Planning Board — 2020-03-30
Transcript
▶ 1:07:17 Denise Gaffey: bob go ahead mike hi all righty uh bob mccardle uh let me turn your mic on hold on hi all right uh jack welsh hi paul king sharon petrillo hi and to susan ward hi okay it's unanimous public hearing is open we have a member of the public who would like to share a comment or a question all right hold on okay i have a comment from from Jim McSweeney, 160 West Wyoming Avenue. No comment, but I agree with Mr. Lucas. Thank you so much. Excuse me. Thank you so much to the board and city staff for keeping us up and running. Just expand this. And this has been an above and beyond. And thanks to the applicant for entertaining and supporting what has been a very constructive and healthy community conversation.
▶ 1:08:45 Denise Gaffey: Hope all are well. That was more of a comment. Thank you. And then from Michael Fira, we have the following comment. My name is Michael Fira, 56 converse lane. I was unable to come to the last meeting. And I was curious about the plan changes that include a public gallery. How big is this space and who will be able to use it as well as how big. This supposed small retail space for the coffee shop. Yes, how, sorry, as well as how big is the supposed small retail space for the coffee shop? Okay, thanks. Any other members of the public that have a question or a comment? That's all we've got. I'm not seeing anything else. Okay, I do see we have other attendees, but no one is signaling questions or comments.
▶ 1:10:03 So, Anne, if I can interject, this is John, board member. Just hearing the last comment or question about the community space, I do see with the proposed conditions when we get to those, condition number 31, I think addresses that. Well, we've talked about it and it is shown on the plan right now. The size I don't have, but we can be sure we clarify in our discussion later. I think he's asking about size right if we have no further less to speak or comments I do want to point out that we got let's see if you can find them sorry we did receive two letters since our last meeting from members of the public one from a Julie Fisher and one from a Aaron and Lloyd Graves. Julie Fisher is 277 Washington Street and Aaron and Lloyd Graves are 72 Washington Street.
▶ 1:11:14 Both of these are part of the record. They've been received into the record of this case and members of the planning board have all seen them. I'll try and And just summarize quickly that Ms. Fisher, because we'll probably take these up in our deliberations, but she raises flashing lights at the crosswalks on Washington Street, installing a sidewalk on the West side of Washington Street, which is across the street from this site, which has been raised before and tightening the corner of the Washington Street intersection, which I believe would mean changing the, how wide it is right there for traffic flow purposes. And then, so her concerns primarily are traffic. And then the graves at 72 Washington Street
▶ 1:12:09 did ask us to look at the height of the proposed building because they are across the street and her concern, one of her concerns is blocking the sun to her garden. and uh the she also raises something that's been raised by quite a few members of the public about mixed use and looking for other other amenities besides just residential use other things for the neighborhood so both of those are in the record and we can talk about those during our deliberations i think that's all we have for public comment do i have a motion to close the public hearing this is jack close the public hearings john a motion by john do i have a second this is jack second second by john welsh uh any further uh discussion on that motion from the
▶ 1:13:04 board all right all in favor of closing the public hearing and going into our deliberations signify by saying aye when your name is called. Greg Sampson. Aye. John Sadowski. Aye. Angela Morelli. Aye. Michael Casaboy. Aye. John Micardo. Bob Micardo. Bob? Aye. Great, thank you. Jack Welsh. Aye. Paul King. Aye. Karen Petrillo. Aye. Susan Ward. All right, public hearing is closed and now we can begin our meeting on the case. So we have three decisions to make site plan review, which is a majority vote for housing special permit and recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the variances as well as the finding less parking than required, which actually I think is part of the site plan review. you just restate the variances that are requested i i'm just all the variances for the board of
▶ 1:14:23 appeals all right let's see uh there you can cover those either way well they're um this is the at the end of our we'll go through site plan review first but all the variances involve things um involve these and david uh yeah he's on behalf of the applicant correct me if i'm wrong so it's a setback from the public street and not a 30-foot setback in the front yard it's only about two feet 30 feet from a structure this all has to do with parking no parking within 30 feet of a public street no parking in 10 feet of a structure one foot away okay no parking within uh five feet of the side yard rear yard although you are about five yards five feet rather five feet of a side or rear lot line right um and then you
▶ 1:15:24 can't be closer than 15.3 feet to a building and they're you're two feet from the building at one point and then the aisle width for one-way and two-way traffic it's 15 feet along the rear of the building rather than aisle width can vary from 20 to 24 feet required parking space with john also slightly slightly narrower than required usually if they're 9 by 18 and they're asking for eight and a half by 18 the signage setback is supposed to be 10 feet from uh setback and this signage would be five feet one a lot of it having to do with the fact that the building's already there and there's already parking there um and then of course the finding for the residential units to have less uh to have i'm sorry that's that's parking back to residentially the number
▶ 1:16:21 of units 128 is is allowed they're asking for 141 19 affordable okay so that's the list of variances it's also in the um staff report that you got for board of appeals cases thank you anna i recognize that comes after uh site plan review but it gives us uh or gives me uh renewed context if you will thank you mostly parking okay so it's been we've spent an awful lot of time on this we've seen a lot of plans um i'm not sure if uh we want to review the entire cases of entirety or maybe the easiest thing to do is we have uh having all the discussions that we've already had we've already been formulating a draft set of conditions to how we would approve this project under safety and review conditions we could go through those
▶ 1:17:21 conditions and in the process of that discussion and I clarify what we'd approve what kind of conditions for this case is that the easiest way for us to proceed I do think it would because I've reviewed them and I think that's going cover most of not knowing what other board members may have certainly respect that but I think that's going to address for the most part at least whatever I would want to just be sure we've covered and as well if not in full and part of the two additional comments that we heard tonight and this is Karla I have I think I don't think during the conversation or the discussion about of conditions we will address shadow uh you know the effect of the building and the sort of length
▶ 1:18:12 of the shadow and it how much it cast on the uh butter's house we might want to ask the architect to speak to that before we deal with the conditions and then the other topic is i know that when Councilman McMaster discussed with us recommendations for what I would term infrastructure improvements on Washington Street, that has come up again and again. And I think we should explain where this developer's purview ends and where an infrastructure project that would not be considered the developers responsibility would begin for the benefit of the public speaking specifically about these two letters that we received that addressed both of those sidewalks it's it's it's come up before adding a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street signal changes changes to the
▶ 1:19:16 geometry of you know the turning righty eye or whatever it is to me I mean I i would just like for the public to understand what you know where the developers responsibility ends i think that's a good point especially in the shadow thing too david it's up to you who you'd like to address uh some of these things but be interested in your perspective yeah um on the shadow issue and that's actually something that we were um I forget who told us about that. It wasn't Mrs. Graves and Mr. and Mrs. Graves are lovely, lovely people. It wasn't them, but somebody told us early on that they had that concern months ago. We're actually not looking for any height variance. The height is as of right, but our architect at ICON who's on right now looked at it for us today because thankfully
▶ 1:20:10 Denise Gaffey sent that letter to me. And Nancy, if you're on, if you can hear me. I can bring her in if you like. Oh, yeah, please Nancy. Oh, wait, she's her Mike is on see Nancy Nancy. I see I see I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, okay. So I took a quick measurement. I, I. The address of the house that I was able to look on Google earth. where I can actually do a measurement from the face of our building to crossing over Washington Street to the back of the sidewalk there because I believe the garden that's being discussed is in the front yard at I think it's 46 Washington. That dimension is 90 feet and that dimension is basically due east since 99 Washington runs basically in a it's long direction in a north-south direction so the so
▶ 1:21:20 there wouldn't be any shadow within 90 feet when the building is shadowing in that direction it would be just as the Sun's coming up right and and it would cast an east to a cast a shadow to the east but it would not go across Washington Street 90 feet. Okay, thank you. The garden is fine. That's helpful. Carla, is that helpful to you? Yes, I suspected that was the answer, but I wanted to hear Nancy describe it out loud for the public because I knew that we could put the neighbor's fears to rest. Great. That was helpful for all of us. The question of the sidewalk across the street, that has come up before, and I feel like, Denise, there's been information from the city about that, too, that might be helpful.
▶ 1:22:22 Denise Gaffey: Sure, sure. And I mentioned it at the last session of the public hearing that we've, city has that has been a request in the past and the city has looked at um what it would take to build a sidewalk well there's two issues what would it take to build a sidewalk on that um west side of lower washington street um and the issue is that there is there's ledge that comes out that makes it um tricky to build a sidewalk without incurring a lot of expense um and so i I was speaking with the city engineer about this in the last couple of weeks, and she did send one of her staff members out just to explore what the cost would be and to do a rough estimate, and believe it or not, it was anticipated that it would cost about $70,000 to do that segment of sidewalk
▶ 1:23:16 Denise Gaffey: because of the ledge that's present there, because of the amount of land that would need to be removed. And if you recall, too, I brought up last time that we actually are trying to discourage people from walking along that sidewalk and crossing across Stone Place and Washington Street from the Fellsway because of the amount of traffic. And we built another sidewalk on the other side of Stone Place as part of an earlier project when the Stone Place development, or Jack Flats now, was approved. So, it's much safer for folks that are coming from that portion, the upper Washington, if you will, sort of towards the Lindfels Parkway, to use the sidewalk that's already there. So, between the safety issue and then the cost involved, it didn't make a lot of sense to try to require that.
▶ 1:24:18 That's helpful. Any other members of the board have any comments about the sidewalk issues, or would you like to hear from the applicant on any part of that question? This is Bob Mercado. Denise, when the city looked, are they looking at how wide is the sidewalk, maybe feet wide? I'm not sure. can you hear me denise yeah when the city look at that sidewalk you said uh are they looking at it as a like a four-feet new sidewalk on that side because i i look at that area there is a possibility of uh putting a narrower sidewalk there but still it will be unsafe maybe if they're not going to put any sidewalk there probably putting some sign or something though you know no sidewalk there yeah i don't think they would want to put a sidewalk that was significantly
▶ 1:25:23 Denise Gaffey: um non-conforming like a if you're going to build the sidewalk enough to be accessible right and um and the other thing is there's really only there aren't there are only a couple of houses that are that would be served by that sidewalk that's just the another factor to keep in mind I do feel like there's a point where it's not realistic to ask an applicant to improve infrastructure that's across the street when they're doing an awful lot of improvement on the side of the street that they are building on and especially given this situation across the street where it would be expensive and not very safe it just doesn't feel like something that i would support as one member and what i was trying to what i was trying
▶ 1:26:22 to say is i think i think the board members based on past discussions are satisfied that the development team is doing whatever is appropriate on their side of the street adjacent to their development in terms of improving the public you know right-of-way and public semi-public access through their site. So I just wanted to say, I think the board is satisfied that they've done what it is that they should do and is not inclined to require anything else of them when it comes to site improvements. I don't know how the other board members feel. This is Greg Sampson. I mean, I'd like to just, I think one of the important points is a lot of the requests that have been made off-site mitigation are arguably unlawful we could not impose conditions
▶ 1:27:13 that extends beyond a nexus to the project or that are proportional to his impact so I think what's been proposed in the conditions that we have outlined are reasonable conditions for this project and the relief that's being sought and there's certainly been requests that I think are they're nice wish lists but their infrastructure challenges that the city is responsible for that will be addressed in time and it's a burden that needs to be shared by all the taxpayers not someone who's proposing a small project with minimal impacts okay any other members of the board okay thank you I think that's I think those that were helpful thank you for pointing that out at this time should we start looking at the proposed conditions which will walk us through what the project is and
▶ 1:28:15 what we are going to want from this project based on all the public hearings it's a good time would you go on the variance requirements first on the you know you want to vote on those variants they're asking for we thought we'd do that last bob so that uh once we've decided what conditions we're imposing on the project then we'll know which variants we're supporting i mean it was probably better to know what what the what gets approved okay so we'll do that last thank you thanks for don't let me forget remind me when we get to that point there's so many things to vote on but we do have a list of proposed conditions uh there everyone has a copy the board members have a copy um and i wonder if denise we could impose on you if you're not too tired
▶ 1:29:05 Denise Gaffey: of speaking to uh focus through them and that way we can each comment or or them as they come along and make sure that they address all our concerns okay sure i'd be happy to do that i'll i will we'll read through them abbreviate to some extent but try to read to get the point across so the members of the public can understand what we're saying um so there are proposed currently um 32 conditions so many you know many of them are boilerplate type conditions for example the first condition is just a condition that requires that the project be built exactly um according to all the plans and documents that have been submitted to the board during this permitting process so we itemize all the plans all these studies all the um documents and the analyses that were done
▶ 1:30:03 Denise Gaffey: and document those in the decision um that's condition number one and condition number two um we may want to talk about a little bit and that's our standard condition where we ask the developer to come to the design review subcommittee post approval at this post approval and present detailed design features related to facade materials colors windows lighting landscaping and screening that was the list that we came up with I don't know if there's anything anyone wants to add to that you can do that now for our benefit can you also let us know how often you expect design review to meet and at what point during the process okay so and who on our design team you want there okay sure sure that wouldn't be get that wouldn't
▶ 1:31:03 get written into the condition but Denise if you want I can comment on that thing that's an interview subcommittee member I think that it could be as few is as one if you're prepared for everything that's on the list when you actually look at the condition if you're able to present it at once to the extent that what's presented we find in keeping with the documents and the intent but then a second for a mock-up condition 20 presumably would be an on-site when you're ready with that subcommittee Denise can we um can we add signage to that condition number two it appears in the later one I'm just scrolling I had to number 20 number 20 was just about the mark with a lock up I believe all right yeah I just had signage to that okay number three is a standard
▶ 1:32:11 Denise Gaffey: condition about the INI fee that the applicant is quite aware of and that's required at the time of building permit application number four is just a reminder that sweet opening and utility permits will be required and obtained from the engineering division and there's something logistical information around that number five is speaking to this conversation we had about that relates to the sewer analysis the sewer impact analysis I'll read this one the owner its successor or signs she'll be required to perform flow metering at the downstream end of pipe reach number eight and the downstream end of pipe reach number three in order to confirm the future peak flow conditions for pipe reaches number three and number nine will
▶ 1:33:05 Denise Gaffey: be less than sixty percent full which is the city's standard if metering can show springtime peak flows lower than the existing flow rates calculated in the conservative analysis those flow rates can be used instead to establish baseline conditions um condition number six is related to this and it talks about um upsizing the pipe breaches if um if the capacity is then shown to exceed 60 percent so these were already reviewed and um and worked out between the city engineer and the applicant's engineer so um they're not surprised by these conditions also seven is related it talks about um being a requirement to perform a cctv mainline inspection of the sewer mains in Washington Street downstream of the
▶ 1:33:53 Denise Gaffey: project to ensure that their condition is adequate for tying in the additional flow and if necessary the applicant will replace or line those number eight the applicant will work with this water and sewer building division to determine the appropriate water meter size for the building. Number nine is the technical condition about the water main configuration. A sketch of the water main configuration on both 99 Washington Street and Jack Flats will be provided to the engineering division to determine if additional backflow is required or not. Number ten is just stipulating that responsibility for operation and management for the drainage system will align with the property owners and that if maintenance is not performed the city will reserve the right to perform the maintenance
▶ 1:34:52 Denise Gaffey: and charge the owners number 11 is a requirement to continue to privately own and maintain the 10-inch water main off the city's main on washington street and to flush the water main once every other year at a minimum number 12 is actually an italics and that's because there was an original version I should share that we I should mention that we did share this these proposed conditions with the applicant and they have had a chance to look at them and in some cases they were recommending some modifications to the conditions so that's what you see in italics and this modified condition is actually based on the police chief's most recent concern consideration of what he would he is interested in having on site
▶ 1:35:45 Denise Gaffey: so this number 12 actually satisfies the police chief's concern about surveillance and about crime so it reads that the applicant shall install video cameras for surveillance of the exterior parking area and allow access of the same to the Melrose Police Department upon its request in conjunction with criminal investigations should those ever be needed number 13 is to provide a copy of any environmental remediation reports that may be done pursuant to the demolition of the building interior is the requirement which came up in the city engineers review to have a project representative the applicant's engineer the applicant will have a project representative on site during utility construction and
▶ 1:36:41 Denise Gaffey: rehabilitation also during paving and placement of the course pavement and that they will also provide the city engineer with shop drawings for all the materials used for the proposed utility and paving work park, including elements of the water, sewer, and drainage systems. Number 15 speaks to construction vehicles, that they shall use main roads when feasible and avoid highly residential areas. No parking of construction vehicles shall be allowed within the cities right of way. There shall be no idling of construction vehicles either. Number 16, pedestrian and bicycle access along Washington Street shall be maintained throughout all phases of construction 17 the applicant is shall work with the
▶ 1:37:30 Denise Gaffey: property owner of Jack flats to designate the driveway between the two properties in only drive and 18 any old utility services not being used as part of this project must be cut and capped at the main unless otherwise approved by city engineer number 19 the applicant shall restore sidewalks driveway aprons curb roadways street lights pavement markings and all other appurtenances on washington street to their pre-construction condition or better roadway restoration will be required will require a curb to curve paving of any disturbed areas including milling and inlaying to repair those areas number 20 is the mock-up that we were referring to as construction progresses a mock-up of typical building materials and colors shall be presented to the design review subcommittee
▶ 1:38:20 Denise Gaffey: for review and approval number 21 the applicant shall submit final as-built plans to the building commissioner the engineering division and to number 22 um the applicant the next couple of conditions relate to the affordable housing um requirement so the app number 22 is just specifying that they will create and maintain 19 units of affordable housing and the next conditions confirms that they'll be comparable in size and number of bedrooms materials parking as they'll be comparable to the market rate units in every way and there is a little bit of a correction here where it says three of the units shall be studios that's actually two nine of the units shall be one bedrooms that's actually ten and seven of the affordable units shall be two bedrooms still adds up to
▶ 1:39:19 Denise Gaffey: 19 24 the affordable housing lottery shall occur before certificate of occupancy for the affordable dwelling units number of 25 confirms that they will be on the subsidized housing inventory. Number 26 speaks to the owner's requirement to maintain all on-site amenities including landscaping, lighting, parking areas, screening, drainage, etc. that they'll be kept in good safe working order. And number 27 speaks about solid waste responsible for solid waste removal from the property trash and recycling pickup will initially occur per week shall not occur less than once per week number 28 that's no owner is responsible for snow plowing snow storage snow removal snow is not permitted to be moved into the public
▶ 1:40:20 Denise Gaffey: way at any time. Number 29, we're getting there. All exterior lighting shall be confined to the property, not intrude or interfere or spill onto neighboring properties. Number 30, there's a slight, so number 30 is one of those cases where you see the original proposed condition and then the applicant's revised, suggested revised language, so I'll read them both. The applicant shall be required to ensure compliance with the transportation management plan by providing a bike share program, interior and exterior bicycle parking, EV charging stations, zip car parking spaces, and MBTA passes for the first month. The applicant does not have any qualms with any of those provisions, of course, but they are a little concerned that they
▶ 1:41:16 Denise Gaffey: might have trouble they might have trouble actually zip car or a bike share program to want to participate on the site so they've suggest tweaking the language slightly the applicant shall be required to ensure compliance with the transportation management plan by providing interior and exterior bicycle parking MBTA passes for the first month to new tenants EV charging stations and she'll use good faith and best efforts to provide a bike share program and zip car parking spaces at all times with documentation of the same provided to OPCD so it's just indicating that they'll make their best effort comply with that and 31 and 32 this is we speak to the retail and community spaces the original language that we drafted and then the proposed suggested modifications okay so um
▶ 1:42:23 Denise Gaffey: the use of the floor area labeled coffee shop shall be limited to the following uses retail establishment selling principally convenience goods or general merchandise retail food establishments eating and drinking establishments personal and consumer service establishments that would be a perpetual condition and then use of the floor area labeled gallery slash community shall be made available to the general public the policies and procedures for how this space can be reserved and used shall be provided to OPCD that's the planning office any changes to these policies and procedures must be submitted to OPCD so the applicant had asked for some modifications to this language so I'll just read this through and then we can
▶ 1:43:15 Denise Gaffey: this is probably the one that warrants the most discussion proposed condition combining they proposed combining condition number 31 and 32 the two I just read the floor areas labeled retail slash community shall be used for retail space or community space as set forth here in the use of one of the two areas shall be limited to the following retail establishment selling principally convenience goods or general merchandise retail food establishment eating and drinking establishment or personal and consumer service establishment if despite using good faith and diligent efforts to secure a tenant with commercially commercially reasonable lease terms the applicant is unable to do so within one year after occupancy permit for the building is issued or if
▶ 1:44:05 Denise Gaffey: If at any time in the future, the area is vacant for more than 12 consecutive months, despite the same diligent efforts, the applicant may use this space as amenity or accessory space for the residential units of the building. Including, but not limited to fitness area, storage, property management, office space. In which case the applicant shall provide reasonable documentation of such inability to obtain a lease. To planning office and written notice of how such space will be used. The other area shall be made available to the general public, the policies and procedures for how the space can be reserved will be provided to any changes to these policies and procedures. Must be submitted to again, this would be a perpetual condition.
▶ 1:44:53 I think there's a few of these conditions that probably warrant some discussion, but the last 1, maybe the most. it's up to the board but maybe we ought to take that one on first this is John to follow his point maybe in terms of the letter that you read for the additional comments tonight on the area or the size the community space if I'm understanding correctly what the condition is perhaps that and the retail could be interchangeable I'm not sure I understood that but if that's the case maybe what those two areas are I'm sure the architect could just give us a sense I was gonna say that would take me looking up the plan is there David is there someone here from your team that can just give us the area of each of
▶ 1:45:42 them the square footage I can do that this is Nancy Ludwig from icon thank you thank you as as depicted on the plans the rentable area for the retail space is 450 square feet and the rentable area for the gallery is approximately 750 square feet I I would just note that each of those areas could be modified a bit by pushing them further into the building if in the future the tenant or user needed to lay out the space differently and I would also just recall for the board that they're the outdoor space beyond the tower area that has the retail at the base has been to design to allow that retail to kind of spill out into that landscape forecourt and that is not included that is not included in
▶ 1:46:55 the square footage I just mentioned size size echoing echo I have not had until now but yeah I just muted on Nancy's for some reason the echo came up yeah okay I I do want to discuss this. It looks like what the applicant's proposing, and I'm sure the board has something to say about it, is that one of the areas will be used for retail, one for community space, and they want to keep it flexible as to which one. Correct. but then the the additional and the definition of community space is pretty much the same as we had the additional and the definition of retail is the same as we had the additional vision that you're suggesting is that if you're unable to to lease the retail space that it be available to the resident for use
▶ 1:48:05 of the residents of the building um and it's one year and you are saying you'd have to make good faith efforts and you have to document those and provide it to a planning office but i wonder if um the board might prefer that if uh that was the case that you had to come to us and speak to us rather than the planning office but that's a big suggestion it is only in that we have the same process that we've been going through since january with members of the public you know understandably but still time-wise chiming in on everything and and the issue is this folks um when this all happened to the world about two weeks ago we were already under the impression that this was going to be a very difficult commercial space to fill as you know we've
▶ 1:48:57 said that you know since day one this changes things further and we're trying to figure out what kind of flexibility we can come up with so that we still abide by this condition we know it's what the neighborhood wants and so we want to give the neighborhood no doubt but if it's going to be in perpetuity you know in a condition of approval especially if we get a variance from the Board of Appeals that requires us to abide by the Planning Board's conditions you could conceivably have a vacant spot here for quite some time that's not going to help anybody especially the neighborhood so number one we want to be able to try to interchange the space if we are lucky if you know if we can find a tenant it says
▶ 1:49:40 geez I like the idea of setting up my shop here but I need more than the 450 square feet how about if I can have the 750 square foot spot we want to have that as an option again and I'd probably like Chris or Ray to to chime in here because they're the commercial real estate experts really yeah happy to i i think that was well said david it's it's really i we've made the commitment to uh the city of melrose to accommodate both the retail and the community space that certainly has not changed but it is the the desires for some greater flexibility given what's going on we had some encouraging feedback from the local retail community about their interest in the space after earlier planning board sessions
▶ 1:50:29 we intend to revisit some of those conversations but we really don't know with this new public congregation landscape that we're all going to be dealing with what's going to be feasible and the flexibility being able to interchange these tenants would be helpful number one secondly if for whatever reason despite our best efforts um you know we're unable to find tenants or uses for that space particularly space near our front entrance we'd hate to just leave that sitting uh vacant and have it be just a dark portion of our entry to the building uh the building entries are obviously very key both to uh tenants and owners alike and we'd like to keep that as appealing as possible and if after a year we just have not had any success in finding
▶ 1:51:15 a tenant there uh we just like the flexibility to uh you know use it for package delivery storage or something else just to have the ability to uh uh not have vacant space there for you know past 12 months and and can i have a question sure go ahead bob this is bob mercado from planning board i got a question about that uh retail store i know you mentioned that if it stay vacant for a year they're gonna take it over i'm just wondering uh when they put it on the market uh a lot of people to you first thing they look is uh the location and the how much money they're gonna rent it for if the if the rental rate is uh much higher than the traffic put traffic there and you will you'll never find a tenant there so it's really depending upon the the how much money that the owner gonna
▶ 1:52:13 ask for for the space so what uh kind of rate uh you think the owner will be asking for when you finished this project i think i can respond to that i i don't i think you know the intent is to charge whatever is commercially reasonable uh we have spoken to area retail brokers who have educated us as to retail tenants we're willing to pay uh we've actually had discussions with the board in previous meetings as to what those rates were which were well below what's charged for retail and other parts of melrose because there's not a lot of retail in our area we could not ask you know the 40 rents that are being charged along main street uh these would be rents in the in the mid teens and uh hopefully we'll be able to find a tenant willing to
▶ 1:53:03 go a little bit out on a limb because this is a bit of an outlier as a retail location that is exactly why we put why the change that i suggested to the board says that um if we're unable to secure a tenant after good faith efforts and and commercially reasonable lease terms because obviously if we're not being reasonable then you know it wouldn't be a good faith effort and and that's why we also would agree to provide that documentation to the office of community planning and community development so that they can see that we're not trying to gouge a tenant or that we're not actually out there looking for a tenant the other thing I'd like to add guys there's not an effort here guys to avoid to avoid
▶ 1:53:47 the requirement that's not the case at all it's just it's simply a concern of what the market conditions are what they're going to be that nobody knows right now for the next several months and the possibility of leaving this is as a just a vacant dark space right in the front right in the front center of the building the only thing i was going to get to what david just said i'm sorry is that um you know melrose is a small community and if there are tenants that or feel that the rental rates being asked of them are unreasonable i'm sure you'll hear about it i just thought one year is too short especially you know the area is not you know not that much traffic yet though you know maybe it will be two years i for one i'm
▶ 1:54:37 not sure i'm as concerned about the i think one year is not that unreasonable bob but um i just i'm not crazy about the uses that are not rentable storage just doesn't feel very vibrant or like something that we'd like right on the street so that's why i think i'd be interested in the planning board having a say and at least if it wasn't working out coming back to us for a change which i don't think we'd be unreasonable about um but anyway i'd like to hear from other members of the board too um and i i agree with what you just said that there would be nothing preventing them from a later point in time if it really was a commercial impossibility to get this space rented you know they could easily come back to us um and seek a modification to the condition
▶ 1:55:39 I think the one thing that we've heard from all of the public that has spoken is that they want some kind of retail space there. The space that's being proposed is 450 square feet. That's, I mean, it's not a big space. I think it's a good idea to be flexible in the event that they find a tenant who wants a bigger space. They can use the community space instead, which is a little bit bigger but i think um you know it's really impossible to police a good faith effort to lease something out any broker will write a letter it's not difficult to get anybody to say and i'm not suggesting that anybody would do this but i think it just takes away all of the incentives to lease it out if they know that you know in 12 months they can just turn around and you know use it say
▶ 1:56:30 oh we you know we couldn't get it rented out you know we really do need the space to store packages that get delivered or what have you and just you know convert it to that type of space and i feel that we would be doing a disservice to the public if we just um approved this with the proposed condition uh by the applicants at this point and it really has been the lion's share of the discussion at the meetings we've had. Who else would like to speak? I think I am comfortable with the idea of having some flexibility built in to interchange the space as well. And I don't have an issue with the concept of revisiting it. It's not feasible my concern is the way it's drafted once the 12 months is a circle
▶ 1:57:34 back and try again so how long it could be made available for residential amenities before you know they have to give it another shot to try and lease it again. And I agree with Ann's comment, you know, storage was not a callback use. I was comfortable with the fitness concept or, you know, general amenities, but I wanted to be something that's a little bit active and approaching some kind of a mixed use type of amenity because that's what people really were pushing. So those are my thoughts. Thanks, Greg. And it's Carla. I agree. Hold on, Carla. We can't hear you. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. I agree with the folks that we're backing the flexibility of the use. I think it's a good idea to have those spaces interchangeable
▶ 1:58:46 depending on whom they find. I agree with that. And I just want to point out to the other board members that the way that they created this space or carved this space out for the public was to convert space that they had allocated in earlier versions of the plans to self storage of the tenants belongings you know sort of like bulk storage or I wasn't clear to me what it was it may have been that they could purchase bulk storage but they converted space that they had allocated in the building in the front of the building from storage to a public space for gallery and I believe they carved out space for it they had a larger Lobby interns Lobby to the building the existing building and they gave some of that space over for the coffee shop so I think that's why
▶ 1:59:36 they're suggesting those things because that's how they had initially envisioned building I I also agree with Greg I think that I think it makes sense for them to have to come back to the board and demonstrate good faith and I'm also curious about if there's a downturn in the economy and they can't find a tenant for a certain period of time is it possible for them to try again because things tend to be cyclical I don't know what that is but what that period might be but I'm interested in having that explored those are good points and that's a difficult thing to write in and that's why coming back to the board seems simpler because come back and read it at that point and figure out how we handle it from there on in I mean I'm not trying to be unreasonable here but
▶ 2:00:37 I that is something that's very important to the public and it's been important to this board let me let me ask question if I may please so a few comments saying that this board would rather the applicant come back before this board than go to oc um ocpf um would we be going back to the board i'm thinking of this hypothetically here out loud would we be going to the board to present evidence evidence of our good faith and commercially reasonable lease terms that were unable to be fulfilled for the board to make a finding on that to say yes we agree you tried what you tried your best and you couldn't fill it what would the board do in that situation it seems to me oh that we're well i thought we were suggesting just
▶ 2:01:28 coming back to modify the the condition at that point that would to be that it could be interchangeable and that after a year if you uh you were unable to do it you would come back to was for the use of the retail space I guess what I'm concerned of is the board says no you're not modifying it what are we basing it I think we all agree do we all agree that we don't want a dark empty space in the front right I don't know why it has to be a dark empty space I mean I see storefronts you know in downtown morrows where they'll hang you know local artwork so that you don't just have a vacant, dark, empty space. I don't know why the landlord would allow it to be dark, empty space. It's the front of the building. I don't know why it would have to. There's not
▶ 2:02:22 going to be a big for lease sign on the building, I wouldn't think. I think there would still be a way that they could make it look acceptable and attractive, despite the fact that it wouldn't have a tenant occupying it. And in terms of what are those commercially reasonable efforts, I would think we would want to know specifically what has been done. Has it been advertised? Has it been listed with a broker? What's the broker? What did the broker actually do? There must be some kind of a commercial MLS that it could get listed on. I don't know. There's going to be hundreds of people living within walking distance to this property. I really just can't imagine that you wouldn't find a tenant for this building.
▶ 2:03:08 And I can't understand why it's such a huge issue, to be honest with you. I mean, the developer is getting much of everything else they want, including the parking spaces. So I don't know why this is such a sticking point. Well, the difference to that project is as of right, keep in mind. It's not the developers getting everything they want. The developer is actually making a ton of concessions here that are documented in these 32 conditions. but this retail they don't mind putting it in it's not that they're trying to avoid it it's not that it's a sticking point it's just there's a huge economic uncertainty right now which makes it very disconcerting about what you're gonna invest your money in and have a space right in the front of the building
▶ 2:03:54 that you end up not filling you say that you can you can make it more attractive yeah you can make it more attractive but it's still gonna be empty and it is good you know it's not literally gonna have a for rent sign in it but it's theoretically gonna have a for rent sign in it because we're talking about a period of time when there's nothing there there's a tenant there it's great everything's golden David we have had the experience of an empty space with two Washington Street so I think we're all aware of the and planning board is not supportive of having empty spaces sit vacant for more than a year what What about, would the board consider something that says, if after 12 consecutive months
▶ 2:04:34 we leave, use a lot of this language, make quite diligent efforts to secure a tenant with a commercially reasonable lease terms, the applicant would come back to modify this condition to allow use for the, accessory use for the residential units for a certain period of time and uh to provide for attempting for uh their use at some other point but yeah i think it's fine i think i think the big concern here excuse me is is trying to um make it interchangeable between the two units you know to and understand the problem with that with the board from what i'm hearing and um keep in mind that this isn't a year from now this is a year from the certificate of occupancy but we're talking way down the road um i don't think i
▶ 2:05:27 don't think there's a big problem coming back in front of the planning board to explain the situation and to seek the modification my hope is that the board of appeals if we get variances will allow us to come back to the planning board for that purpose and not have to go for a modification of the variance as well um ray murphy texted me and said he'd like you to turn he would would like Denise oh sure yeah you know I can also interject while you're getting Denise getting ray up on board here I agree with David I think that the intent here was just to try and get a little flexibility we have no problem coming back to the planning board if we've been unsuccessful achieving what hope to achieve with retail tenancy so um i i really think that uh we're happy to do this the
▶ 2:06:20 way the planning board would like us to and come back um in a year if we're unsuccessful this is uh i'm sorry i just wanted to so one of the one suggestion i think it would be important to um make it clear to people like that if they're to return to the board it would be for an amendment into the condition under the site plan approval and not the condition, and treat it as a simple amendment or minor modification type process and not require the same level of review that a special permit would require? Exactly. I think that would be a much easier process and that the report would be amenable to that as long as we legally fit within the minor modification. Ray Murphy, did you want to speak? Well, yeah, this is Ray. Thank you for letting me speak. I agree with Chris. I mean, I think we can come back to the board. I think, you know, we would work with the board.
▶ 2:07:28 You know, we're never going to be more motivated than to try to fill this space than at opening. I mean, we will want to go try to activate this space as soon as we can. now we're talking you know 18 to 24 months out here in a very uncertain world so there's a there's a lot that has to go into this but you know if we have to come back to the point and say it didn't work probably a way to activate the space and maybe even preserve some flexibility at the same time kind of got a little flavor for what the conversation might look like i mean you might say well you know we can't believe you can't find that well there's you know we'll have to we'll have to be honest with each other and show that we've made the effort and talk about ways that we
▶ 2:08:12 my bigger point is we're never going to be right up front activate this space you don't want to be opening a project and people saying you know what's going in there i mean we're really going to try our best to get somebody in there that everybody will be happy with okay thank you i think that's carla did you have something yeah i have a question um can you hear me am i yeah i'm okay can the developer clarify how many how many parking spaces they were going to assign or allocate to the retail space there's an expectation that you're allowing for retail in the parking in the front of the building for the said retail space isn't that correct yes okay do we need to we need to spell that out in any of our conditions that that's sort of part of the that's part of the lease deal
▶ 2:09:12 i don't know designate the designate which parking spaces are commercial spaces no i mean just mention in the conditions how many parking spaces that you are willing to allocate to as much as 1250 i think it is 1250 square feet or 1200 square feet of retail and or public space we need to oh yeah no i think we can do that for the attorneys on the board i i have no idea delineated on the plan i don't remember that's what i thought i don't know i don't know if it is but maybe but perhaps it should be if it if it isn't already we're in the at least yeah i don't remember i'm sorry i think that's reasonable from the standpoint of it make making it viable and i would think developer would agree with that at some
▶ 2:10:08 point you do need to have parking spaces or those that even if it's just in and out quickly um you know dedicated to that not taken up for other uses otherwise it may not make the retail viable what's your thought on this um it's hard to strictly designate when you don't know exactly what your what your uh configuration of uses is going to be and what uses they will be but you know clearly we put some spaces on there thinking that they would support the these spaces um delineating how many or which ones you kind of need to know where what's going where so i'm not sure how how specific we should get at this point other than knowing that there are spaces out there that are intended to support those spaces i thought there
▶ 2:10:59 was some discussion at one point that also the visitor spaces were in the front there were going to be there were some in front that would not be used on a regular basis and i i'm i'm sorry i don't have the plans and start with this format well i'm looking at the site plan right now there's 20 parking spaces in that little spot right in the front it shows a couple of them as electric vehicle spaces it's like 24 spaces right there's 20 regular spaces there were four handicap spaces right and again i don't and i i know the couple designated as an electrical vehicle was a couple designated look like zip car um that's probably out of planning purposes maybe not necessarily hard and fast designations but other than that that's all
▶ 2:11:51 that's shown if i could just comment on this um yeah i'm sorry it was all i wanted to say is Ideally, we had allocated in our minds for a retail tenant of that size roughly 10 spaces. To have the flexibility to be able to park more tenants there than just limiting it to 10, I think would be more beneficial to attracting a retail tenant. And letting our management company manage the use of those spaces would probably afford us the most flexibility in being able to accommodate a retail use there. If we find that we're getting over-parked by the retail use, we can certainly post signage to restrict that. But individually signing spaces, I think, is too restrictive, and we'd appreciate having a little bit more flexibility there.
▶ 2:12:49 Okay, thank you. That's a good point. Ann, can I make a comment? Sure, go ahead, Sharon. I think I'm okay with allowing them, you know, the ability and the freedom to designate where those spaces would be. Can we do something a little bit more general where we just say a maximum or a minimum and maybe just put a few spaces? Maybe just designate a few, like maybe, I don't know, four spaces in the front area for retail use so that they would offer a minimum of, say, I don't know, 15 spaces for retail use. uh you know i guess we wouldn't have to do a maximum because they would be able to you know make a maximum number depending on what would be needed i don't think that parking spaces are part of our conditions they're probably just as
▶ 2:13:45 designated on the plan correct denise say that again are they they're not oh no they're currently there's no other conditions now right in terms of where they're designated just to have a few in the front for the retail use so you'd want to make that part of the condition i think i think sharon's suggesting a minimum number and the developer depending on the tenant and what the needs are to to increase that if they felt that that would make more viable and the only other question i had is why we have the electric vehicle spaces in the front if that's something that's barely you know they're parked for a while is there a reason why they're in the front is there an incentive to have electric vehicles by putting by putting
▶ 2:14:42 them in key spots I'm not sure I would suggest this parking and if and if for some reason we can't find a tenant we come back the planning board and the reason is because we weren't offering enough parking spaces then that that's an issue for the board at that time definitely i think that's a good point i what i'm saying is i don't think that we had designated on the parking what was for tenants what was for visitors what i don't think that was part of our approval i think we were leaving that up to the applicant to designate parking spaces depending on who wanted them who needed them So this is a departure to add a condition. I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with it because I agree if they come back to us and say,
▶ 2:15:41 we weren't able to get one and their reasoning is that all the parking spaces were taken, that's maybe gonna be a problem for us to allow the condition to change. I'd just like to add, this is Chris Kelly speaking. John had asked a question with regards to the location. reason why the ev spaces are there is due to its proximity to the transformer these spaces are located adjacent to the transformer i guess makes some sense and you know why i was asking it just seems though it takes up spaces that otherwise could be provide for more flexibility in terms of the retail versus other uses but uh okay i'm sorry i just wanted to say that with 24 spaces out front really the only purpose for the use of those spaces is for visitors and for
▶ 2:16:41 drop-off uh uber cars waiting um the retail should have plenty of access to parking with that number of spaces available is it reasonable for us to include in the conditions uh the parking spaces in the front would not be for long-term uh tenant assignment something to that effect ordinarily what you do in retail this is john speaking again you then limit that whether it's an hour or 20 minutes or you know whatever but that's often what's done uh in those circumstances is to limit the time now the question is who's really going to enforce it to know and i'm not i'm not a fan of things that aren't enforceable so i don't know how you address that can i hear from david can you tell us on behalf of the applicant i mean is there a problem
▶ 2:17:34 with the parking spaces in front being not designated for uh you know lease to attend to tenants it's going to be professionally managed so i don't know what the plan is going to be for um whether the front is going to have overnight tenants or not i mean there will be you know there's going to be even parking for retail or for community space um so they're going to be filled one way or the other but david if i could just add the um you know the tenant parking is primarily going to be used in the evening um you know most of these tenants who are storing cars they are going to be utilizing their cars for work purposes other reasons and therefore there will not be a concentration of tenant parking in front of the building that's not its intended use
▶ 2:18:25 it's not intended for the assigned spaces chris that's correct okay you can install sign on it this is jack i don't i don't know why we headed down this road i think we're complicating a situation that you know a management company will deal with once they know who the retail clients are i mean we're sort of um trying to make rules and and we don't know what the situation is going to be and i i i just don't even understand where we're going with this frankly i agree with jack this is john again circumstances whether it's a lease or a contract we've had some language to point to and i think that if we more softly just made reference to uh you know parking spaces for retail such that it doesn't uh you know it doesn't create an issue with respect to the leaseability
▶ 2:19:28 of the space that type language maybe that could be better said but that's often what i do i think this is something to point to if there is an issue and if not we're not overly restricting uh the parking that wants to be flexible in front right and i i agree um jack my my point in bringing it up was not to assign parking and to be very specific about you know numbering visitor spaces in the front but instead it was to comment that the parking is a management issue and we really don't want the developer to come back to us in a year and say they couldn't find a retail tenant because there was inadequate parking when they have control of all the parking on their site and they might need to be a little bit more flexible with their parking situation
▶ 2:20:16 that's why i was just saying i thought the parking should be mentioned somehow in the condition because it's retail space with visitor parking and it's gallery space or public space with visitor parking it's not just the space the the whole package includes parking to make the businesses feasible. That's the point I was trying to make. Well, if you made some language to that effect without pinning down the number of spaces or the hours or anything like that, would that, you think that would cover it? Yeah, I'd leave that to the attorneys. Okay. So the language right now does say if despite using good faith and diligent efforts to secure a tenant with commercially reasonable lease terms, we could add language to saying with
▶ 2:21:04 commercially reasonable lease terms and adequate parking. That's what I'm suggesting. If the owner is still unable to do so, then they would come back to us. Just make a suggestion though, with language like that, how would we ever know the negotiations between the potential tenant and the management company? Maybe what we ask them to tell us and what they tell us. It's true, there's a certain amount of- Right, so it just becomes impossible to police. And I see, Carla, that's sort of what I would say, that if you don't have the parking in the front of the building, it becomes a deterrent to a commercial tenant. So that really was all that I was trying to get at, too, by saying, let's make them have a minimum number
▶ 2:21:49 of parking spaces in the front of the building for the commercial tenant. Dave, this is Chris again. I would just reiterate that the intent of comparing this retail space is to not have people occupy the space. The intent is to occupy the space with parking that is adequate for that use. I think we've made a lot of modifications to our plan over the last four meetings. And I think that we've been very reasonable in considering the board's request to change our plan. And we're just asking for a little bit of belief in the development process here that our intent is to fill that space to provide the adequate amount of parking necessary if we did not do that we certainly would not be acting in good faith and that's not our intent of starting our relationship with the
▶ 2:22:48 town of melrose i think i don't think anyone's doubting your good faith there's been an awful lot of changes and very good changes made to the foundation um i think it's just a matter of the board debating how they how they want to uh work with the possibility that nobody wants that space uh in a year and i think what i'm hearing from the board is a consensus that if um if you're unable to at least that you come back to us for a very simple process of uh a minor modification to this condition so it wouldn't be a full-blown public hearing but modification that you would come and present your efforts and we would look at it and try and come up with whether or not we'd allow you to use it for other things or
▶ 2:23:41 try and come up with a plan C am i correct and I'd like to hear from board members it's agreeable to me this is John thanks John am i summarizing pretty much the discussion I realize there have been people that would want to go a little further but you said at least we've got a consensus on that much this is thanks Bob Carla and um Aaron did you is that pretty fair this is Jack I'm I'm comfortable with that, you know, there's gotta be some give and take, and obviously I don't see the corporation wants to set itself up for failure. That wastes everybody's time and money. So it just seems like we have to have a little give and take and a little trust that they're gonna make their best efforts.
▶ 2:24:50 I mean, they volunteered to do this in the first place, you know, we as a board didn't force it upon them. So, you know, I know we've suggested strongly, but. True, I think that it's in no one's interest here to have an empty space sitting there, vacant and unusable. So after the end of the year, it makes sense for us to revisit this. And so I think that the proposed condition is written by the applicant is fine up until the part about at the end of one year, the applicant owner, instead of may begin to use it for accessory use, it would be the applicant owner will return to the board to modify this condition based on the information provided. That's fine. Something to that effect? Sure, absolutely.
▶ 2:25:42 I think it's may. May. They don't have to return, but. Good point. The other, the flexibility, think we don't have any problem with and uh making it all one condition seems to make sense it still defines what's retail community space and defines what's uh the gallery space this makes sense to me yeah we're fine with um the proposed uses as well it was general it was very general retail service and goods it's fine the board ready to move on to a couple other conditions that need some discussion we should also talk about condition number 30 which was posed to be changed by the applicant also that's the one about the transportation management plan because there there was a concern that sounds legitimate that matter despite their best efforts bike share programs and zip
▶ 2:26:59 car programs have to choose to come work with you they're proposing that they will do other pieces of the transportation management and but they will use just good faith and best efforts to provide the bike share in the Zipcar parking spaces at all times with documentation provided to planning and community development the issue here the issue here the reason I suggested a change that was simply because we don't right now have a contract with a bike share program or with Zipcar we're going to try to get them we want to get them but you know I I just I can't guarantee you that we're gonna have one I guess you do have an awful lot of parking spaces I'm fine with this thank you Greg other members of the board I didn't have any problem with that you Bob anyone
▶ 2:28:02 else I'm fine with it okay I think that we have a consensus on that for John be changed in number 23 the affordable units that's really not no need for discussion we're fine with the still 19 units it's just that two of them are studios versus three and ten of them are one bedrooms versus nine and and this is how they are already designated on our plans right that's right they do show on the plan okay number 15 which is the one about construction vehicles I know it's getting late and everyone's been crazy patient and this is a very cumbersome process here but I just wanted to throw in there I do remember we had a city counselor come and speak like the Lincoln School neighborhood I believe it
▶ 2:29:05 was Tremont Street and the very end of Tramont there saying he was concerned about construction vehicles cutting through there does everyone feel like this is sufficient to just say whenever feasible use main roads and not highly residential areas I can't imagine a truck wanting to cut through those streets but do that and now usually when they submit the transportation plan they have a like a traffic rope traffic route for the traps you know the construction vehicles I don't know what they have pick and is planning to do on this usually they you know for construction they have some sort of a plan for the trap is gonna go in and out of the construction and what traffic going to going through the main road or to limiting but Denise you wrote this your
▶ 2:30:10 Denise Gaffey: I would just say that I mean Bob is correct before a project this project will kick off just like any project of this size and scope that involves a new building there will be a pre-construction meeting with police chief and city engineer and planning and all kinds of officials and we would we would review that the the construction that the plan for vehicle traffic I mean I actually I actually think the the comment that that consular made we had more to do with concern about traffic in general in the neighborhood streets I think he just felt like he needed to raise that because he hears that in his neighborhood in his ward but it is my opinion so far away from this project that it's really not germaine okay thank you yeah i just i had it that he brought that up and
▶ 2:31:02 um did anyone else had any have any comments about that one any other conditions that any members of the planning board want to discuss dan is sharon go ahead um just number 27 and maybe denise this goes to you uh initially the trash and recycling it says will it initially occur twice per week what are we what are we after with that i just the word initially it's so vague i feel like if if we're trying to accomplish something specific let's just say you know for the first four weeks or you know what's the what's the objective with that occurring twice a week um i'm not actually sure why I think that was how it was represented to us that that's their plan was to do it twice a week okay so they have no objective I guess it's fine as
▶ 2:32:00 is and we can leave it to their discretion okay any other conditions we should discuss yeah this is bummer cat again and condition number two okay go to the design review subcommittee on the related facade materials color windows lighting landscaping screening and add site improvements I'm not sure what site improvements are? Site improvements, sometimes they get fenced, sometimes they add benches or, you know, things like that, you know, a truss receptacle in the area. Site improvements is more like when they improve the area, you know, they cover a lot. I thought that was included in landscaping. They are only on plants, grass, and trees. That's the way I look at it, though, you know. I can prove is a cover a lot though you know it's like you know sometimes when
▶ 2:33:24 you say screen is that you're talking about the defense around the like a truss area you know or a reference all around the site so we'll cover that though you know anything that they have to improve on the site I think it should be beyond it a lot of it's usually some the plans though you know and civil plans say I think it's all shown on the plans and they have to draw it as shown on the plans it's not a term that I've used before planning staff is this gonna confuse it isn't typically on our list of design is that but usually that's a general things that a lot of times on the super plans and sure John knows about but it's up to you guys though but I just say improve is more a general think that covers a lot on the site for example like i just said though you know we're going to
▶ 2:34:22 advance in the area to make it that improve the area i thought we we already approved that those things on the plans though when they're not part of the site plan review i mean not part of i'm sorry design review subcommittee approval but if oh no if it's not if we approve the civil plans Yes, but if they're going to change it, I think they should go back to, you know, the last reviewer, correct? Oh, if they change anything, for sure. If they're going to do any changes. For sure. Otherwise, I think it's covered by the plan review and condition number one. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. so other conditions that people want to discuss review amend we have a series now we have it looks like 31 if 31 and 32 become a single one is that correct
▶ 2:35:26 okay so we have 31 proposed conditions for site plan review we've looked at this extensively, we need a majority vote for site plan review. If there's no further discussion, do I have a motion from the board? I'd like to make a motion to accept the 32 conditions as discussed. Approve the site plan review? That's correct. Do I have a second? John's second. John Sadowski seconds. All in favor of approving site plan review along with these 32 conditions as conditioned here please signify by seeing I in a roll call vote great Samson I cannot vote on this John Sadowski really I gonna skip my Castaway Bob McArdo hi Welsh hi okay hi Sharon Petrillo hi and and this is a Warren hi all right that's it right so it's it's unanimous your cycling review
▶ 2:36:53 is approved we have another vote now we have to vote for the house affordable housing special permit this one needs a super majority vote a two-thirds vote same board members are eligible to vote on it it's to approve the 19 units as specified in the plans and in the conditions of a site plan review and to make the appropriate findings under affordable housing our special permit general conditions we have addressed extensively here we have a motion on the special permit for affordable housing for this project was there just a correction on a unit count with respect to that or not total unit count the mix of units no the total unit count is still the same it's a it's the same percentage which is equaled 19 units okay just want to be clear on that
▶ 2:37:54 great didn't bummer cut them motion to broke the affordable as a statement do I have a second well second I didn't hear all in favor please signify by saying okay roll call vote again john sadowski hi carla morelli bob micardo hi jack welsh hi paul king hi sarah petrillo hi and anderson's award hi great now we have another uh one more vote uh involving this case and that's the recommendation to the board of appeals on the they've requested they requested I think are all go ahead David sorry sorry just before you get to that I would appreciate it if this board as I said would make a finding under this hasn't I don't think this has been done yet in Melrose but a finding under the smart growth ordinance that the number that
▶ 2:39:09 the Planning Board will allow reduced parking requirements again under 235 section 71.1 f4 it has the same criteria almost word for word as the affordable housing incentive ordinance which is 73.1 I think I'd like to be able to say to the board of that you guys have made a finding that you agree to the reduced parking from 1.25 to 1.22 spaces per unit I don't think there's any impediment to us doing that we've already approved that many units in our site plan review i don't think there is either but i i wouldn't mind being able to say to the board that that findings been all right can i have a motion from a member of the board to make the finding that uh to allow less parking than required for this project this is jack i'll
▶ 2:40:06 Denise Gaffey: make the motion that we allow less uh parking spaces than required so moved do i have a second Second. To be clear, the request was finding, so is that the motion that we're voting on? No, it can be a finding. I think that's a good way of framing it. Yeah. It's a provision that's allowed in the ordinance, which says, you know, David cited the reference, but it's the language is that the planning board may allow shared or reduced parking requirements for uses having different peak times of parking demand, or if the uses need lesser number of parking spaces than is required i think the request and the point is that a finding is stronger in my opinion in terms of what i think is being requested which i don't really have an issue with
▶ 2:40:57 we did this at the at the moment we do this on the on the on the project for where maro's paying No, this is strictly Smart Growth District. It seems to me, John, that it's simply finding this is all that's necessary, and obviously we're improving it, so we think it's such necessary. Of course. Right. Okay. All right. So I do have a motion, and I can't remember if I have a second. Did I have a second? No. Yeah. second dan any further discussion on the motion if you're in favor of the finding to find that reduced parking is adequate uh signify by saying aye by roll call vote uh john sadowski hi carla morelli hi bob mccardle hi jack welsh paul king sharon petrillo sharon i see sorry sorry about
▶ 2:42:09 that aye yeah and a Susan Ward okay now we vote on the recommendation to the Board of Appeals and the variances and all these variances are in your Board of Appeals brief from the city staff but also they are represented in the site plan review that we just approved and they're on all the plans together and five parking one density one sign setback so and this is Greg I mean I I think I'd be inclined to suggest a motion that we make a favorable recommendation essentially you know through site plan review we reviewed all of these um variances most of them are being sought for either existing conditions or for uh in order to make the project more of a smart growth project you know reduced impervious surface um things like that so i think we want to be favorable in this
▶ 2:43:38 um i i have no any advance requests and would support them and i'm just trying to feel as though there ought to be a little bit of a preamble to this in terms of the number of public hearings we went through and uh and the input from the from the neighbors that led to the site plan review approval that's i'll leave that to the board this is what the zba sees from us that's that's it theoretically right they'll get a copy of the decision as well well i think if if greg if yours your was a motion that we having approved site plan review that we approve these also that we would support the variance requests also we could add the language in that john mentioned do i have a second to that motion i'll second this john any other discussion or comments
▶ 2:44:36 members want to put into the letter to the Board of Appeals all right all in favor of sending a positive recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the variances signify by saying aye or nay when their name is called King. Aye. Patrillo. Aye. And to Susan Ward. Aye. So that motion carries. The Board of Appeals recommendation goes for this case. With the exception of other business, we have actually made it through our agenda, haven't we? Yes. This is so outside my comfort zone. Can I ask a question to David? Is he still there, David Louvast? Yeah, I'm here. Yeah. This COVID-19 pandemic, is this affecting this project under your planning, do you know, with the owner? I don't know specifically yet. The whole construction industry, you probably know as well as anybody,
▶ 2:46:02 Bob, is really paranoid right now. If we only have another half hour or hour, I'd be glad to elaborate what I've been talking about. Agreed, John. I understood. I understood. Yeah. Yeah. I will tell you this. What you've just done now will be very helpful, very, very, very helpful, because it says to people looking at the project, all right, it's moving forward, we're in, we're in 100%. No, I really can't thank you guys all enough for setting up this platform for this and moving this forward. You're better off with Baker's orders than you are with Marty Walsh's. Yeah. No kidding. No kidding. God. All right. Good luck. Yes. Good luck. Thank you very much for everything. Thanks for coming. Thank you.