AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 09-22-21

[Andre Leroux]: Welcome everyone. My name is Andre LaRue. I'm the chair of the Medford Community Development Board. This is the September 22nd Community Development Board meeting. and I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this hearing of the Medford Community Development Board will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Reminders to participate during the meeting outside of the Zoom platform, questions and comments may be emailed to OCD at Medford-MA.gov or submitted via phone to 781-393-2480. So that's OCD at Medford-MA.gov or 781-393-2480. 2480. The meeting will not be live streamed, but will be recorded and made available for viewing afterwards at Medford Community Media. All votes will be roll call votes. So please, board members and members of the public, please introduce yourselves when you speak. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes for both July and August. Are there any questions, comments, edits for the July CD board minutes.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre, this is Jackie Furtado, vice chair. I have already spoke to Amanda offline about this, but I only feel it appropriate in the minutes for me to be approved, to me to be referred to as vice chair as I was voted in and has since served in that for the last year, as opposed to board member. That's my only contribution.

[Andre Leroux]: Good reminder. Can you make those changes, Amanda, in the documents? Thank you. Any other comments, edits? Seeing none. Yeah, are there any?

[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, sorry. I just wanted to mention David Bloomberg had submitted a couple kind of grammatical and smaller edits, which will be included as well.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, do we have a motion to approve the July minutes?

[David Blumberg]: This is David, I'd like to offer a motion to approve the minutes from our July meeting.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, with edits.

[David Blumberg]: Is there a second? No second.

[Andre Leroux]: Great, thanks class. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.

[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.

[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg. Aye. last address and Jackie Furtado. The minutes for July unanimously approved. Any questions, comments, edits on the August CD board meeting minutes? Is there a motion to approve?

[David Blumberg]: Andre David, I'd like to offer a motion to approve the August minutes or the minutes from our August meeting. I'm not sure if Jackie's title needs to be updated there as well, but of course that would, I think go without saying to make that adjustment if necessary.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you, David. I actually abstain from the August minutes. I did not attend the meeting.

[Andre Leroux]: But we will include that.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes.

[Andre Leroux]: So, okay. Is there a second?

[Jenny Graham]: This is Christy Dowd, I second.

[Andre Leroux]: A roll call, Deanna Peabody?

[Jenny Graham]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd?

[Jenny Graham]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg? Aye. Klaus Andresen?

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I don't believe I was at that meeting either. I could be wrong.

[Andre Leroux]: So abstain, I believe. And Jackie Furtado?

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I abstain. And Klaes and I both were out, I recall. We were both unavailable for that meeting.

[Andre Leroux]: Amanda, since we only have three, wait, one, two, no, we got four. Is that enough to approve those minutes?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, yeah. Four out of the, even if there were seven full members would still be fine.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Minutes are unanimously approved. for both July and August.

[Andre Leroux]: Next item on the agenda is the site plan review recommendation to the Board of Appeals for 200 Boston Avenue. Just a reminder that the Zoning Board of Appeals, the ZBA, is a special permit granting authority. So this board, the Community Development Board, is charged with providing a set of recommendations to the ZBA. My understanding is that they'll be opening their hearing on this project soon. So we are hoping to send them some recommendations at this meeting.

[David Blumberg]: Andre, this is David.

[Andre Leroux]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: As I did with the July meeting, I'll have to recuse myself as the applicant is my employer. I'll go ahead and mute myself and turn off my video and not participate in this part of our meeting.

[Andre Leroux]: So the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a meeting on September 15th, 2021 after 6 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to an application for site plan review submitted by Simmons Properties LLC and represented by Cummings Properties to construct a three-story addition and perform renovations to an existing non-conforming structure at 200 Boston Avenue to be used as a research and testing laboratory facility. This is an allowed use in an industrial zoning district. The project is subject to a site plan review special permit as per the City of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 94-331 and requires approvals from the Board of Appeals. So we will have a site plan review as already noted. I understand that We have someone from representing Cummings Properties, Micah Avini, the senior project architect, who will be able to give us a presentation about the changes that have been made to the project since we saw it last time.

[Michael Levaney]: Thank you, Chair LaRue. Thank you to Community Development Board for having us this evening, and the public for joining us. I will ask Amanda if I can share my screen.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yep, you should be good.

[Michael Levaney]: screen, screen one, share.

[Unidentified]: Can you see it? Excellent. We can see it. Okay. Can you hear me?

[Michael Levaney]: Awesome. Um, thank you again. Thanks for having us this evening. Um, again, my name is Michael Levine. I'm a senior project architect with Cummings properties with me this evening is, um, Michael Maduno. He's an architectural designer with Cummings properties. Um, Jim Trudeau, who's the chief design officer with Cummings properties and Eric Anderson, who's the president of Cummings properties. Following up our July 21st community development board meeting. and subsequent communications with various Medford officials, we are here to ask the board to reconsider its previous recommendation to construct an addition to the existing building at 200 Boston Ave. More specifically, since our last appearance, circumstances have changed and the proponent seeks to downsize the building addition, eliminating a floor and reducing the mass of the parking structure. The previously recommended project proposed redevelopment of a single level parking structure into a five story structure consisting of approximately 67,000 gross square feet of mixed use research and testing laboratory with 133 additional structured parking spaces. This included approximately 6,100 gross square feet of ground level space that could be purposed as commercial slash retail slash community amenity space. The revised project before the board this evening proposes redevelopment of the single level parking structure to a four story structure of approximately 41,000 gross square feet of mixed use research and testing space. with an additional 40 structured parking spaces. This proposal includes up to 2000 gross square feet on the ground level that is intended for the commercial retail community amenity space. We have a short presentation that I'd like to share with the board and the public. It's a combination of the information shared at the various meetings. we've had to this point in the municipal, the latest set of municipal approval documents that we submitted. So screen one, as you can see here, and I hope you can see the, as I move my cursor around, not to make anybody motion sick, but as you can see, this is what we propose the revised project to look like. It will be The previous project had three stories. This project would be two stories above the existing parking space, really with the same architecture, as was presented at the previous meeting, but the previously recommended structure. Let me see how I can. Okay, good. This is a similar view of the garage. As I mentioned earlier, we are looking to remove some of the structured parking. The structured parking that we proposed last time, we're looking to downscale that as well. So this would be our vision of the project, south looking north. Again, very similar to the last project, the massing and the scale was reduced. And actually, let me let me step back 111 step here, you know, part of the probably the biggest question that might be asked is what why are we looking to reduce the size of this project, as we introduce this project to the city. I think it was probably last December, it was done as partially speculative but really very significantly we had a client who's in the building now who was looking to expand and had done everything but you know signed on the dotted line to commit for this project. Literally, we met on the 21st it was wasn't but two or three days and the 21st of July was a Wednesday it might have been that Friday, the client informed us that indeed they were going to look elsewhere that this campus as a whole, didn't have enough space to suit them. We took this opportunity to say, okay, well, does this size of a building still make sense? And that information combined with some of the comments that we, some of the feedback that we did get at that July 21st meeting made us think, okay, maybe we should take a quick relook at this and maybe we could downsize it, come up with a product that still serves the needs of of the community still serves the needs of the project proponent and makes sense, and still fits in the scale of the neighborhood. So, I'm sure you've never heard this before I don't know how many times a developer has come and asked. a project proponent has come and asked to make it smaller, but that's what we're here to do this evening. It's totally new to me, 35 years doing this, first time ever. We're all going to have a different experience here for sure. So that really is kind of in a nutshell. We're very much still committed to making something happen here at this particular site. We believe that regardless of the potential that the existing client that we were looking to build this for is going to move on. We believe that this is still a very viable project and we're looking to move forward and very excited about it. So enough with that, I'll share with you some of the documents that I have here. Again, another view of the north end of the building looking south, very similar to what we presented at the last meeting. Still with the connector bridge that helps it become an addition, retains the addition value of the building. Again, if you were to compare the two packages, I think you'd see that they're very exactly the same. Again, I'll quickly go through some of these other documents because we're getting into the this is the package that the revised package that we submitted to the Community Development Board as part of this very similar, you know, looking existing conditions looking south looking east looking north, the locus plan, nothing changes the building is going to be in the exact same spot that we had proposed it to be the first time around. As you can see here, down at the bottom right-hand corner, the existing parking structure. I'm going to build right on top of that as we had previously proposed. Again, cover sheet, nothing but the date changed here. Again, very similar to what we had shown last time. Actually, the sheet is exactly the same. The yellow highlight shows the existing parking structure. The green shows what would be the roof where Um, here on the north end is the proposed commercial part of it. And this piece, um, this, this piece that goes to the south would be, um, where the additional parking, the one level of parking structure is going to go above the existing parking that's there now. Um, again, this it's interesting, this, another important thing to, um, that we thought about when we were doing this is again, this is a pretty in our, in our experience, a dense urban site and. To downsize it will certainly simplify it for us. It will certainly make it less intrusive, not only to the rest of the site, but the neighborhood. And we think we can do it much more efficiently and potentially do it as one operation. I think last time we discussed this, we had a phasing plan. and it was going to be, we were thinking about the garage first and then the commercial aspect of it second. And one of the comments, oh, what if the garage got built and you decide you didn't need the commercial zone? That was never gonna happen. We're not looking to build more of a garage here, but I think this might help us. And I'm not gonna say for certain, but it'll help us make this a lot easier to construct based on the tight site that we have here. Um, again, this is, uh, I'm going to kind of breeze through the utility plans here. Nothing changes regarding the utilities, um, the water and the sewer. I think subsequently to subsequent to our last meeting, we did meet on site with Peter Kerger and we're able to kind of nail down how the water and the sewer work on the site. So we're, um, we're kind of on track with that. Nothing changes. Um, the gas and the electrical all going to come from the same, same locations that we thought they were going to come from when we met. back in July. Again, grading and drainage, nothing changes. The footprint doesn't change. We'll address the grading and the drainage exactly the same as we had proposed in the past. I'm sorry, let me go back one here. landscape plan, interestingly enough. So with the downsized project, it may or may not be less disruptive to the existing. It certainly will in front of the commercial spot here on the northern part of the site. We won't be doing as much work in the buffer between the existing building and the sidewalk. So to the extent that the landscape will be revised, my guess it will be We will probably unfortunately destroy some of it building this, and I expect we'll do somewhat of a replacement. The new landscaping area here on the North end, which will be the outdoor space attached to the amenity or the outdoor space attached to the campus really, is where the focus of the landscaping will be. And it will be very similar to what we proposed last time. I don't expect it to be much different. specific plants and specific expansion of that program might happen depending on the time of year that we can get the plants. One of the other things that we had mentioned last, one of the things that came up last time, and if I can, if you can point your direction here to the, I'm going to say the southwest corner of the site, we added some, when you pull into that southern driveway, we added some landscaping in that area. One of the comments was to Um, pull the parking potentially a little away from the street. So we have eliminated a couple of parking spaces and added landscaping there to make that transition a little smoother. This slide is shows you the ground floor plan and in red on the bottom left hand corner. would be the amenity space that's proposed for that area. Again, indoor bicycle parking space right here, and we're gonna maintain the existing indoor bicycle parking space that's currently in the garage as well. So we believe there will be ample bicycle accommodations. And then this is very similar to What we had proposed in July, the footprint of this doesn't stay the same it's still roughly, I think this is about 19,000 square feet per floor might have been really run 20 before we've tweaked it a little bit but I don't think there's much to it. Really, virtually the same footprint. Again, second and third floor, this would be the proposed third floor proposed roof plan. Again, as we're looking for this to be a really kind of a life science research and testing facility, we do expect there'll be some equipment on the roof and much like was discussed last time. And one of the conditions of the recommendation from the community development board back in July was to make sure that we considered low zone equipment, low zone fans equipment that would be not so noisy, and we will continue to, we agree with that, and we will continue to work towards that. On the southern end of this is where we expect there will, the roof is solar ready, and we will work within the solar ordinance to comply with that. We work with the community development department to comply with the solar ordinance in the city of Medford. Again, these are sections that, just some schematic sections of how this will all together, this cut through if you're looking, at this point, you'd be looking from east to west, leasable space here. Again, previous one had an extra story here and a full couple of levels of garage. We're able to downsize it so that everything should work in this configuration. Schematic elevations. Again, the architecture is very similar. I know there were some comments about the architecture, which we can get to if the board so chooses, but the, you know, the architecture was intended to be mimic what we had done the previous submission. Again, just a kind of an isometric of what the building will look like. Again, there's the, again, a kind of a, Google Earth version with the building loaded right into there, very similar to last time, a little smaller than the adjacent building, larger building in the background, a little smaller, so it kind of steps down as you reach the street. And again, this is just the rendering package that we had shared before. Shadow study, good thing about this project is obviously with it being less massive, the shadows will be even less intrusive if not at all intrusive on the neighbors. And again, I think that's the same rendering that we had shared with you in the past. North looking south and I'd be happy to open it up to any questions.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Vaney. I know we have the city's director of transportation and traffic, Todd Blake, and I think he has to leave soon so I'm going to invite him to make any, any observations if he's here and wants to do that.

[Todd Blake]: Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I just want to comment on the memo that was submitted with the estimate of how they would tackle the formally agreed upon mitigation items. It seemed like my recollection from the first meeting was that the There was a trade off between doing certain mitigation on DCR roadways that may be safety related or signal related to doing more on city owned roads, but it didn't seem like the memo necessarily reflected that the equivalent dollar amount. So for instance, the green improved markings for the bike lane in the vicinity of the site stated for crossings but I think to get up to the equivalent amount, it would extend much further up Boston Ave so we're just looking for some clarity on that and make sure we're all on the same page with expectations of the board as well.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I could. Mr. Avini, would you also mind stopping your screen sharing just so we can see everybody?

[Michael Levaney]: Okay. Stop share. Thank you. Excellent. Oh, does that, I didn't realize that impacted how everybody saw things. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. So thank you, Mr. Blake. Yeah, it's interesting. I was looking at the, when we looked at how we were gonna, well, not how we're gonna, the things that wanted to be addressed as the traffic mitigation. I didn't have a chance to look back at the notes and I wasn't sure, I think from your original comment letter, it suggested some of these things, but it wasn't clear how far we're going to go. And then I went back and I was able to see some of the meeting minutes and we clearly talked about up to Winthrop street. So absolutely we'll go up to Winthrop street and I've actually revised it. I have it in my hand. I was looking at that recently and we'll be happy to revise that and share it. It's kind of scribbly now, but I'll be happy to revise that and share that with you. If we carried all nine intersections and that's what it is, we would very much be up at the, not that it was a magic number, but it would be very close if not exceeding, actually exceeding that $20,000 that we talked about last time. And obviously we're downsizing the building, but we'd be happy to kind of still work in that frame.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I mean, if that's the case I mean even if it went eight intersections versus nine we don't want to know be, you know, go beyond what may have been agreed to either so, and then the city does have some work going on, potentially going on the next year so at winter street anyway so I would just say, whatever. I would recommend whatever number of intersections reaches the, you know, kind of equivalent amount, I think, would be. I don't defer to the chair but that's what I would be looking for.

[Michael Levaney]: And that works with us obviously we've, we've put it out and get some. some pricing on just really understanding the cost and what it entails to do the green pieces. Very rough stuff. Actually, I got it from our traffic engineer. We haven't really put it out to bid yet, but that is something that we could be happy to work with our office to make that happen. I just want to add in one other thing as well on this topic. I was able to speak with an official from the city of Somerville, George Proakis, who's the, I'm going to say, forgive me for not knowing his title, he's probably the Victor Schrader equivalent. And he was very happy with the project and only asked that we don't leave that little Irvington Street in Somerville out. And I said, absolutely, we'll start there and work our way up. And I mentioned that Todd, as you had mentioned earlier, you would be happy to help coordinate this stuff with the city of Somerville. And they were thrilled. So I think we're on the right track. And that actually, that conversation with George, Mr. Proakis happened subsequent to our July 21st meeting. So I think the city of Somerville is happy with it as well.

