2026-08-05 - Planning Board

0:00All right. Uh, we'll get started. Good

0:02evening everybody and welcome to the

0:04Wednesday, August 5th, 2026 meeting of

0:06the city of Worcester Planning Board. My

0:08name is Albert Lavali and I'll chair

0:10tonight's meeting. Uh, before we begin,

0:12a couple brief announcements concerning

0:14how our meeting typically proceeds.

0:16First, this is a hybrid meeting, which

0:18means you can participate both in person

0:20here at city hall or by going online to

0:22worcestermath.zoomv.com/j161731497.

0:23zoomggov.com/j1617314-979

0:30or by calling in at 669-254-5252

0:34and entering access code 161731-4979

0:39followed by the pound sign to manage

0:42remote participation during our hybrid

0:44meetings and prevent disruptions. All

0:46participants are automatically blocked

0:47from unmuting themselves, turning on

0:49their video, or sending chat messages.

0:51For those participants who would like to

0:53comment on an item on our agenda, we ask

0:55that you use the raise your hand feature

0:57in Zoom uh during discussion on that

0:59item. You can do that if you're uh in

1:02the on a computer um inside the app by

1:06uh pressing the icon or on the phone by

1:08pressing star 9. Once it's uh time for

1:12folks from the public to comment, staff

1:14will call on you one by one and give you

1:16permission to unmute yourself. Uh you'll

1:18have to do that either in the app or uh

1:20by pressing star six on your phone. Um

1:23next, I know this is a public meeting

1:25which is both being broadcast and

1:26recorded. Minutes will also be published

1:28at a later date. To help with that

1:29process, we ask all speakers

1:31participating in person to use a

1:32microphone. To please clearly identify

1:35yourself each time you speak and the

1:37first time you speak, please also state

1:38your city or town of residents for the

1:40record. To help maintain an orderly

1:42meeting, please address all comments and

1:44questions through the chair rather than

1:45directly to any of the other speakers or

1:47applicants.

1:49Uh, next, there are a few items on our

1:52agenda tonight that are going to be

1:53continued or postponed. I'm going to

1:55read through those shortly. If you're

1:57here on one of those items, please note

1:58no additional notice will be sent to you

2:01prior to the next meeting. The best best

2:03thing to do is call the planning

2:04division either the day of or the day

2:06prior uh to confirm if that item is

2:09going to be heard or postponed. It's not

2:11uncommon for things to be postponed

2:13multiple times before they're heard by

2:14this board. Uh once an item is called,

2:17there will be a brief presentation of

2:18that item followed by any additional

2:19comments or clarifications from members

2:21of the city staff and then an

2:23opportunity for anyone for the public to

2:24speak on that item before we proceed to

2:26board discussion and action. Uh finally,

2:29all applicants should be aware that

2:30approvals are generally conditional.

2:32Decisions are generally signed by the

2:33board at the next meeting and were

2:34appropriate filed with the city clerk

2:36the following day, which is the trigger

2:38for any appeals periods. Uh decisions

2:41are typically not released to the

2:42applicant until all conditions of

2:43approval have been satisfactorily

2:45addressed. It's the applicant's

2:47responsibility to address those

2:48conditions of approval and a lack of

2:49doing so can result in delays or

2:51enforcement. Applicants with questions

2:53about that are asked to please call the

2:55planning division.

2:57All right, moving into postponements.

3:02[clears throat] Item number one, 24

3:05through 28 uh Chquest Road and 0 and 29

3:08Dominion Road. This will be a definitive

3:10site plan in MGL81G

3:12for a private street improvement. The

3:14request is to postpone the public

3:15hearing to August 26 26 and extend the

3:18construction grant deadline to September

3:201726. Item number 2, 25 through 27

3:23Perkins Street, a definitive site plan

3:25and special permit. Questes to postpone

3:28the public hearing to August 26 26 and

3:30extend the constructive grant deadline

3:32to September 1726. Item number four, 454

3:36through 456 Granite Street, a definitive

3:38site plan. Request to postpone the

3:40public hearing to August 26 26 and

3:42extend the constructive grant deadline

3:44to September 1726.

3:49Uh item number five, 114 Lincoln Street,

3:52a definitive site plan request to

3:54postpone the public hearing to August 26

3:5626 and extending the constructive grant

3:57deadline to September 1726. And lastly,

4:00item number 11,25 Westchester Street, a

4:03zoning map amendment request to postpone

4:06the public hearing to August 26 26 and

4:08extend the constructive grant deadline

4:09to September 1726.

4:12Is there a motion on the postponements?

4:21>> Sorry, I couldn't see in the room there.

4:22Uh, I'd make a motion to postpone items

4:25number one, 2, 4, 5, and 11.

4:29Second

4:31>> on the motion. Mr. King,

4:33>> yes.

4:33>> Mr. Delera,

4:34>> yes.

4:35>> Mr. Tumi,

4:36>> yes.

4:37>> I vote yes as well. Motion passes four

4:39to zero. Uh, first item we're going to

4:41hear tonight,

4:43um, which we're going to take

4:44simultaneously with the ANR 14C is item

4:48number three, which is 42 First Street

4:50and 35 Second Street, a public meeting

4:52for a definitive site plan.

4:55>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'm James Tetro from

4:57uh E Expedited Engineering uh out in

5:00Southboro. Uh here representing Mr. Wo,

5:03who's the owner of both 42 First Street

5:05and 352nd Street. Um he purchased uh 42

5:10First Street approximately eight years

5:11ago and about three years ago purchased

5:1435 Second Street. What he is proposing

5:16to do is to construct a new home on

5:19352nd Street and redivide the lot line

5:23so that that property has access for a

5:26driveway and legal frontage from First

5:29Street. Uh Second Street is only I don't

5:32know if I'd say unimproved or partway

5:34improved, but the new home would have

5:37its driveway and access from First

5:39Street. We are here before you. The

5:41trigger was working on and creating

5:43slopes of 15% or greater. Um we have in

5:46our in our plans proposed uh erosion

5:49control measures including sediment

5:50control barrier at the limit of work uh

5:53specific erosion control matting for use

5:55on slopes steeper than 3:1. Uh and we uh

5:59had included uh drainage calculations in

6:02our uh filing which showed that this lot

6:04uh which receives drainage from as far

6:06away as Wood Farm Circle uh further to

6:09the to the west uh with all the actually

6:12a few different infiltration measures

6:14proposed will not have greater flow to a

6:17butters afterward than are receiving

6:19now. Uh and I'll just leave it at that.

6:22It be very simple. I'll try and take any

6:24questions that you may have.

6:25>> Okay. Thank you. uh city staff on this

6:27item.

6:28>> Sure. This is Steve Kerry with the city

6:30of Worcester. Um [clears throat]

6:32not too much more to add to that. Um as

6:34the applicant noted, this is a single

6:35family home. Um this it's before you

6:38site plan approval because of slopes of

6:3915% or more. Um they are proposing to um

6:43have vehicular access um from both First

6:46and um Second Street. Um, Second Street

6:49is a private street that is uh really is

6:52on a paper street is a paper street for

6:54most of the frontage of this pro of this

6:57property or most of the lot line of this

6:58property. So, um the ANR plan that

7:00should be endorsed concurrently um

7:03adjust the lot line to give this

7:04frontage on First Street. Um there is um

7:09there is as I mentioned also access off

7:11of Second Street where the road does

7:12exist. Um, our conditions of approval um

7:17are largely annotational. We're asking

7:19for an addition of a few trees um on the

7:22northern side of the Second Street

7:24driveway um where there's presently some

7:27shrubs proposed. Um we're also asking

7:29that um prior to the release of the

7:32decision, we do see um test pit results

7:34from the observation holes um for the

7:36subservice infiltration that um they're

7:38proposing. Um, and then we'd just like

7:40to see a a pedestrian walkway added from

7:42that second street driveway to the to

7:44the primary um entrance. Um, one

7:47condition of approval we have in the

7:49staff member that can be struck. Um, we

7:51have a requirement for a construction

7:53management plan and we realized we uh

7:55had inadvertently included some

7:57additional um CMP requirements that are

8:00typically more required of a of a more

8:01urban project. It was just an accidental

8:03copy paste essentially. So um for the

8:05condition two prior to issuance of

8:07building permit um that can just read a

8:09detailed construction management plan

8:10shall be submitted to the department of

8:12transportation mobility for review and

8:13approval that is informed by the hired

8:15general contractor. Um the rest of that

8:17about the plan shall include the

8:18following in addition that can all be

8:20struck. Um

8:23that's really all I have and I just also

8:25note this will also go to the

8:26conservation commission um for a filing

8:29under the local storm water ordinance.

8:31Um, yeah, glad to answer any questions

8:33you guys have.

8:34>> Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Any concerns with

8:36any of that from the applicant?

8:37>> No, the uh staff sent us uh those uh

8:40prospective conditions of approval

8:42earlier. We have no objections to them.

8:44>> Okay. Thank you. Um, anyone else from

8:47city staff on this item

8:53hearing? None. Is there anyone from the

8:55public who wishes to speak tonight?

9:00Seeing no one in the room. Is there

9:01anyone online?

9:02>> We do have one person online. Uh Harry

9:05Koka. I'm going to unmute you on our

9:07end. You just have to unmute on your

9:08end.

9:16>> Good evening everyone. Uh can you hear

9:18me? Okay,

9:18>> we can.

9:20>> Oh, great. Okay. So, uh my name is Harry

9:22Cook and I reside to at 32nd Street

9:25directly adjacent to the property that

9:27is proposed for this development. Um

9:32I just want for I just want to say that

9:34I'm not opposed to this. Uh I just have

9:36I'm just having a few concerns about uh

9:39mainly on the exceeding 15% slope of

9:43this property over this development that

9:45would be happening here. Um

9:48uh as as currently we're stated, Second

9:50Street is a um it's a private street uh

9:54not greatly maintained. Um where are a

9:58few houses here and then we use this

9:59narrow street for obviously for for our

10:01liwood and um all the water that comes

10:04from this side of the street comes runs

10:07out all the way down to and mainly to my

10:09property. Um so uh we've been noticing

10:12some development here in this uh

10:14property u and um there are few trees

10:18were removed uh from from that and then

10:20there are other concerns that if any

10:22other trees will be moved here because

10:23I'm seeing from the plan that there's a

10:25plan to be used from uh both streets

10:28second street and the first street uh

10:31entrance. Um so is there any other

10:34concerns that this uh you know this this

10:37the committee will have about drainage

10:39uh if there are any other trees will be

10:41moved or if uh this slot will be more

10:44than 15% what are are there any uh you

10:47know uh elevation or walls or uh and how

10:51this water will be contained to to this

10:53to to to this local property. This is my

10:55first question uh or concern. The second

10:58one is where is the um the construction

11:01traffic will be will be routed or be

11:04used. Again the concern is for second

11:06sheet which is um pretty narrow and then

11:11they would they would if if there's a

11:14plan to be used uh for second sheet for

11:17traffic that would raise concerns for

11:19the neighbors uh and uh traffic jams or

11:23traffic uh difficulties and for

11:26emergency uh as well. So um

11:32and if second street has been planned to

11:34be used for any any other construction

11:37will is there any plans for to maintain

11:40or to um you know sort of um redevelop

11:45this portion of second street which will

11:47be damaged obviously from the heavy

11:49vehicles and and and all that traffic.

11:52This all all I had. Thank you for your

11:54attention.

11:55>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I'll let

11:57the applicant address those if you like.

11:59>> Sure. Uh, just briefly, you know, to

12:01address drainage, we're proposing a, uh,

12:05large leeching trench on on the uphill

12:07side of the driveway from First Street,

12:10uh, leeching trenches on both sides of

12:11the driveway, uh, from Second

12:13[clears throat] Street, and a separate

12:14infiltration structure that's just

12:16receiving the house roof runoff. Um and

12:18we show um uh site exit mats, stone uh

12:23tire clearing mats on both streets

12:25because even though the construction

12:28traffic to construct the house will come

12:30from first street at for to do the

12:32driveway and the uh um infiltration

12:35trenches on that lead out to second

12:38street that really has to come from

12:40second street itself. So, you know,

12:42there will be some smaller portion of

12:44the traffic uh that will come from

12:47Second Street um in the course of

12:49construction.

12:51>> Okay. Thank you. Uh other questions from

12:54members of the public on this item.

12:58>> Uh no other members of the public. I do

12:59see we have um Leslie Rodriguez from DPW

13:02has raised her hand, so I think she may

13:03want to provide some um departmental

13:05comment. Um

13:07let's see. I think Leslie, you should be

13:10able to unmute um and we can make you a

13:13a host so that you can unmute.

13:15>> Hi everyone, this is Leslie Rodriguez

13:17from DPW. My only comment will be like

13:20the driveway on the first street have to

13:23be perpendicular to the road.

13:26>> Thank you.

13:29>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Rodriguez.

13:33Uh okay. Um, board members,

13:37who'd like to go first?

13:44>> Uh, to help make this easier, maybe I'll

13:45just call in folks. Mr. King.

13:48>> No comment on this one. Thank you.

13:50>> Thank you, Mr. Delera.

13:52>> Uh, likewise. No comment. Thank you,

13:54>> Mr. Tumi.

13:55>> Uh, no comment. Thank you,

13:57>> Mr. Rosende.

13:58>> No comments. Thank you.

14:00>> I also have no comments. So, I do

14:02appreciate you addressing uh how the

14:03construction traffic is going to work in

14:05the drainage for the uh a butter with

14:07questions. Um is there a motion on this

14:09item?

14:11>> Yep. I'd make a motion to approve item

14:15>> pardon. Sorry to interrupt. I think we

14:16should endorse the ANR plan first.

14:19Create the lot.

14:20>> Oh, okay.

14:22>> Move to endorse ANR 14C.

14:26[snorts]

14:27>> Second.

14:28>> On the motion, Mr. King.

14:30>> Yes.

14:30>> Mr. Gallera.

14:31>> Yes.

14:31>> Mr. Tumi.

