total time: 3.22 minutes
total words: 248
[Andre Leroux]: Good evening, everyone. My name is Andre LaRue. I'm the chair of the Medford Community Development Board and I opened the July 21st, 2021 meeting is being recorded. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this hearing of the Medford Community Development Board will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. And a reminder to everyone, To participate during the meeting outside of the Zoom platform, questions and comments may be mailed to OCD at Medford-MA.gov or submitted via phone to 781-393-2480. The meeting will be streamed live via Medford Community Media on channels Comcast 22 and Verizon 43. All votes will be roll call votes, so please, a reminder to introduce yourself each time you speak. And to mute yourself if you are not speaking. Thank you. Again, since the recording started a few seconds late, this is the Medford Community Development Board meeting of July 21st, 2021. First item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of last month, June 10th, 2021. Are there any comments or questions by board members about the minutes and its feedback?
[David Blumberg]: Andres, David?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, David.
[David Blumberg]: In the absence of other comments, I'd like to propose a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, David. There's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes. Is there a second?
[Deanna Peabody]: This is Deanna. Go ahead. This is Deanna. I'll second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Deanna. There's a motion with a second to approve the minutes. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.
[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.
[Deanna Peabody]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado. Aye. Wes Anderson. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. And I will abstain because I was not present at last month's meeting. So thank you, Jackie, for chairing last month. So thank you. The motion passes to approve the minutes. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for a special permit site plan review application for 640 to 760 Fellsway. Sorry, it pauses just because there's a lot of, I have to read the public hearing announcement. There's a lot of windows to manage here. Public hearing notice, City of Medford Community Development Board, 640 to 760 Fellsway, July 21st, 2021. The Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, July 21st, 2021 at 6 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to a special permit site plan review application submitted by BioLife Plasma Services LP to perform a tenant fit out to an existing tenant space on the property at 640 to 760 Fellsway. The scope of work for this project consists of performing interior renovations and reconfiguration of the exterior loading and facade of the building to convert an existing tenant space formerly used as Modell's sporting goods into a plasma donation center, which is located in a commercial one C1 zoning district and is therefore an allowed use. A copy of the application may be viewed in the office of community development room 308 or on the city's website by clicking on current CD board filings. open the public hearing. Kathleen Desmond, representing the proponent, would you be able to explain a little bit further about the project we're looking at considering tonight?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Certainly. Good evening Chairman LaRue, board members. With me this evening are Dwayne Musser and Jason Harder of Built to Suit Inc. They're here on behalf of the applicant BioLife Plasma Services Limited. In addition, Karen Johnson of Charter Realty Development is here on behalf of the owner of the subject property, Fellsway Plaza Limited Partnership. John Lorden project manager at Ty and Bond Engineering is also here, as well as Patrick Dunford, the project traffic consultant and also a project manager with BHB. This evening, the applicant Biolife Plasma Services is seeking a site plan special permit from this board. By way of introduction, the applicant Biolife Plasma Services is a company dedicated to developing plasma-based therapies that contribute to the creation of innovative treatments for medical conditions such as hemophilia, immunodeficiencies, and other genetic disorders. BioLife facilities, such as the one being proposed, collect plasma donations from healthy adult donors by a process similar to that of blood donations. The collected plasma is then processed and utilized in the development of advanced medical treatments. The proposed site, as mentioned, is located within the C1 district where medical office uses is allowed as of right. While the use is permitted within the district and there's no intent to alter the existing footprint of the structure itself, Section 94-3327 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance defines a major project to include medical offices containing 5,000 square feet or more of gross floor area, thereby requiring and necessitating a special permit by this board. By way of background, the subject site is situated within the Fellsway Plaza Shopping Center, located on Route 28 in Medford. The shopping center is comprised of three separate parcels of land, each owned by separate entities, john if you could share your screen and and put up the site plan, so we can show the board.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I'm just, I hope I have permission.
[Andre Leroux]: Looks like you do.
[SPEAKER_02]: It is not giving me an option to select a screen. It lets me toggle between one participant or multiple.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can share my screen if John's not able to.
[Amanda Centrella]: John, you should, if you click just the share screen as opposed to like the little up caret arrow next to it, I think you should be able to share.
[SPEAKER_02]: Great.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you. So as you can see, The parcel is situated in the center of what is essentially the Fells Way Plaza shopping center. The subject site is has a land area of 666,700 and 34 square feet. There are three separate buildings located on the subject property. The first being down here, which is a Century Bank area. It has a gross flurry of approximately 3,075 square feet. The next parcel is that building is that occupied by the stop and shop supermarket that has a gross flurry of approximately 63,386 square feet, and the subject building which is immediately adjacent to the stop and shop building, which has approximately 84,952 square feet. The portion of the building to be occupied by BioLife, which is in Maroon and is at the opposite end of the lot, adjacent to the New Creek LLC property, they actually share a party wall, is approximately 20,300 square feet and was, as indicated, formerly occupied by Models, a retail sporting goods shop. Models closed their doors in August of 2020. And of significance to the space adjacent to that property, which is approximately 4,400 square feet, is also vacant. That closed its doors back in October of 2019. The project before the board is primarily involving repurposing and refitting the interior area of this 20,300 square foot space. There are minor cosmetic changes to the facade of the building. John, can you go to that page, I believe? So this is the Models building down below, which shows you what it looked like at that, when it was, was existing, essentially. What is proposed to do is to change, obviously, the signage to BioLife Plasma Services, to include a couple of additional windows on the front the facade and to the side, and those are essentially the changes that are being made to the exterior of the front of the building. In addition to those changes. There are some changes being made to the loading dock area, and if you can go. which includes the addition of an exterior raised platform and a dumpster pad located at the rear. As indicated by the city engineer, this doesn't involve any regrading or surface work. So it's just an improvement that doesn't involve any digging of any real sort. Lastly, the other improvement which is being made relates to the signage located nearest the Riverside Ave entrance And again, that is just removing the signage, which relates to models, and including the, the bio life sign. As the project is very limited in scope. We have requested a number of waivers as to the site plan requirement. And I believe that you should have those in your package, the city engineering department has taken no exception to the requested waivers. And I can run through the waivers now or at the close of the presentation based on the preference of the board. It may be best to wait until all of the presenters have shown you what's involved.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, let's wait till the end of the presentation.
[Kathleen Desmond]: With that, I will turn the presentation over to Dwayne Messer of Suit to Build. He will provide you some more details as to the operation of the company and also specifics as to what types of improvements they're making in the floor plan and also the dumpster area. Dwayne. I did see him.
[Andre Leroux]: to also note while we're doing this that our land use planner who has been staffing the board for the last couple of years, Annie Streetman has departed and we have a new planner helping us out today from the Office of Community Development, Amanda Centrella. So Amanda, thank you very much for all your help in preparing the materials and staffing us tonight.
[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you, excited to be working with you all.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I did see Dwayne, has he having trouble with his microphone?
[SPEAKER_08]: Kathleen, can you hear me now?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yes, yep, yes.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, thank you. Yep, sorry about that. Yes, this is Dwayne Musser with Build to Suit. John, if you could pull up the floor plan, I could run through the interior real quick. If anybody has any questions, please let me know. So as Kathleen stated, we're taking over the vacant space, approximately 20,300 square feet. This is a 60 bed facility for BioLife. 60 possible donors at one time. And the operation is by appointment only. So all patients, all clients make appointments and show up at their allotted time. The process starts with each client going through a health screening process before they make any donations. That process at the first appointment lasts a couple hours. And after they pass all the health screening, then they can come back and make their donation. that they go through another smaller health screening before each donation and the health screening, that donation can last 45 to maybe 60 minutes. But basically you have the front entryway at the front of the front of the building, similar to where Modell's was, that is for patients only. And all the operations are up front, the exam rooms, the waiting area are in the front, restrooms for the clients. There's some office area off to the side for staff and managers. And then the large area you can see kind of on the bottom of the floor pan is the 60 beds. In the back of house is the plasma processing. There is a large freezer box kind of in the middle of that back house where the plasma is stored. And then the rear of the building is the receiving area for dried goods that are used. during the operation. I'd also like to point out there is a biohazard room off to the side that is a secured room that's accessed by staff only. And then the biohazard is removed by a national company that handles that material. As far as the exterior additions that Kathleen mentioned, we'd be upgrading the facade as far as signage and painting at the back of the house. be removing the existing loading dock, expanding it a little bit, and then adding a secured block dumpster. And then there's a ramp, obviously, to get material up and out of the building. And like Kathleen stated, the exterior work is very minimal. It would be cutting and removing some existing asphalt to put in new footings and foundations for the ramp and dumpster, and then repaving around that. So very minimal impacts to the exterior. Kathleen also covered the signage on the front of the building and an addition of a panel on one of the existing pylons. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[Andre Leroux]: Can you just explain the reefer trailer location that's there on the diagram?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, absolutely. I should upset. Thank you. So the reefer trailer is just in case of emergency. The reefer trailer is not there permanently. In fact, it only shows up In case of a power outage for an extended period of time, the plasma has to be stored at a very specific temperature so it can be processed later for medical purposes. So in case of an extended power outage or in the case of a freezer malfunction, BioLife has a national provider on call for all their centers all over the US to bring in an emergency reefer trailer that the plasma would be stored in until the existing freezer can be repaired or the power comes back on. We put it on all our applications and site plans, so everybody's aware that, you know, in case of a natural disaster and there's no power for an extended period of time, we do need to bring that reefer trailer in and save all that product, so.
[Andre Leroux]: So it was some kind of refrigerated or freezer trailer is what that is.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, yes, it's basically a semi with a freezer component on it, you know, they go up and down the highway all the time. You just don't notice them from another semi, but basically as the semi trailer would be on their part and the material would be stored in that. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. Yeah. Members of the public watching might have some other, like might have some confusion if they're seeing a reefer trailer. Yep.
[SPEAKER_08]: Understood. Yes. And that's a very common question. Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Are there other proponents we're gonna present or questions about what has been presented by members of the board?
[Kathleen Desmond]: We also have Patrick Dunford from BHB who will present on his traffic study that he performed in conjunction with the project. And I believe I saw Patrick here as well.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I see him on there. Amanda, do you see him?
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: There we go. Sorry about that. I couldn't get unmuted, needed permission. So with that out of the way, I'm Pat Dunford, Transportation Engineer with VH- Sorry about that. No, not a problem. So we had prepared a traffic evaluation for this project, May 24th. And I know the city engineering and planning staff had reviewed that. Without going into too much detail, the reoccupancy of the space has a pretty negligible change in the overall trip generation for the plaza. So with that, there's not a lot of corresponding impact as you'd expect. However, with any project, there's always an understanding that there is some degree of an impact from any new use coming in. So what the city staff had done was identify some kind of low cost improvements that could benefit existing deficiencies in this area that this project could possibly implement. They had summarized that in a July 7th memorandum. I'm not sure if that's gone to the board, but I had a chance to talk with city staff about this and They drew those improvements, the potential suggested improvements, out of a roadway safety audit, which is a road, it's a planning and safety evaluation of Route 28 at Riverside Avenue, which had been done about three years ago. That actually was done on behalf of a project in Somerville as part of its state's MEPA review process. That was the assembly project in Assembly Square section of Somerville. that project already is obligated to pick up and implement the majority of those improvements that were identified. So when we talked to the staff the other day, what we tried to do was identify improvements that this project could quickly and easily implement without there being a lot of engineering soft costs or permitting or complexities of that nature, stuff where the most bang for the buck could be put out there to quickly fix existing problems. really unrelated to the new use in here. So what we had done was put together a rough graphic highlighting some of these. I did forward this to the city staff very late in the day, so I don't know that they've had a chance to review it, but I can walk you through. These are just some ideas that we have. as to what could possibly be done out here. The aerial's oriented in the same way as the site plan, so hopefully this'll be fairly easy to follow along with. But I guess I can start in the right side and work my way left, where Riverside Avenue, as you depart the signal at the Fellsway, Route 28, the speed limit as all city roadways is 25 miles an hour, is the de facto speed limit. And there's a sign posting that as people depart the intersection. I don't have exact measurements, but I know anecdotally there's been some speeding concerns there as people leave a congested roadway. A lot of times they pick up their speed as they head around the corner past commercial street. So what we were suggesting was that this project possibly implement a, what's called a speed feedback sign as shown in the picture there. And you've probably seen these where It posts the speed limit, but at the same time, it also shows actually how fast you're going as a reminder to bring it down. Obviously, police enforcement is always the best way of doing this, but they can't be out there every hour of every day. So this serves as a reminder to motorists and studies have shown it's actually pretty effective at keeping speeds down. So as part of this project, I had identified a potential spot for that where it's right around where people start to pick up the speed. I think that would be a good location and it's relatively easy to put in. This is actually solar powered and it does appear there's room within the city right away where this could be put along the northerly side of Riverside Avenue facing that westbound traffic. So that's something this project could take on and implement pretty quickly. Moving to the left at the, I guess main driveway feeding the plaza off of Riverside Avenue. Probably, I'm trying to think how many years ago, but there was striping that was put in at the intersection, commonly referred to as don't block the box. Simply put, it's striping on the roadway. So vehicles that are queued up at the signal don't block the driveway, which can be frustrating for people entering and exiting the site. That striping was put in place, but over time it's faded. So we were suggesting that's something we could pretty readily go out and re-stripe to get that effectiveness back where it needs to be. something would be looking to do in conjunction with this. Another theme that came up in the roadway safety audit was the need for bike accommodations in the area. And one pretty obvious deficiency we picked off through the project team was that there is a series of bike racks. It's eight racks capable of holding about 16 vehicles right in front of the paper store. That's right along the main drive aisle, extending out to route 28. And that drive aisle is about 35 feet wide today, which is more than ample for a single lane in each direction. The problem with that is that the speeds tend to pick up because it is so wide. So what we were looking to do, if you look on the top side of that section, it's 35 feet curb to curb. We're looking simply to restripe that. So it's the two 12 foot lanes, and we can work with the city staff to figure if those should be 12 or 11. basically maintaining single travel lanes in each direction, but introducing bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. And this has the combined effect of giving a clearly designated, hopefully safer area for the bikers. And on the same side, it also effectively narrows the drivable width of the roadway for cars, which hopefully has a corresponding reduction in speeds. So that seemed like a pretty obvious connection where you have the bike racks up near the storefront, bikers coming off of the Fellsway and really no accommodations for them in between. So that's something that we could pretty quickly put in place. Again, this is information like probably an hour ago, I just passed it along to the city staff. So I don't think they've had a chance to review, but I think it's in the spirit of what they were looking for, where it's quick, effective, not a lot of permitting or engineering design, but something that can help some existing deficiencies. So I'd be happy to take any questions you might have on that, or I can just turn this back to Kathleen for further discussion.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, let me just take a moment, because this is new information, to invite Medford traffic engineer, Todd Blake, or city engineer, Tim McGivern, if they want to make any comments or respond to this at this point.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, thank you. This is Todd Blake, Director of Traffic and Transition for the City of Medford. We did receive this, as Patrick said, later, but it does seem to fit the theme of what we were requesting to improve safety and enhance either pedestrian and or cycling to the site with the hopes of reducing vehicle trips, which would therefore mitigate some of the impact of vehicle trips. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. OK. Yeah, I think they did a good job with trying to identify, and we do recognize that what Patrick said earlier, from the road safety audit, some other project, I guess, is going to provide those things, but they haven't yet. But this is a good alternative, I think. There were a few other components that I noticed that could improve safety that seemed, Pretty, you know, pretty minimal. And if they're going to be out striping the site anyways for that drive out the three existing driveways along 28. the ones that are exit or right exit only, but yet there's no right turn only markings or no left turn signage to indicate such. So if someone's leaving the site, there's the potential for people to turn left onto 28. southbound incorrectly. So that's something that could be considered as well. But I think they did a great job trying to accommodate what the intent was to reduce vehicle trips and to improve safety.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you, Mr. Blake. Do board members have any questions or comments about this part of the presentation?
[Deanna Peabody]: Andre, I had a couple of questions. I just wanted, can you hear me? Yeah. I just wanted to understand why none of the recommendations from Todd at the signalized intersection were included. That is because they're already proposed to be done. Because obviously if an RSA was done, that means that it's one of the state's top high crash locations. And some of them seemed like low hanging fruit, like checking the yellow and all red clearance intervals. and adding back plates. So I was just wondering why those were not included.
[Alicia Hunt]: We should actually clarify the road safety audit was not done because of being a high crash location. It was done because of the project, because a private developer paid for it as part of their project down by Assembly Road.
[Deanna Peabody]: Okay. It is a H-SIP cluster, I believe.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: If I can weigh in on that, it's actually a combination of the two. The study was done because it is in fact a high crash location and the state agency, MEPA, determined that that project should take that study on and implement the low cost improvements that were identified. The study identified, I think the number was about 40 low cost improvements, and they are obligated to put those in place, which includes some of the ones that you mentioned.
[Deanna Peabody]: Okay, because there are a lot of concerning things about that intersection that are clear, like violations of any of the, you know, MUTCD or ADA requirements. So, but if they're going to be done anyways, then.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I think. Oh, I'm sorry, Pat, I don't mean to interrupt.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: I'll be quick on this. And to be clear, some of the signal related items that were identified are listed in what they categorize as medium cost being anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000. And I know the city's memorandum had suggested around a $12,000 impact roughly for this project. So once we take on some of the signal elements, which I agree, there's a lot of deficiencies out here. But in terms of getting actual improvements in place, the stuff that I outlined earlier, we can actually make happen pretty quick and pretty effectively. Whereas the signal improvements, to any degree, a lot of that money is going to go towards, well, basically me and my company, which is great, but a lot of it's going to get absorbed in permitting, as opposed to actual improvements on the road, which is why we tried to find stuff that we could make happen quicker.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Pat. Other board members have questions, and just a reminder to, because we have this on the screen, to state your name before speaking.
[David Blumberg]: Andre, David.
[Andre Leroux]: Hi, David. Go ahead.
[David Blumberg]: Just was curious to hear the reaction to Mr. Blake's suggestion about the right turn only signage. Is that something that could fall within the scope of these proposed improvements?
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: Assuming that one's over to me, again, what we tried to do was find items that were directly under city control and city jurisdiction. I'm not going to pretend that a right turn on red is a complicated matter, but it is a DCR signal. So it introduces an outside state agency where we felt we could do things more effectively and more applicable instead of that. Not to say that measure isn't needed, just maybe not on behalf of this project.
[Andre Leroux]: Lanford and this is Andre LaRue, the chair. I do have two questions myself. One is along Riverside Avenue with this, the 25 mile per hour speed limit sign. I'm wondering if there's, if you think it might be worthwhile pulling it back closer to the intersection, because just knowing how vehicles exit from the plaza over the box, and then usually there's like site, you know, problems with vehicles that are coming quickly down Riverside Ave the other way. I don't know if you think it might be worth putting the signage closer, like before the box, or if there's some other way of improving safety there for those that are turning left out of the plaza onto Riverside Ave heading east.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, the current location does capture those exiting the plaza. We could look at maybe shifting it another 150 feet or so. I don't think I'd want it between the signal and the driveway to the plaza, and I don't think you're suggesting that, but I think maybe a little bit closer to the intersection we could certainly look at, as long as we're still capturing those people coming out of the plaza. And again, that speed limit is more global, that's citywide, that's not just for this roadway, but it's a good reminder, which is why the sign's there. So yes, we could certainly look at moving that.
[Andre Leroux]: And I do, you know, I appreciate the suggestions that you put forth here. The other one that I do have though that I don't see is in terms of the bike racks, the existing bike racks are not really great bike racks that are there. They were really just like thrown in some... you know cement and literally there's like you're standing next to a very busy parking area it's on an island so I'm wondering whether there's and there's no bike racks I don't believe towards the end of the plaza where you know this project will be happening so I'm wondering whether there's an opportunity to put in bike racks down that end of the plaza.
