Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2026-07-20
Attendance
Jason Chen ; Cal Finocchiaro ; Bradley Freeman ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Elizabeth Kowal ; John Obremski ; Christopher Park ; Kimberly Vandiver ; Ryan Williams
Agenda
Minutes
Appropriations & Oversight Committee Monday, July 20, 2026, 7:00 PM City Council Chamber, 1st Floor 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Kimberly Vandiver Vice Chair Jason Chen Cal Finocchiaro Maya Jamaleddine Manjula Karamcheti Elizabeth Kowal John Obremski Christopher Park Ryan Williams William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Officio Devin Romanul Chair Meeting was called to order by Chair Romanul at 7:01 PM Councilor Vandiver arrived late at 7:47 PM Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Kim Vandiver Vice Chair Present 7:47 PM Jason Chen At-Large Present Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Present Maya Jamaleddine At-Large Present Manjula Karamcheti Ward 1 Present Elizabeth Kowal At-Large Present John Obremski Ward 2 Present Christopher Park Ward 3 Present Ryan Williams At-Large Present William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Officio Present Member Devin Romanul Chair Present II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1 A. Appropriations & Oversight Committee Meeting July 9, 2026 7:00 PM Motion to Approve the minutes by unanimous consent without reading made by Chair Romanul All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams III. PUBLIC COMMENT When: Jul 20, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Appropriations & Oversight Meeting Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose- org.zoom.us/j/98110960996?pwd=npHsIYHSeQxLV1MmzhiaAH86iDhuZe.1 Passcode:096980 Webinar ID: 981 1096 0996 Motion to Open public comment made by Chair Romanul at 7:01 PM Comments on the floor: Susan Cann, Chairman of the Cemetery Commission, lives at 123 E Foster St and was present to talk about the proposed plan for the Ripley School Site. She is in favor of the plan and the commission has 3 caveats about the plan: first is the city would own 10 feet of land from the cemetery wall to allow for repairs and space for equipment, second is that if a funeral is in process during the construction phase that the work be stopped during the funeral process, and third is support of the swap of RIpley School versus cemetery owned pieces of land as long as they are equivalent in size. There were no comments via Zoom Motion to Close public comment made by Chair Romanul at 7:04 PM IV. ORDERS
A. (ID # 2026-1376): Report on results of the Municipal Surplus Buildings Study for the Police Station and Ripley School Sites Lori Massa, Planning Director, Alejandro Lopez of MassDevelopment, along with Hansy Better Barraza and Leechen Zhu of Studio Luz Architects presented the results of the study of the Municipal Surplus Buildings for the police station and the Ripley School. They shared conceptual plans for both properties based on community engagement with over 260 participants and economic analysis. The proposed development for the police station site includes retail, office space, and residential units, while the Ripley School site would feature attached town houses with parking. The next steps involve issuing an RFP for developers, with potential technical assistance to be determined in the fall based on a grant application to MassDevelopment. Councilor Finocchiaro asked if the plans incorporate the caveats from the Cemetery Commission that were shared during public comment. Lori stated that those items could possibly be incorporated, that this is a high-level conceptual plan right now, and those items would be considered during a more detailed planning 2 phase. Councilor Kowal asked how specific an RFP can be and how much control the council/city will have in determining the final plan. She expressed concern that once the land is sold, will the developer be the one to determine what is put on this property. Hansy discussed the balance between controlling development through an RFP and allowing developers flexibility, questioning how specific parameters should be set. Lori explained that while the municipality has control through zoning and permitting, they can incorporate community feedback into RFP guidelines to reduce uncertainty for developers. Councilor Karamcheti sought clarification on the community engagement process, asking if the housing portion of the plan was a mandatory component of the survey or did the community really want this. Hansy and Leechen explained that over 220 responses were collected through a survey and workshops, with housing emerging as a top priority from the workshop, despite restaurants being identified as the primary community interest in the initial survey. The community survey feedback differed from the workshop feedback. They had housing advocates present at the workshop that wanted to make sure that housing was really important for the city. Councilor Karamcheti asked if other scenarios for these sites were presented and who picked this current plan, the city or the architect firm. Hansy explained that they offered other options which are included in the report, and chose this plan since it worked best for the sites. Councilor Williams discussed the RFP process for developing municipal properties, clarifying that numerous conditions could be included as long as a developer was willing to accept them. He shared that we can include community goals in the RFP, and one of the big ones he was thinking of is deed-restricted affordable housing with the Melrose Housing Trust Fund. The group explored the possibility of requiring deed-restricted affordable housing above the baseline zoning requirements, though this detail was not included in the current plan. Councilor Chen asked if the plan includes an estimate for the price of the land if it should be sold and Hansy explained that it did not, it's only a market analysis, and Melrose could hire an economic consultant to gather that data. The market analysis, which cost $60,000, provided insights into trends, demand, and price points but did not include specific economic recommendations for land pricing. Councilor Chen commented that the number one public feedback for the Ripley site was for a park and inquired if there is a park design. The conceptual plans for the Ripley site shows 80% of the property designated/preserved as green space and a public trail proposed to connect to nearby parks, but no specific park design. Councilor Chen asked if a full report is forthcoming and Lori replied that the full report, which will include the market analysis, will be posted on the website and emailed to councilors. Councilor Chen questioned if the city received $60,000 worth of return from this plan, commenting that he found more detail on how to develop municipal land and community space with multiple options presented from free web searches. Lori explained that the forthcoming 400-page report includes a lot of detail beyond what is shared in this short presentation. Councilor Park asked if the 221 survey responses and 30 participants was a good sample of community feedback and Hansy stated that anything over 100 responses is considered good representation of community desires. He also inquired about parking concerns, stating that during his participation at the workshop, turning the Foster Street site into dedicated municipal parking was the top priority, and that is not reflected on this plan. The team explained they followed zoning requirements with appropriate parking