AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 05-15-24

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Medford Community Development Board. I'll call the meeting to order. Let's begin with some obligatory procedural matters. The 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, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by assessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the city of Medford's website. If despite our best efforts, we are 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. Please know that you can assess all project materials for the project before the board, which can be reviewed on the city's website, which is medfordma.org. And you can look under current CD board filings. And Danielle will also put the link in the chat. I will do roll call attendance. Vice chair. Emily had a man present. It accounts.

[Peter Calves]: Present.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Are you fishmen present? And Mariinsky present. And myself, Jackie McPherson present. Daniel, I want to introduce any city staff on the call.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, myself, Daniel Evans, senior planner, Alicia Hunt, the director of planning, development, sustainability. We have Columbia set who is our graduate student intern. And I believe Todd Blake, the director of traffic and transportation is here. Yeah, see Todd now.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Continuing to our first item this evening is 290 Salem Street, which is being continued on 417 24. Um, it's a site plan review for special permit to allow the construction of three-story mixed-use building to contain seven residential units above ground for commercial space If we can please get a brief some overall summary Before the proponent goes if the city can please provide that update Um, yeah, so

[Danielle Evans]: We staff has been working with the applicant in the background in the interim between the meetings had an excellent working session with the architect plans have been revised and staff is satisfied and happy with them and recommending your board approve them.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, and if I can please have the applicant present any changes that you may have.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Adam Barnosky with Roberto Israel & Weiner on behalf of the applicant. We also have Jacob Levine here to walk through the changes that were made. As I understand it, the city might have the ability to share screen. He can walk through the changes. This is mostly out of the legal realm and really related to the design and comments that were made from the board and the changes that have been made since the last meeting. So, if Jacob is available, he can walk through that.

[Danielle Evans]: So I could allow him to share the screen or does he not have the ability, technical abilities, as I'm happy to share my screen, but we could give that ability to him if he needed it.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: I think he doesn't have the ability. Okay. Yeah, if you could. No problem.

[Danielle Evans]: Can everybody see that?

[SPEAKER_09]: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair and everybody this is Jacob will be in our tech from us a hospital. I apologize that I can't share the screen myself tonight I'm kind of on the move, but I've been working digitally with the city to revise this drawing set, and really specifically looking at the top left corner and studying how we could do a better job of grounding the building. along with just trying to unify the facades. If you wouldn't mind just starting to scroll down through the images, I can share what's been updated. Starting really with the site plan has been updated. On the top left corner, you'll see a black 90-degree shape. Essentially, we're going to propose about a four-foot barrier to shield the cars from Park Street, so those coming down Park Street won't have such an open view of the cars. So that's represented in the top left corner adjacent to the sidewalk and the parking spots. Exactly. Parking has been revised a little bit to really fit underneath the building better. In terms of the cars closest to the building, we also revised the footprint of the building, which we'll get into as we continue to move through this presentation. So if you wouldn't mind just kind of going to the landscape side. Yep, yep. Perfect. So on the landscape side, you can kind of see that corner in the top left to shield the parking. We improved the landscape on the Park Street side itself, and we pulled the wall, which you'll see in the architectural prints. to cover bike storage and those cars closest to the building. So the building has more of a portal now instead of being up on stilts on the background. So we have all of our drawings now match in terms of the site layout, site configuration, landscape plan. So if we can continue on. And now you can kind of see on the left side where we have the row of parking and the bike storage, that black line on the left with the door did not exist before. So we really did create more of an entry. And if you could see the car in the top left corner, there's this small three by two little bite there. That's kind of going to hide the column and even do a better job at, you know, bringing the building down to scale, which I'll show you out in the elevations and the 3D images that are coming. So we could continue on. Nothing changed here. So on the elevations, we're specifically looking now at the 3D image on the bottom right and the elevation bottom right. You can see now how I kind of brought the facial board that was below the 2nd floor down across the lowest floor to really create that portal. You can see the 4 foot brick fence or stone fence, whatever it might be. covering the parking. And then you can see that corner that I was discussing, which kind of looks like a bigger anchored column, and then the upgraded wall to cover the bike storage as well. So that whole facade is now just almost added, you know, the entire coverage of most of my bike storage for security reasons. And now my parking is mostly shielded coming down Park Street. And I'm fairly confident that we did a good job not blocking any views coming out. I think we want to play with the scale of the stone and stuff and make sure that it stands out and we still have some signage so that pedestrians know what's to come. If you could just go to my last slide. That one hasn't changed. Reiterated that. I just want to show the 3D images so now you can kind of see the top left corner. image, all of that brick scape and that double storefront in the back is all new. And then you could see the column enclosure in that back left corner. And then again, our small four foot fence. So we're confident our driver would be able to kind of see over that fence, have a safe pull out and still have a safe pull in and really try to do a better job at, you know, what everyone's been asking for is the massing and the grounding to the site itself. Those are our upgrades. The floor plans themselves didn't change. How the building sits on the site didn't change. We've just been working with the town on looking at that corner. We also just, as you can see in this top left corner shot, looking at maybe where the balconies are, doing a matching composite material with the curtain wall corner just to break up that all gray massing when it's all time. I just want to point that out too. That was a good recommendation by the city.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And I really appreciate everything and and any questions anyone has we'll be happy to answer Thank you very much jacob But before I open up to the board, I just want to commend you guys on The differences between the first plans and these plans are significant. It may not be 100%, right? But it's also at the point where we can see how much you've worked with the city to move forward. And I, for one, can appreciate that, especially with that curtain wall corner that we were concerned with the privacy. And then the whole idea of the how an actual passerby will see the space. So I can appreciate that. I will open it up to the board for any other questions or concerns. No questions or concerns? No follow-up questions? Does the plan address overall concerns for the board?

[Emily Hedeman]: Hi, Jackie, I have my hand up. Oh, sorry. Hi. Hi Emily, Vice Chair Hedeman. Through the chair, I think that those modifications are a great compromise. I really appreciate the work that the applicant did with the city to address our concerns. So, you know, I commend a job well done. I did hear the comment about changing the materiality of the balconies and I just wanted to flag that see if that's something we need to condition, to make sure that the applicant doesn't have to come back, just to kind of cover all of our bases. But other than that, job well done. Thank you for all your work on this.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Does the city have any advice on that?

[Danielle Evans]: you. Um, Madam chair. I believe that director Hunt and I have been discussing, um. In light that we don't have, um, like a minor administrative review process that's codified no ordinance, but we could condition, um, language that would. Allow We were trying to create like some boilerplate language, but we could also really put some guardrails on what they can change with staff approval. So I would leave that to you all.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And as for the special permit, are we still concerned with the parking? That's one of the questions that I have. I know that there was maybe condition tenants only of that particular address could use it? Is that something that we're still working with?

[Danielle Evans]: I'm trying to call up the condition document. I know that we added that to another property.

[Alicia Hunt]: Do you mean, so one of the condition that we've started adding to the around parking has been that residents of this building would not be eligible for resident permit parking. We just leave it blanketly like that. And this might be a location that doesn't have resident permit parking right now. But we're saying to the property owner is do not tell your tenants that you'll always be able to just park on these streets. Because if permit parking goes into effect, this building won't be eligible for it. You think you have enough parking on site. like you have to put your money where your mouth is. And I will advise it in Somerville, it's a very common condition and it's commonly monitored that all advertising for buildings indicate like that this apartments are not eligible for resident permit parking. People still wanna live in Somerville though. And to address Emily's like we you could actually put in a condition that says, you know, minor changes to the balconies and other aesthetics on the side could be approved by. staff without returning to the CD board, because we don't literally have it in our zoning right now to say that what's not necessary to come back. And then the staff could just say like, Oh, that's a dramatic change that that's outside of our authority. You know, you can say, you know, minor changes, you know, can be done by can be approved by the staff.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Hearing no further, seeing no further questions or hands raised from the board, because it is a public hearing, I will open it up for public comment. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the comments. You can also send an email to OCD at MedfordMA.org. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to provide comments as it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, this may be entered into the chat to alert myself and staff. Danielle, can you please manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails or letters?

[Danielle Evans]: I haven't received any comments or emails from this lately, and I don't see anyone with a hand raised that's on the Zoom call. Let me check email one more time. I don't see anything there. I don't see anything in the OCD general mailbox either.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I will close the public comment period for this meeting and open it back up for deliberation between the board. One of the things I wanted to leave with is I remember hearing this previously, and it was conditioned to the point where it was almost a different project. So the fact that the applicant has addressed all of those issues and the concerns regarding the staff who has worked with the city, as well as addressed all of the additional input from the board, I have nothing further. So at this point, if the board has anything further to say, other than that, I would look for a motion for the first part to approve the site plan for 290 Salem Street.

