The first by-right residential project, a five story mixed use building at 33 Mt. Auburn St., was approved by the Planning Board on Dec. 3. The development will have 40 residential units, and commercial space on the ground floor.
The building will have a mix of units, with 12 one bedrooms and 28 two bedrooms, with a total of six affordable units. They will be located in four stories above the ground floor, with the top story set back 7 feet from the streets and the neighboring buildings behind it.
The ground floor will have a lobby and nearly 2,600 sq. ft. of commercial space that could be split into two smaller spaces or combined into one larger space. There will also be a and a garage with 20 parking spaces and 40 bicycle parking spaces. In addition there will be six more short-term bike parking spaces in a rack on Mt. Auburn Street.
The property does not include a triangle at the corner of Mt. Auburn and Taylor, which is a City right of way. Developers plan to create a public pocket park in that space.
The project is located at the corner of Mt. Auburn and Taylor streets. The site is currently vacant, after the previously existing building was demolished about 11 years ago. Another proposal for the property was approved in 2018, but never constructed.
The parcel used to be the location of Port Oil. As part of the Watertown Square Area Plan Zoning, the lot was zoned as Watertown Square 3 (WSQ3) and is in the by-right area.
The zoning changes were part of Watertown’s efforts to comply with the MBTA Communities Law which streamlined the process for multifamily residential projects. Due to both the zoning and being in the by-right area, the project only required the approval of the Planning Board, unlike most which require the Zoning Board of Appeals vote, too.
The MBTA Communities Law also limits what the Planning Board can demand, as long as the project fits within the zoning requirements. Watertown Director of Planning and Zoning Gideon Schreiber told the Planning Board that the project requires only a simple majority, and while the board could include conditions for the approval, there are limitations.
“You can make conditions but not so that it makes it not viable for the project to continue,” Schreiber said.
The Planning Board had questions about the traffic created by the building. Traffic engineer Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse & Associates, said the building is expected to add 20-30 vehicle trips during the weekday peak traffic hours, which he said is one vehicle every two to three minutes.
Planning Board member Abigail Hammett asked about whether cars would back up if a vehicle is trying to take a left from Taylor onto Mt. Auburn Street. Dirk said the driveway is 75 feet from the intersection, and the models did not show that vehicles would stagnate at Mt. Auburn Street.
Planning Board member Jason Cohen noted the garage entrance and exit is located on Taylor Street, a narrow street, and asked if they could push the garage door back so that a vehicle can get off the roadway to wait for the door to open. Designers said that the driveway is about 20 feet wide there, which should be wide enough.
More could be done with the pocket park, Planning Board members told developers.
“For me the concern is it really looks like an extension of lobby of the building, not a public space,” said Associate Planning Board member Sarah Scott.
Scott suggested that signs that include the history of the site being a former railroad could be included. Hammett said she would like a greater variety of plants than shown in the plans.
There will also be space in the park for public art, Schreiber said.
The building shares a “party wall” with the property on the next property along Mt. Auburn as you head closer to Watertown Square. The design calls for a large flat wall with no windows, said project architect Alex Brownwell from PCA Design. This was done because the next door property could be developed with a building of the same height and no space in between, which would cover the windows.
Planning Board member Payson Whitney said the large wall could be an opportunity for a mural or another type of public art. Brownwell said one comment they received was that people might like the mural so much they would not want it to go away. Hammett said that she has seen places where murals were covered and later unveiled when an adjacent building was torn down, and took a tour of them in San Francisco.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the project, saying it met the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and added a condition that developers consider public art on the large wall.
See the project design documents by clicking here. The City of Watertown Planning Department’s report, with the conditions for the project, can be seen here. See all the project documents by clicking here.
Well if that isn’t the ugliest thing I’ve seen all day. It looks like an office building, not a residence. No balconies or outdoor space, a big ugly box, just awful. I liked the original plans that they had for this site back in 2018. At least that looked like a residence, with balconies and awnings, it actually looked like a desirable place to live, not this piece of crap…LOL
There are some small balconies. You can see them on the right, the horizontal tan areas. Also, the top level will have larger balconies.
Could this building be any uglier?
I have to Agree, it’s not my first choice for its “ looks” and it almost looks as though the planners all want the same exact look of other buildings going up in Watertown, that are similar on Arsenal street as well as the life science building, on Galen Street. This new design and the apparent aesthetic architectural design and look they are giving these upcoming new buildings to the Watertown area lack prettiness or warmth or a sense of welcoming, in my opinion anyway. Of course everyone has a different design style in mind for today, it’s just not a building design that I would look at and say “ hey” that looks really lovely,and beautiful ! Perhaps with more of the right plantings and trees and garden space, it could be made to look better but the overall design and color scheme and construction design would not be my choice, in that given space, or even for a like building to abutting it either.
I’ve certainly seen prettier buildings designed with an open concept in mind and even with small balconies with windows as well that are much more attractive looking ..
It is my hope that our Watertown square development team members and the planners truly all come up with nicer ideas, and much more charming solutions to add to their overall plans as well.
We are a very old town and community with much history, and many of us have truly enjoyed growing up here as well. It’s certainly still very possible to take our very old buildings too and in turn make them into something much more desirable looking !
Just take the facades of the older buildings in the Watertown Square and those that go up Mt. Auburn Street and genuinely meet with all the building’s owners and try to come up with a plan so that each building can be enhanced and improved upon so there will be much more cohesiveness between each storefront as well ..
Thats truly what Watertown lacks between each of the various stores too, there is just no direction of the design elements that pull each of them all together and then make for a super charming community of buildings that look like they belong together ~
The vision for Watertown’s new futuristic look needs to be taken very seriously and addressed by each individual building owner too with the Watertown city council and planners forming and meeting together and sit troubleshoot suggestions as to what they could each do to make their own individual look improve yet be cohesive in design and those with canopies or brick fronts be renovated and be made to look very fresh to give it that new world charm that we desperately need !
Thank you for listening to as many thoughts and ideas that really still do need to be discussed just like this small forum of passionate discussion and people, even if it takes more time, more effort and several meetings to attend to ..
We all want the best for Watertown and the time is now to make it into a more inviting and charming community and we have not achieved that yet which will give all the residents a sense of pride and accomplishment in our small community
Good about time that put something there the vacant lot is a eye sore.
My. Auburn Street near the square is already a mess during rush hour. Now you want stores and residences with traffic coming out of Taylor Street? Absolutely a nightmare in the making! How could this be passed? And the building is really ugly! And only 20 parking spaces!!!!!
I agree that the building is ugly, looking more commercial than residential. The thing that really bothers me is that there could potentially be 80 adult residents if each 1 bedroom has two adults and each 2 bedroom units also has 2 adults. But only 20 parking spaces??? Absurd!
People, this is what we voted for! Read up on the building. It will be as energy-neutral as you can imagine. “The proposed project is designed to meet the Watertown standards for sustainability, climate and resiliency.” Is it ever: reflective roofing (w/solar panels), permeable pavement, native planting, 0.5 parking ratio, (but tons for bikes). What you perceive as ugly is a modern city planner’s dream. The Planning Board and developer had to work within “Watertown’s standards.” And yes, it COULD be uglier: it’s ten feet lower than permitted. Let’s count our blessings.
I confess to being underwhelmed, but if you wanted a Venetian palace, you picked the wrong city and the wrong era. I expect the rest of the Square will look remarkably similar as it develops. We may miss the vacant lot when it’s gone. But at least Demos will do bang-out business as the rush hour commuters file off the #71 bus they waited half an hour for. (I’ll believe the 15-minute schedule when I see it.)