Somerville Planning Board 11-20-2025

Okay, good evening everybody. It is 6.01 p.m. on the 20th of November 2025. I'm Mike Capuano. I'm the Chairman of the Planning Board. With me tonight is our Vice Chair Amelia Aboff and our members Michael McNeely, Lynn Richards, and Luc Schuster. We have a quorum. and pursuant to the chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 this meeting of the planning board is being conducted via remote participation a video recording of the proceedings is available on the city's website or by emailing planningboard at somervillema.gov, this meeting is going to be recorded. We have a couple of items on our agenda tonight. um some public uh public hearings and some matters of other business so first things first we do have a

Written request from the applicant at 379 Somerville Avenue to continue their case until the December 4th meeting. So the chair moves to continue that agenda item to December 4th, seconded by Amelia. Alvaro, can we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Luc Schuster?

Aye.

Michael McNeely. Aye. Amelia Agoff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano. Agenda items continued to the fourth. We next have meeting minutes from October 2, 2025. Has everybody had a chance to review the draft meeting minutes? Does anybody have any suggested comments, revisions, or anything like that?

I just wanted to reconfirm that this was Jahan who in fact opened and closed the meeting because I, for some reason, had thought that that was you, Michael. And so I just wanted to double check that someone had looked at that to confirm.

On the second, I actually don't recall. We have a recording of it.

I'm sure it's, you know, right, if it was based on the recording, it just struck me that it would have been unusual for Jahan to open

No, no, no, it would have been because usually it's the clerk that does it.

Okay, very good.

um the chain moves to adopt the draft meeting minutes of the october 2nd meeting subject to confirmation of the actual person who opened to close the meeting because we're now almost two months uh hence and I have no idea whether that was me or not um yeah subject confirmation of of that fact does any uh seconded by Amelia Barrow can we have a roll call please Lynn Richards

Luc Schuster, Michael McNeely, Amelia Aboff, Michael Capuano

As we take items out of order at the discretion of the chair, we're bouncing around. Let us welcome back 44 White Street. If we could please have the applicant and and their team unmuted and shared and whatever else we need, as well as the case planner. Who I think might be Sarah now. Sarah, it's always such a pleasure to have you with us.

Thank you so much. Yes, Kit was obligated at the land use committee this evening, so I am here in her stead.

Yeah, and it's also a pleasure to have you too, of course.

Oh, thank you. Well, actually, we started out with Sarah as our planner, so we've come full circle. That's sort of why I got tapped. I figured. But I would just ask that our architect, Narius from KDI be promoted as well as Steve Saragusa. He's our traffic engineer and Jacob Simmons. He's the actual developer.

everybody has been promoted to panelists thank you so my name is i love i love the background that is that is stunning i i used to have a um like a beach background and it wasn't sadly it was not the actual beach

Ann Vigorito, 424 Broadway, Somerville, Massachusetts. I am the attorney for the applicant at 44 White Street. I'm joined this evening by Jacob Simmons, who is part of the development ownership team, Narius from Khalsa Design, and Steve Saragusa here's our traffic engineer. So, I know we did a full presentation back at the October 16th meeting. So, I would ask if the board would like, can I pause you for just 1?

Absolutely. I forgot to make the disclosure that I was not present at the October 16th meeting. I have reviewed the video of that meeting. I have submitted my affidavit to the staff who will forward it to the clerk. We have to make that disclosure. I'm sorry. Proceed.

That's quite all right. So since Chairman Capuano wasn't here, wasn't there at the 6th, October 16th, if you like, or if anyone on the board would like, we can recap. in any fashion or you know the team is here ready to answer any questions comments and or concerns by the board and I will mute myself and wait for the direction

I am happy to have you guys make any sort of presentation that you think is appropriate. I think we've been well briefed. I've reviewed the video. I've seen my colleagues' questions. I have reviewed the written testimony that we've received, which I believe were two pieces. I don't think I need any more from your team unless you really, really want to go.

