Economic Development


Notes from 2/4/14 Frank Street Neighborhood Meeting to Discuss 202-204 Arsenal Street Development Plans

Comments on Traffic Impacts
· Development on Arsenal, near Beachwood, will increase traffic on Frank Street for drivers who think it can be used as a shortcut.

o Frank Street already has seen increased traffic by drivers who use it as a bypass road, resulting in speeding down the short road and loitering late at night due to the dimly lit area.

o Construction/contractor trucks often use Frank Street as a quiet place to idle during breaks. This should be a precondition in any contracts that workers NOT be able to use residential streets for this purpose.

o What can be done to address this?

§ Increased police patrolling

§ Traffic counts on street to monitor flow

§ Increased lighting on street

§ Speed bumps?

· The traffic study associated with this project does not go far enough

o Study needs to be comprehensive and include Pleasant Street development, Greenough upgrades, etc. to have a comprehensive look at traffic patterns in/out of the Square.

o With 300+ units and one entrance/exit, traffic impacts will be especially high during commuting times.

· Irving Street is too narrow already to handle any increased traffic – what improvements can realistically be made to that area?

Comments on Plan and Community Impacts
· The development plan as it is now only encourages the disconnect between neighborhoods north and south of Arsenal Street. This could be a great opportunity to better connect these neighborhoods and integrate the new development, if there were more access points.

· The parcel should be more open, more accessible, and less like a fortress. It needs to benefit all residents, not just those living in the development.

· Noise impacts during construction – what is the expected length of construction? What are the expected hours of construction work daily? Noise should be minimized in evening hours and on weekends.

· Entrance of development is not welcoming to the surrounding neighborhood. Need more green space that is easily accessible and more open space closer to Arsenal Street so the development is not “on top” of the neighborhood but allows some breathing room and transition space.

· Surface parking lot seems to have a large footprint – what parking can be underground to minimize spaces here?

Summary: Would like to see less density, more open space, and improved traffic conditions by multiple access points and better flow.

Hawthorne Area Neighborhood Group Comments on 202 Arsenal 2/2/14

Questions/issues to bring up at Thursday's meeting

Green issues

Want more green space/sidewalk space/cafe space right on Arsenal (consider example of Lexington Center)

Green roofs

Tree planting--set buildings back to allow tree strip

Barrier trees at end of Franklin and Birch Streets

Car/Traffic issues

Change traffic pattern in Watertown Square to avoid congestion and encourage pedestrian use and independent/local businesses. Get developers to agree to support this as part of the deal. We want Watertown Sq to be a destination for shoppers and small businesses.

Consider a shuttle bus system from residential development on Arsenal to W. Square

Timing of trucks making deliveries to the supermarket

Wider Sidewalks

Bus down Pleasant Street, Arsenal route?

Fewer car parking spaces required than residents in the development--encourage car-free living

Other issues

We would like to see use of water-permeable paving materials

Bike paths from Birch through to Arsenal

Balance of apartments for single people and those with families

Public art

Standards for Historic buildings in the Square, like attractive blinds in large windows facing the Square. Focus on ways to make W. Sq more attractive.

Respectfully submitted,


Beacon Park Neighborhood Group Summary on 202 Arsenal development, 1/29/14

* Does Hanover have a letter of intent from Whole Foods or Trader
Joe's. If not have they begun the reach out to either store
* What will restrict stop & shop or shaw's from going in or renting the
space to limit competition with their other locations?
* Would the traffic light blink (and beep) at night?
* What would be the operational hours of the restaurant/bar and supermarket?
* Has a restaurant /bar been identified for the space?
* How will development of Arsenal Project and hotel at former Saab dealership
affect traffic study?A Pirolli residential complex? Other developments on Arsenal?
* Will apartments be pet friendly? If so green space for pets?

* Above ground parking/garage being a visual eyesore
* Greenway/space is essential, appears to be limited on both sides of
arsenal st, renderings depicting southern side of Arsenal St do not
appear realistic or accurate given the space available
* Traffic flow would allow Beacon Park becoming a "cut through" to/from north beacon st
* Number of parking spaces for potential residents impacting traffic
* With two travel lanes, a turning lane, bike path, sidewalks,
parking on both sides of the street, and bus stops the street will
appear congested most of the time
Huge number of units
Trucking deliveries, collections location, frequency, hours

* Everyone in attendance agreed that closing off access to arsenal st
to prevent Beacon Park from becoming a "cut through" would be
beneficial. If the stem connecting Arsenal Street to Beacon Park were closed
and a little green park placed there, it would serve many purposes by adding
a green barrier and a permeable surface.
* That the majority of the space be developed as residential and not
commercial use
* Signage should be limited and sight lines to Beacon Park reviewed
prior to locating; limit lights/neon
* More green space/open space on arsenal st (additional commercial
space setback), additional green space around entrances to residential
* Reduction in parking spaces at site
* Zipcar on site
* Vegetation and/or walls to limit noise pollution from site and trees on
the opposite side of Arsenal as a green barrier to the increased traffic.
* Need to limit on street parking along arsenal, especially along
south side of Arsenal.


