2026-09-16 - Planning Board

0:00Uh well, good evening everyone. Welcome

0:03to the Wednesday, September 16th, 2026

0:07meeting of the city of Worcester

0:08Planning Board. My name is Albert

0:09Lavali. I'm going to chair tonight's

0:11meeting. Uh before we begin, a couple

0:13brief announcements concerning how our

0:15meeting is going to proceed tonight. Uh

0:17first, all our meetings are in a hybrid

0:18format, which means you can participate

0:20either in person here at city hall or by

0:23going online to

0:24worcestermath.zoomv.com/j161.

0:25zoomggov.com/j161-731-4979

0:33or by calling in at 669254-5252

0:38and entering access code 161731-4979

0:43followed by the pound sign

0:46uh for remote uh to manage remote

0:48participation during our hybrid meetings

0:49and prevent disruptions we do or all

0:52participants are automatically blocked

0:53from unmuting themselves turning on

0:55their video or sending chat messages.

0:57For those participants who would like to

0:59comment on an item on our agenda, we ask

1:01that you use the raise your hand feature

1:03in Zoom during the discussion on that

1:04item. And if you are joined by phone,

1:07you can do the same thing by pressing

1:08star9.

1:10Uh staff will then call in members of

1:12the public one at a time and give them

1:13permission to unmute themselves. If

1:15you're joined by phone, you can do that

1:16by pressing star six. Uh next, I note

1:19this is a public meeting which is both

1:21being broadcast and recorded. Minutes

1:23will also be published at a later date.

1:24To help with that process, we ask all

1:26speakers participating in person to use

1:28a microphone. To please clearly identify

1:30yourself each time you speak and the

1:32first time you speak, please state your

1:33city or town of residents for the

1:35record. To help maintain an orderly

1:36meeting, please address all comments and

1:38questions through the chair rather than

1:39directly to any of the other speakers or

1:41applicants.

1:43Uh there are a couple items on our

1:45agenda tonight that are going to be

1:46continued. Uh I'm going to read through

1:48those shortly. If you're here on one of

1:50those items, please note that no

1:51additional notice will be sent to you

1:53before the next meeting. Best thing to

1:55do is call the planning department the

1:56day prior to or the day of that meeting

1:59to confirm if the item is going to be

2:00heard or postponed that night. It is not

2:03uncommon for items to be postponed

2:05multiple times before they're heard by

2:06this board. Once an item is called,

2:09there will be a brief presentation of

2:10the item followed by any additional

2:12comments and clarification from members

2:13of the city staff. then an opportunity

2:15for anyone from the public to speak on

2:17that item before we proceed to board

2:19discussion and action.

2:22Uh finally, all applicants should be

2:24aware that approvals are generally

2:25conditional. Decisions are generally

2:26signed by the board at the next meeting

2:27and where appropriate filed with the

2:29city clerk the following day, which is

2:31what begins any appeals periods.

2:33Decisions are generally not released to

2:34the applicant until all conditions of

2:36approval have been satisfactorily

2:37addressed. It is the applicant's

2:38responsibility to address conditions of

2:40approval and a lack of doing so may

2:42result in delays or enforcements.

2:45Applicants are asked to please call the

2:46planning division if they have any

2:47questions about that.

2:50Okay, moving into postponements. Uh item

2:54number one, six Wuburn Street, a

2:56definitive site plan. The request is to

2:57postpone the public hearing to October

2:59726 and extend the constructive grant

3:02deadline to October 2926.

3:04And item number four, 256 and 262

3:08Sunderland Road, a definitive site plan.

3:10The request is to postpone the public

3:11hearing to October 2826 and extend the

3:14constructive grant deadline to November

3:161926.

3:18Is there a motion on the postponements?

3:27I make a motion to postpone items number

3:30one and items number four with the

3:33public hearing dates for October 7th for

3:36item number one and the constructive

3:38grant deadline to October 29th and the

3:40public hearing for item number four to

3:42October 28th and constructive grant

3:44deadline to November 19th.

3:48>> Is there a second on the motion?

3:51>> Second. Uh on the motion, Mr. King,

3:55>> yes.

3:55>> Mr. Tumi,

3:56>> yes.

3:57>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

3:59three to zero.

4:01Okay. Uh we are going to do something a

4:04little out of order tonight. Uh I do

4:06understand there's a number of folks in

4:07the room here for the suburban road

4:10application.

4:12Uh and I think what's going to happen

4:14tonight will probably be pretty short.

4:16So, um, hopefully we can, uh, rather

4:20than have you guys have to wait for a

4:22couple hours for something to happen

4:23quickly, we can we can do it now. Um, so

4:28that said, I would call

4:32item number 7, one and three, Suburban

4:34Road. This is a definitive or a public

4:36meeting for a definitive site plan and a

4:38public hearing for more than one

4:39building on a lot.

4:42Um so I'll explain a little bit about

4:45what I think needs to happen here. Um

4:47the board's obviously I think for many

4:50folks in this room it's obvious to you

4:51we're familiar with this application

4:54uh due to the um zoning map amendment

4:57that was before this board a few months

4:59back. My understanding is that amendment

5:01was also was ultimately uh withdrawn.

5:05But during public comment on that item,

5:07a number of

5:09um you raised issues with the history

5:12and nature of the soils on the site,

5:14which are ultimately a little bit

5:16unusual. The developer has now submitted

5:18a project proposal for approximately 300

5:20units of housing on that site, which is

5:22before the board tonight, for both a

5:24definitive site plan and a more than one

5:26building on a lot uh application.

5:30As the public may be aware, a project of

5:33this size, 300 units, requires extensive

5:36uh review by city staff to make sure it

5:39complies with the city's many many uh

5:42ordinances and requirements and criteria

5:46for whatever the particular approvals

5:48that it's seeking are.

5:51Uh in the case of this particular

5:54application, the unusual nature of the

5:56site along with its size and impact

6:00um require in my opinion a level of

6:02review that's beyond the capabilities

6:04that exist inhouse with our city staff.

6:08Formidable though they are. Uh to that

6:10end, I'm asking my colleagues uh to

6:13support a motion which I'm going to make

6:15shortly authorizing the staff to pursue

6:17that peer review. This is a necessary

6:19step that the board needs to take in

6:20order to authorize staff to go out and

6:23solicit proposals uh and ultimately get

6:27that process started. Um before we do

6:30that, uh I just ask if anybody uh on the

6:33board has any questions about that

6:35requirement.

6:42All right. Hearing none, um here's the

6:44motion that I propose pursuant to MGL

6:47chapter 44 section 53G and article 2

6:49section 8F of the planning board's rules

6:52and regulations for site plan and

6:53section 8A of the planning board

6:55subdivision regulations. I motion to

6:57require peer review for the definitive

6:59site plan and more than one building on

7:00a lot applications for 1 to three

7:02suburban road to the size, scale, and

7:04complexity of the proposed project and

7:06potential related impacts for the

7:08following general scope of work. Uh

7:10review of the proposed storm water

7:12management system design and related uh

7:15operations and maintenance plan,

7:16existing and proposed site soil

7:18conditions and suitability for

7:19infiltration as well as project

7:22development and impact on groundwater

7:24for compliance with all relevant laws,

7:26ordinances, regulations, including but

7:28not limited to mass storm water uh

7:31standards and handbook, the city of

7:32Wester zoning ordinance, and the pling

7:33board's rules and regulations.

7:37Is there a second on the motion? Second

7:42>> on the motion then Mr. King.

7:44>> Yes.

7:44>> Mr. Tumi.

7:46>> Yes.

7:46>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

7:48three to zero.

7:51Uh next up, consistent with the policy

7:53of this board to not conduct discussions

7:55on items that are not uh prepared to

7:58move forward tonight. I will also be

8:00motioning we continue the hearing to a

8:02later date when that review, that peer

8:04review has been completed. uh for those

8:07in the public uh please note that the

8:09general nature of all the written

8:10comments you've submitted um have been

8:13shared with the developer and you will

8:15also have an opportunity to speak when

8:17the plan uh in the peer review are back

8:20and it's available and ready to move

8:23forward. Um but at this time we're not

8:27going to have any public comment

8:28tonight. We're just going to uh wait

8:30until we have all the information um so

8:33that this item can move forward. Any

8:37comments from the board on that?

8:40>> No.

8:41>> Miss M chair, may I?

8:43>> No.

8:45>> Uh, I make the motion that we can Well,

8:48actually, yes, Josh, I do need you. I'm

8:49sorry. Uh, we are going to continue this

8:52until we get the peer review back. We

8:54need your permission to do that.

8:57Um, I don't have a reasonable timeline

9:00on how long that takes.

9:02So, I'd like to put it at a date that's

9:04in the future, but not so far in the

9:06future that uh we're likely to eclipse

9:08it. Do you have a suggestion?

9:10>> Um, well, first of all, Mr. chair, just

9:13for clarification because this is news

9:15to me. Um, with respect to the peer

9:18review, we we're fully we acknowledge

9:20it's it's the board's um discretion as

9:23to whether they want to entertain a

9:25motion which they've accepted with

9:27respect to a peer review. Um, we were

9:30anticipating, however, to be able to at

9:32least open the matter tonight and u

9:35provide a a presentation knowing full

9:37well that uh there there could have been

9:40a motion with respect to peer review uh

9:43as well as further uh comments to to

9:47come um from both the public and the

9:49staff uh as well as the board. Um a

9:53number of folks came tonight uh beyond

9:56just our project team. Um, obviously a

9:58number of neighbors came anticipating a

10:00meeting. We advertised for the meeting.

10:02U, we pushed really hard to have this

10:04first meeting at least to be heard. Uh,

10:07allow the neighbors to be heard. And so

10:09we're we would respectfully request that

10:11we be able to do that.

10:14>> Attorney Smith, with with respect, um,

10:16you're aware that the policy of this

10:18board is that we do not move items to

10:20public hearings until they are ready,

10:24uh, to actually move forward. There's a

10:27number of things that uh peer review

10:29could uncover here that might change the

10:30scope of your project. I think it's not

10:33fair to folks to have them come out to

10:34multiple meetings. These folks have

10:36already been I believe uh at least to

10:39one meeting of this board and probably

10:40other city city meetings as well. Uh I

10:44don't think that they want to come and

10:46offer comments at Nauseium forever. I

10:49think they'd like to offer comments on

10:50something that's ready to move forward.

10:52So consistent with our policy, that's

10:54how we'll act tonight. If you do have a

10:56suggestion on the date, however, I'd

10:58hear it.

