Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Hmm.

Board Member King and Board Member Dallara, can you guys give us an audio check?

This is Board Member King.

Board Member Dallara, could you give us an audio check as well? I think Michelle was able to just unmute you.

Hello?

Anthony. Can you hear me okay? I have no equipment.

So I'm experiencing a couple of glitches.

Can you hear us? I can hear you. Great, we can hear you as well.

Okay, excellent. Thank you.

All right, we'll get started. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Wednesday, August 5th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name's Albert LaValley, and I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple brief announcements concerning how our meeting typically proceeds. First, this is a hybrid meeting, which means you can participate both in person here at City Hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For those participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom. During discussion on that item, you can do that if you're on a computer inside the app by pressing the icon or on the phone by pressing star nine. Once it's Time for folks from the public to comment. Staff will call on you one by one and give you permission to unmute yourself. You'll have to do that either in the app or by pressing star six on your phone. Next, I note this is a public meeting which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak, and the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. Next, there are a few items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're hearing one of those items, please note no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. The best thing to do is call the planning division either the day of or the day prior to confirm if that item is going to be heard or postponed. It's not uncommon for things to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of that item, followed by any additional comments or clarifications from members of the city staff, and then an opportunity for anyone for the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Finally, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and, where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is the trigger for any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It's the applicant's responsibility to address those conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so can result in delays or enforcement. Applicants with questions about that are asked to please call the Planning Division. All right, moving into postponements. Item number 1, 24 through 28, Chequesset Road and 0 and 29 Dominion Road. This will be a definitive site plan in MGL 81G for a private street improvement. The request is to postpone the public hearing to August 26, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to September 17, 26. Item number 2, 25 through 27, Perkins Street, a definitive site plan and special permit. Request to postpone the public hearing to August 26, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to September 17, 26. Item number four, 454 through 456 Granite Street, a definitive site plan. Request to postpone the public hearing to August 26, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to September 17, 26. Item number 5, 114 Lincoln Street, a definitive site plan, request to postpone the public hearing to August 26, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to September 17, 26. And lastly, item number 11, 25 Westchester Street, a zoning map amendment, request to postpone the public hearing to August 26, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to September 17, 26. Is there a motion on the postponements?

No.

So I can see in the room there, I'd make a motion to postpone items number 1245 and 11. Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes four to zero. First item we're going to hear tonight, which we're going to take simultaneously with the A&R 14C, is item number three, which is 42 First Street and 35 Second Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Mr. Chairman, I'm James Tatro from Expedited Engineering out in Southboro. Here representing Mr. Wyko, who is the owner of both 42 First Street and 35 Second Street. He purchased 42 First Street approximately eight years ago and about three years ago purchased 35 Second Street. What he is proposing to do is to construct a new home on 35 Second Street and redivide the lot lines so that that property has access for a driveway and legal frontage from First Street. Second Street is only, I don't know if I'd say unimproved or partway improved, but the new home would have its driveway and access from First Street. We are here before you. The trigger was working on and creating slopes of 15% or greater. We have in our plans proposed erosion control measures, including the sediment control barrier at the limit of work, specific erosion control matting for use on slopes steeper than three to one. And we had included drainage calculations in our filing, which showed that this lot, which receives drainage from as far away as Wood Farm Circle, further to the west with all the, actually a few different infiltration measures proposed will not have greater flow to abutters afterward than they're receiving now. And I'll just leave it at that. It'll be very simple. I'll try and take any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you. City staff on this item?

