AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Committee Of The Whole 12-13-22

[Zac Bears]: All right. Paper 22-514, committee of the whole meeting notice, Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 is now called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: and vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Present, four present, three absent. The meeting is called to order. I see her too.

[Unidentified]: Oh, is there no audio? Hey Shane, I think I might have an issue with the audio. Yeah, it looks like they can't hear us. We can't hear them. I can't hear you. Can you hear me now? So you can hear us through Zoom, Shane. Thanks, Rick. Okay. Just one moment, bear with us. Madam President, can you hear us now? We can't hear you, you're muted.

[Nicole Morell]: Sorry, I lost it, yeah. Okay, can you hear me now?

[Zac Bears]: Great, yes, all right. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole. on Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 at 6 p.m. In the Medford City Council Chambers and via Zoom, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed updates to the outdoor dining ordinance within Medford, paper 22-514. The City Council has invited Director of Economic Development, Victor Schrader, to attend this meeting. For further information, needs, and accommodations, contact the City Clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. I see here we have some papers from Victor Schrader. . If you want to come up and present your presentation, that would be great. Are you able to share the slides for Councilors who are not present? Great. Should we make you a cohost?

[Unidentified]: Already done. Great.

[Victor Schrader]: evening, council. Thank you for having me. I'm here with my colleague our economic development planner. Yvette has been doing the heavy lifting on outdoor dining this year. If you need any tough questions answered, she is here to fill those. she'll be running the presentation. We thought to be helpful to walk you through the process that's been in place for the last couple seasons under the state's emergency order as it related to outdoor dining. There's an ordinance on the books currently in Medford so we thought we would review that with you as well and then walk you through some recommended changes that staff is proposing based on our experience the last couple of years. As well as feedback from from the business community. And as council bears mentioned I did hand out paper copies to Council and we can certainly make the presentation available to Councilors and the public after this meeting. Feel free to stop me at any time. under the emergency order put in place as a result of covid-19, we saw an uptick in outdoor dining in the city. for variety of reasons, obviously the restrictions being the primary reason, but also I think, you know, people responded well to it and we saw restaurants wanting to do this more and being more and more creative. So over the term of 2020, To 2022, we saw about 33, over 33 participants offering both outdoor seating on public and private property. And the most common types of seating we saw were sidewalk, that you can go to the next slide. Sidewalk seating, this was the majority of the seating that was offered. So typically on the sidewalk, bistro tables, pretty limited in scale, a couple of tables here and there. The other type of seating that was common was what we call parklet seating, which is in the street, a combination of in the street and on the sidewalk, allowing for pedestrian access, but seating. that's a little more robust. And in some cases, folks built platforms, Tinoch and Picante built a parklet platform this season as well. So we had about six businesses that were either in the street or a combination of the street and the sidewalk this year. The licensing process we've we've been following under the emergency order. Go something like this this is a summary. Business owner would submit an application to the Office of planning development sustainability. We we organize a review committee of city staff to take a look at them. You know if there's any additional information that's required we would request that and then staff would make a recommendation to the mayor. which under the emergency order had the authority to either approve or deny a license. We expect the emergency order to expire. It's actually an act extending the emergency order to expire on April 1st, 2023. So that's why we're in front of you. At that time we revert back to the city's ordinance and We're not expecting that the state will will extend that this year. Under the city's current or existing ordinance chapter 15 article 8. The process is a little bit different. Business owner would apply through the city clerk. Various City departments would review the application again, if any additional information is required, that would be requested. The business owner would then present their request to city council, and city council would approve or deny the license. We summarized the requirements under chapter 15, article eight for you. I'm happy to read through these if you feel I need to, or we could just pause and let folks read through those.

[Unidentified]: This ordinance was amended in 2016.

[Victor Schrader]: To limit it to property under public jurisdiction so sidewalks and streets. So the current ordinance does not apply to private property in the case of private property. It would be permitted as part of a building. building permit. So you know some a business like like for 2 cheese for example would would be permitted to have outdoor dining on their private property.

[Unidentified]: There are no questions about that that you can move on to our proposal.

