Planning Board — 2021-05-24
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, May 24, 2021 7:30 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Beth Delahaij, Anne DeSouza Ward, Paul King, Carla Morelli, Sharon Petrillo, Greg Sampson & Jack Welch ABSENT: Robert Mercado & John Sadowski STAFF PRESENT: Denise Gaffey, Director, Emma Battaglia, Senior Planner & Lori Massa, Planning Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM by Mr. Sampson. Pursuant to Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor’s March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Melrose Planning Board was conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Meeting access and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting was found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org/remote-meetings. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was made to ensure that the public could adequately access the proceedings in real time. An audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings was posted on the mmtv3.org website as soon as possible after the meeting. A link was also available on www.cityofmelrose.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, April 26, 2021 Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing, April 29, 2021 Mr. King made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Ms. DeSouza Ward seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Zoning Subcommittee Meeting, May 18, 2021 Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. Mr. Welch abstained. All other members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Case 21-001, 52 West Emerson Street, 52 West Emerson Street LLC c/o Frank Barbosa Jason Jarvis, Architect, Rick Salvo, Civil Engineer, Jack Lister, and Kevin Carter appeared to present the case. In October of 2020 the ZBA granted a special permit to establish 6 units with one affordable unit, and variances for lot area, frontage/lot width, number of stories and driveway width. Mr. Salvo explained the site conditions. The building’s slab will be above the ground water table. They will consider the historic high water table when digging a test pit to make sure that they understand the ground water level. The soil here will drain well. With only six units in the building they may not need an accessible unit; however, one of the units can be adaptable as there is enough space in the entryway and bathroom for a wheelchair. Mr. Jarvis explained the building layout and said that there will be a roof deck that will be an amenity for the upper floor units. The Board discussed the proposed ramp and how it appeared difficult to use by wheelchair. The team said that the 1:12 ramp slope and landing areas meet the required standards. Board members felt that it may meet the requirements but practically it will be difficult to use and it is very long at 74 feet. They questioned why a ramp is proposed. The team said that there is no room for an elevator in the building. There could be an automatic door opener to make it easier to enter the building. An accessible space could be located in the front yard for easier access. Members said that they would have to see how this would work on a plan because generally it is discouraged. The Board also discussed: There is no space for trash storage. The team said that it will be inside the building in totes but they are not on the floorplan. The plans need to include the space for the totes and include recycling. A member said that trash compactors may be a good fit for this project. The parking layout looks difficult to maneuver. The trim on the existing building is interesting and should be salvaged. It is hard to see this old building be demolished. The team said it is up to the owner to see how carefully they can remove the parts of the building. There will be six condensers on the roof. They need to submit the specifications. They should explore MassSave incentives and look at the HERS rating of the building. Visitors can park on the street, which is allowed on one side, and in the nearby municipal lot. The garage parking spaces will be wired for electric charging stations with likely level 1 charging. Three of the parking spaces should be pavers or banked in another way and not constructed as proposed. The Board opened the hearing up for public comment. Scott Noddin of 39-41 Winthrop Street said that there a huge ground water and flooding issue in the neighborhood. The sump pump in his building feeds into a drywell that does not drain and the water is in a continuous loop. This project will make the flood issue worse because there will be nowhere for the water to go. A test well was done prior to the construction of his building too but it did not help to avoid this problem. His basement flooded after two months of living there. Finn McSweeney of 160 W Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Wyoming Avenue said that this development is in a central location and easily accessible bicycle storage is important to facilitate bike use. Richard Curl of 155 Myrtle Street submitted a letter with drainage and aesthetic concerns and also spoke during the meeting to say that the groundwater is very close to the surface. Joe Cramer of 56 W Emerson Street said that the plan at the ZBA meeting had trees lining the driveway, which the current plan excludes. Also, his third floor tenant will be disturbed by the noise of the rooftop A/C units. The Board received a letter about drainage concerns from the Kesak Group at 42-44 West Emerson Street. Mr. Salvo said there is a difference between the observed water table and the historic water table. They would use the historic high water table marker. Instead of putting condensers on the roof they could put them on the low side of the retaining wall near the multifamily unit building. Mr. Welch made a motion to continue the hearing to July 26, 2021. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-001 Architectural Plans dated April 9, 2021 Civil Plans dated March 8, 2021 Construction Management Plan Drainage Report Executive Summary Transportation Management Plan DPW Review SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street, 39 Tappan Street LLC There were not enough Board members present to vote on the case. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to continue the case to June 28, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Incentive Zoning Amendment: Report to the City Council Ms. Gaffey reviewed the list of public comments received after the public hearing and the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Members found that this tool is a good compromise that will encourage sustainable housing and be usable. It balances the competing interests in Melrose. The State is working on changing the stretch code which will address development city-wide and the City is working on a Net Zero Plan that will include future action on sustainable development. The technology for such things as heating and cooling are also evolving. The Historic District Commission and zoning are two independent authorities; however, the Emerson and Main Street area, which is partially in the historic district, was removed from the zoning amendment and will be evaluated separately in the future. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 The Board received a letter from a member of the public about the loading requirements. The report to the City Council will include an explanation about why the loading section is in the amendment. Ms. DeSousa-Ward made a motion to send the City Council a report with the proposed changes to the amendment as discussed. Mr. King seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Proposed Zoning Amendment May 24, 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Appeals Public Hearing on June 9, 2021: Case 21-014, 14 Hawes Avenue, M. Razvan & Tina Teodorescu Ms. Morelli made a motion to send a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that they had no objection to the proposal. Ms. DeSouza Ward seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-014 Case 21-015, 27 Temple Street, Joseph H. & Robin L. Higgins The Board did not support the application and recommended denying the variances. Members did not see any justification for avoiding the slope protection special permit. They felt that the majority of the land is not buildable without substantial land alteration and the resulting variances are substantial. Mr. King made a motion to send a recommendation letter to deny the Board of Appeals to deny the variances. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-015 Case 21-016, 735 Newburyport Turnpike, Pugh Management, LLC The Planning Board recommended that the Board of Appeals seek additional information on why the thirty-foot building height dimension could not be accommodated. Members were not necessarily opposed to the proposed height; however, there was no justification in the application materials for the need for the variance. The Planning Board had no objection to the entrance driveway variance. Although large, the driveway seems reasonable to them to allow trucks to enter and not have to cross into the travel lane of oncoming traffic. A crosswalk will be installed across the driveway for pedestrian safety. Members recommended denying the open space variance. There appeared to be an excessive number of parking spaces and reducing the number of spaces would free up space for more landscaping on the site to satisfy the open space requirement. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 The Planning Board recently received a site plan approval application for this proposal and it will be heard at the June meeting. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-016 OTHER Tripartite Agreement & Covenants for Swains Pond Ave Subdivision The land that is part of the Swains Pond Avenue/Hillside Park subdivision is being transferred from recorded land to registered land. The Applicants are seeking clarification from the Planning Board that the Board agrees with City Engineering Department on the schedule of values that will be in the Tripartite Agreement between the Applicant, the Bank and the City. The value is the amount of the bond available if the developer does not do the work. The Engineering Department increased some numbers proposed by the applicant. The final value is $5,488,090. Once the transfer of land is complete the agreement will come back before the Planning Board to sign it. The Planning Board was comfortable with the Engineering Department’s proposed values. It is within the Engineering Department’s best interest to appropriately cover the cost of the work since they would have to do the work if the Applicant does not finish the job. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2021. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Transcript
▶ 3:37 I'll second it's Carla. Thank you. Um, any discussion questions, points of clarification. Hey, all those in favor to approve, please say, aye aye aye aye aye aye. Any abstentions or nays abstain abstain that wasn't there. All right, those past, um, so. It's next in the agenda, so we have our 52 West Emerson street. Same plan review and affordable housing special permit. It's case 21-001 we want. To give the rest of our members another minute or so. Anyone try to hang John to see if he's able to join. I will try to reach out. All right, let's just give him a minute. So we. Try and have as many people available for there. Discussion, I think would make sense unable to reach him. All right, so I think we'll have to proceed. Yeah.
▶ 7:52 And just to clarify, is this actually a special permit request as well? I don't think so. I think it's just site plan. All right, so for safe plan, we need a majority. We have 1234567777 numbers are available. So, I think. you know as long as the applicant understands we've we're too short on members but um it says majority application so the agenda does say special permit for affordable housing but i don't i think that's just because it was part of the variance from the board of appeals right yeah i think i think that's a mistake it's different okay good am i wrong about that lori You're you're good at that. This is the yeah, they, um, they're not asking for any of the incentives for parking or a number of units. It's technically the same for vine street. That's the agenda is incorrect in both cases.
▶ 8:54 Okay, well, I think we're good to proceed then if the applicants ready to go. I think we are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance, office at 194 Central Street. Next to me and just off the camera here is the applicant, Frank Barbosa of Third Generation Construction. And we also have Jason Jarvis, who is his architect. So this project went before the Board of Appeals in August of 2020. Mr. Barboza was not the applicant for that. The prior property owner was the applicant. And we as the engineer weren't involved in that part of the process either. And this project did receive zoning relief back in October 2020 on a 4 to nothing vote.
▶ 9:50 The relief that was granted was relative to lot area frontage and maximum stories. I guess, do I have the ability maybe to share my screen here, Emma? Yes, I will make you the presenter. There it is. Oh, yeah, everyone can see that. I assume. Yes. Yep. Yes. Good. So, um, the property is located at 52, um, 1, West Emerson street. Um, it's tax pap lot. 115. it's comprised of 11,709 square feet. Currently occupied by a 2 family dwelling with a driveway on either side of the property. This driveway extends way down towards the rear. We flip to the existing condition survey. You can catch up. This is the outline of the 2 family dwelling and the driveways on either side. You can see the topography drops from about elevation 58 at the street down to about elevation 46 in the back corner of the property.
▶ 11:23 The proposal. Zoom this out a little bit, yeah, is to construct a 6-family dwelling, 3 stories high, parking underneath the building and surface parking. And we are showing a land bank parking spot here, which I'll get to in a moment. So, if we run through the zoning criteria, this is in the URB district. Relief was granted to allow 11,709 square feet where 22,500 are required. Relief was also granted for 69.5 feet of frontage where 100 feet of frontage is required. This building does meet the front yard setback. We're providing 24.3 feet where 20 feet is required. It meets the side yard setback. There's 10.9 feet where 10 feet is required. And it meets the rare yard setback, there's about 57 and a half feet where 15 feet is required.
▶ 12:28 Relief was also granted for the stories, three stories where two and a half is allowed. However, it does fit within the height requirement relative to feet where this is 33.6 feet high and the required is 35 feet. And lastly, it meets the open space requirement with a little over 33% open space where 30% is required. I think access to the site is pretty self explanatory access will be provided down the driveway to 1 of the 5 surface parking spaces, or these spaces underneath the building. This turn does look a little tight. We did run an auto turn analysis on it and a car can easily pull in and turn and pull into the garage because this plan went through the board of appeals. We were, we were kind of dictated what the footprint and the layout was. So we tried to stick with the footprint and layout as much as we could. That was presented at the board of appeals.