[Andre Leroux]: So Director Blake, do you have suggestions as to condition language that you'd like to see?

[Todd Blake]: So, my, so my understand, based on the last meeting the way we kind of fluctuate between items and it was an overall kind of target number, but to achieve that number there are many different ways to get there. So we were, we had been hoping that. The proponent would outline what those are to achieve that and it sounds like they're saying basically the list that was provided. But in addition to the four of the green markings it looks like maybe eight intersections. So, it was hard for me to articulate exactly how far to go until they provide that estimate random numbers so. So I guess. I would say it depends. I think it depends on what the estimate is to reach that recommended agreed upon kind of number from last time. So, yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: Mr. Chair, if the proponent is suggesting that nine intersections would be amenable to them, then we would just include that, right? Because normally we do this based on the work, not the cost of the work.

[Michael Levaney]: So we're amenable to that I would only ask that if winter streets going to be with the streets are kind of a big one if winter sheets going to be revisited at some point in time soon then we could easily spend more than enough money on the eight. There was also a couple other things that we were going to include in that mitigation, including some static, highly reflective pedestrian warning signs at the crosswalks that were in front of the building that added some cost to the project. And the engineering support for the timing changes that our friends at the DCR are going to enact, we committed to. securing rod to help them execute that as well. So, right.

[Andre Leroux]: So, you know, for the, to be as expeditious as possible, you know, we have a set of conditions that we approved it for the last time we saw this project, the proponent has offered some suggested revisions. And so I'd like to really start our conversation with those revisions. And I'm wondering whether this is changing those conditions and if so, how.

[Michael Levaney]: Um, so we'll do one. I'm sorry. If we go right to that condition which I think was condition 11. Yeah.

[Todd Blake]: I'm wondering if it's just more of a clarification than a change, that would be up to you guys.

[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Vini, this is a, why don't you go and say what you were saying about how you know condition number 11 because basically condition number 11 just says, you know, proponent to perform work in compliance with the recommendations by the following department headliners.

[Michael Levaney]: Right. So the only clarification I was really looking for there how we were thinking about there was regarding the city engineers. comment letter. So the condition says, hey, you have to comply with these letters. Totally get it. On the traffic part of that, it wasn't clear to me or to us that There was a separation between all of the recommendations or thoughts that Mr. Blake had added to that letter and the conditions that the Community Development Board picked. So it was almost like Mr. Blake had a menu there, right? After a conversation with some Medford officials after that, we realized that okay, the Community Development Board picked a couple of things out of those menu that they wanted to see that were important to the Community Development Board that happened. So they did the work. Basically they said hey these are the, these are the two things we want you to do. we're okay with that. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't gonna come back on a technicality or something that we said, okay, yeah, we picked those two things, but there were still five other things that were in that letter that also need to be done. So we just wanted to make a clarification that in fact, the items that the community development board identified in the conditions were in fact the items that we were going to act upon. in Mr. Blake's letter.

[Andre Leroux]: Subsequently, I understand that. And so I'm wondering whether the comments that we've been having tonight is affecting the conditions above that. So conditions one through 10.

[Michael Levaney]: Um, no, I don't think so. I think that so the proponent. So if you look at the, The condition number three enhancement of the uphill bike lanes Yep, we're, we're doing that. It just wasn't clear what, what the, what the scope of that was and that's why there was, as Mr. Blake mentioned, I talked about four to get to a certain place. If it wants to be 45678 whatever it is to get to what, what the city intended the board intended, that's fine I just wanted some clarity.

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. It's basically a clarification of condition number three. And you're right. And I hope this is okay the way it was presented last time. It was a menu of options. If you collected all of them together, it would be far exceed the recommended value. So we had that thoughtful conversation about which ones would be appropriate. And then this was just a clarification to make sure that the chosen options from that menu add up to the recommended value, roughly. Right.

[Andre Leroux]: So director Blake condition number three currently states enhancement of the existing uphill bike lanes with increased information at the cross streets pending Somerville approval. The proponent has suggested revising the condition to proponent to enhance the existing uphill bicycle lanes at street crossings by painting standard green pavement markings to emphasize conflict areas between vehicles and bicyclists. Work to be performed at the Irvington Road, Stoughton Street, Harris Road, and Pinkham Road crossings. All work in Somerville to be coordinated with the Medford Director of Traffic and Transportation. That's four. So are we gonna call out, Director Blake, are you gonna call out, should we call out four additional intersections and would you like to specify what those are?

[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I would say yes to the four additional eight. It sounds like based on the estimate that the proponent just mentioned, I don't have, I'm pulling up the map right now to see what those four are.

[Alicia Hunt]: I have the map. North street.

[Michael Levaney]: West Quincy. Hillside. And there might be one I don't know.

[Todd Blake]: Adams as well. Okay, so North Quincy Adams hillside. Yeah, those are the other four. And I guess one additional point of clarification would be the memo says. standard green markings, standard in style and material. So there's two different types of material for bicyclists. So there's green paint, and then there's the slip-resistant green paint material. And that's much, there's a big difference in cost between the two. We'd prefer the slip-resistant style, which ends up to the eye, it looks kind of like green sandpaper. But you wouldn't necessarily. So in terms of the typical markets, it wouldn't necessarily be solid all the way across the side street. It's a skip across the side street. So you save on material in that regard, but it's more expensive material.

[Michael Levaney]: Yes, it goes between the two white dashes. I have some pictures. Amazingly, I was in Boston one night and I saw it and that's what we have to do. Took a picture of it, understood. Yeah, and it's fine. It's whatever the appropriate material is. And again, we had discussed that with our traffic consultant and he shared with us what he thought the cost might be, but I just haven't gone deep into it, but we're fine with that if those intersections are the ones that we're talking about. and it's slip resistant. That's fair. Absolutely.

[Andre Leroux]: I just wanted that and just that clarification. Right. Thank you, Director Blake. Any other comments? I know you have to leave soon.

[Todd Blake]: No, I think that covers. Thank you very much for your time.

[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you so much for joining us. All right. board members, let me open it up for questions and comments by all of you.

[Amanda Centrella]: One moment, Andre, I think we also have a member from the Historical Commission here to provide some feedback. Would now be the right time.

[Andre Leroux]: I was going to get comments from the board members before doing that. So I was just taking Director Blake first to So if you don't, if you don't mind holding on Doug to that'd be great. Any, any questions and comments before we go to the car from the historic commission. Yes, class.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Hi, I have two questions. First one is, could you go through and describe the way that the edges of the property are being treated, especially the ones that are up by any neighbors? And the second question is, can you describe the design intent behind changing the red brick to another material or a dark brick on the new design.

[Michael Levaney]: So thank you for the questions. How we address the neighbors, there are some neighbors to the north. I believe there is fencing there right now. We're not intending to do anything in that direction. If in fact, It made sense in the landscape area to add some, some more of a buffer, we'd be a vegetative a buffer we'd probably be amenable to that. To the, to the host residential development directly to the north. And regarding the red brick. I'm going to actually defer that. I'll ask the chief design officer here at Cummings Properties to maybe Jim Trudeau, if I can introduce Jim Trudeau and ask him to weigh in on that.

[SPEAKER_09]: Sure. Thanks, Mike. Everyone hear me okay? So the, I assume that the question is regarding red brick that at one point, the base of the building had red brick veneer around a significant amount of the base of the building, and as the property as the project scale as the amount of ground floor construction changed, it was determined that it would be, that also would be scaled back and to use a simpler construction methodology and to maintain more of the existing construction. So it was simply a function of the economics of a much smaller site, excuse me, much smaller construction. construction project and I think there was some there was some screening used shown here that it was probably worth some more development but in light of the time it took to you know we must admit we scrambled to to reconsider in light of the the time frame that Mike Avaney referred to earlier that The changes came on very quickly and working with the various boards in Medford, they helped us chart a path how we could revise our submission, but we had to put a significant amount of work into revising these renderings in particular. And so the, again, it was a project scale item. Does that answer the question?

[Unidentified]: What is the answer?

[SPEAKER_09]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that very well. I assume that was an acknowledgment.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: No, I was asking if it's not brick, then what is it?

[SPEAKER_09]: Oh, OK. So I can share my screen if that's OK. I have one of the renderings up. Does that make sense to be able to point out with the cursor here? Yes, please. Let me do that. All right. disabled screen sharing method. I don't know if that, oh, here we go. Thank you. So can everyone see this rendering of the project that's on my screen here? I'll zoom in a little bit, get a little closer. So previously there was, we had shown some brick on this lower section. And so right now we have probably most likely a synthetic stucco facade We've extended, because of the lower height, we've extended this glazed section, which previously was floating up more as a lantern design, but it was too small in the revised scale, so we decided to land it at street level, and unfortunately our rendering doesn't really play correctly with what's going on. no floor here, this would come down or be revised.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Thanks, Jim. Can I jump in just because I think you're bringing up something that maybe even is more maybe of concern to me is that in the previous rendering, it seemed that the retail space was sort of holding the corner in a sort of very civic way. I don't know that, you know, I know, or rather I know that this retailer and that retailer would ultimately, like I say, in how their sort of retail space looks, but are you suggesting in this that the retail space now moves down away from the main street? Because I think that's actually pretty problematic, because if you want any chance of this retail space I think it needs to be on that corner and address the main street that's there. To me, I don't know any retailer who would look at this space and say, sign me up, because it's just not going to get the looks that it should. I was saying about the reduction in height of the building and the lantern and all that, but I think from a civic point of view, removing the amenity space from the corner is a problem. Unless you have some more design to do on this corner and you're in fact suggesting that, it's just that the lantern's part of it.

[SPEAKER_09]: Well, we haven't removed the space from the corner. I see Mike has his hand up. I'll defer to him if he wants to comment.

[Michael Levaney]: Thank you, Jim. Amanda, can I share my screen again?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yep, you can go ahead once Jim takes this down.

[SPEAKER_09]: All right, I've got to find my unshare button here. Sorry.

[Michael Levaney]: You will stop others sharing the screen. Yes, OK. All right, screen one. Screen one, share. So I want to go back to one of the slides that's in the package here. And this red space in the corner to answer your question is the public amenity space will indeed be right up to the front of the building. It's not being pushed back like it shows. That was just a sign location potentially. Of course, if somebody wanted to use this space and have a sign location on the front in the glass area, We would certainly make an accommodation for that, but by no means were we intending to push the amenity space back from the corner. Absolutely, it's engaging the corner.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I think that's good. To me, I still think the previous version was much stronger. The red brick, we're in a neighborhood of mostly wood frame homes, but I still think that the red brick has a real it speaks to the scale of the neighborhood better than a big glass box. And for that matter, the retailer sort of clad in that red brick seems to me to be very, like much more welcoming. And it's a gesture that speaks more to integrating into the community than a retailer inside of a big glass box coming to the ground. And I think there's probably different ways to achieve what I'm suggesting. Maybe not going all the way back to what you had, but that was sort of why I asked about the brick originally, because I felt like it was, the building's a lot colder and more sort of, I feel like it doesn't integrate into the neighborhood quite as well in the new design. So I would urge you to take a second look at that or a third look. And then my comment about the property lines is I just think, you know, really this board is for site plan review. And I think it's very important that you carefully consider how your, your edges are meeting the neighbors and as much as you can be sympathetic to the scale of the homes on either side of you. And probably I would suggest some landscaping, some serious landscaping along those edges as well as a, a nicer fence so that those properties are protected and don't feel like they're just the back of a parking lot. Because I know you do a parking pretty close to the property line in those areas.

[Michael Levaney]: All fair points.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Thanks.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, just looking at kind of Google Street View there is a small strip of landscaping with some hedge, although the hedge seems to be intermittent. maybe fixing up that edge would be helpful. And also I think appreciate the southern end, what you've done to take a parking space or two and add a little bit of landscaping there to get the parking off of the street. Is there any chance you could do the same thing at the other entrance, the one which is kind of the main entrance where the retail is going to be?

[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, for sure. I think we could absolutely look at that and consider that as well. Obviously we're right up against the parking number, but I don't think the parking's an issue here at all. So we could absolutely consider softening that corner if that makes sense. And yeah, landscaping and considering our neighborhood right directly to the north is something that we're very much open to and would probably have done it had you said not, had it not come up here for sure.

[Andre Leroux]: Kristi Dowd.

[Jenny Graham]: Hi, thank you. So I think just sort of extending a little bit of what Claes was saying, what I noticed is really the change in the base, and I think what's being lost in this new design is that pedestrian activation at the bottom. I understand that, you know, the amenity space has reduced in size with the overall reduction of the building. And now it's more focused on the corner where it had extended up further on Boston Ave. And now it appears to be being replaced with just a mesh cover of parking. So I just raise that as something that I think that makes it that base of the building now looks like it's a rear of the building and Boston Ave is a pretty important street. And so if there's some consideration on how you treat that, Aesthetically, as you advance this design, I would highly recommend that you look at that closer because it does look now like it's a back of building. And I'm having a hard time understanding where the primary entrance of the building is in the updated plans. It was very clear in the last ones. Is that the same entrance next to the amenity space?

[Michael Levaney]: just bear with me one second, let me go back a couple of slides here so I can remember one. So yes, it was gonna be adjacent to the amenity space. So it's interesting, really the entrance to the amenity space can be almost anywhere along the front or the side piece of the north face there, just depending on how the end user wants to break that up. The entrance to the two-story structure above really is from inside the garage, the existing garage. And that remained unchanged. We had always expected that there was going to be, you know, the users of the space above were really going to wind up parking in the parking garage and work their way up. But there is opportunity to potentially address the amenity space on the front, the Boston Ave facing side, similar to how we looked at it last time, maybe carving it out a little bit and engaging the street a little more for sure. I will mimic a little what Jim said. like I said, we hastily put this together, but we, we thought, okay, this, you start with a simple concept and you kind of get here and, um, you know, these are at that concept plans and we, we haven't spent a lot of time working out the details and certainly. Jim and I spoke about this today, that there's a lot of little tweaks that'll happen when we kind of detail this out and figure out how it all is gonna go together. And when the architectural team now, or the build part of the architectural team, let's just say, gets to it and picks out things that need to be thought through. So it's a concept, it's definitely a work in progress, but we will certainly consider all of these comments going forward.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think part of the point is making that block, you know, breaking up the block a little bit so that the garage section looks distinct. And I know you're trying to do that, but on the first floor now it may blend together, which is where the pedestrian experiences. So I was trying to make that first floor of the mixed use section a little bit more, look more like the mixed use part of it.

[Michael Levaney]: It's funny you say that because Jim and I were looking at the renderings today. The first thing he said was, how come, how come the vertical element didn't go all the way down and we absolutely. And to the point you said I didn't approve. And he's probably right. And again, we agree 100% and we can reconsider how that really is separate and engages the street level. I think we can do a better job of that, sure.

[Andre Leroux]: Other comments by board members before we go to Doug Carr with the historic commission? All right, Mr. Carr.

[Deanna Peabody]: I just had one quick question. So there's no way to get into the building except for going through the garage, like the parking garage?

[Michael Levaney]: Correct. You had no way to get into the upper level. That's correct.

[Deanna Peabody]: I just think that if you are walking, that that could be not the most pleasant experience.

[Andre Leroux]: But, well, correct me if I'm wrong, there will be an entrance on Boston Avenue, which will go into the bottom floor of the garage where there'll be access to the top floor. So there is an entrance there, and then there is gonna be an entrance, a pedestrian entrance to the garage on the north side of the building, the other retail space as well, right?

