Somerville Planning Board 12-04-2025

Good evening, everybody. It is 6.01 p.m. on the 4th of December 2025. I'm Mike Capuano. I'm the Chairman of the Planning Board. This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Summerful Planning Board. With me tonight is our Vice Chair Amelia Aboff, our Clerk Jahan Habib, our members Lynn Richards, Luc Schuster, and Michael McNeely. Michael is here. He is off camera temporarily. Just wanted to Make sure Michael you say hello to make sure that the record is clear that you are here.

Hello.

Okay. We have a quorum. and pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the Planning Board is being conducted via remote participation. A video recording of these proceedings will be available on the City's website The meetings and events page or by emailing planningboard at somervillema.gov. This meeting is being recorded. We have a number of items on our agenda tonight. I'll just go through them and then I will take them in the order that's best suited for the way that this evening should go. So we have a matter of other business, which is Chapter 91 approval for the pedestrian bridge at Draw 7 Park. we have the presentation of three zoning amendments ordinarily this would be done with a joint hearing of the land use committee but due to logistics we are having a separate hearing and based on the timing

We will need to vote on recommendations this evening to the Land Use Committee. Then we have a continued hearing for 379 Somerville Avenue. It has been continued till today and I believe they are ready to go. So we'll take them. This evening as well. We also have 44 White Street, which has been continued a couple of times. I believe we are ready to go with them. We also have a new hearing. I believe it has not yet been. opened at 152 to 158 Broadway so when the time to take that application comes around I'll have Jahan read into the Reck of the Notice of Public Hearing. But for the purpose of the logistics, you know what I see in Vigorito's hand I know you're representing two different applicants on this meeting. Is there something that you need to address before we move ahead?

I just let Anne allow to talk.

Yes, hi, good evening. It's attorney Anne Vigorito, 424 Broadway. Relative to 379 Somerville Ave, I believe... The planning staff is still reviewing matters because we don't have a staff report as of yet. So I was going to ask for a continuance for the second meeting in January of 2026. I think that meeting is January 29th. I'm just you know I was kind of looking at the calendar today because I know it's there's one for the 15th but I was going to ask for the 26th if that would please the board.

I'm happy to continue it but

Hi, I did, I believe I sent the memo in our email chain, but it's the same memo that was posted from before. for the meeting before we had it done and then when y'all continued it last time it's the we haven't made any changes it's going to be the same one

Apologies on that, Lexi. I didn't know. It's okay. But I don't have Will this evening, nor do I have... the developing team because they're scattered all about this evening so that's why and with the you know with the holidays coming and there's some other traveling the The second meeting in January, I know I can round up the entire team and have them here and I want to do that just so that

That's fine by me. I don't think the second meeting has been formally scheduled yet, but let's do this. Let's continue until it's set. I assume it's going to be two weeks after the 15th. But without having Matt in stone yet, let's continue to January 15th. and if you want a further continuance we can we can make that happen because by that time we'll definitely know what the meeting schedule will be for the year

Thank you. Apologies. I just didn't want any confusion that it was going forward.

I appreciate the clarification. Attorney Figueredo. Thank you. So with that in mind, the chair moves to continue 379 Somerville Avenue to the January 15th, 2026 meeting, seconded by Emilia Alvaro. Can we have a roll call, please? Yes. Jahan Habib?

Aye. Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Luc Schuster?

Aye.

Michael Magnilli? Aye. Amelia Aboff? Aye. Michael Caplan?

All right, this agenda item is continued to next year. Jahan, do you have a hand raised for something?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I was unable to attend the November 20th planning board meeting. I have watched the video recording as well as submitted the affidavit to planning staff. Therefore, I should be ready and prepared to vote if there is a vote for 44 White Street. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thanks, John.

So, here's what I'm going to do with with that case continued to 2026. I'm going to take the zoning amendments 1st, because we need to, we definitely need to vote on this evening to get them to the land use committee. for their meeting prior to the calendar year end. So I'm going to take the two administration amendments first. and then I will take the proposed amendment for the properties on Highland Avenue and Willow. So who's presenting on behalf of the city?

Hi, this is Kit. Alvaro, could you... Perfect, okay. Let me wait till it pops up. Okay, so I'll start with our pre-submittal meeting amendment. If you want to go to the next slide, Alvaro. Perfect. So this proposal would make pre-submittal meetings optional for special permits, site plan approval, hardship variances, land plotting, and wireless communications. The ordinance would still require pre-submittal meetings as part of the application process for subdivision plan approvals and master plan special permits. which are two of our most intense permitting processes. And you can go to the next one, Alvaro. Thank you. This is a very brief presentation. So we ran a couple statistics. We track all of our pre-submittal meetings from, I believe, August 23rd

In 2024, 42% of presubmittal meetings involved people familiar with the ordinance or professionals in their field. Such as design firms, architects, engineers, contractors, attorneys, etc. And then in 2025, this increased to 64% and 17% of all pre-submittal meetings were One law firm, who I believe we have here tonight, which was Adam Dasch and Associates. So over the years, we've learned that the required presubmittal meetings for all applications may have been A step too far and of course applicants can still request a presubmittal meeting if they would like one and they will still be required for those two Projects I mentioned earlier with more intense permitting. And then this amendment also includes just some language cleanup, which clarify the language referencing manual submittals,

which is all done online now through our permitting software, CitizenServe, and then corrected some language with state law in the administrative appeals category. and I think that's all we have for our pre-submittal meetings.

Great. I just got a couple of questions for you just for the clarity of myself, the board, and the public. So can you explain what a pre-submittal meeting entails? This doesn't take away the requirement for a neighborhood meeting or anything? that would otherwise be required in the ordinance and in the planning board's rules and regs, right? This is something that is different, that is preliminary. I'm just hoping you might be able to give us some clarity on what exactly we're talking about.

Yeah, so presubmittal meetings are currently the first step in the pre-application process. So for, say, a hardship variance, which I know the planning board doesn't see, but for a hardship variance, it's presubmittal meeting and then application submittal. and then for more for maybe a longer process which is the site plan approval process it goes pre-submittal meeting with city staff and that can depending on the nature of the project we require different It could be mobility, public space and urban forestry, engineering. So it can definitely add some time to the permitting process, trying to get all those departments involved on the same meeting. So for site plan approval, it's pre-submittal meeting, first neighborhood meeting, urban design review, second neighborhood meeting, and then an application submittal before they can Be in front of the board.

So this is really the first step. And of course, if someone still wanted a pre-submittal meeting, they're more than welcome to elect to have one. But they won't be required for everything now.

So this isn't something that would take away the public's opportunity to weigh in on a process. This is, from what I gather... This is an opportunity for an applicant to understand what it is that they need to do, who they need to talk to in order to submit an application based on what you were showing in your presentation. It's kind of the purpose of this is being met by a lot of people and entities who are already familiar with the process. And this is somewhat of almost a ministerial step. but if people who aren't as familiar with our zoning processes need some guidance they're always still available to reach out to

Yes, that's correct.

To the planning staff and the responsible departments. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. It's one of those things where occasionally we write down a requirement and then realize it's not really working the way We think it should, or it's creating some additional barriers that don't matter. So it's not taking away the public's opportunity to weigh in on development that's going on in their neighborhoods. It's not taking away the planning boards, ability to weigh in and staff's ability to guide a project towards a hearing like this. Okay. Does anybody else have any comments or questions of kit before I open it up to public testimony? Okay, seeing none from the planning board at this time.

I'm going to open up public testimony on this specific proposal by the administration. If anybody would like to testify in support of the proposal, please raise your hand. I'm calling you. Going once, going twice. Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the public hearing. I'm going to open up to anybody that would like to testify in opposition to this proposal. Going once, going twice, seeing none. I will close that portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the planning board for any discussions or questions that we have.