10:59>> Um,

11:02well, if

11:05if the motion is to uh engage a peer

11:09reviewer, I would say not the next

11:12meeting, but the meeting thereafter.

11:15Do you think that's realistic

11:18for the peer reviewer to be be engaged,

11:20contracted by the city, the appropriate

11:22funds sequestered in all the ways that

11:24they're supposed to be and then uh have

11:26their comments back? I I think it's not,

11:28but

11:30I I think it is. Um and it's a case by

11:33case basis. Um the scope is limited, Mr.

11:37Chair, in terms of the peer review

11:39itself. Um we've got the data already in

11:42in hand. Um, so I I think it's feasible

11:47uh through you. Can I ask Michelle when

11:50that date would be? If not the next

11:53meeting, then the meeting thereafter.

11:54>> It's October 28th.

11:58>> And the that would move the constructive

11:59grant deadline to November 19th. And

12:02through the chair, I would just say that

12:04it is likely well we will work to pursue

12:07and develop a more detailed scope of

12:08work based on what was motioned um and

12:11work to solicit proposals um and and

12:14proceed to getting under contract. I

12:16think it's likely um that probably the

12:19November meeting is a bit more realistic

12:21in terms of when I would expect us to

12:23get someone actually under contract to

12:25begin working. Um, so that that would be

12:28maybe my suggestion um to ensure that

12:31that we're able to get the consultant

12:33under contract and then that we are also

12:35able to get the technical comments from

12:38the peer reviewer back and share them

12:40with the applicant and then allow for at

12:42least two weeks to elapse to be able to

12:44get revisions in response to those

12:46comments. I think that's probably more

12:47realistic. I say that partially because

12:49you're going to need to vote to

12:51authorize um basically once we get those

12:54quotes, you're going to need to vote at

12:55a at a future meeting, not related to

12:57the hearing, just as a procedural matter

12:59to authorize basically moving money into

13:01the account and confirming the the fee u

13:04based on those proposals. Um and the

13:07applicant has the opportunity to appeal

13:08that depending on what that amount is.

13:10And so just to allow for that process to

13:12play out, um I'm hopeful we can get them

13:14for the next meeting, but for whatever

13:16reason, if we aren't able to get

13:17responses back when we make the request

13:19starting tomorrow, um I think that's

13:22probably a safer date. Um but

13:24ultimately, the applicant needs to

13:26consent to whatever date the hearing is

13:28continued to. Um so

13:32>> and it's also an option that it just

13:34keeps coming back and getting postponed

13:36if it's not ready, as you know. I just I

13:38feel like that's unfair to folks who

13:40obviously have an interest in this and

13:41want to come and participate in the

13:42discussion. So, I'd like us to pick a

13:44realistic but not too far in the future

13:46date. If you tell me that's October

13:4929th, that will be the motion. If you're

13:52okay with November 18th, that could be

13:55the motion.

13:55>> Definitely not November 18th.

13:58>> I'm sorry. Definitely not.

13:59>> No, no, not not November 18th. I think

14:02it I I I know that the city of Worcester

14:06I won't say it's unprecedented but I

14:08think there's only been one other

14:09instance where a peer reviewer has been

14:11engaged in connection with a project. I

14:13do this in other communities and it it

14:15does not take that long.

14:17>> That's been my experience as well though

14:19it's not instantaneous.

14:21>> Agreed. And there are a number of

14:23factors involved um with respect to

14:25that.

14:27But I'm hopeful that the the city can

14:30expedite this and not I know they're not

14:32going to drag it out. I know Michelle

14:33and her team will not will not we'll try

14:36to make this as expeditious as possible.

14:38When when is the next through the chair

14:40when is the next actual plan?

14:42>> October 7th.

14:47>> Is there is there something

14:52Is there something wrong with being able

14:54to not to to meet with on October 7th

14:57with the board?

14:58>> We're going to need at least one meeting

15:00because my understanding is there's a

15:01procedural action that has to be voted

15:04which will then trigger the work to

15:05actually get done. So it's like step one

15:08is contracting

15:09vote, step two is peer review then

15:12meeting.

15:14And that's also not giving your client

15:16any time to adapt the proposal based on,

15:19you know, suggestions from peer

15:20reviewers.

15:23>> Assuming that that's even necessary.

15:27>> In my experience, most peer reviews come

15:29back with at least a few things you want

15:30to address.

15:31>> Understood.

15:34>> Um, well, I don't mean to be a dead

15:37horse, Mr. chair. But I I do want to

15:39again

15:41express it was my understanding that um

15:43we were going to we were going to have

15:44this date. We honestly we we pushed to

15:46have this date um to be able to meet.

15:49Obviously my client is engaged in a um

15:53contract with respect to this site. So

15:55they've got their own internal

15:56timelines. Um

15:58>> I believe you were advised that the

16:00board would feel that this needed to get

16:02postponed.

16:04>> That's not true.

16:06My understanding

16:07>> maybe my information is incorrect.

16:08>> If we if we advertised and we had the

16:11meeting, the anticipation would be what

16:13we're seeing right now, which I see a

16:15sea of green right here. A number of

16:17neighbors were are going to take the

16:20time to come down to city hall to hear

16:22about this project and now we can't do

16:26that. I So I I again I'd respectfully

16:28ask if we could at least open present

16:31what we have.

16:32>> It doesn't undermine your reviewer's

16:34review. I I do understand, but it wastes

16:36everyone in this room's time, especially

16:38the people that are going to come and

16:39speak about a project that's not yet

16:41been reviewed.

16:45And that's the position of this board.

16:50So, what date would you like?

16:52>> Uh the 28th. Mr.

16:55Is there a motion to postpone uh or

16:58continue the public hearing for 1 to3

17:00Suburban Road to October 28th and extend

17:02the constructed grant deadline to

17:04November 18th, 2026?

17:07>> I would make that motion.

17:09>> Second

17:09>> on the motion. Mr. King,

17:11>> yes.

17:11>> Mr. Tumi,

17:12>> yes.

17:12>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes 3

17:14to zero.

17:18Uh moving into the rest of our agenda.

17:21And uh folks, if you didn't hear the

17:24dates on that, that's October 29th is

17:27the next hearing, but please do call the

17:29planning department. It's not unusual

17:31for these things to get postponed

17:33multiple times.

17:35>> Through the chair, I just want to

17:36correct it's October 28th, um not the

17:3829th.

17:40>> Thank you. October 28th.

17:44and through the chair just a point of

17:46clarification relative to the scope. Um

17:49we'll work on developing this over the

17:51next few weeks but uh can the board

17:53confirm the preference to about a peer

17:56reviewer? Would you be looking for the

17:57peer reviewer to attend subsequent

17:59meetings just so we can develop the

18:00scope with that cost included? We can

18:02put it as a separate line item but just

18:03to be sure we know.

18:05>> Um anyone care to comment?

18:08>> I'd support them coming to the meeting.

18:11>> We'll we'll have it included. Thank you.

18:13Okay. Thank you. All right. Next on the

18:16agenda, item number two is going to be

18:18114 Lincoln Street. This will be a

18:20public meeting for a definitive site

18:22plan.

18:24Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of

18:26the board. For the record, my name is

18:27Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in

18:30Worcester with an office at 688 Pleasant

18:32Street. here this evening on behalf of

18:34Tiffany Nuin uh in connection with this

18:37property at 114

18:39Lincoln Street or one Frederick Street

18:41as I guess it will be known moving

18:44forward. Uh this is I'll be brief. Um

18:49it is a uh six-unit low-rise multif

18:53family building with nine parking

18:55spaces. Um

18:58and it's been reviewed by staff. uh was

19:01reviewed at the zoning board level as

19:03well. Um I have reviewed the

19:06recommendations of approval prepared by

19:08staff on pages 2, three and four, all 14

19:12of them and um I am in agreement

19:16actually with those. Um

19:19there are no waiverss are required. Um,

19:23also available online, um, is Joseph

19:27Graham who's done the engineering on the

19:28project and also Robert O'Neal who's

19:30done the survey work. And all three of

19:33us are available to answer any questions

19:36that you may have. Otherwise, we would

19:38ask for your approval of this

19:39submission.

19:41>> Okay. Uh, thank you. Comments from city

19:44staff.

19:45>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

19:46division. Um, I'll also try to be brief.

19:48This is 114 Lincoln Street. Actually now

19:50known in our city system as one Henchman

19:53Street. Um the project before you is a

19:56six dwelling unit low-rise multif family

19:59with uh nine parking spaces. Um the

20:02building is actually oriented to face

20:04towards Henchman Street um with the

20:06parking sort of off to the left um away

20:09away from Lincoln Street. Um they had

20:12previously gone to the zoning board of

20:13appeals for that reduction of parking to

20:16have nine instead of the 12 that would

20:17be required by right as well as uh

20:20relief from the 5-ft uh buffer around

20:23the parking lot that would be required.

20:25Um DAP is proposing um plantings um in

20:29that in that buffer in accordance with

20:31landscaping standards. We also have a

20:33condition of approval around that um

20:34just to make sure that that is properly

20:36buffered from the residential um uses

20:39that are uh to basically the north and

20:42uh west of it. Um it just it's just

20:44non-compliant with regards to that that

20:465-ft buffer. Um DTM and DPW had

20:50requested a turning analysis to make

20:52sure that that that last parking space

20:54could be navigated out of. Um they did

20:56provide that. Um our conditions of

20:59approval are um largely around uh

21:03there's some some annotational ones just

21:04ensuring that um that the project is

21:08demonstrating its zoning compliance

21:09which we don't uh we don't anticipate

21:11any any issue with it. they just have to

21:13basically reflect that the front yard is

21:14in fact Henchman Street. Um where as I

21:17mentioned the building is oriented

21:18towards and then the other conditions of

21:20approval are around the um or not all of

21:23the other ones but some of the other

21:24ones are um around the sort of facade

21:28facing Lincoln Street. This stretch of

21:30Lincoln Street um is is sort of a a

21:33walkable corridor. Um it has fairly wide

21:35sidewalks. Just across Hman Street from

21:38this development is a convenience store,

21:39a Chinese restaurant. Um there is uh you

21:42know a medical use the um Lincoln Street

21:45um UMass Hanaman campus is further up

21:47Lincoln Street. So um people do do walk

21:50along this um and the um architectural

21:54facade on Lincoln Street was we felt um

21:57uh could could be more active. Um so we

22:00have conditions of approval around

22:01adding a couple of windows onto that

22:03here. I can scroll to it.

22:05um

22:08on that facade, a couple of windows here

22:10to match how it is on the other side.