[Michael Levaney]: I'm gonna share my screen again just to, to address that. So everybody can see the screen again. So yes, right here, there's an awning and we expect that there'll be two doors, one that can lead you into the amenity space theoretically, and one that leads you into an opportunity to get to the, not very far to get to a set of stairs, which goes up to the upstairs. There is also an existing stairwell here on the Boston Ave side that will lead you to the second set of stairs. Obviously this can be dressed up a little more And we can add, add some features that screams that that's kind of where you wanted to go if you were walking into the building. Fair point.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, this is Christy got the. That's why I asked about the building main building entry because in the last iteration, it was very clear that there was a main entry right there with an awning, which made that portion of the facade, you know, look look more pedestrian friendly.

[Michael Levaney]: Yep, we share that view, and we will, we will absolutely

[SPEAKER_09]: One other thing I'll throw in is that it goes back to the heart that this building is an addition to the main building, and a lot of the main services are provided out of the main building, and we have a multi-story bridge connecting two. So notwithstanding that there is a population of pedestrians, even the cyclists are parking in the building, and there's certainly the number of garage and So we watch where people come from currently, and a lot of them are not pedestrians. And so they're finding their way in through the main entry, which is off the center drive section. So there's that aspect as well.

[Alicia Hunt]: Andre, before you go to Doug, I just wanted to clarify one thing with the proponents.

[Andre Leroux]: Sure. Go ahead, Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. I noticed in different iterations of the renderings and versions of the site plans, there was different sort of treatment of the plantings in front of the building. And my feeling was, I like to think the best of everybody, that it was just sort of this rendering issue and that the intention was to keep all the plantings that are currently there, enhance them, as possible, like you're not planning to clear cut everything out front in order to do your project, but you couldn't quite tell that. So I just thought I would ask you to just address and confirm what your plans were with the plant material plantings in the front of the building.

[Michael Levaney]: Fair question, and that was brought to my attention as well. So The, it's funny because the original set showed everything really dark and it looked like the set and it was all going to be, our intention is that obviously we're going to have to, we will lose some plant material that's there now that will be replaced. It'll just be a casualty, unfortunately be a casualty of the construction. We will be as careful as possible. My guess is this stuff will be dug up. We'll find a nice place for it and we'll try to put it back. We will treat the entire facade, the entire engaged part at Boston Ave with the same care that we will treat the patio at the amenity space in the same care that we do now. I had a conversation with one of your colleagues today and I said, you know, that's one of the things that I think we do a really nice job with. It makes no sense to clear cut it and make it look awful where we're We're trying to make this a building that everybody can use and is happy to engage in. And as you can see on one of the renderings, we obviously have, we planted a row of trees. This will look more like the renderings than it will the plans.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, I appreciate that. Having seen many Cummings buildings, I didn't imagine that you were planning to like make it look bad. you know, lack of plantings, but I wanted that on the record too, that you're planning to do it.

[Andre Leroux]: Appreciate it, thank you very much. And Mr. Avini, are you suggesting though, there are some, you know, I'm not worried about the bushes and hedges and stuff, but there are some trees that are there that are quite close to the garage edge. And, you know, they're not, they might have like 20 years worth of growth, which are you suggesting those are going to have to be cut down? or do you think some of those can be saved?

[Michael Levaney]: I think we'll save as much as we can and what will have to be removed will be removed and replanted. It will be, I will say this, it'll be a lot easier to save them in this scheme than it would have been in the past scheme. I think if we were building the garage up to five stories, no way those things would have survived, but I think, you know, we could take a shot. There are a couple of, there are some street trees to differentiate between the trees that we're talking about. There are some street trees that obviously will remain. There are a couple of older mature trees that are in the landscaping, more self adjacent to the garage. What can be saved will be saved and what can't be will be supplemented with new trees.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, Mr. Carr, let's go to you.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you Chairman LaRue, I appreciate it. My name is Doug Carr. I'm speaking on behalf of the I actually live at 124 Boston Ave, just a few blocks away, but I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the commission. We sent a four page letter that tried to talk about ways to improve this project. We think it's a great project. We think it's a really excellent addition to the streetscape. The scale being reduced is important and a good move. The reduced garage is also excellent. We think it does create more of a campus atmosphere. And we do think that with the hopeful extension of the green line to the U-Haul building, the phase two that's been under consideration for almost a decade now, that that will eventually happen. And that will make this part of Medford much more of a transit-oriented development than it is now. And I know we're getting there. That's part of the reason this project is on the table. So to try to sum up our letter, I hope the commission, community development board had a chance to look at it. We think there's a couple of ways to improve this because the design has changed, you know, it was two buildings side by side previously. And that's still true, but they're not the same anymore. Because, you know, before, there was really no chance we were ever going to add on to that garage where when I look at this building, as an architect or any as an owner, I see that there's clearly a large potential that someday in the future, that lab portion of the building could be extended over the entire building. And what the emphasis of the letter was that the design of the building should be looking at that appropriately and treating the parking garage enclosure two very different ways under the lab building and only the parking garage building, even though they're very similar right now in terms of their plan. I did have a question because the elevations say it's an enclosed screen mesh to allow for an open non-mechanical system below the office lab space. I know from experience that that is something that is extremely open and it's not very concealing to the cars versus the colored panels that you have. Obviously, you know it's a garage, but you don't actually see the grills and the headlights, et cetera, of those because it's enclosed more. So could you at least, let's just start with that question. Could you address that and maybe ways we can improve that?

[Michael Levaney]: Can you clarify what the question is? So are you suggesting that the mesh, even if it was a more dense mesh, would be insufficient to shield the shield the view of the vehicles?

[Doug Carr]: Yes, I am. And I think the elevations say one thing and the perspectives actually show what it looks to me like to be a storefront system on the renderings. It looks to me like there's, and this may be part of what you referred to earlier, is just the accelerated timeline. But I think we definitely want something that looks more like a building than an open mesh where you'll clearly see the garage because the amount of openness that needs to happen on there is upwards of 90% to get the airflow through there that you need to have no mechanical system. I don't understand why you would do that, because you're not doing that in the majority of the garage, but you're doing it under the building.

[SPEAKER_09]: I can jump in here. Please, thank you. Yeah, I mean, we've dealt with the same issue. We're familiar with the, you know, the calculations needed for fresh air. And we've on many garages, you know, added, you know, either glass or screening to create the image that, oh, that's not a garage back there. space or occupied space. So that's the intention of the intermediate level is to show some vertical mullions, whether it's glass or whether it's some type of screen, whether a nylon or an aluminum. So we've had pretty good luck. you know, getting the screening. We're not representing that it's 100%, you know, opaque. You know, as Mike said earlier, you know, the screen on the Boston Ave facade specifically, you know, that didn't get the attention that I certainly felt it deserved. And, you know, we do a lot with, you know, whether it's a historical mural, we recently, you know, wrapped a staircase at our Cummings Center in Beverly, with a historical mural. So we haven't determined what that is gonna be exactly, but the intention is to, we have an existing garage, it's still there, the same garage that's been there for 20 plus years is still behind that. There's obviously a significant amount of landscape there that acts as a buffer and that will still, be existing or be retained or replaced, as Mike mentioned earlier. So our intention is to create a better looking screen than this sort of generic gray that's shown there.

[Doug Carr]: I appreciate those comments and I don't disagree with them, but I think to echo what both board member Dowd and Andreas said earlier, the previous scheme was more pedestrian friendly. And what I see here with so much garage that is minimally screened or barely screened, I think is an opportunity to improve that. And I would argue that what you have in the ground floor with the bike storage room, for example, is really the way the way that's designed that could certainly be expanded by the four spaces next to it and create what I would call kind of this fake retail approach that would more activate that street because that bike we often design in my profession in multifamily and office buildings we design bike storage rooms that are not storage rooms they're like lounges they have color high quality lighting. They have, you know, car bike repair stations, you can make that look like retail, even though it's not in function like that with light at night. There's a lot of things that can do that what might you might shave a few spaces, but give a much more pedestrian friendly approach to that Boston Ave streetscape, which is so critical, which is I know your intent as well.

[SPEAKER_09]: Um, sure, as Mike mentioned, you know, we're open to suggestions. Obviously, in light of the scale back, that's, you know, that was one of the casualties was putting that, you know, keeping a simpler, you know, lower section of the building. One other thing I'll mention is that previous retail design, we had to really take out the entire landscaped area there. That is below grade. I know Mike probably has commented this move up, Boston Avenue raises in elevation as you head south and you're several feet below grade. So to excavate that, there's a significant amount of retaining walls, HP access, drainage, challenges, foundation modification because you've lost frost control. So notwithstanding how quote unquote nice it would have been, it was also very expensive to achieve and also at the expense of the distinct landscape. So So I think we, you know, as Mike has said, we will take your comments and see if we can improve that facade element to, you know, to create a sort of vibrant streetscape. I mean, we, Mike, I know this talked about, you know, benches and seating. We want to create, you know, engagement. We have a program out here in the more suburban world or creating little park labs, creating spots for some more human engagement, you know, along that street edge, and, you know, creating, you know, using some of that, you know, urban infrastructure to, you know, create a great walkable environment.

[Doug Carr]: Just a few other comments. Could you address my, my, again, I just want to emphasize these are These are constructive criticisms to try to improve the project. I am 100% behind this project. So I'm just trying to make it better, as everyone on this column sure is. Could you address the fundamental critique of the letter from the historic commission about the fundamental change in the design and how a future expansion doesn't look like it's being set up by this design?

[SPEAKER_09]: Sure. You want me to take that, Mike? You want to go ahead? Yeah, well, you're talking to the guy that proposed this project six or seven years ago. So just to give you a little perspective, and it was only recently as the lab desirability became so great that the company said, you know what, maybe we should look at that. And we had proposed some pretty significant and large schemes. And as we dove into it, we really looked at, hey, it's a challenge. challenging spot to build. There's not a lot of lay down area, there's not a lot of prep area. And when, as Mike mentioned, when a real candidate to take the larger amount of space that we originally proposed, they kind of stepped away from the table, that reassessment came in. So, hey, we can't say what the future will hold. It's a significant economic challenge to modify the existing garage. You'll see this new scheme is really, we've created a sort of aesthetic front end on the garage. We're not putting a roof, so it's called, or solar support structure over that second level, the existing level of the garage. It's an economic issue for us. to create, to build another floor atop this across the existing roof. That's an expensive build. It's gotta be insulated below. I'm not sure the footings are gonna hold up. I don't know if you've looked closely at the documents that we're preparing. In our efforts to maintain some of the existing garage there, we are doing some significant structural, you know, invasions of that building. We've got to try and hold up the existing structure and get the new structure to come down around it. And it's challenging. And to do it again at the other side for one single floor, I don't think that we would see that happening. Again, I don't know what's going to happen. And I would say that, okay, if it does happen in the future, you know, I think we can make it look good. I mean, if I could share my screen again, if that's okay. So, so this this screen to, you know, this is an addition that we did on on the original building many years ago and, you know, we've got a lot of positive, you know, comments for that and that was over a single story like was the boiler room for the building and it's got a contemporary edge compared to the traditional part of the building so. I think we'd make it work. Again, we have about 20 people involved in design. We put a lot of effort, we take pride in putting out a good product. I mean, obviously there are some, what we call the business side of the company, sometimes that limits us. There's a lot of aspects that go into a development and certainly the design team loves to put our best foot forward. And sometimes that's either deemed to be, it can happen because of whether it's funding or some other practical aspects of it. So I hear you. I just think that that's a tough thing to say to predict that far ahead and not think that we couldn't make it work at that time.

[Doug Carr]: I appreciate that comment and I'm not unfamiliar with economic challenges for clients and developers and owners for sure. I guess that, you know, at a fundamental level, and this was something the historic commission said in its original letter is that the way the garage is designed right now is obviously completely dictated by the garage that was built 50 years ago, because you're limited because you're stuck with the ramping, you're stuck with the geometry, you're stuck with the foundations. And it's a somewhat, it's unfortunate in some way, because obviously, it's it's urban design one on one to put the flat portion of the garage not the ramp portion on the public face and here you can't do that because of the existing geometry of the garage. You know, we would normally if we're facing a railway or a highway we would put the sloping ramps on that face is a, we put the public face to the to be the flat area. We can't do that here because this garage is dictating the geometry of the garage tapping above because you're limiting by that. But what that means is that we're, we're, we're kind of stuck here a little bit because, you know, I would envision in the future. If with the green line comes here that the parking demand for this project would go down dramatically, and you may not need that much parking but then converting that to non parking use would be very challenging with this scheme because of the way it's designed. I know you guys think for the head, you know, and what I'm saying may never happen, but I, I'm sure if buildings just don't get smaller, they get bigger over time, whether it's a single family residence or an office building, if it can, it will with economic incentives. And obviously, a green line coming here would be a game changer and change your campus. So at a minimum, I think we want to make sure that we don't do anything in this design to preclude that potential future expansion and have a treatment at least at the garage under the building that is that is doesn't isn't dictated by McKenna ventilation, but the architecture of the street more than anything else.

[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I mean, I hear you. I'll start my second, I guess one thing where, you know, We were very intrigued by the notion of articulating this angled facade of the street. I mean, I think an urban environment, one of the most exciting aspects is that mix of history and modernity. And our hope here is that we've created a little tension maybe, but hopefully not something that doesn't have a dialogue with the other aspects of the neighborhood. Our goal is to create something exciting and sometimes new that doesn't blend in, you know, it's a fine line. Hopefully we can make that, reach that goal. And we did, you know, we have had internal discussions of how we could in the future as, let's say, not only the Green Line comes in, but let's say more automated transit options, ride sharing, what have you, come in. There are a couple of flat spots on that floor that we've talked about. We could expand into it on a much smaller scale, but that whole notion of how you can convert garage, I think, will certainly be a real viable issue in the future. It's a substantial investment in that existing garage. And it just, the amount of money to tear it down, you know, we talk internally here about the sustainable side of that. You know, there's an intrinsic amount of energy that goes in taking something down and building something new. Notwithstanding the new might be great and awesome and great for long-term, but what's that, the energy that you put into doing that, you know, you've thrown a lot of good away. So hopefully we can find the balance between the two.

[Doug Carr]: appreciate those comments. Look, this is a quality garage quality building. I really think that we're not far apart. I think the city will see these comments are primarily focused on the land on the on the public realm around the building. And I agree with most of those comments. So I look forward to seeing the next iteration and appreciate your time.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you very much. But Jim, can you stop your screen sharing? Oh, sorry. The green hog here.

[Andre Leroux]: Sorry about that. That's okay. Thank you. So I'd like to move this along. I'd like to review the conditions and the proposed revisions to the conditions that the proponent has made. And then in light of the conversation we've had, identify whether there's any further tweaks that we're incorporating. So let me just pull that up. Okay, so condition number one, we had provision of bus stop benches and bus shelters if accessibility allows. The proposed revised condition from the proponent is Proponent to provide a bench in the landscape area at the outbound bus stop adjacent to the property. Applicant to consult with the Medford Engineering Department to determine if adequate space exists within the Boston Avenue right of way to install a bench at the inbound bus stop adjacent to Harris Road.

[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, you want me to comment. Yeah, I mean, unless anybody else does I'm happy to let someone else go. Yeah, we just want to make sure that if, if we're gonna do something across the street it's done in connection with the city and we make sure that there's an appropriate landing spot for that we can dictate where it is on on the outbound side. because we can put it on our property, but we don't have any control of what's across the street. So we just wanted to add some clarification to that to make sure that we're all on the same page.

