Case # 13-003, 2 Washington Street, WP East Development Enterprises (continued Public Hearing)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

rie + Archetype, Inc. and Attorney Michael Leon from Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP. Ms. Morelli addressed the public just before the case was heard as she saw many new faces in attendance. She clarified the Planning Board’s jurisdiction regarding the proposed project and noted that the application involved a mixed use building with 94 residential units which meets all of the density and dimensional requirements for the zoning district. She also noted that a site visit was conducted back in August and that the Planning Board has thoroughly analyzed the site layout; building materials and design; drainage, sewage, and water systems; trash removal; landscaping; and parking layout, among other items. Each of these topics had been commented on at length at previous meetings. Ms. Morelli noted that, as Chair of the Planning Board, it was her intention to bring this project to a vote at this meeting. Ms. Zern then began by indicating that they had nothing new to present but that they were thankful to the Planning Board and those members of the public who had attended a number of meetings and provided comments. Mr. Cassavoy then stated that he wanted to open up the meeting for new public comments on the project, but also added that he felt the Planning Board had already greatly discussed all aspects of the project. Ms. Morelli noted that they had an updated list of conditions in front of them and Ms. Gaffey indicated that Planning Staff had removed some of the conditions that were redundant and tweaked the wording of a few others. Mr. Cassavoy asked Planning Staff to explain the changes to the conditions and Ms. Gaffey went over the modifications that that had been made since the previous meeting. She noted that some additional acoustic language had been added, the numerical breakdown of the one- and two- bedroom units had been altered, and the wording “as needed” was added to the trash removal condition, among other clerical items. Ms. Zern spoke in regard to the trash removal condition and noted that trash pickup three times per week would not be necessary because they are now proposing to have a trash compactor inside the building which will reduce the need for the frequency at which trash is removed. Ms. Gaffey also spoke about the removal of conditions relating to the MWRA Permit, Fire Department approval, and a condition regarding the maintenance of private streets or ways. Ms. Morelli then opened up the hearing for new public comments and asked each member who spoke to provide their name and address. She also asked that members of the public keep their comments brief, that they pertain only to new business, and that the comments be directed to the Planning Board. Richard Greski of 23 Brazil Street stated that he had concerns that the project was too big for the area and would be too tall at 5 stories in height. He also cited concerns that the project did not have enough parking spaces but asked if the project would be advertised as being transit accessible. Mr. Greski continued on to state that the retail component will require additional parking and that the project should have two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. He also stated that he was not sure what kinds of traffic studies had been conducted for the area but he had concerns about where everyone would park. Mr. Greski indicated that the residents did not want more traffic in this neighborhood and 94 dwelling units will clearly bring in more traffic. Steven Ciulla of 52-54 Brazil Street pointed out that three acoustic studies had been completed for the proposed project. The first one indicated that the acoustic levels would exceed the maximum allowable level specified by the City Ordinance. The second study indicated that the acoustic levels would be right Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 6 of 9 at the ordinance maximum and the third indicated that the sound levels should be below the allowable maximum level with the implementation of acoustic screening. Mr. Ciulla wanted to ensure that the most recent acoustic study was referenced in one of the conditions to ensure the Applicant would keep sound levels from the project below the maximum allowable level as indicated in the City Ordinance. John Matheson, the Ward 3 Alderman from Malden, of 15 Bowen Street in Malden, indicated that he had concerns about the traffic study. He stated that it appeared the study was indicating that 400-500 new daily trips would be generated as a result of the project and he had serious concerns about these figures. Alderman Matheson also stated that he had concerns about the planned roadway improvements for the Washington Street / Pleasant Street intersection and also asked if there were any plans to address any of the intersections in Malden that would be impacted by this project. Valerie Austras of 70 Brazil Street indicated that she agreed with everything Mr. Greski had stated. She felt the project was too big and too high for the area. Alan Brown of 38 Pleasant Street stated that he would like to address the minutes and what was recorded from the November 18, 2013 Planning Board meeting. He felt there were some differences between what he thought occurred at the meeting and what was