AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 10-26-22

[David Blumberg]: No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided in Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2022. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. If despite our best efforts, we're not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that, given the remote nature of this meeting, tonight all of our votes will be made by roll call. Reminder as well that all project materials for tonight's project and past and future ones are available to the public at the city's website, medfordma.org. If you click on Boards and Commissions, follow down alphabetically the Community Development Board, you can click through and find all of our materials for your review. We'll start tonight with a roll call of the board. My name again is Dave Blumberg, or maybe for the first time, Vice Chair, Jackie Furtado present. You had a puberty.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah.

[David Blumberg]: Clice Andreessen present. Christy down present. Emily had been present. And we'll leave it at that for now. Amanda. All right. The first and really only primary item we have on our agenda tonight is a discussion of 142 Mr. gab this is a great American beer hall. As always, let me start by reading the public notice that accompanied the project. Metro Community Development Board will conduct a meeting today. Now on zoom relative to an application for site plan review submitted by Brian Sarthur, 29 Cushing Road Milton mass to erect a structure on lot are 10142 mystic Avenue in Medford. The petitioner seeks to construct a new 22,025 square foot beer hall at the location. under section 11.7 of our zoning ordinance, the development is considered quote a major project, and is therefore subject to site plan review by this board. So let me first turn to the team. And I understand Kyle Harnish is present. Brian Zarathar is present. Kyle, will you be presenting for the group? Is that what I hear? Yes, I will be this evening. Excellent. Welcome. Thanks for being here tonight. Thank you for your time. Would you like to go ahead and start your presentation?

[Zac Bears]: Sure. Amanda, can I share my screen when?

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

[Zac Bears]: Okay, so first and foremost, I'd like to thank the whole board for their time this evening. I want to acknowledge everybody's time and want to follow up from last time we've met. We did an initial review on this project a couple of weeks ago, and you guys gave us some very helpful comments and suggestions that we've heeded your advice and made a bunch of changes that I think have improved the project overall. Before I get into that, I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Kyle Harnish. I'm a builder and a developer. I was brought on this team by Brian to assist in this capacity, essentially to help in the building and development of this site. I do have experience in this field, and I hope that I can clearly communicate our vision and answer any and all questions that may come about. I do want to acknowledge Brian's effort to getting this project to this point. Brian and his family obviously own and operate this parcel of land and Brian's been working on this project for a couple years and has done his best job and putting this team together with individuals such as myself who all come from different backgrounds to you know, help assist in seeing this project as come to fruition and achieve success, which I think we all want to do. But Brian has certainly been the visionary behind this project from day one. And, you know, it takes a lot of energy and effort over the past couple years to get it to this point. And I think that, you know, I'm happy to be a part of this team and I've been engaged with this now for about a year and a half and where it started from where it is today, I think we've seen dramatic improvements and obviously with the help of the board and various letters we received from the city of Medford, various departments, suggestions that they made all just improved the project even more so. So without kind of further ado, I'd like to jump into the revised plan and presentation.

[Unidentified]: Okay, can you all see the screen?

[David Blumberg]: We can, yes, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: All right, so Great American Beer Hall, as you all know, I want to start off with the, what we call a locus map, the general location of this property, highlighted here in the dotted red lines, two acre parcel. It's right across from Hancock Street, right on Mystic Avenue, basically in between Atlas Liquors and Medford VFW, for anybody who might not know the exact location of this property. Here's a satellite view of 142 Mystic Ave. I've outlined it in the red there. It's currently sharing with the parcel next door, which Brian's family also owns and operates. So I did the best we could at defining the actual parameters of this specific lot for which the beer hall will occupy. As you can see from the overhead view, it's mainly auto body mechanic use and storage of school bus. This is the view from the rear, so this is coming from 93. You can see, again, the rectangle that is essentially our parameters of the lot. That building in the front, auto body, that whole space will be torn down and the rest of the lot will be clear. As you can kind of see from this image, the lot is fairly level. In the back there, you can see the school bus storage. So from the front, this is from Mystic Ave view. Again, very industrial, mainly car storage. So from Mystic Avenue itself, standing on Mystic Avenue, front side elevation, this is what you're staring at on a day-to-day basis. It looks very much industrial. You have that giant telephone pole in your way, not very exciting, not very inviting. There's another view just further up the street, looking back at the project or the property, excuse me. just, again, very industrial, nothing very inviting about this space at all. Certainly not a place I'd like to gather at night. Now, the whole genesis of this thing is, you know, how can we improve Mystic Avenue? And I think, you know, Brian's had this vision from the beginning of, you know, what Mystic Avenue could potentially be. And, you know, it's a scary thought for our team and our group of individuals who are invested in this to be kind of the first domino, I think, to fall. So, you know, we poured a lot of heart and a lot of energy into seeing this project, you know, beautify Mystic Avenue and kind of be the catalyst for future development. So, you know, this is kind of where we see the biggest change. So, on the left side, obviously, you see the existing site, and on the right side, you see the proposed. obviously a dramatic change, very more inviting. I don't want to get married too much to the exact image. It is a concept image. We are in development. Our budgets are limited in this capacity. You have a group of individuals who've committed their own capital, who are very invested in this, and our budgets do have We do have limitations, so the renderings are not exactly what they might be. Those will get flushed out later in the design, build, and permitting phase of this project. But to give you an idea of the dramatic change that we see happening on this specific parcel, this is to basically show you that. So Here's a more enlarged view of that front side elevation coming off Mystic Ave. Obviously the cars are gone, the bus is gone, that old dilapidated building is gone, you know, and a much more inviting social space that we think can be the hub for Mystic Ave and hopefully, as we mentioned, spur future development on the street. The front side elevation for us has to be inviting. It has to have some green space. We heard you loud and clear in the last meeting, and we've done our best job to increase the landscape area of this lot. We do want the experience here to not feel as though you're on an industrial lot and in an industrial space, so we want to feel like people are escaping to this development, into this building. I feel like it needs to be an experience for visitors and customers alike. And I think a buffer of landscape and some sort of inviting nature towards the building will accomplish that. Now this is the side view. This side view I know has drawn some concerns from members of the board and I totally hear you and I understand that because of the massing of the project, it looks so large. We have these windows all at the top part here, we have our roof deck here, which is all well and nice. There is a lot of surface area on the lower half where there's not a lot of glazing and you know the reason for that is a lot of our concessions and stuff are on that wall so there's really no use for the windows being there. Don't want people peeking in behind the bars behind the concession stands and whatnot. But we do have plans and ideas that we've shared with our architect already to perhaps grow some sort of green wall here planting wall some sort of signage to beautify that front entrance and space and make it more welcoming and also to direct traffic to our main entrance on the further back on the property on the backside of the building here, we will have installed a bike rack. So that'll be a more inviting space there. But, you know, I do think that we have things in play that will beautify this building and not make it look so industrial and commercial. And we're playing around with those ideas right now with our architects, but I hear you loud and clear. And I think it is our team commitment to make this project and this building as beautiful as possible because it will in turn benefit us and invite people in and be something that we can all be very proud of. So that is the side elevation. Now, I wanted to just get into the site as general I remember the last meeting, somebody on the board mentioned grading and the overall pitch of the site. It's kind of difficult to see on the site plan but try to zoom in for you at the rear, almost facing 93, you have grade 12. Okay, so that's elevation 12 at the rear. And if we look at the front, which is on Mystic Ave coming in, you know, you have a 10 coming off the curb and then you're up to an 11. So you're talking a one to two foot pitch over 400 feet. So a very level lot. Certainly something that as a builder, I love to see. Not a tremendous amount of challenges in a level lot. Sorry, I don't know why it did that. Let me go back. Forgive me. Sorry, try to go back to that. There we go. So, a couple things with the site plan that you'll see on here that you won't see on our landscape plan. You'll see these dotted lines at the front. of the parking lot here. That's a proposed infiltration system, essentially stormwater management system. This is where our drainage will go. So the lot, the parking lot, you'll see is at 12, 12 and a half at the top, goes down to 11, goes down to 11, and then pitches all the way down to essentially that is to send all the water down to this infiltration system here, and then there's another infiltration system in the back by the loading dock, and that is to send the water down this way. So those are our stormwater management systems that have been looked at and are being worked out with our civil engineering team and the city of Medford Engineering Department. So we will get calcs on all that, but it's basically the surface area that is out there and how much water That hopefully answers questions on whether or not the lot is level. It certainly is. You can also see here, these are the utilities coming off Mystic Ave outlined here that go into our buildings. So in terms of utilities, gas, water, sewer, drain, and underground electric, it is in our intention to get everything underground. There is an electric pole at the front of this property. right on Mystic Ave that is owned by the utility company and we will do everything in our power to hopefully get that pole removed and get a transformer somewhere put on the landscape buffer area. No guarantees there but it is something that I am looking into and hopefully can get either Eversource, National Grid, whoever manages and maintains that pole to work with us in that so that all the utilities are underground. I just think it makes for a better development and you don't have to stare at the pole right in front of the building. Um, so that's the site overall. Now we'll get into the, um, revised plan here. Get me back to me out of this.

[Unidentified]: Okay. So, um, sorry.

