2026-10-27 - Planning Board

00:22Okay, we're on.

00:33>> I'm okay with that.

00:37>> Welcome to the October 27th, 2026

00:41meeting of the Planning Board.

00:42>> Do you have one?

00:43Okay, good.

00:52>> Okay, before we get started with the RHA

00:54presentation, we'll take roll call.

00:56Uh Mr. Abrams.

00:58>> Present.

00:59>> Present.

01:00Mr. Costanzo, absent.

01:04Mr. Hoffman, absent.

01:06Mr. Rivera.

01:08>> Here.

01:08>> Rivera is here.

01:10Ms. Simmons-Hurley.

01:11>> Here.

01:12>> And Mr. Stamatopoulos.

01:13>> Present.

01:14>> Mr. Sullivan is absent.

01:21We'll wait till you guys get set up.

01:30>> Last night there was a long cord.

01:32>> There should be a cord.

01:33>> Oh, I know.

01:34>> Sorry, friends. I don't

02:25>> Are there proponents here to speak to

02:27this matter this evening?

02:29>> I'll

02:30Go First First order of business is a

02:32public hearing.

02:33Oh.

02:34>> Perfect. It works.

02:36>> on the proposed math growth overlay

02:38district

02:39which encompasses the RHA property on

02:42Coolidge Street.

02:44proponents

02:44>> Thank you. Yep. Are there proponents

02:46here to speak to this this evening?

02:48Thank you.

02:51>> Hi, my name's Dean Harrison, the

02:52executive director for the Revere

02:54Housing Authority, 70 Coolidge Street,

02:55Revere.

02:56I don't know if you have to do that

02:57here, too.

02:58>> It's

02:58fine. Doesn't hurt.

03:00>> The reason why we're here is to propose

03:01a 40R district redevelopment initiative

03:05for our property over on the Coolidge

03:06Constitution area.

03:08Uh the Revere Housing Authority has been

03:10tasked with addressing two critical

03:11housing needs,

03:13replacing obsolete public housing and

03:14significantly expanding the availability

03:16of affordable housing in the city of

03:18Revere.

03:19The proposed redevelopment area

03:21encompasses almost 40 acres of land

03:23across several existing public housing

03:25developments, including the Gold Star

03:26Mothers development on Coolidge and

03:28Constitution, the federal housing

03:30development near Coolidge Street and

03:31Upper Cushman, and the state-funded

03:33elderly housing developments at Adams

03:34Court, Proctor,

03:36Cushman.

03:37To help shape a comprehensive

03:38redevelopment plan, the RHA has met with

03:40public housing residents, members of the

03:42broader community, city officials, and

03:44community stakeholders.

03:47Uh these discussions have helped inform

03:49an approach that addresses the needs of

03:51current residents while responding to

03:53the city's broader housing challenges.

03:55The proposed redevelopment plan seeks to

03:57replace aging and outdated housing,

04:00substantially increasing the supply of

04:02affordable housing and introducing

04:03market rate residential units. The

04:06inclusion of the market rate housing is

04:07intended to help offset the

04:09redevelopment costs, support financial

04:11feasibility of the project, and expand

04:13the city's property tax base.

04:16The establishment of a 40R Smart Growth

04:18Overlay District will provide a

04:19framework for advancing this

04:20redevelopment initiative. Through a

04:22coordinated approach to replacing

04:24obsolete housing, creating additional

04:25affordable homes, and incorporating

04:27market rate development, the RHA seeks

04:29to deliver long-term housing benefits

04:31for residents of Revere while creating

04:33opportunities for broader fiscal and

04:35economic benefits to the city.

04:38So,

04:39we met with all of our people, as I

04:41said. We came up with a plan. I'm going

04:45to do a little differently than

04:47we did last night cuz I know cuz I know

04:49you're not familiar with the plan. So,

04:51as we sit now, that's the the Coolidge,

04:55uh, Constitution,

04:56Adam Street, um, and and Cushman area.

05:00It's almost 40 acres of land and it is

05:02probably the most sparsely dense area in

05:05the city. If you've ever looked at the

05:06overlay maps through GIS in the city.

05:09Um,

05:11I'm going to go down to

05:14So, when we met with

05:20Okay. So, we met with the stakeholders

05:22in the city, including our city

05:24planners, uh, met with the mayor, city

05:26councilors. There were a few things that

05:28we wanted to address. One was recreating

05:32housing,

05:33um, in in the area, uh, for our

05:35residents, but not putting them in giant

05:37apartment-style buildings because we

05:39didn't feel that that that was a a good

05:41fit for, um,

05:43our families.

05:45So,

05:46the other part of it, we wanted to to

05:49So, recreating our housing and at the

05:51same time integrating our housing with

05:53the rest of the city.

05:54Uh, we created new roads, um, some new

05:58pathways, and we also created a gentle

06:01density around the the main area. So,

06:03there's a buffer between

06:06the the residents of Revere and the

06:09housing authority residents.

06:12So, if you notice on the outside, the

06:14light the light blue units

06:17are Revere Housing Authority units.

06:19Those kind of teal colors in the light

06:21blue would be Revere Housing Authority

06:23owned, maintained

06:26units. They're your two-three

06:29story townhouse style units,

06:32family style units. The light blue ones

06:34are your elderly buildings with

06:36elevators, handicap accessibility,

06:39spaces for for amenities, for for

06:41community rooms, and for nonprofits that

06:44can bring in services. And so, that

06:46would be that the mix of of the

06:49Revere Housing Authority property.

06:51We would then aim to sell off

06:55the the land around and within the the

06:58development to help offset to

07:02the the cost of redevelopment. And those

07:05are kind of our taller building. We're

07:07anticipating the bigger buildings in the

07:09middle being more of your one or two

07:10bedroom style units, not really

07:13conducive to to families,

07:15but more of your your commuters or

07:17workforce people.

07:19The pink building down here

07:22in in this area, oh my goodness,

07:26this this area here um

07:30is kind of your amenities, which would

07:31be

07:32shared by the residents of Revere and

07:35the Housing Authority people. The pink

07:36building we we are looking for a YMCA

07:39type partner

07:40to create an indoor pool, walking space,

07:44workout area

07:45that would again be accessible to all.

07:48We also have spaces for dog park, small

07:50soccer field, area for for gatherings,

07:54basketball courts, and playgrounds. And

07:57that's kind of in this bottom area here

07:59that's the buffer.

08:01We have some natural boundaries here. If

08:04the topography of the land up on Cushman

08:07um, is much higher than at the the

08:08middle part of the the middle part of

08:10the development. So, we anticipate, if

08:13we were to go up

08:15seven stories, that while you're driving

08:17down Cushman, it may look like three

08:18stories up at the top, but it's really a

08:20seven-story building. And the people

08:22that would be affected by the height are

08:23the people that live within the the

08:25development. And that was the purpose

08:27for the seven stories. Um,

08:32this gives you kind of an idea of that

08:34gentle density as you can see the

08:35outside, the trees, the green space, uh,

08:38the smaller units on the outside which

08:39is kind of the the buffer.

08:41Um,

08:43this is reconnecting the neighborhood,

08:45the new pathways, walkways.

08:47Um,

08:48we have a bus line in there. We have a

08:50multi-use path.

08:52Uh, there's street parking on there. Um,

08:55and there's there's some added

08:56connectors that would go through the

08:58into the city.

09:00Um,

09:03let's see.

09:06So, if we go back up to

09:1040R and the benefits, I I think some of

09:12you know what it is because we already

09:13have one down at the the, um, Shirley

09:16Avenue Green Street areas.

09:18Uh, the benefits of of build

09:20establishing it and building affordable

09:22housing there has the potential to bring

09:25some some economic benefit to the city.

09:27Uh, we have the potential to gain up to

09:29a a $600,000 payment for the

09:30redevelopment and $3,000,

09:34uh, per unit, um, of additional housing

09:37that we're we're creating there would

09:38come to the city.