[Victor Schrader]: The the intent of our for our proposed changes is really to keep the spirit of the existing ordinance. But the modifications were proposing are to try to help streamline this we found that you know residents are responding well. Business owners like like the opportunity to have outdoor dining. And So in order to encourage it we think there's there's an opera couple opportunities to to simplify the process and establish some consistent guidelines that would apply to anyone that's any business that's interest in participating. The main differences are underlined here. We would we're we're recommending that the applications be submitted through the building department. The city of Medford uses a program platform called said citizen serve for business permitting. And that's an easy way to streamline this process bring it online. We think we've established a staff review committee as I said under the emergency order and we keep that in place. So staff that staff review committee would review the applications. and then and make a recommendation to the building commissioner for approval or denial. We think that this helps provide some certainty to business owners streamlines the process. And while encourage businesses to to apply the future. So Part of the next couple of slides are really outlining what we propose as the new ordinance and obviously this is going to be filled in with some some legalese once we once we put it into you know the ordinance format but we want to simplify for tonight. So the stars are dashers represent an overlap between the existing ordinance. And our proposal. So you're gonna see much of this is the same. The big differences are the approval process, and then an expansion of the requirements. What we found was under the existing ordinance, there wasn't a lot of direction related to ADA requirements, design standards, things like that. And so we've been in consultation with departments, DPW, fire, traffic, transportation, building health. There are set of standards that everyone's looking for and and we think are you know easy enough for the building to the businesses to accommodate but also well ensure that these structures and dining areas are accessible and safe and attractive and both serving the needs of the business and and the public. . I would like to make a motion to approve the ordinance. Would it be beneficial for me to walk through one by one? I think the intent is to get some feedback on these points and help inform changes to the ordinance if the Council is interested in So as I mentioned, the SAR asterisk means that it's the same as the existing ordinance. So we propose that the outdoor dining period remain the same from March 1st to October 31st, that it be limited to property under the jurisdiction of the city. So that's streets and sidewalks for the most part. This is a slight difference under the existing ordinance that was required that all furniture be removed. At the end of the day. So we're proposing that we we allow businesses to keep it out. During the full season. The review committee has been expanded. We see benefit of adding a couple departments here to review the license applications. licenses would not be transferable. Application requirements are very similar to the existing ordinance. There's some administrative work that goes into this so we're we're suggesting that there be a minimal fee currently. The application fee in the existing ordinance is $25 we're suggesting it be 50 with a license fee of 200. This is still well below most of our neighboring cities and towns so we want to encourage this but also recognize there's there's a cost of the administration.

[Zac Bears]: Thanks I'm going to pause there go to president around yes.

[Nicole Morell]: I think you guys are bears. Thank you Victor I really appreciate this going back to On the previous slide about the furniture and items like that being able to be left out at all times. Do other cities do something similar to have folks ever seen. I mean, I mean, I know there's always instances but just kind of negative instances where stuff gets, you know, messed up or moved or goes missing kind of thing.

[Victor Schrader]: I think that's pretty consistent some, some communities will require be locked up. So that's something we could consider. I'm surprised that we didn't consider that. So maybe I'll go back in the draft ordinance. I'll make note of that and make sure that it's called out if that's something you'd like to consider.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I'd just be curious to see that. You know, I don't think we have roving gangs of people throwing furniture everywhere, but you know, sometimes every now and then someone might, you know, a chair may find its way into a parking lot or something like that. So just seeing if there's anything that maybe we could call that out.

[Victor Schrader]: And I know we have some members of the business community in the chamber here as well and on some of these points and I think it'd be great to get their input.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, absolutely I you know I can always be conducting a scenario that that doesn't exist so I'd be curious to hear that input.

[Victor Schrader]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: . I also have a question on this and on the following. I think allowing it to be a semipermanent installation for a long period of time makes a lot of sense. That is a lot easier for the business than bringing it in and out every night and having the resources to do that, the storage space, etc. I do think that trash receptacles should not be remaining overnight. I'm sure this is the language from the current ordinance. It says it all must be brought in every night. I would just think that would be the one thing that should be not allowed to stay outside overnight, given that a variety of issues, not limited to road and control. And then on the next slide regarding the fee. So you gave a little bit of context. You're saying that's significantly below the fee for surrounding communities?