[39QZXkKLDII_SPEAKER_01]: I'd need to take a closer look at the site plan for that The bike racks where they are certainly serviceable. I'd need to see if that involves eliminating parking spaces or other geometric space changes. So I'd need to consult with a tie and bond on that one as to if there's room to put an additional bike racks. Not a huge expense and there's a lot of bang for the buck there. So we're not against it. I just want to make sure I can deliver if I promised that something would do.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Out of the difficulty with the parking spaces that that Patrick mentioned and I included it in the written statement is that that the owner of the parcel is subject to a three way agreement between the other owners that require that they maintain a certain level of parking spaces that they can't go below. That is a restriction it's a deed restriction contained and all the deeds and I believe I gave the deed citation in my. in my written statement, and I have a copy of the restriction as well, but they're very limited in some ways as to what they can do with parking. I know in speaking with Karen Johnson that they've tried to negotiate the changes in that agreement to no avail. So at this point, if it takes a parking space, that's gonna create issues with the other two abutters per the agreement, and that agreement runs through 2035.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Can I ask a question following up on that? Yes, please. I assume that there's a certain amount of parking that's being given to this project as part of the project, or is it a pooled parking arrangement?
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's a pool parking lot to the extent that there's more parking than is required for any of the various businesses. In other words, the requirement is one per 350 square feet floor area. And the parking as it stands now under the agreement is 4.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet as between the three owners of the development. there is definitely sufficient parking within the property to accommodate the use that's being used.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I guess where I'm going with this is I'm just wondering if this project would offer to give up parking space or to create an enhanced bike parking area, which seems like probably a good location to do it in front of this parcel because it's sort of right on the corner, right at the center of the mall. It would be good for access to the whole thing. I definitely second what Andre asked, I think, including an enhanced bike area for the whole.
[Kathleen Desmond]: It's certainly something that we could look at. And as Patrick said, he doesn't know without looking at it further, whether it would even require spaces to be eliminated. But then we may, based on the agreement, have to find spaces elsewhere to stay at the threshold that's required per the agreement, unfortunately.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I know there are equations involved, but I also know that 99.99% of the time, this parking lot's half empty. Um, my second question was, um. Have you considered the addition of any trees and around, um, the parking areas here?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So in switch to, I think it's the site plan that shows where we have. So in terms of this particular project, and if you compare this particular parcel with the parcels adjacent to it, the Fellsway has really tried to do landscaping in those areas that would allow them to maintain the parking requirements that are required if you look they, and this is just a sample I have quite a few photos of of trees that they have planted and plantings and they're much more mature at this point than they were but they have basically attempted to put landscaping in those areas where they're permitted to. In addition they maintain season planters you'll see on on front of all of the buildings and those rotate between spring, fall and summer plantings and they've put benches in and I know that the chairman takes issue with the types of bike racks that are in there, but they have attempted to do those things which the board likes to see. And we knew this was going to be a question, certainly, but the issue is really what they're bound to in terms of the agreement with the other two owners and the spaces that they have or the spaces that are required. And I can, if I can share my, I can actually.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: share my screen. Hi, Kathleen. It's Karen Johnson. Sure, just before you do that, Kathleen, I just noticed that the... Karen, I'm sorry, could you introduce yourself, please? I apologize. Karen Johnson. I'm with Charter Realty and Development. We're the owners of Fellsway Plaza. We've owned it since 2013. I was just noticing, to your point about bike racks, There's diagonal parking in front of the proposed BioLife right at the, exactly, thank you, John, right at the notch, really, of the building. I think we could probably slide those diagonal spaces down, because you see there's an area in the front that's striped. We could slide those down and do a small area for bike racks at the end of that parking row. I think that would work out nicely without losing any spaces.
[Andre Leroux]: That would be welcome. Thank you for the suggestion.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: And we can take a closer look at the surface. It looks like it's crushed stone. I have not biked there and parked my bike there, but it looks like it's crushed stone. So we can take a look at the surface or even doing some sort of protection around the perimeter, whether it's making the curb height slightly higher or even a low level wood fence or something like a wood guardrail. I mean, those are very, very simple things for us to implement, and if it makes it more attractive for bikers to bike to this location, I think it's to everyone's benefit. So I think those are two very good points that you made. We can certainly take a closer look at implementing those and work with staff.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Karen, in terms of the history, could you just, because you have made certain landscaping improvements. And I think when you drive through that area, it's really the only area that's landscaped. And I think you've done what you can. Is that fair to say?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: It is a challenge, and right after we purchased the property, we were able to redevelop that down abandoned parcel adjacent to Riverside, which has been very successful, and three restaurants, and we're very pleased that they're still doing fairly well, even through this rather difficult period for restaurant operators. permitted Planet Fitness. So those two applications involved special permits. When we came through with the Planet Fitness application, we did make several, and I think these photos are helpful. We did make several improvements to those existing landscape areas. And these photos were actually taken right after the landscaping went in. They're a bit more mature now and fuller. We also maintained, which I think was something that the prior owner did not do out there. As Kathleen mentioned, this is a property that was originally, is originally part of three different owners. It was developed in 1915. in terms of what we can do for uses for what we can do for new We are grossly over parked. I understand that, but we cannot change it. It's unfortunate. There are so many things that we would like to do here, but we are unable to do it. And so what we're trying to do is re-tenant an existing space, add some life to the center in terms of foot traffic, and obviously re-letting out a 20,000 square foot space is really significant for us.
[Andre Leroux]: for clarifying that. And comments from any other board members before we open the hearing up to members of the public? Okay, hearing none. I'm wondering if we could stop sharing the screen here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: We can see everyone. Oh, yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, thank you, Attorney Desmond. If you could review that, that'd be great.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, and then if I can put that on my screen so that you have it as well. So the request for waiver is all derived from section 94 334 c one, and and the first requires a location of use instructions within 100 feet of the property line. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement is the intended substitution of use does not contemplate any substantial exterior changes or modify the existing building which is over 50 years old so we're requesting. that the plan not require those structures within 100 feet. The second request requires locations elevations and dimensions section of existing and proposed buildings or other structures showing setbacks from property lines. While we showed much of that, we didn't show the elevations of the entire proposed structure and the structure isn't proposed, it's existing. So the applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement, particularly with regard to the elevations and dimensions of the existing building. As a substitution relates only to a portion of the structure and does not contemplate substantial exterior changes or modifications to the building. Section I requires existing and proposed contour elevations in one foot. Again, we're not changing any of the exterior elements, and this is just essentially a retrofit of the interior of an existing space. So we're asking for a waiver as to that. J requires proposed surfacing. The applicant is seeking a waiver from this requirement as there are no contemplated changes to the project site, including the existing sidewalks and parking areas. O requires landscaping and screening, including trees, stone walls, fences, and other features to be retained or removed. Again, this is a situation where we're not really changing the exterior of the structure, and it's only a portion of the building that is actually being retrofitted. P, which requires outdoor lighting, including location and intensity of lighting. Again, we're looking for a waiver of that requirement as this is a substitution of use, and there are no contemplated changes to the existing outdoor lighting. And actually, I should mention too that as part of what they did in terms of improving the site I believe all of the lighting is LED lighting at this point. And that's something to point out. So those are the, the waivers that we're requesting. And as the report from the city engineer indicates he took no exception to those requests.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Attorney Desmond. I'd like to open the hearing to members of the public. Is there anyone who would like to speak? You can raise your hands. Or mention in the chat that you'd like to speak and we can unmute you.
[Alicia Hunt]: And Andre Ken Cross has raised his hand, he'd like to speak.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Ken. Go ahead.
[Krause]: Thank you, Ken Krause, 50 Mystic Street in Medford. I don't have a comment pro or con the project. I did want to share just a few observations from listening, though. I was glad to see the emphasis in the traffic study on improving bicycle access, but there's still with the plaza overall is a very severe shortcoming in pedestrian access. I believe there are seven vehicle accesses to the property. And there's only one that has any kind of pedestrian lane, if you will, to get from the street. to the complex. Fortunately, that's the one that's the bike path, bike lanes are being added, but this isn't necessarily related to this addition or change, but from Riverside Avenue, it's very dangerous for people walking. They turn into the entrance where all the vehicles are and just walk within the traffic. And so at some point, it would be helpful to try to correct that. The second thing is I think the part, the comment about the site being grossly over parked. is true, but I disagree that you can't change it. I mean, there may be restrictions, but I think there is an opportunity to relook at that in a new way, particularly through the city's vulnerability preparedness program. We're looking at heat islands throughout the city and ways to reduce those. And just looking at this aerial view, I would suspect that this is a heat island, and perhaps there's a way to reduce the parking through some program or effort through the municipal vulnerability preparedness. And then just the last comment, if I could, for the Community Development Board, for the benefit of the public, it would be very helpful if more information about these plans could be presented in the agenda. A lot of people find out about these projects through the agenda, and 640 to 760 Fellsway is a large complex and it could be any number of buildings. There's some other vacancies there and no information about what is proposed, what's the nature of the business that's going in that I think is very vague and more information that could be put through the agenda would be very helpful. So for future meetings, I would ask that you consider that in addition to any public hearing notice that might appear in the paper. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Ken. Those are all great points. And I'm wondering if Karen would like to respond to any of them.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: So I think maybe we say things like reciprocal easement agreement with two other parties, and it's not entirely clear what that means. It's effectively a a set of covenants and restrictions within the deed. It's recorded in the land records and every property owner is bound by it and successors and title until 2035. And as I noted earlier, I think I misspoke in that the property was developed in 1959. It was not. It was already developed prior to that. But in 1959, these three property owners entered into this agreement. And the agreement was intended to, in some ways, protect all of the property owners from competing uses. In other ways, it was to provide benefits to all of the property owners for the purposes of having reciprocal easements. So each party to the agreement is the beneficiary of these easements. So a reciprocal easement agreement essentially says, I as a property owner am going to agree to all of these restrictions, and I'm also going to get all the benefits of it. And so this was actually renewed in the late 80s. I forget exactly, I think it was 1988. It was renewed. an entire new set of restrictions and somewhat benefits were agreed to at that time. And one of those was the restriction that each property owner and throughout the entire three properties maintain a ratio in Kathleen, it's 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet of floor area. And so when I say it's grossly over-parked, I say that in relation to what we know now in terms of shared parking offset peak uses. Really, if you laid this out and did an ITE analysis, for example, on shared uses, you would probably need no more than, you know, three and a half, maybe per thousand, maybe, that's probably even high. We know that the City of Medford requirements are also much lower than that. So we almost have to wait this out until 2035. We've already tried on several instances to come to an understanding with the other parties to this agreement We've been trying since prior to when we bought the property. We bought it in 2013, as I noted. Before we even closed on it, we reached out to Kimco and we reached out to Ocean State, and they're still the same owners of the other properties, saying, look, let's modernize this. Let's look at taking out some of these use restrictions that we're all subject to. Let's look at doing some different and interesting things collectively with Fellsway Plaza. and we got nowhere. And frankly, we try every year. One of the restrictions is there's a view line easement. And if you saw from John Lorden's, from Ty and Bond's plan, there's a very dark line that goes across parallel to the frontages of both Kimco's property and perpendicular to Ocean State's property, which I'm sure you're aware used to be stop and shop. Those are restrictive areas that regardless of zoning, we cannot build on. We can't even put a pylon sign on it. So I hear you. There are lots of great things that we all know about now that the property owners, I think in the 80s when they renegotiated this agreement, didn't know about. As we approach 2035, if we're still the owners of this property, trust me, many of these things will be renegotiated in a positive manner because we see tremendous value in this location. I've had several conversations with Todd and Tim, most recently Tim, about what can we do. We also own the Tower Plaza in the rear. Our architect, Tom Scott, is also available if you have any questions about the architecture and the design. We've looked at many feasibility analysis, obviously, with something like Wellington Circle developed. This is the next logical step to a transit-oriented development. We'd love to do so many things here, and we'll hopefully wait this out, and we'll be talking to you in 2035 about what a great, new, modern, sustainable project we can present to you. And until then, we have to figure out a way to make this a financially viable project.
[Andre Leroux]: Hopefully we're all still around, Karen.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: I do appreciate your comments, Ken, and they're obviously very well informed. I'm in agreement with you. Right now we've got to We've got to pay the bills, so.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. And so that sight line, I was shocked when I learned about this. So that includes even planting trees because it can block the sight line. Is that, that's correct, right? Which is why the trees around the outside.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: We can't put any more trees in there anyway, because we can't take off any, take away any parking spaces. So I think, you know, again, I think it was, Todd had a great suggestion for the re-striping. We will absolutely look at more opportunities for, for bicycle parking and make it a little more, amenable to a bicyclist.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I do. I mean, I wish I brought this up myself. So Ken, thank you for doing it. I do agree with the comment that people are walking to the plaza in the driveways. So that is a pretty dangerous situation. I don't know if there's anything that you could do to improve that situation.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: We looked at it when we were doing the Planet Fitness project, and it does get a little cumbersome over there because the Riverside parcels, that's a whole other title issue, environmental story. But that section, and John, I don't know if you can put your your plan up again. That section is very narrow. I don't remember the exact dimension. I know we looked at the possibility of adding a sidewalk at that point, and we could not make it work with the setbacks on the riverside and then with the amount of frontage that we own on the Fellsway side. But we'll take another look at it. We'll take another look at it. I agree with you.
[Amanda Centrella]: I've wondered if I could just take a moment to address one of Ken's other comments, which had to do with, um, just access to plans, um, and like more information in the agenda, um, about, you know, the different projects on items on the list, um, wholeheartedly agree. And I think moving forward, we're going to put more of that information on there. Uh, but just for, so that folks know on the med on Medford's website page for the office of planning development and sustainability. you scroll down to the community development board, there is a tab that says, um, current CD board filings and all of the, uh, open filings that are, um, you know, on the agenda, etcetera are all of the plans and information are nestled in there. Um and that information is put in the public hearing notice. Um, but I think moving forward will put that in the agenda as well. So thank you can.
[Andre Leroux]: Amanda and for those of you on zoom Alicia hunt our planning director put the link directly into the chat. Right. Todd Blake.
[Todd Blake]: I thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to follow up on Ken's good comments about pedestrian access. We did highlight that as well as the cycling access. And there may be some things that may be easier, you know, possibly for the proponent to consider, like painting crosswalks across those driveways off of Fells Way. And then I'm looking at the other drive aisle, the other main drive aisle, that's the one way in from the signal. And it also looks painted very wide for traveling in each direction. So there may be the opportunity to paint, if you will, paint a shoulder, which may act as a walkway in lieu of a sidewalk, if a sidewalk was too much of an ask.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Blake. Any other members of the public would like to speak? use the raise your hand function, or I don't know if the community development folks, if we've gotten any emails or phone calls.
[Amanda Centrella]: I haven't, I'm gonna check now, but I don't believe we've received any emails or phone calls on the matter. Give me one second just to look at the inbox.
[Andre Leroux]: And Attorney Desmond, in the meantime, there were some other letters by department heads, including the fire department.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No, no, no, no problems with any of the other department head comments. And we had a very productive meeting and conversation with the engineering department. It didn't occur till yesterday based on scheduling conflicts and vacations. But, you know, I think it was beneficial to all.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I think we're getting close to the point of being able to entertain a motion with some kind of project, maybe mitigation that is negotiated by the city's traffic department. And I think we can give them the, we can delegate the responsibility to kind of finalize that package. But I think what we've seen here tonight's a good step forward. And I think what the proponent has exhibited some willingness to talk about that further.
[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia? Sorry, if I might, I just wanted to make sure. One of the comments in the engineering letter was that the building might be within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission because we do know that there is wetland on the adjacent property. We had the city's environmental agent, Dennis McDougal, review that, and he did the measurements and said that it's actually about 140 feet from the wetland. While it's only 70 feet from the property line here, it is clearly sufficiently far from the wetland, in his opinion, that it's outside the jurisdiction. And I just wanted to state that clearly for the record, since it was in the engineering letter, Um Dennis did agree that the engineering suggestion that there should be perimeter sediment barriers straw waddles was of course a good good suggestion. We always like to do that.
[Andre Leroux]: So we are the just for the board members to to understand we are kind of the special permit granting board for this project so it won't go anywhere else. We need to um we're in charge of approval of the project with conditions. So I think just to summarize, I think what we've heard, there's some conditions that are in the fire chief's letter that the proponent has no objection to. There is a, some traffic mitigation measures, including re-striping for bicycles and pedestrians, looking at expanding bike parking and a kind of a speed reduction signage, kind of feedback sign on Riverside Ave. Am I missing any other conditions?
[Alicia Hunt]: Andre, we've been jotting these down in a way that we could read them back to the board.
[Andre Leroux]: Great.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's perfect. So the proponent's traffic mitigation proposal, in lieu of the ones proposed in the letter to the board from the traffic engineer, are to install a westbound Riverside Ave speed feedback sign, which would be solar, install new speed limit 25 mile MPH sign on Riverside Ave, install bike lanes on the main parking lot drive aisle within the parking lot, repaint the do not block the box striping on Riverside Ave. Those were the ones they proposed. The other ones, and I'd like the proponent to confirm that these next two we've captured appropriately for you, that they would, and I actually want to add this, review, and if possible, slide the diagonal parking spaces down and create a small area of bike racks at the end of the parking row, including protection for the bike area, such as guardrails or curbing. Does that sound okay?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: On John's, on the, excuse me, the tie and bond plan, it looks almost like it says seven, but I think there's 11 spaces there. So it's this single lane of diagonal off the notch of the building, just to be clear.
[Alicia Hunt]: Partially, I want to capture these very accurately, because you get the permit, you do the work. When you win the occupancy permit, someone from our office will take this list and say, did these things occur? We want to make sure that we're going to be able to review them and get them. And then property owner will revisit the opportunity to add sidewalks to the drive aisle in the future or potentially paint. I didn't capture the right word. A pedestrian pathway?
[Elizabeth Bayle]: A pedestrian pathway, yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I guess for those two, rather than try to hold things up, if you as the owner find that you cannot do those things, then we would ask you to give us something in writing that shows this is the measurements, this is why we can't do those things.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Alicia if I if I could as well. The engineers report had a restriction of $12,000 as a cap, and this project. If they were resuiting this for retail space we wouldn't be going through the site plan special permit process. So as part of this is they're also going to pay a linkage fee and that linkage fee is upwards of $40,000 so we really did appreciate that cap that was instituted because, you know, at some point, the project doesn't become feasible and that's kind of an anchor to the bed.
[Alicia Hunt]: At the beginning, there is a linkage fee. And our tenant, this is a 20,000 square foot project, right? Correct. Our calculations was that the linkage fee was going to be on the order of 20,000 square feet, or $20,000.
[Kathleen Desmond]: That's better than what Kim thought it was gonna be.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I think it was a little bit more than 20,000. I thought it was more like 34,000.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the, so you have to actually, so I will, for the record, the link after the site plan review is completed, then the applicant needs to fill out the linkage program application for linkage fees. And based on that is when the building commissioner will certify the amount of linkage. However, it is an amount that is per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. And the commercial number is, oh, Amanda, this sheet says 1,700. Why were we using a number of 1,000 in our meeting this morning?
[Amanda Centrella]: I'm maybe we were looking at. There's like a separate fee for the non South Eastern part of Redford.
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, so I did go back and I think it is closer to 34,000 34,000 because this is clearly in Southeastern Medford. Right? Okay. Yeah. And so you're sorry. So 34,000 is approximately it's based on the exact square footage of the renovation.
[Andre Leroux]: building commissioner will finalize that. We don't have, that's not something that the board needs to do. This is just for informational purposes. Okay, so Amanda, I'm assuming there are no further questions or comments from the public have come in. Okay, so I'm gonna close, Ken just threw something into the chat. Looking down the road, can these linkage funds be directed back into pedestrian access improvements to this plaza rather than just go into the overall linkage fund pool? That's a question for you, Alicia, I think.
[Alicia Hunt]: The problem is, so the linkage fund is for improvements on public facilities, and it is a privately owned property. So one thing that I would reach out, I said offline, but, through the economic development director, we're gonna reach out to the property owners to see if there is anything that the city can do when the program that Ken was referring to is a grant funded program. And so I'm wondering if there, what the opportunities might be there to work with all three property owners as a city to see if there's an ability to get any grant to help with changing of the agreements But I will reach out to them offline. Legally, I do not believe that we can use linkage fees on private property.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Appreciate that effort, Alicia. So I would like to close the public comment portion of the public hearing and open up to deliberation and motion by the board members. Any further comments or discussion by board members? Is there a motion on the floor? that would include the conditions in the letters by the fire department, the board of health and the lists that Alicia dictated to us.
[Alicia Hunt]: So what I captured was in the engineering letter, except not the traffic recommendations. So that would include like the straw waddles on that. Oh, I think we also, I was actually gonna say, I think we need a motion to approve the waivers they requested. I'm not clear that we can just do that administratively.
