okay uh good evening this is the March 26th meeting of the planning board uh we'll take roll call Mr Abrams here Mr Rivera here Mr Simmons hurling here and Mr stamp topos present present okay uh we're going to switch gears a little bit here and uh take up the uh uh the homebased child care regulations so the first public care will be propos zoning on his Amendment relative family home based Child Care regulations um and you take are there any proponents to speak to this meur good evening board members Tom karowski uh 281 Broadway chief of planning Community Development for the city happy to talk about this project today and um this shouldn't be new news for many of the folks here tonight um as this went in front of the council last night but also went in front of both the planning board and the City Council in 2023 as we are looking to make some changes to streamline the process and to allow for more homebased providers and to allow for homebased providers to have more children children within their um homebased occupations so um we presented April 25th last year to this planning board and our original presentation was unanimously supported by the planning board and then it went to the City council's Zoning subcommittee and then unfortunately due to some scheduling issues it just never made it back to the council agenda and there's a statutory 90day requirement through which when a public hearing is open and closed an action must be taken if an action isn't taken within that 90-day period um you essentially have to go through the process again so that's why we we are here tonight uh once again to talk about um this homebased childcare ordinance the one two major changes since last time um this was proposed in April of last year number one um we had proposed removing the prohibition on pools in homebased daycare facilities in part because we do have some local providers that already have pools within um their homes after further conversations with the city council we decided to keep the existing prohibition for pools in the ordinance um but because of how long they've actually had the pools in place the various providers those will be in effect grandfathered in so any new homebased child care provider will not be allowed to have a pool per this um new change which actually is not dissimilar from what already exists on the books except for those providers that already have a pool um and then secondly originally um they had proposed lifting the limit for large homebased Child Care from 4 to 10 and the spirit of That Remains the Same the city council wants to support um aligning with the state regulations which is currently set at 10 at the limit um with the caveat that they wanted to include l language that actually pegged the limit instead to a specific number um pegged the limit to whatever the eec the state level regulatory agency um would use to to set their limits so in effect this could be a dynamic um changing limit that allows us to align with state regulations as or if they might shift so again today the regulations are 10 but if the eec decided tomorrow that they would like to move to 11 or conversely if they'd like to move to nine children per homebased uh child care we would just basically ensure that we're aligned with state regulations which as I presented in April of last year the state has a really rigorous program for permitting and reviewing and compliance to make sure that these homebased child care providers are providing a safe and effective service for revie your families um I'll leave it at that because I know I talked a lot last time and last night but you know you know in summary this supports small businesses it implements a recommendation from our Workforce Development plan um and it provides additional supply for child care in the state that has among the highest child care costs in the nation um so I think it's a win for small businesses it's win for rever families and overall the city as a whole happy to take any questions that you might have along with Danielle ostman um here from my office who's really been spearheading this effort good evening so basically uh the question I asked earlier uh what was the ages um yeah so it's um under 7 years of age or under 16 if um children have any special needs thank you you put your you to put your mic you can ask I'm sorry I was just asking the ages so the beginning [Music] ages yeah beginning AG is as soon as the family needs child care would it be okay I don't I'm sure the city council will probably do it also seeing that they had the inquiry about about the inground swimming pools and how you had it in and then you took it out there there are different covers now that go over in ground pools in fact they're called safety covers with high strength would it be okay to recommend that or do we just leave that up to the city council so ultimately it's always the planning board's responsibility and Zoning uh Amendment proposals to propose recommendations to to the city council that they can then choose to act on or they can continue to move forward with the amendment as they have currently proposed um we made the decision to remove that um piece of of our changes because we didn't feel we had enough votes to get the whole thing across but but certainly as somebody who proposed removing that pool prohibition last year we do feel like it aligns with the the state is very rigorous and and how they monitor pools on homebased childcare facilities so you know we felt like that was something that was reasonable to do but we also understand that everyone wants our children to be safe and there's a lot of uncertainty and fear about what might happen if we were to further allow proliferation of homebased daycare facilities with pools so I appreciate that perspective just wanted to like lay out the scenarios for you there thank you I just have another question on that uh um regarding the pools all right is is is there a policy that eventually will be removed or is there anything um that anybody put on file regarding that or so the state has no prohibitions we just do locally um through our ordinance today but the thing about zoning um ordinances are if if you have for lack of a better term a statute of limitations exists where if we have a Prohibition on the books but there are