So this is ordinarily what we would do is have a joint hearing with the land use committee, take written testimony and take it up in a couple of weeks. That's not what's going on tonight. We will vote for Recommendation to the Land Use Committee. So I'm going to move to recommend adoption of this proposal to the Land Use Committee, seconded by Amelia. So, Malvara, can we please have a roll call?

Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luc Schuster.

Aye.

Michael Magnilli.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff. Aye. Michael Capuano.

Aye. We have a recommendation. Kit, are you presenting the next one as well?

Yes.

Okay, so this, let me wait until it pops up here on my screen. There we go. This is our home-based daycares and use table updates amendment. So the state of Massachusetts amended Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 3, which is the chapter that tells the city what they have to permit. The change added family child care homes and large family child care homes to be permitted in all districts where residential housing is allowed. In Somerville, we call them home-based child daycares and that covers both names in state law. So again, this amendment changes home-based child daycares to be permitted in every district that allows housing as a use and home-based child daycares are an accessory use to residential housing. and this amendment makes changes to the mid-rise and high-rise districts and then the next slide

and then while we were making these changes we noticed some discrepancies from past amendments which did not get updated in the main use table in article 9 so this amendment makes corrections to the main use table but all of these uses are already permitted or permitted by special permit. I think we have one of those in their article for each zoning district, but they just weren't updated in the main use table. and that's all I've got.

So to clarify this is cleaning up some some language and unifying some of the language throughout the ordinance and it's putting us in compliance with an updated state law. So we kind of have to do this. Does anybody on the planning board have any comments or questions of Kit at this time? I see Amelia.

This is just a kind of fidgety technical question, not about the content of this change, but it looks like the use table that you just were... Amelia, did you freeze or is it me? He's frozen for me as well.

You're back now.

Did you hear any of that?

You started to talk about the use table.

That looked like it was a screenshot of sort of a revised PDF version of the use table. And I know that that Minocode is sort of the official version. When we're making edits like this, what is the process or timeline for like Flowing those changes through the website so that people can see them? It's okay if you don't have an answer. I was just curious because I don't think we've seen... I don't think there's an updated PDF version floating around. I feel like Municode is now where the active edit is.

The screenshot on the presentation is from ENCODE+, which is where we store the zoning ordinance. But I don't think I can speak to when exactly that gets updated as I believe that's taken care of by the clerk's office. Got it. Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions of Kit at this time? Seeing none, it's time for public testimony. So if anybody wants to testify in support of this proposal, please raise your hand. Once, going twice, seeing none. I'll close that portion of the public hearing, open up to anybody that wants to testify in opposition. Please raise your hand. Once, twice, nobody? Close that portion of the public hearing. Does anybody on the planning board have any further discussion on this agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, the Chair moves to recommend adoption of this proposed amendment, seconded by Emilia. Alvaro, could we please have a roll call?

Jehan Habib? Aye.

Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Luc Schuster, Michael McNeely, Amelia Ebel, Michael Capuano.

Okay, we have a recommendation. Thank you very much. I think that's it from you, right? Do you have anything else tonight?

I'll be here for 44 White Street, but that's all for amendments. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay, the next... The proposed amendment is a... 12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment. So you know what? This is new. So I'm going to ask the clerk to read in the notice of public hearing. For this, I probably should have had you do the other two as well. Sorry.

Go ahead, Mr. Chair.

Why don't you do this? Why don't you read all three and then we'll remix the tape.

Sure, absolutely. I'll start with the first one that's listed. Mayor Ballantyne requesting ordainment of an amendment to sections 10.1 10.3 15.1.2 15.1.6 15.1.8 15.2.1 15.2.2 15.2.3 15.3, 15.2, 15.4, 15.3.1, 15.3.2, and 15.5.2. of the zoning ordinance to make pre-submittal meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency. The next item is Mayor Ballantyne requesting ordainment of an amendment to tables 4.1.13

4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.3.13, 4.3.13, 4.4. 13, 5.1.14, 7.2.7, 7.4.8, 8.4.16C. and 9.1.1 of the zoning ordinance to permit home-based child daycare accessory uses and make corrections. Next up is 12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 363 Highland Avenue from mid-rise for MR4. to Midrise 5, MR5, and from MR4 to Midrise 6, MR6, and 110 Willow Avenue to MR4 to MR6.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Johanna. Sorry. Okay, so we are on the amendment for the put forth by 12 registered voters and I see attorney Adam Dash. I believe presenting in support of this proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street in Somerville. I'm representing Altitude Properties LLC, the owner of the property at 363 Highland Ave, which is currently leased to Recorded Future, which is between West and Whipple Streets. With me are Lorenzi Bravo and Gorka Bravo as well as Peter Quinn from Peter Quinn Architects. We need to promote Peter and give him permission to share slides, if that's possible, whoever's doing that. The Bravos recently did the development over at the conversion from the Walgreens to the Republic Fitness here in Davis Square, which has been very successful in addition to other things that they've done in the city. They own the property and since Recorded Future is leaving, it's an opportunity to redevelop this site. So we're here tonight to talk about a proposal to change the zoning map for 363 Highland Avenue along with the NSTAR facility at 110 Willow, which is across Whipple Street from 363 Highland.

While we're waiting for Peter to get up and running here, I would note that we have met with the Davis Square Neighborhood Council more than once. and they have been overwhelmingly in support of this map change and I believe they sent an email stating that. We also were before the land use committee on November 6th and we missed you there. But they were very supportive, although they have not voted, obviously, waiting for the planning board to act. Peter, are you there and do you have the slides?

Well, I have my camera on. Good evening, everybody. I believe I'm heard. Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, good. Thank you. Yes, I do have the slides. Good evening, everybody. First, I just wanted to give you an overview of the site itself. Just take a minute if you don't mind. I'm going to share the screen. This one. Yeah, so all the, I believe you can see it now, all the buildings that are terracotta colored are part of the site we're talking about, including this small parking lot where the Jeep is parked right here. coming off Highland Ave. The picture is standing on Highland Ave. The lots over here are not part of this zoning change. Whipple,

comes in as a relatively small street right here. And everything on the left is part of the 363 Highland lot. And then you can see the Eversource. Oops, we went too far. Let's get back to that. That's too bad. Everything that we have, you can see that this building, this site actually fronts very nicely right on the community path. and Google was anxious to get us there rather than show you the rest of Whipple. Anyways, this is part of the site here. And then off to the left is the Eversource building as well, which is included in this zone chain. So I'm going to go now to the drawings that we have. Let's see here. Give me a second.

Here we go.

OK.

So view from above. We were up just a second ago up on this community path looking down here where there's an access point. I also want to point out that Whipple Street, as it comes down, there's a small triangular piece of land that is actually part of the 363 Highland Ave site. Property for a potential direct connection at the end of the street to the community path. The buildings that we have include a number of one-story buildings that are in various condition over the years. They've been merged together into one. and this small building over here on the left side that says Zipcar is no longer there. That's been torn down. That's on another lot entirely. So Highland Ave is at the bottom of this, and that's the orientation for our drawing that's coming up.

Whipple Street is this street where my cursor is right now. It bends and goes back out to Willow. And then this big building here is the Eversource building with its bountiful amount of land around it. So going on to what it is we're exactly requesting is the current zoning on the site is all MR4. which as you can see is on this side and Civic which is the utility site as well. So those two zones we're proposing to change to a combination of MR6 from Willow going back to Whipple and then including that larger area with the parking lot in front of it as an MR6.