[Danielle Evans]: So I have the conditions document from prior. I just dropped it into the shared folder. Hopefully you guys can see that. that has all of the comments from engineering, and the fire department, which are mostly standard conditions, and then the health department's standard conditions. There was the one condition from Director Blake about you're considering reserving one of the parking spaces for the commercial use, but if you're going to, I mean, so that's something you consider if you think it's necessary or not. And then the other condition that you were just talking about restricting the resident parking permits.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Because the special permit is for retail uses until the city updates are allowed for that corridor, correct? Is that what we're doing a special permit for? Yeah, the special permit is for the, so it'll be retail. So you're asking for us to condition a space, a parking space we save for that commercial use?

[Danielle Evans]: That was a comment from Director Blank. Oh, he's here. Oh, and also member Calves also has his hand raised.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. No, I was just waiting for you to. Peter Calves?

[Peter Calves]: No, sorry. I was just going to read back the conditions, but as we're adding more of them, so.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter, can you actually read what you have? so far?

[Peter Calves]: Sure. So far, based on what we've discussed this evening, I have conditioned that minor changes to the aesthetics and materials of the building can be approved by staff, by city staff, without having to be returned to this board, conditioned that residents of the building would not be eligible for resident permit parking, and this would be evident in advertising for leases in the building, and that the developers shall meet recommendations as set forth by city department heads. And that's as far as I got.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And so for the board to discuss the condition as recommended by director Blake, that would not be captured in recommendations that would have to be fleshed out for the parking space.

[Peter Calves]: Yes, correct. I would consider that a separate condition. When I am saying city department heads recommendations, that's primarily the boilerplate language from the health department, the building department, fire department, et cetera.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Understood. Thank you. And so how does the board overall feel about? Director blake's Recommendation to condition a parking space for commercial use only Director blake. I don't know if you want uh, uh, pardon me, uh vice chair heteman

[Emily Hedeman]: sure. Um, this might be controversial, but I don't think it's necessary. I mean, there's, there's what seven units and how many parking spaces regret. We have eight parking spaces and seven units. Yeah, I don't think it's necessary. I mean, maybe one of those parking spaces as a visitor spot for the residents. But I don't think it's necessary. Oh, interested in other feedback from other board members though.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I have no opinion either way. Either way, I was going to offer if Director Blake could better explain that condition and reasons for it.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, this is kind of lessons learned. There was a mixed use development with residential above and the office use that end up becoming a dentist's office below and then city ends up getting. complaints or questions regarding the employees of the dentist's office or visitor of that dentist's office so it's just being mindful of that and since it was eight verse in the seven units it still allows one per unit for residential use so it was just trying to be mindful of that because if as Alicia pointed out the parking conditions change on street in the future say the side streets are resident permanent And then Salem Street itself is for customer turnover. Sometimes we have these issues with employee parking, which, again, as other people pointed out, they could also take bike, bus, walk, and things like that. But one out of eight seemed reasonable. Anyways, that was the thought process. But whatever the board decides, fine.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Director Blake. Ari Fishman?

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you, and thank you, Director Blake, for the additional context. I appreciate the lessons learned. I think that like Vice Chair Hedeman, I'm not completely sold, but I think one potential in-between option is that having some sort of distinction between daytime use and nighttime use. Many residents will need a place to park their car overnight, presumably most of the mixed uses during the day. I don't know if there is any mechanisms we have that can utilize that distinction to decrease parking tension in the neighborhood. And I leave it to people who know more about parking policy mechanisms than I do.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Vice Chair Heidemann?

[Emily Hedeman]: I see that Peter has his hand up, and as he's the transportation expert, I'm going to defer to him before wasting any time on what I have to say. Peter Klaus?

[Peter Calves]: I was going to just continue the discussion on what Aria was saying. I don't think we can be as specific as you would need, because especially now, post-COVID with a lot of work from home, you can't guarantee that people will be in a certain place at a certain time. And I don't, while I appreciate the sentiment, I don't know that that's something that would be possible to regulate, at least not in terms of, or would not be possible to regulate on the property itself. You can certainly have, when they when we look when the city looks at street parking you can certainly have basically what would be resident only for a timed for at a overnight time but and then commercial during the day but i don't think on the on the property itself and one of the off streets on especially not only one of the spots you could really do that feasibly but that's just my take

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Vice Chair Hanneman, did you want to speak again?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I agree with Peter. I think it's kind of an overreach. If we do want to say business, then we'll say business, but I don't think we need to regulate this for this property. And for all we know, the applicant themselves may decide to determine that it's a business only spot, but I don't think I think that's an overreach by us.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Director Blake.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I'm happy with whatever the board decides. Just additional context is there is a mechanism as Peter alluded to in that other example I gave with the dentist's office. We did two hour except by permit daytime, overnight permit only. So that helps with customers. And then with employees, they could get a business permit that negates the two hours as well. So there are other mechanisms. It's just in the past that has come up where the businesses aren't necessarily accounted for in terms of providing for them. Yeah. So either way, it's, it seems like there's different ways to handle it. In terms of enforcement, I agree with Peter that to sign it for certain hours, you know, it's probably unlikely that you could enforce any such thing. So the only way, even in this process requiring one of the, to be business, it's really only tied to this permit process and maybe it could be, you know, deeded. Otherwise nobody's going to be going on some property checking anyways, really.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So it sounds like overall for the board, for this item, we're gonna defer to the applicant, the property owner to handle the parking in this case. So for the criteria to approve the site plan, if I can, Peter, not to put this back on you, but as the clerk, If I can ask for a motion with the conditions that you have collected, it seems as though the city is okay with those conditions as stated previously.

[Peter Calves]: All right, so I will move to approve the special permit site plan review with the conditions that minor changes to the Build minor changes to the project can be approved by staff as their discretion that residents of the proposed project would not be eligible for resident permit parking and that the advertising for the units would reflect this and that the applicant shall meet the recommendations set forth by city department heads.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is there a... So that's PETA's motion. Is there a motion to accept, a second motion?

[Emily Hedeman]: I'll second it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So going back, Vice Chair Emily Hederman?

[Emily Hedeman]: We're voting, right?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, we're going to vote.

[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sorry. PETA cows? Aye. Maryasky. Aye. Ari Fishman. Aye. And because I was absent during the last meeting, but I have, I am attestant to the fact that I have watched the meeting in full. I am, I am also now eligible to vote and I'm an aye. Now to discuss, this is also a special permit to make sure that there are no adverse effects that will outweigh the beneficial impacts. And that's looking at the social economic community needs, traffic flow and safety, adequacy of utilities and public services, compatibility with the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood, impacts on the natural environment, and the proposal's compatibility with the purposes of the city's comprehensive plan. What I can say is that it's way better than what's there now, and it will definitely transform the area. So I would look for a motion to approve the special permit to allow for the retail use at 290 Salem Street.

[Peter Calves]: So moved.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: A second motion. I ask for the motion, then a board member. I can't give the motion myself, so Peter has given the motion. I second it. Vice Chair Emily Hederman? Aye. Peter Cowles?

[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Aye. Pam Marianski? Aye. And myself, Jackie McPherson, I'm an aye. Thank you, Attorney Banowski and to the applicant and everyone else that represents the applicant, we appreciate it.

[2H_zQ7mI46g_SPEAKER_07]: Thank you all for your time, we appreciate it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. The second item for tonight is 142 Mystic Avenue, Great American Bear Hall to amend the approved site plan. It's a public hearing, so I will read the notice again. The Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on May 15, 2024, after 6.30 p.m. via Zoom, remote video conferencing relative to a modification to an approved site plan review at 142 Mystic Ave. Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. The petitioner, Brian Zother, on behalf of Great American Bear Hall, LLC, proposes modifications to the access drive location, parking layout, and internal circulation drive aisles in order to comply with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's approved access drive location. In addition, the petitioner seeks approval of signage that exceeds allowances of section 94, 6.2, which is under the headline of signs of the Medford zoning ordinance. if I can please, if the board can please have an update from the city?

[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair, before we start this, I believe vice chair Hedeman needs to leave for a work meeting. We thank her for being present for the 290 Salem due to the quorum issues. So we do have a quorum, so it would be Jackie, Peter, Ari and Pam are still here. which is a quorum so that we can proceed. But I want the record to reflect that. Bye.

[Emily Hedeman]: Have a nice evening, everyone. Thank you. Have a good night.

[Danielle Evans]: And yes, I will introduce the project. So this was before you. I've lost track of time, several months ago, I believe.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's a year ago.

[Danielle Evans]: A year ago, the second time you came back?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, the third time.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, the second time was when the plans were more fully developed. And so I believe the members who have seen this is Jackie and maybe Ari or Peter, I'm not sure.

[Peter Calves]: But this is a new- I believe this was one of Ari and my first meetings.

[Ari Fishman]: Okay. Yes, I remember seeing this.

