all right meeting of the Somerville planning board for March 13 20124 please come to order adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been provided copy of a notice specifying the date time and location was published in newspaper on March 13th 2024 given to the clerk administrator and posted on the outside of Bor Hall um roll call chairman Nado here Mr zinski here mayor Gallagher here councilman V here mrir here M Warner here Mr CA here Mr cresties here Mr Cleveland here Mr adct here Mr aens here okay Pledge of Allegiance FL flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisible withy and justice for all okay approval of the minutes for February 28th for the regular meeting so move any additions or Corrections whenever you're ready J chairman Nado yes M rinsky yes mayor Gallagher yes councilman V yes m m Warner AB Mr CA yes Mr cresties yes Mr Cleveland yes okay approval of minutes for executive session for February 28th so moved second any additions or Corrections okay chairman Nado yes m rinsky mayor Gallagher yes councilman vom yes Mr M Warner Mr kco yes Mr crusties yes Mr Cleveland yes okay our only application for tonight is The Foundry Holdings LLC application um before you start I just want to tell everybody what the procedure is going to be for tonight we're going to let the applicant provide all of their professional testimony and the board will ask questions and we then we'll go through our professional reports the board's professional reports and then I will open it up to the public for questions or comments okay whenever you're ready thank you good whenever you're ready red red means go red means on okay thank you um good evening ladies and gentlemen good to be back here before the board Rob Simon from heral law here on behalf of the applicant um as this board is aware the applicant has filed its application for pan final site plan approval and any necessary relief whether it's uh VAR exception a Redevelopment plan deviation relief regarding the property uh 50 James Street in Somerville block 50 Lot 2 and also 82 Fairview Avenue Somerville block 50 lot 2.01 as this board is aware this property has previously been been declared as an area in need of Redevelopment in in accordance with the local Redevelopment Housing laws of the state of New Jersey and it is located in the Bros R3 Zone as a Redevelopment overlay Zone as part of the Kirby Avenue Redevelopment area and is subject to the buroughs Kirby Avenue uh Redevelopment plan most recently amended honor about June 5th of 2023 so the application uh before you contemplates uh a 112 unit uh Housing Development 51 bedroom units and 62 two-bedroom units consisting of two four story buildings uh with parking both surface parking as well as underground parking um no variances We Believe are required with regard to this application we'll get into that of course through through the testimony but just as one part of point of clarification uh Mr Cole uh raised an issue as to a need for a variance for uh a fence a six foot fence and talk to the applicant and we're going to reduce the uh height of that fence to four feet so that it complies uh with the ordinance um so we have uh this evening um testimony from our experts that previously provided uh testimony with regard to this application uh Dave styes our professional engineer John srao uh licensed architect and Gary Dean our traffic and professional planning Consultants consultant excuse me to address the plan revision submitted since the last hearing including any relief that remains to be required of the of the board uh for this board's approval um and we're also of of course through the testimony going to address the review letters uh Mike Cole's letter March 5th uh 2024 to the board as well as the Fire Marshals letter uh most recently dated March 11th uh 2024 uh to the board and that's going to be followed by uh some brief comments uh from the principal of the applicant uh Greg storms uh we are uh in need of certain uh Redevelopment plan deviation uh relief um we'll get into that through the course of the presentation whether it's for the number of driveways with the driveway um some lighting uh issue as to um type of roof that we're proposing and the like but we'll U address that obviously through the testimony that's going to be presented and of course We additionally uh request any other Varian exceptions interpretations waivers Etc that may be required through the course of our presentation so uh with that um I'd like to start by calling Dave Styers to to testify um and I think we're all set in terms of exhibits so what exhibit car are we up to at this point yeah so i' like a the original4 from the that's A5 March 724 March 112 dat July 16 2023 se23 aike how however you want us to proceed we'll be happy so so A9 A9 is Mike's letter right okay so um with that um and and just for clarification uh Mr Stars was previously sworn at the prior hearing and he remains as as duly sworn so Mr Stars good evening and you remain familiar with the uh the site plan and related application material submitted as part of this application correct I do yes okay and you still remain familiar with the property in the surrounding area yes I do so um do you have any exhibits that you want to Mark I have a revised site plan which is a like a composite of the landscaping and layout so one it's entitled rer s well no so it's it's a it's a May it's the May 16 2023 but but clearly it has to be revised thank you Dave I'm GNA interrupt you for just one minute Jenner can you focus on that Focus the camera on that Dave can you turn it just a little bit this way T that way everybody in the audience can see it that's good thank you so uh Dave um referring to A10 that you marked with the last revision date of February 9th uh 2024 um why don't you give the board a little bit of a background as to where we started from and where we are today in terms of this project yep take your time so originally the site PL uh so we had comments took C can you swing the mic over that no that the you want this one yeah swing that over too so we were back we were here uh before the board back in August of 2023 uh we had public comments relative to the U the building and how close it was to Fairview Avenue um and we had some comments relative to uh outstanding open items relative to fire officials comments and uh also Larry had brought up uh some landscape being within the uh uh parking areas to cool the cars down uh so we took those into consideration in our Redevelopment or redesign and um what we have before you is and also we had uh a couple items that came up between August and now and it was prior to a scheduled public hearing where uh Mike Cole had uh introduced a couple of new variances that we didn't really foresee um one that created a rear yard on the western uh property line which is a sideline you know if you look at the at the um the site plan but it it's technically a rear yard and um that variance required a shift from the uh the the Western property line to 35 ft the minimum rear yard setback is 35 uh we had current uh we had previously had it at 16.8 ft um and then in addition to that the front yard on James Street uh was about 10 feet off and we shifted that to 20 ft which is the uh required front yard setback in the Redevelopment zone so we we shifted fair viiew to 40 uh James to 20 and the Western property line to 35 ft so we kind of Shrunk the building footprint uh um Inward and um the other thing we did to create the space to allow that to happen is we created two garages one in each building uh that hold 50 cars so there's a total of 100 cars that are uh under the building and that allowed us to reduce the uh parking south of the uh the two buildings and shift the building back and uh um allow for that uh design to happen and in doing so uh one of the uh advantages is that we red we significantly reduced the impervious coverage from the existing we reduced it from the last design and by doing so we've uh eliminated the storm water management and still have a reduction in runoff from the site and we've gone back and forth DP and M Cole and ironed all those issues out and um so that's you know the other thing that's allowed us to do is as you come out of that um driveway between the two buildings there was an issue about light glare so we bmed up that what used to be a detention base in in that ring road to a it's a nice soft burm with the significant Landscaping uh so that will shield the uh properties to the north north of Fairview Avenue so that that basically is our design changes uh with respect to uh the new plan that we're presenting today just maybe walk through a sure so so we got Fair View Avenue on the top of the page on the north side of the uh subject property uh we have a um oneway in on the west side and exit on the east side of the Ring Road and that ring Road feeds the parking in the rear uh there's about I believe it's 121 surface parking spaces and then we have the ramp uh to the Western Building here with 50 parking spaces under that building and the ramp to the Eastern Building here with additional 50 parking spaces um we did have surface parking in front of the building on each side uh that was considered a variance and so now we just have a concrete area for drop off and uh deliveries uh for each building so we've eliminated that parking in the front of the building included my statement that the proposed fence in the determined front yard yeah the the public right away ends roughly in here and that fence from that point forward will be four feet not five feet or not six feet so with the plan revisions um can you just identify the relief that Still Remains to be granted by we can start maybe with the the driveway so there's a maximum of one driveway allowed for uh the Residential Properties and as I had testified previously and this came out in the Redevelopment uh review by the Redevelopment committee uh we had proposed a two-way Drive uh in this location and we were it was there was a suggestion by the committee to make that one way so we made that one way um we kept at 25 initially for uh uh um emergency services in the last uh site plan and we reviewed the fire apparatus and have reduced that down to 20 feet so it's a 20 foot oneway uh configuration there and we would request the design waiver and I think that you know from my recol recollection the board was okay with that request at the last hearing and and the requirement in the orance St the the oneway drive can't beer than 15 proposing that's correct and um I believe there was also a an issue raised about foot handle measurements yes and the way the plan is presented it's a very low intensity I think the foot candle average on this design is is just under one foot candle for the entire parking areas and uh Mike Cole had brought up that the intensities are less than3 in certain areas and that actually happens in the RightWay so it's off the property uh you know our lighting expert designed it to light up the driveways and and the parking areas and as you leave the property and enter Fair viiew the lights from this design go down below the3 but what I can say to this board is there's lights in Fairview Avenue and at the exit in particular there's a light within close proximity on the north side of Fairview that will address that um intersection so we believe we're we're compliant in that and if we're not we will make it compliant okay to um to mention or ask you with regard to the driveways um I'm assuming that increasing the driveways helps to promote emergency access as well yes if if we reduced it any further then we'd have issues with the uh the uh turning movements that were provided