And then out at Highland, where it seems more appropriate not to build quite as high. Also, I believe it's a pedestrian street. We would have an MR5 building as well. So that's the kind of zoning way of the land. We took a pass at imagining what it would look like to have both these lots on the island side built out. So you'll see some massing models in a second. We also tried to organize this site in a way that made sense. splitting the use of a ramp possibly down to underground parking where we thought we could get north of 70 spaces if somebody wanted to build a parking garage down there. This is

I must emphasize this is not a presentation of a specific design. This is kind of more just trying to explain to the board what it is that could be built there in terms of volume and how that might look. So here you have a large multifamily building. This is the MR6 building. One of the things that would work very well is being able to have a direct connect from community path, which is up here on the top of the paper. To the top of the sheet directly into a bike room for storage. That would really, you know, enhance the whole biking experience for those who are using that mode of transportation.

and then the building out at Highland Ave would have a commercial space because it is on Pedestrian Street and then would have some additional amenity and possibly some unit spaces as well. Then there'd be plenty of space Brown for green roofs and green courtyards and the like. So moving on a little bit, just to give you an idea. I do have this section, but I think it's actually kind of hard to read, so I'm going to go directly to the massing models, which explain it better. You can see in this image right here how those two volumes that I just mentioned would sit next to each other. The one on the left here is the MR5 building with its required step backs at the top level. and the one to the right is the MR6 building with its required step back off the street. Now,

if they almost look like they're the same height even though this one on the right is an additional story and that's not they're all they're all the stories are the same height uh four to four So the reason for this is that Whipple Street has about an eight foot dip from Highland Ave all the way down to the rear. So it's possible to set that building low enough so that it actually doesn't look like anything more than an MR5 building but it actually is an MR6 and I think that gives a lot of latitude in being able to work this building into the environment nicely. which you know I hope the architects will finally are able to build this thing if it does pass we'll take that into account in how these two buildings relate to each other this slot between the two of them is the potential ramp down into the underground garage, should there be one.

I say that as if acknowledging that there is no parking requirement. But many developers are still interested in having that. I guess it'd have to be approved by special permit, but it would give some option for the residents of the building. How many residents are there? We did do a calculation on that going through the square footages over here. And coming up to a calculation that basically said if you really built this out to the maximum using the net zero bonus that is available, theoretically, you could do, you know, almost 270 units between these two buildings. realistically because of the shape of the buildings and because of blind corners and

any number of other you know normal geometric aspects you have to run into and without regard to what the market might demand this is probably a number in the Low to mid to, you know, like 220 to 230 is realistic. And We also calculated in the garage that you could get about 75 cars down there as well. So, you know, that's quite a good ratio for the number of units given that it's literally steps away from the mass transit. as well as a multitude of bus lines on both Willow and Hyland. Yeah, so going back to this massing model, won't go on too much, but this is looking over Highland Ave. You can see the MR5 building in the front and then behind that the MR6.

I think the effect of the MR6 will be that you Really hard to see it, actually, especially once this lot gets built and it'll get most of its attention on the front of Noble Street and from the community path. I know I've done a couple of projects along the community path over the years and I've always insisted in having a substantial entry right off the community path, but it is an address that you don't want to miss. These three views are a little harder to read because they don't have any sense of scale, but I just show them in case somebody wants me to talk about them a little bit. We do have a shadow study. I think that's fair to just talk about for a minute. The way we did this is we took what the underlying zoning would allow, which is an MR4 building. and that is the yellow shadow you see.

So that's a build out where we just shaved off, you know, whatever number of stories we would have to in order to get to this, you know, approvable MR4 under the current zone. The blue shadow shows what the increase would be if we were able to get the approval for this MR5, MR6 combination. So, you know, this is spring and summer, and this is showing a slight increase in the amount of shadow, except for early in the morning where it's more. and more, but it's also transitory because the sun is actually rotating. and a little additional shadow caused by the MR5 and MR6 buildings. Going on to summer.

You can hardly notice the difference, actually. There's a little bit of increased shadow over here on to some of the Highland properties. and then a very little bit. Midday is a new year. And then finally at 3 p.m., a little bit of extra shadow, actually not even reaching the community path. and then finally in winter when everybody's shadowing everybody else, you know, we do get There has been long shadows already. You might get a small increase here directly across the bike path and then with a shadow that goes on correctly across the community path as well. So that's the shadow.

It's inevitable that there would be some shadow, but I think given the size of the building, and it's the amount of units that you can get substantially adding to the residential quality of Davis Square, residential options. You know, this is a low-impact building or low-impact project.

Thank you, Peter. Just to note that the developers have found that the Bravo is that it's not viable to redevelop the site at the current four-story limit, which is why we're here. We feel that this zoning map change would allow for more housing in Davis Square, which is badly needed, and will provide an ability for the utility to redevelop or sell its property if it wants, although obviously the map change does not require them to do anything whatsoever. It's just an opportunity. Keep in mind that even if the planning board and the city council does change the vote to favor of the map change, the project still needs site plan approval and a special permit. We would be back to you for all of that. for any building that would be proposed under that. As I said earlier, the Davis Square Neighborhood Council has been extremely receptive to it and voted in favor over, I think it was only one vote against out of all the people there.

and it was well received at the land use committee so therefore we ask that you favorably recommend the map change for 363 Highland Ave to MR5 and MR6 and 110 Willow Ave to MR6. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will certainly have my comments and my questions at some point. in a bit, but this is a hearing. I want to make sure that there's nobody on the planning board who has a question now before I open this up to public testimony.

Yeah, Amelia.

City have any, I'm sorry, does the city have any comments on this proposal? I know that we don't have, do we have staff to speak to this in any way? I'm physically interested in if there's a city stands on 110 Willow.

This is Kit Lester. I was instructed by Director Bartman to inform you that this city is supportive or planning preservation zoning is supportive of this amendment.

Thank you.

I'm going to open up the public testimony to anybody who wants to speak in support of the application. Please raise your hand and I'll call on you. Once, going twice, seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the public hearing and I am going to open up to anybody that wants to testify in opposition to the application. Please raise your hand. Going once, going twice, seeing none. I bring it back to the planning. So who among my colleagues would like to go first on this? Go for it, Amelia.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I see Lynn.

I'm surprised to hear that the city is in support of this because I would be so excited to support this application for the upzoning of the Recorded Future Parcel to allow for more housing so close to a transit area and all of our full civic infrastructure. But I have really strong myths about the fact that the 10 Willow Parcel is being folded like this. I think that the zoning of that parcel as civic was intentional, reflecting both its current use and its future potential. We have very few parcels of scale in the city that can accommodate new green space, new utility infrastructure, any number of civic functions that are really important. And there are very few of those parcels, if any remaining sort of in the area around Davis Square given how much development has taken place here. I think that changing the zoning of the 110 Willow Parcel from

Civic to MR6 creates financial intensives that work against the city's ability to repurpose that for important planning and infrastructure uses. I'm very curious if Kit has any commentary from Director Bartman about that concern in particular, and I'd also love to hear Attorney Dash tell us if the recommendation letter from the Davis Square Neighborhood Council I'm sorry, I don't think I have a copy of that. I'm sure it's posted but I don't have it to refer to. I also feel that to the extent there are neighbors in support of that upzoning, I can imagine that people feel excited about the prospect of the 110 Willow Parcel being Rezoned in a way that supports that being a residential development as opposed to potentially utility infrastructure.

So I absolutely see where there might be neighbor and community support for that. I remain very concerned about the prospect of a 10 citizen petition to rezone a parcel that is not owned or under option or under control by the applicant that is currently zoned civic. and has a number of other potentially very valuable uses given its strategic location in Davis and on the path. So I'm totally in support of the concept of an MLE 6 for the 363 Hyland parcel, and so I'm stuck on how to parse this particular application since it wraps those two together.

Well, I can take my part if I may, that the email that was sent from the Davis Grove Neighborhood Council, from Peter Kim Santos, who's the treasurer, said that at our October 27th meeting the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change of 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow. It then goes on to talk about 363 Highland and then it says The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow property, which will hopefully incentivize some more desirable development. So yes, it was both.

Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that.

No problem.

I saw Lynn next and then Michael.

