TO THE ROCKPORT PLANNING BOARD:

RE: ROCKPORT HARBOR HOTEL
The following addresses LUO Chapter 1000 – General Standards of Performance:

On the Applicant’s entire existing property which runs from Union Hall to Mary Lea Park, including Sandy’s Way, the current businesses, restaurants, assembly halls, and residence require 170 off-street parking spaces per town of Rockport Ordinance (tally attached). The previous owner constructed as many parking spaces as the land would accommodate, 50 regular plus 2 HCAP for a total of 52 parking spaces. Thus, the current property is already 118 spaces short of the Ordinance off-street parking requirements. The Applicant’s proposed hotel necessitates 65 additional spaces per Ordinance. Despite that, the Applicant proposes to reduce the number of off-street spaces by 3, for a total 49 spaces.

The Applicant has proposed a conveyance of land to make it appear that 49 spaces are available for new development. However, this maneuver disregards the fact that the current parking is already assigned. The Applicant’s proposal hinges upon the Town ignoring its own Ordinance which stipulates maintenance of all the existing spaces. The legality of this proposed conveyance should be a matter of concern for the Town.

In short, the Applicant proposes a condition that would substantially increase the shortfall of off-street parking to a deficit of 186 spaces.

The Applicant proposes that the Ordinance-required 65 spaces for the proposed Hotel/Restaurant plan be reduced to 48, based upon claims that:

1. The two Restaurants do not have overlapping operating hours.
2. The clientele for the restaurants and Hotel are likely to overlap and
3. That off-site parking will be provided for employees and special events.

In respect to claim #1, there is no binding, perpetual provision in the application to prevent simultaneous use of the restaurants in the future. And at the least, the area of the larger restaurant should be applied which calculates to 20 spaces minimum. (thus, 37 hotel plus 20 restaurant = 57 minimum).

#2 – While it is likely that some guests will dine in the restaurants, representing an overlap and therefore a possible reduction in the total combined number, the applicant states “the restaurants will be open to the public and locals will be familiar with the many parking options available in the village”, which is an admission that their strategy depends upon use of street parking.

#3 – The Ordinance requires that any remote parking, if permitted by PB; shall be held under same ownership. The Applicant presents no such parking. Additionally, the Ordinance only allows remote parking at the discretion of the PB, and with the stipulation it must be a “...reasonable distance from the principal building or use, measured along the line of public access.” No such parking exists.

The Applicant shared numerous historic photographs in support of their proposal, with the intent to demonstrate that historically Rockport had a far greater building density in the village, and that there was a hotel downtown. However, the applicant’s photographic submission demonstrates two important conditions that belie their argument – that the proposed hotel fits the location.

#1: Even during these earlier times, when the village building density was at its greatest, the space between Shepherd Block and 20 Central Street was not filled in with buildings, as this applicant proposes. Despite greater pressures to build upon available space, there was and always has been an open space adjacent to Shepherd Block.

#2: At the time of those earlier photographs, the village had no need for parking spaces – there were no cars.

There are numerous hotels available nearby (11 per Town Comprehensive Plan), not in existence years ago, which makes a hotel in the village now superfluous.

How many public parking spaces are available to absorb the current shortfall of off- street parking? It depends on how efficiently the cars are parked as there are no delineations (except at the (7) parking spaces overlooking Goose River) but the dimensions along Central and Main Streets indicate a total of about 54 street spaces.

Anecdotally, both 18 Central and Nina June Restaurants report parking shortages for their customers currently. Across the Street, Granite Hall Condominiums experiences ongoing issues with the public using its private parking, which is marked as such. Our Town’s Comprehensive Plan reported parking shortages in the Village as of 2004 – that was before the current, higher level of business activity.

Is there any additional public parking immediately available for the Village downtown? The new library, which is three times the size of the former one, necessitates changes to the street that actually reduces the available parking by a half a dozen spaces – inclusive of the new off-street Library parking count.

