total time: 0.95 minutes
total words: 77
total time: 1.21 minutes
total words: 107
[David Blumberg]: Welcome to tonight's meeting of the Medford Community Development Board. This is May 3rd, 2023. Begin by calling the meeting to order and reading some messages for you. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted that every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in chapters to maybe that's to two of the acts of 2023. Reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress. We do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the city of Medford website. If despite our best efforts, we're not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting tonight, all votes from the board will be made by roll call. And also for members of the public, please know that project materials for projects before the board are available at the city's recently updated website, medfordma.org. Go to boards and commissions, you'll find us alphabetically there. Click through and you can find info on the board's activities. Start tonight with a roll call. Welcome again, my name is Dave Blumberg and our vice chair, Jackie McPherson. Welcome. Christy Dowd.
[Jenny Graham]: Here.
[David Blumberg]: We're Calvus.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: And Ari go.
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah.
[David Blumberg]: Listen, Emily, our, our usual board members will not be in attendance today. Amanda, would you like to say hello and prompt any other city staff in attendance to say hello to members of the public.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sure. My name is Amanda Cinchella. I am a staff planner in the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. On the call with us tonight, we have Danielle Evans, who is our senior planner, director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, the fabulous graduate intern, Rin Paizecki, as well as Bill Fordy, building commissioner, and our director of traffic and transportation, Todd Blake. And I wanted to just acknowledge a quick typo that so David and I had used like a prep document to organize everything. And I meant to adjust. It's Ari Goffman Fishman.
[David Blumberg]: Oh, apologies, Ari. Sorry about that.
[Ari Fishman]: No worries. It's taken three months to get the paperwork in after getting married.
[David Blumberg]: Well, congratulations. Okay, so let's go to the first item on our agenda, which is related to 142 Mystic Ave and Great American Beer Hall public notice was shared on on this matter this is a continuation of a hearing that began last Wednesday. relative to an amendment to the conditionally approved say plan submitted by Brian's Arthur for the construction of a new 22,025 square foot beer hall at 142 mystic Avenue petitioner has submitted a modified site plan for the review of the board with additional design details, accommodating for the changes conditioned by the board at the October 26 public here. Welcome to Brian and the team. I thought, before we hear the latest that you want to share with us tonight. I thought I'd just try to frame things a little bit, members of the public or board members. So as you may recall section was approved. Back in the fall, and the site plan had a certain number of conditions I'm looking at the minutes from that being in my hand here. And there were conditions that were labeled A through P, and we had that. And then there were a number of things that the applicant was going to return to the board to discuss. And those are identified at least in our minutes here as items A through I. And so last week we were talking about a limited number of items. I think you've, the applicant has briefed us on The vast majority of these, it seemed to me that the items were just looking at my list and trying to follow that one G, which dealt with landscape buffers. And then we had some questions about the traffic mitigation, which was one of the points in the second grouping. And we had some questions about the parking circulation so I think those are the things that you're going to report to us tonight on and that will exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll just, I'll just read them out loud. And so the first one that was the applicant to include a landscape offers on around the main parking lot. And the second one was applicant to explore the use of one-way vehicle loop and angled parking throughout the site. And so I think we have a really good solution to this and I am going to hand it off to Michael Giuliano, our site engineer to discuss. Great. Thank you.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: This is Mike Giuliano with Eagle Brook Engineering.
[David Blumberg]: Welcome.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: I have, thank you. I have two layouts to show you. Can I share my screen so I can show the layouts?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Just one moment. Okay, you should be good.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Okay, does everybody see the display out?
[David Blumberg]: Yes, thank you.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: In my cursor? Okay. So based on the last meeting, what I understood, the board wanted a buffer between the North property line and the parking. And one of the ideas was some type of angled parking. And I came up with two layouts. This angled parking is before you now, I just want to show you how it works, how it relates to the property. And then we have another layout, which we prefer, which I'll show you after I show you this angled parking. So the main aisle is still two way shown by the arrows. And we did angled parking in the parking area. where it's a one way, so you basically go past the building and then take a left into the parking area. The angles are at 60 degrees, the parking aisle for these angled spaces is 15 feet wide. And what it does is it creates a buffer from the edge of the parking to the edge of the parking lot of almost six and a half feet. And what we also did was created three islands of green space within the parking area. And I think that's a layout that the board wanted to see. A couple of things we don't like about it is, one, it reduces the number of parking spaces by approximately 15. So the original layout that was submitted is 102 parking spaces. This layout is approximately 87 spaces. And the other item is, I think Brian at the meeting showed you the proposed development of the north parcel that they also own, that they would like to develop at some point. And the angle spaces don't, you know, allow the sharing of spaces and that development to work very well, and the perpendicular works much better. So those are the two main reasons why, you know, we don't want to We don't prefer the angle spaces, but I did want to show it to you because that was obviously a request. But what I would like to show to you is the second layout.