[David Blumberg]: I want to stand there for a second.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't know why it's letting me scroll as it once was. Let me try to enlarge it for you. Forgive me if I'm taking extra time. Okay, so here is the revised landscape plan and I worked on this, basically, to answer most of the questions that were brought about in the last preliminary hearing and also upon receiving all the letters from the Medford Fire Department, the Public Works Department, the Engineering Department and the Traffic Department. So we worked on this pretty diligently and forgive us, we do have budget constraints. This isn't some high level architectural rendering. So we're doing the best we can, but when it does come to actually permitting phase you will get much better and clearer images and renderings but I think it still communicates our message and hopefully highlight some of the areas of concern. Basically, everything was designed here in the city ordinance 6.3, which was provided by the planning department office. Alicia and Victor were kind enough to kind of send me some of that stuff and I kind of reviewed it to the best of my ability and included all those measures in here. So just as an overall idea of this lot size and how much we're covering, I just kind of wanted to give you an idea and we did so in this legend up here for the zoning requirements. This is commercial C2. And basically what is required of us is 35 feet of frontage. We actually have about 195 feet on Mystic Ave, 15 feet setback for the building. From the front side and rear, we have about 140 setback to the front of the building here, 15 on this side facing Atlas Liquors, and certainly more than that on that side, and then 30 feet from the rear. So we well within our setbacks, the height on this structure can exceed 30 so we're going right to 30 maximum lot coverage is 50% we're going to be at about 27.5. And the way I calculated that is over here in the lower left hand part of the legend. Overall lot size we have is about 89,620. The landscape area, and I'm calling the landscape area just the green area I have highlighted on the plan, that alone is 9,000 square feet. The patio area shown at the front, which is the beer garden essentially, is about 4,400 square feet. And the way I understand the city ordinances, the open space clause is that open area that that's your garden should be included in that tally. So if you calculate the landscape plus the open area, I have 13,400 square feet, which is 15% of the overall lot coverage. The building area is 24,682, that is this structure here, not including the beer garden, and that calculates to about 27.5% of the overall lot coverage. in increasing our landscape from the previous design to this design, you know, we're more than half of what our building coverage is. And I think that is a really nice balance for us into, you know, bring some more green to our area. So a couple things I want to go over that have varied from the last meeting were some of the changes that we made and Certainly if you have any questions, feel free to ask. First and foremost, one thing we heard loud and clear was the reduction of the overall width of our roadway. On the original site plan, it was spec'd at about 28 feet. And we designed that to be above what the fire department was requiring. The fire department got back to us and essentially asked for 24 feet for two lane traffic, excuse me. And so we shrunk it to 24 feet. which means less asphalt for us, a little more landscape buffer. And I think more importantly, and to the board's point, which was an excellent point from the last meeting was to increase the pedestrian access from Mystic Avenue. So what we've done now by shrinking this to 24 foot roadway, we're able to fit sidewalks on both sides, coming from the South and coming from the North on Mystic Ave. which I think will greatly improve pedestrian access to our site. Now, this sidewalk you can see was added in here, the trajectory this pathway would take was across the parking lot here and through this crosswalk, and then you can see we've added a pedestrian crosswalk across the front of our building and into our main entrance. Now, mystic have right here there's a 15 foot easement, essentially from the state of Massachusetts because it's a it's a Massachusetts roadway. So, the 15 feet, basically constitutes a five foot concrete sidewalk. plus a six inch curb, so five and a half feet. And that leaves us nine and a half feet of landscape buffer. That is gonna be on both sides of the parking lot. So landscape buffer of nine and a half feet here, here's your pedestrian sidewalk, there's your curbing, same condition on the opposite side, nine and a half foot landscape or five foot sidewalk and curbing in between. This landscape buffer was a big thing that came about in the last meeting. And as it's shown here now, it's just purely lawn, I do have a slide that I'll show you next where we do intend to do some plantings here. I think small shrubs, and traditionally what I've done in the past is anything greater than 30 feet you plant a small tree. I think that's something we can certainly look at doing here. My issue here is the overhead wires. On the southern part of Mystic Ave, there's that telephone pole that we talked about that I hope we can move, but no guarantee. That is a bit of a process. So I think there to be expected is low shrubbery and low plants, which we're open to doing and certainly, you know, shielding a bit of our parking lots from Mystic Ave. But I just wanted to point out that we do have a challenge there in the telephone pole. So parking, parking I've highlighted on the whole development. The main parking lot here has 86 spots, 75 of which are regular, four are handicap and we've included now what we're calling seven EV or electric vehicle spots. Those seven spots are right here, one, two, three, four. 567. Now we're committed, and we talked to Alicia about this, we're committed to running conduit to these areas. We don't have a specific charging station spec yet or anything like that. Again, budget constraints, but we are open to certainly running conduit to these areas and working with the City of Medford when it comes about, if there's opportunities for us to take advantage of some incentives or some, you know, cost breaks, we would be open to putting charging stations there. But for now, I think the best we can do is provide conduit to those areas. On the front side here, you'll see we have an additional 16 spots. So 14 regular, 2 handicap. So if you calculate the 16 spots plus these 86, you get a total of 102. And the traffic department confirmed this in their review is 102 spots. So I worked with Alicia and Victor and Amanda in the calculation of what was required for parking on this site. And based on the calculation of the building, whether or not you include the beer garden, it remains up in the air. But for the sake of this measure, we included the beer garden. So if you include the 24,682 plus the 4,400 of the patio area, you get above 29,000 square feet and if you divide that by one spot per 350 square feet is the calculation we were given by Alicia's office and you come up with 83 spots so that would be the minimum for a development as such 83 spots and the maximum is double that number so 166 so we're offering 102 which we think is a generous little sweet spot and the reason we exceeded the 83 was mainly because we had a community outreach reading a few months back and one thing we heard loud and clear from local neighbors, mainly on the side streets, was they were concerned that the traffic to this building would lead to people parking on the side streets and impacting their properties negatively. That is certainly not something we want to do and we assured the neighbors of this property that we would do the best we can to mitigate that and put as much parking as we saw fit on our property. So that's kind of how we landed at 102. We felt like it was a sweet spot, a little bit above what is required, but not so excessive. And that is mainly in response to our community outreach meeting. So that is the parking. Now around the parking you'll see we have a seven foot landscape buffer all along here, all along the parking in the edges. The tree plantings we've done here I did an accordance with the with the zoning ordinance provided by Victor's office, the landscape plan 6.3, if you look at it, any parking lot that exceeds 20 parking spaces is required to have a tree per 10 spots. So if you see we have 86 spots all at 90, you should have nine trees, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. So there's 12 in that area we exceed our minimum there. And this doesn't really fall in it because it doesn't exceed 20 spots so therefore there's not a minimum but we still have two trees there regardless. So I think the tree planting that we're proposing is sufficient. So that's the reason behind the trees. The lighting again I met with Alicia and Victor and Amanda on this and I did the best I could. I put lighting in here, parking lot lighting, and it's in accordance with the city spec performance standards and zoning order in section 6.44. There is no very specific spec for the lighting just yet, and I'm open to working with the city and finding one and proposing some lights. We understand there'll be LED, you know, anything that's efficient is in our best interest as well. So I think we were going to work with the design build team and our architect to provide some sort of lighting options and then go before Alicia and show her what our thoughts are on the parking lot lighting. Around the beer garden here, you can see we have some string lights. One thing we put on here, which we heard from the board last time, permeable pavers will be used on this beer garden. So 4,400 square feet of permeable pavers here. We do intend to put some form of barrier around our patio, whether that's a reclaimed wooden fence out of pallets maybe perhaps old wine barrels, whiskey barrels with white rope, there's going to be some delineation there between the area in which you can drink alcohol and then obviously the parking lots and the pedestrian sidewalk. So we don't have a full commitment on what that barrier will be. It'll be low, it'll probably be four feet or so, and there'll be some plantings and shrubs in between, perhaps some planter boxes so people can still see in, but we do not want people gaining access from the parking lot that way. On the other side of the beer garden there, there's a 15-foot landscape buffer that kind of traverses the whole back here. We basically split half the building and increased that green area all the way up above 180, 200 feet of our structure. And the reason for that was, again, in hearing the board of increased green space, increased lawn space, you know, we see potential here of perhaps dog area or something of that nature. We've also added hedges alongside the Atlas Liquor property, which is along here, it's about 80 feet of hedges, I think that'll shield that parking lot from Atlas Liquors. A bike rack was mentioned at the last meeting. We have a 15 foot metal bike rack included at the front side of the building over here. We put it further back on the property just to hopefully deter any theft or anything like that. We also have two loading bays at the back of the property that was brought about by one of the departments. And then we've clearly identified our entrances. We've opened up our landscape buffer area to show the flow of traffic going to the parking lots. and how those concrete sidewalks are going to work. So I think overall, that is essentially the changes that were made on our behalf, and hopefully answering a lot of the questions and concerns from the board in the last meeting, and certainly all the letters we received from the various departments. One thing I wanna bring about in attention to from one of the departments was the traffic department. We understand that the traffic study that was provided is lacking in some areas, and the traffic department director suggested some mitigation efforts to help us get where we need to be. And I think our team is committed to doing our best effort in working with the town, I mean, the city to achieve those mitigation efforts. He provided essentially two pathways, not sure if everybody read the report, the first of which mitigation efforts are mainly using MassDOT because that road, Mystic Ave is a MassDOT road. So we would have to engage with them and offer some ideas in mitigating the traffic flow to our site. And I just know from experience there, it's a bit of a process working with MassDOT. So I don't wanna guarantee anything there, but I do certainly, I will make a concerted effort and I think the team is supportive of this to engage with MassDOT and share with them our thoughts and how to improve the flow for Mystic Ave. And I think the traffic department suggestions are certainly ways to improve the area. My concern is just MassDOT being responsive in a timely manner. and working with us, but it certainly will be an effort that we will put forth. Secondarily, the traffic director was kind enough to offer other mitigating efforts, which I see as totally doable on our behalf, mainly some barriers, some painting. I think he had planned for some crosswalk signage, which we are open to, we are certainly willing to do. our best interest to draw good traffic and good flow to this area. We don't want to cause any problems or issues on Mystic Ave, and we are committed to doing whatever it takes. I just tread with caution when it comes to the MassDOT. I do not want to over-promise and under-deliver in that regard. So I certainly appreciate the traffic director's suggestion for some other mitigating efforts, which we are committed to doing. Other than that, I don't see anything that came about from the various boards that, excuse me, from the various departments that we are not able to answer or flush out either in this meeting or some of the stormwater questions that came about from the engineering office. Those are all being worked on by our civil engineering team. And obviously when we go for permitting, stormwater permits are required. So we won't be able to do anything without those permits in place, irregardless. So I think we've sufficiently answered most of those questions. And to bring me just back to my slides here to give some detail on the landscape buffer, this is just something I brought from another development. So to give you an idea of what that Mystic Ave entrance, I know the board was curious on what our efforts are gonna be on that landscape buffer. And this is kind of just a general, idea, I guess, of what it might look like. I've highlighted here, a four foot max shrub height. And then on the bottom slide there it's, it shows you the nine and a half foot minimum buffer, and then various plantings and shrubs located and then you know for every 10, 12, 30 feet, so we can try to plant a mature tree. However, I think with the current telephone pole that exists on one side, that's going to be very difficult to do. So I just wanted to give the board some idea of what our vision is for that landscape buffer on Mystic Ave. Go to the next slide here. Okay, so again, this is your front view. Something that came about, what I want to talk about next is the overall design and aesthetic of this building. And, you know, I think, I hope the board understands this, like I've mentioned several times before, there are budget constraints in this project. We've already done a lot and paid a lot of money to get to this point. And, you know, without knowing that we're actually going to build this thing it's hard to commit more capital to have the full architectural plan done. So, at this point, this is, you know, the best that I think that we can provide to the board to give you an idea of what we're trying to build and I have some slides to show you guys some what I think are successful metal prefab buildings and how they've been. built in some of the other areas of the country that I think are good examples of what we're trying to do. Something to understand, a key factor to our building is the prefab metal. The reason for that is twofold. One, cost, keep our costs down. Two, speed. We want to open this thing as soon as possible and we are committed to doing so. Um, and the big reason, uh, for us to doing that is obviously construction costs are constantly fluctuating. Uh, since the pandemic I I'm in this field and in this industry has been very difficult to gauge pricing and, uh, almost everything you put out to bid comes back over budget. So you're constantly, um, constantly trying to value engineer and also source materials from different areas. So, you know, something that might be visual to you today on this board might not be available to us. So we're just trying to give you a concept image of what we're trying to achieve. And I think the other other buildings that I show you will be helpful in and gaining some perspective of where we're coming from. But metal prefab building, it'll be a low pitched gable roof just like this. You'll have a second floor roof deck. You'll have as much glazing as we can get on the first floor to see into the property. You will have an outdoor patio. This is shown as concrete. Again, forgive us on that it is permeable pavers, but this is just purely a concept. We will try to carry the front facade with as much glazing as possible to again invite people in. So to give you an idea of the building itself, metal prefab building, likely metal cladding on the outside. We haven't decided on a color or anything yet, but I wanted to give you guys some real world examples of metal prefab buildings that I think are pretty successful. So here's one, Pacific Northwest. This is a wine market and hall. Again, if you just follow the architecture of this thing, it's a low pitched roof, gable roof. metal prefab building, a lot of glazing on the front. It's obviously on a main road. I'll show you another view of this same building. Why does it keep going back to that? Sorry. So this is the building again. low pitched roof. You can see they have solar on top, which we intend to do. HVAC mechanicals are on top. They obviously have some outside dining. They're on a main road. I know if you look at more recent images of this property, they have this landscape buffer here. It's very narrow. Ours is bigger, but these have grown into some vines. And so they've shielded some of that metal, corrugated metal paneling with some landscape screens, which I think is a real nice detail. They have some plantings in the front. And again, this is just kind of shows you a real world example. I'll give you one more. This is Surly Brewing. So this is a metal prefab building. Again, look at the roof pitch, very similar to ours. This has some second floor mezzanine, obviously some indoor outdoor feel and a fire pit in the front. So this is essentially trying to give, to give you some idea of, you know, our job is to create an experience for our customers. So I think that indoor outdoor feel is something that I think is going to be instrumental in our success. So any areas we can do that we're going to. So you know mainly our strong point I think is on the Mystic Ave elevation and that front beer garden. So we're going to do the best we can to keep it open, keep it airy. Obviously being in New England we have challenges with weather so know, a good part of the year, we won't be open out there. But it is in our best interest to introduce as much glass as possible and create that flow indoor and outdoor. So those are three real world examples of metal prefab buildings. You know, this one in particular, I don't particularly like the color of it. I think it's a little too dark, but the lighting of this space, I really do like. So I think, you know, that should help give some ideas to the board of what we're trying to achieve design-wise and aesthetically. I know the board has seen this before, but for anybody who hasn't, this is just to kind of give you an indication of what the inside is gonna be, large gathering spaces down the center of the beer hall, concessions on the outside, beer garden at the front, and then additional taps on the other side of the building and then bathrooms at the rear, and then we're gonna have some form of second floor mezzanine, again great for private events and maybe some home, some offices, ADA accessible bathrooms, we have an elevator, and then a roof deck off the front. Just to give you some idea, again, concept images, please forgive us, limited budget, but this tries to give you some idea of what the inside might look like. You know, don't get married to the flooring or the color scheme or anything like that. It's just to show you that people are congregated in a social setting in the middle of this building with a lot of glass, trying to feel escaped, I think, from the city and the hustle and bustle of Mystic Ave. The idea is to create an environment inviting inside as well as outside. I'll show you another view. This just shows you some of the beer vending stations down below. This is up looking from the mezzanine level, some form of television for sporting events, things of that nature. Um, and then one last view just shows you some seating. This is not the set of chairs we particularly have or the tables. It's just to kind of give you this communal aspect of, you know, um, bringing people together. And that's kind of what our motto is best brought together. And, um, we feel that this beer hall can certainly achieve that and, and, um, we're doing the best we can to, to make an inviting space. that people want to gather both inside and out. So to wrap this up, I kind of wanted to give you a gap timeline on where we're at and kind of how this project has come to date. We've applied for our liquor license, so we're still awaiting that. Site planning and permitting, we hope to get through as soon as possible. There are time constraints not only on our capital, we are being funded by Capital One through an SBA loan. And we have capital requirements and commitments that have certain deadlines to them. So, you know, we are running low on that timeline. And I think Brian has clearly communicated it from the beginning. His family who owns and manages the property, they have tenants and need to give them forewarning. And there's leases and things of that nature that are coming up to expire. So it is certainly critical path for us. We are at that juncture right now and need to move things along as best as possible. Our team is committed to doing it. We just hope the board sees it the same way in assisting us to get, we understand there's multiple steps still to be had, but this is one critical and important step that can get us on the right path. Again, I mentioned time, speed, the metal prefab buildings, we can move fast and it is in our intention completely to move fast. So if we can get swift approvals and permitting going as soon as possible, we will intend to build in the spring in May of 2023, and hopefully have one year of building and be open by spring 2024. Um, so that's what our team is committed to. And, um, you know, I hope with, um, the, the help of this board that, um, you know, you guys will see it the same way as we do and, and doing everything we can to improve Mystic Ave and make it, um, you know, a place for people to want to be and hopefully, uh, spur future development on the street. So I'm open to any questions from anybody. Uh, I hope I didn't take too much of your time.