[Andre Leroux]: And do we, can we do one motion for all the waivers or do we have to do them separately?
[Alicia Hunt]: one motion for all the waivers, unless somebody's gonna object to one of them.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, is there a... Andre, this is David. Yes, David.
[David Blumberg]: Could I offer a motion to approve the requested waivers?
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Thank you. As stated in the... As requested in the proponent's letter. Is there a second on the floor? I'll second.
[Deanna Peabody]: Deanna, I'll second.
[Andre Leroux]: I'll not second. I'll get you next time, class. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Bess Andresen. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So the motions to approve the waivers as requested by the project proponent are unanimously approved. Next, I would entertain a motion to approve the site plan with special permit for, with the conditions that have been articulated by our planning director. on the project. Thanks, Klaus.
[David Blumberg]: Andrew, this is David. I can second that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, David. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd. Aye. Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Klaus Andresen. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. The site plan approval with special permit unanimously passes. Thank you very much.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you for your time and have a nice evening.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Thanks for all the proponents who came and for the information you shared. All right, the next item on the agenda is another public hearing, a proposed amendment to chapter 94 zoning to alter the membership structure of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. Let me just, hold on a moment while I pull up that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was going to just say, Andre, as you're pulling up this, just for background for the board members, this is, in fact, the same thing you saw before. There was a timing problem legally with the process before, and so it was re-referred to us by the city council. There is nothing changed. There is no changes in any of it. It is simply the re-referral.
[Andre Leroux]: So the public hearing notice is the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct public hearing on Wednesday, July 21st, 2021, after 6.30 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to a petition by Mayor Brianna Lungokin to amend chapter 94 zoning of the revised ordinances city of Medford section 94-35A to change the structure of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals from three members and one associate member to five members and two associate members. The full text of the amendment may be viewed in the office of the city clerk, City Hall Room 103, or on the city's website by clicking on current CD board filings. We've already mentioned that pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is conducted via remote meetings. I would like to call this public hearing to order. We just heard from our planning director, Alicia Hunt, that this is just a re-referral. I don't know if Amanda, you wanted to add any details to that.
[Amanda Centrella]: No new details. I checked with the clerk's office today and yeah, it's just been resubmitted to the board for consideration. And yeah, yep.
[Andre Leroux]: Oh, go ahead.
[Amanda Centrella]: Nope, that was it. Okay.
[Andre Leroux]: So board members, this is something we've already deliberated on and voted on, but let me ask you whether you have any further comments or questions for discussion before I open it up to members of the public. Okay, hearing none, I would like to open the public participation portion of the hearing. Any members of the public that would like to comment, please use the raise the hand function on your Zoom screen or to email or call the community development office, or if you can drop comments or questions in the Zoom chat as well. I'm just going to give a moment for anybody to do that. And for anybody who's listening remotely, I'll just remind you that the email address is ocd at medford-ma.gov. And the phone number is 781-393-2480. All right, seeing none, and Amanda, I assume no, you've gotten nothing?
[Amanda Centrella]: No calls, no emails.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Then I will close the public participation portion of the hearing and open it up for deliberation and motion by board members.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre, this is Jackie, Jackie Furtado, vice chair. I just wanted to just reiterate really quickly that this is, The current membership is obviously too small to represent the diversity of the city. And that's why the mayor is calling for this. It's also burdensome for the board members, only having three members, one alternate. I make a motion to recommend it right back so that hopefully it can get done this time.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. And let me just read this guy should have done this earlier but just to remind everyone that the letter. This board sent to the city council included basically said board recommends that the council consider reincorporating language related to the staggering of terms. that is present in the existing ordinance by inserting the following in the second sentence after the phrase term of three years, quote, which shall be staggered so that the terms of not more than two members expire annually. We had added that recommendation to the city council. So if we make a motion, we may wanna consider including that language as well. So Jackie, was that a formal motion you made?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: It is a formal motion. I just didn't have all the language, but I will do a motion to what you just said.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Well, we will resend our exact same recommendation to the city council.
[David Blumberg]: Yes, this is David. I'd like to second that motion to resubmit our exact same recommendations as the last time. That's great.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you, David. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody.
[SPEAKER_19]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. We'll update the date on the letter and ask you to just resign it.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you so much, Director Hunt. Uh, The next item on the agenda is a site plan review recommendation to the Board of Appeals for 200 Boston Avenue. And just a reminder that since the ZBA is the special permit granting authority for this project, our role is site plan review and making a set of recommendations to the ZBA for their consideration as they approve or debate the project.
[David Blumberg]: Andre, this is David.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, David, let me just read the public hearing notice. Hold on one moment. Sorry, everyone, as I toggle all my windows. Courtesy meeting notice. The Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a meeting on July 21st, 2021 after 6 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing relative to an application for site plan review submitted by Simmons Properties LLC and represented by Cummings Properties to construct a three-story addition to an existing structure at 200 Boston Avenue to be used as a research and testing laboratory facility. This is an allowed use in an industrial zoning district. The project is subject to a site plan review special permit as per the city of Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, section 94-331, and requires approvals from the board of appeals. Therefore, the community development board will perform a site review and submit its recommendations to the zoning board who will be the special permit granting authority for the site plan review special permit. Plans for this project may be viewed in the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, City Hall room 308 or on the city's website by clicking on current CD board filings. Again, if you members of the public would like to submit comments or questions via email, the email address is ocd at medford-ma.gov or via phone to 781-393-2480. Thank you. David Blumberg.
[David Blumberg]: Andre, thank you. This is David. I will have to recuse myself from this matter as the applicant is my employer presenting an obvious conflict. So I will go ahead and mute myself and suppress my video and not participate on this one.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you very much, David. Let me invite the project proponent to give a presentation about what we're looking at. I think we have Mike Avini from senior project architect with Cummins properties. Is that right?
[Michael Levaney]: Yes, correct. Thank you so much. Thank you to Community Development Board for having us in the public members of the public for joining us this evening. My name is Michael Avani. I'm a senior project architect with Cummings Properties. With me this evening on this call is Brian Murray. He is a project engineer here at Cummings Properties. Dennis Clark, chairman and CEO of Cummings Properties and our traffic consultant, Rodney Emery of World Tech Engineering. We are here this evening seeking a recommendation from the Community Development Board to construct an addition to the existing building at 200 Boston Ave. More specifically, as the chair stated earlier, and as stated by the building commissioner, Paul Mulkey, in his permit refusal letter dated June 3rd, 2021, the project requires a zoning, a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this case, the Community Development Board conducts site plan review and provides a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Brief summary of the project. Consistent with the recommendation of the February 2012 Metropolitan Area Planning Council study to evaluate the benefits and the impacts of the Green Line extension, the applicant proposes to redevelop an existing civic level parking structure, into a five-story structure consisting of approximately 67,000 gross square feet of mixed-use research and testing facility, life sciences as well, including an additional 133 structured parking spaces. Up to approximately 6,100 gross square feet on the ground level could be purposed as a commercial retail amenity space. I'd like to share a brief recap of how we got to this evening. In December of 2020, Dennis Clark, the chairman and CEO of Cummings Properties, myself, and one of our tenants in 200 Boston Ave, met with the mayor and the mayor's chief of staff to introduce the project. With the support of the mayor's office, in January of 2021, we participated in a virtual meeting to introduce the project to several Medford city officials, including Alicia Hunt, the director of planning, Victor Schrader, the director of the economic development director, building commissioner, Paul Mulkey, director of traffic and transportation, Todd Blake, chief Buckley of Medford police department, chief Gilberti of the Medford Fire Department, and Medford City engineer, Tim McGibbon. With the support of, and the coordination by the mayor's office, in April of 2021, we participated in a virtual community outreach meeting, introducing the project to the neighborhood. Again, we took all the things, the input that we got from the December meeting, kind of rolled it into a package that we shared with the community in April. In May, we submitted a building permit application for the project. In June, we submitted a site plan review application. That brings us to today. So what I'd like to share with you is a presentation that is a combination of all the information that we've gathered and picked up over the last six months based on the various meetings that we've had. and to share with you some, the municipal approval package that we submitted and go through that piece by piece. The first thing I'd like to do though, is if Amanda, you would allow me to share the screen.
[Amanda Centrella]: You should be all set.
[Michael Levaney]: Okay, screen one. Okay, can I share screen one, share? Bear with me one second, I'm just, see if we can get this right. So we wanna share the sound. I want to optimize this video. I'd like to share with you a video that kind of gives you a flavor of what the project is all about. It's a short two minute rendering. Bear with me one second. Everybody still there? Yes. Thank you for sharing that. I don't know what's going on. I can't for some reason, I've lost everybody. Let me just get back here. Okay, so I will, if you bear with me one second, let me go one step back here. So I'd like to kind of Oh, wrong one. Hold on. Sorry. You guys can't really see that either. This one. Well, as I said before, old guy with technology here. We'll just move this over. So what I'd like to do is run through some of the pieces that were submitted as part of the municipal approval submission documents. Everybody see what I have on my screen?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes.
[Michael Levaney]: Fantastic. So again, this is the proposed addition to the building at 200 Boston Ave. The view you're looking at here is the northern elevation of the building looking south. This is Again, an illustration taken from that video. A lot of these slides are similar to what was on the video here, but this is our vision of the project looking north up Boston Ave. The garage is in the foreground. The proposed three-story leaseable building is kind of further south. This is our vision, again, the north elevation of this project looking south. In the background there, you can see the elevated pedestrian walkway that will connect the two structures, making them kind of one. This is the first slide in the submission package that we submitted to the Community Development Board and subsequently the Zoning Board of Appeals, showing some of the existing conditions, an existing looking south, an existing looking east, photo looking east from across Boston Ave at the existing single level parking structure that's there now. This photo here is looking north. down Boston Ave, kind of a locus plan of where it is. I know it's small, but there it is. This is an overhead of the existing site as it exists today, the parking structure that you enter from here and kind of go around here at the upper level. And then again, just to kind of a footprint of the proposed in red here is the footprint of the proposed development redevelopment. Again, title sheet to that package. So again, this is an existing condition site plan. The yellow line indicates the extent of the existing garage that looks to be repurposed. This slide here shows basically what the proposed structure would look like. As you can see in pink here, we've eliminated a section of the upper deck of the garage so that when You come in here and turn around and kind of go around that piece. We needed a flat piece here to kind of make the transition. So we're actually removing a section of the garage. We get a little bit into the utility plans. We met today, earlier today with Peter Kerger of the water department, water and sewer department to kind of hash out some of the water and sewer details that showed up in the engineering department's comment letters. Everything should be able to be served from the site. There's water and sewer capacity. We did calculations up here on the top left-hand corner to talk about water consumption and sewer, anticipated sewer discharge. And based on our meeting, it seems that we have the capacities on site to accommodate all that stuff. Here we have gas and electric and communications plans. We are actively working with National Grid, who controls both the electric and the gas services here. We've got confirmation that there's plenty of electric in the neighborhood to pick up the need for this, what's gonna, the electrical service requirement for the proposed structure. The gas, there is a high pressure gas that runs through the site that also should, it's been confirmed that there's more than enough. We're still working with the gas company to determine the actual load that it will require, but they're comfortable that we should be able to get all that information. We should be able to get all that service right from utilities on site. So we're hoping not to go off site for any of those utilities. Grading and drainage plan. We have an interesting site. It's 100% developed as everybody here sure knows. And we had spoken with the city engineer, Tim McGivern, regarding how we kind of make the, it's a redevelopment project and how we make some improvements here. There is a slight reduction in impervious area that helps contribute to the stormwater management here. It also works out that currently the upper deck of the parking is exposed. Storm cars drive in here they could have discharges oil, whatever could run off of an automobile winds up in the stormwater system it goes to an oil water sand separator, and then goes into the system by putting the roof on the structure. so that all the parking becomes structured. It helps actually in the quality of the stormwater discharge. So that's also an improvement to the site. We also, consistent with the engineering department's comment letter. We agreed, and we've done this in many places in the past, and many of our managed properties will try to preserve as much of the stormwater as we can into a cistern so we can use it to water plants and such. And we've done that successfully in other places, and we hope to do that here as well. landscaping plan. We again, it is a pretty tight site. There is some landscaping along the existing 200 Boston Ave building that will be preserved. We'll probably have to do a little work here in the landscaping area that's in front of the garage structure between the garage and the sidewalk. Now, obviously that'll be a work area as we erect this structure. So some of that will be displaced and replanted. As I talked about earlier, this will be down here in this area here is potential amenity space. So we hope to have some plaza area here, some outdoor space to kind of engage that amenity space here. So that'll be incorporated some benches and some stairways and ramps as well. Um, to sort of reinforce that this is just a floor of ground level floor plan. Of the proposal. In the pink here is the area that will be that we're proposing to potentially be an amenity space. Right now we certainly don't have any tenants lined up for that we're happy to accept any referrals if you'd like to. help us out and find a nice local coffee shop that would like to take that space would be more than open to that. But all the rest of the ground level will be remain parking upper level the second floor, this ramp that's here now will remain, you'll get up to the second level of parking, and then transition up to the upper levels of parking in this clockwise manner, and the rest of the second level of parking will remain as it exists today, but now it will be covered. Let's get up to the upper levels the third, fourth and fifth levels. These will be the proposed leaseable spaces here in blue and then beige will be the parking. Again, it's a single ramp helix system. So there is ramps on both sides. One of the comments made with the historical commission letter was if we could flip it so the ramp was on the interior side of the of the project, but because of the tightness of the site and to be able to continue to park on the ramps, we needed each bit of run. As you can see, there's only a bit of flat spot here. These ramps just keep going up. So it's very, very challenging to potentially flip that in this footprint to accommodate that comment. Again, we're looking at documents that were submitted as part of the municipal submission approval process. Conceptual building sections, parking, as you can see, ramps, flat spot, like we talked about, three levels of leaseable space, amenity space at the ground. Just other cross sections of the garage in the leaseable space. This would be the three level elevated pedestrian walkway here that connects the buildings. The roof of the structure, we would reserve this part of the roof for mechanical equipment. And this part of the garage section of the roof that's not likely to have any need for mechanical equipment will be reserved for future solar arrays. It'll be built solar ready as the code building code requires. These are some building elevations. And again, it might be a little redundant. The video was derived after we put this package together. But again, these talk about some of the materials that we're using. Our goal is very much to match the vernacular of the existing building using modern materials. This upper elevation here is the north elevation, so you're looking south, existing building here to the left. It's an old concrete mill building, all precast concrete with some brick infill. And we carried some of the same components into this, but just modernized materials. This is the Boston Ave, here in the middle is the Boston Ave elevation. What's interesting about this is one of the comments again in the historical commission letter was separating kind of the building from the parking structure. And while it's very challenging to do that by recessing a section of it, and it kind of complicates the parking. We did achieve a visual disconnect here by providing a different material in between. So this will be all kind of screening and we'll have a different screening in the middle to kind of separate the two. So I think we accomplished the same objective here. We just did it with materials as opposed to trying to change the shape of the building. Again, tough site, tough to do. Here's an isometric of kind of the site, a little, again, all developed before the video. Hopefully the video told a good amount of the story, but just addresses on some of the materials that we're going to use to kind of make this happen. So the interesting part of this project is the phasing. And as you're aware, We would like to, obviously we need to keep this fully occupied 200 Boston Ave building, exactly that, occupied and operational. So as you can see here on the top left corner, existing condition plan now, parking deck building, shows the relationships. Phase one, we'd like to be able to construct the parking structure first and then occupy the parking structure. and then phase two, we would go in and build the building. Quick run back to phase one. The challenge with that is we need to be able to get to this upper level of parking while this is being happening. The ramp to get here, as you can see, is on the south side of the site, and it heads north and gives you access to the upper level parking deck. We have a lot of options. We haven't really nailed it down yet. One thing we thought is if we could access it from Boston Ave with a temporary ramp while we're doing this so that we could still utilize the parking, that would be one way to look at it. Even today, we talked about maybe we could do a ramp here on the north side of the existing garage to accommodate the same thing, depending on the run that we need. So these are some of the logistics that we're gonna have to work out still. We fully expect that there are going to be some asks here and some of the some of the challenges are, you know, maybe we'll need some cooperation with the city to block off the sidewalk for a little bit while we're doing some work here, or we're looking at off site parking accommodations as well. challenging. It's an urban site. It's pretty tight. We've developed some lay down area strategies already for offsite stuff to get material here, but some of the onsite logistics will be worked out and we'll hopefully, like I said, we'll work with the city to make that happen. And ultimately, the complete building, this is what it looks like when it's all put together. Again, this was an aerial view of how it all would look when it's completed. I could probably zoom in a little more here, get in a little closer. It kind of fits right in there nicely with the existing building and the existing surroundings. These are all these were all just the all these renderings here again very similar to what we showed in the video and showed at the beginning so I'm just going to kind of breeze through these because these these were all included in the in the municipal submission approval package just kind of duplicate themselves. One thing we were asked to look at in one of the meetings was some of the shadow studies, how would this building impact the neighbors. And there is definitely in the winter solstice as we all know that's when we get the longest shadows. Interestingly enough, there'll be some morning in the morning we might get some at the peak winter solstice we make it some offsite shadows to the north. in the morning. In the afternoon, those are reversed. The houses across the street cast the shadows on the building. That was really the only time that there was any significant challenges here. Again, two times a day, it becomes, as the day wears on, the shadows recede, and it should not be a significant hardship, I don't expect. And with that, I will turn this over briefly to my colleague Brian Murray, who will talk about public transportation and parking on the site.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board, Brian Murray Cummings Properties. The proposed addition is very well situated to facilitate multimodal transportation. With respect to public transport bus routes, 80 and 94. Mike I think you have to, can you please share your screen Mike.
[Michael Levaney]: Oh, I'm sorry about that I thought if I shared I stopped sharing my screen I would get back to. Sorry about that, everybody.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's okay. I'll continue with the narrative. So bus routes 80 and 94 serve the proposed addition on Boston Ave. And in addition, there is bus route 96, which is within a half a mile of the proposal. These routes connect the building to cities and towns of Arlington, Medford, Cambridge and Somerville. and in particular, they provide connections to mass transit. Davis Square Red Line T station is reached by bus routes 94 and 96, and to the north, the commuter rail station West Medford is accessed by bus as well. Um, another point to note is that in the MPO tip program for fiscal years 2022 to 2026 blue bike expansion has been approved, which would fund the creation of a blue bike dock on Winthrop Street and Boston Avenue, which is within a third of a mile from the proposed addition. Mike, I'll need your assistance to... Great. Move to the next slide, please. Thank you. On this slide, I'd like to discuss parking. These two images are satellite images taken pre-pandemic in 2017 and 2018 during a weekday. In the existing condition, the site has 361 spaces. The site is occupied typically by the UCIS office and light research and laboratory. The number of parking spaces in the existing condition is one per 658 gross square feet. As you can see from the satellite imagery, there is ample parking spaces to serve the needs of the occupants of the building. And I'll elaborate on that point a little further in a moment. the final condition, um, pending completion of the proposed addition. What we plan to do is to maintain that same ratio of parking. In the existing condition, it's one space per 658 gross square feet. In the final condition, it's a slight improvement at one parking space per 671 gross square feet. I'd like to add an anecdote here. For the benefit of the city, who we understand are in consultation to consider recodifying zoning ordinance. In that, looking at the satellite images, we've ascertained that the actual demand for parking spaces for this building, which is predominantly serving life sciences, is on average one per 1,000 gross square feet. And that's in line with what the city and their consultants are thinking to codify for this type of use in the Office 2 district. So there's a data point to share for your benefit. and Mike, if you could please move on to the next slide. One additional point we'd like to make with respect to multimodal transportation is the ability to bike to commute to the property. This is an image of the bike racks which are existing on site. They're very well utilized and we'd like to continue to support biking as a mode of transportation to the proposed addition and will provide bicycle racks in proportion to the building square footage. I think that covers the key points that I wish to make on transportation and parking, and I'll hand back to Mike. Thanks, Mike.
[Michael Levaney]: Thank you, Brian. So I want to share a couple quick last little bits here before we can open it up to questions. This is 196 Boston Ave. It's a nice picture. This is the facade facing the train tracks. This is what it looked like before Cummings Properties got involved with it. And we all know what it looks like today, but this is just one of these fun things that I feel like anybody in Medford who's a lifelong resident or has been there for a long time would kind of recognize this and hopefully appreciate what's going on in this two building campus for the last 30 years. And with that, we've talked a bit. I'm happy to open this up to questions. I know there's a lot of things that we all want to talk about, so we're happy to entertain any questions.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Mike. If you can stop sharing your screen, that'd be great. Thank you. And let me open it up to board members for questions and comments. Klaus? Hi.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I apologize if you were clear on this question, but is this a new building or a renovation to a building?