[Victor Schrader]: Yeah what we're seeing a lot of communities are are discussing after dining right now with the lifting of the emergency order so we've been tracking your communities and they're handling this a little bit differently usually it's it's typical that they would typical for them to be proposing that it be charged a fee be charged per space. So they're looking especially in the case where parking spaces are are being utilized for outdoor dining. A fee would be charged per space. I guess that's the account for loss revenue from the meters. In other communities, it's by seat or by table. And those are adding up to significantly more than a $200 fee for most businesses.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I like the idea. I think quite frankly, that in a lot of cases, this is a more valuable use of public space than car parking. So I think in that sense, it's great to encourage it. I've enjoyed outdoor dining. I think a lot of people enjoyed outdoor dining in 2020, if at least, and maybe since then. I just do want to make sure that we are, you know, that the fee is commensurate with the amount of work to process the applications. So, you know, if the discussion is that that amount, that $50 annual application, the $200 fee is covering the cost of staff time to process everything and approve it, then that's fine. But I just, you know, maybe a little bit more info on that would be helpful for me. Councilor Cabrera.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilor Bears in this. I mean, there are some places that are sitting more outside than they are inside. So I think the fee should be commensurate with the amount of tables that you have outside. I'm not mentioning names, but some of them are just saying they have more seating outside. And I think we should have the furniture locked at night. I agree with President Morell on that. And I drive around, I see other cities, that's how they do it. They chain it up at night, and I don't think there should be any trash left out there. So I agree with all those things, suggestions going forward. I got some questions when we get to the accessibility part.

[Victor Schrader]: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. The next section of this is we're calling a general license requirements. So the idea here is that, you know, the of the first portion of these recommendations would be captured in the ordinance. This next portion would be in an annually established set of license requirements. So there are things here that, based on conditions, response year over year, we may want to tweak and change. For the most part, you'll see they're more associated with the physical improvements, the accessibility barriers, those types of things, as opposed to the application review kind of regulatory part of this. These were developed in consultation with the review committee. We've vetted these over the last couple of years. We've kind of seen them in practice and have been able to tweak them as challenges have come up So this first slide is mostly about accessibility, making sure that there is at least, if you have tables out on the sidewalk, there's at least four feet for pedestrians. we've been requiring the seating be either in front or directly adjacent to the business itself. If you're expanding the seating in front of a neighboring business, we've been asking that you get approval from that business. There are reasons, accessibility, visibility, taking up a parking space in front of a neighboring building without their approvals is something that we wanted to avoid. serving alcohol, you know as part of the the emergency order. The state wave ABCC requirements for an alteration of premises. We're not sure what's going to happen with that in the future. But basically what we're saying here is you need to follow those regulations. The last couple years. The local licensing commission has been able to prove them. We do have heater requirements that were established by fire prevention. So if folks have heaters outside, they would be inspected and need to be following those guidelines. The next slide outlines the accessibility requirements required to meet ADA and architectural access board standards. All buildings, crosswalks, adjacent crosswalks shall be connected by an accessible walkway, accessible aisle, between tables, through the seating area that must be three feet. And so there's a four-foot corridor that needs to be established, say, if you have bistro tables. In some cases, folks are putting out more tables along business frontage and and closer to the street and in those cases, you know, if there needs to be an accessible 4 feet but also 3 feet between the tables so that folks can get to and from the seating. With that with folks out establishing seating in the roadway, you know, there's a there's a great difference between the curb in the street. This is it ramping is something that a lot of communities have been struggling with we've we've kind of trial and error with pouring. You know temporary ramps. Folks building ramps going for we really want to make sure that those are are accessible and our and and are meeting the standards of ADA and the Architectural Access Board. And then there's some travel lane requirements here as well. Councilor, did you? I'll go to Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is probably one of the positive things that come out of the COVID is, although Danny is here to stay now, and everyone's enjoyed it. So if we're gonna do it, I think we do it right. I saw, you know, during the last seasons that we had it, I think really the only questions that came about were, you know, the accessibility issues. I agree with you about, you know, people who are putting these little small thing, and they're just putting a little piece of a hot tub down. I think if you go to the park that you should it should be done correctly. It should be brought up to the curb level like like many of the other restaurants of that. I don't think a little small ramp is cutting it. So that would be my suggestion to all parts of the city. Be a cripple up the curb level similar to like the other restaurants to that that's really my only issue that and you know. We do hear from people who say that they can't get around some of them because they're taking too much. So some of you have to walk up the street. So I think that's an issue we have to discuss on a few locations where the people get to cut through the restaurant while people are eating is gonna be a problem. So other than that, I think my biggest problem is just the Parkland City. I think it should be a crib level throughout the whole thing, not just a little ramp.