ratios of 1:1 parking space to residential units at West Foster Street and 2:1 parking spaces to residential units on Lebanon Street, and noted that existing older parking studies showed sufficient spaces nearby. Lori explained that if the city should decide to prioritize parking, they would have to pay to demolish the police station and turn the space into a municipal lot. They would prefer to see active uses on the site to provide additional space for businesses and housing and to add to the vibrancy of downtown. Councilor Park asked if these ideas were reviewed by a traffic engineer or analyst to ensure that this is feasible, since there are currently multiple times when traffic is backed up in that area. Hansy explained that no traffic study was completed at this high-level conceptual phase of the project and typically the developer and/or city would do the traffic study based on the proposed development. Councilor Karamcheti suggested that both of the properties could be opportunities for 3 affordable housing initiatives beyond Safe Harbor. Motion to Recommend to Place on File made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None V. ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn by unanimous consent made by Chair Romanul at 7:57 PM All were in favor and meeting was adjourned 4 STUDY OF POLICE STATION + RIPLEY SCHOOL SITES City of Melrose 07.20.2026 City Council Meeting Melrose, MAMUNICIPAL SURPLUS BUILDINGS STUDY 56 West Foster Street and 94 Lebanon Street TEAM CITY OF MELROSE Lori Massa, Planning Director The goal of this study is to identify viable Maya Noviski, Senior Planner redevelopment opportunities and develop consensus Adam Forrester, Assistant Planner of future use case(s) for 56 West Foster Street and MASSDEVELOPMENT 94 Lebanon Street based on community engagement Alejandro Lopez, Vice President, Planning and Predevelopment and a market analysis completed by RKG. The Martin Luis Serrano, Assistant Program Manager study includes comprehensive documentation of programming scenarios to inform the future use STUDIO LUZ ARCHITECTS and potential Request for Proposals for possible Hansy Better Barraza, Principal Sophie Nahrmann, Associate, Community redevelopment at each parcel. Engagement Liaison Leechen Zhu, Project Manager, Designer RKG ASSOCIATES Eric Halvorsen, Vice President, PrincipalAGENDA 1. INTRODUCTION + SITE OVERVIEW 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 3. PROPOSED SITE SCENARIOS 4. NEXT STEPS Melrose, MA CONTEXT OVERVIEW 0.25 mi. radius MELROSE/ CEDAR PARK 56 WEST FOSTER STREET POLICE STATION WYOMING HILL 94 LEBANON STREET RIPLEY SCHOOL City of Melrose map diagram by Studio Luz Architects with information from Melrose Public GIS MapsOnline. Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 4 1. Introduction1. Context Overview SITE ANALYSIS Studio Luz analyzed the zoning, land uses, and market conditions of the area surrounding the two properties in order to make programming recommendations in concert with community feedback. These considerations ensure that the programming visions fit within the existing fabric of the neighborhood, meet the market needs, and align with the desires of the community. Economic demand for 2000-2150 new housing units through 2050, based on projected population growth. MELROSE/ MELROSE/ CEDAR PARK CEDAR PARK Economic demand for no more than 27,000 SF of small professional and medical office space through 2035. WYOMING HILL WYOMING HILL Current unmet economic demand for up to 123,000 SF of retail, particularly in smaller- format, neighborhood-serving concepts. ZONING LAND USE MARKET ANALYSIS Melrose’s zoning code is considered in this analysis in Analyzing existing resources in the area surrounding both Market viable uses are considered to ensure that the order to inform the selection of programming at both sites. sites is important so that proposed programming fits visioning for the potential redevelopments supports the While continued city use would be exempt from the zoning within the social, economic and environmental fabric of economic landscape of the City of Melrose. code, parcel dispersal to a developer would require the the current neighborhoods. future developed use to align with zoning regulations. City of Melrose zoning diagram by Studio Luz Architects with information from the 2017 Updated Melrose Forward Master Plan, p. 127 and the 2024 Melrose Zoning Ordinance, 235-4.1 Districts. City of Melrose land use diagram by Studio Luz Architects with information from the 2017 Melrose Forward Master Plan, p. 124 and the Massachusetts Interactive Property Map displaying FY2025 Assessors information Market analysis summary by RKG Associates Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 5 1. Introduction1. Analysis Site SITE OVERVIEW PROPOSED REDRAWN PARCEL LINES REFLECTING CURRENT USE WEST FOSTER ST. BOUNDARIES OF THE WYOMING CEMETERY AND RIPLEY SCHOOL LEBANON ST. MYRTLE ST. FOREST ST. EXISTING PARCEL BOUNDARY 56 West Foster Street 94 Lebanon Street LOT SIZE: 0.38 AC (16552 SF) LOT SIZE: 2.09 AC (91040 SF), which would remain the same ZONING HEIGHT LIMIT: 50’ or 4 stories with proposed redrawn parcel lines reflecting current uses 35’ or 2.5 stories OPPORTUNITIES: ZONING HEIGHT LIMIT: • Half a block from Main Street OPPORTUNITIES: • 7-min. walk from two Commuter Rail stations • Proximity and access to existing green space such as Pine • Existing parking space in nearby municipal lots Banks Park CHALLENGES: • Wide corner lot with high visibility • L-shaped lot with constrained widths • Existing tree cover on ~60% of the site • Significant accessibility upgrades needed for reuse CHALLENGES: • Sloped ledge terrain at the rear half of the site • Significant upgrades needed for reuse • Need for on-site parking Aerial views from Google Earth Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 6 1. Introduction1. Overview Site COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 1/29 SITE WALK 3/4 DEPARTMENT JULY SHARE-OUT The project team walked HEADS MEETING The results of the both sites alongside Mayor The project team joined engagement process, Grigoraitis and representatives the monthly City of Melrose market analysis, and from the Melrose Chamber Department Heads meeting development scenarios are of Commerce, Wyoming to receive feedback shared via this presentation Cemetery, and the Department regarding municipal needs to the City Council and of Public Works as a form of and ownership models to the City of Melrose project early stakeholder engagement. consider for each site. webpage. 3/4 SURVEY OPENS Over 2 months, 221 responses were collected. This was 3/24-3/25 WORKSHOPS advertised through the City of 30 participants attended the in-person Melrose website, the Mayor’s workshop at the Melrose Public Library e-newsletter, and flyers to and 10 participants joined the virtual abutters within 300’ of each workshop. Workshop attendees were property. Responses from those asked 2 additional questions per site who also attended workshops beyond those in the survey: What were subtracted from totals to would you NOT like to see and which avoid double-counting. ownership model would you like to see? Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 7 2. Engagement Public Process Overview COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS 56 WEST FOSTER STREET 94 LEBANON STREET Top workshop choices Top workshop choices In-person workshop: Housing and Community Use In-person workshop: Housing and Park/Recreation Virtual Workshop: Housing and Small Retail Virtual workshop: Park/Recreation and Community Use The market analysis presented at the workshops identified the recommended The market analysis presented at the in-person and virtual workshops use as a mixed-use redevelopment with residential units above a ground floor identified the recommended use as lower-density housing, with minor with smaller, neighborhood-serving commercial use. There is minor potential potential for commercial use that functions as a regional destination. for professional office use, as well as city interest in satellite municipal offices. RESTAURANT / CAFE PARK / RECREATION 1 #1 Response from Survey + Workshops 1 #1 Response from Survey + Workshops COMMUNITY USE COMMUNITY USE 2 #2 Response from Survey + Workshops 2 #2 Response from Survey + Workshops PLAZA / PARK HOUSING 3 #3 Response from Survey + Workshops 3 #3 Response from Survey + Workshops SMALL RETAIL HOUSING RETSTAURANT / CAFE SMALL RETAIL 4 #4 Response from Survey + Workshops 5 #5 Response from Survey + Workshops 4 #4 Response from Survey + Workshops 5 #5 Response from Survey + Workshops Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 8 2. Engagement Public of Results Summary SCENARIO OVERVIEW 56 West Foster Street The proposed scenario envisions a mixed-use, adaptive reuse development in alignment with municipal and community needs, as well as market analysis recommendations. The existing facade is preserved at the West Foster Street frontage, creating a visual distinction from the residential addition at rear. With its high visibility and tall interior spaces, ROOF TERRACE this reuse portion is suitable for public-facing uses SHARED OR RESIDENT-ONLY AMENITY, SET BACK FROM such as a cafe, a small retail store, or a community FRONT FACADE arts organization. A one-story addition above, identified in blue, is envisioned to serve professional, healthcare, or municipal office uses. The proposed 3-story height at both frontages aligns with existing context, preserving continuity in the pedestrian experience. The Myrtle Street facade is set back from the street to match that of its neighbors. FACADE SET BACK TO MATCH NEIGHBORS’ GROUND-FLOOR ACTIVATION RESIDENTIAL: 28,700 SF / 22 units (9x Studio/1-bed, 8x 2-bed, 5x 3-bed) RETAIL / CAFE / COMMUNITY USE WITH EXTRA CEILING HEIGHT OFFICE: 1,170 SF (10-person office) SHELL REUSE FOR RETAIL/CAFE/COMMUNITY USE: 2,340 SF ACCESSIBLE LOBBY OPEN SPACE: 790 SF TO BRIDGE EXISTING AND NEW FLOOR LEVELS SCREENED + COVERED PARKING: 22 (6 compact) FLOOR AREA RATIO: 2.0 Proposed scenario diagram by Studio Luz Architects Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 9 3. Design Scenarios Foster56 Street West SCENARIO PERSPECTIVE Main rendered view of proposed scenario by Studio Luz Architects, showing preservation of existing building entry and new accessible lobby to all levels Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 10 3. Design Scenarios Foster56 Street West SCENARIO OVERVIEW 94 Lebanon Street The proposed scenario envisions a mixed-typology, low-height residential development that preserves and improves access to the site’s forested trails with a new green area adjacent to the Wyoming Cemetery. Blasting is proposed to be only as needed for parking at rear. This approach minimizes site ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES disturbance while balancing market feasibility with TRAIL CONNECTION TO PINE BANKS the community’s desire for open space. APARTMENTS FOR 1-2PERSON HOUSEHOLDS Gabled 2-bedroom townhomes (and a 3-bedroom WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO ACTIVE ACTIVE GREEN GREEN AND COMMUNITY ROOM FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION corner unit) are proposed along Forest Street with / EVENTS 2-car garages at the rear, suitable for small families, PARKING IN REAR COMBINATION OF COVERED couples, or those looking to downsize. For those AND SURFACE PARKING desiring smaller 1-bed or studio units, also proposed is a low-rise apartment building along Lebanon Street with an integrated community room and direct access to the active green. RESIDENTIAL: 14,188 SF / 7 townhomes (6x 2-bed, 1x 3-bed) NEW DRIVE ACCESS 8575 SF /10 apartment units (all 1-bed) TO REAR PARKING COMMUNITY ROOM: 850 SF COMMUNITY ROOM OPEN SPACE: 18,595 SF, excluding wooded trails TRAIL CONNECTION RENTABLE BY THE PUBLIC TO PINE BANKS PARKING: 14 for townhomes (2 spaces per unit) + 18 for apartments (2 spaces PAVED PLAZA per unit for 8 units, 1 space per unit for 2 units) PROVIDES A SECOND TYPE OF OPEN SPACE + FIRE TRUCK ACCESS AREA OF BLASTING: 3300 SF for new driveway + parking Proposed scenario diagram by Studio Luz Architects Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 11 3. Design Scenarios Street 94 Lebanon SCENARIO PERSPECTIVE Main rendered view of proposed scenario by Studio Luz Architects, showing gabled townhomes wrapping the Lebanon / Forest Sts. intersection and low-rise apartment building with community room in the background Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 12 3. Design Scenarios Street 94 Lebanon Parcel Recommendations Based on the market analysis and proposed design scenarios, both sites would be suitable for dispersal to a developer, although 94 Lebanon Street may be split into two parcels if the city prefers to retain ownership of the proposed recreational green space. The primary municipal benefits of dispersal would be the removal of assets requiring maintenance, the receipt of new sale proceeds, and the receipt of new ongoing property taxes. The most common method for implementing new programming at the site would be to issue an RFP to local developers. If the city elects this route, it is important that the city establishes strict criteria for the evaluation of each proposal prior to issuing the RFP to ensure that the proposal meets the city’s vision for the redevelopment of the site. The city can also seek assistance for issuing the RFP by means of a consultant or an advisory committee. A consultant could be hired to help the city develop an RFP along with an advisory committee to help ensure that the RFP aligns with the needs of the city’s vision for the site. Upon receiving proposals, an evaluation committee can also be appointed to aid in the review process. At 56 West Foster Street, an driveway easement is recommended as shown in the proposed scenario to preserve garage access for the abutter at 70 West Foster Street. At 94 Lebanon Street, the Ripley School’s parking lot currently occupies a corner of the abutting Wyoming Cemetery parcel; in return, a rear portion of the Ripley School parcel has been carved out for Wyoming Cemetery use as an additional outdoor seating area. A redrawing of parcel lines is recommended as shown in the proposed scenario to reflect these current use boundaries. Melrose, MA | Municipal Surplus Buildings Study 13 4. Next Steps Next 4. Parcel Recommendations THANK YOU! Melrose, MA
Transcript
▶ 0:00 Devin Romanul: It's got our 16th- Okay. I would do that, but I- Susan Williams. Susan- Please. Good evening. The time is 7:01 on Monday, July 20th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. My name is Devin Rommel. I am your chair. This evening, we're also joined by Vice Chair Vandiver, Councilors Chen, Finocchiaro, Jamaluddin, Karamcheti, Kowal, Obremski, Park, Williams, and President Freeman. This constitutes a notice of quorum for the record. In accordance with the open meeting law, this meeting is being broadcast live on MMTV. At this time, I'll now motion by unanimous consent to approve without reading the minutes from our most recent meeting on July 9th. Seeing no objection, those minutes are now approved.