[Unidentified]: And does everybody see the second layout? Yes. OK. And so.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: I call this the reduced main aisle layout. The main aisle on the original layout is 28 feet wide. For a two-way, that aisle can be 24 feet. What I did was this section of the main aisle is reduced by four feet. By doing so, that allows us to take the entire parking area and bring itself by four feet. And what happens is the distance from the edge of the parking to the edge of the property line is roughly five and a half feet. Creates a buffer along that north property line. So that, you know, this property as it stands alone has a buffer, you know, on that north side. Obviously at some point in the future with the development of that north parcel, that would change and there'd be some shared parking, shared aisles, whatever that development is. That lot is the same kind of configuration, long and narrow. This main aisle remains a two-way, and I show it, the parking area, as a one-way with these arrows. Now, it can be a two-way because the parking aisle is still 24 feet wide, but I show it as a one-way, and I don't really have a preference which way, whether it's a one-way or two-way, but there's an option to do both, but I'm showing it as a one-way with the arrows. And the number of spaces is reduced by two. And the only reason why we lose two spaces is because we opposed the three green islands within the parking area. So we went from 102 spaces to 100 spaces. This layout increases the landscape area. I think on the original layout, we had 9,500 square feet of landscape area. And with this layout, we have 11,500. So we have an additional 2,000 square feet of landscape area.
[Unidentified]: So the reason why I like this layout is because of increasing the landscape area.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: There's a minimal reduction in the number of spaces. There's a lot of flexibility in the parking area to go one-way or two-way. I know when Brian talked to the fire department, they just wanted access to three sides of the building. However, a fire truck can enter the parking area if need be. I don't know if there would be a need, but at least there's the capability of doing that, of coming in and coming out at the other end. Um, and most importantly, it's going to work well with a development to the north of the property that they own. And I. believe at the last meeting, Mr. Blake actually kind of commented that the angle spaces don't work with that type of development next door and that perpendicular is preferred. So, and I would agree with that assessment. So, you know, based on all the above, you know, this is the layout we would like the board to review and approve if you feel it's satisfactory.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, thank you for the presentation there. I want to just be cognizant of the public comment period. And so, with that in mind, maybe the applicant. The applicant want to talk about traffic mitigation which I think was another another item or what your latest thoughts are there and trying to make sure we get everything out in the open and the public can respond to everything and then we can proceed to the discussion with the board on everything.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we talked about it last week. We're going to work with MassDOT in trying to, where the Mystic app turns into two lanes to one lane, we're going to try and cut that back to where Atlas Liquors is. Also put a crosswalk in where the opening to 142 Mystic is now, so it's easier for bus access on the other side of the street, just makes it safer.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Okay. And just a comment on that is that obviously MassDOT owns or has approval rights on that. So whatever is presented to them, you know, they may say, well, we don't like it or we do like it. And so it's, you know, we're under their purview as far as whether or not, you know, something can be done.
[David Blumberg]: All right, and before we go to the next step on the on the on the parking. Do you have an idea, just in terms of describing this before the public might participate of the buffer, just going to be green space open space like maybe that that vision hasn't come to 100% fruition for you but
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, are you talking about the buffer that's to the north of the property?
[David Blumberg]: There you go. Exactly. Yeah.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. So that that would be, you know, landscaping. So the landscape plan before you obviously had, there wasn't room to do the landscaping, but that area would be landscaped. Okay.
[David Blumberg]: All right. Amanda, could we proceed to invite the public to comment?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, yeah, go right ahead. Let's see, so yeah, for those who want to provide any comment, you can use the raise hand feature at the bottom of the screen, or if you wanna just make a little message in the chat, if you're not sure how to use it, the raise hand, I mean. feel free to do that. In the meantime, I'm gonna take a look at our public, our office's email account. We had not received any emails prior to the meeting with comment, and it looks like we still have not received a further comment there.
[David Blumberg]: And you mentioned the email address, Amanda?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, and I'll just mention ocd at medford-ma.gov, and I can put that in the chat as well.
[David Blumberg]: Any other folks, any raised hands that you can see? I can't see from my perspective.
[Amanda Centrella]: No worries. Yep. I see no raised hands. I'm not seeing any comments in the chat either.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. All right, let's move along then to the board deliberation before I invite the board to talk I should add a courtesy invite city staff if there's someone who would like to weigh in. If not, we'll go to the board discussion.
[Amanda Centrella]: If I may, please. I thought I would just offer a little clarification. As you all know, we submitted a PDS memo with sort of a proposal on moving forward. And one of the one part of that proposal was regarding the traffic mitigation, which Brian and Michael have spoken to. And Michael made the mention that, you know, it is up to MassDOT to approve or you know, perhaps deny any proposal or plan that's sent their way. And so the condition that we offer is, you know, in the event that either there is no response by a certain date or there is a denial of the proposal is the alternative would be that then the applicant is only responsible for the painted bump outs. And then in the event that the proposal for that lane merge shift and the crosswalk shift is accepted by MassDOT, then that is the only piece that the applicant would be responsible for. So excluding the bump outs.