different projects that are in violation of that zoning ordinance for an extended period of time in this case over a decade um you are in effect grandfathered in due to um our lack of enforcement on the matter um so that that would allow those that have already been in existence to continue to have pools but still prohibit any new uh arrangements from having pools as long as we uh continue to mod monor and enforce that component of our ordinance for the and I'm looking through the dock I can't see for any of these Child Care Facilities um right now there is not a requirement for the property to be fenced in unless there's an outside play area correct a pool as well um and Danielle back me up here if there's anything else we're missing but I don't believe there's any other requirements for fencing except in which you're containing children or you know preventing children in the other case from accessing a pool yeah and they're not required to have an outside play area right so for these homebased child carees they're the primary operation happens within the four walls of the facil of the residence they're not required to have an outdoor play area I I know I have one across street for me and I see them walk the kids to the to the park every day and back um they're not required to have an outside play area right that's correct they're not required to they're required to have access to an outside uh play area yeah so that could be a park as well and I'm not hung up on the pools but I just think if it's if it's one where they're not required to have an outside play area and they're not required to have fencing I mean they're just these kids are as likely to walk into the street or into a neighbors yard then to the to the property here so I I mean I'm I don't feel strongly I want security but it's I I just think we um have to determine if um if pools is the major topic fine I I I I can get supportive of saying that if they don't if they have a pool then we don't permit that that property unless there's adequate safety requirements which I you know we can enforce or not um I just think it's um if they're not required to have an outside play area um then the kids shouldn't be outside anyway and kids kids will escape I hope not but the reality is as a pool owner they're required to have a fence anyway right that is by City um regulation and by state regulations and is part of the inspection process and you know I understand as you know father of three young children somebody who's had my children in homebased daycare I both of the facilities I sent my children to did not have a pool if um I toured a facility that had a pool it might give me pause um because we always worry about our children do rationally or irrationally um and you know I think ultimately our original standpoint was that could be the choice of the parents and ultimately the responsibility of the provider and the responsibility of the state in sort of enforcing the rules and regulations but I also 100% understand where the council is coming from with this one because we feel a great burden of responsibility when we're talking about the children within our city yeah and a question that I believe I've heard in a prior correspondence um are there current operators that have pools at the moment right so we would basically be shutting down their operation there are three in operation today but they've been in operation with pools for over a decade and because of um State Statute that essentially says if you have a zoning ordinance in place that um somebody is um acting in opposition to the ordinance but it is not in that um violation is not enforced for a period of time in this case over a decade sure um you actually are are then allowed in effect grandfathered in for lack of a better term to continue to do that thing so in this case those providers that have had pools for over a decade without us enforcing that violation they will actually be allowed to continue to have pools and and that was our biggest concern throughout this whole situation was we we didn't want to put any providers out of business so once same yeah that was discussed we figured that was a good compromise they can continue to do what they want but new providers would not be allowed to have pools thank you than for thank you excuse me uh I'm just listening to your example and being in zoning a little while that if I owned a building that was supposed to be sprinkled and I never sprinkled it for 10 years I would not be grandfathered in just because you don't get caught for 10 years for doing something or no one gave you a violation does not grandfather you in I am in favor of the proposal and I think there's some concerns here but I do not believe just because no one came out to the property and sight of the violation that that would grandfather you in that that's a fire safety code it it what what Tom is talking about is uh zoning structures non-conforming structures that exist in a pool would be would be considered a non-conforming structure within the use of a daycare center um I was part of the uh author of the first time around with this and uh we definitely didn't want to did not want to have pools uh where child daycare centers where we were more strict back then with our audiances and required fencing and and no pools but this is a different day and age Imagine no the new pool covers and I agree with you you were you were 100% right then but now with the new pool covers you could bring a racehorse and put it in the middle of this pool on a safety cover that has a highweight content and it's going to it's going to hold these these covers hold so uh I I feel I I feel that if they have a pool cover and and when we get to the uh the vote I'll I'll put that recommendation in if it's okay well that's something certainly the planning B can recommend to the city council thank you and just to clarify so it's um Massachusetts General law 4A section 7 that states that if a property has been in violation for over 10 years um it then becomes a legally non-conforming structure but that's again with regard to zoning not some of the other matters you presented I'll argue this point at another time with you and I'll pick apart your your zoning but I'm not going to do it now thank you though nice to meet you yeah likewise if you're