▶ 0:41 Devin Romanul: I'll now motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Seeing no objections, we are now open for public comment. This is the portion of the meeting where members of the public may speak on any items on tonight's agenda. Comments expressing other items are also welcome, and I'll note for members of the public, we also have a full council meeting at 7:45 where we're considering various parking items. So feel free to comment during that meeting. Thank you so much. And when you comment, please feel free to state your name and address for the record. Good evening. Hi, my name's Susan Caon. I'm Chairman of the Cemetery Commission. I live at 123 East Foster Street. I'm here to talk tonight with regard to the Ripley
▶ 1:22 School parcel. I want to say that personally, I am in favor of the recommendation. The commission and I do have three caveats. The first is that there'd be a 10 foot, the city would own 10 feet from the cemetery wall, to allow us to be able to repair the wall if necessary in future, and the 10 feet would allow us to bring equipment in as needed. The second is whenever there, while construction might be going on the site, if there is a funeral, that the contractor be notified that there could be no work conducted that day if it's in that section that abuts the wall. We do have several services that go on in that section. And the third caveat is that you'll see there's two pieces of land. There's a little pie-shaped piece that is in the Ripley parking
▶ 2:20 lot that is actually cemetery property, and there's a kind of a half-moon crescent piece in the cemetery that's actually Ripley property. I support the swap as long as the square footage is the same, and my understanding is it is. In the presentation you'll see tonight, it's kind of an optical illusion. It doesn't look like it is, but the square footage is the same. And the cemetery's been maintaining that piece of land that's in the cemetery. Right now it's used for things like memorial benches. In the future, we're thinking that it might be a location for a columbarium. But more to come on the future of the cemetery. We have a lot of exciting things that we're be coming to tell you in the fall.
▶ 3:06 Devin Romanul: So, thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Do any other members of the public wish to speak? Going once, going twice. Some exciting stuff on the agenda. No. All right. Do we have any folks online? No one online. All right. No one online. Unless we have any other members of the public who wish to speak, on that motion by unanimous consent to close public comment. Seeing no objection, we are now closed for public comment. Item one on our agenda, and only on our agenda, order number 20261376, report on the results of the municipal surplus building study for the police station and the Ripley School sites. Joining us this evening is Lori Massa from the Planning Department. And I'll note for members of the committee and members of the public, we do have
▶ 3:50 a full city council meeting at 7:45, so we're gonna try to start that on time given we're anticipating some non-trivial public comment. So plan your questions accordingly, and we're happy to follow up with any written questions afterwards. So, thank you so much. Hello, I'm Lori Massa. I'm the planning director for the city, and I'm glad to be here tonight to present the results of a study that we have underway for the last seven months. And this study was possible by the free cash appropriation from the city council last spring. We were able to take on a great team including MASS Development, so we have Alejandro Lopez here with us. And Studio Luz, we have Hansi Better Barazza and Lichen Zhu here with us tonight to
▶ 4:41 present the results of this study. So the police station site on Foster, which will be surplus in approximately a year or so, and then the Ripley School site on Lebanon and Forest Street, which the SEAM collaborative has been leasing, and that lease expires at the end of this month. So we've taken on this study to look at potential opportunities for these two sites, gather input from the community in different ways, engage with other stakeholders, city staff, and also a consideration of a market analysis for the city to see what would be economically feasible for these two sites. So we're glad to be at this point, which is kind of the first part of this process, to take in all of those inputs and come
▶ 5:33 up with some possible visions for what could happen on the sites. So with that, I'll turn it over to Alejandro. Thank you very much, everyone. My name's Alejandro Lopez. I serve as the VP of Planning and Pre-Development at Mass Development, covering our greater Boston region, including Melrose. I'd just like to provide some context about Mass Development and our role here. We serve as a project manager here, having partnered with the city and Studio Luz Architects, who conducted the work itself. Mass Development is a quasi state agency within the state, working with non-profits, small businesses, communities to support community development, economic development, or financing projects, as well
▶ 6:29 as the managers for a couple of peers here in the state. And we also manage the Fort Devens out in Devens. Happy to be a partner here, as well as a collaborator. Thank you. All right. And now we'll have Studio Luz go through the presentation. Thank you, Lori and Alejandro. Hi, my name is Hency Bero-Barraza. I'm the principal of Studio Luz Architects with the address of 4238 Washington Street in Boston, Massachusetts. We are an architecture and urban design and community engagement firm. We've been in practice for over 23 years. We're very excited. We're also a minority woman-owned business. And with me is Project Manager, Liqin Zhu. I just want to thank all the council members here, and also a
▶ 7:26 special thanks to Mayor Jennifer Gregoris, who was a wonderful participant in our first walkthrough. And I just want to acknowledge also the city of Melrose residents and business owners, the parents, students, all the community folks that came to all of our engagement sessions. One thing that was very positive of the engagement is that you have a community that's very interested in the future for the city of Melrose. So I just wanted to thank all of you. If we can move on to the next slide, please. So, the engagement with Studio Luz Architects, Mass Development, and the City of Melrose began in January of this year. As Lori already mentioned, it was a six-month process. We were tasked to put together a
▶ 8:19 study that consulted with RKG consultants, who are economic consultants, to understand that whatever ideas that come forth from the community is also measured with an economical, sustainable project. And I'm here just to demonstrate what was the output from the community and what was the recommendations from the economic consultants. And as visionaries, as urban designers, our vision was to coalesce the two ambitions and to put forward some ideas. These are conceptual ideas to help you with next steps. By no means is a concrete idea because there's another kind of process that is forward. So, as Lori mentioned, we were tasked to look at two specific sites, a surplus property, which is 56 West Forest Street and 94 Lebanon Street.
▶ 9:18 And we already discussed who our consultants and who we engage with. Can we go to the next one, please? Let's go to the next one. So just to give you a little bit of context and overview, the 56 West Forest Street, which is right now a police station, is existing. As you can see, it's a beautiful masonry building from the community. It's an anchor. It was built in the 1900s. We thought it was a very valuable asset to the city. It benefits from being very close to Main Street, and it also benefits from having two commuter rails in proximity. On 56 West Forest Street, we see this site as a very potential anchor and an economic kind of anchor as well for the city. And then the other site, which is 94 Lebanon Street, it's an existing Ripley
▶ 10:28 School, and it's really nested within a very low-density residential neighborhood. Let's go to the next one, please. When we were looking at the zoning, what was very clear in regards to the 56 West Forest Street is that it is in a very high active area, meaning high activity intense area, versus the other 94 Lebanon Street, Ripley, which is low density. In regards to the zoning, the zoning for the 56 West Foster Street is zoned in a multi-use business zoning. And so what that means is your zoning pretty much is open to having many different type of land use in that area. And then for 94 Lebanon Street, it is zoned in an urban residential district, which is really low density. It surrounds single, two, and three-family residential.