09:41>> I can ask or I can wait till you're

09:42done.

09:42>> No, go ahead.

09:43>> That 3,000 per unit is just for the

09:45housing units or the market rate as

09:47well?

09:47>> Any new construction.

09:49Um, so, even

09:50>> So, 1,000 units?

09:52>> 17, I mean, if it was the

09:54>> And we got 350 there now, would be at

09:57approximately 1,400 new units would be

09:59eligible for that.

10:00>> Correct. So, if we have 430 units and we

10:02go up to the 17 total, it's about 1,300

10:05and 70 additional at 3,000.

10:07>> It sounded to me like the recreation

10:10units would still be designated new

10:12construction. So, I believe even the 430

10:16being recreated maybe. I don't want to

10:18over promise, but that's my initial read

10:20of it.

10:21>> Got you.

10:21>> Possibly all 1,700 could be new.

10:23>> Thank you.

10:25>> Anything you say is not going to my

10:27phone being recorded.

10:28>> I'm sorry.

10:30I We got a little too casual, I guess.

10:31Sorry about

10:33>> So

10:34So, we believe that all 1,700 units

10:37would be uh eligible to up to a $3,000

10:40uh stipend per unit. Is Is that Is that

10:42how you

10:43Through through the new construction,

10:44right.

10:45Um

10:47and also up to the the that $600,000

10:50one-time payment. Um and then there's

10:52also a 40S

10:54um

10:54potential where we would be able to

10:56recoup some money if if we believe that

10:59the the

11:00that the

11:02that it won't create an abundance of

11:04students that would overfill the schools

11:05or anything like that. We We actually

11:07believe that the that the roles are

11:08coming down after our talks with the

11:09city. But, through 40S development

11:12there's there's a potential to receive

11:15more money's per student that that go to

11:17the schools. Am I right?

11:19>> Yeah, why don't we just

11:20Yeah, a little bit.

11:22I got I got into a little research

11:23wormhole on that. So, I'm happy to share

11:26that um 40S was passed by the state kind

11:29of in parallel with 40R anticipating the

11:32effects that 40R could have. And so,

11:35what it would cover would be a net

11:37increase of educational cost per student

11:40that was added from these units. So,

11:43um there's a cost to educating each

11:45student and that would have to be

11:46documented and then subtracted from that

11:49would be if some of the property taxes,

11:52which may or may not be relevant, you

11:54know, depending on the the unit they

11:55live in,

11:56go to schools, that would be subtracted

11:58out. So, it's it's meant to account for

12:00that. So, this isn't adding that undue

12:02strain.

12:03Um yeah.

12:04>> So, again, financial benefit to the city

12:06by by moving forward with this.

12:08Um

12:13This is where we are in the 40R process.

12:16Uh, we're having our zoning and public

12:17hearing.

12:18Um, we were referred to the the zoning

12:20subcommittee, so we'll be heading to

12:22that next. Um,

12:25I don't know.

12:26Let's see.

12:29The benefits of the the the the benefits

12:31of having this 40R couple of

12:33requirements are one we need to be close

12:35to a commercial base and Broadway is our

12:38commercial base of the city. So, we're

12:40about 200 ft from from Broadway. Uh, the

12:43other component is is there has to be

12:45some transportation around. We have a

12:47number of bus lines in there, right? The

12:49the 119 bus has nine stops within that

12:51area and there are 10 additional bus

12:53stops

12:54um, within two blocks of the proposed

12:56district boundaries.

12:57Um,

13:02It'll help the uh, it'll help the city.

13:04We were we were named as part of the

13:05production plan as the area that should

13:07partner with the city to grow more

13:09affordable housing. So, this falls right

13:11in line with the housing production

13:12plan.

13:13And

13:15this will bring us closer to hitting

13:16that 10% that's required.

13:20under 40B.

13:22I don't have much more. If you have any

13:24questions, is there any I don't think

13:25there's much more to this except um,

13:28um,

13:30we feel that in order to move forward

13:33with our master plan of creating

13:34additional housing that the 40R zoning

13:37is necessary to do so.

13:39>> So, I have I just have one question. Um,

13:42>> Should we hear from the opponent first?

13:44>> Pardon me?

13:45>> I didn't know if you'd like to hear it

13:46Are there any

13:47>> here is a proponent.

13:48>> A proponent, okay. I want to make sure

13:49we get both sides covered.

13:51>> So, I'm going to unplug

13:53here.

13:54>> So, my question is the the master plan

13:58that you showed

13:59that you had up on the

14:00screen,

14:02is that going to be

14:04part of the adoption of the uh,

14:0740R

14:08smart growth district?

14:10>> No, because we can't

14:12Oh.

14:12>> Is that a fact?

14:13>> Sorry.

14:14>> [laughter]

14:14>> Don't worry about my mistake.

14:17>> No, because we can't make guarantees

14:18based on funding.

14:20Then the next step for this after

14:22getting the zoning is to then present

14:23the architecturals and then and then

14:26what?

14:27>> looking for the screen? Do you want him

14:28Do you want him to plug it back in for

14:29you?

14:29>> No, I'm all right. No, so So, the next

14:32the next step would be

14:34the funding and and figuring out, you

14:36know, how much we can get from all those

14:38different pools. So, I can't make it a

14:39guarantee,

14:41but this this helps us guide us in the

14:42right direction.

14:44>> But the master plan is a blueprint for

14:46what what you want to how you want this

14:49to lay out and design.

14:51And that's something the city council

14:52would be voting on. Uh

14:55so, if you don't have that master plan

14:57as the

14:59as the guide for development,

15:04what guarantee does the city have that

15:06it's going to be laid out that way?

15:08And you don't get the taller buildings

15:10on the edges and so forth.

15:12>> What is the master

15:14>> So, the the sole the sole the the sole

15:16owner of what's unique about this

15:18overlay district is that in other

15:21overlay districts you have people with

15:22with that are private owners that are

15:24working along

15:27with different agendas. The sole owning

15:30entity of the property in this overlay

15:32district is the Revere Housing

15:33Authority. Our goals are are to create

15:36affordable housing and not to build

15:38seven, eight, nine, 10-story buildings.

15:40Any RFP that that would go out from the

15:43Housing Authority would would would

15:45conform to the to the

15:48the zoning, the 40R zoning.

15:52>> But but the placement of these

15:54buildings, the way you're showing them

15:55would be different.

15:58I'm I'm as far as site plan review is

15:59concerned, we'd be reviewing each

16:02building and how it lays out

16:04in relationship to the master plan

16:06layout.

16:08We need We need to have a blueprint and

16:10guidance for that. So, you don't have

16:12the the taller buildings on the edges

16:14and the

16:16and the more compatible buildings in

16:18terms of scale and height with the

16:19neighborhood on the inside. So, the way

16:22you show it is you show the smaller that

16:24the the uh

16:26smaller scale buildings

16:28on the periphery of the site which are

16:30uh

16:32in close proximity to residential

16:34existing residential neighborhood and is

16:37kind of equal in scale and height to

16:39those homes.

16:40So, what guarantee do we have that

16:42there's going to be taller buildings on

16:43the edges?

16:44>> Can we show the master plan one more

16:45time?

16:46>> Yeah.

16:47>> And

16:49where is the master plan? Has it been

16:51developed yet or is it still on on the

16:54drawing board?

16:56>> They're showing that because the overlay

16:58isn't yet agreed upon, then they're

17:00they're still securing funding.

17:02So, until the funding it sounds like

17:03until the funding is secured, then it

17:06can't be agreed or it can't be committed

17:08to.

17:09>> So, we we've adopted our master plan,

17:10but I can't say that these exact

17:12buildings until I have funding for it.

17:14So, this is the plan that the the Board

17:16of Commissioners of the Revere Housing

17:18Authority has adopted uh to move forward

17:21with. Um

17:24So,

17:24>> Dean, are we saying that

17:27that you have to get the funding first

17:29in order to show the master plan?