noted in the minutes. Mr. Brown noted that the Applicant is referred to as Wood Partners in the minutes but the application indicates that WP East Development Enterprises is the Applicant. Mr. Brown also questioned who was referenced as the Applicant and developer for the project at Stone Place. Ms. Morelli indicated that Wood Partners acquired rights to the Stone Place project after it had gone through the planning approval process. Mr. Brown then stated that he felt the traffic study completed by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. did not mention the Pleasant Street intersection at Stone Place. He indicated that he felt this intersection was extremely relevant the proposed project at 2 Washington Street and questioned how it could have been overlooked. Mr. Brown then asked if he was going to get responses to his questions and Ms. Morelli indicated that the Planning Board would address his comments during their deliberation. Mr. Brown then asked why the merits of the Applicant could not be taken into consideration when determining approval for a project. Ms. Morelli indicated that land use case law in Massachusetts prohibits boards and committees from looking at the merits of an Applicant in determining planning approval for a project. Mr. Duchesneau cited the Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover (5 Mass. App. Ct. 148) case as a reference to this determination. Mr. Brown then asked what the legal definition is for “merits of an Applicant”? Mr. Van Campen indicated that question could be looked into but he also stated that he felt the merits of the Applicant were defined by the Planning Board Chair earlier in the meeting. Ms. Morelli then briefly covered the application criteria for Site Plan Review from Section 235-16.1 in the Melrose Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown then noted that there were discrepancies between the draft November 18, 2013 Planning Board meeting minutes he had printed out from MinuteTraq on the City’s website and the draft minutes he had received upon request from the Office of Planning and Community Development. Mr. Duchesneau explained that the minutes posted to MinuteTraq on the City’s website were simply draft minutes and changes had been made to the minutes prior to them being distributed to the Planning Board members. The draft minutes that Mr. Brown had received directly from the Office of Planning and Community Development upon request were the minutes that the Planning Board had reviewed and approved earlier in the meeting. Mr. Brown then asked again about why the Pleasant Street / Stone Place intersection was not covered in the traffic study and Ms. Gaffey indicated that this intersection actually was included as part of the traffic study. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 7 of 9 Susan Merenda of 121 Washington Street stated that she felt the traffic in the area would double as a result of this project. She asked what will happen to Malden and the surrounding neighborhood if the traffic in the area is increased by this much. David Merenda of 121 Washington Street stated that he felt the project was enormous and that the neighborhood did not want it. He indicated he felt the public had no say in the matter but noted that they were not going away any time soon. Debbie Mathison of 39 Glen Rock Avenue in Malden inquired about Condition # 24. She noted that there is already a flooding issue in Patchell Park and asked how much the water from the melting snow storage pile would impact the drainage at Patchell Park. Ms. Mathison also asked how large the snow pile will be allowed to get before snow is required to be removed off-site. Mr. Cassidy then MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed and Ms. Petrillo abstained from the vote. Mr. Cassavoy stated that he had looked at the Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. traffic study and the 2018 projections under build-out and no build-out conditions for the project. He felt that the amount of traffic increase to the surrounding intersections in the area is de minimis. Mr. Cassavoy felt that residents of the proposed project would behave similarly to those at the Oak Grove project where the number of transit users exceeded projections for the development. Ms. Gaffey then clarified that there is no mitigation proposed for any of the intersections around the project. She also noted that she and Mayor Dolan have had conversations with Malden officials including Mayor Christianson’s staff. The concerns expressed pertained to drainage, blasting, the tree buffer for Patchell Park, the retail use and the impact of increased use of the MBTA. There was no concern expressed pertaining to traffic at Malden intersections. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked how the parking assignments would be allocated for the project. Ms. Zern indicated that parking in the garage would have specifically assigned spaces and that the surface parking spaces would be closely monitored to ensure they are being used by residents or retail customers. Ms. Morelli asked how snow removal would be handled. Ms. Zern indicated that they anticipate trucking snow off of the project site when the stored snow begins to impact the functionality of the surface parking spaces. She continued on to note that she did not know of a specific snowfall amount which would trigger snow removal from the site. Mr. Mercado stated that he would recommend a 20 foot buffer from the property line be implemented for snow storage purposes and to limit the height of the snow pile to 6 feet. Mr. Sadowski noted that the Planning Board often does not have a condition for a parking area for a development, but it is up to the Board’s discretion. Mr. Cassidy noted that the grade rises from the snow storage area upwards towards Patchell Park and therefore any water drainage from the snow pile would stay on-site. He then indicated drainage from the project site to Patchell Park is not a credible concern but it is appropriate to consider. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked what other members thought about Mr. Mercado’s suggestion of not permitting snow storage within 20 feet of the property boundary. Mr. Sadowski noted that one of the conditions requires that snow be trucked off-site when it starts to infringe upon the on-site parking spaces and therefore he felt it may not be necessary. Mr. Del Savio pointed out that the vegetated areas at the south and southwestern portions of the site along the property boundary would be retained. Mr. Merenda asked how many trees would be taken down as part of this project and Mr. Del Savio indicated about 8-10 trees in the southwest area of the site would Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 8 of 9 need to be removed for project construction. Ms. Morelli then asked the Board if all of the questions had been covered and the Board members agreed they had discussed all the topics. Mr. Cassidy stated that with respect to Wood Partners, he has worked with them on other projects as part of his professional career and they were a commendable firm and good neighbors. He also noted that he felt there is simply not enough room at every project site to have two parking spaces for each dwelling unit and stated that the world does not work this way anymore. Mr. Cassidy continued on to note that the threat of not having enough parking spaces would be off-set by the proximity of the project to the Oak Grove Orange Line station. He felt that the parking ratio for the project is appropriate. Ms. Morelli stated that there is now good data which shows that more people are taking advantage of mass transit options. Mr. Mercado asked about the history of Town Estates on Pleasant Street and Ms. Gaffey indicated that the project was constructed a long time ago under a different planning/building review process. Mr. Sadowski pointed out that the case before the Planning Board does not require any Variances or other zoning relief. He also noted that the property owner still has the right to build a project using the underlying zoning which is industrial. Mr. Welch stated that he felt the Board had discussed this project at length and that they were now in a position to be able to vote on it. Mr. Mercado asked what the construction timeframe was for the project and Ms. Zern stated that the plan was to start construction in the winter/spring of 2014 and they were anticipating a 14 to 16 month construction period. Mr. Cassavoy then MADE a MOTION to approve the Applicant’s request for an Affordable Housing Incentive Program Special Permit, with conditions, which would require the developer to create and maintain 9 affordable dwelling units to be dispersed throughout the building. Mr. Welch SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed and Ms. Petrillo abstained from the vote. Mr. Cassavoy then MADE a MOTION to approve the Applicant’s request for Site Plan Review approval with the conditions that were discussed. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION and also opened the motion for discussion. Mr. Mercado stated that he would like to add a condition which prohibits snow storage within 15 feet of the property boundary for the project. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked why there should be a limitation to their ability to store snow on-site. Mr. Mercado stated that the snow will be pushed outside the parking area which could impact surrounding properties as it accumulates over the winter. Mr. Sadowksi asked if the melting snow would drain on or off-site and Mr. Cassavoy confirmed it would drain on-site. Ms. Morelli indicated that she did not feel this was a necessary condition. The Planning Board then took a vote to amend Condition # 24 to add language which would create a 15 foot snow storage buffer in the southwestern corner of the property. All members voted in favor of amending the condition. None were opposed and Ms. Petrillo abstained from the vote. Mr. Mercado then MADE a MOTION to approve the Applicant’s request for Site Plan Review approval with the conditions as discussed, including the additional language regarding the snow storage buffer. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed and Ms. Petrillo abstained from the vote. OTHER 44-48 Grove Street, Minor Modifications to Medical/Professional Office Building Ms. Gaffey explained that the building at 44-48 Grove Street is now being framed and the Applicant, Shihchi Shieh, is seeking approval for alterations to the Grove Street façade to add more windows. Currently, there are a number of solid panels on this facade and she would like to remove these panels and Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 9 o

All documents for this meeting on the city portal