[Mike Caldera]: and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're gonna take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Amy Thompson. Present. Gerani.
[Andre Leroux]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue.
[Andre Leroux]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: I believe that Velez is absent.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Recording in progress.
[Mike Caldera]: Leigh, also absent. Christie better. Presence and then Mike held their present. All right. We have a quorum and it's you please kick us off.
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29 2023 governor he was under the law supplemental budget bill which among other things extends the temporary provisions between the opening of March 31st 2025. specifically this further extension allows public bodies to be holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at any location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Bland's substantive change to the open meeting allows an extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Great, thank you. Before we get into our first item, I just want to
[Mike Caldera]: say out loud, the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals annually elects a chair from its membership. At our last regular meeting, Jamie Thompson was elected as our chair for the next year, but this is a long-running hearing, and so for the sake of consistency, I will be continuing on as acting chair for the duration of this hearing. So I just wanted to make sure That was said out loud and understood. With that being said, Dennis, can you please read the first item?
[Denis MacDougall]: 970 Fellsway case number 40B-2023-01, continued from April 23rd. The resumption of consideration of petition of DIV Fellsway LLC, the Davis Company, for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B for multifamily six-story apartment development located in approximately 3.4 acres of land in 970 Fellsway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as approximately 289 units, 228 units, multi family housing and 11 pounds. The 7325% of the total units are being designated as affordable housing to low moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, folks. So this is a long-running hearing. The board has been hearing this since last November. And so in this session, the intention is there was a peer review conducted by the beta group of both the civil engineering and the traffic considerations for this project. The board has received It is peer review letters on both topics. My understanding is that the proponent has also had time to review those letters and to formulate responses. And my intention, having heard indirectly from all involved, is that my understanding is that The proponent intends to make a presentation, which will include civil and traffic, as well as details on some of the responses. And then we have two representatives from Beta Group on the line, who we will consult with as needed if the board or the public has any clarifying questions. So with that being said, I see we have Pat Noon for the applicant. Good evening. Please go ahead.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Everyone, thank you for having us again here this evening. And thank you for the summary. So you have made my job a bit easier. I will make my introduction and summary brief. We are here this evening with just a bit of an update from the last time that we presented at the previous hearing, which was focused primarily on architecture and design. Since that time, we have been able to, as you said, digest, study, and provide responses to the peer review comments provided by the beta team on traffic and as well as civil and site. those response to comments were submitted and this week we re-engaged with the beta team on traffic and civil in a peer review session to discuss the responses to comments and try to answer any additional questions or just confirm that our responses were clear and that there weren't subsequent questions. The beta team, not to speak for them, is still digesting the responses that we submitted to them. Our intention this evening is to provide, as you said, a bit of a formal presentation on the responses that we provided. and with the goal of really trying to highlight some of the outstanding questions that have been asked at previous hearings or questions that we felt required a formal public response as a part of the beta comments. For example, the traffic peer review that was given to us by BETA included 80 comments. So this evening, we will not be responding to all 80, but a collection of those that we felt like were the most important to address and make sure were clear for the board and for BETA and for members of the public. So just generally summarizing, Our intention for this evening is to present and with our goal being we are trying to answer questions as thoroughly as possible and make sure that everything is clear and leave everyone feeling like we have answered the questions that have been asked. With that, I will turn it over to Steve Matarano from Bowler, who will start and manage the presentation. We will run through civil and then turn it over to Scott Thornton from Van Ness, who will address the traffic-related items. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Steve.
[SPEAKER_10]: Thank you. Great. Thank you. So again, Steve Matarano from Bowler. civil engineers and landscape architects on the project. We'll be pretty brief, but appreciate the time that Beta's put in, and obviously this board and the public. And we think the comments have been great and helpful in shaping some of the infrastructure. And a lot of our changes are underground, so the site plan itself might not look a lot different, but we'll run you through the presentation here. Just the agenda, we'll hit the civil site, peer review comments, and then however the board wants to handle it, if I do see the beta team on the call, if you want to run through the civil engineering portion and then get their comments there, I'll pause at the end of our civil presentation, if that makes sense, or we can get through our whole presentation and then hear all the beta comments at once.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm torn on it. I think in the absence of a suggestion one way or the other, I think doing civil check-in with beta and then traffic check-in again makes the most sense to me.
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure. Great. So we'll get started here. As I mentioned, the surface updates are not much. Really, we'll have some detail. We have some in the next slides, we'll show you some of the details we've added to address the surface conditions. Really, some traffic patterns, we've looked at some parking conditions. But the overall site plan is what we've seen at previous hearings. One of the details we heard very clearly was we were showing exterior spaces and we were committing to a number of interior spaces. Now we're showing what that looks like on this slide. So we have combined between exterior and interior, we have 66 EV spaces that would be delivered day one. And as we discussed in previous hearings, there's an opportunity to grow that number inside the garage. As demand grows over the years, it's a little easier to expand that internally, a little more challenging to do the external expansion. So just showing what that looks like and how that compares to the overall parking field. This one here we talked about a lot, which is, again, this is the same slide we've seen previously that shows the in and out movements and how if somebody comes in Myrtle Street, they would maneuver around this. this entry point, which is one way in the entrance, the pink line, and then they could proceed out to the Fellsway or proceed into the garage. That's probably the movement we looked at the most to make sure we're being sensitive to some of the comments we heard about Are we making sure that our residents are more directly, it's more convenient to use some of the other access points? Would there be some risk of folks trying to use Myrtle Street? as a pathway into the garages as it was sort of a daily flow pattern? Does that, does having this sort of ceremonial drop-off area drive additional traffic to Myrtle Street? And I've got some slides in a moment that will show what those routes look like for people coming from either direction, whether they're coming up Morell Street towards Amaranth or whether they're on the Fellsway. And what we've done here is we already think it's a circuitous route to come in that way to get into the garage. But here we've added some speed limit signs, a stop line and stop bar here. Again, a few additional nuanced measures. to make this really what it is, a low-use, rental, you know, future tenants coming to look at the building, they're going to be directed to this main entrance, a drop-off condition, you know, somebody coming here for the first time, punching in an address, they're going to get to this point. We allow them to come in the site. We don't anticipate and we purposely slow people down with the stop sign, with the stop sign here and the speed limit sign as you come in to show This is a slow zone, there'll be some cobblestone paving or something of that nature that makes it a very low volume, low speed area, really to make it what it is. We want this to be a low volume entrance. And the residents will find that very, very quickly of wow, that's a little, it's slow, it's circuitous, it's not by any means, not my fastest way to get into the garage and get into my parking space to get to my home, right? And I'll show you some slides, but those are the physical improvements or some signage and some physical stop signs that slow folks down and make that not the most convenient route. Why do we need that route? It's critical to being able to get this full 360 degree circulation around the building. So this is the city of Medford fire truck and what that looks like. And we're trying to accommodate their desire to have the full 360 degree access around the building. So we're trying to work with what works for public safety, fire safety, and the fire department, and how do we also drive this to be the lowest volume entrance. So we did some distance studies here that shows, you know, somebody coming down the Fellsway to get in the garage. If they come in the main entrance, which is what we anticipate into the garage, it's a pretty straightforward shot and it's 522 feet. If they turn down Myrtle Street and come in through the drop-off area, stop at the stop sign and come around into the garage, it's 802 feet. So it's quite a bit longer distance and obviously many more turning movements and stopping. That's the inconvenience factor we add in to drive people to the entrances. We want them to be coming in and out of on a routine basis. And we did a similar look in Amaranth, it's even a longer, you know, difference. Somebody coming up Myrtle Street, turning down Amaranth, they come right into the garage, pretty straight shot, not a lot of turning, no stop controls, so it's a pretty fast entrance, a little under 400 feet there. And again, to come through and around and utilize that for in and out, it's not quite double the distance, but it's pretty close in the inconvenience factor. So we just wanted to, we have studied it. We think it's better to not restrict this lane again, but we wanted to take another look at it because we think if we restrict this lane in some manner, it's going to drive people back out onto Myrtle Street to come around and get in the garage. So, we think it's actually more of a detriment to restrict that than to keep