[Danielle Evans]: But either way, it's a new public hearing, so anything from the past, it doesn't matter that you weren't present for all those discussions. But anyways, during the permitting process with the state, because it's a state road, they needed to get an access permit, and they actually did not grant the location that was proposed originally, so the driveway is further north on the site, which required changing the circulation and the landscaping, and it's not de minimis, so this needs to come back before you for an amendment. And also, because some of the circulation changes I think are actually for the better within the site, actually eliminates the need for some of the conditions. So we will be amending some of those conditions to eliminate some as they're no longer necessary.

[SPEAKER_06]: So I'm Brian Zarthur. I'm the applicant for the Great American Beer Hall, but I am going to hand this off to Michael Giuliano and Ben Minnix of Eagle Brook to explain the changes we had to make.

[SPEAKER_04]: Great, thank you. This is Ben Minnix with Eagle Brook Engineering. Danielle, if I could, please share my screen. I'd like to go over the two site plans.

[Danielle Evans]: I believe we should have sharing ability now.

[SPEAKER_04]: There we go. Can you still hear me? Yes. Okay, so... What I'm showing here is the site plan previously approved. I'll just show this quickly so you can see some comparison with the new proposal. So this is the building which is still proposed in the same location. Approximately 18,000 square foot footprint with a proposed patio in this area here towards the south. and through the middle of the site with the driveway that was not approved is a two-way in-and-out driveway and then parking along the north sideline of the property. As Danielle mentioned, this driveway location was not approved by Massachusetts Department of Transportation, so we had to go back to the drawing board with the location that DOT suggested and did finally approve. I'll go to the current proposal, and if you have any questions, I can always jump back to this. So this is the current proposal, which was reviewed by Department of Transportation, Medford Engineering, and circulated among the departments for agreement. So the building, as previously mentioned, is in the same location. However, this driveway entrance, a two-way entrance and exit, has moved north on Mystic Avenue. There is a one-way circulation through the site. We have a 24-foot wide drive aisle. Again, still one-way, but parking on both sides of that drive aisle. And then vehicles will exit around the north and then drive south on the exit drive aisle and exit at the driveway entrance. DOT wanted crosswalks replaced and moved on Nesta Gap and across Hancock Street. So we've coordinated with that to have circulation to the site for pedestrians. from Mystic Ave and Hancock Street so they can access via an ADA path to the building along the front of the building and to the proposed patio area. We have additional landscaping with this proposal, approximately 1,100 square feet of additional landscaping and 1,700 square feet of open space, and that's not including any of the open patio. In speaking with Danielle, the last couple of weeks, it was suggested that we add a landscaped island here, so there's no more than 20 parking spaces within a row along the front of the building. We also increased the width of the landscaping along the north side. Previously, it was 5.6 feet of spacing. Now we have 7.5 feet. Mike or Brian, did I miss anything?

[SPEAKER_06]: That's great.

[SPEAKER_01]: This is Mike Giuliano with Eagle Brook. And the parking spaces, as far as the number from what was previously approved to what is currently proposed, is the same.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I'd be happy to turn it over with any questions or if you want to see additional sheets or anything.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Although we saw this a while, I will tell you that this came in so late that I have not wrapped my head around the differences. It would help for me anyways, just to help to speed this a little, to provide more time, not without just in haste. I don't wanna do anything in haste, but at the same time, I need to be able to wrap this around my head. Can you please compare the changes? I need to better understand what these changes are.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sure. If I put them side by side, tell me if you can see it or if you can't see it. Maybe it'll be too small, but I'll give it a shot. Are you able to see two site plans now?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_04]: So we'll start with the driveway entrance. And you can see the location in reference to Hancock Street across the street. So previously, the driveway was proposed a little bit closer to Hancock Street. DOT did not want that location, one for it being closer to Hancock Street and with the new striping layout and traffic controls that are going on Mystic Ave. So the driveway was proposed farther north, farther away from Hancock Street. Now going into the site, the parking layout has almost flipped 180 degrees instead of parking opposite the drive aisle. Now we're parking along the building with a one-way drive aisle all the way around. So instead of a two-way drive aisle, we have a one-way all around the site. And we also provide greater width on the north sideline of the property. Those are the major changes. Again, under parking spaces for both the previous layout and the current.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm wondering if it would, since Mr. Minix is presenting that from an engineering perspective, from the layman's perspective, what we were seeing here is that it was that there was a parking lot and then a drive aisle between the parking lot, like a driveway, a road between the parking lot and the building, and everybody who parked had to cross across that. And the changing of this layout now means that approximately half the spaces will actually be up against the building. I'm not exactly right. There'll be the sidewalk and a buffer. But everybody who parks on that side of the parking lot will not have to cross either the parking lot or any drive lanes. They can get out of the car and step and walk right up onto the sidewalk next to the building. And then the other half will park across just the parking lot. And so that the through driveline where people are likely to drive faster because it's just a straight shot through with no parking is actually up against the edge of the property. And there's no reason for anybody to ever be walking over there because it is just a drive aisle. So we were looking at it in the office as if this is actually safer and more friendly for pedestrians because of having the parking lot closer to the building and the one way drive aisle further away. I'm wondering if that's, I know I'm sort of put opinion into that, but I just wanted to like, that's how we were seeing this, these changes. It also allows for all the handicapped parking to be right up along the building area. And anybody who's in mobility, having mobility issues can get out of their vehicles, that's the part you're seeing there, and then get right up onto the sidewalk. So we actually saw this as having some significant safety improvements for the way this is laid out. And DOT is kind of making them. I mean, obviously, I didn't like the idea that DOT was making them do anything against what we had already approved. But once I saw their new layout, I kind of was able to get over that.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. I just want to concur that yeah, when I first saw it, I remember thinking, oh, gosh, change, don't know. But then opening it and being like, oh, I actually like this better. The only bugger is that the permit that MassDOT gave is restricting the left turn out. I don't know if that was mentioned yet.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'm trying to figure out egress. And it's kind of hard. That's the one thing. So what's the egress situation?

[SPEAKER_04]: So this is the main entrance to the building here. We have another door here. Over here, over here is a back, most likely worker entrance. There are also doors along the patio here. So we have a sidewalk going all along the building. Sidewalk and bike rack here with ADA access through to Mystic Ave sidewalk. And as far as the right turn only out of here, I'll show the approved DOT plans here. So along with the site improvements, DOT is requiring additional striping and paving on Mystic Ave. And I believe the reason for the right turn only is to comply with the layout of the striping and traffic flow on Mystic Ave. So they have a double yellow line in hatching here, so you'd have to take a right out of the site on Mystic Ave.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And not because it's in the same family, but Danielle, if I'm not mistaken, Atlas is built the same, right turn only, correct? When you come out?

[Danielle Evans]: I'll defer to Director Blake on what the permit access is for next door. Okay.

[SPEAKER_06]: People can turn left out of Atlas.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You can turn?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes, yes, yeah.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I can't recall this. I do want to point out, in addition to what Danielle said, the permit for mass that also restricts left turns in. So essentially, it's only right out and only right in. That's the permit language.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right. My take is that it's because of that striping and traffic pattern that they have throughout the middle of Mystic Avenue.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, if I might ask Director Blake, is there any chance that we're gonna have any influence over that? Because from an economic development and city perspective, I don't like it. And I didn't like, we didn't in our office even know that this was happening. So, and I do know that it's at this time, it's all paint, right? It's not like anybody is building a median or something.

[Todd Blake]: From what I could see, it is paint. There is a sign on the property that R3-2, this is no left turn out. It doesn't appear that there's a no left turn in sign. Yeah, I didn't know if we wanna delve into the traffic piece here or continue with the site and the improvement shown on this plant first or however, which way people wanna approach that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sorry, I got held up. I was looking at the transportation so you can however you want to proceed. I just wanted to there was some clarifying questions to wrap my head around.