The proposed Site Plan shows no provisions for guests accessing the main entrance and lobby by vehicle. There is no area to pull out of traffic – nor can there be as the street and sidewalk are owned by the public. Guests unloading luggage will be forced to double park, creating chronic safety issues and traffic congestion. Even if directed to use a secondary entrance off Sandy’s Way, human nature being what it is, guests will always gravitate to the more convenient and respectable front entrance for drop offs and pick ups. Imagine the plight of a handicapped guest arriving by car.

In respect to LUO Chapter 1000 – Performance Standards, a proposed development must satisfy Section 1003 “Architectural Review Standards”. Specifically, paragraph 2, which states: “The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures.”

Non-musical definition of “Harmonious”: (Free Dictionary)

1. Marked by agreement in feeling, attitude or action.
2. Forming a pleasingly consistent whole.
3. Exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities.

1. The proposed structure is five stories high on the Central Street side. All of the neighboring structures are only three stories (plus the Shepherd Block has attic windows).
2. The proposed structure features balconies, none of the neighboring buildings do.
3. The proposed structure features mulled windows (double or joined together),level) whereas all neighboring buildings have single individual windows (above street
4. The proposed structure lacks the ornate, corbelled (outwardly stepped) brick cornice of all neighboring structures.
5. The proposed structure lacks the stone window lintels present on all neighboring structures.
6. The proposed structure has a façade with far more glass than the historic neighboring structures.
7. All neighboring structures have substantial granite structure - lintels, posts, archfeature, substituting instead of granite “painted panels” – supporting the brick above; the proposed structure lacks this architectural
8. The proportions of the windows and the window panes of the proposedtall, historic proportions structure do not harmonize with all of the neighboring buildings, which feature
9. The proposed structure has its 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors on the Central Street side equal in height, which does not harmonize with the neighboring structures all of which display an historic hierarchy of taller windows below and shorter ones above.
10. The proposed structure lacks the architecturally correct trim details of the neighboring historic structures, substituting contemporary flat board trim instead.
11. The proposed structure has its first floor above street level, even at the highest point of the sidewalk, with the first floor approximately four feet up above the sidewalk its lowest point; this does not harmonize with the adjacent buildings every one of which has its first floor at or within one step of the sidewalk.
12. The proposed structure has two sets of steps plus metal railings at the front, which does not harmonize with all the adjacent buildings which do not have these elements and which place the first floor at a traditional retail level.
13. The proposed structure features numerous contemporary carved elements such as balconies, which does not harmonize with the plain, traditional facades of the adjacent buildings.
14. The proposed structure is set back from the sidewalk which does not harmonize with the adjacent buildings, all of which honor the sidewalk edge.
15. The above points mostly refer to the front, Central Street façade. The proposed structure’s rear façade is immediately recognizable as not harmonizing with the adjacent buildings.

While aesthetics are subjective, all of the above items, and others, represent objective facts illustrating the lack of conformity with Section 1003 “Architectural Review Standards”.

While the Planning Board cannot put an individual developer’s profitability above the broader needs of the Town as embodied in our Ordinance, it is human nature to try to accommodate an Applicant’s proposal. In the case of this particular proposal, it is important to note that the Applicant does not need to proceed with this Hotel to recognize a profit on the land – the land is already fully populated with income- producing businesses. Further, there is little doubt that this experienced hotel developer can find success with this project in another, more suitable location in Town.

Rockport Building Ordinance Off-Street Parking Requirements for EXISTING Occupancies

Union Hall
B (14) Business
1st (31) Restaurant (94 seats) 2nd (06) Assembly
3rd (02) Apartment

(53) Total Off-Street Parking Spaces Required

Martin Block (Sea Folk)
B and 1st (15) Restaurant 2nd and 3rd (02) Apartment

(17) Total Off-Street Parking Spaces Required

Shepherd Block
B (15) Office
1st (33) Restaurant (100 seats)

(10) Retail 2nd (21) Office 3rd (21) Office

(100) Total Off-Street Parking Spaces Required
Total for Current occupancies: 170 Off-Street Parking Spaces
Total current available: 52 Off-Street Parking Spaces (includes (2) HCAP)

Current Deficit: 118 Off-Street Parking Spaces