▶ 13:35 I know there was a request to try to minimize the amount of parking spaces at this point in the game. You can see we've only eliminated 1 space. However, you know, we're willing to discuss additional spaces being removed. This will be a condominium project. You know, so the applicant is interested in being able to get as many parking spaces as he can. If we switch to the. Grading plan, you can see the grading and down the driveway. We're pretty much matching the existing driveway grades as you come down the driveway. There's. Changes in about about 6 inches and so we are proposing to. Reconstruct the retaining wall that's all the way down. the easterly side of the property line and construct a new retaining wall that'll be about one to two feet high along the back property line
▶ 14:42 just so we can flatten this out and create a curb in here so we can ensure that any runoff that runs down this driveway it stays in the driveway gets captured in this catch basin runs through the CDS unit and into this Caltech system. We did receive during the staff report some comments from the engineering department, which we have not addressed yet. We wanted to have this hearing and just hear everybody's concerns. I did see the concerns relative to drainage concerns in the area. I've seen video from the new development behind it that looks like it was possibly built down to the groundwater and there's sump pumps that that are pumping and and causing issues with people's backyards so just to let the board know what we plan to do um subsequent to receiving
▶ 15:34 comments at this meeting is we did rely on boring information to determine the groundwater table and ensure that this system will work and ensure that our slab elevation will be quite a bit above the ground table ground water table but given the fact that those readings were obtained with borings we want to get out there and excavate a test pit not necessarily go by the observed groundwater table but take a look at the modeling and the estimated seasonal historic high ground water table and just make sure that everything's going to function as designed it is a a course to find sand out there so it is a very well draining material so we know that will work so the only question will be separation from the groundwater table this project is not anticipated
▶ 16:25 to have any sump pumps involved so we won't have the issues um that are occurring um in the in the property behind us um our slab elevation is about elevation 53 by the borings we've determined the groundwater table to be around elevation 42 but like i said we're going to really verify and dig into that with some test pits relative to the front of the property i can scroll down there we'll be closing this curb cut off just utilizing this existing curb cut we'll be providing a new sewer service and gas trap as there'll be floor drains in the garage there'll be a fire service and a domestic water service that will also be the property we did design a handicap ramp that just because it worked with the grading to be able to get from the back parking area up to the front
▶ 17:25 door should that be required that was shown on the board of appeals plans and we just confirmed the grading that it works and conforms to ada where this is only a six unit development i'm not sure that it's going to be required to have a handicap unit but it'll they'll have to be handicapped um adaptable i'm sure but i'll let the architect get into that and then lastly we did provide a landscaping plan which called for some street trees foundation plantings a tree back here to replace the existing tree that was cut down and then landscaping around the edge so i think that's essentially the way that the site lays out i don't know if you want to do questions on the site or if we should get into the architectural let the architect give his portion of
▶ 18:19 the presentation first i'd be inclined to go to the architect okay let me stop sharing my screen here and let him share his screen emma if you could give jason the ability to share would be great okay um good evening i'm jason jarvis jarvis drafting design i was brought in probably halfway through this project so the design is uh not completely my own but i have adapted the the layout and i have a color board i'd like to share with you for the exterior and then i'll share the the floor plans um they're pretty basic floor plans and uh we can get into questions if we have any questions. So let me see if I can actually do this. Okay, so basically the design is, as Rick stated, a three-story building, two units on each floor. We have a mansard roof, which is kind of in
▶ 19:49 keeping with local building design. So we're not designing a high-tech looking structure. We're building with hardy plank lap siding and hardy shingle siding for the upper mansard portion of the building. The colors we're keeping more neutral. The existing structure is a maroon color, so we're keeping a little bit of the maroon color in the front entry area. I'll zoom in a little bit if I can. so you can see that here we're putting that maroon color through this middle section the other projections are going to get this gray color that would be these two quote tower sections um and let me open up the floor plans oh i'm sorry um for the handicap ramp we will be doing a a steel a welded steel railing um more like more than likely painting it black that'll
▶ 21:02 kind of stand up for the you know the test of time i suppose let me get into the floor plans real quick if i can find them videos there we go so basically you know we've already discussed the parking there'll be stairs and a mechanical room on the lower level at the the parking level those stairs will be will serve as central stairs to each of the floors first floor plan is again two units on each side there's a living room dining room kitchen two bedrooms on each side on each side um a bath and a half or i'm sorry two and a half baths on each floor also a washer and dryer unit, closet, HVAC ductwork through these chases. Second floor is a similar layout. There's balconies at the back. There's also, if I go back to this, you can see there's
▶ 22:16 some faux balconies on each side off the living room and dining room, just to add a little bit of an ambiance to the unit. I suppose those could be used in conjunction with the rear patios as egress points as well, if there's a fire. Third floor, similar layout. There are stairs that go up to a roof deck, one for each of the upper units. And that's about it there's some images of the exterior and we we meet all the uh the codes for egress and and fire resistance um there'll be a you know a five a two hour firewall through the middle the floors will also be fire rated for a one hour floor to ceiling assembly ratio so that's about it for this um I don't know if we need to take questions now. Let's see if we can return back to stop sharing.
▶ 23:38 Greg, it's Carla. Can I ask a question? Certainly. Hi. So, I wanted to ask about the handicap accessibility. I understand the first floor will be accessible and that you need to provide an accessible route outside the building from the front of the building to the rear of the building but i have a hard time believing that anybody uh who's you know um uh motion disabled or wheelchair is going to be able to back up that ramp to the front of the building wondering if you considered or if there was i mean there's any consideration of an elevator um at all i just i understand you know i i can see somebody rolling down that ramp but i think it would be quite a trial to go back in the other direction so how would that work
▶ 24:49 i could take that i mean that that that ramp is designed for ada standards one on 12 slopes with five foot leveling areas no rises over 30 inches um no i can see that true it meets the technical test but let's think about it logically if you were at the bottom of that ramp you had to push yourself up that ramp is that really feasible over that over that length of travel i would i would have to say yes i mean given that you the length is about 74 feet I mean, it meets the requirements. I don't think there's room in this, the size of this development. It's a six-unit project. I don't think there's really room for an elevator in it. I let the architect speak to that, but. Yeah, I can't imagine we'd be able to fit an elevator in this structure. We'd have to increase the footprint or take out rooms for an elevator to work in here.