22:12And then the applicant has also uh

22:14reflected a pergola on that side of the

22:17building as well to sort of where where

22:19there is a where there is a walkway

22:21again to at least um there really was an

22:23opportunity for a we did ask about a um

22:25having a egress there, an entry there,

22:27but that that really wasn't feasible

22:29with the sort of layout. But they are

22:31offering a putting a pergola there um to

22:33sort of again kind of create a more

22:35feeling of less of sort of a blank wall

22:37that someone would be walking by. Um the

22:39plan also right now that you're seeing

22:41on the screen also reflects a bicycle

22:42rack on that side. And while we

22:44definitely appreciate covered bicycle

22:45rack um that would be within the

22:47accessory uh accessory structure setback

22:49area. So we've asked that they move that

22:51to the uh front of the building on

22:53Henchman Street side um to be zoning

22:56compliant. But again, do definitely want

22:57to see and are glad to see exterior

22:59bicycle parking. Um and that's a

23:01condition of approval as well. Um and

23:04then um the applicant has provided a

23:06storm water report. We are waiting on

23:07that for for a couple weeks. Um and uh

23:10we just need to see a mounding analysis

23:13for that storm water report. I believe

23:14they they've done test pits. They didn't

23:16find any estimated seasonal high

23:17groundwater. I mean, no ground water was

23:19was detected, but just based on the

23:21depth of how far down those um testing

23:23pits went, they weren't quite deep

23:25enough to demonstrate the 4T of

23:27separation. So, we do want to see a

23:29mounding analysis. Um I think that's all

23:32I have for comments, but uh happy to

23:34answer any questions from the board or

23:35the applicant.

23:36>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Is

23:38there any additional comment on this

23:39from uh DBW?

23:42>> We don't have any additional comments at

23:44this moment. Thank you.

23:46>> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, anyone

23:48from the public wishing to speak on this

23:50item tonight?

23:52>> I don't see anybody in the room. Is

23:53there anybody online?

23:55>> Uh, Steve carrying the planning

23:56division. Not seeing anyone with their

23:57hand raised online.

23:59>> Board members.

24:00>> Uh, Mr. King, do you mind going first?

24:04>> Uh, yeah. No true comments on this one.

24:05Thank you. Happy to support.

24:08>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Tumi,

24:10>> no comments. Thank you,

24:12>> Mr. Rosende.

24:13>> No comments. Thank you.

24:15>> Um, I also have no comments. I think

24:16this has been adequately reviewed. Uh

24:19I'm actually kind of excited to see a

24:21development in this area. I'm familiar

24:23with the corridor and uh used to be on

24:25my walk to work. So,

24:27it's great. Uh happy to support. I think

24:29we're ready for a motion.

24:32>> All right. I would make a motion to

24:35approve item the definitive site plan

24:38for item number two, 114 Lincoln Street.

24:42>> Second.

24:42>> On the motion, Mr. King.

24:44>> Yes.

24:45>> Mr. Tumi? Yes,

24:46>> I vote yes as well. Motion passes three

24:48to zero. Good luck to the applicant.

24:50>> Thank you very much.

24:52>> Uh, next up, item number 3, 79 Pullman

24:55Street. This will be a public meeting

24:56for a parking plan.

25:04>> Uh, good evening. My name is Patrick

25:06Doherty. I'm a professional engineer

25:07with Midpoint Engineering. Uh, my office

25:09is at 37 Sutton Road in Webster, Mass.

25:13here on behalf of the applicant charter

25:14foods. Um the property 79 Pullman Street

25:18is about 68 acres. Um former use of the

25:22property was a Silven Learning Center.

25:24It had about a 2400 ft building with a

25:27parking lot of about 26 parking spaces.

25:31Um it's got frontage on three streets.

25:34West Mountain would be um to the north,

25:37Pullman Street to the east, and Brook

25:39Street to the west. The site was

25:42previously presented to this board as

25:43well as the ZBA for a 23

25:4828 square foot um food service building

25:52with a pickup window and that was for a

25:53Chipotle use. We're now before this uh

25:57commission and had previously gone

25:59before the ZBA for a similar use for

26:02food service with drive-thru. The

26:04building's going to be slightly smaller.

26:06Um and we are um proposing this for a

26:09Taco Bell use.

26:11The um

26:14things that have changed from the prior

26:16approval, um we've got a similar size

26:18building, a couple hundred or 100 square

26:20ft smaller, about the same amount of

26:22parking spaces, but we've separated the

26:24drive-thru uh lanes from the parking

26:28spaces. Um we've also reduced parking by

26:32two spaces um per request from city

26:35staff.

26:37Um the along with the parking spaces in

26:40the building um we're going to be um

26:42constructing a you know fully landscaped

26:44plan according to the zoning

26:46regulations. Um we're going to be moving

26:48the access driveway slightly south

26:51further away from the intersection. Um

26:54all the pedestrian and vehicle areas

26:56will be lit safely with dark sky

26:59compliant um lighting

27:01and um we'll be adding pedestrian paths

27:04right now on Pullman Street. There is

27:07not a sidewalk on our side of the

27:09street. So we're going to be bringing a

27:10ADA accessible route from West Mountain

27:14down Pullman Street and into our site.

27:16Um we we we've been through this I guess

27:20a couple of times now and we have um

27:23spoken with staff on their review. Um I

27:25believe that that all of their comments

27:27can be addressed. Um there's a couple of

27:30of items that that I wanted to just go

27:33through on their recommendations.

27:35Um the first is they've they've

27:38recommended that the small strip between

27:40the drive-through lane and the parking

27:43spaces um include some tall grasses or

27:46or some other treatment. I I don't think

27:48they're going to do well there. There's

27:49not proposed to be irrigation and that's

27:51only a two foot wide strip with pavement

27:54on either side. Um I think we can

27:56address their concerns by maybe putting

27:57a a short fence uh decorative um you

28:01know fence just along where the parking

28:03spaces are. Um the second comment is um

28:08they've asked to pro provide one

28:10additional interior tree for the

28:13interior parking spaces. I don't know

28:15that that um we can really fit an extra

28:19tree in there. what we have. There's 27

28:23spaces and if we were required to have

28:25one per uh 10 spaces, we' we'd have I

28:28guess three trees. We're providing a

28:30tree by the menu board, a tree um in the

28:34triangle area by the building, and then

28:36a tree on either end of the parking on

28:39the south side of the site. Um

28:43there's not really much more green space

28:45inside the parking lot, but I I believe

28:46that we do kind of comply. There is a

28:48provision um in the zoning bylaw that

28:51says where if all parking spaces were

28:53abudding a buffer area then no interior

28:56spaces no interior trees would be

28:57required but um we do have some some

29:01spaces that aren't abuing a a um buffer

29:05area. So we we we'd um request that that

29:09provision not be um included. And then

29:12finally, this is something that I

29:14overlooked um and didn't discuss with

29:16staff, but um the item two in the

29:20recommendations is to provide test pit

29:22data um for at least two locations

29:25within the proposed in infiltration

29:28area. We've done one to date um and that

29:32was the deep pet test pit that I've

29:34witnessed as a professional engineer.

29:35Subsequent to that, we've had

29:37geotechnical analysis of the building

29:40corners um which is very close to it. So

29:42we we feel that that an additional test

29:45bed you know should not be required. Um

29:49you know maybe this could be changed um

29:51for the condition that evidence of test

29:53pit data you know um that is um

29:58acceptable to the planning and

29:59regulatory service.

30:01>> Okay.

30:03>> Um anything else? No, that that's off.

30:07>> Additional comments on this from city

30:08staff

30:10>> uh through you, Mr. Chair. This is uh

30:12Michelle Smith in the planning division

30:13and I apologize I missed part of the

30:16presentation. Um so in front of you this

30:19evening, you have an application which

30:21is very similar to one that you saw a

30:23couple years back uh which was

30:24previously for Chipotle which was a

30:26basically a drive-thru that wasn't a

30:28drive-thru was basically a pickup

30:29window. So now the applicant is

30:30proposing a full drive-thru standard

30:33type drive-thru service that you would

30:34be familiar with. So they've come back

30:36with a revised design, although it's

30:37substantially similar to what you had

30:38seen previously. So you'll you'll note

30:41the prior approvals and the fact that

30:42they have recently obtained zoning board

30:44of appeals approval for the same

30:45configuration.

30:47Um we had some comments. It sounds like

30:50there were a couple adjustments the

30:51applicant was looking for. I think I

30:53caught them. I'm not sure I totally

30:55caught the the rationale, so I apologize

30:57on that. Um in terms of uh kind of the

31:00outstanding items, I would say, you

31:02know, really it was about um landscaping

31:04for the most part. Um and then uh to the

31:06point that I did catch on, um storm

31:09water management. Um typically the for

31:12infiltration systems, we're we are

31:14typically looking for two test pit

31:16locations in an infiltration area.

31:18Ultimately, it's up to the board. Um if

31:20you want to not require that, um there I

31:24I would need to look back at the test

31:26pit data. Apologies, too many test pit

31:29looking at for this meeting. Um can't

31:32remember. I assume that they were

31:33consistent with the NRCS data, but I

31:36don't recall. So maybe the applicants uh

31:38engineer could care could summarize that

31:40and we could adjust the language. Um

31:42otherwise, we were just looking for that

31:43in compliance with the mass stormwater

31:44handbook requirements. Um and looking

31:47for the um typical forms we see. I

31:50believe the test bed data is provided as

31:52like an annotation on the plan. So we

31:54could certainly we don't necessarily

31:55need to get it on those forms. Um it's

31:57just kind of the typical format. So that

32:00could be removed. The test pit locations

32:02I would defer to the board. I don't

32:03think we had any comments from DPW

32:06with that regard on this one. Just

32:08looking and not seeing anything. Have my

32:10colleagues correct me if I've got that

32:12wrong. And I think if I heard the two

32:14other comments in terms of the staff

32:16recommendations

32:17um where there was a concern was around

32:19B and C if I if I heard that correctly.