Katie Montelli from notes by Jeanne

Retail claims v reality in our newest developments

Dear friends, neighborhood group leaders/scribes, and those of you interested in retail as part of developing Watertown's economic base, Here is a letter I sent to the Councilors and Planning Department after my disappointment with the limited view of "retail" by developers recently. I'd be interested in your comments. If you agree in any way, I hope that some ideas will become part of your speaking and writing to our Councilors and Planning Department and before the Planning Board.

33 Mt Auburn Street was officially filed and continued March 12 so the Board will take some time and not vote on the same day it hears plans, which has been its usual way of doing business. There have been some remarks from members that things have been moving too fast, and we heartily agree. You may write to the Planning Board (and Planning Dept also) c/o Clerk Ingrid Marchesano, The Zoning Department (Mike Mena is Zoning Enforcement Officer) and Board may be reached c/o Louise Civetti, Steve Magoon is overall head of Planning and Zoning. All those who sit on boards use their first initials, last names and the same address as the above if you want to write individually. The names are all on

Thursday, March 13 is a meeting with the developers of 202 Arsenal Street ostensibly to meet with CCG which abuts to the north, but it is an open meeting and the CCG leadership thinks that it should be open to everyone, since the developers promised to have a second meeting. 7PM, Library. However, it turns out that the plans were officially filed last week so will go before the Planning Department for its review and then its recommendation goes to the Planning Board for its decision in April. Again, we hope for time to digest all the elements and time for the public to be heard by the Board at a number of meetings.


Hi, Councilors and Planning Department,

* What is mixed use? Infusion of diverse, particularly local businesses, a variety of small places that residents can go to for ordinary shopping needs as well as enjoyable places for browsing:
I am concerned after returning from the developer meeting for 33 Mt Auburn Street and the one with the developers of 202 Arsenal Street that the idea of retail presented to the public as "mixed use" retail is not what we want it to be. I assume that this category is separate from commercial, which I take to be offices (not the individual accountant, dentist, etc), manufacturing, apartments, startups. I think that we are hoping mixed use will mean an infusion of diverse, particularly local independent businesses, or at least a variety of small places that residents can go to for ordinary shopping needs as well as enjoyable places to go for browsing and poking around.

* Lack of planning and regulation for attractive, vibrant streetscape. Tradeoff for streetside Community Path should be worthwhile:
What we are getting is much less and a disappointment. 202 Arsenal is planning for a restaurant and one other shop in its 7000 sq feet. The 33,000 sq ft supermarket seems to be up in the air. We assume we will not be subjected to another kind of big box store (that recommendation was in the Strategic Framework, and should be in the Comprehensive Plan). But, there is still no there there. If the proposed Community and Bike Path is placed on Arsenal Street, we have a great interest in creating a great retail streetscape.

* Down town enhanced with walkability, variety, attractive to residents and small business. Design Review:
The sq footage for retail at 33 Mt Auburn is minimal At the meeting, the developer expected that it will be one office. This is not our idea of retail to enhance Watertown Square. How can we let this happen? Why wouldn't there be room for two small businesses? There should be access from the little park. It should connect to the rest of our walkable "down town." I appreciate that it isn't the best of times for small businesses. But isn't it in the interest of building our community to require certain kinds of retail? What good would a closed office be to enhance the walkability, the interrelationship of shops, the draw to people to walk around the Square? We have the Location, but are we demanding enough from our developers? How can Watertown work to attract small business? We have so many plans on the drawing boards and we have to be prepared. Design Review in CB might help if it covers attracting a variety of local retail.

* Work with landlords to maintain the character and health of Watertown and protect existing local businesses:
While we're at it, I am so disappointed that 7-11 was allowed to set up shop across from The Meat Spot. Don't we care to protect the independent, interesting, and much needed businesses that are here already? Does the entire Planning Department and Town have no influence on creating the kind of town center we imagine? Just because the shell of a building exists, do we not have any right to choose our image of the character and health of our town and work with the landlord to attain it? Would design review in CB help?

* Unifying sense of cohesion and design for Main Street. Design Review to attract local businesses and shoppers:
The Settles Glass development is also falling into the trap of needing banks and perhaps a large chain to fill its expensive space. What is our image of a destination and cohesive shopping area for Main Street? Can we ask for a certain kind of exterior light, perhaps, or some unifying, though not cookie cutter, feature out front and down the street to the Square? I would have thought that the town would have some influence, even when Board decisions are not required. Do we have such discussions with builders now? Do we have any leverage at all? I'm glad to see the parking in the back (though I hope that the interface with the neighbors is kinder than it has been). Is that something that the town managed to achieve for us? Design review in business districts might require all developers to work with the town.

* We cannot legislate taste, but a Design Review in CB might help:
And, were permissions required for the professional building on Summer Street to build such an out of place brick facade without setbacks in front of a regular house being used as an office? I assume this whole block is about to be sacrificed to some fantasy of urbanism and to make hay with the residents of the Assisted Living/Alzheimer's development. I wonder if the home owners and other offices are anticipating this. We hope the retail in the Assisted living building is varied and reflects Watertown's needs. Again, could design review in our Central Business District enhance our goals?