[David Blumberg]: OK, thank you, Amanda. With that, let me turn it over to the board and I should clarify that our vice chair is recused from this matter. So that leaves us with the four of us, myself, Christie, Peter and Ari. Any questions for the applicant?
[Peter Calves]: I would like to, I would just like to commend the applicants engineer for these plans as a speaking as a Traffic engineer who's worked a good few private site jobs in my time. These are some very nice proposals to come up with in a week. And I do like the shifting the drive aisle from 20 to 24. That's a very good way to kind of come up with the extra space. And there's very little, I mean, I assume that was initially kept wider for delivery trucks, but there's very little in my professional experience that trucks can need 28 feet to do that they can't also do in 24. So I think that that shouldn't be a problem.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Peter. Ari, I can't see you on the screen, so I'm calling you out. But tell me pass if you're passing. OK. Oh, technical difficulties with Ari. OK, no problem. I'd like the, I'll just. make a couple comments and yeah, it's certainly a lot better. I think having the buffer is really what, you know, this was something that Clayce was raising on behalf of the board at the last meeting. We've certainly met the ask there and that's appreciated. From my perspective, I mean that that's more important. I like the one way traffic flow back there I think that's that's a sharp idea. And I just, I don't see a reason for the angled parking, and to make you have fewer, fewer spaces. So that's, that's my view on that. And I'm pretty open on the mitigation I think. what the office with the city PDF offices proposing makes some sense. I think the crosswalks probably the best, most impactful thing that we can see here. I think that would really help the community and if DOT goes along with it, that'd be a nice addition. So those are my comments on those couple of items.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, David.
[David Blumberg]: Christy, you're good?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I'm good. I actually appreciate the thought that went behind this and sharing the two options that have been considered. And I think the option that's up now is reasonable and makes sense.
[David Blumberg]: Great. And then Ari was having technical difficulties. I'm not sure, Ari, we'd like to hear from you if you've had those ironed out.
[Ari Fishman]: Sure, can you hear me now?
[David Blumberg]: Oh, excellent. Welcome back.
[Ari Fishman]: Fantastic. Yeah, I similarly like that you brought the two proposals with the pros and cons. I think this one fits all the things we were looking for last time. So thanks for getting that in quickly. Hopefully, we can move this forward in time for your bank.
[Unidentified]: Sorry. Okay, excellent.
[David Blumberg]: So I think we we do have, because just of the nature of the decision conditions, your report back to us and so forth, we have to kind of figure out how we're going to frame any potential decision here. And so we can talk about that it seems. let me just sort of lead the discussion and obviously those of you voting tonight if I'm going too far please jump in, pull me back, rein me in, whatever you like. It seems that we're feeling pretty good about the landscape buffer which was condition 1g which I don't know that we're talking about a waiver anymore. I think the applicant seems to have satisfied that based on the discussion we just had. We want to address the mitigation piece. And I guess if anyone on the board is inclined not to go along with the PDS recommendation, we should talk about that and kind of figure out what we want to do with that. There were, let's see, there was a condition about a raised crosswalk at the building entrance. I think that came up at the last meeting.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so on the layout, I have a note saying raised crosswalk for traffic calming, which makes a lot of sense. And then I also added in the patio beer garden, permeable pavers in that area.
[David Blumberg]: Oh, that's a nice addition, Mike. We appreciate that. And I know Emily, who's not here tonight, would especially appreciate that. She was focused on that for us. So those are good. You've got wayfinding, obviously, that will be consistent with the one-way traffic on part of the site and two-way on the other. Again, I'm just trying to brainstorm on conditions that would be relevant. We have maybe a question of, is this the site plan or there's also landscaping? So that might be a conditioner. Amanda, if you or your colleagues want to weigh in on kind of what the updated and approved site plan might consist of.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, I think because, and others correct me if I'm wrong, but I think because this site plan is sort of addressing a couple of the things, the buffer, the one-way circulation, the raised crosswalk, and it also has that note about the permeable pavers, it may be that we could just amend the decision to designate this document as the control plan. Does that sound... like the wave and maybe, yeah, does that sound like the way forward?
[David Blumberg]: My question for you on that is how do we integrate the landscaping, which I think was done on a separate color coded plan if I recall, and obviously there's a little bit more now because there's a landscape buffer so there's a little bit more greenery that always reflects on that plan. So we just don't want to lose sight of that as well because I don't think those features are necessarily reflected here in this plan.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, maybe could it be so designating this sheet and integration of the landscaping elements from the landscape plan provided in the April 26 submission? OK. OK.
[David Blumberg]: I'm furiously writing this down so we can keep track of it.
[Alicia Hunt]: There are also a couple of- Danielle has a suggestion on that.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent. Thank you.