to us from the Fire official and um there's also a a comment as to the need for Rel Redevelopment designation due to um containing flat roofs or flat roof you're going to have Mr srao the architect Mr G plan going to address that yes so I I think is there any other based on your review as an engineer there any other items that you believe require relief from this board specific re you so at this point what I'm going to ask you to do starting with mik's of March 2024 which has been marked as A9 is to go through you don't have to go through certainly all the items and just so the board's aware unless we specifically refer item for clarification or comment purposes um the applicant is prepared to comply with the request that are contained in Mr co24 that marked but there are number of things that I think Mr Co asked us to provide certain some comments on there some questions we believe it's appropriate to address certain of those items that are that are contained in the so Mr Stars I'm gonna ask you you want to start at what page page uh under parking and circulation page 11 item number three and I think Mike you talked to George about this there there are uh 24 EV charging stations shown on the plan future charges stations and I think you had indicated 21 so we we we believe we're compliant okay item number 11 on page 12 uh the plan does conform we have 14 feet to the Stop Bar just that's just a comment on page 13 um we we had a meeting meeting with Bob page 13 item 12 we had a discussion with Bob Lynn on uh Friday and and boobin is to he's the Fire official and we indicated to him that there are turning movements available from the main drive into go into the drive AES both the northern one in the south parking lot and the Northern or the southern one in the northern southern parking lot but what the the truck will have to do it can't make this movement here you say this movement here um on the west side coming around the parking field from the south parking field to the north parking field or on the east side from the south parking field to the uh the north parking field to the south parking the truck can't make that maneuver so what he will have to do in these two parking Fields if he pulls in he's going to have to pull back out and then drive out and we've discussed that with um Bob and what he's asked for is just to provide those additional turning movements at those two points of access into the parking lot and we we will comply with that um item 15 on page 13 um we're still working out the details for the the Breezeway that runs between the two buildings uh it's in this general area but there will be some kind of uh support system that runs down uh along the building u in in uh in between it both the East and the west building in that drive aisle coming through the building how you don't 16 page 13 we would agree and we do have spot shots shown I don't know Mike you may have not seen that but there are different slopes you know so you round it off so your underc Carriage do not hit going into that uh parking garage uh item 17 page 13 okay comp we're okay with the comment but I believe the the spot shots are there yeah the ramps going in we have a slope then a steep slope and we'll look at yeah we're right at we're yeah right I was looking at the wrong comment yep yes item 17 there is a note 20 on sheet four that says exactly the Restriction so that's been taken care of item 18 on page 14 we will have a private uh Private Collection item 19 on page 14 um this has to do with hot boxes and and the water line um and we will work with New Jersey American water and the Fire official to resolve that issue item 22 page 14 uh we will comply item 24 page 14 we will provide a van accessible spot in each of the the buildings the East and the west building item 25 on page 14 we will provide the required uh height in the in the garage for the Ada vehicles uh going to page 15 item 26 um I believe is that the yeah that's that's what I testified so we have we have three different slopes going in so your undercarriage doesn't bottom out and I believe that is taken care of on the plans but we'll we'll resolve that with Michael um item 27 we will provide the snow melt detail and the uh railings will be uh UCC compliant item 28 is that transitional slopes that we talked about going into the garage we'll comply with that and we'll with that item 29 the uh the system in the garage will contain a carbon monoxide detector which will deploy the system and I don't believe it's uh going to be hooked up to the emergency generator we can I think we can talk to Greg about that if they need further clarification then moving along to site lighting item three we discussed sorry go ahead to the storm water management requirements on P those will be comp by the yes we're on page 17 site lighting item three we talked about uh the uh 0.01 is actually in the RightWay for Fairview Avenue and there are lights in Fair viiew at the end of the day we will comply with uh providing adequate lighting item number seven page 17 we provided a um lighting plan this is for the parking deck no this is for the reduction right so we we provided a plan just yesterday to Mike for uh 25% reduction in lighting off peak you know after 10 U it hasn't been reviewed yet but we would agree uh we're going to have uh dimmable lights and we'll work out that nighttime uh reduction item eight uh again on page 18 the lights will be dimmable uh and then item nine I would say C3 above and then item 10 I emailed you a lighting plan and we will uh we will be UCC compliant item 11 um last item we will remove the uh individual yeah yeah on page 19 item number two this this is on so this is site land yeah we're going to site Landscaping just just a couple items uh item two is a dragon lady Holly we will replace that item number three is a uh Birch that may be de disease type and we'll replace that as well um item number five we will be providing irrigation for the entire landscaping and item number six I talked to Henry hinterstein Who provided the landscaping design for us he's a landscape architect and he said all these materials are salt tolerant on to Solid Waste item number one on page 20 there will be rooms in each building this is similar to uh their other projects in Somerville uh the waste will be wheeled out uh based on the frequency needed and you know there will have they will have a contract with a private hauler and the contract will no you know areas outside the buildings you know where there would be garbage you know we'll keep the place neat and clean under sanitary sewer flows item one we will file for a tww permit that is required item number three um that has to do with the srvs fees and we will comply with that and then under H Kirby Avenue Redevelopment plan I just wanted to acknowledge items number two and three we'll have some further testimony John yes I think then moving to page 25 site utilities and in terms just CLE in terms of the comments regarding buildings to theary Mr yes so page 25 under site utilities item one um they the psng will not review this application until we have a planning board uh or preliminary site plan approval and we will set up meetings accordingly and work through uh final design with them on this um item number two um it has to do with the service connections for the hot boxes uh we have service connections for both buildings on each wing and the question is will we require hot boxes based on their current and they gave us diagrams who's who's that uh New Jersey American Water provided diagrams of typical services and we don't believe we're going to need hot boxes if we do we'll be back can you define one of hot boxes a hot box is a big above ground structure for a um um it's a valve and the meter everything's in there they the U New Jersey American water doesn't want to go down into the into a vault anymore they want everything above ground um if if you want to see one there's there's one on this for this development there's one right here you say this development to the east to the east yes and it's it's probably 8 by 20 by six six feet high so it's it's a large structure but we don't believe we need one and again we need to we've had some informal meetings with New Jersey Jersey American water again they want this the uh the preliminary site plan approval in hand before they work with you and we will again meet with them and come up with an acceptable plan and that will also do have to do with the the hydrant located in the rear of the parking lot that was required by Bob Lind uh we ran a a a dedicated line from the RightWay in James Street into the parking lot and there's a hydrant in the re of the uh property and we'll work with New Jersey American water and Bob Lynn to come up with a final game plan on how that is serviced um item K on page 26 Emergency Management plan I would defer to the office of emergency management on how they want to handle that and relative to the generator I believe that uh Ryan storms had provided the generator data uh to the burrow previously and it it has to comply with the the noise standards so um we we'll work that out with Mike uh item one item one we were at 40 feet from uh Fairview Avenue and that was our um you know we set the building there based on our understanding New Jersey American water on doubling the size of the setback from Fairview Avenue and accomodating uh a nice island in the rear of the property um so that I mean that's our design and we believe that we' we've tried to uh address the comments from the last meeting item number two so that's just a general comment item four we will agree to work with the uh with Mike and the neighbor to uh modify that fence accordingly next number six number six again we'll work with Bob Lyn and New Jersey American Water to come up with a solution on the best way to provide adquate flow to that hydrant in the back of the property um item eight uh I we don't believe we need a gutter boot as all the gutters are more than you know a distance away from vehicles um I don't know that becomes necessary why have regard to number 11 flat roofs something Mr s Mr address yes on 12 and this is on page the item 12 will electric Chargers be installed no but they will be wired for future uh electric charging and um I think Greg Storm's can elaborate on that further item 13 where were the visitors Park visitors will park in that southern parking lot with the uh the tenant Tosh Mand ask Mr Cole is there any item that is contained your report whatever it is A9 that you haven't addressed that you still seek some clarification from Mr sty the engineering add ask right I'm saying dra shows around connec the aren't onit question is where exactly they are in terms of not that's so again these should the board Grant approval this stuff can be worked out down the road thank you um so with regard to the uh the fire memorandum yes so I'll refer to the March 11 because the the iterations were coming out based on conversations we were having with Bob Lynn the March 11 Mand so uh item one we determined that we were agree agreement with item two we were in agreement with item three um Bob Linn is requesting a loop system um we want to get with New Jersey American water and boobin and work out the best solution for this we're not sure that you can service a hydrant with two connections because they don't how do you meter it you know it becomes complicated so I just want to get the two everybody in a room together and work this out and provide the adequate flow necessary well I I I think if we agree to a loop system we're agreeing to so maybe we don't have to come back correct I'm just saying it is possible to and I see well