[Andre Leroux]: Right. And I think the idea is just if I think in the renderings, we saw like a bench, but it's just kind of floating on the green edge there. So making sure that it's landscaped and maybe connects to the walkway that you're building to the retail area. Yep. Fair enough. Thank you. Condition number two additional bike racks in proportion to the rentable square footage of the addition, and the proponents suggesting a proponent to continue to monitor demand for and maintain sufficient bike racks at the property.

[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, we have added bike racks there. As time has gone on a little different in the last year and a half or so, but that's something that. I can say with certainty. I've ridden my bike over there. I know Jim probably has too. And we're, we're, we're into the bike thing. So we, um, as a company we are.

[Andre Leroux]: Um, so we have all the bike racks, sorry, internal to the garage.

[Michael Levaney]: No, there was actually a couple extra ones. Um, there's a couple exterior ones is one next to the one 96 building that's outside. There was also one, um, in the addition that Jim referred to earlier, the 2011 edition of back, uh, adjacent to the tracks it's underneath. It's open to the sides, but it's underneath the, the overhang adjacent to the loading dock. So there are one, two, three. There are three places on the site that have bike racks. There is more concentrated in the garage, but they are available to everybody.

[Andre Leroux]: I don't know if you have any, if they're hard to see or whether they need any like little wayfinding, maybe especially for folks who may be going to the retail, you know, if there's a little, a little signage for bike parking so that they can go inside the garage.

[Michael Levaney]: Yeah. That's totally can be added to that for sure.

[Andre Leroux]: Just board members, feel free to jump in at any point if you have additional comments. Condition number three, we already talked about with Director Blake about the bike lanes. So I don't think we need to talk about that. Condition number four, pedestrian warning signs at the existing unsignalized crosswalks at Harris Road and Irvington Road pending Somerville approval. Proponents suggesting language saying, proponent to install static highly reflective pedestrian warning signs at the existing unsignalized crosswalks at Harris Road and Irvington Road. four total. I'll work in Somerville to be coordinated with the Medford Director of Traffic and Transportation. That seems fine. Condition number five that the proponent work with DCR to improve single timing at Mystic Valley Parkway and Boston Avenue and Mystic Valley Parkway and Auburn Street proposed revision to proponent to supply DCR with recommended timing modifications and on site engineering support to improve signal timing and Mystic Valley Parkway and Boston Avenue. and Mystic Valley Parkway and Auburn Street. All control work on DCR equipment to be performed by DCR or its approved contractor. Again, that seems fine. Any comments by anyone? Okay. Condition number six, provision of occupancy sensors throughout the building with the suggested revision proponent to install Occupy sensors throughout the building addition in compliance with applicable building codes. also seems fine. Condition number seven, that any exterior lighting will be downlighting. A proposed language by the proponent is proponent to use downlights in any new exterior light fixtures installed on the building addition. And I'm wondering if there was a concern there about, are you gonna have some like uplighting, like spot uplighting, or you wanted to make the distinction between on the building versus exterior?

[Michael Levaney]: No, the only thing I think is we could potentially, we have done some enhancement lighting in the past, which is really kind of nice. We'd like to be able to potentially do that as well, but we're thinking, you know, the lighting to the security lighting and the, you know, the safety lighting, if you will, would be all down light on the building. That's fine.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Any concerns by board members about that? Are we good? All right, hearing none. Condition number eight, provision of additional trees to shade the patio area and sidewalk trees as appropriate. The proponent will work with the tree warden on selection of appropriate trees with height, but that will not disrupt sidewalk. Proposed revision stating proponent to install trees to shade the onsite amenity patio area as appropriate and to replace any dead or derelict trees existing in the tree wells adjacent to the property. to consult with the Medford Tree Warden to select species of trees which will not disrupt the sidewalk at maturity. And maybe we should add some language there just saying that if any trees are, existing trees on the property are removed as a result of the construction, that they will be, you know, at a minimum replaced.

[Michael Levaney]: Totally fine with that.

[Andre Leroux]: Condition number nine, the proponent will ensure that pedestrian crossings across the driveways remain at grade from sidewalk to sidewalk, either by painting crosswalks across the driveways or by making the crossing concrete match the sidewalk. In the event that the driveways are reconstructed, the pedestrian crossing shall be maintained at the sidewalk level. Proponent is agreeable that that stays as is. Condition number 10, ensure that the rooftop equipment will be as low noise as is feasible and include appropriate noise screening. Again, proponent says that condition is agreeable as is. And then the final condition is compliance with the recommendations by the department headletters with a few clarifications, which want a couple with the fire chief's letter. So the clarification of the proponent to consult with chief Giliberti regarding code compliant rooftop fall protection and the clear width of parking lot travel lane shall not be reduced from the current existing conditions. And then we already discussed the city engineers letter, which included the traffic conditions saying that the community development board has identified in the above conditions one through 10, traffic and transportation improvements to be implemented by the proponent. And then the final condition is just that the project subject to the city's solar ordinance and linkage fees, again, that language would stay the same. So a few things I think that we've covered at the meeting today, though, to include into the conditions. One is to strengthen the landscaping at the north edge of the property. along the Butters line, also at the North end of the property to strengthen the landscaping at the entrance. So to the extent possible, mirroring what you're doing at the Southern entrance. I think in terms of the facade, there's been a strong discussion on that. And so I think we should have include in the conditions language saying that the facade treatment will, at least along Boston Ave, will go down to the, be continued down to the ground level so that we don't have, again, some different kind of like just grayish or garage-like treatment at the bottom. Is that? Does that make sense? Is that your intention anyways from what I was hearing?

[Michael Levaney]: Yes, I think. That makes sense. I just want to clarify it, though, that it's going to be kind of in the southern half of the building. We're still looking to kind of treat them as two separate. We're going to continue to treat the garage-only section as it has been, with obviously some modifications as we detail it. But if you're looking specifically at the lower section under the occupiable space, if you will, that's... Yeah, the mixed-use part of the building.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that's good.

[SPEAKER_09]: application.

[Andre Leroux]: Um, and I think there's, you know, there's a desire to see the wrapping of the garage section to be as opaque as possible. I know there's still some design work that you guys are going to be doing around both of these things, but Yep.

[Unidentified]: Fair enough. Um,

[Andre Leroux]: And I think we wanted to also make sure that the Boston Avenue pedestrian entrance to the building was strengthened.

[Unidentified]: Board members, any other additions? Okay, seeing none.

[Andre Leroux]: Oh, yes, Mr. Carr, I see you'd like to make a comment.

[Doug Carr]: Just real briefly, I assume that the changes to the Boston Ave elevation, these tweaks would be handled by Alicia at the staff level, it'd be something you'd have to work out with the planning board, is that correct?

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, they wouldn't be coming back to us for that.

[Unidentified]: Very good, thank you.

[Michael Levaney]: Thank you, that's an excellent point. I appreciate that clarification.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, seeing no other hands raised for comments, then is there a motion by a board member to recommend approval of the project at 200 Boston Ave with the conditions that we've just outlined.

[Unidentified]: This is Deanna. I'll make the motion. Thank you, Deanna. Is there a second? This is Christy Dowd. I will second.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Christy. All right, going to a roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.

[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.

[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg has recused himself, so Kless Andreasen. Yes. Jackie Furtado.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I wasn't sure that I was a yes, but I trust in the process and I'm a yes. Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. I think I got everybody. All right, and I'm a yes as well. The motion unanimously passes with one recusal. So thank you very much for the effort that you've put into this. appreciate the improvements.

[Michael Levaney]: Thank you to the board and for the patience with us here. We didn't mean to exercise anybody with this, but we very much appreciate all the effort that everybody collectively and individually has put into this. And we'll see where it goes. Awesome. Thank you so much. Have a great evening. Good luck with the project and with the ZBA. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good night.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, the next item on the agenda is site plan review recommendation to the Board of Appeals for 16 Foster Court. Again, the ZBA is the Special Permit Granting Authority, so we would be charged with providing a set of recommendations to the ZBA. Let me just call out the notice here. Okay, the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a meeting on September 15th, oh, no, 22nd, 2021, after 6 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to an application for a site plan review submitted by Ari Goldschneider to construct a new structure at 16 Foster Court. Scope of work for this project consists of a four-story building containing eight residential dwelling units in an apartment two zoning district, which is unallowed use. This project is subject to site plan review special permit as per the city of Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94, section 94-332. Project also requires approvals from the board of appeals. Could the proponent Mr. Goldschneider make a presentation about the project?

[Kathleen Desmond]: Good evening, Chairman LaRue and board members. Kathleen Desmond here from Conway Law on behalf of the proponent, Ari Goldschneider. In addition to Mr. Goldschneider, we have the project architect with us, Adam Glassman of GCD Architects of Cambridge, the project engineer, Guillermo Beltran of Spruhan Engineering located in Newton, and our traffic engineer, Steven Siragusa of Design Consultants of Somerville. At this point, I know that most, if not all, of the board members are somewhat familiar with the outline of the proposed project, as we did have an informal meeting and able to discuss the overall design. Following that meeting and the comments received, the team did go back and revise the plans to incorporate comments. I'll provide a little background for those viewers that may not be familiar with the scope of the project and then turn the presentation over to the design team. The subject site is situated on foster court, which is private way, located off of Riverside Avenue, within a half a mile of public parks and shopping areas, such as the medical mall and the fellows way Plaza. The property is located within an apartment to district and as you had indicated is allowed to use. At present there's a two family structure, which sits on an approximately 13,696 square foot parcel of land. The proposed project calls for the demolition of the two family structure, and in accordance with the plan submitted the construction of a residential building that is comprised of a garden level, three above grade floors and a penthouse level. The overall height of the building will be approximately 48 feet. When completed the proposed structure will include eight residential units consisting of two 62 bedroom units and two three bedroom units. The two bedroom units will be approximately 1160 square feet of living space. and the two third floor bedroom units will be a slightly larger consisting of approximately 1730 square feet. The units will be distributed evenly between the floors of the building, including the garden level, each of the units will have some exterior living space. The total gross floor area of the building as proposed will be approximately 11,511 square feet. In terms of zoning relief briefly. of the proposed uses of permitted use within the S apartment to district, the zoning relief side is modest requiring dimensional relief by way of a variance of finding as to the left yard setback lot with usable open space parking, and due to the cover nature of the porch, a finding of not substantially more detrimental, because with the covered porch. It then encroaches into the, into the front yard. with that brief overview, I'll turn the presentation over to the project architect, Adam Glassman, and he can run through the plans in more detail for the board.

[SPEAKER_24]: Sure. Could I have permission to share the screen?

[Amanda Centrella]: Should be good now, Adam.

[SPEAKER_24]: So can everybody see what I'm sharing, the street Google view of Foster Court? Yes. Okay, I'd like to take everyone on a brief tour just to clarify the context for everyone. This is the intersection of Riverside and Foster Court. You can see the existing housing stock, mainly two and a half story to two story wood frame structures. on this, this is the north side of our site. And this is where we've got this older housing stock, extensive asphalt paving. We have no sidewalks. Many of the homes have no front landscape buffers. This takes us to Our site, 16 Foster Court, which everyone's probably familiar with the structure. More local context, what we've got to respond to. Again, this is a neighborhood that I would say could use some improvements, and I think we offer that. The south side, we have the Medford Housing Authority with longer two, two and a half story residential structures, and on the perimeter of the site, we've got a mix of one-story structures. We have walkability on the north side, or on the south side with the sidewalks here, and the sidewalks terminate at the Medford Housing Authority. We'll now, let's see, share a different screen. Okay, can everyone see the cover sheet to our plans?

[SPEAKER_11]: No, Adam. All right, here we go. How about now?

[Alicia Hunt]: You probably shared just that window.

[Andre Leroux]: We got it now. Oh, you got it.

[Unidentified]: Okay, hold on.

[SPEAKER_24]: Sometimes there's a delay. Sorry about that, you see it now? Yep.

[SPEAKER_11]: Okay, all right, so existing- Hey Adam, can you close the right side so the screen just gets a little bit bigger, hit that arrow all the way in the middle. Oh. Down, right in the middle.

[SPEAKER_24]: Gotcha, okay, thank you. Okay, existing foster court, one and a half story structure, and our proposed three story, eight unit, three story plus penthouse, eight unit new construction. Cathy, did you want to go through the zoning? Oh, you're muted.

[Kathleen Desmond]: As I indicated previously, we're in compliance with all but the left side yard setback. The, the width of a lot because it varies from place to place. parking because we have 10 spaces required would be 16. And the covered porch, because it's covered, it encroaches into if it was an uncovered porch, it would not be considered a zoning violation, but there is a bit of an encroachment. But that's essentially what we will be seeking relief for under the zoning ordinance.

[SPEAKER_24]: Thanks, Kathy. The existing site plan, almost 14,000 square feet, the existing structure to be removed. Some of the design constraints or challenges that we have would be A, the geometry of the lot, it's long, narrow, almost trapezoidal. We did design to fit originally the entire structure responding to these setbacks. Outside of the required setbacks, however, in response to some CD comments, We did add a covered front porch, which was a good addition. It does require relief. We're offering 10 parking spaces, two of which can be made into handicap use spaces when required, when needed. We've got a 20 foot wide fire lane on the south side. So between the fire lane and the setbacks, we're constrained to a very small portion of this site. We're squeezed in from the parking on the right, and the left side setback. Overview of the, uh. Local housing types building types that we are trying to respond to in a sensitive way, uh, directly behind foster court. Uh B is the Lots of brick, not much detail, lots of asphalt. Here is Foster Court, obviously. We've got the mix of very small housing types, any of which precede the zoning code. Then we've got these monsters that kind of loom over this area. Mystic apartments, I think. of the intersection visually a lot of these housing types, uh, and we're trying to bridge them. Visually. Uh site plan. Um This describes, uh, that we're removing all asphalt. There'll be no asphalt used on this site at all. We've got pervious pavers for parking, a 24 foot wide parking lane, pavers for the parking in the rear, paver pathways around the building, landscape areas around the building, along Foster Court, along the left side property line. We're introducing a sidewalk on will be. Uh 16 foster court property, uh, bill be, um. Open and available per easement to the public. This will connect to the, uh, uh, sidewalks at the Medford Housing Authority, so be improving the connectivity or the walk ability of the Um, we've added. Uh garden areas that are towards the front of the building towards Foster Court. We've landscaped wherever we can, uh, in the remaining areas. Uh existing trees in the rear to remain with additional trees added. Again all humane paving design. No asphalt. Uh. Wood fence, not a stockade style, but that we have. Low level exterior lighting. On all this would be a massive improvement to what exists there now. As Kathy said, we have eight to 1100 square feet. The top two units that have duplex penthouse spaces can accommodate three bedrooms at approximately 1700 square feet. And that third bedroom has the diversity of who can live here, who we can appeal to, families, perhaps larger families. But these are all modest size two and three bedroom units. I don't know how far you want to get into the floor plans are pretty straightforward. Each each unit aside from the penthouse has two bedrooms, open living. Two bathrooms. This is the garden level, which would be accessed by a lift at a main entry at grade. These renderings are a good representation of the the quality of these units, the livability, the natural light, the materials. Often we hear garden level and people assume it's a non-desirable housing, but contrary, these would be comfortable, functional, delightful units. First floor, we have a central entry. the first floor. Into a common hall with common stare that brings us up to the first level, which is six ft above grade. Unit number three facing Foster Court has an exclusive use farmers porch. And then the second and third floors where these units all each have a roof deck. I should back up and just say all units have exclusive outdoor space, generous sized balconies that are also life safety feature desired by the fire department, but mainly it's an amenity to enjoy an exterior connection. All units have these balconies, aside from, you know, the more unique farmer's porch for unit three. Unit four does not have balconies and neither do the garden level units, but they could have exclusive use yard space. Proposed materials, image of the street view. We're using mainly traditional language, high quality materials. with. Aluminum clad windows. Um you know, heavy detailing at. The roof edge. Covered farmer's porch landscaping. Penthouses set back far enough. That really from the street view. This reads more as a. Three story view from the left side shows how we've broken up the massing, responding to the setback envelope, responding to the narrowness of the site. But this is not a monolithic box. I say we try to break this up into visually digestible parts, break up the scale and respond well to the context of the neighborhood. More exterior views. The massing is in three main parts. The two let's call them the residential ends, and then the common stair, an entry in the middle, and then the penthouses on the roof, with the roof decks on either end, and on top of the penthouse level, screened solar panels and mechanical units. Some of the positive neighborhood. Contributions to this neighborhood that we believe the project brings would be additional or increased improved walkability. Handicap mobility. For the new sidewalk. Landscaping. Where there currently is none. This is. I'd say farmer's porch as a level of neighborhood connectivity between people on the street. The people in this unit who can enjoy farmer's porch ties into the farmers. There are some farmer's porch elements on the street that we're picking up on. Again, there'll be no new asphalt, all existing asphalt will be removed, bringing high quality construction to a neighborhood that hasn't seen any in a very long time. Our emphasis on traditional of the building. Textures colors window patterns. Again the modestly sized 2 to 3 bedroom units are appealing to, uh, we think families younger families growing families.