Thanks, Michael. Amelia, I'm so glad you raised the issue about 110, and I liked how Adam said that it was a blighted property. In many ways, I consider this my neighborhood. I'm part of the Davis Square neighborhood council. I walk past those properties all the time. It's my daily bike dog walk. and the 110 property is just really blighted like it's it's um it makes it uncomfortable and I've lived here now for two and a half years it makes it uncomfortable kind of walking past the recording future I would love to see six stories there up against the the bike path and kind of framed up by Highland.

But Amelia, I don't know if you know the area well, it's just, it's a real eyesore and I completely understand your desire for the city to have some civic space but if there was something that was ready to go with this with the city and they needed that space um that's one thing but it could be another 10 years before the city's ready to go and in the meantime it's Blighted, I don't think begins to describe it. So that's where I come down on that. I was really excited to see this upzoning. I think on a lot of arterials, we should be going up to MR6. Anywho, if you want to respond, I'll let Michael make that call, but anywho.

Let's finish this line of discussion, so Amelia and then Michael.

Thank you. I just want to say in terms of familiarity with the area, I can't quite see it from my house. But I'm close enough that I had to consult whether I felt this was a conflict of interest or not to participate in this discussion. And I agree that it's vacancy is problematic, but I I strongly disagree with your characterization as feeling unsafe. It just feels like an opportunity specific infrastructure in my opinion.

I love that perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be brief and basically simply state that I echo almost everything Amelia said. I think that I'm very concerned about creating an economic headwind to the city being able to use this property. I absolutely agree that we need to do something about it and I would Hope that the city considers reaching out to the CPC. That budget has just ballooned lately, and if they need the money to make something happen here, they should definitely try to make that happen. Super excited about that committee and I encourage the city to try to utilize it here. I would also underline here that this isn't just about creating more open space. We are in desperate need of the right flexibility for infrastructure. And this could be a prime property for that as well.

So I think all in all, I'd be really concerned about changing the zoning on the civic space and I would be supportive of changing the rest of the parcels in this application.

Johan or Luke Dwyer if you have thoughts on this. I certainly do. I see Johan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have similar unease with the change of zoning for the civic space. I'm also very curious to better understand The fact that there's a utility located, the building has been utilized by National Grid, I believe. What does that mean? Should we vote in favor or make the recommendation in favor? including 110 Willow. I'm not sure about what that entails. What are we recommending with respect to 110 Willow? So I'd love to hear a little bit more from staff if they can share some information regarding this.

This is Kit. I do not think I can answer that question currently.

Okay. I'm just looking for ramifications of of this recommendation. So that's where I'm struggling to better understand. So thank you. Thank you for the response.

Yeah, I can try and get an answer. Sure.

I would know if it helps. I mean, it would be a while she's doing that. I mean it would be a it'd be if the use is there and the use could continue regardless of whether the zoning has changed or not the use could It could be NSTAR, it could be someone else. Obviously, utility is there. Utility can stay even if it's a pre-existing non-conforming use situation. So changing the zoning doesn't do anything. for the current use. Our understanding was that the utility has no intention of moving. However, they have, as you see there, space that is underutilized and kind of messy back there. And it would be Good for if they wanted to lot split it and do something. I don't think there's enough space that would be there for any civic sort of use, but something better than just scrubby mess back there would be great. and I think the neighbors have said that. We're not expecting the utility to move and nor would they be required to. We're hoping that they would be able to lease maybe

Carve some of the back of that gargantuan space that they're not really using off and this would give them the economic incentive to do that was the feeling, not to push them out or anything like that. So that's all there was to it, and it seemed like a good opportunity to bring it up at this time.

Understood. Thank you so much for adding some additional background information to it, Attorney Dash. That's very helpful. And if the staff members have a response later on in the conversation, I would love to hear that as well. But thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

We'll go.

Some thoughts and history, right? Which is usually when I'm okay. I've been here for a while. A lot of you were involved in the comprehensive zoning overhaul. Amelia, I'm pretty sure you were on the board at the time when we finally passed it. Jahan, you may have been. I don't know exactly when you came on. That was a multi-year, multi-stage process involving every neighborhood group, every elected official over years and years and years to make sure that we had almost parcel by parcel what the comprehensive plan should look like. and that was done for a reason. Some people wanted bigger in certain areas, some people didn't want quite as big and we came to a lot of compromise at a lot of sites. And specifically on

What heights and in positions buildings should look like next to residential neighborhoods on streets like Highland Avenue? and Broadway and Medford Street and the other big streets. And almost without fail, we came to generally a compromise of MR4. We decided to go up in certain areas. The only other place that's zoned MR6 in Davis Square right now, I think, is Champa Manor, which is already just a building that probably would never be permitted today. The only other MR6 in the city I think is in the heart of Union Square. Everything else is MR4 and sometimes MR5 and you've got some of the CC districts as well. So this would be a significant diversion from a multi-year process that engaged hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people to come to a compromise.

Particularly where this is an owner-led zoning proposal, I always look at that somewhat skeptically because you knew what you bought when you bought it. You knew you bought an MI4 parcel, you should have done the math when you bought it. Occasionally we will revisit it to say Maybe we made a mistake. I remember there was, Adam, I don't remember a few of the one representing the applicant. There was like one portion of one building that was zoned incorrectly and we realized, yes, that should be cohesive. So I start at This was done for a reason. and I am always very skeptical when a private developer wants to zone out Apostle, right? So that's kind of part one. Part two, the civic space was done incredibly intentionally.

it is next to the bike path and as Amelia has said and several of my colleagues agree it's a large property so whether it's going to be civic use a utility or infrastructure or a park I don't know how many of you use or live by Nunziato Field over on Summer Street. Okay. History, as I'm sure many of you know, I don't know how many of you were here in the 90s or before that, that was the Southern Junior High School. And at the time, there was a proposal. for a private developer to come in, subdivide it, and make it housing. And people were very excited. People said, hey, you know what? We're going to have new housing next to Union Square, which needs a shot in the arm. the decision was not to do that it was to take down the old decrepit junior high school and build a park that has the community gardens and the whole thing is a beautiful addition and it's used all the time

and Michael, you made the reference to the CPC. I remember when I was on the CPC we gave the community gardens tons and tons of money because people used it and wanted more space. So for us to say we have a site that is zoned that could be potentially integrated into the community path as a civic space, whatever that might mean. and then to give it up because maybe we can build some more housing. We're never going to build enough housing to satisfy everybody, right? Somerville is not going to be carrying greater Boston's burden on its shoulders. So to pretend otherwise that by building this as MI6 we're going to solve some sort of housing crisis I think is Naive. We've got a potential to have a beautiful civic space or to use it for other civic purposes, which we desperately need. I know there's the issue over on Coppel Hill that we were going to have something great and that got all screwed up as well.

So I will tell you I'm not going to be in support of recommending adoption to this for all of those reasons. If we as a board make a recommendation, that's fine. I will tell you I will not be in support of this proposal. Luke, I see a regular hand.

As you can see at this time, all really helpful history and good comparisons to Nunziato. It's a great example. One thought I have just hearing like the different perspectives of the board and the scattering leading up to me is just there's some real support for more housing on the other parts of the property. There's pretty consistent concerns around the Willow part of it. I generally tend to be a housing maximalist because even if We don't reduce housing costs because whatever Somerville does is just so on the margin compared to what the region needs. I love the idea of more neighbors and more taxpayers, no matter what, even if it doesn't affect housing prices. But it's all to say,

I could imagine some recommendation that's and and we need to remind ourselves that this isn't our decision anyway at the end of the day this is one of those well I'll have useful thoughts and it doesn't actually really matter um but uh So, you know, supporting MR6 on, I forget the other address, and then non-support on the Willow side of it, you know, just feels like it threads a needle on what I've heard so far.

So we have some thoughts. I will suggest this. We can make a recommendation as we have in the past to modify a proposal. to recommend some aspects and not others. And it seems like the board might be going that way, is to look at some portions of the and joined properties and make it whether it's going to be MR6 or some other up zone and keep the civic space. That seems like where the consensus of the board might be. So if somebody wants to make, I see Michael's hand, but I was going to say, I'll call you in a second. If somebody wants to make a recommendation or a motion to recommend something along those lines, we can. Vote on that recommendation. It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing.

So, with that being said, I'm going to call on Michael and then Amelia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I am growing, I'm increasingly concerned with neutral general feedback recommendations that we're sending to the board. and in this particular instance I actually would be in favor of a very explicit like I forgot what the term is but basically a rejection of this proposal to make sure that you know We are communicating our strong concern with at least a portion of this application. Now, I think in the subtext, I also would recommend and welcome this detail about the fact that we really are mostly concerned with the civic space, but I as one member would actually be in favor of a hard no for what it's worth.

Thank you. I was raising my hand to make that motion to move for a negative recommendation on this application with a Extensive footnote about the fact that we are in fact in favor of the MR6 zoning for the 363 Highland parcel if it were to be resubmitted as a map change without the 110 Willow. Understanding, Mr. Chair, that you might not choose to vote along those lines.

Okay. That's fine. So what will happen, I think, does anybody have anything that would like to add at this time? Yep, Lynn.

Yeah, Michael, I really appreciated and liked what you said. You totally moved me on the Willow piece. I guess I just want to encourage encourage you to think because I've heard your your talk I've heard that particular Speech, for lack of a better word, before. Like we went through this big process. It was hundreds of people. It was multiple years. We were very intentional lot by lot. and what I've learned in working with cities is that places evolve and the zoning code was passed in 2019 and again as you said it took multiple years so it's very possible that that designation for an MR4 was written down on that lot close to 10 years ago so not right around the corner and a lot has changed in Somerville and I think that there's something about

When we look at individual properties and we begin to up zone, we are being more reflective as to what is occurring Right now in this area. So in the same way that you absolutely moved me on the Willow property, I think I just want to encourage everyone to think we understanding that the zoning code was passed in 2019 through a very elaborate process but we're in the process now with the city of fine-tuning it and and reflecting and updating it vis-a-vis the current needs of Somerville now so I would I would hope that we see more of these upzoning requests come through and I hope that the Board would would meet those with with kind of an open mind as to where the City is now and where it's going.

Appreciate that. Yeah, Amelia.

Just a note of context again, sort of while we're doing all the history here. I believe that this is a parcel that would have been captured in the original iteration of the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan, which was supposed to be done right after the zoning and the 2019 zoning was supposed to be updated. to reflect the additional and ongoing discussion that was still happening around the appropriate level of density for much of Davis Square. Subsequently, after the pandemic, the city shrank the scope of that and rebranded it as the Davis Square Commercial Area Plan. which covers a much narrower swath of the city. So I think there is also a possibility that we are working with a set of parcels that the city and the councilor and the community may have had This is specifically about the 363 carousel. There may have been a consensus to bring them up to MR5 or MR6 or to leave them as is, but a lot of

Lynn, I hear your articulation of the hope for more density in Davis, and I think I share that in a lot of ways, but I would hate to see that happen on a piecemeal map change One owner by one owner basis because that is comprehensively done and we had this vision for a refreshed look at Davis Square comprehensively. and this is my plea to staff to sort of revisit that because Davis Square commercial area plan I think is a very good piece of planning but it it draws a very small circle and I think we need to look at like the next ring around that to finish what was started in like 2019 in parallel with the zoning overall. Thank you for listening to my speech. Sorry about that.

Well, Amelia, thank you for that clarification and and I agree with you on we can't do this lot by lot. That is the absolute worst way to do it. So thank you for that.

So I think based on the conversations that we've had, I think there is a consensus at least to make a negative recommendation. In those recommendations, I think, we oftentimes request that staff incorporate in any recommendation that we that we make to the land use committee we generally ask staff in that recommendation to capture some of the discussion points that the board has had surrounding. I think it was Amelia who made a suggestion that even if we make a negative recommendation that there be a I think I think we had a footnote we'll just Some capture of the back and forth that we had because I think it's a valuable discussion to relay to the Land Use Committee.

So that's kind of where my head is at, is to move for a negative recommendation, but also to have staff capture the nature of the discussion surrounding that. Yeah, Luke.

In the past, the approach of leaving it to staff to capture the discussion Almost always has worked, but on noodley tough ones where there's different perspectives, I have found that, as a member, to ultimately not even know exactly how my vote is going to be perceived. for the official record in perpetuity because I don't know how like in here I think if we asked staff to write that note right now with no more guidance I don't even know what it would say about MR6 for the non-Willow piece of stuff because we've had some different perspectives there so I hesitate with this a little bit because it requires more time to drafted together right now, but I don't know what the better process is.

Yeah, I mean, I'm also happy to move forward with a negative recommendation generally and see where we go.

Mr. Chairman, this might be a provocative question. I don't presume to know how you vote, but based on what you've articulated this evening, and I'm also not sure about John, but I suspect that Lynn, Luke, Michael, and I would all be able to support a recommendation of a negative recommendation that explicitly said we are in favor of the MR6 for 363 and we are and we are not in favor of a map change for 110 Willow and we would be in support of this application if they were to resubmit for only the parcels west of Whipple Street. and if it would help if it if it would at all address Luke's concern I would propose that with that language as a very clear motion and then

Those who are not in support of that, as I just described, can vote accordingly. But then we have clear language and staff doesn't need to fine tune it. That would be my motion, Mr. Chair, if you are open to it.

That seems like the motion would reflect what the discussion has been. So I think what we should do, taking Amelia's motion, I move to make a negative recommendation with the comments that Amelia specifically has just elucidated to transmit those to the board. seconded by Emilia. We have a roll call vote, please. Johan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luc Schuster.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff?

Aye.

Michael Capuano?

No. Thank you all very much. We have a recommendation to the Land Use Commission. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye. We have two other agenda items and let me go back to my sheet here so I can recall what they were. Too many tabs open, which is consistently my problem. So 379 Thumbel Avenue has been continued. The other two, we have three items. We have 44 White Street, we have 152 Broadway, and we have Chapter 91. Let's take a Chapter 91.

Okay, we need to, according to the applicable regulation, we would have had 45 days since receipt of the submission by MassDOT to make a specific recommendation. That time period We believe would have lapsed 45 days probably from August 19th, which is when the board, when planning staff received it. The regulation, It's pretty clear that we would have had 45 days to make a recommendation if the board wanted to. That period of time has passed. So what we would need to do now is to get this off of our docket, we just need to vote that we have received the material, right?

Alvaro? yes okay so the only thing that we are allowed to do under the law right now is simply vote on the fact that we have received the material uh that has been submitted which is a Very nothing vote. So the chair moves to acknowledge receipt of the materials submitted by the Commonwealth in support of their application for this Chapter 91 Bridge. Seconded by Amelia. So, Alvaro, can we have a roll call? Check on Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards, Luc Schuster, Michael Magnelli, Amelia Aboff, Michael Capuano

Okay, now I'm going to take some more items out of order. I'm going to take the Broadway guys. I don't know how much discussion we're going to have on that one. So let's take 152 to 158 Broadway. I don't know who is here on behalf of the applicant, but I would like John to read into the notice, read into the record the notice of public hearing.

Mr. Chair, 152-158 Broadway, the Law Offices of Michael La Rosa seeks to establish Formula Business Principal Use, a B-Tone Pilates Studio in the Mid-Rise 5 MR5 District, which requires a special permit.

Hello?