[Michael Levaney]: It's in addition to the existing building. That's how we're looking to... Which existing building? The 200 Boston Ave building, the one in back of it that we showed the elevated pedestrian walkway connecting to. So we're gonna treat this all as one big structure.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I'd be interested in understanding the code approach to that. But that's probably not a discussion for right now. Open space requirements. Let me step back. What variances are you requesting as part of this project?
[Michael Levaney]: Thank you. We are requesting no variances. We're asking for a finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals based on three things. The existing rear yard setback is less than a foot. The southeast corner is less than a foot from the property line. In this industrial zoning district today, allowable stories is two, and the allowable height is 35 feet. And so those are the three items that we're asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a finding and a special permit that this addition to the building is not more deleterious to the neighborhood than what's existing.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: What are we ruling on or eventually ruling on?
[Alicia Hunt]: This is a site plan review recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are the permit granting entity for this project. Does that answer?
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, no, it does. I'm very confused by the the approach to planning in this project. And it may very well be that it's completely correct, but it just seems to me that adding a new building, because to me, this is a new building. This is not an addition. three-story bridge does not make one building become part of the, I mean, a three-story, yeah, a three-story bridge does not make one building become part of another. I don't under, I'm unclear about the zoning and code approach to how that happens.
[Alicia Hunt]: It doesn't seem- So that was in the end a ruling by the building commissioner. So in the packet, the, The sixth page of the PDF of their thing is the letter, referral letter from the permit refusal letter from the building commissioner. And so there is, he ruled that this was, would be considered, it's an all one property, that it would be an expansion of an existing non-conforming building on the property between the existing parking structure and the bridge, it felt that it was a good addition, that it was preferable to have this building with this additional commercial space, the additional R&D, the additional life science jobs. the commercial space on the ground floor and that it would be that he felt that that would be could be deemed an expansion of an existing building in this fence. It's all one owner. It's all one piece of property. That was his decision.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: building two separate buildings would be more challenging.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Clearly they've taken this approach because it allows them to build the most building they can, which is smart, but it still makes no sense to me how that, beyond that, as a reaction to the building, I think Boston Ave is a very, interesting corridor in that it has a certain amount of industrial use, lab use on the east side and very sort of residential use on the west. I think curiously that the video was the thing that for me really cemented the fact that this building seems way at a scale for Boston Ave, pushed right up against the road like that. And I'm also thinking about that in concert with open space. Like I understand that you're doing this thing where you're trying to create an extension of a building, but, and I'm assuming that as part of that, that, and that it's an existing building, somehow that, exclude you from the open space requirements. I may be wrong in that, and you can clarify, but when you look at the site plan, the building looks like we're just building right up to the property line in a residential slash industrial neighborhood. It seems dense and big for that spot, It's good that it's on the right side of the street so that the shadows and sun don't affect the neighbors badly, but I still feel that there's some sort of mitigation in the architecture to mitigate that height would be merited. The thing I'm struggling with is exactly the sort of the approvals route that got us to this design. But I suppose I can have some more conversations with others offline about that. But I don't know.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, do you want to respond to any of that?
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I'm still very confused about how we got to this.
[Michael Levaney]: I'd be happy to, thank you. So it's an industrial zoning district. There is no open space requirement in this district, zero. There is some minimal landscaping here. This is basically taking an existing footprint and just making it taller. So it's not like we're making it any bigger in that sense. Um, pot. Why did I, why did we get to an addition as opposed to a brand new building to great question.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: No, I understand why you did that. Okay. Okay.
[Michael Levaney]: So, yeah, again, we. I think I helpfully shed a little light on, again, the industrial zoning district. We're within the setback there. There is, as my colleague Brian mentioned, whether it happens or not, or how that goes, there is a move. The city is looking, working with a zoning consultant to rezone this area, as you know, to an office two district that would potentially that would potentially put this almost by right without the open space. So we'd have to look at that a little more.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, could you talk a little bit about any engagement with the neighborhood around there that you might've had and what feedback, if any, you got?
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, absolutely. So as I mentioned in April, April 14th, I believe we had a Zoom community outreach meeting and it was pretty well attended and we had a lot of comments from the neighbors. One of them wanted it to look more like the airport in San Jose. And one of the comments and I would, I think it was the gentleman Doug Carr, who's on the historic commission, who's also an architect, spent a lot of time looking at it. And his biggest comment was, again, how we're separating the kind of the two. He actually liked it. He was pretty positive. I think every comment for the most part was pretty positive. He did focus on the kind of separating the two buildings. And I think he understood that the challenge with that would be we'd kind of, disadvantage some of the parking if we would have pushed the middle section back. But other than those kind of architectural feedback, there wasn't a lot of other. I don't think we got anybody from the opposite side of Boston Ave that had any comments.
[Andre Leroux]: And my understanding is that this is, uh, could you talk a little bit about how the phasing, when phase, how quickly phase two would happen and was, uh, how does it relate to the, the, the building of the program of the original building? Kind of the first part of it that's going to be connected to.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, sure. So, the first phase would be to construct the garage, and I'm not sharing my screen anymore.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, no, I mean I recall I'm just wondering about the timeline how quickly would phase two followed phase one, immediately.
[Michael Levaney]: I mean our goal is to. build the garage, be able to use that to make sure that then we're not asking for any parking relief, or we don't have to do any offsite stuff at that point in time. If we can get the garage up and running, and we'll immediately go right into the construction of phase two, which is the front part of the building, the leaseable part of the building. And I assume we haven't really worked on it too deeply, but we're kind of looking at kind of nine month, nine month phases for each one of those roughly. And we'd like to be able to schedule it. So it's at a downtime, maybe the, the, it begins so that, or the bigger stuff happens that it's, it's in the summer when there's less people in the building and there's less people around, which might be helpful.
[Andre Leroux]: And the tenanting of the new part of the building, do you already have tenants lined up?
[Michael Levaney]: No, we do not. We have many existing tenants in the building that have expressed interest in expansion. And this would be a great opportunity for them to expand in place. We fully expect this to be a life science building. It's close to all the transportation in this industry. It's tough to move them out to Woburn and to Beverly. They all want to be down in this area. So we're looking to make that accommodation. We don't have anybody specifically, but as I mentioned earlier, we're happy if anybody wants to, anybody knows anybody looking for space, give us a shout.
[SPEAKER_24]: Mr. Chair, may I supplement? Yes. My name is Dennis Clark. I'm CEO of Cummings Properties. And when we kicked off this permitting process some number of months ago, we thought at that time, we didn't have a lease in hand, but we thought we knew exactly which of our existing expanding clients was going to take all our substantial portion of this new building. And if you had asked me if that was still the same plan up to about three days ago, I would have said, yes. Sitting here right now, I don't know if that's going to happen. So as we sit here tonight, we still don't have a lease in the end, and we're advancing this on a speculative basis. But we've been operating this property for almost 30 years. And over that time, we're very hands on. We maintain, we design, we build, we finance, we do it all in house. We have seen the gradual conversion of more and more of these two buildings towards science-based companies, including biotech, and that's the current composition of the building. So where we've seen demand, this building has been substantially full or full for several years. And we see more demand than there is supply in the marketplace. And we think that this is a responsible way to invest more in Medford and meet some of that demand, and presumably with mostly existing clients in the building, because we've got a couple of dozen in total. And a number of them are developing science-based firms that are always changing in what they need.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you for the clarification, Mr. Clark.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, can I add a few comments and some of them might sound a little crazy, but well, my first introduced yourself again.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry. I'm Christie Dowd, member of the board. Thank you. Does this project have a linkage?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, it does.
[Jenny Graham]: And what is that?
[Andre Leroux]: Estimated around $275,000.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, yeah, so that's sort of leading to my second question. Like what is the give back to the neighborhood? Um, you know, just that I think there's an opportunity to do something better than a Starbucks. at the ground floor space. And if that's commercial space, is there consideration for another gesture of give back to the neighborhood that promotes some sort of educational opportunity at the ground floor, something that promotes equity inclusion within that neighborhood or a neighborhood retailer? That's just my concerns. I think across greater Boston, you're seeing a lot of these life sciences buildings going up, and there is a huge focus on the ground floor commercial space to give back to the community in some way. And my last comment is, I understand the phasing, but it does concern me that with this being speculative, the garage being built first and having some sort of commitment to ensure that that's the building itself gets built, like then there's just not a garage. And we've got a lot of parking. So I don't know if there's any response to that. Thank you. That's all I have.
[Michael Levaney]: So I'd be happy to speak to both your excellent points. Thank you so much. We put Starbucks there as a placeholder. We're hoping it's a smaller community, something smaller, more organic. you know, maybe it's a mom and pop coffee shop that can serve the neighborhood or it's a dry cleaner, whatever works best down there, whatever kind of neighborhood amenity that needs a space like that, it's available. That's the intention. We just kind of grabbed a logo and tried to show something there. Regarding the parking garage, I don't know what to say other than there is no chance that we're gonna build a parking garage None, none, none, none, and then not follow up with this. This is, we're not doing this to build a parking garage, we're doing it to build the leaseable space.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'd like to add to that, given, or just to add to the points I made when presenting the parking information, it simply wouldn't make economic sense to build an enlarged parking garage because currently, we have more than sufficient number of spaces to serve the existing building's needs. So the building of a parking garage is driven by the proposed addition and the additional leaseable space that it would yield. So they are entirely connected. Sorry, Dennis, if you had anything to add.
[SPEAKER_24]: That's where I was going to, Brian, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. board members, any other questions you'd like to bring up at this time before we open up the public participation portion of the hearing?
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I guess I just would follow up, and I know I'm a little bit of a broken record at this point, but I would encourage you to look at the massing of the building and how it addresses the street and how the landscaping is thought of in a holistic way with the whole of the project massing and how it touches the street. And I also think, you know, it's a curious design problem in that area where there's very much a very diverse number of types of buildings and uses along that edge. I mentioned the residential across the street, but if you think about that side of Boston Ave, you have everything along there from homes to antique shops to gas stations to U-Haul. So thinking about the retail and the ground floor uses, how the building meets the street and how it could sort of start to tell a story of how it gets stitched together, Boston. It's something I think I would really encourage you to think about.
[Andre Leroux]: Since we, the city department heads have taken a look at this, I'm wondering if the city engineer, Tim McGivern would like to speak up or... Sure. given.
[Tim McGivern]: Thanks for joining. Sure. Andre, did you have any specific questions for me or did you want me to kind of give you?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm wondering, I know that in your letter you raised some issues and I know, you know, Klaus is raising some issues right now. I'm wondering whether you wanted to highlight anything in particular.
[Tim McGivern]: You know, as proponents stated, they did meet with us preliminarily and discussed things. Generally, You know, from a utility standpoint there. They appear to be heading down the right direction. I mean, I could go into all kinds of details. I'll just do each one roughly. Stormwater system, they connect to actually a non-Medford system. It's a private system. We don't actually know who owns it, but it discharges to the river. And so it's a redevelopment project, reducing impervious area. So the idea of cisterns really kind of is something that I think makes a lot of sense here if they can use the irrigation water. And also, you know, by converting roofed parking to just a regular roof does contribute to water quality, as well as the reduction of impervious area. So, you know, and I've asked them to take, take a look at the onsite system as far as the collection that's there now and making some sort of baseline improvements just kind of getting things up to where they should be keeping floatables and oils out of the, out of the river. As far as water, they have their own on-site private system. I'm asking them to confirm that it is looped so they can have fire protection service from two sources. and not just one. So I'm certain they probably talked about that with Mr. Kerger today and figuring that piece out of it. And then what am I forgetting, sewer. I've asked them to just making sure they're taking a look at where their sewage is going right now. It goes into, part of it goes into an oil grid separator. You know, so I've asked them to separate the traditional wastewater flow from the oil grit flow to protect that unit, do maintenance, video inspect the private service to get to our system, and also to inspect for any infiltration or inflows, which, you know, it's pretty baseline stuff. And then, from a site perspective, again, there's an existing footprint there and given for where it is and what they're doing, I didn't have any general site issues with the programming that they're proposing. There's a slight increase in landscaping area out front with sort of a pedestrian amenity along the front of the property. I think that'll do well for the area. I think Mr. Oh, close. I'm sorry. I don't know how to pronounce your last name. I just looked at it real quick. I apologize. Anyway. Andresen. Andresen. Yeah, Mr. Andresen. Makes a good point, you know, as far as the massing of the building and how, you know, Boston Ave takes that. You know, I'm not an architect, but I kind of felt that in the renderings too, but, you know, that's not for my place to say one way or the other. And then we had some recommendations that we felt were appropriate given the traffic analysis, similar to the last project we went over, sort of giving a menu of options that are somewhat smaller improvements, capping at about 20,000. I think Todd is here, can give details on that. And then the last element I'll talk about real quick is frontage and making some real modest frontage improvements, I think is all all that we'd be asking for here, and replacing busted concrete panels, sidewalk panels. In general, it's in fair plus to good condition, that sidewalk, I'd say good. So there's some cracked panels, some heaving. We've asked them to take a look at their entrances. Usually here in the city, we like to have entrances that are either treated like a roadway or treated like a driveway and not in the middle. Right now, they're in the middle, so we're asking them to make some improvements there. Pretty modest. And what else? And I think, Todd, if you wanted to go into some of the menus of options that you've put in there, I think that might be the logical next step. So thank you. I'm open for questions as well.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Well, Tim, before you go, can I just, can I ask one follow-up question, which is around, you know, we have an email in our materials from Dave Proctor, the superintendent of water and sewer, and I'm just a little confused about the, you know, what's going on with the water and sewer connections. Are you, was there some follow-up on that?
[Tim McGivern]: I haven't actually spoken, I'm not aware of the email, I haven't actually spoken to Dave. So Dave projects the water purveyor, he leads the water and sewage division. So from a practical standpoint, they'll need to get inspections and things like that. You know, he's probably looking at similar things I'm looking at. Right now, I don't have records for a looped connection. So the project is stating that they have a looped connection. from North Street to Boston Avenue. So that would allow them to pull their services off of that loop and meet fire protection site code basically. But if they don't have that, then they would most likely need to figure out a way to loop it or put the connections into Boston Avenue. I don't know what Dave has said, but that's roughly what's going on with the water. And sewer, it's an on-site collection system with, I believe, one connection to our city system.
[Andre Leroux]: So. So the email from Dave Proctor basically says the MWRA should be involved as an 8M permit will be required along with the water sewer separator. The eight inch water service will need to be replaced as Elizabeth Grady is also on the eight inch water line that supplies fire service. Sewer would need to be videoed. So, I'm just wondering if there's somebody on the call who can clarify what's going on there. I don't know if Mike O'Vaney, you can do that.
[Michael Levaney]: I think so. So we actually met with Peter Krieger this morning. So maybe I can clarify some of the stuff. First of all, all the comments from the engineering department, including the traffic ones, that in the menu that was offered in the traffic ones were amenable to that. There were some things there that were comfortable moving forward with and everything that Tim mentioned in his letter all make sense and they're all readily achievable. Regarding the water, so when we met with Peter today, we learned, if you go out there, you chase these water gates all the way up through the adjacent property at 222 Boston Ave, which is the, larger four-story Elizabeth Grady building. And there's water gates that go all the way up to North Ave, North Street. So we had made the assumption that that was a looped connection when we met with Peter today. When I spoke with Peter, I spoke with Peter Tuesday, he said, let me dig up some maps and I'll meet you there this morning. So we met with them this morning and we kind of learned that it might only be a two-inch line that comes off of North Ave that serves the 222 and 230, and that it potentially terminates there. There's an eight-inch line on our site that runs between the buildings that provides the fire service to 222. There's also an eight inch line that runs down the north driveway on our property that connects to the fire service for 196 Boston Ave, which is the building adjacent to the north building. What we talked about with Peter was, okay, a couple of options. There was an option to do a triple gate connection. as we've proposed on the plans. And he seemed to think that that would work. It was also a next step, next level option, which would be connect to that line that runs from the north driveway to the one that serves the building through the garage. Now it might be a hundred feet of pipe that we could install to then at least have a connection from two locations. And Peter thought that would be acceptable as well. Then the third thing we talked about was that As, as we've learned and the city may be aware. Elizabeth Grady, that property, they're looking to kind of redevelop that as well, potentially in the near future. And there's a possibility if something happens on that site, that the requirement would be for that development to take an eight inch line from North Ave and run it down the driveway and connect it to the eight inch line that's already there creating another loop. So there were some very achievable options there that Peter presented and I think, all of them, different levels of options that can be enacted to make this satisfactory to the water department. And we're comfortable continuing to work with them on this.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Tim McGibbon, did you have, I see you're unmuted. I don't know if you wanted to comment on that at all.
[Tim McGivern]: I can comment on that it sounds reasonable. Basically the issue is without having a loop only have one source for fire. So you obviously can't isolate that. So you shut it off, buildings need water, etc, etc. So what he was talking about is creating that loop in sounds like three different ways, right? So You know, and what we're talking about now does, you know, and Dave had sounds like he had some information regarding water quality in there and age of pipes and things like that. Maybe all of that usually will come out when they do the fire flow test. If they do a fire flow test and the flows aren't high enough and it's an eight inch line, it means that it's most likely, you know, tuberculated or in bad condition or whatever. But you know, it goes back to it's a private site main. So what I'm looking for is that they're meeting standards for fire protection for their building on the site, the site water system. And so it sounds like what I'm saying is consistent with what the meeting with the water department, how that went. So I'm just going to confirm that I'll talk to those guys and sure anyway.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Todd Blake, can you speak a little bit to your perspective on what's being proposed in terms of the pedestrian environment, parking, traffic, et cetera?
[Deanna Peabody]: I was just wondering, too, Andre, if we were going to hear from World Tech and get a summary of their traffic study at all.
[Andre Leroux]: Do we have someone? Yep.
[Michael Levaney]: I believe Rod Emery from World Tech is available.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so maybe why don't we do that then Todd you can kind of address all of it at once. Is that all right?
[SPEAKER_19]: Sure. Rod Emery from World Tech Engineering and did a traditional traffic impact study for the area. Probably where we started was the study area, we sort of had a block around the site, you know, Mystic Valley Parkway, Boston Ave, North Ave and Auburn Street sort of form this circle around the site. We performed traffic counts last March. They form the basis of the existing volume network. We factored them up for seasonal conditions and growth, as well as the pandemic, we applied some factors to that. And we created a seven year down the road, a 2028 no build network. So if nothing was happening at the site, this is what traffic would look like at these intersections. Mystic Valley Parkway carries about three times as much traffic as Boston Avenue and Boston Ave minor arterial in the city. And we also cross a couple jurisdictions Mr. Valley Parkway is belongs to DCR. We're right on the Somerville border, so we have some interesting crossovers there. We, we, after we built the no build network. We applied some traffic volumes based on the build condition, which was what was 67,000 square feet of research and development, and actually. We were a little bit on the conservative side the 3000 square feet of amenity space is actually included in the 67 we put it outside and actually added traffic to it based on, not a, not a Starbucks but a what we call a casual restaurant, and actually the casual restaurant at 3000 square feet. generated as much peak hour traffic as the 67,000 square feet of development. So we think we've created a fairly conservative picture of traffic impacts. The signals on the corners of most of these intersections work reasonably well. The Cigali Parkway has some long queues, but they serve a lot of traffic through their lanes. I think the signals are pretty old. We looked at levels of service on along Boston Avenue the driveway is called come out at a level of service which is the best. And some of the side streets in the residential neighborhood. The DCR is in the midst of doing they just released their parkways master plan. And this section of course is included in their master plan all the parkways they're doing and there seems to be a theme of them eliminating lanes to try to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodation so we did a secondary analysis in the appendix for Mississippi Valley Parkway is if it was a one lane roadway instead of a, you know, two lane roadway as it is today. Most of the problems we found were not operational problems, but they were the two DCR locations or high crash locations. And so more of the effort is on the safety aspects of the intersections. We did look at the impacts. We have something like, at the most, we kept the additional traffic at under 20 cars per hour per intersection so as they spread out and they dissipate. There was minimal impacts. We had a couple of seconds of more delay a couple, maybe 15 feet of more queuing space. We thought that the signals on Misty Valley Parkway could be improved by some timing adjustments, we feel that their clearance intervals are fine, but their crash rate is really due to a large volume of traffic that they service, you know, in two lanes of road that are very tight, they're very tight lanes, there's no shoulders, and the turning traffic has to stop in the middle of a through lane and it makes it so a very, hard situation. One of the things that was interesting is they had a lot of crashes that happened during rainy conditions or wet pavement conditions which surprised me, just at Auburn and Mystic Valley Parkway. One of the recommendations in the parkways master plan was that they wanted somebody to do an analysis of the one lane road in which we provided in the, in our traffic study so kind of really fast that kind of wraps up the study and I can comment on Todd's recommendations or I can, we can have a little conversation about that. I, I think there's some really good recommendations here on bicycle bus and pedestrian facilities that we can incorporate into the project. There are some other recommendations at the mystic Valley Parkway intersections adding signal heads and back plates, and some lens changes. which can be more difficult when you have old signals that structurally the sooner mast arms wouldn't wouldn't be able to absorb all that extra weight and wind load. We did, we did point out that they really should have a road safety audit done to sort of come up with a menu of full menu of safety improvements that go with those two to signalize locations, but I'll end it there.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: This is Jackie. I don't have a point of clarification. If you can go back to when you spoke on the level of service a were you referring to Boston have or missing Valley Parkway route 16 Boston have where the where the side streets and driveways are. where the side streets and driveways are as a level of English, and you said it was high. Can we unpack, you said it was the highest level can we unpack what the highest level meant that literally means that it's free flow traffic with individual users virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. So what you're saying is that. The Boston app that you've taken up, and this is in peak hours and peak hours, but that include when the Tufts University students because that's pretty much a grad area I lived right at 258 Boston Ave and I, I just don't see level service, a and I'm just trying to figure out what your peak hours were the basic.