going from four to 10 kids I think the cost is going to cover it some pool covers would be like $500 and I think that's well worth it for safety for safety thank you I I don't have the research in front of me to be able to call from and it wasn't an exhibit for for this motion and I I think the safety covers are are absolutely a measure to keep children safe and who would ever wrong wanting to keep a child safe um I just I don't have the research right and I we didn't call it in for this so I don't I don't want to bring in things that aren't or haven't been been reviewed and haven't had the time to go through all of the different review levels that would be required um that said if nobody has any further questions for the child care I think that we would be ready for a vote unless anybody further wants to speak we've listened to the proponents we haven't heard from the opponents are there any opponents on this measure Tom and Daniel have gotten to speak is there anybody else thank you we're ready for for V we we did are there any opponents that would like to speak on this guess not so closed perfect the second public hearing before us is Overlook Ridge um and this is also something uh we've been working on with Overlook Ridge there was a restriction uh in the zoning that stated that they had to construct a hotel on a certain pel I think it was pel a uh before anything else could happen on the site they want the the reasoning for that was for the city to uh encourage commercial development on that site not all residential so uh you'll hear from the the property management company that they oh that's not working oh that's okay we've done this before oh here we go okay it's always happens give this for happy just in just five yeah so again the goal of the city was to not restrict the development to just one commercial use such as a hotel but allow other commercial uses such as retail restaurant office space that was the reason behind it okay uh thank you for having us uh my name is Jennifer Schultz and I am land use councel on behalf of the applicant Varys residential and with me this evening is Eric ronal uh from Varys um so as was just explained to you we were here before uh the planning board and the city council uh last year and then more much more recently before the city council last evening um and so the differences between last year um the sort of proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance and this year is we are now asking for Less um so originally with the proposed amendment um we were asking for the decoupling of the hotel from the remainder of the Overlook Ridge Development and then we're also asking for a reduction in required parking and a sort of new category of um restaurant to be introduced into the code of a sort of fast casual uh so not fast food but not a sitdown restaurant and so um in response to a lot of feedback that we received what we've done this year is we've come back and are solely focused in on decoupling the hotel requirement from the remaining buildout of Overlook rich and so just sort of directing you to either what's up on the screen or in front of you just to provide the the context um you know Overlook Ridge partially in rever as I'm sure everyone here knows Overlook Ranch um partially in molden there are a few remaining sites in both municipalities and what we're here to talk about tonight are the two remaining buildable lots that are on the riv side of the Overlook Ridge Master development so uh at the sort of bottom of the screen or page is lot one where there's slated to be uh a firehouse and we have it labeled as retail where there is um approximately give or take 10,000 square ft in addition to Firehouse roadways parking that is left for zoning compliant building structure and then um on lot 15 on the top of your page top of your screen which has always been envisioned as um multifam housing with parking embedded into or sort of wrapped by their residential unit so that it is uh mostly hidden from view from View and not you know putting parking on display um so we did last year successfully go through um The Joint Task Force um between both malen and Rivier to update the master plan which is what you see on your screen so this is what was approved in 2023 by The Joint Task Force um that shows the manner in which Overlook Ridge Drive will be reoriented really to create lot one in order to lay out the firehouse and to lay out the two small uh retail buildings and uh show the concept of um the the new interchange exit and entrance ramps uh with route one as that has been being uh negotiated and worked through and reviewed by mass doot and more recently by the State Environmental review Authority by meepa uh we did very recently receive um our newest updated meepa certificate and that sort of went hand inand with receipt of of uh $4 million from Mass Works in a joint application by uh Rivier and the applicant in last year's um issuance of those Awards and that is slated entirely to help Advance the uh a new signalization with Salem Street and um the new on and off ramps with route one so not not specifically relevant to the zoning ordinance that we're proposing tonight but just sort of as an overall update on on where we are on the overall planning and progress of finishing the buildout of this development um so I think really it's just to to bring your attention then to the zoning Amendment text itself these are the two Provisions sort of as they would be amended if our proposal is accepted but I think it's easier to look at it with showing the actual deletions that we are proposing in the amendment so first up on the screen or in front of you if you're on page four is uh showing the decoupling of the concept of a hotel from retail as a zoning Amendment I'm sorry as the zoning is written right now um retail on its own uh cannot exist unless it is physically attached to a hotel and so the uh approach and the proposal here is not to say hotels aren't allowed you know know in this entire district is simply to say they are not a precursor requirement um you know working very closely with the existing residents of Overlook Ridge on in both municipalities there is presently no on-site service retail no coffee shop no you know play no I don't know a convenience store no place to get your