Yes, how you doing? This is, as you said, Michael Rosa. Officers in Cambridge, on behalf of the applicants, Cara and Bill Beatt. As you just mentioned, they're seeking a special permit to open a B-Tone. It's a boutique Pilates fitness studio in approximately 2,100 square feet. of the newly constructed ground floor commercial space at 158 Broadway, which is part of the larger mixed-use development that was recently built. It's been vacant space since it was constructed. B-Tone is a boutique Pilates studio that uses proprietary equipment to emphasize slower, smarter movements to a broad range of So it's not only people looking for strength training, but people seeking help with balance, flexibility, injury recovery, etc. Because B-Tone has other locations that share standardized decor, color scheme, uniform, and that sort of stuff. The proposed use falls under the definition of a formula business.

So we are seeking a special permit under section 9.1.7.D of the ordinance to allow the applicants to move forward. and if the board would like or will allow I would like to promote Cara and bill the applicants themselves to maybe give a brief presentation I know it's been a long night but they did want to speak quickly about it Cara's not only an applicant but she is a teacher at a studio and also a follower of the program so she has much more info than I do.

We can please have Cara promote it. and anybody else that needs to be as well.

I promoted Cara. If there's anybody else that needs to be promoted, please raise your hand. Thank you.

I think Cara and Bill are together, the two applicants, so that should be fine.

Hey, everybody.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Board. We really appreciate this, and we appreciate your time. I promise we'll be quick but thorough.

Before you start, I will just ask you to introduce yourself, name and address for the record.

I am Cara Bates. We are at 158 Broadway.

Thank you. I'm her husband, Billy.

I don't know if they had uploaded ahead of time some slides from a PowerPoint presentation. I don't know if the board would like them to bring that up so they can talk it through quickly or...

If you want to make a presentation, you're more than welcome.

Okay, thank you. We'll share.

We'll switch over to preview. Okay, here we go. Okay.

Hey, everyone see that okay? Thank you. Yes. All right. All right, so B-Tone Fitness Somerville. As you know, we're located on Lower Broadway in East Somerville. We couldn't be more thrilled to be here. The community has been extremely welcoming. We have connected with East Somerville Main Streets. We've connected with Michette. It's a great, great area. We're here now, and I'm looking out. The lights look gorgeous, so it's a very, very nice vibe here. Okay, we're gonna move along here. So what is B-Tone Fitness?

So

It's Reformer Fitness Pilates Remixed. It's not your typical Pilates. It's on a Reformer's machine. And the whole concept is slow movements, fast results. It's low impact. You're meant to move slowly to really burn out those slow twitch fiber muscles and get that real shaking feeling. this is our custom-built reformer specifically for betone it's called tony it is very very sturdy it is built with three areas it's got a front platform a carriage that moves and then a back platform Both platforms are stable. The carriage is what presents the resistance based on the springs. There's five yellow springs, one gray, one blue.

There are handlebars in the front of the machine as well as the back of the machine that can be turned all directions so it accommodates all different abilities as well as body heights. There are straps along the side of the carriage, and there are also straps at the back. So it's quite a versatile piece of equipment. The method. As I mentioned before, slow movements, fast results. It's a 45-minute class. And in that 45 minutes, the goal is just to keep moving. You move based on whatever you need, whatever challenges, whatever modifications. You're going to hit strength training, functional movement, balance, stability, flexibility. So the secret to the strength is moving as slowly as possible. So the slow movements, we try to put that mind-body connection together

Prevent Injury. As I said, it's no impact. And your goal is to achieve that deep burn within your muscles. The modifications. So at Beatone, every person that walks in this door walks in for various reasons. Some people might be intimidated by the machine. They might be intimidated by the word Pilates. So more times than not, we hear that people might be hesitant. They thought it would be too hard for them, but that's not the case. It is for every fitness level, every body, every age. We've got all different age groups, every shape, every size. You're welcome here. It's a community. I have been teaching B-Tone for... I've been a client at Betone for over five years, teaching for just over three.

It is a community like you wouldn't believe and I'm already feeling that this East Somerville area is a community and we would love to just to continue to immerse ourselves within this this community as well. So we'll meet you whatever fitness level you're at. It is meant to be fun. There are 12 machines, so it's personalized in the fact that there's one instructor, 12 clients, and you will get that individual attention. So we would love it. Come down, see for yourself. Try a B-Tone class, bring a friend, feel amazing, and do it all over again. We are very excited to be part of this East Somerville community. As I mentioned, we spoke with East Somerville Main Street and we've already talked about coordinating some

Community involvement with Project Soup and doing some donation classes once we open. So we are very much involved with Supporting the area around us and the local needs.

Thank you guys.

Yeah, of course. We're happy to answer any questions. I'm passionate about this fitness, this form of Pilates. Happy to always talk about it.

I actually do have a question for you because the reason that you're here is because it's considered a formula business and that's designed generally to make sure that we don't have Too many retail storefronts that are the same, right? The same operator and all sorts of things like that. We don't need 40 McDonald's in the city, that type of thing. How many... Other Pilates studios are there in East Somerville or Union Square.

We did some co-ops during the business plan. There's not many around this area and I found we were much more Approachable in terms of pricing. There was one in East Cambridge near Inman Square. The closest thing, is there a solid core? It was in...

There is a Pilates studio up the street in Broadway, but it's more one-on-one specialized coming back from injuries. It's more of like a medical recovery type of Pilates.

And I think the only other comparable stuff is over in assembly, which is more gym-like than small group studio.

Yeah, the only thing here is the Reformer-style Pilates does not... It's not like a gold gym where 50 people might be in here at a time slamming weights around and whatnot. The class is a maximum of 12 with the instructor, and it's 45 minutes, so... We intend to be a relatively light footprint in terms of, you know, taking up space in the community, but be a good neighbor.

All right. That's good to know. Who else has questions of the applicant or of staff at this point?

And can I throw in one other thing, sir? Yeah, of course. Where we do kind of technically fall into that formulaic regulation, This isn't like a gold gem that's in 50 locations in every state. It was actually started locally by a lady who just kind of invented it from the ground up. Most of them are in the greater Boston area. They're starting to branch out into some other New England. But this is... Very much keeps the boutique feel and it's not, you know, mega corporation conglomerated. It's... It's the two of us, and it's a local... I wouldn't even call it a chain. It's just... Because each location is individually owned, so...

That's good to know because the last time that we had, in my memory, a formula business permit that we were looking at, it was, I think it was Life Alive doing something in maybe Union Square. and the way I looked at it similar to the way I'm kind of looking at you is yeah okay it's a formula business but it's not I don't think this is captured by the intent of the formula business section of the audience. It's not McDonald's, it's not Gold's Gin, it's not, you know, Dunkin's.

I think there's maybe... What a dozen or two dozen locations total in pretty local. Okay, but we do meet that definition.

So, yeah, so I appreciate that. Does anybody else have any comments or questions of the applicant or of staff before I open it up to public testimony? With that, I'm going to open it up to public testimony. For anybody that wants to speak in support of the application, please raise your hand and I'll call on you. Once, twice, seeing none, I will close that portion of the public hearing. Open it up to anybody that wants to speak in opposition to the application. Please raise your hand. Once, twice, seeing none, I will close that portion of the public hearing and bring it back to members of the planning board. Does anybody have any things they would like to add before we move forward with a

Following public testimony, review of the submitted materials, and deliberation of the required considerations and findings outlined by the ordinance, I move to approve with the conditions laid out in the staff memorandum. The request to establish a formula business principal use in the mid-rise five district. Seconded by Amelia. Can we please have a roll call? Jahan Yarnyut.

Apologies, I said I. Lynn Richards.

I. Luc Schuster. I. Michael McNeely. I. Amelia Aboff. Michael Capuano. Congratulations.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. The last item on the agenda tonight is White Street. So if we could please have White Street be shared, unmuted, the whole thing.

And I think you're kind of used now.

Good evening. Chairman Capuano and members of the planning board. Can I also ask that Jacob Simmons be made a panelist as well as Narias from Khalsa Design and Steve Saragusa? Thank you.