[Danielle Evans]: Hi. This is Danielle. Danielle Evans, senior planner. I know that we had talked about replacement of trees and some of these landscaped islands. So they're not on this plan, but I just wanna make sure things are not precluded from being added because this is a control document. Was there an updated landscaping plan? I just wanna make sure that we're just conditioning everything that we need to condition so that no one has to come back.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't update the landscaping plan for this meeting, no.
[Unidentified]: So I think that we can just condition that the plan will comply with the criteria for landscaping
[Danielle Evans]: In large parking areas, which outlines the number of trees and. Maybe some some widths could be just tweaked a bit, but I don't think it's anything that needs. A full redraft of a site plan. I think they're very de minimis, so I think there could be like a. Kind of a catch all.
[David Blumberg]: To further your thought, Danielle is, as I read the conditions from the initial site plan approval. It seems like there's room to see those requirements as part of these conditions because there is reference to the trees and plantings per landscape requirements in the city ordinance so I would think that that would give you room that when you, when you in your office, take a look at the. plans, ultimately, to sign off on them and confirm that they're what was approved, you'd have an opportunity to take a look at those items that you're, you just mentioned. Does that sound sensible to you.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I just want to make sure if we, you know, said something like okay this island should be increased and with slightly. And if that shifted something slightly like a parking space. we don't want everything to like blow up. It's pretty much, you know, it's a de minimis change, but still is, you know, satisfies, you know, the essence of everything that's being required.
[Todd Blake]: Sure.
[David Blumberg]: And are folks feeling okay about the traffic mitigation? Anyone want to speak on that point? Or if not, that's fine.
[Peter Calves]: I think the traffic mitigation is kind of the, as with so many other roads in Medford, the best you can hope for with state controlled roadways. I mean, I think what you guys have is pretty good. And if DOT allows it, which I hope they do, that'll be great to have.
[David Blumberg]: Peter, what's your sense, if you want to offer this, of what a reasonable deadline is? PDS has suggested that the applicant would put together and submit professionally prepared plans to DOT by a certain date. Do you have a sense of what a reasonable expectation would be there for us to
[Peter Calves]: or just for the offset mitigation for the crosswalk? And what else were they? Just refresh my memory. I remember the crosswalk. I don't know if there was anything else specific.
[David Blumberg]: I don't know that the merging of the lanes or the shift of the merge lane would require DOT involvement, but that was the other. OK.
[Peter Calves]: I'd say you could do probably a basic conceptual in a couple of weeks, depending on how much time there is to get it done. how quickly. I mean, that's my, my thought is, I don't know how quickly if you get this to mass dot to just probably the district for traffic, what, how quickly they'd address it, even if you did get it in really quickly.
[David Blumberg]: Right. And I think the sense of the suggestion from the, from city staff is to have a deadline to submit the materials, which, you know, demonstrate a good faith effort to try to get the darn thing approved. Yeah.
[Peter Calves]: I mean, I'd, I mean, I'd say, okay. I mean, I'd say probably. probably two weeks as a maximum. I mean, that would be allow plenty of time, but still get it in pretty quickly.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. Maybe June 1st to give everyone.
[Peter Calves]: Oh yeah. That would be, that would be certainly enough time.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. All right. Very good. All right. So as we, I think, are approaching the point where we want to put together some motions for our board to consider, does the applicant, do anybody have anything else to weigh in on before we huddle here to try to get a motion together?
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[David Blumberg]: All right, so let's see. I think what we're suggesting here is to... is to amend the previously approved site plan to replace the control plan with the one that was presented here that we've all been looking at. With the landscaping plan, all the details from the landscaping plan added to this plan to consist of one controlling plan and for our approval to be conditioned on the installation of a raised crosswalk at the building entrance the provision of signage and wayfinding measures to control the two-way and one-way lanes in the large parking areas. A couple of items also in here that probably should be framed in terms of conditions, one being the planting plan to prioritize native species and plants with lower water needs, which sounds more like a condition than something to report back to us on. And there was also another one on this list of the second group from our initial decision about providing the solar energy assessment in accordance with section 7.4 of the zoning ordinance. It should be, again, a condition, not something to report back on. And for the applicant to take certain measures in the category of traffic mitigation, which would be to submit, let's see, I want to be respectful of the city staff who put the time to frame framing this and phrasing it properly. Try to pull up your memo.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[David Blumberg]: So the applicant would submit a professionally prepared plan to MassDOT by June 1st of this year that would provide for So we have the sidewalk. And that is reflected on the plan Mike your plan you have the sidewalk showing there.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, on the plan. Okay, we have to sell up from property line to property line along with the wheelchair access at the existing crosswalk here, and then crosswalk going across the driveway.