haircut no you know no anything there are no Services no retail on site and um we've received a lot of feedback that that is desired uh and sort of similarly that a hotel is not desired by the residents um and I will just sort of couple with that statement that as a matter of sort of what the the market will Bear right now with finan ability viability a hotel is not currently viable at this site and so not only have we received feedback from residents that they don't want the transient nature of having a hotel um right next to where they live but that what they really want at that lot one area is retail and local Services um and then on the final slide final page is to show you in the ordinance as currently written it has an overarching provision at the very end that states that nothing else can be built in Overlook Ridge unless you build a hotel so again it is simply to say um that we are we are proposing to decouple the concept of the requirement to come forward with a hotel because without this deletion um you know Varys as the owner of these sites is unable to proceed forward with any further development so happy to answer any questions when the development was initially granted um part of the requirements was there'd be a hotel on the property right that was one of the initial commitments from the project correct and and to decouple the hotel you're saying now you'd want to build more residential units there for longer term renters than the transient nature of a hotel right yes that's right lot 15 has has always been envisioned as residential it was lot one that I was envisioned as having a hotel on it um and actually with that physical layout and location it would without getting zoning variances and stepping far outside of your dimensional requirements or or restrictions it would be a relatively small hotel around the size you know 80 to 90 keys at maximum is all that could be fit there and so um what we are asking for is retail being a much better fit for that site and the market in general and uh not to have the requirement of a hotel and was 80 to 90 Keys what was there a number committed to the city when you said you'd build a hot Hotel no there was not it was simply um that a hotel would be built and and of course I think you know some will have in their memory that we're talking a couple decades ago where that commitment was originally made and I believe although I'd have to double check the data points that five or six hotels have been developed and have become operational in R since that original commitment was made which I think in part is why you know when we have talked to a hotel broker you know or broker they've said that not be supported in this location yeah I I so in the decades since this development started you gave that commitment to the city other people have managed to come in and build hotels and even as recent as last month someone else came in with overwhelming um you know acceptance from the city to build a hotel on Squire Road a few blocks from from where you are so um so I think it's unfortunate that that you no longer see that Vision And as far as lot 15 residential that's always been the vision what are we discussing about lot 15 now if that's always uh so the only thing that's relevant to lot 15 is that overarching provision at the very end of the ordinance that so you can see here on what I have pulled up on the screen that law 15 is identified as subdistrict um o r o d you know Overlook Ridge overlay District B and when you go down to the language there it specifically notes that that subdistrict doesn't exist shall not take effect until um a hotel is constructed and so the only relevance to our request as it pertains to lot 15 is it can't be built right now it can't be built unless you give us the hotel you promised us so you can build more Apartments it it can't I mean can't be built a sure yes that that is technically accurate but you know over decades the I mean the market has changed and the the client is not prepared to proceed forward with a hotel and instead they'd like to provide the retail that the residents that are now in the thousands have requested and desire yep um just one additional note while we're talking about residential is to note that although it is not a requirement of your ordinance that Varys has um been meeting with the city and the residents and is voluntarily offering to to uh provide 15% of the units um at affordable rates at or below 80% of the area median income and um how units how um excuse me how many units um so right now it's laid out at approximately 310 units so it would be 15% of those and um I'll also note in relation to that number that what was originally envisioned um in the state reviews was a high High number of units and actually several floors more density but now that the um over the overriding Overlook Ridge master plan is coming to its final stage the determination is that much density is not desired by the residents themselves by really you know traffic studies I think is what is driving that more than anything else that 310 is the right number of units the it's a lower density in fact by several floors and what's allowed under your zoning code but it is the right number without overloading uh the the community that is being built there that has been established and is continuing to be developed so it's 310 units now how many residents do we have oh basically when if this goes through and gets complete how many residents do we will have on that area so overall in Overlook Ridge assuming that lot 15 is developed and then there are you can see on the map on the the screen over in Malden Lots 13 14a and 14b so varys's partner wind development is currently working with molden uh to develop those three properties and are moving through a a similar process that we are in and all three of those will be residential one of them will be entirely affordable one of them will be senior housing and one will be a mix and so on the assumption that everything as envisioned right now is ultimately built out at those sizes it will be approximately 4,000 residents total in all of Overlook Ridge um if your question instead was how many human beings will be in the buildings on lot 15 if I misunderstood um the answer to that is it will be to be determined when we are