedestrian access through the rear parking lot or general access to the AIB library- formalized in an enforceable MOU. Once the zoning has been approved, assuming it gets approved, the greater community will lose much of its leveraging ability to promote these various 'sweeteners.' I have heard consistent remarks about how Lesley has honored existing MOUs and been a good neighbor and worked well with locals on its Wendell Street dorm project, but, as my dad says, the faintest of ink is stronger than the strongest of memories and what is in an MOU is, I feel, much more likely to be viewed as reality than something that was simply discussed at various meetings.
5. To see a parking plan that reflects the properties' proximity to Porter Square. Many people have commented on how building near such a major T hub is smart growth, but I'm not seeing anything new, or smart, in how the proposal addresses parking and traffic concerns. Perhaps Lesley could, via contract with its employees and students, limit more than a certain percentage from driving to the campus. I haven't figured out the enforcement mechanism for such a program, but for Lesley to have the same parking at Porter Square that it would need in West Cambridge seems silly to me. But folks will often drive, especially if they have Cambridge resident parking stickers, rather than walk, bike or take the T and Lesley needs to figure out a new way to break that mold before we allow them an extra 198,000 square feet of development.
6. Language that keeps Lesley from asking for a special permit that reduces parking requirements simply because of its proximity to the T. As I tried to explain above, Lesley needs to have a significant enforcement mechanism that keeps people from driving to the property if we really expect people not to drive.

I've probably both missed some things and misstated other things, so if you've read all of this you have not necessarily been exposed to a completely accurate summary, and I apologize for any mistakes I made.

Have a great weekend. Hope to see many of you on the 22nd.

Craig

<-- back to sign up for neighborhood issue email lists