No, I really think, you know, the board was very intent that evening, listened and commented. I will add this, though, as a small notation. It was raised. I think there were some comments. from the board about pedestrian safety. So Steve Siracusa, our traffic engineer, During the building permit process, he will be working close with Mobility and they will work to create the proper resolution for that. you know but I just you know wanted to point that out that it you know we did discuss it as a team and and you know it will be worked through during the building permit phase yeah I see that

Emilia, before I grab you, Sarah has her Simpsons hand raised.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, I was just going to offer to, if anybody has any questions, make sure that everybody received the supplemental memo that Kit had prepared and see if there were any questions about that.

Any questions on the supplemental memo? I appreciate it being folded. Okay, Amelia, you still have a question?

Thank you. Just with respect to, and I don't think this was addressed in the memo, but forgive me if it was, with respect to the traffic safety and sort of the details that will be resolved as as planning advances, since this does have the funny jurisdictional issue of being a Somerville property that backs onto a Cambridge right of way. I can't recall a case like this where we've had a transportation type concern. What is the interface with the city of Cambridge? Is that Somerville mobility to Cambridge mobility? Is Cambridge involved at all? I would just appreciate understanding how both municipalities sort of touch base with the project as it moves forward.

Through the chair, yes, there is coordination between between both municipalities on this. And as far as the pedestrian safety goes, I think that's something that we can, we vary off condition either in a sort of the, Alert system for lighting for pedestrians that is tied to a garage door opening and closing. But yes, there is coordination between the two municipalities frequently.

Thank you.

I know that my colleagues have had the opportunity to ask some questions. of the applicant and their team. And I obviously did not. I was not present at that meeting. I'm going to reserve my comments and my questions until I make sure that my colleagues who have previously raised some questions had some discussion points if they have anything further they would like to raise with with you all to make sure that they are as informed as they feel like they need to be before we proceed. Yeah, Michael. You're on mute, bro.

There we go. Sorry about that.

I love that sweat off.

Oh, thank you. Thank you. I am a big fan. So I had a couple things from the last meeting that I had kind of brought up and so I just want to check in on on if we've made any progress on those. So the first was Bike parking. So I think in the presentation you had listed that there'd be three parking spaces. And I want to know if your team had a time to think a little bit harder about that. Having one bike space per unit seemed a little low.

I'm going to actually ask Steve Saragusa to address that. He's our traffic engineer and I know he had some discussions directly with the developer.

Yeah, so we have talked about, and I don't want to step on Jacob's, I know I'm kind of sounding like I'm passing the buck here, but I definitely had some discussions about some additional bike parking. Potentially on that ground floor. And I don't want to, again, I would rather, I think it would be prudent to have maybe Jacob, who is a developer in Nereus, who would kind of be designing these. to speak a little bit further about what that might look like and how those might be designed.

Before we get into that, I'm glad Michael followed up with that question because that was a question that I had too. Could we Get a, I think you all have the opportunity to share your screens and things. Could we get the rendering of where the Bike parking is proposed and we're looking on the site to potentially expand it just so we all know what we're looking at instead of just trying to picture it in our heads.

I'm going to share the screen. Thank you.

You should have access to share your screen now.

So this is the site plan, architectural site plan of what was discussed last week. And I believe Jacob will address.

Yeah, I guess. Thank you, everybody. Sorry. I think everyone was trying to figure out how to unmute themselves. I was in the same boat. Darius, do you have the plan we talked about on the last slide? Because I want to sort of reference it and I was trying to think about this creatively and you know it as you all know it's a tight site like there's to some degree this is a there's there's always going to be gives and takes just when we're talking about a smaller site like this as opposed to some of the you know thinking about like the larger one next door uh that the Convara folks are doing that you know so My thought here, and I don't know if this has been done before. I don't know if this is sort of how the mechanism would work. But I've done this in other towns with sort of other options. So I had one in Brookline where I

had a project where we were looking at how do we build a building that we feel can sort of meet the market at that time and then move it to sort of, all right, future-proof it. In that case, it was a over... Sorry, forgive me. This is a tangent. I promise I'm going somewhere. We were looking in that case at like fossil fuels and how to make the building fossil fuel free in the future. So there was a lot of desire at that time for gas stoves, gas ranges. So what we did is we offered the buyers a choice of you can have a gas range, or you can have an electric range, but we're going to put in an escrow account some money set aside that will upgrade you to an electric range sort of when people start to realize the technology was there. I say that as a tangent because in this case, I still feel really strongly that I'm going to have a really hard time selling these units to buyers if they don't have a parking space.