[David Blumberg]: Excellent. Okay. So as reflected on your plan, that would be the request. And also to adjust the merge lane as suggested by PDS. The condition would also provide that if for some reason MassDOT approval is not secured, that as an alternative, the applicant would be required to provide the painted bump outs identified in Director Blake's memo. But the applicant I think would be encouraged to communicate with city staff and the board on its progress. If, for some reason, it believes it can still secure mass do T's approval before it proceeds to the bump outs.
[Todd Blake]: I'm looking away because I'm checking my list.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, that's a long rambling amendment for approval with conditions, but consider that as you think about it. Let me acknowledge Director Blake, whose hand is raised. How are you, sir?
[Todd Blake]: Good. How are you doing? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to recommend if you were searching for language. So my initial recommendation has one A, B, C, D, two, and I through triple I. So if I understand pds's suggested compromise if the board were to go with that you could probably just reference the language in my letter 1a and possibly c as well so then you wouldn't necessarily have to re reconstruct that wording and then and then if dot didn't approve that it's i from the recommendations single i so then you could just refer to those numbers or letters versus re if you chose to. That might be very helpful. I appreciate that. It appears that they're suggesting 1A and possibly C as the compromise that they're proposing, but I'll defer back to Amanda to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. And then if not, if DOT dismissed it, then it would be single I from the middle.
[Unidentified]: So then you'd have to rewrite everything.
[David Blumberg]: Director Blake, that's the October memo. I'm trying to follow along.
[Todd Blake]: Correct, October 20th, 2022. Okay. Okay, I see.
[Unidentified]: 1A and 1C.
[Todd Blake]: Again, I don't want to misrepresent what PDS said, so maybe if they could skim that quick to make sure it's accurate with their recommendation.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, sorry, if I may.
[David Blumberg]: Please, please, thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, so that is aligned with our recommendation, basically that yeah, that the decision be amended to require the applicant to submit a professionally prepared plan to MassDOT by June 1st, 2023 per mitigation items 1A and C in Director Blake's memo. And in the event that MassDOT does not approve or is unresponsive by such a time that the applicant applies for a certificate of occupancy, which was just a, offered time frame, the applicant would be responsible only for providing mitigation item 2i in Director Blake's memo.
[David Blumberg]: Okay.
[Amanda Centrella]: If that sounds any tidier, I don't know.
[David Blumberg]: No, that sounds pretty good. Thank you.
[Todd Blake]: I'd say just i2 was a different item. Sorry, the way I wrote that is confusing.
[David Blumberg]: Yes, so it's little i on the bottom of page 9. Correct.
[Unidentified]: And that's describing the suggested bump-outs.
[David Blumberg]: All right, and one more question. Mike, on your plan, does your plan show the raised crosswalk already?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: You're talking about the one in front of the main entrance?
[David Blumberg]: That's correct.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_01]: Right. So here is the, you can see, here's the main entrance and then a no raised crosswalk for traffic calming.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. All right. So that's already included as well. Okay, great. Okay. Should I suggest what someone might want to present as a motion to the board? Okay, let's try to recap again. Looking to amend previously approved site plan with the revised site plan reflected here. plus incorporation of the landscaping details from the separate landscaping plan. Submit reference on what that is. Date and time of that plan, which we all have in our materials and discussed in detail in the last meeting. The conditions would include from the items that you're going to report back on, applicant that is, 2F and 2I, plantings and solar assessment. I don't think we have to have, I guess we could say the raised crosswalk at the building entrance. is a condition, although that's reflected on the plan, which we appreciate. Another condition would be the providing clear signage and other traffic wayfinding measures to address the circulation two-way and one-way of the drive lane and the large parking area. And then as to mitigation, the condition would require the applicant to submit a professionally prepared plan to MassDOT by June 1st of this year, seeking approval for the mitigation items identified as 1A and 1C in Director Blake's October 20th, 2022 memo. And if approved to perform the work, if MassDOT does not approve the proposed mitigation or is unresponsive to the proposal, by the time the applicant applies for the certificate of occupancy, the applicant would be responsible only for providing the painted bump-outs, which are mitigation item Romanet 1, bottom of page 9 of Director Blake's memo. but the applicant would first report to the city staff and or board to discuss progress with MassDOT in the event that approval from MassDOT is anticipated or forthcoming before proceeding with the bump out work. Amanda, as our master note taker, do you think I've swung and missed on issues or conditions?
[Amanda Centrella]: No, I think that was pretty comprehensive, just taking a last look here, but yeah, I think we've got it.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. So, board members, are any of you enthused enough to make a motion for that
[Peter Calves]: I will motion whatever long thing you just said.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. I'll let the record reflect that it's in there in the record and you've made a motion.
[Peter Calves]: It's in there. I trust that it's in there, but I will move to approve the amendments.
[David Blumberg]: The amendment and conditions. Yes, the amendment and the conditions. Is there a second?
[Ari Fishman]: And I can second.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Ari. Okay, roll call vote. I second. Thank you. Christy down.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Peter comments. Yes. All right. Goffman Fishman.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. And I'm a yes as well. Applicant team, how are we doing?
[Zac Bears]: That's great. No, thank you so much. Um, no, we had to come back a few times, but I greatly appreciate tonight and going. late Wednesday night, I greatly, greatly appreciate it.
[David Blumberg]: Well, that's great. Best of luck with the project. We look forward to seeing it come together. And thanks for the cooperation on the updated plans to you and especially to Mike for putting that together for us on short order.
[Zac Bears]: Love to have you guys opening that.
[Unidentified]: Sounds good. All right. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Okay.
[David Blumberg]: We do have some minutes that are available for approval. We had these on the agenda at the last meeting, and I now have an opportunity to examine the March 15th, 2023 minutes. Any comments on the minutes? Amanda, these are the same ones that were before us at the last meeting, right?
[Amanda Centrella]: Correct.
[David Blumberg]: Okay. For myself, I read them. I did not have any comments. Anyone else with comments or an alternative motion to approve the minutes? Motion for approval.
[Jenny Graham]: This is Christy, I'll make a motion to approve.
[David Blumberg]: Thank you, Christy, is there a second?
[Jenny Graham]: This is Jackie, I will second.
[David Blumberg]: Thanks, Jackie. Okay, so as to the minutes, roll call vote. Vice Chair, Jackie McPherson.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Christy Dowd.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Peter Kallis. Yes. Ari Goffman-Fishman.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm a yes as well. Thank you very much. Now we're on to miscellaneous items. Amanda. questions.
[Amanda Centrella]: I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. I'm going to go ahead and open up the floor is yours. Yes, I'll be quick. Um. So we do have our next meeting is May 17th and so far the only item on the agenda is actually one. Some of you may be familiar with, um, the site plan review for and a special properties and the reason I say that some of you may be familiar it's actually been before the board I think actually twice before and it had gone off to ZBA but then due to kind of a challenge around how the building commissioners determination for pathway. They have come back. And with the new zoning in that district, O2, there's like a slightly different pathway forward. So if it looks familiar to some of you, it's because it is. The project really hasn't changed since the last submission. And for some of you, it will be new, but it is still a site plan review and there's a special permit attached to that as well in regards to some relief so details on that to come. Other thing so. I wanted to introduce something of a bit of a dilemma to the board. We were reached out to by Tufts on a project they're proposing for Eaton Hall, which is sort of in the heart of their campus. And with the recodification, a result of that was that all projects that are Dover uses qualify as major projects, regardless of size, which in the past, you know, you would see.
[Alicia Hunt]: I would caveat it. It doesn't say they qualify as major projects. It says all projects that qualify as Dover. So any building permit must go to site plan review. And the reason I jump in and correct Amanda is because my concern is these are things that would never have come to the board In the past, they would have been approved as of right by the building commissioner, because they're not major thing. Go on a minute because you kind of have this prepared this one's like 3500 square feet.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, so it's a C-shaped building. It's no changes intended for the building itself, except for they're kind of infilling the interior C portion of it. And actually that feature will make the building far more accessible and energy efficient. So, you know, some boons to that. And it's yeah, otherwise, you know, besides it being a Dover use. Would be nowhere near touching any of the other kind of criteria that would trigger or define it as a major project in need of site plan review. Um, so we wanted to ask you guys as a result of some of this back and forth, whether the board would be open to or would want to hear or entertain a request from the applicant to waive certain site plan review requirements or perform a sort of modified site plan review. And I think this could tie into a future conversation that our office would be interested in having you all with you all about whether we would want to instate some sort of whether the board would want to instate some sort of a rule of regulation, allowing them to bypass hearing some of these really small projects. So I'll drop it there for a second.
[Alicia Hunt]: The one other thing that I think is key that Amanda alluded to is this is in the middle of their campus. So the one we just heard, you just heard Bacon Hall. Sorry, some of these projects are presented to me so many times that I lose track of which boards they've gone in front of versus my individual meetings with the applicants. That one was actually on a city street and was impacting the general public. This one, we actually had them do an analysis of who would be within 400 feet of the project, because usually you notice within 400 feet of a parcel. But if we said who was within 400 feet of the project, there is exactly one property owner in the city of Somerville whose property is actually within 400 feet of this, because it's at the top of their hill. If you all know Tufts Hill, it's at the top. I just, I feel like that's relevant because I think it's a different question. Maybe if it's literally on a Medford street facing a street versus in the middle of their campus.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. You can't even see it from a public way. Many people are familiar with the Tufts campus. It's where one of the computer labs is spent many an hour in there.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. I mean, I think if there's like a square, like so small for in terms of square footage and it's internal and has no visible impact.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, it doesn't strike me as something that would necessitate a full process. If it is internal to Tufts campus, it's not on a public way. It's not impacting a public way in the city of Medford.