[David Blumberg]: No, we appreciate the presentation Mr. harness appreciate that very much. Thanks for the additional details and materials you provided to us. Let me go just following kind of our regular agenda, invite any city staff who might be here who would like to speak or address the project before we go further. folks.

[Amanda Centrella]: No one from that I know of unless Victor Alicia have something they want to add at this time.

[David Blumberg]: And they don't have to just thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think it's um, it would be good to hear from the board. We have been working with the applicant to try and make sure that they could respond to everything. that the city is looking for in a presentation like this. We're excited to be working with a smaller company and local residents and not in a large international firm that's coming in and putting this in Medford, but rather somebody who's from the community trying to develop something for the community and I just want to sort of acknowledge that because I know they keep saying like on a shoestring you know tight but that is their work we're working with community members here to develop something for the community um which does in fact have a lower level of initial investment than when some of the larger projects that have come before you recently um so and we thank you for them um to them for having extra meetings with us as well.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, excellent. Before we go to open this up to the public, we usually pose a few questions or open it to the board for at least initial questions, maybe not to roll up our sleeves entirely, but for some initial questions. I'd like to take the lead in that, if you don't mind, and that is to throw to Kyle or Brian's here. I guess. I'm hesitant to do this because I don't want to just steal everyone's thunder, or potentially everyone's thunder. I also don't want to make it appear that we're not going to have a full discussion on this matter but I guess my question for you is, we're accustomed to seeing plans site plans presented to us that have been through that process that you mentioned will be forthcoming so you will sit down with your architect you will come up with some more detailed plans, etc. If the board is positively inclined toward the project, but hasn't seen everything it needs to see for a final approval. Where, where are you on that. Can you respond to that thought that I have.

[Zac Bears]: The cost of construction has really gone up since COVID and all that. And so I had a budget back in 2019 when I started this and it is, I can't believe the numbers that we're looking at. And so working it back from what we qualify for for the SBA loan through Capital One is how we got to where we are at now. And so we just don't have the funds to keep going given where we're at now in our timeline, this is literally the best foot forward that we could possibly do.

[David Blumberg]: Sure, Brian. But when will that occur? Assuming we pass

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we've pledged capital already to start that process. We've already engaged the Haines group, which is our builder. It's a design build capacity. They'll get every note from these meetings, all the letters that have been provided by the city. So we know and we'll design exactly to what is required. So traditionally in previous developments that I've worked on to answer your question, if it doesn't have a full site plan, like you're asking for, there's usually an order of conditions handed down. by you guys, you know, and then we make sure that when you will see the final plan and make sure it, you know, answers all your questions and has everything that you need on it.

[Unidentified]: Okay, other David, I have a question.

[David Blumberg]: Jackie, please.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: So one of my first questions was definitely this site plan in order to move forward. And I don't know how this sits with the with the city staff itself. But we have actually had to have previous proponents come back with a full site plan just so that we can make sure that we're seeing everything that we have to scale. And one of the issues that I'm having is that I'm not able to see this to scale. I can't say that I'm not able to give comments on it, but I'm not sure how that would look without previous proponents and us having them go back and get site plans. So that's more of a question for the city. Are we able to move forward without that site plan being to scale? Do you think that would be an issue the way we have had previous proponents go back?

[David Blumberg]: Well, I can try to respond to that Jackie and that I think we can try to be creative here if the board wants to be creative and that's I think maybe you and I are thinking along the same lines.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I might I might add it this way that sometimes you'll say to proponents, well, what about this? And what about that? And they'll immediately say, oh, oh, we'll make some edits and come back to you. Right. It's very rare that you actually have had a proponent say, well, if you put that in the conditions, we'll need it. And I think that we actually have had some of those, right? So this doesn't show, I don't know, what it is that you're looking for, right? This doesn't show a narrow dry vial. Well, if the conditions say that the dry vial has to be 28 feet and no wider, then that's how it gets constructed. because that's what the condition says, whether or not you saw that on the plan, right? I guess sort of part of the difficulty is that site plan review can be denied if they don't give you what you, if we don't have everything we need to make a decision, but it can't be denied sort of arbitrarily, right? Like it's, and usually we have an applicant who jumps at the, let me make edits and come back to you. I think there's some risk to the applicant to say like, well, yes, we can do that. Yes, we can do that. And some applicants are like, let's have every detail drawn out by an engineer before it's in something. And I think that's also different because this is design build. And in design build, your builder actually designs it and can make changes as you go. as opposed to this is full architectural drawings 100% and you put it out to bid and then they have to bid what's on the drawings. It's a different process as well. And I don't know, I hope that's a little helpful.

[Jenny Graham]: I would just like to add to that on the design build process. I think that's why whatever the board comes up with conditions for tonight is very important to that process because you have to give performance expectations to your design build team. And so anyway, I'm sorry if I cut someone off. I just do you mind if I continue?

[Jacqueline McPherson]: That's perfect, Christy, because I just didn't understand how we were going to move forward with And you're explaining it.

[Jenny Graham]: I know and I feel I'm on the same page with you and David. Um, well, first of all, I'd like to take a step back and say like, as as a resident, I'm very excited that this project is coming before the city. And I would love to see it here. And I'm even more excited that it's by a community member. So that gives a little more know, interest in doing good to the city. I am torn though about the presentation and I'm feeling really uncomfortable and looking for guidance and how this board can actually move towards an approval tonight because everything is sorry, it's too much money and therefore we haven't spent the time to at least give you the renderings or the plans that we're used to seeing. And I get that I'm in real estate development and construction, but there is a way to go about that. And I just think we just need to be very clear about what the expectations are and the conditions are and not set a precedent that is going to backfire on this board in the future for deviating from expectations that we set in prior.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I can just jump onto what Christie's saying also. And I think that I'm feeling uncomfortable as well. And I think one of the reasons for that is that the lack of information that we see in the presentation, and I totally understand why, is sort of putting the burden of this information on us rather than the proponent. And I think that's dangerous. You see what I'm saying? All of a sudden now, we're going to have to come up with a list of things that I don't, I personally don't even know where to start, you know, like everything seems okay. There's, I think you have a lot of work to do specifically on the site plan. I'm less than concerned about the building. That's going to be fine. Um, and, and, and, but the site plan needs, needs a lot of work. And I, and I just feel like what you really need is a, uh, a landscape architect and a traffic engineer, and you really need to get down and hammer that plan because it's not there yet. I don't know.

[Unidentified]: And I don't know how we could approve, for me, that statement.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: How do we say, yeah, we sort of like it, but you have a lot of work to do? How is that a condition of approval?

[David Blumberg]: Thank you. I saw Emily's hand up, so I wanted to turn the mic over to Emily.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I don't know how we would do this, but every element of Mr. Harnish's presentation where he mentioned something like, oh, this is what we're showing you, but then it would be this. We would have to condition every single one of those. It was a lot. and I respect your comment about budget. I appreciate that this is not a giant corporation doing this. These are, you know, community members, but I am, not only am I in control with the lack of detail, but I also really don't appreciate the pressure being applied to the board in regards to schedule, you know, I'm a project manager, scope, schedule, budget are the three things that you can control within your best control. And if we're really coming down to the wire, then I'm not gonna say it's not our role to be the single thing that ensures the financial viability of your project. Um, but the pressure that's being implied is. Is, um, it's it's uncomfortable, and it's it's a little, you know, inappropriate, given what we're being presented right now.

[David Blumberg]: For the record. I want to just wanted to mention that George Fisher joined us very early in the presentation. So George is here as well. George or Deanna. Do you have any comments before we go to see if their members of public would like to comment on the project?

[Deanna Peabody]: I agree with what everybody said. I'm just trying to understand how we move forward based on what we have.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: I similarly agree with what was said. And I think I'm also trying to think of ways that we could move forward approving this project with so many conditions and without seeing a full site plan.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, thank you we've heard from I think everyone on the board I appreciate the input there. Let's, let's, let's table our thoughts for the moment, and let's open this up and Amanda if you can help orchestrate that for us in terms of folks in public members of the public would like to speak on the project for against to have questions comments to share with the board.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, so if anyone from the public is interested in providing public comment, if you could raise your hand using the hand feature, kind of at the bottom of the Zoom screen, or if you want to put a note in the chat, I'll call on you, and you would just need to provide your full name and address for the record. I'm not seeing any hands as of yet. I do know earlier in the conversation, Brenda Breed had asked about public comment. Brenda, are you still with us?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, sorry.

[Amanda Centrella]: I'm just trying to find the raised hand thing. Oh, no worries. We've got you now. If you could just state your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sure. Um, hi. Yeah, my name is Brenda Breed. Um, and my husband Glen McKay is with me, and we live at 19 Crescent Street, which is very close to the the proposed site.

[David Blumberg]: Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for stepping forward to share some comments with us. We appreciate it.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sure, sure. And I guess our two biggest concerns are one of them is sound, which I don't know if that's something that this board deals with or not, but I noticed in some of the information that says that you're planning to have live music. And I didn't know if that live music was going to be outside and if it's going to be amplified. And also was wondering how, what your hours are going to be, how late you're going to be open. And then our other question would, other concerns were about traffic. Partly because even it's, What we're thinking about is it's not just this particular site, but there's also going to be a marijuana dispensary just down the road. And I believe actually one on both sides from what I understand. So that's, that are all going to be coming online at the same time. So I'm wondering how there'll be multiple things impacting the traffic at the same time.

[Adam Hurtubise]: It looks like over between the project, that there'll be a substantial increase in traffic right where we are.

[SPEAKER_04]: And those are tricky intersections.

[Zac Bears]: For the traffic, I think the good part about our project is that the quietest times in Mystic Ave right now is our busiest times. And we wanted to have the most want to provide. As far as live music, we're gonna have that indoors, not amplified outdoors, outdoors during the day, we might have like a one man, one man band there or something like that. But no cognizant of the noise. And, you know, the outdoor area finishes up a lot earlier into into the night and then the indoor area.

[David Blumberg]: Brian can I just just to try to help clarify your projects, your company operations would be subject to the noise ordinances of the city. Yes, absolutely. Is it also just maybe you can again to inform the public and inform the board. Is it the licensing commission? I imagine that you have restrictions in terms of the hours that you can be open, that sort of thing.

[Zac Bears]: Could you give us just a course? Yeah. So like, the liquor license are pretty, pretty standard. But right now on the weekends, we're, you know, 12 to 1am with last call being at, you know, 12 o'clock. right now, just Monday through Wednesday, we're private party only. But we are going to be, we're going to be thinking about being open Mondays, you know, for sporting events and such and such like that.

[David Blumberg]: And you also had questions about the traffic, right? Would you like?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I mean, I guess I don't have, well, I don't have specific questions. I just want to be sure that the other businesses that are also going to be coming online in that area, which are going to be attracting a lot of traffic. If that's, I don't know if there's some planning that can be done, you know, taking all of those into account. I don't know how that works.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: I really can't talk about the other question for the city.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know, but cause it's not just, you know what I'm saying?

[Unidentified]: It's not just this it's the, you know, it's the several things happening at once.

[David Blumberg]: Just on behalf of the board I suppose I should tell you that we have seen one of the cannabis operators go through a site plan review with us and there was a discussion there. And I know that the traffic department in terms of laying out its comments here and its recommendations for mitigation. I'm quite confident that Mr. Blake is cognizant of the other development of mystic but. at the risk of overstepping my bounds and answering for him. I just want you to know that the city at some level is certainly cognizant of the development happening.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. Cause it's a lot in one space, which, you know, I know the city needs and we need the, you know, the tax revenue from these businesses. So I, you know, I know it's a good thing for the city that this is happening. I just don't want to unduly, you know, impact our neighborhood.

[Zac Bears]: is so much better than the current use, than the tow yard and the bus yard.

[SPEAKER_04]: And like- Yeah, it's certainly visually a lot, a big improvement, yeah. And I guess I just had a couple of particular questions. I know there's the picture on the left, you know, that where that telephone pole is, there's actually a bus stop right there. Actually, I think there's a bus stop sign on that pole and there's a crosswalk. So I'm wondering, if you're figuring a bus stop into your plans and also, are you gonna be moving the crosswalk or there's gonna be multiple crosswalks? I couldn't really tell on your plan where the crosswalk's gonna be.

[Zac Bears]: We're asking the city what they want, but we're up for adding in the crosswalk or even putting in a light, a blinking light there and adding another one in. Yeah we can manage our crosswalks on our own site but anything on Mystic Ave is managed by MassDOT so that's both MassDOT approvals which uh you know we I mentioned in our presentation that we're willing to engage them and do the best efforts we can and I certainly think um any comments that you can you know follow up and make with your traffic director and make his department aware that you have concerns. Perhaps his push can help MassDOT. You know, they got a laundry list of capital improvement projects across the state. And, you know, it's just a matter of us getting our attention to this specific matter. And I think that that comes a lot with some follow up from the city, you know.

[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, yeah, because already now that's a really treacherous place to, well, all of Mystic Ave is treacherous to cross, but it's a really treacherous place because there are people turning onto Hancock Street or coming out of Atlas Liquors, and it would just be nice if that could be, I don't know, managed better.

[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, I can jump in on that point. This is Victor Schrader. There's a crosswalk in this area, but it's mid block. It's in an odd location.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, and people always park right in front of it. So when you're standing at the crosswalk, the cars that are coming from Boston can't see you because there's always a minivan or a truck or something parked right in front of you.