17:32>> No, what what what was asked for was was

17:34a guarantee that these buildings would

17:35build be built exactly, you know, as as

17:38shown and there could be some

17:39differences. We're not talking um um

17:43great differences. Uh it's going to be

17:45over time. Uh the the the I can't give a

17:49guarantee of exact unit counts and exact

17:53um

17:53um positioning, let's say.

17:55>> Site work and

17:56>> Right, because there's site work that

17:58needs to be done.

17:59Um

18:01>> Well, we we can control that through

18:03zoning like we did at Suffolk Downs. We

18:05required

18:06you know, certain setbacks for buildings

18:08over

18:09five stories from the adjacent

18:11neighborhood.

18:12Would it be 200 ft or 100 ft? So, you

18:15can guide the development in terms of

18:16its density by dimensional controls.

18:19>> So, these were the dimensional

18:20requirements that we have in

18:22as part of the the 40R district

18:25application.

18:27The ones that are up on the board right

18:28now.

18:29And I think you all had them in I think

18:30they're in your packet.

18:31>> Yeah, hopefully they're in the packet.

18:33Um but I think this level of detail our

18:37intention was to to mirror the sort of

18:40the level of detail that we saw in the

18:42other smart growth overlay districts.

18:45Um I think there are smart growth

18:48overlay districts that have sort of sub

18:50sub districts with with different

18:53um

18:54requirements tied to those. I think a

18:57concern there would be um

19:01overly restricting or pre-designing too

19:05early when we felt like there was this

19:07level of public control due to the

19:09single ownership tied to the the mission

19:12that could account for that. So.

19:13>> And Frank, is is your main concern the

19:15height of the buildings?

19:17>> That is my main concern is the height of

19:18the building and the proximity to those

19:20buildings to the existing

19:22uh residential neighborhood which is

19:24single and two-family homes.

19:26So, I'm kind of could

19:28the way I'm laying this out is almost uh

19:32a ring of contours for heights.

19:35The heights get greater as you enter the

19:37the farther away you get from the

19:39adjacent residential neighborhoods.

19:41This way

19:43we can dictate

19:45uh the density of certain buildings in

19:47uh in the height and scale of these

19:49buildings within the master plan.

19:52>> Okay.

19:52>> Can you just back that uh photo up one

19:54more time? So, what what I'm hearing is

19:56two different things. So, I'm hearing

19:58that

20:00that you can't do a master plan, but you

20:02do have somebody working on a proposal

20:04here. The The other thing that I'm

20:06looking at the plan that you have right

20:08now

20:09is the same plan that you have existing

20:13with the with the roadways. Um

20:15The roads aren't parallel. It It looks

20:18like a a dog's hind leg. It's It's just

20:21crooked. So,

20:23everything kind of

20:24flares off. You have the same roadways

20:27that

20:28that were

20:29rabbit trails

20:31that they expanded on.

20:33Are you going to keep the same roadways?

20:35Cuz that's what you're showing right

20:36now.

20:37>> No, the roadways have actually changed.

20:38We've moved

20:39>> I'm looking at this one right here, and

20:41it's you know, I can give you the

20:42numbers. It's on four, it's on five,

20:44four, nine. That thing swirls around

20:47just like it has right now, which is

20:48Constitution Ave. That hasn't moved 1

20:51in.

20:52>> Right. So, Constitution

20:55kind of stays the same, and that's not

20:56your main thoroughfare. Coolidge becomes

20:58the main thoroughfare, and that actually

21:00gets moved towards the towards the

21:01center and doesn't If if you are

21:04familiar with the property now, and you

21:06go to that

21:07first picture,

21:09um

21:10you notice how it V's off, all right?

21:12So, at the very beginning, Coolidge kind

21:14of V's off and goes to the right. Um in

21:16this one, Coolidge becomes the main

21:19thoroughfare that works straight down

21:21the middle of the property, um giving

21:23you more space from the center of the

21:25property to the outside to to build on.

21:28Um

21:29there's also additional roads within the

21:32development that have been created. Um

21:34>> The cross streets, essentially.

21:36>> Yeah.

21:38>> Yeah, I see I see the cross streets. The

21:40cross streets look pretty

21:41>> So, Coolidge Coolidge gets gets a major

21:47>> Mhm.

21:47>> a major It's a major change.

21:50Um

21:51>> But Constitution stays as is.

21:53>> Yes.

21:53>> And from Broadway

21:56I think what Frank is saying is like a

21:58buffer zone. If you're going to put

21:59something tall, it should be closer to

22:01Broadway, and then

22:02and then

22:03>> So,

22:03>> and then go down as you go into the

22:06where your pink building is, and then

22:08where where your two green buildings are

22:10in the back.

22:11>> I think I think we're looking at it in

22:12phases. I think there's a

22:13misunderstanding. So, this is our master

22:16plan. What what I was looking for what I

22:18thought I was asked for was a guarantee

22:19that everything was going to be built

22:21exactly that was on the master plan. And

22:23I can't I can't commit to

22:26>> think anyone's saying here they want you

22:28to build exactly. I think what he's

22:30looking for is a is a is a

22:33transformation as you start off from

22:35Broadway, which you're not on Broadway,

22:36but you're pretty close. Right. But if

22:39you have

22:40as as he had mentioned with the height

22:42at 85, you don't want 85 where your two

22:44green buildings are

22:46uh which would be on Constitution and

22:48Adam Street. That's what I think he's

22:50saying.

22:52Is that correct, Frank?

22:53>> Uh yes, the the taller buildings should

22:56be

22:57uh

22:58appropriately set back from the existing

23:00established neighborhood buildings in

23:02their heights. So

23:03>> The taller buildings

23:04uh which would be allowed right now

23:07where your complex is at for a

23:09developer, all your U-shaped development

23:12in the back by Adam Street, I think

23:14that's where the concern lies because if

23:17you have a private developer, that's

23:19what he'll be looking for.

23:21>> But the buffers, right? So those

23:23U-shaped buildings are within

23:25our property and within the and within

23:28the the the the ones at the north side

23:31on the site off of Cushman are the ones

23:33that are built into the hill.

23:35So so the two U-shaped at the top of the

23:37building, right? Those those buildings

23:39that are kind of purple, those are built

23:41into the side of the hill at Cushman. So

23:43while the height may be

23:45say 580 from the bottom, right? It's not

23:48necessarily that at the top. You you're

23:50you're talking two or three stories at

23:52the top of it because the most of it's

23:53at the bottom of the hill. It's a giant

23:55giant slope if you know the topography.

23:57>> But if I'm not mistaken and Frank can be

24:01a witness to this, you measure the

24:02height

24:03from that would be

24:06is that Cushman? You would measure the

24:07height on Cushman, which is the higher

24:10point. You don't measure it on the lower

24:12point where your blue buildings are

24:14right now. Your blue buildings are on

24:15the lower point, which gives you

24:17probably two or three more stories.

24:20>> I think it'd be measured the

24:22I I believe it'd measured the total

24:23height of the building. So

24:24>> measure the mean and you go from the

24:26street, which would be Cushman. That's

24:28in the ordinance.

24:29>> Okay.

24:30>> Well, then we then we if that if that's

24:31something that's that's Yeah, that's not

24:33the intent. That's something that could

24:34be, you know, tweaked.

24:37Um

24:38Again, the you know, especially for

24:40Cushman,

24:41um

24:42you know, we don't want, you know, seven

24:44stories from the the top of Cushman Ave.

24:46That's not the intent.

24:47>> And I think that's what Frank's saying.

24:49You could divide this You have colors in

24:51here, but you could also color this in

24:54different different

24:56colors so that you you come in downsize

24:59it as you work your way to Adam Street.

25:02I think that's what he's saying.

25:04So,

25:05>> well, Adam Street is housing property.