32:22So B, which is a requirement to comply

32:24with the interior um landscape

32:26requirements, which based on the

32:28calculations, we believe there's one

32:30additional interior tree required. The

32:32planning board has the authority to wave

32:33that. So you could wave that to if you

32:35so choose. Um and then the other comment

32:38that we' had was about the small strip

32:40that's between the um if we go maybe to

32:43the landscape plan or this is the

32:45landscape plan. Thank you. uh the area

32:47that the cursor is hovering around right

32:49now, this kind of strip between a

32:51parking area and then the drive-thru and

32:52escape lanes. Um there's a small area, I

32:55think it's like a foot and a half wide,

32:56so it's not super wide in terms of being

32:59able to support a ton of plantings. U

33:01but the comment was about providing some

33:02sort of like ornamental grasses in this

33:04location to help physically kind of

33:06divide the two spaces and prevent

33:07anybody from thinking they can somehow

33:09drive over that, although I imagine um

33:11it'll be curbed and it would be

33:12unlikely. Um, so they are proposing, I

33:14believe, River Rock in this location if

33:16the board feels that's appropriate. You

33:18can certainly strike the condition. Um,

33:20not something that we feel super

33:22strongly about. It was just from a a

33:23design perspective in terms of trying to

33:25separate the two spaces. Um, the comment

33:27was thinking that the the ornamental

33:28grasses might help differentiate that a

33:30bit better than just kind of stone where

33:31it looks like you can kind of drive

33:33through and in the winter, you know, and

33:35there's snow on the ground maybe don't

33:36realize. Um, anyhow, um, I think those

33:39are the three. I I could talk further

33:41about the project, but I think for sake

33:43of brevity, I'll I'll leave it there,

33:44especially considering I didn't hear uh

33:46part of the proposal. So, thanks.

33:48>> Sure thing. Uh, additional comments from

33:50DV DPW on this item.

33:53>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We

33:55don't have any comment. Thank you.

33:57>> Thank you, Miss Rodriguez.

33:59Um, anyone from the public wishing to

34:02speak.

34:05>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

34:06division. I'm not seeing anyone with

34:07their hand raised.

34:09>> Okay. So I believe the issues that we're

34:12looking for comment from the board then

34:14are uh whether or not there is space for

34:18an additional tree or if we want to wave

34:20that requirement on the interior of the

34:22parking um the kind of area between the

34:25drive-thru the strip between the

34:27drive-thru and the parking next to the

34:28building. uh what that treatment should

34:30be and

34:32I'm sorry what's the third

34:34>> um whether we we had conducted one test

34:37>> oh test pits

34:38>> but we do have we have extra

34:40geotechnical investigation data whether

34:43the condition could be you know

34:46presented acceptable to the pling and

34:48zoning rather than specified two test

34:49pits

34:50>> understood um it seems like ju just for

34:53that one uh it it seems like for Miss

34:56Smith if we wrote the condition as the

34:58applicant suggest suggesting uh and you

35:00found it unacceptable, you could still

35:01require the second test pit, but it

35:03would give an opportunity to review.

35:05They're basically saying, "Hey, we did a

35:07bunch of geotechnical for the corners of

35:09the building that are pretty close and

35:10give us a bunch of information."

35:13I'm not

35:14>> sure through the chair. If the

35:15conditions are similar to the other

35:16location, that would be fine. If they're

35:18different, then we'd probably want the

35:19the locations for the infiltration.

35:22>> Okay. Sure.

35:22>> Yeah.

35:24>> Uh okay. Bo board member comments on the

35:26the tree and the landscape. um or the I

35:29don't know whatever we're calling it,

35:30the buffer between the drive-thru.

35:38>> Don't all speak at once. Mr. King, do

35:40you mind going first?

35:42>> No problem. I'm going back and forth on

35:44the buffer. Um I do think in the winter

35:47people may end up accidentally trying to

35:50drive through it, but from an

35:51operational standpoint, they can put a

35:53sign or something to stop that. But I'm

35:57also not opposed to ornamental grasses

35:59in that location. So I guess I'd be

36:02interested to hear what the rest of the

36:03board says. Um in terms of the

36:05additional tree,

36:08did we have a location for that one? I

36:10guess through the chair to staff

36:15uh through the chair. I don't believe we

36:16have described in the narrative a

36:19requirement for it to go in a specific

36:21location. We were giving the applicant

36:22the flexibility to choose uh where that

36:25might be. Um, so either in that kind of

36:27like triangular triangular landscaped

36:29area where the cursor is um in that kind

36:32of southern island adjacent to the

36:34crosswalk next to the parking space. Um,

36:36I'm not sure if the island on the other

36:38side and pardon my eyes might not be

36:41perfect here. Um, and then there's

36:43another island I see over on the left

36:45hand side at the egress of the

36:46drive-thru that could potentially

36:48accommodate a tree. I'm just eyeballing

36:50locations here. Um, unless those are not

36:53suitable for some reason, the applicant

36:54could certainly comment on that.

36:57>> Yeah, I guess I'd be curious about the

36:58suitability, but I am okay without uh it

37:02there. But yeah, I guess we can hear

37:05from the other board members to see

37:06where they stand on this one. Thank you.

37:08>> Thank you, Mr. King. Uh, Mr. Tumi.

37:11>> Yeah, I would be okay waving the the

37:13extra tree for that where just the way

37:15that the driveway is laid out. My

37:18concern if you put it on that corner

37:19space, you end up with a visual trying

37:21to pull out into traffic that you might

37:23have an issue relative to that. Again, I

37:25agree the ornamental grasses may be

37:27nice, but if you're just that narrow a

37:29strip, being able to keep something

37:31alive and that may be a bigger issue

37:33than anything else, having something

37:35that's more visible uh the fencing uh

37:38would be a good solution.

37:43>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi. Mr. Rosende,

37:46I second Mr. Mr. Tumi's comments, I

37:48think fencing in that strip would um be

37:50a better solution.

37:54>> Uh for myself, I agree with the fencing.

37:56I think that there are a lot of trees on

37:58this site.

38:00And the only place I could foresee

38:03putting another one I I'm pretty sure is

38:06not really suitable for it. So I I would

38:08be okay. Uh normally I'm all for, you

38:10know, more trees are better, but uh I I

38:14don't think we need to shoehorn in an

38:15additional tree here. I think we've got

38:17quite a bit of coverage of green

38:22>> through the chair. I'm hearing um strike

38:24B and instead grant a waiver from u one

38:27tree and then reflect fencing under C in

38:31the island between the drive-thru and

38:33the parking area.

38:34>> Yeah. And maybe we could just specify

38:36like some sort of low um black vinyl

38:40chain link or more decorative should

38:43they wish.

38:48Okay. So, a low ornamental open style

38:51fence.

38:52>> Yeah. Yeah. Just something that people

38:54won't try to drive over.

38:56>> Mhm. Okay. And then two is being

38:59adjusted to essentially say what it

39:01says, but unless supplemental

39:03geotechnical data is submitted

39:06demonstrating soils are consistent

39:07across the site. Does that work?

39:10>> Yeah.

39:13>> Okay. I think we're ready for a motion.

39:17>> All right. I would make the motion to

39:19favorably

39:21approve the parking plan for 79 Pullman

39:24Street with the conditions subject to

39:28our discussion.

39:31>> Second

39:31>> on the motion. Mr. King,

39:33>> yes.

39:33>> Mr. Tumi,

39:34>> yes.

39:34>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

39:36three to zero. Good luck.

39:39>> Uh, next up, item number five, 104

39:42Eastern Avenue. This will be a public

39:43meeting for a definitive site plan.

39:49>> Uh, I don't see anybody for the

39:50applicant in the room. Is there somebody

39:51online?

39:52>> We do have Mark Borenstein, attorney

39:53Mark Bournestein online. Let me uh just

39:55make him a

39:58See, one second. Apologies. Give me one

40:00second, Mark.

40:04All right, Mark, you should be able to

40:06unmute. There we go.

40:07>> All right. Can Can folks hear me? All

40:09right,

40:09>> we can hear you. All right. Uh, sorry

40:12for not being there in person. I'm with

40:13my little ones this evening, so forgive

40:15the Miss Rachel blaring in the

40:16background. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair.

40:18Uh, for the record, Mark Forenstein,

40:20attorney Law, Principal Bell, based in

40:22Worcester, representing the applicant

40:23Excellent Investments Corp., uh, we're

40:25before you this evening seeking

40:26definitive site plan approval for a

40:28proposed three family building at 104

40:31Eastern A. Uh, we've appeared before the

40:34zoning board of appeals. We've received

40:36some relief associated with the off-

40:37streetet parking. uh were before you due

40:40to the 15% slopes at the property. Uh we

40:43reviewed uh I I don't know if we want to

40:46go through the there's the the street

40:48view, there's the existing conditions

40:49plan. We can show some renderings of the

40:51the the building itself. Um

40:55can we keep going, Steve, please?

40:59So, um so this is the site layout.

41:01You'll see that we have six parking

41:03spaces in front of the building. Um, as

41:06I said before, three three family

41:07building. Uh, we've got some additional

41:10landscaping throughout the site. Uh, and

41:12uh, so that that's the extent of the

41:14project itself. Uh, we've reviewed

41:17staff's conditions of approval. We do

41:18not have any requested changes and we

41:20would respectfully request uh, the

41:22waiverss recommended by staff. And with

41:24that, I'm happy to answer any questions

41:25that the board may have. Thank you.

41:27>> Thank you, Attorney Borenstein.

41:29Additional comments from members of the

41:30city staff.

41:31>> Sure. Uh, this is Steve Kerry in the

41:33planning division. I can also be fairly

41:35brief. Um, this is a three family

41:38dwelling. It's before you because of uh

41:40disturbance of 15% slopes on the

41:43property. Um, the building is fairly far

41:46set back from the street um with the

41:48parking area, the six required spaces in

41:50front. Um, it did receive relief from

41:53the zoning board for um to exceed the

41:56amount of front yard impervious. Um,

41:58there are retaining walls on either side

42:00of the parking lot to keep that level.