yeah I mean my recommendation would be that the board would have this condition approval whatever the board whatever the board decides with regard to that our our suggestion is should application be approved that the condition would State as Mr sty stated that the the applicant is to work the type of assistance and the satisfaction of the of who New Jersey American says yes can do itess the M ISS and says it yes res that is clear just for the thank you item number four on the next page I did testify previously that we will provide the Turning radiuses going into that southern parking field and again I indicated to Bob Lynn that the turning radiuses on the end of the west side of that parking field and East Side do not allow for the fire truck to make that move movement so they will have to back down that aisle and then pull out through the uh the main driveway could that movement be made if the islands were made a little smaller they actually have to get the island would have to get larger you need n uh like 82 feet between the out Outer radius of the first field to the so you need 82 feet from here around to he here describe the the end of the Southern parking lot as you turn from one parking field into the other is that for the largest are you going with like the largest they gave us the largest yeah so other trucks other trucks could make that move yes right you'd have to probably switch if you if you pull these parking spaces on the southern end of the the southernmost field internally here and then put the drive AIS on the South Side you'd get a little closer um okay I'm up to item five uh the applicant has agreed to add the St stairway stand pipes um item six we're in agreement with item the rest of them were're in agreement with items on A6 yes I believe that unless there's else you want to empe I believe that conclud any questions yes just want to go back to number Theus Tru these depictions are the fact that there are cars going to be parked there 2 o' in the morning it's a four world cars and they get in there in without crushing car yes the drive aisle coming through between the east and west building is 24 ft wide and the drive aisle between the parking spaces in that southern lot is also 24 feet so he's going to make that he's got it's it's the same size as a normal roadway so he can make that sweep in and the cars should be off to the side in their parking stalls and then you had mentioned toward the end that you would get more space if you move the island yeah if you if you opened up the distance between the southern parking field and the northern parking field you can increase that radius uh to get closer to allowing that truck to make that movement is that a beneficial thing I don't see what you know what the harm is if he if he's allowed to access the rear for fighting a fire in the back of that building and then has to back down that aisle it's only several hundred feet to pull out um that's that's I don't believe that's the so he's not backing through the buildings he's just backing he's backing straight back to the other part other side of the parking field and then pulling out okay okay anybody else okay wait for number five I know we said the stairway stand pipes are okay but there was a question about um stand pipes in the garage themselves yeah we talked to uh at at the um stairwells we we talked to Bob about that and came up with a solution so the stairwells uh in the parking garage would have uh connections and I think was there one in the uh actual garage on the East Garage next to the um yeah we were in agreement to to provide the the FDC uh connections okay I do have another question okay related to the H boxes and where you're putting the building now yes application around 20t or so this one's around 40t yes there was a mention in reports about possibly to the building even further back like 60 ft but there was concerns about the hot boxes but you're in the middle of talks with American water so if they would agree could you move the building further back deeper into the property and then if they need a hot box they put the hot box they don't need it the building is a better location potential yeah I I think you know as we keep moving it back we're going to start cramming things back there and you know I think we have a nice plan now and I I I understand we maybe can steal a few more feet but um you know this this is the plan we have okay any consideration at all to trying to modify it to make it we we modified it three times well I understand that yeah yeah this is like the fourth time you guys working on this understand just seems to be closer than it needs to it started at 10t and now it's at 40t yeah the original yeah the the original plan that was presented to the Redevelopment committee was 10 feet and the suggestion from that committee was to make it to 20 and then we had the comments at the last hearing and the cons on our design team was that's double that's what we did okay um next witness thank you yes correct Mr Mr srao as M Kinski appropriately stated you understand you remain sworn and so qualified as an expert in the field of architecture correct uh yes and you continue to be familiar with the architectural plans and the application materials submitted in support of this project yes I did um so if you would start out by uh first of all do you have any any exhibits to Mark new exhibits um no possibly some handouts depending on how the testimony goes okay okay um so with that if you can um start out by referring to your recently February 14th 2024 um four plans and elevations and just identify for the board um to what extent if any uh the the design has changed since the previous submission to the board and I'm also going to ask you so I don't forget to address Mr Cole's comment regarding of course um so the most significant change to the building was of course adding the base basement parking um that we it's a fully um INR basement um from from the street view from this Fair View Avenue uh view um so there's no change in the um appearance of the building uh from from the street um in the back um there there's a minor change and I'll walk um if we just go down to if we look at PB uh one of the rendering uh the elevations pb400 um that's towards the back of the package we could see the parking the grade dips down to allow the cars to ramp down into the basement but apart from that um the the exterior appearance of the building stays very very similar to the last application except for the fact also that we added mansard grooves in between the gables uh The Gables I were always in our um in our renderings for the building so um and and the amenity space this third floor amenity space is at like a sky Bridge um between the two buildings um that got a little smaller in order to um allow for more setbacks um that that David spoke about um the other um there's some minor interior changes because of the parking lot we had to rearrange the elevator location that forced a little change in the the amenity space layouts but all of it's um insignificant in the sense that all the amenities are still there we didn't lose any amenities they just got rearranged slightly um there there was a comment from Mr Cole regarding some of the apartments on the upper floors have uh these rooms called stud studies and um that was a mislabeling that those should be labeled as uh storage rooms we apologize for that mislabeling and um if we get a positive vote hopefully in our compliance drawings we will make that correction um other other comments just regarding Mr Styer um testimony um there was a comment about the um um the um leader the roof drange leader boots and I should just point out that on our elevations towards the back of the the pb400 series we do identify um The Gutter boots um that Mr Cole asked for requested um so those are the those are the that's a summary of the changes um I guess really the um one of the more pressing issues of course is the U classification of the building as a flat roof building um I'm not sure if I I did prepare a response to that I'm not sure if I should pass that out or I should just give testimony to [Music] it you you can first read from whatever you wish to read from and theard has additional questions obviously right respond according so um and John just to just to te this up uh for a second it was it was pointed out in A9 in Mr Cole's report that the Redevelopment plan um prohibits flat roofs and that variance or design exception excuse me relief would be required because the applicant is is proposing a flat roof and I U asked you as an architect as well as Mr Dean to to take a look at that in relation to the comment and also in relation to the language that's used in the Redevelopment plan regarding this particular issue and inent of what was um desired I guess by the sure um so I it it's my interpretation of the reading of the Redevelopment plan that the intent was to have a building that doesn't have the appearance of a flat roof um even though and and the Redevelopment plan does acknowledge this um that rooftop mechanical equipment um is is very prevalent on any any contemporary any modern building today so so the Redevelopment plan is really saying two things it's saying that it does recognize the need for rooftop equipment um uh that's section um that's um in the Redevelopment plan uh Section 8 paragraph D um it does acknowledge the need for rooftop equipment U but then at the same time it also um says that flat roofs are are prohibited so there's a little contradiction in the Redevelopment plan but taking those two into account I think really what the intent was is that yeah well just like the build I was looking I studied the building next to sharite those buildings going up a large portion of that roof is flat but there is a but when you stand in the shopai parking lot you see a pitched roof and we're doing we're pretty much doing the exact same thing where um from the street you see the mansard portion of the roof and our Gables and all our reverse Gables scattered around the building but in reality on top of all that behind of all of that there there is a flat roof to house all the necessary mechanical equipment so when you look at um pb24 that's our roof plan um you could see the hatched area over 50% of the roof is a pitched roof and under and the remaining portion is is a flat roof in order to accommodate uh the necessary uh mechanical equipment for the for the project and and the flat the flat portion so to speak is on the interior yes it's it's in the middle of the roof um Station House was done the in in a similar manner as I said the project next to shoppr um was was done the same way also so so it seems to be an approach that was used quite often um you know in projects in and around Somerville and we're just continuing with that type of process and and if if it was determined um that exception relief for this um design deviation was required of the board I know you're not a planner but but an architect um would you the standard if the standard is you know reasonableness and practical analysis um you know would you conclude as an architect that you know given the language of the the development plan given the need to provide Mechanicals and Z to have them on the roof as opposed to on the sides of the building that this would be reasonable and appropriate uh absolutely and I should also point out that the man mansard portion of the the Redevelopment plan does allow for specifically it allows for a mansard roof it allows for hip mansard Gable aframe Dutch hip those are all the types of roofs listed in the Redevelopment plan and a mansard by definition is a roof that has a pitched section