▶ 11:44 So that type of zoning analysis and land use Basically gave us ideas about how we can potentially see the future use for these two buildings. Our market analysis basically surveyed the area and put forward that based on projected population growth, you should be able to sustain anywhere between 2,000 to 2,150 new housing through 2050. So there is a high demand for new housing. In regards to economic sustainability, the use of office is also very desirable with the idea that it can support 27,000 square feet. And typically, it would be for small professional and medical office space use. You have a healthcare type of usage that's highly desirable. And then in regards to retail, it can also support approximately 123,000 square
▶ 12:50 foot of new retail, and particularly supporting smaller format neighborhood businesses. One thing that was really striking for me, if we can move to the next slide, is that 56 West Foster Street, in the areas around it along Main Street, the vacancy rate was very low, and that really told me that the city of Melrose really supports its entrepreneur and small businesses, and it's very desirable to live here. In regards to the site overview, 56 West Foster Street, as you can see, in a very kind of main, high intense area, the lot is very small. It's about 0.38 acres. The zoning, it does allow zoning to be about 50 feet of height, and so you're looking at really anything that is about four stories, and
▶ 13:53 your existing property, the police station, is two stories. In terms of opportunities, as I mentioned, it's close to the commuter rail. It has great parking space that support the commercial district. And again, as I mentioned, it's half block from Main Street. The challenge is that you have a L lot configuration. You have a residential abutter along West Foster Street. 70 Foster Street has access right next to the driveway access to the back garage. So that's something that was a constraint for us to understand. And then one of the challenges of the existing building is that it has steps, and so accessibility is a real challenge when you're putting it for public use. So if you want this building to be for public, you need to bring it up
▶ 14:45 to ADA standards. And then for the Ripley School for 94 Lebanon Street, the site is larger, it's 2.09 acres, and as you can see, has beautiful mature trees. And so that was something that the community really loved in regards to the preservation of open space and mature trees. And so in regards to zoning, it's in low density residential, so the height limit is 2.5 stories or 35 feet. And the proximity of the area, again, it's next to Pine Banks Park, and some of the challenges that you have of very high grade and you have ledge nearby. So in terms of constructibility, it's very difficult to blast ledge, very impactful for the residents nearby. And then you would need to consider on-site parking, but how do
▶ 15:54 you do that in a site that is very constrained in terms of its open space relative to its mature trees? So those are just kind of observations in terms of opportunities and constraints. As you can see here, which was already mentioned, that the property already works with the cemetery next door. And one of the things that you would need to do is to parcelize the lot, divide the lot potentially, and it could be divided in such a way where it's kept with the municipality to preserve open space, to preserve the cemetery use, to preserve trails, to go to Pine Banks Park, to have access to that. Let's go to the next one. As I mentioned, it was a very robust community engagement. Over 260 participants and responses were
▶ 16:52 engaged. Most of the engagement occurred in the month of March. We left the survey open for two months. We had the survey, it had a response of 221, and then following that, we had workshops. We had 30 participants in person workshop at the Melrose Public Library, and then we had 10 participants joined a virtual workshop. So we allowed it to be accessible, asynchronous for those that are business owners that could not attend our in-person workshop. One of the things about our survey is that we ensured that you didn't have redundant responses . So if someone did the survey and someone did the workshop, we counted their response as one. And then in July, through this public meeting through the website of the City of Melrose, we kept all of our
▶ 17:45 reports live. And let's go to the next one. So in regards to the community engagement results, for 66 West Foster Street, the top workshop choices for the in-person workshop was housing and community use, and then for the virtual workshop was housing and small retail. The reason why housing was a priority for these in-person workshops and the virtual workshops is because we provided a presentation of the economic consultant report. We provided context, we provided historical information to allow for those members to be able to engage in a full one-hour length, what they think programmatically, program use works well for these two sites. When you look underneath, when we have the collection of the online survey
▶ 18:43 with the workshops, these are the top choices. So for the 56 West Foster Street, that's close to Main Street, number one was restaurant cafe, which makes sense. They wanted to make sure that the continuation of small businesses and entrepreneurs sustained, maintained. The second one that they wanted this beautiful building to be a public use, so such as for a community use. And then the third is obviously maintain open space, parking. And then four and five was retail and housing. And then for 94 Lebanon Street, next to the residential area, the top workshop choices for in-person was housing, and then to maintain open space. And then for the virtual workshop, the top choice was open space, recreation, and community use.
▶ 19:40 In regards to the combined 260 surveying workshops, number one was open park recreation space, number two was community use, and number three was housing. And then fourth and five was restaurant and small retail. Juxtapose that to the economic consultant. The market analysis consultant, the economic consultant provided this information that 56 West Foster Street would benefit from really mixed use, commercial use with minor potential professional office and potentially satellite municipal offices in the area. And then for 94 Lebanon Street, the economic consultant provided that a continuation of lower density housing worked best with a potential minor commercial use as a destination if needed, like
▶ 20:37 a beer garden maybe. I was advocating for that, but to bring it to an anchor to the residents that are nearby. Okay, next. So, what you have in front is a combination of all of the ideas, even some of the drawings that community members put forward. For 56 West Foster Street, we thought maintaining the beautiful Main Street building as a shell would be perfect for ground floor activation use. Programmatically, high floor to ceiling. We thought retail cafe, maybe art galleries, community use would be perfect for it. You have about 2,500 square feet of the shell being potentially programmed in the first two stories. And as you know, you have stairs, so we were thinking that a great ADA-accessible elevator to
▶ 21:39 get to those retail, potential artist community use space would be next to it, where you see in pink there would be an accessible elevator. At the top, we thought where you see kind of a bluish, that office use would be ideal, whether it's in the healthcare industry or professional use, or municipal use, an office above would be great, that would be set back a little bit. Again, we're looking at about three stories. And then at the top, maybe you can have a little outdoor terrace as the residential amenity for the housing residents. And then we take advantage of the L type of lot, and we provide housing with potential parking, that is cover parking on the first floor. In terms of total square footage and residential use, we're
▶ 22:34 looking at close to 30,000 square feet of potential residential. Again, this is maximum. That could be great for someone that's trying to purchase this property in terms of how much can you fit in with compliance of zoning. And we're looking at 22 units in the residential with the same amount of parking. So for zoning, you have a one-to-one relationship with residential to parking. And then as you can see, access to the parking would be from West Foster Street all the way to the left, and then it would be a one-way parking loop coming out of Myrtle Street. And then we preserve that access driveway on West Foster Street next to the butter of 70 West Foster Street. Next. And here you see a perspective of what that
▶ 23:30 potential looks like. A nice little diagram, grand opening. This is what it can be, what it can look like. Again, three stories set back, and then you have a four-story structure at the rear. Next. And then for 94 Lebanon Street- We listened to the community in which the preservation of the mature trees and open space was preserved, and we tried to minimize blasting. About 3,000 square feet of blasting, which is very little, to allow for additional parking. What we're proposing here is really an attached two-and-a-half story townhouse, which is something that the community members really advocated for. This is more low density, so we're looking at two bedrooms to three bedrooms, attached townhouses.