But I also recognize that the desire of Somerville, you know, of... What I'm hearing is long term to try to move towards not having as much vehicular parking, having more bike parking. So the thought here would be All three of these spaces would be made available to the buyers and the buyers can elect to have them changed to bike parking and that could be done at purchase and then I would set aside some money in an escrow account so that basically at any point in the future they can also do that and so the idea would be this starts out as a project that I feel it needs to have the one-to-one parking to be marketable. I feel that that's a sort of... Unfortunately, that's the hurdle that I have. Can I ask you a question? Sure.

No, no, no. So on the potential transition from Vehicular parking to putting in bike parking. I have definitely been in buildings, apartment buildings, condo buildings, things like that, where there is A vehicle space, but on the wall in front of kind of where the I don't know how to call it. A wall rack. A Seinfeld rack, for lack of a better term. Yeah, exactly. Something like that. You could have the opportunity to have both a vehicle and a bike in the same space. Is that something that you've looked at?

And again, I'm not an architect, but I think that just sort of given the dimensional... George Costanza pretends to be. That's true. That's true. I think given that there's not a rear wall here, it might just be tough to sort of make that work. I also am thinking about trying to Meet some of the feedback last time that, you know, there was a, I don't know, Eventually we maybe move this to have less than one-to-one parking. So I would say we're open to looking at something like that. I'm also totally open to sort of perpetually letting this building eventually become vehicle parking free as people maybe move in, realize they might not need the parking. To get them to move in, they need to be able to bring a car, at least initially, is sort of how I feel.

I get that. Is there a space, even if it's not necessarily in the designated bike area, is there a place where you might be able to do something like that? that would facilitate.

We can look at that. I'm happy to commit to that being...

I don't want to steal... You know, my colleague Stunda was asking the question, but I agree with him and I'm trying to think of some creative ways that you might be able to do both.

Yeah, maybe on that wall sort of at Plan South.

Yeah, I mean, you only have three units, right? Sounds like it's not.

Yeah. So we could do that. We could look at doing a stacked bike area within the spaces themselves. I know this because where I grew up, that's what we did. a small condo in a pre-war building and we built at the time a rack for the bikes and I know that there's companies that make better products than what we were able to build at this point but

Yeah, look at some of the Green Line stations. They definitely have stacked stuff. I don't mean to take up all the oxygen. It was Michael's line of questioning, so...

No, it's all good, Mr. Chair. I mean, these, I think, continue to be creative about solutions here, I think is productive. And I think that's ultimately what I wanted to see was some more creativity around finding ways to add more bikes. To be clear, I'm still not over the hurdle that these units deserve parking. And I know that we've had the conversation internally that We want developers to kind of come to us with an ask. And that's something that we kind of all agreed to earlier when we supported the ordinance change. But I mean, when I look at this project, I just don't. I can't think of a better project to not have parking at in the city at this point and I guess you know as someone who is in the mode of starting a small family I don't agree with the assumption that you need to have that parking. And so I'm still not over that threshold yet, personally. But I do appreciate that there has been some creativity with the bike parking.

I would ask that we get a little bit more resolution on that before even considering proceeding. But again, I do want to honor that there's been some thought put into this. For a follow-up question, I also did ask a little bit about that safety interaction with pedestrians. I was kind of hoping that there'd be an actual plan Thank you for joining us today. So although I do think we can ultimately condition it, I'd like to see some details around that. Has the team, the applicant team done a little bit more detail on that?

This is Anne Vigorito. I know the architect working with the developer along with Steve Serg, who's our traffic engineer, had a discussion and Steve, who works with the mobilities in various municipalities, would fashion what they would like. but I think Narius may have something he can show you as a preliminary so I don't want to steal his thunder so I'm going to mute and Narius why don't you take it away I know you're sharing

Yeah, hello, Ned. Correct. We found the product. We took a closer look at the site, and we sort of found location for some product that we're noting on this slide. on the sheet that could work, but I don't know if it was presented to Mobility yet, but that would be probably the starting point for the conversation. So here's the location, right at the front door, visible from sidewalk. and with the light and maybe sound signal I believe this one has and with the detection and maybe garage door connection.