[Victor Schrader]: So with that, Councilor, are you suggesting that we should require the structured Parkland similar to the wooden structures? Yeah, we've we've thought through that as well. There is a cost. A couple of businesses have implemented those I think they're really successful. They look great. But they do cost some of our peer communities.

[Richard Caraviello]: In all due respect to the restaurants. I mean, you're getting free space. I said you know you're getting getting 8 to 10 tables for really $200. So you could you can make that up on one weekend so. The cost of bringing it up to another couple of inches, I don't think it's that dramatic for the reward that they're going to get for the 15 or 20 weeks that the restaurant's going to be open.

[Zac Bears]: If I may, Chancellor Caraviello, on this point, do we have examples of other communities that are requiring it and the costs related to it? I generally tend to agree with the general argument. I think it makes more sense for it to be level and then you don't have to worry about the integrity of ramps and pouring temporary ramps, et cetera. I think it also generally aesthetically looks nicer. My only downside is that, you know, some of them are wooden slotted gaps and then you may have food falling under it and then you have a problem there on the way side of things. Do we have examples of design guidelines and other communities that do require this or recommend something like this?

[Victor Schrader]: The only example we have is Somerville. And they offered a grant to help cover the cost of design. Because they're structures, they do need to get permits for the design. So that's the one example that I have. We could certainly do more research on that.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and bring it back to you if you'd like to consider requiring that as part of the and if I may just before you go back to once again I think something I would also consider is potentially. bifurcated fee structure. So for example, giving a reduced cost benefit to a business that does choose to do a structured structure or something like that. I mean, I don't want to create such a high regulatory cost that nobody does this. Cause I think in general, it's a good idea. And I just don't want to say, Hey, spend $20,000 and you can do it in perpetuity. I'm sure there's maybe a couple or a few businesses that might even take that on because the benefit may be so great, but, um, I'd like to see what Councilor care bill is talking about that. Try to make some sort of assessment as best as we can so that we're not essentially discouraging anyone from doing this but maybe encouraging certain businesses to take that next step maybe they'll make it up. It's a $250 fee if you do have it in a $1000 fee if you don't you might make that up for a few years to make just make the investment something like that. I can't secure bill.

[Richard Caraviello]: Council best point about the food falling through these gaps and things that does the Board of Health have any requirements for like them. How washing it like at night or something or in the morning before they come in. 7 any kind of you know.

[Victor Schrader]: They are requiring pest control.

[Richard Caraviello]: I mean but I do they like power Washington like like in the morning before they open up or something and I don't think so that now not not a formal requirement. So that the Board of Health has no like situations for cleaning outside.

[Victor Schrader]: Not as part of the outdoor dining. Maybe the food code and that yeah I may extend beyond.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. I think as every other.

[Nicole Morell]: The racism bears. Yeah and sort of the same vein of what Councilors carry on bears are talking about I'm curious are there any safety considerations as far as design requirements? I mean, I know if a car is going to jump a curb, a car is going to jump a curb, but I think not in Medford, but I've eaten at some of these where you very much feel like you're in a road and you are on the road and it doesn't feel like there's much keeping between you and vehicles. So I'm just curious, was there any thought or do other communities use anything with regards to safety part of the design?

[Victor Schrader]: Absolutely. The seedings in the street were requiring barriers and in terms of it. Water filled versus concrete. It's been our strong recommendation to have a concrete barrier facing oncoming traffic. And that that's really the direction of dpw and traffic transportation on the side and the back of the seating. We've depending on the street. We've allowed for more flexibility, but some posts or the water filled barriers, they take up a little less space. The challenge with siting these is that the concrete barriers need to be at an angle. So even though we're thinking of it as one space, usually with the barriers, you're taking up more than one space. So we're That's part of our review process. When we're talking with the business about citing the outdoor dining and dimensions, you know, they often don't think about the barriers themselves. So we're working through that with them. But that is the top concern when we're reviewing the industry dining.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. If you could go over the next slide, I think.