[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, so the idea would be to relocate that closer to the intersection of Hancock, which would make sense for the neighborhood. Yeah, that would be great for traffic patterns, but also for the project to more direct access to the to the project from a street that people may be coming from.

[Unidentified]: Okay, I think for those, that was the problem. Those were Yeah, those were our main concerns.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, well, we appreciate you raising this tonight. Thank you very much.

[Jenny Graham]: David, this is Christy. Can I ask why the department heads are here? They typically attend one of these meetings, like where is Todd Blake?

[David Blumberg]: I did speak in just to help answer your question. I asked the question of Amanda earlier, and she said that Todd has another city commitment tonight and would be unlikely to attend.

[Jenny Graham]: just very helpful when he's here because he concurs, you know, with certain statements that are made or will try to help explain things or especially his his letter.

[David Blumberg]: Absolutely. Amanda, do we have other members of the public who'd like to participate tonight?

[Amanda Centrella]: I'm not seeing any more hands. So I'm just going to make another I did notice another person or two coming in while we were talking. So if we're during our comment, a public comment period, oh, I see a hand raised. Caleb Bachman, would you like to speak if you could just give your name and address for the record?

[SPEAKER_17]: I'm Kayla Dockman, I'm at 604 Fulton Street. I just wanna say that- Hi, welcome.

[David Blumberg]: Welcome, we welcome your comments, thank you for participating.

[SPEAKER_17]: I wanna start by saying I do, I think like a couple other people said, I do support the project, I think it's a great idea, very good things for development in Medford. I didn't know that it was kind of a local project coming into this, so that's very exciting to hear. Um, I am happy to see because I reviewed the plans. I'm a landscape architect, by the way. Um, I reviewed the plans prior to the meeting and I had a lot of questions, um, and a lot of them were actually addressed. So the things like the sidewalk, I mean, the street, the bike racks, although I think the location in the middle of the sidewalk probably isn't going to work. Um, but they're there. So you're kind of accounting for them. Um, I do agree that it's, there's, there's, it's a lot less than I normally see. and present professionally in a site plan review. We're usually providing a lot more information for a project like this. So I can see, again, the perspective of the board here not really being comfortable, having to come up with a list of things that they need to see when they're sort of asking for them. So it's not adding too much, And actually a comment I have was, well, we'll do the design later. We have the money to do the design later. Well, my question then is, you know, is why can't you do it before these meetings or hearings before the permitting? And that's not to be antagonistic. I'm just, I don't know if that's tied to your loan funding.

[Zac Bears]: We didn't want to draw on our loan unless this was a full go. Yeah, that's fine.

[SPEAKER_17]: Okay, that's understandable.

[David Blumberg]: That's all I have to say. OK, well, that's helpful. Thank you. Thanks.

[Amanda Centrella]: OK, if any other members of the public have comment that they'd like to share, if you could raise your hand or you could put a little note in the chat. I'm just going to give folks another minute or so. And while I do that, I'll check our email. Okay, not seeing any further requests for comment.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, excellent. So that will then close the public comment portion of the meeting. So I can go back to the board for our deliberation and additional questions from the project team. Can I throw, just to try to be helpful and kind of streamline things, can I throw out a suggestion to the other board members? Or if you don't mind.

[Emily Hedeman]: Bring it on.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. Maybe there's something that we could do if the board, and I think, and having heard from all of you individually in our round table, could we offer some level of support to the project, but continue the meeting We already have one scheduled for November 10, as I recall, continue the meeting to either that one or a subsequent one to actually get into the details after the next phase of the design has been completed, but something that we could provide. So that Brian and his team feel comfortable moving forward. an endorsement a letter that I could sign on behalf of the board, giving principled support to the, to the to the use of the location. Anything along along these lines, how would people feel about that I guess first I should ask my board, before I go.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: How do we can I ask another question or maybe a question for Alicia, like

[SPEAKER_14]: Are we even allowed to approve the site plan without a certified site plan?

[Alicia Hunt]: I gotta tell you, I was actually looking up the opposite. Under what conditions are you even allowed to deny a project like this? Like you have to have certain things, but if they, like, is there a level where you can say, you know, if you know as long as you show us the plan that that reflects these things that we've discussed then we will approve this and issue the special permit because you can only deny a site plan review under certain I literally just picked up my book and started flipping through the pages to to see it. So can I just say that the board has the ability to waive anything that they want. And so we actually said to the applicant, are there any waivers you need from our performance requirements? And they went through our zoning and said, no, we can meet everything. We're not asking for any waivers because you do have the ability to waive anything. And we were in the weeds like, do you have this setback and do you have this screening that is all in the performance standards that we never stepped back and said, is this not a site plan? And you're right, it's not prepared by a registered architect, landscape architect or professional engineer. That's actually the piece that they're asking the waiver from, that it's not prepared by one of those.

[Emily Hedeman]: Did they ever actually formally ask that? Because they did. I did.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: But then I'm going to go back to my previous statements, which is that now you are putting the liability of this decision on us instead of you. I'm very uncomfortable with that.

[Jenny Graham]: I don't understand the wording. I'm sorry. Is that requested waiver in writing to the board or to this?

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I don't.

[Jenny Graham]: Where is that? Cause it's not, I didn't see it in any of the materials.

[Emily Hedeman]: I have a drawing of the site as the site plan, letters of support,

[Unidentified]: Yeah. And that's it. Right.

[Alicia Hunt]: So when we discussed it with them and we asked if they needed any waivers, I will say that the discussion they said no. Because we looked at every detail but we didn't look at the part about the it being from a registered architect, etc.

[Zac Bears]: I'll say we provided a site plan. We don't have a full landscape plan. The site plan is provided by a registered engineer.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you. Was that provided to us in our documents?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's one of the... Yeah, it's this. The drainage, the stormwater management, that's all registered engineering.

[Emily Hedeman]: The original application materials.

[Amanda Centrella]: I'll double check that, but it should have been in that application packet, but let me take a look now.

[Zac Bears]: It's this one here that was in the presentation.

[David Blumberg]: I think regardless, you're in a position where you've presented to us images that don't match the site plan. So it just seems like things need to get lined up.

[Zac Bears]: Well, that's where I'm a little lost because this site plan is the direct CAD drawing that was used for the other landscape plan. They do effectively line up. I just blew up the landscape plan in a larger image so that you could see it in a presentation, you know, and outlined as many things as I possibly could. You know, I understand that the landscape architect hasn't been engaged and hasn't been, you don't have a full spec on the lawn or the size of shrub or the specific hedge that we're using, but we designed it to meet the performance standards as we saw fit and provided what I think is the most important piece is the civil engineering site plan.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So the site plan document exhibit a Eagle book site plan has been prepared by an engineering and survey firm. What the applicant did was took this and added color to it to show landscaping on that. So it is 100% to scale, it's the same document. So actually the part about a site plan prepared by a registered architect, a professional engineer is that document with the elevations and everything, the easements, the right of ways, existing contours. That's 11.7.7 of the document. I see that, thank you. Lighting. They then actually supplemented that. And some of those items that are on here, landscape and screening, is on the additional document that they prepared, the one that's colored in, the one that's in color. And I believe they provided a written list, sorry, in the packet. There is, I'm going back and handing it. List of site plan updates.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, based on the previous meeting, I outlined 15 different items that were brought about and put it on the EMS.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so this is not on the board to develop that list. That list was provided to you in writing. And so it is extremely simple to say that the list of site plan updates in the letter dated October 21st, 2022 would be incorporated as each of these is a condition And before building permits shall be issued there should be a plan provided to the building department, reflecting each of the 15 items on this list.

[David Blumberg]: I guess the problem Alicia I don't think it tees up that nicely because we had a preliminary meeting and we only went so far I don't think we was an absolutely exhaustive list of everything that we would like to weigh in on.

[Alicia Hunt]: No, what I'm saying is that that list is the list of things that during his presentation, he said we're going to do. And Emily said they're not reflected on the plan. No, they're not reflected on the plan, but they're captured in a written list. If there are additional things that are not on that, that is what this board would typically condition. Here are things you didn't bring up. Here are things we haven't seen yet that we would like to see. So those would be your brainstormed, if I might say, list of conditions.

[David Blumberg]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_14]: Is there going to be a traffic study done?

[Zac Bears]: There is one that we provided.

[Deanna Peabody]: Yeah, there is a traffic study. But as Todd pointed out in his letter, he didn't think that the scope was large enough for the project. So that also is...

[SPEAKER_14]: the scope of the traffic study?

[Deanna Peabody]: Right. It only encompassed like one intersection, I think. And Todd had mentioned that, you know, usually the applicant would come to him and they would together, you know, decide on how or what should, what area should be included in the traffic study.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: So, um, I mean, so the things that I'm saying, just to be completely clear about, you know, my reservations is the design of the circulation in the site, pedestrian circulation in the site, the design of the vehicular circulation in the site, and the resultant space for landscaping. Granted, I love this project, and I very much wanna see it done, but I think there are just certain things, and I'm not a landscape architect, and I'm not a, traffic engineer, but there's just certain things that just jump out at me as just seeming like not best practice. And I just, those are the things that are, that are making me uncomfortable.

[Zac Bears]: If I want to jump in here for a sec, like I've, I've been working on this for three years and we've taken, we've had engineers out there that I've done soil tests and boring tests and all that. And so like, architects and engineers based on really where it was the best place to put the building. And then we worked off of that because just of the soil conditions and all that, it's, you know, the foundation here is rather extensive.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, so I'll bring up a couple things then. Before we go there, let me just because I'm what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to see if we can get to something that won't keep us here all night going through all of the things that we either see and have questions about or things that we don't even see. And I'd like to be positive I'd like to have us reflect our positive feelings for the project for Brian is his development team and so forth but. Um, what can, Brian, if you guys want to go offline for five minutes and talk about this, that's fine too. We can, we can do it that way. But, um, I think you're, you've heard from everybody on the board. Everyone has some questions, some reservations about the, the speed of this, given the materials that are in front of us. This would probably go super smoothly for you if your architect put that next level of design thinking into it, and you came back to us you probably have a half a dozen comments to share with you, and you'd be off to the races so how do we, what do you need to get to that point because I don't think the board's going to be comfortable giving you a full acceptance on this thing tonight, just being honest.

[Zac Bears]: I think I think Alicia answered some of that already whether or not you know we've met the conditions of what is required. I mean if you understand we're lacking in some areas certainly we do understand that I tried to my best of our ability to explain that but to Alicia's point you know we're required to meet a certain level of conditions and we've provided the materials granted they might not be you know, breathtaking landscape imagery, but it's a list of things that were requested by this board a few weeks ago. We provided them a list of them and provided them on an updated plan. If there was severe issues with it, we should have been brought to our attention a few weeks ago. Now we've just, in my opinion, have wasted time.

[David Blumberg]: Well, Mr. Harnish, I'm sorry, I'm going to take the floor away from you because we did an informal meeting with you and you cooperated and came before us in an effort to give you as much information and be as helpful as possible so this meeting would have the best chance of success. And you've heard from some board members already who are uncomfortable giving you a full list of things and feeling like we have to come up with all the things you have to do to the plan and putting that burden on us to come up with the wish list. And I feel like you're sort of using that against us by saying, well, I did everything you told me in the last meeting and now that should be good enough.

[Zac Bears]: So with all due respect, if somebody could communicate what that is. just a landscape architect stamping a plan that shows grass and it's various bushes. Cause you know, we've had several, several meetings, not only I respect the board and what they're, you know, and what they have to do, but we've met with the planning director we've met in several meetings and did the best we possibly could. And that's all we're asking is that we get a, you know, a fair evaluation to provide providing you the best we possibly could. If you tell us, you know, it's just, if you can give us some direction of why it's lacking other than, landscape architect stamping it and telling, you know, specifying the plants and trees. We've given you a site plan. And then you guys reviewed that. And we've got a little, a certain level of conditions here of what's required. And obviously there's still several steps to get to, to actually put a shovel in the ground on this thing.

[Jenny Graham]: Can I jump in here? I'm getting even more uncomfortable the further this conversation goes on and I I'm gonna take a leap here and just say, I would like the city to explain what is this process that we're doing right now? Our department heads aren't here to explain what they have asked for mitigation in their letters. We're being pushed to make a decision without the information that we have set as a standard for this board. So what conversations have happened at the city? And what do we need to do as a board? What are our rights? I've never been this uncomfortable on a public meeting.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: In addition to what Christie is saying, one of the things for the site plan review, right, is that the board has, we're able to control the site design and the layout. And as Clace has already mentioned, the traffic, the parking, the signs, the architectural design, right? And then we, We discuss future site management so forth so on one of the things that we do for scrutiny obviously is We need to see how this lays out before us now I could sit here and I can give you conditions all night, but am I doing a community? Justice or a service if I'm just guessing based on what you have prevented presented before us now I am very positive about this project and I want to see you go forward as fast as possible myself. But I just want to make sure that we're doing it based on what we've already spent so much time getting to. We've done so many things at the city level with the city and making sure that we're getting a comprehensive plan. We're making sure that we're doing design. We're trying to do our due diligence for the community and making sure that anything that goes up is erected properly. And we want to make sure that you can move forward too. And we just don't have enough information.

[Zac Bears]: We're not asking for a variance. We're not asking to circumvent any building codes or anything like that. And the reality of the situation is that I think this project is so much better for the city and for the land. And if it's not passed tonight, then the tow yard and the bus yard, and it's gonna stay the exact same for the next five years. There's options in the leases and that's what's gonna happen. And I just think this would be just a complete disservice to the city of Medford.