25:08So, between between Constitution and

25:10Cushman, that's all housing development.

25:13The the buffer as you go up Adam Street,

25:16you you still have those light blue um

25:19housing authority buildings, and you

25:21still have even on the purple ones on

25:22the on the back left towards towards

25:24Lincoln and and is it Clover over there?

25:26Um townhouse style units over there is a

25:28buffer as well. And and on the flatter

25:31side kind of at the top of of Cushman

25:33towards the Wayland school,

25:34um you have again lower

25:37uh two, three-story buildings and not

25:40>> No, you do. That's what you're showing.

25:42What you're asking for though is the

25:4385-ft height limit.

25:46And that's a blanket.

25:48That's a blanket on all your colors.

25:51>> Well,

25:56>> that's some of the advice that we got

25:58from um

26:00from our planners was rather than get

26:02too picky with subdistricts to to go the

26:05blanket strategy because we could still

26:08control what was built and that it'd be

26:10simpler than if we're off by just a

26:13little bit, but I but I also think if

26:17you're reacting to 85 and seven, that

26:20would be helpful to hear versus reacting

26:23to to placement of taller buildings. One

26:25is the a little bit different

26:27conversations if that makes sense. Um

26:29>> If you're going by the Seattle plan and

26:31you look at the Seattle plan that they

26:33mostly built, they don't go seven and

26:36eight stories. They go five five and six

26:38probably. And that's the plan that you

26:40recognize that you said you're going by.

26:43The Seattle plan is not 85-ft buildings.

26:46>> But what I said was the financing part

26:48of it. I didn't say that they also have

26:49a

26:51professional soccer stadium in the

26:52middle of it and a healthcare facility

26:53in the middle of it, too. But it was the

26:55the financial structure of the way they

26:58did it as opposed to going with a with a

27:00strictly public private entity and with

27:03with land leases, we felt the better

27:05bang for the for the housing authority

27:07in the city was to sell the property

27:09instead of in in getting more tax

27:12revenue that way

27:13than it was to to

27:16uh develop it with land leases. So,

27:18while I referred to the the Seattle um

27:22development, it was strictly on

27:25on the financial aspect of it and not so

27:28much their exact detail because they're

27:31you know, they're in a different place,

27:32right? They're they're downtown Seattle,

27:34right? They're able to do different

27:35things over there.

27:37Um they created a lot denser um

27:40space, too, with what they had there. Uh

27:43and that's not what we're looking for.

27:44We're looking for a mix, a balance here.

27:46We're not to We're not here to cram as

27:48many uh units as possible into

27:51>> mind me asking, who who is doing this

27:52site plan for you?

27:54>> Stantec Engineering.

27:56>> Are you still engaged with them or is

27:58they are they paid off already?

27:59>> No, we're still engaged with them.

28:01>> Would it be Would it be hard to come up

28:03with

28:04a a height limitation as Frank is asking

28:06for, starting from the Broadway and then

28:09working way your way down? Even though

28:11you're Revere Housing and you're

28:13representing Revere, things happen.

28:15Things happen uh

28:16I mean, you could turn into a BHA.

28:19You ever go before the BHA for approval

28:22in Boston?

28:23>> No.

28:24>> Yeah, what an exciting time that is.

28:26>> Yeah, fun.

28:28>> I think no understanding a little bit

28:30about their process and I

28:33I think it is um

28:36a different, maybe more manageable ask

28:39to look at lowering the blanket

28:43um

28:44height dimensions to a degree

28:47than

28:48rethinking

28:51where the relatively taller buildings

28:53and where the relatively shorter

28:55buildings are. That's uh that's more

28:57retooling almost back back to the That

29:00runs the risk of back to the drawing

29:01board.

29:02>> So

29:02>> I would think this that I've I'm I'm not

29:04opposed to to going from like a seven to

29:08a to a five.

29:10Um what I what I do want to clarify at

29:14some point is that the

29:18that the the story height from the top

29:20of Cushman is the one that because they

29:21think we have to get uh very specific in

29:23the language they have because because

29:25our intent isn't to go uh seven or eight

29:27stories from the top of Cushman. But

29:29again, we don't want to say we're only

29:30going to go five stories and then and

29:32then have it still be five stories up

29:34there. We're we're we're working with

29:35you on that one. So we want to have a

29:36better better

29:36>> There's an example I'm sorry. There's an

29:38example right now right next to uh the

29:41Kontiki Lounge. What's that building

29:43called? It's uh

29:44The Rider. The Rider building. And if

29:47you start off on the Boulevard

29:49you're at one height. When you go to

29:51Ocean Ave in the back

29:52you're at down two stories. So there's a

29:55building and it's a nice looking

29:56building and it's on the ocean. It's a

29:58different effect here than overlooking a

30:00school overlooking other single single

30:03that are one one and two family homes.

30:05It's different. It's made for the ocean

30:07and the design is quite nice. But you

30:10can go by there and you count the

30:11stories in the front and I believe it's

30:14five. You go back to to the back of it

30:17on Ocean Ave and it's seven. That's your

30:19example on Cushman Ave. You're at one

30:22height but when you come to the to the

30:24bottom of Cooler Street you're at a

30:25lower height. You're going to get

30:27another two or three stories there cuz

30:29the height is measured from from

30:32uh Cushman. You'll have the same thing

30:34that's happening at Revere Beach with

30:36that example.

30:38So, I'm not opposed then if if that's

30:40the the thing to to, you know, tighten

30:42it up and and and drop it. I just want I

30:44don't want any

30:45>> Well, I agree with the

30:47uh uh

30:48reducing the height to five stories.

30:51That's comparable

30:53the the height restriction is on

30:54Broadway, uh general business district,

30:57is five stories.

30:58And what I'm looking for

31:01in more detail is

31:03uh a height

31:04setback

31:06that we have uh

31:08from certain streets. So, you you take

31:12you take Adam Street or you take the

31:14side streets that abut your property

31:16uh from Cushman. Say, the taller

31:19buildings have buildings within 100 ft

31:22of Cushman can't exceed

31:24say five four stories or something like

31:26that. And then you go higher as you go

31:28further away from Cushman and further

31:31away from

31:32I think it's Mountain Ave is the next

31:34closest street.

31:35>> Yes, we got Proctor and Mountain Ave.

31:37>> Yeah.

31:38>> Yeah.

31:39>> So

31:39>> So, it's a it's a

31:42It's a dimensional control that controls

31:43the height of the buildings from

31:44distance is from the boundaries of the

31:46property.

31:48And that's I think what we're getting

31:49at. We did something similar to that

31:51with Suffolk Downs from the setback from

31:53Washburn Ave.

31:55Cuz you had residential single

31:56two-family homes on Washburn Ave across

31:58the street is Suffolk.

32:00>> If I may

32:02>> Yeah, you go for it.

32:03>> What is allowed by the building codes in

32:05the city?

32:07>> What is allowed by the building code?

32:08>> height in that area.

32:10>> Well,

32:11zoning in that area now is 35 ft.

32:14>> 35 ft?

32:15>> Yeah.

32:15>> What and what we're proposing here is to

32:17rezone the property, right? I I think

32:20few things. We just Northgate Road we

32:22just approved. What's that? 16 stories,

32:24right? That's

32:25Yeah.

32:26>> Not yet.

32:27>> Well, that's but that's what's in front

32:28of us, right? And this is a project here

32:31that's going to be in six or seven

32:33phases. This project is going to be done

32:34in 2045.