* Transparancy and bank frontage limitations zoning. Good retail space for local, independents, and divisibility for flexibility:
Just a couple of other Zoning issues: Transparency and bank frontage limitations. I was told by the Cambridge Economic Development Division that North Cambridge area now has a bank frontage limitation policy. I believe that Watertown should take it on, particularly since there are so many huge bank buildings newly inhabiting Belmont and they seem to be among the few businesses that can afford to build, or rent large spaces. Is there anything we can do to limit the size of the bank frontage that we hear will be the mainstay of Settles before the project is completed? Might that not allow a small business to rent a small space in front more cheaply? Can we put the concept into our Comprehensive Plan and make it part of the Zoning amendments that the Economic Development Committee in Watertown requested after Councilor Woodland spoke about Pleasant Street? If the supermarket at 202 Arsenal turns out not to be happening, we really don't want it to become a bank (or in fact the Walgreens, or other big box). One of the features of good retail space for local independents is small size and, in new construction, divisibility which allows flexibility in renting.

* Maintain the character and diversity of businesses in Watertown's shopping areas. Reasonable frontage and transparency:
As you know, transparency is the concept of keeping windows facing streets to attract customers, allow us to look inside, and have an interesting streetscape. The glass-paned garage door at the 33 Mt Auburn development happily reflects that concept (and we hope that they will continue the outside facing into the entry way so our view is not cinderblock). City neighborhoods in New York have limited both bank frontage to maintain the 25' approximate frontage of most shops and required transparency to limit the closed look that destroys the enjoyment of shoppers. Look for the drawings of streetscapes in At one of our meetings someone spoke out about huge stores like CVS putting shelving against, and signage in, their windows. Transparency and frontage limitations seem to go hand in hand.

* Standards so developers will respect the scale, diversity, uniqueness, and vitality of Watertown while improving it:
I believe that since Watertown has plans for huge amounts of development we need to anticipate the needs of our town and put zoning in place to attract and protect the kind of retail, particularly local and independent, that creates those wonderful places residents and visitors enjoy. It seems clear that the town, speaking for our community and residents, has a great mission to protect the character of our local, independent businesses and the residential economy that will support them. If Watertown is asking for mixed use developments, we have to have standards by which developers will respect the scale, diversity, uniqueness, and present and potential vitality of Watertown while improving it.

Barbara Ruskin

Proposed development at 33 mt auburn street. Comments by Concerned Citizens Group (CCG), a part of Sustainable Watertown’s Neighborhood Network

See the plans at: (8MB)
Related documents at:

The Neighborhood Group, Concerned Citizens Group (CCG) report:

March 6, 2014

RE: 33 Mt Auburn St proposal (R. Bray)
TO: Steven Magoon & Gideon Schreiber, Watertown Planning Department, and Watertown Planning Board and Watertown Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Concerned Citizens Group, Inc. (Lisa Feltner, Pres.)

CCG is disappointed that the current 33 Mt Auburn proposal does not meet some of the goals stated in the draft Comprehensive Plan, although we think residences may contribute to revitalization; please consider:

Central Business District goals defined in the Comprehensive Plan include:
*Are places like Watertown Square (and Coolidge Square) destinations that people would like to visit?
*New commercial growth should be concentrated: Arsenal St 60%, in the Square 22% (in order to increase the tax base)
*Does it fit with existing environment?
*Does it promote Watertown Square history and/or culture?
*Does it celebrate Watertown Square as a destination?
*Does this enhance the streetscape and is it a successful proposal for mixed use?

And including these objectives from the Zoning, Watertown Square Design Overlay District, Section 5.09:
(2) To improve the appearance of the Watertown Square area over time and to create a more competitive shopping environment.

There is not much space dedicated to retail and this level is cut up and not flexible, which makes it less attractive or well-suited to a variety of businesses, and therefore less successful as mixed use.

(3) To maintain and enhance the scale and quality of Watertown Square's architectural environment including the Square's existing older buildings and any proposed new construction.

It is imperative that the current project showcase much better materials, such as quality brick, in order to fit the existing environment, especially given its lack of architectural identity. We anticipate a level of success in enhancing the streetscape through the use of more and larger windows, glass and even steel instead of cement fiberboard and fabric awnings.

---- Some other concerns--------
1. The garage door looks too prominent and not inviting from pedestrian view;
2. We like the larger windows, more windows, including on the elevator shaft area instead of blank space;
3. We like having an entrance from the park side to 33 Mt Auburn;
4. Does the large "z" across the front ground level really work on this bldg? It seems to cut up this area into a busy visual.
5. We are happy to see condos including 2-BRs instead of rental units;
6. Could you please show the community path on your plans (either sidewalk + 1 bike lane, or 2-way bike;
7. The landscaping looks wonderful; can the “park” be named/identified, perhaps will a small sign or plaque?

Please add a water fountain to this area.

A note concerning Planning Budget: we support dedicated funds for improving Baptist Walk, and its connection over Mt Auburn to Taylor St.


Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer