[David Blumberg]: pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board will be conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. A reminder to all of you that the project materials for both of the projects in front of us this evening and others can be viewed at the city's website. I know Amanda will put that link up for you, but it's at medfordma.org backslash boards backslash community hyphen development hyphen board, or simply go to the city website, click on boards and commissions and click through to community development board. Let's start our meeting tonight with a quick roll call of the board members. Checking for time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: Yeah.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: Yeah.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm David Bloomberg welcome. First note is that in light of the number of people we have in attendance this evening and two projects to consider, we're going to move the discussion of our board minutes to the end and wrap that up after we look at the projects. We want to begin with a site plan review to the zoning Board of Appeals that is required of us in connection with a proposal at 595 Broadway. So let me read the notice on that project for everyone to get a sense of what we're talking about. Metro Community Development Board shall conduct a meeting tonight, August, 18 2022 via zoom to relative to an application for site plan review submitted by Fidelis bridge loan venture, our EO LLC to construct a multiple dwelling building, consisting of seven residential dwelling units in a commercial one zoning district at 595 Broadway. Project is subject to a site plan review special permit for the city of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 94 dash 331 and requires approvals from the Board of Appeals. Therefore, Our board the Community Development Board will perform a site plan review and submit its recommendations to the zoning board will be in the special will be the special permit granting authority for the site plan review special permit. If we can start this evening by opening up the floor to the 595 team. I'm sure if Attorney Bernowski or Mr. Quinn or someone else on the team would like to take the lead.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Adam Bernowski, 255 State Street, Boston. I'm an attorney for Fidelis Investors, the property owner and the proposed developer. With me tonight is the project architect Milton Yu of Peter Quinn Architects, the engineer Carlos Rivera, and Michael Barone, my co-counsel. We're here relative to site plan review as the chair mentioned for construction of a seven unit multifamily residential building with below grade parking and bike storage at 595 Broadway. I recognize that many on this board may already have working knowledge of this project, which was unanimously approved by the board in 2020. Maybe get into a little bit of that history of this project in a few minutes. But first I'd like to provide you with some overview and then let the design team walk you through some of the plans. The property consists of 7,000 square feet situated in a rectangular lot in the commercial one zoning district on the north side of Broadway between Albion Street and Altham Street. This is a split lot. The front portion is located off of Broadway, consists of approximately 40% of the lot, and that is located in Somerville with the As I'll elaborate in a few minutes, due to the location in Somerville, this project is likewise subject to approvals in that community, and it has been fully approved by the ZBA there. The premises is currently improved with an existing wood-framed single-family residence with minimal other improvements or landscaping. The proposed development will raise the existing structures and construct a new four-story building measuring approximately 9,200 gross square feet with 7,600 net square feet. There will be seven residential units on the first through fourth floors, 10 parking spaces below grade, bicycle storage facilities on site, and significant landscaping and beautification on the site including paper walkways, solid tree wood board fencing, new trees, bushes and native landscaping throughout the site. The residential portion of the building will include one bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. coordination with the neighbors. Prior to the initial submission on this project, the original developer met with the neighbors, both in Medford and Somerville. And to address the concerns of the neighbors, the project design at the rear of the building was adjusted to reduce shading impacts and add additional screening for privacy. You may recall that, or some of you may recall that an identical proposal came before this board outside of March of 2020. where we received unanimous approval and site plan review recommendations on March 27, 2020. The project was subsequently withdrawn from zoning without prejudice and did not seek or complete the approvals necessary to proceed with the development. The premises is now owned by Fidelis, which took over the property and project from the prior owner in 2021. And while the board already approved this project, when we revived it earlier this year, it was suggested by the city that we again come before this board. While I recognize that there are some familiar faces and some overlap between the board then and the board now, we thought it would be a good opportunity to address any concerns of the board, let you know more about the project and see if we could answer any questions that you might have. On the Somerville side of the property, was approved by special permit in October of 2018, and the permits were recently extended unanimously by the Somerville CBA, and those permits will be good through February of 2023. Pending site approval, the applicant has a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 25th. We require special permits and variances relative to dimensions with no relief needed relative to use. Estimated time for completion here is six to 12 months after final approvals. And I'll note that the applicant and the team has reviewed the site plan review recommendations from this board from 2020. and we reviewed them against the majority of the comments that were received by the various boards here. And note that there is significant overlap between the conditions and the comments. And in an effort to expedite the process, if it helps at all, there is no objection to the conditions And with that being said, we're happy to answer any questions the board may have. If Milton Yu from Peter Quinn's office is online, I'd like to pass it over to him to walk through the plans.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Mr. Yu.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay. You can hear? Yes. OK. Good evening. My name is Milton Yu with Peter Quinn Architects, Davis Square Somerville. And thanks, Adam, for the introduction and the summary of the project so far. Is there a way I can share the plans?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, you should be able to. Give it a try. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. Yeah, you have co-host permissions.
[Unidentified]: OK. share screen ask a quick question.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yes. Would it be possible for you to highlight any changes to the plans, while you go through them between when we last approved them and now.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: I'm sure I'll do that. Okay, so you should be able to see soon. Just pulled up a Google map of the area. Just so maybe somebody needs to have a refresher where the site is. We're between Tufts Park and Trump Field, Medford and some of the lines, and this is Broadway.
[Emily Hedeman]: I'm sorry, Milton, are you sharing your screen?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Oh, I'm sorry, you can't see that. How about now? Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Looks like it's coming up.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay, give it a second.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, can see it. Thank you.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay, so sorry about that. So the site is between Tough Spark and Trump Field, Broadway and Somerville line. So here's Broadway, and then our site is here, just to situate us. And then let me share the PDFs with you. Are you able to see this PDF? Yes. Okay, great. So, just to describe the general layout of the structure for those who haven't seen this. We have seven unit building with parking below we have 10 parking spaces under the building, not fully enclosed. But under the building, nonetheless, I'll get to the floor plan afterwards. Ground floor, we have as much landscaping as we can put, essentially, that isn't where the driveway is in the parking and where the building is. The ground floor is such that we have fully accessible ground floor units. So here comes the ramp from the public way. And then these two units are accessible. We have one stair going up through the building for the upper units, two units on the first floor, two units on the second floor, and then three units spread out on the third and fourth floor. The upper units are two levels. So we don't have a final floor plan of the units, all of the units right now, but the general schema would be to place them such that they are spiraling around the stair, each with their own outdoor space. And then each would have its own stairway up to the upper level with roof decks. And as far as The elevation, the strategy in part responding to city comments was to have a variety of materials and break up the mass. So that's not one continuous flat surface. So we'll have a mixture of metal panel, two tones of metal panel, different exposure, thicknesses, and cedar siding as well. We also did receive comments from historical mentioning that, I mean, I'll let them speak for it, but the summary was that overall positive regard to the fenestration, but that the recommendation that was to widen the street side windows, we'll be glad to do that going forward. because the pattern was kept mostly with this width going around the building, as you can see. Again, all these elevations have the same thought behind it, where it's a variety of different colors, placement of materials to try to break up the mass. The upper floor steps back as an effort to give the appearance of a smaller bulk on all sides. If you wanted to see materials, you have a particular sheet here where we have a mixture of different color metal panel for exterior materials and cedar siding. The overall approach to the windows was also, I mean, we don't have exact manufacturer specs yet, but the idea was to have them inset from the outer plane of the wall, so we can get a little shadow line occurring. This would be the street view overall effect. We did. I did have a conversation with the fire chief. Since we do have parking under the building. The comment was to put. I'll show you the ground floor first to put access to the basement not only through the driveway, but also to have a stair coming out like a stoop on this side of the building as well so they could have steps down here so if If zoning or other regulations allows, then we will endeavor to do that. So there'll be some more options for the fire department to get down here. It will be a fully sprinkled building. So it's more of an access, it's more a convenience of access. You know, if they were saying that if a car was stopped here, then there would be another way down. They will be fully sprinkled. dry line down here, as well as a fire department access panel. Here's some pictures that were asked of us for providing views from the neighbors. So here's the site. Medford is on this side, Summerville's on this side. So this first image shows from the back terrace. from 74 and 76 Albion looking at the building. That's this view. Those trees would be on our property. View two is also from the closer of the townhouses, 8284 Albion looking at the building. That would be this view. And we were asked also to provide some images of the views of the trees, what types of foliage we can expect for screening. And we would see views like this. As it is now, I mean. The shadow study would not have changed from the last time we showed it. It's the same overall massing. So we have the shadows from the equinoxes, and the yellow indicates additional shadow from what the existing building has. Summer, which is sort of the least impact, and then winter with the most. That's about my part of the presentation. If you had any questions for me or the rest of the team.
[David Blumberg]: Mr. Yu, any other highlights, any other changes? It looks very similar to what I recall us seeing last time it was before us. Anything else to highlight on your end?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: I don't, no.
[David Blumberg]: OK, no problem.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Should I stop sharing?
[David Blumberg]: Sure, Adam, I think the floor is still yours for your team.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Okay, thank you. I know Carlos is on the line, who is the engineer for the project. Carlos, anything to add to Milton's presentation, or perhaps if not, we can just have you respond to any questions relative to the site plan itself.
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, can I share my screen? I wanted to add like a little bit of information, explain how we plan for the drainage system.
[Unidentified]: I can too, if you want. Is that, can you guys see my screen?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yes. Yes, all right. So, I mean, it's a very simple, I mean, it's only like 7,000 square feet property. We have like the garage ramp with a drainage, you know, a trench drain at the end of the ramp. And then we probably gonna have like four drains throughout the garage once we get like the, you know, the final designs for the building, but then all the drainage from the garage will be directed to an oil water separator from the oil water separator. So like all the drain, It's under the building, and I saw the opportunity for this small area behind the building to add an infiltration system. So it would be like 15 contact chambers for the drainage that we have to pump, because this is at the floor of the garage, which would be at elevation 94, and the grades on the outside of the building at elevation 101. I do have soil testing data that we did when we started the project. This was like a testing boring that was done. It was double purpose to find what type of soils we were going to encounter during construction. And so the exploration went to about 17 feet deep. And then we found like dry, dense, very dense brown coarse fine sand, which is like, it's probably a determination of like glacial chill material. There was no water encounter. And I mean, just so I mean, this is a technology, but when you see like the blow counts, you see like that this is like a very dense material, like, you know, I mean, it's, it's perfect for construction for direct um, footings on it. Uh, but it's not like, uh, incredibly good for, for, for drainage because it has like a very slow permeation. So on my drainage report, the idea was it to have, um, uh, the drainage system. And I mean, I included like a very minimal, uh, infiltration for like a one inch per hour, which is a very slow rate. And then we have like, we are proposing like an overflow system for this drainage that is connected into the drain on the street. And this concept was approved by some review. So we are allowed to put like the excess of overflow for this system into the street. And on our report, I mean, the details is it like we are containing, you know, per, I mean, the drainage system was done like more per the guidelines for like some of you, but we are containing the water and all 210, 2,500 year storms. I mean, there was like some comments regarding the layout of the garage that it was not on purview of my design. in terms of like, you know, the parking spaces under the building. And then there was like some additional questions regarding traffic that I guess we have like a traffic engineer that's gonna address those questions. And that's basically my presentation for the site work. Okay, thank you.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, Carlos. Yeah, I think that at this point that that concludes the initial presentation we're happy to answer any questions for us.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, great. Amanda do we have some participants from city staff for tonight's presentation or.
[Amanda Centrella]: I think just some folks from our office, and I can make a note to the board that I spoke with the fire chief Friedman earlier today, and he just wanted to convey that he did have a chance to speak with the project applicant in regards to the response to some of the comments that he made and submitted to you all, and he felt comfortable with all of the responses provided. And those were given to the board as well, that memo.
[David Blumberg]: know, we thank the applicant for that as well. It's very helpful to get that back and forth so we don't have to spend as much time at the meeting talking about those items. Appreciate that very much. I think we should at this point, open things up to we have any public participation at this point, and anyone who'd like to speak on this one.
[Alicia Hunt]: David, if the board members have questions I actually realized I should have asked Amanda this earlier, but we were a little rushed. I'm actually perplexed about the parking spots and how that's being handled and not the numbers, but I've both seen it say there'd be open air, but then they're requesting a second entrance in and they're not part of the building, but they appear to be covered. And so it feels to me like the building is coming up to the edge of the property because Are the parking spots covered or are they sticking half out? Like if you're in the apartment looking down, are you looking down at the car sticking out from under the building or are you looking at a roof covering the parking area? I wasn't clear.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Nelson, are you able to address that question? I think it'd be best if I just pull up the drawing. Would you like to? OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, so it's not this dash line when we're not seeing it. Oh, sorry. share button. Sorry.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: There you go. Yeah, there we go. Okay. So this is the parking level. The building above is shown in this dash line.
[Unidentified]: Mm hmm.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: So there's no additional roof separating the view of the cars below. So there are certain car spaces that you can't see, but I guess the back half of these and the tops of these will be visible. In terms of, you had a question?
[Alicia Hunt]: So could you put sheet A1.1? I think it's your next sheet.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: This sheet gave me the impression that that was building and that was roof that we were looking down on.
[SPEAKER_02]: These are the, these are the spaces.
[Alicia Hunt]: Those are the open air spaces. And that's just a retaining wall at the back there.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Right, right.
[Alicia Hunt]: So, because I was trying to also process the fire chiefs concern about access but I'm, I'm feeling like it's like a seven foot retaining wall, and obviously he can't get back there anyhow your landlocked.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: But, um, okay. So, his concern when I was talking with him was just just, you know, instead of taking instead of dropping over the wall, or if there was a car stopped here for any reason that they'd be able to just access stairs and go under, this is about, I think seven feet below from from here to here is about seven feet so they would rather take a step stairs down here if there was a car blocking this driveway.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, okay, but he would be able to look in on this. This is an open thing. And so the reason for the drainage in the floor of the parking area is because that's open to the rain and it's gonna rain. Like when it rains and snows, it will land in the parking area.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: It will, yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: If we look at the verdant landscape architecture rendering.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Okay.
[Emily Hedeman]: In our packet is page five of 26. Yep. I think that helps to, to clarify. So we could see if somebody pulled in facing, you know, didn't back in, you could see like the hood of a car, theoretically. Yeah, right where your mouse is, Milton.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. That's just really helpful because I was, I thought I understood it on this image, but then the others, I thought I was looking at a roof. I was very confused by it. And I just felt that we should understand what it was we were not permitting.
[Unidentified]: Sure. I appreciate it.
[David Blumberg]: Amanda, I don't know if we have members of the public or we just go right to the board discussion on this.
[Amanda Centrella]: So I have no submitted comments from members of the public, and I guess I would just ask if any members of the public do wanna participate tonight, if you could use the raise your hand function to either show us that you are interested in making a comment, or you can use the chat feature and I can call on you. Maybe we'll just give it a beat to see if anybody would like to comment.
[Unidentified]: Okay, seeing none, so.
[David Blumberg]: Let me go ahead and open up the floor to the board members who might have questions. And Klyce, I see your hand up.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Hi. Just a follow up on my question from before. I'm having a real problem understanding how this current application is differing from what we previously approved. That, you know, nothing in the stuff that was sent out illustrates that and sorry Milton but nothing. You said really helped me understand that. So I'm at a real loss. A what we're being asked to look at and be what those changes are between then and now, it's, it's I don't, you know, I could go back and have, go into the city records and try to find the old set and try to figure out the differences between the two, but I don't really feel like that's my job. So I'm not sure what you're even asking us to do right now.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: I can handle that question if you'd like, Mr. Chairman. So as far as I can understand, and Milton, correct me if I'm wrong, there are no material changes that have been made to the project. There may have been no changes whatsoever to the project. The issue here is simply the lapse in time between when this was approved in 2020 and currently standing before you today, two and a half years later, that there was I don't know that there's any written policy, but I think the idea was that to have site plan, site plan approvals normally goes right before, in a project like this, before ZBA approval. And the recommendations are made and there's personnel that have changed, the building departments changed, there's members of this board that have changed. The thought process was to come back before this board and seek approval while there have been no changes to the project.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Okay, that's, that's very helpful. So, what you're saying is that there are no architectural changes to this project from when we last approved it.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: The plans are the plan set is the same as that but we had more opportunities to gather some comments from like different departments, and then I think moving forward. We'll have an opportunity to, you know, explore that the steps down into the garage area that I mentioned that didn't make it into this set, but going forward we're going to. never done incorporate that into the set and also the comment about the wider windows in the front.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. I might add, so they came back to us, the, the applicant never got ZBA approval. So they got a new permit refusal letter from the building department, which says the permit path for this is site plan review and CBA, and part of the site plan review is Fire Chief, he's new since this was done. City Engineer is new since this was last approved. And there's, I guess actually there's only one or two members of the board that are new since then. So we basically said, we should come, it's two and a half years later, this is post pandemic, this should come back in front of the board before it goes to ZBA, rather than us sending a two and a half year old letter to the ZBA with department head comments from multiple department heads that no longer work here. That's the rationale.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Great. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I apologize, I thought it was clear in some of the stuff that they had handed that we had sent out that it was the same project you had seen before that it was not coming before us because of changes but because of two and a half years and personnel changes.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Can you, Alicia Do you maybe you remember, maybe not, it's been a while, but I know, or I think we had a conversation about number of parking spaces here, especially given the to the type of project that this is given that there's a new T station, but a half a block away.
[Alicia Hunt]: That was actually extensive discussion. And part of it, I think also at the time is that that T station was two and a half years out and no construction had really occurred yet. Right. We were all like, we think it's coming. Um, so yeah, we did pull up the minutes. I would not trust my memory on this project at all. Um, but we pulled up the minutes and there was a long discussion of the number of parking spots, which they'll have to take in front of ZBA. And actually, now that this is a new application, we do have reduced requirements for parking. Somerville, if I think I remember correctly, required zero spots, but Medford, the argument was that three and a half of the residential units are in the city of Medford. Therefore, seven spots would be considered Medford required spots, and three of the parking spots were for Somerville. So maybe Somerville required a little, I apologize, it's not actually in the minutes with the Somerville requirement was, but for three and a half units, the seven spots met our two spots per. We all know that zoning has been updated, and so that requirement is reduced a little, What this board actually put in its recommendation at that time was that the proponent consider converting two or three of the proposed parking spaces to landscaping. And it was framed that way because this board is not the decision maker on it, but rather the ZBA. And we wanted it on the record to the ZBA that we recommended fewer parking spots would be appropriate for this location.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: It's definitely what I remember, and I would, I guess I would say, I would ask that we re suggest that.
[Unidentified]: I mean you said there's 10 spaces Is that correct.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yes. Yeah, and seven units, I don't see any need for more than seven, frankly, but especially since Somerville's requiring zero. But I know the order and ordinances 1.1 right, Alicia, of the top of my head, my book out. So I think that most. But if you go by the three and a half unit thing then, and really just for.
[David Blumberg]: So, I don't know. We can certainly make that recommendation again. I'm not sure if the applicant has a response to that. I mean, that was obviously raised at the time and the design didn't change as a result, but of course, she also didn't get to the ZBA as we were just discussing.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, I'd have to talk with the developer to find out what their thoughts are. And I think that generally speaking, I certainly agree with what the board is saying. It does seem like an excessive amount of spots, especially with how many changes are coming or have really come to this neighborhood, particularly since the time this project was developed in 2017, which it does go back that far. So I would have to speak with them to find out, but certainly, I mean, I don't think there'd be an objection to that inclusion in the recommendation. I think we would have to find out what the zoning board's appetite is towards further relief that I think would be required.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I recall, this is Jackie Futado, Chair. I recall there being some kind of discussion regarding condo versus apartment use also. I know that they would be adequate if it was apartment use versus condo use. Is that a discussion that we want to resurrect at this point, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that's up to you. There was, I will, in here, there was a discussion and actually I read Todd's, the traffic engineer's report more recently. I'm flipping through to see if it was documented in our minutes. I don't see it in the minutes. It's Todd's conversation in his document where he talks about how if they are, If the spots are deeded and some of them are super small, that could be a mismatch between who owns it and where they park and how that works. Whereas if it's an apartment and all the spots are a free-for-all and people just have their own habits because there are only seven units, then they can work it out. He was concerned that they would spill out on the street if you had a condo and you owned a spot that was too small for your vehicle. I don't, it's speculation.
[Deanna Peabody]: Yeah. Do we have the recommendation letter that we did last time? I don't, I might've missed it in the material. I was wondering if you could make sure that what we had recommended that we go through them and still would recommend the same.
[David Blumberg]: That was, I've seen the letter because the applicant was kind enough to include it in its materials, and there was just the one item which is, I'm paraphrasing of course but to please consider reducing the number of parking spaces and substituted open space landscaping in exchange on that footprint.
[Unidentified]: Recommendation. Yeah. Correct.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I'm actually, I'm okay with that same recommendation here without changes, considering other comments from board members or questions for the applicants team.
[David Blumberg]: I had, I had a couple vehicle charging, if I if you haven't on the plans I missed it. My apologies but. electric vehicle charging infrastructure will it be present there is there a plan for that.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Milton Can you can you answer that question are there charging stations.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: I wasn't privy to the client's reaction to that. We certainly could have the, you know, we do have the ability to put that in if that's something asked of us or required of us, but it's not shown.
[David Blumberg]: We might want to consider that as a, as a board of course, it is in our updated zoning now requirement that the infrastructure at least be there if not, if not more to accommodate charging. Now more than 10 years so that would be, that would be I think a nice plus. The engineering item about the soil testing, I wasn't sure Mr. Caraviello, are you okay working with the engineering department as the project continues for whatever testing they might be looking for?
[SPEAKER_19]: Not an issue, I mean, I think we did preliminary soil testing to find out if we were gonna have any surprises. And as the project continue, we can do additional testing.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, okay, it didn't. It sounded like they just wanted you to cooperate in that regard so if you're open minded to that that sounds good. There were a couple of recommended conditions in the engineering report. It just, I don't know whether we can really recommend these, because I think they both deal with the Somerville portion of the property but maybe you can just mention, or someone on the team could just give us a little bit of feedback on. There was a question about signaling. and then a question on wall heights and visibility or sight lines for drivers.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Right, I do remember the comments from public works about that. So the comment was, I believe, to have clear signaling at the bottom and the top of the driveway, indicating that it would be, you know, take turns on the driveway one way essentially. So yeah, we will be doing that.
[David Blumberg]: And then site lines are are clean and you'll make sure that that's the case I imagine.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, if we need to take in perhaps a panel, the fencing. No problem. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Right. Any other.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yes, please. I got another question I'm looking at the parking plan. There's something more future handicapped space, can you explain that.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: So we, the future handicapped space that's marked number space number 10. That's intentionally there because it has the room for the handicap, I'll direct to come up to the car. So that would be if the tenants required the space that that space would be available.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: And it's okay to have a door opening right into a handicapped. I don't like that. I'm sorry. It's okay to have a door opening right into a handicapped aisle.
[Unidentified]: Oh yeah, yeah.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: like a car equivalent of like an auto turn on this garage?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: I didn't show it, but I haven't in the, yeah, I have done one. And also on a lot of the other projects we have, we have similar where the last space is held off of the wall a little bit to help with the turning out. So as we show it here, it's about, I think it's a foot or foot and a half away from the last, space, the wall. So that helps with the car backing out and being able to turn a little bit before doing the three-point turn or two-point.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: This is like a garage in Paris. This is tight. I just don't understand how anybody could park here. We also show... Is this part of the variances that you're seeking? I know the ramp is. I think that the 20 feet is as well, right?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I believe the aisle width was one of the variances. Somerville requires the 20.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, Somerville requires 12 foot, no wider than 12 foot. park driveways, and Medford requires no less than 24?
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: No, no. I believe the distinction is the ramp versus the back out space for the cars.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, okay. Oh, right, right. I was actually just had our minimum aisle width for a 90 degree angle parking is 20 feet. in Medford.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: For one way, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: One way, yes. And for two way, it's 24 feet. Marking up my new copy of the zoning code while we speak here.
[Emily Hedeman]: David, I had a few questions.
[David Blumberg]: Please Emily, go ahead.
[Emily Hedeman]: And I hate that we're talking about parking so much, but it is such a challenge for new developments. And just to say, I do love that we're replacing a vacant building with seven residential units. I'm really excited about that. So this building is half in Somerville, half in Medford. If somebody was to apply for a parking permit, for Somerville or for Medford? Does that correspond with the exact unit that they're in and what side of the building that unit is on? So to talk to like the root of my question, if we have, what is this? 10 parking spaces, three of which are compact, Um, and, you know, just to be candid, thinking about the people that are going to live and afford this unit, um, may not have compact cars. Uh, does this mean that the residents of this building are then going to apply for parking permits in Somerville and pay $40 for the year to park on the street? Or they're going to, you know, do Medford parking, which may or may not require a permit, depending on where you are. and not need these spaces anyways? Are we creating a problem on our streets with this layout and how can we be creative about it and how it's going to be realistically applied for the people that are going to live here?
[Alicia Hunt]: So they will not, so an interesting fact is this building, the address is in Somerville, will not be eligible for parking in the entire region as of, so it doesn't go, so what you may not know is that Tuesday night, the traffic commission of which I am a member, so I speak with like very confidence, voted that all the streets within basically a quarter mile of the T stops in Medford would have resident permit parking. So unless they're private ways and that's a whole nother thing. So actually they can't get a permit on a Medford street and all those streets permit parking. So if you were to move into this apartment building and not be able to fit your car in there, you can't, you have nowhere you'd have to find somewhere to pay to keep your car.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you, Alicia.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. I do want to raise as we're doing this though, because maybe then we do want them to, to look at reducing the parking hour. So the, this, sorry, I'm gonna phrase this. Their permit refusal letter was looked at under the old zoning code that said two spots per unit. Their letter is dated April 26. That is right in that window where we were looking to have the new, and I don't know the date of their application. That was just as the new zoning was passed, but before it was, approved official. Under the new zoning, within a half mile of the transit, we only require 0.8 spots per dwelling unit. So this is a risk of the applicants though, they have to go to ZBA next week. And under the zoning board, the zoning board might agree with that argument that actually Technically it's a variance, but if they had applied a few weeks later with this exact same project, no variance would be needed. Because we have in fact updated the zoning to reflect the desires of the community. Obviously this board is not actually approving or disapproving, we're making recommendations, conditions to the zoning board. So I actually, I tossed that back to the applicant, I guess.
[Unidentified]: With what, it just being a question of?
[Alicia Hunt]: We don't wanna, I don't wanna condition something that the new, sorry, that they then causes a problem with the Zoning Board of Appeals. So actually, I'm getting legal advice, I can say that, that the new zoning actually does apply now for this building. Um, so we'd have to work out what that means with the zoning board of appeals and make sure that they understand what zoning applies to this application, because it sounds to me like the community development board would be probably more comfortable with usable parking spots that are truly usable that people will use under the building, but fewer of them, because there's room for them. Um, with the understanding that Any residents of this building, even though half the building is in Medford they cannot get Medford parking permits. And I think we would write that into our conditions Amanda, that this is this thing you can't get residential parking permits, because there's no frontage in the city of Medford.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, and I think I recognize that really wasn't a question directed at me but if I could just jump in, I think that was likely be welcomed. I also think that it would be. I recognize you might you might have counsel that I don't see him or her on the on my screen but I would just say that if, if your recommendations are being made with that assumption that's new zone that's applicable. that I would hope that that is understood by the board next week too, so that there's no kind of back and forth as to what applies here. But I think I agree that this would be a much more practical building if it was usable, and considering its proximity to public transport, that that is more consistent with really what the needs of folks who are going to inhabit these units once they're built.
[David Blumberg]: Well, certainly, Alicia, you can make sure the ZBA and your staff are in tune with that for next week's hearing, I'm sure, or meeting.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. We didn't really prepare for the idea that there were these nuances of things that were in between when these... Jonathan, if you're willing to speak, I think that would be... I realized we didn't ask you to be here for this case, but it was your firm that helped draft the new zoning. So Jonathan is a lawyer that we've asked actually to be on for the next hearing. So Jonathan.
[David Blumberg]: Jonathan, welcome. Thanks for being with us today.
[Silverstein]: My pleasure. Good evening. Everyone hear me okay? Yes. Great. Yeah, what the Zoning Act says is that zoning amendments will apply except to a building permit or special permit that's been issued prior to the first publication of the advertisement for the CDB's ad, public hearing advertisement for the zoning amendment. Now, generally, that's applied because applicants wants protection from new zoning amendments, which are often more stringent, the applicant always has the option of applying current zoning to the project. So even if the first ad for the public hearing had not been issued before a billing permit had been issued, from just from hearing the conversation doesn't seem like any building permit or special permit has been issued. So the new zoning would apply anyway, but it would always be the applicant's option to proceed under new zoning anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I feel like we could resolve this for this evening by making it a recommendation of the planning board and then the applicant can decide. I believe the applicant's planning to be in front of the ZBA next Thursday, is that correct? Yeah. Then you have time to make that decision. I mean, it's not a lot of time because you would need to redraw the plan, I would think. Um, I also what is the board comfortable with? I'm just trying to work out what's possible.
[David Blumberg]: But do we have other let's maybe we put this sub issue aside and ask if there are any other. Emily, were you did you complete your you had a few things you wanted to talk about?
[Emily Hedeman]: I'm all set. Thank you, David.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Any other board members or should we start? narrowing down on whether we want to approve, and if so, what conditions we want to attach. Okay. Any thoughts? People feeling good about this? I think if we're otherwise feeling good. We've got the condition, I think, perhaps the step out, is there is a recommendation. Sounds like the applicants okay and looking into the feasibility of that Milton help me what's the right term for, for that. additional step for the second exit.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Second egress from the garage.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: A stoop, maybe.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Okay. So a stoop for egress. I think, to ensure that there's some electric charging infrastructure in the parking area. That's on my list. recommendation to reduce the number of parking spaces in accordance with current zoning? How do people feel about that?
[Deanna Peabody]: Sounds good.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I agree with that, but there's a question of what they were doing seven for three and a half units previously.
[Unidentified]: So does that mean they're going to do like three now, or because that would be current zoning right point eight of 3.5. There was also a visitor spot included.
[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: If I may, I also want to add just in thinking this through, and I apologize that I don't have the answer to it off the top of my head but I would also want to look back at the approvals that we received in Somerville, and make sure that while they don't require parking. that a modification to this plan set wouldn't then require some sort of a modification to what we have already received for a special permit in that community. So we can do some diligence on our end as far as that's concerned, but I don't wanna over promise if we can't deliver on that without then seeking a second round of modifications to the approvals.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: It almost seems to me that the whole garage should be given a second look. parking drive by also everything.
[David Blumberg]: Would, would you have time, if, if what we do here is phrased in terms of a recommendation to CPA. Will your team be able to talk about the substance of not only what they'd like to see, maybe rework the design a little bit, but also comment on whether that presents a problem, as you mentioned, in connection with your Somerville approvals. Is a week enough time for you to get comfortable with that? Absolutely. Okay, so I think that we can still go forward on a recommendation basis since it's really the ZBA's decision, and they would have the information in front of them to make the decision, I think. Does that make sense? Okay. Unless there's more discussion, would someone like to propose a motion?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: If I'm not, I was not taking full notes. If I don't want to put this on you, Amanda, did anyone capture what the actual recommendation was so that we can provide a motion?
[Amanda Centrella]: I have a couple drafted, and you all can please feel free to comment and change. But basically, that the applicant explore feasibility of including a stoop for a second egress from the garage, that the applicant ensure that there is some electric charging infrastructure in the parking area. And this is the one where I'm sure I'd love some feedback. So David had mentioned a recommendation to reduce the number of parking spaces to be in accordance with current zoning so long as the modification to the plan set does not trigger a second approval process in Somerville.
[David Blumberg]: That sounded good to me. Yeah. Would someone like to offer a motion on that?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I will offer that motion as well as in addition to the compliance and recommendation, the original recommendations by the department heads as stated. to, and the actual recommendations that Amanda Central has already read out. Anyone want a second motion.
[David Blumberg]: Do we have a second.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: This is Christy I'll second.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent. Let's have a roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.
[Deanna Peabody]: Hi.
[David Blumberg]: Clyson dress. Christy doubt. I only had one. Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm an aye as well. Thank you very much to the applicant team. Thanks for your participation and visiting with us a second time on this one. Thank you. We appreciate all your comments. Have a good night.
[8msxsKW1z_4_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, great. So we have our second project to consider at this point. And this is similarly from a procedural point of view we have a site plan review with a recommendation to the zoning board. This in connection with a development proposed for 162 mystic app. Let me read the notice on that one. The community development board shall conduct a meeting tonight after 6pm on zoom relative to an application for site plan reviews submitted by theory wellness to operate a retail marijuana dispensary in an existing structure in a commercial to zoning district. The project is subject to a site plan review special permit for the city of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 94 dash 332 three. and requires approvals from the Board of Appeals. Therefore, the Community Development Board will perform a site plan review and submit its recommendations to the Zoning Board, who will be the special permit granting authority for the site plan review special permit. Before we get into the substance we thought and we invited attorney Silverstein to address the board and the members of the public to just give us a little bit of background as I think we know because we were involved in some of the updates to zoning relative to this type of a use. There is a whole nother set of hurdles that this kind of a user has to go through or regulatory steps that they must pass before a proposal like this gets to this board. And among the issues is a host agreement that user has struck with the city. So, to give us a bit of background on that, and we asked Attorney Silverstein to be here and I'd like to ask him to sort of take the floor and give us that introduction. We appreciate you being with us yet again, twice tonight.
[Silverstein]: Certainly. So yes, Mr. Chair, as you said, there are a number of different procedural and permitting requirements that marijuana businesses have to satisfy in order to open for business. Obviously, they need licensure at the state level from the Cannabis Control Commission. Before they can even apply to the Cannabis Control Commission, they have to enter into a host community agreement with the community in which they seek to open. That requirement's very recently, within the past week, been relaxed. to a certain extent, it's a whole new landscape with respect to host community agreements. But in any case, this applicant did enter into a host community agreement with the mayor. That host community agreement provides for a number of benefits to the city and contains a number of requirements for the applicant with respect to the design and operation of the facility. I believe that host community agreement was submitted with the application materials, and it's certainly a public record. And then, of course, under the relatively recent zoning that the council passed, that the CDB weighed in on, the applicant will also have to get a special permit from the ZBA, and because of the size of this facility, will require site plan approval. So that's sort of a very high level overview of where things stand procedurally. I'm happy to weigh in on any questions that members of the board might have.
[David Blumberg]: If I can take the first question for you, which is the host agreement, host community agreement. Is it possible that that might sort of bump up against some of the things that we typically comment on on a site plan review, lighting and landscaping? And I mean, are there places where an issue may have already been addressed in that agreement and we need to honor that? Or what's the interplay between the two if we know? Maybe it's such a new thing we're not sure.
[Silverstein]: Sure, so the requirements in the host community agreement are contractual, and the HCA is very clear that it's not intended to replace or limit this board's authority or any permitting board's authority. Obviously, if the ZBA, say, were to impose a condition that were directly inconsistent with the provision of the HCA, The applicant would be in a position of either having to violate a contract or violate a permit. That would be less than desirable. But in all honesty, I haven't seen that happen. Usually that doesn't happen. And I'll say that the host community agreement doesn't have a lot in terms of specifics. You know, it says things like the applicant has to spend a certain amount on site beautification and landscaping. Well, that's not going to be inconsistent. It's probably going to be more specifically governed at the permitting level, but it was really sort of a minimum standard. The only thing I could see with this particular application is that a permitting board had a problem with the art center that is you know, uniquely aspect of this project, then that could be problematic. But again, I wouldn't imagine that's likely to be the case. And then I think there are minimum parking requirements in those community agreement, but again, those are minimums. So other than that, I don't think there's a whole lot that should be bumping up against either this board's recommendations or the ZPA's conditions.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent, thank you for the info. Any other questions for Attorney Silverstein at this point? All right, thank you. Thank you again for educating us a bit on how that works. At this point, could we ask the theory wellness team to begin the presentation?
[SPEAKER_22]: Good evening, everybody. My name is Matt von Basie. I'm with Boulder Engineering. We're the civil engineers. On the call also is Brandon Pollack, who's the CEO of Theory Wellness, and Sean Kelley with Van Assen Associates, who's the traffic consultant. As many of you are likely aware, the project site is at 162 Mystic Ave on the east side of Mystic. the old colonial Volkswagen dealer which I think moved down the road a little bit. Since then I think it's been used largely as vehicle storage and a few other various uses but the building's been abandoned. As you noted we're here for a special permit for under a marijuana retailer which we're doing with the ZBA. and site plan review which this board will be giving their recommendation. We're proposing reuse of the existing structure which will be rehabilitated quite a bit. It's a 19,000 square foot structure that back about two-thirds will be used for the theory wellness use. The front of the building will be a two-story art center. Before I jump into the site plan and put everybody to sleep, I know Brandon's on the call. I don't know if he wanted to just quickly introduce himself and discuss. I know it's been a couple year process to get to here.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure. Can everyone hear me and see me?
[David Blumberg]: We sure can.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for having me. Hope everyone's having a good evening. I'll try to keep it brief, but most importantly, I want to be here as a resource to answer any questions that the board might have. But essentially, we were one of the first cannabis companies that began operating in 2017 in medical cannabis here in the Commonwealth. And we've been operating adult use, also known as recreational facilities. Since 2019. We currently have two recreational facilities in Massachusetts one in Great Barrington, and one in the city of chickapee, and this would be our third and final location. We've been working on the process for a couple years here in Medford and are really pleased to be at the point where we can present our plans to both this board and then the CBA. Next week, we've, I think, done a good job of selecting a site which is conscious of having sufficient parking to reduce issues with traffic. We're also very, very pleased to be giving back to the community in a variety of ways, including during our construction process, constructing and then donating the front of the building to the arts collaborative here in Medford, which is a pretty unique part of the project. Like I said, we've been doing this for a long time. Our operations run professionally and smoothly and we're here to be a resource we know it's a new use for the city. And we'll certainly do our job to make it a smooth compliant and discreet business in the city. So I'll turn it maybe back over to Jonathan to kind of run through the overview of the site plans and so forth.
[SPEAKER_22]: Can everybody see my screen. Yes. Great. So this is the existing old colonial Volkswagen building which is being, as I said, pretty substantially renovated for a two story office use here in the front is this black lines kind of delineator, the space in the center here is largely storage space and then the back the retail part of the building. When we were laying out the building looking at this for a couple years, the first thing we identified is the site is pretty largely impervious as exists, just given the auto use these the double stack cars I think coming down this way so there wasn't really any use for us to keep that wide a pavement wasn't going to give us extra parking. So we've been designed laying out the parking basically laid out the minimum driveway with in the parking along, along that driveway and kept this. this southern side as a landscape buffer, a little additional green space. Additionally, relative access is the existing access into the facility. There is an existing paved loop road that comes in front of the building, which I suspect was used to display cars. When it was a car dealership, this project doesn't have a use for that. So removing that and allowing there to be some landscaping and green space in front of the building felt like a worthy addition as well. It's part of the project proposing a fully compliant parking lot with the zoning but also ADA regulations so ADA parking spaces for the yard use and then in a parking spaces for for the theory wellness use in the back. pedestrian connectivity there is no no sidewalks there today, just mostly vehicular loading bays and things along the side of the building so we proposing a sidewalk along the entire front of the building which will serve the entrance into into theory wellness and also into the, the our collaborative. Some of the conditions of the host agreement were that the project provide a blue bike station. So that's proposed here at the front we're going to work with Mr. Blake at the city just to make sure we have the details for that on our on our final plans and then also providing an EV charging station we're proposing here down at the at the front corner. The project, if you're driven by the site it has some existing lights there these gray little symbols here, as you come through the lights are a little, a little on the older side there. They're not led they're not full cut off they're kind of a floodlight type later they're here on these poles and also along, along the front of the building so we're proposing removing all of those lights, I'm proposing new led fully downcast dark sky compliant lights along. along the edge of the parking and then similarly some wall pack lakes along the basically all sides of the building for security reasons, Jane down concluded a lighting plan in our in our plans. stormwater when we did submit our original submission we had kind of taken the stance which which is often the case that the projects, pretty substantially reducing impervious area so inherently is going to reduce the amount of stormwater from the site. That said, the, the city engineer did request that we meet a specific requirement that one inch per of runoff stored on site for the total impervious area which we've done. We've done that through proposing some planted dry swales along this landscape buffer here and then an underground storage system to collect a roof runoff. The project does have one loading area. It's here. This is an existing loading bay. Many of the loading bays are getting closed off and either new window facades put in or having them bricked off. This one will remain. This is a I guess a delivery acceptance room and storage area. Deliveries to the building will be just just via van, no large WB 67s or large trucks coming in just small van vans which you can come in here and load through this area right here. As I know that they're doing quite a bit of renovation on the building, we did submit some some elevations and some color perspectives of what the architect kind of rendered the final product would look like. The interior building will have new sprinkler systems. Obviously, they're going to construct the entire heart center and all the different facilities associated with the theory wellness use. And so there'll be facade upgrades relative to repainting all the siding, some awnings and canopies, additional storefront features for some of the loading bays, and then some other architectural features relative to the different uses. coming through. So this would be looking to the back. This is the bend in the building kind of near the back half. This would be the theory wellness entrance.
[Unidentified]: This is the back of the building looking back towards Mr. Gaff.
[SPEAKER_22]: We did get a chance to review some of the city department letters that came in over the past week or so. And I'll run through those before I do, I know Sean's on the call, the traffic consultant, if you wanna just quickly touch base on the traffic impact analysis.
[Kelly]: Sure, thanks, Matt. I did put, if it's possible, I can share my screen as well and just run through a couple of the key points in the study.
[Unidentified]: Everyone see that okay? Yes, thank you.
[Kelly]: So first off, again, have the team, Mr. chairman members of the board again Sean Kelly with the NASA associates. Thank you for having us before us tonight. I think we'd like to just, you know, briefly walk through our study some of the key points and findings that'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I think you know Matt did a good job of describing the project site again it's no one sees to mystic Avenue on the eastern side of the quarter mystic Avenue 38 is a state numbered road it's under the jurisdiction of nasty ot 25 mile an hour speed limit the quarter carries around 15,500 cars in a weekday and about 14,000 cars on a Saturday. The peak hour flows range anywhere from about 1300 am to about 1500 in the PM. The Saturday flows are a bit lower than the 1100 current hour range. We did a study in accordance with industry guidelines. We went out and looked at existing traffic volumes I just mentioned. We looked at vehicle speeds. As I mentioned, the quarter is only posted for 25 miles an hour, but what we found were that people are typically traveling around 33 miles an hour in each direction, so they are exceeding the speed limit. And certainly some of those speeds are even higher. We looked at the crash history, there was no notable crash history in the area. All of the intersections that we evaluated came in below the state's average, there was no notable crash history. With respect to the project, we rely on what's known as Institute of Transportation Engineers, the ITE. So we ran some trip generation based on the size of the facility and really tried to compare that to what the prior automobile dealership would do if it was operational. In the morning peak hour, it's about 36 additional trips total, which is about a little less than 20 in and out. Not all of these trips come in the same direction, so the impact to any particular segment will be less than that. Even peak hour, you're getting closer to about a trip a minute. Again, that's one every other minute entering, one every other minute exiting. Then really the largest increase, as you can imagine, would be your Saturday midday, but that's the time period where traffic volumes out there are quite a bit lower than during the commuter peaks. The conclusions to our study you know we even with the higher speeds what we found was that you know there was no safety deficiencies in the sight lines that exist, you know, it's a straight tangent roadway. Certainly meet all applicable design criteria. Again, we walked the trip generation increases it's about a car every minute to two minutes during the commuter hours and then you know the real higher volumes of the Saturday when volumes out there are lower. We did look at the parking based on ITE date of the parking, sufficient to meet the peak demands. Really our recommendations were focused primarily, we did our assessment on the site access, making sure it's done in appropriate MUTC design criteria, stop signs, pavement marking, signage, things of that nature. Making sure any landscaping and signage doesn't block site lines to ensure you have safe access and egress. And then really what we always recommend whenever one of these new dispensaries open is that the applicant work with the local police department to work on an opening plan in terms of traffic and parking operations. You typically will see a little bit more of a rush when they first open. It's a curiosity thing, people want to check it out. We typically would just recommend that we have a police detail perhaps on the opening weekend just until things settle in. So those are really the recommendations of our assessment. We did also, you know, receive a letter from the city's traffic engineer Todd Blake where he had outlined a number of other recommendations that he felt were appropriate to you know further mitigate the impacts of the projects.
[SPEAKER_01]: I think my screen lost my share. Are you seeing it.
[Kelly]: There we go. Sorry about that. So one of the recommendations was to install some solar powered radar feedback signage. So, as I mentioned, you know, it's it's 25 mile an hour posted out there. They're typically going around 33. I think we're all familiar with these signs, they're solar powered, it gives you your speed feedback and if you're speeding, you know, the sign will flash. until you reduce your speed. Typically these can drop speeds by about five miles an hour in each direction if you have those installed. So certainly it's a measure that we concur is warranted given the speeds that we've observed and the applicant is committed to work with the city to install these. Another recommendation dealt with the sidewalk. The sidewalk along our frontage is in pretty bad shape. Certainly probably wouldn't meet ADA compliance. There was a recommendation to repair that and bring it up to to current standards and certainly would be agreeing to do that as well. As Matt mentioned, there's a loop driveway that's in front of the site today that was utilized when the dealership was there. We're going to use the southern driveway as our access point. The northern curb cut really isn't needed because we're not going to have vehicular access there. There's a recommendation to close that and install curbing and we have no issue with that as well. The city traffic engineer recommended we look at installing painted bump outs or ballers at a number of side street intersections to Mystic Avenue. These are traffic calming measures. It slows traffic going around the corners. It provides a disincentive for using the local streets as cut through, and it also shortens the pedestrian crossing, which is always a benefit. Again, we have no issue. We certainly are willing to work with the city to implement this measure as well. And then the last recommendation from the city was to develop a really conceptual improvement plan where we look at the entire corridor from Preston Street to Harvard Street, look at where the bus stops are today and look at what the pavement markings are today as far as bike lane accommodations, the center turn lane, crosswalks, things of that nature and develop a plan that more cohesively works with the corridor as a whole. And again, we've talked to that client and they're certainly willing to work with the city to implement that as well. The only caveat I would add is that, you know, these are, this is a mass dot quarter so what we can, you know, commit to working to develop this design and ultimately is going to be a state decision as to whether they want these measures implemented but provided the states on board, you know, we certainly have no issue and want to work with the city to improve the core to the extent we can. And that's really all I have for tonight.
[Unidentified]: Be happy to answer any questions anyone has on traffic.
[SPEAKER_22]: Are there others from the team who like to continue the presentation or, yeah, just, just a couple more more things I can run through the city department letters just to just kind of our thoughts on those so we received four letters one was from the board of health and outline some different programs and things they might want to implement it before construction pest management system. you know, solid waste permits for dumpsters, you know, porta potties permits for during construction, and we're amenable obviously to all of those. We did receive fire department comments, and I had spoken to Chief Friedman prior to him issuing those, and those are largely technical relative to the sprinkler system and things like that, and we have no concern with those. The letter from the Historic District Commission, they had two comments. One was regarding lighting, and I noticed on the rendering it does show the existing flood mounted lighting and they comment that might not be appropriate and, and our lane plan does does remove those although it doesn't reflect on the rendering. And they also suggest some color changes on the facade and it's something we're certainly willing to look at I know that the building elevations have been coordinated for for quite a while, as this project work through the city so we can't commit to change the colors but we're certainly willing to, to take a look at it as we, as we finalize it. And then, then engineering comments which is the bulk of them and again none of them we have have a concern with is the removing of the existing driveway and that we're, we're removing and the construction of the sidewalk along the road. So we'll test information for the stormwater. The addition of a traditional bike racks we have the blue bike station but a traditional bike rack and we certainly have no issue incorporating that into the plans. There was a question about the loading bay and loading maneuverability I know in our original plans that that space wasn't well noted so, but it is provided at the center of the building there. And then the traffic impact assessment so it was a three recommendations that Sean went through that Todd Blake was nice enough to jump on the phone with, with me and Victor earlier today and we have a pretty good understanding of what he's looking for and we feel comfortable with those we can work with the city.
[David Blumberg]: You're, you and your team are doing such a nice job going, going down all of the open items are identified by the city I appreciate that there were two I didn't hear you mentioned and maybe it's just the old, but the domestic water service.
[SPEAKER_22]: That notation, is that also in the noted that he's minus let you know we're fine with that.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, and then they wanted some some video work to kind of do some more inspections that's fine as well with your team.
[SPEAKER_22]: Correct Yeah, we'd hope to use the existing sewer line but obviously it's crushed once we have to repair. Okay.
[David Blumberg]: Well that's certainly agreeable we've gone down the list and guys have been a thumbs up on almost everything on there so appreciate the cooperation. Before I turn it to the board, let me just see if there are members of the public who wanted to comment, man, how are we looking on that.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, so actually, I believe we do have someone pull up my thing here yes so Uh, Laurel Siegel, who's the board president of the Medford Arts Collaborative, um, was hoping to, which is the entity that I think would be, um, within the, the, the arts center at the front of the building, um, is available. Uh, Laurel, did you want to make a comment tonight?
[Laurel Siegel]: I don't have any immediate comments. I mostly wanted to be available to be able to answer any questions, um, that the board might have with respect to the plans for the arts center. Great.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Laurel. Thanks for being here and participating. Any other members of the public out there, Amanda, from your vantage point?
[Amanda Centrella]: So if anybody wants to make a comment, if you could raise your hand, and I'm just going to check the city's email, which is ocd at medford-ma.gov in case of any last minute messages, but I am seeing none.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. In that case, let me open it up to our board members, any questions for the team here.
[Unidentified]: No, there must be some questions out there, David I'm not leaving his hand.
[David Blumberg]: I'm not seeing you on my layout I'm sorry my apologies, please the floor is yours.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: All right. Laurel, thanks for joining. Can you tell us a little bit about the program that will be in the Arts Center?
[Laurel Siegel]: Absolutely. So it'll be a multi-use space with a variety of individual artist studio spaces, classrooms, on and a large open space. What was the showroom of the dealership on the first floor that we use for community events and performances and also serve as a passive gallery space.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: So is the is your organization in charge of this, let's call it the fit out of that space.
[Laurel Siegel]: The ultimate fit out, yes. We're working closely with theory that is doing quite a bit of renovation, as you know, to the space. But when it comes to the final interior fit out, that will be us.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Great. And that's not part of this project per se? Or will it be built together?
[Laurel Siegel]: You know, well, our anticipation is that once the certificate of occupancy has been issued, then we will come in and we'll be adding, you know, final light fixtures, security systems and the like to the space.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Understood. Great, thank you. So, I think I heard Matthew that you addressed the comment about a little more color and life. I certainly would second that opinion. I think it came from the historic commission maybe I could be wrong, but in any case, I think, you know, given that this is going to be a really sounds like a really great place for the arts. In Medford, I think the exterior exterior treatment of the building would really deserve a little more visual interest than what we're seeing in the, in the renderings that you've shown. Just, you know, the one of the reasons I asked Laurel specifically about the program, because I wasn't sure whether it was, you know, visual or performing arts or what but given the fact that it. These are actually going to be visual artists in this building I couldn't imagine a better, a better place for a public mural than on this building. I think that would be, that would be just lovely especially given the sort of industrial nature of mystic app program that you have inside and it could be something that gets changed regularly or whatever and it would be a really easy way to sort of give that sort of that life to the building and could possibly have a tie into the retailers behind but I think there's a basically a missed opportunity with something like that. to do something that really grounded the building and program in the city of Medford and that kind of thing. So I would really encourage you to think about that blank white wall and what you could do to it. And then my final comment is, and I appreciate that you will undertake some renovations to the sidewalk, but I think, well, I wonder, and maybe somebody from the city, it's not Victor, but maybe it's, and I'm blanking on his name right now, but the sidewalks along Mystic Ave, is there sort of a big idea about how those sidewalks evolve from the sort of half driveway, half sidewalk, asphalt, some places, concrete, some places, weird boards and fire equipment on the sidewalks to something that's a little more sort of like complete streets with plans for trees and things like that. And I just wonder if, you know, we're also missing an opportunity here to sort of, you know, create a case study for for how mystic app could have really a better, you know, street edge in this project rather than just sort of repaving the, the, the sidewalks that are there that that are obviously you know almost nobody uses.
[SPEAKER_22]: I can speak anecdotally to that. I did speak to Todd Blake, as I mentioned earlier today. And obviously, you've got a lot on his plate. And as we were discussing some of the recommendations here, he did give a lot of his thoughts on the court, or at least some of his initial ones. And a lot of them do revolve around pedestrian safety I know there was a just south of this site there was a pedestrian island and pedestrian signals put in and, and I think that's another thing that he's probably continuing to look at as he as he looks at this project, as far as the streetscape. I can't speak on that that's that's probably more of a talk question but I suspect his job is tough just given that it's a DLT highway to do that type of thing. We tried to limit as much pavement as we had along the frontage, removing that turnaround and landscaping just everything except for our driveway entrance. But again, I can't speak for Todd, but I suspect it's a hard job for him to try to do something like that just relative to the DOT highway.
[Alicia Hunt]: Do you want me to, as much as I can speak on behalf of Todd, which I can't, but we work closely on these things. We've been looking at some sort of designs and layouts for other portions of the road with other projects that have come in front of us. And I know there's a lot of desire, desire to push DOT to do sidewalks that are wide enough, bike lanes, et cetera. And I am correct that this is on the DOT portion of the road. Oh, absolutely. So I think that we would like to see some nice complete streets, like the idea of wide sidewalks, trees, bike lanes. We're trying to figure out how to make that happen. You only have control of one short section here in front of your property. There's another property two doors up that's coming in front of the board. One would hope in the near future, they've done some public meetings. Some of you have seen the public meetings for the beer hall, that's actually on the other side of the liquor store. So it's our hope that we can try and coordinate between these projects to some extent to improve the walkability of this area. The difficulty with this is that we don't have right now, here's the plan, this is exactly what we want it to look like, please do your section, but rather it's kind of evolving as we find that we can do more, that there's more opportunities here. So I think what the city in general is looking for is some trees and shading, wide enough sidewalks that people can pass each other, that sort of thing in this area. And then the lovely green space where, you know, it's a bit of a refuge if you are walking down the street, so.
[Victor Schrader]: And I can jump in, this is Victor, in terms of a specific treatment that Todd talked about on our call earlier today. As Matthew mentioned, there's a pedestrian refuge that's further down the road that is something that he would like to implement. At some point, there's a crosswalk at Billings, which is about, I don't know, We don't really have blocks on that side of Mystic Ave, but I guess it would be about a half a block down the road. That's been well received and he would like to, he plans on working with TOD or DOT in the future to implement that at that location. And so that's a specific treatment that could happen down the road that I think goes along with your idea, Clay, of a friendlier street to pedestrians.
[Unidentified]: Clay, do you have some more items for us? Other board members. Thank you. Quiet or am I missing somebody again.
[David Blumberg]: I had a few questions of my own if anyone else wants to jump in line in front of me. The trees, you are adding some trees along the southern edge, maybe one in the front corner. Is there a possibility that you could do a bit more with that?
[SPEAKER_22]: Um, yeah, yeah, I don't want to speak speak for the applicant. But um, when when Klaus was talking, the one thing I checked on the plan, because he mentioned a friendly streetscape is if we had a shade tree or two along the frontage, and I didn't see one. So I think of all the places that might be might be an appropriate location for that streetscape concern. Okay, I think that would be good.
[David Blumberg]: I noted as well, you've got a couple of in the sort of center of the parking lot, just hatched areas. Could those be green could those house a tree or two or their conditions there that would preclude that.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, I don't I don't think their conditions that are precluded precluded in particular there's one that's um that just out into the parking area a little bit where there's that turn around that that would certainly be inappropriate location and the green space along the building maybe something a little on the on the shorter shrub side just being close to the building but probably take a look at putting some plans there as well.
[SPEAKER_05]: I would just add, and Matt we can talk about this I mean first of all we're very happy to add more green space it's something that I think it's very well fits into the site and our desire to create a comfortable space for our customers but there are cams control relay regulations that prohibit any, you know, large trees or shrubs that would, you know, kind of get in the way of our cameras so we just would want to always double check that before committing to any, you know, larger living things like that. That's all, but we can certainly take that under advisement and do the best we can.
[David Blumberg]: Even if, even if it was brush, you know bushes or something or something low. And do you know what I mean by the areas in the parking lot itself that were hatched up like if those could be.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I'll share screen just so we can confirm. Yeah, same place. I believe the area you're looking at probably here in here.
[David Blumberg]: I was I guess I was also looking at the little odd, the odd shaped hatched areas in that central Yeah, there you go.
[SPEAKER_22]: Oh, here. Yeah, we can take a look at those. The one thing I'd want to double check is the fire egress maneuver. I suspect that part of those areas we need for the fire truck to circle around. If that's the case, we'd want to keep them hatched. I'll take a look at it. If there's a chance for us to add a little landscape on there, we will.
[Alicia Hunt]: If I might add, some of our projects have looked at rather than, because of the fire apparatus, rather than like a raised curb, just doing like a treatment that is more attractive and permeable or something that's, you know, maybe stones or something that's different. It breaks it up. It's more interesting. It allows some permeable stuff that's not, that a fire truck can still drive over. So I'll just put that out there as an idea to look at.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Is the, I guess this is a question for Brandon or for arts, but is it, is it that the community arts group is, is leasing the space or so there's actually going to be an organization that's in charge there. It's not like it's the city and I have to book a spot with the city to use the space. The association will actually have it more or less like a tenant.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, it's a sublease, and it's provided free of charge to Laurel's organization.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, David, um, the, it's the Medford arts collaborative which has been a 501 c three in the city since I believe 2017.
[Laurel Siegel]: We've been a loose group of residents since 2017. We were officially formed as a 501c3 earlier this year. So yeah, we're independent from the city, a private organization.
[Alicia Hunt]: And it's, can you actually just give us a little, cause there are a number of arts groups in the city, like places in that structure for us.
[Laurel Siegel]: Absolutely. So yeah, arts collaborative Medford is actually, um, the collaborative part is, uh, we have representation from several of the larger arts organizations in the city, which includes, um, the organization I was formerly president of cache. in Medford, which is the Coalition for Arts, Culture and a Healthy Economy. It's a coalition of 24 arts and culture organizations promoting the arts and visibility of the arts. And we run big festivals in the city. We also have representation from Arts Medford, which is a group that's more focused on individual artists, their members are individual artists in the city and supporting them and creating visibility for them. We've also had representation from the Medford Arts Council, which is the local agency with the city under the Massachusetts Cultural Council.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. That's really helpful because a lot of the names are floating around, and I think we've all heard of Cachet because of Circle the Square. And it's helpful, I think, for us to understand that it's not one Medford arts group winning out over the others, but rather you're the pulling together multiple groups in the city. Absolutely, yes.
[David Blumberg]: Great. Thanks for the info and for participating Laurel, appreciate that. Interesting. So there's 10,000 square feet of retail sort of a max that you can, that you can have for this sort of a use. It's, it's like the retail floor that counts toward that as opposed to some of the other uses, packaging, warehousing, employee break rooms, that sort of stuff. Is that how they look at it, Brandon?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's my and Victor maybe weigh in as well my understanding of the zoning is that that would apply to what we call the front of the house which is customer accessible space, but it wouldn't preclude us from having you know extra storage areas break rooms employee offices things like that. Okay, thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Can you, can you explain about the beverage center I just didn't, it just caught my eye I didn't quite understand what that would be.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, it's essentially proposed as a separate entrance, just where an area where customers can focus on cannabis infused beverages. It's a new product line that we started launching last year. It's been very popular with our customers and they're essentially alternatives to alcohol. So we will include a small amount of cannabis into a seltzer or a soda, something like that. and they're canned at our facility down in Bridgewater. So it's a more social cannabis experience. It's a very light dose of cannabis for folks who are just looking to have an alternative to a glass of wine or a beer at the end of the day.
[David Blumberg]: So is the customer experience like going into a small package store or a convenience store with a beverage?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's what we're thinking. Yeah, it hasn't been done yet, you know, an area focused on beverages, but we think especially being right next to a kind of a high volume liquor store is kind of an interesting element to include for customers.
[David Blumberg]: Interesting. And I also wanted to ask about the sign, and the approval for the sign has that is that something that is separately going to the building, Commissioner, because I guess I need to ask first before I say more.
[SPEAKER_22]: I think I think planning staff will correct me for wrong but I think provided the sign is zoning compliant, then they would be a sign permit requested and issued by the by the building department, and we provided the sign graphics just in case the board wanted to see it.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, that's what I read, and we do have a new ordinance so go ahead. Sorry.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sorry. Yes, I just wanted to say I checked with some of our staff internally and can confirm that that's the procedure.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, all right, excellent. I think those are my questions. Anyone else have some follow-up questions?
[Alicia Hunt]: I actually do, David. It's actually a little bit more of a request. Cles had started with the, I looked at this building as well and said, this canvas, how are we having this plain white building? And it's the art center and it really needs visual art. I know we've had visual art on building actually recently in front of this board, and then they came and got approval from the board for what it was. It seems to me that we should actually specifically ask that there should be some art, that this arts collaborative should approve it, should have artistic approval over it, but that Theory Wellness should pay for it, like maybe it's a mural or maybe it's different materials or whatever, mosaic or paint or whatever, but that can be between them, but that that should be part of what happens and what we'd like to see. It would be such a shame in my mind to have an art center sitting there on Mystic Ave in a plain white boring building.
[David Blumberg]: Any other board members would like to respond to that or offer some more thoughts?
[Emily Hedeman]: I agree with that. I'm curious what the regulations are in terms of what sort of designs or imaging can be on the outside of a recreational marijuana facility.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. Essentially, well first I do support that idea and a little context is, you know, our experience this this industry has changed a lot in the last five or six years and we've always done things from a lens of being conservative and discreet, but we would love to add more color to the building so we certainly think that's a great idea. It was just simply, you know, we usually take the path of least resistance. And previously we haven't had such support for a little more of a bold statement, but we think that's a great idea. And something like an art mural, it's pretty open-ended. There just couldn't be depictions of people, you know, using cannabis or cannabis leaves or the words marijuana. You know, there'd be some little guardrails like that, but generally just having color and art is not precluded.
[Alicia Hunt]: And can you actually clarify for us legally? Cause it seems to me that the cannabis portion is the back portion and that the art center is in the same building, but is leased to the art center. So you may be helping them to pay for that, their maintenance or whatever, but, but that is not cannabis.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's a good point. So you're right. Technically, the Arts Center would not have those regulations placed on them because it's not a licensed space by the state's Cannabis Control Commission. It's more, I would just say that's just a kind of, I don't think they'd like to see that if it was right next to our licensed space. But yeah, the Arts Center is not a licensed space. It's going to have completely its own access, its own security system. And there's no internal connection between the two suites, if you will.
[Alicia Hunt]: And that's also just helpful for us and for the public to understand that it's a separate legally a separate space. And obviously I could actually imagine the Cannabis Commission might feel that you were skirting the law. If you funded a cannabis mural on the other half of the building, that wasn't where I was at all, so much as if your organization has the money and these are the artists and artists deserve to be paid for their work. But then again, I would much rather see our local artists participating in this and not, you know, we're not bringing somebody in from another state. where we're supporting our local artists.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that makes sense. And I don't know, maybe Laurel could think of an idea or comment on how that might take place, but we would be happy to support the arts organization to do a project like that.
[Laurel Siegel]: Absolutely. And we're enthusiastic about this concept. Certainly, as a group of arts-related people, when we looked at the building, our initial thought was, something should be on the front of this building that represents the art. So we're in agreement there. And various members of our organization do have prior experience with public art. It happens, again, the organization that I ran, Cachet, was responsible for the new mural on the condom shell. So, you know, very familiar with the whole process of going through and vetting potential designs and working with authorities as needed for finalizing a product and having it executed.
[David Blumberg]: That's, that sounds good. Any more thoughts, otherwise maybe we can start thinking about where we want to go with a recommendation. I feel like maybe we have a couple of conditions that we might want to consider in connection with the recommendation. One, just as we're, we're talking about to emphasize, or to recommend that the arts collaborative had the opportunity to add some color by way of art or murals on the outside of the portion of the building that collaborative is subleasing. And I would, again, this was my thing, guys, if you don't like it, it's okay, we don't have to vote for it, but to add as many trees, shrubs as we can on the site plan to the extent the applicant can become creative with that, and including adding either landscape islands or some pervious surface in the portions of the parking lot that are not sort of dedicated for parking space or a travel lane. So those are the two that I had in mind, unless others, you have some other ones to add.
[Emily Hedeman]: Can we adjust that language a little bit and have the permeable surfaces potentially also apply to parking spaces as well? This investigation of, thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Amanda, did you pick up any other conditions along the way that I might have missed as our, as our crack superstar scribe meetings ladder.
[Amanda Centrella]: So, a couple, a couple of things, just general, generally, that the applicant is to comply with traffic mitigation comments and so far as do t agrees to those recommendations. and we can finagle some of the wording of these for sure, but general compliance with the fire chief recommendations, compliance with engineering recommendations. Board of Health. And Board of Health. There was, so I think the applicant had mentioned in the historical commission comments, there was some mention of, in addition to the exterior color of the building, which I think we've been talking about and covered exterior lighting adjustments. And I wasn't sure if that was something the board wanted to pick up on or leave.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I can clarify that comment a little bit. The confusion on that comment is actually the 3D perspective rendering that the architect had prepared showed some flood lighting that exists on the building, which is a little on the older and certainly wouldn't fly if we were proposing a new site today in front of the board. Our project does propose removal of those and installing new dark sky compliant LED lighting. It just didn't quite reflect on the rendering, which is why they picked up on that, but that's already been incorporated into our plans.
[Amanda Centrella]: Great, I am rendered moot then. And other than that, I think, yeah, you all covered the piece about the mural and also the green space landscaping, and in addition to that, permeable surfacing for the parking spaces, investigation of.
[Alicia Hunt]: We should officially sort of add in for the record, this project is subject to linkage. I don't think that's a surprise. And the solar ordinance, because it's a change in use over 10,000 square feet. And I believe that actually, I believe that solar is actually in the community agreement already, the community benefits agreement. So that shouldn't be anything different from what you've already agreed to. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn there, that was my understanding.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I apologize, I'm not sure what linkage is, but in regards to solar, you're correct. That is part of our community host agreement to the extent feasible to put solar panels on the roof, assuming structurally it's okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, I was checking the denial letter that, yeah, we gotta get these denial letters. Um, linkage is the dollar amount per square footage that the city charges for, um, commercial development. Um, it's not fees and taxes. It's like the community benefits. Amanda, you were using better words this afternoon when you were explaining it. Um,
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, it's for, so for like major projects, it's kind of like a development impact fee. And it's calculated on a, usually unless it's residential, it's calculated on a square footage. You multiply by square footage a certain amount depending on what the project is zoned as. And I'm more than happy to send over the fee schedule to whomever's interested. If that's if that's helpful.
[David Blumberg]: This is the one that hasn't been updated for for a while just so Brandon doesn't fall fall on the floor it's the numbers are like from the 80s right 1989 is when the rates were set.
[SPEAKER_05]: Well fair enough. Yeah, I mean we'll certainly comply with all ordinances and relations that the city has in place for the development project.
[SPEAKER_20]: So yeah, those are usually our letter, so.
[David Blumberg]: Alicia, any more or otherwise I think we're ready to entertain a motion.
[Unidentified]: Friends, fellow board members.
[Deanna Peabody]: I'll make the motion, all of what Amanda said as recommendations to the CBA.
[Unidentified]: I'll second. Oh.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, so we'll do our roll call vote. And Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[David Blumberg]: Clyce Andreessen. Aye. Christy Dow.
[Emily Hedeman]: Aye.
[David Blumberg]: Emily Hedeman.
[Emily Hedeman]: Aye.
[David Blumberg]: Deanna Peabody.
[Emily Hedeman]: Aye.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm an aye as well. Thank you to the Theory Wellness Group. Thank you for your presentation today.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. Thank you to the board have a have a good evening, everybody.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: So I just, I thought I would just take two seconds to mention that in going through this is the first time we're doing site plan review under the new ordinance. And may recall from all the back and forth and discussion that there was about the ordinance that we now have these performance standards and 6.4. And, and those are, I think are really good and reflect a lot of things that we were asking about even before they were added to the ordinance. And then in another spot 11 710 there are seven specific written findings that we have to arrive at in terms of a brain connection with a decision approving a safe plan. We'll kind of work through that I'm thinking there's probably a formatting piece maybe to our decisions that will that will work on and try to implement. But if you. It's like loading and unloading the bulk and location of the building there's you know there's a handful of things you can see in the ordinance yourself but just know that if it feels like something is new when this thing decision comes out it's because we're trying to match it up with the new ordinance that's all. I think the next item on the list is now to discuss our minutes that were prepared for the July 14th meeting. And I'll turn it over to the board or Emily, if you'd like to make mention of the minutes as our clerk, your inaugural appearance as clerk.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, big day. So this is the discussion portion, is that correct? Sure. Yes. Okay, great. So I had two more form updates rather than content updates. I propose that future meeting minutes reflect board members who are absent as well as present, as well as include a list of all documents and other exhibits used by the public body during the meeting. These are per MGL chapter 30A, section 22A, something that I did at other boards, so I didn't have any material comments. So well done on those, Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: Actually, the thanks goes to Wren, who has diligently put them together for us, so thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Well done, Wren. Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Wren. We appreciate that. Emily, I can't imagine there'd be any objection to your good suggestions. Is, are there any other comments on the minutes? Otherwise we can entertain a motion to approve them subject to update to match Emily's good suggestions. And I think I had a couple of, they were not, there's no substance involved, but just a few grammatical or typo kind of things to make in there as well. Otherwise, do we have a motion for approval of the minutes subject to what I just said?
[Emily Hedeman]: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the July 14 meeting.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Emily, do we have a second for that motion.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I'll second.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Jackie. And we'll take a roll call vote on approval of the minutes. Deanna PB.
[Deanna Peabody]: I was actually absent.
[David Blumberg]: Oh, you were. Okay, thank you very much, Emily.
[Unidentified]: Hi, Jackie. Hi, place. Hi, Christy.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Hi.
[Unidentified]: And I'm an eye as well.
[David Blumberg]: I think now we're at the point in time where we have any other updates or anything that we need to share as a board. Amanda or Alicia Do you have anything for us or other fellow board members have any updates.
[Amanda Centrella]: have a quick thing relating to the minutes, actually, just to piggyback off of that. So as, as some of you may be aware, we have had a bit of a backlog of certain minutes, particularly from the time when we were doing the zoning of codification and had kind of a lot of back to back meetings. And so there are a number of minutes that and I didn't feel that it was fair to include for this meeting, giving given everything on the agenda. Um, that are ready for review. Um, and that would be prior to Emily's time with us. So, um, couldn't necessarily go to the clerk for, um, for review. So I just wanted to propose maybe ahead of next meeting since the meeting since the minutes are already and there are three of them. We can do it different ways, but one thought I had was to provide them to members a long time in advance, a couple weeks in advance, just so it doesn't kind of compound upon other project materials for the next meeting. Or we can kind of portion them out over the next few meetings and have maybe two minutes at a time for review. But I defer to you all on that and what's going to be convenient
[David Blumberg]: For me, I think it'd be awesome if you were to send them out a couple weeks in advance, but.
[SPEAKER_08]: And I would say we should just do them all at the next meeting.
[David Blumberg]: That would be great. Thanks for doing that, Amanda and Ren. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, big thanks to Ren.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, big thanks.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. So, yes. Otherwise, I don't have any major updates unless Alicia or Vic wanted to chime in. We don't have anything formally submitted for any projects formally submitted to the board, although I am sure there are things on the horizon.
[David Blumberg]: Is it worth trying to pick a date in September so it's on the calendar? Is the department feeling confident enough that yeah, more than likely we will have something we need to look at?
[Amanda Centrella]: I don't know that. I don't know if I'm, I'm not confident. Not that we're not expecting things, but sometimes with the regulatory timelines that we need to circulate materials ahead of time for, so that like 35 days to department heads can kind of know, change up where meetings need to land, but of course if everyone were interested in getting something on the calendar, even if it had to change, I'm happy to entertain that.
[David Blumberg]: How do people feel? Would they rather have it on the calendar or take it as it comes.
[Emily Hedeman]: And then we'll figure it out.
[Alicia Hunt]: We have to give department heads 35 days, right? So that means the board will always have a month's warning, 35 days warning that we've received something. Victor is waving his hand.
[Victor Schrader]: We may be seeing some plan development district applications come in, and those would not require the 35 days. So there's the possibility that in September, we'll be receiving our first PDD application. There's a community meeting for a project proposed at 100 Winchester Street at the end of this month. It's on the 29th of August. And I think they'd like to come in September, maybe October. We'll know more soon. So I think it is appropriate to wait and reach out to schedule once we hone in on that date a little bit more. Just on that topic, Amanda, Alicia, and I, and David met briefly just to talk about the plan development district process. And we've put together a flow chart and a checklist for applications. And we'll share that with you all soon so you can get an idea of how, how that those projects will be reviewed and they're a little bit different than the norm.
[David Blumberg]: Hopefully that's helpful. Thank you, Victor appreciate that.
[Alicia Hunt]: And then, not on scheduling. We moving on from scheduling I just realized we're past schedule.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: Great. Com plan community development, but comprehensive plan. Sorry, it's it's been a long week. Um, third night in a row I'm here past eight for for meetings and stuff. Comprehensive plan, the draft is out there. I really encourage people to read it, to look through it. We have been sending, RIN's been helping me by sending pieces to or pointers to various departments, asking them to look at specific parts that are relevant to them. I'm making comments throughout it. There are various ways. We actually put out like a form where you could say whether or not you've read it and you could just submit comments to us. But if you actually want to comment on the PDF, we could arrange that. You can send us actual specifics if you want. David, if you're going to copy edit it, I'm going to tell you one section to not look at. I just copy edited the hell out of it. I think they're going to have to rewrite. There's like one tiny little like one objective. Something went wrong.
[David Blumberg]: I don't know what you're talking about.
[Alicia Hunt]: But that said, if there are particularly substantive comments, my preference is we get substantive comments sooner rather than later to give the consultants more time. So it's out there.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, so it is out there and available for us.
[Alicia Hunt]: For you guys in the chat, I know we've emailed it, right? Or emailed a link to it. It's 20 megs, so we tend not to just email the file around. And it's on our webpage. If it's not, we'll fix that.
[SPEAKER_20]: I'm sure it is.
[David Blumberg]: Would it be good to send the link again, just so it's sort of- Yeah, we can put it in email to you guys.
[Alicia Hunt]: I can hit reply all to something Amanda has sent and send it out to you.
[Deanna Peabody]: That'd be great. In the chat.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I was actually just looking to make sure it was on our office's website. Sometimes people watch these meetings. It has come to my attention by people coming up to me and saying, Alicia, I saw you on TV last night, that people watch some of these meetings. So if anybody else is watching, I'll make sure it's on the planning, development and sustainability website. Comprehensive plan. There's a link.
[Victor Schrader]: There was a link included in the press release that's on the city's homepage. So you can at least find it there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. Well, I had to click like six times from our page to get there.
[David Blumberg]: Any other updates for us or can we entertain a motion to adjourn?
[Unidentified]: I'll make that motion. Second out there.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you very much. All right, we'll call to adjourn that place. Hi, Jackie.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Hi, Christie.
[David Blumberg]: Hi, Emily. Hi, Deanna. Hi, me I'm an eye. Thank you all very much.
[Emily Hedeman]: All right, great job, David. You're an actual meeting. You're hired.
[David Blumberg]: I don't know how great it was, but it was a job.
[Alicia Hunt]: Good job. This was excellent. Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Thanks for your help, everyone. I appreciate it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Good night. Thank you, everyone.
[David Blumberg]: See you later.