back in front of you uh for site plan review that right now what we have is sort of the outline of what the floor print or the floor plate of the building would look like to be zoning compliant including the parking for it and then when we come assuming we're able to um receive a the the zoning Amendment as proposed we'll be back before you for site plan review shortly and you're pursuing a Zone in amendment to reduce the number of required parking spaces as well no we are we are no longer requesting anything other than the decoupling of the hotel and you also mentioned that it will be two small uh retail buildings yes um you mentioned that it will be uh uh like at uh Salon or the intention is Neighborhood Services as you know as appropriate and so we don't have tenants lined up right now but really you know the size and the location um will in part Drive what ultimately goes there whether it's last night I think we landed on the term Bodega um you know a a small neighbor Neighborhood Services store or stores even within 5,000 square fet you could have you know five small local businesses in there each taking a thousand square feet it's it's that will not be a requirement or or I mean it's not from from our perspective is not a requirement or a request would be sort of as as can best serve the area because if it's a mismatch for the area then everybody loses I can add one thing that is not permitted uh within those retail and restaurant uses is fast food drive-through restaurants so right if a restaurant is going there it has to be uh um a waiter restaurant with seats and you order from the counter and sit down and eat but there'll be no drive-thru allowed are there any other questions yes so I thought in your presentation you said it wouldn't be a sit down and is it a sit down or is it maybe five or 10 seats I'm confused yeah so so the answer unfortunately again is we don't know yet um it's something that we um assume will be discussed at some length during this state plan review process but may ultimately be something where through safe plan review it's classified as you know retail or restaurant in a zoning compliant Manner and then when a you know single tenant multiple tenants do come forward and request you know and to negotiate into a lease if it is allowed by zoning then it'll just be going to the building commission to receive those fit out permits and if it is anything that is not allowed by zoning we would be required to come and ask for relief for that and so I mean of course what was just stated of no drive-throughs is is accurate uh under your zoning we have no plans for a drive-through restaurant we we want this to be neighborhood service retail and the rest is to be determined at this moment how many cities is your project in I know you're in Riv Malden are you in sagus also no just the two just the two thank goodness I I haven't been up there for a while but I thought years years ago wasn't there stores up there at one time maybe on the Malden side or kind of close to Route One in the backside I thought there was some kind of retail no the only thing that was Ice yeah yeah uh Cappies and then obviously the new uh marijuana uh no inside Overlook inside uh is a no was all Quarry just just a question so is 310 units How High um the building will be five stories is what we'll be coming forward with and parking will be uh on the side or so parking will be sort of to the rear is sort of a bad term here I don't have a a compass Direction on the screen but the building will wrap the parking on three out of the four sides so that it's you know mostly hidden from View and I think the intention will be the one exposed piece of the parking structure will be up against the you know quy wall so to speak uh excuse me is is lot 15 behind the storage facility it is I I rent that storage facility looks at it um that's right behind the Townline storage facility or prime storage now facility so there's no access from where the storage facility is or Cappies to get into lot 15 you have to go through Salem Street to get there yes correct and if and I like to say I it's very pleasing I a lot of developers if they're giving um if they're giving uh income approved Apartments uh most most of them are at 10% and you're at 15 which is very admirable uh um so if if I you ever have about 310 units are you talking about 46 units they're about yes that's correct yeah any of those for veterans um that's not something that we are have currently proposed but it's certainly not something that we are opposed to as opposed to proposed uh so it's if that's something that the board or Andor Community is interested in We Are certainly willing to engage in that conversation to determine if that is a good fit and something that's desired by the municipality so if that's 46 units uh this this board could leave it up to you how many veteran units you would have and to to propose how many veteran units could be in place for affordable housing yes and I I I think um you might correct me if I'm wrong that that might be the sort of condition that could make its way into a site plan approval ultimately and are the 46 units that are that are uh income related are they R and mden together or is 46 the r number so that that is just the riv number there um will be on the molden side each one of those buildings has its own number of income restricted at actually different rates um I I don't know off the top of my head which of the Lots on the screen um splits up this way but I know one of them goes to a considerably lower Ami all the way down to 30% um and then sort of goes up in tear thereafter and as noted another one is senior housing um but also affordable and so it's a it's a different mix to approach satisfying the uh need for affordable housing in this area and would R residents come first uh that that's another uh item that I do believe we are legally you have to be a little careful I think with the type of language that you use but you can give local preference uh for affordable units so putting local preference in with the 15% in veterans could you modify that would that be something that you can entertain yeah we yes we can certainly entertain I have to have to look to the client behind me on that one but yes we we are certainly uh willing to engage in those