MaxPak: developing a neighborhood design criteria for a controversial brownfield redevelopment

Tags:

CBI Practitioners:

Patrick Field

Clients:

 

Issue
In 2003, developers in the dense city of Somerville, MA presented a plan for a former industrial brownfield site, prompting neighbors’ concerns about adding new units and traffic to an area already troubled by congestion and air pollution. The community’s resistance stimulated the interest of municipal officials, who soon initiated steps to learn more about the community’s concerns related to the site. The City held off submission of development plans and asked the potential developer to fund a community input process to explore issues of community concern.

History/Background
The MaxPak site is a 5.3-acre triangular site in the City of Somerville, in the Boston metropolitan area. Formerly host to a variety of industrial uses, the site is now zoned residential and bounded by a commuter rail line and residential neighborhood. Over the years, neighbors have expressed concerns about excessive noise and air pollution, traffic, and soil contamination from the site’s previous industrial uses.

The City of Somerville wanted to see the MaxPak site cleaned up and redeveloped. In search of additional tax revenue, the City supported the creation of new housing and the preservation of existing housing stock. City planners also wanted to encourage smart growth development and new investment with appropriate densities. The cost of developing the MaxPak site was of particular concern due to site contamination and access via a closed bridge still awaiting transportation funds for construction. Market factors, contamination issues, and community traffic concerns combined to create a situation where developers needed to build at a certain density to make the project feasible, which raised intense community concern over neighborhood character and traffic.

In 2002-2003, a development company bought the parcel and proposed siting 250-350 housing units on it. The developer showed plans for the site to the community, who responded negatively to both the density and the site plan. The developer also contemplated asking the City for a change in zoning to make it possible to build according to the plan.

In response to community hostility towards the developer’s plans, the Mayor of Somerville met with the developers, community members, and the Aldermen to choose a course of action. A subsequent community meeting resulted in the City asking the development company to put their plans on hold and to provide for financial support for a community input process. The Mayor argued that such a process would be in everyone’s best interest, and let the developer know that city officials were also hoping for transit-oriented residential development, while promising nothing in terms of outcome.  City staff reassured the developer that they felt positively about development and that this project had potential if designed correctly. With these reassurances, but no guarantees, the developer funded the cost of the process without any direct control. The City used the lump sum payment to hire independent consultants and provide materials and refreshments for the community meetings.

Process to date
The intent of the public process was to define community concerns, identify issues to address, and develop a document to guide the redevelopment. In September 2004, the Community Development Office announced the public process and established an internal management team with outside expert assistance on facilitation, land use and zoning, design and architecture, and transportation. City officials decided to facilitate the process themselves, in the hopes that it would give them insight into community opinions and help foster trust in the process. The city then did outreach to potential participants through internet listings, mailings, and neighborhood drops. City officials anticipated potential agreement, since many people appeared to have the same hopes for the site.

In September 2004, the City held a forum to announce the redevelopment planning process, followed by a visioning session to capture the primary interests and concerns of the 70 participants. This led to the design of five workshops around concerns voiced by the participants: traffic and transportation, site design, real estate finance, zoning and land use, environmental contamination, and open space.

The workshops were held between October 2004 and January 2005, with attendance ranging between 30-60 people per meeting. The topical meetings included question and answer sessions, small group discussions, and presentations by expert consultants. The final workshop was a presentation of findings from the previous meetings.

From information and concerns gathered during the community meetings, the planning office wrote a report on the process with development guidelines for the site.  In addition, the mayor chose eleven community members for a Design and Development Review Committee (DDRC) that would further develop a report of recommendations. The DDRC was selected from workshop participants that represented a variety of neighborhoods and viewpoints.  During nine additional sessions ending in May 2005, the DDRC worked to expand and revise their report of concerns and community recommendations.

Results
The community planning process resulted in a final Concerns and Recommendations Report in June of 2005. The report describes the community planning process and offers development guidelines for the site. Recommendations include neighbors’ hopes for mixed residential development, the protection of open space, the mitigation of negative impacts from traffic, and an emphasis on the City’s role in upholding any mitigation requirements.

The site was rezoned in 2007 following the adoption of a Development Covenant between the developer and city.  Reflecting the earlier community involvement processes, the Covenant provides direction in areas such as uses, building design, traffic and parking, open space, and project mitigation and phasing. In 2008, the City’s planning staff applied for approval of a preliminary master plan to build a 199-unit residential development surrounding a green space on the site.

Lessons learned

  • Beginning the public process prior to planning and zoning board hearings meant that insights from the community could shape the development early on.
  • Harnessing private funds for a public planning process created some skepticism, but city officials saw the process as leveraging private interests for public goals.
  • Managing the public process allowed the City to gather important information and perspectives, and citizens and city officials could jointly learn about and articulate concerns about the site and its potential development before those concerns threatened the project in later stages.
  • Placing the planning office in charge of the process let all parties know that the people involved were intimately tied to the outcome and wanted the best result.  In addition, because the head of the planning office himself wasn’t facilitating, he could weigh in and answer questions rather than trying to manage the process.
  • Having several expert facilitators as advisors during community events helped the City facilitators identify issues of concern and strengthen their own skills for future facilitation.

 

For more information about this case or other examples of CBI's work, please contact us.