▶ 24:29 We're looking at this intergenerational. So the idea that you can have one bedrooms at the rear of an apartment flat, potentially for an aging population, and those would be 10 apartments of one bedrooms. And this zoning does carry for two parking space for each unit. So the townhouses would have two garage units per townhouse, and then the apartment flat can potentially have up to two parking spaces as well for each apartment unit. And then the idea would be that you would have an accessible recreational trail connection to the Pine Park Banks. Next. And then this is what the rendering idea would look like, which I think is a very beautiful gable, two-and-a-half story attached townhouse that you would see
▶ 25:29 from the corner. Next. So I wanted to just give some context. What are some ideas, program? What are the next steps? The next steps would be to issue an RFP. So either the municipality now has some guidelines, guidance of what is important, what is important to maintain for the city of Melrose, what land is potentially to be sold. You would have high tax revenue. You don't have to maintain these properties that need high maintenance. And you can also hire a potential consultant to put together an RFP to send out to potential developers interested in the property. And I'm done. Yep. Good. I gave 15 more minutes for questions and answers. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time and the thoughtful presentation.
▶ 26:34 Cal Finocchiaro: Do we have any questions from councilors? Councilor Ferranciero. Thank you. Thank you for the great presentation. So we heard from someone tonight from the Cemetery Commission. How will we make sure that we incorporate-- Is that something that you will do? Is that something we have to work with the city on? Do your plans incorporate their wishes, I guess? Yeah, so I think some of the questions that are planning based, I'm going to ask Lori to respond. Do you want to respond to- I'll come up here. Yeah. Good. Come here. Because I think we always saw the Cemetery Commission, that parcel, as a collaborator. Because they've been really- Mm-hmm ... working within the site already. Mm-hmm. Right. So, this plan, the items
▶ 27:23 that Tsu mentioned could be incorporated into this kind of concept for the Ripley School site. The recommendation includes the rear part of the lot could be divided off and municipally owned. So that would be the area that with the existing seating area for the cemetery, it would be in that portion of the lot. But from here, we would really need to do a survey and get into the specific details. This is a higher level than those more specific concerns, which is great to have at this point to understand how they would be incorporated into the plan. There is a setback right now on this proposal for a green space along the cemetery wall. So, from what I can see and understand from the Cemetery Commission, this would be possible with this conceptual plan that
▶ 28:20 Cal Finocchiaro: we have at this point. Okay. Great. I think the designs are great, and just specifically for Lebanon Street, just because I know that the cemetery, there's plot lines and things to consider. So I just want to make sure. I don't know what the next steps are, obviously. Yeah. But if these are the plans moving forward, or are these- Well, we can- Maybe. And then I want- So may it change? I'll answer a question about surveying. Mm-hmm. So this is a plan that we put together as the first kind of step in this process. And then from here, we have applied for a grant from Mass Development to take on the technical assistance for putting together an RFP and looking at the specifics of future use and ownership and things like that.
▶ 29:15 So we'll hear about that in the fall. If we don't get the grant money, then we'll look to another way to get the technical assistance to advance this process. So, it's not something that the council is even voting on as a kind of approving at this point. Right. The next part of this will come back to you for a vote. Great. But I think what this helps is it facilitates the planning department to hire a potential civil engineer and to do a parcelization- Get the boundaries and just say, "This parcel is going to be for development. This one is to be maintained with access to the cemetery." Because I think once you give the whole parcel, you can't really tell a developer what to build or not build.
▶ 30:12 Elizabeth Kowal: So I would recommend to parcelize, to create two parcels- Mm-hmm ... to divide it. Okay. Thank you. And I just wanted to make a comment. I like the fact that we have the first floor parking, where the police station is. So that's a great add. I was looking at that initially when I was... So, thank you. Right up next I have Councilor Kowal. So you've kind of just touched on what I said, is that once we... I guess, how specific can an RFP be, and how much control do we have over it? Because it seems to me that once we sell this property, we can want it to be X, Y, and Z, and the developer really is the one who's going to then decide what's going to be on this property. So that's sort of my question and maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm misunderstanding
▶ 30:57 Elizabeth Kowal: something. But it seems to me that it sort of is out of our hands a little bit, unless I'm missing something. So do you want to take that or no? You can have an RFP with guidelines that, "Here's a community engagement," and is desirable to have a four-story, potentially units from 20 to max 40, and you put it out for a developer that would be your partner. Mm-hmm. And that could be within an agreement. What happens 20 years from now? Things can happen. Right. Things can change. Right. So I guess that's my question, Lori, is that are we going to put out an RFP that's that specific? Because I think about, again, one of the things that clearly was important to the community out around Lebanon Street is the trees, right?
▶ 31:48 Elizabeth Kowal: And that's going to take up a lot of space where more development could go. So I guess my question for you is, do you plan to put out an RFP that takes into account some of the feedback from the city, or are we just looking to maximize our- ... I don't know, the bang for our buck in terms of developers? So I would want to put out an RFP that incorporates this study, from the developer's perspective, having done a public process and have an idea that generally there's support and obviously there's lots of details to flesh out and there's lots of opinions, that we're never going to get one project that everybody is fully happy with. But having gone through this process from a developer's perspective
▶ 32:38 is very beneficial because then they don't have to do that work. They have less uncertainty as they put together a proposal. Whatever project it is will have to still go to planning board, zoning board. So it's not that we sell it and whatever happens from there happens. We do want to put parameters around... We do have control over that as having it be municipal sites, but then also in the permitting of projects. Okay. I mean, that's a good point, that you do have zoning, and so if a developer comes in and they want to build something that's eight story, the zoning won't allow it unless there's support for it, and a variance is granted. All right, up next I have Councilor Karamcheti. Thank you so much. I thank you so much for being here.
▶ 33:37 Manjula Karamcheti: I really appreciated the presentation. I just have a clarifying question. More so if I'm asked questions, I'm able to respond to them. I'm excited that the top workshop choices were around housing in a majority. It surprises me a little bit, but I'm excited. But I just- Mm-hmm ... guess I'm wondering, was housing a mandatory component of community engagement and/or these proposals? So for the community engagement, we really followed the community's preference. And so I think it was very convincing that there is a demand to live here and to stay here, and people want to buy in. So I think these top choices comes from the community. Okay. And then, so the one, two, and three, and four, and five-
▶ 34:42 Mm-hmm ... are the responses of in addition to housing, we would like these things as a part of. No, I think what we tried to do is to include the community's choices because we knew that restaurant was important, and we tried to combine more so with 56 West Foster Street, an economical viable solution that would sustain rehabbing the municipal building as is. You need density for the first one. I think the 94 Lebanon Street, housing was there. It was one of the top three choices. Okay. But I think looking at the site, obviously they wanted to preserve park and recreation, so we asked them to really just vote for one. And so I think the way to look at this is to look at the top three choices.