[Danielle Evans]: It's literally on their quad. It's on their green space. Right. I think, philosophically, to have an institution come in and increase their expenses and just make things more expensive just It's just going to get passed on to students and less mitigation and benefits to the community, I feel like. It's expensive every time they come and have their lawyers and everything to go through a process.
[Jenny Graham]: Unless this was a city like some others that require institutions to do institutional master plans and every project they do has a design review component through the planning board, it's like I don't A project like that doesn't seem that it should have to come through a full review.
[Alicia Hunt]: If the board is sort of leaning that way, the way we read the zoning, and I'd be happy to have somebody else have a different opinion of the read, but because the Dover section isn't long, but it just says they must have site plan review. So what we think has to happen is that it has to appear on an agenda and Tufts has to present something to you and we, we have this discussion on an agenda with them, right? And you make a formal thing on that. We can't do that tonight. This was sort of a making sure that that was, because if that's, if you guys, it sounds like y'all are amenable to that, then we need to figure out sort of what we should tell them maybe to sort of present this, what the project is, like do a five to seven minutes. Here's what it is. Here's the size, the scale, where it is on the campus. And then, like you all could make a motion to waive site plan review, you can make a motion to approve it, to say we waive the requirements, we waive the requirements of a detailed site plan review. But what I didn't want to do was if you guys tonight were like, no, they must come, then we would just advise them to file a full thing, right? Like, it's a big, it's an expense and it's a hassle for them.
[David Blumberg]: So could they do that? And I think it's tough for them as an institution, because we've tried to, I know in the past, try to encourage them not to overdo it. But they always bring a lot of people, which to their credit, they're taking it seriously. But could they really do a five minute presentation where somebody shares a screen and talks about what they're doing, and then we approve it or consider that the site plan review? If they can do it, I think that's great.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think we should double check what our there's people can ask for a waiver from site plan review from the details from submitting all these things. And we should maybe just figure out exactly what they should ask for a waiver from and that would be a document submitted to you in advance would be part of the public record. They presented it to me and Amanda and Danielle in less than seven minutes, right? So they're capable with just Rocco and their lawyer.
[David Blumberg]: So what if they could do that all at once? They show up at the meeting, they do the five minutes and we vote, yes, we'll waive all the requirements and oh, by the way, we're gonna go ahead and approve it. And we're done. Let me ask in terms of trying to address this for long-term because we're sort of stuck with what we have now. Is there something that could be suggested in terms of an amendment here maybe while the city council is looking at the PDD they could they could fix something like this.
[Alicia Hunt]: So, we, I am talking with Zach like we had said, Councilor bears about if there are some what we would consider administrative changes and I just it's this difficulty right. It's the difference between is this substantive versus administrative, and we all agree it has to go through the legal zoning process. This doesn't need a zoning study. This doesn't need like a massing study to tell us how it's going to impact the city. I think that we could ask for an amendment to the Dover section and the simplest would be to add in, sorry I didn't rethink this, the language that any project that meets the requirements of Medford's major projects would go through site plan review, or you could say major projects, or is visible is forward facing on a public street right if you wanted to include those. I just anything more than major projects is more than what we had before. Um, anything right that was didn't trigger our major projects definition was approved as of right by the building commissioner. Um, so we don't have to go all the way back to that. Um, but I think my opinion tops would be happy with anything that said that they didn't always have to come.
[Danielle Evans]: Right, because I was really surprised when I saw this, because we were in a meeting and I was like, why is this triggering site plan review? This is under all of the size thresholds. If it was a private entity, they just get the building permit, but because it's Tufts or any other use that could qualify as a Dover amendment, all of a sudden it's subject to this.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, technically under this, any daycare that's small, which could have been done as of right, now has to come to this board.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I mean, I thought it was like an unintended provision, like the way that I had read it, and then I think the Tufts lawyer was like, no, I think Dabrowski did this on purpose. but I don't know, cause I wasn't part of that, but in my experience, you know, site plan review or Dover uses was always like an abbreviated more streamlined process. Our last ordinance didn't talk about Dover uses. So, you know, the lawyer would be like, this qualifies as, you know, as the Dover amendment use, and therefore it does not have to go through this, you know, long process or is allowed, you know, by right or it has, you know, can't be disapproved. But the fact that the threshold was lowered to everything right rather than the same standard of private entities?
[Alicia Hunt]: If it's helpful, I don't know if we can cut and paste this into the chat if it's easier. It says site plan review required prior to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, the establishment, alteration, change, extension, or reconstruction of uses B3, 4, or 5 as set forth in the table of use and parking regulations shall require site plan approval from the community development board pursuant to this section. So this is any alteration, change, extension, or reconstruction. I mean, if the building commissioner wanted, he could say any time you want to pull any kind of building permit. But he has already said, if it's completely 100% internal, if they're doing plumbing fixtures, he's not sending it here. There's a level at which it was irrational.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, so it sounds like there's a larger issue about where this falls on a list of potential amendments and that sort of thing. But at least we have kind of a consensus of trying to do something abbreviated for things like this at Tufts and maybe some other ones as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is there any sense from you all that it should be anything more than things that trigger the major projects list? I think that's 10,000 square feet. It's not any new buildings. It's new buildings over 10,000 square feet. I'd have to find it.