32:36Right? So, I think we're going to have

32:38to be somewhat forward-looking as to

32:40what we're going to be approving in the

32:42next 15 years. The height of those I'm

32:45not saying five, seven, whatever it is

32:47before us, but I do think it's something

32:49where um

32:51Let's face it. We don't have a lot of

32:52land left in Revere other than this. Any

32:54building that's going to be happening in

32:55Revere in the next foreseeable future is

32:57going to be going up. There's nowhere

32:59left to go sideways or filling gaps. So,

33:02I think um

33:03we we have to have an open mind into the

33:04height of it. I I do agree it it's in a

33:07kind of a a valley of of sorts. So, it's

33:10the only and I if I understood you

33:12right, the people that are going to be

33:14in the shadows of these taller buildings

33:16are Revere Housing Property buildings uh

33:19for the most part assuming that's that's

33:20the layout. So, um you know, whatever we

33:23come up with we come up with. I do think

33:25what's going to happen and you guys all

33:26know this, the market rate once that

33:28gets sold to private developers, they're

33:30going to come to us looking for 9,000 ft

33:33high and no parking and everything else

33:35under the sun. So, I think um you know,

33:38whatever we approve these guys for we

33:40it's also going to kind of be the the

33:42baseline and the benchmark for what

33:44these private developers come to us for.

33:46They're going to be looking to go just

33:47as high if not higher. So, I think, you

33:50know, be be sensitive to that. Give

33:51these guys whatever leeway we we feel is

33:54appropriate for for city property, but

33:57uh the the market rate ones are going to

33:59That's going to be the the smart growth

34:01>> district establishes the height. So,

34:03they

34:04they

34:05can't

34:06uh stagger from that. So, the height if

34:09we have the height at five stories, 50

34:12ft, that's the max it can go to

34:15without getting relief from the the ZBA

34:18or the site plan review committee.

34:20>> What I wanted to better understand was

34:22if there is a reduction in height of any

34:25of the buildings and I don't expect you

34:27to have this number off the top of your

34:28head, what does that mean as far as the

34:31the numeric availability for affordable

34:34housing, for elderly housing?

34:36Market rate is a totally separate thing,

34:38right? But I think those numbers really

34:40matter for our residents.

34:42>> So, I think I think in that regard, the

34:44height of the buildings from a housing

34:46authority standpoint

34:47affects two things.

34:50Our buildings, the housing authority

34:51buildings, we don't anticipate going

34:52over five stories. The benefit of going

34:55up higher would be for the return on the

34:58the money that we could get for selling

35:00the the land to reinvest into the

35:02property. And it also is is from the

35:05from the city standpoint, it's a tax

35:07revenue, right? So, so it's additional

35:09taxes from the market rate that would go

35:10to the city. So, you'd be eliminating

35:13that. But again, that's if if that's

35:16again, not married to the height because

35:18again, it's it's not really affecting it

35:20affects some numbers that we'd have to,

35:22you know, figure out on on the housing

35:23authority redevelopment standpoint.

35:26But I think the the bigger issue or the

35:27bigger takeaway is it would reduce the

35:30the taxes on the rent roll for the city.

35:31>> Well, my priority is also the number of

35:33units, right? We want as many people

35:35housed as possible. So,

35:37there there are definitely more pieces

35:39to this.

35:42But I also wanted to give the other

35:43proponent a chance to speak to this

35:45tonight. Oh, yes.

35:47>> We're ready? Okay.

35:48>> Hey, before Travis is up, do you know

35:49how tall are the towers in Beachmont?

35:53>> Oh,

35:54um

35:54nine stories. Yeah, um Beachmont.

35:57>> What towers are you talking about?

35:58>> The the Revere Housing Authority towers.

35:59>> stories, six and seven stories. Dolphin

36:02Avenue and then Heimann Towers is is 11.

36:04>> Got you. 11 stories at Ocean.

36:06>> It's good context. Thank you.

36:08>> Yeah.

36:11>> Good evening. Um my name is Travis

36:13Halpert, 10 Leonard Road, Revere,

36:14Massachusetts.

36:16Um

36:17I am a voting member of East Coast

36:20International Church at 19 Coolidge

36:21Street. So, we're a direct abutter.

36:24Um I was on the launch team um in 2017

36:28renovations and into 18 um as a church

36:31incubator space. So, you know, we're

36:33direct neighbors here.

36:35Um the whole reason I moved to Revere

36:36was falling in love with with that

36:38neighborhood and community um in Revere

36:41itself.

36:42Um so, I'm just a major proponent

36:44because I think that that mixed-use

36:46development is one of the things that

36:49that helps a community and a society and

36:52people sociologically.

36:54I you know, Revere is below, you know,

36:57it's at the 7%, right? And and the more

36:59that they add on the margins, right?

37:02Overlook and Fenno Street, um

37:06tries to battle that number, but then

37:07development brings it back up and we

37:09keep seeing this thing.

37:10And and as I advocate for affordable

37:12housing in the city of Revere, the

37:15constituents, there's a lot of pushback.

37:17And I think part of it is because we

37:19have the housing projects and it's one

37:22area, one people group, one income, and

37:25it's those people, right? And and I'm

37:27not not trying to quote anybody, but I'm

37:30just saying like that happens a lot,

37:31that mindset. And when we have

37:33mixed-use,

37:34that's not those people, that's my

37:36neighbor. That's my best friend. Oh,

37:38they they dog sit for me like and you

37:41know, you get a better society out of

37:42that and we would also be able to get

37:45um

37:46more flexibility with the community, a

37:49better understanding of what affordable

37:50housing is, what low-income housing is,

37:52and what it is and what it isn't. Um

37:56and uh so I'm just I'm a huge proponent

37:58of this because I think that the the

37:59market rate in the mixed-use has a has

38:01an opportunity to give people

38:04um of of a lower income class

38:06opportunity as well by rubbing shoulders

38:08and oh wow, I financial literacy has not

38:10been a thing in my family for three

38:12generations. Now I just met someone who

38:13can teach me some things. Um and I think

38:16it's just better for uh people that are

38:18in the neighborhood and this is like a

38:20dream come true

38:22uh for what I would want for that. Well,

38:23there's been so many times where

38:25unfortunately we've had to kick the kids

38:26off of the the church property playing

38:28because we have the door open to invite

38:30guests who are late to come in

38:32um and they're treating the grounds like

38:34a playground, which is great. We want

38:36kids to be kids, but we tell them it's

38:38not a playground and then we don't but

38:39we don't have one. Um and so you know,

38:42there's been obviously some upgrades

38:43over the years um to that area and the

38:46basketball court and stuff like that,

38:48but seeing kids run down Cushman, which

38:50needs that giant speed bump in order to

38:52slow people down, kids are walking all

38:54the way to the Wayland to to have

38:55somewhere to play. I think that having a

38:57community in this space is amazing and

39:00it is further spread than, you know, the

39:03rest of the area where where some some

39:05parts of the city

39:06are as dense as Chelsea, you know, and

39:08and this has a lot of space. Um, I I I

39:11do hear what you're saying about and I

39:13don't know if it's possible to have a

39:14gradients or to just say 5 ft

39:1850 ft from Cushman is five stories and

39:21then that gives you the the seven below

39:23or what the language might need to be.

39:25And also, you know, understanding that

39:26when it comes to a master plan like, you

39:29know, they can be adopted just like our

39:30housing production plan is, but they

39:32can't become certified um, until other

39:34things happen. So,

39:36but I'm just a major proponent of this.

39:38I I I love the vision for it. Um, and

39:41and honestly, I I appreciate Frank here,

39:43uh, guarding against, you know, when it

39:46does come to market rate and what people

39:48are going to ask for if the district

39:50allows for that, well, then people are

39:52going to build as high as they can to to

39:54to to have their margins, right? And so,

39:56we we do need to have some sort of

39:58protective language there, not just, um,

40:01you know, only for the community and as

40:04part of this project and and what's

40:05happening,

40:06uh, but in case somebody does come and

40:08be like, "Oh, well, I see seven

40:10stories." And so, they start seven

40:11stories from Cushman and all of a sudden

40:14you got nine down, you know, down in in

40:16Coolidge or, you know, where Adams is

40:18now, but I just appreciate you guys, uh,

40:20hearing this and all of the work that's

40:22gone into this over the years.

40:24Um, and and, you know, 40R 40R beats 40B

40:28any day. And and I've been wondering if

40:30if that's going to start happening uh,

40:32in Revere. There's going to be a lot of

40:3340B builds because it's below, you know,

40:35because it's at 10% 7% affordable right

40:38now. Um, and and so, I love this and I I

40:41think the last night at the meeting with

40:44the city council, it was uh, there's up

40:46to like a $600,000 award

40:49that could be given to the city and

40:50there's also awards per unit, thousands

40:53of dollars per extra unit created. So

40:56this would be great for the city as

40:57well. But I appreciate you guys hearing

40:59me

41:00and hearing this project and as somebody

41:02who's been a direct butter

41:04intimate with this neighborhood I

41:06I just I can't speak highly enough of of

41:08the work that's gone into it and how I

41:10see it. And you guys are doing great

41:12work here tonight. So thank you.

41:13>> Thank you, Travis.

41:14>> Thank you very much.

41:17>> I think we're we're basically on the

41:19same page. We just have to find a way

41:22to to better lay this out so

41:25the denser buildings, taller buildings

41:28more concentrated towards the center of

41:29the RHA property and not on the fringes

41:32of the property.

41:34But to do that you have to have

41:37dimensional controls and setbacks from

41:40certain

41:41boundaries such as

41:43Cushman Avenue and Mountain Avenue and

41:45Broadway and into the north I think

41:48that's us

41:51Which street do you butt on the north

41:53there? Right right in your backyard.

41:55It's

41:56Glover Street, yeah.

41:59So we got to work our way in from those

42:01areas to transition this development and

42:04and get the density that you want.

42:07But it doesn't conflict with the

42:08neighborhood and everybody lives

42:10harmoniously together.

42:15I know you wouldn't want it any other

42:16way but we got to ensure that that

42:18happens.

42:32You guys are going to have to go to the

42:34microphone to speak cuz they they want

42:35to hear.

42:36>> And do you want to address that

42:38question? For the market rate buildings

42:40I I can see clearly for the Revere

42:42Housing Authority buildings where the

42:43parking is market rate. Is that intended

42:44to be under building parking?

42:48>> Some.

42:49>> You you need the mic to be hot, but

42:51yeah.

42:56>> As it goes, of course, my glass on the

42:58top of my head, right?

43:06>> There it is.

43:07>> Yeah.

43:09So,

43:10I think there's a mix of parking spaces

43:13within those buildings, and uh it

43:15depends on whether or not the the

43:17developer would find podium-style

43:20building uh feasible over there. I think

43:22that's what it comes down to. Um

43:26>> And you mix use buildings with

43:28commercial on the first floor, then

43:30residential above, have to be

43:31concentrated to the main thoroughfare in

43:34the center.

43:35You're not going to have those

43:35buildings, you know, on the outskirts of

43:37the

43:37>> I'm sorry, where is the main

43:39thoroughfare? Is that Coolidge Street

43:41you're talking about, or are you talking

43:43I'm going to say that's uh east to west,

43:46Coolidge, I believe. Are you talking not

43:48to sell, like Adams, or

43:51Which one is the main thoroughfare? Is

43:52it Coolidge?

43:53>> It would have to be Coolidge, yeah.

43:55>> So, that's where the commercial

43:56buildings would be?

43:58>> Well, the purple style are more your

43:59market rate, the light blue and the the

44:02teal are the River Housing Authority

44:03ones. We didn't want to segregate the

44:05property, um so you had, you know,

44:08affordable over here and market rate

44:09over here, because it kind of um defeats

44:11the purpose of having that mixed income

44:13and that integration that that we were

44:15looking for. So, we we kind of have what

44:17we call it the like a patchwork of of a

44:20market rate and affordable housing in

44:22there. Um but the the primary, uh as you

44:25can see, and Coolidge goes all the way

44:27through, the the market rate buildings,

44:30for the most part, are budding

44:32uh Coolidge

44:34>> rate?

44:34>> or or Adams.

44:37>> Yeah, not this one, but that's on the

44:39main thoroughfare.

44:44>> So,

44:45>> Yes, I'm wondering if the thorough- I'm

44:47wondering if this map helps with the

44:49conversation on thoroughfare, just

44:52because it speaks to a little bit

44:54there's um like a multi-use path.

44:57Coolage would be a little bit more multi

44:59a lot more multi-modal than it is right

45:01now.

45:02Um but there would still be access

45:04across these other roads.

45:05>> Just just and I'm sure Frank knows this

45:08uh

45:10I'm looking at

45:11the table that you have just say for a

45:13retail space

45:15and for retail space and then you have

45:17for parking

45:20your parking ratio is higher

45:22than most surrounding neighborhoods.

45:25Most surrounding neighborhoods that

45:26average at 180 square feet for a parking

45:28spot.

45:29Uh

45:31at least for one space. Yours is at 200.

45:34Even though it's only 20 but

45:36I I don't know the reason why. I I don't

45:38know why you would be compatible but

45:40um parking

45:43would for that

45:45commercial space is very hot but it's

45:47also

45:48people want it. They they want to

45:50propose. They want mixed use and I and I

45:53believe in it. That I think the days of

45:55just making everything

45:57uh one and two family or just

45:59residential and not having a mixed use

46:02is

46:03it's it's not the way of

46:05as you say the

46:07as the future. It's a European way and

46:09it's something that I think the Romans

46:11invented it and that that that is ideal

46:13and it still works to this day. Uh no

46:16matter where you go that you need a

46:18little commercial space in there.

46:20Uh but you just need to get

46:22parking there.

46:24I don't know if I don't know if you're

46:25too stringent on the parking or if you

46:27just need to open it up a little.

46:29>> These These were parking dimensions that

46:31we went over with

46:31>> These were parking dimensions that that

46:33we went over with the city planners and

46:35with our own uh consultants between the

46:37the Cambridge Housing Authority is also

46:39a consultant of ours who's redeveloped

46:41almost their entire portfolio and with

46:43Stantec Engineering. Um and and the wave

46:47of of new development is to limit

46:48parking spaces and to force people into

46:50being commuters. That's the that's the

46:52way they work in in Southie. That's the

46:54way they work it on Shirley Ave. Um and

46:57and it's to to get people to use the

46:59public transportation more. And

47:01>> know if you have a park in Salty. You

47:03can either park by the curb and stay

47:05there from Labor Day to 4th of July, or

47:07you can park in the second spot outside

47:09the curb, or you can park out in the

47:11third spot. So

47:13Right, [laughter] but

47:14>> And right and in the South End, though,

47:16um

47:17they've they've I think they were the

47:19ones that initially came up with the the

47:20new developments in restricting uh

47:22parking just like we do on Shirley Ave.

47:24I mean, the the purpose there is when

47:26when people

47:27um

47:28you know, when they go to develop, when

47:30they go to rent, then they know exactly

47:32what's what when it comes to parking,

47:34when it comes to expectations.

47:36>> So, it's a consistent with the overlay

47:37districts.

47:39>> I just think we have more work to do on

47:40the dimensional controls here to

47:42establish something that's workable,

47:44viable, and looks good.

47:46>> On the

47:47landmark units, all right, all

47:49buildings,

47:51all of them are going to have retail

47:52space on the bottom?

47:54>> We can't guarantee that. We'd like to

47:56see that, but we can't guarantee it.

47:59Cuz we're selling it to a developer that

48:01will develop the property.

48:02>> it'd be in the proposal for the zoning,

48:04right, Frank? For more commercial.

48:05>> to have mixed-use

48:06>> You'd be allowed. Yeah.

48:07>> Correct.

48:08>> That's all we can do. We can't tell what

48:10store we want or what color they want.

48:12You just open it up for the retail, you

48:14open it up for the commercial.

48:15>> And where those mixed-use buildings

48:17would be situated within

48:20>> Yes.

48:20>> district.

48:21>> And I I think that's exactly where they

48:22have to go with this.