[David Blumberg]: Brian, you put us in a tough spot.

[Zac Bears]: I mean, we have- I know that, but sometimes I just think common sense is, it should be used. And I can't believe if you have to choose between a tow yard and the Great American Beer Hall, you're gonna choose a tow yard.

[Jenny Graham]: That's unfair, that's not what we're trying to do.

[Zac Bears]: That's the reality of the situation. It is a choice.

[Jenny Graham]: We're trying to uphold what we are asked to do on behalf of the community and the city of Medford. So I think if the city, if Alicia, could help guide us on, and maybe Chair Blumberg, if you could get us back to a place where we have a direction, but what conditions do we have to set or why are you telling us that we have to approve and we have no choice based on a certain set of requirements?

[Zac Bears]: There's options and they expire October 31st. and also it's a condition of our 7A loan through Capital One. All of this is conditions on this project happening. And so without tonight, we're just not gonna move forward.

[Alicia Hunt]: So if I might, I think that what I'm hearing from the board, so first of all, I wanna be clear that there are conditions that the board can approve and there are conditions that the board can deny. And we provided to the applicant, in addition to the meeting that we, the pre-meeting that the applicant had with this board, we provided him with the board's performance standards, section 6.4 of the zoning. In your packet, that's page 40 of the zoning that's been provided to you, as well as section 11.7, which is site plan review, which is page 125. And we asked him to go through that and make sure that he was meeting all of the things in there. and that he was providing that in writing that he was meeting these things and if he couldn't meet any of them he should ask for waivers and so what we've heard him say is that he feels that he has met these standards and that it sounds to me that the board says we're not we don't see that you've met the standards but he thinks he has Therefore, that's an impasse. And he would actually need you to say which items aren't met because he went through them item by item and sees that he feels that he's met them. As we're looking at this, there is 11-7-10 standards for approval. and the proper thing to do when this board is the decision maker is to go through items one through seven and are each of these things may met because they'll be needed for the written findings respected to the proposed development as the issuer of this. That's page 125. The one thing that we can offer if it's something that could be done is a letter to the applicant about the intention to approve this once some more details are provided. And it's not a guessing, it's because legally this board can't deny it if he provides everything that is requested. In section 11.7.11, the decision, the board may approve with conditions or deny an application for site plan approval when acting as a site plan approval authority. provided, however, that any denial of an application shall be predicated only upon the applicant's failure to provide necessary information. So if he provides the information, the board is obligated to approve it. And that's something that we need to understand what's the necessary understanding. information and one might argue that it's meeting section 11 710 standards for approval which we could go through one by one and I will tell you that the zoning board when they are the special permit granting authority which this body is tonight will go through every single standard and discuss whether or not it is met and then that gets reflected in the decision And because this is a permit at this level, there's no zoning board in this one. We'll need to actually write up a response to each of these seven items. So that's actually an exercise that we ought to be going through this evening in order to provide us with the materials to write the decision correctly. So I think that there is an option to continue this hearing and then have additional information brought forward. I think that the applicant doesn't read minds. I'm not reading minds. I understand you saying, I heard it, but I don't see it and I need to see it. But what I don't understand is what didn't you hear that you want to see? Because he went through the list. And those things are all on either in the written document or on it. So we'll need it explained if we were to say to him, here's the stuff you need to provide. I don't feel that I'm prepared to tell him what the board isn't seeing other than a picture rather than words.

[David Blumberg]: Well, Alicia, I appreciate your clarifications there. But just to be fair, I mean, to meet aesthetic standards, We have to evaluate and approve the building materials. We have no image of even the building. And the materials are to be determined. So there are elements that are just flat out lacking in the presentation. Now, we've never had in my tenure, which is not that long, but in my three to four years, We've never had an applicant who has refused to continue to work with the board and force a decision on the board we've always had folks. who wanted feedback, came back, they'd come back, they'd do the extra work, and we all worked it out together. So this is a different situation, a unique situation for us. If the applicant's saying, I need a decision tonight, and I have to have it, I guess it's our job, and we can go through all of this, and we can come up with as exhaustive a list as possible, but it would, I don't know that that's approval, If the list is so long, how can it be approval?

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So two things. This board did deny an applicant once who did not provide the necessary information. In that case, they were refusing to do the drilling on a site that went to court and it was remanded back to the board when the applicant agreed to do the the drilling for the water testing. I don't know if it was remanded back when you were on the board, but that was, it was a 2019 case that was remanded in 2020. So I did pull up the aesthetic standards that we provided to the applicant, which is what's in the zoning. And it says that section 6.48 The location, size and design, building materials and operating characteristics of the proposed development shall be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties with natural and built environment in the area and the surrounding neighborhood. And it goes on to talk about compatibility with the neighborhood, harmony and scale bulk exterior building materials, massing and density. consistency with the goals and objectives of the master plan and with other plan that's been adopted by the city. Um, so I can see where he's having trouble saying, like, It's not the board's opinion. We like brick and not metal. It might be that if it was a neighborhood that was all houses and you didn't like a metal structure in that neighborhood, you could see that that would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. But he has actually given you a drawing of the building and examples of the materials.

[David Blumberg]: Alicia I don't have, I don't have a building, I have an image that has been described to me as conceptual only, and not to be reflecting the actual conditions.

[Unidentified]: That's what I heard.

[Alicia Hunt]: Is that what you actually said because I understood this to be the, the building that you guys were planning to build.

[Jenny Graham]: No, no, no, that's not what he said.

[Zac Bears]: I said it's a concept image, so you don't get married to the exact image you're seeing. However, it is and I went through this in detail, it's a low pitch roof, metal prefab building looks just like that. We don't have a specific color picked out yet. And the amount of glazing I said with the indoor outdoor feel on the front side elevation, just because you see a full curtain wall, it might be 75% of that given budget constraints come the time of actual building class goes up periodically. That image is as close as we can provide. That's based on architectural drawings provided by Whitlock Design Group, which we provided floor plans and schematics. I just didn't want the board to get married to the exact color. I think we can improve it dramatically, actually. So I think it's lacking in some definition, but it is a metal prefab building. It's gonna look essentially like that architecturally. I just didn't want the board to get married to the specific color, perhaps the roof color. I tried to preface that, but if it came across as that's not what we're building, I apologize to the board. But that is pretty indicative. It's just the color palette and things are going to probably change.

[Alicia Hunt]: And the size?

[Zac Bears]: The size is there. I mean, that's what we're essentially approved for. I mean, construction costs again are fluctuating mightily. That's the only place we really have in value engineering, but that is it. That is the building. That's what we're asking for. We've paid architects to design it. As Brian pointed out, we've gone through several iterations of where this building should be based on soil testings. You know, we've dug our test pits. We've done all that stuff. You know, we've just reached you know, the point of kind of, this is the best that we have for you. And I certainly hear the board that, you know, we're lacking in landscape and things of that nature. And I think we can work with the board to achieve what is, you know, what can beautify the space and hopefully improve it. But, you know, I just, usually I can get some form of direction or something, but I, you know, I wanna be respectful of the whole process.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I think for me, interestingly, like I said this before, I don't have, I don't have reservations about the building. I, the building is what the building is. And I think for me, I understand that I have problems with the site plan, the way it's drawn today. Um, and like I, what I was going to say earlier is I think maybe what would help me is to get your, the, the engineer that drew this plan and to get the, traffic engineer who did the study on the call with us would really help, because it would help us understand what they were thinking. I'm looking at the entrance to the building, to the parking lot, and it's just off center from an opposing road. We talked about this for hours on end on that other project that Alicia just mentioned about how... And I wanna hear the traffic engineer say, that's okay. um there you drew a five-foot sidewalk from the sidewalk from the street to your front door which is really narrow and and really not welcoming at all you know i want to hear the guy who did the the layout of the site tell us why that's okay uh from a from a pedestrian circulation standpoint um there's just there's just a lot of things that the front parking lot is a dead end What's going to happen three cars are in that space. It's going to be a mess. You know, I, there are just things I mentioned this last time you were parking right up against the fence, the neighbor's fence, you know, without any kind of buffer, you know, is that really best practice? I, I, I don't know. I mean, this is, I think there are things that are making us uncomfortable. And I think.

[Zac Bears]: Right. Are you talking about the neighbor on the one 34 mystic side?

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: That's that sweet.

[Zac Bears]: property as well. So that's okay.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: But nonetheless, you're parking right up against the property line, you know, I mean, I, these are things that I, you know, we I, and, you know, Alicia, I tell me if I'm wrong, but we consider these projects holistically and right now this is not feeling holistically like where it should be. I don't know. I mean, obviously everybody on this board is feeling discomfort.

[Alicia Hunt]: So what I'm hearing is that you don't like some of the designs, but they're, actually, can you guys stop sharing screen? Cause it looks weird on our end. It's disconcerting.

[Zac Bears]: It's on your screen. It's like gross. Oh, it says screen sharing is paused. Sorry.

[Deanna Peabody]: Do we actually have, like, can we give those as Like, is that our job? Like, what are we, what is our job? Like, we usually do give those comments and we go back and forth and that's how it works, but what do we have to?

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, well, like, if you wanted to say we're not comfortable, like, honestly, I didn't check if the zoning allows the parking lot to be right up against the line. It does say about needing screening between your parking and the neighbors. If you said, we agree that the drive aisle should be narrower, but don't make the island in the middle bigger, pull it away from your neighbor and put screening along your neighbor. That's something you can do. It's also reasonable for them to come back and say, actually, we own that property and we'd prefer to have it right up against it. It's a little weird that they would want, but they could. But those specific things are the kinds of things that this board usually says. I'd like to see this walking path, I don't see the bike racks. And if he had said to you, tell me what changes you want, I'm gonna go make the changes and come back to you in two weeks, then you would have started saying, here are the changes that we wanna see. That is what this board typically does do. And I actually, I'm saying that some of the, Emily and George are relatively new.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: to is it is it possible to for us just to list I mean I know this isn't what we want to do but we also don't want to put a knife into this project you know I I mean to me the parking layout and the pedestrian circulation the sidewalks this is the problem that I'm seeing and in concert with the landscaping like if they're willing to continue to work with us and come back and really think about those dimensions and work with the fire department as well, I mean, that's the stuff that I'm uncomfortable with. It doesn't seem like you're utilizing best practices for those elements.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can we look at the list of site plan updates and use that as a starting point? for conditions and figure out which ones we wanna go deeper on, which ones we might need to quantify or qualify to make ourselves comfortable with it. And then build in maybe some things that are not reflected on that list. And that can be our starting point.

[Alicia Hunt]: I make the suggestion that Amanda or Amanda, are you prepared to take those notes? Cause I was gonna say, you could share a screen with that document and add in red. And then the board could see that. Do you want me to do that or?

[Emily Hedeman]: Is the board comfortable with that too? Because there is David's earlier suggestion of some sort of interim document that allows this amazing project to move forward. But maybe in a way that the board is more comfortable with. And this is a question for David, not any of the applicants.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah. I kind of like that idea I'm not sure who's holding the gun to your head Brian on this thing about the timeline I'm not hearing anything from the board that would be in the camp of insurmountable in terms of, you know, if you have to move a landscape island a little bit here there. You move the traveling that, you know, no one's saying move the building no one's saying take it down, cut it in half, you know, yeah, there's when Alicia laid out before if you put

[Zac Bears]: that would be okay with me. What's gotten to my head is the leases that are in play, the landlords have landlord options, and they do not want the site to go vacant. So they don't want us to move forward, we say we're fine, and then ultimately the site plan review says no to us. The tenants are moving out, or they're asking for concessions, and it just becomes, honestly, like a fireball fence in my shoes. So that's where I'm coming from.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Okay, you can only deny you for zoning violations if I'm correct. Is that right? We can't deny your site plan we can only make sure that we get to a better fit for the community. We can't deny your site plan.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, essentially it is Alicia laid out for us it's like denial because they, they were lacking essential elements or something you know of the application. Maybe it's something that we should be thinking about in terms of an acceptance with conditions and we just have more conditions than usual and it might be a condition that the proponent or applicant returns to the board and addresses circulation of pedestrians and vehicular circulation on the site to the board satisfaction now that's more aspirational that's more general than we usually engage in. but how do the other board members feel like if we went toward an acceptance with conditions and we phrase the conditions in that sort of way, would that make you comfortable? Is there like a quick thumbs up or nods of the head I can see on that or a comment?

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think that's a good path. I think having the conditions that requires them to come back to us to engage more and having those sort of safe harbor provisions of looking at, you know, the advancement of the design would make me more comfortable.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, it's still a technical approval and satisfies your goals for tonight. And then, you know, allows us to, you know, satisfy our mandate.