[Todd Blake]: Okay, so basically I tend to agree with Alicia and Danielle in my personal opinion for the site layout itself. It's equal or a little better than the previous probably. So yeah, that's a good side effect of these changes. There were a couple of very minor things. The exit where the two arrows are in and out to the dead end parking area, there should probably be a stop sign and stop line there. And then the exit out from the one-way drive, same thing, stop line, stop sign, and possibly do not enter sign so that someone coming in from Mystic doesn't accidentally go left of the island, even though there is a keep right. And that's just minor things, signage. So then the people exiting would stop and kind of yield to anyone coming in from the main drive. So that's for the site. Everything else, Danielle and Alicia said, I agree with. So off-site, we could probably go back to the mass.page. So offsite, yeah, they likely add those restrictions. I can't speak for them, but it's probably a safety concern they have for the turning restrictions, but it does have impacts to the city for other things. Briefly, I'll talk about the plan shown here, all the markings. They did accommodate, it looks like Matt's thought agreed with my suggestion in one of the conditions to, you know, dropped the second lane on Mystic Gap northbound before reaching Hancock Street. So then by the time a vehicle reaches Hancock Street, especially the crosswalk, they're already in a single lane northbound instead of two lanes, because two lanes are more challenging for safety for a crosswalk than one lane. We get more compliance with one lane for people yielding. So that's a good change so that that occurred. I would note on this plan it does show the proposed RRFBs for the crosswalk, which was in my original condition recommendations, but it wasn't part of the original approval, but MassDOT apparently required that as well. So one on each side of the street, so that's good. So yeah, the downside is because of those restrictions, you know, it's pushing all the entries and exits to a particular side of Mystic Abbey, the north side, the south side, right? So basically when people exit the driveway, instead of being able to take a left, if they're destined to the south, Somerville or Point South, they're going to have to go right to Mystic Ave North and the first available option is Hancock Court on the left the next available option is Reardon Road on the right to be able to kind of do a big jug handle and circle back to the south and then the the way that directions bring you because those two streets are private ways and they don't typically offer those the directions will direct people all the way up to Main Street where the police station is to take a right onto 16 and do a jug handle back to Mystic Ave. So that's the complication with that restriction really adds a lot of vehicle unnecessary vehicle miles and and puts people into an area that at near the fire police station which is already a heavily traveled area. So same thing with coming southbound if you can't take a left in and people are going to obey that legally. They might tend to come down from the north heading south on Mystic Ave and take a right on Hancock Court to hit Hancock Ave and Hancock Street to kind of circle around and come out Hancock and go into the proper way. So it really kind of changes the dynamics of the whole entry and exit to this site. And it doesn't appear that in the information provided, it doesn't appear that the project made an attempt at adjusting any of the traffic site to explain what the impacts may be. So I'm trying to highlight what I think they could be. I think Hancock Court and Hancock Ave could see impacts from this restriction and possibly Redmond Road. And if not either of those, the main street quarter up near main itself. would see additional traffic that initially need to. One potential way to alleviate some of this would be if there was a back exit out from the back of the property onto 16, but that would require an access permit request to MassDOT. But that would enable people right in, right out. to turn right to southbound when they're exiting and come from the north turning right in. So that would help alleviate, but I couldn't speak to whether the likelihood of that permit or not, but that's one way to potentially kind of address the ability for people visiting the site to travel to the south when they exit or come here from the north a little more directly.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Speaking with Danielle earlier, one of the concerns that I had with that actual option would be that the back of Mystic Valley Parkway or Route 16, the way it merges with that exit on I-93, that would be putting a lot of traffic, spilling a lot of traffic out at that traffic light coming on to Mystic, before you get to Mystic. It's just the way Mystic Valley Parkway is set up, period.

[Todd Blake]: 100% correct, yeah, 100% correct. It would introduce traffic to an already congested area that the DOT and us are already concerned about. But even without that driveway in the back, that's the way the directions is going to get someone north of Mystic Ave, turn right around the police station and come back south all the way down to that signal anyways. So either that or they'll circle left to Hancock Ave or left onto Main Street and come down Main Street through South Medford. So those are kind of the two options if you do it like a wider aerial view or like a 2,000-foot aerial view, kind of see the options. So yeah, if you If you go north up, so you could turn left onto Hancock Court, which is a private street, and then another left onto Hancock Ave, then a left onto Hancock Street would bring you back to where you would have been if you took a left out of the site. And if you go all the way up and take a right on Reardon Road, which is essentially, it's a private drive south of James Street, that would take you out to the backside of Mystic Valley Parkway, or if you go up to the police station, same thing. So it's really hampering the ability of people to exit if it doesn't sell. And I think the traffic study mentioned that they thought 60% of the traffic was coming from the south, to and from the south. And it's not the projects, you know, the project didn't propose this. It was required of them, but we're just trying to talk about what the impacts may be to the community after the fact.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Understood. Thank you, Director Blake. Director Hunt?

[Alicia Hunt]: just wanted to add that I don't, I think that it, I've been looking at these exits to the Mystic Valley Parkway in the back, and I think that it might be worth for some of the businesses to pursue it in general, but I don't think it's a short-term solution. I don't think anybody's going to get a yes from DOT in months. It probably would take years, so I wouldn't actually try to even condition anything on on it because of the likely the lack of likelihood of it. But I would like to like I do think it's a reasonable issue. And I actually I had thought when I was thinking about it before that there was another one of the streets came back through onto Mystic Valley Parkway before route 16 but you're right we're after that that part where the street where you can cut back onto it. So I just wanted to say that that we would it from the planning office, support them and help them but I don't think that it's it's it's not worth burdening a project that that was something that is so impossible. And that it's not their fault that this was being pushed on them partway through construction, so.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And I don't wanna speak against the state because they're there for a reason. Me working for a state, a fellow state agency myself, I definitely understand, but I will tell you that economically, it could kill a project. And unless the city is looking at a feasibility of a traffic study for the entire strip where others can actually come in and pay for the impacts. And just, I can't even imagine what an access permit, not adding costs, but at the same time, adding time to this project. I've just taken that into consideration. It could, in the future, be like a, I'm not sure how the proponent feels about that anyways, but just in my experience, I know that it could be cumbersome. Danielle?

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. Yeah. We definitely don't want to condition that they attain an access permit, but I think as the property owner, I think it has to come from them if they, like an application would have to come from them because it would be an access off of their private property. So I don't think the city can play on their behalf, but I think we, I think they ought to seek it and we could support it. I don't know the details that go into it, so I would defer to Director Blake, because I do think it would behoove us to try to mitigate the impacts of not being able to travel south from the site to keep cars from speeding through, especially the Hancock Court area is one I'm concerned about. folks taking a ride out and immediately, you know, banging a left into there and then like flying through. Hancock Court is a private way, so I don't think that we can do things unilaterally. There would have to be an agreement with those property owners. Let's say we wanted to put like speed hump in or, you know, ask for the applicant to put a speed hump in there to mitigate that. I see Director Blake has his hand raised.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, so just to go along with what Danielle was saying, yeah, there are ways to potentially mitigate negative impacts to Hancock Court or Redden Road or any of those two private ways, some of which could be a speed hump or something like that, or restricting access in the form of making those write-in, write-outs, whether it's with FlexPost or Median or something like that. But again, because they're private ways, it would be subject to the private ways agreeing to those things. It could be determined at a later date or a certain value or something like that. But those do seem like the most immediate options for people to exit or enter from the way that's restricted from the driveway. I want to point out that the MassDOT approval also included re-timing of the traffic signal at Harvard Street and Mystic Avenue, Route 16, which is the one we were saying is congested. Obviously, by MassDOT requiring them to retime that, they already think that that signal system needs work, and the state and the city have already discussed those in the past, unrelated to projects, how it needs some work down there. But either way, this project would send traffic through at least that portion of that signal, because either they're traveling down Mystic Ave if the restriction wasn't in place, and they'd go through that signal, or they'd go Mystic Valley Parkway on the backside and still end up going through that signal. But with an off-ramp and 16-meter is definitely problematic. So it would be nice to try to mitigate, try to come up with some way to mitigate the negative impacts to say Hancock Court and Hancock Ave. and possibly Redden Road too. But if we did so and those were successful, then the option leaving would go all the way back up to the police station area. So it's just a challenging situation that we're all put in right now with this. But we wanted to make it work and be successful, right, without being an impact.

[SPEAKER_06]: If I may, I mean, I don't mind applying for access out the back, but I just don't want it to take it as a condition to hold me up on my CEO. Like we're, I'd say, I don't know, 70, 75% of the project right now are set to open in July. But that was something I will do. It's just, after going through the MassDOT process, it's timely.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, I missed his author. I, I, myself as just one board member, I wouldn't be comfortable conditioning that.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Are there any comments or concerns from the board? Uh, yes.

[Peter Calves]: I just wanted to, uh, kind of summarize the situation and just kind of give kind of what I saw as the, the kind of short and long-term, I think it's still worth it in the long-term to pursue the access permit on Route 16. But I don't think that's, like we said, something to condition the whole project on at this moment, as Mr. Zarathyr pointed out, they're almost done with the project. So I do think in the Short term, some kind of attempt to seek to do traffic calming on the side streets where traffic would be diverted is probably the best available mitigation in the short term. And I would want to ask Director Blake or Director Hunt what the process would be like, because those are private ways, to get something in there.