[SPEAKER_19]: measure of level of service is based on how many seconds of delay you have to wait to make a maneuver. So at a signal, you're going back and forth between the main street and the side street and cars are delayed a certain average number for the whole intersection. And sometimes one approach can be closer to failure than it is an A-level service. Certainly the signals are not at A-levels of service. The driveways are how long you have to wait to come out of a driveway. Basically, Boston Ave doesn't stop for the side streets or the driveways coming out so it's really just looking at how long does it take a driver to come out of a driveway onto Boston Ave.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: And that's without taking I'm just trying to figure out I do know that it's a minor arterial Boston F right, then you have the cross connector there, actually they're all trying to get to connectors which are major highways which, whether it's going east, west or east on on 16 I'm just, I'm having a hard time seeing. I'm just having a hard time with the study without seeing the actual details behind the study, not just from living there, but also being a Tufts alum in that area. And I also have a project over in that area with the Green Line coming right there on Route 16. So I'm just having a hard time seeing. that having a level service of a. That's all.
[SPEAKER_19]: Again, it's really the side street that's been that would on a driveway or an uncivilized location. There's certainly the signals that Boston and North Street is more like a BA think a level of service I remember right. And I think, Boston Abbott and Mr. Valley Parkway is a B as well. But there are certain approaches that are approaching capacity so I don't want to mislead you that. Okay, overall level of service, we do factor all the approaches together and sort of average them. Sometimes there's one or two of them that are really close to capacity and would be like an E level of service.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Okay, E meaning the worst failing and... No, F is failing. F is failing at capacity. I just wanted to make sure. So you did a collective overall of the area and the site affecting the property. is what you're saying is level of A only. Okay, so all right, thank you. No further questions, I just wanted clarity.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, maybe we could go to, it's a Todd Blake from the city, just to comment on what we're hearing and also your recommendations, Todd.
[Todd Blake]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, as I mentioned in our comment letter, Basically due to the, you know, too high crash locations high crash rate locations that this project will contribute traffic to. And also, just the net trips it's adding in the peak hours and the am peak it's adding 35 p.m. peak 75 and daily 1600. Just as other reviews we've done. point out that any additional new trips may exacerbate existing issues such as the crash history at those two Mystic Valley Parkway locations, and also whatever you can do to promote transit, cycling, and pedestrian access that would reduce the vehicle impacts to the neighboring community, that road, those intersections. So my recommendations are based on that the proportional what I believe is proportional, relatively, for this project to the area, and I recommend a menu of options for the board or and or the proponent to consider. You know, and by no means an exhaustive list, but it just gives a sampling of what could be possible. So for, for the cycling amenities, just looking at kind of upgrading the Boston have bike lanes and shares that are out there now. to emphasize, especially the conflict points for the cyclists with a bike lane cross the side streets, and possibly super shares on the downhill share, just to further emphasize those amenities for cyclists to further encourage cycling. And then for pedestrians, the two crosswalks that would that are uncivilized crosswalks crossing towards the site to enhance them in any way possible, and to, if they're deficient in accessibility to do that as well. So that safety wise, you know this, there's so much that can be done at those two intersections, you know it's not necessarily, you know, shouldn't, this proponent shouldn't be held to fix all those. So that's why I was trying to recommend some things that are somewhat proportion that could add some measure of safety to those to hopefully reduce some crashes. And as Rod pointed out, some of the equipment is pretty old. So, you know, they could look at it and see what they recommend with, you know, with in consultation with DCR or Somerville in the case of Boston Abbott, Mystic Valley. One thing I really noticed today going back out there is in the eastbound direction on Mystic Valley Parkway. It's the only approach of the two intersections that doesn't have an overhead component. So there's a master with the signal head facing the westbound traffic but not the eastbound traffic at Boston Avenue and Mystic Valley Parkway. And coming on that approach, there's only two side mounted and one of them's trees are blocking the view of one, and the other is momentarily, at times, behind a post. So the addition of an overhead signal head in that approach could, you know, could incrementally improve safety there, visibility of the signal, and make people aware of the red or green prior to. And Rod did point out a good point about the load. If it's hanging versus, you know, mounted onto the arm, maybe it won't contribute to the wind load that much, one extra head. So it's something to consider. Things like that, you know, the signal system, it's so old that it still has incandescent bulbs versus LEDs. They're not as visible. They go out much more often. So usually those types of bulbs will go out every six months or so, whereas LED will last a few years and it's brighter. you know, something as simple as a bulb going out in a red not being visible for that one that is visible in the eastbound could be, you know, contribute to safety in a substantial way. So just trying to give the board and the proponent menu of options to improve safety and reduce vehicle trips.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Blake. So Mr. Emery, could you just go quickly through in terms of the onsite and offsite possibilities, which ones, since we are tasked as a board with making some recommendations to the ZBA, what you feel is doable here and which ones you might have issue with?
[SPEAKER_19]: Certainly, as I said, originally that the bicycle facilities which Todd talked about painting some of the bike lanes, some of the conflict areas. The bus stops there's a bench, and the pedestrian, some of the additional warning signs. I am not sure what this, I mean we'll certainly look into some of the additional signal heads at the Mystic Valley Parkway but With DCR headed toward, you know, some kind of different plan for the parkway, which probably won't happen recently, you know, short term, but maybe there's some simple improvements we can come up with to try to improve visibility of the signals there. I'm just not sure at this point, you know, until we sort of get into the weeds a little bit on the design, what we could do there. Certainly backplates, new bulbs are a little bit easier than replacing overhead. Once you go to overhead signals, I'm not afraid, but I know we'd have to check the mast arms to see structurally where they could hold it.
[Todd Blake]: Some other minor things I noticed is that the visors on some of the signal heads are missing. So that typically implies that they're getting hit when trucks take the corner. So, so there could be either replaced or consider repositioning a post so it doesn't get hit or protected with a bollard, things like that. at Boston Ave at north it's not necessarily a high crash location but there is a post that's really close to the corner that could use some protection and at that signal there's also two signal heads that still have eight inch signal lenses which is not really usable at this point anymore the 12 inches is the standard so yeah whatever I don't know, Rod, if your team has some, or if you want to take a look at what you think you can do within the recommended amounts.
[SPEAKER_24]: Mr. Blake, would it make sense to focus on items on your list that are within Medford's jurisdiction? It seemed like that way the two parties could get together and decide what really makes sense to get done and know we can do it. as opposed to some of these other items that involve multiple jurisdictions. Is there enough there on Medford land that would be commensurate with the value and the size of the project that's being proposed?
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I don't have a detailed cost for all these but but there may be enough to to piece together to meet that proportion in the Medford on sections. I mean it is very peculiar how that small portion of boss nav is in Somerville, but a lot of Medford residents obviously use it coming from the West Medford side, so they traverse over that short section of Somerville, and one of the crosswalks, I believe, is in Somerville at Irving. You know, there was even consideration of possibly realigning those two crosswalks to be better positioned to serve the new development, especially if there's a cafe casual restaurant at the corner there. So, yeah, I guess the answer is there may be enough to meet those needs in the Medford portion. But then, you know, The downside would be potentially the improvements are all on one side or not necessarily equally distributed to where the trips may be equally distributed to, but.
[Deanna Peabody]: Can I just add that the traffic study assumes in those results that the signal timing is optimized and changed. So in order to get those results, we have to include signal timing updates. at the DCR signals. Rob, sorry, I missed, my internet keeps going out, so I missed part of your presentation, but I definitely think that some, I don't know what, is there any approvals that from DCR that you already have to go through?
[SPEAKER_19]: Maybe Mike, I don't think we do. Not at this time, no. I mean, I know Deanna is right about the, you know, the build analysis with mitigation, but what I was mitigating was a two or three second increase in delay. So it was just to show the math that we could do it with just some single timing adjustments. But still, the impacts are very, very minor, even without it. So I, you know, I'm happy to to DCR about it, but I'm not sure where the head is, I guess, because they're looking to do other things on the parkway. They discourage traffic rather than encourage it to be more efficient.
[Deanna Peabody]: That makes sense. I just wanted to point out that in order to see the changes that you present in the report.
[SPEAKER_19]: We did no build without the changes. And then we showed that in order to mitigate a three or four second delays that, you know, we can certainly make it better with just some timing changes. Thanks for pointing it out.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie, I see you're unmuted. Would you like to say something?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: No. Sorry, not at this time.
[Andre Leroux]: Do any other board members want to speak up at this time before I open the public participation portion of the hearing? Okay, why don't we open the public participation portion of the hearing. If any resident that would like to make a comment, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of the Zoom screen. You can also send an email to OCD at Medford-MA.gov and you can call, let me just get the number again. You can also call 781-393-2480. Great, I see Ken Kraus has his hand raised. We could unmute him, that would be great. Go ahead, Ken.
[Krause]: Thank you. Again, Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street. I'm in support of this addition to 200 Boston Avenue. I think it's gonna be good for the city in terms of economic development, revenue, additional jobs in the city. And I'm also hoping it's a catalyst for continued planning for phase two of the Green Line extension, which is to bring a additional station just next door to this property. The one thing I'm concerned about a little bit from the community impact is the emission of light from the building at night. These life sciences companies frequently have international headquarters and partners and the lights are off and on at 200 Boston Avenue early and late. They're not too significant in terms of the impact of the neighborhood. at that side of the building because there's the commuter rail corridor, excuse me, and that walk-in court behind it. It's kind of set back at a lower elevation. But as I've pointed out, this is gonna be a significant change for the abutters across Boston Avenue. There's about 10 homes directly facing this and there's a low level parking deck now and one corner of it is just surface parking. And they're gonna have now a five-story wall of the building end-to-end there, which is going to pretty dramatically change the view from their perspective. So as this goes forward, I just hope that the planners can keep in mind keeping the light reduced that comes out of the building, whether it be shades on the windows or just the lights inside the parking area while they'll be screening, the lights will still be visible. So one of the negative things about this area is the U-Haul building for the, in terms of its impact on the neighborhood, it is extremely over-illuminated. If you're ever down there at night, the building, it's actually in Somerville and it's not a Cummings building, but it is grossly over-illuminated in the West Medford area. You can see it for blocks and this is, we don't want something anywhere near that. I don't think Cummings would do that. They're an excellent corporate citizen and they want to do right by the community. So I just hope they would keep that in mind. And if the community development board can make a condition of that or just an emphasis of that to minimize the emission of light from the building, particularly in the night hours. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you, Ken. Does anyone, can anyone on the project team speak to the light issue? I think that's a good one. Yeah, Mr. Vaney.
[Michael Levaney]: Thank you. Great point. So, interestingly enough, the garage for certain, we have multiple properties that have garages. And we set the lights up so that they're on occupancy sensors, so the lights won't be on all the time. Somebody drives by and needs a light, the light will go on. Somebody doesn't need the light, the light goes off. So I think the garage section certainly will generically be minimal, hopefully. The building section is very interesting. We can certainly work with the prospective tenants to do things like shading or I know these buildings, it's absolutely correct. There's a lot of international companies and it's tough to, the buildings are open. I'm going to say that they're open 24 seven. Clients can use them however they want. Usually you get people in there at six or seven in the morning and they work till, you know, whenever at night that's necessary. We can certainly work with them when they're not there to make sure that accommodations are made so that we're not disturbing our neighbors like that, for sure. We're happy to work towards that.
[Andre Leroux]: Could you speak a little bit more about the landscaping? I'm assuming that the footprint of the building is gonna match the deck that's there already. So you're not actually gonna increase the buffer, the landscape buffer, are you? And I know there's a couple of small kind of runtish trees there right now. I assume you probably have to take those out, but what's the, are you going to plant more trees as the trees could be one way of screening, excuse me, the properties across the street from that visual impact?
[Michael Levaney]: Absolutely. Can I share my screen just to go back to one rendering? Is that okay?
[Andre Leroux]: Great, Amanda, if you could do that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm so sorry. Mike, you have permission to share screen. You should choose just the window that you want. There you go.
[Michael Levaney]: Can you see it? Yes. So yeah, the objective here is you're absolutely right. We're building within the existing footprint of the garage as it exists today. And you're right, there is some landscaping that goes along between the garage and the generously wide sidewalk that's there now. We're gonna obviously probably have some challenges with that just to get it built. And as you can see here, we have planted some additional trees. We'll replant that whole area. There'll be some, some outdoor amenity space here for whatever amenity kind of winds up utilizing the lower floor, but there will be trees along the building. There will potentially be any exterior lighting that we put on the building just to accentuate the lower level that's gonna be interacting with the sidewalk. We'll use down lights, nothing will be shining out, it'll all be shining down. similar to dark sky compliant lights to make sure that we're down lighting and not light polluting the area. If that answers your question.
[Andre Leroux]: I guess I was just looking at those trees to see if they do any shading of the building, but they look pretty small there.
[Michael Levaney]: Those are probably how we're going to buy them. Maybe they're a little small when we buy them, but it won't take long before they're big.
[SPEAKER_24]: We like trees, and we will be generous with what we do there if this project is approved. Mike also recommended internally, and we've incorporated into the program, the elimination of some interior parking spaces on that north side of the building to create more green space, and maybe more equally importantly, some more patio space, outdoor recreation area, or outdoor support space for a coffee shop or a casual restaurant that we hope to attract. into the building and please be assured that our concept for amenity space there is neighborhood scale. If it's going to be successful and we want it to be successful if we build space and nobody wants to lease it, that's a failure. It's going to need to be amenities that are really attractive to people on campus, but also in the surrounding neighborhood in order to be viable. And if the neighborhood wants a more local flavor to it, we'd love that. We want to put in there whatever is going to be attractive to everybody in the area and therefore well used. And so that's our intent, that's our goal.
[Andre Leroux]: My suggestion might be to protect that area a little bit more. I've seen lots of situations where you have those small outdoor patio areas along fairly busy roadways and with the noise and with full sun, they're not very pleasant places to be. So if you could get, a couple more trees over on that corner, helping to shade the patio area. I think that would be helpful. And I don't know to the extent there's, you know, what you can do about the sidewalk along Boston Ave. I know it's a big sidewalk and it doesn't seem like it's in pretty good shape according to the city. So there's, you know, not full replacement, but, maybe fixing spots that have problems. I don't know if it's possible to put in some new tree wells along the sidewalk as well. The more vegetation that can kind of protect that, such a straight shot there with the traffic that really discourages, I think, a feeling of safety and the noise level when you have traffic going by at that level Not great.
[Michael Levaney]: Duly noted, thank you. There are some existing trees that are in the sidewalk that are not shown on that rendering. There's three of them, three sizable trees that will remain. So we can absolutely extend the tree wells on that as well. And again, fill those gaps in with some trees in the 15 foot setback area.
[Alicia Hunt]: And may I just sorry, Andre, this is Alicia director just because it's part of this conversation. Um, if we're putting some shouting down some notes about a condition around trees, and what I would recommend is that consultation with our tree warden, who is really an expert on right tree, right place, to talk about appropriate height. What height would the trees grow to without having concern about disrupting the sidewalk? And I am pleased to hear you say that you want to keep the sidewalk trees that are there and you don't feel that they're in the way of the construction. and I might consult with Tim and Todd on this, whether if they were, if the company was amenable, if there was space, because I can see that too close to the road is a problem, too close to the building is a problem, but to consult with our staff and the tree warden on whether additional sidewalk trees would work on that sidewalk since it's so large. and that that might help. Could we put larger trees if they were next to the road versus next to the building? I mean, is that something that we could consider there?
[Michael Levaney]: We're certainly open to that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. And we have There's going to be striping, I guess, on the side streets along Boston Ave, and there are existing ramps there cutting across those entryways. Sorry, I haven't looked at that closely.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, do you mean their driveways, or are you talking about the side streets?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think their driveways.
[Alicia Hunt]: The driveways into the 200 at Boston Ave area?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I mean, all sidewalks would need to be ADA compliant.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, so they're at like level grade with the sidewalks on either end or are there ramps?
[Michael Levaney]: The sidewalks dive right into it. So it's all, I actually went out there with the SMART level. Monday night, and they're all within the mass AAB percent that they can be. There are some slight drops, but it's all kind of level. It's all nice, goes up, well, less than 2%.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, actually, I'm looking at it right now on Street View, Google Street View. Okay, yeah. I can actually show folks if they just want to see it real quick.
[Todd Blake]: Mr. Chair, if I may.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Blake.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, so as you're depicting in the street view, what Tim had mentioned earlier is for most projects now, we either want them to continue the sidewalk treatment, so cement concrete with a driveway apron across, much like the Locust Street project, or if it's kept this way where the asphalt pavement is the driveway, and you have ramp on either side, then you would paint the crosswalk across the driveway as if it were a street. So one of those two, if it stayed like this, it would have a painted crosswalk, or you could construct it in such a way it looks like a continuous version of the sidewalk.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, and today those sidewalks that the apron is compliant, so I think I would probably leave it there, and I think the crosswalk's not a bad idea, and it'll also help the traffic calming as well.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Can I ask a question on this view? Yeah, absolutely. So where would the proposed building phase B in relation to what we're seeing the face of the garages today?
[Michael Levaney]: Pretty much the same spot.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Same spot, so the same, you'd have the same buffer strip.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, it's about 15 feet. From the curb or from the sidewalk? From the property line, which I believe is the back of the sidewalk. Yeah, so that dimension between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the building is 15 feet.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: And that would be maintained.
[Michael Levaney]: Correct.
[SPEAKER_24]: And here's one of the street trees we were talking about. Sorry, Mr. Clark, go ahead. It's probably worth pointing out that our plan involves recycling most of that parking structure. A lot of firms might come in and just knock it down and ship it off and start over again. But we think the most efficient and sustainable, cost efficient, sustainable way to do this project is to recycle most of the existing structure. And that's why the footprint is the footprint with the exception of the modest demolition on the cell side. that Mr. Avani mentioned earlier in his presentation.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: But you're going to have to excavate out for your spread footings, right?