[Victor Schrader]: Yep.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah.

[Victor Schrader]: Great lead in Councilor Morell. Next slide is on traffic and safety requirements. So To that point front barriers are acquired side and rear barriers as needed you know some streets just have slower less traffic in. You know a street like Boston have it's important to have proper protection. And then there's their sight line requirements. We don't want to be distracting. Pedestrians are cars with you know flashing lights and And we have had some businesses that are kind of right up on an intersection and you know what want to put up nice lattice and create a really nice atmosphere for their for their patrons but it in some cases it can interfere with with the clear sites that at a crosswalk or intersection so we've had to work through that so. Really the idea here is to provide standards up front as businesses are going through the process of design, make sure that they know right from the get-go what we'll be looking for. The next slide is on design requirements and this isn't architectural or aesthetic design per se. It's more about when a business owner is contemplating aesthetic improvements. what they need to consider. Again, we like the idea of artwork on the barricades, but it shouldn't be dark because then they disappear at night. And then any signs or markings have to conform with the manual on uniform traffic control devices.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I do have a question on this one. Is there any consideration about an aesthetic design requirements of any kind? Because again, I think, you know, obviously the conditions under which these were built initially or created initially, it was an emergency situation, temporary measure, you know, so I think we could all be comfortable with a little bit of haphazardness in terms of how they look because of the service that they're providing, I think. If we're talking about something where we're having it up eight months a year, it's renewable every year. It really is going to start becoming a permanent fixture, at least for those eight months of the year of the neighborhood. which again, as I said before, I think is great, but I think it does speak to a need to have a little bit more thought around design. So, you know, I definitely understand safety comes first, so that should be the priority, but are there aesthetic design requirements that could be included in the ordinance or in the application requirements within the ordinance that could address aesthetics, you know, while also prioritizing safety?

[Victor Schrader]: We haven't looked deeply into that beyond that you know what the structures that have been built in in Medford today and some of the neighboring communities and usually there. You know there wouldn't and look pretty similar. In terms of you know a roof structure or any enclosures. We have we haven't seen folks go that far. again, there's some cost implications. There's also, you know, citing those, we don't have even streets per se. And so, you know, some folks are, you know, there's some slope they have to deal with. And, you know, I think the structures look great. I do think if we were to require structures that we'd probably lose some folks that have been participating because they're averse to the cost, but it's something we can certainly look into, see if there's some standards out there and provide you with more information.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think, you know, nothing too grandiose is really, I'm not thinking, you know, gold plated structures of any kind, but, you know, I do think six concrete barriers with, you know, a few metal tables thrown in. There's a certain point at which it becomes, unless it's like completely filled all the time, it's kind of like, I don't want to say an eyesore, but I guess that's the best word I have on my mind right now, you know. So is there something, some lower bound threshold that we can implement to say, you know, you at least have to have some sort of, you know, safety appropriate decorative artwork, or at least like it has some aesthetics are so subjective. It's hard for me to kind of think of a legal threshold to put in, but maybe I'll leave that up to you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks.

[Richard Caraviello]: So you're asking for some type of design standard. It's some sort of minimum. I agree with Councilor Bears. There should be some type of a design standard. Something that just doesn't look like, like you've got like one of the pictures in the front here, just the barriers with some pop-up tables. I don't like that at all. Yeah, so I think we should include some design standard and nothing crazy, but at least make it look somewhat aesthetically pleasing.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, some sort of minimum.

[Richard Caraviello]: I actually don't- Yeah, minimum design standards.

[Zac Bears]: I don't mind, like even this, the pop-up tables with the barriers that are colored, it's approaching the- It's kind of borderline. It's kind of borderline. That might be my bare minimum.

[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe Councilor- I mean, maybe you can put some fly off, like some flowers or something and make it look a little- Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: That's- Some sort of plan for- That's a little too bare minimum for me. Yeah, yeah. But I'm just thinking the gray, like, you know, gray barriers, gray metal chairs. That's a little bit.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. I think we've seen like, uh, like be sure five does a decent job. The knowledge does a decent job nappies. If you're really Dave, you know, they went on and spent a few dollars and it made it look, you know, it makes it makes it look a lot aesthetically pleasing and some of the other places that we see.

[Zac Bears]: I do agree with those examples.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah.