[David Blumberg]: there was an interplay I know in the daycares between the large ones and the small ones and and the large ones we wanted to have some site plan review I mean the thing that strikes me about Dover is that Dover can drop things you don't plan to have in your district into your district so you know I think there was a sense that some of these things yeah can't be heavily regulated but maybe maybe some more of them should have know an opportunity for neighbors to be heard and some public discussion and that sort of stuff so I just don't know that you know 10,000 square feet is really the right cut off I agree with you there is definitely a line out there in a way, somehow, to define what's de minimis but
[Alicia Hunt]: It might be major project or new building, a new construction. If Tufts was about to put a new 5,000 square foot building in the middle of their campus that we don't see, would we want to have a hearing on it? I don't know. That's the house size, right? It's a large house. I guess I think maybe we should leave it at people should think about this and we should have another discussion because if it goes into changing zoning, it's gonna come in front of this board for review. It's in my mind better if it's gonna be something that's under your purview. If the proposal that goes in for the change, you're already in agreement with, you already have thought about it a little. Like, I don't want to, our office propose something about how you do business that you fundamentally disagree with. So we should think about it and bring it up again before we make the proposal.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so I would have it, you guys should probably, you know, take a look at section 94-11.7.2 applicability, which is what says what's a major project and what is subject to site plan review in general. And I almost feel like that the Jover uses, which I noticed that there is not a section on applicability, it just kind of goes into changes. But maybe think if there's Jover uses, like David, you were saying about like the larger daycares, like what kind of threshold you might want to require.
[David Blumberg]: Yeah, so I think there was an interplay there with the use table, but that's, again, my recollection. I'm not obviously looking at it right now. It's something we can certainly put some more thought into, no doubt.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh yeah, it's churches, don't forget that Dover is churches, B3 is religion, B4 is educational purposes, and B5 is child care center or school age child care program.
[Danielle Evans]: I feel like if it's the creation of a new facility, like maybe you'd want to take a look at it, but if it's always been there and they're just like doing something to make an improvement to it, then seems like overkill.
[Jenny Graham]: Depends if it has impact.
[Danielle Evans]: Like a new large daycare, which is only 10 kids, by the way, a large family daycare, 10 kids, that's it. It's not that big. So maybe that would require site plan review. if it was new, but if it's already there and they just want to add an addition so that they can have a separate place for infants to sleep, then why would we need no increased enrollment?
[David Blumberg]: Well, at least between now and an amendment. Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: We can think about it later, but I'll actually point out that our section on Dover does not reference daycares. Daycare is under K, accessory uses. And as family, you're thinking of family daycare, so it's considered an accessory use. And literally our thing references B3, 4, and 5, which is religion, schools, and childcare centers. But the accessory use, the family daycare, a home, large or small, is not mentioned in our Dover section. So they may be covered by Dover, but our section doesn't require site plan review for them.
[Danielle Evans]: Interesting that it's only an accessory use because there are family daycares that are in units by themselves.
[Alicia Hunt]: Put it on the list.
[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, that's my answer to Daniel. How many pages is our list now? I mean, it's gotta be like 50 pages of things we need to change.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Danielle Evans]: Unintended consequences, domino effects. So if you change one little thing here and it's just ripples and you only find them when you're applying it to each case.
[David Blumberg]: So yeah. Well, speaking of lists, Amanda, how are we doing on our list of miscellaneous items?
[Amanda Centrella]: Nearly there. I'm just going to mention that tomorrow over Zoom, there is a Tufts community meeting in case anyone is interested. It's at 6pm. I think they're going to be speaking to kind of a lot of sort of Yeah, different, I think at a larger, larger scale rather than just like project specific things tough tough intentions for future in the city. So, city details on that in the city calendar. And that's all I've got.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, great. Ready motion for adjournment unless anyone else has.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, I want to tell you, we've given and had two job offers received for our office. So CDBG Manager has been filled and the Housing Planner position has been filled. CDBG Manager starts May 15th and Housing Planner a week later, May 22nd. Yay. And I hope to have the Economic Development Planner position posted any day now. I actually need to go nag that one.
[Unidentified]: That's great. Thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Any others? If not. Motion to adjourn for today.
[Jenny Graham]: Ms. Chrissy, I'm making a motion to adjourn.
[David Blumberg]: And is there a second? I second. Thank you, Peter. Roll call. Vice Chair Jackie McPherson.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Christy Dowd.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: Peter Calvis. Yes. Ari Goffman-Fishman.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[David Blumberg]: And I'm a yes as well. All right, thanks very much.
|
total time: 0.95 minutes total words: 77 |
total time: 1.21 minutes total words: 107 |
||