▶ 26:00 Also understood, but I understand that it's the letter of the law, but it doesn't seem logical to me. It doesn't seem friendly to somebody who has a mobility impairment. They literally How can you carry groceries to your unit? Your unit can only be on the 1st floor. It's something that can't be above the 1st. Well, there is there is street access. If if they needed to bring their groceries in from the, the curve, they could do that. There's no, there's no street allowed. In connection with that, can I ask a question? Um, you mentioned a 5 foot levy leveling area. Does that mean there's sort of a resting spot on the way on this ramp? Yeah, let me let me let me. Let me share again. I mean, I'm wondering if that would help, uh, the problem that Carl is raising. Yeah. And and, you know, and that's why the regs are the way that they are right there.
▶ 27:20 You can't rise more than 30 inches without having a 5 foot leveling area. Um, that's right. So. What does that mean? It's 5 feet. Okay. Let's get to that sheet. Again, from where we started, this really wasn't our design. This was what was approved by the Board of Appeals, and we simply carried the design that got approved and just vetted it out and made sure that it met the requirements. A handicapped space would be here, the accessibility route would be in here. The route would be through this ramp here, and then you go up on 1 on 12, 5 foot wide leveling area. Up on 1 on 12, 5 foot wide leveling area. And then around the corner of the front door, so there's 2 stretches of ramps that raise about.
▶ 28:30 30 inches with 5 foot 5 foot leveling areas that are essentially flat in between them and that's what the ADA code requires. Is there an automatic or open out the front door? You could certainly put 1 in. It sounds like you're not really intending the units to be lived in by somebody who's mobility impaired. It's more for visiting purposes. We would have to talk to the owner about that. I, uh, I know that the, the units are. There will be designed to be accessible. We, you know, we can make 1 of the units an accessible unit. We can make. Both of the lower levels accessible units, there's more than enough space in the entryway. For a handicap person to turn, so there's adequate turning radiuses.
▶ 29:38 The master bathroom is large enough. For a handicapped. Accessible person, a handicapped person to access to access. So, yeah, I mean, there's, there's no intent to not make it accessible. And can you just clarify you made reference to the, the ramp being provided. You know, being constructed if needed is that. No, the rebel constructed. Okay. It was shown on the plan that was approved by the board of appeals and we've included it in this plan. So. Okay, anyone else from the board have. Questions or comments they want to start with we will be opening this up to public, but I'm happy to have the board. Run through 1st, yeah, I mean, to me is I that I agree with that ramp looks really awkward. I mean, I'm trying to picture somebody coming in from their automobile in inclement weather.
▶ 30:47 That's a long way to go up that ramp. I just, it seems like there ought to be some. Way of access to that building that is not as cumbersome as what disappears to be. You know, we've not had the same kind of a situation. Before us with any of the other projects that we've had. To look at, and I'm just not sure. Why this project seems to have that. Very noticeable kind of awkward long ramp. What is the code requirement for an elevators? The 4th story. I'd have to look at the code off the top of my head. I'm not exactly sure what the I believe it is though. I believe it is the full story, so I do I do think that's been that's been probably the difference between the other applications that we've seen.
▶ 31:57 You know, all of which have. Provided, you know, full accessibility due to the presence of an elevator. But I'm not disagreeing with the board's comments. I just, I was noticing the difference with myself. So, you know, the other option might be, you know, if so, the, the way that the, the variance was written, you know, required. A change to the parking and return to the board of appeals to hopefully. Discuss a reduction in the parking requirement, the way that the plan was approved, it was approved with 12 parking space and there was a suggestion in the in the variance to do what we could to minimize parking and what. Might make sense and I just like to hear the, the board's feedback before we consider it. You know.
▶ 32:56 we do have this other curb cut over here we could make an accessible space in the front here you know you get relief for parking in the front yard setback for the accessible space and then we could have a direct route to the front door any thoughts on that i think i think we generally don't don't like to see parking in the front yard Either a pavers or something like that, though, not make it an ugly black top parking space, you know. Yeah, I mean, I think it's the lesser of 2 evils to use a colloquial phrase, but it's not not that a not that a ramp is evil. I just think that, you know, I think that would be I think that would be better and that would ensure. the spirit of access in a better way than the ramp.
▶ 34:04 I could see that people who aren't in a wheelchair would use the ramp because there's no from the parking around to the front of the building going through the building. You have to, well, I guess you can. You can go up the staircase and go out to the front. So I mean, I could see able-bodied people using it as a shortcut if they just want to stay outside but I don't know I would be interested to see what the other board members think about that I think that's I think that better option in one one person's opinion there again you know we brought that we were my client just this plan basically that we tried to keep it as the same as or as close to the same as was support was approved by the Board of Appeals but we're certainly open to
▶ 34:56 Uh, modifying it to make it better for sure. And Carly, I think from my perspective, I. That that concept is a hard 1 to. To react to seeing it, you know, drawn out and seeing, you know, what kind of relief would be required. So, I, I kind of like, I'm not, I'm not speaking up half of the board. I didn't mean to appreciate that. I just, um, but, you know, I do. I think it's worth considering and exploring. Yeah, we bet I am correct, right? The park in the front yard setbacks not allowed. Correct? Correct. Yeah. Okay. I also think that's a really tough trade off, but I try and be open minded. Well, why would why would the parking have to be in the front? Why could the access to the apartments on that level not be from the rear?
▶ 35:53 It's a drive under parking situation, just because the topography, the topography drops from from the street to the rear of the lot. So it just made sense to fit this building into the topography and have a drive under situation in the back. Okay, um, other other comments from from the board or, you know, other points of discussion. Happy to keep chatting about this 1. I just want to make sure we get other things out there as well. I have another question. Oh, sorry, Paul. Go ahead. So my question was about the residents in the rear. I think I missed, I'm not sure if I heard you correctly when you presented that. Did you say that the way that that structure was built It exactly existing brain is problem.