▶ 35:39 Manjula Karamcheti: Mm-hmm. Okay. So the workshops are separate from- Survey ... the survey, of which the survey identified the number one interest for West Foster was restaurant cafe- Correct ... then community use, then plaza and park, and then small retail, and then housing. Right. It was like face value, very quick. Okay. And then the community engagement was more expansive, and the virtual workshop was more expansive because they were able to listen to our report and context, and it was easier. And also, maybe we did have housing advocates there that wanted to make sure that housing was really important for the town. Absolutely. Mm-hmm. I'm just, again, trying to understand that. Yeah. Okay. So the workshops were information
▶ 36:37 Manjula Karamcheti: presentations. Correct. But the voting, so to speak, for what the priorities were for each parcel from the community were what are in the big, pretty numbers. That's right. It was collectively. Okay. I just- We put in collective. Yep ... just again, want to make sure I'm understanding- Yeah ... the process because we will be asked, and I want to be able to explain it. That's right. If I can- Um- ... I can clarify further. So we received over 220 responses for this survey, and so the big, colorful numbers are everyone's responses combined. Yes. So the survey, plus the workshops. So it's really sort of skewed by the survey results, if that makes sense. Right. So you- Yeah. I'm just trying to-
▶ 37:23 Manjula Karamcheti: ... you interpreted correctly. And I think it was- Okay ... it was important for us to show what the top workshop choices were, which was gearing towards housing. And I think the- Yes ... yeah, the survey was looking at, at face value, the proximity and location of the site and what makes sense to them. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. The responses just match more what I would've thought the community would've- Mm-hmm ... and not... Okay. And so I guess- And so I think our proposal combined both. You have the best of both worlds. Yeah. Okay. And then I guess the other question, I was just curious if there were other scenarios presented, and these are the two you picked, or the city picked, or... Just curious about
▶ 38:12 that. So we did various options, and we included it in the report, the options, correct? Some of the options. When we show the options, it was really trying to make parking work or housing, so the combinations were the same. It was more of what fit best for the site in regards to access to the abutters. So it's not like we just presented a park. All of the options had the same criteria. Okay. Understood. Yeah. All right. I'm all set. Thank you. All right. Up next, I have Councilor Williams. Thank you. Councilor Cal asked my first question, thank you. You're welcome. But then it made me think about a second question, which is, in the RFP process, a little different from a traditional real estate transaction,
▶ 39:06 Ryan Williams: am I understanding correctly that we could put a high number of conditions into this RFP, really sort of an unlimited number of conditions, as long as we found a developer that was willing to accept them and work with us? That's perfect. Exactly. Right. So in that sense, it's nice to think of the way that we can include community goals in the RFP. And one of the big ones I was thinking of is deed restricted affordable housing with the Melrose Housing Trust Fund. And I'm just wondering if you all had given any thought to whether you would, in this RFP, require a higher amount of, or different flavor of affordable housing above what zoning requires. Yeah. That's a great answer. Sure. So we didn't get into that level of detail on this plan-
▶ 39:56 Ryan Williams: Okay ... to look at even kind of ownership, and the detail about affordability. All of the projects in Melrose that have eight or more units have to provide 15% of the units as affordable, so that would be kind of the baseline. Mm-hmm. But yeah, delving into that question would be the next part of this process. Yeah. Awesome. And I just also wanted to thank you all for your work and participation in this, because it's great to have some vision, and some plans, and some thoughts on the table well before we get into the pressure cooker of land transfer conversations. And I think that it's just really... I really appreciate it. Thank you. Up next, I have Councilor Chen. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here and the presentation.
▶ 40:48 On, I think it was slide four, you mentioned economic analysis. Mm-hmm. Did that include how much we should sell this land for if we wanted, or what the price would be for a developer? It did not include, it was only a market analysis to look at what do you currently have, the vacancy levels, and what it can support. But we did not look at numbers of how much it can sell or as potential use. But you could hire an economic consultant to do that. Okay. So economic analysis that didn't include economic- It's a market analysis. Okay. I thought I saw economic on there as well, but- They're called economic consultants, but they only were asked to do a market analysis in regards to what it can support.
▶ 41:36 Got it. What use can support. But that's another step potentially in the RFP process. Okay. For example, we were just sent a proposal from MassHousing asking us to put together a feasibility, potentially of a conversion from office to residential. Mm-hmm. That was a partnership with a developer looking for some design vision, technical assistance, plus economic viability To make the numbers work. Got it. So there is a process for that. Mm-hmm. And to follow Councilor Camilleri's question, for the Ripley site, the number one public feedback was for a park. Do we have a park design? So, I think the park recreation was, as you know, Ripley site, we preserved 80% of the property to green. So if we look at the existing, if we
▶ 42:38 can look back at that existing... But we did accommodate a public trail. So if we go to the view from the top view. Hey, Jeri, are you able to go back? Just to the site view. The first- There we go ... two. Actually, it would be the next one. The next one. That one. Okay. So as you can see, three quarters, 80% of the site is green canopy. And, the community wanted, yes, to continue open space. So what we proposed was to do a public trail access to allow people to connect to their nearby park. But we did not turn the whole land to open space because you have an existing school, and so, it would be very expensive to first demolish the Ripley School and then just leave it to open space. There's
▶ 43:46 no revenue. Okay. Mm-hmm. And you mentioned a report, and this is phase one. When will that report be forthcoming? We will post the report. We were presenting this to the council, and then we'll put the full report. That includes the market analysis, on the website, and we can email that to you. Okay. Are the conclusions the same as what we're getting the highlights here in this? You're getting the highlights. It's really exciting stuff, the market analysis, because it gives you trends. It gives you why people are moving out, coming in. Gives you why there's such a demand. Gives you price points. It's a fascinating read. Okay. And how much did we pay for this study last year? The total price is $60,000 of free cash allocated for this
▶ 44:51 Jason Chen: project. And that includes this presentation and the forthcoming report, and that concludes your portion of this? Yes. All right. Through the chair. I'm always frugal, and I'm representing the taxpayer dollar here, and I'm not sure this is $60,000 worth of true actionable signal or insight. I haven't read the report yet, but I'm seeing 14 slides of which five are kind of introduction and conclusion and timeline, and then nine slides that are pretty light in content. I'm expecting kind of two levels deeper of detail. When I read this, I googled what do you do with municipal properties and how can you develop them, and I found a bunch of free reports on MMA and done by MassHousing and others.