48:25>> So, I I

48:26personally myself, I think

48:28it'd be good for the city for the

48:29revenue. I think we can all agree on

48:31that.

48:33I I think the question would be on like

48:35Frank mentioned, how high they they can

48:38go, and

48:38>> Mike, please.

48:39Mike, please.

48:40>> Obviously, parking.

48:42>> Mike, your

48:42>> Your mic is on.

48:44>> Yeah.

48:45>> Are you close enough to your notes now?

48:47>> I don't know if they are.

48:48>> There you go.

48:48>> hear you.

48:50>> Yeah, so like I said, and obviously

48:54we need more housings. I believe that's

48:56that's that's the problem in here to us

48:58well.

49:01>> So, the next step is you have the zoning

49:03subcommittee.

49:05When is that going to be?

49:06>> I don't think he told us last night, so

49:09I don't think they're we're on yet, but

49:11>> Um, so what will come out of this is a

49:14report from the planning board with

49:15their recommendation to the city

49:17council.

49:18And it'll go to the zoning subcommittee.

49:21>> Um, just one more question, Dean. As of

49:23right now, who who's the developer? Do

49:24you know?

49:25>> The housing authority for the housing

49:27authority units right now.

49:28It'll change maybe when we have light

49:31tech financing or federal funding,

49:34um, but right now the housing authority

49:35is is the developer.

49:38Um, and there's there's good reason for

49:40that. Again, we'd we'd want to

49:42sell it to the private people in the

49:44private sites,

49:46um, so they can they can build more at

49:48at better prices than if we were

49:49involved in it.

49:51Um, when a public entity gets involved,

49:53the the numbers go sky high.

49:55Um, so

49:58>> Well, we need to produce a plan that the

49:59surrounding neighborhood can embrace.

50:02You know, right now with a

50:03with an 85 ft

50:05blanket height, I I can't see the

50:07neighborhood embracing this.

50:10I think we have to do more work in that,

50:12fine tune this.

50:13>> So, has the has the neighborhood been

50:15receptive so far to your knowledge?

50:17>> Yeah.

50:18>> It's fabulous.

50:19>> I haven't heard any negative Should I

50:21come to the mic?

50:22>> Yes, please.

50:23>> Thank you.

50:25>> Yeah, I haven't heard I haven't heard

50:27any negative feedback.

50:29Honestly, I still go to birthday parties

50:32in the neighborhood and all kinds of

50:33other stuff with families and I I

50:36haven't I haven't heard anything. Um,

50:39yeah. I I do know that

50:42you know, some of one of the factors is

50:45going to be that people are going to

50:47have to adjust from basically having

50:48sort of a townhouse like a basement, a

50:51upstairs bedroom in the a single like a

50:54three floor dwelling,

50:56um,

50:57to accommodate the housing

50:59crisis that we have in the state and in

51:00the city as well.

51:02So, that will be one adjustment that I'm

51:04sure people won't, you know, might not

51:05be too comfortable with, right? Um

51:09but I haven't heard

51:11to answer your question directly. No, I

51:12haven't got any negative feedback about

51:14this project or proposal.

51:16>> Thank you.

51:16>> Let me just ask aside from the city

51:18council presentation, has there been any

51:21presentations to the surrounding

51:22neighborhood or community meetings?

51:26>> So, we held

51:28we held a community meeting at the

51:30Whalen School, the SBA,

51:32a few months ago and invited the the

51:34general population of the entire city to

51:35come.

51:36And it's funny.

51:38I too was concerned about the building

51:40height. Um

51:43and and they did ask me about the

51:44building height, but not for the reasons

51:46that we were thinking of.

51:48They weren't concerned that you know, I

51:50would I gave my spiel it'd only be a few

51:52few stories up on Cushman

51:55and and it'll be you know, five stories

51:56on Coolidge. They were worried that that

51:59on the market rate units,

52:02the people that approached me of who

52:04would be renting those units in there as

52:07opposed to the actual height of the

52:09building because I say they kept asking

52:11me how big how big they were. And when I

52:13explained it to them when I was trying

52:14to give my, you know, spiel about the

52:17Cushman app, well, we don't care about

52:19how we just worried about people being,

52:21you know, renting in in big giant

52:23buildings having families and things

52:24like that in there. And that was from

52:26not from our residents, but from the the

52:28people that was surrounding there that

52:29came to the the local meeting. I was

52:31actually surprised at that too. Um but

52:34no, again, we we agree that we don't

52:36want a seven-story facade

52:38facing Cushman and I'm sure we can drop

52:40the appropriate language to to make that

52:42right. We we took a lot of time meeting

52:44with a lot of people

52:46to make sure that we did have that kind

52:48of buffer zone around there and and I

52:49think we'll be all right.

52:51And and to to talk about that, you know,

52:54kind of that bowl that we're in

52:56Look, we you have the Prospect Senior

52:58Living Center at the top of uh Proctor,

53:01which is what, like three stories maybe?

53:03And when you're standing down at the

53:05bottom of Adams Court, nobody's looking

53:06up going, "Boy, that's that that's so

53:08tall."

53:09Um just because of the way the the

53:11topography kind of goes down like that.

53:13>> [clears throat]

53:14>> And that that pole system.

53:15Um but again, it's something that I

53:17think it's fair to address and and we're

53:19open to do so.

53:21>> Thank you.

53:24>> One other thing

53:25I want to bring up and I'm sure you're

53:27all aware of this. I mean,

53:29the current density of the area is

53:31serviced by

53:34uh

53:35water, sewer, and drainage,

53:38which is

53:39substandard. We're doing our best to

53:41upgrade those systems, but when you

53:42increase the the density of the of the

53:44RHA property to this extent, uh you're

53:47talking about

53:49uh

53:50great upgrades to to our water system,

53:52sewer system, and drainage system in

53:54that area.

53:55And again, that cost is going to be

53:57borne by the the developer.

53:59>> Which way is everything flowing? Is it

54:01flowing

54:03down Broadway towards Chelsea, or is it

54:06>> Yeah, the sewer line

54:08>> Or is it down by uh

54:09>> ties into Broadway

54:10and out

54:11>> American Legion?

54:13>> down to Harris Street and out to the uh

54:16MWR

54:17MWRA pump station in Chelsea.

54:19>> How much has to be increased, Frank?

54:21>> Oh, I don't know. They'd have to do a

54:22hydraulic study and uh based on the

54:25density and how many additional bedrooms

54:27are going to be adding

54:28there, and uh do the same thing with the

54:31with the water system. Hydraulic study.

54:34Locations for hydrants and and

54:36>> What's the water pressure down there?

54:38Any idea?

54:38>> I I don't know. It's a It should be at

54:4060, but I'm not sure what it what it is.

54:42I don't I don't know if you've had any

54:43complaints. No.

54:45>> Well, if you had if you have a 60- or

54:4770-story building, as you're saying, if

54:50you increase the height, would those

54:51buildings get They'll have to have a

54:53water storage on the roof? Probably.

54:55>> No, they they would have That's that's

54:57another thing. They mean you you have to

54:59design it for fire flow to these

55:01buildings. The most again fire flows, so

55:03it's not just

55:04>> Everything's going going sprinkled on

55:05the roof.

55:06>> It's going to be sprinkled. Anything,

55:07you know, over three units

55:09>> Yeah.

55:09>> is sprinkled.

55:11That's a

55:12>> It's premature for that, though.

55:13>> Yeah.

55:13>> We're talking about the the master plan.

55:15It's premature for that.

55:18>> So, once the last time of the site plan

55:20review process, we talk about

55:21>> the last time the water lines and the

55:23sewer lines were

55:24were increased that would be going down

55:27Broadway, right? More or less.

55:29>> Yeah, I mean, over the years there's

55:31been there's been improvements, but when

55:34I don't know how far out they've been

55:36projected in terms of demand. When

55:38you're adding these many more units to

55:39that system,

55:41a new model has to be done to determine

55:43the size of the lines.