conversations and I think they're very reasonable requests it would go with the new flag going to put up there well Marshall already promised the new flag so that that one's already yeah very good thank you very much you're welcome you go Bud yeah no just uh just another question on this uh 350 units I mean 310 I'm sorry uh if I'm not mistaken the border line uh between Rivia and molden is just a little piece uh uh that it shows in here is that correct uh yes so the building itself were being careful to show it being constructed I mean and it would be constructed solely in Riv and that would only be open landscaped um space that crosses over into the molden so nothing to do with liin a space it'll just no this is what you see in I don't even know how to describe the shape on the screen the the the yellow funny shape on the screen is all um the building structure in which residential units would be placed and then where it actually says lot 15 itself is where the parking would exist that parking structure that would be wrapped on three sides all right um one of the other things that we would like you to take in consideration we do have a lot of working people in Rivia and uh we would like you to take in consideration uh uh give an opportunity to R residents on on um in any given project and rev anyways understood thank you of lot 15 I know you proposed given a generous amount of low-income housing and the other ones in the M side that's all to be developed but of the 3,000 or so units you have now how many of those are affordable so far none of them are affordable zero right yeah so that 46 they're proposing is 46 of the 310 the other 3,000 don't have any that's so anything going forward I guess sounds you've had a change of um you've been willing to accommodate folks that are in need so I appreciate that I I guess the only challenge for me is the the retail I know the city is so desperate for commercial income in tax dollars we propose the hotel and I know your hotel consultant has told you it's not sustainable or fundable but everybody else in the city's can has been opening hotels with great success and I just it hurts to say we're going to get a bodega instead of a 90 key Hotel um and I know we say they won't be a drive-thru but I assure you if Starbucks says they want to open they want to drive through you be back in front of us looking for the green light for a drive-thru and those casual Quick Service restaurants that have a eight or 10 tables in a takeout Conor I'm sure they'll be predominantly Uber Eats business and take out like every other retail um quick service restaurant in in Boston and Beyond so there will be constant cars in and out of there for a restaurant um I I I just you know a hair salon or or a small retail establishment in place of a 90 key um hotel that was proposed it just doesn't seem like a fair swap to give you the green light to build another 310 units and so I wish there was you know I know you're trying to be as considerate as possible on the affordable housing and the only reason that's the only thing impeding you from already developing that was that it's tied to you you put in a hotel that was you know promised at the initial development and it seems like everything else got developed with no problem except that one portion that prevented you building the final section um and you don't have any tenants lined up right you'd have to get the green light here to detach the hotel so you could go and shop shop for for longterm tenants do do we have any guesstimate on what the difference is between uh tax revenue for the city from a hotel to a bodega I'm just trying to get an idea of what we're looking at it seems pretty significant um impact to the city it's a material difference uh well certainly the room tax is is huge significant yeah yeah I think from my client's perspective the better comparison is not from hotel versus retail is retail versus nothing um given their position it's you know I I can't say whether they would sit and wait whether they would try to sell um you know that that's not for me to say but their perspective is that they are prepared and in fact are prepared to move rather swiftly coming back for safel review to get shovels in the ground this you know calendar year if we could um to proceed forward with building the retail structures and the residential structure you know especially where the residential structure both with the market rate units and the affordable units both you know do at least a small part in trying to help um you know address the housing crisis overall and then certainly the affordable housing crisis and so um you know some of this is they're they're a for-profit developer and you know they they have their investors and their bottom line as well and so these are the determinations they've made and and made and and this is our request yeah understood and for low income in lot 15 most you know low income typically has a lower um parking requirement because folks are less likely to have vehicles but the property has a walkable score over 34 which makes it a car dependent location so it's it's a challenge um you it's a challenge I'm not certain if your zoning ordinance does it actually address a different parking ratio for affordable units even though there is no affordable requirement no it does not yes so so it would still be parked at the 2:1 ratio whether they are um you know assigned as or dedicated restricted units or the market rate units so there would be no you know penalty so to speak against the income restricted units not being allowed to have a car no no I don't just allow it we've got we have a a potential for folks that are landlocked with no walkable resources um so I that's all I call out is you got folks that they don't have anything to walk to I mean retail would benefit them right to have something local isn't there a shuttle so so there is also a shuttle service that runs four times a day sort of twice out twice in it serves um it has three different pickup locations within the master development uh and it goes both to molden Center and to Hay Market and then the return trips in the afternoon and the evening do you do you have a number for uh for the retail the cost how much it will cost no we haven't we haven't run those I mean really we view this as