▶ 36:58 No, it's my understanding that that there was a new structure built behind us. That is creating a drainage problem. I gathered that from the comments that I read. Yeah, that's what I think about. It was the new. Yeah, the new structure directly behind you. Yeah, okay and it seems to me that that problem is a result of the basement of that structure, being into the groundwater table and the sump pumps turning on and that would have flown into everybody else's yard. I don't want to speak for the abutters, but that's what I gathered from it. Okay. I guess we'll probably hear more about that from the neighbors, but I wasn't sure whether it was an existing problem from multiple abutters, or whether the problem didn't exist until the new structure was built.
▶ 37:49 I don't know if you go down, if you go down that street, if you go down with the street and look at the. The homes that, especially on the right hand side. Almost all of them do not have straight foundations. It would seem like there are. Yeah, there are problems with that whole side of the street and and I'm thinking it's because it was a lake or a pond in there originally that. that's all filled land um again i'm going back to memory but um every one of those structures that's on that side of the street does not have a straight foundation or roof line jack i think isn't that right that one of the buildings on winter street came before either our board um The board of appeals, because it was deemed.
▶ 38:45 It couldn't be salvaged. They put any right there. Okay. Yeah. Right. So is that the new construction that is. Supposedly causing the concerns I'm not sure. Okay, I could just interject that that is the new construction, although they, um. They, they built a by right building there. Um, so they, all the conditions that were attached to the approval didn't apply. So they didn't have to put in any. Uh, you know, special drainage or anything like that. So the 2 filming that's there is by right. So, they, they came looking for more relief and then ended up building less. All right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think that I think they're butter's comments reference 39 to 41. All the, you have comments. Yeah, a couple of things. I don't see any combination, but trash.
▶ 39:50 Compact is pick up. Yeah, so trash will be accommodated inside the building. And it'll be rolled out to the back of the building and there'll be a private trash service. They'll be managed by the condominium association that will pick them up. I'll be stored in the garage. Is that that's not shown anywhere on the plan. Based on the floor plans developed enough to the point to see those, or is that something we need to add for the next meeting? We may have to add that for the next meeting. We don't show it. On this plan, yeah, I don't think the trash room or the bike racks were shown. No, I just again just want to make sure it actually is size to accommodate the level of trash being generated by those units and the recycling.
▶ 40:47 The equivalent of 6 homes. They can generate trash and recycling quite often. My recycling is greater than my trash when I, which is good sign, I guess, but quite often I'm putting more recycling out the trash. Our compact is planned for the design of the kitchens at all. As an appliance, we haven't gotten to that extent as far as trash compactors. No. Yeah. They go a long way to at least keeping the volume down. I lived in a very small condo in South Boston, and it was very helpful to have. You got to put your trash barrel somewhere. People don't like it because they think it takes up space, but most people put a trash barrel either under the counter or somewhere and it takes up space anyway.
▶ 41:48 Another question I had, I guess the parking just looks awful. I know you say it works, but man, that looks tough. The back space there, space number 9 way in the back. Yeah, let me get to that. I don't disagree with you again. I always caveat my parking comments with, you know, this is internal and this is a problem for the people who live there and it doesn't really affect residents of Melrose. So, hey, you know, you guys got to deal with it, but it's just, it's not something I recommend. Number nine space in the back, they're going to have a problem. How's the 10 and 11 spots get out? Do they just back out of the whole driveway? Oh, they back into this area right here and drive out. Number nine.
▶ 42:40 No, the 10 and 11 spots. Yeah, 10 and 11, back into this area right here and drive out. They get this, yeah, they can probably do that. yeah yeah they play around this is 16 feet wide there yeah number nine there's 20 there's over 28 feet in there there is actually enough room to back straight up and turn back out we did verify that with an auto again a couple of turns but he'll do it yeah again we didn't develop this parking seam and tried to stay as close to it we did eliminate the number 12 spot because that just seemed to be you know a little too unconventional yeah yeah um so so so we'd like to keep this you know an 11 year an 11 space um development go back to the board of appeals to get the relief for
▶ 43:28 the one you know we'd have the ability to create a little bit more green space here um you know and then maybe try to do something tasteful in the front with some pavers and some landscaping to to create that affordable that accessible space but we can come back to you with uh with another alternative on that yeah yeah again it just kind of looks like an adventure back there even getting in the garage banging at that 90 that 180 degree turn into the garage this turn believe it or not works much better than i anticipated when i first saw this this layout i didn't think it was going to work and when we put the auto turn analysis on it it actually worked pretty well yep make sure add ballads on your garage doors there so you don't you're gonna need one uh is this kind of
▶ 44:13 an architectural related question and it's it's not architectural to the new building it's actually the old um is that building intended to just be totally demolished or will there be any saving of any of the architectural features the trim is kind of unique on that building um you know there are a a lot of entities that take old building pieces and reuse them. I don't know what the interior looks like. It looks like a disaster. But there's some really nice, you know, around the windows and things. If you look at that building, that's a nice saveable feature that you think would kind of be like... I would assume if it's if it's removed kindly, there's no reason it can't be donated. Yeah, you know,
▶ 44:55 there's a lot of there's a lot of uh you know you can find the odds of you know large yards of storage of architectural features you know window trim you know that architectural unit this probably seems to afford some of that stuff it's again kind of a shame you hate to see a good old building you know go i mean this one's lived its life i'm sure and it's done but uh it'd be be nice if you could not let those features completely die, maybe give another life somehow. That would definitely be up to the owner. See if you can- Yeah, it's work. It's tough. You got to pull those things off. You're not just going to come down with your . It does have some value, a historical value. Right. Agreed. Anything else, Paul?
▶ 45:52 No, that's it. Thanks. Thank you. Um, anyone else on the board, Jackie, you can ask about placement of the, um. Intensive units, um, yeah, um, if we, if we're at that point already, I certainly have some issues with that, but, um, I haven't seen enough of the building itself to know. What my questions are going to be at, but I guess I can ask a general question. Will they be on the ground or on the roof? They'll be on the roof. Okay, yeah, I'm looking up the. Mechanicals right now, let's see. Yes, there's looks like 6 units on the roof. 1 for each apartment. So, the condenser 6 condensers on the roof, and they will, they will be. Directed through those chefs that I showed on the plans. Are you using heat pumps or gas heat with Dx cooling or what are you going to do exactly?