[Unidentified]: Um.

[SPEAKER_24]: We can talk about the building This diagram on the left is the allowable building height for an apartment use, which is 75 feet. We are proposing a high, the penthouse roof to be 48 feet, substantially lower than what's allowed and not substantially higher than what one could build with a two or three family with a gable roof. And dormers, essentially very similar massing, similar volumes, foster court, which, is completely undersized for this zone and for modern living. Again, the housing types we have around us that we're trying to bridge the monsters at the perimeter and some of these maybe less thoughtfully designed multifamily that abut 16 Foster Court, smaller two and a half story structures, blend of styles, scales, sizes, colors, materials. And we're trying to bring something that maybe could be a new something, a new scale to the site, but using traditional materials. Elevations, again, call out materials that we're using. the front. Two traditional ends with a more contemporary central connector. Uh cementitious panels grid system using. Field color and accent color. Sense of balconies, French doors, double hung windows. The backside or the left side. The new bringing sidewalks and landscaping to a neighborhood that needs both. Civil plan remain points to make. We are bringing in a new sanitary service connection, new copper four inch fire protection service, two inch copper domestic service, subsurface infiltration pipe and crushed stone. Should I take any questions or should I move into the shadow study?

[Andre Leroux]: You can move into the shadow study.

[SPEAKER_24]: Okay, so summer 10 a.m. existing, between the existing and the proposed shadows, there are no shadows cast on abutting properties. Summer 2 p.m., the summer solstice, casting more shadows than we do currently, but the shadows for the most part are contained within the site. Summer solstice, 5 p.m. The shadows are directed directly behind the building. Shadows again contained to the site. Fall equinox. Shadows cast slightly over the edge of our left side property line. This is actually the garage for our abutter. This is a garden shed. Each of these abutting structures are approximately 50 feet away from our actual building. Fall Equinox, 2 p.m. Existing shadows contained on the lot. We do have shadows here cast in the backyard of our abutter. That's a rare moment of shadow casting, a rare and brief moment. Fall Equinox, we've got very similar shadow cast on the abutters between the existing and the proposed Winter solstice, some shadows cast, again, minimal and brief. Winter solstice, noon, again, some shadows cast. Winter solstice, 3 p.m., no change. Very little change, spring equinox. Modest change, spring equinox, midday. and shadows cast at 3 p.m. So the image that I will end the presentation on is just a view from Foster Court from the right side. We've got the existing structures on the left, our emphasis on traditional materials, masonry veneer at the garden level, substantially sized garden level windows, farmer's porch with a screened underneath, our balconies, and that's what we got.

[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you very much, Architect Glassman. I do want to recognize the fact that you put a lot of work into this. I appreciate the fact that we had an opportunity to have a preliminary conversation at a prior meeting. I does have to recognize that you took a lot of that feedback into into account. So we we do appreciate that.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Mr. Chairman, our traffic expert is here as well. And he can take you through the site plan as to parking and vehicle.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, that would be great. Thank you.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Steve, could you?

[SPEAKER_05]: Absolutely. Can everybody hear America? Yes. All right, never too sure with a new computer and new headphones, anything can happen. So my name is Steve Sergus. I work for Design Consultants. We're at 120 Middlesex Avenue in Somerville. So we put together a memorandum that basically has three parts. There's a trip generation part, a parking section, and a site distance section that I know I believe was requested. The parking section is more robust, so I will go through that last. The trip generation, so we did this in coordination with Todd Blake, who is the director of traffic in Medford. And so the way we did the trip generation is we calculated using the ITE trip generation manual and census track data, which is industry standard practice. And those calculations gave us an estimated two vehicle trips in the weekday a.m. peak hour and three vehicle trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. So those peak hours occur between 7 and 9 a.m. or 4 and 6 p.m. as again is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as ITE as I will refer to them. So that's the trip generation. Again, it was done in coordination with Director Blake, and I know that he had mentioned in his letter that he agreed with the way that we did that. The second section is the site distance, which I believe was requested in addition to the original memo we did. And so the way we looked at that was also industry standard. So AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. They put out recommendations of site distances that they need to see, that driveways or intersections should, or recommended distances that a vehicle, a driver needs to see in order to safely enter a roadway. And so again, we did that, industry standard practices. And we really only looked at a right turn from the driveway onto Foster Court since there's no through connectivity south on Foster Court. It is just to the housing that is there. We believe, you know, vehicles are really only coming out of this site making a right turn towards Riverside. The recommended sight distance at 25 miles an hour, which, you know, Foster Court, maximum hopefully 25 miles an hour, is a sight distance 240 feet for a driver to safely enter the roadway without anybody needing to brake. or swerve or anything like that. And the measured sight distance that we got from this proposed driveway is greater than 250 feet looking south onto Foster Court. And with no addition of any high trees or anything like that adjacent to the driveway, the sight distances will be safe for drivers exiting the driveway. The third section is the parking section. which was the more robust in the report, had a lot of numbers, big table with a lot of numbers. So the way that we did that is we reviewed two different manuals. So the first one was a perfect fit parking initiative, which was done by the MAPC. and they have about 50 to 100 sites that they study. And what comes out of that is an average of parking demand. So basically occupied parking spaces per unit for each of these sites. And what we did is we filtered out from all of those sites that we only looked at sites with less than 25 units, which is what this is being proposed as, and which is more than half a mile from a rapid transit station, which there's bus lines that go along Riverside Drive, but rapid transit is not within a half a mile. So we looked at only those sites, and there was an average of 0.78 parking spaces per unit, which, if applicable to this site for eight units, would be a demand of about 0.6 parking spaces, and we are providing 10. For comparison, we looked at the three sites in this study from Medford. Those average about 240 units, and they were within a half a mile, so slightly larger than the eight units that are here. But we wanted to get just a comparison of Medford units, and they average 1.02 parking spaces per unit, which again would be a demand of about nine parking spaces here, which is still less than the 10 that are being provided. And then the second report that we looked at is the ITE parking generation manual. So same idea as the trip generation manual. They give average rates for each land use. So we took the applicable land use here, which was for an apartment complex. And their average demand during the day was 1.31 parking spaces per unit. So that comes out to about 10 and a half parking spaces per unit. But that is just slightly over what is being provided here. All in all, given the demand of a lot of sites within Arlington, Chelsea, Watertown, Melrose, and Malden, which is what that perfect fit parking initiative looked at sites from, I do believe that this site will be providing enough parking for the units that are there. So I will end it there, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions anybody has.

[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. Mr. Saragusa, how would the parking units gonna be allocated among the units?

[SPEAKER_05]: I will leave that question to either Kathleen or our developer.

[SPEAKER_11]: At least one per unit. I'm not sure how the extra two units, two parking spaces will be allocated yet.

[Andre Leroux]: These are, remind me, these are ownership units? Will this be?

[SPEAKER_11]: I suspect so, but to be determined, I suspect there'll be ownership units, yes, but subject to market change.

[Unidentified]: Would you be able to stop sharing your screen?

[Kathleen Desmond]: One thing before we go Mr. Chairman on that screen just to put before you, in terms of the engineers comments. We did include electric charging stations which was one of the requests and you'll see that as he would position that closest to the building in the traffic report. There was also a question as to the pinch point the 12 feet, going from the larger parking area to the, the ingress, those spaces are handicapped but they can convert to normal spaces in the event that there's no need for the handicap use, in which case that pinch point will be greater. And we also have an X where there would be signage so that cars would be warned that there's cars coming in and out of that reduced way. And I just want to point that out before the screen disappears.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Audrey, this is Jackie. If the proponent can remind us, are you applying for a special exception for the parking requirement? It's 1.5 from Medford. Am I correct, Alicia?

[Kathleen Desmond]: It's two parking spaces per dwelling unit. So we are seeking a variance for the parking. The required would be 16, and we have 10. When we were at the preliminary meeting, There is the availability of two spaces on that front curb, but nobody really wants to do that. So we're going to go forward with the 10 spaces and look for variance.

[Alicia Hunt]: Kathy is correct about the zoning.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I mean, it's preferable. I just know that it's Medford's policy. I was just wondering.

[Andre Leroux]: We also, I know we have some comments that have been emailed from residents. So we can take those now before we start a conversation or if we have, why don't we take any members of the public who have comments who are actually on the Zoom. Let's do that first and then we'll read the emailed comments.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes, my name is Tom Sowers. Can you hear me?

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, sir.

[SPEAKER_19]: Oh, thank you, I'm new to Zoom here, so forgive me. I'm an owner, one of the 16 owners at 305 Riverside Avenue. I have serious concerns about the size of this building in terms of virtually eliminating much of the green space, certainly all the green space adjacent to our property. I am concerned that about drainage, which hasn't been discussed here and looking over the plans, concerned about potential impact on drainage with the cash basin as described, parking situation. We have a lot of experience in our building. We only have one parking space per unit. And we have serious problems because we have people that come in that have two cars, and there's problems with that. And there's no parking on Riverside Avenue. So people have to try to find parking somewhere in the neighborhood. One of the places people have parked is on Foster Court. I was over there on Foster Court on Sunday. Both sides of the street fully parked in. In our opinion, a two to three family building that is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood would eliminate problems, basically eliminating all the green space and paving it over right up to our property, probably would ameliorate drainage problems and would also reduce parking problems. We have parking problems. Other people from the neighborhood come and park and aren't a lot. That's how serious the parking situation is in the neighborhood. So I'd like to raise all those questions for consideration by the board. Thank you.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, sir. Are there other members of the public who wish to comment? I see a call on people.

[Amanda Centrella]: So yes, so I see William Navarri. Sorry if I said your name incorrectly. You're welcome to comment. And if you could state your name and address for the record.

[William Navarre]: Yeah, you got that right. Thank you. William Navarra at A V A R R E 108 Medford Street number one B. And I submitted a written comment, which I'll begin by reading that or at least an excerpt of that. And basically I said, please support housing at 14 Foster Court to help combat sprawl and help alleviate the housing crisis. I find that such a blessing to live in the city rather than in an automobile oriented sprawl. And I want more people to be able to have the opportunity to have what I have. Please support this housing that we need to go up if we want to be a welcoming city. And so I hope you'll approve this. And I actually do share some of the concerns about the green space and so on. I visited the site and I saw the trees. And I would offer that the problem with the green space is that so much parking is required, there's no room for green space. So I would say that if we want the green space which is something I 100% support. We asked them to put it even less parking. And we make that trade off we say are we a city for housing and green space or are we a city for for an apartment with a with a parking lot that uses up all the green space, and we got to make that trade off. because saying that we're a city that asks people to drive, you know, to Belrica or something on I-93 in order to find housing because we're not going to build it here in Bedford, I don't think that goes with our values. So we have a trade-off here and we need to make a decision that reflects our values and we can't say no to everything, we got to give somewhere. So it would be lovely to have, I agree with that, the drainage, the green space, I'd love to have more green space here, but it's got to, That means there's got to be less parking, right? The parking requirement is why there's no green space. Thanks.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Navarre. Amanda, I'll let you call on the next folks because you can see the hand raised.

[Amanda Centrella]: Sure. So I see here Doug Carr from the Historical Commission has his hand raised. Would you like to go ahead, Doug?

[Doug Carr]: Sure. Thank you, Amanda. Thank you again, Chair. The Historical Commission sent a two-page letter. I won't read it, obviously, go through it, but we essentially are saying that the project, we disagree with the project, not the overall project. There should be a project here. We agree with that, I think, once the idea that the existing house is not going to be saved, which the owner has made that decision clearly. But what I see here is not a three-story plus penthouse. I really see almost a five-story building. I see a building that is really, really tall for this context. And a penthouse is a legal definition under most codes and state code. It's only about a third the size of the footprint. And this one is obviously much more than that. This is really four and a half story building, which is dramatically bigger. in scale than most of the neighborhood. Obviously there's larger buildings further away that are much taller, but to say that the Boston Court building, the original building of this street was undersized is kind of a laughable comment since it predates every single building on this street for sure. So we just disagree that this building, it just feels almost like a 40B project to me. It feels like it's maxed within an inch of potential for what could be built there. It feels very, very inflated and as big as it possibly could be, which drives the green space down, the parking up. And just one comment about the parking. I'm a big fan of not having more parking than you need. It's a waste of money. But I see a spot there for ADA parking that looks like it's conditional in the drive lane, the 20-foot drive lane. And I've never seen that before. It seems odd to me that that would even be allowed by the fire department or, or the city engineer or this board, it just seems like that's a weird thing 88 spots are kind of sacred there, they're there or they're not, and I don't see why that one would be something that's conditional if I'm reading that correctly if I'm not I apologize. But just the summation if you've all seen the historic commission letters that we think it's. doesn't really fit in with the details and the massing and the scale of the neighborhood. You know, it could be it could be a three story building and be well detailed and it would fit fine, but this is really almost it's four and a half stories. There's no other way to objectively look at it.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Carr.

[Amanda Centrella]: I see David Walker, if you'd like to share and if you could state your name and address for the record.

[David Walker]: Yeah, David Walker 38 Brooklyn Street. just wanted to say, you know, I walk and cycle through this area frequently. I live sort of on the opposite side of Medford Square and shop at the Meadow Glen Mall frequently. And I use the park along the river there frequently. So I'm through this area often. And I'd also like to note that, you know, we are in the midst of a regional housing crisis. And so I really applaud the effort to provide so many more units of housing to maybe put some downward pressure on the prices of housing in our region. And I'd also like to note that this location is a really great location for some dense multifamily housing. It's about a 15-minute walk from Medford Square, about a 10-minute walk over to the Meadow Glen Mall. There's a bus line right along there. Wellington Station is maybe about a mile away, straight line distance. So I think it's really, really great I do share some concerns about the parking. I think there was a little bit too much parking, and I think it encourages too much auto oriented sprawl. So I think you know if we could replace some parking with green space that would be great. But I think overall I think it's great that we're going to get a whole bunch of more units of housing here in Medford to put some downward pressure on the prices. of housing in our community, and my only regret is that we can't get a few more units and a little bit less parking. But I would like to wholeheartedly express support as a member of the community and as a member of the community who travels through the region frequently, that I hope we can move forward with this project and get some more units of housing in our community. Thanks a lot.