[Victor Schrader]: Great. Yeah. I think, I think we can pull together, uh, just. some simple design standards, pulling from other communities, and also maybe even outline some ballpark cost numbers for the improvements for you to consider as you're weighing what level of improvement to require.

[Zac Bears]: And I don't want to overcomplicate the situation, but again, I think If we really feel like certain requirements are just going to push everybody out of even taking advantage of this ordinance, and I'll come to Councilor Collins in just a second. I think that's really important for us to consider. And at that point, is there some sort of fee structure or application fee structure where we could encourage certain behaviors, but still allow kind of a bare minimum for a higher price, essentially. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President Burrs. Yeah, I agree with that I think you know not all my major considerations with you know that the new and improved after dining ordinance of mostly been covered so far. Prioritizing safety chief among them making sure that we're incentivizing this for me I think in most cases looking around the after dining that does already exist in Medford I think speaking of somebody who does design for my day job. I think with outdoor dining for me. having it at all is kind of a value add for our streets and our neighborhoods. I agree that some sort of design standard wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I wouldn't really know how to start outlining that. I totally trust your office to do so. I think maybe even looking at not from like our community probably, but like if there's particularly egregious examples of you don't need to go that far, but like, please don't do this. I'm sure that we can find like we've like the other consideration that we've been talking about, I'm sure we can find some sort of happy medium While we're making sure I mean my priority making sure that we're encouraging businesses to do this incentivizing them to do this making sure that it's not overly onerous to begin doing dining while making sure that this will be something that we can appreciate.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Sorry about that.

[Victor Schrader]: . I think we have good direction on that. Thanks.

[Adam Hurtubise]: The next slide is on animal requirements. This is new. In the

[Victor Schrader]: animals except service animals are not permitted. We're proposing that we consider path to allow dogs in outdoor dining. And we've added this with director of health and our animal control officer they were they were supportive with the list of controls that we we came up with here. So this would be a new addition. And I think it could, especially in our office, we're seeing more and more residents asking for dog parks and dog friendly community amenities. And this could be another opportunity to provide that for dog owners.

[Unidentified]: And just so I understand it.

[Zac Bears]: The license every time the license that explicitly permits to see so we're talking about the outdoor dining license or their business license.

[Victor Schrader]: Yes, I the way we think this would work best as if a business would like to allow dogs they would ask for permission through the outdoor dining license process so we have a checkbox and then in order to be approved. They would need to comply with this this set of requirements I can read them off that.

[Richard Caraviello]: So this would be the restaurants option to so if they didn't want to have dogs and it will be their option. If they want to be up to them to happen.

[Victor Schrader]: Yes, sorry that if that wasn't clear would be the restaurant owners of the business owners option. And then my final slide, thank you for bearing with me, is just about general operational requirements. The outdoor dining operation will occur during the restaurant's license hours. The city assumes no responsibility for damages. If for any reason snow. Road work. Clear drainage path. The space needs to be clear that's the that's the responsibility of the business but the city can also do that work. If needed. Food preparation shall not be allowed unless approved by the board of health. That's consistent with the existing ordinance. And then we're also asking for a dumpster permits and pest pest control reports current with, with the license application.

[Unidentified]: Great.