55:45>> And the city would be at that cost?

55:47>> Uh

55:49most likely, yeah.

55:51>> All the way to

55:52Deer Island or to McClellan Highway?

55:55>> No, just to a to the to the main trunk

55:57lines.

55:59Mhm.

56:00>> It's in It's in back of Taft, right?

56:03And then I think it branches off where

56:05uh

56:06where

56:07uh it'd be Revere going into East Boston

56:09on uh American Legion. I think

56:11>> about? Sewer sewer system?

56:13>> I think there's a connection over there.

56:15>> Yeah, well, we're working with Suffolk

56:16Downs to put a new pump station in that

56:18would not only handle Suffolk Downs, but

56:20also

56:21uh portions of Boston and Revere.

56:25>> Suffolk Downs is how many acres?

56:27>> Oh, I would say 90 acres.

56:30>> And this is 40 acres.

56:32>> Yeah.

56:33>> Do you think there'd be a pump station

56:34required here either for water or for

56:36sewer?

56:38>> Possibly, yeah. We'll have to see.

56:43>> So, it's going to as he as my uh

56:47as he says, you're going to have to make

56:49it look attractive to a developer who's

56:51going to come in here. Pump station,

56:53water station, new sewage.

56:55He's not going to do it for one or two

56:57family house.

56:59>> Understood.

56:59>> Well, I think we're giving them 700

57:01units is the

57:03you know, we're going to add 400 to the

57:05Revere

57:06um units under management and then

57:08another seven

57:09and change that would be up for grabs to

57:11someone to come in and develop assuming

57:13that it's

57:14that the footprint that proposed in

57:16front of us is granted.

57:17>> If we came up to 60 ft Frank, would that

57:20our recommendation with that

57:24>> Um

57:24>> in some areas near Broadway

57:26>> 60 ft

57:28Yeah.

57:29>> Surely Ave at six stories there's no

57:31total building.

57:32>> Yeah, you're

57:33you're you're right there so I'm just

57:35bringing it down a little bit.

57:38>> She's got a good point.

57:40If the city is okay with it it surely

57:41have.

57:42>> Yeah.

57:42>> And it it gives more housing. It's

57:45future looking.

57:45>> Yeah, Shirley Ave is also

57:47a lot of the three level homes, three

57:50family homes where this particular

57:51community here is

57:53still

57:54significantly single and two family

57:56homes.

57:56>> I don't know if you've been up on the 60

57:58ft uh Imac and Shirley Ave

58:01but if if you're facing the right way

58:03you do have an ocean view.

58:04>> Yeah,

58:05so I'm coming from the sixth floor.

58:07>> So

58:08Are you do you want to see the ocean on

58:10cooler jam? Is that what you're going

58:11for?

58:12>> why from [laughter] my from my office we

58:13have a a camera that looks down cooler

58:16street and I can see Hyman Towers which

58:17is like 11 stories on on and many of our

58:20residents on at the Walnut Street

58:21property from the fourth story up have

58:24panoramic views of of the ocean on one

58:26side the Encore on the backside sunset

58:28sunrise and so so and then you know not

58:31to

58:32go too far ahead we're looking to

58:34do something at our 110 112 Shirley Ave

58:36property where there's two three

58:37families

58:39and under that overlay district knock

58:41those down and and hopefully put up a a

58:43five to to six story building you know

58:46depending on on what we can do for

58:48financing and where we are with that

58:50and that that'll probably

58:52sooner rather than later.

58:53>> It was always said that if you had to

58:54pick a place in in Revere with

58:57with a no flooding, an ocean view, no

59:00airplane noise and close to

59:02transportation it's Shirley Ave.

59:05Uh they they they don't have a lot of

59:07the problems that some of the other

59:08neighborhoods do have. But

59:11Oh I think that's a worthwhile project.

59:13That sounds very nice.

59:15>> Mike, what do we got to do tonight to to

59:17get this moving?

59:18>> It closes the hearing tonight.

59:19>> from any opponents, right? So, we're all

59:22set with that side. Thank you very much.

59:26Are there any opponents here to speak on

59:28this to this evening?

59:31Hearing seeing none. We're ready for a

59:33vote?

59:35>> Well, we go into our regular meeting.

59:37And um

59:40First order of business, the approval of

59:42the previous meeting minutes.

59:44>> Motion to approve.

59:46>> Which meetings are those?

59:47>> The last meeting we had.

59:49>> That is Nashua Road, right?

59:53>> Yeah, that includes Nashua Road.

59:55>> And do we have an approval on on that

59:57pending?

59:59>> I know I do have to approve those

1:00:00meeting those minutes for that meeting.

1:00:04>> Are they coming back here?

1:00:06>> No.

1:00:08No.

1:00:09>> And

1:00:10>> With the planning board report, it's

1:00:12goes in as part of the record.

1:00:15>> Um I know we had different I

1:00:18I know we had as as a panel, we had

1:00:21different recommendations. I I believe

1:00:23they were in the minutes. Is that

1:00:24correct?

1:00:25>> a long It was a long list of

1:00:27>> But I don't think any I don't think one

1:00:29was chosen when they went to the next

1:00:31step.

1:00:32>> Yeah.

1:00:33So, basically verbatim

1:00:36that was included in the minutes.

1:00:38>> Okay. All right. Thank you.

1:00:41>> So.

1:00:42So, we didn't get an answer on the

1:00:45request.

1:00:47>> [snorts]

1:00:47>> It's documented.

1:00:49>> Is that correct?

1:00:50>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:00:51I mean, the last stop is site plan

1:00:54review.

1:00:55So,

1:00:57those conditions will be

1:00:59part of the site plan review

1:01:01report.

1:01:04>> Okay. Okay.

1:01:06>> All right. Sorry. Thank you.

1:01:07>> Approve the minutes.

1:01:07>> Yes.

1:01:08>> Yes.

1:01:11>> Now, we can go on. Uh

1:01:13this is the vote on the recommendation

1:01:14to the city council with respect to the

1:01:16creation of the Coolidge Street Smart

1:01:18Growth Overlay District.

1:01:24So, do you want a motion that uh

1:01:27the review planning board recommend

1:01:29approval

1:01:31for a Smart Growth Overlay District

1:01:34subject to the following zoning and

1:01:36building height restrictions. Would that

1:01:38be okay?

1:01:39>> Yeah.

1:01:39>> If we put down that the maximum

1:01:41permitted height

1:01:43uh for designated areas would be no

1:01:46higher than 60 ft.

1:01:48And no

1:01:51no building

1:01:52within the proposed overlay district

1:01:53shall exceed a 60

1:01:56ft in height

1:01:58structure.

1:02:00And that the zoning ordinance shall

1:02:02clearly identify the applicable height

1:02:04limitations

1:02:06and establish appropriate transition

1:02:08surrounding a residential neighborhood.

1:02:11Is that okay?

1:02:12>> Sounds good.

1:02:15>> Do you have a second?

1:02:17>> Second.

1:02:22>> On the motion

1:02:24uh Mr. Abrams.

1:02:26>> Yes.

1:02:27>> Mr. Casenza is absent. Ms. Hoffman is

1:02:30absent. Mr. Rivera.

1:02:32>> Yes.

1:02:33>> Ms. Simmons-Hurley.

1:02:34>> Yes.

1:02:35>> Mr. Stamatopoulos.

1:02:38>> Yes.

1:02:38>> Yes. Mr. Sullivan is absent.

1:02:41Okay. Vote is awarded that will go into

1:02:43the report to the city council.

1:02:46>> All right.

1:02:47>> I move to

1:02:47>> There is no further business before the

1:02:49board. So,

1:02:50>> Motion to adjourn.

1:02:51>> Motion to adjourn.

1:02:53Thank you very much for appearing.

1:02:55>> Thank you, sir.

1:03:30>> Mhm.