14:33>> Yes.

14:33>> I vote yes as well. Four to zero. That

14:35motion passes.

14:37>> Ready for the big motion.

14:39>> Yep. I make a motion to approve the

14:42definitive site plan for item number

14:43three subject to the staff conditions as

14:45written and discussed during the

14:47meeting.

14:49>> Second

14:50>> on the motion. Mr. King.

14:52>> Yes.

14:52>> Mr. Delera.

14:53>> Yes.

14:54>> Mr. Tumi.

14:55>> Yes.

14:55>> I vote yes. Four to zero. That passes

14:58luck. Thank you very much for your time

14:59everyone.

15:03>> All right, next item on the agenda is

15:05going to be item number six which is 27

15:08through35 Chandler Street and 47 through

15:1153 Irving Street. This will be a public

15:13meeting for a definitive site plan.

15:23>> Good evening. Um, for the record, my

15:25name is Sam Alfronty. I'm a professional

15:26engineer in the Commonwealth. Um I'm

15:28here on behalf of Soleie Engineering. Um

15:30our office is at 2300 Crown Colony Drive

15:32in Quinsey, Massachusetts. Um I'm

15:34representing the applicant which is Go

15:36Venture Capital Group. Um their address

15:38is at one Merkantile in Worcester.

15:41Um so the project before you here for

15:44definitive site plan um review is an

15:47existing um vacant three parcels um just

15:51under point4 acres on the corner of um

15:53Chandler and Irving Street. Um

15:56the application proposes a 67,000 square

16:00foot gross floor area, 74 unit multif

16:02family development. Um

16:05there are no proposed parking spaces on

16:08the lot. Um and we do have proposed

16:12access as a covered walkway to the

16:14adjoining parking garage to the

16:15northeast. Um which is owned by the

16:18current owner of this parcel as well.

16:21Um, we have proposed, like I mentioned,

16:23a covered walkway that will provide

16:24connection um through a courtyard which

16:26is about 2,000 square feet to the rear

16:29um of the the development.

16:32And we have both external internal bike

16:35parking. Um we have a bike room um on

16:37the first level. Um this project did was

16:40before the zoning board of appeals um a

16:42few weeks ago to um for a front setback

16:46variance um which was unanimously

16:49approved. Um now the the front setback

16:52and the sighting of this building um

16:54provides a a continuation of the

16:55streetscape that exists um and that's

16:59really high level. Um we have a

17:01reduction imperous surfaces um so

17:03there's a reduction of peak flow. Um,

17:05we're tying into the Chandler Street

17:06utilities and we have received um

17:10some conditions of uh recommendations

17:13through staff that um we would like to

17:17discuss a few of them with you all. Um

17:20but for the most part there was about

17:22there was a handful that we're um in

17:24agreement with. Um there's just a few

17:26architectural ones that we would like to

17:28discuss.

17:29>> Okay.

17:32Um we can let maybe staff go through

17:34their portion and then we'll we'll get

17:35to those that work.

17:37>> Y

17:38>> sure through the chair. This is Michelle

17:40Smith in the city's planning division.

17:41So in front of you is a site plan

17:43application definitive site plan

17:45application for a project that involves

17:47um a property that was a former historic

17:49laundry which was demolished in 2025 as

17:52well as a singlestory um commercial

17:55building which was demolished as well.

17:57Uh so the site if you went by is sort of

18:00the remnants of uh the construction

18:02debris from those prior uh structures.

18:04So what the applicant is seeking to do

18:05is construct a five-story 67,000 foot

18:08multif family highrise um with 74

18:12dwelling units along with some common

18:14areas. This is in the BG6 in the CCOD,

18:17so the downtown district. So there's no

18:19parking requirements in this district.

18:21Um you heard the applicant talk about um

18:23how they plan to handle uh that with the

18:26adjacent commonly owned uh property. Um

18:29so we're looking for information in the

18:31form of a TDM plan to just kind of

18:33formalize that and and put that on

18:35record as a condition of approval. Um we

18:38have some requests to related to that uh

18:41interconnection if you will to the

18:42adjacent parking garage that's proposed

18:45um in order to facilitate uh easements

18:47to make sure that we have documentation

18:49about the rights for that. um wanted to

18:51have a little bit more understanding and

18:52hopefully the applicant can just clarify

18:54exactly how that is envisioned to work.

18:56If that would be restricted to residents

18:59only and specifically um or if folks who

19:01are in the parking garage, you know,

19:03public members of the uh members of the

19:05public using the parking garage could

19:06end up kind of out into the courtyard

19:08area or how that would work. So, we're

19:10looking for a little clarity on that. Um

19:11but otherwise feel that, you know, that

19:13that has been appropriately conditioned.

19:15Um it sounds like the applicant has um

19:18some comments. I know we had the chance

19:19to talk to them earlier about a few of

19:21those, but some that maybe remain

19:22unresolved. Um, just kind of

19:25highlighting some of the the themes of

19:27the comments and conditions that we do

19:29have. Um, we did ask that they

19:31incorporate some more prominent building

19:33identification. If we go to the Chandler

19:35Street elevation, um, they've got um,

19:37interesting masonry um, and generally a

19:40very attractive architectural design for

19:42the building um, with a lot of permanent

19:44um, masonry materials. And so you can

19:46see kind of the more prominent entrance

19:48there where they have an awning. So

19:49looking for them to enhance that a

19:50little bit further with numbers or

19:52signage for the building. Um also given

19:54the context and the location, this is

19:56about a block away from our local

19:58historic district and Crown Hill. Um and

20:00it's also adjacent to two structures

20:02that are located on the National

20:03Register of Historic Places. So um our

20:05preservation planner had comments

20:07related to the types of windows and the

20:09panes. So specifically we're looking for

20:11something with a different scheme. So

20:13looking for a 12 over 12 or or six over

20:15six. So we have that conditioned. Um

20:18we've also asked for some glazing within

20:20the trash room. There's a rollup door

20:22that you see sort of southwest on the

20:24plan here. Um that is for the trash room

20:28and we're typically the board has asked

20:29to incorporate additional glazing into

20:31those. So we've incorporated that as a

20:33condition. I think that's perhaps a

20:35condition the applicant wants to

20:36discuss. We've also noted a a if we go

20:39back to the floor plan, there's a a door

20:41in the trash room that just egresses out

20:43onto the north side of the property,

20:46which actually only is about a foot wide

20:48there. So, it would end up on the

20:50neighboring property. So, we've asked

20:51them to either shift that or provide

20:52evidence of an easement as a condition.

20:54Um, and incorporate if that door faces

20:56Irving Street, um, incorporate some

20:58glazing within that door as well. um

21:00even if it too ends up being frosted uh

21:03given the the kind of facilities in the

21:05room that it it's proposed to connect

21:07to. We've asked for a direct

21:09interconnection for a bike room that's

21:11located in the rear sort of top right

21:14corner of the first floor um to make

21:17that easier for folks who might be

21:19community via bike. Um so if you come in

21:22the only way to access that bike room is

21:23either to go on the main entrance and go

21:25all the way down the hall or if you're

21:26going from outside to go in through the

21:28kind of gated courtyard. So just to

21:30limit the number of doors that you have

21:31to open as a cyclist to encourage folks

21:33to be using that mode of transportation.

21:35Um so we've asked for a direct entry

21:37from the bike room from the courtyard.

21:39Um uh we have also um asked that all

21:44doors and gates be in swing. So again

21:47that the doors not swinging out onto the

21:49sidewalk into a pedestrian or passer by

21:51just given the location of the building.

21:53Um the building does essentially extend

21:55the street wall in this area which is

21:56great. Um it it does require technically

21:59a five foot setback because it

22:00incorporates ground flooror residential.

22:02That applicant did obtain a variance

22:03from the zoning board of appeals in

22:05order to enable that recently. Um so

22:07that that means we do have ground floor

22:09units um right up kind of to the

22:11sidewalk edge. Um so we can probably

22:13expect folks to have their shades

22:15closed. Um, so we had asked the

22:16applicant to look at um any potential to

22:20adjust the location of the bike room or

22:21the location of some of those common

22:23elements to pull those closer to the

22:25street to help increase activation. We

22:26understand that because of the building

22:28layout and design um the applicant isn't

22:30um able to do that. Um so just to

22:33highlight that that was something that

22:34we've discussed with them. Uh we do have

22:36a number of other conditions that I

22:38don't necessarily feel that I need to

22:40highlight. um many of our typical

22:42standard conditions including pedestrian

22:44diversion facilities for construction

22:46management plan given the urban context

22:48of the location. Um I think one comment

22:51that we have and this is not a condition

22:53um if we go to the elevations um they

22:56are less prominent for sure but uh

22:59wanted to ask the applicant to just

23:01discuss u the rationale for the

23:03southeastern and northern elevations

23:05which are are solid brick um they don't

23:07have any uh window openings uh likely

23:10for energy efficiency purposes um but

23:13these do face uh residential structures

23:15on either side so had a a comment or

23:17question about if there was any

23:19potential potential to incorporate

23:20additional glazing or architectural

23:22elements in these. Um it's not a

23:24condition certainly think that the

23:26building's been tastefully designed but

23:27just looking at any potential

23:29opportunities. So we um felt the the

23:31need to comment on that related to um

23:34that context. Um and

23:38beyond that I think I have covered the

23:41majority of the comments. The only

23:43remaining one that I wanted to mention

23:45was just the along the eastern side

23:47there is a again a walkway that's

23:49connecting from Chandler back into the

23:50courtyard. Um that area is lit um and

23:53it's well lit and we had a question just

23:55related to the phototric plan and if the

23:57modeling reflected the installation of

23:59the fence that's in that location um

24:01which would help reduce light levels but

24:02there's a little bit of spillover into

24:03the windows of the adjacent residential

24:05structure. So just wanted to confirm if

24:07if perhaps that wasn't included and that

24:09would probably bring the light levels

24:10down. Um, in any event, they're less

24:12than one foot candle, but still higher

24:14than we'd like to see at a adjacent

24:16residential property line. Um, there's

24:18no light, however, on the the northern

24:20side. So, it's really just in that one

24:22location that we had a comment. Um, the

24:24location here is within one of our

24:26transformative growth areas, which is a

24:28mixed use uh vision here. Um, obviously

24:31the property is is fully residential,

24:33but certainly um the area could benefit

24:35from some additional infill. So,

24:37exciting to see a project being uh put

24:39forward. happy to answer any questions

24:41or talk about any of the conditions

24:43further. I know the applicant wants to

24:44discuss. So, thank you.

24:46>> Yeah, it's probably a good time to to do

24:48that now. So, do you want to highlight

24:51the uh topics you'd like to cover?

24:53>> Yeah, we spoke with um the architect and

24:55I had a conversation with staff this

24:57afternoon. Um the the window um matrix,

25:02we're open and accepting of um including

25:06that condition. Um that's not an issue

25:08for us. um the glazing along the trash

25:12room rollup door. Um I I had a

25:14conversation with staff. The northerly

25:16door um that was added exiting the trash

25:20room, there was a condition that that be

25:22um relocated to the Irving Street um

25:25facade, which we're open to. We were

25:28hopeful that if that man door to be

25:30frosted um glazing, we could omit the

25:33rollup door being of glazing. Um,

25:37and that was something that I discussed

25:39with staff this afternoon. They left the

25:41condition as as written, but um,

25:44deferred it to to the planning board on

25:46that. We thought that was a compromise

25:48that we added that glazing for the man

25:50door, but the the roll-up door be

25:52maintained as as proposed, which is a

25:54solid um rollup door.

25:56>> So, we're located in the bottom left

25:58corner.

25:58>> I was going to say we're looking at the

26:00elevation now. It's that you're talking

26:01about the bottom left.

26:02>> Yep. And so the the man door that you're

26:05referring to is around the corner from

26:07the bottom left.

26:08>> It is. So on this on that bottom image,

26:10which is Irving Street looking at the

26:12building,

26:12>> the man door is is around that left

26:14side. So we'd be relocating that to

26:16basically the corner um just to the left

26:19of that roll black rollup door.

26:21>> Okay. And your request is to leave the

26:23door opaque if that's the case

26:26>> with the man door as fraud as glazing.

26:28Yeah.

26:30>> Um I can't speak for my colleagues, but

26:31that does seem pretty reasonable to me.

26:33Uh

26:36>> okay. Um and then the the other one we

26:39would request that um the board consider

26:43is the direct entry into the bike room.

26:45Um while we understand staff's um

26:48comment and and logistically it makes

26:51sense to minimize the doors you have to

26:52go through with a bike, um the site's

26:54really tight um with the covered walkway

26:56and the exter external bike racks. Um

26:59there's just not a whole lot of room to

27:00to fit that on the external on the

27:03courtyard side of it. Um, we also feel

27:05as if that bring it internal allows

27:07people um, entering the building through

27:10Chandler Street, which is the prominent

27:12entrance to access that without going

27:14through the courtyard. Um, because

27:16otherwise they would have to go around

27:18the building externally through the

27:20courtyard and then and then and then

27:23enter via the courtyard.

27:25>> Is it a single set of doors to get out

27:27uh into the courtyard? I I I know you

27:29got to go the door, you know, out of the

27:32>> out of the bike room itself, but then

27:33you're in the hallway.

27:34>> It's a double door into the courtyard.

27:36>> Okay. But not like an airlock situation

27:38where you have to go through two sets of

27:39doors.

27:40>> Oh, thank you.

27:41>> No, so it's in that it's in that

27:42vestibule.

27:43>> Yeah.

27:44>> Yeah.

27:45>> Okay.

27:47Um I'm sure we can discuss that uh when

27:49we get to board discussion.

27:52Speaking for myself, I also wouldn't

27:54have a problem with that. I think it's I

27:56as a cyclist I find it much harder to go

28:00through two sets of doors in a row than

28:02come out into the vestibial and then go

28:04through a set of doors.

28:05>> Okay.