[Todd Blake]: It's a very good question. There might be a way on public streets to address the Hancock issue, but it wouldn't necessarily be on Hancock Court itself. You could potentially put traffic calming in Hancock Ave, which Hancock Court, once you go down there, leads to Hancock Ave in both directions. So you could put a traffic calming device on a public street in either direction on Hancock Ave, potentially. That would be within the city's control. The private way I think it would handle it, if there was a recommendation that was associated with this project, you know, this evening or some other time, you could condition something in the form of some traffic calming element, this, this, or this, subject to the approval of the rightful owners of the private way. Almost like a lot of times we suggest traffic calming on state roads, but we say subject to mass DOT. So it's subject to whoever has rights to make that decision on that road. Yeah, it'll be kind of blazing a little new trail. But the easiest way that I've been thinking of handling this would be, in terms of time, I am cognizant of the whole discussion about the time of the project and delays. In my experience, professional experience, being on the private or public side of previous developments, even though sometimes it's not preferred, sometimes it is preferred, money doesn't take any time offering money for a solution, like putting it set aside for that purpose to be determined at a later date, then you're not tied to, you know, a specific thing that has to be done before you open type thing. So that's one way, you know, but you could prescribe like speed humps at this location, public street or private street subject to approval. or median or term restriction at those, subject to their approval, or money in lieu of those types of improvements, some value. But yeah, that's the way I'd go about doing it. I mean, again, if we're successful and we deter people from using those options, then the option that's left is all the way up to Maine at the police station. There may be some that choose to illegally disobey those term restrictions, and those would be subject to the enforcement of the state police because it's on the state portion of Mystic Ave. We wouldn't advise that because if there's an incident, you'd be at fault. But yeah, these are kind of the limited options it seems like we have at this point. I mean, if we had more time, what I'd normally suggest is for the traffic engineer for the project to study this and recommend something, you know, study what they believe the impacts are based on their trip distribution and what their recommendations would be. But, you know, in the interest of time, we're trying to shortcut that process.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Dr. Blake.

[Todd Blake]: Actually, if I can add, it's worth it to say that in the past, in the original submission, usually any development, even this one, comes and discusses the scope of a traffic study. And I had suggested more locations of a scope for this project. and the project chose to just study this one intersection closest by. So that also impacts the ability to then go back and redistribute the traffic because the redistributed traffic wouldn't even go through the one study area intersection. So if it had included other intersections, you might be able to reuse some of the data and then readjust the trip assignments.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Before I open it up to the public for comment, are there any other questions from the board? I do see that we just had a couple of people, I'm not sure if there's public, so I'm going to open it up at this point. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the comments. You can also send an email to OCD at medford-ma.org. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to provide comments as it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, this may be intervened through the chat to alert myself and staff. Daniel, can you please manage the comment queue and read any previous letters or emails that you've received prior to this meeting?

[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, I do not see any members of the public who raised hands and I have not received any common letters.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Awesome, then I can close the public comment queue for this meeting or the public comment period for this meeting. And I'll go back to the board. For the city, can you actually provide us with the original? I know that there's some conditions that are no longer relevant with these changes. Can you remind us of what still stands?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so the control plans will be amended. The other conditions that were in there, there was ones that are still relevant. I have not checked the landscaping plans to see if those plants are considered drought tolerant. But there's a condition to prioritize native species and plants with lower water needs. and I don't have a green thumb, I couldn't tell you if these comply with that. So I would keep that condition. The conditions for the wayfinding signage would be modified. It's one of the conditions is, and I could share my screen at this point to go over these. Let's see. That'll just make it easier. Let's see here.

[Unidentified]: Let's make sure.

[Danielle Evans]: So do you guys see? This is the amended decision. So the beginning is the control plans and then on this one, so to be that, that would still keep that. So number seven was applicant to furnish and install wayfinding signage and parking aisle markings enforcing one way circulation through northern parking lot. We would want to revise that currently There's a sign that says keep right, but I think it may benefit from having a do not enter sign there as well, so that when folks are entering, they don't shoot straight and then collide with the car. So in addition to the keep right, I think we should kind of augment the wayfinding with a do not enter. And also the stop line in the front parking lot for Todd's comments. Number eight is no longer relevant, as they did submit that plan. If we wanted to have a condition, requesting them to apply for an access permit to route 16, but not tied to must do like must receive it or anything like that. to go ahead and apply for it and see what happens, but because we can't apply for it, it'd be great if they would do that, but not tied to any approvals. And then with Director Blake's original conditions for mitigation, as he noted, the state required the What have they called the RFBs?

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, in my original recommendations, I think it was 1B and RFB. I don't think that made it into the city's prior approval, but MassDOT then required it anyways. So yeah, traffic comments 1A and 1B were satisfied by the MassDOT plans.

[Danielle Evans]: And then so the remaining condition would be, Mitigation item I, which this, it is not referenced in this, but I can call up that one.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, Danielle, I could help while you're doing that. So the condition was written in such a way before that if some of the recommendations I had weren't weren't approved by Mass, then they'd be substituted with another condition. So one C, which was like a painted bump out essentially on Mystic Ave, Mass that didn't agree with that. So then it would revert to I, which was a, I was a comment condition to traffic calm the side streets in the Pearl Street, Stern Street, Frederick Street area for any vehicles traveling to and from the West. of the project, like say Tufts University area, via one of those side streets to Hancock Street. So that was condition I.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Danielle, did you provide us with these conditions? That's what I'm looking for.

[Danielle Evans]: So it's in the previous decision. So can you see the memo that's up here now? Yes. Yeah, so these are the conditions. this is before I started writing the conditions where most of them were like, the conditions were referenced, would reference memos, and now I'm trying to call them out completely. So that's why there's a lot of back and forth here. This is during the handoff time where I wasn't staffing this board yet. So this is the if then kind of conditions that Director Blake had had. So the one that is still relevant would be this condition, little I, about mitigation of some of the side streets that is under the city's purview. but the solar powered radar feedback, they did that. The state required it, so that doesn't need to be called out as condition because it's on the plans.

[Todd Blake]: Sorry, Danielle, that double I, that one was satisfied by a different project on this.

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, a different project, you're right, you're right, you're right.

[SPEAKER_06]: We're still doing that though, don't we meet all the conditions with the mass DOT, what we're doing there, so we didn't have to do the side streets?

[Todd Blake]: Yes, if Danielle could scroll back up to the top. So what happened in the previous decision, if I may, Danielle, is this was the recommended conditions that I submitted, but the decision did not include this full list. It included some of the list. So we were trying to go down which ones were included and which ones weren't. So if you go all the way up to the top, 1A is dropping the traveling, which the MassDOT plan does. And that 1A was, correct me if I'm wrong, Danielle, that 1A was incorporated into the previous decision. So it was a condition, but MassDOT plan does satisfy that. So 1A is gone with the MassDOT plan. 1B was a recommendation I had made, but the decision did not include it, but MassDOT ended up including it on their own. So 1B is satisfied. One C was included, I think, in the conditions of the previous approval, but MASDA did not agree to that. So then that's what kicked the one down to the alternate. Because one C, MASDA didn't agree. It went to a different condition because they didn't.

[SPEAKER_06]: We're doing the solar light, number two on the list. If you go down, we're doing that. It wasn't all the conditions.

[Todd Blake]: So number two, I don't think that was incorporated into the previous D or number two, I don't think was incorporated into the conditions of the previous. And then so I was, if for some reason the project was unable to fill one A, B or C or D, so D wasn't incorporated in the decision, but C was, and they weren't able to fill it, so then it kicked into this I.

[SPEAKER_06]: Well, what about what's going to, if we go to two on the list, we're doing that. So I feel like we're, we're, we're going above and beyond and I shouldn't be part of this.

[Todd Blake]: The one B above with the RFPs that wasn't part of the planning board's decision. It was part of my recreation. It wasn't part of the planning board decision and mass dot ended up incorporating that.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. So I guess my ask is to not do one because we're doing two.

[Danielle Evans]: So this is the, Alicia, do you, so we have a conditions compliance tracking spreadsheet. I did not create this document, but it has three conditions. So one was to submit a plan to restructure the merging of the two northbound lanes. And so that's moot now because of the DOT plans. And then the one C was provide enhancements to the new science markings layout from part A if the land structure is revised. Yeah, this was, it's kind of confusing.

[Todd Blake]: But then- One C was essentially a painted bump out to shield the crosswalk on Mystic Ave, but they didn't agree to doing the delineators because VASTA doesn't like maintaining those.

[Danielle Evans]: And so, yeah, so DOT didn't agree to that. And then the third condition that was in the decision basically said if DOT doesn't... So the one about... the side streets off main street, that was a condition to be sued in the event that conditions 1A and 1C are not approved by MassDOT.

[SPEAKER_06]: And it sounds like MassDOT- Yeah, if you look at the condition below, it's the solar paneled traffic, which we are doing, so.

[Danielle Evans]: I thought that was the crosswalk.

[Todd Blake]: So yeah, MassDOT added in, they agreed with one of my recommended conditions that wasn't part of the official planning board approval. So it was basically an add-on. The RFB 1B, the RRFB, the planning board didn't include that in their decision, but MassDOT chose to add it. That is correct, but the way that, previous approval was written when C was part of the board's decision and that wasn't approved by MASDA so that kicked in the eye.