▶ 47:09 Let me look. I'm not sure. I wasn't part of that design. Okay. Let me take a peek here. We're doing a split system with water coils. Hydro air system. Okay. We're doing hydro air, yes. Yep. Let's seal them out with exhaust fans in the bathrooms. Electric heat. There are 2 garage exhaust fans. Afraid my, my HVAC is not my forte. So, but bear with me. So, I guess just as a point of note, I mean, we will want to see that. Fully developed, you know, plan showing the placement of those units, particularly where you're talking about having roof decks up there, you know, the specs, noise ratings, all of that stuff is. Yeah, we have all that on these plans. So we could submit those. Have you considered looking into participating in the energy efficiency programs through mass save?
▶ 48:34 Yes, yes. Yeah, of course. Yeah. I mean, that's that's a given. I think everybody wants to take advantage. It'll be a hers rated building. Yeah, okay. If that's it on H, back, I had some parking questions. Go for it. So should we assume that you're thinking most units will want to have or need 2 parking spaces or was the intention for any of the spots to be for visitors? The intention was to have 2 per unit that would that would at least accommodate a visitor. You know, if they didn't need the 2nd space, so the intent was to have 2 per unit. I think the, the request through the board of appeals hearings, although I wasn't a part of it, just reading the decision was to try to downsize the parking.
▶ 49:40 Right, so if the number of visitors were to exceed. You know, whenever it's kind of leftover any thoughts on where visitors would park. Because I don't think there's street parking there from not wrong. Maybe on the street to our parking to our parking. Is there on the opposite side? I believe. Yeah, there's parking on 1 side of Emerson. Okay. Yeah. There is a municipal lot around the corner next to cruises. She's actually not not far and I believe overnight needs a permit though. Right? Yeah, there's no overnight parking that I'm sure of. And have you considered, you know, the future of electric vehicle charging for residents, you know, laying conduit and such to enable that for the future? Because it's the garage will be wired for electric charging stations.
▶ 51:00 Okay, so the interior, the indoor spaces. Yeah. And we'll make sure that we note that on the plans as well. Okay, yeah, the mechanical and storage room. That is to the left of the stairwell. We'll have plenty of room for any of the distribution equipment associated with. Vehicle charges and would that be for level 2 charging or level 1? Just 110? Yeah, probably just the 110. we'd have to look into it. I don't know the specifics on all of the. I know the level 2 is much, much quicker. Yeah. I don't think the owners put that much thought into that part, but we'll have that discussion with him. We can talk to the nutrition. So, I do know we have a number of folks who are interested in speaking to this meeting. So I would.
▶ 52:02 You know, I don't want to cut off anyone from the board, but we would like to get to the point. I think there are a number of. Questions I have a number of questions with the drainage design and system, but I also know that there was an extensive comment letter from the, so I think I'm inclined to hold. Those questions and, you know, see what additional materials the applicant is able to assemble after the test pit excavation and, you know, response to the comments. But again, I'm happy if anyone else on the board has questions, comments, let me know. Otherwise, we'll, we'll proceed to open up to public comments. Okay, so just for folks who are. On the call, I would, you know, we'll, we'll.
▶ 52:57 Think if you digitally raise your hand on Webex, we can recognize you or you can. Chat to Emma or. I guess you can chat all and ask to be heard. So, um. So, I'm going to start looking for people and once you're recognized, we'll unmute you. And go from there, so. Of course, I'm not seeing anyone. There we go. I see Scott nodding unmute. Yes, everyone. Well, uh, 1st of all, I just want to thank you all for your time this evening. Um, we live at 313941 Winthrop street. Uh, which is right behind this development, which we've been interested to hear some of the discussion already this evening. We didn't think we'd be that popular. Um, basically, we, our neighbors sent a letter that he was hoping to have read into the record, which I think is probably an important starting point for where I was going to speak.
▶ 54:18 I don't know if any, if that letter was received by the committee and if members have had a chance to read it. We have received it. I suspect all the members read it. This technically is no requirement to read it in the record. It's part of the recognition as it's received. Okay. If you want. That's great. I just want to make sure people were aware of it because it kind of like, my letter kind of piggybacks a bit on that, but I'll just highlight any points you want re, raised and but again, that we absolutely will hear it and read it. make sure it's uh responded to awesome thank you um so so i i'll i'll try to be quick here basically the letter that has been provided to the committee by a neighbor of ours
▶ 55:01 richard curl mostly addresses the questions we have with regards to the drainage richard refers to the new development on winthrop street which is where my fiancee and i live as we purchased this property last october unfortunately we've already experienced flooding in our basement due to the combination of the high water table in the area and the unfortunate possibility that the house we bought appears to be built a bit too far underground. Since we moved in, we've had a sump pump system installed, which currently drains through our drywall system in the back. But unfortunately, we suspect that was only really designed for water from our downspouts. So due to the high water table, this drywall releases the water
▶ 55:39 essentially right back into the water table and back into our sump pump system in a loop that seemingly never ends during rainy times. Recently, our sump pump ran for about 10 days straight in April when we had a rainy week there. And really, the only thing that alleviated this was running the water down the driveway as we were worried about our sump pump failing if it just kept running, which it did. In a few days, it did solve the problem. Unfortunately, the water has ended up in the neighbor's backyard. And judging from the earlier comments, it sounds like a neighbor has videotape this, our water running down the driveway, which kind of cements the fact that it's really not a long-term solution.