[Alicia Hunt]: If it's helpful, we were actually just consulting with one of our staff who, because this type of issue doesn't come up in Medford very often, but one of our staff has been on the zoning board in Somerville for many years, and she was saying that this sort of situation does come up there where applicants have limited resources, were reluctant to spend a lot of money on landscape architects if they didn't know the project would get approved. So they would often, condition that landscaping plans be be updated brought to the staff for review and approval and meet a litany of criteria that they would set but they would basically say here are all the conditions the staff have to approve anything and i will sort of point out so the behind the scenes piece that you all don't see is that we issue the approval to say plant here, they then still need to get a building permit. And before they can get the building permit, our city engineer has to sign off. The health and fire will then literally sign off on formal plans and I have to sign off on plans. So they actually can't get my signature until they come back and say here. And if we wanted it to involve them actually coming back and showing the board the plans, we can condition it on it because the condition it is held to by them, they don't get the building permit until they meet all the conditions. And in fact, she was saying they tied conditions to points in time. So there'd be a foundation permit, building permit and the occupancy permits. And so that's something that when you all and the zoning board put conditions on, Amanda and I behind the scenes break things down, right? Which things do they have to do before they get a building permit and which things are part of the construction and they have to do before they get the occupancy permit, right? So we already segregate those things with a spreadsheet in our office. So having them come back to this board as an option, having them reflect these things before they get their building permit, that's standard practice.

[David Blumberg]: I would think what I'm envisioning is a condition that would have them come back because, you know, crisis comments as an example. You know, that's, that's not like a little bullet list that we could provide with specific to do's, but we'd like to hear a little bit more understand that someone's thinking is behind the circulation or the location of the sidewalks and that sort of stuff so I think we would want them to return to us to address any number of items that we are.

[Deanna Peabody]: And usually like the traffic engineer and the landscape architect that will be on the call like Lisa was saying.

[Emily Hedeman]: But those would be conditions to our acceptance this evening, theoretically.

[David Blumberg]: I think that's that's what I'm contemplating Emily. So if that's the case, we probably should try to, we should probably try to figure out what those are, right? Do we want to go through, Klyce, do you want to start us off? And we can just, in terms of questions, maybe there are things that can answer tonight. Maybe there are things that you'd like to hear more about later. We can put, you know, that could be one of our buckets, and then maybe some specific to-dos if that's a third potential bucket as we go through this with Brian and Kyle. Does that work for you?

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Could we maybe start with asking the proponents? Sure. And I was going to say, should we start by asking the proponents if this works for them?

[David Blumberg]: Oh, yes. Key question. How are you folks feeling about what we're discussing here?

[Zac Bears]: Well, I'm going to have to relay this to obviously my bosses, and I can't guarantee that we're going to be able to go forward. But I did like Alicia's idea that, you know, I fully understand what you're saying, but we are going to be beholden to the building permit and every every engineer and every department in the city. And that is our next step in this process. I see Patrick Andrews on the call and our next step is literally just a, you know, it's what 218,000 architectural plans and then another, you know, 50,000 engineers and we're fully prepared to spend that to do this the right way. The way that the board is suggesting tonight, landlords are going to want to just keep what we have now.

[Emily Hedeman]: Brian, can you restate what you understand our path forward to be?

[Zac Bears]: If you want to have some sort of conditions in there that requires us to come back,

[Emily Hedeman]: I don't know if this is gonna if this project is going to happen, because that I don't know the condition for you to come back, I believe would just be to further explain some of the questions that we've had. Okay, do that. I don't think I don't think there's deny anything.

[Zac Bears]: And then I just if when I hear like what if places saying all the gathering that this could just change that the parking can change the sidewalks can change and everything.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah, so like, everything.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything's been, you know, behind the scenes from my group, the landlords to Capital One, everyone's on the same page with this, we're ready to move forward with it.

[Deanna Peabody]: Couldn't it change if the architect and all of them, you know, once they get into the more details.

[Unidentified]: Absolutely, yeah, that could.

[Deanna Peabody]: So we just want to. Might as well have them do it once. So we just want to be part, yeah, like anything could change anyways once they get into the.

[Jenny Graham]: And I would just like to say, sorry, if this is a major concern for you, then I don't know why this board is going to waste their time on the next hour doing conditions.

[Unidentified]: Let's be honest. What are we doing here?

[David Blumberg]: I mean, Brian, it would be, I think it would be characterized as an acceptance. There would be conditions attached, but, you know, it's not.

[Unidentified]: We can do it. I just, I hope.

[Jenny Graham]: I feel your pain because this is the work that I do, but it's in your best interest as a new developer to engage in a process like this as early as possible so that you're actually minimizing the risk now and engaging in our conditions and having your architects and engineers do it one time. Because the amount of money that you spend on drawings is pennies compared to getting farther down the line and having to come back and change. And I think you really should think that way now that you're a developer.

[Zac Bears]: Well, that's why we're here tonight. I mean, we basically laid that out. We're hoping for an acceptance with conditions. I've done this several times and that's how other communities handle it and approval with conditions. And we have to meet those conditions before the board, you know, and you guys, if I understand that it might be a lengthy list in this regard, and we're asking for some assistance and help because we're, we're small time, you know, but, We have the capacity to engage the architects and the designers and the engineers, as Brian said. And we just want some clarity and direction on what would help us get back to you guys with everything that you want to see. We don't want to go through several iterations and reiterations of this. We understand that you guys have the community in mind and want to see the best product out there. And I think we totally agree with you. You know, I understand Brian's situation too and it is a difficult one, but I think some form of approval with conditions would be would be instrumental and helpful for us. And we're not, you know, objecting to, you will see the final plan and certainly the landscape plan and stuff. And I'm the one who probably engaged with you guys the most. And I'm happy to hear your thoughts, Clace. I think it's very helpful hearing your thoughts, you know, and what you see concerns with. And I can bring that to the attention of our engineers and provide some context and some answers when we come back. But I think from Brian's standpoint, yes, he needs some assurances so that you know, this isn't a waste of time for everybody.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I think appreciated. And again, I'm going to say this again. I love this project. And I envision myself sitting in that beer hall having a beer, hopefully someday soon. That said, for me, what I want to see is I want to see a team, a combined team of professionals work together to provide a site plan that puts all best practices of all those trades forward. Site circulation, landscaping, vehicle circulation.

[Unidentified]: That's it. Mm hmm.

[Zac Bears]: That's understood. I mean, we use the city ordinances as our guide and provide what we think is sufficient. And then obviously, if you have an opinion on it and want to, you know, change it, we can have that discussion. But that's the pathway we give our engineers is, you know, it has to comply. And we have city ordinances that give us the guidelines.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I, I'm, I, I'm looking for something better than compliance.

[Unidentified]: Understood. That's helpful.

[David Blumberg]: Do you have others while you have the microphone.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: No, I mean I honestly I'm looking for. The word is escaping me, but I'm looking for a site plan which checks all those boxes. Yep. That reflects the work of a team that has worked together to sort of provide this under, you know, able leadership of the developer.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: Amanda, can you zoom a little because it's pretty small.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, no problem. Thanks for asking Alicia. Sorry about that. Is this any better? It's a lot better. Do people need a little more?

[Unidentified]: I think this is good.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. One thing, I suggest that you use either a different font or a different color or something, which I realize you're gonna have to go back and forth and keep changing, but that will help us to see what the board said versus what was in the original.

[Emily Hedeman]: You can also change the entry to suggesting rather than editing, and it's effectively track changes in the top, yep, right there. Hopefully less work for everybody.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Emily. Yeah.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: If I can please ask the proponent, there was something mentioned about this south side of Mystic Ave. There was a pole or something that's there that the proponent wanted to underground. And I wasn't understanding what the alternative was or what the purpose of that pole was for. And I couldn't even envision it the way it was. What is the alternative for you're not able to afford or have the underground of that pole done?

[Zac Bears]: That's a great question. It's not a matter of affording it. It's a matter of the utility company willing to do so. We can put in a request. So it depends on who owns the pole. It's either Eversource, National Grid, Verizon. And then you got to put in a request to them to put a transformer in its place. So the power still goes to the pole. You remove that pole, it'll come from the nearest pole, go underground and go to a pad mount transformer that's still going to have to be located somewhere in our landscape buffer area, and we'll have to put some shrubs around it and whatnot, but it's still going to be better than the pole that's there. I mean, that's just a goal of ours that we're committed to trying to do that, and I think Clay's brought it up, the entrance, the driveway access, the curb cut is proposed in its location, and that's primarily the reason it can't be further slid down, it's off-center, is because we have a utility line right there, and there's no guarantee we can get it moved.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: No, I was just wondering exactly what the purpose of moving the utility pole was because one of the things I know working at the state and work with utility companies is that you can throw a whole monkey wrench into your entire budget and scope just by trying to get all the utility people on schedule with you. And it can also astronomically rise up your budgets for underground. And I just didn't know exactly what you were trying to achieve with that. That's all.

[Zac Bears]: Just a better look in street and- So aesthetic. Yeah, aesthetic, yeah. And I mean, we're gonna be running underground utilities anyway to the street. So you'd be digging one extra line for conduit for the electrical to run to that location. Eversource or whoever the utility provider is owns it from the pole down. We would own the excavation from the building to the curb. So I hope that answers your question.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes, thank you.

[David Blumberg]: Other questions I can't see everyone with the shared screen so shout out if you need to but who would like to go next to asking some questions or sharing comments. George was that are you just scratching your chin or is that a hands up. Oh, I guess I have some comments I could share David thanks. Thank you, sir.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: I've been, well, I kind of appreciate coming back and I know that I was sharing some comments with Amanda halfway through the week about pedestrian access to the project. I did see that you included a sidewalk, but I would like to see, you know, better, just a more cohesive pedestrian circulation plan that doesn't really just route people, you know, through I guess, I mean, if it could kind of somehow be integrated, you know, better with the crosswalk. I had some concerns about people crossing the parking lot access, for instance. And, you know, it's inevitable that there are pedestrian vehicular conflicts. I know one of the best practices, one of the better practices is to use kind of tighter radius curve pieces. And I mean, boy, we're really getting in the weeds here, aren't we? But, you know, just having a tighter radius causes, you know, forces cars to move more slowly around the site. So those are kind of the kind of design gestures that I think would really, you know, it's not a big ask, I think, but also, it really does improve the safety and also just the experience of the site. Something that another uh somebody that called in from the public you mentioned that there's a bus stop here um you know how how would if people wanted to get to the project using public transportation you know that's that's a really nice idea then you don't have people drinking and driving um how do people get here from the bus where's the bus stop if we could show it in a plan you know maybe maybe that shows or kind of indicates how people would get on and off the bus or if there's some kind of design gesture for that

[Emily Hedeman]: How would we condition that just to give them as clear of guidance as possible? And I think that should be our kind of question for all of these comments that we're making. How do we make it actionable? How do we make it clear? So that when, you know, if one of our conditions ends up being, we want them to come back, we can say, you know, guys, this is phenomenal because we've been so clear.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: I think that's really something I've been wondering about myself. How do you, how do you condition that?

[Emily Hedeman]: work with, I'm just going to throw it out because it's like, but, you know, work with, you know, city traffic engineers or, you know, Director of Transportation to, I guess this is still a little fluffy, but to maintain existing bus access. I think that's kind of step one. And then, you know, There's a comment about bike parking. So like maybe that can be good to do that. But maybe for now it's just maintaining existing bus access. Because I'm also trying to remember that this is one spot on a mass DOT owned. You're away. So if we ask them to create 16 bus stops, that's not realistic and we're setting them up for failure. So maybe this tradition works.

[Deanna Peabody]: And on that point, I'd like to add, if other people agree, I know it's a process to go through MassDOT, but when you're developing a site that's on a MassDOT road, I feel like that often just comes with a process that you have to go through. And many cities and towns go through it all the time. So I think that given that this is on a road a mass DOT owned road that needs work as far as pedestrian activity and crosswalks and potentially flashing beacons or whatnot. I think that that process has to be done.

[Emily Hedeman]: Do we have a similar condition for the previously approved project that I think was further north on Mystic? So again,

[David Blumberg]: In what particular way?

[Emily Hedeman]: In terms of like the pedestrian safety crosswalks.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, maybe the thing to do because Todd Blake provided.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he did. He provided us some mitigation efforts that clearly outlined what he would like to see. We're willing to comply with all that if you want to put that in there.

[David Blumberg]: I feel like maybe that's a way to lead the conversation that that Kyle and Brian, your team can kind of be responsive to, okay, here are the things that Todd Blake has recommended. These are the things we're embracing. This is what we're going to try to get done if DOT approves, and now it's shown on the plan. That sort of thing might clarify this quite a bit.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he offered two paths, and one of them was the DOT. The other one was another mitigation effort that we said we would commit to, and we're fine with that, and we can put that in. Um, but that's helpful. He made a suggestion, and that gives us clear direction on what he wants. So.

[David Blumberg]: And I got the sense from George. Maybe, George, you're trying. You just want to understand how does someone get off a bus and get onto the site safely, right?

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we can outline that.

[v8aFu2OAn8o_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah. Um, one other comment that I had. Also, I know that you guys have a space that's kind of labeled as on area. And, you know, it's like it's kind of a landscape solution just to put turf places, and some of the evidence is showing that it's not super environmentally friendly. And you've mentioned developing planting plans. So could we put in a condition for requiring a more cohesively developed planting plan? I don't know how to say that.

[Emily Hedeman]: incorporate like xeriscaping or non-grass turf, whether it's clover or something. I don't know how specific we can get or would want to get.

[Zac Bears]: What about providing a landscape plan from an actual landscape architect? I mean, that's pretty basic, but it outlines what you need from us, I think, without getting into the literal weeds.