28:06>> And then the only other one that I would

28:07like to discuss um which we're we're

28:09open to but um I just thought it was

28:12worth mentioning. So we had

28:13conversations um during the the meeting

28:17um with the fire department regarding

28:19access to the courtyard. Um, we'll have

28:22it was omitted on the plans and and and

28:24we're very open to this condition, but

28:25there is going to be gated access at the

28:27covered walkway to the parking garage to

28:29prevent um just anyone from entering the

28:32courtyard from the parking garage. Um,

28:34so that was a a catch from the staff

28:37that we will have that gated um with

28:39either key code or um fob access through

28:43for residents.

28:44>> Okay. So, it it's not shown on the plan,

28:46but staff wanted it shown on the plan.

28:48>> It was a condition that they

28:48recommended. Yep, understood.

28:51>> Otherwise though, um

28:54we're we're open to accepting all of

28:55them. Um and no questions or comments.

28:58>> Okay. Thank you. Um Michelle, is that

29:01anything you want to add to that?

29:03>> Um nope. It sounds like I mean

29:06ultimately depending on the discussion,

29:07the applicant's looking to strike F. Um,

29:10and then looking to strike D, but is in

29:12is willing to change E to include

29:15instead of half light glazing, full

29:17glazing for the door on Irving, if I

29:20understood that correctly.

29:21>> Yeah. Relocating it onto Irving. Yep.

29:26>> Okay. Uh, excellent. Thank you. Uh,

29:29comments from DPW on this.

29:32>> This is Lesie for DPW. Uh my only

29:37comment in addition to the one that we

29:39already submit is that uh they will this

29:44is not a condition for the planning

29:46board approval but it's a condition for

29:48the permit. I just want to let know the

29:50applicant that there is an additional

29:53bonding that is going to be required and

29:56the approximate it will be approximately

29:5921,000.

30:01Thank you.

30:03>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there anyone

30:06from the public wishing to speak on this

30:07item tonight?

30:10Come on up.

30:16[snorts]

30:18Uh, good evening everyone. My name is

30:19Darnell Dunn. I work with the uh,

30:21Chamber of Commerce and we just wanted

30:23to speak in support of this project. um

30:26for many of the reasons that were

30:27mentioned by staff.

30:3074 units creating housing in a um

30:33strategic development area um with a a

30:38lot of um curb appeal uh with the

30:40building as well by a developer who's

30:43demonstrated commitment to Worcester,

30:44has done other projects in Worcester and

30:46is based here. So um just wanted to

30:48voice our support. Thank you.

30:51>> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the room

30:53tonight? Come on up.

31:01Hello, my name is Emma Morrison. I'm a

31:03Worcester resident and I just also

31:05wanted to say that I support this

31:06project. Thank you.

31:07>> Thank you.

31:10Anyone else in the room?

31:15Seeing none. Anybody online?

31:18>> This is Steve Carrie in the planning

31:19division. Uh not seeing anyone with

31:22their hand raised.

31:24Okay, we can move to board discussion.

31:26Uh, Mr. King,

31:28>> just in general, the great design

31:30project. Happy to support it. No

31:32concerns with the items discussed.

31:35>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Delera.

31:38>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Uh, I am

31:40in support of this and I am, uh,

31:42amendable to the applicant's response to

31:46staff comments. Thank you.

31:48>> Thank you, Mr. Delera. Uh, Mr. Tumi.

31:51Yeah, I'm supportive as well and agree

31:53with the conditions that we talked about

31:55uh being okay with the bike and also

31:57with the uh the door.

31:59>> Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Rosende,

32:03>> nothing further to add. Thank you.

32:05>> Okay. Um I would echo my colleagues

32:08comments. Uh this is right now sort of a

32:11hole in the ground um after we demolish

32:13the the laundry and I'll be really

32:15excited to see a project go in there. I

32:16think this going to be very attractive.

32:20Um, I think we're ready for a motion.

32:23>> I'll make a motion to approve new

32:25business item number six subject to the

32:27conditions as written and discussed

32:28during meeting.

32:30>> Second.

32:31>> On the motion, Mr. King?

32:33>> Yes.

32:34>> Mr. Delera?

32:35>> Yes.

32:35>> Mr. Tumi?

32:36>> Yes.

32:37>> I vote yes as well. Motion passes four

32:39to zero. Good luck.

32:40>> Thank you all very much.

32:43Uh, next item on the agenda will be

32:45number seven, 287 Providence Street, a

32:47public meeting for a definitive site

32:49plan extension of time.

32:52Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, good

32:54evening, Steven Madow of Mrick. Uh, here

32:58on behalf of Park Silver Development

33:00LLC, the applicant, uh, requesting

33:03requesting an extension of time of two

33:06years as allowed under article 5 uh, 3

33:10section 3. F of the zoning ordinance for

33:12site plan approval. Uh we're requesting

33:15an extension of two years for the

33:17definitive site plan approval issued by

33:20this board on January 10th of last year

33:23uh for the development of a hotel uh on

33:26the property located at uh 277, also

33:30known as 287 Providence Street.

33:34>> Okay. Thank you. Uh staff, do we have

33:36any uh concerns with an extension? Uh,

33:40no concerns through you, Mr. Trey. The

33:41applicants applied for a building

33:42permit. They've just yet to obtain it,

33:44and so that's why the extension is

33:45necessary. So, they're actively moving

33:47forward um and making progress towards

33:49proceeding with construction as far as I

33:50understand. So, two-year extension is

33:52what they're seeking this evening.

33:54>> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, anyone

33:56from the public want to comment on this?

34:01>> No one's in the room. Is anyone online?

34:05>> Uh, no members of the public online with

34:06their hand raised.

34:07>> Okay. Uh board members, if you have any

34:10comment, feel free to speak now.

34:12Otherwise, we will move to a motion.

34:18>> All right.

34:19>> I make a motion to approve item number

34:22seven, the extension of time.

34:25>> Second.

34:26>> On the motion, Mr. King.

34:28>> Yes.

34:28>> Mr. Delera,

34:29>> yes.

34:30>> Mr. Tumi,

34:31>> yes.

34:31>> I vote yes. Four to zero. Motion passes.

34:33Good luck.

34:34>> Thank you very much.

34:35>> Thank you.

34:36Uh, next up, item number 8, nine, Dalton

34:39Street, a public meeting for a

34:41definitive site plan.

34:46>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

34:48the board. Attorney Todd Broer from

34:50Fletcher Tilton. Here on behalf of the

34:52applicant, Cozy Corner LLC, sitting up

34:55here with me is Chris Keenan from Quinn

34:58Engineering, who's the civil engineer on

34:59the project, and our client, Amanda

35:02Fulco, has joined us online. I believe

35:05we're speaking to you tonight about a a

35:08a proposal to construct five units of

35:10residential housing on Dalton Street.

35:13Formerly a single family home on the

35:15property was demolished and this will be

35:17a you know groundup rebuild and reuse of

35:20the entire site. Um there are some

35:24visuals for you, but I'll I'll kind of

35:26just jump right in. This is a multif

35:27family low-rise structure, five units.

35:30Uh the owner's unit would be on the left

35:33side of the building, first and second

35:34floor. Two rental units on the right

35:37side of the building, one up, one down,

35:39and then two units over a garage towards

35:42the rear of the property. As you see

35:44some of the visuals, it is a fairly long

35:47uh site, fairly deep site, if you will,

35:49with a reasonable amount of frontage.

35:51The thought was to use that depth and

35:54construct the building sort of into into

35:56the lot. Uh it provides for a pretty

35:59nice yard area on the side of the

36:01property under under which is the some

36:03of the storm water elements for the

36:05site. Um I have I do have a a couple of

36:09notes on the staff comment letter that

36:12I'd like to discuss with you at at at

36:13the appropriate time, but we're

36:15generally in agreement with the you know

36:17the concepts and there weren't a ton of

36:19items in there. Anyway, this has gone

36:21through uh zoning board of appeal

36:23appeals process. We've received the

36:25special permit for the use special

36:27permit to reduce the parking from 10

36:29spaces to nine and for some slight

36:32dimensional relief on the driveway

36:35arrangement. Um, so this has been

36:37through

36:39uh zoning board of appeals and I think

36:40there's there's an obligation to go to

36:43conservation as well. And because I'll

36:45forget, I'll just mention there are a

36:47couple waiverss that staff noted we

36:49should ask for so we will do so. Um, I

36:52will always forget that one because it's

36:54not that prominent. Um, so on the on the

36:57recommendations, I don't know if you

36:59want to take staff comment now or later.

37:02>> Yeah, why don't we have staff go through

37:03their comments and then we can discuss

37:05the ones that you'd like.

37:06>> Thank you.

37:07>> Sure. Uh, this is Steve Kerry in the

37:08planning division. Um, this is before

37:11you because it triggers site plan

37:12approval because there are five units

37:14within the building. Um, three that are

37:16sort of situated more towards the front

37:17and access from the front of the

37:19building. um which does give sort of the

37:21um appearance of of a sort of two family

37:23with with two doors in the front and

37:25then there's an additional two units

37:26towards the back that are accessed um

37:28from from a rear access. Um

37:33don't have um extensive comments on

37:34this. Glad to talk through whichever

37:36ones the the applicant wishes to

37:38discuss. Um just to go through some of

37:40our uh conditions of approval. Um the

37:43applicant does propose a um sidewalk

37:47along the um length of the the frontage.

37:49Um DPW has requested that be um uh made

37:52of concrete with granite curbing. Um

37:55we're also asking that um we we had

37:59initially requested a um revision to the

38:02phototric plan that they had uh

38:04submitted. um that were comfortable um

38:07striking that condition. One eye. Um we

38:09had noted there wasn't on the phototric

38:11plan didn't show illumination between

38:13that sidewalk I just mentioned and the

38:15um and the points of conflict with any

38:17vehicle coming out of the driveway. Um

38:19but the Apple pointed out there is

38:20actually a street lamp right there on

38:22that corner that should provide adequate

38:24illumination. So we are not actually

38:25concerned with that revision to the

38:27phototric plan. Um otherwise I think the

38:30conditions of approval are uh fairly

38:33annotational. Um and I am uh yeah glad

38:37to discuss any that the board is

38:38interested in.

38:40>> Sure. So let's discuss those now.

38:42>> Okay. Thank you. Um so on on you know

38:45page two of the memo where the staff

38:47conditions are prior to release of the

38:49decision issuance of building permits.

38:51So one A talks about reconciliation of

38:54the civil and the architectural plans

38:56with respect to a couple of items and

38:57and we can certainly do that. This ties

38:59into B and C. I'm just kind of

39:02snowballing into that. I think the the

39:04issue with the um architectural plans in

39:07particular, the render rendering which

39:09you saw on the screen earlier is that

39:11those were done early in the process. Uh

39:13that rendering in particular was done

39:15early in the process and was meant to be

39:17a little more illustr illustrative than

39:20exact. And one of the issues I would

39:22point out is there there it doesn't show

39:24trees on the site plan. That was just so

39:27that we could show the elements of the

39:29site plan better. it wasn't meant to

39:32disregard the obligation to provide

39:34trees. So that that's carried through in

39:37in one of the other comments. But on on

39:40B and C, which are really more detailed

39:42architectural comments, we did discuss

39:45these at the zoning board meeting and

39:47they were items that were on the staff

39:49review memo at that time and it was some

39:52time ago, but I I I believe the

39:54discussion around those was those were

39:57sort of requests and we talked through

39:59why we didn't feel that those were

40:01appropriate, particularly the the detail

40:04on the rear elevation. There are a

40:06couple of jogs in the the roof line

40:08already. This was this was another

40:11detail sort of proposed or requested

40:13which we suggested that we were not in

40:15favor of adding. Um and then the awning

40:18above the slider. To be quite honest,

40:20I'm not even really sure what that was

40:22relating to, but we I think we did

40:24discuss that and came to the same

40:26conclusion that we thought it was a

40:27little bit of a an extra ask, if you

40:29will. So that's items B and C which we

40:32would ask to be stricken from uh the

40:35conditions. Uh on item F which is

40:39provide details of the proposed

40:41plantings. There is a small landscape

40:45table within the detail sheets. I I

40:47think it's sheet five sheet three which

40:51does show um nine trees and the species

40:54that would be planted. And I think on

40:56the plan set in in the earlier detail

40:59sheets or earlier uh site plan sheets it

41:02does show so show show excuse me shrubs

41:05but doesn't specify. We can certainly do

41:07that. Not intending to do anything other

41:10than plant the recommended species of

41:12course but I I think I just wanted to

41:15make sure everybody knew we we did

41:16provide those details for plantings. Um

41:20on item G

41:22this came up. Uh the request is to have

41:25concrete for the driveway treatment. I

41:28think this came up because the applicant

41:30proposed a section of concrete on the

41:32driveway towards the rear because

41:34there's a dumpster and it was felt that

41:38pavement might not hold up well. So

41:41perhaps concrete in that area would be a

41:43better material just for overall, you

41:45know, usability and so that it would it

41:47would it would have some longevity. that

41:50that transformed into, well, why don't

41:52you do the whole driveway in concrete,

41:53which is not what we want to do. Um, and

41:55I understand, you know, nobody wants a

41:58patchwork uh on the driveway, but the

42:00the portion of the driveway is is in the

42:02rear. I don't believe it's going to be

42:04visible from the public way. It's

42:06certainly it's a long driveway if you've

42:08seen if you've seen the plan. So the

42:11intention is not to create a huge area

42:14of you know mixing match of materials

42:16but we would like to stick with the

42:18concrete as shown on the original site

42:20plan and use pavement for the rest of

42:22the driveway. So that's item G which

42:25would need some modification if if folks

42:27were amendable. And then um Stephen did

42:30mention the phototric plan. We we we

42:33showed that there's a a street pole with

42:35a street light right there at the

42:37driveway entrance. So I did I I agree

42:39with that. uh change to the to the

42:41conditions and that was it.

42:44>> Um having briefly discussed this item

42:46with staff uh earlier, I I do believe uh

42:50and I don't mean to speak for you,

42:52Steve, but uh the concrete walk is un I

42:56think they were looking for you to

42:57clarify one way or another. We were all

42:58a little surprised. Nobody expects a

43:00full concrete driveway. Uh so no issue

43:04there. And I I think it's also

43:05understood that the uh street light kind

43:07of solves the the foot candle problem.

43:09Though what I'm not positive on is

43:11whether they want you to revise the plan

43:13to reflect that or if we're okay with it

43:15as it is. And Mr. Kerry might want to

43:17comment on that.

43:19>> Um apologies. Can you clarify which

43:21which condition you're referring to?

43:24>> Uh one eye, I think, is what we're

43:26talking about.

43:26>> That Yeah, that is fine to struck strike

43:28one eye. Um, if I could respond on um

43:31items uh B and C um well really A, B,

43:35and C. Um those were how the conditions

43:38appear in the um zoning board decision

43:41that was filed with the clerk. So um I

43:43mean you know we could strike them here.

43:46I do they would still need to be um

43:48reflected on plans submitted for prior

43:51to release of a building permit for the

43:53zoning board decision. Um, so I mean if

43:55the applicant feels that those were

43:56added in error to the ZBA decision and

43:58that was a scrier's error, we can we can

44:00discuss that. But again, they they are

44:02already in the ZBA's decision and

44:03typically our practice is to carry those

44:05over to planning board site plan

44:06approvals.

44:14I'm looking at those now. They do they

44:16do appear in the ZBA decision. And I

44:18know we discussed those but

44:21we can we can perhaps address

44:23separately.

44:25Okay. Um so what I'm I I I think I'm

44:29understanding is BNC you guys are going

44:31to uh take administratively let's say uh

44:34and G and I were comfortable striking.

44:38Is that accurate?

44:41>> G and I I think yeah we're definitely

44:42comfortable striking. Um can you

44:44clarify? You are going to leave B and C

44:46in. I think that's what I understood. Is

44:48that what I understood?

44:52>> We were looking to remove them, but I

44:54think I think the point was that they do

44:56appear in the ZBA decision, which is I

44:59guess counter to what I told you before.

45:01That was my understanding of the

45:02discussion, but what ended up in the

45:05decision

45:06>> through the chair too it, you know,

45:08ultimately their requirement of the

45:09zoning board decision, they'll have to

45:10be addressed and it'll have to be

45:11reconciled. So, it for sake of um in the

45:15event that there were to be an error for

45:17some reason, if you'd prefer to strike

45:18them, they're still going to be

45:20obligated to do that unless for whatever

45:21reason that was an error in the zoning

45:23board decision, which I don't

45:24necessarily think it was, but in the

45:25event that it was, then we're not

45:27perpetuating that in two locations. So,

45:29if that's a a concern, then maybe that's

45:31the best course of handling that given

45:33that said that if they're correct,

45:36they're going to apply whether we put

45:37them in our decision or not. And if

45:38they're not correct, we're just going to

45:39make more problems. I think we should

45:41strike them.

45:44Um, so

45:46I think we're in agreement on what the

45:47conditions are. Um, is there anyone from

45:50the public wishing to speak on this item

45:51tonight?

45:56>> Seeing none in the room, anyone online?

46:00>> I'm not seeing any members of the public

46:01online.

46:02>> Okay. Uh, Mr. King, any comments from

46:05you?

46:06>> No, seems to make sense. Thank you. U,

46:08>> thank you, Mr. Delera.

46:10Uh, no comment either. Thank you,

46:12>> Mr. Tumi. Uh,

46:13>> no comments. Thank you,

46:15>> Mr. Rosende.

46:16>> No comments. Thank you.

46:18>> Okay. Uh, I think we're ready for a

46:20motion and it's BCG and I that we're

46:22removing.

46:25>> Right. I make a motion to approve item

46:29number 8, 9 Dalton Street with GB, CG,

46:35and I being removed.

46:38Second

46:39>> on the motion. Mr. King,

46:41>> yes.

46:41>> Mr. Delera,

46:42>> yes.

46:43>> Mr. Tumi,

46:44>> yes.

46:44>> I vote yes as well. Four to zero. Motion

46:46passes.

46:46>> Thank you very much. Good luck.

46:50>> Uh, next up, item number nine, three man

46:53street will be a public hearing for a

46:55definitive frontage subdivision plan.

47:02Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members

47:04of the board. My name is Donald O'Neal.

47:05I'm a lawyer here in Worester here this

47:07evening in connection with the

47:10definitive frontage subdivision plan for

47:13three Main Street. Um we did secure

47:17approval from the zoning board for the

47:20um division of this property into two

47:22lots. It's a pretty sizable lot, 140 ft

47:26of frontage, almost 19,000 square ft.

47:29The lot configuration is 59.2 two for a

47:34proposed two family um lot um to be um

47:40house to be built and then 80.2 ft of

47:44frontage for the existing multif family.

47:47Um there's plenty of parking on the on

47:49the property area for parking which um

47:53and also to curb cuts. So, I did um I

47:58believe staff is recommending um an

48:02additional street tree to be planted

48:05consistent with the subvision rules and

48:07regulations of which I have no objection

48:09to. Um and the other condition aside

48:13from that, I would ask for waiverss of

48:15um all the subdivisional rules and

48:18regulations except those pertaining to

48:19ANR plans and be happy to answer any

48:23questions you might have. Okay, thank

48:25you. Uh comments from staff.

48:27>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

48:28division. Um as applicant noted, this is

48:31definitive frontage subdivision plan. Um

48:34uh effectively an ANR plan um except

48:37that they um did receive relief from the

48:40uh zoning board for um to have less than

48:43the required frontage. This is to um

48:46essentially allow for um the existing uh

48:49multif family to remain on its own lot

48:51and for a um second lot, lot two um to

48:55have a two family home on it. Um lot

48:59two, the two family home is going to

49:00have a new address of one man street. We

49:02have that as a condition of approval.

49:03And then as the applicant noted, we are

49:04asking for a tree planting just south of

49:07the driveway um which obviously is not

49:09shown on the um plan here, the driveway,

49:12but u we would want to see the existing

49:14and proposed tree planting um in the

49:16front yard south of the driveway um to

49:18be make sure the subdivision plan is in

49:20accordance with planting requirements.

49:22Um and that's all I've got.

49:24>> Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Uh comments from

49:26DPW?

49:30>> No comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

49:33Rodriguez. Uh, anyone from the public on

49:35this item tonight?

49:40No one's in the room. Anyone online?

49:47This is Steve Carry in the planning

49:49division. Sorry, I'm having some

49:50computer trouble with viewing the online

49:53participants. Um,

49:57there is no one with their hand raised.

50:00>> Okay. Uh, board members, Mr. Mr. King,

50:03>> no comments. Thank you.

50:05>> Mr. Delera,

50:06>> no comment. Thanks.

50:09>> Mr. Tumi,

50:10>> no comments. Thank you.

50:11>> Mr. Rosende,

50:12>> no comments. Thank you.

50:14>> Uh, I also have no comments. I believe

50:16we are ready for a motion, but we do

50:19need to close a public hearing.

50:21>> Make a motion to close the public

50:22hearing.

50:23>> Second motion. Mr. King,

50:26>> yes.

50:26>> Mr. Delera,

50:27>> yes.

50:28>> Mr. Tumi,

50:29>> yes.

50:29>> I vote yes. Four to zero. Hearing is

50:31closed.

50:32>> All right. Make a motion to approve new

50:34business item number nine subject to the

50:36staff conditions as written and

50:37discussed.

50:39>> Second

50:40>> on the motion. Mr. King.

50:42>> Yes.

50:43>> Uh Mr. Galler.

50:44>> Yes.

50:45>> Mr. Tumi.

50:46>> Yes.

50:46>> I vote yes. Four to zero. Motion passes.

50:48>> Thank you.

50:49>> Good luck. Uh next up item number 10 12

50:52New Bond Street 0 Ararat Street 0 and14

50:55Indian Hill Road aka Lot 2C Street. This

50:59will be a public meeting for a

51:00preliminary site plan.

51:08>> You're just in time. Or maybe you were

51:10out there, but

51:23>> Sorry about that. Um, so again, my my

51:25name uh is Andrew Steiner. I am a

51:28project manager with Bowler here this

51:30evening on behalf of the applicant new

51:32garden park and their preliminary site

51:33plan submission. I'm joined this evening

51:35by uh Julie Holstrm u with the WBDC.

51:39As you may remember, we've been in front

51:41of you before for this this site

51:42specifically. Um most recently, I think

51:45it was back in was October of last year

51:49for the um reconstruction of Sea Street

51:52in that definitive uh subdivision

51:53submission

51:55that was ultimately approved. um

51:57applicant is working on kind of

51:59finalizing those drawings um and

52:01anticipates kind of starting

52:02construction ultimately um probably

52:06later this year. But prior to kind of

52:08running through the the preliminary plan

52:10that's in front of everyone, I just

52:12wanted to kind of set the stage relative

52:14to why we're here. Um because ultimately

52:16the the purpose of this of this plan is

52:19to really try to establish a kind of a

52:22zoning framework um for a future end

52:25user to ultimately come in and develop

52:26these plans or further further enhance

52:29them I'd say because again there's been

52:31a lot of thought that's gone in into

52:32these. It's kind of been designed for a

52:35speculative advanced manufacturing use.

52:39Um

52:40but ultimately the the WBDC doesn't

52:43intend to construct these. that would

52:44ultimately be an end user would

52:47ultimately come forward further further

52:49advance the plans as part of a

52:50definitive filing and then ultimately

52:52construct construct the project.

52:56Um so again just in terms of the the

52:58existing conditions which you can see up

52:59on on this on the screen site is cons uh

53:03comprised of of four parcels

53:06um which is 12 New Bond Street 0 Arat

53:10Street 0 and 14 uh Indian Hill Road. In

53:14total it's just over about 20 29 acres

53:16of of land. Um again the site's been

53:20historically part of the larger uh St.

53:22Cobain uh campus which is spans over

53:25about 100 acres and has been um in

53:27operation since the since the 1900s and

53:30again the site's historically had

53:32manufacturing uses on it.

53:35As part of the proposed plan I know

53:37there's a overall site plan. Yeah, you

53:39can see that see that. Now there's

53:40there's three uh buildings which are

53:42denoted as A, B and C. The A building is

53:46closest to Arat Street. It's the the

53:48smallest of the ones that are shown.

53:50It's roughly uh 59 59,800

53:54uh square feet of uh building with uh 76

53:57um constructed parking spaces. B falls

54:02in the middle. Um it's 147,500

54:05square foot uh building with um 149

54:10parking spaces and uh the the last one

54:13being the the biggest building closest

54:15to uh New Bond Street in the most recent

54:18approval of the the restaurant uh depot

54:20project that is 210,000 square ft um

54:24with 233

54:27um parking spaces as shown. You can kind

54:30of see it on this plan and we have more

54:32detailed site plans. There's some kind

54:33of gray boxes on the bottom which denote

54:36kind of like a landbanked parking.

54:38Really the purpose of those is to show

54:41that

54:43kind of provide flexibility for again

54:45that end user to come in and modify this

54:47plan to fit their their ultimate parking

54:49needs because again the site's

54:51historically been fully developed. Um

54:53and then those areas have have

54:54ultimately been been disturbed.

54:58From a uh storm water perspective, this

55:01the site uh generally drains to the the

55:04top of the page, which is actually the

55:05the west. There's um some resource areas

55:08up there which ultimately flow to um

55:11Weaselbrook, which um

55:14uh

55:16crosses New Bond Street. Sorry, that

55:18took me too long to come to come up

55:19with. uh crosses New Bond Street by the

55:21the former admin building and the uh

55:23Abby Kelly uh charter school in terms of

55:26the the storm water regulations. The

55:28site um actually is constituted as a um

55:32redevelopment as that it reduces the

55:34amount of impervious area that's

55:36historic historically been there um by

55:38roughly 2500

55:40uh square feet. that um results in

55:44obviously an improvement in the um storm

55:47water runoff leaving the site, but also

55:49the water quality and and recharge

55:50associated with the with the storm

55:52water.

55:53And on top of that, and kind of see it

55:55on on this plan in the the loading the

55:58loading areas, which are the um kind of

56:00the dark the dark gray boxes, um there's

56:04additionally um proposed underground

56:07storm water management systems which

56:08will provide a level of um treatment

56:11which um is over what what's on site

56:15site today.

56:18Utilities in general would be served. Uh

56:21the three buildings would have all new

56:23utility connections which would

56:24ultimately be served by um the new uh

56:27connections on uh called Sven Pulson

56:30here um formerly formerly Sea Street.

56:34It's ultimately subject to change those

56:36locations depending on a on a final site

56:38plan, but um or final definitive plan,

56:41but again, those connections would be

56:42made in accordance with the the city

56:44standards as part of that definitive

56:46filing.

56:48Uh I know is as part of the the memo

56:51there was a we provided an just a

56:53general exhibit um for a dedication area

56:56just to kind of show placement and uh

56:58kind of the general location

57:01that would ultimately have to be f

57:02further refined as part of a uh future

57:05filing. But the

57:08calculations for for storm water and

57:11just in general impervious coverage in

57:14general accounts for that. So the the

57:17project would still be constituted as a

57:19as a redevelopment even with the

57:21development of that future future

57:23dedication area.

57:26So we've received some comments and

57:29we've we've kind of gone through um been

57:31coordinating with staff on on this. It's

57:33because again it's a bit of a unique uh

57:35submission being a a preliminary plan.

57:38We did receive some uh comments from the

57:41uh Worcester uh DPW water department

57:43which ultimately um requested approval

57:47of this plan uh contingent upon us

57:49setting up a meeting that that meeting

57:50is already we've already started that um

57:53that coordination

57:55but there's really again so that's kind

57:57of the project at a at a high level. U

57:59happy to go into any additional detail

58:01or answer any questions that you might

58:02have, but again I think there was some

58:06kind of conditions outlined in the in

58:08the staff memo which we want to um speak

58:10to more um you know pending any

58:13questions from the board and at a

58:15minimum I think we'd be looking to um

58:18have some wording changes but we're

58:19hopeful that that some of these would

58:20ultimately be able to be stricken um

58:24from from the recommendations given that

58:26these would have to be part of a

58:28definitive filing.

58:30anyway in the in the future.

58:34>> Okay. Thank you. Um I I'll just note for

58:37members of the public and my colleagues

58:39who uh may not have seen one of these

58:40before. So this is a preliminary site

58:43plan. Uh we've seen a number of site

58:44plans uh already tonight. Typically

58:46that's a a filing where an applicant

58:49comes before the board and explains um a

58:53number of things related to traffic and

58:54storm water um connections to

58:56infrastructure, things like that. uh to

58:58the board and the board weighs in on

59:00those and the public has the opportunity

59:01to comment.

59:03Sometimes uh projects do that in a

59:05preliminary way uh to often because

59:08they're big and complicated projects uh

59:10to get initial feedback before they

59:13spend a bunch of money developing their

59:15plans uh with their engineering firms

59:18further um only to come before us and

59:20have us say no you can't do that and

59:22have to change a bunch of things. This

59:24one's a little unique uh in that I think

59:26you guys are really early. Uh I hear

59:29what you're saying about um uh the

59:33applicants basically saying, "Hey, we'd

59:34like to

59:36um remove some language in the uh in the

59:41basically the the staff memo that has

59:44the conditions of approval, which are

59:46not really an approval in this case.

59:48It's just feedback uh that the applicant

59:50may wish to consider as they're

59:52developing their definitive site plan.

59:54Um

59:56I think that's a you know we can

59:58certainly talk about it. I hope we don't

59:59talk about it for too long. uh just

1:00:02because as you've noted um whatever

1:00:05happens in the hopefully ultimately very

1:00:08successful development of this area uh

1:00:12there's going to be a definitive site

1:00:13plan where all those things are going to

1:00:15get um either discussed if they're

1:00:17relevant or not if they're not. So, uh,

1:00:21I just would preface staff's comments

1:00:23and, uh, to my colleagues w with those

1:00:26items.

1:00:28>> Uh, through the chair, Michelle Smith

1:00:29and the city's planning division, you've

1:00:31highlighted in detail what the

1:00:33preliminary site plan uh, process is.

1:00:35Um, it's one that that we don't see all

1:00:37the time, but the board has seen before.

1:00:39Um, as you stated, for more complicated

1:00:41or larger sites or multi- um, lot sites

1:00:44that are being uh, kind of thought

1:00:46through the development scheme. So an

1:00:47example the table talk site the board

1:00:49had seen um basically a redevelopment

1:00:52plan um sort of showing the different

1:00:54phasing and sites as part of that. So

1:00:56similar here um so the applicant is

1:00:58seeking uh the board's consideration and

1:01:00feedback related to the potential

1:01:02construction of these three

1:01:03manufacturing potentially manufacturing

1:01:05buildings. Um each would be located on

1:01:08their own lot. Um the end lots have

1:01:11frontage at the moment and the middle

1:01:13lot as shown here um none of which

1:01:16exist. They're all one lot today. Would

1:01:17not have frontage until the CC Sea

1:01:20Street subdivision uh whatever its

1:01:22future name comes to fruition as uh that

1:01:26particular subdivision, the layout of

1:01:28that street. Once that's final, there'll

1:01:29be there'll be frontage legally, but

1:01:31until that time today, there is not. So,

1:01:33uh we have notes in here about um

1:01:35requiring the submission of the ANR and

1:01:36creating the frontage as part of that um

1:01:39as you might expect. Um, but basically

1:01:41this is about uh 417,000 square feet of

1:01:45potential square footage for uh advanced

1:01:48manufacturing ideally and or other

1:01:51potential uh tenants or uh owners in

1:01:55this location as part of the larger

1:01:56green tech park redevelopment. The board

1:01:58heard at their last meeting um

1:02:01discussion for another lot that's within

1:02:02the same area uh where there was a

1:02:04restaurant depot facility that was

1:02:05approved. Um not dissimilar from that

1:02:08there are a number of parking spaces

1:02:10that are proposed here. So in the the

1:02:12sort of max buildout as it's

1:02:14contemplated with the potential

1:02:15landbanked parking um which is

1:02:18essentially the future expansion

1:02:20typically not something we condition or

1:02:22do. You either build it or you don't.

1:02:23You design it in a way and we approve

1:02:24that and you build that um is typically

1:02:26how we handle that. So um you know it's

1:02:29been designed with the potential for

1:02:31that. they've calculated from a storm

1:02:33water perspective management of all that

1:02:34impervious surface in the calculations

1:02:37that they've provided as part of this

1:02:39this larger project. So a lot of our

1:02:41comments relate to sort of refining that

1:02:43and again um the the point of these

1:02:45comments being uh directive in the sense

1:02:48of what the the purpose of the plan is.

1:02:50So specifically you know the the board

1:02:52has the option to approve the

1:02:53preliminary plan. It can approve it with

1:02:55modifications that are requested or

1:02:56suggested or it can basically just

1:02:58specify these are issues you know and

1:03:00adverse um potential issues that need

1:03:03resolution. Uh essentially not approving

1:03:06it in that sense and saying these are

1:03:07the things we want you to resolve before

1:03:09the next um iteration with the

1:03:11definitive. Ultimately the preliminary

1:03:13doesn't allow anybody to build anything.

1:03:15Uh requires a definitive approval prior

1:03:18to to any construction. So um we have a

1:03:20lot of content in here. Um, most of this

1:03:22is intended to be educational for both

1:03:25the applicant owner uh and the potential

1:03:28future developers of these lots in terms

1:03:30of the typical expectations and requests

1:03:31that staff and the board uh make for

1:03:34these types of projects. So, more as a

1:03:35communication item to help highlight and

1:03:37and assist with those future owners

1:03:40tenants as they develop their plans and

1:03:42progress those plans into something um

1:03:44that would be submitted for a definitive

1:03:45trying to highlight the provisions of

1:03:47the code or the requirements that the

1:03:48board typically imposes that maybe

1:03:50aren't codified in the code or maybe in

1:03:52weird places that aren't easy to find.

1:03:54So, the intent of staff comments is to

1:03:56try to help facilitate that and make it

1:03:58easier to digest um for a successful

1:04:00application hopefully. Um and so uh one

1:04:04thing that I I do want to call attention

1:04:06to the the property if folks are

1:04:08familiar with obviously the former St.

1:04:10Cobain and prior to that Norton Company

1:04:13manufacturing campus as part of the

1:04:15larger redevelopment of the site there's

1:04:17a memorandum of agreement with the

1:04:18historic commission as well as MHC um

1:04:22based on the the loss of those buildings

1:04:24and so there is a requirement for a

1:04:25dedication area which would be proposed

1:04:28essentially as part of one of these lots

1:04:30um presumably and so we are looking for

1:04:32specifics on ownership maintenance how

1:04:35that would work who's going to be

1:04:36responsible ensuring that that isn't

1:04:38something that the city becomes

1:04:40responsible for wanting to understand

1:04:41that. So, as part of a definitive

1:04:43submission, we've called, you know,

1:04:44attention that we'd be looking for those

1:04:46specifics to better understand that and

1:04:47wanting to make sure that that area was

1:04:49included, for example, on things like

1:04:51storm water report um and calculations

1:04:53and that the report is reflective of

1:04:54that because it could change some of the

1:04:56the standards and specifications or the

1:04:58way that those forms need to be filled

1:04:59out. So, we have that listed out in our

1:05:02comments. Um, ultimately, as we've

1:05:05stated with our discussion about

1:05:06Restaurant Depot, the lot of parking,

1:05:08obviously the end user will sort of

1:05:09dictate the needs and demands of what is

1:05:12operationally happening and what's

1:05:14necessary. Um, whether these are fleet

1:05:16vehicle parking spaces or if they're

1:05:18customer parking spaces in some way in

1:05:20addition to employee spaces, you know,

1:05:22if it's more tractor trailer or if it's

1:05:24more automobile, um, standard personal

1:05:26automobile. Um so again a lot of our

1:05:28feedback is is general and broad and

1:05:30thinking of the potential future uses.

1:05:32So we have comments but not conditions

1:05:34relating to encouraging them to think

1:05:36about um potential electrification for

1:05:39fleet vehicles. You know if there is

1:05:40some need for charging of fleet vehicles

1:05:42to make sure that there's appropriate

1:05:44infrastructure installed or planned for

1:05:46in that regard. Um the building code

1:05:48requires a certain amount. Those don't

1:05:50have to be online. Um and then there's

1:05:52the reality of you know how an operation

1:05:54might work. If you look at um something

1:05:56like an Amazon, right, where they all

1:05:57have all the electrical vehicles,

1:05:59electric vehicles, um you'll see all the

1:06:01chargers, right? So, just thinking all

1:06:02the different end users that may have

1:06:04these uh types of needs and making sure

1:06:06that we've kind of planned for that. So,

1:06:09that's included in our comments. Um

1:06:11normal items like white roof or solar on

1:06:15on buildings. um ensuring that um we

1:06:19have an understanding and orientation of

1:06:21of the buildings as convenient as

1:06:24possible for all types of users and

1:06:26considering folks that are coming not

1:06:28just via automobile or truck uh

1:06:30depending on the use but that there

1:06:32might be employees that are taking

1:06:33public transit or walking or biking to

1:06:35work um that are working here and

1:06:38wanting to make sure that there are

1:06:39convenient routes for them that are

1:06:40provided from the surrounding street

1:06:42network into the facilities that they're

1:06:44located in. So, while I could go through

1:06:47all of those things, um I want to call

1:06:49attention to a few because I know we've

1:06:50had recent discussions on these and I

1:06:52think possibly some of these are items

1:06:53that the applicant would like to

1:06:54discuss, although I don't know for sure.

1:06:56Um so, we'll ultimately turn it back

1:06:58over to them to to clarify that. But, um

1:07:01specifically, we have uh called out as

1:07:04as conditions, if you will, for the

1:07:06revised plans um requesting that they

1:07:08reflect covered exterior bicycle parking

1:07:10andor interior bicycle parking, which is

1:07:13always our preference. um just for use

1:07:16of employees. So that's 1 C 1F. We have

1:07:19a request to incorporate compact spaces

1:07:21where appropriate for up to 25%. So

1:07:24that's the allowed by right.

1:07:26Understanding that not every use is

1:07:28going to have um a need or for that

1:07:31quantity of the overall supply um but

1:07:34perhaps of you know at least the

1:07:35employee count 25% can be provided um in

1:07:39compact to help reduce again impervious

1:07:40surface. Um we have uh pulled from our

1:07:44lengthy discussion about this at the

1:07:46prior meeting around rooftop mechanicals

1:07:49basically asking for those to be set

1:07:50back and not visible from the street and

1:07:52if they are visible from the surrounding

1:07:54street network with the exception of the

1:07:56highway so 190 um that they be screened

1:07:59to minimize the appearance. So we do

1:08:01have that carried forward um from the

1:08:04prior discussion. I know the chair

1:08:05wasn't here um but there was lengthy

1:08:07discussion around that for the

1:08:09restaurant depot site. Um there are a

1:08:11few locations where we're looking for

1:08:13additional trees based on the plan

1:08:15that's provided where it wouldn't comply

1:08:16with the requirements of the ordinance.

1:08:18So carrying forward the requirements

1:08:19that we have for planting of trees um

1:08:23and

1:08:25a requirement for the phototric plan to

1:08:27be adjusted reflecting the final layout.

1:08:30um putting together the putting some

1:08:33specifications on what we typically are

1:08:34looking for in a lighting plan, which is

1:08:36usually at least a one foot candle of

1:08:38light in areas where there's potential

1:08:40for pedestrian vehicle complex. Um and

1:08:42generally speaking, avoiding excess

1:08:44light over a 10 foot candles. Um you

1:08:47know, certainly exceptions can be made

1:08:49in in areas that maybe are exterior

1:08:51loading and require that type of

1:08:52accommodation, but generally speaking,

1:08:54that's what we're looking for. 3,000 uh

1:08:56Kelvin for lighting, 25 foot high max in

1:08:59a context like this, whether it's a a

1:09:01light pole or a wall pack. Um so again,

1:09:03some of the things that end up being

1:09:05discussion points at at subsequent

1:09:07planning board meetings, trying to kind

1:09:08of be clear about that upfront as an

1:09:11expectation. So all of that is

1:09:12essentially in line with what the board

1:09:14discussed and approved for the

1:09:15restaurant depot site. Um we have um

1:09:19again the dedication area cross

1:09:21easements a lot of the the sites that

1:09:24you see here have inner linkage um which

1:09:26may or may not be proposed but if it is

1:09:28proposed wanting to make sure they're

1:09:29appropriate easement areas demarcated

1:09:31and clarification about who would be

1:09:33responsible for maintaining uh those

1:09:36facilities. Um I mentioned updates to

1:09:38stormwater report um calling again

1:09:40attention to specific questions

1:09:42requiring test pit data of which um soil

1:09:46uh characterization we don't have. Um

1:09:48the frontage as I mentioned in the ANR

1:09:50and also you'll recall that there were

1:09:52discontinuences of prior streets within

1:09:55the larger campus including store

1:09:57street. There's a former private street

1:09:59right ofway um that sort of bisects this

1:10:01parcel. And so wanting to ensure that

1:10:03where that overlaps with any of the

1:10:05proposed buildings they have gone

1:10:06through the process to extinguish or

1:10:08provide evidence satisfactory to our law

1:10:09department that any of those rights of

1:10:11others have been extinguished which most

1:10:12most likely don't exist but wanting to

1:10:14have that documentation um to avoid any

1:10:17issues there for zoning compliance or

1:10:18otherwise. Um so those I think are are

1:10:22sort of the main pieces that I wanted to

1:10:24highlight. Um, I'm more than happy to to

1:10:28discuss any comments, questions, etc.

1:10:31But the applicant will ultimately, in

1:10:33addition to a definitive site plan from

1:10:34this board, require a notice of intent

1:10:37from the conservation commission u for

1:10:38any of the work given the location um

1:10:41within the city storm water protection

1:10:42zone, but also given the location for

1:10:44some of the work within 100 feet, I

1:10:46believe, of a wetland nearby. So again,

1:10:49happy to answer questions. Thanks.

1:10:52>> Okay, thank you, Miss Smith. Um, any

1:10:54additional comments on this from DPW?

1:10:58>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We

1:11:00don't have any comment at this moment.

1:11:02Thank you.

1:11:03>> Okay. Thank you. Um, so what conditions

1:11:06uh would you guys like to discuss?

1:11:10So I I think we want to I guess further

1:11:14just to make sure that we have a clear

1:11:16understanding

1:11:20if all of these recommendations are

1:11:23adopted this evening. We now have

1:11:25preliminary site plan approval and we

1:11:29have a end user that comes back in for a

1:11:32definitive site plan approval. Is this

1:11:35preliminary site plan approval going to

1:11:37have to be used as you know the the the

1:11:40the Bible for them to say well we need

1:11:43to meet this we need to do that or again

1:11:46because we do not know who these end

1:11:49users are. We're essentially trying to

1:11:52the set the table um for for what we're

1:11:55trying to do here rather than kind of

1:11:57laying everything out. we're trying to

1:11:59make it a little bit easier um for for

1:12:01the next end user um to put the

1:12:03specifics to it. So, I guess we're

1:12:06before we, you know, kind of start going

1:12:08through and crossing things out, we just

1:12:10want to make sure that we have a clear

1:12:11understanding of when we get a

1:12:14preliminary site plan approval with

1:12:17these conditions, what does that mean

1:12:19for the definitive application when it

1:12:21comes down the road?

1:12:22>> Oh, I I think I can answer that

1:12:24question. Uh our our goals are probably

1:12:26aligned with and and when I say are, I

1:12:29mean yours as the applicant, us as the

1:12:32board and staff as as the folks who do

1:12:34the line share the work. Uh the what

1:12:38what a preliminary site plan approval

1:12:41does for you is lists the things we

1:12:43might care about is particularly in this

1:12:44context where as as I noted were almost

1:12:48earlier than we would even normally see

1:12:49it because you don't know who the tenant

1:12:52is yet uh or the owner or however this

1:12:54is going to work. Um, and so they're

1:12:56going to come here and maybe they're a

1:12:57high-tech manufacturing use. Maybe

1:12:59they're more of a uh similar to

1:13:02restaurant depot, like a I don't know

1:13:03what those are called, but logistics uh

1:13:06use. Um, the considerations are going to

1:13:09be different, but these are the types of

1:13:10things we are going to ask about uh and

1:13:13consider. um you know

1:13:17without picking any one particular topic

1:13:20but like how adequate are the pedestrian

1:13:22facilities given what type of use it is.

1:13:25Uh there's always going to be that given

1:13:27what type of use it is component to it.

1:13:29It's not a preliminary subdivision. Um I

1:13:33certainly hope this wouldn't be the

1:13:34case, but if they never read it, they

1:13:37would just be less informed entering the

1:13:39process of a subdivision. I I would I

1:13:41would suggest that most of this stuff,

1:13:43if not all of it, is already going to be

1:13:45in a definitive application that they

1:13:47put in. So, in I guess when we were

1:13:50looking at this,

1:13:52no offense intended, there's some

1:13:54redundancies here that we're saying like

1:13:57we know that this is this is just the

1:13:59the start of the picture and when we

1:14:02have that end user identified, the the

1:14:04the color of the picture is going to be

1:14:06filled in after that. So that's what

1:14:08we're So that's what we're trying to

1:14:11make sure that we have a a clear

1:14:13understanding of um and really trying to

1:14:16also

1:14:17set the expectations for the end users

1:14:19that are coming in here so that they

1:14:21don't look at a sheet of paper and say,

1:14:23"Oh my goodness, these are all of the

1:14:25items that we need to do." They're going

1:14:26to look at the definitive application

1:14:28and see what they need to provide to the

1:14:30city anyways.

1:14:32>> That's true. Um but there's hopefully if

1:14:35they look at this, it's a lot clearer.

1:14:37uh than just starting starting from

1:14:39scratch because sure

1:14:40>> there are the rules and regulations and

1:14:41then there's how the city might choose

1:14:44to interpret them or which rules and

1:14:45regulations they care the most about. Uh

1:14:47and I think that's well codified in a

1:14:50preliminary um and I keep saying

1:14:51subdivision. I'm sorry. Uh

1:14:53>> I was doing the same thing earlier.

1:14:54[laughter] You're in the same boat.

1:14:55>> Yeah. Uh it's it should be codified

1:14:58here. Um so I think that's the intent.

1:15:02Uh, and like I said, we can certainly if

1:15:04there are specific things that you're

1:15:05like, I I don't think this makes sense,

1:15:07by all means, let's talk about it. Uh, I

1:15:09I just think um hopefully we don't talk

1:15:13about it too much because who who knows

1:15:15what's going to happen.

1:15:16>> Sure.

1:15:16>> Yeah.

1:15:16>> Yep.

1:15:17>> No, absolutely. So, I mean, Andrew,

1:15:20please step in if you if

1:15:23>> I think just just in terms of that, I

1:15:24mean, again, I know this is the intent

1:15:26is to kind of outline the framework as

1:15:29as we've all been discussing. There's

1:15:32just again some I think on a high level

1:15:33some wording changes that that we we

1:15:35would recommend. Uh mainly again kind of

1:15:38like on the the first paragraph as

1:15:39you're looking right right above um one

1:15:43where it says you know the the plan

1:15:44shall shall require and again you kind

1:15:47of list out everything's listed out

1:15:49below that where it's really like we

1:15:51don't we don't know what those future

1:15:52plans are going to be. So again, we'd

1:15:54recommend um kind of a wording change

1:15:56where the the the plan shall explore the

1:16:00following modifications as part of a

1:16:02definitive sub sub see I did it too as

1:16:04part of a definitive uh submission uh by

1:16:07a by a future end user.

1:16:15>> Um I think I see your point which is

1:16:17that it might be clear that this was a

1:16:19preliminary approval if it

1:16:24In this case, because of the sort of

1:16:27extremely extra preliminary nature of

1:16:29this, uh, if we were if we we modified

1:16:33that that first clause slightly,

1:16:36I guess just how detailed about this are

1:16:38we going to get? Is there are there many

1:16:39more of these in this document that

1:16:41you'd like to change or

1:16:42>> I I I don't I don't think so. Um,

1:16:45there's just a couple others. Um, just

1:16:48quickly to to rattle off, I would

1:16:50request that item O be removed. There

1:16:53are no um no active RTN's on the site.

1:16:57Um, so I I don't think that that is a a

1:17:01relevant item to be um located on here,

1:17:03so that should be removed. Um, there's a

1:17:06couple of others, Q&R. Um, I would ask

1:17:09that perhaps we put in some language

1:17:11saying that that information would be um

1:17:14submitted prior to construction

1:17:18um because again we can't we can't

1:17:20provide uh phasing or sequencing of

1:17:23plans um without um knowing what's going

1:17:27to be built there. Um, and then items

1:17:32five, six, and seven, as as Miss Smith

1:17:34uh referenced, um, those items have been

1:17:37completed. Um, so I don't know that

1:17:39those necessarily need to be included in

1:17:41there. I mean, there obviously certainly

1:17:43no harm in being there, but um those

1:17:45items have been those have been

1:17:48addressed, I believe.

1:17:51>> I'm not sure where I'm looking at the

1:17:53same um document. looking at the old

1:17:56>> uh do we maybe change the numbering?

1:17:58>> Um am I understanding five referring to

1:18:01the survey?

1:18:03>> Correct.

1:18:04>> And then six with respect to the

1:18:06extinguishing. I I don't believe we have

1:18:08that. If I may be a miss, but I don't

1:18:11believe we have that. The survey, I

1:18:12think we have a digital version, but I

1:18:14don't think we have one that's sealed.

1:18:16>> Okay. And then for the um discontinuence

1:18:22um I I think um again that we were still

1:18:26looking for explanation for that related

1:18:28to because of the future reconfiguration

1:18:31of the adjacent right ofway. So these

1:18:33are all againformational

1:18:35items I think um with the intent of of

1:18:38clarifying that's information that staff

1:18:39and the board would want to understand

1:18:42it in the future. So I guess you know

1:18:44ultimately my recommendation would be to

1:18:46leave them. These are the comments that

1:18:48we put forward as sort of clarifications

1:18:50for the purpose and understanding that

1:18:52ha that staff have there was a

1:18:54preliminary plan submitted that staff's

1:18:57responsibility to review it and advise

1:18:58you on what you would need were you to

1:19:00proceed with this. I understand that the

1:19:02intention isn't necessarily to do that

1:19:04but we also don't want to end up in a

1:19:06situation where someone submits a

1:19:08definitive and then says well it wasn't

1:19:10in the preliminary comments. So the the

1:19:12the rationale for the approach is that

1:19:15that is basically the the process is

1:19:18effectively supposed to perpetuate these

1:19:21are the things that we can expect and we

1:19:23need for the submission. Obviously that

1:19:25may change. Um we're open to adjusting

1:19:27the the sort of front-end language I

1:19:29think to to clarify that. That's no

1:19:31problem at all. But I think the the

1:19:32whole point of the review to just strike

1:19:34all of these items would I mean I don't

1:19:38believe we have that information. we can

1:19:39remove O um related to the release

1:19:42tracking numbers. I would just say if

1:19:43there's no ref if there are none, you

1:19:45don't need to do anything the way that

1:19:46it's that it's worded. If there's a

1:19:48concern about the language because it's

1:19:49advertising something that like isn't

1:19:52actually there, I I think that's fine.

1:19:54Um but for the other items, I don't I

1:19:56don't believe we do have those. Um and

1:19:58again, I might be mistaken, but I think

1:20:00ultimately we would want that as part of

1:20:02the definitive. not a typical thing that

1:20:05would be required of most applications

1:20:07because those are unique site

1:20:09circumstances and nuances I think so I

1:20:11think it behooves the board to include

1:20:13them but ultimately it's the board's

1:20:15discretion you can decide how you want

1:20:16to handle this um but I would say if if

1:20:20fundamentally if there's something that

1:20:22comes in different than this you can

1:20:24basically throw this out the window

1:20:25because we're going to review it based

1:20:26on all the standards anyways so then the

1:20:29the question is like why are we here

1:20:31right um so I think The point was we

1:20:33reviewed it. These are the comments that

1:20:34we're advising on based on what's in

1:20:36front of here. If if the board doesn't

1:20:38feel that any of that's appropriate or

1:20:40disagrees with those comments and

1:20:41wouldn't want to see those things, I

1:20:43think the idea is to try to express, you

1:20:45know, points of conflict. So, for

1:20:47example, you know, the lengthy

1:20:48conversations we had about lighting and

1:20:50signage uh or screening rather at the

1:20:52prior meeting, the the idea is if

1:20:54there's a going to be something like

1:20:55that that's a potential sticking point,

1:20:57it should be discussed here so that it's

1:20:59not a surprise later. So again, the

1:21:01intent of these conditions were to try

1:21:03to to facilitate anything like that um

1:21:06coming forward. So I think you know if

1:21:09you modify the language on the front

1:21:10end, it's just a a language for

1:21:12recommendation. So um you can just say

1:21:14the the board if the board votes to

1:21:16approve this, your recommendation is

1:21:18that the definitive submission include

1:21:20the following and that's basically your

1:21:23recommendation.

1:21:24>> Yeah, I would say includes consideration

1:21:26of the following. Um

1:21:29because that probably gets us to the

1:21:31point of these are things you might have

1:21:33to think about. But if uh all the the

1:21:37streets and the subdivisions and

1:21:38everything is all done already,

1:21:40obviously some of these points don't no

1:21:41would no longer apply in that case.

1:21:43>> Uh so

1:21:45I'd be okay with that. Um do you guys

1:21:48have other specific things that you you

1:21:51want to discuss? I think there was just

1:21:54um item item 14 which again kind of

1:21:56references that the plan shall be in

1:21:58compliance with the the Worcester zoning

1:22:01ordinance which obviously that's that's

1:22:02the goal. I would just request language

1:22:04be added maybe to to the end of that

1:22:06except for waiverss have been requested

1:22:08and granted by the board by kind of a

1:22:10future future applicant again just

1:22:12trying to add flexibility for someone to

1:22:15come in in the future should should they

1:22:16need some relief in some way.

1:22:19>> I mean it's not it's not I would tell

1:22:20you two things. It's non-binding because

1:22:22as we've just discussed, but also the

1:22:24zoning ordinance makes provisions for

1:22:26modifications of the zoning ordinance.

1:22:29Uh so

1:22:30>> I don't really think you'd be in

1:22:31conflict. There'd be like a way to be in

1:22:33conflict with this and also get a

1:22:35building permit.

1:22:36>> Uh but I I don't I don't mind changing

1:22:40it if you like. [laughter]

1:22:46>> Um okay. Does that cover your um your

1:22:50concerns? We're

1:22:51>> all set.

1:22:51>> Yeah, those are those are the items.

1:22:53>> Anyone from the public wishing to speak

1:22:55on this item tonight?

1:22:59>> Are you guys all here on parking?

1:23:01>> I'm sorry.

1:23:02>> Yeah.

1:23:02>> Oh, okay. That makes I was like, these

1:23:04folks are all waiting. I'm like, uh,

1:23:07anyone online wishing to speak on this?

1:23:14Apologies. This is Steve Cary in the

1:23:15planning division. Um,

1:23:20>> there's no one online.

1:23:22>> Just staff and the board.

1:23:24>> Understood. Uh, board members, Mr. King,

1:23:28do you mind going first?