▶ 56:19 So we're in the process of consulting some experts, and so far it seems really the only solution that they can recommend is tying into the stormwater system, because even if we put – there's already a drywall system in our backyard, but if we were to add a bigger one, if we basically made our entire backyard a drywall system, they're saying it really doesn't change the fact that the drywall system would just be running back into the water table and twenty thousand dollars lady would probably be left with the same problem so um we're basically we're in the process of learning more about this before we go to the city asking for to get um be able to tie into the stormwater system um but in the meantime we're speaking tonight because
▶ 56:58 it feels like this project is certainly going to make our problem worse um the property appears to built on a platform retaining while surrounding it and there's a lot of concrete um and asphalt which in right now there's a little bit of there's when the rain hits it so it hits the dirt and some of that into the earth so whereas now it's all going to end up um in the basic well i while we appreciate that the driveway is sloped into the drainage system i was happy to hear that unfortunately we feel that it would just delay the water ultimately running into the water table There is a water infiltration system underneath as part of these plans, but that's basically designed to disperse the water into the ground, but unfortunately there's not a lot of area left
▶ 57:42 in the ground for water to go. So we feel that it will end up running into the back part of the property and which already frequently becomes a pond and back into the water table in general. So the footprint of this building, as I mentioned before, it's a much larger footprint than is currently in place so in the end more water will end up directly in the water table which essentially for us means it's going to run into our sump pump system and into our dry well and just keep going so we feel that additional steps are needed to remediate the concerns about additional water ending up in an area that is already saturated for large portions of the year and we hope that these concerns are we hope that you consider these concerns when reviewing
▶ 58:21 these property plans and the only thing to add based on listening to the discussion tonight is I heard reference to the building being built relative to the historical groundwater level, like you're planning to do some research to build a dry pit and build a test well and analyze based on that. And it sounds like something similar was done for our property when it was built, and they ultimately built at basically the level that was permitted based on the historical groundwater level. And then two months into owning our home, our basement flooded. But so I feel like with more frequent storms and already our existing water level being off like relative to history already, it seems I would have some caution building that grade
▶ 59:07 because I feel like it wouldn't all if the parking garage became flooded like pretty quickly into this property being built. So those are our concerns about the property and we appreciate your time. Thank you. You know, I would say that to those points, obviously, that the drainage is a big concern. You know, I assume you'll have the test pit witnessed by a soil evaluator, you know, licensed soil evaluator, and we will be looking to see that, you know, you're not focused solely on the site conditions to the extent that there's potential runoff off-site or um run off from off-site onto this site so that you know i expect you'll you'll look at that but i just want to reiterate that that will be something we'll focus on yeah for sure
▶ 1:00:06 our soil testing will be done by a licensed soil evaluator we'll be happy to invite the um the city engineer uh or whoever would want what else would want to come witness it to the extent that they need to like i said that the biggest mistake that's oftentimes made is people go by by the observed groundwater table, which certainly fluctuates through the years. What we plan to go by is the redox readings and the modeling, which is the estimated seasonal high, which is sort of the bathtub ring that gets left in the soil by the highest that the groundwater ever has been. So it seems to me that the house behind us was built into the groundwater table. We do not want to make that mistake. We don't plan to install a sump pump.
▶ 1:00:49 We don't plan to have a pump system to handle groundwater. We plan to build this entire development far enough above the groundwater table that we will have no impact on it. Thank you. Let's see, Finn McSweeney is next on my list. Sorry, I'm trying to unmute him. There I am. Hi everybody, Finn McSweeney, 160 West Wyoming. Just a really quick question. I think someone had mentioned that there is like a storage plan, but then it wasn't depicted. just it'd be nice to see that or to hear a little bit about it it's an extremely central location um obviously and anytime you see podium parking um you'd love an opportunity to get bike storage under buildings and with with no elevator in the building you certainly want to be able to make
▶ 1:01:57 sure that um tenants who that you know the owners of the units um up on upper floors have somewhere to store that so thanks appreciate it we'll have those added to the plan for sure thank you Thank you. I just, you know, Denise and Laurie and Emma, you can confirm, I mean, I think as far as letters we've received on this application, I know we have one from the PSAC group, the property manager for the 42 to 44 West Emerson Street. They have their concerns are drainage related um and then mentioned um richard curl um his drainage and aesthetic related concerns richard wanted to speak can i should i call him sure okay hi richard hi uh just super briefly yeah i wrote the letter and i think everything i wanted to say is contained in the letter but
▶ 1:03:04 but I'd like to comment on some of the other comments in that the groundwater is very close to the service center neighborhood and has always been like that. We've lived here for 20 years and occasionally every other spring or so, our backyard fills up and that outlaw between us all definitely fills up. So we just need to be really careful with how drainage is planned because the water is a lot closer than it's appearing at the moment. Thank you, uh, did were those the comments received on this? Were there any others? I just want to make sure that everyone on the board is is aware of the comments. So, I believe 1 other person is raising their hand John Kramer and then also. Jeffrey, we wanted to have his comments written to the record. So.
▶ 1:04:04 I'll unmute John Kramer and then I can. Then I can read it. Jeffrey Lee's comments. Okay. All right, John. Yes, hello. Um, I live at 56 West number 7, the property directly. A budding this project, and, um. I have not written any letters to this board. I wrote a number of letters to the zoning board, which. We're not really held in any regard around the size and scope of this plan. But one thing I wanted to note is in the zoning meeting, which I attended and they presented the plans, one thing that they were touting about the aesthetics was lining the driveway with a new grove of trees. but that does not seem to appear in tonight's renderings of the landscape. My guess is because there's such a narrow piece of land between my house, frankly,
▶ 1:05:14 and this driveway, and I'm really actually concerned about the overall size of this driveway. The existing driveway definitely cannot accommodate two cars going back and forth next to each other, so it's hard for me to visualize how this new driveway can, while the building is in theory maintaining the same footprint. Then just one other comment that I just had tonight listening to you earlier, is I was not aware that there was going to be air conditioning units on the roof of this building. I live on the first and second floors of my house here, I have a tenant on the third floor here, so any windows we have open on this side of the house will take in any noise, especially at higher elevations.