[Jenny Graham]: Can you tie it back to section 6.4, wherever those requirements are? Yeah, I mean, one of the things that we as the permit granting authority is trying to back check section 6.4 that the documents that were received, we can confirm that performance criteria is actually being met by what's being presented.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, make the landscape plan in accordance to 6.4 by a registered landscape architect.

[David Blumberg]: Yep. I think in fairness it's 6.3 and 6.4.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, right, don't quote me. The appropriate ordinance.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah. And I don't want to add further hardship to this project or to that's for sure but one of the things that I want to go back to one of the residents had mentioned was noise and I saw that the Board of Health had mentioned, making sure that there was noise mitigation or something like that and I don't know too much about materials and building materials, but I do know that steel makes noise and that I know aside from the structural integrity of like a prefab building so forth, you need lots of insulation. So does, I don't know if the proponent has, I'm sure you have all that information and how you'll have provide the proper installation for that building, but I don't want to make that a condition. I just want you to take that in mind of, of the very real thing that one of the city officials have put out there and that the residences are raising with that prefab material. Just making sure that you're conforming to that letter so much as far as noise.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, understood. And that's what's helpful for us. As we mentioned, this is design build. So we have the opportunity. We're providing our entire design build team, every letter provided from everybody so that everything is designed to meet within the standards. And obviously there are some noise ordinance standards that are published from the city ordinances that we know about, and we're doing the best we can to comply with every single one of them. But it's definitely, we've acknowledged that we're hearing that, and we will be providing those letters to our design team to effectively manage it the best we possibly can.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Okay. Thank you. Sure.

[David Blumberg]: George, did you have some more? Are we good? Yeah, I think I'm good. Okay. Jackie, did you want to continue with any other items to share?

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I think everything is pretty much covered.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. Next, other questions, comments?

[Emily Hedeman]: I had mentioned in the last meeting some sort of like mural on the, I believe it's the north side of the building, the same side as like your monumental entrance. I did not see that in the, what is the document that we're looking at? The list of site plan updates. And I know not everybody loves murals, but I'd be interested in maybe some sort of like either or condition where you know, if you're not able to add additional windows or openings or fences, whatever you want to call it, to the side of the building, that there is, you know, some sort of, you know, some sort of like art component or I guess, yeah, I'm trying not to get into like into the bricks versus metal debate. Yeah, I don't know. Does anybody else on the board have any thoughts?

[David Blumberg]: Could we maybe just in terms of going on to Amanda's list. Could we first ask for a more developed rendering or more closer to final rendering it doesn't have to be the absolute final but beyond conceptual into more real. rendering of the building and one that would show us the type of details that you're interested in, Emily, you know, as opposed to maybe mandating that they put a mural on there.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, yeah.

[David Blumberg]: Let's get a chance to see what the vision is.

[Emily Hedeman]: You guys might come up with something better.

[David Blumberg]: Exactly.

[Emily Hedeman]: And would that be part of a condition where we ask them to come back and just update us rather than it being, like, that would not be an additional approval step. It would just be know, hey, let us know what you're doing.

[David Blumberg]: I would, I would think we're sort of making those up.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's kind of what we're working towards, right?

[David Blumberg]: I think towards it, whether it's in one meeting, or it's a couple of meetings, or I think we have to hear from the proponent, like when they're ready to address enough things to make it worthwhile to talk about it.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I mean, I think we should be reasonable, like one meeting, if we can fit all of it in is, is reasonable. Like, yeah, we don't want to you know, be, uh, don't want to be burdensome.

[David Blumberg]: Right on everyone. Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I was going to add that. I mean, I always think it's a nice idea to, um Piggybacking on the mural idea to, um, potentially reach out to arts organizations to work with them on those kinds of things. And I know that the dispensary had a similar, um, We had a similar discussion with them.

[Alicia Hunt]: I do want to point something out, though. Finding a mural is super expensive. And the arts group actually has their own space in the dispensary. And they wanted the mural on the front. But they're still asking the marijuana company to pay the artist to design and do it. And that's a pretty, like, I'm gonna say off the cuff, easily upwards of $10,000 to do something like that.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I was gonna add, Alicia, that this was a suggestion.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: It's not a condition. Thanks.

[Jenny Graham]: It's only strongly encouraged underneath the 6.4.8 aesthetic standards anyway.

[David Blumberg]: Absolutely. And I think if we had seen more of the actual, less conceptual, more actual, we probably have a better feel for Brian and Kyle, what your vision is. But in the absence of that, you know, we're going to ask those sorts of questions.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I just want to share with you that for building permits, they are required to provide elevations and material types sometimes, but they're not required to provide any kind of renderings. So that would be something they're creating just for us, not for any other purpose.

[Emily Hedeman]: I would consider an elevation a rendering. It does not have to have real to life detail. You can have call outs that say this is, This is metal siding. This is material XYZ. To me, that's fine. I'm not asking for a Revit model or anything. But thank you for that comment, Alicia.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I actually, our staff person who's on the zoning board, she's watching, but she's not on the Zoom. So some of her things that I'm remembering, she says that in Somerville, they often require material samples to be brought in to be approved, but they ask the staff in the office to approve those things. They don't bring it to a board meeting or anything.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. Emily, do you have some more?

[Emily Hedeman]: No, I'm just thinking back to your comment when we like set the stage for this meeting. If somebody is like unofficially in attendance at this meeting, you know, is that okay?

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, all of our meetings are broadcast on TV. Okay. So they're always watched and we often allow people to email in us comments. Perfect. Sometimes call in if necessary.

[Emily Hedeman]: I just want to make sure like we're not like no. We have big like. open meeting lines. These are on TV. Somerville redevelopment board. So I just want to make sure like we're okay. Right. That's great. Good.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And we're the you guys should know these are all on TV and sometimes they get replayed.

[Emily Hedeman]: We get we get royalties. No, I'm kidding. Okay. That's good to know.

[David Blumberg]: have some more Emily or should I move to?

[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, I have a few things about like, like landscaping, but I think those will be answered, you know, prioritize native species, any plants that have, you know, a lower, you know, water requirement. You already mentioned the permeable pavers, that's great. And then I don't, I don't think we should condition the pole relocation, because that sounds like it's just kind of like a gamble. But I had that as a note, it's something that was mentioned, but I'm fine if we leave that off. That shouldn't hold up the project.

[David Blumberg]: Right, not their pole.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, Deanna, Christy, you don't have to, but just wanted to be fair.

[SPEAKER_17]: I think I'm all set. Yeah, I know that these are great.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. Take a look at my list. Can you guys address project team Can you address the two way, the one way I know traffic circulation is a topic that we want to cover in more detail. So don't don't belabor it but This is a two way traffic pattern, not the one way. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And going one way would give you more room to do other things on the surface, right?

[Zac Bears]: Perhaps, yes. Biggest thing, biggest parameter we have to abide by is the fire department access and be able to turn around the fire truck.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and then I was sort of wondering whether a loop would be a better idea. Maybe even with angled parking.

[David Blumberg]: So is that is that something we can put on our list for you. And in further consideration of the circulation pattern that you keep that in those in mind, those pieces in mind as possibilities.

[Zac Bears]: We can explore that, sure, and talk with our engineers. If it improves our site, it improves, you know, and reduces our costs and all that stuff, certainly something. And, you know, as Brian said, we've been working on this for a while. So, you know, the engineers have been out several times and they proposed it this way. We saw it this way, but it's worth noting, I guess, you know, we can look into it.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. The building at the front corner that's currently there that's going to be correct. Okay. You said that you were going to all the lighting would match the ordinance so I guess we don't need to hear about that as long as that's true. You mentioned in your presentation, Kyle you did the extension of kind of green space for landscaping down the on the south border of the building between the building and Atlas. Is there. I mean, would you consider extending that more like is there a big cost involved into adding that green space just can you give me a flavor for what's going on over there.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we extended about 200 feet on the right sides, 15 foot wide. And the reason for that specifically was I was trying to hit the performance standard, which is listed in 6.3 of the landscape city ordinances. And that was, you're supposed to have 10% of the surface area, landscape and open area. So I hit it with at least lawn and then additionally with the open area patio if that was not to be concluded. But to answer your question why it doesn't go all the way back. It's just more, it's likely not going to get any sun. And I think the asphalt on the backside there should, the biggest thing we've learned from the fire department is they need 360 access so they need to be able to park their truck and run all their equipment and everything back. I didn't necessarily want to give them all lawn to have to do that. So we extended it as far back as we thought the eye could see, essentially, and then turn it into the asphalt towards the back of the building.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, and is this in condition as asphalt?

[Zac Bears]: Yes, it is, yeah. The whole parking lot is asphalt, correct.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, we're always trying to avoid asphalt if we can on the board here.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah.

[David Blumberg]: The dumpster location, and I'm relying on kind of the color updated plan, but I didn't... Back by the loading bays there. Oh, okay. I guess I'm not recognized. I thought it looked like a car with an X through it. That's the dumpster?

[Zac Bears]: Well, yeah, that's a car parked at that location. There's a dumpster back there, yeah.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. Thank you. The vehicle charging station's conduits there, is there electrical or?

[Zac Bears]: It would be electrical service provided. I mean, you know, they don't really let you liven it up. They just let you run the conduit. You would have, you know, the conduit coming up within our mechanical room somewhere. And, you know, should we get to the stage of installing chargers, everything is laid in place. You don't have to dig up the asphalt. You just sneak the wire across and plug in the charger.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. The way our ordinance is written it's, it's a little, it's a little fuzzy on that. And I wonder, and maybe there's something to think about and when you come back you can you can mention but, you know, is there a willingness by the applicant to make some sort of commitment. Within one year, we'll have X number of EV spots. Within two years, we'll have this many. That sort of a thing, I think, would be well-received if we're not going to have them on day one.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think we talked a couple of times with Alicia, because I needed some clarity on that. I didn't see any specific ordinances. And I thought that the best solution would be provided, suggested by her, which I thought was great, was at least run conduit until we determine what that needs to be. Absolutely. So that was my solution for it for now.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: David, I've actually talked to the state about some grant programs as well. Yeah. So they're willing to pick up the tab on a lot of this. So definitely open to that.

[David Blumberg]: Okay. All right. Well, maybe you'll have some more thoughts you can share with us when we get back together. That'd be great. Not really a condition, but just something I'd like to hear about. Yep.

[Emily Hedeman]: It looks like in item 10 on the existing list.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Already kind of accounted for if we turn that into a condition or leave it as is. include provisions for, I don't know, I can go either way.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, I feel like they've probably hit the ordinance, but if we can hear more, if they can have a plan for improving and leading to actual spaces, that would be great. I think your, your customers are going to want it, I think you're going to want it for marketing purposes if nothing else, I think.

[Zac Bears]: Oh yeah we agree.

[David Blumberg]: That's your demographic you know. Yeah, it's gonna be good for business.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just give you the aside that I'm the economic development planner in our office Yvette is doing a lot of the parking stuff for our public spaces and working with the grant program so she's happy to share what she knows.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, I guess the other pieces are customary for us to almost always condition our acceptance on compliance with the department letters. Board of Health, I imagine it's pretty innocuous stuff. Fire department seemed pretty innocuous, although the traveling you can address with us. Was engineering was not problematic for you?

[Zac Bears]: No, they actually been working with Eagle Brook, our civil engineering team on the stormwater management design. They've seen this already and are privy to it, but no, their standards are pretty normal stormwater management, all stuff that gets flushed out in permitting. If we're allowed to demolish the existing building actually we have to put in, we have to get a stormwater management plan and permits.

[David Blumberg]: Interesting. Okay. Okay. And then traffic I feel like we've already asked you to respond to that separately. When we reconvene on that so.

[Zac Bears]: I think at the very least, you know, in the next plan, we can provide what the traffic department had suggested as the mitigating efforts. You know, we can list those out and put them on the plan.

[David Blumberg]: Solar is solar required, given the size of the building? Solar ready?

[Alicia Hunt]: I believe I've actually discussed that with the applicant and they are planning to put solar on the building.

[Zac Bears]: That's correct.

[Alicia Hunt]: I believe that it is required.

[Zac Bears]: Solar requirement, yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: Basically, the solar ordinance was designed to match anything that was required to go through site plan review was other than the smallest apartments, we're gonna need solar.

[David Blumberg]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: And the requirement is that they have to have the study done, they have to show us if they think that they can't put solar on, they have to show us why not. Otherwise, they just have to move forward with it.

[David Blumberg]: Okay, and where does that condition rear its head then? Is that are we talking building permit or should this be something on our list to talk about?

[Alicia Hunt]: We've really figured out how that fits I don't remember where and it got moved from the building permit section of Medford ordinances to zoning during the recodification. And I have to admit I don't remember where in here, they stuck it was not in zoning prior to the recodification, but it was a building permit requirements so the building department looks at it.

[David Blumberg]: Right. Well, Amanda's known, I think would suffice for now right.

[Unidentified]: Any other questions or comments.

[David Blumberg]: And Kyle any last last minute input you want to share.

[Zac Bears]: No, this is super helpful. some roundabout way what we were trying to get to. I appreciate all the board's time they took tonight to help lay these things out with us. Thank you.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, absolutely. So I guess we got here in a roundabout way, admittedly, but I was trying to make sure we knew what the next steps were going to be and make sure they were productive for everybody. So hopefully that's what we're headed toward here.

[Emily Hedeman]: Do we have a condition for them to come back? Like, do we want that? We don't have it here. Okay, so that's this, okay.