an amenity for the community um you know it's again it's a small project about 10,000 ft for retail you know it's based on kind of feedback we' got from feedback' gotten from members of the city council you know they feel that you know neighborhood service retail would be you know really beneficial for the residents that are there be listing in the future so you know we sorry so you know we're open to working with everybody in terms of like the mix of tenants that we get there but we really view this as you know Neighborhood Services you know when we talk about restaurants we're talking about fast fast casual so it's you know kadoba Caba that type of thing is what we've envisioned but but if that's not what you guys think is more appropriate there then you we're willing to work with with everybody on this what about the 310 units so as far as how much it's going to cost yeah um well you know rough numbers I mean we haven't had this building drawn yet typically what we do is you know before we go through full draw drawing of the building where we can get actual estimates from a general contractor to give us costs um you know we'll have the approval in him but you know generally speaking right now you're probably thinking somewhere around like $300 to $350,000 a door is my guess is where so you have done uh you haven't done the preconstruction budget yet so very rough estimates which is which is but they're not based on any actual you know commitments from a general contractor no it's a it's a good guesstimate and the only thing that should be mentioned that if you have a hotel most Hotel whether it be Hilton or Marriot whatever they all have a breakfast or bouet or some kind of restaurant or some kind some kind of shop inside the hotel right now um so even even just thinking about the hotel but the the thing that you're not getting if you keep on the hotel you're not getting the veterans housing and you're not getting affordable housing veterans aren't going to be living in the hotel and affordable people will not be living in the hotel yes you you are giving up some income but you are making a a better atmosphere for 4,000 residents up there that's very hard to to get around as you're saying so you're making an unwalkable uh amenity walkable you're giving them what they want and I think it's a pretty good idea we we have been working and pushing them for years for a hotel on that site and they have went to many have gone to many flags and nobody was interested in the site probably because of the access uh and the visibility is not there um but if they could have built a hotel I'm sure they they would have and it's just it's been out there like like she mentioned with the consultants and we had many Hotel Consultants on on this case and they couldn't sell it I I remember Ju Just to go off on something because it it's a void you're in a mountain it's a quarry and at one time one person wanted to start on the top and use everything below it as its basement and it would have been 50 stories so I it's a beautiful little project it's really nice it's lasted all these years and I think this amenity will help the uh the people who are living there and future people the other [Music] 300 we hope so too just one more question on uh on the 310 units there will be no retail space at all that's that's correct that will be residential only I mean there will be a Lobby mail room I'm sure but no no retail okay they're all rental right there's no condos and uh no so there are no condos currently on the site um one of the sites um in the M portion of the future development it could potentially be an affordable condominium project but there's no Mark condominium are any of them a BNB at the moment uh to my knowledge no we I mean we have a a policy where we don't permit airbnbs so we do our best to to not have res great will there be any retail sites on the mall Insite uh some of the future development and on lot 14 you see the 14 um a specifically would be future retail um after those uh onof ramps to Route One are constructed dub uh site will be close to r one right yes I'm not mistaken yeah so so it's equidistant to the site you're proposing for lot one 14a and lot one to 15 it's equidistant it's the same walk distance for right yeah so they're going to put retail there as well so that um that site is permitted uh well the the proposed permitted is for a bit of a larger uh retail component up to I believe 90,000 squet but that's in mden that's in yes on what I now towards the B went over somebody's fence so I think yeah yeah know but you're the thesis of this retail is a greater dick is nothing else there it's not true it's just on the riv side of the fence on the M side there'll be retail there bigger retail so we got the bodega I'm I'm just being I'm just being sarcastic on it I just I hate see the timing will be quite different because as as Eric noted uh nothing can be unlocked for retail purposes uh over unlock 14 for Riv I'm sorry for uh molden until those on and off ramps are actually constructed and that's a major project yeah yes what what is the ET in that five years or less well I think you'd have to ask do I think we've been hearing this for like 10 years on the on and off R yes and so I think originally dot had much bigger plans in mind and then remove those and then proposed um new um plans and so you know the the $4 million from massw works is actually you know that is earmarked has to be used to advance those plans where the intention is for it to First address the signalization on the riv side the Salem Street and overlook bridge drive and then there will be future applications made with molden to mass Works to uh help along the actual advancement of the design work and potentially um to help advance the construction of the on-ramps and I say potentially only in terms of the funding not the actual realization yeah I would just add that so our current meepa certificate um we are not allowed to uh have a tcco on any of the additional uh development until we do the uh Salem Street signalization and flipping of the Overlook Ridge roadway on the other side of the uh Firehouse so that stuff will get done I mean as as she mentioned we have the $4 million Mass work Grant so we're currently working um with everybody to get that project underway