1:23:31>> In general, general on this one. Happy

1:23:33to support it. Definitely early, but

1:23:36yeah, no issues with making the proposed

1:23:38changes and then when everything comes

1:23:39back as definitive site plan, we'll

1:23:40re-review it for the conditions then.

1:23:43Thank you.

1:23:44>> Thank you, Mr. Mr. King, Mr. Delera.

1:23:47>> Yes. Uh, thank you. I agree with Mr.

1:23:50King. Um, I'm okay with it at this point

1:23:54and so I have no further comment. Thank

1:23:56you.

1:23:58>> Okay, Mr. uh, Tumi.

1:24:01>> Yeah. No, no real problems with this.

1:24:03Just look forward to it as it develops.

1:24:05>> Uh, Mr. Rosende.

1:24:07>> Uh, no comments. Thank you.

1:24:09>> Thank you.

1:24:10Um,

1:24:13yeah, I I also have no real comments. I

1:24:15think this is an important project for

1:24:16the city. Uh, and um, I look forward to

1:24:21what I'm sure will be more

1:24:22conversations. This is the uh, next in a

1:24:25series of many we've had already. So,

1:24:27um, keep up keep up the work. Uh, we'll

1:24:30see you back here soon. Um, that said, I

1:24:33think we're ready for recommendation.

1:24:34And, Mr. King, just a reminder, um, we

1:24:37want to say something to the effect of

1:24:39we're going to approve this, but with

1:24:41modifications to the introductory

1:24:42language consistent with our

1:24:44conversation.

1:24:45>> Great. I make a motion to approve the

1:24:48preliminary site plan subject to the

1:24:51items as discussed where the definitive

1:24:53submission shall include the

1:24:55consideration of the comments as

1:24:57mentioned and the changes to item number

1:25:0014 as discussed

1:25:02>> and striking O I believe.

1:25:05and striking O.

1:25:08>> Second on

1:25:09>> the motion. Mr. King,

1:25:11>> yes.

1:25:11>> Mr. Delera,

1:25:13>> yes.

1:25:13>> Mr. Tumi,

1:25:14>> yes.

1:25:14>> I vote yes. Four to zero. That motion

1:25:16passes. Good luck.

1:25:18>> Thank you so much.

1:25:18>> Appreciate it.

1:25:23>> All right. Next up is item number 12,

1:25:26which is a public hearing for a zoning

1:25:29ordinance amendment related to minimum

1:25:31parking requirements.

1:25:35Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

1:25:37board.

1:25:38Mark, for the record, Mark Borenstein.

1:25:40Uh the uh petitioner and proud property

1:25:44owner. Um the petition is pretty simple.

1:25:47We're I'm seeking to reduce the minimum

1:25:49off street parking requirements for

1:25:51single, two, three, and multif family

1:25:53dwellings. Uh we require way too much

1:25:57parking in the city of Worcester, as I'm

1:25:58sure the board would agree with. Um, I

1:26:01cannot tell you how many projects I have

1:26:04represented where we've had to seek

1:26:06zoning relief for parking. And so from

1:26:09my perspective, this uh petition would

1:26:12codify what we're already doing, which

1:26:14is looking at actual parking demand, IT

1:26:17demands, which are probably less than

1:26:19actually this petition. But um to quote

1:26:23DTM, I think their position and I would

1:26:26agree is uh this petition represents a

1:26:28modest measured step toward better

1:26:30aligning residential parking supply with

1:26:32actual demand while reducing the

1:26:34unintended consequences associated with

1:26:36the current twospace requirement. So I

1:26:39think it's fairly straightforward. Um, I

1:26:41re I would just want to acknowledge some

1:26:43of the staff comments regarding some of

1:26:45the uh perceived inconsistencies with

1:26:48the CCOD, recognizing that the CCOD does

1:26:51require um a similar number of parking

1:26:53spaces, some more for Shrewsbury Street

1:26:56um and uh guest parking spaces. Uh,

1:26:59similar to DTM's comment, I would

1:27:01recommend that either the planning board

1:27:03or some other division of the city seek

1:27:06um a um reconciliation of that um to the

1:27:09extent that the city council ordains the

1:27:11zoning amendment. So, happy to answer

1:27:13any questions that the board may have

1:27:15with respect to my personal petition.

1:27:18>> All right. Thank you. Uh and Miss Smith,

1:27:21maybe we could just start by saying our

1:27:23our role as planning board. This is a

1:27:25petition that you've made to the city

1:27:27council. They have referred it to us to

1:27:29hold hearing. Um, we're going to make a

1:27:31recommendation that they may or may not,

1:27:34you know, it's non-binding. They just

1:27:35have asked us our opinion. Uh, and

1:27:38likely it goes back to them, back to a

1:27:40subcommittee and back to them were to

1:27:42continue to move forward. Is that

1:27:43accurate?

1:27:45>> That's correct, Mr. Chair.

1:27:47>> All right. Uh, do you have comments on

1:27:49this?

1:27:50>> I do. Uh, so again, Michelle Smith and

1:27:52the city's planning division. So for the

1:27:54board, the first page of the staff memo

1:27:56that's provided shows you in red with a

1:27:58red line the changes that are actually

1:28:00proposed to the text through the

1:28:01petition. Um and then just reminds you

1:28:03of the role which is again that

1:28:04recommendation. So that you heard um the

1:28:08petition specifically includes reducing

1:28:10basically the standard base as I'll

1:28:12refer to it parking requirements

1:28:14citywide with the exception of certain

1:28:16overlay districts. Um the way that those

1:28:19overlay districts interface with the the

1:28:21underlying base parking requirements. Um

1:28:23so they would be reducing that from what

1:28:24is today two parking spaces for single

1:28:27two three and multif family dwellings

1:28:29down to one parking space for those same

1:28:32subset of uses. Obviously that is a

1:28:33subset of the various uses that we have

1:28:35a subset of the residential use

1:28:37categories that we have parkings for. Um

1:28:39but obviously we have parking

1:28:41requirements for many other uses all of

1:28:42which also have problems. Um, so in

1:28:46terms of the staff comments that are

1:28:48provided, you know, we've provided you

1:28:50with a summary of all the different

1:28:52plans and reports that we have uh that

1:28:54highlight the need to modernize parking

1:28:56and indicate that parking is is too

1:28:58high. That includes the I'm not going to

1:29:00belabor them, but hazard mitigation

1:29:02plan, housing production plan, Worester

1:29:03now citywide long range plan, um

1:29:06mobility action plan, uh a Worcester

1:29:08regional research bureau public parking

1:29:11um brief from 2024, as well as the Green

1:29:15Worcester um plan. So all of those have

1:29:18suggestions in one way or another and

1:29:20acknowledgement of the the reality of

1:29:22the disconnect between the parking

1:29:24demands that we actually have here in

1:29:26the city and what our zoning ordinance

1:29:29in fact codifies and requires. Um so

1:29:32just as example um this is slightly

1:29:34outdated um census data but from ACS

1:29:37data and uh 5-year estimates from 2022

1:29:40um just based on the timeline of when

1:29:41these plans were developed um about 58%

1:29:45of households rental and ownership have

1:29:47one or fewer vehicles. Um and then again

1:29:50specifically almost uh just shy of uh

1:29:5425% of renter occupied units do not have

1:29:57any vehicle at all. Um yet we are

1:30:00requiring two parking spaces for every

1:30:02single one of these units regardless of

1:30:03the number of bedrooms that it has. Um

1:30:06so I think there's broad consensus

1:30:08across planning documents across

1:30:10constituents that the requirements that

1:30:12we have are too high and no one is here

1:30:15to debate that. Um uh you heard DTM did

1:30:18provide comments u relative to the

1:30:20petition as well. Um and that's we are

1:30:23seeing trends all over the nation and in

1:30:26the region of eliminating parking

1:30:28requirements. The board will recall that

1:30:30our office introduced a um now almost a

1:30:33year ago anformational communication

1:30:35about parking which recently was

1:30:37discussed by the city council back in

1:30:39June and referred back to the full

1:30:40council in July. Um at which point they

1:30:44have asked the administration to develop

1:30:45a proposal for uh an overhaul of the

1:30:48parking requirements for the zoning

1:30:50ordinance which our office is working

1:30:51on. Um, which would holistically look at

1:30:55all uses, not just residential uses, but

1:30:57other uses where we see, you know, folks

1:30:59coming in for variances, including

1:31:01reusing storefronts and other things,

1:31:03uh, where folks end up with a in a

1:31:06parking pickle, um, for lack of a better

1:31:08way to describe it, and end up coming in

1:31:10and obtaining zoning relief. Um, so we

1:31:12are are working on that holistically,

1:31:14which would include reevaluating the

1:31:15overlay districts, um, as well as again

1:31:18these other use categories. As part of

1:31:20that proposal, we do anticipate

1:31:22submitting um a draft amendment to the

1:31:25text of the zoning ordinance by the end

1:31:27of the year. Um but there have been some

1:31:30other fund changes to the state law that

1:31:31we are currently working on reconciling.

1:31:33Um but that is is something that we are

1:31:36working on um and expect to reduce. As

1:31:39part of the discussion on

1:31:41thatformational communication, this

1:31:43board, this economic development

1:31:44committee of the city council and many

1:31:46members of the public also weighed in

1:31:47about their desires, many of which were

1:31:49for full elimination, but also many of

1:31:51which were reserved and had concerns

1:31:53about the need for nuance in proposals

1:31:56and recognizing that not every

1:31:58neighborhood is in fact the same. Um

1:32:00obviously that speaks to sort of the

1:32:02history of our community and using um

1:32:05overlay districts to help handle parking

1:32:07and parking demands. Specifically, we

1:32:09have used them um to reduce parking

1:32:12requirements. Um so specifically the

1:32:14commercial corridor overlay district

1:32:15which came out of other prior relic

1:32:18districts um known as different things

1:32:20in different eras. Um that district is

1:32:23intended to create flexibility with

1:32:26respect to parking and in fact reduce

1:32:28those requirements. So this particular

1:32:30proposal, the way that um it's been

1:32:33petitioned with the the language that

1:32:34it's included would not affect those

1:32:36overlay districts. Um so what would

1:32:39inevitably happen were this to proceed

1:32:41and move forward um the base the new

1:32:44base parking requirement right for these

1:32:46subset of residential units single two

1:32:48three and multif family would go from

1:32:50two to one. Um and then what we have on

1:32:53the books for the overlay district is

1:32:54not affected. And then the requirements

1:32:57in the overlay district now are actually

1:32:59more um they require more parking than

1:33:01what the base requirement would be. So

1:33:04for example um in the Shrewsbury Street

1:33:07uh sub area of the commercial corridor

1:33:10overlay which is kind of our higher more

1:33:13um parking oriented flexible parking uh

1:33:17for for the best way to attempt to to

1:33:19describe that. um you know CCOD

1:33:21generally basically is saying you need

1:33:24to have only 50% or up to 75% of what

1:33:28the typical base requirements are. Um

1:33:31the proposal would leave um that

1:33:33particular area essentially requiring

1:33:34almost 60% more parking than the base

1:33:36requirements. So there's an sort of

1:33:38asynchronization in that sense of moving

1:33:40this forward without addressing that

1:33:42kind of putting the CCOD in a sense at

1:33:46conflict with itself and what it's

1:33:47attempting to accomplish. it's no longer

1:33:48accomplishing that because these other

1:33:50requirements have been changed. So

1:33:52that's something that we intend to

1:33:53address fully with our proposal, but

1:33:56just want to indicate that this request

1:33:58does have some cascading effects to

1:34:00other areas of the regulations which

1:34:02aren't being addressed through this

1:34:04proposal and make sure that that is

1:34:06understood by the board um and

1:34:08acknowledged um in discussion where the

1:34:10board to move this forward in in

1:34:12whatever manner it sees fit. Um so so

1:34:16that that is is one piece that I wanted

1:34:18to highlight. The other piece that I

1:34:20think is important to highlight is that

1:34:22um we do have other incentives that are

1:34:24built in with the zoning code related to

1:34:26parking specifically for inclusionary

1:34:28zoning. And these are automatic

1:34:30incentives that are tied to projects

1:34:32that are called eligible developments

1:34:33which basically means someone's opting

1:34:35to provide affordable units that we

1:34:37require. um not doing a a payment in

1:34:39lie. They're actually building the units

1:34:40in their project and they are meeting a

1:34:43certain minimum percentage of those

1:34:44units at or below 60% AMI which is a a

1:34:475% requirement. Um so if they're

1:34:50providing those units, this is to

1:34:51incentivize folks to actually build the

1:34:53housing. Um they are eligible for these

1:34:56reductions and it comes in a layered

1:34:59form uh with a little bit of complicated

1:35:01math. Uh we have a lovely calculator

1:35:03that people get to use to figure it out

1:35:04so it simplifies it. Um but essentially

1:35:07it relates to how many affordable units.

1:35:09So the more affordable units, you know,

1:35:11the the greater the discount up to a

1:35:12certain point. Um so essentially that

1:35:14reduces the base parking requirements

1:35:17potentially up to half. Um so it it

1:35:20would have that. So today that brings it

1:35:22down to basically one space per unit.

1:35:24With this proposal, it would

1:35:25automatically change that. So it would

1:35:27come down to half a space per unit. Um,

1:35:29and again, that would be citywide with

1:35:31the exception of the overlay districts

1:35:34just based on the way that the language

1:35:36works in the zoning ordinance because we

1:35:38refer to percentages rather than than

1:35:40numbers. So, we would be able to bring

1:35:42that down um through that. That it's not

1:35:45always by right. Many ways it is

1:35:47typically at least 25% of that is and

1:35:49often a bit more. Uh but there the

1:35:53planning board sees all of those uh

1:35:55approvals where they don't meet that and

1:35:56they're looking to reduce that through

1:35:57inclusionary zoning special permits to

1:35:59reduce parking which you see lots of. Uh

1:36:01we don't have any on this evening but

1:36:03usually we do. Um so even even that

1:36:06again indicating you know that one space

1:36:08per unit is really not um what the

1:36:11market is is demanding where we're

1:36:12seeing that relief. So anyhow, so while

1:36:14this would affect, you know, the the

1:36:16areas where we allow residential uses,

1:36:18so all the residential zoning districts

1:36:20and business zoning districts,

1:36:21manufacturing zoning districts would not

1:36:23be affected because we don't allow

1:36:24residential uses in those areas except

1:36:26through one of the overlay districts.