42:02And then the um building as proposed is

42:05sort of built um into the slope. Um

42:09yeah, our conditions of approval are I

42:11would say largely annotational um about

42:14uh labeling a surface treatment in a

42:16couple places. Um labeling species of

42:18shrubs and trees to be used um at the

42:21rear of the lot. Um we just wanted to

42:24ensure there are some mature vegetation

42:25down at the rear of the lot. Um we just

42:27want to make sure that those are going

42:29to be uh retained. So we have a um a

42:31condition of approval around a a tree

42:33protection detail which the applicant

42:34has actually already provided. Um and

42:36then we had just a couple of conditions

42:38of approval relative to the um

42:39architectural plans. Um we're just

42:41asking for um basically one one window

42:43of additional fedestration on one of the

42:45sides. Um and then just reflecting that

42:49the decks on the back will have a um

42:52stairwell down to the ground to provide

42:54a a rear egress. Um otherwise uh we do

42:58also have a condition around a

42:59construction management plan. um which

43:03is not always uh it's not always a

43:05condition of approval we have for

43:06smaller projects like this, but just

43:07given that uh Eastern A is fairly um

43:10heavily street parked um and you know

43:13people I think do have some difficulty

43:15just navigating it and when there are

43:18you know a lot of people parked and uh

43:20we just want to make sure that the

43:21construction of this building is as um

43:24uh least least impactful as possible. Um

43:27there's that. And then uh with regards

43:29to um the infiltration unit uh that's

43:32proposed underneath the um

43:35underneath the parking area. We don't

43:37have testment data at this point. So

43:38we've just requested that um that be

43:41provided at the point of uh before

43:43issuance of a building permit. And then

43:44if it's less than 4 ft of separation

43:46between the estimated seasonal high

43:48ground water and the bottom of the

43:49infiltration unit that the applicant

43:50provide a mounding analysis. So um

43:52fairly standard uh condition of

43:54approval. Um, I think that's all I've

43:56got. I'm happy to answer any questions

43:57that the board might have.

44:00>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Any comments

44:01from DBW on this?

44:05>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We

44:07don't have any comment. Thank you.

44:09>> Thank you. Uh, anyone from the public on

44:11this item?

44:15>> Nobody with their hand raised online.

44:17>> Board members, uh, Mr. King, do you mind

44:20going first?

44:21>> Well, no comments on this one. Thank

44:23you.

44:24>> Okay. Uh, Mr. Tumi,

44:25>> no comments. Thank you.

44:27>> Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

44:29>> No comments. Thank you.

44:30>> Uh, I note that staff's review has been

44:33very thorough and I agree with all its

44:34recommendations, but otherwise have no

44:36comments. I think we're ready for a

44:37motion.

44:38>> All right. I make a motion to favorably

44:40approve subject to staff conditions item

44:42number five, 104 Eastern Avenue.

44:46>> Second.

44:46>> On the motion, Mr. King?

44:48>> Yes.

44:48>> Mr. Tumi?

44:50>> Yes.

44:50>> I vote yes as well. Motion passes 3 to

44:53zero.

44:58Uh, next item on our agenda, item number

45:00six. This will be a public hearing for a

45:03definitive frontage subdivision plan

45:05related to 69 Orient Street.

45:17Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

45:18the board. My name is Michael Serta. I'm

45:21an attorney and uh my office is at one

45:23merkantile street in Worcester. I have

45:25with me the uh applicants um the

45:28principles of ML realy group LLC um Andy

45:32Loi and Helos Marco. Um we were before

45:37the uh zoning board of appeals um in mid

45:40August to obtain a variance for a

45:43th00and uh square ft of area and a 5-ft

45:47frontage variance in order to allow um

45:50this lot to be divided to allow a the

45:54existing two family house at 69 um

45:57Orient Street um to be broken off and to

46:01allow the other lot which would have a

46:04duplex

46:04semi- detached duplex um housing uh so

46:09that to create four units. Um the four

46:11units if the lot were vacant today they

46:14would be allowed under um the statute

46:17but because the house was already there

46:18we needed to get a variance. Um the ZBA

46:21granted it unanimously. Um we have filed

46:25the with the clerk's office um the

46:27decision and that will ripen on uh next

46:31Monday.

46:32We are here to get the uh the second

46:34portion of it. Since we got the uh

46:37limited um we got the limited variance

46:39on frontage, we needed to come to the

46:41board for um instead of an ANR in order

46:43to uh obtain a frontage uh definitive

46:47subdivision plan. Um right now we would

46:50also seek to be three waivers. One that

46:53we wave um all subdivision regulations

46:56other than the ANR um regulations. Um

46:59that there is no new road. So sections

47:01uh 7 9 and 10 be waved and also the

47:05waiver for the 5 foot of frontage

47:08and any questions and comments uh

47:11certainly to myself or the principles.

47:13>> Okay, thank you. Uh additional comments

47:15from city staff on this

47:18>> through the chair. This is Olivia Hull

47:20in the planning division. So, as uh the

47:22applicant attorney stated, the um

47:26project or the the site previously

47:29received ZBA relief for frontage

47:31requirements as well as some other um

47:34site related requirements, but the

47:36application before you today is to

47:38formally divide the lots and create the

47:39two new lots where um ultimately a

47:42duplex is proposed to be constructed. I

47:45wouldn't add much else to uh the

47:49proposal. I just want to note um this

47:52um project will [clears throat]

47:53eventually have to come back before the

47:55board for the construction of the duplex

47:57just due to the slopes on site. The

47:59applicant opted to file for the frontage

48:01subdivision separately um just for um

48:04able to be able to proceed with sale of

48:07the lot where the existing two family

48:09sits. So um you will eventually see this

48:11come back before the board to review the

48:13duplex that's proposed on the new lots.

48:15No further comment. Happy to answer any

48:17questions.

48:18>> Okay. Thank you, Miss. Uh, additional

48:20comments from DPW on this.

48:25>> Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have

48:27any comments. Thank you.

48:28>> Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Anyone from

48:30the public on this item?

48:34>> Steve Caring, the planning division.

48:35Nobody with their hand raised.

48:38>> Board members, Mr. King.

48:40>> This one's relatively straightforward.

48:42Uh, tabist board, no comments. Thank

48:44you.

48:45>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi.

48:47>> Uh, no comments. Thank you.

48:48>> Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

48:50>> No comments. Thank you.

48:52>> Uh I also have no comments. I think

48:53we're ready for a motion.

48:55>> All right. I make a motion to approve

48:57item number 669 orientry subject to

49:00staff conditions as written.

49:02>> Second.

49:03>> On the motion, Mr. King?

49:04>> Yes.

49:05>> Mr. Tumi?

49:06>> Yes.

49:06>> I vote yes. Three to zero. Motion

49:08passes. Good luck.

49:09>> Thank you very much.

49:11>> Uh next up, item number eight, 114

49:14Austin Street. This will be a public

49:15meeting for a definitive site plan.

49:25>> Is this you or

49:28>> Okay.

49:30Evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

49:32board.

49:33I'm back. Um, just for the record,

49:36Joshua Lee Smith. I'm a attorney with

49:37law firm about Bowage and Dwey. uh here

49:40this evening representing 114 Austin

49:43Street LLC in connection with this

49:44project. Uh this project uh will I think

49:48be pretty familiar to most of the board

49:51here. I believe you were all most of you

49:53were members uh at the time when this

49:55was approved uh back in 2024.

49:59Um I'm going to give you a really brief

50:01history of of what happened then. Uh and

50:05then fast forwarding to the conclusion,

50:07it's the exact same project. Um and by

50:10the way, Jesse Hilenberg here, he's the

50:12architect of record uh as well with

50:14respect to this project. So what is uh

50:18being proposed and what was approved

50:20again back in 2024 is a five five unit

50:24uh townhouse style development. Um the

50:27lot itself is about 9200 ft in size and

50:30the project is within the RG5 zoning

50:33district. It is also part of the Crown

50:35Hill local historic district. Uh

50:37tomorrow night we have meeting with the

50:39historical commission um in connection

50:41with a certificate of appropriateness

50:43for the project. So again back in 2024

50:46we came before the board with respect to

50:49uh seeking a approval of a site plan in

50:52connection with this project. Uh project

50:54was approved. Uh there was a number of

50:57design related changes um that were uh

51:00proposed mostly coming from the

51:02historical commission at the time. Um

51:04but ultimately the planning board

51:05approved it. Uh once it was approved the

51:09um there was actually a fire that

51:10happened uh with respect to the carriage

51:13house, the historic carriage house. Uh

51:15and I'm sorry whoever is controlling if

51:17you maybe you could advance. So on the

51:19far right there is a replica of uh the

51:22the carriage house that once stood there

51:25and it was the agreement of the

51:27applicant at that time who was a

51:29predecessor owner of this property uh to

51:32rebuild uh a a replica of of the

51:35carriage house. So that ultimately is

51:37what was uh approved. But I'll say once

51:40on once that carriage house uh was

51:42burned down, we came back uh with some

51:45slight revisions with respect to the

51:47layout um which ultimately were all

51:49approved. So now fast forward um the as

51:52I'd mentioned this was a predecessor

51:54owner. Um Polar Views was the previous

51:56owner. Um the current owner now is is my

52:00client 114 Austin Street LLC and they

52:03are seeking to uh essentially have these

52:07permits reissued. Um technically this is

52:09a new filing. Um but uh otherwise um

52:13this is the same this is the same

52:15project five unit uh townhouse style uh

52:19dwelling including one of those units

52:20being um being with respect to that

52:23carriage house. Um I don't want to dwell

52:27on this any further. It's a pretty

52:28straightforward project. Um so I'll

52:31leave it at that. Happy to answer any

52:33questions.

52:34>> Thank you. Uh, additional comments on

52:36this from city staff

52:39>> through the chair, Michelle Smith again

52:41in the city's planning division. Um, so

52:43as you heard, you've approved this, then

52:45you've modified this uh, and now you are

52:47reapproving uh, hopefully for the

52:49applicant um, the same proposal. Really,

52:51not much has changed since the last

52:52iteration, some minor uh, changes to

52:55essentially HVAC that are coming out of

52:56the final design. And really the changes

52:58that you're seeing here, most of the

53:00conditions that we'd previously imposed

53:02were addressed. We have one item that

53:04we're carrying forward that's listed on

53:06page 20 of six in the staff memo in

53:08terms of planning conditions for plan

53:10revisions. There's a few comments from

53:11DPW as well as DTM. And then the

53:13majority of these other comments are um

53:16continuous comments uh or conditions

53:18rather from the prior approvals. Um the

53:20one that I would say that we should

53:21adjust in the prior owner the prior

53:24owners uh proposal they anticipated

53:26these being ownership units with an HOA

53:28condo association. um the owner, this

53:31owner, new owner has not made a

53:33determination about whether they will be

53:34for sale or for rent. And um so we would

53:37recommend that you adjust under

53:38perpetual condition number nine, which

53:40is on page three, would you adjust the

53:42language? So it says um appropriate

53:45basically we're saying you can't park in

53:46the driveway because there's not enough

53:47room for a car to stick out and someone

53:49to get through. So it says no vehicles

53:50shall park in the driveway. appropriate

53:52signage on site and limitations within

53:54the HOA or lease agreements um as

53:57applicable shall be provided to deter

53:59such activity. So we want that to be in

54:02folks lease so that they know that they

54:03can't park there. Um so that is is

54:06something that we would recommend you

54:07modify just given that change. So um I

54:12don't necessarily need to give you

54:13comments on anything else but I'm happy

54:14to comment if there's a question that

54:16you have. Thanks.