it as an all-way maneuver. This graphic here, again, this is the same graphic just demonstrating the on-street parking. We have laid in some conservative vehicles along here to show that we do have that replicating at least 20, and these are These are full-size vehicles parked with good separation, which anybody who's lived in the city knows that people don't always leave a big separation and not everybody has a full-size vehicle. It could be a smart car and you could end up getting five cars in here or something more. But conservatively, we've laid out 20 full-size vehicles between Amaranth and Myrtle, just to show what that looks like and to show that we have Again, we factored in the existing utility poles and the electric infrastructure all remains where it is. And these have all been designed around it and sort of fit in between. So we took a look at Amaranth and the same look here on Myrtle Street. So all of these zones that have electric equipment have been, they'll just be curved out and grassed areas. And then this slide's got a lot of information on it. You don't have to read all the words, but this was really where I said most of the comments from the civil side were drainage-related, and we We appreciated Beta's comments. I think it's added some redundancy in the system and made it a better system. But the changes are relatively minor. The infiltration systems remain as originally designed. We've moved some pipes around. We've created down in the bottom right-hand corner, there's already an existing pipe that takes mostly the self-storage building. We've incorporated a high storm overflow, so 10-year storm. We're talking five or six inches. If we get to that level of flooding, this provides a little bit of relief out of the system and we'll make the system operate a little better, make sure we're not overtopping catch basins in those rare extreme events. But we think it was a good ad and a great comment. And the rest are really just, this slide was really designed to show beta, really the detailed technical changes that we're making. I'm happy to go into that level of detail. It's a little nerdy, so I'll leave that if there's questions on the details, but really, The overarching system is unchanged. Some of the overflow conditions and some of the treatment units have been upgraded and modified slightly. So with that, that is the end of our civil presentation. So Chairman Caldera, if you wanna ask questions or turn it over to the peer reviewer, happy to turn it back.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll turn it over to Bill McGrath from Beta. Bill, if you could just kind of share your general, your original concerns with the project and just your reaction to some of the proposed changes here.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill McGrath with Beta Group. We did the civil site peer review. We provided a letter to the board dated May 3rd. I won't go through every individual comment. Some of them are just minor details to adjust. So I'll just go through some of the more significant ones. I would say in general that the site layout is appropriate. Site circulation layout is good. One thing we will suggest, you know, if the project continues to advance and gets into the construction stage, that the applicant prepare a construction management plan for the board. for the neighbors that would lay out things like hours of operation, days of operation, truck routes to and from the site, noise control, dust control, those types of construction issues. As Stephen had mentioned, we also looked at the stormwater drainage system and reviewed the analysis that was done. And again, the analysis was done appropriately. Our concerns were that in larger storms, it appeared that the system would surcharge and there'd be a potential for water ponding in the parking lot and impacting some of the parking spaces. I think the overflow system that was presented makes sense. We just received the revised analysis, so we haven't gone through the numbers yet, but I think the concept makes a lot of sense. Excuse me. A couple of comments just on the site. There is a mass electric easement that runs along the south side of the site. An electrical duct bank that's buried underground through that section? Yeah, exactly. Again, not likely an issue. We just want to confirm that there's no restrictions contained within that easement that would prevent the applicant from doing certain things. So they've committed to researching that and getting back to the board just to confirm that what they're proposing is allowed within the easement. The second piece is the subdivision of the two parcels, parcel A and parcel B. Yeah, along that line, that subdivision is going to require that part of the driveway circulation for the driveway and the parking occurs on lot A, the existing self-storage building. So our comment was simply to provide the board with assurances that there'll be some kind of easement agreement between the two lots so that there's rights in perpetuity for the development and the residents of the development to be able to use that driveway, and also for emergency vehicles as well. We had a few comments related to off-site, excuse me. The two crosswalks, one across Myrtle Street and the second across Amaranth Ave. There's new curb ramps, pedestrian curb ramps proposed as part of the development on the developer side. We've suggested evaluating the existing ramps on Myrtle Street and on the other side of Amaranth. to confirm that they're ADA compliant. If they have to be reconstructed as part of the project, they should be, so that the entire crossing is compliant. They've committed to doing that, but doing that as part of further advancing the design. We've also suggested that looking at the The pedestrian curb ramps at the Myrtle Street Fellsway intersection, since that's likely to be a major pedestrian route for the development. And if those need to be upgraded to conform to ADA, that that be included as part of the project as well. And that the limits of resurfacing and milling and resurfacing Myrtle Street be reviewed as the project advances so that it's not left with any kind of trench patching or patching along the curb where the curb line's changing for the on-street parking. Again, they've committed to looking at all that, but I think it's more appropriate to look at that as the design advances. Again, this is still preliminary design phase. if it does move through an approval that anything that's not addressed as part of the preliminary plan be included as conditions of approval so that it's documented and on the record as the project advances. Those were really our main comments. The other comments pertain to certain details on the plans, adding details of things like the underground infiltration system, checking to make sure that the cover conditions over proposed drainage pipe, that that's appropriate. So again, I would say overall, from a civil site perspective, the project seems headed in the right direction. And I think circulation layout is all appropriate, both vehicular and pedestrian.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Bill. With that, I will open it up to the board for questions, either to Bill with the beta group or to the proponent on this presentation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. Bill, I'm wondering if you had any recommendations for the intersection of Myrtle, Amaranth, and Lawrence. There's a lot of pavement there and strange navigating of of vehicular traffic and while this might not be exactly all the responsibility of the project proponent, I'm just wondering what should be done there and if you had thoughts about that.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: So we did look at that, and I think that was addressed more in the transportation review that was done. Yeah, sorry. My apologies. Yeah, no, no. So I think there are some improvements. There's some challenges as well that it doesn't become too restrictive for turning movements. So. I think maybe it's better addressed when we go through the transportation traffic review.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, sorry about that, my fault.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: What I would say, any improvements that might be made, we need to, again, look at pedestrian movements, because as curb lines may change, the location of crosswalks may want to change as well. I think that's probably as deep as I can go into that subject at the moment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: So, Bill, I didn't see specific reference in the peer review letter to this whole one way versus two way flow at the Myrtle Street entrance. So in the presentation, we got some details on the thought process behind keeping it two way. I just wanted to check in with you. Are you Aligned to way is the right approach for that entrance.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, I think we are, um. We did look at it and again, I think it's partly shared with the, the, um. Traffic transportation peer review as well. And we had a meeting as Pat Noon had referenced yesterday afternoon, where we walked through that circulation study. So I think it does make sense to leave it as two-way. We had talked about possibly some wayfinding signs, particularly for Amaranth Ave to encourage drivers to use Amaranth if they're coming from that direction to get into the garage. But it may be overly restrictive to try to make it one way. So yes, I think we're in agreement that two-way circulation makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. And then what about snow removal? It's a little hard for me to tell whether the site already has adequate capacity to absorb snow, or if that's something that would need to be considered and conditioned.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, so that's a good point. And I think that's something, as the design advances, those areas be designated. The way the site is laid out, I think there's adequate space to store snow on site. Some of the landscaped islands certainly are appropriate. So I think it's certainly manageable. But as the design advances, I think those areas need to be designated.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. And then the designated locations on the south side for at least for move-ins, maybe for loading as well, that's a little I don't remember. But that's an adequate capacity from your perspective and a good location?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: Yeah. And again, being a short-term operation, Probably some signing will be appropriate in the final condition, just to make it clear where those areas are and how they're designated. But from an operational circulation standpoint, I think what's being proposed makes sense.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, I'm going to try again. I mean, this may actually be the, you know. You're the right person or not on this, but this may be more kind of overlap with the architecture as well. But I'm curious about the lighting. 1 of the concerns the neighbors had was that this was going to just really kind of. light up and shine a lot into their homes. I'm just curious whether you guys have looked at the lighting or made lighting recommendations.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: It's a little bit outside of the scope that we had.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: We haven't seen the lighting layout. We certainly can take a look at that.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Mr. Chair, if I may on that question.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, please go ahead.