[Alicia Hunt]: I was going to add, I realize that this is actually quite complicated at this point. And I think my recommendation would be that the board think about, worry less about what were the previous conditions and more about what is the right thing to do here. What are the things that are necessary to make this project safe, like we would be doing? What are the applicant What is the applicant doing and already doing whether we're requiring it or MassDOT? Because all along this has been a project where cost has been a major issue and MassDOT is requiring a bunch of him. So let's just make sure that what we're putting forward makes sense. And I honestly, I'm more concerned that what we're putting forward makes sense than whether we're including every single condition that was previously considered, particularly where MassDOT got in the middle of this and messed with our requirements. And I will note that member Fishman has their hand up.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, and before Ari goes, one of the things I wanted to note, Director Hunt, is that I haven't been properly prepped on this one. I'm not sure about the rest of the board to know even how to discuss conditions going forward, is what I meant. I don't know what the department heads, I don't remember, recall what the department heads' suggestions are going forward. So that's the problem I'm having. So that's what I was trying to see.

[Alicia Hunt]: Honestly, I didn't realize that there would be any need to change any conditions. I looked at this as this is a new site plan that we were approving the new site plan. I didn't think that it was going to trigger any additional conditions. So it didn't occur to me that you would want to review the conditions and change them at this time. especially this late in the game. I mean, honestly, to put in conditions on a project that hasn't gotten its building permit and hasn't started construction is something to, I wouldn't feel that it's fair to add any conditions to a project so far into construction as this is. I mean, if it's like, oh, well, that tree can't go there, so now we have to move it over here, but that's still, it's all site plan. You know, it's moving some things around.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The beauty of what you have just said would have been relevant in a PDS memo prior to this meeting, and we could have been prepared.

[Alicia Hunt]: I understand that, but we don't have that kind of freedom of time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, and I definitely understand that. But when you said fair, it would have helped to be more fair of everyone's time across the board. Ari Fishman.

[Ari Fishman]: I suppose this, while I had this thought before, Director Hunt's suggestion that we move away from that discussion, it is kind of slightly adjacent, which is I've been thinking about the discussions about right turns and left turns and the rather convoluted routes that people will have to take. And I'm thinking of it in light of the fact that alcohol impairs judgment, even within legal driving limits. And I do have some concerns for the neighborhood neighbors and traffic patterns with convoluted paths that If this is hopefully a successful project, people will be coming from beyond the immediate neighborhood, people unfamiliar with the local small streets and potentially with judgment impaired. I have some traffic safety concerns. I don't know what the solution is, but I did want to explicitly name it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Director Boyd?

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I just wanted to state, for the record, I wasn't adding conditions. Danielle and I were going through what conditions were still relevant or not after the mass stock changes. The ads would be the right of the access permit request. That's an ad in the back, which I didn't necessarily suggest. And the traffic column that we discussed earlier for Hancock, CORT or AV, which we didn't get to the point of talking about the misconditions yet, just the conversation.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Peter Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: First, I'm going to echo Chair McPherson's concerns about the preparedness of this board, given really the level of sophistication of some of these traffic issues. I mean, I do understand the lack of capacity the of pds staff to deal with it but i do want to express uh concern about trying to put all this through immediately uh i mean understanding uh the applicants very legitimate concerns that this is a project that is going to open in the next few months and we need to he needs us to make make some decisions and then Also, doing my job as clerk, I've put to, I just wanted to kind of give a state of play on what we're considering, not taking into account the relevance or irrelevance of any particular conditions of the previous approval, but things we have discussed based on the new layout tonight, and that would be the additional Signage and pavement markings, the stop signs, and the do not enter signs within the parking, the revised parking area as directed, as specified by city staff. The application for an access permit on Route 16 not tied to any, not tied to any kind of, not tied to anything of the project opening, just they have to do it. at some point, and the working with the city to apply some sort of traffic calming on Hancock Ave, I believe, is the public way. And that's what I have written down. Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Piotr. Danielle?

[Danielle Evans]: I just want to state that I also agree that you're probably not as prepared as you would like to be. I didn't get the memo and some of the plans until Monday and escaping plan today. So there wasn't actually time to do any of those things and. The other plans came in Friday after our close of business. So I actually was doing stuff over the weekend for this. So I do try to make sure you guys are prepared. But you could take another meeting to find out the conditions. June 5 would be the next one. I don't, everything can be happening concurrently, I believe, but I, I defer to Director Hunt, and I noticed that our economic development director may be listening in, not sure if he's available, but all the other city department reviews that are happening at the same time, and we're trying to try to organize this so that the project can be successful, but there are things that need to be addressed. And it's unfortunate that MassDOT really threw in a monkey wrench here.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Danielle. I really appreciate it. And trust me, I definitely, I sympathize and I empathize with the lack of capacity on your end. And I'm not placing fault at this point at all, but at the same time, the owner should not be on the board to try to speed through something that we're not able to understand. And we understand that it's also not the applicant's fault. There's no fault being placed here. I'm not even gonna blame MASCA. They're doing their due diligence, right? It's one of those things where I just, It's so complex, there's layers to this, and I'm just trying to better understand so that I can lead the board in making a decision forward. And I understand it's not fair to anyone across the board, whether it's the city, the applicant, or the board, in trying to rush this forward. I just need to know the best path forward.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'd prefer to stay here all night if we could. I don't want to have to stop the project tomorrow.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sal DiStefano?

[Sal Di Stefano]: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Sal DiStefano, Director of Economic Development. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I just wanted to say that definitely understand your concerns, Madam Chair and members of the board, and just wanted to say that from our office, We think that the end result of this project will be very good for the city. And we are working with, I am working with every single department head that's touching this project to work through any outstanding issues that we have. So we're putting a lot of effort into this to support Brian and everything he's working on. and in the end result you know this the everybody working together I think will result in a very good project. I do want to point out that This is a big project, more complicated than ones that we may be used to on the economic development side. However, I think it could be served as a template for other businesses that wanna come to the city. And just wanna say that I'm willing to work with all of you to try to see if we can smooth over any issues. and just want to be helpful to everybody that's involved here. And I thank you for your time and consideration.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Peter Cowles.

[Peter Calves]: Thank you, Madam Chair. There's something that Mr. Zarthur touched on that I think is important to note, and I'm not sure if that was I mean, I don't know if anyone in the in the city can confirm this is saying that he didn't want to have to shut down the project tomorrow. And I don't think any of our conditions, should we add them would significantly impede the completion of the project. I mean, I don't think. I mean, I think out of what I had written down, one of them isn't even on site, and one of them is theoretical. So I just want to make sure, because I would agree. I mean, professionally, I know these kind of project timelines, and I don't want to do anything that would force a stop to work this far in. So that's a consideration as well.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Director Blake.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I just wanted to give some dates for people. The VAI plans are dated February 24, February 2024. And so those are the plans submitted with the revised site layout. So that means the project knew about those changes before February when they submitted them.

[SPEAKER_06]: We didn't have the approval from DOT until April 17th. As soon as I got approval, I emailed him. I didn't know if that was going to be approved or not. And I believe you were a part of the The last phone call with I. So, when I became aware of the new plans, I also thought I submitted this for my building permit. If this is the same layout that the city signed off on my building permit.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, if I may speak to the board, so. Some plans were submitted to some entities within the city, but not the planning board staff, to my knowledge. When I became aware of them, I sent those to the planning staff in March. And so I'm just alluding that there was some time and there was some, you know, and we're being kind of put in this position now. We're talking, like for me, in my piece, I'm talking about the traffic, what those restrictions that MassDOT created may impact. like how safety or access may happen. It has nothing to do with liking the project or not liking the project. If it's a good project or not, it seems like a great project for the city in terms of use. But my job is traffic, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: But I didn't have approval from DOT in February. If I had approval from DOT, I would have submitted that. I had no approval from DOT. As soon as I got approval, I submitted it even way before back in September 5th. Our building permit is based on this design.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I'm not, you know, discounting that.

[SPEAKER_06]: So if you want to, I talked to Owen about it. I have my guys. Eagle Brook has been working with Owen this entire project. We've done everything the right way.

[Todd Blake]: No, and many of us said it wasn't the project fault in terms of thank you master in terms of and then I'm just not looking to be held up by this. In terms of mass dot, putting restrictions on turns, it's not your fault, but that, but that doesn't negate our responsibility to comment on those things.

[SPEAKER_06]: So I have no control over mass dot. I had no say in these changes. I did not want to make any of these changes. I didn't want to come back here tonight to do this. I was fine with the acceptance from last year. I have no control over MassDOT.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much, Director Blake. Peter Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: I don't know what I was going to say. This is a difficult situation for everyone, and I just... Yeah. Sorry.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, it's a very difficult situation, but I want to make it absolutely clear that the board, again, the onus is neither on the board to make a decision without having the proper information going forward, because it wasn't our fault either. So it's unfortunate, but the onus is not on the board. However, in saying that, I will ask if the board wants to discuss these additional conditions, if there's something that we can come up with that is agreeable with both the board and the city that can make sense that we can capture to move forward. Danielle?