54:17>> Okay. Thank you Miss Smith. Uh, Miss

54:19Rodriguez, anything from DBW?

54:24>> We don't have any comment at this time.

54:26Thank you.

54:27>> Thank you. Uh, anyone from the public on

54:29this item?

54:32>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

54:34division. I'm just navigating to the um,

54:39participants. One second. [snorts]

54:44Nobody online with their hand raised.

54:46>> Okay. Board members, Mr. King,

54:48>> I remember this project well. Uh, happy

54:50to support it still. Thank you.

54:52>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi.

54:53>> Yeah, this was before my time, but also

54:55happy to support it. Thank you.

54:58[snorts]

54:58>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Rosende.

55:00>> No comment. Thank you.

55:02>> Um,

55:04well, for myself, I I'm guessing you

55:06guys don't mind the addition of the the

55:09minor language change Miss Smith

55:10mentioned to be HOA or lease as

55:13applicable.

55:14>> Correct, Mr. Chair. We're amendable to

55:16that. Thank you. Okay.

55:17Uh, I do remember this project. I like

55:20the change. Uh, happy to support it. Mr.

55:23King, I think we're ready for a motion.

55:25>> All right. I make a motion to approve

55:27item number 8, 114 Austin Street,

55:30subject to staff conditions as written.

55:32>> I second.

55:33>> On the motion, Mr. King.

55:35>> Yes.

55:36>> Mr. Tumi.

55:37>> Yes.

55:38>> I vote yes. 3 to zero. Motion passes.

55:40Good luck. Thank you.

55:43I believe, Mr. Chair, um, you're next.

55:46It's 216 221 up next.

55:49>> Yes.

55:49>> Uh could could I could the board

55:51entertain a a fivem minute recess?

55:53>> Um I tell you what, how about we take

55:55ANRS and then we'll come back. Is that

55:56okay?

55:57>> That's great for you to do what you need

55:59to do.

56:01>> Uh let's take ANRS.

56:07>> This is Steve Carry in the planning

56:08division. Just give me one second to

56:10navigate to these. So I believe there

56:12are I want to say three up for your

56:15endorsement. Apologies that I was not

56:18ready. Um one, two, yes, there are three

56:21up for your endorsement. Um the first

56:23one is 240 Morland Street. Um this is in

56:27the RS10 zone. Um the minimum frontage

56:30for each lot in the RS10. Um is 80 ft of

56:34frontage for a single family detached,

56:36which is the only type of housing that

56:37can be built in uh RS10. Uh each

56:40proposed lot here um with the lot line

56:42being added would have the requisite 80

56:44feet. Um 10B is not properly before the

56:49board nor is 10 C. Uh 10D is 26 and 28

56:54Milton Street. This is adding zero lot

56:56lines um to a uh seed set of two town

57:00houses. So, um, each townhouse, uh,

57:03needs to have 20 ft of frontage for

57:06single family attached or townhouse

57:08style dwellings in the RG5 zoning

57:10district, which each of these would have

57:12with these zero lot lines. And then 10E

57:15is 28 Chicasset uh, road. Um, this is to

57:20add this lot line you're seeing

57:21highlighted in red. uh parcel A would

57:24become part of lot one here and then the

57:28remainder of this uh zero Dominion Road

57:30would become all part of one large lot

57:33called lot 2 combined with 24 26 and uh

57:3728 Chassesset Road. So it's essentially

57:40creating two lots um which I'm

57:42indicating with my cursor one here and

57:44then the second one being all of these

57:47um and both lots have um well the lot

57:50sorry I should say the combination lot

57:52one and parcel a has adequate has

57:54frontage on insonia lot two will be

57:57unbuildable and is labeled as such on

57:59the plan um off the plan where you can't

58:02see it but on the myar does say it will

58:03be unbuildable

58:05and that's it for plans for endorsement

58:07so that's 10 A, uh, 10 D, and 10E.

58:13>> Is there a motion to endorse?

58:15>> Motion to endorse ANRS A, D, and E.

58:20>> Second.

58:22>> On the motion, Mr. King?

58:23>> Yes.

58:24>> Mr. Tumi?

58:25>> Yes.

58:25>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

58:27three to zero. Uh, Miss W, I believe

58:30there are no minutes. Is that correct?

58:33>> That is correct. But I am hoping to have

58:35some for you guys next time. I'm sure

58:37you're eager eagerly awaiting to approve

58:39them.

58:39>> We are. We're so excited to approve

58:41them.

58:44>> Right.

58:46hours.

58:59>> For any for anybody that's listening

59:01online and wondering what we're doing,

59:02we're just uh we have one more item to

59:05take, but we're going to wait another

59:06couple minutes before we take it. So,

59:07doing some paperwork.

59:22Oh, right.

59:39>> The first time I do it.

59:42It's all setides

59:47when I try

59:51to do

59:53scanning through all the slides

59:56like share thing and then but like it

1:00:01just messes up the

1:00:04computer that's so small for it or

1:00:25has power on here. So, you have to go

1:00:28get it.

1:00:32>> I mean, I don't know. I just I just want

1:00:34to try because like this keeps happening

1:00:35where it's like I try to do something

1:00:37simple like just stop share like move to

1:00:40the right slide reshare and then it's

1:00:43but it it goes to where I was before or

1:00:45it's just like all of a sudden I then it

1:00:48doesn't fit the screen anymore and I

1:00:50can't hit the button because the

1:00:51button's off screen like

1:00:53>> just frustrating

1:00:59>> I know right because I didn't want those

1:01:01like displayed whatever

1:01:05What else?

1:01:07I just want to go smoothly.

1:01:29>> Especially like

1:01:36I think just because she's I'm sure

1:01:37she's hearing it from her. She wants

1:01:39like the separation.

1:01:43>> Yeah.

1:01:45She's been very careful not to she ask

1:01:47she picks my brain

1:01:49>> anything she's like a degree of

1:01:51separation.

1:01:54>> Yeah.

1:01:58>> Right. Right. Exactly. Exactly.

1:02:01When I first interview, I had to sign

1:02:08my mom for mass

1:02:12over

1:02:30That is still

1:02:38>> Josh. How's it going back there?

1:02:40>> You're ready? Great. Let's go. Uh, so

1:02:44next item we're going to hear is item

1:02:46number 9, 216 and 221 Chandler Street.

1:02:48This will be a public meeting for a

1:02:50definitive site plan and a public

1:02:52hearing for a special permit uh related

1:02:55to inclusionary zoning and uh commercial

1:02:57corridor overlay district. two different

1:02:59special permits.

1:03:02>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, just

1:03:04for the record, Joshua Lee Smith,

1:03:06attorney with Bowish and Dwey. Um, here

1:03:09representing different client, but an

1:03:11affiliate of uh of Beyond Construction.

1:03:15Um, so the applicant here is 216

1:03:17Chandler Street, LLC. Uh, this has some

1:03:21similarities with respect

1:03:23to the extent that again this was a

1:03:25former Polar Views project. Um, again,

1:03:29it was approved previously by this

1:03:31board, uh, as well as it went through

1:03:33the ZBA. Um, and I don't believe, did it

1:03:36go through historical commission? I

1:03:38don't believe so.

1:03:39>> Um, but you're you're seeing this

1:03:41project again. Um, unlike 114 Austin

1:03:44Street, this there are some changes with

1:03:46respect to this project. Uh, however, on

1:03:49balance, it's uh very very similar to

1:03:51the to what was previously approved. Um,

1:03:55so just a little bit of background as

1:03:56you can see here, this is an outline of

1:03:58216

1:04:00uh Chandler Street. Uh, down the street

1:04:03is 221 uh Chandler Street. Actually,

1:04:06both are depicted here. So, the smaller

1:04:08um yellow outline there on the bottom of

1:04:11the screen there is 216 Chandler Street.

1:04:13That's the the development lot. Uh

1:04:15that's where the new building um the

1:04:17proposed new building will be uh cited.

1:04:20across the street down the street um is

1:04:22the remote parking. And again, this is

1:04:25the same configuration that was approved

1:04:27previously. Um all of the parking, all

1:04:30of the parking for the residents for

1:04:32this project are are to be remote at 221

1:04:35Chandler Street. And 221 Chandler

1:04:37Street, as a reminder, uh is an existing

1:04:40parking lot. It it does serve an

1:04:43existing mixed commercial building. that

1:04:46commercial building will continue to

1:04:47remain those the uses all again remain

1:04:51exactly the same. So things like the

1:04:53calculation of the minimum parking all

1:04:55of that still remains the same. Um at a

1:04:58really really high level uh yes there

1:05:00are some changes with respect to the 216

1:05:03the building lot portion of the project

1:05:05the 221 the parking lot portion of the

1:05:08remote parking project uh is virtually

1:05:11unchanged. We're going to get into some

1:05:12comments that Michelle and her staff had

1:05:14that will be some tweaks to that remote

1:05:17parking layout. Um, but all in all, the

1:05:20221 parking layout that was approved uh

1:05:23previously will is basically the same.

1:05:26The whole project itself is it's within

1:05:28the uh BG3 zone. So, it's within the

1:05:31business zone. Uh it's also uh within

1:05:33the CCODE. So, it is also has the spirit

1:05:38of the CCOD and some of those design

1:05:40elements that Jesse and his team have

1:05:42incorporated into this new building. Um,

1:05:44thank you. Who's who's doing Olivia?

1:05:47Steve.

1:05:47>> Steve. Okay. Thank you, Steve. So, as

1:05:49Steve just showed, there are some

1:05:50existing conditions. The the building at

1:05:52this site has already been raised and

1:05:54removed. Um, it was a former I think a

1:05:57restaurant of some kind, pretty

1:05:59well-known one, but in any event, that

1:06:01was raised and removed. As you can see

1:06:03here, this is the latest rendering um at

1:06:06the corner of Chandler Street in Mason.

1:06:08Um as you can see the the articulation

1:06:11of the of the facade um being a corner

1:06:14lot really speaks to both sides of of

1:06:16that street. Um uh let me give a a few

1:06:21data points with respect to the before

1:06:22and after in terms of the residential um

1:06:26programming and the parking. So the what

1:06:28was previously proposed or what was pre

1:06:31previously approved uh were 21 units in

1:06:34a mixeduse building. Um what we are

1:06:37proposing now are 28 units. So more

1:06:41housing, more residential units um being

1:06:43proposed and again this is a sixstory

1:06:46building

1:06:47as was um the case previously. Uh one

1:06:50big difference with respect to those

1:06:52housing units is that with the previous

1:06:53approval all the housing units were in

1:06:56in levels 2 through six. So in the new

1:07:00proposed project there will be some

1:07:02ground level units uh and that helps um

1:07:06allow for the additional residential

1:07:08units. So there will be some ground

1:07:09level units as part of the new proposed

1:07:11project. Um there is a retail component

1:07:14that was approved previously about 2900

1:07:18square feet of retail space that was

1:07:20previously approved. And so what we're

1:07:22we're proposing now is a more contracted

1:07:25reduced size for that commercial space

1:07:28from 2900 to about 1,000 square ft in

1:07:31terms of retail. But it still will be a

1:07:34mixeduse project. And a thousand square

1:07:36feet you can get a a decentsized retail

1:07:39space operator in there. So those are

1:07:42the sort of highlevel differences with

1:07:44respect to the before what was

1:07:46unanimously approved by this board and

1:07:48what we're proposing now. I'm going to

1:07:51pass it over to Jesse to speak a little

1:07:53bit more with respect to the

1:07:54architectural details.

1:07:56>> Um Jesse Hildenberg with Dixon Sal

1:07:58architects in Worcester. I live in

1:08:00Oxbridge.

1:08:01So the the building before I don't know

1:08:04if you remember it was a little bigger,

1:08:05a little filled the lot a little more.

1:08:07We actually pinched it in a little bit

1:08:08so we have 5T around the whole building.

1:08:10Um, it allows us to put a little bit

1:08:12more glazing in the outside. Uh, we're

1:08:14still limited to 15% of unprotected

1:08:16glazing from the code, but we still can

1:08:17get a little bit more than before. And,

1:08:19and the premise on the front is we're

1:08:21trying to do three buildings on the same

1:08:22lot. So, we're trying to make the front

1:08:25look like there's a little brick

1:08:26building, a little three-story brick

1:08:28building, similar to what was there

1:08:29initially. It is smaller. It's not the

1:08:30same, obviously. And then a taller white

1:08:33building and an even taller gray blue

1:08:35residential block. That's how we're

1:08:36trying to structure the the the Chandler

1:08:38Street side. As we go around the corner,

1:08:40we carry that same thing on the uh Mason

1:08:43Street side. So, we still have the the

1:08:44blue block, the white building, and the

1:08:46brick block on the front. So, we're

1:08:47trying to give a little bit of variety

1:08:48to to both sides of the elevation. Um

1:08:51what you see on the the image on the

1:08:53left is the back stair tower. Uh

1:08:55currently, we are calling for a loading

1:08:58space, but I think staff comments were

1:09:00asking if we could take it out. Um and

1:09:04I'm trying to think if there's anything

1:09:06else. Um, it's all fiber cement, so for

1:09:09for fire ratings.

1:09:11Um, not sure if there's any other

1:09:13questions. It's a pretty similar design

1:09:15as before.

1:09:18>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:09:19>> Yeah, let's find out. So, uh, staff

1:09:21comments on this item

1:09:25>> through the chair. This is Olivia Hull

1:09:27in the planning division. Um, so as

1:09:31attorney Lee Smith stated, um, this is a

1:09:34similar project that you had, um,

1:09:36previously looked at in 2024, uh, where

1:09:39at 216 Chandler Street, the applicant

1:09:41seeks to construct a six-story high-rise

1:09:43with, um, 1,020

1:09:46square ft of commercial space and 28

1:09:50residential units. Um the units do

1:09:54include ground flooror units which does

1:09:55require the building to be set back um 5

1:09:58feet from the property line as this is

1:10:00in the CCOD. So the building footprint

1:10:03has been slightly adjusted and is a bit

1:10:05smaller as a result of that. Uh they

1:10:08intend to apply provide the parking for

1:10:11this use at 221 Chandler Street um which

1:10:15is an existing parking lot where 20

1:10:17spaces will be designated for this use.

1:10:20Um so first I'll just start with the

1:10:22relief they're seeking through the

1:10:24special permits for the inclusionary

1:10:26zoning special permit. They were seeking

1:10:27relief from minimum parking requirements

1:10:30um seeking the maximum amount that the

1:10:32board is able to grant through the

1:10:34inclusionary zoning special permit which

1:10:36is up to 50%. In this case the use

1:10:39requires 20 spaces. Um since it's in the

1:10:42CCOD it does have a slightly reduced

1:10:44parking requirement. Um there are also

1:10:45some guest spaces that are required. So

1:10:48um the requirement here with the IZ

1:10:51bonuses and reductions is 20 spaces

1:10:53which as I stated is being provided at

1:10:56221. They are also seeking relief from

1:10:59loading space requirements. Um so the

1:11:02plans here do show um a non-compliant

1:11:06loading space on site at 216 Chandler

1:11:09Street. It's shown as a 8 by I'm sorry

1:11:129x8

1:11:13um space right now. Um, we have

1:11:16recommended that the applicant

1:11:18eliminates this space entirely and

1:11:21instead petitions to the city council to

1:11:23provide an on street loading space. Um,

1:11:26we've written a condition so that if for

1:11:29any reason the council will not grant an

1:11:32on street loading space that they could

1:11:35ultimately use the configuration that we

1:11:37see here today. We did talk with uh the

1:11:40Department of Transportation and

1:11:41Mobility about um the feasibility of

1:11:44them supporting an on- street loading

1:11:46space here, especially given the

1:11:47Chandler Street redesign, which is still

1:11:49in progress. They did mention that um

1:11:53the redesign includes some parking

1:11:55spaces in front of the structure along

1:11:58Chandler Street um where they would be

1:12:00amendable to potentially designating

1:12:03some of those spaces for loading. Um,

1:12:05however, the design is still in

1:12:07progress. Things may change. Um, but

1:12:09they generally voiced some support for

1:12:12uh, loading on the street ultimately up

1:12:14to city council. So, if they don't um,

1:12:17agree with that, they could keep the 9

1:12:19by18 that we see on the plans here. Um,

1:12:23so that covers the inclusionary zoning

1:12:25special permit. As for the CCOD special

1:12:28permit, um, this is, um, ultimately

1:12:32pretty similar to what you had granted

1:12:33previously. As um Attorney Smith stated,

1:12:35there's no changes proposed to this lot.

1:12:38So, they were seeking relief from

1:12:40landscape buffer requirements um

1:12:43specifically along Chandler Street in

1:12:45the front of the lot. It's currently

1:12:46paved and they have some EV charging

1:12:49pads going there. So, they're not able

1:12:50to provide the required landscape

1:12:52screening that would otherwise be

1:12:54required for um screening parking from

1:12:57the street. They're also seeking relief

1:13:00from drive by requirements. Um the

1:13:02ordinance requires 24 ft for drive alles

1:13:04um serving two-way traffic. They

1:13:07currently show 22 feet for the drive

1:13:10vial. Um both of the driveles rather.

1:13:13Staff did uh with this round of review

1:13:16note some concerns with a new 3Foot uh

1:13:21AD or just a ramp um provided along the

1:13:24existing building at 221. So, we just

1:13:27have some concerns that this isn't ADA

1:13:28compliant and they'll essentially have

1:13:30to widen it um which would result in a

1:13:34further decrease of their um drive vial

1:13:37width. So, um, we've written it so that,

1:13:40um, they're seeking relief to allow a 20

1:13:42to 22 foot, um, buffer, I'm sorry, drive

1:13:47aisle, and, um, essentially show us on

1:13:50the final plans if, you know, [snorts]

1:13:52the building code says that, uh, walkway

1:13:55needs to be wider, that they show the

1:13:58widened walkway and the decreased drive

1:14:00bile. Um, but the relief they'd be

1:14:01getting would be to allow it to be

1:14:03anywhere between 20 ft and 22 feet. Um

1:14:07so then for the site plan, we did issue

1:14:11some slightly modified conditions. We

1:14:14did show them um for ease of everybody's

1:14:17review in blue on the staff memo where

1:14:20they changed from what was previously

1:14:22approved. Um most um notably I'd say was

1:14:27just regarding what I already discussed

1:14:29with the petitioning for the loading

1:14:31space to be on the street. Um, we're

1:14:33also looking for some enhancements of

1:14:35the ground floor along Chandler Street

1:14:38to help establish a more prominent entry

1:14:40to both the commercial unit as well as

1:14:42the residential units. Even that's just

1:14:44if that's with just some signage,

1:14:46something to make the those entry points

1:14:48a bit more clear and prominent from the

1:14:49street as required by the CCOD. Um, we

1:14:53also had noted that uh we didn't we

1:14:57didn't get a landscape plan for the

1:14:59parking lot with this uh submission. Um,

1:15:02but we did get it from the last one. So,

1:15:04we just we're looking at that

1:15:06landscaping plan knowing that they

1:15:08weren't proposing any changes, but did

1:15:09notice they were missing some trees that

1:15:11should be provided along um Austin

1:15:13Street, which is north of Chandler

1:15:15Street. So, we asked for some more trees

1:15:17in the parking lot. Um, which results in

1:15:19five trees to be compliant with zoning.

1:15:23Um, and I think everything else here is

1:15:26pretty straightforward. I'm happy to

1:15:28answer any questions.

1:15:32>> Okay. Uh, additional comments from Miss

1:15:34Rodriguez.

1:15:37>> No comment for this project. Thank you.

1:15:40>> Thank you. Uh, is there anyone from the

1:15:42public wishing to speak on this item?

1:15:44Come on up, sir. There's a couple folks.

1:15:47You go first in the front and then the

1:15:49gentleman behind you can go next.

1:15:53>> Yeah, I'll take sure I'll take the

1:15:54standing.

1:15:57>> Franchesco Bavona, District 5. Uh, I'll

1:16:01keep it brief. I just want to state my

1:16:02support as a resident for um projects

1:16:06that uh that preserve ground level uh

1:16:09commercial spaces in neighborhoods that

1:16:12stand to be in the future some of our

1:16:14most walkable, especially with the

1:16:16upcoming Chandler redesign. Um and also

1:16:20for projects that uh that cut back on

1:16:22the uh on the standard parking minimums.

1:16:25It's also great to see. Um just wanted

1:16:28to get those two points out there.

1:16:30>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh the

1:16:33other gentlemen, come on up.

1:16:43>> Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Just

1:16:45a few concerns concerning this project.

1:16:47Very nicely aesthetically.

1:16:49>> Sorry to interrupt you. Uh could you

1:16:50just tell us your name?