[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you. I see that Tom has his hand raised again. I think should we read some of the resident comments that were emailed to us first and then go and see if Tom would still like to provide additional comments and anyone else would like to?

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, that makes sense. Thank you, Amanda.

[Amanda Centrella]: Great. So we received six emailed comments, two of which were already kind of shared virtually now by David Walker and William Navar. So I'll start with, there was a comment from Jennifer Keenan, who was at 305 Riverside Avenue. They say dear sir or madam, I am an owner at 305 Riverside Avenue. I'm strongly against the project proposed at 16 Foster Court. It is far too large, the entire southwest side of our building will lose its natural sunlight, our abilities to have container gardens on our balconies will disappear. In addition, the loss of the green space between our building and Foster Court will greatly diminish our tranquility, both during the construction phase and after it's built. 16 addition cars in a parking lot on Foster Court at the expense of our trees and yard is a travesty. I urge you to force the developer to significantly reduce the number of units in this project. Next, there was a comment from Dave McKenna. do your community board community development board members, I am writing to support the approval of new development at 16 foster court. I live nearby and walk and bike past Foster Street, almost on a daily basis, adding new housing to this area will be a great addition to our community, it will grow Bedford's tax base and help us pay for road and sidewalk improvements that are desperately needed in this area. This housing is near a major bus route to shopping centers downtown Medford in the orange line so it will not increase traffic significantly and will support the revitalization of our local businesses. Being so close to transit businesses schools and the riverfront bike path means this will help us lower the carbon footprint as a community dense walkable development is essential to improve our local and global environment. Furthermore, the cost of housing has doubled in Medford in the past 10 years while the population has remained stagnant. The average home price in Medford this year is more than 700,000. New housing units will ease the upward pressure on rents and sales prices. I know there will be opposition because there always is and I wonder if one way to address is to get an agreement from the developer to contribute funds to repay Riverside Ave. Riverside from the Andrews to the Fellsway is one of the worst roads in Medford due to the potholes and crumbling sidewalks. Yet the development on Locust Street around the corner did a beautiful job fixing up the street. Fixing up this area might help show our community the benefits of your new development. Thank you for your time. And one more, two more, sorry, two more comments to read. Judy McLaughlin of Thomas Street, Medford. To whom it may concern, I'm writing to express my trepidation regarding the proposed development at 16 Foster Court, which is scheduled for discussion at tonight's meeting. To place a luxury apartment complex smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood not only serves only to create an eyesore, it decreases the integrity of the neighborhood in a variety of ways. The Foster Court neighborhood is already congested with existing traffic and the additional units will only exacerbate the parking challenges. The proposed building's architectural design isn't congruent with the neighborhood, which is primarily filled with single family homes and its height would obscure the skyline in view. The eight units will likely rent for $3,000 per month making them hardly affordable to say nothing of the proverbial slap in the face to residents of the low income housing adjacent to the proposed structure viable green space space would be destroyed by the paving the lot surrounding the building. residents in neighboring homes will lose valuable shade affordable afforded by existing trees and likely end up paying higher energy bills. Please consider these factors and their impact on Foster Court neighborhood and the Medford community. We need affordable housing and discussions around equity in our community, not more gentrification by virtue of luxury housing. And then one last comment from Joyce Davis of 305 Riverside Ave. Hello, I'm a unit owner at Riverside Condominium, who is opposed to the construction of the five-story structure, which would create a paved driveway and parking lot, which could raise potential drainage issues that would impact our property. Okay, and I see there are two hands raised. I'm going to move first to David button if you could state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_02]: Hi, thank you for having me. I, my name is David button, I live it, but I don't live there but I own a two family property at 263 Riverside out. And I strongly support this project. The value of property has increased so much and it's good for me. And the rents have gone up so high that people are getting pushed out. So the whole community of Medford, people who want to live there, families that live there are getting pushed out. I have a tenant that I am charging 2350 for a three bedroom apartment, way below market value. And the only reason I do that is because they're a family. And they have a son who is entering his junior year and would like to graduate with the rest of his class. They're a part of the community. And I know based on their finances, if I raise their rent, they're going to have to leave Medford. She's told me that. So there's a major housing problem, and we need more inventory of housing. So I strongly support it for that reason. The other is the driveway. You know I have seven spots at my unit for a two bedroom and a three bedroom. For the past 10 years, I have seven spots available. past 10 years, never more than two spots ever been used. People use the bus, they use the commuter rail, the transit on Riverside Ave is amazing. The other reason is the neighborhood that it's in. Has anybody driven through it? Because I'm not going to disparage it, but it's really, it needs some investment. It needs improvement. There is not a lick that isn't paved as you drive through. You know, the driveways, the front of the house, I mean, it looks like one giant parking lot. And to have low income housing, nearby is a benefit, because when you build something nice in the whole neighborhood, it'll be like a seed that will encourage more investment in the neighborhood. Yeah, it's okay for people of moderate means to move in, because the only way to uplift people who are in housing, you know, the housing projects, is to show and become part of the community who has something, they can, it raises all boats. And it's just gonna increase property values, you know, everywhere in that neighborhood, which is depressed. If you go in Zillow, those numbers are not accurate. And that's pretty much it. I mean, you can go on with, it increases tax base. There's taller buildings all over the place. There's not a, you know, some neighborhoods have, all these beautiful farmhouse and colonials. You drive into that neighborhood and there's like a single family, then there's a colonial, then there's a tall building. There isn't any continuity to what the neighborhood has for, you know, a community. It's all over the place. And that's basically it. You know, I strongly support the project and those are my reasons. Thank you. Thank you for my time.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. button.

[Amanda Centrella]: And we have. Oh, Tom, your hand is raised, would you like to provide.

[SPEAKER_19]: Yes. Yes. Thank you. I don't, I haven't heard that this is going to be low income housing. But that's not what I really because I'm focused on this point on the drainage. Right now in the back, we have a natural environment, a lot of green space. Drainage is not a problem. We have below ground units in our building. And the drawings, as I understand them, are going to drain the water off to the southeast into a catch basin that is placed right adjacent to our property. uh, with a system that quite frankly, I don't understand, uh, with the water going into the catch basin and therefore somehow draining through it back in under the parking lot. Um, I just don't understand how that is going to be effective, uh, in uh, preventing the possibility with, uh, uh, we are now in, um, with global warming and the increased amount of rain as we had this summer, possibly a rising water table, um, concerns that, um, in the future, um, this setup, uh, with what I consider to be, um, be paved over backyard, uh, required by the fact that we're going to have a five story building, um, it's going to just needlessly be environmentally unsound, take out, replace what is now almost 80% green space with down to 20% landscape space, and a lot of that being on the north side of the proposed building. But again, I would like to have some explanation, for example, It's not clear now whether this building is going to be condominiums or whether it's going to be an apartment building. And in either case, I would like to know who is going to be responsible for maintaining and cleaning out that catch basin so that we don't have an overflow and a flooding problem. I understand how condominiums work. I'm on the board at my condominium and to allocate the money and whatever to do and maintain that. can be problematic, but again, just raising some questions. We'd like to hear some answers to some of these issues. We'd like to hear them addressed very much.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Could the proponent talk a little bit more about the drainage on the site and the infrastructure?

[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, Adam, want to take a shot at that? Then we can pass it over to Guillermo.

[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, Guillermo, we are going to pass this on to you in a second. I'm not a civil engineer. I can say that what they do is taper grades and regrade as necessary to direct water to keep it on the site. And their job is to make sure there is no stormwater runoff onto abutting properties. We've got as much landscape buffer as we can. And in addition to that, you're using all hard surfaces of permeable paver. Um, water absorbs through that, um, absorbs through the landscaping. The site will be, uh, sloped and tapered and graded to direct the water away from the abutters. Um, Guillermo, if you can speak a little bit more about the design.

[SPEAKER_01]: Hello. Can you hear me?

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, we can.

[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, everyone. My name is Guillermo and I'm representing Spruh and Engineering. Yeah, regarding drainage, we are proposing to capture the whole roof and the parking space into a two feet deep rush system. We have provided a stormwater report with calculations that prove that we have our overall reduction in runoff post construction for different rain events, including the 100 year storm, which is like a very rare event. So also as Adam mentioned before, no asphalt is being proposed on the site, which will help to mitigate the runoff from the site. Also regarding the catch basin, the results of the calculations show that the peak elevation at the catch basin on a hundred year storm is one foot below rim of the catch basin. This means that the infiltration system is capable to handle the 100-year storm without overflowing or without any runoff being, will cause a problem to the neighbors. So basically that's it. If you have any more questions.

[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Beltran, could you just talk about the pavers and whether they need to be maintained or cleaned on a regular basis to maintain that filtration?

[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah. Pavers require maintenance, of course. Actually, DPW has requested an operation and maintenance plans on their comments, and we're planning to present the maintenance plan for the permeable pavers and for the catch basin, as Tom asked. So that will be represented in the operation and maintenance plan, and that has to be approved by DPW.

[Andre Leroux]: And that should be included, I think, in any, you know, if this becomes a condo and any condo association documents as well.

[SPEAKER_01]: Correct, yeah.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Let me, uh, open it up to board members for any questions and comments.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre. This is Jackie. I just wanted to go back. There was a trend in statement amongst the, um. The public actually that I actually want to clarify and we touched base on a little bit. One of the things that I've I'm a fan of this that I know well is that parking minimum shape of neighborhood and reference and things like that. And Ms. Kathleen Desmond in a pre-application meeting that we held earlier in the year, on behalf of the proponent, she demonstrated an intent for the proponent to actually try to swap out some spaces for green space in a seeking that variance. And if she can actually go into detail or if the proponent can go into detail to sort of answer those concerns by the public again here, I think that would be beneficial.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. So in terms of the parking spaces, at that preliminary meeting, as you know, we had an additional curb cut on the left side of the property and had proposed two additional spaces that we would put in so that there would be 12 spaces rather than 10. At the board's urging, we took those two spaces out, did not include a curb cut. That is now green space. and actually it contributes to the open space area that we have and went to 10 spaces. It's always a difficult dance between the CD board and the zoning board in terms of parking and what is allowed, but the city engineer and the traffic engineer for the city in his report said that the numbers that our traffic consultant, Steven Seguso came up with were justified by surrounding use. That's what we've done is to reduce it to 10 spaces. That way each unit has a space and the larger units have two spaces available to them. So that was the analysis that we went through from the preliminary to this public hearing. I hope that answers your question.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I hope it answers the question for the public. I was just having you rephrase. Thank you so much.

[Andre Leroux]: Right, and the other thing to bring up, Jackie, just to remind everybody is that You know, I think we were all a little disappointed that the fire lane requirement is so significant, which really constrains what can be done on the site. And I think, what is the fire lane? Is it a 24 feet? Right, which is kind of, imagine having a 24 foot wide driveway. very, very large. And if that wasn't the case, which is requested by the fire department, there'd be a lot more room for landscaping and moving things around. So that's a real challenge. The other thing that I just want to remind everyone here today and members of the public is that this board is only a board that can provide recommendations to the ZBA. The ZBA, the Zoning Board of Appeals is ultimately the board that is going to issue the permit for the project or not, including the variances. So just so that everyone is clear on that. One thing that I would say, given the comments that have come up today from the public around the buffering the back area from the apartment building at 305, the condo building at 305 Riverside, you know, there's some mature trees back there. I'm wondering if there's, you know, what did you look at in terms of being able to accommodate, you know, retain one or both of those trees back there? I can't tell how many there are, but I think there's at least a couple.

[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, I had an arborist go out and scope the lot, identify trees that could be saved. And I think we're saving most of the trees in the back portion of the lot. So those will remain those mature trees.

[Andre Leroux]: Oh, that's great, okay. I thought they were coming down, so.

[SPEAKER_11]: No, so on the landscape plan, there are three existing trees that are marked existing and those are remaining, they're tall trees.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Could actually someone put that up on the screen just so we could see it?

[Alicia Hunt]: While you're doing this, I actually because can you clarify because I feel like I heard conflicting concerns from some of the members of the public from the building that's directly behind there. And one of some of the concerns was we were going to lose the trees in our shape screening. And the other was that we were going to have too much shade from the new building. And we won't be able to grow things on those on the balconies. So if the trees are staying, then they'll have the screening, but it means they'll have shade, which is what I would assume they currently have. Do we know this?

[SPEAKER_24]: I was there yesterday trying to take photographs of that property from the back of Foster Court, and there's no clear view because of their own mature trees. That side of their building is completely in shade. And the mature trees that we have, we're keeping. their shade to sunlight ratio is not going to be affected by this project.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you for the clarification.

[SPEAKER_24]: Our building is 75 feet away from the property line.

[Andre Leroux]: Just maybe some misunderstanding about the trees that are there are certainly taller than what's going to be built. They're very large trees.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that because I feel like we got some mixed messages there.

[Andre Leroux]: So I'm just, I can't really see here on the screen, but if it could, I don't know, Adam, if this is your screen, could you just point out the trees that are going to remain?

[SPEAKER_24]: Yep. So these, these three are the existing trees to remain.

[Andre Leroux]: One, two, three. Okay. Now the one in the corner, that's a new tree. So is there something, is there a tree in that corner that's coming down?

[SPEAKER_11]: All of the trees that are in the back abutting the property that are healthy are remaining.

[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah. The arborist tagged the trees that were preferably left to remain and we left all those.

[SPEAKER_19]: Okay. I can comment on that.

[Andre Leroux]: Excuse me, sir. Just hold on one moment. I agree too. And then the 305, Adam, I think you were saying that they also have trees on their property, is that correct? Could you point out where those would be?

[SPEAKER_24]: I can actually share a photo. Well, just a minute.

[Unidentified]: Let's see.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Adam, I think unless it's a PDF, you're going to have trouble sharing.

[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I mean, this is gonna take me a while to set that up, but I can tell you I was there. I tried to take a photo to show the view towards that building from Ari's site, and you can't really see the building because of mature trees on their side of the fence.

[SPEAKER_11]: Adam, if you pull up Google Maps, you can see the trees that are in between the property. There's a handful of trees on the backside of Foster that are remaining in there, a handful of trees.

[SPEAKER_24]: This canopy are the trees on Ari's lot.

[Andre Leroux]: We're not seeing any screen sharing right now, so I don't know if you were. All right.

[SPEAKER_24]: This would be something that's better experienced in person, to tell you the truth. Yeah, I can't make this happen right now.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, that's fine. Sir, I know Tom wanted to say something.

[Unidentified]: So I don't know, Amanda, if you could unmute him.

[SPEAKER_19]: Am I okay?

[Andre Leroux]: Yes, we can hear you now.

[SPEAKER_19]: Okay, thank you. I believe that all the trees in that area, none of them are on our property, 305. Some of the trees, I agree that there is no problem with a shadow from the building impacting the 305 property. I mean, that's certainly the case and I don't understand that either. Some of the trees have red bands around them and some don't. And I don't know which is which in terms of whether the red band means it's gonna come down or the red band means this is the one that's gonna stay. But I'd like to raise another question. I'd like to hear about rodent control. This house has been there, I understand, since around 1870. And I would like to hear what kind of measures are going to be taken to prevent rodents in the neighborhood.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, sir. Could one of the proponents respond to that?

[SPEAKER_11]: We'll work with a professional to make sure that the rodents are addressed. I'm not a rodent expert, but we can put bait traps out there or deal with take their advice and address the rodent situation. I think that maybe one of the reasons why there's rodents right now is because you've got overgrown grass and large open space in the back. And you're gonna have more formally manicured grounds, which will provide less cover for rodents. But in addition to that, we can work with a professional to address rodent concerns.

[Unidentified]: And that's commonly a condition.