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, I think the only issue that was controversial is any mitigation for the side streets that would be impacted. I think there was maybe confusion with the original decision about if MassDOT didn't approve the first two things and the third one would come in, which was in the decision. And it's not big ticket items, just painted bump outs on some of those side streets, not even physical things, maybe flex posts, nothing big at all. And now with the left turn restriction, maybe something needs to happen, maybe Hancock Court needs to be added to that list. Because unfortunately, the traffic study and the original mitigation recommendations were based on a completely different traffic flow. Now with traffic dispersing North and South, and now it's all going North. So I think that was just, should an extra street be added to the mix? But it's a private way. I mean, there could also be just a, loose condition of making best efforts to work with those property owners. Unfortunately, the traffic counts didn't include those streets. So it's gonna be hard to measure the impact post opening. So we don't have pre opening counts to be able to see how many more cars are going down Hancock Court because we don't have those counts. though I believe Todd, he had requested a certain range, but we didn't have it. Everything else, I think, is pretty straightforward. We like the site. Everyone likes the site. We think it's fine. Just a few things. It's just one thing. It's not going to shut the project down. I don't think we need to go there.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So we can condition it to make sure that the applicant is working with the city staff or department heads to move that forward, correct? To flush that out?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, we can do that if you want to, you know, deputize city staff to work this out in a way that is amenable and isn't project killing in any way. We all want to see this succeed. I'm not sure July is actually going to happen based on what's out there. So I don't see the emergency in rushing through this but

[SPEAKER_06]: If you want to come out tomorrow and see it, we're on a July 11th opening, so.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I guess I'm. Peter cows.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I'm just going to run through the conditions again, because I do think, as Danielle said, this is. A lot of a lot of talk and a lot of noise for what in the end is not not a lot of potential conditions. It's really not a lot at all. My list of conditions I have right now is to say that the conditions of the approval of May of 2023 shall still apply as relevant. Additional signage and pavement markings are to be added in the parking area specified by city staff. This is just in regard to the do not enter signs and the stop signs and stop lines as specified by Director Blake and Director Hunt. And there is the applicant shall apply for a shell Explore applying for an access permit on Route 16 at the rear of the site. Kind of my wording to ensure that it has nothing to do with the opening or approval of the project in general, just as something we would like the applicant to explore. And that the applicant shall work with the city to install traffic calming measures on Hancock Avenue. to minimize the danger of potential cut through traffic. Hancock Avenue was the one that was a public way, and so the city could work on. And that's all we were considering at this time, as far as I'm aware.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'm sorry, Peter. Did you mention the actual signage, the wayfinding as recommended?

[Peter Calves]: Yes, that was, I mean, I could be more specific with the addition of the do not enter and stop signage, but yeah, but that's.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Ari? Ari Fishman?

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you. I am mostly happy with those conditions, which I think are entirely reasonable given that we're presented with a new site plan and we're trying to move promptly. My only concern is limiting it only to Hancock Avenue. I'd love if we had a little bit more flexibility in that language around broader traffic calming, in the area as we determine what the potential cut through routes will likely be as the entrance and exit routes are more fully fleshed out, since it seems like that is still in a little bit of flux.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Ari. I think that's what I meant by going back to the city staff and make sure that there was a minimal agreement on what was going to happen. Maybe I left that too broad.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, if we can make that language broad enough that it's to work with city staff to their satisfaction for that area, rather than just Hancock Ave, I'm happy to delegate that to city staff. I trust their judgment. I just want to make sure that as we're looking at new traffic patterns, that we're doing due diligence for our community.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. Pena Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: we're kind of rewriting what I put up to be a condition to make the applicant shall work with city staff to address potential cut through traffic as to apply traffic calming measures on streets as to apply traffic calming measures to to alleviate cut through traffic on streets as determined by city staff?

[Emily Hedeman]: Works for me.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Mr. Zartha, before we ask for a motion on those additional conditions to approve your amendment, are you okay with those conditions?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I hope to get access out the back. I actually wanted to do it originally and Victor Schrader actually told me to, you know, have everything go on Mystic App. So I will absolutely try and get access out the back. I really like that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you very much. And again, it's just to explore that the fact that you're even going to try.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, absolutely.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: And I'll keep you updated every step of the way, like I did with DOT.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you very much.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I'm going to- May I ask a question as well? This is Ben Minix. Yes. If it's possible, could the board or maybe the traffic department, if they feel so inclined, make a recommendation for Brian to submit to DOT for an access permit? Just a letter of recommendation or a request to why the board feels it's a better recommendation for access.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The board in our position, you would use it as a condition, but would that be PDS staff that would make the recommendation for why?

[Danielle Evans]: To Madam Chair, to MassDOT to support that application. Yeah, I think that We have a laundry list of reasons why we want to support that. If they keep doing this, it's going to really mess up redevelopment of Mystic Ave, which is such a key corridor that the state's going to need to invest putting more traffic lights and stuff in there to allow left turns. Or they can just give access to the rear. It's an economic development issue. I think that we could frame this many ways.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. So I think what I heard Mr. Minnick say was that you would like it if we made it a condition that the applicant. request or approach D.O.T. about it because then you could go to D.O.T. and saying, look, it was the city who's saying we should do this. I just want to be clear.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sorry. No, I was just, I guess, informally asking and we can we do a letter. Yeah. And I could we could send you a request informally outside of the meeting just for that request, I guess, outside of a condition.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, so outside of a condition and then yes, our economic development director can work with our traffic staff at putting something together to DOT. Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And then I can only imagine that the board's recommendation to explore that would back that up. I think that's sufficient. Okay, so I am going to ask the clerk for a motion to approve the amendment to the site plan as he has already recited conditions.

[Peter Calves]: Yes, I would like to move to approve the amendment to the site plan with the following conditions, stating that the conditions relating to the approval of May of 2023 shall still apply as relevant, that an additional do not enter signage and stop signage and stop line markings are to be added in the parking area as specified by city staff. The applicant shall apply for an access permit on Route 16 at the rear of the site, and the applicant shall work to apply traffic calming measures on streets in the surrounding neighborhood as determined by city staff. And that's so moved.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, can I have a second?

[Ari Fishman]: I second.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so Peter Kelce?

[Emily Hedeman]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Aye. Pam Arianski? Aye. And myself, Jackie McPherson, I'm an aye. Thank you for your patience, Mrs. Arthur. I hope that it is going to be a little, you know, smooth sailing from here for you. I'm sorry. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_06]: No, thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, I just, I like to think I'm passionate, but I know it comes off as something else.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I appreciate it. And I think we're all waiting for it to open. Trust me.

[SPEAKER_06]: Awesome.

[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you so much.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Have a great night.

[SPEAKER_04]: Thanks. Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The next item on our meeting is approval of minutes from 5-1-24. Can I have a motion to approve? I second. Oh, I'll second. Okay, roll call. Peter Cowles?

[Peter Calves]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Aye. Pam Baranski? Aye. And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm an aye. And so number four would be zoning overhaul updates. Alicia will provide an update. Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: So we've been moving along. I've been trying to forward you stuff as soon as we get them. The consultant's been providing memos to the council. Right now, the council is on track. And Danielle, catch me if I'm wrong on this. But what we'd like to do is they're going to review. So they reviewed a bunch of stuff last week that they liked that were adding decisions, definitions, can't talk, into the zoning. And part of what they were framing this is as first we want to add some definitions so that they exist in our zoning. For example, coffee shops, right? I don't know if that's one of the ones, but like, let's put some definitions in, have them exist. Another one that is definitely on the list is doggy daycares. And then after that's all been approved and gone through the process, then while we're looking at maps and zones and corridors, we'll have these additional items that we could be adding to the use table to either include or exclude. So you'll actually see that there are some that they'd like to regulate doggy daycares different from kennels. And they'd like, and like, that's an idea that's been put forward. And there's a definition on there for, I don't have the exact right words, but a junkyard basically. And part of that is because right now there's nothing in our zoning that says, no, you can't put a junkyard in Medford. Like you have to say, well, what is that the closest thing to that in our zoning? And the idea is that the consultant thinks we might want to say, no, that's not allowed in any zones explicitly so that it's not a question. So a bunch of those, so this stage is definitions coming forward. so that they'll be there as tools in the toolbox when we start looking at the corridors and squares and zones. Another thing is changing up of the tables in order for formatting. Right now, the use table is a table that has in next to all the uses a code, A, B, C, D, or E, for what kind of parking requirement there is. Those codes are in a separate table. And so the recommendation is to take the codes out and just put the parking right there in the use table. So you don't have to be going back and forth to different things with no changes to any of what we're actually recommend like what's actually allowed just formatting. So that's getting ready to come through in a zoning packet to this board. With again, the idea that we might want to change what some of the parking requirements are in the city, but it sure would be a lot easier if it was in the table of uses and not a separate table that we're going back and forth with. So these things along with a couple of other things that the lawyer is looking at more closely, the city council is going to have another meeting tonight is the Oh, no wonder I'm confused. My calendar on my wall is April. I was trying to give you dates. All right, so tonight is the 15th. They're gonna be looking at them again the 22nd. And then the intention is that at their meeting, that is the city council on the 28th of May, is gonna refer the packet to this board for a public hearing. And Danielle, did we say that we thought we could open that public hearing on June 5. Because I think that they were hoping to get it back to the city council by June.