[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or comments from members of the council? That's a career.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you Mister, I agree pretty much everything you have a little question about on having the dogs at the food establishments. I mean, you know, I'm a pet owner and. I love my, you know, we love our animals and I just don't know if they belong in restaurants. I've seen, you know, I'm not saying that they don't exist. I know restaurants in Boston and other cities, they do allow them on their premise. They do allow them there and they put bowls there. That's probably the only part that, you know, I question about that. And they say, you know, it's the restaurant's option to do it or not. But I just don't think animals belong with the food. I mean, if you get the service animals, that's one thing, but what if the dog jumps up on the table while the people are eating? I mean, everybody says their dog is a good dog, but the food around dogs do strange things. That's really the only place I really have any issues with that, but it's at the restaurant's discretion.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello-Lowe. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for this. Very thorough set of recommendations on how to improve your minutes to appreciate it. Overall I feel really great about this project. Extreme learning the process is always good. Sounds like this will do that. I like the idea of maintaining the staff review committee that's been a part of this process for the past couple years. This is one area where I think that you know permit approval and I'll should still up to the experts not elected to make sense and we don't want to provide that kind of consistency for for business owners. Like I said most of the items that questions on I think we've discussed the issue of you know kind of finessing the fee structure to make sure that this is something that business owners feel is within reach for all types of businesses you know we have restaurants serving all types of cost levels here in the city, making sure that it's accessible. The aesthetic standards, like I said, it's not my number one priority. I'd be interested to see if there's something we can do there that isn't onerous, ditto with parklets being at curb level. If there's a way to, if we can kind of look further into if there's a way to do that, that won't put a lot of businesses kind of out of the running functionally because of where they would site their outdoor seating. For me, in terms of the dog issue, I've been to a lot of outdoor dining scenarios in other communities where there are lots of doggies around. I tend to defer to the Board of Health, the ACO on that issue, as I would with most issues relating to this. But overall, I'm really excited for us to move forward with this. I think it would be great to sort of recodify this and have it go on after the end of the current policies in April. So thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Comments. Council Member Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, if I can make a motion. that also says that we took that that motion be that all furniture will be will be locked to closing. No no trash will be left. After after closing hours. That we establish some type of minimum design standards. And to look at the proposal.

[Zac Bears]: One second we're having a freeze on the computer. We got the locks on the furniture.

[Richard Caraviello]: And establish a minimum design standard.

[Zac Bears]: Establish a minimum design standard.

[Richard Caraviello]: And on a B paper, that Victor come back with some type of option for the pockets that they'd be brought up to crib level for you. So if you can let us know how other communities does as a B paper.

[Zac Bears]: And then we could- We just call it a further motion.

[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, additional motion, yeah, all right. that the office come back with some type of recommendation for bringing the parklets up to crib level.

[Zac Bears]: Great. So, we have those motions and yeah, I did. I think those are some some good next steps. I did want to just kind of talk through that and also open it up to the public. I know we have some members of the public here. A couple one or two on Zoom. First, since we're I think what Councilor Caraviello makes sense. I think probably what makes the most sense at this point, it seems like most of the ordinance itself, we don't really have concerns with. It sounds like there's maybe four or five, maybe six main areas where we want to see some options before us and make some choices on that. Definitely. I think we agree on the, you know, locking the furniture trash thing, but, but the rest of it, I think you have good notes on that. It sounds like you guys have been listening intently. So, um, you know, I can't make any motions. Councilor Caraviello has a couple on the floor, but I think in general, in terms of next steps, it probably makes the most sense, uh, for, um, you to come back with a draft ordinance that has all the stuff that we agree on or didn't highlight here as, um, you know, that'll probably be pro forma. And then we can go through those areas where we have some additional requests or maybe deciding between a few options. And we can talk about those key issues at a next committee meeting, if that works for you.

[Victor Schrader]: That works great, thanks.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Victor. I'll open it up to members of the public now who want to comment. Name and address for the record, please.