▶ 45:49 Jason Chen: And they went into specific cities and how they didn't just say, "Okay, we want a community space." They gave four or five options for community spaces, and then how they got there, and then the development process to do it, a multi-use community space. I feel like a lot of this Lebanon Street Ripley site, we knew most of it from the Public Safety Buildings Committee because we paid for geotechnical surveys and- Yeah ... we looked at that extensively. But I'm curious what my colleagues think or if you're maybe willing to do some of that deeper level work for us, but I'm not seeing $60,000 worth of value here from- So, yeah ... a market expert The market analysis alone, I feel like we got a lot out of this study.
▶ 46:35 And so these plans, although they're conceptual, they are actionable and so, we're looking at specific things like floor-to-ceiling heights and accessibility. And in terms of actually being able to construct a project within these ideas, it's possible. They looked at the width of driveways and parking spaces, and the layout of them are functional. So although it's conceptual, it's well thought through and incorporates the feedback. And the report, including all the responses, is 400 pages, so it's quite detailed. Look forward to seeing it. Yes, I was about to say, we did summaries, but it's a very intensive report. Ours alone is about 60 pages, and I would say that we were tasked to really work with community engagement, the
▶ 47:36 community, and so maybe that does not take form. But in our report, you'll see all of the scans, all of the surveys, all of the consensus building. And then for the economic consultant, the fees were about a third, but I would say that it was pretty substantial in terms of design. And design creative ideas does cost money. Okay. Thank you. Look forward to seeing it. Mm-hmm. All right. Thank you very much. I have two more folks in queue. I just want to be cognizant. Our full council meeting is supposed to start at 7:45, and legally speaking, we got to start by 8:00. So either we'll have to gavel in and gavel out or wrap up in the next couple of minutes. So next I have Councilor Burke Thank you.
▶ 48:30 I'll try to make these really brief and abridged. So in your report, you had mentioned you had 221 responses for the survey that was conducted over two months and 30 participants. From your experience, is that a good sample of a community to provide you an accurate idea of what that project should be utilized for, these projects should be best utilized for space? I think for community engagement, that's pretty significant. Anything that's over 100 is a pretty good sample of community desires. That's been kind of our experience. So the answer is yes. Okay. And I can already sort of start anticipating some of the questions I'll get from constituents. And a number of my fellow city councilors were at the workshops, and there was
▶ 49:27 a contingent who strongly voiced their opinion about parking, turning this into dedicated parking, right? That made it surprisingly lower on the list than I anticipated. So straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, how do you address, or what conclusions did you come that dedicated parking to these spots or specifically, I guess, the Foster Street was not a good idea? And can you elaborate as to why you came to that conclusion or why parking is not a higher priority on this list? So I think it was from the parking study, right? So I'm going to let Lori speak on parking and utilization of parking in the nearby open lots. But what we did in a proposal is we basically held to the law of zoning and provided really the one-to-one ratio that
▶ 50:20 is required for any residential units that is being proposed on the site. And for the Ripley School, we also did a two-to-one ratio, which is for the zoning as well, that you provide two parking spaces for each unit. So the idea is that you're not creating additional impact if you're following letter of the law, which is zoning. But also, Lori was able to provide us with feedback on a parking study that the City of Melrose had recently done as well. Right. And it was from a while back. We had contemplated doing another parking study, which we're not going to be moving forward with. So the last one showed the utilization of existing parking spaces. There is a great graphic of the number of parking spaces within proximity of the police station site,
▶ 51:11 and it's quite expansive. Do you remember, Lichun, the 200 and something that were are quite close to this police station site. So if the city decided to prioritize parking and pay for the demolition of the police station site and continue to hold it for municipal parking, that would be a decision that could still be put forward. It's not our recommendation. We would prefer to see active uses on the site to provide additional space for businesses and housing and to kind of add to the vibrancy of downtown and not have it be used as a, in some ways, a hole in the streetscape and the activity of downtown, and utilize our existing parking, and make sure that we're managing it and using it in the best way,
▶ 52:15 and not taking up this valuable lot for that use. Okay. Very good. I agree with that. Final question. The ideas that were proposed here, were they reviewed by any traffic engineers or analysts to make sure that this is, in fact, feasible? Given that I utilize Foster Street fairly often, that street tends to get backed up a lot from the Shaw's parking lot, just various traffic throughout the course of the day at various times. Adding this lot, have you considered or has a traffic engineer considered this? No, because this was conceptual vision, really high level. The next step would be to potentially do a traffic study. Typically, developers put that forward, or whether it's shared with the City of Melrose in terms of the study.
▶ 53:15 Either the municipality or developers typically do the traffic study based on the proposed development. This is conceptual, so I don't think it would make sense to do investment on a traffic study without knowing what you want to do with the property. Right. And this is a relatively small number of parking spaces. So typically, for a traffic study, you wouldn't see a significant increase in the level of service and intersections for these numbers of parking spaces that we are contemplating for these lots. Okay. As proposed in this particular presentation. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for coming to our workshop, though. Yeah, you should thank Councilor Freeman as well as Councilor Coleman.
▶ 54:11 Manjula Karamcheti: They were there with me. Thank you for coming. Of course. Last in queue, I have Councilor Karamcheti. Thank you so much. My comment is very quick. I think it's a through-the-chair situation. I'm not totally sure. Councilor Williams sort of said this, and I think I just actually want to double-click on it in some way, shape, or form. It seems like Both of these properties, in some way, shape, or form, are an opportunity for us to think about the conversations we've had with our affordable housing commission, and thinking about how might we partner with an organization to increase our affordable housing and take us past Safe Harbor. And so, I think we would be remiss to not think strategically about that as a part of this
▶ 54:58 Bradley Freeman: opportunity that we have in front of us, and how these concepts could be implemented in a way that gets us closer to what we're really trying to do, which is keep Melrose affordable. Thank you. Thank you so much. President Freeman. Thank you very much. I just want to quickly thank you. As one of the councilors who did attend the session, I found it incredibly informative, and I'm a big believer in third-party validators and the use of consultants because I do think it actually helps keep city costs down and brings in expertise the city may not have to allow residents to be more forthcoming with their thoughts in this process, speaking to consultants rather than through the city. With that, I'd like to place a recommendation
▶ 55:37 to place and file. Second. Motion to place on file made by President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Kareem Chetty on discussion. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilor Vanderberg? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Kareem Chetty? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Motion passes. Motion passes. We will report that out to our next full council meeting. Seeing that as our last item on our agenda this evening, I'll now motion by unanimous consent to adjourn. Seeing no objections, we are now adjourned. Yeah, thanks.