And if it's OK, if I add a little bit more context to that as well. So this doesn't have to be the specific product either. As Nereus would mention, this has not been presented to Mobility. This is kind of just something that we had thought up and found this and it could be a good solution. I'm sure Mobility has had Some interactions with other developers that have used similar products to this. I do want to emphasize that this is not going to be a A site that is going to be all night long, vehicles in and out. And so I know that that could be a concern of neighbors, of light and sound and things of that nature.

These are programmable units that the audio can be programmed as loud as you want or as Minimal as you want, depending on kind of the time of day. You know, for persons who are hard of hearing, there's going to be more hard of sight. There's going to be that need for that light and that sound at all times. But again, this isn't going to be a site where vehicles are in and out constantly, even all day long with three units. You'll get people out in the morning and back in the afternoon. and so I understood that there's a safety component to this but hopefully if that if that answers your question that's great if you have other questions please let me know but this is not the final product just a product that could be used.

And this would be located on the property?

I'm sorry?

And this would be located within the bounds of the property? This isn't something that requires coordination with the City of Cambridge to install or? The location indicated on this plan looks like it's right on the line.

My understanding is it would be completely on the property.

Thank you.

Burnley is shown on the property line here.

I'm sorry, Sarah.

No, no, no. I apologize. Through the chair, I would like to bring the board's attention back to the original staff memo. There is condition number 19 that the team will work with mobility prior to certificate of occupancy to make sure that there is a pedestrian. Alert System installed.

Understood. I just wanted to see a little bit more color. The level of safety, I feel, needs to be pretty high here. And again, if we're considering putting mobility in an area that we've We as a city generally want to discourage this kind of mobility and I want to make sure we're at least covering up a bunch of other bases in parallel. Do appreciate that. And thank you for the applicant team for preparing this. This is appreciated. I also recognize that the volume is going to be low, so the concern of noise and light isn't that high to me, but the safety is. um just so i fully understand this basically the way this device works as proposed at least here It flashes and makes noise upon understanding that there's a vehicle coming. So it behooves the pedestrian to kind of avoid the car. The car wouldn't see a signal that like there's a pedestrian nearby, right?

Correct. So it would be actuated with the garage door. So whether the vehicle is coming in or out, almost like your typical garage door opener for a single family, that would at the same time actuate this door. Pedestal in this instance for vehicles only, but it would not be actuated by pedestrian movements.

And is it true there's going to be enough space in the garage for a car to come out headfirst and not have to back out?

So in our correspondence and back and forth with mobility in our transportation access plan that we put together, We did have a vehicle backing up from the site onto White Street, and that was not a concern raised by Mobility at that time. So that plan has been kind of vetted multiple times actually back and forth with mobility staff. So they've seen multiple iterations of that plan. and backing up out of the site onto White Street has not been a concern raised by them, at least to my knowledge.

Okay, that's helpful. I think for what it's worth, my concern is less about getting onto White Street. I don't think that's a terribly popular road for traffic. It's more about the The potential blind spot of a vehicle backing up into pedestrians that just aren't paying attention to the signal. Appreciate that the team has looked at this a bit. Would love to just for the record and maybe for notes that are shared with transportation. Hope that we think a little bit about maybe some options to encourage more visibility for the cars backing out to look for pedestrians, like whether it be mirrors or something else like that. I think that would be I wouldn't stop an application based on this at this point. I think Sarah's note that the memo has that condition is probably sufficient at this point for me.

You see, Amelia, and then I saw Sarah, but unless Sarah wants to respond real quickly to something just now.

I'd rather let the board member ask the question first instead of the target.

I see that this, I know that this is not the product that is being specified but it's simply an example but I also see the note here that there's like a power supply to it. I would just ask, because this is a sort of unique or an unusual situation where we're talking about something like this in a If there is an option that is a Hardwired option that will require less maintenance over time that a three-person non-professional condo association won't have to take proactive measures to maintain that pedestrian safety after a couple years. I'd love for that to get into the notes in discussions with mobility about what the most ideal product would be. I know it's minor, but I think that without a commercial property manager, it'll be

you know less likely to be replaced if it goes out or something something that can be addressed in a in a condition for you know wide maintenance Sarah, I'm kind of asking you. Sorry.

Yes.

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

I was scribbling as we were speaking. Yes, that can be included in the language of a of the condition. Sort of for the ease of maintenance. I just need to write that down. My other comment, if you don't mind, was going to be that the While mobility might not have expressed concern about the vehicles reversing out, I would like to point out that mobility is not in support of any vehicles here. I'm going to presume that is because of the cramped motion and the possibility of them reversing.

Thank you for adding that color. I guess that would just kind of add to my concern about this being a vehicle-based design.

Also on the board who is here on 1016, who had questions, comments, would like to continue before I go.

Chair, I just had a follow-up comment on the bike parking discussion, if I may. Yeah, of course. I don't know sort of how you're I'm not sure how the applicant team might be reading the room on the different optionality around increased bike storage here, but as one member, I personally feel open to accepting this special permit despite Mobility's recommendation of denial. if there is bike parking provided for all of the anticipated residents of this building. You've made this big case about these being three bedroom units and family size units. And I think that means that this building should be able to accommodate 12 people. I believe that with the right bike parking rack system and with the idea that the bike parking become in a shared area rather than necessarily like three separate bike areas per unit, you would be able to accommodate that. and

I lean towards only really being able to support the parking special permit if we were also sort of enabling the folks who are going to reside in this building to live as Luke described so eloquently last time in a way that is really Bike First with those cars you know available for weekend trips as also I think the um The abutters had commented, you know, you can do a lot with bikes if you're committed to them. So that I'd love to sort of have you thinking about whether a commitment to accommodating A bike per bed in this, you know, development is something that you think with the right design couldn't be solved.

Is that something that can be, this is just a logistics question, is this something that could be solved with the stacked bike rack that we were discussing earlier? I just don't know.

I'm picturing the like vertical racks that you have on buildings downtown for exterior that are just I mean they're harder a little harder to put a bike up but they're incredibly space saving and when done in a professional installation so I I would imagine, but I obviously am not. I know that's a question for the design team. I'm just thinking of solutions I've personally seen.

I was going to say, if I may, this is something, should the board choose to condition, we could write a condition that 12 bikes must be accommodated to sort of based on Amelia's project. That is something that we could condition if you so choose.

That was the question I was going to ask you. I would be in support of that condition. Hang on, one second, one second, one second. Amelia, do you have any more questions?

No, I was just going to say I think I defer to Luke and Michael here and maybe even Lynn as people who are more dedicated to this topic than I. Thank you.

Okay, the next hand I saw after you was Luke and then Lynn.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I actually think Lynn had her hand up, so happy to defer to her first.

Okay.

Thanks, Luke.

It's a tan hand and a tan background, Silas.

Oh, sorry. I'll lower my hand. I'll do the Simpson going forward. Love where the direction of this conversation is going as a person who owns Five Bikes. And I know it's a little, it's a little excessive. I keep thinking I should get rid of one, but they're like, they're like children. You can't really. um though I do want to so I've got I love where the direction of this is going I do think that if if it is for families that some of the bikes may be smaller than a full-size bike and and if we're going to make this a con and then I worry that you know as I see it's three feet by eight feet which is quite a bit of space I could probably get two bikes into that space even with the stacking

So, Sarah and the board, I'm wondering if we don't make a requirement of not necessarily 12 biking spaces, but nine full-sized biking spaces with and this is just a suggestion for the rest of the board with the idea that along this wall on the rear setback mechanical closet area that there's hooks for you know different size bikes there might be some oversized bikes but there also might be some bouncers or little itty-bitties that could stack there if we're going to be requiring the developer to put in 12 12 bike parking spaces for three feet by eight feet. I do worry that that might not happen. So, nine full bike spaces with the optionality for three or more elsewhere.

Happy to discuss that and really want to hear what Luke has to say about that because I think Luke probably has maybe not five bikes, but probably at least three.

Well, Lynn, I'm looking right now and showing the bike area has eight.

Say what?

Says bike area, four spaces, oh, four, sorry.

Four spaces, yeah, there's just four spaces.

Yep, a few more.

yeah and so even if we do these they do do these racks right i mean if we make it a condition of the permit you know they're they'll be legally required to 12 fields a click to a click too far given that there will be children if we do nine kind of adult size Bikes, as well as space for smaller bikes where there's hooks that you might be able to go up to 15 or 16 or something along those lines. it's it's uh i i just don't i'm just trying to find that that middle ground

If I can just qualify my earlier statement, my thought that 12 could be accommodated was in part based on the idea that this would need to become a common area and that there wouldn't be I think that really changed internal divisions within the bike room space because I think that really changes Layout of sort of how many bikes can be accommodated. And again, I don't really know. I've just tried to fit a lot of bikes into a second floor apartment recently. But I don't know if that's like I think keeping them. Separated for the condo units might be part of the puzzle here, but I'll quiet down now.

No, those are good points, Amelia. Thank you.

What do we think is the appropriate ask of this applicant?

I don't know if it's nine. I don't know if it's 12. I own two. And neither of them are in Somerville, so. Ann, yeah.

If I could, Steve Saragusa has quite a bit of expertise working with mobility in Somerville on these matters. he has a few suggestions so if it would be okay with the board if he could talk I think he might be able to give us a little better direction because the development team's on board with all of this but we just want to make sure mobility will be

Before we proceed completely apropos of not this, there is a potential that at 7 o'clock this board is going to lose quorum for a reason unrelated to this meeting. So, I just want to make sure that we. Proceed with the thought that this application requires.

I won't speak long then. So I just wanted to kind of, again, you know, we've gone this back and forth with Mobility and specifically about this bicycle parking and kind of the layout of that room and what that looks like and we're able to get those four spaces in there. I do know that Mobility and I'm sure the board knows as well has pretty rigorous standards as to what these bicycle spaces kind of need to be and what they need to look like in terms of space. There definitely is ability to find wall space for bike racks or potentially stacking spaces within that bike room. But I would imagine that at least a few of these spaces would need to be non-compliant with The zoning and what the mobility standards are for bicycle parking.

And so I guess the ask would be kind of what would that look like and what else would be needed From a design standpoint and coordination standpoint with staff to kind of get the approval of non-standard Bicycle Spaces because I know that that was that's just been a very big discussion with them not just for this project but for multiple projects around around the city and trying to kind of find that room to make that feasible.

Through the chair, if I may, I was just taking a quick look at the zoning Ordinance. And I think it is a mobility policy for the size of the spaces other than the percentage of cargo bike versus actual space. So I didn't see it off the top in a sort of a quick glance. However, if it is in the zoning, the only way around it is to apply for a hardship variance. And so I think that's something that might need to be resolved first, and whether that's another conversation with mobility and getting a letter from them. or applying for a hardship variance depending on what the ask is.

I'm not fully sure.

Yeah, and I'm hearing hardship variants and it's giving me a little pause, so...

I mean because we would have to get the hardship variance before a planning board could vote and I mean the only thing I can think of and you know we've got about 17 minutes until it's 7 p.m. Should we from now until the next meeting Like Sarah suggested, get a letter from Mobility because if this is something that they can support, I think it makes it easier for the board. And correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah, please.

I apologize for unmuting through the chair. If this is where the board is feeling we want to go, I literally am not seeing anything that might trigger other than the one thing that has concerned me is sort of the length of some of the spaces because of the 20% requirement of cargo. or tandem bikes. But that is the only piece I'm seeing in the ordinance that might give us a little bit of heartburn. So I think having that conversation with mobility is probably a good next step to understand what their requirements would be.

I appreciate that Sarah. Here is my thought, right? I wouldn't mind you guys having that discussion because I think we are all kind of uniformly in support of increasing the amount of I think we need to figure out what that's going to be looking like. I will just give my thoughts as to the remainder of the application and to the request for the special permit. Ordinarily, I would be giving you pushback because we do have something in place that says what you can and cannot do.

as it relates to this we have a we have had policy discussions on this there have been public public participation that says this is where we want the city to go and reduce the parking particularly as it relates to transit oriented areas and this couldn't be any any more transit oriented than being basically on top of the t-stop However, that being said, I think this particular project has two somewhat unique properties. One is White Street isn't ours. ordinarily we would say okay you can just park somewhere but it's not going to be feasible really to park on, you know, trying to find a spot on Burnside Avenue and walk down to White Street every day. That's not going to be

something that's that's likely um so that's a that's somewhat of a unique circumstance is that you you wouldn't be able to get a a residential sticker that would put you on on white street um it's kind of part one part two is For years, the planning board has asked developers to build family-sized housing and people give us pushback all the time. Well, I built a, you know, a one bedroom, but it has a cubby hole and that could be used as a bedroom. So we're going to call it two. And we all know that's not accurate and not feasible. You guys are actually doing and proposing a project that is meeting the goals that we have been pushing for for years. And you didn't have to. You elected to do this. You could have put in more units. You could have, I think, gone up in height. You could have done a lot of things that you're not doing to meet the goal that we have as a city and as a board.

So I think it would be a little bit in, I wouldn't say bad faith, but it wouldn't sit right with me to say, thank you for doing what we've been asking you to do. when you're not obligated to do it and we're going to make it harder for you to market these units. Particularly in light of the fact that I believe, and I'm not going to speak for every single member of the planning board here, but from what I heard last meeting and knowing what I have, is we're all generally in support of additional forms of mobility. We have some members on this board that are much more advocate-oriented towards bikes than some other members, and we all have cars.

I think every single member on this planning board has a cut. And whether we have kids or not. So to say that we're building units that are big enough to fit the families that we claim we want. and not give you the opportunity to put in a space for a vehicle, for a car that would likely be used by that family that we claim that we want. Even if it's on the weekends, even if it's every other Sunday to go to Market Basket, I think the reality is maybe they won't have a car. It is a location that would facilitate somebody maybe not needing one.

but the reality is they might need one, even if it's 5% of their time, 10% of their time. And so I think for two spaces, which is what you need, I think pushing back on two spaces for an otherwise very good project when you're trying to work with us on so many other factors. I would be supportive of Moving forward with the application, so long as you can have that conversation with Mobility about what additional bike parking could look like reasonably and with their guidance so that I could have a clear a picture on exactly what what it could look like i don't mind having an open-ended condition saying and work with mobility to maximize but i don't know if that's where we're going to be at um with with some of my other members so

I would obviously welcome further discussion on that and where people are in further discussion with mobility or other things, but that's kind of where I'm at. I see Lynn.

Thanks, Michael. You summarized it, at least from my perspective, how I was feeling perfectly. Additionally, I would say to add to that as we found out in diving into the regulations, that had the developers put in mixed use, had they put in 500 square feet that's not a lot of space and I don't and and Sarah the the minimum may even be less than that we wouldn't even be having this conversation it would be three spaces by right and yet we are over retailed in Somerville and we have a dearth of housing so if we're going to make it easier to build more retail When we have empty spaces, empty storefronts right now and make it harder to build housing,

when we have a real need for housing. That just feels to me that that's something that, and I'll take this up with Dan, of a zoning fix that we should probably address more broadly. Michael, I agree with you. I think that the parking should go through, and I liked how you framed it as kind of open-ended, like working with mobility to maximize the number of spaces that can fit in here, whether it's hooks on the wall for smaller bikes. I love the zoning. recommendations on biking when I read it. But in this case, if we were going to require 12 of these 12 of these spaces you know that that would be dead on arrival so how can we maximize you know the the parking here

the bike parking here so loved how Michael framed it as kind of more open-ended to to work with mobility on that so that's that's where I'm landing

Sarah. Mr. Chair, if I might make a suggestion as sort of a compromise just for discussion.

Say my favorite word.

As there are four spaces shown in the bike area currently, we've been talking about stacking. Perhaps this condition could at least say eight spaces, eight full-size bike spaces minimum. And I'm going to look to... Steve or Nereus to I'm assuming there's enough ceiling height in there to be able to accommodate stacking. But that might be another compromise that we get to that the board is more comfortable with a minimum number of spaces with the conversation for mobility to continue and see what else is possible.

I will say, do you guys think you'll be able to fit eight? Is that something that you can propose to Mobility in your next discussion with them?

I mean, I'm more than happy to talk with Mobility and then obviously Narius and Jacob and the rest of the team and try to figure out where we can put these spaces and how best to do that. You know, while still adhering to zoning and what those bicycle spaces need to look like. I don't want to speak to height of rooms or anything like that, but Yeah, I'm more than happy to have those conversations and make something like this work.

I appreciate that, Steve, because I will tell you, I think you're close to the finish line here. I think there are some some concerns that we all concerns and thoughts that we all have that we'd like to make this you know the best project that it can be and meeting a lot of the goals that we have as a city and I think this would go a long way with with me and some of my colleagues if we can figure out a way to say is it the number is it is it something different is it just not feasible for some reason that I certainly don't know. I'd like to have that information. I think that would be helpful for the board to have because I'm happy to try to move forward. I don't know if you'll have the votes at this stage in the game right now until we have that data. So let's see what we can get done in

The hopefully very near future, because I think you're very close to the finish line here.

Do you think it's feasible we continue to the December 4th planning board and that way it gives, I know next week is Thanksgiving, but I know Steve has a rapport with the mobility staff in Somerville and you know he may have some information I mean we can always continue again but you know if we could continue to the fourth you know with the hope of having all the right happy happy to do that um

I can't speak to mobilities availability so um yeah I know I know people are going to be traveling for the holiday and um the planning board's going to have a An extra agenda item or a few on the 4th as well, so maybe that's just going to be a busy night, which is fine. Is that the request to continue this to the fourth then?

That is, Mr. Chair.

Okay, I think that makes a lot of sense and I'm definitely supportive of that, especially if we can get to a place where We have all the information we need and maybe we can move this speedily along and forth. With that in mind, does anybody have any comments or questions of the applicant or of staff? Yeah, Amelia.

I was raising my hand for Luke in case you couldn't see him.

I didn't see Luke's now. Thank you.

Thanks, Amelia. All good. I know we're tight on time. in the broadest strokes I've really appreciated the conversation and this is a good example of the board sharing different perspectives and getting steering this to what feels like a good place um two really quick thoughts especially since it's like The team's going to go back before our next meeting. I have learned being a biker that really like the best car replacement is an e-bike, not just a regular old-fashioned bike. so one thought on my mind and the e-bikes are the heavier ones that are tougher to you know get up on a wall rack hanging up high so I think where this is headed likely would satisfy this thought but just if If the design can have at least three spots, so it would be like theoretically one e-bike per unit that doesn't need the bike to be elevated, that would help at least each unit have the best type of car replacement bike.

And then the only other quick thought was Amelia had the kind of elegant thought of requiring a bike spot per bed, which would have been 12. Maybe 12 is just too tough. And maybe eight is all that can get in there. And I'm sympathetic to, you know, if that's just the end of the day, fact of the matter. But getting to nine at least would have the sort of multiple of three for each unit. Those are my thoughts. Thanks.

Yeah, look, let's see what we can get. I agree with you. The more the better. And if we're going to have kids, make them have the e-bikes. Make them lift them up on the racks. Build those muscles young. Amelia, maybe yours can do some squats. Okay, good. The Chair moves to continue this agenda item to December 4, seconded by Amelia. Can we have a roll call, please? Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Luc Schuster? Michael McNeely. Aye. Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Aye.

This agenda item is continued. We have 1 other item on the agenda that doesn't require immediate attention of other business, which is chapter 91. so we'll continue that. We don't need to vote to continue the other business to. The fourth will deal with it as needed because we are about to lose quorum. The chair with no other business before the planning board that has not been continued. The chain moves to adjourn, seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please.

Then Richards.

Aye.

Luc Schuster.

Hi.

Michael McNeely. Hi. Emily Aboff.

Hi.

Michael Capuano. Hi.

The planning board is adjourned. See you all in a few weeks.

Hi everybody.

Thank you.