um because that has to proceed in order for us to to occupy any future buildings that Grant you have is that specific to Ral I'm sorry what you said you have 4 million on mass War Grant is that that's from the governor but is that specific to R so it's actually awarded to Malden revier I believe was the co- applicant on it but Malden took the lead that was just the decision between the two municipalities so in in other words you got to do the retail the two retail buildings before you can do the 310 units um so we have to do the the infrastructure work I mean we are open to to you know doing the retail at the same time as the 310 units yes so that's provided for the uh the community thank you and those are adjacent to the fire station are surrounding it the they're actually adjacent to it yes yeah they'll be kind of I guess like right behind it if the fire station is closer to uh the the Salem Street so these would be if I'm looking from Salem Street I could see the fire station these would be behind it or to the left of it that we haven't done a final site plan but or in that patch of grass on the right yeah yeah the expect so where the roadway actually comes around on the top of the fire station that is actually the site so we flip the overlook bridge drive onto the other side of the uh Firehouse where the fire do at correct yeah and then that creates the the site so here the roadway he's talking about is the fire do yeah so he's going this way yeah gu all right are there other questions I think we've asked all we could think of so are there other proponents to speak are there any opponents okaya LED also and there's also one lot on MAR Street which is Zone CD that is isolated from the rest of Conservation District that would be res to1 to allow thank you you can see the isolated lot on Mara Street uh which I'm talking about that's con being converted to C from CD to ra1 and the rest are contiguous the other lots are contiguous to the Conservation District that exists today in that area are there any opponents that or any proponents that would like to speak to this no I I guess I'm the only proponent from the city the you ones going ra1 to CD there's no buildings on them now right at the moment no okay no the ra1 lot would uh from cd1 lot would not be a buildable lot but uh we do have uh owners within that are within private owners within the rcd district that have a large lot that they would convey to the city of Riv and add to our Conservation District uh if the city council approves a land swap for the lot on Mara street so it it would mean the city if the council approves it we would be getting a larger parcel of land for conser for our Conservation District and in Le of the small Conservation District parcel would we have to purchase this land pardon me we have to purchase this land right okay would we have to purchase this we're purchasing it from the Pres owner yes okay yes do we have a I know look in the packet is there an estimated cost uh that that would go through the city council and whether you know they decide to auction off the land or however they decide to do it but you could only build a single family home on it okay is this part of mar Street Frank uh where the cesac is or is it on the other end of mar Street no this is on the beginning of Mara street right behind where the hotel is right behind and as you go as you continue on closer to the SGA side that's where the culdesac is where the newer homes are built you know what used to be the uh what used to be um um Writing Academy Wally WS yeah yes Riding Academy yes okay so you're behind the quality in yes yeah and that's going to be conservation no that's not conservation that's R1 that that's ra1 that's all you can see it's surrounded by all ra1 which is the yellow um okay are there any opponents to speak to this today he now we'll close that hearing uh we can move on to the regular meeting and the first order of business will be the approval of previous meeting minutes motion approve motion to approve there second second yep approved the second item is vote on a recommendation to the city city council with respect to the zoning map amendments to the Conservation District and ra1 District in North Rivier the city council will be having a zoning subcommittee meeting on April 8th uh these will be further discussed but they're not going to have that meeting until they receive the planning board's recommendation so I'd like to make a motion to approve motion by Mr Abrams second second motion second ass mopis take a roll call M issue a favorable recommendation to the city council Mr Abrams yes yes Mr Rivera yes Mrs tatopoulos yes and Mrs Simmons hurling yes yes so AED okay third third item is vote on recommendation to the city council with respect the zoning onance amendments to the Overlook Ridge overlay District we have any recommendations or uh comments you want to add to the city council on this item I'm excited about the housing I think we're all looking forward to that yeah did you want to recommend anything in regards to housing yes like to recommend that out of the 15% that a percentile of the 15% will be left up to the developer for veterans and also that rier residents will be would have a preference in in housing okay I'll write that into the into the recommendation and the motion is there a second H second second um based on the veteran in Rivier preference hous as well okay second by Mrs zop okay we'll take a roll call on the vote Mr Abrams yes Mr Rivera yes Mr Simmons hling yes and Mr tatopoulos yes yes and finally the third item is recommendation of the city city council respect to family homebased child care [Music] regulations hi I would just vote for approval with the recommendation that a a safety um cover cover a safety cover for pools be recommended by the reair city council I will make I will include that in the recommendation that all pools will have to have a safety uh certified safety cover yeah I think it goes by weight yes I better be fine yeah second second Mr Rivera okay on the recommendation Mr Abrams yes yes Mr Rivera yes Mr Simmons hling yes and Mrs stopulos yes yes voted so order okay that's that uh that covers all the business this evening before the planning board and we have a motion to adjourn adjourn at 6:37 April something 9th 49 e