1:16:51>> Jeff Madison, Worcester resident.

1:16:53>> Thank you.

1:16:53>> Just a few concerns, sir, that I

1:16:55speaking with the neighbors in this

1:16:57area. [clears throat] Again, the

1:16:59building is very aesthetically pleasing,

1:17:01which we do like, but there's just a big

1:17:03concern with some of the parking here.

1:17:05He's stating that there's going to be 28

1:17:07units. And basically with a lot of these

1:17:10units, sometimes there's usually two or

1:17:12more cars per unit depending on the

1:17:14working family. Sometimes there's none

1:17:17and sometimes there's two at least two

1:17:19sometimes. Uh across the street there

1:17:21where they're having the parking that

1:17:24would be in that lot there, there's

1:17:26again, he says it's a mixeduse and it is

1:17:27mixed use. is uh the uh I guess it's a a

1:17:33uh how we could call the um mixed use as

1:17:38many of the businesses that that are

1:17:40there that use that parking lot. The

1:17:42dental office uses that parking lot uh

1:17:44the shipping and storage company that

1:17:46uses that parking area and many more. So

1:17:50that's a concern with the number of cars

1:17:52and then there's the footwalking traffic

1:17:54that has to cross from one side to the

1:17:56other. There's a concern there of uh

1:17:58pedestrians being out in the middle of

1:18:00the street with no uh traffic control

1:18:03signs there or electronic uh stopwalk

1:18:07signs there. So, there's a big concern

1:18:08there for the the neighbors in the in

1:18:11the residents. Uh with that project

1:18:13going on, again, I guess loading would

1:18:15have to be on Chandler Street because

1:18:17he's going six stories. I don't know if

1:18:19they're going to carry timber or lumber

1:18:22up or they're going to have to have it

1:18:23lifted up with a crane. So there's the

1:18:26concern of there's going to have to be

1:18:27some type of apparatus or machinery or

1:18:30crane that that is going to have to take

1:18:32up space on Chandler Street that would

1:18:35send traffic throughout the

1:18:36neighborhood. Again, if you look at the

1:18:39the street viewer there, it would have

1:18:42to be somewhere on the corners there.

1:18:45There'd have to be some type of crossing

1:18:47signs or crossing uh electronic signs

1:18:51there to guide traffic and pedestrians

1:18:54back and forth across the street.

1:18:56Uh that would also send again as I was

1:18:59mentioning the traffic down Austin

1:19:01Street. You can see Austin Street there.

1:19:03That would have to see there's going to

1:19:05be a loading in the channel on Chandler

1:19:08Street. So traffic would be diverted

1:19:10down Austin and the next block up would

1:19:13be uh Dwey. So traffic would be going

1:19:15down Dewey there too. So that would add

1:19:18more congestion down those streets

1:19:20there. That would also lead traffic down

1:19:23to Mason Street. That would put more

1:19:25traffic onto Mason Street. Mason Street

1:19:27has a business and it's uh residential

1:19:29and business zoned. There is uh Astro

1:19:32Electric. They have their trucks going

1:19:34in and out throughout the day too. So

1:19:37it's a big concern with traffic in that

1:19:39area. But other than that, it's these

1:19:42are some of the concerns that the

1:19:43residents have and speaking with the

1:19:45residents. These are some of the things

1:19:47that we see and just have questions

1:19:49about and how this is going to work with

1:19:51that building. Uh I thank you for

1:19:53hearing some of the concerns of the

1:19:56residents and again I'll keep it brief

1:19:57too because I have another appointment

1:19:59coming up at 7 o'clock.

1:20:01>> All right. Thank you very much.

1:20:01>> Thank you very much. Thank you.

1:20:05Uh other members of the public, perhaps

1:20:07some that aren't in the room wishing to

1:20:09speak on this item.

1:20:11>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

1:20:12division. Not seeing anyone with their

1:20:14hand raised.

1:20:16>> Okay. Board members, uh Mr. King, you

1:20:18want to go first?

1:20:22>> Yep. Sorry about that. Was double muted.

1:20:25Um habit support the project in general.

1:20:27Glad to see this one's coming back. I

1:20:30in the back of my head I remember we did

1:20:32have like a pedestrian beacon at the

1:20:34crosswalk here. I guess maybe we didn't.

1:20:37Um

1:20:39I guess through the chair to the Afghan

1:20:41did we have a pedestrian beacon at the

1:20:43corners here previously or am I mistaken

1:20:45there?

1:21:02Uh I don't Mr. King, I don't see

1:21:06anything in our previous conditions.

1:21:09Um it's possible I'm missing them though

1:21:11if

1:21:13uh Olivia, do you are you aware of that

1:21:15>> through the chair? I don't think that

1:21:17was previously conditioned. Um a lot of

1:21:18the conditions were carried over. Um

1:21:20anything that was struck, it was just

1:21:22because it had been addressed. Um, I'm

1:21:26not sure if Attorney Smith or through

1:21:28the chair, Attorney Smith, could you

1:21:30speak to any proposed pedestrian beacons

1:21:32at the crosswalk for um from the

1:21:35structure to the other side of Chandler

1:21:37Street or vice versa?

1:21:39>> Uh, the the short answer is none are

1:21:41proposed.

1:21:42>> Okay. There are two two crosswalks,

1:21:44however, that I'll

1:21:45>> that are pretty clearly shown um that

1:21:50are sur that that connect both sides of

1:21:53>> both sides of Chandler Street. Um

1:21:55[clears throat]

1:21:56one is pretty much directly across where

1:21:59both buildings reside. Uh then you move

1:22:02further west, there's another crosswalk.

1:22:05>> Great. No concerns. Thank you.

1:22:08>> Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. to me.

1:22:10>> Again, the the the one thing I looked at

1:22:12was the crosswalk, but there's one right

1:22:14in front of 216 crossing over to the

1:22:16other side. Hopefully, people will be

1:22:18willing to walk down to the corner to do

1:22:21that. It's not like there's a great

1:22:23savings of time to cross in the middle

1:22:25of Chandler and hopefully people are

1:22:27smart enough to look at the safety and

1:22:28say, "Let's use the crosswalk." But

1:22:30other than that, I'm happy to support

1:22:32this.

1:22:33>> I I will say, Mr. Chair, there there's

1:22:35also a traffic signal right there as

1:22:37well.

1:22:38So there's certainly traffic traffic

1:22:40coming inherent in that intersection

1:22:43already.

1:22:44>> Understood. Uh thank you Mr. Tumi, Mr.

1:22:47Rosende.

1:22:49>> Uh perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but

1:22:51it looks like on page three. Um

1:22:56item 1B addresses pedestrian crossing

1:23:00warning signs.

1:23:02Would that

1:23:04would that satisfy the concerns here?

1:23:09Oh, I think you're right. So, uh, Mr.

1:23:12King, in the memo,

1:23:15uh, as our colleague said, page three,

1:23:17item 1B, uh, is install pedestrian

1:23:21crossing warning signs at and in advance

1:23:22of the Chandler Street crosswalk with

1:23:24advanced warning signs to include solar

1:23:26powered flashing LED border.

1:23:30Okay, that is what I remembered, I

1:23:32think. Okay.

1:23:34uh is I guess through the chair. Is

1:23:35there any concern to the applicant with

1:23:37that condition? Then

1:23:41>> I I didn't hear the question.

1:23:43>> Uh I think Mr. King is asking if you

1:23:46were aware of that condition and if um

1:23:48you object to it.

1:23:51>> Uh so really simply um the way that

1:23:55Michelle Olivia and her team um prepared

1:23:58this DPRS memo, everything in blue is

1:24:01new. Everything that's not in blue was

1:24:03previous. So, uh, tax my memory a little

1:24:06bit, but if if it's it appears to me

1:24:08that this was previously accepted and it

1:24:11was part of the approval, so we accept

1:24:12it today.

1:24:13>> Understood.

1:24:16Good catch. Uh, any other comments, Mr.

1:24:18Rosende?

1:24:19>> No other comments. Thanks.

1:24:22>> Okay. For myself, I appreciate the um p

1:24:25members of the public coming out. Uh as

1:24:27the gentleman noted, uh I think this

1:24:29board is generally in support of reduced

1:24:31parking minimums and absolutely here. Uh

1:24:35I did um I note for the other who's

1:24:39since left, but uh that the one

1:24:43requirement of the plan or of the

1:24:44conditions of approval is that they have

1:24:46a construction management plan

1:24:48addressing how they're going to load and

1:24:49unload materials and hopefully minimize

1:24:50disruption to the neighborhood while

1:24:52they're doing it. All construction is a

1:24:54little disruptive. Uh but

1:24:57thinking about it ahead of time, they

1:24:58can they can minimize that impact. Uh as

1:25:00far as you know, everybody having

1:25:02multiple cars and where are they going

1:25:03to park? These are relatively small

1:25:04units. The range from like 480 ft to I

1:25:07think 580 ft. These are um

1:25:12efficient uh layouts. They're they're

1:25:14not going to be families with multiple

1:25:15kids. There's other housing stock for

1:25:17those folks in the city uh hopefully. So

1:25:20um I'm happy to support this

1:25:22And I think we would be ready for a

1:25:24motion. And this is a uh there's a

1:25:27public hearing we need to close. Uh Mr.

1:25:29King first.

1:25:30>> Make a motion to close the public

1:25:31hearings or both public hearings.

1:25:33>> Second motion. Mr. King.

1:25:35>> Yes.

1:25:36>> Mr. Tumi?

1:25:37>> Yes.

1:25:37>> Mr. Rosende?

1:25:39>> Yes. I vote yes as well. That passes 4

1:25:41to zero. And now a motion on the

1:25:43application.

1:25:44>> Make a motion to approve item number 916

1:25:46and 221 Chandler Street subject to staff

1:25:49conditions as written.

1:25:52Second

1:25:53>> on the motion. Mr. King,

1:25:54>> yes.

1:25:55>> Mr. Tumi,

1:25:56>> yes.

1:25:56>> Mr. Rosende,

1:25:57>> yes.

1:25:58>> I vote yes as well. Motion passes. Good

1:26:00luck.

1:26:02>> Thank you.

1:26:04>> Uh, okay. That's all the items on our

1:26:06agenda. Any other discussion before we

1:26:08adjourn?

1:26:11Hearing none. Is there a motion to

1:26:12adjurnn?

1:26:13>> Motion to adjurnn.

1:26:14>> Second.

1:26:15>> All in favor say I. I.

1:26:17>> I. We'rejourned.

1:26:19Ready?