Yes, everybody has been promoted to panels.

Thank you so much. So, you know, we had a little bit of a wish list at the last planning board hearing a couple of weeks ago where It was asked if we could come up with nine bicycle parking spaces and it is the holiday season so we have answered your wishes. We came up with nine and I think Narius has a slide so he may need to have privileges to share his screen because we came up with nine spaces. Five will be in the bike room. and then four four of those will be on the floor and one on the wall and then four will be outside. Steve Siragusa did have correspondence with the mobility department and he can speak to those conversations and you know the team worked

you know expeditiously with the holiday included in there and wanted to get something that was you know and that we wouldn't need to get a hardship variance on and hopefully it'll please the board so Narius. I'm going to mute myself, but maybe Narius can zoom in and show. I'm looking at it and I'm thinking maybe if he can blow it up a little bit because I know I'm even having to.

It's pretty small.

Yeah, yeah, Norris, could you blow that up? I mean, I have my glasses on. I'm having a hard time.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, and good night from KDI. You saying that you have a small screen. Let me try again. Stop sharing and try again. Is it better?

It's the same, but I can see it. I can see it. Okay. Yeah, that's better. If you can move, see if we can see the whole section of the, yeah, can you move that up a bit? There we go. That's what I'm hoping to see.

All right.

And we also have slides to the left of what the actual racks and so forth will look like. I ask that this be included because I'm much more of a visual person than describing it so that way the board can see what the bicycle parking will look like as far as what we'll be utilizing for this project. And that's all we have. We concentrated on the nine spaces, the locations, and the products that will be used for the bike racks.

So thank you very much. So I'll say a couple of things. We do have an updated memo from the staff, which includes comments from mobility and I'll just read it for the mobility division doesn't have the authority to review a non-compliant bike parking as part of the application. Any review of noncompliant items would need to be done through a hardship variance. Since the applicant has met the minimum requirements for long-term parking, they can choose to provide additional short-term parking, which may make it easier to provide additional spaces. That sounds like what you did. It sounds like what they're saying is you're giving more than what we are asking for so we don't have the authority to Give advice on extra, right? You've done what you need to do, and that's what we can say that you've done. And then it says, kind of,

Nonetheless, we still don't like the fact that you're putting Procky in anyway, which of course I knew they wouldn't say that. That's their ML. I will say this as one member. You guys have got to... bent over backwards to do everything that we'd asked for. We've been asking for family-sized housing. You gave it to us. We wanted more bike parking. We came to the number of nine last time. You found it. To me, there is nothing else that I can ask of you that would make me think that I wouldn't support this application. Now, Mobility's comment says they don't They don't find it safe to back out and hold. We're talking about, I understand if there are 10 cars and people were issue and it's a busy street, it's not. It's a one-way street with two cars.

that are that are at issue that to me is um not not a concern i have a tandem driveway i back out on a one-way street multiple times a day every single day and it's Fine. I just think mobility doesn't have the regulatory authority to sign off on that, but at least to raise the concern. I am not worried about it. I think it is going to be fine. I drive on White Street all the time. I will be able to tell if somebody's backing out of a space. You can't go very fast on White Street. So I'm... Perfectly happy with everything that you guys have proposed. And so I'm really willing and able to move forward with your application tonight. I think you've done A great job working with us and working with the city in trying to meet everything that we've asked for.

So, I see Michael, Amelia, and Luke. and everybody. I saw Michael first, so I'm just going to go with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So First and foremost, starting with the positive here, I absolutely do agree and I fail to acknowledge it to date that I'm really appreciative of the fact that you guys brought more family housing. That absolutely has been something that I have been pushing on almost all projects across the city. I really, really first and foremost do appreciate that. So I wanna start there by acknowledging that. And I do also wanna acknowledge that this has been a long process for you and that you've gone Thank you all for joining us. There still continues to be some conflicts and issues around the backing out. I do respect the chair's

and many more. Still have some concerns that the mobility division is stressing concerns on this project and so that that does weigh on me as I consider this in the holistic sense. On the bike parking front, I don't think this goes anywhere near what the board was trying to kind of work with you on in the last meeting. I think putting bikes outside is not anywhere near the same thing as putting bikes on the inside. I was actually much more excited about the conversion pathway of retrofitting parking spaces with these enclosed boxes and Potentially finding other ways to put these bikes on the walls within the garage itself as a potential pathway to solve the problem here.

I don't think what's in front of me today at all responds to some of the concerns I heard at the last meeting. But I think my last statement would kind of be just where I'm at with this project at this point, which is that although not being able to have Somerville stickers will restrict the ability of someone who has a car here to use that car in Somerville, therefore making this very much as what has been presented to us a weekend away type car use. I still think this is inconsistent with what we want in this area. I think this is of all applications I've seen in my time here on the board, like the epitome of the location that needs zero parking. It's extremely close to a grocery store. It's extremely close to multiple T stops. It's extremely close to a ton of buses. There's great bike infrastructure around there. I just think that this is an application where I just don't, I can't get behind the possibility of putting parking here.

I don't think that this is consistent with summer vision today. And I think too, reflect on our discussion earlier. I think this isn't consistent with what we would do with new neighborhood planning or new summer visions, even fresh today. So I just I don't know if I'm at the point that I can get behind this project at this point. Thank you for your time.

Michael, next I'm just looking based on kind of the Clockwise here. I'm looking at Luke, so let's go with Luke.

Appreciate that. Happy to go, although I saw Amelia's hand before mine, but now it's down. Amelia, were you chomping to get in at all?

No, I'm rethinking my points after Michael. I'd love for you to buy me some time, Luke.

All right. Yeah, I'll filibuster for you. In broad strokes, I think I'm closer to the Chair and supporting the project, then Member McNeely, although I appreciate everything Member McNeely is saying. The point he made about the fact that residents, no matter what, can't get a Street parking sticker is an important one on my mind because it means it is going to be very inconvenient for folks here even if they have this garage parking to used their car a lot within the city of Somerville for short trips. So I've felt torn about this project all along because Remember McNeely's case that this is as ideal a spot as any for no parking at all. I totally hear that. But it does feel ultimately like a project that threads a nice needle and

And remember, Aboff articulated this well, I thought, last time about it's like bike first, but you can have some cars. And I like that vision of this. And I think it's really close to that. So the final thing I'll add is just to double down on what The point about the bike spaces, I was surprised to see four of the spaces outside. And that's just like material, very different from five, then nine spaces inside. So I would be curious, doesn't have to be the second, but for the team to respond to how hard they looked at getting, if not nine spaces inside, six, because then you'd have at least two spots per unit. So curious how hard they really looked at that because the four outside feel useful on the margin, but pretty different from the indoor ones. That's all I got.

Okay. Before I recognize another board member, I do see Kit from PPZ. I'd like to get some perspective from staff or a response to somebody's questions like that before we move on, because it might inform the discussion a little more.

yeah thank you um i just want to confirm maybe with the applicant i don't believe this plan was submitted uh before this evening so i just want to highlight and If I am incorrect in that, please let me know. But I just want to confirm that this has not been reviewed for zoning compliance. And even though there are extra spaces, I have confirmed with their ISD reviewer. That any new spaces would need to be compliant in the zoning regulations. or else we're kind of teetering into hardship variance territory which I hope I highlighted in my memo so I just want to confirm that these were not submitted to the city before this evening so they've not been reviewed This specific plan has not been reviewed by Mobility or Inspectional Services.

Is that accurate, Ann?