[Patrick Gallagher]: And just for the record, Pat Gallagher with Goulston and Stores. I think I did see Mr. Bomer on actually, but that is something that we did cover. And I think, and Pat, you can confirm this, but I think the plan that we showed at the previous hearing shows that no light will extend onto any other properties. off of our property. But I think that's something that, and would ask Pat and Mr. Bomer to confirm that for me as well.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I can jump in just briefly and we are passing the ball around here a little bit, but I will actually just try to stop the buck with the bowler team. I can confirm a photometrics plan was included as a part of the civil design submission. So I, my My expectation and understanding was that that was the design scope that it was contained within. It was not, saying that to say, it was not performed by Cube 3, the architect of record. It was performed within the landscape and civil design scope. So within the plan set that was submitted of a site photometrics, plan was a part of that and I am not an expert in reading those plans but as I understand it and my takeaway from that plan was as Pat said that the light generated by the site lighting and the photometrics plan that was studied shows that the lighting does not extend to the adjacent residences in the neighborhood. So I will stop there. Steve, if you want to just also confirm what I'm saying, but that is my understanding of what was provided and what the takeaway was.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, just two quick additional thoughts. What Pat said is correct. The lights are all dark sky compliance and they're downward facing with cutoffs. So that's how you achieve that no spillover onto the abutting property. So that's an exterior that took into parking lot lighting, pathway, bollard lights, things of that nature around the site. So those are all factored into that study. So they're all downward facing lights.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: If I, my chair, I apologize if if that was in the set, I don't recall seeing it in the set that was provided to us. You can confirm that and we'll certainly review it. And provide any comments if there are any. and see if we can coordinate. Like I said, I don't recall seeing it in the set that was provided, but if you can certainly get us a copy, we'll review it. Absolutely.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it sounds like a plan. Yeah, if you could just take a look at it from the description, it doesn't sound like a particularly big risk area with the mitigation measures in place, but I think the board and the public would feel more comfortable you know, just there was an additional expert set of eyes on it. And so, yeah, if you could, Dennis can coordinate to make sure you have those plans. And then if you could just review that and provide an update to the board if you do have additional concerns based on the, was it photometric plan? Was that the term? Yeah.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, photometric plan, yeah. Absolutely.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Great. Thank you on both sides. And Mr. Chair, if I may, I will just say that, you know, to be clear, this certainly was reviewed. I know that this was something that Mr. Bowmer had looked at and we had discussed in peer review sessions. I just don't want to create the impression that the photometric plan was not reviewed and has not had those expert eyes on it. I also just want to be cognizant of trying to close out questions to the degree that we can at this point in the proceedings.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Yeah. My position as chair is I'm not an expert in many of these areas. And so I'll just generally look to if it was in the scope of one domain, I just want to make sure that the peer reviewer in that domain has seen it and has an opportunity to respond. But point taken, I am also aware that Cliff Boehmer did review that. So yeah, it's, I think, It's a small enough scope that, um, in the event that there's a, a call out, I think it would be something we could time box discuss in our next meeting. Um, but maybe, you know, it, it, it sounds appropriate. And, and so, um, yeah, I just want to make sure that beta has a chance to review it. Um, in case they do have feedback and I don't really see any way around that.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, my thought is we'll open public comment twice. Yeah, we'll open public comment twice. So we'll do it on the civil portion only. So if you have a traffic concern, we'll reopen. And yeah, so chair awaits a motion to open public comment on the civil peer review letter and responses. Do I have a second? All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, members of the public, if you would like to speak on anything related to the civil peer review letter or the responses to it, now is the time to do so. You can raise your hand on Zoom. You can turn on your camera and raise your hand. You can type in chat. You can email Dennis dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov. All right, I see a Christina Kach who would like to speak on the matter. Please state your name and address for the record.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Christina Kach, 130 Myrtle Street. There continues to be a real emphasis throughout these conversations about the signage we're going to put up. We're going to put up a stop sign. We're going to put up a you can or can't park here. et cetera. I've already mentioned the human factor studies that show that signs are ignored. Just want to get that on the record again that I've brought up that signs are not the best way to do this. But what security and public safety measures are you going to put in place for the residents on Myrtle and Amaranth as well as your own tenants in the unit for the speed limit as well as the stop signs. And I ask because in closed off areas like this, what is going to stop your tenants from not blowing by that stop sign, from not going however fast they want around the property, from not bombing over those speed bumps to get somewhere faster? So again, what are the security and safety measures you're going to be taking to ensure your residents, your tenants are safely coming in and out of the curb cuts and that they are safely transversing the property and pulling out onto Myrtle Street correctly, especially because it's two ways. So yes, that's what I'm curious about is the safety measures of the adherence to the speed limits, the speed bumps, and the stop signs.
[Mike Caldera]: Just so I'm correctly understanding, so you're specifically interested in details on traffic calming measures? Is that right?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Well, no. In the civil layout, they were talking about how by adding the impediments of stop signs and speed bumps around the property to ensure that tenants are They're trying to dissuade people from using Myrtle Street, giving people a little, I mean, the fact that they think people are going to figure out it's slower and it takes longer by mere feet, I mean, come on, guys. So I'm really, I am concerned about the human nature of once they've entered the property that these speed bumps and stop signs and speed limits How are you going to ensure that they're working? Are you going to put cameras up to capture the license plates so you can fine the residents for not stopping at the stop sign? Are you going to fine them for not going the speed limit? I mean, that's a pretty good straightaway that people can still fly over. And we're talking about pedestrians as part of this conversation, of the civil engineering layout, and Are there crosswalks there in the property for people to go? I mean, I'm concerned about safety as part of that, the speed bumps and the stop signs and the speed limit and the adherence.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. Okay. So basically what I'm hearing is you have general concerns about the adequacy of some of the traffic calming measures and that you'd like additional details whether there are other traffic calming measures that are being considered to avoid this and whether there's any planned additional safety equipment and or procedures to enforce the safe use of that space. And then also you want clarification on any locations for internal crosswalks. Did I get that right?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. Would anyone like to speak to that for the proponent?
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure, I can talk to her and Pat, if you have anything additional, feel free to jump in. So to the question, we think the primary reason folks would be dissuaded, and by all means, we heard this comment before, and that's why we've been studying it so closely, but we think the primary is just the longer route and the more circuitous route. We did add those enhancements, which is cobblestones or some type of bumpier pavements through the turnaround area. that's pretty effective in slowing folks down. You notice when your tires hit something that's not smooth asphalt. So that's a physical improvement that we find is very effective. Stop signs are pretty effective. I think most people stop at those, whether it's in a parking lot or on a public way, for good reason. They're there to make sure for that driver's safety. So I think people do respect that. maybe the speed limit is one that some folks, most folks we think will pay attention to it and drive slower. Do they drive 10? Maybe not. Maybe they're going 15, but they're not doing 30 generally when you put those signs up. So it's really, we don't think any one is the key to reducing the traffic there. It's the combination of all these things. So maybe they ignore a speed limit sign, but they won't ignore the bumpiness of the tires driving through there. They won't ignore the stop sign and they won't ignore the fact that it's just longer and more curvy route. We think that physical piece of the curviness and the length is the primary, but we've layered on some additional measures that we think are pretty effective for most people. We get some people ignore you know, advisory signs. But we find them pretty effective. And then on the pedestrian side, we have shown slides in the past, we really are driving the pedestrians out to Myrtle Street onto the sidewalk, which is a very typical crossing of any driveway. which will be up at sidewalk grade, which really, again, slows people coming in and out down and gives the priority to the pedestrians. So we have looked at pedestrian crossings. We've tried to put them in smart places, in places that drivers look for pedestrians crossing. We don't have them crossing In the middle of a straightaway, we put them at intersections, at highly visible spots, at places where vehicles traditionally slow down. You slow down if you're making the turn in. You slow down if you're coming to a T-intersection. that's pretty natural habits. And that's DOT's guidance and any roadway guidance is to put them at those key locations. So we're not taking that lightly. Safety is, obviously I'm a professional engineer in the state of Massachusetts. If I take safety risks, that's a risk to my license. So I'm very personally focused on that as well as we've heard the comments on this project. I don't know if Pat has anything to add to that, but it's a great comment, and it's directly led to this additional study and layering of measures.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Well, as another flight engineer in Massachusetts, then you understand that I am also coming from a place of doing my due diligence.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm just going to ask that we try to limit crosstalk. I'll try to make sure everyone gets called on. Um, uh, Pat, please go ahead.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Sure. Um, I will just try to close out and maybe respond to another element of your question. Um, uh, specific to just the site, uh, site safety and monitoring. So the building will have, um, a security system that includes, uh, that includes cameras throughout the exterior of the building. Um, as well as the interior for common areas. That security system is not monitored 24-7. It's a security system for the property management team. There are cameras that can be referred to, there are cameras that can be viewed on an as-needed basis. The way that leases are typically done for these buildings leaves the property manager the ability to terminate leases if residents are habitually violating the rules of the property. In the instance that I think you are describing where a resident of the building is deliberately and intentionally operating their vehicle in a manner that it violates public safety measures and puts neighbors and residents at risk. Those would be instances where there would be grounds for termination of leases if that is something that is happening. something that is observed and something that is happening on a regular basis. Will there be someone specifically monitoring the camera to know every time someone rolls through a stop sign or violates the speed limit? The answer to that question would be no, but to the extent that the property management team is made aware of issues that you are describing to the severity where people are put in danger and at risk. If there are complaints filed or things like that tend to be, there tends to be a notification process, then that would be the type of situation where a property management team would be allowed to step in and address that with the residents. So understanding to the point that you made at the outset of your comment, there are significant human factors when considering things like this. You can't necessarily control for those. That goes the same way for public roadways as well. I think guaranteeing that people stop at stop signs and observe the speed limit anywhere is a questionable assumption to make. But it would be the intention of our property management team to make sure that the residents of the neighborhood and the people that occupy the building do so in a safe manner and respect the rules and regulations of the site, which would include the traffic measures that are implemented on the site to observe them as they have been implemented. So hopefully that helps answer that question from a site safety and management perspective.
[Mike Caldera]: Great, thank you. Do we have other members of the public that would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to close public comment on the site civil peer review letter and responses. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So that's, I guess I'll just, I'll double check with the board if there are additional questions on the civil before we move on to traffic.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any additional questions?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, let's move on to traffic then.
[SPEAKER_02]: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you. Scott Thornton with Van Essen Associates here to present our update on the transportation review for the project. Steve, I assume you're going to continue to flip slides, so that's great. Thank you. Happy to do so. So the format for this presentation really is intended to respond to Beta's presentation at the last CBA meeting, rather than respond, as Pat had indicated, rather than respond to all 80 comments that were contained in that peer review, we've provided responses to the items that were mentioned in Beta's presentation. And these include discussions of the study area, traffic volume, safety, trip generation, traffic increases, parking, intersection, capacity and operations. TDM plan, mitigations, and other comments that were provided by members of the ZBA. So moving into the study area on this slide. What we've what we noted in the review was that beta generally agreed with the study area, but still requested discussion of the intersection of 4th street with fells way. And our response to that is that the traffic study area was mapped out in discussions with. uh, the City of Medford Traffic and Transportation Director, uh, in the Office of Community Development. And, uh, so we feel confident that this study area is comprehensive and addresses the concerns of city staff in identifying traffic impacts for the project. Uh, in terms of 4th Street, uh, where it intersects Fellsway, uh, it's one way, um, into the intersection or into Fells Way on both the eastbound and the westbound side. There is a median at the Fells Way at this location, so traffic is not able to cross the Fells Way here. We don't really anticipate any traffic using 4th Street for the development. All the traffic would be on Fells Way at this location. So, basically due to minimal project impact at this location, the intersection was not included in the study area. I think the next slide we go into is traffic volumes. Beta had requested that we verify if the counts that were conducted on January 11th of this year were influenced by the holiday on January 15th. And also there were some other comments about a snow emergency that occurred earlier in the week. So, we looked at some continuous count station data, both on 93 and on route 1. And what we determined was that the traffic levels in this area during the count week were higher than those of a typical. non-holiday week in January, and we have the charts of the daily traffic on the Thursdays that the counts were conducted, and you can see that they're pretty representative of a typical Thursday during that time period. The January counts were also adjusted by 1% to bring them up to average month conditions in keeping with standard DOT methodology. And although there was, I think we might have made some reference to this, that although there was a snow emergency earlier in the week, that snow was generally gone by Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. And the image that's shown in the upper left corner is from the count camera looking at Fells Way. And you can see there's no evidence of any snow or ice accumulation or anything. So, based on this data, we feel that the January 11th traffic volumes are reliable and represent typical traffic conditions for the area. So this slide looks at a response to the comment related to trucks and trip generation of trucks that may have been recorded in the counts of the existing site. As had been indicated, I think, during earlier traffic presentations and also discussions with Beta, you know, there were trucks that were observed on site. multiple times. There were, however, there were no trucks, no truck trips that were recorded in the peak period traffic counts from seven to nine in the morning and four to six in the evening. Beta had taken some photos of trucks that were parked on site during their field visit. Those trucks were confirmed by the management company to be associated with a tenant that provides meeting event services and setup, and those were not associated with the storage facility. So the other information is related specifically to the trip generation from the driveway counts that was observed, and of the four driveways that were counted, two were assumed to be directing traffic for the extra space storage site, and the other two were assumed to be generating traffic for the existing industrial building. So the values that are in the peak hours in the shaded rows represent actual counts, but the data that's for the daily time period was estimated using ITE and a proportion of what was observed to what would be calculated using ITE. The next slide we go into safety and Beta had requested that information be provided on pedestrian and bicycle involvement in the crash data. And this is for the period from 2016 through 2020. That was the data that was available at the time that the traffic study was prepared. I think last month, the state released the 2021 data for use, so that could now be used, but it was not available at the time of the study preparation. And as far as crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, there were two crashes involving pedestrians at the Fellsway-Central Avenue-Metford Street intersection. and two crashes involving bicycles, one at the Central Ave and Spring Street intersection and the other at the Riverside Ave and Spring Street intersection. So in terms of pedestrian and bicycle involvement within the total database, it's a relatively small component of crashes, but it you know the fact is that those those crashes did occur and they were reported in the database. No pedestrians or cyclists crashes were involved or were identified at at the other the other 11 locations in the study area. And then we also looked at crashes along the road sections, specifically along Riverside Avenue and along Fells way, because that was that was another area that beta was concerned with. And. In those cases. Along Riverside Avenue between Fellsway and commercial street, there was 1 crash that involved the bicycle on Fellsway between Riverside and 2nd streets. There was and that's that's in both directions. There was 1 crash involving a bicycle. 4 crashes involving pedestrians. On Fellsway from 2nd street up to Myrtle street. There was one crash involving a bicyclist and two crashes involving pedestrians, and that's the limit of the crashes on the road sections that showed up in the database. There was also a question about the trip generation. Had we used a less aggressive bicycle mode, future bicycle mode for the project? We had Estimated, I think the census data had indicated a 1% bicycle mode share for existing residents in the area. As was owing to the bike lanes that are Present on fells way, and the potential Wellington connector road or multi use path adjacent to the site and the blue bike station and the provision of bike parking on site. We had expected or anticipated a higher. Bicycle mode share of 5%. Beta requested a review of the trip generation to see what would happen if something more like a 2% bicycle mode share was used. So basically, the 77% vehicle trip mode share that was used in the study would change to 80%, basically moving 3% of of the trips from the bicycle mode to the vehicle mode. In terms of the net results in trip generation, it works out to be 40 trips over the course of a day, but two trips during the morning period and two trips during the evening peak hours. So really a minimal effect from that. from that change to the in the reduction of the bicycle mode. And I think the other thing that's important to note is that that 77 percent assumes or really neglects a number of or a portion of the census data for people that were, or commuters that work from home and walked. So that's 77% is actually including 12% of people that would not even be commuting using vehicles. But that's just the nature of providing a conservative analysis in this case. So the next slide goes into project traffic increases. We had, you know, as is typical in a standard traffic analysis, we, you know, it's assumed or implied that higher traffic increases are within the study area, but we typically report on traffic increases external to the study area. But in this case, Beta had requested that we identify the traffic increases due to the project on neighborhood streets closest to the site. So the numbers that are shown are the volume increases during the morning peak hour, which, again, based on the traffic counts, is generally between 7.30 and 8.30 in the morning, and the evening peak hour, And, you know, you can see that in some cases where we're looking at 6 to 17 vehicles, for instance, on Lawrence Street, on Myrtle Street. East of Spring Street, we're looking at 4 to 27 vehicles. The highest increases are realized or expected on Fellsway. That's where we have the 20 to 53 vehicles during the morning and the evening time periods. And then south of Myrtle Street on Fellsway, we're expecting more like 47 or 38 to 47 vehicles during those respective evening and morning time periods. So the thing with the traffic analysis is that it's not just the volume increases, it's also the fact that the operation is really dictated by the delays that occur at the intersections. And the traffic analysis indicated really that there was only one location where the level of service was dropping from, I think, from B to C. And at the other locations, level of service was generally preserved, which indicated that these intersections and the streets, therefore, would have the capacity to accommodate the increases from the project. The next slide, we looked at the project parking situation and Beta had requested that we provide information on the adequacy of the proposed parking for the project. And we had reached out to a property manager, In Malden, looking for some specific utilization data, and that data was not available. So we did look at the perfect fit parking report that's been released by Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and we looked at a total of 10 sites. in the vicinity of the project site. And these sites were generally chosen because they were similar, they were in a similar situation or a similar setting as the proposed project. So they were near transit, but in some cases on a bus line, but not always on a bus line. They weren't adjacent to the orange line. And we also wanted to include a couple of the sites for Medford because they would be somewhat suitable comps because they're in the same city. There were only three sites that were in the perfect fit parking report that were in Medford. One of those sites is the station landing, which is right at Wellington Station, so he didn't think that was appropriate. But the other sites, you know, there's one just barely over the border in Everett, most of them are in Malden, And then the 2 sites in Medford, what this what this data indicated is that there's a parking demand of about 0.89 spaces per unit based on that report. In that case, the parking ratio of 1.12 spaces per unit that's proposed with the site. Generally aligns with the demand rates at some of these other other facilities and and we feel that sufficient on site parking will exist to accommodate both the residents and the visitors. on-site at any given time. Spaces aren't being dedicated or allocated, so they're not being reserved for use, with the exception of some of the accessible spaces. But in general, we feel that there's sufficient parking that'll be provided for the residents and visitors with this project. The next slide goes into capacity analysis. Beta had indicated intersection delay increases at the intersection of Fellsway with Central Ave and Medford Street as a result of the project. The intersection is actually operating with level of service F delays under existing conditions. Again, that's not a condition that's caused by the project. And given the project's permitting status under 40B, it's not responsible to address existing deficiencies. That said, in terms of the increases, really there's an increase in Primarily on one approach to the intersection, but, you know, and that approach the project is generally adding. 1 to 3 vehicles to the maximum vehicle queue during the either the. Or the PM peak hour, so it's, it's not really a significant impact due to the project. But that leads us into the discussion of mitigation. And, you know, the project is proposing a TDM plan, and Beta requested some clarification on some of the items proposed in the TDM plan. There will be a separate additional fee for parking spaces. So, parking will be bundled. There's secure parking for 100 bicycles with outlets for charging electric bicycles in that bicycle room. As part of the project, a blue bike station with 10 docks is proposed at the site entrance on Fellsway, and the project team has been in discussion with Blue Bikes and lift on setting up that facility. In terms of other improvements, the MBTA bus shelter will be upgraded, the existing one at the intersection of Fellsway and Myrtle Street. The existing shelter will be removed and a new modern shelter will be installed located just south of the proposed Fellsway driveway to the site. there is still ongoing coordination with the MBTA by the project applicant. As has been discussed previously, the applicant will submit a construction management plan following all state and federal and local guidelines and will be developed in coordination with DPW Transportation Division and also emergency response personnel for the City of Medford. And as has also been discussed, a wayfinding signage plan will be developed as part of the project. It's something that has actually been requested by CBA members. I think Steve had identified some of the tenets or measures of the wayfinding plan. But those items will be proposed as part of the project. Some additional mitigation that has been discussed. With regard to local roads jurisdiction, With respect to any recommended improvements that address pre-existing conditions and are not a result of the proposed project, the applicant is committed to discussions with the City regarding future off-site improvements in the area. With regard to DCR jurisdiction, jurisdictional locations, specifically Fellsway at Riverside and Fellsway at Central Ave and Medford Street. In terms of the signal optimization there, that's something that Beta had indicated may be something to consider and an optimization of the timing is considered feasible. In general, the way DCR and MassDOT for that matter consider changes to or prioritization on signal timing is to prioritize the state road facility and And if we were to move time, move some, say, green time away from the state facility to the side streets that are under town jurisdiction, it's just something that would need to be approved and considered with DCR, because it could conflict with our standard policy. As far as the fells way at myrtle street of installation of a rectangular rapid flash beacon are FB that's a push button flashing system in order to which which works pedestrian operated. works to encourage yielding behavior for vehicles when approaching crosswalk. Project applicant plans to discuss the addition of an RFB at this crosswalk with DCR and they are prepared to collaborate on implementing the RFB. In terms of the The question regarding a potential break in the median at Myrtle Street. We looked at this from a number of different perspectives, from a vehicle, from a safety perspective for vehicles, for pedestrians, for a potential increase in cut-through traffic moving through the area. What we had identified was cutting into the median to create or providing a break in the median and then cutting into the median to provide a left turn lane for storage for vehicles making the left turn into Myrtle Street. would have the negative side effects of eliminating a pedestrian refuge at the crosswalk, where now pedestrians, or without that break, pedestrians are able to cross in a two-stage condition, where they cross the northbound side of Fells Way and then cross the southbound side. This type of break would eliminate that refuge because that. Area of the media would be taken up by cars queued up to turn left. This would also increase conflict points for. Vehicle to vehicle interaction as you'd be adding another conflict point. Another few conflict points with vehicles turning left, crossing 2 lanes of traffic at an uncivilized location and all also crossing a. Crossing a bike lane, so there's that issue. And then any traffic that might consider or might try to make a U-turn maneuver that with the new bump out that's there on the West side of the Fells Way, it's really It's really a dicey proposition, and it's not the same width as is that available at the Central Lab intersection or the Riverside intersection. And we're showing vehicles, we did run some some turning template checks and the vehicles would pass over the curb line and over the pedestrian bump out. And that's just a regular passenger car. If any trucks were trying to make that maneuver, they physically could not make that without driving up on the bump out. And then probably the 1, at least 1 of the, if not the biggest issue, at least 1 of the bigger issues is the potential rise and cut through traffic along Myrtle Street and Lawrence Street as as people would be likely trying to avoid any queuing or congestion that exists at the central lab intersection. We think that if there's a. If the break is open for traffic to make the left in to Myrtle Street, that's one potential issue. But then it would become difficult to prevent traffic from making a left turn out from Myrtle into the Fellsway. But I'm sure that if that break was there, there would be an increase in traffic on Myrtle Street for people both trying to make those types of movements and just trying to avoid central or the congestion at the Fellsway and Central intersection. So for those reasons, we're advising against a break in the median. And just to further close out the issue with the DCR, we have to have these discussions with them as part of our MEPA review for the project. The next slide is just a few close out issues related to comments from the ZBA that had to do with confirming space exists on the bus stopping at Myrtle Street, both inbound and outbound. So, again, from the ridership data and from observations that we made, it seems like there's plenty of seats available. At the inbound direction, Fellsway at Myrtle Street, there were 12 persons on the bus when 3 persons were observed to To get on the bus that left a total of 15 with a capacity of 53 for the bus. There's there's plenty of plenty of capacity available. And then in the outbound directions, a similar story coming into coming into the. The second street bus stop, there were four riders. At the Myrtle Street stop, there were 11 riders, so there's still plenty of seats available, both inbound and outbound, on the 100 bus going past the site. In terms of the neighborhood peak hour, there was some question about the overall traffic volumes, how the peaks were either earlier or I think the anecdotal or the anecdotes indicated that people thought that the peak hours were not between 7 to 9 or 4 to 6. And this is data from the Fellsway that indicates that the hours between 7 and 8 and 4 and 6 are clearly the peak hours of consideration. And I'm not sure which is which, but one of these is the Probably the blue lines are the southbound volumes on Fellsway and the red lines are the northbound volumes, which would match up with the time periods. The next slide, really just a few other comments had to do with where the trip generation data comes from based on ITE. It's recognized as the industry standard. It's required use for traffic studies that are under review by state agencies like MassDOT and DCR. The land use code, For for its land use code 221 for the residential development mid rise. For which is appropriate for for this site consists of 31 data points and that data goes includes. counts of actual facilities collected during the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s at the states shown, including Massachusetts. And this data is continually reviewed by ITE to confirm that it's still appropriate for use. And any data that is determined to not be appropriate or to have aged out is removed from the database. The information for land use code 215, which is for the townhouses, those sites were surveyed in the 80s, 90s, 2000, 2010s. Between 46 and 51 data points, the numbers change based on whether we're looking at the, depending on what time period, if it's a daily or the morning or the evening time period. But you can see Massachusetts is represented in this data set as well. And then there were some questions about people. People will move in and out constantly. How many delivery vehicles? You know, the data that ITE collects, again, is based on counts of actual facilities. So, particularly for residential, for multifamily buildings, they observe counts, you know, the counts that are conducted include things like delivery vehicles and moving vehicles and trash trucks, in addition to the drop-offs of pizza or whatever else is coming in, as well as the resident traffic. So those types of behaviors are captured in the data and it's all included. So it's a pretty comprehensive data source. And I think that's it for traffic. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Mister chairs, if I can just jump in, sorry to close out quickly. Um, as we, as we obviously cross design disciplines, um, uh, we, there are elements from, from several that, um, uh, it's my responsibility, frankly, to make sure that we are tying together. There's one mitigation, um, Or not mitigation, there's 1 public improvement. I should say that that we are proposing in addition to what was included on the slides that Scott. Discussed, and I just. felt compelled and was relevant for me to bring up as well. With the adjustment of the curbs on Amaranth and Myrtle Street, the slides that Mr. Martirano had presented earlier to clarify quantities of vehicles that could park in the newly dedicated street parking spaces, we are also considering that to be an improvement to the existing conditions. So just making sure i just wanted to point that out for the board's reference and consideration as we are outlining elements of the projects that we are currently proposing that are public improvements and then in consideration for future conditions of the project that will improve the public in the neighborhood so just wanting to make sure that that was added for everyone's awareness that Um, the curb realignment and the dedicated sidewalk space, uh, being on private property is something that, you know, we feel, um, is improving the neighborhood and, um, just wanted to make that, uh, uh, on the record.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. Um, so next I want to check in with Jeff Max-Tutis from Beta Group. Um, Jeff, I'd love to get your overall take on, um, you know, the what has been presented here, the responses, some of the proposed improvements and so on, and especially any lingering risks you see.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I want to thank Scott and his team. I think they provided a lot of information that we asked for in a thorough manner. We haven't reviewed their letter yet and all the comments that we had, so I'm just responding tonight. Kind of their, their presentation, and we did, we did speak yesterday and went through this. So. Yeah, I'll just go through some of the kind of the high level points or issues. I think the board still needs to consider. Um, as far as the intersections, like Scott mentioned. You know, we have intersections that are under jurisdiction of. You know, mass mass that or DC.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, Jeff, sorry, uh, your connection dropped out. So you said DCR and then you cut out.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, uh, I'm sorry. Can you hear me?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we can hear you now.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, so there's intersections under DCR, state jurisdiction, and local jurisdiction under the city. So Fellsway is DCR. The intersections with potential issues are Fellsway and Riverside, which is a recognized high crash location. It's identified as a high crash cluster. Under MassDOT there have been improvements identified as previous road safety audit for signal optimization at that intersection to help improve safety again under DCR jurisdiction. Fellsway and Central, as Scott had mentioned, operates at level service F, which is a failure in the AM and PM peak hour. Optimization should be looked at at that intersection. When the signal is operating at capacity, there's only so much you can do with signal timing, adjusting it from one approach to another, but it should be looked at. One of the things we also asked was, can the northbound left turn lane on Fellsway approaching Central Ave, can that be extended in the future? Because that lane does get blocked by the queue of the through traffic extending southbound. If that can be extended, then it would reduce delay for those people wishing to make a left turn or U-turn going back to the project site. So that's something I think we still want to hear about. And then at Fellsway and Myrtle, as Scott mentioned about the rectangular rapid flashing beacon, we think that's a good idea and should be implemented for safety considerations. And we agree that the break is probably not beneficial For both traffic operations and safety at that location. So, going to intersections under local control. Central and spring street has a high crash rate. And also doesn't have any pedestrian signal. So that's. That's not a, it's not a capacity issue there. It's a safety issue at that intersection. So it's a high crash rate and doesn't have any pedestrian signal facilities, which is something to consider. And then lastly, and this is the intersection I think Andre asked about Myrtle, Lambeth and Lawrence. You know, it's an awkward intersection. It's confusing for motorists and pedestrians. It's a wide intersection. So we were, you know, suggesting that that intersection be looked at for improvements to really improve awareness and safety of pedestrians, slow vehicles down. Things like additional curb extensions to tighten up that intersection, possibly raising the intersection. It is a wide expanse of pavement with a lot of movements in a close area. So we think that being located basically right at the project site would benefit not only residents in the neighborhood, but also residents of the proposed project and make that more of a safer condition and make motorists slow down and more aware of pedestrians crossing in that area. A couple other things, just on parking. And I know there's not been a parking plan operations or management plan been developed. And I know that can probably be conditioned if the project moves forward. But I think the overall parking ratio seems okay. We just want to make sure that there's enough visitor parking on site. I think before, I think there was a low number actual spaces for visitors either short term or long term. So we want to make sure that that's adequately addressed if the project moves forward. And then on the transportation demand management, the TDM measures, We had asked about consideration be given to providing transit. Passes or subsidies for people using bus or subway. As a, as a benefit to the residents, so. I think that's those are kind of the high level. remaining questions or issues we have, and we may have additional ones to review the entire response to comments document, but that's what I have right now based on the presentation.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Jeff. With that, I will open it up to questions and comments from the board, whether that's to Jeff or to the proponent.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Who would like to start? I saw Andre's hand first. Please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate you addressing the, you know, the Lawrence Myrtle Amaranth intersection that I had brought up earlier. But I just wanted to try to understand what you're saying because it wasn't clear to me the specific interventions that you were proposing. It sounded like signage or awareness, but could you elaborate on that a little bit?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure. Curb extensions or bump-outs is something that can be considered, so they do a few different things. One is they reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians, and they also make pedestrians more visible to motorists because the curb is extending further out into the roadway where vehicles have better visibility of pedestrians when they want to cross the roadway. tends to slow traffic down because you're narrowing the lane width in the pavement area. You know, you have to be concerned when you design those with turning radius and, you know, drainage issues, you know, at the corners. But, you know, generally those are well-recognized. I call them horizontal traffic calming measures. And then we thought, well, can you do a raised intersection? Raised intersection would be a vertical traffic calming measure where the vehicles actually ramp up for the entire intersection at a reduced speed and travel. Sometimes you call them speed tables or raised intersections. So, it reduce the speed in that area, which is a safety benefit for not only pedestrians, but motorists and an intersection that's fairly confusing.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. I also add to actually just one thing that's a another alternative to that just given that curb extensions and kind of rebuilding the sidewalks. If that's not feasible in this circumstance, but I'd love to see the city and the developer talk about that to see if they could do it. If it's not, there are other ways of kind of visually at lower costs doing achieving some of the same results. A project I was involved with down in in New Bedford was in a. In a low income area where there was a significant park divided by a busy street from the neighborhood, we worked with artists to create a ground mural around the crossing area that the folks used and provided an opportunity to engage local artists and residents in creating that street mural. And it was designed like Portuguese tiles, blue and white, which kind of reinforce the cultural heritage of the area. So just another thing to take into consideration.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, if you can have those discussions with DPW department and if they've used those, sometimes we call them tactical urbanism or things like that. If they've used those type of devices or techniques, that's another option to consider.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Jamie, please go ahead.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Mike. On the Lawrence-Myrtle-Gamranth, Jeff, on the bump out, would you see that corner at Lawrence and Myrtle, the rounded corner, as something that would bump out, extending that into the intersection to make it more of a, make each lane section more of a normal width rather, because that seems to be the, pivot point there where the expansion, why width is the problem?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's right. We're trying to reduce the width, particularly for pedestrians to make it more comfortable and safe for them to cross and reducing the amount of pavement and width so motorists tend to slow down in that area.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Definitely agree on Spring Street and Central, that intersection has been a challenge for years. Anything that the applicant or the city is willing to discuss on that, I would love to see some improvement there. Additional question on the bus capacity. Was that measured at the bus stop at the property? I'm not too concerned about increased capacity, but my thought is downstream as the bus goes to the station, What's the final capacity at drop-off? Is there any impact that capacity from this development would delay people downstream from getting to the station? And from the same aspect, coming back from the station, the capacity of the bus as it leaves the station versus when it arrives at the building.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, my sense is there aren't any, but I think Scott can probably answer that better than I can.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I think we would have to take another look at the data. I don't believe that, certainly at the next stop down, there were no issues, but we can take another look at it to confirm that that's the case, that there's plenty of capacity. It does seem like there's just based on observation seems like there's, there's a lot of seats available, but we can, we can check those numbers from the MBTA ridership results.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions or comments from the board.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I'll go next then. So Jeff, my questions focused on Fellsway and Central. So as you mentioned, it's level of service F. I think Scott was mentioning at the peak hour, it's adding, I think it was up to three cars to that turn lane. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is you can't do any worse than F in this categorization system. So what I'm trying to get to an understanding of is, is adding three cars to that F intersection in the peak scenario an impact that's kind of going beyond just the existing condition that needs mitigation?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I think that I think that's pretty cars was referring to the queue length. Yeah, I believe so. But, um. Yeah, when an intersections that efforts, it becomes tricky because. you know, the results become sort of unstable because you're going over capacity. So you can add a couple cars and see huge increases in delay or queuing at some times. You know, I believe the increase here is more on Central Avenue because, you know, I think it adds 100 seconds in the a.m. and 28 seconds in the p.m. to the intersection. So, you know, again, You're adding a relatively moderate amount of increase on that left turn. It's not a high number, but it will increase delay. It's not proportional, generally, when that intersection's at capacity. You know, if it's at F, you're at failure, no matter what you add to an F, it's true, you can't have beyond an F, you can't have a G, but you can have worse delay, you can have worse queuing, can give a volume to capacity ratio over one. So, you know, the project's gonna have an impact to that intersection, that's gonna have a U-turn, you know, We'd like the traffic to stay on fells way, because it's the main arterial instead of trying to sequel alternate roads on local streets. So, you know, to the. You know, if we can, if we can provide improvements and delay and queuing at that intersection to the extent possible, it's just going to it's going to benefit the project and keep traffic out of the neighborhood.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and then I just want to make sure I'm more of a visual person. So apologies if this would be obvious to me, but this whole observation that during the PM peak period, Bellsway northbound through movement at central and Medford Street block vehicles from entering the northbound left turn lane. So that's But this is not, yeah, like, could you maybe clarify what exactly is happening there?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Yeah. So if you have a left turn pocket at an intersection, I don't know the length of it. It's not that long, right? But the queue length is fairly long in particularly afternoon, you know, PM, peak period. And that, that queue going north bound will extend upstream right to. So, vehicles wanting to make get into that left turn pocket can't can't enter that pocket till the through vehicles clear.
[SPEAKER_05]: And that happens a lot, you know, in urban areas. But to the extent if that pocket can be extended, you know, could get them in that pocket earlier. So, you know, possibly they don't have to wait another cycle to make that left turn. You know, there may be constraints there with DCR, you know, vegetation or trees or whatnot or physical constraints of the median. I thought it's at least worth taking a look at to see if it's feasible.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. Okay. So extending that left turn pocket is a proposed mitigation to explore for this observation.
[SPEAKER_05]: We think it should be considered.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions or comments from the board?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Since we're on traffic, and I know we talked about it earlier about the civil on the long stretch. On the property, I think where there was a comment made that there would be there are going to be speed bumps. On property and on long straight stretches.
[SPEAKER_05]: I'll defer to the applicant for that.
[SPEAKER_10]: I'll respond if you'd like. At the time, we don't have speed bumps along that stretch. We think the head-end parking is the traffic calming along there. That said, as Pat mentioned earlier, if They've got maintenance, they've got security staff, they've got cameras. If they observe that as a common issue they're seeing along that stretch, and it is presenting a problem, there's always the opportunity to bring in speed bumps or some other measures, a raised table that Jeff had mentioned as a potential for the roadway, that that could be a potential along that stretch as well. At the time, we think the head in parking is the traffic calming measure. People generally go slower through parking lots. If it was curved on both sides, straight shot, I think it would be a faster speedway. But it's definitely something that they'll watch and address if it becomes an issue.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Other questions, comments from the board?
[Patrick Gallagher]: Mister chair would I be able to respond to a couple of the comments that were raised if if there aren't any further questions at this moment. Before we get too far and and you know don't want to lose focus on a couple of points that I thought it would be important. To bring this back a little bit. Particularly on a couple of the intersections that were discussed where the existing condition is challenging. Um, I, I just, and I'm, I'm using challenging as not a legal or engineering term of art, but I think, I think you all understand, um, that, you know, I, I think. These are all areas that we have looked at in the course of our analysis. Um, I think we're going to be willing to continue looking at them. Um, but I think these are also areas that. due to the existing condition and the challenges posed today, if there are to be improvements of a certain level, I think they would need to be in partnership with the city. And I think we're absolutely going to be having those conversations and focusing, for example, on the intersection of Lawrence, Amaranth, and Myrtle. I think that's an area that already is being improved significantly by the closing off of the curb cut that's on the corner of Amaranth and Myrtle. And we'll readily acknowledge that that remains a challenging intersection. Um, and again, I think we're open to having those conversations. With the city on if there's a solution. And I appreciate Mr. liver's comments as well on on being open to. Um, creative solutions and and, um, you know, ways that we can try to. create a safer intersection that might be a little outside of the box. I think that's all on the table, but just want to emphasize that I think the city has to be a partner in any of those improvements and in the conversation over that. I think the city has to be clear.
[Mike Caldera]: Attorney Gallagher, just to be clear, I'm not sure I understand from a technical perspective what partnership looks like? Like, is it just being willing to meet and discuss or does it mean something more specific than that?
[Patrick Gallagher]: I think it means that depending on the cost of certain improvements, they may be costs that we can't carry on our own because they would make the project not feasible. So, I think that's the, that's the question and I think. You know, our whole team is very focused on trying to create a safe. Roadway network around the project site, but. We do need to be cognizant of the costs and particularly when we're talking about. Areas that are today. you know, in a poor condition as far as intersection, you know, traffic and quality is concerned.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. Okay, thanks for clarifying. So here's what my recommendation will be. City staff, I believe, has already been discussing some of these ideas with you. I would like to keep things tangible for this hearing. So, you know, Medford is not a city that is, flush in its cash coffers for making infrastructure improvements to roads. And so rather than leave it fuzzy, maybe there could be some discussions now about things like feasibility and appetite for various sorts of improvements. And then for the purposes of the board's consideration, we can just get clarity from you on any improvements to intersections that are most strongly being considered as possibilities to include within the scope of the project. I just want to avoid a situation where it's like, yeah, great. We both think this should happen, and then it's just completely up in the air. how that becomes a reality. I think it'll be hard for the board to assess if that's what we're presented with. Does that seem like something we could do? I understand the language surrounding conditions and so on, especially as it pertains to things that are not on the site itself is somewhat complicated. But could we at least try to make it a little bit more tangible than just a commitment to talk about it and like a presumption of some cost sharing arrangement to be worked out later?
[Patrick Gallagher]: I think we can make it more tangible. I don't know if we can tonight, and I would defer to Scott.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I don't expect tonight, but by the end of the hearing, ideally, yeah, would be great.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, yeah, I can chime in. Yeah, we can. I think at the outset of this hearing, as we just to reset the table, I think the purpose of this hearing was. This evening that is was for us to provide responses to beta's response to the TIA included considerations for mitigation. There is a summary by by Scott as to how some of those have been. received and how some of those have been studied. So I think from here to your point, Mr. Chair, some of the next steps would be to get in and have some specific conversations about what we think is feasible, what we think isn't, and that would also likely include a closeout from Jeff from the beta team. I think we submitted our comments our response to Beta's comments on May 2nd. So, you know, if we are able to get the Beta team's sort of final response and close out to our comments, then I think we can certainly start to have the productive conversations that you're discussing, that you're mentioning, and move towards a common goal of making improvements for the neighborhood and for the project that makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great, thank you. Attorney Gallagher, I think there was something else you wanted to say as well, so sorry I interjected.
[Patrick Gallagher]: No, Mr. Chair, I think that covered it and I think I agree with you. I think it's getting into some of those details will be important so that we're not leaving this to kind of an up in the air unknown. But again, I think just to emphasize that there are certain things we're not going to be able to do, not because we don't want to, but because it's just not feasible relative to the project and the scope. Understood.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Jim, please go ahead.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Just some clarification. Are we assuming that all the traffic is coming from Boston? And the reason why I ask the question is because I know if I'm on Salem Street, I can go down Riverside Ave onto Central Ave and take a right onto the Fellsway. And there are other areas too, if I'm traveling Fellsway further down, or if I'm coming out of Boston, I can stay on Middlesex Ave and get on the Fellsway that way as well. and go down to Riverside Ave, Spring Street, to Central Ave, and around. I mean, are we assuming that most of the traffic will be coming from Boston down the Fellsway over to that intersection where Central Ave is in the Fellsway?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so the majority of the traffic is destined to the south, and that's just based on the census data. But we have assumed that some of the traffic would be coming from Salem Street, and some would go out to Riverside, and then some would stay on the Fellsway or come in on the Fellsway to get to the site.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Right, okay. I mean, there's just so many ways to get there. I've been, you know, from 93. If somebody's trying to avoid that intersection, because I travel that a lot, and you see that that intersection is congested during rush hour. So you did mention that they would try to extend That area, because they only let so many cars in, only so many cars can fit, because you can't get over. There's just not enough room to get over. So would they be trying to extend that further back?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I think that's what that that's what Jeff and beta were were asking us to investigate. And, you know, if that if that left turn lane pocket would be, you know, if it if it carry if it. If you can fit four cars in there now, maybe it could be extended. You could take out some of the median and maybe it could be extended to fit another four cars. We took a quick look at it and as Jeff indicated, it seemed like the main issue would be removal of some mature trees that are there. The width is not, But, you know, again, it's, you know, I mean, it's, it's something that, you know, it would, it would need to be worked out with DCR and they, you know, they have, you know, they have, you know, they have, you know, it's amazing, well, trees are, especially lively trees along roadways that are in good condition are viewed with a pretty, in pretty high regard these days. So that may be a consideration as well.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Seeing none, chair awaits a motion to open public comment on the traffic peer review and responses.
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: I move. Second.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. We'll take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, members of the public, we are now open for public comment. If you'd like to speak on the traffic peer review or the responses to it, you may do so now. You can raise your hand on Zoom, raise your hand on the camera, type in chat, or email Dennis at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to close the public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take another roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, public comment is now closed on this portion. All right, I believe that takes us to the end of our planned agenda, or at least for this hearing tonight. And so in terms of the hearing schedule, the next topic is review of the waiver list, as well as proposed conditions. So we have a meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 16th. And that's the intention on that date. I know that the board did receive an updated waiver list. There have been updates to the site plan since then. I haven't checked whether this has resulted in additional modifications to that list, but I just want to check in before we close.
[Patrick Gallagher]: So, Mr. chair, I can respond to that. Um, I, I think that. It's possible there may be a few. Changes or additional waivers we were hoping and, and I, I guess. Waiting to get through, um, the comments on the civil portion in particular. Um, so I, I, I think would defer. To, uh, Steve Matarano at bowler and, and to the beta team. And to the extent that there were any additional comments or changes to the plans, that could obviously have an effect on any waiver requests that we would need to add. I believe that otherwise the list should be close to final. So we can certainly work to make any final updates to that between now and the next hearing and give the board and attorney have any time to review those updates. And it would be just pending any final comments on our written responses for the civil plan set.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. And then one other thing I do just want to spread awareness about, so this is on the published schedule, but essentially we have Two meetings left, so we have the Thursday. May 16th meeting. Where the focus is going to be on. the waiver list and the proposed conditions. I understand we have some not quite final elements elsewhere in the project, so we'll carve out some time for kind of housekeeping items and updates. And then the following Tuesday, May 21st, that is our last scheduled meeting. session of this hearing. And so that is the date that the board intends to hear any additional feedback from the proponent on the proposed conditions, if it required additional research, and then to vote on the outcome of this hearing itself and any proposed conditions. So I just want to say that out loud so that there's an opportunity now, if anyone wants to alert me of something that we also are going to need to do in those two meetings or any updates, now would be a good time to let me know. Otherwise, that is the plan for how we're going to close this one out.
[Patrick Gallagher]: Mister chair that that schedule makes sense to me. I think you know just to echo what I was saying earlier in the evening when I think the photometric plan came up. I think to the extent that there are questions that can be addressed in the form of a comment. Rather a condition. Um, that would require additional information to be. Provided satisfactory to the board, for example, um, I, I think that if there are ways that we can craft conditions in a way. That would get us to closure on the 21st. Um, just so that we're not losing time. You know, chasing down answers, um, that are not necessarily immediately available. Um, I, I would also just add that. You know, the. This project will be going through review as well. So, particularly on questions that relate to jurisdiction. And looking at the DCR controlled intersections. I think that's all review that's going to be ongoing. And that will continue to take a deeper look at. So, to the extent that that provides some comfort to the board as well, that. You know, there, there will be, for example, additional alternatives analysis. specific to those DCR intersections as part of MAPR review, I expect. There's more time to be thinking about the best solution out there, not necessarily in the context of what would be in a final comprehensive permit, but certainly what would be required in connection with the construction of the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Thank you. Other comments? Yes. Cliff Boehner, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thanks. I just wanted to say that if there is going to be a kind of record stat that is submitted that captures a lot of the comments we've heard and changes that could be made, I'm just wondering when that might be available. I think we all know, as was stated earlier tonight, that there may be things that are reasonably now developed at this point, but could end up as conditions. And I would like to know if there's going to be a point when there's a set that is submitted so that I can review it and draft any conditions that are related to architecture or some of the interrelated issues that include civil. Thank you.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Mr. Chair, can I address that? Yeah, please go ahead. Thank you. Cliff, I will be working on drafting a draft decision that I hope to have to the board prior to the meeting on the 16th. It would be very helpful if all of the peer review consultants can get to me a list of conditions that they believe should be imposed as part of the decision within their areas. So give me a list of your architectural conditions, peer-to-civil peer review consultants, give me a list of your suggested conditions. This makes drafting that decision much, much easier for me.
[SPEAKER_06]: That makes total sense. I think maybe more specifically, I'm thinking about the last hearing when we were looking at some images that had been discussed in a working session prior to the last hearing, and we were still kind of toggling between some options on building elevations, for example. It isn't totally clear to me where we landed or where the developer landed on what they'd like to do, and some of my conditions kind of depend upon what their most current commitment is, as demonstrated through the drawings. Does that make sense?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I can try to interject or respond, I guess, not to be confrontational in any way, but I am a bit surprised to hear that, Cliff. My recollection at the outset of the hearing on the 11th of April, we presented an elevation. That was from us what we recommended and believed to be the best design for the project. We did get some comments that that session that we took back and are able to take into account, but they were not I would not call them, this isn't a scientific term, but significant to the point that the design needed to be significantly modified in any way to achieve a status that would allow you to provide comments. It was my recollection at the outset, Cliff, that there was a commitment to provide comments based on the end of that session. We, as a team, will be providing a comprehensive design package for final submission and for record at the outset of the comprehensive permit process, but that is inclusive of the civil design as well that we are now wrapping up the peer review process for. So we were not aware that the expectation on your part was that you needed another submission from us to provide comments. That wasn't conveyed to us or discussed. And frankly, in my opinion, it wasn't really required based on the way that things were left at the last hearing on the 11th.
[Mike Caldera]: So just to insert myself here for a moment, I may have misunderstood Cliff's comment, but that wasn't my reading of it. So I think what I would like to ensure is the case is that any peer reviewer being asked to provide feedback on conditions has zero ambiguity as to the plans that they're doing that for. And so I was hearing that Cliff was just uncertain about whether what was presented in that meeting was what you intend to submit or whether there's a modification to that. So yeah, maybe in addition to the final packet for record keeping purposes, if there's some way to very quickly just bottom out, this is the set of exhibits that should be used for the proposal of conditions. I think that would help everyone involved in the drafting of the decision. Cliff, let me know if I misunderstood.
[SPEAKER_06]: No, that's exactly right. I'm sorry if that came across as confrontational. It's not. I think it's been a very cooperative advancement that we've all worked together for. So I just want to make sure that we're at a point where we all agree, all of us are commenting on what you consider to be the last submission of documents prior to the decision. Got it.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Understood. Yeah, we can certainly confirm that for you. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. we will ensure that you understand exactly what our final submission package was that you would be preparing your comments for. Terrific, thank you.
[Patrick Gallagher]: And I would go as far to say, Pat, I think, so CUBE 3 is not on tonight, but I think we can have them confirm early in the day tomorrow or as early as possible. will confirm that the last set of documents that they had provided to you, Cliff, and I'm not sure exactly what the date was that they provided, but we'll confirm that whatever the last set of documents was is indeed the final set that you should be relying on for the purpose of generating any comments.
[Mike Caldera]: Terrific. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you all. All right. Other housekeeping items? All right. Seeing none, Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to Thursday, May 16th at 6.30 PM. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jim? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, this matter is continued to next week. We will see you all then. Thanks, folks. Good night. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, and Dennis, we have a couple of administrative items on the agenda. So why don't we just go through those as well? Oh, we might have lost. No, no. Some people dropped off camera. I hope we didn't lose members. I think we just lost quorum. Okay, Andre is coming back. You're back. Thanks, Andre. You saved us from an awkward administrative.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, I jumped the gun.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, you're good. You're good. All right, Dennis, what's the next item, please? You're on mute. You're still on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry. Um, nothing really administratively. Um, there have been, we've got a few, um, meeting minutes that we can, if we want to go that are in the, uh, in the Google drive, we have meeting minutes from March 26th and April 11th and April 23rd just got on. So I don't know if people had a chance to review that one yet, but the 26th and the 11th there. have been appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: Since we're missing Jim, Mary, and Yvette, and we're meeting again in a week, my suggestion would be we just wait until next week. Is that OK with everyone? Yeah. OK. Cool. All right. And then is there an administrative update?
[Denis MacDougall]: Regarding this, no, I don't think so. I think, you know, there was the puckle buck that I gave you guys about a potential meeting that no longer exists. So I think, you know, we can move past that, and I will discuss that in another forum. But I think I don't want Felicia at something. I just saw her pop in. So, but no, she's struggling. So I think we're good.
[Alicia Hunt]: I've been here the whole time. Yeah, we almost had a weird one for you guys, but they withdrew. We consulted legal. Maybe, Mike, were you on with us with legal?
[Mike Caldera]: No, I wasn't. So Dennis sent the scheduling email, but that's it. Yeah, so anyway.
[Denis MacDougall]: I didn't want to go into too much detail about the specifics because there were lawyers involved and I wasn't sure exactly how much detail I wanted to get into. I'm always wary of lawyers.
[Alicia Hunt]: Happy to tell you later. It was yeah happy to tell you later it just it was it was a request we had never gotten before and we weren't liking very much and we're very happy.
[Mike Caldera]: So okay. Thank you for the update. All right. Would anyone like to make a motion?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: to adjourn, perhaps? Yep, that couldn't come up with what I was trying. Do we have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Chris? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, we are adjourned. Thanks, folks. All right, goodbye, y'all. See you in seven.