[Andre Leroux]: One moment, I'll just say that the Department of Public Health routinely requires that roading control is a condition for significant construction projects. And so if that's not in DPH's letter, we will make that a condition. Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, it is in the letter. The Department of Public Health requires pre-demolition and pre-construction integrated pest management plans. and they are a mandated requirement by the city's rodent control ordinance. These must be submitted 14 days before the start of the project and require monthly reports from a licensed pest control company. Increased frequency and product use may be required based on findings and inspection. So the board of health is very aware of this issue and will be monitoring it as they do for every construction project now, currently.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Attorney Desmond, you wanted to say something?

[Kathleen Desmond]: I was going to just mention that it's in the department head's comments that there has to be a rodent plan in place for the Department of Health once construction starts. So it was taken care of.

[Andre Leroux]: Can anyone just, one of the proponents, just speak to whether the red bands mean the trees are staying or going? That was the other question.

[SPEAKER_11]: I can't remember on the colors, but the trees that are noted in the plan are the ones that are staying.

[SPEAKER_24]: I believe the tag trees are to remain.

[SPEAKER_11]: Okay, and all the trees in the back are, I believe, remaining. And if you bring it up on Google Maps, there's a significant buffer that those trees provide currently, which will remain.

[SPEAKER_24]: Board members. Sorry, who was that? I actually have that image to share. So everyone see the shot of 305? Yes. All right, so this is facing 305 from the fence. It's further away than it looks. I was trying to zoom in to get a good shot of this, but these trees that you see here, both of these are not on Ari's property.

[Andre Leroux]: Those will stay. Yeah. Okay. That's helpful.

[SPEAKER_11]: Adam, did you want to address, there was a comment by the public around height. Do you want to address?

[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I would say what I was trying to say in the beginning of my presentation is that we, and David Button actually kind of hit the nail on the head with, we don't have a cohesive architectural language and expression going on in this neighborhood. We're trying to bridge the different Um, scales the different styles in a sensitive way. Our height is far below what the zoning allows. Um, I certainly wasn't saying that the existing foster court was was undersized in the time that it was built. It's far undersized for the zoning use now for functionality. Uh, habitable housing. Um, The shadows casts are minimal. Um, It's not a five-story building. It fits the definition of three plus a penthouse. You can call it a four, I suppose, with a penthouse. But really, we're not much taller than a one or a two family would be with a high cable roof and dormers. And with those dormers, you'd be essentially squaring off the building anyway.

[SPEAKER_11]: One more note about height. If you look in the zoning code, if an apartment two zone abuts a non-apartment two zone, so SF1, SF2, general residence, apartment one, if the building is within 100 feet of that zone, then the height can't be greater than 50 feet, and it can't be higher than four stories. So we are under 50 feet, and we are not more than four stories here which I, which I think the reason that was put in is so that a large building in an apartment to doesn't dwarf, you know, a building in a different district and the zoning code outline that 50 feet and four stories is that threshold.

[Kathleen Desmond]: It's also an eclectic district, because you have many uses that are allowed in that district from single to multi to six stories 75 feet. And when you look if I could share my screen because I just, I just think it's a little bit helpful. Oops. The zoning map of the interactive map. There aren't that many apartment two districts, and the apartment two districts are. are pretty much placed near thoroughfares and also, I'm sorry, too big. Also, maybe I need to stay at 26. Also, amenities such as parks and whatnot. And if you look at the districts, our district is right here, the apartment two district, which is again, close to the Fellsway and the shopping areas and then the park areas. There's an apartment two over here on the Malden line. And then there's one over here off of the high street. So they're very small districts targeted for, I think, density of population, and there aren't that many of them. And they seem to be located near major routes and thoroughfares and also recreational activities. So we think that this project fits what the zoning was intended to be, you know, not what has been there because it was there in the 1800s, but what was what they wanted to move towards. And, and this apartment, you know, meets the meets the requirements of the, the apartment to zone and it's within what the height requirements would be if in fact you abutted an SF to a general residence or an SF one zone. So it's not, it's not maxing out. of the size, and it falls within the restriction, if you would, within 100 feet of an SF2 general residence SF1 zone.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Mr. Carr?

[Doug Carr]: Attorney Desmond, you still need significant relief to build this project, right?

[Kathleen Desmond]: No. We have a side yard setback of nine feet that we need to comply with. The width is a varying width. So, we need a relief for a width parking, obviously which we've talked about. And, and then the city had requested the CD board that we consider a porch for the front to make it look more residential. So putting that covered porch on as opposed to a uncovered porch requires relief, but it's probably a finding because the, the structure as it stands now is, is within the front yard setback So it would be an extension of what is non conforming, and that would be the same with with as well with this non conforming currently. So it would be a possibly a finding on that. So I think the only two variances, really that we're looking for is the parking variance, and the left side yard setback which relates to the shape of a lot, it's 200 feet in depth. which is 100 over what's required, and that makes for a very long and somewhat narrow lot. At the street level, the width is 89 feet, but it varies from place to place because the line jogs. So no, in terms of the scope of relief that one could ask for, this isn't asking for a lot of relief.

[Doug Carr]: The balcony extensions around the building, do any of those fall within the setback?

[Kathleen Desmond]: No, because they're on the driveway side, which is 24 feet.

[Doug Carr]: What about the other side?

[Kathleen Desmond]: There are no balconies on that side.

[Doug Carr]: I see. And this is a question for Chair LaRue is, you said you've had previous meetings, is the board, if you could speak for them generally, is the board generally satisfied with the masking scale of this project?

[Andre Leroux]: Well, they haven't had the chance to speak too much tonight, so we're going to go and find out.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you, sir.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. So I think this is a good segue to the board members and what you all think about the project. Obviously, we did see this project, and again, I do want to point out, appreciate the fact that the proponent came to us and had a meeting ahead of time that was one of our regular public meetings to discuss the project. We have a lot of issues with it. A lot of those issues were addressed. For example, the porch, there was no front entrance to the building. That was added, the balconies were added. The parking spaces in front were removed and landscaping was added there. The permeable pavers were put in throughout the site with no asphalt around. The windows, window treatments were were definitely improved I think including at the garden level. So those are just some of the things that I that I remember we did point out. But as we look to make a recommendation on this project, are there things that we should be looking at or additional conditions that we might want to require or recommend? Les, I see you're unmuted. I don't know if you want to say something.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I appreciate all the work that the proponent has put into the project. The reason I'm struggling is I'm feeling like my comments, my feelings are mostly subjective. Uh, you know, to me, the building feels really tall and narrow and, um, I appreciate that it, uh, you know, it's height is by right, but, um, you know, I live around the corner.

[Unidentified]: And sorry about that.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I'm glad you heard that too. Um, um, I, you know, it's a hard, it's a hard thing to comment on, you know, I appreciate the work that they did, but the building feels tall and it feels narrow. It feels like proportionally, it doesn't feel quite right. And I, you know, I would venture to guess that if I really, if Mr. Glassman was being completely honest, he would agree. The issue of the driveway is, for me, I think it's ridiculous, and I think it has put an undue design restraint on this project, which I don't totally agree with. I think a fire truck is, I don't know, 10 feet wide. I don't know why we need 24 feet there. I think that's unreasonable, and it's It has shaped where we are now with this project, which I feel is pretty unfortunate. That 24 feet, some of it could be given back to a little bit of landscaping and a little bit of width in the building. I think that would go a long way, but that bridge has probably been crossed already. You know, it's... It feels like, you know, you have a street of a certain proportion and you have a book standing up, you know, it's like a bunch of books on their sides, like behind Andre, and then all of a sudden there's one standing up and it just, it just seems like the scale is, doesn't seem quite right. I'm also sort of against the amount of parking, you know, I know you went down, you removed the ones at the front, but I, Frankly, I don't know why we need more than one space per unit. There's not enough buffering along the property lines. I know these comments are kind of all over the place, but I guess my main comment is that it just, it doesn't quite feel right in that spot.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, we could recommend less parking or a smaller driveway, but it'll be up to the ZBA board to really decide whether to listen to us or the fire chief, and I can guess which way that would go.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and I would be surprised that the proponent would want to, you know. a narrower driveway would allow for some more landscaping, which I think would help. I think that whole, that 24 foot wide width, almost right up against the building and the garden unit windows, like right up against that driveway, that just feels very awkward to me.

[SPEAKER_24]: Can I respond since my name was mentioned in that?

[Andre Leroux]: Of course, architect Glassman, please. So I'm going to share my screen.

[SPEAKER_24]: And I am being honest when I say that the building is not too tall. We intentionally broke the massing up. So it primarily reads as a three story building, which is certainly consistent with the neighborhood. The penthouse is set back far back from the front and the rear elevations. It steps in from the side. The main volumes, what pops out will be these three-story traditionally clad volumes. This is not a monolithic box. It is broken up. The scale is broken up. And the fourth story is set so far back that it will not really be perceived from the street view of Foster Court. I also want to say that I don't know if you've all had a chance to meet the fire chief, but we all did on site, and he made clear that this 24-foot width, which none of us want, was non-negotiable. He did say we could reduce the width at the far end of the building. That's as far as he was willing to go, as far as reducing the 24 feet, but that No matter what is built here, what sort of multifamily is built here on this very long, narrow lot, there will be a driveway, a fire lane that extends as far back as the rear of the building. It'll be 24 feet.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, architect.

[SPEAKER_24]: And I think at some point, no, we are open to fewer parking spaces, but again, this is responding to these conflicting kind of rules and regulations of the city.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I just, I think it's interesting that you are mentioning, you know, you're using this view to mention how the street won't be affected, but from this neighbor.

[SPEAKER_24]: Well, let's go to another view.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. Well, but no, my point is from that neighbor's side, it's going to be a big wall. You know, I wasn't talking about just how it feels from the street and how it, how it feels from, you know, all four sides.

[Kathleen Desmond]: And if I could, I think we talked about this originally in the pre-file, but this is a situation where you have houses that predate what the zoning is that came into this, which is an apartment two. So it's always kind of difficult to be the first parcel that's within line of what the zoning is for the apartment two district. And this is, and there are some other parcels that are larger in this neighborhood where you're probably gonna see requests for size. So it then becomes a question, you know, policy question to an extent or whatnot is whether are you going to, is this an area of density that you want to increase the size and number of units where it calls for it by the apartment two district? Or, you know, are we gonna be left, is it gonna be left to the twos and the single families? Which, you know, that's what the general residents district really is so you know it's hard to be the first one to make any change in an area where the zoning allows it, but there aren't too many examples of, of what that uses.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: just to reiterate, I appreciate the work you've done. I've been in this position before myself. So I know that like there are constraints that drive you to certain things. And I don't wanna get too much into the weeds of sort of the personality of these buildings, but, and I appreciate Mr. Glassman, what you're saying, but you've also been working on this a couple of years and, you know, you have a bit of Stockholm syndrome and we're all sitting here looking at it and saying, you know, it feels a little strange on the site. And to your point, Ms. Desmond, if you took this building and in this view, and then you did three more down the street with this sort of perpendicular tall orientation, I think that would feel equally as odd if there was another building, you know, 50 feet down the street that looked exactly the same. You'd have these cabinet spaces between them without any landscaping because we have a 24 foot driveway that prohibits any of that. It would feel really weird if you just built the same building right next to it on the left or right. You'd have dark shadowy spaces that would be completely uninviting. And I like the idea of density. I really appreciated what you said about how this district has been earmarked for this kind of density. I think it's a great idea. This area doesn't have a lot of character. I think this kind of development could help in that. But subjectively, I'm feeling like this building doesn't fit.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre, this is Jackie Furtado, and I just want to reiterate basically what Clayce has been saying. I, for one, fully and wholly appreciate what the proponent has tried to do under the restrictions of the area, the rules and regulations and so forth. And I was excited during the pre-meeting because hopefully, you know, certain things could be moved around and we could all have a balance. But one of the things that I'm conflicted with, and I guess this is subjective too, is it does not fit the scale of the neighborhood. And I understand that the proponent wants to sort of fill in a gap, but I almost think that it exacerbates just the fact that we're all sort of piecemeal in that area. And it's unfortunate, everything that the proponent has tried to do, and one of the greatest things that I appreciate is that that is a lower income area over there with the Medford Public Housing Authority, and the proponent was not shied away and actually Um, was able to produce this housing in that area as opposed to run away from it. So there's so many great aspects, but when it comes down to it, it's that the restrictions. And I agree with Ms. Desmond on, you know, um, we need, we're, we're in the process. The city is in the process of a zoning recodification for so many reasons to sort of bring things together. But as of right now, this building does not fit. Um, and I'm so conflicted because I definitely see all the efforts and And all the, all of the benefits that this housing such as this can have, but when it comes down to it, um, the board exists for a reason to just to make sure that things conform. And I just don't see this building as conforming to this area.

[SPEAKER_24]: It conforms to this zoning code.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: It conforms to the zoning code, but we're here in the public's interest. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And that's why I'm conflicted.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I guess are there other considerations that the board has that would make it more palatable?

[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Glassman, can you just stop sharing your screen so we can see everyone? Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: May I just make a comment? I think it is in the public's interest that we approve more housing. I understand there are concerns and confliction with the size and the scale of what exists today, but we are moving forward to establish a new precedent. And I think that they have done a tremendous job taking into account all of the comments that we provided at the preliminary meeting to try to make it as compatible as possible to what exists there today. But we do have to recognize that this is a new path forward for this area. So I'm not as conflicted. completely in support of this project. And I think we just have to think of, we still have to think forward and not so much of only what exists there today.

[Deanna Peabody]: Yeah, I would agree with Christy. I see Clay's and Jackie's concerns and I see, but I agree as well.

[Andre Leroux]: David, would you like to comment?

[David Blumberg]: Sure. I thought the presentation was pretty compelling. I thought the difference between the initial presentation and this one was sort of night and day. A couple of additional items that they were sensitive to, the fencing, edge of the lot. And also, I think the building materials, they really made an attempt to match some of the existing materials, including especially the building that's directly across the street. So, I was much less troubled by what I see today. I mean, certainly, it's larger than what is on that street currently. It's just hard, you know, I try to think about about, you know, we have to come up with specific findings not to recommend something like this. And you just, I know there are concerns. We've talked about parking. We've talked about drainage. We've talked about that fire lane and how we don't like that to be a much different situation. But I do feel like other than making some recommendations attached to an approval, I feel like we should approve the project.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I just want to make one more comment because I am generally for this project and I think they've done a good job. I have aesthetic concerns that the building doesn't seem to fit. But I think, I hope you're not characterizing my comments as not being in sort of support of this kind of, density or height or any of that, because that's not what it is. I'm making a comment about the sort of scale and appropriateness of the design in this context, which I started by saying was very subjective, but I think it's harming you in your petition to get this building built. And I guess I would just urge the proponent and the architect to just think about how this building looks. And if there's something that they can do to try to make it fit a little bit better in its context. And to me, that doesn't mean making it smaller or less dense or reducing the number of units. or even the height, you know, because I think to Ms. Desmond's point, the density here could be a good thing.

[Andre Leroux]: Jackie.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I just wanted to reiterate that I've been for this project since I first heard it, but I'm one person, right? And for our recommendation, we have to take into the public's interest. And that's what I was speaking on. And when I met, referring to clays in pretty much in how the height does not fit. And I was trying to sort of get you to look at it in a different light to better fit the area so that we can add on these, so that we can have a better recommendation. It's just that I didn't want to loosely recommend it in a state that it's in with the concerns that surround it. But other than that, I think I've pretty much, I hope I've pretty much communicated my support for the project.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I mean, there's obviously.

[Andre Leroux]: So, you know, I think that there's trade-offs, but there's also, you know, what we as a board, sort of the parameters of our job here, you know, it would be, I'm ambivalent myself in terms of the design, you know, especially about the garden level units and would that, you know, could we bring that down a little bit more? But at the same time, I'm not, Personally, my opinion is I'm not going to tell a developer to get rid of two units when those are two families that could be living in Medford. I don't think that the aesthetic consideration probably outweighs the housing need. I would love to see one of these units be affordable, but again, that's not something we have control over. So given all of that, the one thing that I would say in terms of conditions, I think you addressed everything that I saw in our first meeting. The one thing I did notice was that the sidewalk that you're putting in, I didn't understand whether, It's our policy as a community development board to make sure that the pedestrian level of the sidewalk remains the same across the curb cut. So I would just want to be really clear that that's happening, that people are not stepping off and down into the driveway and then back up again.

[Kathleen Desmond]: So we have some work to do with the engineering department in that regard. And we did have an initial meeting with engineering on that. This is a private way. So in looking at Tim McGibbon's comments, he indicated that he would prefer that the sidewalk be in the way. But when we had our land surveyor go back and look at where the sidewalk is at the affordable housing units, it actually runs across their property line. So we have some work to do in that respect with the engineering department. And I know his comments indicated that he wanted that to be resolved prior to the special permit. So it would involve, you know, doing the sidewalk to the specifications that the engineering department wants us to, but also if it's on our property there's going to need to be a right of way agreement, allowing public access to that, that kind of needs to be nailed down the street as best we can tell is 28 feet across at that point so we could probably jog it into the public way. It's just a question of what the engineering department wants to do.

[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so we would, I think, just have a condition stating that the proponent would work that out to the satisfaction of the city's traffic director and engineering department.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. Along those lines, Andre, the engineering letter has a long list of plan provisions that they'd like to see. In the terms of conditions, we need to have the written responses to that, at least before the ZBA. We're not issuing a permit. If we were issuing a permit, I wouldn't be comfortable with the board moving forward without having those responses in writing here. Because this board is making a recommendation to the ZBA, I just want to sort of go on the record advising the proponent that the ZBA is going to need all of that either done, resolved in writing for their meeting. And then we would appreciate being copied on that because we'll hold that for when we do occupancy permit reviews to ensure that you're complied with everything they've asked for. And that's fine.

[Kathleen Desmond]: You've resolved it to their satisfaction. We're now working on the hydrant and doing the scoping that was requested, whether that will be done by the ZBA hearing, but we'll agree to put it in writing and deal with that issue.

[Andre Leroux]: And is there anything else that were in the department head letters that we need to discuss? Or can you meet all the conditions?

[Kathleen Desmond]: We're willing to meet all the conditions of the department head letters.

[Alicia Hunt]: The one that was a little just I want everybody to be clear on because it's important to this board that hold the pervious pavements. The pavers was a big deal. We really care about that. And the city engineer is pointing out that they have to be properly maintained to remain pervious. And so for there to be a operations maintenance plan, and if there are to be condo documents that that should be solidified in there that they have to maintain this as pervious pavement. They can't just ignore that in the future.

[Andre Leroux]: Right, that would be one of our conditions as well. Okay, I know, Tom, member of the public, you, sorry, I don't know your last name, it's not part of your thing there, but you have one more comment?

[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you, my last name is Sowers, S-O-U-E-R-S. I was going to comment in response to Ms. Desmond about the relief that needs to be sought because my reading is that the usable open space is also requiring a variance. You're correct.

[Kathleen Desmond]: I left that out. I apologize. Usable open spaces is one of the requirements. Thank you.

[Andre Leroux]: Board members, other final comments or thoughts? I sense that there's seem to be general support, so we may be close to a motion. I think a couple of the conditions that we heard is, One, the sidewalk needs to be maintained at pedestrian level and worked out with the city's engineering department that the, what was the other one that we just, The maintenance plan for the impervious pavers needs to be incorporated into any condo association documents or management plan. Those are the two conditions that I heard. I don't know if we want to add extra language. You know, those mature trees at the lot line that have been indicated will be maintained, will be actually be, you know, preserved. And Amanda, did you have something?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, I don't know if this wants to be a condition or if it's understood, but just to reiterate that, that the concerns resolved, or sorry, the concerns raised in the engineering letters would be resolved or responded to in writing ahead of the ZBA meeting and that those, whatever is submitted there, like whatever written resolutions or responses would also be submitted to our office planning, development and sustainability.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. All right, any final conditions or thoughts?

[David Blumberg]: Andre, David, should we include recommendations to reduce the fire lane, to reduce the number of parking spaces to one per unit? Didn't sound like there was general optimism that anything could be done about any of those things, but just to get a record our view.

[Andre Leroux]: Right, I would certainly be fine, I think, going on record at least saying that, so that there is a record of that and we can maybe at some point have a conversation with the fire department about how we design projects. Would other board members be amenable to that as well? Okay. Director Hunt?

[Alicia Hunt]: I think that I was just sort of thinking about some framing because we're making recommendations to the DBA rather than that we would recommend fewer parking spots. Conditioning a permit that if we were to say that we would recommend fewer parking spots and that we would. It is the opinion of this board that the driveway does not need to be so wide. Um. You know, we could even say, um, but will defer to the fire chief's If there were to be changes in the future that would allow where if perhaps the fire department were to change its perspective on this before construction that there'd be space for that.

[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that was my thinking as well. And I think that we can you know, final language, we can workshop a bit, but I was thinking something along the lines of, you know, we understand that the fire chief's letter strongly, you know, I mean, requires the 24 foot width, but, you know, it's our opinion that projects like this don't need, such a large fire lane, and should that change, we welcome more landscaping and permeability. I don't know, we can work on the language a little bit, but I think that that's the thought.

[Unidentified]: Is there a motion on the floor?

[Andre Leroux]: to recommend approval of the project with the following recommendations that we've discussed.

[Deanna Peabody]: So we've included all of the department head letters, right, including traffic and engineering?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Andre Leroux]: Would you like to make the motion, Deanna?

[Deanna Peabody]: Sure, I'll make the motion.

[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, is there a second? Andres, David, all second. A roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.

[Jenny Graham]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg. Aye. Jackie Furtado.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Les Andresen. Aye. I'm an eye as well. Thank you very much to the proponent for the work that you put in. And we again, appreciate you meeting with us beforehand to work out, you know, to surface a lot of these issues that you addressed today.

[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. And it was very helpful that first meeting to all of us. And we greatly appreciated it as we do.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Good night. Best of luck.

[Unidentified]: Have a good night. You too.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, next item on the agenda is our much delayed rules and regulations. It is another late evening tonight, so I'm wondering whether we should postpone this once more, and maybe we can explore with the CD board staff, you know, whether we should find a, you know, look at the meetings, get agendas going forward and seeing if there's a meeting that is going to be light where we can really address this appropriately. David, I know you've put more work into this than anybody, so would you be all right with that?

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, I just wanted to add, Andre, that we have talked about it a couple of times. So if folks were to read through them and offer comments to me in advance or something like that, or maybe there aren't any comments, that's totally fine. It might not take that much. I just, like you, I feel like I'm out of gas by the time I go through a couple of projects. So I'd be happy to offer a motion to table this. Is that the right verb? To table this to a future meeting?

[Andre Leroux]: Second on that. I don't know if we need a formal motion, but... Okay. I'll definitely second that. Well, I guess let's do the roll call since we started that. Deanna Peabody?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Leslie Andresen.

[Unidentified]: Hi.

[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado. Hi. David Blumberg. Hi. Christy Babb. Hi. I'm an aye as well. Thank you. And again, Amanda, maybe we can find a time. If it looks like our meetings are pretty packed, maybe we can find like a meeting where we can just have this on the agenda and it can be pretty quick. All right.

[Unidentified]: Absolutely.

[Andre Leroux]: Alicia, did you have something you wanted to jump in on there or did that take care of it?

[Alicia Hunt]: I was actually gonna, it sort of merges right into the miscellaneous and other updates. And that is sort of this idea that the city or the city council is hoping to vote their zoning out of committee next week. And then it'll go to the city council for them to refer to this board. So I honestly expect, well, let's put it this way. The city council president is hoping that that will move forward quickly and that he'll be referring it to this board by the first week of October, which means we then have 65 days to open the hearing. It will need to be duly noticed and advertised. I have actually reached out to KP Law to provide some assistance to this board, because I feel that as you review things, you'll want to say like, are we allowed to do that in zoning? I'm not questioning anything the city council's putting forward, but rather you may want to make changes or suggestions, and it doesn't make sense for us to suggest anything that a zoning lawyer would say is not allowed. So I have reached out to them and they are prepared to provide some assistance to this board. The other thing is that in order to have hearings as they come up for development and to go through the zoning, we may need to consider meeting twice a month in order to have one for development projects and one for zoning. I'm certain you guys feel like I do and that we couldn't start dealing with zoning after hearing two development projects. It's too overwhelming. So I just wanted to put that out there because that's kind of, and to sort of think about it, look at our calendars, how are we going to make that work? There are a lot of other public meetings that members of this board want to attend and that Amanda and I need to be at.

[Andre Leroux]: And do we know, by the way, is attorney Bobrovsky going to present the recommendations of the city council to us or who will actually do that presentation?

[Alicia Hunt]: I do not believe that that is in his scope. Um, he's being paid to help the city council, and I'm not clear about that. So I think that's something that we need to work out with the administration. What could we ask KP law to help with doing increase attorney to grow ski scope to do that. Did I do I and our staff presented to this board. I just, I don't want to be misleading. There are certain things in there that we're wildly in favor of, but this is not our project. This is the council's project.

[Andre Leroux]: That's why I'm wondering, it would be kind of difficult for us to hold public hearings if we can't actually ask anybody what the intent was or why they solved problems in a certain way. Yeah. Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: And actually, with that phrasing, that sort of perspective on it, that may help us sort of have that conversation and see what would make sense. And it may be that we have a meeting or two, and we compile some questions. And then there's some follow-up, either in writing or we meet with Attorney Bobrowsky. I mean, I can't imagine that this board could dispose of that in less than multiple meetings, and I hesitate to say how many, but it's He is providing us with two copies. One is completely clean, so you can see what the zoning would look like. And one is extremely redlined, so it shows you old text crossed out, new text highlighted inserted, and then sort of text that just remained from one version to the next. That document with all those pieces in it is 144 pages.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, let me know if you need any assistance in talking to the city council or the administration about this to figure out the way forward.

[Alicia Hunt]: And so I will tell you all that that meeting they are planning to hold is next Wednesday, the 29th. It's not publicly posted anywhere. It's not formally announced. I've actually only been told that verbally by the council president. But if any of you do wanna hear or see that last meeting, it'll be next Wednesday. I don't have a time even for it yet. I assume six, but I don't know. All right, thank you.

[Andre Leroux]: That's all helpful information. Anything else on miscellaneous before we close the meeting?

[Alicia Hunt]: I just wanna let you know about the comprehensive plan. meeting coming up. Obviously Jackie was invited to the steering committee meeting, but we do have now scheduled a steering committee meeting and that is Wednesday the 6th of October. And then the public meeting is planned for Wednesday, October 20th. I would encourage you all to come to the public meeting. I also wanted to let you know we've been doing a redesign for Carr Park with That's a major thing. We'll be presenting the schematics for that on Saturday at the Mystic River celebration. We'll be there from noon to four. We'll also have the comp plan consultants there. If anybody wants to talk to them one-on-one, they'll be there. Um, and I, um, and then also the car park from 4 to 7 next Wednesday, the 29th, the consultant will be at car park to show the schematics and to talk to people about it. And there will be additional tabling after that. Um, I think Amanda, we should try and put together an email with all of these dates for them.

[Andre Leroux]: That's what I was going to say. That would be helpful.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, there was one other thing that I was gonna... Sorry, as I was thinking... Oh, the... Sorry, it's late. The Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I'm actually expecting to release the draft. So we're gonna be releasing a draft plan for public comment for a few months. The executive summary draft, I hope to have out by Monday. And then we'll follow that pretty shortly with the whole plan and the strategies and actions. And then we'll have that available. And Saturday, October 16th is the Harvester Energy Festival, which our office runs. But we will have the comprehensive plan consultants there. I think the car park consultants will be there. The climate plan consultants will be there. So it's actually a planning fest. If you want to like you know, color any of those and have a little one-on-one October 16th from noon to three in Riverbend Park. Plus, you know, like 30 other exhibitors. Okay.

[Andre Leroux]: Well, thank you. And yeah, Amanda, if you could circulate those dates in an email to us, that would be really helpful.

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely. And I just have, there was one last thing. So, and I think Alicia could speak more specifically to what this project entails, but Our office has been working with a group of MIT students I think on a feasibility study relating to affordable housing, and they've requested that we set up a meeting with the CD board. to kind of review their mid-semester conditions and findings. They envisioned having something maybe 45 to 60 minutes of presentation and then opening up to questions from both the board and the public. And they envisioned this being maybe early November. So I just kind of wanted to put that on the board's radar and we can schedule we get more information, but.

[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, David.

[David Blumberg]: 7th member terms updates.

[Alicia Hunt]: We discussed that with the mayor's office last week. There was confusion. They keep I'm hoping to get that. Resolved shortly. see what happens.

[Victor Schrader]: I have one quick addition. We have an open urban, our city planner position as well. So if you know of anyone that's qualified and that you'd love to work with, please send them our way. It's a competitive market right now and I think we're having trouble getting interest.

[Andre Leroux]: Is this a new additional position?

[Alicia Hunt]: to be clear, this is actually Annie's position, and it would be staffing this board and managing the land use stuff. Amanda's passion is to work with us actually on other projects that we've been doing, other open space and more climate and stuff related thing. And she has been kindly providing amazing organization and staffing to this board, but she has actually stated that she would prefer that we hire for that position and she would continue with the other role she had been filling with the city.

[SPEAKER_09]: Okay, just wanted to clarify that.

[Alicia Hunt]: Help find us a land use planner. It is a tough market. Every community in Massachusetts seems to be hiring for planners right now.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: both Alicia and Andre, you're on the mass planners listserv, right? I was going to say, I think there's a conflict of me because we're also hiring at the state within for us, um, for the opera money and things like that. I think it would be perfect for you to add your hat there because people really are in the mass planners, um, listserv people really are picking up on that. And I know it's competitive, but we've gotten a ton of hits. I just don't know if it's, it just seems, um,

[Alicia Hunt]: difficult, it just seems like it's a conflict if I try to- I think I sent something there yesterday, but I gotta tell you, I'm like tossing things out so fast that I could be wrong.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Vic posted on MassAPA yesterday on their job board. So are you seeing on the job, you're seeing the Mass Planners email list.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah, I thought I emailed it yesterday. But if Victor already had, and just to let you all know, in my planning world, I will be, my term starts on January 1st, 2022, but I was elected as treasurer for the Mass APA. And I think I can sort of solicit things from there, but I'm not sure. I'm just, conflict of interest has me by the chokehold. But if Victor has already taken care of that, And I also know the president who was just elected and I believe she works with Christie, but yeah.

[Andre Leroux]: So- We'll make sure it gets posted there. Anyone wanna make a motion?

[Jacqueline McPherson]: To end, I'll make the motion to end our meeting tonight.

[Andre Leroux]: Sorry about being so subtle there. Thank you, Jackie. Thank you, David.

[David Blumberg]: I'll second the motion to adjourn.

[Andre Leroux]: All right, roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: Glesson Dreyson. Aye. Jackie Furtado.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg. Aye. Christy Dowd.

[Jenny Graham]: Aye.

[Andre Leroux]: I'm an eye as well. All right, meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone for your help, Amanda, Alicia, the whole team. Really appreciate it.

Jenny Graham total time: 2.81 minutes total words: 206