Yes. Did hit the nail on the button there. Steve Saragusa would like to speak to the zoning component of that, if that's okay, because I think he can explain it.

quick and easy so that and I know there's other comments coming if it makes sense yeah I want I want this I want this addressed okay Steve could you please now because I think this is going to inform whether the board can and should make a vote on this at all tonight

agreed absolutely so Steven Saragusa with Bowman just I know that this is a big question with the zoning and this is something that When I spoke with Mobility or emailed Mobility to try to get an idea of short-term versus long-term bike parking and what that might look like, essentially it came back that obviously anything non-zoning compliant needs to have a hardship variance and so What we did was we took a look at really the short-term bicycle parking spaces within the garage and whether or not that would work given the space that is in there. We kind of maxed out that bicycle room in terms of long-term bicycle parking spaces. Those to my knowledge are zoning compliant in terms of

percentage of tandem bicycle spaces as well as percentage allowed of bicycle spaces not at ground level. And so that was kind of our max out of five Spaces in that area. Looking at requirements to be zoning compliant with short-term bicycle spaces, What really hamstrung us on that was all short-term bicycle parking spaces need to be at ground level and all need to have some type of physical barrier to any vehicles. And so that really kind of, again, hamstrung us in terms of the amount of space that is In that garage area and trying to stay zoning compliant.

With not having raised bicycle spaces or wall hung bicycle spaces, things that we know that were brought up at the last meeting as possibilities for us to take a look at. So I did just want to mention that. And so we did look at a bunch of different locations in that covered area and what that might look like and just trying to stay zoning compliant on 100%. We could not find those short-term bicycle parking spaces within the garage area. So we did find, again, the bicycle parking spaces outside, out front. But I just wanted to address that, that we did our due diligence within the zoning to try to find those spaces. under the cover of the garage.

But the fact is it still hasn't formally been reviewed by the appropriate city department to be able to look at this specific proposal.

Correct. That's why I say fairly confident that it is zoning compliant. I will not say I'm 100% confident, but I am fairly confident.

I want to make sure before we move forward on this that at least it is zoning compliant and you don't need a variance because that is the last thing that I want to have happen is us potentially improve this project and then realize that you can't go forward because you needed a variance to begin with. That would, I think, frustrate this entire process and you and irritate me. So let's make sure that I don't think we can do this tonight. I was hoping we could at least do it tonight. I don't think that's appropriate to do until we Make sure that you guys don't need a variance to do what we're asking you to do. You know, complying in some capacity with what we were expecting. That's where I'm at. I don't think we could take a vote on this until we figure out whether or not you need a variance.

With that in mind, who else has questions or comments? Staff, I see Lynn. You're on mute. Lynn, you're muted.

I have a question and a comment. Question. Luke raised an excellent point last Last board meeting around electric bikes as a game changer. So my question to you all are, are there any outlets in the indoor bike parking?

I'm going to see, Narius, do you have that answer? I really, honestly, Ms. Richards, I don't have that answer. And sometimes, you know, they would need the electrician to be out there. Sometimes they could be added.

And can I actually answer this? As the owner, I'm directing guests. We'll have outlets at every indoor bike. Bike parking space. So in theory, all the bikes inside could be e-bikes plugged in.

It's a little tricky carrying an e-bike up two flights of stairs. Easier for a road bike or a little itty-bitty bounce bike, but anywho. and and I guess my comment and I know that we're going to vote on this next time but my comment still stands I've been thinking a lot about this over the last four weeks that we've had this and I feel that we've we've kind of as a board we've put ourselves in a binary you know car bike Car, no car. You have a car, you're going to use something else. I've always thought of this a little bit more broadly, and I wanted to share my perspective of transportation fluency. which is you use whatever mode of transportation you need at the time to get to where you need to get the in the most efficient or expeditious manner.

And isn't that where Somerville really is trying to go at this juncture? you know it is we have great bike infrastructure our pedestrian infrastructure is coming along tea is coming along buses we are we are moving into transportation fluency I've been a cyclist and a bike advocate for decades. I have four bikes. I was out riding today to Boston and back. Polar Vortex. I may ride tomorrow. I may not. Or I can take the T. But I have a car. And I'll use it on Saturday. I have an art show I have to go to. So I think what we're saying in my perspective is we're not trying to move everybody out of cars. We're trying to really reduce VMT. We're trying to reduce the amount that people drive.

and so by giving people a choice that they have a car if they need to for whatever reason if they have it's these are family apartments they have to go to the pediatrician they have to go to the ER so and so broke their arm All sorts of emergencies. I had to have my battery jumped several times last winter by AAA because I wasn't driving my car enough. But isn't kind of that where we want to move to? Transportation fluency, that we have the choice if if we need it and so instead of using the car every day you're using your bike you're walking you're using this and on the weekend you might use you use your car to go for an out of town trip I just If these are three unit apartments, and if we're designating or thinking that families are going to move into it, we want to give families the Greatest amount of choice.

And for me, I come down on the choice aspect. And I don't want our conversations As we talk, not only about this, but future projects is binary. It's this or that. But rather, what can we do that provides the greatest number of choices for Somerville residents? I guess that's my comment. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Michael.

Thank you. Okay, I'm doing a quick scroll of whose hand I can see and I think I see Michael.

Thank you, Mr. Terrell. I'll speak real quick. I wasn't articulate about this, so I just want to add this to my context that I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying, Lynn. I think we do need flexibility here and people should have options. I think in my calculus here I've been assuming that they have access they the new residents have access to Rideshares to the ability to rent vehicles intermittently and otherwise use those types of tools. I don't know if I agree that they need to have their own private car on-site in a garage. And I think that's where I'm on this project in particular. But I do appreciate that idea, Lynn, and I'm glad you brought that up.

All right, I was on mute.

Jahan, you've got like a yellow wall, but also yellow hands. Are you doing what I'm asking you to do and it's not working?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may look at changing the skin tone once I figure out how to do so to differentiate with the background, but thank you so much. I just wanted to convey my appreciation for Member Richards' comments regarding transportation fluency. I struggle I struggle with the discussion that was happening here. I also watched the recording from last... Last board meetings discussion, which was excellent. I think when it comes to this particular project and the willingness of the applicant team to work with us and work with the The planning PPC office as well to get us to a place where, you know, A viable family-oriented project can move forward coupled with the fact that the White Street being in the city of Cambridge and not having access to parking

Not that it's a poor requirement. I do agree with Member McNeely there. I do think that if we can come to some sort of understanding, I know we're not going to be taking a vote This evening, but for this project to move forward and be successful, I think it's going to help both Somerville as well as The neighboring community of Cambridge as well. So I just want to share those thoughts and I do appreciate the comments that have been made thus far. Thank you so much.

Anybody else? So let's do this. Let's continue this. As we are nearing, I'll make a selfish plea. to continue to January 15. Because if we don't continue to January 15, you will be the only agenda item on the 18th, and we'll do it if we have to. but I think it might be difficult with a lot of people probably traveling for holidays and all sorts of things like that so if you would indulge Myself has noticed by agreeing to continue to January we can, but if not, we can make it work.

I can't do January 15th, Mr. Chair. I will actually be traveling outside the country.

Sorry. Okay. Well, let's see. Going anywhere. Good.

I'm actually going to my cousin who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona, and then we're going to Mexico because she can drive. So it's a family. It's when we celebrate Christmas because they don't come here for the winter. They're smart.

Okay, let's see what we can do on December 18th then. See what we can get from mobility. Make sure that you don't need a variance and we can move from there. And you will be the star of the show. There is nothing else on the agenda for the 18th.

We're excited. We'll see you on the 18th.

Okay.

Chair moves to continue this agenda item to the 18th of December, seconded by Amelia. Can we have a roll call, please? Jonathan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luc Schuster.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Hi.

Amelia Aboff.

Hi.

Michael Capuano. Hi. See you in a couple weeks.

Take care. See you then.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. If nothing else, before the Planning Board, Chairman moves to adjourn and eat dinner. Seconded by Emilia. We have a roll call. DeHaan Habib.

Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luc Schuster, Michael McNeely, Abelia Aboff, Michael Capuano. Good night, everybody.

Good night.

Take care.