▶ 1:06:11 Hearing that there's going to be six units on the roof of that building is also very disconcerting. I think that's all I have to say at this moment. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Um, and I will read. Comments from Jeffrey Lee, can I ask a quick question of the board is is is the preference to get the condensing units up. So, they're off the ground, or is the board opposed to them being on the ground? You know, hearing that concern, there's a large retaining wall on the left side of the property that separates us from the large multifamily. And I'm wondering if it makes sense to put the condensing units down there. They'd be on the low side of the wall and really blocked from visual and noise.
▶ 1:07:07 It's certainly not a bad idea. The intent is not to have them up or down. The intent is to have them so that. They don't affect the neighbors. We do have a decibel. Requirement in the city that I believe it's 40 decibels at 40 feet. Is that right? Denise? Does that sound right to you? I would have to double check. Yeah. Yeah. We'll evaluate that and get you the spec sheet on it. So yeah, if they're high C or units, it shouldn't be a problem, especially down low. It shouldn't be a problem, but. uh we're willing to certainly take a look at both options yeah i mean i think to to just add on to that i mean i think one of the things that we see is a lot of times you know putting them on the roof um maintains usable open space so that that's
▶ 1:08:02 the other trade-off and um so i you know definitely consider it but also you know one of one of the concerns we we have is is the amount of usable open space for the residents here and that's why i think um probably an unspoken comment at this point is from the planning board's perspective uh 11 spaces is still a lot for this particularly 11 paved spaces i think you're going to see um you know the reality is you know a bank space is is a nice idea i'd like to see three bank spaces um you know possibly with either pavers or a not a porous application um so the you know that that's a comment i was going to make as well but it does go into the it rolls off the last comment regarding you know if you put the condensers down
▶ 1:08:56 on the ground you know what were these people going to have any outdoor space at all sorry i mean you can go okay i'll just read this real quick uh okay uh he says given the high water table in the area pools of water formulate in the southwest corner of 52 west emerson street during heavy rainstorms how will the subsurface infiltration system resolve this drainage issue the coltech 330 xl hd recharge chambers do not seem helpful in areas saturated with water number two the plans of 52 west emerson street indicate that a cement concrete wall with a four foot black chain link fence to be built in replace of the current retaining wall is the plan to only replace a portion of the retaining wall or will the entire wall be replaced the entire wall
▶ 1:09:51 looks like it is uh decrepit and falling apart could demolition slash construction at 52 west emerson street cause this retaining wall to potentially fail um and jeffrey um is the owner of 39 wind throw straight the intent just in response to that question is to is to reconstruct the wall in its entirety along the side property line and then there'll be a new wall that is really more like a curb than a wall it's only about one to two feet tall along the back property line okay um denise or emma laurie are there any um you know from your offices i know there's a long list of um items to address is there anything else that we we haven't covered that's been raised no i think i think all those issues have been addressed the drainage the parking um the
▶ 1:10:50 interest in salvaging some materials from this storage structure if that's possible um and what's our availability for a continuance um let's see this would be continued potentially To well, that's a good question. We have a really busy meeting next month. But 2 public hearings and potentially. 3rd, based on the next case, so. Are you asking when this should be continued to I guess? Yeah. In particular in light of, you know, I. I saw the comments, I just don't know what what the likelihood of a response, you know, I practically speaking, you know, if they're doing test bits, is it feasible to have a turn around to, you know, with a response and a review in 3 weeks? So that we have time to see the end result.
▶ 1:11:56 And that's probably a question for the outcome as well. Yeah, I would just just to reiterate, I think our gym meeting will be. Probably 2 full to accommodate. But go ahead. In terms of the feasibility of responding. Yeah, yeah, I mean, we, we can respond in time and I guess I'll leave it to you whether or not the meeting's going to be too full enough, but we will definitely have a responses to you for the June meeting. But I'll yield to you what your schedule is. Yeah, I mean, my preference would be have your responses with all the new data and have that and have our engineering. Department have a chance to review that and, you know. You know, if it's satisfactory, get your clean letter, or then if there's open issues, you know, not having you come back.
▶ 1:12:52 Before us with with that, so my inclination would be that you'd be better served with a July continuance. But, you know, I, I guess that's that's my feelings. I don't want to assume that's good for everyone. Certainly wouldn't want to appear back without a clean letter. Um, that that's our preference. It could we put it on for the, for the June meeting and if we don't have it, we're happy to write the continue. Happy just to continue it unless that agenda is to fall, then it is what it is. That's my concern, right? Just knowing what we have. Keyed up, yeah, so I think we're better off continuing to July then brick. Um. What would the meeting date be? Uh, 26. July 26th. Okay, uh, anything further from the board members.
▶ 1:13:59 So, it sounds like, uh, we are interested in a motion to continue the site plan hearing until July 26th. Motion motion to continue it till July 25th. Any any seconds I second Carla. All those in favor, we'll do a roll call for this 1. Okay, hi, Jack. Well. Hi, hi. Hi, Anderson's award. Hi, hi. I'm sorry. Great. All right. Okay, thank you. Everyone. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I will pull up just Pat McAvoy for now. Yeah, that makes sense. Hi, good evening board members. Patrick McAvoy. From what I can see on my screen, I guess we're. Trying to get video, but yeah, it's only for voting. Yeah, John, he's not here. Yeah, he, he's, he's absent. We were not made up to us before. So we can't go forward. Is that correct?
▶ 1:15:43 So, I guess we'll want to continue and I'm really hoping we do have a spot of a June meeting. Yeah. Well, that was keeping that in mind. I think we'll be fairly short as far as the presentation and things go. I hope and hopefully we can get through the June meeting fairly quickly. But yeah, we really can't go ahead tonight because we only have 4 votes left. Do we have a motion to continue until June 20. 8th so moved. 2nd, 2nd, 2nd. Check beat me to it. All those in favor. Okay, all right. Jack Walsh I, I. That's fine. Hi, Sharon. Hi, and Greg. All right, sorry about the unexpected. That's okay. I hope things are fine with John. I know I've never seen him. I've never seen him miss a meeting like this before, but it's unfortunate. We get down to the 4 votes, but that happened.