[Danielle Evans]: That sounds like the right.

[Alicia Hunt]: So we're going to advertise the hearing before it's actually referred from the city council simply to do the two weeks. But you'll see the packet. It'll be available by the 22nd, right? I'm getting these right. 22nd, 28th. So, we keep sending you the things that are coming through from the memos, and I'd encourage you to read them because that'll help keep you sort of like, oh, this is what they're looking at. And if at any time you see anything on any of these memos and you go, I don't understand, or I hate it, or I have a big concern, please tell us right away, because you may be seeing something that we hadn't thought of. That is 100% possible. We look at it from one perspective. You guys see things differently. So definitely let us know if you see something that you're like, this is weird. And it may just be that we all thought it was weird, and then we'll change it. But my goal is to sort of have these things come through. Everybody gets a chance to see them when they're in the early discussion phases. And then that so that by the time that you're seeing it at the public hearing, it's not the very first time you've ever seen these things. They would have been in the memos that have been coming through to you. And if you wanted to ask questions about stuff in those memos in one of these meetings, that's why this is an agenda item. You can bring it to the meeting and ask about it. And if you would rather just reach out individually or whatever, we're very happy to do that as well. But for the most part, things are clerical. The one thing that so there's one, what I would think of is a significant zoning change that we have asked them to move forward now. And that is it has come to my attention that in most communities, municipal buildings are not held to the zoning rules. Like if you want to put your city hall or your school or your fire station with different setbacks or whatever, for whatever government reason, you don't actually have to go and get a variance for it. So one of the things that we're looking at is to have municipal buildings be treated like Dover items. Conceptually, it would be a separate section, but it would basically say that the zoning rules don't apply to municipal buildings, but if they trigger any kind of, if they are the triggers for a major project, they would still go through site plan review. with the idea that we would want all of those projects to come here through site plan review, but it would be about the things you all look at. And if the city says that, for example, for the business purposes of the city, we think that there should be a zero lot line on the new fire headquarters at the back of the building, that that is not something they have to go get a variance for, but it's rather that the city has needs that override the zoning of the city. So that is conceptually a change, but I've also asked the consultants to provide just a little bit of background on the fact that apparently it's unusual that Medford zoning is actually being applied to our municipal buildings. So that's that, and I think that this idea of an administrative approval, that things that are small, so right now, There's like, in my opinion, this great, great American Beer Hall site plan change is at a level that would not have triggered just a straight up administrative approval, but that there could be levels that are administrative approvals. Right now, if they want to change where a tree is or shift a crosswalk for some reason, or anything, they can't do that without going back to the board. And there should be some level of ability to actually approve changes administratively at a staff level. So that's something that we have the consultants and the lawyers sort of working through. How do we define that? And how do we decide that? I think that that's coming in this this round that we're going to see just because it keeps becoming a headache. So Anything else, Danielle, that you think I should touch on on all of that?

[Danielle Evans]: I think that's everything that's slated for this first. The PDD changes, was that going to try to come through this round?

[Alicia Hunt]: It might be. So as an FYI, Jonathan Silverstein, who is the lawyer that helped us with a bunch of the PDDs, is the lawyer that has been hired to help with the zoning changes. So as he helps us bring those projects through the permit process, he the staff and he identified things that were weird or awkward or legally confusing. And so he was sort of trying to work through that to make some recommendations. And one of them might be to combine the PDD and the special permit so that a project would get its PDD. That would be also wouldn't also need a special permit because it was now an as of right project. It would need site plan review. So it would just sort of change the like levels of legality and two rounds of public notice for the same project at two boards, that kind of stuff. So he was reviewing that and he's going to come back with some recommendations for next week.

[Danielle Evans]: And through the chair, some of these processes that we've gone through, like you've lived through how clunky they are. So I think other things are clunky. Let us know. And it's kind of like until you do it, you don't know that there's an issue with that thing in zoning.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So May 22nd is the first, is another city council. What are they doing at that meeting?

[Alicia Hunt]: Hold on, I keep looking at, sorry, the calendar. So May 22nd will be in the city council chambers and on Zoom.

[Danielle Evans]: Is that subcommittee?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, it is the city council planning and zoning committee. Sorry, I was just pulling these up. And that's actually we've actually scheduled those out several like into the next month or two. So if it's at all helpful. It's called the city council planning and permitting committee, and it's mildly unclear to me if it's actually a subcommittee. or if it's like a committee of the whole, it's not on the calendar yet, but it is going to occur. We have scheduled it with the city council. If you want us to send you the dates we've already scheduled with them to meet with them in June as well, we're happy to do that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And that's just to get moving for the packet is not gonna come back. So I'm trying to figure out the tasks that are coming down the line. May 22nd is a meeting.

[Alicia Hunt]: And that's a council meeting, but if you were to watch that, that would really prep you for what everything is gonna come in the packet for this board. The city council meets only once a month in July and August. And so we've been trying to push the concerns to move these forward so that the council could actually vote in June before they go on summer recess on some of these changes. So it is...

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: May 28th is when we'll be getting the packet that they're going to refer back to us for the zoning amendment changes. And then they're going to want that back by June 5th, you say?

[Alicia Hunt]: No, June 5th is the meeting is this board's meeting. Oh, yes. June 5th. So we need to, Danielle, we need to look at the advertising for this. That's coming up on us so fast. So June 5th is this board's meeting. And I wish, oh yeah, city council is on here. So they have two meetings, the 11th and the 25th. So actually this is perhaps a really good time to bring this up. This board meets the first and third Wednesdays. The third Wednesday in June is Juneteenth. City hall is closed, what? Um, I didn't understand.

[Danielle Evans]: We talked. I'm looking at my calendar. We generally have a whole schedules mapped out for the year.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: We are not meeting on Juneteenth. That's because it's first and third, except for noted. There's okay. So we're not it's not it's June 26.

[Alicia Hunt]: All right, when we were talking with the consultants they were hoping we were thinking that if this board needed to not pass it the first time but to extend it it would be June 19 because we weren't thinking about that. So it could come back to the city council by the 25th. But I guess it is my feeling that if the board pays attention to these things that are coming through, perhaps watches the 22nd meeting, that the changes that are coming to you on the 5th are intended to not be big thought pieces. This is supposed to be the easy low-hanging fruit. And that when we have the big thought pieces, that's when we're gonna need multiple meetings to think about stuff and work things through. This is like the prep work. And city councils actually kind of they're reviewing it so many times that by the time you send it back to them, they're gonna be ready to just approve it. And I have actually said to them that the appropriate times for them to make changes is earlier in the process before you get it. And that after it comes back from you, if they then think they need to make major changes, it would be because you change something that they, you know, like that kind of back and forth. That you should be seeing the version that they're comfortable with since they are the ones working with the consultants to develop this material. And if any of you want to come to those meetings, You can as long as it's not quorum, right? I'll ask Jonathan if you want to come, if you want to participate. Is that at all helpful? I didn't mean to go on so long about this, but I feel like it's helpful to explain where things are going.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, it's giving me context for myself. I'm not sure about the other board members.

[Danielle Evans]: Thank you. And that's our next meeting. So kind of gives you a little preparation.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I'll send an email about this to remind. But I'm going to be unable to attend the next meeting. I have another work conflict that Wednesday.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I put it in the calendar invite that I couldn't attend. But if you want me to send an email reminder, I'm happy to do that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: That's true. So we get it on May 28th and we meet on June 5th. So we'll be meeting to discuss city council's recommendations to get it back to them. Is that how? Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. Every zoning has to go to the city council to be referred to you for a public hearing. You hold a public hearing on it and then you send it to them and they hold a public hearing on it and that's when they vote. And I don't want you to think that they're all gonna feel rushed like this, because I think that there are gonna be later ones that are gonna be much more complicated that we think we're really gonna wanna take a couple of meetings to work through, have the consultants come and work through them. And we'll confirm, but I'm certain that we're planning to have the consultant attend on the 5th.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. And are there any other updates from board members? Any other questions that you have for city staff? Well, I just want to say that I obviously, I am very appreciative of all of you, but I have to give a special shout out to Peter for the way you captured those conditions. Because I stare and it's like I fumble. And I'm trying to capture them myself on this end. And it's like, oh, you read them back. I'm like, wait, that's not what I got. So I really appreciate your diligence in getting them.

[Peter Calves]: No problem. Glad I could help.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, in saying that, the final item is a motion to adjourn.

[Peter Calves]: So moved.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Second motion to adjourn. Second. Peter Cowles, roll call. Peter Cowles.

[Peter Calves]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman. Aye. Pam Mariansky. Aye. And myself, Jackie McPherson. I am an aye. Thank you, everyone.

Paulette Van der Kloot total time: 21.17 minutes total words: 1839