[Michael Levaney]: Mike and Brian, can you speak to that? Yeah, within the setback. But they'll be below ground. And there's going to be a lot of internal footings, too. Actually, you know what? And Brian, you can help me out here. The perimeter footings that are there now will remain untouched. We're gonna come in, it might be 10 feet, and then do another row of footings inside there so that the tributary load for that last 10 feet, it's only about five feet of it that's gonna be in the existing footings. I think we have a scheme where we can leave the existing footings and not excavate around the perimeter.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, Mike. That's correct. And the board can see that indicated on the plans that were submitted. Columns marked in red are new, which require new footings, but that's in board of the current perimeter of the garage.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: It's great to hear that you're going to be reusing a lot of that. Thank you. Mr. Blake, you raise your hand again.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to circle back to something Dennis had asked in terms of possible traffic mitigation within the city. Looking at it some more, if the proponent wanted to offer something like extending the enhanced bicycle lane conflict markings and super share treatments beyond what was originally recommended, To, you know, up to say Winthrop Street or even as far as the Green Line station or across, you know, it's West Medford, you probably could achieve the level of improvements in Medford own property. So say for instance, the green markings at all the conflict points on the side streets and super shares were extended all the way up to say the Green Line extension station, the new one, then that would definitely enhance and increase the likelihood of people cycling from that area to the site or vice versa. So the answer is it could reach the recommended proportion within Medford if the board decided to go that route with those types of improvements.
[Andre Leroux]: Can you explain Mr. Blake, just a super shallow, what that would entail?
[Todd Blake]: Sure, so the uphill as, as all of you likely know, the uphill direction of Boston have has a bike lane, separate from the traveling, but in the downhill direction has sheroes, indicating that cyclists are allowed to travel within the lane and drivers should be aware of them. So right now the shares are painted as white markings. in a super share would be the same marking, but with a green box background underneath it. So it really stands out and pops in the roadway. A local example is on Curtis Street in Somerville right up over the hill from Winthrop Street Medford, you go up over the hill into Somerville, down by Raymond and Curtis and Paros Boulevard they have some. So it's just a, it's just a green background underneath the white shero, and it's a square, and it's just meant to highlight it even more so than it is now to remind drivers to be aware of cyclists in the roadway with them.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, I think that's a fantastic suggestion, and I think it's something we'd be happy to consider and work with Todd and the engineering department on something like that.
[Todd Blake]: I think the Medford Bicycle Commission has been asking for introducing elements like these at the conflict points at crossing streets and super sharos like that to make it in areas where we can't fit a bike lane.
[Andre Leroux]: And Mr. Blake, I mean, like looking at this right here, see if somebody is even in this picture parked in the bike lane, you think it's, well, I don't know if it's. There's the bike lane there. Is that a bike lane or is that parking? I don't really get it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Mr. Chair, on that side of the street, I believe that's parking. And then you have sharrows, the indicators, as Mr. Blake said, that bicycles are cycling in the travel lane and on the opposite side of the street, southbound, you have a dedicated bike lane.
[Andre Leroux]: This is the dedicated bike lane, isn't it?
[Todd Blake]: That's the parking shoulder.
[Andre Leroux]: That's the parking shoulder, and this is the bike lane?
[Todd Blake]: Correct.
[Andre Leroux]: Interesting. Well, it almost makes more sense to get rid of the parking lane and make this the bike lane and have some level of protection here with the, not like permanent bollards, but you know, at least some like flags or something you can put in there.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, the city's open to exploring things like that but that would involve traffic commission removal of the part on street parking. So, working within when when this, this was a complete streets project in 2017 and, and to add these bicycle combinations, without impacting a whole side of Boston have parking. it was able to fit the uphill bike lane and downhill share. That's the same treatment that's going in a high street near the Brooks School of Safe Routes to School project. So whenever there's not necessarily a clear choice or enough space to allocate two bike lanes, the preference is the bike lane in the uphill direction because the bikes are slower and out of the stream of the traveling, whereas if it's downhill,
[Jacqueline McPherson]: And then there's no on street parking that really exists for the residents in that area because almost every street except for North Street is permit parking, correct? And if I'm not mistaken, I do believe that the other choices have been 200 Boston Ave parking garage. You've been very generous in allowing residents in Boston Ave to park there. I was part of that when I lived at 258. So I I was just making that note about restructuring that parking there, but also notate in that the parking was at your place.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I'm wondering also on this corner, just looking at the bus, the bus stop and then, you know, hopefully there will be more people using the bus stop when your development happens. If there's an opportunity as you're redesigning this area to make it so that people waiting for the bus have some place to, you know, get out of the weather or sit down.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, one of the, one of the, recommendations, one of Todd's recommendations was to add benches there. And that is something that we'd be happy to do. And there is gonna be some hardscape in that area, again, that will have benches and shade and people could sit there. As a matter of fact, in this rendering that I had shared with you, there's a parking, there's a bench right in front of the bus stop.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't see any other comments from members of the public. Amanda, have you gotten anything?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, I had a call-in comment from Tina Rapatino from 81 Marshall Street. She had two kind of points. The first was a concern for noise. There's an existing level of noise that impacts residents already. She believes it may be from existing AC or heat coming out of buildings. And she's wondering if the proponent would consider any efforts to mitigate existing noise that's already impacting residents and also to address noise concerns moving forward. The second half of her comment had to do with is there and maybe this would be addressed by explaining a little bit the nature of the work of potential tenants that would be moving into this facility. But would there be anything that Um, anyone that comes in that would potentially add to exhaust or air pollution or, um, just generally a concern for hazardous materials in the area that may impact surrounding residents.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, please. Either one of you.
[SPEAKER_24]: Interesting comment about the
[Michael Levaney]: the rooftop equipment and noises. When we did the addition in 2011, we heard the same thing and we had city officials come out and it was determined it wasn't coming from our building. So that's interesting. Yeah, there will be rooftop equipment there. We will encourage low zone fans, obviously. And if we have to do some screening or if we have to have the clients do some screening to direct the noise straight up and out of out of the direction of the neighbors where we're comfortable with that.
[SPEAKER_24]: We've just gone as the operators of the existing building, whether or not we end up getting approved for this expansion and build it or not, we want to relate to neighbors that have concerns about operations. So if you want to put her directly in touch with me, be happy to talk to her more specifically. Also, we want to understand what she's hearing.
[Michael Levaney]: Awesome. Much better answer, Dennis. Thank you so much. Regarding the hazardous materials and the pollution, again, this is going to be a continuation of what happens in that building now. We don't anticipate this building is not does not have any from what I understand, no bio level three or four users at all. So there's nothing really in there that's, it's all bio, most of the science in there is bio related, not heavy on chemicals or other pollutants, and that's how we kind of see this going. That's how the science is now. The building is not overloaded with hazardous materials. There's specific rules and regulations on that that we're in compliance with as well.
[SPEAKER_24]: I'll add that we as a company have almost 35 years of experience specifically with life science companies as clients. About 2 million square feet of our total portfolio is occupied by life science companies and also pharmaceutical, meditech, and healthcare. And in our experience, there's some of the most heavily regulated industries out there at both the state and the federal level. And most of our buildings are multi-tenanted, so you can have a variety of mixed uses, tenancies right next to each other on the same floor and sharing party walls. You can have an accounting firm, a law firm, general business office, bank, or a restaurant right next door to any of these science-based companies. And to date, we have not had a health-related problem in any of our buildings. And again, as long-term operators, we are completely invested and the operation of our properties. We don't build them and sell them to somebody else and walk away and let problems be somebody else's. So we try our very best to be thoughtful and responsible about what we do. We make mistakes, everybody does, we miss things. But then we, you know, it's not what happens, it's what do you do about it when things go sideways. And we've never sold a commercial building in the 50 years that the company's operated. I can't sit here and say that will never happen, but the track record to date is we're long only as real estate investors and operators. So we would, and again, we would be happy to relate to city officials or any members of the public about any of these questions, you know, tonight and any other time. We're here, we're local, we're hands on. And let me also say in case I don't get another chance, I just wanted to thank everybody for investing the time that you have in reviewing this project before tonight's meeting and then discussing it here. We appreciate all the feedback. We appreciate your earnestness. This project's only gonna happen if you all think that it should happen. We respect that. We appreciate that and we're listening. So thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Bedford economic development director Victor Schrader. You have, I think, something to say about this topic.
[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, I thank you chair. I just thought it would be helpful for the board to know that the Board of Health is reviewing a set of regulations related to biotech and lab uses in in the city so. As, as Dennis mentioned, these are heavy very heavily regulated industries at the federal level but at the, at the moment we don't have any requirements that they register with the city and report to an oversight board of any kind so we're hoping to get some, some regulations in place that aren't onerous but, but do require folks to touch base with the city before they operate in the community.
[Andre Leroux]: Let's see, Amanda, are you getting another comment?
[Alicia Hunt]: Let's say for her, it looks like she is the only reason she'd be on the phone right now.
[Michael Levaney]: Looks like a telephone.
[Alicia Hunt]: We put out a phone number so people watching TV can actually call in.
[Andre Leroux]: Make donations. But while we wait for that, then let me just go back to the board members and ask if anybody has further feedback or questions that they want to raise.
[Deanna Peabody]: I just want to say that I agreed with Todd and all of those suggestions are great. And that there's only, I know there's only so much we can require. I just, some of the, level of service numbers in the report are pretty concerning, and the optimized numbers are much better. So I don't know if there's another way. Like if you look at Boston Ave, the westbound left through right lane under build conditions with no optimization, it's level of service F, 80 seconds delay with improvements. It's 36.9 seconds of delay at level of service D. So even though the overall intersection may be only a few seconds improvement, some of the approaches are pretty significant. And I think that the added traffic without changing any of the timing will really make the cues in the delay much worse. But maybe there's another way that that can be improved. I just wanted to say that.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: And I just wanted to piggyback off that DNA I'm not sure if you lost your internet it's time that I was I'm not a traffic engineer but I know a lot about traffic engineering right through traffic engineers and that was where I was going with that information earlier and so I would be. I would, I would look to persons like Deanna and your own traffic engineers and even mascot engineers or DCR someone with that expertise to tell me what those mitigated effects would result in. So, and it sounds like we're getting there with with our engineers Todd Blake. I guess I would just go along with some of those options that you have for mitigation. That's all I was trying to get to early, because I knew that it could not be a level service of A on its own.
[Andre Leroux]: Although we perhaps can't condition anything based on DCR, we would encourage you to at least open a dialogue with them to see if there's some progress that can be made.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you, Andre. And that's where I was going with it. Just be open to the dialogue.
[Andre Leroux]: Getting back to the light question because I do think that this is something that could be problematic for the the homes across the street. Have you dealt with this before? I mean, there's a lot of glass on that building. Is there a way of getting a certain kind of glass that limits the light emissions? I'm not an architect myself, so I can't speak to specific materials, but perhaps you could.
[Michael Levaney]: Sure, there's definitely, there is a lot of glass in the building. A lot of it's spandrel glass, if you really look at the, I'd say a third of it's spandrel glass. I think there's some shades that could be used. I don't know that you get the glass to change color. That might be a little challenging. We could certainly look into some constructed options to take it out of the tenant's hands if that's a possibility. We'd be open to looking at it deeper.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and can you explain for someone who doesn't know that material, spandrel glass, what is that?
[Michael Levaney]: Yes, absolutely. So I'm going to share my screen again one more time, if that's okay. Everybody see that? So these pieces of glass at the low part here, at the bottom of each window panel, these are spandrel glass. You can't see through them, so light won't come through those. So, you know, about two thirds of this panel light will pass through, but at the bottom it won't. So there is a lot of glass there for effect, but it's not all visual, all this corner, there's a lot of visual glass. So yes, we can continue to look at how we can mitigate that potential issue.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre, this is Jackie. I'd be curious to know what Clace felt about that. Clace, not to call you out, but we do have an architect on it.
[Andre Leroux]: Clace, do you want to, can you say anything about that issue?
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I mean, spandrel glass is very commonly used, and I think, you know, their way out of the building facade seems to be totally in keeping with the design of the adjacent building and, you know, it seems appropriate to me. I'm a hypocrite, saying I don't like it because I use it all the time. But I think, yeah, for me, the biggest thing is the facade. And I think in a way, I wish there was a way to step the facade back. maybe even just visually instead of actually physically to create a more recessed feel to the upper floors. And I don't know if that means, you know, looking at the more traditional mill aesthetic for the first three floors and doing something much more simple and monotone color for the upper floor so that they recede and don't seem as, overwhelming to the street edge. That's just a suggestion, I don't know. I did have another question though, which was, are you pursuing any kind of LEED certification or sustainability measurement in the building?
[Michael Levaney]: A good question. We will obviously build this to all current codes and all stretch code requirements. We typically build to lead standards. We try to source everything as local as possible. We could probably get to that point, but we never go for the certification. We typically don't. but I feel like we would be able to get that certification if we so desired. Our experiences, we've never had a client come up to us and say, oh, we really can't lease this building because it's not LEED certified. It just hasn't been as much as it's important to build it to that level, but it hasn't been the marketing tool that I think it may or may not be presented as.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I have a question with regards to the interior lighting. You had said that you could easily commit to occupancy sensors in the garage because that is your standard. Could you commit to occupancy sensors in the public areas, sorry, within the commercial portion of the building? I don't remember if this corner piece was a public space, like a lobby and stairwell, or if that's a leased space in the corner. But I could imagine the difference between it glowing all evening and all night versus the occupants leave, there's nobody there and the lights turn out.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, so your comment, this is not a public space at this point in time. We expect that to be part of the lease space. And there are requirements in the energy code that there are occupancy sensors. So we will, these buildings will be filled with occupancy sensors. So theoretically, someone would have to make a concerted effort to override them if they wanted to keep their lights on all night. And I would hope they wouldn't, because it's not beneficial to anybody.
[Alicia Hunt]: And there was concern about if occupants were there all night. But I think there's also more tolerance for there are people there versus it's empty and shining into people's apartments. And there's one other comment. There had been a comment about the roof would be solar ready. I believe you're aware of Medford solar ordinance requiring both the assessment and if the assessment says that solar is suitable to install solar, a certain amount of solar on the roof of the building. So I'm anticipating that there would be solar on this building.
[SPEAKER_24]: Fine by us. We are routinely doing solar at our buildings where it makes sense, especially on parking garages because you don't compete for roof space with mechanical equipment. And we, in fact, do our own design build, our own electricians are intimately involved in our solar. We're one of the largest private solar developers in the area. So yes, we believe in that. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Yeah, that was a comment in the chat from Ken Kraus as well asking that. So thank you for answering. Amanda, it's getting late. Do we have a couple more comments that you took from the phone or?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, just one follow up question from Tina Rap Rapatino, 81 Marshall Street. She was wondering, and she was directing this to make of any from the study that you referred to the to 2011 study if you recall, like what building was the one that was deemed to be generating the noise. And also she wanted to confirm that she would love to be in touch with someone from the proponent team to discuss her concerns.
[Michael Levaney]: So off the top of my head, I don't remember. There is a lot of other ambient noise in the area. And it was somebody, it was the comment came from somebody on the downhill side of North Ave further away. So it might've been, it could have been somebody that was closer to the whole food section, potentially that complex there. And as Dennis mentioned, we're happy to have a conversation with anybody who wants to reach out to us and further that.
[Andre Leroux]: Was there anything else, Amanda? I know you looked like you were on the phone for a little bit.
[Amanda Centrella]: No, that was it and no comments over email. Excellent.
[Andre Leroux]: Any other comments from board members? So our role as a board, obviously, we're not the approval granting authority here. We are making recommendations to the ZBA. I think we've covered a lot of ground. So we would, I think need to get the notes from the community development staff and write that up into a letter. I don't know, Alicia, if you think you're able to kind of do a quick summary or not of that.
[Alicia Hunt]: So we have been taking a number of the notes and I actually had one sort of, why don't I read through what we have so far? So what we jotted down a lot of the conditions that we heard the members saying and that we heard the proponent feeling amenable to, hopefully we caught all of them here. So I indicated it as a bus stop bench. The proponent would provide seating near the bus stop. that they would be improving bicycle facilities. But I have to tell you that I'm going to have to verify that this is done and that is no longer clear enough to me that I know what that means. So we'll need to elucidate what that one was. Anybody want to expand on improved bicycle facilities?
[Todd Blake]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, Mr. Blake.
[Todd Blake]: If the board ends up recommending to go with some of the bike and some of the signal stuff, or the proponent had asked if the improvements could be all kept in Medford, then I'd suggest that you could go even further with the bicycle amenities up Boston Ave.
[Alicia Hunt]: Bicycle amenities means bike lanes and painting. Because in my world, that means bike racks too.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, so for that specific question, so it would be to enhance the existing bike lanes, uphill bike lanes, with special markings at the conflict points, so at every cross street. And then the downhill, it would be to enhance the existing markings by making the sheriffs super sheriffs.
[Alicia Hunt]: And it seems to me, I know I fully understand that the proponent would prefer to keep things where the city has jurisdiction because of the difficulty sometimes of coordinating with the state. But some of these go straight into Somerville. But Todd, do we feel very comfortable that we could facilitate if things needed to be in order to have consistency for the bike markings. I mean right now it is consistent between Medford and Somerville on by Boston Ave that we could facilitate that very easily.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, I think so. When I first arrived here, we coordinated with Somerville to adjust some of the markings approaching the other side bus at Mystic Valley Parkway. So, yeah, I'm comfortable with that. But, you know, with this board, any official approval will probably have to have the language subject to DCR and Somerville, but I'm pretty confident. And then to get back to the bus, The bus bench, is that just one because there's a stop in each direction is just to stop on the proponent side or the other one as well. So there's a bus stop on both sides.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I think from my perspective, it should be both.
[Alicia Hunt]: Todd, if you feel that there's sidewalk space and the city has the appropriate space on the other side of the sidewalk, I assume the proponent hasn't examined that.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I mean, there is the buffer. It could be incorporated potentially a bench and ideally some kind of shelter on the property.
[Todd Blake]: Yeah, and as far as the opposite side Alicia, you could write it in such a way that provide a bus, a bench, if it's, you know, if accessibility allows and if not, you know, then it's not their fault. But I believe a bench will fit on the opposite side, it's up the bus stops up near Harris. Yeah, shelters, Mr. Chair, we're working on some ourselves, and sometimes they get challenging to fit within the right of way, but as you mentioned, on their side, they may have the space.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, if it could be incorporated into the landscaping plan, then that would be great.
[Alicia Hunt]: Should I go on? Add pedestrian warning signs. There was a specific location.
[Todd Blake]: So that one, this gets back to, sorry for the complicated answers. This gets back to the recommended cap. So there's static, just aluminum, fluorescent, yellow, green warning signs, but there's a next step of enhancement where you could add the LED flashing border, which is a higher cost. So it depends on the menu that's ultimately chosen.
[Alicia Hunt]: If- We're choosing the menu now. What is the location for the pedestrian sign?
[Todd Blake]: So there's two existing un-signalized crosswalks, one at Harris, one near Harris and one near Irvington.
[Alicia Hunt]: I didn't hear what you said.
[Todd Blake]: Irvington, I believe, which is technically Somerville. So the crosswalk is kind of right on the city border, exactly.
[Alicia Hunt]: I know we're working on several joint projects with Somerville transportation staff right now. I had approached DCR about improving signal timing at Mystic Valley Parkway in Boston Ave and look into additional signal heads at Mystic Valley Parkway. Require occupancy sensors throughout the building. I think that was stated that it is building code, but I think My impression was the board would feel better just saying it explicitly. Any exterior lighting will be down lighting. Additional trees to shade the patio area, work with the tree warden on the appropriate trees, give height without disrupting the sidewalk, and additional sidewalk trees as possible. That's appropriate. and then either paint the crosswalk across driveway or make the sidewalk look continuous with the sidewalk by making it concrete. And I just wanted to put it that way in case during the construction, the proponent found that they were rebuilding the sidewalk, then, you know, the driveway, there would be the option of going either way. Rooftop equipment will be low noise as possible and will include appropriate noise screening. there was then incorporate the comments from the board of health and the fire department. Incorporate the engineering comments and then the traffic portion though, I think we've been addressing separately.
[Andre Leroux]: And the solar we covered as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: I did want to bring up the, The historic commission letter was really more advice and design and wasn't designed as conditions that they could adopt. There was one thing in there that we didn't mention and that was asking that they would use Tufts Transportation Demand stuff, but I'm unclear that they have the authority to do that as this is not a Tufts entity. In my opinion, we could say that any Tufts occupation of the space would be part of the Tufts Transportation Demand Management Plan. And I'm wondering if that would be deemed fair. Anybody have any concerns about that?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I mean, I'd like to ask the proponent if they do any kind of transportation demand management on their properties right now.
[Michael Levaney]: So, yes, we. Some of the larger properties that specifically in Beverly, we have a couple of really sizable campuses have TDM plans. The point that this size property probably wouldn't warrant something like that. Tufts size property kind of does though. I know that they have, we actually spoke with the representative from Tufts about this specific comment. We are separate from Tufts. I suspect, I know Tufts has a TDM plan, and I know they're potentially in the process of revisiting it now that when the Green Line comes aboard, it's going to change their TDM plan significantly, potentially. So I think, you know, that the Tufts people using our building, I suspect that's part of their TDM, because it's part of, you know, buildings that they manage or facilities that they're part of. But I don't know that, again, we're kind of separate from them so I don't know how. We don't have much say in how they run their TDM.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: That's least there they don't own that space correct.
[Michael Levaney]: Correct. It's all least.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Okay. Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: So how do we just leave that out? So as I was saying which letters to incorporate, my instinct was to not include the historic commission as requirements. Those are not requirements. Those were sort of design recommendations.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, right. I agree.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, and Tim, I wanted to check about some of your requirements. Some talked about revision of plans, and I wanted to understand if you wanted to see the revision of the plans, and did we need more interaction with Water and Sewer before we could make our recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't think so. I mean, I tried to write my comments so they could be recommended. The building plan process is when I typically get into the nitty gritties to make sure that exactly what is on the plan is going to be exactly what is built. So it really is up to the board but I don't necessarily, I don't take any exception to plan revisions happening now during this process of plan revisions happening before they get the building permit. In my mind, either the types of revisions on the utilities that I'm looking at could happen at either level. And Todd, if you can hear me, if you disagree with what I'm saying regarding some of the traffic and transportation conditions, speak up, but I don't think that's the case either. So.
[Alicia Hunt]: And in this case, this board is not making the permit decision. It's a recommendation to the ZBA. And your letter, Tim's letter is actually to the chair of the ZBA. So there is still another meeting to have time. I will, the ZBA has advertised their hearing for next week on this topic.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Well, we should, They're looking to us to guide them in their decision, correct? Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. Right. So our recommendation could be to compliance with the engineering, right, the engineering and traffic recommendations. I think actually Amanda pulled for us, she messaged me in the background the exact language. the building commissioners letter is that the community development board will perform a site plan review and submit its recommendations to the ZBA.
[Andre Leroux]: I think generally the way we do it, I'm just going back to look at some of the notes. We would vote to recommend that the ZBA approve the site plan review application with a set of conditions. And those conditions would be our design recommendations. And the ZBA can take them or leave them. Because it's a recommendation.
[Todd Blake]: In terms of Tim's comment with the traffic, since the traffic was discussed at this meeting and the board will ultimately recommend the list that Alicia read off, I could always revise my personal letter to the zoning board to say we're in concurrence with what the planning board is recommending since we all just discussed the menu of options and came to some conclusion that will now be different than what's written in my original memo.
[Alicia Hunt]: Those were the items that we captured in our notes. Were there other conditions that board members may have mentioned that we did not capture. Okay, we're human.
[Andre Leroux]: Not off the top of my head, but generally the, go ahead, Mr. Avaney.
[Michael Levaney]: So I just said, and if I don't want to interrupt anybody, if somebody had something to say, I just wanted to go back to one of the comments that Planning Director Hunt mentioned. regarding our interaction with the DCR and potential signal heads. I think in some of the comments from the board members, it was very, at the very least, if we could engage them about the signal timing as opposed to equipment, I think that's a significant difference that I'd like to just put that out here. I think that's a little different than installing new equipment on there. We're comfortable reaching out and seeing if signal optimization can be done with and minimal pain to everybody. But I think that level of revising the equipment out there that Rod had mentioned, they're looking at that whole corridor anyway.
[Deanna Peabody]: I think that's probably not something we want to... I would be okay with just talking about signal timing, optimization, and checking the yellow and all red and pedestrian interval times as well.
[Michael Levaney]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I want to work with DCR to improve signal timing at the Valley Parkway and Boston Ave. Do you want me to put an additional?
[Deanna Peabody]: And Auburn. Those are the two high crash locations.
[SPEAKER_19]: Could I, this is Rod Emery, could I ask a point of clarification? Todd mentioned there's a $20,000 cap on these, so if we have these conditions, one, two, three, and four, that are all traffic related, are they subject to a $20,000 cap so that we might only do one, two, and three, or one, three, and four, if they amount to $20,000? We need some language about the $20,000, I guess is what I'm saying.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, that was a recommendation to the board so that because he Todd did not want us the board to require everything on his list, and we're trying to give some guidelines about what would be a reasonable amount of things.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think Go ahead, Mr. Blake.
[Todd Blake]: Sorry. And I just, you know, in my, that was my personal recommendation of it seemed appropriate in terms of the level of impact and the cost, but the board may or may not agree with that. So, you know, that's, and then some of the things that we did discuss, like how far up Boston Ave you go with the bicycle treatments that impacts the cost as well. That's what I was getting at. Depending on the final menu, it could be under, at, or over that. Okay, and I don't want to assume that the board is in agreement with the 20 or not either so yeah, and I don't think we're in a position to really
[Andre Leroux]: you know, obviously cost these things out and make a decision, but I do think we've had a productive conversation about what we think is important and we've narrowed down, I believe, in a way that, you know, you guys, the proponents can manage. If you disagree with that, then you should probably say that now, but I think it's a reasonable set of conditions.
[Michael Levaney]: Yeah, I do too, I think, but I don't disagree that there should be some kind of a limit to it. I would hope that the board would consider that if we did enough work, if we made an investment here in something, you know, one of these items is $25,000 and that's the one we're gonna do, then that would be reasonable. I think it's the approach that there's a handful of things that are important, and if we can accomplish all of them, great, with a reasonable amount of cost, we're for it, but we don't want to be burdened by, okay, this is $100,000 worth of stuff, and that's what we're going to do. I think we'd like the board to consider that the $20,000 is a reasonable amount of mitigation for a project of this scope.
[Deanna Peabody]: Relative to pretty much anything else, signal timing is pretty low cost.
[Michael Levaney]: It is, but we're going to, unfortunately though, you're going to spend money on the traffic engineers to kind of figure that out. And that's going to be, which is why we were kind of leaning towards some of the things, as we mentioned at the beginning, some of the things that had real impact. And I know that does, I'm not discounting that at all, but there's going to be costs in that, that, and maybe that cost is worth it. You know what I mean? I just didn't know whether it's physical and it is physical. So that's fine. I think, some of that money we spent with engineering, and that's okay too.
[SPEAKER_24]: Rod and Mike, is it reasonable to think that we could get our own internal sense for the ballpark on these costs between now and the time we're scheduled to be in front of Board of Appeals? And that if these folks make a recommendation that says they think this is an appropriate scope of work, that we'll be able to respond more specifically in our next presentation?
[SPEAKER_19]: Sure, we can definitely come up with cost estimates.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah. I mean, I'd like to think we're in the right ballpark, but this is all coming together in real time and appreciate that everybody really is rolling up the sleeves and just talking about these issues. We're right with you. We want the project to be a success. In order for it to be a success, it not only has to be imminently leaseable, the market needs to want what we're doing, but it also has to fit with the neighborhood and has to sit with the rest of the campus because we're not looking to create problems. So we are listening.
[Andre Leroux]: I think that's a good suggestion, Mr. Clark. And, you know, we have the opportunity to tweak the language a little bit. I can finalize it with the city staff before it goes to the ZBA. So, you know, there's some time for you guys to be in that loop still. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I'm sorry, Andre. I just wanted to piggyback and say we're definitely not looking to cause you financial hardship, right? But we're also not looking to lowball the community area. So just as long as we're able to apply what makes the most sense there, I think that'll be the best result for all. And again, we're not looking to put you in economic hardship, but we're also not in a position to deal with costs at this point. So the more that you can do to help us help you, as Andre has already laid out, would be most beneficial.
[Michael Levaney]: enough. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: And this is Chrissy Dowd. Do you mind if I just make one more point just in terms of the, thank you, in terms of the commercial space on the ground floor when it comes to the neighborhood, I would encourage you to have more conversations with the abutters and the neighbors and make sure that it's something that people also want there and they, you know, would like to have in the neighborhood.
[Andre Leroux]: and to get a local independent business if possible. Yeah, Mr. Schrader.
[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, Christy, I'm glad you brought that up. In the industrial district, the ground floor uses that we would like to see there aren't permitted at the moment. So if it stays the same, those would actually have to come back for approval as a use variance. Maybe we'll get that changed in the meantime. There's some discussion through the recodification process of adjusting that, but I think we're all in agreement. We'd like to see active, you know, neighborhood friendly uses on the ground floor. And we might have to get approval for those when it comes up.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Any other final thoughts? Thank you. So I think we could entertain a motion at this time to approve the project. recommend to the ZBA site plan approval of the project with the following design recommendations. And those recommendations would be the ones that Director Hunt just articulated, and that it would be the language to be finalized by the Community Development Board. staff and approved by the Community Development Chair. Would somebody be willing to make that motion and you don't have to repeat it?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: This is Jackie Vitale. Since I do not have to repeat it fully, I make the motion.
[Jenny Graham]: Anyone want to second the motion? This is Kristi Dowd, I'll second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Kristi, appreciate it. Roll call approval on the motion. Yes is approval and nay is disapproval. Let's see, Klesson Dresen. Yes. Kristi Dowd.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Deanna Peabody. And I'm a yes as well with David Bloomberg recusing himself from this discussion. So it's unanimously approved by the Medford Community Development Board.
[Michael Levaney]: Thank you all for taking so much time. Thank you all for all the time you've put into this to echo Dennis's earlier comments. Thank you so much. I know you've got more business this evening. So we'll check out. Thank you very much. Thanks.
[Andre Leroux]: I should say, you know, we didn't actually talk specifically about the design, but, you know, absent the, you know, independent of the scale issue, I think it was, you know, it's a nice design and thank you for putting the time into it. Obviously the fact that it didn't come up meant that it was something that people did like.
[Michael Levaney]: We appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a fantastic evening. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, I know it's a long evening, folks. So there is one more thing we need to do, which is review a bond release request for the Macklin Road Definitive Subdivision. And just to summarize where we are on this, this was a three lot subdivision that was approved with conditions by the Community Development Board at a hearing on July 26, 2017. We approved a performance bond amount of $600,000, which was reduced to $194,037 last year in 2020, based on the work that was completed at the time at the recommendation of the city engineer. The applicant has now requested that the bond be released to $5,000. The engineering division has conducted a site visit and inspection, and they're recommending reducing the bond down to 19,550 with that includes some contingency. So let me go to the applicant to present their request. I think that's John Valdina and Benjamin Minix from Eagle Brook, the applicant and Benjamin Minix from Eagle Brook Engineering. So I don't know if John, you wanna take it away.
[SPEAKER_07]: I'll take it. Can you hear me okay?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, we can. Thanks, Benjamin. And sorry for the long night and wait on this.
[SPEAKER_07]: It happens. Thanks for sticking around at the end. I know sometimes get cut off, so it's good to still be before you. So again, Ben Minnix with Eagle Brook Engineering. So we are requesting release of the bond for the Macklin Road subdivision. We presented a letter to you as well as Tim McGibbon just documenting along with the asphalt plan, but it's been completed. And then Tim McGivern provided a memo in response with some outstanding items. And I don't know what the best way to do this would be to go through the items on each line or how you want to view it.
[Andre Leroux]: Maybe we could just go to Tim and get his feedback on it, so we don't have to go through everything. Alicia, Director Hunt, are you going to?
[Alicia Hunt]: It seems to me if there are items that you agree with, you just agree, and if there are, you know, go through the ones that you disagree with. The board, if anything that you agree with, and the board is just going to agree with Tim if you agree.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
[SPEAKER_07]: All right, yeah, I can go through these quick. I'll just go right down the list with the letter from Tim. First one is earth cuts on the sides of the roadway. So basically, we need to put more loam and seed along the sides of the roadway where there is excavation and some broken ledge that is exposed. So we don't object to that one. We can provide more loam. And Tim, please cut me off if I'm not understanding your comment correctly.
[Tim McGivern]: I would say I'm bad on that one. If it's like that one I put a photo of, I mean, you can feather that in and put some loam and seed down over it. I think the solutions don't just include loam and seed. So generally, we're just looking for a smooth transition in the project.
[SPEAKER_00]: OK.
[SPEAKER_07]: The underground electric service, I'll come back to that one after. Number six on the list, it says a stop sign. John has ordered the stop sign, so we're going to put the stop sign in. Number nine on the list, the trees. And we needed to get approval from the tree warden for the trees. Four of the six trees were installed. So what happened is part of this project had approval with the Conservation Commission. And at that time, Dennis McDougall staked out the trees within the conservations area as well as on the street. And so we understood that those were the final trees for the whole project. And so that's what was installed. And then when we submitted the test bill plan, it came back up that we were missing trees and that they weren't approved by the warden. So that's where we stand at this point. And I also believe Not all the species of trees were maple, and that was because there was a shortage of maple trees at the time. And Dennis McDougall recommended trees with a different root system because of the ledge in the area. So I don't know if anyone wants to make comments to that. I don't believe the tree warden's on the call at the time.
[Andre Leroux]: So I don't know, Tim or Alicia, what do we do with that?
[Tim McGivern]: The trees, all I need to see is a piece of paper, a document of some sort from the tree warden saying that the rooting has taken place and she approves of the trees. It's not necessarily about a placement, it's more about the trees are in good shape.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay. And just to address something else that was on the letters, the location of the trees, whether it's on the right away side or the private property. We were discussing this in the office after we received the comments and The road is still private, and two of the lots have already been sold. Actually, and it's maybe not as clear on the as-built plan, but looking at it on a CAD file, I can see that two of the four trees, or excuse me, three of the four trees are actually on the street side of the right-of-way. But even with conveyance of the private lots, those are still under the ownership of the private street, this hot city street. So if the city wants to take those over, then they're responsible to maintain them. So we just would like some direction if, if that is the way the city wants to go, um, you know, that we'd just come to some sort of conclusion with that. But if we're all set, as far as the tree wins, um, feel on the matter, then I guess that satisfies the, uh, the issue.
[Tim McGivern]: just provide a little bit more info here than Ben did, but thank you, Ben. Basically, it's some of these trees, and I think Ben corrected based off the actual spatial, you know, where the trees actually land. So, you know, the subdivision, the definitive subdivision process required trees to go in at some point, you know, They landed on private property and that was acceptable. Well, the parcels, the building parcels and that was acceptable. So now really the question is, are these public trees, are they in the, are they going to be in this potentially future public right of way, or are they going to be on private building parcels. If they're on private building parcels, does the city want to have control over those trees so they're not cut down or whatever in the future? That's, I mean, that's really the question on the table at the moment. So, you know, because they're trees that are put in as part of the subdivision, this board would be the authority on whether or not those trees become public trees public assets or not. There is a hang up here that Ben talked about that title of the property of the parcels has already changed hands at least once. So, you know, that might present a challenge.
[Andre Leroux]: So I don't know, Mr. McGivern, is there a decision that we or the board need to make on that? I mean, we're don't really have anything to do with the, you know, how the trees have been cited.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it's more about the trees are required as part of the subdivision. So you need to put trees in the subdivision. I believe that's part of the regulations of this board. So instead of the trees being all in the public right of way, which you'd normally see in a subdivision, some of them are on private parcels, but they're taking credit for those as future public trees. but they're on building lot parcels, so the building owner can just cut them down if they want. The city doesn't have any control over it. So if this board is okay with that, then that would have to be documented. If the board's not okay with that, then there would need to be a way to resolve it. And I don't know how to resolve it, we can talk about that, but you know.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I think it's okay with us. I mean, I don't know how, unless we, you know, turn this into a public way, then I don't see how we do anything else.
[Tim McGivern]: One potential way to resolve it is to not accept the trees that aren't, you know, without going back and looking at the whole history, you could say, well, those trees don't count towards the trees in the way, and you haven't put trees in the way. That would be one idea to resolve it. But I guess this has more story behind it and this approval precedes me. So it's a question.
[Alicia Hunt]: So there are, it had required six and through some miscommunication, they ended up planning four. So are there locations in the future public space? I mean, sort of assuming in the way where they could put two more trees. that would then be public. And along those lines, I am aware that the city owns parcels along with this private way. We do. In theory, we could ask for trees on those parcels. The idea is, though, that there was some amenity to the neighbors who lived behind a forest, and now they live behind open backyards.
[SPEAKER_07]: I think with my... site knowledge over the last few years, I can speak to that pretty well. The city-owned parcels on the opposite side of the developed lots, recently developed lots, there's a lot of ledge in that area. So although there are trees there, I don't think they're reaching their full growth potential. So to excavate and put in a tree, I don't think is anyone's best interest on that area. And then the conservation commission actually reduced the number of trees they wanted in the back towards the wetland area. because just to put them in would cause more disturbance than to leave the area as it is. And then in order to put in trees along the right-of-way, you only have about three feet of space between the back of sidewalk and the right-of-way property line. So you're kind of close in there. So I don't know exactly where we'd squeeze them in.
[Andre Leroux]: But doesn't the city own some of those parcels, like Alicia said?
[Alicia Hunt]: He was saying that the parcels that the city owns are full of ledge. And I don't know. I haven't done any construction or test bores or anything.
[Tim McGivern]: I mentioned those parcels. They are wooded parcels. So they're already sort of woods.
[Alicia Hunt]: They're kind of fully wooded. I wonder, is there space for trees?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, I think he'd be destroying trees to put in trees in those locations.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. And I would also add in the here to like the, the subdivision regulations that pertain to the way parcel. So, you know, um, you know that is that is the purpose of the, of the regulation so I mean I think, you know, They planted four, and they're supposed to have six, and some are on private parcels and not in the way parcel. So, I mean, I wish I knew the full history of how they landed, where the trees landed, where they did. The board does have the ability to say, you know, your plan has six trees in the right-of-way. I'm just gonna look at the plans too. Do they need to put the six trees in the right of way or is the board okay with not having the trees in the way they're on the building parcels with obviously the risk of the homeowner putting them down?
[Andre Leroux]: Does anybody have a photo of this they can just put up on the screen?
[SPEAKER_07]: The approved site plans show all six trees on the private lots.
[Tim McGivern]: Ah, that's what I was looking at. That's what I was going to look for, Ben. Yeah. So that's the piece of the history that I don't quite understand. I think it was approved that way for some reason. Um, you know, so I wasn't going to step, I wasn't going to put my fingers in the approval and say, change the approval around. So it was approved the way, uh, you know, with, with the trees on the, on the parcels. So building parcels.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I mean, it sounds like, like what, happened happened. I mean, I don't think there's anything the board really needs to do here on this. Do we need to, in writing, approve like four trees instead of six trees?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's less about that and more about releasing the bond and are we holding money for that? I will say that the city does have what we call a back of sidewalk program, where if there isn't sufficient space in a public way for trees and the residents want the trees and the city would like to put trees in, the city does and the city retains ownership for two years and then the trees are revert to the property owners, which then, I guess what Tim was just mentioning, is that it means that a property owner could just choose to cut it down, is the drawback. The benefit is that the property owner is now responsible for the maintenance of that trade. Right.
[Andre Leroux]: So, okay, I mean, we're just talking about release of the bond. I mean, I'm not sure why we're getting into all this detail here.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, it's... It's one of the things that was covered under the the box. So when we do a building site plan review, when they meet all the conditions, we sign the occupancy permit. And when they don't meet all the conditions, we don't sign the occupancy permit. In this case, because it's a subdivision, we don't have occupancy permits that we hold over their heads until everything is done to all the conditions are met. We hold their money, the bond, until all the conditions are met. So the question is, does this meet the condition that the board had intended? Um, I did just pull up the original written conditions for this.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I just want to say, like, as far as I'm concerned, yes, it meets the conditions. The city was involved in placement of the trees and like, let's move on.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. The language in the decision was a tree shall be placed at each lot. That does not state that it should be in the right of way. And it doesn't state that it's on the private property. Um, so actually, at each lot seems to be the condition seems to have been met.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, yeah, I just, we discussed it, you know, four years ago, three years ago. And, you know, just want confirmation. So when the tree warden looks at it, it doesn't come back up and then we're held back another month because of it. So far, okay, how it is.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it shows in the plan. So Ben, if the trees are planted, the tree warden signs off and they pull off the estimate, because they're there, they meet it, so.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so unless any board member speaks up, I'm just gonna say yes, the condition has been met.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Not much, I don't think there's much more we can do at this point. It sounds like it was met at the time of.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, do you wanna keep going through the list?
[SPEAKER_07]: Yes, please. New stonebound located sunk beneath the ground surface. That stonebound did sink again, so we're going to lift that back up to grade and then reset the drill hole. I'll skip over the driveway aprons. We'll talk about that one in more detail. Stormwater system shall be inspected and maintained. I'll do an inspection on the stormwater system as well as get the updated as-built information on the stormwater structures. for that weir that Tim commented on later on. The straw waddles and silt fencing, we will remove that as well. Backup generators, John, do you have any pictures or anything right now or are you going to submit that after the fact for the backup generators?
[SPEAKER_00]: No, I don't have any pictures of that right now. I can submit some pictures I have. I bought generators for all three houses. They have that they have the panel everything is hooked up in the back of the house. All they're going to do is just plug in to the panel and plug into the generator and the pumps will pump.
[SPEAKER_07]: And I have seen that for a lot one just haven't looked at it for data lots. The decorative stone on the side of the roadway. So I guess we'd like input from the board, whether that's acceptable or not. It's come at PL7 from Tim McGiburn.
[Andre Leroux]: It looks fine to me. It looks nice. I think it's easy to maintain. Otherwise, I don't know who's going to be responsible for maintaining that strip. Does any board member, anybody else care?
[SPEAKER_19]: Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: So thumbs up.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay. Yeah. We, I mean, we kind of think that's the way to go to, I mean, no, none of the residents probably want to maintain that. So that's probably easier. Roman seed would discuss that. Yeah. As they'll plan, we'll update that accordingly. And then The chambers for each lot, as Mr. McGivern commented, I've already made those changes to the as-built plan while we've been waiting, so that's all set. So we'll just go back to the items we wanted to discuss in more detail. So the big one being the underground service, underground electric service for lot one, which is 20 Macklin Road. So lots two and three, which are 30 and 40 Macklin Road were sold About at the start of the time lot one was started, the building was started. So those temporary electric services were already in and then underground. So they went up to the pole, the existing utility pole that was there. Then when National Grid came out to connect the service for lot one, because those services for two and three were already up the pole, they installed overhead to lot one. And as detailed by National Grid, they will only allow two vertical service connections on a single pole. So they went overhead for that other one. Now, in order to change that to underground service, we'd have to remove those two service lines on the utility pole, run a main line from the overhead down the pole to a junction box, and then run three service lines, or connect the two service lines and run one new underground service to lot one. So we're requesting the board waive that requirement for lot one since the overhead service is already installed, just like it is for the existing house at 10 Macklin. It's about a 30 foot overhead service from the pole to the house.
[Andre Leroux]: Tim, do you have any concerns with that?
[Tim McGivern]: really concerns. It's just it's it's shown in the plan is underground. Everybody's known that it was going into underground and the difference the really the I mean, they're talking about installing the junction splice box somewhere, you know, on the ground and having the three services come out of that as opposed to it. To be honest here, it's it shows a little bit of lack of planning here. I mean, this product knew that all three houses should have underground services. I prefer underground services. I think all services should be underground. But it's up to the board if they want to waive that. Obviously, the house has power, and two out of the three homes were done with underground services. The plan says all three. And when I look at it, I say, why weren't all three done? Why wasn't this planned for? So that's kind of where I'm at. I think they should install that third one.
[SPEAKER_00]: If I can say something, when we were going to do underground onto lot one as well, National Grid kind of trumped on the plans and basically told us we can't, you can only do two per pole. And I mean, National Grid told us that, so they went overhead there. So I just, I mean, if that's the law, that's what they, they didn't tell me anything about a junction box at that time. They just said that we can only put two risers on a pole for safety reasons, for climbing, if you have to climb up, whatever, you know, the other reasons. So they went overhead there. That wasn't my call.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, any board members have an opinion? I mean, the house has power. I'm inclined to just go ahead with it and waive it.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: I just wanted to speak on our but dealing with utility coordination, it goes back to what Mr. McGovern has already said, McGovern has already said it's kind of like a lack of planning because if you do a utility relocation, or coordination, you're already having those discussions with all utility persons ahead of time. So you didn't find out until after it was required.
[SPEAKER_00]: that day when they put the services in they told us they can only do two underground services. It was only one pole there and they said we can only run two underground services from that pole. This last house is a short run so we're going to go overhead from it. That's what they told me. I don't work for National Grid and we have a letter from the engineer from National Grid that we submitted saying that. Mr. Chair, may I respond?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, sure, Mr. McGeevan. John, I mean, you know, I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I mean, I do this work, too. I mean, you tell National Grid that you need three underground services. Right. And so when you told me that they said they couldn't do it, I said, OK, show me in writing. Then the writing that I got from National Grid said that they could do it. They just need to install a junction box.
[SPEAKER_00]: So well, I think I think what no, well, this is that's exactly the truth. What they said that I told they saw the plans. They said I said we needed three, three underground services. But they said that they that's what they told me. Then the letter later on by the engineer, whether it is to say that there is an ultimate way to do it was after the fact. When he when when he wrote that letter a few weeks ago, when you requested a letter from
[SPEAKER_07]: So, I mean, I think we're just at the point. I think we're just at the point, well, we agree, the plan said underground service. That's the case. Is it worth it at this point to dig a trench and do all that work? And it's just the board's decision and we're at the point it's already installed. Is it worth to go back and do it? And that's what we're asking for guidance on.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm inclined to just let it go the way it is. The power's already installed. It's a short distance, but any board members have a strong opinion?
[Alicia Hunt]: One question. Tim provided a detailed estimates for all of this stuff. Is this argument over $2,100 worth of work, or would it be more than that at this point?
[SPEAKER_00]: For the underground service? It'd be a lot more than 2100.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah, underground. I would be really shocked if undergrounding was on 2100.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's well over. Well, there's a lot of ledge in there. We'd have to be blasting this roof from that pole to the house. When we put the temporary service underground service in, there was ledge there. There's still ledge there. But that wasn't the reason why we didn't go underground. The reason was for the reason I stated. but it would be a lot more than $2,100 to put on the ground. Just cost of electric supplies is gonna be well over that. Nevermind the excavation.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that was, I just took our original estimate and divided by three, Alicia. So it's 70 foot per linear foot for trenching. And typically the electrical equipment goes in by the provider and then the work to get it in, the excavation, the backfill, if there's concrete that needs to be poured or whatever, is done by the project, typically.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: We've already sold about a million and five, just a small project for underground utilities before, just to give you an idea. So depending on linear feet. So it's well over 2100.
[Andre Leroux]: So Cles and David, I see both you guys unmuted. You wanna make any comments, either one?
[David Blumberg]: Andres, David, I would not waive this.
[Andre Leroux]: You would not waive it. Cles?
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I'm leaning that way too.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: And Andre, I don't know if you can tell by my questions, I'm kind of leaning back because I'm going back to the November 20th meeting and also even January and it's like each time there's been some back and forth with just some of the city's recommendations from Mr. McGivern. So I'm just wondering if this is a trend and going back and forth with not wanting to We've let a lot slide. And I understand that we can't go back and change things from the beginning but this one right here, six, it's big. And I don't want to continue to allow things to slide with this kind of impact.
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I mean, we received, we granted approval based on something. And that's not what was done.
[SPEAKER_00]: Again, it was what National Grid told us they were going to do. It had nothing to do with any of us making any calls on this.
[Deanna Peabody]: I don't know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's tough.
[Deanna Peabody]: I guess I'm with Andre and at this point.
[SPEAKER_07]: Do you want to go over the other ones and come back to this at the end? Yeah. Next one is the driveway aprons for lots one and two. So I believe Tim McGivern went and measured the slopes where the sidewalks go across the driveway. So there are no aprons right now for those lots. And Tim's comment is that you need aprons to meet the cross slope for that sidewalk across. And then also along with that was another comment about 93 Winslow, which didn't have aprons. And that one was, those were supposed to be provided aprons. So I believe John's already had discussions with the paper to get those accomplished. But I guess we just want confirmation on what's gonna be required for all of those driveways.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm just going off the, not only the detail that's shown on your drawings, but the rules for accessibility. So, you need to have less than 2% cross slopes on the pedestrian crossings, minimum three foot width. We like to see four feet, but three feet's acceptable, but it needs to be from one driveway to the other, just like the sidewalks.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, I mean, that seems straightforward. Do you have a problem with that? proponent, applicant.
[SPEAKER_07]: John, any comments on that? I'm sorry, I was still thinking about the underground. Yeah, so 93 Winslow, the existing house. Yeah, I mean, we need the aprons there to keep water away. Those are supposed to get them. And so we've worked with the paper. They're going to get that done. And then the other two driveways, it's really not that much. It's only about an inch, two inches of pavement. know, 20 feet wide, three feet across. So since they're already out there for the other ones, it's it's not that much more. Yeah, to take care of do that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, that doesn't fly anywhere in the city. So just so you guys know, like, that doesn't fly like you need to have one, you know, to less than 2% cross slopes on all your pedestrian walkways.
[SPEAKER_24]: Yeah, I understand.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. You might as well check. I mean, I just spot check them. So it's your responsibility to make sure that they meet it. Okay. Is there another one coming back? Sorry, I didn't mean to trouble you. That's okay.
[SPEAKER_07]: The last, which is coming back to the electric, was the only other one.
[Andre Leroux]: Just, you mean the underground, overground, above ground? That's the last issue. I mean, we seem to have kind of a divided board on this. Christy, Jackie, in which way are you guys falling?
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry, I'm just reading the summary again.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, we've seen this project so many times, honest to God. I just want it done. I just want to like, the electricity's already there. Let's just, I don't want to see it again.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: And why are we forcing it to underground? Was there an actual, usually it's an aesthetic purpose, but Tim, can you remind us why?
[Tim McGivern]: What the benefits to underground services are?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: No, no, no. I know that I just wanted for this one outside of the aesthetic purpose. I didn't know if there was a specific purpose for this one.
[Tim McGivern]: I would ask you that question. I would ask the board that question. I wasn't here during the approval process. But basically what I'm going by on is just the endorsed approved plan has underground services for all the homes. I personally prefer underground services. I wish all overhead wires were underground. In general, so I that's where I fall on this on this sort of thing. Just to kind of give folks an idea of what typically happens in this in a situation like this. If a developer is executing a project and they run into something that doesn't meet the plan, especially an endorsed approved subdivision plan, which is as good as regulation, and it doesn't, they can't do it. then they're supposed to come to the board, have that discussion, and then it gets sussed out then, well, why can't you do it? What's the documentation? Da, da, da, da, I need a waiver. That didn't happen. So instead it's 11th hour, couldn't do it, and then get an email from National Grid that says, well, you could have done it. So, you know, just trying to frame the picture.
[Jenny Graham]: So I have a question. I mean, what's the burden to the developer for giving National Grid the easement? You know a burden on now the property and does it lower the value does it impact the owners of the parcels now I mean I don't. I get it there's some logistics around it but I guess if. I'm just trying to sway myself one way or another by just gathering a little more facts like if it's not a safety issue and it's more of an aesthetic and I understand the board approved it before to be underground, you know, that's one thing but if it's not a safety issue to have it overhead. Okay. Does, does the developer just not want to take the time to do it because you know we're sort of like at this home stretch or is it a burden and impact to the, to the value of the land to provide national grid with an easement.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, it's not a matter of matter of me not wanting to put the time to do it I believe me I put the time and as you all know over there. I'm down to just me. My partner's got some issues. He's gone. I've gone to hell and back with this project. I've done everything I possibly can to try to do everything the right way for you guys. I'm not a big builder. I got three kids in college. They're out of college now. I'm a blue collar guy. So this is all new stuff to me. And when I was told that National Grid trumps anything, that what they say goes. When they came there, they told me that. I went with what they said. You're right, Tim. I probably should have said, well, I'm going to go bring it to the board anyways. We're trying to get the last house done, and I just went with what they told me. That's God's honest truth, and
[Tim McGivern]: I know John, I wasn't trying to rub you. I was trying to be general and typical on what would typically happen. I didn't mean to point you out. I understand the situation for certain. And Ms. Dowd, just to comment on what you said, there is no safety issue. It's typically a preference, whether it goes overhead or underground. And then as far as easement, that would depending on where that junction box lands. Does it land in the way parcel or does it land on the building parcel? If it lands in the building parcel, yeah, national grids will need access to that. Does it reduce the value of the property? I don't know. You'd have to ask the market if having a national grid junction box in your property reduces the value. It might a little bit. But if it's in the right of way, we have those all over the city and they're usually not that big of a deal. They get serviced every now and then. just like a poll.
[Alicia Hunt]: If it helps, Tim is reviewing this from the plans that were presented to him because he was not the city engineer at the time. I was not the community development director. And actually, if memory serves, very few of you were actually on this board when this was approved. So I did pull up the written I can't even come up with words at this point, sorry. The written conditions, the narrative conditions, and there's no mention of electrical service in the narrative conditions. So I didn't go back to the minutes from that meeting, but it wasn't, one would expect that if they had discussed it, it would have been something called out in the narrative. So it's not in the narrative of this at all.
[SPEAKER_07]: If I remember correctly, it was either install another pole or run underground electric. And, um, it basically came down and nobody wanted to add another pole to the street. Um, so underground was ran underneath the sidewalk and around the cul-de-sac. Um, it wasn't about the short runs from the wires to the houses. It was more about adding another pole at the end of the street and having a long run from pole to pole. Um, but again, I don't have that in writing. It's just based on my memory of that discussion. So you couldn't run an overhead service from the existing pole to lot three. It's just too long. You'd have to have another pole at the end of the cul-de-sac.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I don't recall this being an issue that generated discussion. There was a lot of discussion about a lot of issues. This wasn't one of them. And I just feel like the service is there.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yeah, I don't have any notes. I'm going to agree with that, Andre. I don't have any notes. I have notes on the generator. I have notes on the granite carbon. I don't have notes on this. So I'm just going to... I'm with you now. I'm just going to say just go for it.
[Alicia Hunt]: So and at this point, what we're voting is how far to release the bond. And so based on the conversation we've heard tonight, I've done some calculations. So if we revise, Tim gave us an estimate of 19,000 without the six trees. But keeping everything else that he estimated, that brings a total of mobilization and contingency and a total of 12,650 on the bond. If we also drop this portion, the electrical underground requirement, it brings the total bond that we would continue to hold at 10,235. And it seems like everybody's in agreement on the other items. What we did on another location was then we suggested that based on the engineer's recommendation, the chair could administratively release the rest of the bond. Tim, did you have anything to add on that?
[Tim McGivern]: I just wanted to talk about the trees. The reason the trees are still on there is not because of the issue with the property and where they're located. It's because we haven't received sign-off from the tree warden on the rooting.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, right. So you would actually keep the dollar amount until we have the letter from the tree warden saying that she has approved them.
[Andre Leroux]: That is my recommendation. But we need to indicate to the tree warden that we are okay with four trees instead of six trees, which I think we agreed was okay. So I don't know how we communicate that, but if that could be communicated via city staff, that would be, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: And Amanda can serve well, I'd send an introduction between the proponent and the tree warden if he doesn't already have that.
[SPEAKER_07]: Mr. Max, I believe the I believe the only thing on the plans as far as the tree born is just to approve the species of maple. Um, not not the number of trees. Um so if we can agree on that, it's just that we need a letter that the tree one approves the species of tree. Um And then that satisfies everything. I believe.
[Alicia Hunt]: Him had mentioned that he wanted the tree warden to approve that they were rooted, that they were not gonna die on us.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's just straight out of our regulations. And I quote, a full rooting of the new tree will be required and shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the tree warden. Straight out of section 8.33 of the subdivision rules and rights.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's what it's referring to, sorry.
[SPEAKER_07]: No, I just didn't understand, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: So I think for the purposes of the bond, then the trees stay in?
[Tim McGivern]: That would be my recommendation, yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: I think we've given our kind of approval to the new tree, you know, plan and what's been done there. And then we're just waiting on the, you know, the paperwork so we can release the bond. So I think that's fine. We'll keep that in. I think we have a majority opinion now on the board to, wave the underground electricity for house lot number one. So that can come out. And then what does that bring us to in terms of the bond?
[Alicia Hunt]: Just the electricity being waived. I'm going to do the math in a minute. I was just looking to see if the letter that they requested, if we have an idea of what the total bond is that we're releasing. The letter doesn't mention it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, it did not.
[Alicia Hunt]: 17,135 is the bond that we would continue to hold, that we would release the rest. I honestly don't have in front of me what our current bond is.
[Andre Leroux]: It's 194,000 something. So you said, did you say, what was the total again, Alicia? $17,135 is that what we would continue to hold and we would release the rest of it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Do we have a motion from a member of the board to release all but 17,000
[Andre Leroux]: 154. 35. 17,000. What's that? I will make that motion. Thank you, Klaas. Is there a second?
[Deanna Peabody]: I'll second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Deanna. All right, roll call vote. Klaas Andreassen? Aye. David Blumberg? Aye. Christy Dowd?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Deanna Peabody?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. Board approves unanimously releasing all but $17,035 of the bond.
[Alicia Hunt]: And does the board want them to come back to have that last $17,000 released, or do you want to do it administratively with him approving, well, and us, between us approving that they have completed everything on this list, and then the chair signs off on it.
[Andre Leroux]: I think it should be done administratively for such a small amount of money.
[Alicia Hunt]: I second that.
[Andre Leroux]: To make a formal motion on that, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think you do. I think you should just vote right now to give permission to do it administratively.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, to release the rest of the bond administratively, subject to chair approval. And is there, will someone make a motion
[zMDmsK0LIsU_SPEAKER_03]: I will make a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, class. And I see Jackie second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Roll call vote. Class Andreessen. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. Christy Dowd. Aye. Jackie Furtado.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Deanna Peabody.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'm an aye as well. Motion passes. Thank you. appreciate everybody's patience with this, and thanks for waiting so long, John and Benjamin. Thank you, guys.
[SPEAKER_07]: And Tim, I guess we'll reach out to you for a final inspection and I'll resubmit the as-built plan when everything's all set. Sounds good. All right, thank you very much.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, everyone. Good night. All right, I think we can... continue the next item on the agenda to review and approve the revised rules and regulations of the Medford Community Development Board Governing Organization and Procedure. If nobody has a problem, let's just continue that to the next meeting. I see some thumbs up, excellent. And then miscellaneous, can we also continue this or is there something that we need to address here, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to tell you, you guys had approved BJ's. You may have seen that their gas station permit was denied by the council that is now being appealed through the courts. So they're going to need an extension of the permit from this board because they had one year to begin construction. Their permits can expire in September. So on the next hearing, that'll come in front of you. And I think the other thing is that the city board terms that I, things that just, the mayor didn't have time to address this while we were dealing with the budget. I've made some recommendations to her. We also got legal counsel formally informed us that everybody's term, you stay a member, you stay your position unless somebody else is appointed in your place. And so hold over, it's a very standard legal thing with boards and commissions. So we weren't concerned about everybody or half of the board expiring on the mayor plans to have made recommendations to her and she plans to get back to me about her recommend her what she's going to do by the end of this week.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: So at least I have a question on that for myself. So say for instance, the governor, I mean, cause mine doesn't expire until the mayor's term expires. And maybe I know she's running again, but I'm just wondering, I'm sort of in the crossroads and I just, should I just sit still? But even if it did expire in January, do I have to scramble to try to figure out
[Alicia Hunt]: my next I just don't know. And you're appointed by the governor. I don't know how that mechanism worked. But I assume things at a state level take time. If we wanted to put in sort of initiate that process now and not wait till January. I think that would be a very appropriate thing to do. If you wanted to be reappointed by the governor, we should initiate that process. If you do not want to be reappointed by the governor, then we should begin a process to have a new appoint I'm going on vacation on Saturday. Okay? Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, well, thank you, everybody. Sorry, this was a long meeting again. I know we had a string of them earlier in the year, and we kind of decided to avoid that. I think, you know, I've talked to the CD staff, and this was a little inevitable, but, you know, I've asked them to, that we'd rather have an extra meeting during the month than have a long meeting like this, and it's limited to one public hearing per meeting. So just so you know. So thanks for your patience and for hanging in there so late. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? I will make a motion. And second. Second by David. Thank you. Roll call vote. Klaus Andresen. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. Christy Dowd.
[Jenny Graham]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado.
[Jenny Graham]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Yenna Peabody.
[Jenny Graham]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm an eye as well. So meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone.
|
total time: 3.22 minutes total words: 248 |
|||