that's fate that's on the exterior side of the building and it terminates to a flat roof so we I I believe we actually meet the definition of a mansard roof which is one of the allowable roof types uh in the Redevelopment plan and as you stated earlier there's a separate section dealing with rooftop equipment states that all uh such rooftop equipment should be set back so that it can't be seen from the street correct correct which is what how we designed it and we and we meet that criteria that it can't be visible that it's not visible from the street so and before we get to uh Mr Cole's report specific as to architectural elements I know John that you provided some extensive testimony the last time we were before this board in support of this application in terms of the architectural design the image the character the types of materials um you know given your testimony this evening and the minimal changes to the from the prior itation is that testimony still hold true for this RIS yes it does and and the fact that it's pushed back even further double from from Fairview does that support your conclusions as well uh yes so with that um why don't you if can I know Mr Cole um referenced certain uh architectural uh requirements I believe 21 of his March 5th report you can just take a look at those and and please provide some commentary you can actually go there not that many of just one by one and one of them I'm going to ask you to talk about is a comment about can demonstrate that the character and style commercial resal develop the res um yeah so um we we looked at a couple of projects um in the burrow and in the county and um one of them um one of them being a Station House which which I believe um from what I hear in town is that it's considered to be a very successful project um both both aesthetically from a tenant perspective and um we have very very similar architectural elements um detailing and overall composition to the Station House um in the county in in Warren um there's diamond the uh Diamond project at Warren the diamond at Warren um that's a project that has similar type of Gables similar Hardy plank siding uh similar type of ston workor at the at the first floor of the building uh porches are dealt with in a very similar way and I should point out that the diamond also um has the roof system that I spoke about meaning a mansard roof leveling off to a flat portion um you know and there are other projects in and around um the um the the county that um that we feel we are very consistent with the design approach that they have taken and um again with regard to uh the Redevelopment plan architecture requirements on pages referencing Pages 21 22 23 25 of mr's March 5th report do you have any further comments object to or clarify any of those um as I said comment 16 regarding the um mislabeled study U that will be um that will be addressed um hopefully in the compliance drawings if we get that far so uh with that I have no further questions for Mr theard and I guess maybe let me start with Mr Cole whether there's any item in your report deals with architecture that Mr Sako may have not referenc resp can can I just interrupt I'm sorry one minute okay just regarding the um the Fire Marshals or the fire officials letter I just have one comment on that if if you don't mind me interrupting here I just want to go through the letters um there was he um uh Robert Lyn has requested that there's no electric vehicles uh charging stations in the parking garage in the basement um we uh it's a very important marketing tool um to have e well let's let me back up a little bit having a parking garage by itself that has an elevator that goes directly to the residential floors and itself is a very very strong marketing tool um and that allows for um the attraction of very strong tenants into the building and um you know the prominence of Tesla's out there and other EV cars um um the applicant would be hand C if they didn't have the ability to put EV Chargers uh in the parking garage so we respectfully request um that the fire marshal uh Fire official will will grant us uh relief on that um I should point out that between the parking garage and the four residential floors up above there's going to be approximately a 16 inch thick concrete slab we we call it a transfer slab you see it in a lot of the buildings going around um that is um that is a serious fire rating in itself it's a three-hour fire rating we understand the concerns of um EV charging stations uh at the same time there is a marketing component um to the building that that should be acknowledged thanks for okay anything else regarding the no no no sorry sorry about that okay so I guess I open up to the board and specifically Mr Cole there's anything that we questions um I do have a comment on the uh EV and the parking garage it's not about the rating of the wall that's there it's that when those cars go they take everything around them so it's it's more of a safety concern than it really is on whether you can have it from going to the apartment building uh it takes a lot of water to put those fires out and what we've seen historically over the last couple years is especially in the parking garages they become worse and worse so I would like it to be adhered to as what the Fire Marshall would like uh if I may respond um on other projects what we've done and um I didn't really discuss this with the applicant but all our parking space in the garage are basically grouped in in in threes we have three parking spaces in a column three parking spaces in a column and what we've done in other projects is we put fire rated walls between every three cars where there EV stations and that so it it just it it basically limits the um ability to for the fire to spread throughout the entire garage so I still would defer to the Fire Marshall who's the expert on it okay I'm just I would definitely uh uh defer to Lisa on this because the county has put approximately eight to nine hours for a full Tesla fire to go out because the county has handled mult how many now multiple yeah and the issue is you know Li I and I do understand the market and I think that's why the outside parking is you know their charging stations outside is much more but in an enclosed parking garage seeing it more and more it's it's just a true safety hazard okay any other questions from any other questions MERS I um you mentioned Warren diamond yeah um what's across the street from that across the road is it now hor road going up the hill yeah I I really I've been up and down the road a number of times but not on a daily basis I really can't well I guess what I'm starting to try to get to is that Warren does things differently than us because they're different than us and I don't know what's cross the street from the diamond but I can tell you what's across street from this the second thing is that you had mentioned that this is very similar to Station House and I would agree it is very similar footprint layout veterans Mor Drive is too Lan the traffic before you get to the parking deck and office building on Fair View in this project it's across the street one lane each way and there you are so I would question again are we thinking about maybe shifting it away because the extra Lan of Traffic Way barely makes us even with the doubling of your moving it back I I understand that um I just want to point out that not only do we fall within the bulk requirements that were that were established in the Redevelopment um plan that we had nothing that that that wasn't our making um so not only do we meet it but we actually exceeded as David Styers points out we kept moving the building back so so I think there there is really no question on the bulk requirements of the project in terms of meeting the Redevelopment plan but if you're going to compare it to another building in town I don't really I'm not really overly concerned about Warren the county that's nice but we're here in some of them and the way I look at it this is a lot more mass on the road I would think that it might be better for everyone the residents and you guys to move it even further back because then the impact is lesser right now this is a high impact for the 10 families that live across the street there's a parking de across from Station House nobody's complaining right understood the only other thing I want to point at is there were as David pointed out there was a significant change to the Landscaping in the front of the building by by going through a significant change in the building by putting the parking of close to half the parking in the building um it allowed for an incredible amount more of landscaping in the front so but but I I understand your point so quick question so you went from on I'll call it the two legs the eastern and western leg you went from 10 feet to 40 feet as your setback is that um you know I don't I don't know the exact numbers I I forget what we started with on the eastern and western legs I so so the bulk of the face of the building how what what's the depth off a Fair View for the bulk of the face of the building back from fair viiew right okay okay thank you anybody else okay next witness good evening Mr Dean understand swarm yes I do okay and and so qualified as an expert in the fields of uh uh traffic parking circulation and and plan correct and you're familiar with the plans including the revised plans that were submitted and supported this application yes and you're familiar certainly continue to be familiar with the property and the surrounding correct so um one why don't we start up by you you know just kind of giving an overview um based from from a uh parking and circulation perspective with regard to the to the revised plan and then we'll get into Mr and if you want to incorporate Mr Cole's comments from his report into your your comments that's fine certainly I I think as you've heard the most notable changes to the plan are the elimination of all variances U the applicant heard the board's concerns those of the public literally went back to the drawing board amended their design to clean it up and have it be in full compliance with your Redevelopment plan um so with that there's little to say in the way of planning other than we've moved to a fully conforming application uh as you've heard the most notable change is the additional setback of the building but from my perspective we were advocating originally and there was some debate about what constitutes the front yard rather than invite that debate the applicant once again heard your concerns and pushed all of the parking either under the building or behind the building um the only way to further improve setbacks relative to the streetscape is we're constrained by a Redevelopment plan we either have the building closer to the street and the parking behind it or we do the reverse we shove the building all the way to the back closest to the railroad tracks and put the parking in front those are our constraints so again we've heard your concerns the plan has been amended to be compliant uh in terms of that circulation there is no longer parking anywhere in the front of the building irrespective of how you consider the front of the building whether it's the wings or whether it's the bulk of the building and that comes at considerable added expense to the project obviously putting an underground parking is more costly but again that has been accepted by the applicant to provide you with a better plan um we continue to meet all of in my opinion the rec Rec niiz standards for parking uh and the EV spaces um and those come with certain credits there that are allowed that were written into the legislation