[Amanda Centrella]: We can, if there's a better way to wear this, I'm definitely all ears. Sorry, I was just sort of shooting at the hip. Yeah, yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Do we want it to be with us or is the reassessment by another body? or is it just by city staff? Do we need to even specify?

[David Blumberg]: I would suggest that maybe we lead into 16, Amanda, is it okay to just sort of have this be all encompassing and say conditions that the applicant or proponent return to discuss and share with the board information on the following for the board's approval.

[Emily Hedeman]: Does that language mean that we have denial? Because I think that's what we were trying to avoid.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's my concern.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: You could say for board's approval before staff sign the building permit application.

[Adam Hurtubise]: For prior to building permit.

[Alicia Hunt]: prior to building permit issuance, which is the same as saying you can't issue the building permit until we review these things, which is what you would do anyway.

[David Blumberg]: So A would be like, Amanda, maybe A is like evaluate and reassess and report to the board.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Emily Hedeman]: Certified experts is that, reasonable for us to ask, like, like people that hold like licensure and their, their field? Is that what you mean by that?

[David Blumberg]: Can it be professional advisors professional?

[Zac Bears]: You can see professional designers and engineers.

[Jenny Graham]: Right, I would just, I would put that, gotta be careful with the licensure or PE designation. Sure. It does that.

[David Blumberg]: And this probably should be including, because I don't think we mean just those two Romanets.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. Can I repeat that one more time?

[David Blumberg]: I think after engineers, you want to say comment, including because I think we'd like to hear about the full circulation plan. But those are two particular.

[Unidentified]: Yeah. So demonstrate. Yep, you got that.

[Zac Bears]: Can you get rid of rendering and provide detailed elevations of proposed building?

[Emily Hedeman]: Illustrations is fine too. And elevation is just as broad as possible that capture the information that we want to learn about.

[Unidentified]: Drawings. Oh, no, I'm sorry.

[Emily Hedeman]: I was just saying drawings could be another word for illustrations if we want to be even looser. Yeah. Exhibits. Yeah.

[Unidentified]: And Klaus, you're probably the expert here. I was going to say exhibits. Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I think that if at some point, Kyle, you're welcome to run things by us. If we're not sure if this meets it, I might say to Klaus, is this enough detail for you, right? And then on something else, I might ask David, is this enough, or Emily, does this one have the level of detail you're looking for? Because we are using looser language to allow for some flexibility, but I'd really hate for them to come back and you say, well, that's not enough detail. We can middleman some of the checking stuff,

[Zac Bears]: I would welcome that process. It's obviously various steps in the design build process. So I'll give many iterations of this thing. And the more I could stay on top of it and engage you guys, you can help me understand exactly what you might need for more detail. I can put it on the onus of the landscape architect and the engineer to provide that, so that we're not wasting your time for these meetings.

[David Blumberg]: Amanda, I've got one more for you.

[Unidentified]: Sure.

[David Blumberg]: on E, 17E. I would stop it at fire. And then I think, see, I think traffic is different because traffic, I think Todd Blake has put out these alternatives. Like I'd like them to let us know which, I'd like them to work with Todd Blake and determine which mitigation steps will be taken.

[Unidentified]: I don't want to make up new ones necessarily.

[David Blumberg]: I just want the project team and Todd to actually talk through it and come up with a plan that they can tell us, hey, this is what we've decided to do. That would be ideal.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he kind of gave that or at least some guidance in his letter. Obviously, it's pretty detailed. And then, yes, he offered two paths of solution. And I think our engineers can, you know, final contact him and say, what do you think about this? Is this, you know, we tried to work with what you provided us in context. And if he gives it his blessing, maybe he can provide a letter of support.

[Deanna Peabody]: The way I read his letter, though, isn't that it's two paths. It's like to try to do the mass DOT thing. And if that if they do not accept it, then the other path is acceptable. But I think going through that process is.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and we're committed to that. I certainly will do that. And it just becomes at what point, and I'll do it to whatever satisfaction Director Blake feels appropriate. I just know from experience with dealing with them in the past, but that's all.

[Unidentified]: Okay, any last minute thoughts?

[David Blumberg]: Maybe we're looking to wrap this up with an approval subject to conditions.

[Unidentified]: Amanda, I think you were. Yeah, okay, that's great. Yeah, perfect. Is that fair? Can we throw an at least in front of the 9.5 in 1C?

[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, in case you guys decide to do 10, then we don't have to do anything weird. but you can do five and that's fine. But if you do more.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the only, so the sidewalk design right now is five foot. I think the minimum is four and a half. So the sidewalk is five, which leaves us nine and a half with a six inch curb. Sure, sure. Unless the sidewalk gets increased and more, but I still think we can make it work.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'm just trying to make sure that this language does not make it so that we have to like, do something weird, because you decided to do something slightly different.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so Emily's trying to put as much flexibility into this. When you say to provide a number, then you have to provide that number, say at least the number, then you have flexibility at that point. And that's what we're sort of looking at in a couple of different police places here is just so that you're not held. No, you can't do more without getting a change from us. And I will I actually just wanted to share with the board that I thought that the sidewalk in front should be larger. And I had discussed that here. And actually Todd came back our director of traffic and said that it would actually be his preference that they keep it at the same as the rest of the road, and that if in fact DOT decided to change the widths of the sidewalk in this area, they would do that by taking up asphalt. And they would do that as a complete streets project. And if we just increase the width of the sidewalk in front of one property, it would look, it would just be weird for a long time. I just wanted to share that because I know that there was some like we most of the comments about five foot width was on the property, but it does match what's up the street. And so there, you know, it's, it's a weird situation. We'd also love to see this be more walkable, but the reality is the neighborhood isn't yet. So it's a weird line to walk. Do you try to make one property more walkable, inviting people to walk through an area that's very dangerous? It's tough, right? Because well, if not, where do you start?

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Sure. I do think though, Alicia, that people will come from the neighborhoods across the street and use the crosswalk or maybe cross a block down and then walk along Mystic for a block or whatever, you know, that will happen happily.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, we actually do. We agree with that. It's right. So and in fact, the neighbor in fact mentioned it sounds like she crosses the street at that point, perhaps to take that bus.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: So we do want that to be as comfortable as we can at that area.

[Unidentified]: Definitely.

[Emily Hedeman]: Can we strike the forefoot in M1M and just say appropriate barrier slash fencing?

[Unidentified]: folks. Let me know if I need to scroll.

[Amanda Centrella]: I know you can't see the full list.

[Unidentified]: This is really great work, Amanda. Thank you. Thank you all. Ready to entertain a motion item G is

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, that's sort of what I expected. I thought we'd see something that to the on the north edge.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I'm not advocating for changing that, but.

[Unidentified]: Maybe that would be worthy of asking Kyle because that was actually something that he included in his items.

[Alicia Hunt]: What they meant by that?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so this list, basically A through O was all generated by me based on the last preliminary hearing we had. And I just gathered your notes and I did meet with Brian and we talked about it and his preference was not to have a landscape buffer on that side, given that they own that section of property as well. And so we just included it on the front side, on the side facing the building. So that was the context behind that.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I would definitely encourage you to look at the whole width across the driveway and in the parking and think about.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as long as we can meet the, I know the parking standards were already, so they require, I think, what was it, 19 feet in the depth, and I think we're 18. So the traffic already called that out, but said it was permissible and acceptable by his interpretation. If we put a landscape buffer in there, we would shrink those parking spots, I believe. But worth noting, and if we can do it.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: And if you did angled spots on a one-way road, you could get another five feet out of that section, probably. I mean, I honestly don't think it needs to be seven along the fence, but you know. The other way to address that would be to just take out three or four spaces and make them ground and add some trees. I think that's another way to sort of create a... Just some ideas.

[Amanda Centrella]: So I guess with what you just raised, Klaus, do we still feel like it makes sense to include this in there since, actually, it's not wrapping all the way around? And also, in addition, you had mentioned, does it make sense to have seven feet of landscape buffer in all areas?

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Well, maybe we can just say include a landscape buffer.

[Unidentified]: I mean, yeah, that's good.

[David Blumberg]: I think that's real good.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I mean, it leaves it up to your interpretation. I think you've heard what we, what our preference is.

[David Blumberg]: So, you know, we're ready to entertain a motion, potentially approval subject to these conditions.

[Unidentified]: Don't be shy. Motion.

[David Blumberg]: I would be a motion to accept the site to accept the site plan, subject to the following conditions reflected in items number one and two. I don't know if they'll be attached to our decision or something like that, but with the proper reference items one and two on our working page.

[Alicia Hunt]: Somebody else wants, they can say so moved. You don't have to reconstitute what he says.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: So moved, this is Jackie, vice chair.

[David Blumberg]: Is there a second? I'll second. Excellent. Let's move to our roll call vote. Vice Chair Jackie for title.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Unidentified]: Yes. Okay well I'm, I'm an eye. So we have enough votes.

[David Blumberg]: Well, Kyle and Brian, thank you very much. Hopefully, by way of some twists and turns we've come to something that will allow you to move forward with your project and balances the board's interests at the same time. And I think the city staff will be in touch with you in terms of scheduling and I don't think we want to rush you to something I think we want, ideally for you to come back one time to address open items and early enough to make a difference but not too late to cost you anything more than you need to face. We appreciate that.

[Zac Bears]: Sincerely, I know this was a process, unique circumstances in this particular case and we appreciate all your time and consideration.

[David Blumberg]: Yeah, I think the board sports always been supportive and really want you guys to succeed and want want this thing to get off the ground so thank you. Thank you. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we have one more item on our agenda and that's the approval of minutes from October 12. I made a few changes, minor, but Amanda updated the minutes today, yesterday, Amanda, I can't remember.

[Amanda Centrella]: No worries, yeah, I don't remember either. I think I put them in the folder today. They have highlighted changes in yellow. They were just kind of a handful.

[David Blumberg]: If folks are so inclined to go for it, fine. If folks would like to call a timeout and put this off to the next meeting, that's fine as well.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: I have just one tiny change, and that was the name of the agency that I work for. It's executive housing. You have policy right now, but it's housing. And one of the reasons why I had to, I recused myself is because although that project is partly federal funding, I was a little bit confused, not confused, but it wasn't clear if I was able to even vote on it. even though the proponent actually clarify, you don't need to put all that in me, just change the word from policy to housing. That's it. Thank you, Jackie.

[David Blumberg]: We appreciate you being conservative on that kind of a topic. Definitely doing the right thing.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you.

[David Blumberg]: So we'll make that clarification on Jackie's information. Were there any other comments on the minutes or is does somebody want more time to review them? Alternatively, is there a motion to approve them?

[Deanna Peabody]: I'll make a motion to approve them.

[David Blumberg]: Excellent. So roll call vote on approval of the minutes from October 12. Jackie for title.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Deanna Peabody. Hi, Clayson Dresen.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Christy down.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Emily had.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: I don't see George having dropped off.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, okay.

[David Blumberg]: Nope. No problem. We have enough votes. I'm a yes as well. Any other updates? Or are we good?

[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia? I'm good.

[David Blumberg]: We're very tired tonight.

[Alicia Hunt]: I know, I just, um, if you guys family saw city council last night I feel like I've talked to you about this before that we've had an open planner position in our office for a long time. So at city council last night, there was some movement on that we are reclassifying it as a senior planner position. Um, and after a lot of noise, uh, they voted somewhat for it. Um, they voted, they approved the position for its first reading. It'll be advertised and then they'll vote again on the 15th. And we were actually thrilled. We got five out of seven votes in favor, which was one more than we expected. Um, and so that looks like that's moving forward. We have a draft housing planner position that we have forwarded to HR for review. Um, we'll be posting that very soon. Um, and then after the 15th, when we believe that the city council will finish voting, they need to vote on the appropriation paper and the calf change. We'll have the senior planner position and then we'll also be posting. So we also have a, so we'll have three full-time position CPA housing and senior planner, where right now we have a part-time CPA in housing and we have an unfilled planner position. It was all on TV last night, so I thought y'all should know. The senior planner would end up staffing this board and working closely with this board.

[David Blumberg]: Well, we always have mixed feelings when we hear that because we I'm so fond of Amanda.

[Amanda Centrella]: It's kind of you.

[David Blumberg]: Can't say that one enough. Okay. Motion to adjourn?

[Emily Hedeman]: Motion to adjourn.

[David Blumberg]: There's one, I think this- Don't rush. There was a second. I think there was a second.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'll second Clay's motion.

[David Blumberg]: Okay.

[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I got a burrito waiting for me.

[Emily Hedeman]: I know, it's cold now. I'm still in the office.

[David Blumberg]: All right. Roll call, Jackie.

[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Christina. Christie.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[David Blumberg]: Emily.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Yes.

[David Blumberg]: And I'm a yes. Hey, everybody. Thanks. It was an interesting meeting, passionate meeting. I'm glad everyone spoke up and had something to say. End of the day, I think we did. We did okay. So thank you for caring and handling it the way that you did. Appreciate it.

[Amanda Centrella]: Everything David just said. Yes, ditto. Thank you all so much.

[David Blumberg]: Thank you for waiting. That was good. Thank you. And Amanda, thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: All right, go to sleep.

[David Blumberg]: Have a good night.

[Jenny Graham]: Good night.

[David Blumberg]: Good night.

Zac Bears total time: 58.95 minutes total words: 7020	Jenny Graham total time: 5.61 minutes total words: 475