[William Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, number 1B. One thing I thought about as you were having this discussion about locking up furniture at night and design standards, and that's one thing as we talk about those ideas that I think should be thought of is, you know, public access off hours, we have a shortage of places to sit in the city. And sometimes Boston surrounding environment is nicknamed the city that always sleeps, our businesses don't have very wide hours. Magnificent Buffet closes at the ungodly hour of noon, for example. I think it's really good if we could have, you know, I think, you know, suppose Magnificent Buffet proposed, you know, a picnic table, pretty bare bones, with some Jersey barrier going around. know, some business like Magnificent Muppet proposed that they said everybody's allowed to sit there when the place closed. I consider that a real good thing and you'd want to allow it to be more bare bones because you're allowing any, you know what I mean, you don't want something more innate that's going to be left for people to use. You want something like a picnic table or something. I've also seen down in a to make a plane, I went to a business one time that was closed. And it was really great because while they had a bunch of chairs that they tied up, they also had these tables that were built in. And they had this sort of bench that was built into the structure. So that means that when they're closed, you could sit on that bench. And maybe there was no table, I can't remember. But in any event, the thing was useful when the place is closed. And given that that's, you walked out the street, I mean, you guys know, if you try to find something to eat after a city council meeting, you can't. Um, because everything's closed. Maybe if you're lucky at the beating editorial, you go to Alexander's and get a grinder. Um, but basically the Cabot stays, you walk down the street, everything's closed. So, or many of the businesses are closed. So I think we should try to think about, you know, how can we work with businesses to, you know, provide sort of a public, um, public amenity, even when the businesses are closed. No place to sit, most of the bus stops don't have seating. If you're eating a sandwich that you bought someplace or a bagel and your hands are full, you want to sit down and enjoy that. You're going to have a tough time. Finding that in Bedford a lot of times is my experience. And I've done that other places. When I was down in New Jersey, I went to a kosher deli. It's a big picnic table out front. In fact, there were a couple of businesses there. I didn't even know which picnic table belonged to which business. It worked just fine. You know, you have one guy eating some Chinese food, you got somebody else eating a bagel. It was a great situation. And I think that You know, we have a few, you know, dining restaurants in town, but we also have a lot of really nice, you know, sort of convenience stores that have bagels, have muffins, et cetera. I feel like we need to keep that kind of thing in mind, build on that, have a place people to sit when the places are closed, which is a lot of the time, et cetera. So I thought that if, as we go through these modifications to the proposed ordinance, so I keep that use case in mind. Thanks a lot.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Will. Much appreciated. And I think, uh, could be slotted into this somehow, you know, maybe some complications around the eating at the location. Cause you don't, then you have a trash thing and there's no one there to clean it up, but you know, even if even some sort of bench of some kind could work. Uh, I mean, I could see it potentially working, um, any further comment, uh, from members of the public at this time. them or a. Name and address for the record.

[Maury Carroll]: Good evening. I'm or Carol 31 which Street met for. First of all it's a pot. I think during the fact that nice that would job they do with this and it's about time we have an ordinance for outdoor dining. It worked out great for me when I was at Donna Carol's and we're up at Salvatore's and we'll be doing it there. Last year we did not do it because we had a real lack of staffing problems which prohibited us from really doing it. I think when you talk about locking up the equipment at the end of the night, most owners, when they have an investment on outdoor dining equipment and so forth, are going to want to lock it up because it's protecting them and the theft or having it get damaged or having someone come by throwing it out in the street and there's liability and all that. So, I mean, I think that should be almost a mandatory. The one thing that I'm questioning a little bit is the animal requirements. And I'm gonna go on firsthand experience because we were never allowed to have dogs per the Board of Health or any type of an animal inside the dining area. I know this is outside and on quite a few occasions you'd have people come up and they wanted to take, they're walking their dog, they wanna sit down, have a drink, have a bite to eat and so forth. When we said no to them, the majority of the people that were dining at the time said, I'm glad you did that because I really just want to come here to dine and so forth. And I'm sure there's pros and cons to everything, but I don't know if leaving it up to the individual restaurant is a choice, because one's going to be a good cop, one's going to be a bad cop. Maybe just come out with a... with a platform saying, okay, it's okay, or it's not okay, and then let it ride from there. Other than that, I mean, great job as always, and Victor never does a bad job, neither does your vet, and appreciate you taking the time.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. All right. Um, any other members of the public seeing none of the chamber seeing none on zoom? Um, is there, we have councilor Caraviello's two motions. Would someone be willing to make a motion to the effect of requesting that for councilor Collins? Go ahead.

[Kit Collins]: Um, would that be motion for the economic development director to come back with the draft ordinance, uh, piece of paper and committee of the whole.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, we got that. Mr. Clerk.

[Adam Hurtubise]: to keep the paper and committee of the whole keep the paper in committee. Yeah. Great. Uh great.

[Unidentified]: Uh the first motion of

[Adam Hurtubise]: requirement of the design standard.

[Zac Bears]: Seconded by? Second. Councilor Collins. And maybe we'll take them all at once. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, sure. Just call the roll. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Vaillant?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins? Yes. President Morell? Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. On the second motion by councilor Caraviello to have a director come back with ideas and recommendations on bringing park what's up to curb level. Seconded by councilor Collins.

[Unidentified]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes.

[Unidentified]: Councilor Caraviello?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Naito is absent. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng is absent. President Romero?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Paris?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. 4 in the affirmative, 9 in the negative, 3 absent. The motion passes. Any further discussion? Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Caraviello to adjourn. Seconded by? Second. Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Unidentified]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes for the affirmative no negative three absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned