total time: 21.65 minutes
total words: 1590
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We'll get started. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the micro community development board. I'll call the meeting to order. Let's begin with some regulatory procedure matters. This hearing of the Mecca Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or review this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda. posted on the city of Medford's website. If despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting tonight, all votes from the board will be made by roll call. Please know that the project materials for all projects before the board can be viewed on the city's website at medfordma.org and by clicking on current city board filings. Danielle will provide the link in the chat. I will do a roll call attendance. Vice Chair Emily Hedeman, has she? No. Sally Akiki? Present. Sherrod Bachbacheria?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Present.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter Cowles?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Present.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Irie Fishman? Present. Pam Marianski? Present. And myself, Jackie McPherson. Danielle, can you introduce anyone on staff that's on the call?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes. I have myself, senior planner, Alicia Hunt, the director of our office, and Clem Doucette, a graduate student intern.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Awesome. Thank you. This is a continued public hearing to consider and vote on our recommendations to city council regarding the zoning overlay to comply with the MBTA community zoning law. At the last meeting, the board members were supportive of the proposed overlay. However, there was discussion regarding the appropriate parking minimums and maximums, such as reducing parking minimums to 0.5 spaces per unit or requiring no parking minimums at all. We asked staff to model the unit capacity yields for the 0.5 spaces. So the city has reported back. Danielle, if you want to highlight that, and if the board wants to start deliberations from there.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so we met with our consultant, Emily Innis, who double checked our work and modeled this for us. So the unit capacity in the original draft that was submitted to you was 4.8 spaces per unit at five stories and that unit capacity was 6,472, if you recall the number that we need to hit is 6,433. And with the reduced parking at 0.5 spaces per unit and dropping down a story down to four stories, the unit capacity goes up to 6,595. The reason for dropping the story, as we discussed, was in hopes that this would prompt developers to utilize some of the incentive credits to forward some of our other goals. And one of the other items that we had discussed was what we wanted to put in for a maximum parking. Currently it's one and a half that's in the draft before you, and there was discussion about dropping that down to 1.2. I'm not sure if there were other numbers that were thrown out. That can't be modeled, but it would keep the parking down. So I think those were the, the points that you all need to discuss and vote on tonight. Am I missing anything?
[Peter Calves]: I'll leave in my notes, which admittedly I don't have in front of me, but I did write. I think those were the two things, was the parking minimums with the and how much that might modify the number of units and then the parking maximums, which you didn't say last time, as well as tonight that we can't directly model, but I appreciate nonetheless.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: I had also requested a realistic outlook of where the locations, the units could go. Like I remember discussing like the MBTA zone, there's not going to be any real development there. Station landing, there's not going to be any real development there. But where do you see the possibility of actually having these units being set up in a realistic output?
[Danielle Evans]: Through the chair, I believe we have a map that was created showing the parcels that would most likely have development on them. And I believe that we put that on the website. Clem, do you know that was, it was probably in the PowerPoint, because we had a meeting with city council, committee of the whole last Wednesday, I believe.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm pulling it up now, but the plan map is linked on the website.
[Alicia Hunt]: While Clem pulls that up, Clem can you share screen and show that map? Because I walked everybody through which were the parcels that we thought could be developed. To be clear, The goal is to create zoning that if all of these parcels were wiped clean of their buildings this is the number of units the 6,500 change could be built if all of these were then knocked down and clean and then and then residential was built there. There is actually no expectation that in any of these communities if you zone like this that that's what would get built, um, but it allows the parcels that are developable, um, so that they could develop as of right. Um, and so Clem had- those are the parcels, the Xs are the spaces that can't be developed. Um, this is not the presentation from, uh, Emily. Were you planning to show that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I can show that one too, but this just shows the legally excluded land. Right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I have the, is it the Downtown Trout Work Zoning Study? Is that the slides that Daniel shared?
[Alicia Hunt]: So Clem has it up on the screen now. These are the slides that were presented to the city council last week. Keep going. I think the one that we're thinking about, that's the one that we're thinking about, this one. So this shows which parcels we actually think some development would happen on and where it's reasonable to consider that this would occur. Most of the other parcels are either fully built out with high-rise buildings, and in some cases, more stories than we would allow under this. Some are not that built out, but they're new enough that we don't think they would actually develop on.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I doubt the top right corner would be developed as well. The one next to the station on the right of the station, the small parcel, I think that's developable. The tattoo parlor thing, that's developable. The Meadow Glen Mall or whatever mall it was, that's a maybe. But I do not think there's even 500 units within this parcels.
[Alicia Hunt]: And that's quite fine. That's totally allowable. What we think of with the one on the top right is that there is so much surface parking up there that with this new zoning, they could choose to put residential buildings on the surface parking.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, and I think just a point of clarification, the intention of the zoning is not everything is going to get built. It is that the possibility is there and that the the regulatory kind of environment is cleared for if someone wanted to develop multifamily residential. It's not saying that, well, we need to build this many units. It's that the legal possibility needs to be there.
[Danielle Evans]: Exactly. It's dropping the regulatory rope that would preclude that development by right. So we don't have to produce any units The law does not care what is on that parcel now.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Emily, do you have a question?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. It was a similar question to what Peter just asked in terms of the intent of this discussion. Just to confirm that we're not confirming developability, we're just talking about the zoning in particular. Then an additional comment, I live in the building in between the top right circle and Wellington, right along the river. That building, from my understanding, was the redevelopment of a surface parking lot. I'm really excited to see that this could potentially be done. That being said, there are a lot of parking spots in my building that are used. you know, just whatever we can do to kind of incentivize developers to build more units that respect kind of the transit oriented nature of this community, I think is great. So I'm excited about this.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I I echo Emily, 1 of the things that I stand firm with, and I understand that the city has, you know, you take away park and even with transit oriented development, then you'll still see a spillover. But at the same time, it's like the whole idea of it being compliant and dealing with the transit oriented is that we're trying to prioritize people. over cars. So I am all for the more housing units that we can get on a property, whether they're built or not, but removing that barrier and offering that incentive for a developer to take up if they so choose. So that's where my stance is. So I don't know if there's any other questions that's leading up to us and what we need to do for recommendations. And as far as maximum parking, I would say we definitely want to I'm all for bringing it down under the 1.5 maximum if needed, but I don't know how the board feels about that. This is just picking up on what we were talking about at the previous meeting. I don't know if anyone had any comments on the maximum parking or if there's any other comments on the parking overall.
[Peter Calves]: No, I mean, I think I'd also be in favor of reducing the maximum parking. I think that's a more, uh, that's a less kind of risky play than the parking minimums at this point, because I think Alicia, I don't remember if it was Alicia or somebody else that brought it up at the last meeting that, um, But even given the transit-orientedness of this community, there are going to be people that have cars. So we can't, like, I mean, Medford is trying, but it's not like a Cambridge or a Boston where you're going to be able to get everything you need without a car, necessarily, unless you're really trying. So I think we want to undercut. the developability by having the parking minimums too low. I think the parking maximum, bringing that down under the 1.5 is a good way to disincentivize parking without setting potential developers up for problems later on.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And also still definitely keeping in mind equity for people that actually really need to utilize those spaces, whether it's a disability or they're caring for someone or whatever the reason is, we're still allowing it there. It's not going into zero, but so we're making notice that, yeah, parking is needed, but again, minimal parking. All right, so, Danielle, I know that you wanted us to sort of give some feedback on developer incentives. Did anyone have any further discussion on how you thought the incentives played out in the amendment? Or any additional thoughts from what was captured at the last meeting? Or if you wanted to add anything to Daniel's suggested or not suggested, but they're captured development incentive bonuses, or are you fine with how they are as is. Is the board ready to vote on a recommendation for the. Is it, it's the approval of the amendment for the zoning overlay to send to City Council or to recommend to City Council?
[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair? Yes. I just wanted to, for the record, let you know that we had sent mail out to a number of developers who had expressed interest in building in this area. And we, with Clem's assistance, to either property owners or property managers for all of the parcels that are in the zone. We sent them this draft zoning. We told them about this meeting, about the City Council's meeting next week. We asked for feedback. I had a couple of them respond saying thank you for the opportunity. They're looking forward to reading the zoning. and nobody has actually sent me any feedback this evening. You may want to open it to the public. I see that there are a couple members of the public here. I don't know if there's any chance they represent the developers or whatever, but I just wanted you to know that I had actually done some extra outreach on this to see if we would get any feedback from developers, property owners, or potential developers.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, thank you, Director Hunt. That's my oversight. I actually, this is a continuation of a public hearing. So I absolutely do, before we go on with the vote, I want to open up to the public, whether there's members representing the public or not, just to give them the opportunity. So at this point, I will open up the public comment period. So those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hand feature or message Danielle in the comments. You can also send an email to OCD at medford-ma.gov. Individuals may have up to three minutes to provide comments. Before providing your comments, please state your name and address for the record. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to provide comments as it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, this may be entered into the chat to alert myself and C-staff. Danielle, can you please manage the public comment queue? And once that's done, if you, Alicia or Danielle, if you have anything that you want to read, emails or letters, or even if you want to, I know that we had one at the previous meeting, if you want to read that out again, I'm not sure if it's necessary.
[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair, I don't believe that I have received any additional written comments. I also do not see any hands raised meeting tonight. I can check the inbox. See if there's anything in here that's come in.
[Unidentified]: So I last checked.
[Danielle Evans]: Of course, Outlook is not responding, and I have a spinning wheel of death. I don't know, Clem or Alicia, are you able to check the- I'm looking at it, and I don't see anything.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just sort of scrolling down. But if I scroll down to the 28th, I don't see anything relevant. I assume you've checked it since then. All the emails in the box are red. I just don't see anything relevant to this. Yeah. Yes, so Madam Chair, for the record, we actively solicited developer property owner feedback and got acknowledgement that our messages were received, but have not received any actual feedback. There was one question confirming that this was an overlay and not a complete rezoning such that the underlying zoning would stay in place, which is in fact correct. But we answered that.
[Danielle Evans]: and developers, it's just for the public edification. A PDD overlay is still an option if a property owner wanted to use that tool. There are various options on the menu, and this 3A overlay is one of them.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, with that said, close the public comment period and come back to the board and sort of try to piece this all together and decide which scenario we are going to recommend to city council. If we're going to all recommend to city council, are we going to do 0.5 and drop a story, which is four stories or keep 0.85 stories for minimum parking? So we will have to decide on one of those scenarios. What was presented was the original 0.5 with four stories, or are we going to 0.8? Originally, it was 0.8 with five stories. Are we going to go to 0.5 and drop a story, four stories? No, go ahead.
[Ari Fishman]: No, you go right ahead, Ari. I was going to offer kind of to decide between those two. Do we want like a straw poll before official voting to decide if one of them should be brought as an official motion? Or do we want to just present one of those as a motion?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So because the zoning amendment has been presented for us, this is where we can actually change it. So we would be voting collectively at the end for whatever we decide. care for whatever we rectify here. Is that correct, Danielle? We don't have to do a motion for which we're choosing. We just have to actually do a motion for whatever the recommendation is.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes. Your motion could be the draft as amended to reduce the minimum parking to x and maximum to y. And then the same with the stories. I think those were the only changes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Or we can recommend to keep it active.
[Alicia Hunt]: And Madam Chair, I think sort of for the record in the end, you might want to have a motion that says that the board recommends that the city council adopt the zoning as presented with the changes, you know, discussed here and just so that for the record, you have, you know, actually voted on that you're recommending because based on your conversations, I assume that you are recommending that the city council adopt this. So we should actually for the record, because then we'll draft a note to the council on that.
[Danielle Evans]: And if there's any Discussion or anything that you'd like me to include in the memo that gets submitted to city council.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, I'm just sorry. He private private message to me a. There was a typo in the zoning that 1 of the rows in the. Use table was blank. and we're supposed to have either a Y or an SP, but not be blank. None of them were ever intended to be blank, which is why I'm calling it a typo. But it would be cleaner if this board actually made a recommendation that one of its recommendations was to change the blank to either Y or SP. We'd have to pull it up. It's the non-commercial greenhouse tool shed accessory structure.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Number seven.
[Danielle Evans]: Remind me the multifamily use, was that in the version that went to city council the first time?
[Alicia Hunt]: I would really like to pull up, I apologize. So I apologize for being late. I came directly from a city council meeting. I would love, I don't actually have the zoning we're discussing up in front of me. I wanna pull it up. Thank you, Clem. So the rows about multifamily, did that get corrected before we, can you scroll up to the top of this actually? Okay, there, yes. So it is just multifamily is listed as a Y and then we'll have the definition of multifamily is in there. Rather than in the rest of our zoning, we have multifamily class A and multifamily class B and the classes, is what distinguishes whether it's up to three stories or up to six stories. And so we actually just want generic multifamily allowed with no association with height in the category type. And then the height is controlled in the rest of the zoning. It is our hope that this is something that we'll change in the zoning update that occurs next spring.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The actual recommendation of city council is not just to approve, but also to adopt. That's two different motions?
[Alicia Hunt]: No. Adopting and approving are the same thing.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Yes. That's the motion I would be looking for from the board.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. With the amendments that you all put forward. So I think that the intention was that the line seven was to have a Y like the rest of them, and it was a blank. And so I think it would be cleaner if you all could recommend that they also do that. I see member Hedeman has, Emily has her hand up.
[Emily Hedeman]: Through the chair, it's more of an administrative question. Um, I was unfortunately not in attendance at the last meeting where I believe the, the public hearing started. Um, am I eligible to vote in any motions that are associated with this topic? I was thinking back to previous. Okay.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, because you didn't, um, unless you watched the, um, the recording and then I mean, if you did, you could sign something attesting that you did. If you didn't get a chance to do that then.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, I'll just, I'll abstain. Thank you for confirming.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. So to clarify, Robin's rules are she would have had to have watched it previous to tonight's meeting and had signed off saying that she watched it and then she can continue tonight and vote. Correct.
[Alicia Hunt]: Technically, it's not Roberts rules. It's actually stayed open meeting law and that there's called the Mullen rule. And sorry, that's what I meant. Yes, this board adopted the Mullen rule years ago, which means somebody can watch the video or listen to the recording, and then come up to speed. And then they give us a literally a sign thing saying I watched this that we put in the file, and then they can vote.
[Danielle Evans]: But if we have a quorum, then it's not necessary. It doesn't prevent a member from participating in the discussion. They just can't vote. Like if it was something that was going to be, this isn't going to pass, or we don't even have the numbers to make the vote, then we definitely would be like, let's break quorum.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I had to do something for that over the summer.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking of, Peter.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I think it was the two of us missed a meeting, and we needed to watch it so that we could vote on it because we didn't have a quorum.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. So at this point, we would need a motion to recommend to City Council that they approve the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District As amended, for the parking spaces, are we doing 0.8 or 0.5? I guess that would be more of a discussion for the board to see. Peter, what was your I guess it's not really a roll call, but if I, if I, I guess, call out, then you can tell me what your voice is for. Park and minimums and maximum. So Peter. Yep. Are you voting to amend it? We discussed at the last meet, and it was originally 0.5. It was originally 0.8 with five stories, and are we amending it? Are we keeping that for minimums, or are we going to 0.5, four stories?
[Peter Calves]: I'd be inclined to keep the 0.8 if only because I want to keep the five stories. You want the five stories? I'm not in love with the 0.8, but I would value the more housing.
[Danielle Evans]: OK. It can go up to nine with the incentives, remember.
[Evangelista]: Sally Akiki? 0.8 with five stories.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Actually, Sally, also for your maximum, are you at 1.5 or 1.2? And Peter?
[Peter Calves]: Sherrod?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Can I vote no on the entire thing?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You're not going to vote to recommend that at all?
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: I do not want this to be move to the council.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Pam Marianski?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I'm fine with the 0.8 and five stories and then the max 1.5.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, and then myself for the record. Did I? Me. Oh, I'm sorry, Ari.
[Ari Fishman]: I would like the. What. smaller minimum with four stories. I don't think it will ever actually be built with four stories. It's going to go up with the incentives. I similarly want lots of housing, but I think that the lower minimum is good and the 1.2 maximum. I'm getting a sense that we don't actually have an agreement.
[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, I think there's some confusion here. First of all, I would like to understand why Sherrod doesn't want to recommend this at all. We need to understand that. But on the other hand, what I heard Peter say was that he wanted more density at this location. So I'm going to just post this into the chat because we said this out loud, but if you do 0.5 spaces minimum and a max of four stories with them not taking us any incentives and they actually did 0.5 spaces, the maximum build-out capacity of the zone is 6,595 units. If they did 0.8 spaces with a max of five stories, the maximum number of units in the build-out is actually lower, is 6,472. However, I will talk about that, and I wonder if this might be where Member Peters was going, is that based on conversations I've had with developers, I find it unlikely that any developers would build a less than a one-to-one ratio anywhere in the city of Medford, even if they were allowed to go down this low. That's what we've heard in other locations and from actually a developer who was looking at one of these sites.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, that's what I'd be. That's, I think, the conversation from last time I was remembering having is that we can set this. And I mean, I'd love to set it at the 0.5 for four stories. That's going to allow more density. But I think realistically, things being as they are, developers aren't going to come into Medford and develop at a parking ratio under one anyway. Like I said, we're not. We're not Cambridge. We're not the denser parts of Boston. That's just not. I think residential developers would not see that as marketable.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And I think that's where we got into the development incentives and how that played into the parking. And I'm almost positive, but Sharad can share more of his side of that's where he was a little apprehensive about with the density and so forth.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: But Sharad, you know, like, I was not convinced about the actual reality of where parcels were going to be developed. I take this as a big opportunity for Medford for developers to actually come in and get more housing done. But with this location that was chosen, I do not think it's enough. I think there is three parcels in total that has a real potential to be developed and that would account for 500 units. at the max. So I think we're losing out on an opportunity to actually add more housing. I think this could be done by expanding the area more further. I pointed out last time that maybe we can reduce the land area from 10,000 to 8,000 maybe. So I think in the real estate point of view, the parkings and all those things does matter, but I see only like three parcels that are actually going to be developed here. So I think for me, everything else doesn't matter because nothing's really going to happen here. That's my point of view.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And I believe the city responded, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the area outside of that is already planned for, the city has planning goals for like commercial and lab space, not residential. So that's pretty much why moving to another part of the city is not really feasible with compliance for one or with the city's planning goals. And so as highlighted by Danielle with the previous meeting.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. In terms of that, even the space over here, this could be expanded up to the full 0.5 miles from the center, and that would include a lot more properties there. I think West Medford, again, it's still a viable option for me. I know it's a historic district, but I think there's a viable option in West Medford over this Wellington area when I look at it in detail.
[Emily Hedeman]: Does the passing of this, or does us, our recommending, um, making a recommendation to city council, does that exclude further overlay zones for some of the areas that Sharon's talking about in West Medford? Is this like a either or situation or is this, let's talk about this piece today and maybe we can talk about those other pieces another day?
[Alicia Hunt]: So Madam Chair, I think that I was one of the updates I was going to provide to you all at the end of the meeting is that we are with the city council in the process of hiring a zoning consultant and lawyer to look at completely rezoning the entire city. So you may remember the RFQ we put out for a zoning consultant. We got responses back. I reviewed those responses with the city council. this evening that's why I was a few minutes late tonight and they have a strong recommendation that we move forward with opening the price proposal to hire one of the consultants on there I guess that was a public meeting on TV so I might as well say it was the team of Emily Innes and Jonathan Silverstein and that We're just going to move forward with the technical pieces of that. But the intention is actually to look at complete rezoning of the entire city, re-looking at all of our pieces. We also have a grant from actually it's a state earmark to do an economic development study of West Medford to look at what we should be doing there. And our lack of economic development staff has prevented us from moving forward on that. But that's one of the in-depth studies we'd like to get going. I also am hoping that we will be offering an economic development planner position next week.
[Emily Hedeman]: We have to answer the question that I asked. It sounds like. We can recommend this overlay district. And it doesn't mean that we're not going to recommend development opportunities or incentives for development in other areas. Right. We're just right.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's not a choice. This is the way to meet the state's requirements in the timeline the state has given us.
[Danielle Evans]: But yes, under the year is the deadline. And if we don't make the deadline, then we will be ineligible for millions and millions of dollars of grants. And this 3A is applicable to 177 cities and towns as a one size fits all.
[Emily Hedeman]: If we apply that- I'm just trying to think through the thoughtful points that fellow board member Sherrod raised. You know, just also to get some clarification myself, because, you know, it's a great point. There are other areas of Medford that, you know, have a lot of potential, and we want to make sure that, you know, we're treating all areas of Medford reasonably. So, yeah, you know, I think the attention paid to this area is is reasonable. Also having a very intimate knowledge of this area, I realized, you know, we have some like land boundaries around us. We have Malden to the north, we have the Malden River on one side, we have the Mystic River on the south. So in terms of expanding the radius of this overlay district, you know, those are three boundaries. And then on the northwest corner, there's a lot of like single family residential and Um, you know, we have the, I forget what the traffic circle is called, but every morning, yeah, it treats me to a wonderful experience. So we might have some boundaries that like, that, you know, might be challenging to expand the area beyond what is proposed today. Those are just some initial thoughts, but, um, thanks for, for raising those really thoughtful points.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter, you have a question?
[Peter Calves]: No, I was just going to bring up the kind of, I mean, I think whatever question I had only answered, but I was also going to bring up the issue of the state compliance and that we. We need to get this done for just this very explicit legal purpose. And we can talk about better zoning West Medford after that. But this area as just an area around a rapid transit station has to get done sooner rather than later so that we can be in good standing with the state, which is obviously very important.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So with that being said, I want to make sure that we're all, I guess, even for myself, I inadvertently assumed that the 0.55 stories was given us more. I'm not sure how we got that backwards.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I guess, realistically, the one with five stories, the 0.8 with five stories, if you really, if you think from the perspective, it reminds me, Peter, I believe you're a transportation planner, right? So you're muted.
[Peter Calves]: Traffic engineer, but close enough.
[Alicia Hunt]: Traffic engineer, thank you. There's real reason to believe that developers would never go lower than 0.8, and we actually think one is more. When you say, well, if they actually build with one-to-one ratio of parking, then the option that allows five stories is actually going to yield more units than the option that allows four stories. But really, we've heard from developers who'd rather do eight, seven or eight. And so we think that they will take the incentives that we're putting for the easy extra stories.
[Danielle Evans]: And I just dropped some math in the chat. You can read it out loud. So the example of a 400 unit project, if you have 0.8 spaces, that means it'd be 320 parking spaces minimum that would be required to be built. If it's 0.5, that drops down to 200 minimum spaces. If we have a maximum of 1.5 spaces, that means the developer would only be allowed to build 600 spaces for a 400-unit project. If we drop that to 1.2, 480 spaces would be allowed to be built. So just tweaking that by a fraction does change it quite a bit. And I just pulled 400 out of thin air looking at the unit yields for some of the parcels. It's kind of in the middle. And just to reiterate, the minimum parking doesn't compel them to only provide the 0.8. If they want to provide one, they can. They can provide up to the maximum. So whether we think they'll do 0.8 or not, it's kind of like, I guess not that important. But if the developer is insisting that their product demands 1.2 spaces, then they'll build that if it's allowed, regardless of what the minimum is.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And then remind me of the affordable units. If there's affordable units, it has to be set at 0.5, correct?
[Danielle Evans]: That's the minimum. That's the minimum. Yeah. Not the maximum.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Question through the chair about the unit capacity. Is that, so the number of units that we're talking about, is that a function of like the square footage of units, the square footage of parking spaces and the floor area ratio of these parcels?
[Danielle Evans]: Are you talking about how does the model contemplate? So basically, it has a bunch of assumptions. Yeah. And then we enter in the zoning parameters. And then it spits it out. I mean, it's not exact. I think they just use averages. I'm not sure. It's probably in the really long explainer. OK. But that's what they will judge compliance based on that model for everyone. OK.
[Emily Hedeman]: OK, great. Yeah.
[Peter Calves]: And I mean, that's just to go back to what Alicia was saying about we can talk about 0.8s or 0.5s. a developer's going to come in and build the amount of parking that they think will make the building marketable. And that's where I think the maximum will have a bigger impact. That's just my thought. That's kind of my logic behind going with the 0.8 for the minimum, but going down to the 1.2 for the maximum, that we can We can say the 0.8 minimum, and it's not terribly likely that developers will come in and do a 0.8 space per unit parking minimum. But with the maximum, that is something we are definitively saying. They cannot go over 1.2 spaces per unit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But yeah, that's just my two cents.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'm assuming that that's pretty much where the rest of the board was coming from too, 0.8, because it's not written. It's just a barrier removed. They can do what they can, but then it's more so the maximum that we were really looking to change. But we wanted to bring it down to 0.8 to give them the option, even if it's not something that they pick up on. So 0.8 for minimum, and then perhaps 1.2 for maximum. I thought that's where I landed. And it looks like Ari landed there, as did Peter. So that's three of us, but we have Sally with 1.5 maximum, and Pam with 1.5 maximum. And Sherrod, Emily abstaining, and Sherrod, a no.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: I'd be fine with the 1.2. I'm getting kind of swayed toward that. Yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK, so now we have. All right, so I guess, so let me just let me try this. So are we prepared to vote on a recommendation with the motion to recommend to city council that they approve the Wellington station multifamily overlay district as amended to 0.8, which is five stories for minimum parking and 1.2 for maximum parking and making sure to add the Y for non-commercial greenhouse, tool shed, or similar assessment structure? Did I get that right, Alicia?
[Danielle Evans]: Madam Chair, I think that 0.8 was what was brought to you, so I think the only part that would be amended would be the maximum.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It was originally 0.8.
[Danielle Evans]: 0.8 in five stories, and then we bandied around whether 0.5, four stories instead. But it looks like the consensus is landing on changing the max to 1.2 and then correcting that typo, the Y. Can I make a quick pitch for putting in a minimum that will not be used?
[Ari Fishman]: We know that they're probably going to build much higher than the minimum. That's fine. I think that 0.5 is lower than many of the minimums for these large things, and I'm a fan of a symbolic gesture if this minimum is going to be symbolic anyway. I'm totally okay with being overridden, but I did want to make that pitch.
[Emily Hedeman]: I think that price is right approach.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So for myself, I'm not a transportation planner, but dealing in economic development and some of the things that I know that goes into the traffic engineering and everything that comes with developers and their incentives, I'm willing to keep it at 1.8 to keep it attractive, even though, I mean, I don't know how the board feels about going to 0.5 at this point.
[Peter Calves]: I appreciate that Ari said they're fine with being overridden. I mean, as someone who does work on the traffic side for developers sometimes, the lower parking minimum and the relative car dependency is going to make it a hard square to circle for developers in some ways. It's going to make it less marketable. But I do appreciate the symbolic gesture. But I know what will make the developers, I have seen what will make the developers bite a little harder.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And we don't want the city to lose an economic development planner before they get them. So I guess am I? I'm going to reiterate here.
[Emily Hedeman]: Emily's hand is up again. All right. I keep going back and forth between wanting to ask questions and share my thoughts. Peter, following up on what you just said, are you saying that, is your hypothesis, if the parking space minimum is too low, then developers will not develop? Is that the basic hypothesis?
[Peter Calves]: You're muted. It's not a blanket statement. It's not a blanket statement. I don't want to be perceived as being pro more parking, because I'm definitely not. But just having it. just having been part of some of these processes, it sometimes just makes a more, if developers see what they can perceive as a more difficult kind of loophole to close with something like parking, I mean, it's like, you'd see developers be, fine to do 0.5 or even lower in some denser areas. I think this is something Alicia brought up last time that in a lot of Medford, you would struggle to get a developer who would be comfortable with that. And just if they see that, it raises flags that there might be a argument or a process that maybe there wouldn't be at all, but it would make it harder for some. It would make it less attractive.
[Emily Hedeman]: even though the 0.5 is a minimum, so they could build one. We're not saying that they have to build 0.5. That's true.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, because I think that's the disconnect.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I guess I get that.
[Peter Calves]: You're making me think we should go down to 0.5.
[Emily Hedeman]: The minimum is the minimum. You don't have to be at that minimum. You have to be between these two datums that were created, whatever the maximum is and whatever the minimum is.
[Evangelista]: Peter, is it because they would be pressured to abide by the minimum depending on the neighborhood? No.
[Peter Calves]: I mean, I appreciate everyone's arguments because it's kind of making me clarify my thinking. I think where I've seen people run into problems with these kind of things before is when you do have a development come in in an area with low minimums, that does try to do the minimum, and then you get a lot of community pushback of where people are going to park.
[Emily Hedeman]: That's a great point.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you for everyone for their arguments, because it made me actually figure out. I knew I had this line of reasoning in my head somewhere, and I was trying to figure out where it was. But it's that. If you have someone come in and try to do the minimum, you're going to get a lot of pushback. If you have one space for every two units and you have somebody come in and try to actually do that, it's going to be harder to get that through. So I think that's what would lead me towards the 0.8. In case someone actually came in and tried to do 0.5, it would have a hard time not running into a lot of problems.
[Danielle Evans]: Can I ask a question through the chair to Peter?
[Peter Calves]: Sure.
[Danielle Evans]: What do you mean they'd have a hard time getting it through? Because this would be by right.
[Peter Calves]: Oh, yeah, that's true. I was thinking of.
[Danielle Evans]: It's not your board approving it or the city council having to approve. So basically, you can look at site design, but I don't think that I don't know, Alicia, I'm curious about this. Within site plan review, which is you have to approve it, could the board compel them to add more spaces or to build to the maximum?
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, that's a fair point. I haven't thought of it by right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. You can't compel them to do anything. in site plan review, you can ask, you can suggest, you can kind of negotiate things. There's a very, there is a line actually, like, at one point, we had a project where they didn't want to do the groundwater testing that the engineer was requiring. And that was different. But you can't compel them to change their design for a non-life safety meet our other requirements, right?
[Peter Calves]: OK. No, that's helpful. Thanks. I was not considering it as a by right case. I was forgetting that because. Because my previous experience has not been with things by right. It's like, oh, we're going to go to this. And they're going to say, you don't have enough parking. But if it's by right, you can't reject it out of hand for that. So that's a bit of a traditional thing.
[Danielle Evans]: And that's one of the big reasons that the legislature passed this law, was to take out that discretion of things are allowed. In name only, but are they really if everything's a special permit and they can say no to everything then. That's a problem. So that's why the by right, but allowing site plan review. As long as you approve it.
[Peter Calves]: Okay, so. Do we, Jackie, are we going to make a motion? Is that the next step here?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And so that's what I'm just trying. And I'm trying to stay out as much as the conversation as possible, because as you know, just what would be in my previous agency, well, now that we're separated, the whole idea of it being an MBTA rule is to eliminate parking minimum. So I'm trying not to be too heavy handed on my, my share and why I think it should be. I prefer for the boards to deliberate and for us to get to an agreement of what the minimum parking is.
[Peter Calves]: This is great because I've gone back and forth three or four times at this point. It lasts like 10 minutes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, no, which is great. And I like I said, I just I allow you to go I it this is great for other members. And it's even you know, great for the members of the audience, the public and even myself just to hear it. But I already know that I am sort of biased in where I sit, unfortunately.
[Peter Calves]: So yeah, I think I'd given that and given the given the by right nature and given that given the minimum that nobody is probably going to build to anyway, I'd be fine at this point with going down to the 0.5 of four stories if that is something that the rest of the board would be interested in. But kind of similar to Ari, if the 0.8 is going to past, I'm willing to be overridden, but I think that's actually three people in favor, but I'm not counting. Yeah, I'd be fine with the 0.5 and the four stories. My bigger thing is the 1.2 max. If I was going to pick a hill to die on, it would be that one.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I'm looking more at the maximums than I am at the minimums, but it looks like. So we would be amending to so we were at this point. We were asking for a vote to recommend just to get a little bit more of the boys temperature again. So Peter, you're now saying 0.5. And to be clear, can the city clarify what the actual. parking minimums around other transit areas in Medford?
[Danielle Evans]: Within a half mile of high transit is what we're defining, which also can include buses if they have the headway that's tight enough, is 0.8 for market rate units. Otherwise, citywide, it's 1.5 minimum for market rate unit, if it's not within transit. And it's 0.5 for affordable units anywhere in the city. 0.5 for anywhere, okay. So 0.8 would be the minimum here. Anyways, per the ordinance. But the difference is the maximum, we don't currently have parking maximums for residential. So that is one difference.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I can go with either the 0.8 or 0.5 for minimums, but I'm definitely, my vote is for the 1.2 for maximum. So I guess we just have to come back to agreement because as of right now, we only have Ari and Peter that are saying 0.5 for minimums. So we have to get that clear.
[Ari Fishman]: Can we do the straw poll kind of by individual again? I don't know if Sharad is now perhaps considering voting for some of these given additional context of why this is the situation. I can't speak for him, but I think it is worth getting another temperature read given the number of discussions that have happened.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Oh, yes, Nate. Sorry, just to answer for myself, I'm still in a no, so you can just count me out of this discussion.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, based on what he's already shared with us, I deduce that. All right, Ari for minimum?
[Ari Fishman]: 0.5 minimum, 1.2 maximum. I want to give them the chance to have lower minimum parking by right.
[Evangelista]: Sally Akiki? I personally don't think Metford is at the stage where the public transportation is elaborate enough for the people to just drop the car and use the public transportation, even though we would like at some point to be at that point. So I'm at 0.8 and 1.5. Okay. Peter?
[Peter Calves]: I would sit at the 0.5 and 1.2, although as you have said, I'm not as concerned about the minimum as I am about the 1.2 maximum.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sam?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I'm just feeling really confused. And I feel like I'm amenable to the minimum and the maximum. I just want it to be passed. So I am amenable to either.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So yeah, I'm the same for me for the minimums, either 0.8 to 0.5. And I definitely hear that, especially myself taking MBTA from where I sit, we're not at a point where Medford can just start dropping parking spaces. But at the same time, even though I think I'm less than, I'm a little bit over half a mile, but even I can get to Wellington station easily. So the fact that this is like right there in the Wellington station area, that's not one of my biggest concerns, and I will stand by my 1.2 for maximum, but I can be swayed for 0.8, 0.5 for minimum. So looking at that overall, if I was to change to 0.5 to keep it, it would be Peter, myself and Ari, have the same numbers as does PAM, so that's four. That's voting for 0.5 minimum, 1.2 maximum to get it passed. So in that case, we would be amending because it came in at 0.8. So we're looking for a motion to recommend to city council that they approve the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District with the amendments for 0.5. It's 0.5 minimum parking and 1.2 maximum. And then add the Y to the use table.
[Peter Calves]: So moved.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is there a second?
[Ari Fishman]: Second.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll do a roll call with. So I have Peter Cowles.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman. Yes. Pam Marionski. Yes. Sally Akiki. Yes. Myself, Jackie McPherson, I'm a yes, and we have one no, which is Sharad. We didn't get your no. Well, we've heard your no, Sharad, but I should have called you.
[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: It's a no. Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: All right. So we have five yeses for the recommendation to city council.
[Danielle Evans]: And can you just repeat the motion back it was.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I have a motion to recommend to city council that they approved the Wellington station multifamily overlay district with the amendments to from 0.8 spaces from 0.5 spaces per dwelling to 0.8. Well, there's 0.8. From 0.8 to 0.5, Jackie. Yeah. Did you go from 0.5 to 0.8? We're not keeping it. We're changing it. Sorry.
[Peter Calves]: So the 0.5.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We're amending it from 0.8 to 0.5. OK.
[Peter Calves]: You've got 0.8 on the brain.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. And then we're also amending the maximum from 1.5 to 1.2. And then we're adding a yes to the use table where it needs to be. Do I have to spell that out? That's based on my table. It's number 7 for non-commercial greenhouse to shed or similar accessory structure. Is that a sufficient motion or recommendation?
[Danielle Evans]: And you guys took your vote.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, we have five yeses and one abstention.
[Danielle Evans]: Great, because I got to turn around something for city council tomorrow.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Tomorrow, okay. And we have the next item on the agenda is approval of minutes, but we have none. So we'll go to the next item, which is miscellaneous and other updates.
[Alicia Hunt]: So Madam Chair, we have a housing planner that will start January 2nd. So that's very exciting. And our office has been interviewing for economic development planner and we will be interviewing economic development director candidate this week. We are very hopeful. We've actually, we've recommended one of the planners for the like a second round formality interview. We were hoping that she will accept that she'll be given an offer next week. So I just wanted to give you an update on those. And as I was saying, we got two proposals back on the RFP for a zoning consultant. And that was for a request for proposals. And it's based on grading, scoring, preferences, and then we can price negotiate. So we expect that to go forward. I think it's been a really long time since we shared the zoning RFP that was put out, because it was originally put out in June. And then we had to re-put it out in October. It was actually, I think, originally put out in May to the first week of July. And we called consultants and said, why didn't you submit? And they all said the timing was horrible for us. The end of the fiscal year was just not a good time to prepare a proposal. So we got two proposals back when we did it this time. We really like the consultants. I believe that we'll be moving forward and being able to negotiate something and have somebody hired by the beginning of the new year to do a zoning project for the city. I'm going to share the RFQ with you because it talks about doing a first phase that is more cleanup of smaller things that are easy to bite off and chew and just get done, fixes, etc. And then to really dig into what the comprehensive plan recommended and start to align our zoning more with what we want, and in some cases, what we see in the city, and in some cases, what we'd like to see in the city. And we are anticipating that to be an 18-month project that this board will hear more about and be involved. And at the level that you all want to be involved, Let us know. There would, of course, be report backs to you all. We're still on the fence whether we have like a steering committee for this or we just work with the consultants. If there was one or two members of this board that wanted to be very actively involved in the project, we could put together a steering committee with like two city Councilors and two members of the city board and staff. to do it, or we could just manage consultants and move forward. So if people want to mull that over and think about that, and we can discuss it further, because we wouldn't even start until January. I'm sort of letting you all know, but it's coming. And if there's zoning change that you really want to see in the city of Medford, this is this time to start thinking about that and putting together a list because, you know, those are the things that will attack first. Danielle has a list. Right. I'd be happy to see the list. I mentioned this to the ZBA chair. What is the low hanging fruit? What are the zoning requests that he's tired of seeing come in front of him? And he has to figure out because it doesn't make sense that people have to bring in front of him. You know, so we'd love to hear from you as well. So.
[Ari Fishman]: I like the steering committee idea.
[Peter Calves]: As a potential member of the steering committee, I like the steering committee idea. As a consultant, it sounds like a nightmare. But we can figure that out.