1:36:28Um, and then again, the overlay

1:36:30districts would not be affected. And I

1:36:31want to call attention to that the BG6,

1:36:33the downtown district, we don't require

1:36:35any parking. We will still continue to

1:36:37not require any parking where this to

1:36:38move forward. That's unchanged. It's

1:36:40within one of those overlay districts.

1:36:42However, it has no requirements for

1:36:44that. Um, so it it would stay the way

1:36:46that it is. And I also want to clarify

1:36:48too when we're talking about this, you

1:36:50know, these are the parking minimums

1:36:52that we require that are off- streetet

1:36:54parking. So you can't count spaces that

1:36:56are on the street nearby, right? These

1:36:58are on private property that are

1:36:59counting towards zoning compliance. That

1:37:02zoning compliance and market demand are

1:37:04two very different things. And just

1:37:06because a project does not require

1:37:08something from a zoning perspective does

1:37:10not mean that parking is not provided.

1:37:13Um in fact we see in many areas within

1:37:16our one district that has no parking

1:37:18requirements the BG6 we see many

1:37:20projects that propose still parking at a

1:37:22ratio of 0.5 or 75 per unit because they

1:37:26have a market demand for that. those

1:37:28units depending on the project has a

1:37:30market demand and so they're not going

1:37:31to build a project that won't work for

1:37:34their tenants because they need tenants

1:37:36to make that financially sol solvent.

1:37:40[clears throat]

1:37:41So, I want to be clear, too, that

1:37:43changing the zoning requirements doesn't

1:37:45mean that what people provide will

1:37:47change other than any of those surplus

1:37:50and excess requirements, those parking

1:37:52spaces that maybe aren't being used or

1:37:55um the parking spaces that aren't being

1:37:57used and then when people find out, oh,

1:37:59I can have a second car for free, uh

1:38:01it's actually promoting the use of the

1:38:03automobile. Um that that uh effect is is

1:38:07not really what we're talking about.

1:38:08we're talking about the zoning

1:38:09requirements, the bare minimums of what

1:38:11someone must provide. Um, this also

1:38:14would not affect any of the maximums.

1:38:16Those would stay the same because those

1:38:17are only imposed within the CCOD. Again,

1:38:20an area that this change would have no

1:38:22effect on. So, I think ultimately we we

1:38:26can all agree that reduction of parking

1:38:28is is good. Um, something that the city

1:38:31wants. Um, the council, this board,

1:38:34community members have indicated they

1:38:35want to see more nuance. Um and we

1:38:37expect in the city's proposal that

1:38:39they'll be a bit more nuance and that we

1:38:41would address again all the use

1:38:43categories um comprehensively the

1:38:46overlay districts as well um and and put

1:38:48something forward within the next um

1:38:51before the end of the year um however

1:38:54many months are left uh we're now in

1:38:55August. Uh so that is is what I want to

1:38:59be clear on and and just the one concern

1:39:01that we want to reiterate and express is

1:39:03that you know through this particular

1:39:05change without addressing the overlay

1:39:07district the overlay district is really

1:39:09not performing the function right that

1:39:11it's intending to to serve and then

1:39:13there's sort of a further cascading

1:39:15effect. We're not necessarily just

1:39:16reducing it to one because of the way in

1:39:19inclusionary zoning is sort of

1:39:20automatically tied to that. So, just

1:39:22want to be clear and make sure that that

1:39:23is understood as the complexity of of

1:39:26the code. Um, and I'm happy to answer

1:39:28questions, I I did want to highlight,

1:39:30too, just for sake of interest, um, just

1:39:34analyzing the base parking requirements

1:39:36with a little bit of of research into

1:39:38prior zoning ordinances. Um, back in

1:39:411963, we actually only required one

1:39:44parking space per dwelling unit. Um we

1:39:46still didn't require any parking in the

1:39:48downtown um but we had one parking space

1:39:50per dwelling unit for all residential

1:39:52dwellings. Then come 1980 uh we changed

1:39:56that and started requiring two spaces

1:39:57for single family dwellings but we only

1:39:59required one and a half spaces for two

1:40:01family and multif family projects. Um by

1:40:041991 we had moved to a two parking space

1:40:07per unit count and we've been there

1:40:10since with again modifications through

1:40:12overlay districts and some of these

1:40:14incentives including inclusionary zoning

1:40:16um since that time. Happy to answer any

1:40:19questions.

1:40:21>> Thank you, Miss Smith. Um I guess

1:40:24without further ado, you folks have

1:40:25waited through our whole meeting. What

1:40:28why don't you tell us what you think?

1:40:31Sure.

1:40:36I'm Kevin Piala. I live on Pleasant

1:40:37Street in Worcester. Uh, so I was going

1:40:40to make comments about, you know,

1:40:42parking requirements for restaurants,

1:40:44too, and other things. Apparently,

1:40:46that's all pending. So, it's not really

1:40:48within the scope of here. Uh, a lot of

1:40:50us forget that all of the giant stock of

1:40:54parking isn't going to just go away

1:40:56because suddenly we reduce the minimums.

1:40:59Uh honestly, I expect you with your

1:41:02limited powers here are just going to

1:41:03make an advisement that this goes

1:41:05through and then it's up to the council

1:41:07who has very very different opinions

1:41:10often times. So I I just like to

1:41:14emphasize here that there's a lot of

1:41:17different aspects to this. There's

1:41:22what we require and then there's the

1:41:24reality of what's happening. And because

1:41:27we have choked up so far on this, we're

1:41:30drowning in parking across the city. And

1:41:33honestly, it just eats into your time as

1:41:36well as you have to keep telling people

1:41:37that no, this time they also don't need

1:41:40the parking again. This time you you can

1:41:44ignore the parking requirement. I I just

1:41:46hope that we can reduce all of that

1:41:48headache. That's all.

1:41:50>> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your

1:41:52comments.

1:42:02Franchesco Bavona, District 5. Um, I

1:42:06just wanted to express my enthusiastic

1:42:10support for any measure to reduce the

1:42:12ownorous parking requirements in the

1:42:14city. Uh, and my hope that this is not

1:42:18the end of the the conversation. And

1:42:21what I heard tonight uh indicates to me

1:42:24that there will be more coming

1:42:25hopefully. Uh

1:42:28I honestly would hope that one day uh

1:42:32Worcester joins the over 100 cities

1:42:34since 2017 that have eliminated their

1:42:36parking minimum requirements entirely

1:42:39and uh life has gone on fine for them.

1:42:42Uh and uh

1:42:46yes uh a anything to reduce the frankly

1:42:52completely excessive amount of parking

1:42:53that we have in the city would be great.

1:42:56So thank you.

1:42:57>> Thank you.

1:43:05I'm a Morrison Worcester resident and I

1:43:07too want to voice my support for this

1:43:09position uh this petition and also um

1:43:12just reducing minimum parking

1:43:13requirements in general. Thank you.

1:43:16>> Thank you.

1:43:18>> Uh is there anyone online wishing to

1:43:19speak on this item?

1:43:23>> Uh this is Steve carrying the planning

1:43:24division. Not seeing anyone with their

1:43:26with their hand raised online.

1:43:28>> Okay. Uh I think we can move on to board

1:43:30members. Mr. King, would you like to go

1:43:32first?

1:43:33>> Sure. uh in general happy to support the

1:43:36reduction of the or yeah the reduction

1:43:38of the parking requirements on this one

1:43:40understood the intricacies that will be

1:43:42involved between the CCOD and the

1:43:44standard conditions but happy to

1:43:46favorably recommend this to city council

1:43:47for review.

1:43:50>> Uh thank you Mr. King, Mr. Delera.

1:43:54>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um yes. So

1:43:57essentially this change would simplify

1:43:58the existing practice of what developers

1:44:01have been asking for and generally

1:44:03receiving through waiverss from the

1:44:04city's regulatory boards. So I support

1:44:07uh the intention of this proposal.

1:44:09>> Thank you.

1:44:11>> Thank you, Mr. Dero. Mr. Tumi.

1:44:13>> Yeah, I intend to support this. Thank

1:44:15you.

1:44:16>> Uh Mr. Rosende,

1:44:19>> I too would support this.

1:44:23>> Uh yeah. Um, thank you. I I I would as

1:44:27well in uh to your comment about

1:44:28eliminating parking entirely. I if

1:44:31that's what this petition said, I would

1:44:32support that too. Um, I would say to the

1:44:37city council in our recommendation or

1:44:40request that we say in our

1:44:41recommendation that oftentimes municipal

1:44:44uh progress moves very slowly. Uh and it

1:44:47seems like for a long time consensus has

1:44:50been building in the community of urban

1:44:52planning and um

1:44:56I don't know citizenry of of of cities

1:44:59that uh this has been uh too much and we

1:45:02need to we need to pull back the

1:45:04pendulum. Uh, I would hope we could move

1:45:06quicker than is typical uh on this on

1:45:10this process. And that probably means on

1:45:12the council level they should devote

1:45:14more resources

1:45:16uh than they currently have or request

1:45:18the city manager devote more resources

1:45:20so that we could expedite this. Um, that

1:45:23would be my comment. But Mr. King, I

1:45:25think we're ready for a motion.

1:45:27>> Make a motion to close public hearing.

1:45:30>> Second motion. Mr. King.

1:45:32>> Yes.

1:45:33>> Mr. Delera. Yes,

1:45:34>> Mr. Tumi.

1:45:35>> Yes.

1:45:36>> I vote yes. Four to zero. Hearing's

1:45:37closed.

1:45:39>> I'd make a motion to favorably recommend

1:45:41item number 12 to the city council.

1:45:45>> Second.

1:45:46>> Uh, Mr. King.

1:45:48>> Yes.

1:45:48>> Mr. Delera?

1:45:50>> Yes.

1:45:50>> Mr. Tumi?

1:45:51>> Yes.

1:45:52>> I vote yes as well. Uh, four to zero.

1:45:54That motion passes.

1:45:55>> Thank you.

1:45:55>> Good luck, Mark. Um, moving on to other

1:46:00business. Subdivisions. Sea Street. uh

1:46:03definitive subdivision plan, the request

1:46:05to set a form of shity

1:46:08>> uh through the chair. You heard this

1:46:09earlier this evening, a project along

1:46:11the street, but essentially you have a

1:46:13request in front of you to set the form

1:46:14of shy for this project. So they are

1:46:16looking to do a restrictive covenant um

1:46:18and then they'll proceed with uh

1:46:20finalizing plans uh and easements for

1:46:22recording and be able to create that as

1:46:24a road.

1:46:26>> We have a suggested vote I believe on

1:46:28the slides.

1:46:30>> Okay. Um

1:46:34just hasn't switched on the slides yet

1:46:36on my end.

1:46:37>> It's coming.

1:46:38>> Sorry. Steve caring the planning

1:46:39division trying to multitask.

1:46:42>> I believe if it's not going to work that

1:46:45we just requested that the form set the

1:46:47form of shy for the sea street

1:46:48subdivision as a covenant restrictive

1:46:50covenant.

1:46:52>> I would make that motion.

1:46:55>> A second.

1:46:56>> Uh on the motion, Mr. King.

1:46:58>> Yes.

1:46:58>> Mr. Gallera.

1:46:59>> Yes.

1:47:00>> Mr. Tumi. Yes,

1:47:02>> I vote yes. Four to zero. That passes.

1:47:04Uh Ann ours.

1:47:06>> Yeah, Steve car in the planning

1:47:07division. Um with some technical

1:47:09difficulties. Give me one second.

1:47:20Jesus.

1:47:28All right. Uh we've already endorsed uh

1:47:3114 C. Um so the first one and 14 A and B

1:47:35are uh not properly before the board. Uh

1:47:3914D is up for endorsement. This is for

1:47:42Chicasset Road. Um taking a parcel and

1:47:46um making it into four lots which have

1:47:49uh frontage on both Pocono and Chicasset

1:47:51Road. These are private streets, but um

1:47:53they have been um they are in adequate

1:47:56condition to provide uh frontage to

1:47:58these lots. Um the intention it seems

1:48:01like is to create um duplexes, two

1:48:03duplexes, one facing chess and one check

1:48:06checking um facing Pona Pocono Road. Um

1:48:09each would need to have 35 ft of

1:48:11frontage within the RL7 zoning district,

1:48:13which they do have. Uh 14E, this is

1:48:17essentially a um lot line adjustment

1:48:19after foundation has been poured. um for

1:48:21a um also for a duplex, a single family

1:48:24semi- detached. Um both lots do have 35

1:48:28feet of frontage. It's a little weirdly

1:48:30labeled on the northern um the the lot

1:48:33that's 59 picasset, but it does have um

1:48:3635 ft of frontage. Um and then the rest

1:48:40are actually not properly before the

1:48:41board either. So the only ones up for

1:48:43endorsement now is 14D and 14E.

1:48:47Move to endorse ANR's 14D.

1:48:52>> Second

1:48:52>> on the motion. Mr. King,

1:48:54>> yes.

1:48:54>> Mr. Dera,

1:48:56>> yes.

1:48:56>> Mr. Tumi,

1:48:57>> yes.

1:48:57>> I vote yes. Four to zero. That passes.

1:49:00Uh, in communications, there is a draft

1:49:03priority habitat map of rare species.

1:49:06Fun reading if you're so inclined. Um, I

1:49:09don't believe we need to discuss further

1:49:10unless anybody has anything on that. Uh,

1:49:13no board policies and procedures.

1:49:15Minutes are tabled to the next meeting.

1:49:17Is there a motion to adjurnn?

1:49:20>> Motion to adjurnn.

1:49:21>> Second.

1:49:22>> All in favor say I. I. I.

1:49:25>> We'rejourned. Thank you.