to provide developers I'll say with a modum of incentive to put this equipment in in that you got a little bonus on parking if you put in the EV spaces and as I'll say internal combustion engines are I don't want to say outlawed but I I assume the public is aware that by 2035 no more sales of gasoline engines and that's 11 years away so at least the intent is to go to a carbon free pollutant-free environment with electric vehicles and particularly with multif family buildings those need to be charged so that is sort of the Genesis of that legislation and the accompanying credits for the EV spaces um certainly mind mindful of the concerns of fire Personnel uh Somerville is not the community where I've heard the concerns related to firefighting and the inherent issues with it for the current technology uh lithium batteries and and the the length at which they burn so that will be accommodated in the surface parking lots um beyond that I think so let me let me just back you up this for a couple things so let's before we get into planning um with regard to uh circulation driveway geometry um location of of the existing driveways I know you provided extensive testimony at the last hearing to this before this board in support of the application um given the revised plan and particularly now um eliminating the parking in the front providing the garage parking um do any of your conclusions change Mr Dean in terms of s safe and and efficient uh circulation flow around the building and throughout the site let me just for the clarity of of where we were and where we are I'm going to refer to exhibit A1 which was marked at the August 27th hearing um this is a colored rendering of Mr Styer site plan and I'm going to point to the Eastern building to the right hand side of the exhibit the Western Building Fair viiew Avenue is at the top you will see the Horseshoe type driveway where Ingress is to the West egress is to the East and the visitor spaces uh and drop off loading spaces handicap spaces that were in the elbows or corners of each of the buildings um and then we had a much larger surface parking lot to the rear now to compare that with what is been marked A10 you'll see the Horseshoe access system has been retained unchanged the difference is uh the original Courtyard in the front which featured some angled parking and forgive me I'm pointing to the north uh of or the infield area if you will between the driveways that parking has been eliminated as have the handicap spaces uh at the elbows what we've left are not parking spaces will be posted as such but for GrubHub Uber Amazon package parcel delivery um those are being uh proposed to accommodate that traffic just to eliminate movements getting in behind the building but they're not parking they're not striped as such uh so our access remains essentially unchanged Fair viiew Avenue is straight in alignment and level so there's there are no sight distance obstructions and and that has uh been unff fected with the revisions the traffic circulation as one leaves the rear parking lot which again you can see is a a much smaller footprint directs all traffic to the easterly driveway so that they may exit um I believe there is a design waiver that is required uh for the width of the driveways which we've proposed at 20 and the reason for that is under the NFPA which is the fire code the what's considered a fire access road is required to be 20 feet and we meet that standard and the purpose of that is for any aerial equipment the trucks come without rigor so they don't topple over and that width allows those to be deployed in a stabilized pavement area so uh for that reason we have proposed that with and in my opinion which is consistent with at least one other agency in the state njdot a bifurcated driveway design that is one that has separate Ingress and separate egress counts as one driveway you're accommodating an in and an out we can't have just one driveway we'd have a dead end road but it also serves an added benefit of for whatever reason if one or the other is blocked it does allow a secondary means for access to the rear parking area um so in my opinion it's unchanged changed from the prior iteration um and I think in terms of um overall design it it adds a little bit more green space uh and certainly tucks the parking under the building which has minor as it's essentially invisible to the public but certainly has better aesthetic appeal so so before we leave um what I'll call the uh you know traffic circulation parking C you know you touched on um two of the um items that require uh exceptionally from this board namely the width of the driveway and also the fact that there are there are two driveways um as opposed to one um and since since we're on that you understand that for purposes of the board granting exception relief um for those two items certainly um that there has has to be a determination that the deviation proposed is is reasonable and within the general purpose and intent for site plan uh review if if the lital literal enforcement is impracticable um or will it exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions which don't necessarily apply here um regarding the undue hardship so can you just just in terms of the proofs with regard to those two items in particular particular for the for the exceptions just just comment on sure in terms of driveway width I believe I've indicated much like putting the EV parking outside it's a safer alternative and particularly being mindful of the need for uh fire principally fire access apparatus so a little extra driveway width has essentially no impact on impervious coverage and certainly is a superior design to accommodate those needs and I would also submit it's further regulated under whatever I'll say standards NFPA holds to have the 20 foot wide fire Access Road in terms of the number of driveways functionally as of indicated from a from my opinion as a traffic engineer it's one driveway it just happens to be split and it happens to be split with a with a big Boulevard or a big landscaped area in between it provides a superior zoning alternative again for safety in that allows a secondary means of Ingress or egress under emergency conditions so for those two reasons I think we've met an appropriate standard of proof to Grant uh that waiver and and and the sorry just for clarification are you um agreeing to have the charging stations outside of the surface Park okay I just wanted to make sure that was we we we understood the concern and you know we certainly want to advocate for the highest degree of safety and the and based on the revised design the the adjacent Street system will not experience any degra degradation in operating conditions correct and that that was that was our original findings in our in our traffic and that hasn't changed correct correct um and and there was um I think there was some comment about the intersection of of James Street and loer Avenue the last hearing as as your conclusions changed uh with regard to your analysis and testimony regarding that intersection it has not and and that's butress by uh over the course of I think the fall psng I think has been doing gas line Replacements and there has been a detour on East Main Street during that time which put a lot more traffic uh on both fair viiew and loer Street far more than this project would generate and we went out there and we did some counts and we saw the detour and it was like wow these numbers are way higher than when we originally did our c and it was operating fine now we don't have the detour in place anymore but that at least allowed us the opportunity to address Mr Cole's concerns um Fair viiew Avenue um certainly will will our our site will add some traffic to it whether it's on loser or James um but not enough to create significant degradation or changes in the operating condition at that intersection so again with regard to parking traffic circulation your um testimony and conclusions that were set forth excuse me the last hearing um are are unchanged um based on the revised design corre correct yes um so you talked about the uh two design waivers one for the width of the driveway and the other for the number of driveways or curve cuts um there was also as you heard from Mr Styer testimony a a request if necessary uh for deviation design exception deviation regarding the lighting uh minimum uh foot candle levels and not withstanding the fact that um Mr Styer stated that if need be we we certainly will will comply um do you have any concerns in terms of uh impracticability reasonableness as to that that design exception I I think the concern particularly for a budding residences is is light and we want to adhere to the standards that are appropriate to accommodate pedestrian activity and safe vehicular flow obviously at night cars have headlights it's a little different it's principally for any individuals that are out walking um while the lighting levels can certainly be increased to meet your standard I think we're meeting the intent and purpose of those standards and again trying to be mindful as to minimizing the impact to the highest extent possible on the surrounding property so uh usually what occurs in and I'm by no means a lighting expert um that a nightlight test is done uh post you know in between say tcco and Co and if adjustments need to be made working with Mr Cole to augment say key areas where additional lighting may be necessary that that's usually the best way to approach it in that you know we can run the models today but once one takes into consideration for example the the light fixtures on existing utility polls in the area it it may change the need U to increase those lighting levels further so certainly there's a willingness on the part of the applicant to to be subject to that kind of post construction evaluation so the the only um I think two items that remain uh for discussion in terms of planning particularly exception relief have to do um first with the flat roofs and then the the architectural look at the building and I know that Mr srao and you were present for his testimony this evening and at the last meeting when he um addressed those certainly the the matter with regard to the flat roofs so let's let's talk about that first sure um looking at it from a planning perspective the objective is to present the appearance of a a pitched roof and that's done by using the mansard treatment among others I I in my opinion and referring to Mr sako's exhibit and I know it may be difficult for the public or the board from the deis but looking at the rendering that has been provided it certainly gives the appearance of a pitched roof it is not a flat roof for example the Cobalt or the building I think diagonally opposite this meting room which has a traditional flat roof and a very modern style this particular building in looking at some aerial imagery gives the appearance from the street of having a pitched roof however as one looks on top of the building it is flat it has a mansard roof but anyone walking down the street wouldn't know the difference um the Station House was built with that exact same type treatment where it gives the appearance of a roof and certainly not a flat roof it's just truncated and it doesn't continue up into the sky to meet it a peak it looks like it does it just doesn't physically actually and it creates the pared to screen the rooftop equipment um in the Redevelopment plan it requires that we consider I believe not only buildings within the community but elsewhere in the county well well that's that's that's separate so I just want to just deal with more with regard to the flat roofs no okay so the the final um Point uh that I think was raised by Mr Cole's report has to do with some um comment in the Redevelopment plan um ensuring that the developments character and style um in this case multif family uh developments character and style is consistent with the architectural style found in the burough in surrounding County and complements the existing built-in Vons in accordance with the Kirby Avenue uh Redevelopment plan yes as as we look at our immediate neighbor the park building I submit that this design is vastly Superior in the choice of siding materials which is uh cacious hearty plank boards which are not only durable and maintenance free but certainly better emulate the traditional Clapper siding vinyl does the same thing but vinyl has its own look and this is significantly better than our than our neighbor um we also have as you'll see from the rendering a lot of relief in the facade and I I have some exhibits I don't intend to show them unless the board has a question but as one looks at the facade of the park building it is monolithic and flat and there's limited relief in terms of uh building setbacks and and and creating shadow lines and such so I think we're not only I don't know that we'd want to be consistent with our neighbor in that instance I think it's a a more elegant design it's a very subjective opinion I understand that and I'll let the rendering speak for itself but I think uh it is enhanced significantly from our neighbor as we look at the station house as Mr srao indicated this design is closer in character and quality to the Station House um you know as we look and and I don't want to cite it as a as a a negative example but certainly the Cobalt has a a very polarizing style that some people may love some people may not I think we're more compatible with Station House uh even the dowy building that was done by the applicant that features mixture of materials with some uh masonary at the foundation and such um there's a a newer set of buildings that were built on Route 206 in Hillsboro by Lin just south of Bottle King that features a very similar Style with banding of brick and stone at the bottom uh divided light Windows a lot of white trim as you see um and as close as one can be in a traditional multif family building continues with the character that we find mostly in single family homes um so in my opinion and the was it the I think it was called The Diamond Building and Warren that actually happened to be one of my projects that too has a lot of relief in the roof uh and in the building facade so we certainly are complying with the objectives of that Redevelopment plan standard to be I'll say consistent with what I believe are better architectural examples in in in the community and and obviously this community uh to an extent is similar in terms of its treatment and um and given the um testimony has been provided by the various Witnesses up to this point as well as the application materials um submitted and the uh improvements to this project throughout the course of this application including increasing the setbacks reducing impervious coverage reducing runoff from the site eliminating Varan is increasing landscaping and increasing parking um do you have an opinion as to whether um this project in its current iteration uh meets the uh spirit and intent of the the Kirby Avenue Redevelopment I I I think the the plan has come a long way from its first iteration I think the board uh identifies your concerns with the original plan and its layout and I think I think the I know that the applicant heard those concerns and addressed those in a positive manner to bring the plan fully into compliance with with what we believe your obors objectives were in the Redevelopment plan so I think the the absence of any variances speaks for itself um and and certainly yields um a quality product for the burrow and and certainly something the applicant is uh can be proud of as as well as this board um in terms of it it being a high quality project so I think on balance anytime one can get rid of variances we've listened and we've essentially followed not essentially we followed the blueprint which you've mapped out for the development of the site in your Redevelopment plan thank you no further questions for Mr Dean at this time thank you anybody have any questions okay thanks Gary thank you for your time second so I'm just gonna call Mr storms just to make some comments so so I I think you you you provided testimony the last hearing correct yes I believe so I think he was sworn but thank you for clarifying so um um Greg you're your principal the applicant correct so um and I know you you told me that you wanted to um just provide just some um comments I will be brief good evening Greg storms djm management Foundry Holdings managing member uh tonight I will speaking on behalf of our Foundry team especially my son Ryan who has been done most of the work and has had the vision to bring the this project to where it is today um he is the third generation who not only lives in Somerville but believes and wants to contribute to the growth and success of our town as you know the storms family has has been involved for many years in revitalization of Somerville we have renovated and modernized over 10 buildings 15 storefronts On and On Main Streets when develop developing the concept of our Foundry project we tried to keep with the historical nature of Somerville and with many of its architectural features that John has shown with you tonight we want to build a building that our future residents will enjoy living in and be able to call Somerville their home we agree with Mr with mayor Gallagher that Somerville needs to keep Reinventing itself thanks to this board and our man Council summer Somerville is now one of the most successful towns in New Jersey I'd like to think that us our team at DGM management has been a key player in that success our frre project will give new life to the abandoned site and be one more step in the re revitalization of Fairview Avenue and the Kirby Avenue Redevelopment plan we look forward to continually partnering with the burough of Somerville on its continued success and we ask for your support on The Foundry project thank you thank you Mr storms thanks any questions any questions no that's not for you thanks Greg okay at this time I will open it up to the public for questions and comments please step up to the microphone and address your your comments and questions to me and I will redirect them identify yourself and provide your address for the record can I stay here or do you want me to go back no you can stay there they they can work at that microphone thank you anybody coms either either sorry we'll make I'm Katherine Santos I live at 79 Fair viiew Avenue which is um directly across the street from the applicant um I work for an Architecture Firm in town and um that gives me me the certain set of skills to be able to produce um plans views um and I've generated threedimensional models um to show the board what you're asking the other residents of Fairview Avenue to look at and to experience on a daily basis Mr do you have question yeah I just want to just understand Miss Santos's qualifications if any and I know she works for an architecture fir which is just in terms of whether do you have a degree in architecture I do not have a degree in architecture I've worked in the industry um for 10 years so in what capacity I am a um designer at SSD Architects thank you yes thank you so not no I am not an expert not at all I just have the resources in order to produce similar situations and I will present them to the board okay just of course so um I use a program called Revit um I took the applicants documents that they have provided and I three-dimensionally modeled the building um I've been doing this for 10 plus years um on other projects throughout um New Jersey so um I have three-dimensionally printed the building with a threedimensional printer that you can purchase online um the the scale of this um is um scaled to their specific drawings um and I can show you that now so I have dimensionally printed our existing builds of our homes I used Google Earth they can give you height of the building and the height ofing and BAS yes of um I've the app building loose so you can see what it would be like if the building was shifted back I know that was something that was discussed and with obvious reasons I understand with um site parking me personally as being a resident that's going to live next to this I'd rather have a little bit more parking in the front than have the building so far forward um I have also also provided um these are images of the Sun and what it will do at various times in the year so I have um each winter solstice 9:00 a.m you can see what where the sun is in the sky FSE that people want to see can provide to The Experts of the they like to see that at 9 a on winter solce building complely until maybe around 11 o' that in the winter months that that would no longer be shadowing the application I also have other Seasons if you want to see them at the same time apart from me providing this documentation for you today um I also want to make mention of um on apartmentfinder.com you can see right now that there are 42 open available apartments in Somerville um we also have as you know the Kirby Village apartments that are being constructed you have the apartments that are in the works on West Main Street and South Davenport Street I don't know when those are going to get finished but at some point and then also the proposal for the Main Street and the veteran memorial Bell where that will also be apartments that I believe so we have a lot of open vacancies and I guess my argument is why do we need more so that's what I have on that end I also believe that the building is very repetitive and I know that is one of the qualifications that needs to be looked at thank you you have a question I just have a couple questions Santos did did you review the um the ordinance of the cby Avenue Redevelopment plan to to ascertain um what relief is required for the applicants part of this project no sir and um have you ever provided ttim before planning is on board before um only on the last time that this application was just just with this application yes sir correct and and you've never prepared or uh presented any form of Shadow study to any board for any purpose ever correct I have to my clients sir to your clients but not not in a public form where you provide witness testimony correct okay and you you've never provided or are qualified to provide a type of economic impact study correct no right nothing for thank you thank you can we ask a question go ahead you had mentioned that you would ra you you may rather have parking in the building shied back yes sir I'd rather have to have parking with Landscaping than have the building as far forward from my vantage point from my window all I will see is this building so if I may use the site of course okay thank you thank you anybody else hi my name is oh sorry hi my name is Lauren Watson I live at 57 Fairview Avenue I've lived there for five years before that I rented in Somerville for five years um I'm going to talk numbers for a second and I just want to say I am a certified math teacher if anybody wants to ask me about that um so I just want to talk about doubling and how we keep talking about we doubled the setback well in the end if you have $1 to your name and you've doubled your money it still really isn't that great so I don't think doubling was really that great in this situation um Mr Dean talks kept talking about neighbors and how this building fits in with the surrounding environs of the neighbors but he mentions park at the Park Apartments as his neighbors I'm sorry Park is not the neighbors the neighbors are the people sitting behind us and we're talking about a bunch of twostory buildings so no a four-story building that's practically on the street okay double the setback still does not fit in with the surrounding environs you wouldn't want it in front of your house we don't want it in front of our house Mr storms talks about in his little thing he talked about how Somerville is constantly Reinventing itself and that's true but we're getting to a point that this doesn't feel like reinvention this feels like regurgitation because how many times are we now seeing this in Somerville so yes let's reinvent with something new and different not the same old stuff that keeps popping up in this town except the difference is this time you're putting it in front of our houses this isn't on Main Street yes Station House is a lovely apartment complex but when I walk up to it and think oh my God this is going to be right in front of my house this four story tall building I can't even comprehend it so I'm just I'm pleading with you I understand this is a big decision and I do understand that if you vote no there's going to be repercussions so I just want to say I really appreciate that you guys really seem like you're taking the time to review this because this is directly impacting our lives and I'm just asking that you fight for us Somerville what I love the most about it and the reason I wanted to live here the most is because of the small town feel and this is going to take that away from us so sorry I'm shaking cuz I'm nervous but thank you and thank you for really putting the time and thought into this and thank you for fighting for us please thank you thank you hello good evening my name is Paulina harowitz I live at 58 Fair viw Avenue which is uh front door onto Fair viiew just like they would be first thing I'd like to say is the picture with the clouds that was not taken from across the street that is not a head-on picture that picture was taken I believe from James Street and Fairview so it was taken this way on an angle rather so you're not really seeing what we're going to see because this side of the picture is way far back and looks real tiny so that picture is not straight on um just a couple other points the I'm going to say third bedroom that you're not going to agree with um is now a storage facility with a window so I have a little problem with that doesn't sound like a storage place to me um another one uh traffic page 29 um you mentioned an intersection of James Street and loer they do not intersect James is over here parallel to it is lure next to my house here so that's incorrect that's in um I the parking isn't it oh emerging from the site uh also on the traffic I'd like to know if the traffic person ever sat in front of my house house the corner of ler and Fairview and watched torb's ball games come out because you've got 30 40 cars from Main Street to torans and it's there all summer all spring so the people coming out of here would you please try to speak into the mic oh I'm sorry the people coming out of this building if they make a leftand turn it's just going to create Havoc with the 30 40 cars sitting there waiting after the game um another one was that was the traffic the Tor um I'd like to know okay um I'd like to know if the factory in the very back of this property which is close to the train tracks do they have a soil test on that because I remember um years ago there was that factory there and then across James Street there was another Factory that second Factory went on fire and they didn't know what was in there um the fire man here you might remember that one um I think we all remember it yeah I mean I spent the night in Somerville high school you know because we were all sent we were sent away they came and knocked on our doors so I want to make sure the soil was tested for everybody here um and also just being nasty um you want this building buing to last 75 years my house on the corner is over a 100 so I think they should use stronger stuff than what I have in my house um that's it okay first of all um you you may sit down I want to address some of your comments um they're going to have to clean up any contamination on on that property to the satisfaction of the D and that's that's actually way above our pay grade the is going to take care of that so whatever they have to do they will do tell what I still can't hear you who tells the D to come look at it they have to get permits in order to get building permits yeah have to get D permits so and they have to test the soil in order to get those permits um and that's that's all I have to say right now anybody else Roberta hi Roberto carpent at 66 Fairview Avenue you know when I was a kid my father and my mother took their two little girls my sister and myself to a nice restaurant and we got there and the hostess in retrospect she didn't want kids in the dining room she took us down the stairs to this dark room and my father said what is this and she said this is our Pilgrim room and my father turned around and said we're not pilgrims and we were out of there with all due respect to the witnesses tonight we are not Warren and we are not Hillsboro we are as mayor Gallagher says 2 and a half square miles of awesome and a part of that awesome is Fairview Avenue from South Gaston to hanne Street walk along there you've all been there you know it's houses small little houses like mine little larger houses I know Mr storms owns some apartment buildings down in the hanne street area but they look like houses and I'm frankly little upset when we're talking about neighbors that I'm overlooked I'm your closest neighbor I'm like your your six foot fence is like right on my driveway for God's sakes so let's get a perspective of what is the built environs the built environs are houses small houses large houses none of them are 50 ft tall and none of them are 169,000 square ft F feet 169,000 square feet do you know the White House excluding the east and west wings is only 55,000 Square fet this is bigger than three white houses I don't oppose Redevelopment I certainly have no problem with the work that the storms family has done in Summerville they've done an exemplary job I have a problem with this development on this property when you were a kid your teacher probably gave you a handout it's a chicken a cow a pig and maybe a car or maybe an apple a banana a cat and a pear and then she'd say Circle what doesn't look like everything else this development does not look like the rest of the street it does not look like the built environs and I would just ask all of you I'm not asking for a show of hands well first of all I want to thank my neighbors for coming coming out especially two new neighbors who've only been in their home about two weeks um but I want to ask all of you if this property was proposed next to your house or on your street or in your immediate neighborhood would you say yes thank you thank you anybody else hello my name is Alex Thorson I am the neighbor that's been the house for about two weeks now um my wife Annie and I Pur just that we closed at the middle to end of February um I would say we were not aware at all of this development being proposed I would think that um it probably would have had an effect on our decision to buy the house um I will say there are definitely some concerns with it from us we are coming from Morristown we've been living there for the last decade or so I think this town probably has a lot of um similarities especially what it's going to become in the future um we understand what it's like to be kind of living in a in a fishbowl because we were an apartment that was right next to a couple of houses that had would you would be able to hear within within talking distance of people's homes in their backyards um there's definitely some concerns about privacy that we have um came to Somerville we'd love the town we have the intention of starting a family here um there's some safety concerns too that we would have with the streets and how much more crowded they would be with this um new development going in there would be over a 100 new tenants if it's fully filled the traffic on the street is another concern for us um it's just the whole quality of life issue that I think would would be hurting us so I do encourage you guys to really think about this and how it would affect us especially choosing this town to move to to start a collapse thank you thank you excuse me I don't think Alex provided his address as I'm sorry I am I'm a 59 fa thank you thank mayor good evening Dennis olivan 8 South Richards Avenue I'm not a close neighbor but I'm in the Southeast corner and the southeast part of Somerville has certainly come a long way since the inspection station was on Fairview Avenue we've been very successful in infill projects we've been very sensitive to making them all work together you probably have seen uh the erection of the Kirby Avenue Village and I've got some good feedback from that because sure it's bigger than our houses but it seems to fit I don't immediately see this project but I have neighbors that do my main concern is the traffic and I I do have a question for Mike if we had an independent traffic expert evaluate their findings or did you do it on your own I just Mays okay and that took into effect all of the other projects as well so a cumulative traffic effect not just this site we we did consider the um continued development and the approved project on Kirby Aven as much as we were the traffic consultant for that project as well so we had that information and that was embodied within this traffic report obviously it's a permitted use so the presumption is that the traffic impacts were taken into consideration uh when the zoning was created to permit the development of the site as proposed so anything related to off trck impacts we have certainly studied that taking those other projects into consideration okay I would I would ask the board I don't know if you can include it as a requirement but mostly for mayor and councel I had talked last year about the idea of a shuttle bus to accommodate all of the new residents along this track and right now we only have several of the projects up and running but Kirby Village will be up hopefully by the end of this year if not early next year I don't know the time frame on this one but within I would say two to three Years you'll have a lot of projects from South Bridge Street to Adamsville Road and I would encourage either planning board or mayor and counsel to talk to those owners maybe you know collaborate with ridewise or or dot explore the concept of a shuttle bus to at least alleviate some of the possible traffic in the area because the roads are narrow and there's no way to build any new ones so I think that would go a long way toward alleviating we don't know the traffic now because the projects are not all complete within our our lifetime and hopefully you know well beyond that when torp's open and all these buildings are open and and East Main Street is busy with Hospital traffic um the less cars the better and anything you can do as a collective group to to make it better I think it'll go along way to you know helping the residents feel more comfortable thank you thank you anybody else all right we'll close the public session um I'm going to start out by saying a few things first of all what we did was we asked the applicants to go back and consider the comments that everybody had made comments that this board had made and I think they made a very real effort to make it a better project having said that I understand what you all are saying but you also have to understand what the limits of of what we can do or we we don't have the choice to say no when everything complies it's it's not part of our prerogative we're not the board of adjustment here Board of adjustment is a a quasi judicial body that can make decisions like that because people are going to the board of adjustment because what they want to do isn't allowed in this particular case and Carol you can jump in anytime you want in this particular case what they are proposing is allowed and I I just I you know I understand your dilemma anybody else need so you indicated this is an improved Redevelopment plan which me the use density the height everything that they're proposing that unfortunately may not be as amenable to the residents as they would like has already been approved by the governing body of by this bur so they're not asking for Rel could they from one of those the plan itself would have to be Amed they are asking Rel by way deviation from is the concept of a flat roof you heard testimony is it flat is it really flat what's the actual appearance of roosing uh originally they needed deviation that has been erated the liting illumination testimony was that they believe that they do comply with the minimum you Li at the RightWay but if for some reason after a asilt elimination test they don't they'll do whatever they have to driveway maximum ising and you heard ttim that was for fire safety purposes and number of driveways there's a maximum of one you heard testimony even though there's two separate access points is one entrance and oneit the only con con build style and the Redevelopment plan says specifically the character and style of the commercial and resal development shall be consistent with the architectural style found in the bur and surrounding County and comp the existing bu envir that's your guidance so that's the Rel you're asking those are the only things you can consider in connection with the testimony and the exhibits that have been provided um again I'm certainly not saying the resents don't have good concerns or good points but legally you just have to consider those issues based the testimony Prov okay anybody else yeah just just to kind of go back in time a little bit um the and I did at the turn of the year um I had said we are going to look at all of our Redevelopment plans we are going to look at all of our zoning ordinances and and that process has begun um it's not something that can happen very quickly uh but you know in in the in the changing face of Somerville we have to change the Playbook that we've been using um having said that uh this is an application that began back in August um it's an ongoing application uh I agree with everything that uh that that Cara had said but we also have to go back in time and take a look at um this was a plan that was created uh by this body at the request of the burough counsel um number of us sat on this Dennis you sat on it I sat on it um and most of the members of this uh planning board uh helped to develop this more importantly any Redevelopment plan that I have been involved in we have done with the public every single one of them so this is not a plan that was created by the burough Council it wasn't a CL plan created by this body this was a plan created with the public so the public drove ultimately what this plan will look like um having watched the August meeting uh the plans that came back uh I I think significantly took into effect or into account uh a lot of the concerns of the neighbors um and and you know I made a list of them here but I think Cara you you kind of went through those um and and most if not all have been modified according to the Public's comments which I think is extremely important um there was one which I think the burough Council will take up which was the intersection of lure and Fairview uh it's a bad intersection to begin with and that's something that we the burough councel Roger being the council president and I will bring back to the burough Council um and I think we need to take a look at James Street as well the James Street intersection and begin to look at that um but this is a plan that uh that essentially conforms it conforms in almost every single aspect to what was created by the public um and for us to then turn around and and and say no that becomes very difficult even in light of what I had said at the turn of the year because we do need to look at this we do need to look at the the densities we are creating and I think in the future you're going to see more infill and Rehabilitation than you will large scale uh Redevelopment but uh but uh at this point um I think this project conforms uh I think it meets the criteria set forth in the Redevelopment plan and and uh and I think we have an obligation to uh to vote in the affirmative Jason um yeah I I just just want to say again um to Cara's point that we only have these few things so I just want to comment on those few things um the flat roof I don't I don't have any objection to personally I think as long as it's hidden I'd rather all that control equipment be hiding Up on the Roof than out on the side of the building somewhere controlling the HV say um so to that I'm fine I do appreciate the 20 foot width because I do want to accommodate the Emergency Services um and I do appreciate that you're moving those um EV stations outside um just because a three-hour rating doesn't really help a 9h hour fire um so with that you know I I I don't see any of the variances or waivers as an issue from here from my seat so I just wanted to put that out there that those individual things and that's all J okay Larry yes um I don't think that this is appropriate for the size in this neighborhood we just heard back and forth about working with the public my understanding and maybe somebody can straighten me out about what the truth is but I was told basically had meetings with the public and then they submitted the other plan that was disastrous the architect in the back brought her model in and we got a chance to see the scale I'm not AR just want to make that very clear I am not an arit the awesome lady in the back are you that she brought a model in that made it crystal clear that the plan that they submitted after the public said don't do this they did it so now we're patting them on the back because now they're going to move the building 20 feet back okay but there could be other ways to do this that would accommodate what the neighbors need so we don't have people who don't have shade or don't have sunlight two-thirds of the year I just think that there should be more work to ship that building back make it more appropriate for where it is this rendering on the on the map Blue Sky rendering is taking skewed view from a different place than the ones that they sent before the first plan where they were taking them it seemed like behind the houses that's where they did a perspective on the first renderings so they come in and now they take a different rendering from a different angle and we're patting one The Backs that's great this is a big building in a n in a small scale neighborhood the plans show again the makes another plan makes another scale model and it's still big we can do better we should be doing better it should be shifted back I think for the aesthetic reasons and for the you know where where are we talking about the um I'm not even sure if it Val even uh qualifies for a c Varian how is this good for the public the public that lives across the street is not good for them the only person that's benefiting from this developer so I'm I question even the C variant on it I think I'm going to vote no I'm just giving my opinion for those reasons Mr chair I think it's a beautiful building it's just a wrong spot okay Carol I can just say one more thing I just want to make sure everybody understands the concept of a Redevelopment plan um and's involvement the public was involved at the original stage when was when study was done after study is done then plan is prepared that plan is presented on first reading by Council the plan is then brought to this planning board for review input consistency with master plan goes back to a public hearing the mayor and counil at which time the public has the ability to make comments and and riew and and make thoughts and potential changes then once that plan is adopted then the developer comes in and prepares its site plan presumably as much in accordance with the provisions of that Redevelopment possible that then has also changed from what I understand based upon discussions with the public and that's what's brought us to to this point um so I just wanted to you know kind of make that clear there's a twep process two pieces of involvement and even if that plan were to change um this applicant is by the original development just want to make sure a historical and legal perspective everybody understand but they're also not preventive never absolutely so they could do something different yeah but that's not in our purview to force I'm not saying that I'm just we can't deny it yeah we can't deny based on that I I certainly understand that I just gave my opinion I just I have a question about um what we're voting on tonight are we voting on preliminary or we voting on preliminary and final preliminary okay so the the things that were listed as far as the fees pscg the hot boxes generators the fences that'll all come back for final that they have to come back for final okay that's my one cation on that so we need a motion on the floor I will move that we approve it with all those Street com May for testimon conditions has to chares this may be part ofal but I do want to get that in there ifer says that the system is acceptable and depart Sy onural studies willed M Mr chairman can I Mr chairman yeah can I ask a question um so the the application uh was was filed uh requesting both preliminary and Final site plan approval you know certainly the applicant would prefer and as that be it be considered by the board that uh both preliminary and final approval will be granted however subject to all the all the conditions uh of approval that certainly the Cara appropriately stated and certainly would need to be met by by the applicant we made a decision about a year and a half ago not to Grant preliminary and final at the same time and we the reason was we were getting a lot of push back from applicants and things just weren't working out so it's has nothing to do with your particular application we just don't do that anymore it saves a lot of bad feeling later on so we got a motion in a second who seconded I did okay and Jenna we have a full board tonight so the applicants don't the alternates don't vote correct chairman Nevada yes Mr rinsky yes mayor Gallagher yes councilman broom yes Miss adir yes Miss Warner yes Mr crasa yes Mr cresties reluctantly yes and Mr Cleveland no thank you very much thank you okay I will uh keep my comments very very brief the uh lawsuit with the public suing the burrow for the gun store going in the uh lawsuit has been dismissed so that frees us up to talk about that issue and we'll begin discussions about it at the next meeting and and part of what I want to talk about is um some getting us some education about the process because I think there's a lot of misunderstanding floating around and uh we need to know all the facts so that's it at this time I'll open the meeting up to the public for comment on things other than this application hearing no public comment we'll close the public session motion to Jour move all those in favor I all those opposed