[Danielle Evans]: I imagine these would probably be daytime meetings, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: It would kind of we can add more evening meetings to our staff load because we're just so overloaded with nighttime meetings. I don't know how we could possibly schedule them. Um, but, uh. My only very straight, it has to be under quorum for any of the, either the CD board or the city council, right? We cannot turn them into like public meetings, publicly noticed public posting. So it has to be fewer than quorum of either body. It would just, it would bog down the project. interminably, if we if every steering committee meeting had to be a publicly posted meeting, rather than just a group of people working on a on the project.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And you're looking to get like members of the community as well for the steering committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: No, we're going to do outreach, we're going to connect with people, we're going to do interviews, this is sort of like the directing the consultants, the managing the project piece of it. Right. So the city council wants to be very, very involved in, like, which area are we going to look at first? What are the hot topics? How are we going to reach out to people? Are we going to do flyers? Are we going to do robocalls? Like, what's the newsletter going to say, right? Like, this is the meat of it. A lot of it, consultants can make recommendations. But then, like, what do we actually want to have happen in Medford? And we kind of want to do everything all at once. But you can't, right? You kind of have to be like, OK, this week, let's talk about boundaries. Next week, let's talk about setbacks. And we need to get them out. What are we putting in front of the public? I think it would be best if I send you all the RFP and the proposals that we received so that you could see this was the scope. These are the proposals. It'll be easier than me trying to explain it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So the role in zoning with the comprehensive plan, I'm trying to see how will this, because zoning is the land use like laws that inform the comprehensive plan that we just did with the steering committee, which I love being on. So how will that change the comprehensive plan going forward? Will it, it's going to have a huge.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, the other way around.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. The comprehensive plan informs what the zoning should be.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. So you need the zoning changes to actually implement the comprehensive plan as visioned?
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. Right now we're working with a mismatch.
[Alicia Hunt]: And in fact, I was just sort of thumbing through this. So the consultant that the council this evening said that they would like to see us move forward with is actually was the project manager to on the writing of our comprehensive plan. And she was one of the authors of the comprehensive plan. She's actually done a lot of outreach. She's met with this committee, she's met with the council, she's met with the public, but we would continue to do more of that. But there are certainly some minor changes that are clearly dictated by what was in the comprehensive plan that don't need aggressive public outrage. They already had public input. Now we just actually need to change the rules to match the recommendations. So for example, this has a project that some of the plan here is a project kickoff to have monthly meetings with city council, meetings with the city or monthly meetings with the staff, meetings with the city council throughout updates to the CD board, a couple of public workshops. potentially meeting with the steering committee, stakeholder interviews, and then they would start to refine the regulations. And one of the things that, you know, the fact that in Medford, all the zoning, like if you have a commercial building, the setback is the same no matter where in the city you are, based on the type of building you have, or like a residential. whereas or it's based on the height and length of the building and not the zone that it is in, right? Typical zoning, you have this zone has 15 foot setbacks and that zone has zero lot line setbacks, right? And this zone has maybe 30 foot front yards, but that's not how it is in Medford. If you're a single family house anywhere in the city of Medford in any zone, you have a 15 foot front yard setback. And if you're a residential building, your setback is height times length divided by 15, divided by something. Sorry, I don't know all of the zoning off the top of my head.
[Danielle Evans]: And then like the open space and the usable open space is a function of how many units there are, not if the open space is meaningful or it's really, it doesn't make for Yeah. You just get a jumbled mess, and it's not cohesive. You don't have cohesive street fronts.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I didn't realize we had so many regulatory changes. I guess I was so romanticized by the idea of having a collaborative vision of the community that I didn't realize. And now we have to work backwards to make it happen. I mean, I knew we had to, because obviously, being part of it, there were some things that just doesn't exist. I didn't realize now we got to actually change the rules to match the plan.
[Alicia Hunt]: I have an example of zoning change that I've been using a lot that is sort of intuitively obvious to almost everybody. So Salem Street is the road that runs from Medford Square to Haines Square, right? From Medford Square through that rotary, from City Hall through the rotary, out to what I like to call Baby Target. That's Salem Street. Haines Square allows commercial development and Medford Square does. But most of that length of that street actually commercial and industrial, but commercial is not allowed as of right or even by special permit along the length of it. It's an apartment zone. And if you say to yourself, but Alicia, it's almost all first floor commercial with some residential and then a couple of other residential buildings sprinkled through. And I'll say, exactly. That is a case where do we actually really need to go out and talk to people about, should this be commercial first floor with apartments above? No, no. Everybody gets it. They like it. It's a good corridor. It works. The only question in my mind is how high should it be two or three stories of apartments allowed over that first floor commercial? And should first floor commercial actually be required as opposed to just optional? Those are the things we need to work through. But that's actually a really excellent example of where Medford has built what Medford would like and it works, but actually it's completely not in compliance with our zoning. There are other places like West Medford where we actually need some more study to better understand what zoning would make sense. There are a couple of questions that have been floated around, like, should we allow two-family houses throughout the entire city? They're actually not allowed in any of the single-family districts, which is a good, at least off the top of my head without looking at a map, one-third of the city is single-family zone, right? Like, let's talk about that. So that's what's in store for 2024. How's that?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Awesome. Thank you, Alicia. I think this is one of the longest shortest meetings ever. So I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can I make one mild suggestion? Sure. This could be done offline. Think about whether this group would like to get together in person like for drinks or something. A lot of our boards and commissions at this time of year will do something like that. And it's just a nice way to like actually put people together with with boxes on the screen. But you don't have to decide that right now. That was totally out of the blue. No.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And as long as we don't talk about anything on the agenda that's coming up or has passed, we're good, right? So I don't know who would initiate that, like, just send you an email and say, hey, this will be awesome.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I think that if people are interested, we can try and help coordinate.
[Emily Hedeman]: Why don't we take that offline? And in the meantime, I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, wait a minute, let's back up for the record. Robert's Rules, motion to adjourn. It has to be through the chair, Vice Chair Emily Henneman. Yes, I am.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sally Akiki? Yes. Sharad Bhattacharya?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Peter Kautz?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Yes. Pam Mariansky? Yes. And myself, Jackie McPherson. Thank you, everyone. Good night.
|
total time: 21.65 minutes total words: 1590 |
|||