Sure, this is Steve Carey with the City of Worcester. Not too much more to add to that. As the applicant noted, this is a single family home. It's before your site plan approval because of slopes of 15% or more. They are proposing to have vehicular access from both First and Second Street. Second Street is a private street that is really does, on a paper street, is a paper street for most of the frontage of this property, or most of the lot line of this property. So the A&R plan that should be endorsed concurrently adjusts the lot line to give this frontage on First Street. There is, as I mentioned, also access off of Second Street where the road does exist. Our conditions of approval are largely annotational. We're asking for an addition of a few trees on the northern side of the 2nd Street driveway where there's presently some shrubs proposed. We're also asking that... Prior to the release of the decision, we do see test pit results from the observation holes for the subservice infiltration that they're proposing. And then we'd just like to see a pedestrian walkway added from that second street driveway to the primary entrance. One condition of approval we have in the staff MOBA that can be struck, we have a requirement for a construction management plan, and we realize we had inadvertently included some additional CMP requirements that are typically more required of a more urban project. It was just an accidental copy-paste, essentially. So for condition two, prior to issues of building permit, that can just read, a detailed construction management plan shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation and Mobility for review and approval. That is informed by the hired general contractor. The rest of that about the plan shall include the following in addition. That can all be struck. That's really all I have, and I just also note this will also go to the Conservation Commission for a filing under the local stormwater ordinance. Yeah, glad to answer any questions you guys have.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Any concerns with any of that from the applicant?

No, the staff sent us those prospective conditions of approval earlier. We have no objections to them.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else from city staff on this item? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak tonight? Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone online?

We do have one person online, Harry Koka. I'm going to unmute you on our end. You just have to unmute on your end.

Good evening, everyone.

Can you hear me okay? We can.

Oh, great. Okay, so my name is Harry Kopp and I reside at 32nd Street directly adjacent to the property that is proposed for this development. I just want to say that I'm not opposed to this. I just have a few concerns about mainly on the exceeding 15% slope of this property over this development that would be happening here. As currently we're stated, Second Street is a private street, not greatly maintained. We're a few houses here and then we use this narrow street for obviously for our life. And all the water that comes from this side of the street comes runs out all the way down to and mainly to my property. um so we've been noticing some development here in this uh property uh and um there are two trees were moved uh from from that and then there are other concerns that any other trees will be moved here because i'm seeing from the plan that there is a plan to be used from uh both streets second street and the first street uh entrance um so is there any other concerns that this uh you know this this committee will have about drainage uh if there are any other trees will be moved or if uh this slop will be more than 15 percent what are are there any uh you know uh elevation or walls or uh and how is this water will be contained to to this to to this local property this is my first question uh or concern the second one is where is the um the construction traffic will be will be routed or be used again the concern is for second street which is um pretty narrow and then they would they would if if there is a plan to be used uh for signature for uh social traffic they would raise concerns for the neighbors uh and uh traffic jams or traffic uh difficulties and for emergency uh as well so um And if Second Street is being planned to be used for any other construction, is there any plans to maintain or to, you know, sort of redevelop this portion of Second Street, which will be damaged, obviously, from the heavy vehicles and all that traffic? That's all I have. Thank you for your attention.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll let the applicant address those if you like.

Sure. Just briefly, you know, to address drainage, we're proposing a large leaching trench on the uphill side of the driveway from First Street. Leaching trenches on both sides of the driveway from Second Street and a separate infiltration structure that's just receiving the house roof runoff. And we show... site exit mats, stone tire clearing mats on both streets because even though the construction traffic to construct the house will come from First Street, for it to do the driveway and the infiltration trenches on that lead out to Second Street, that really has to come from Second Street itself. So there will be some smaller portion of the traffic that will come from Second Street in the course of construction.

Okay, thank you. Other questions from members of the public on this item?

No other members of the public. I do see we have Leslie Rodriguez from DPW has raised her hand, so I think she may want to provide some departmental comment. Let's see. I think, Leslie, you should be able to unmute, and we can make you a host so that you can unmute.

Hi, everyone. This is Leslie Rodriguez from DPW. My only comment will be, like, the driveway on the first street have to be perpendicular to the road. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Okay. Board members, who would like to go first? To help make this easier, maybe I'll just call on folks. Mr. King? No comment on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

Likewise. No comment. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey? No comment. Thank you. Mr. Resende?

No comments. Thank you.

I also have no comment. So I do appreciate you addressing how the construction traffic is going to work in the drainage for the butter with questions. Is there a motion on this item?

I'd make a motion to approve.

Pardon. Sorry to interrupt. I think we should endorse the A&R plan first to create the lot.

Oh, okay.

Move to endorse A&R 14C. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Four to zero. That motion passes. Ready for the big motion.

I make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for item number three, subject to the staff conditions as written and discussed during the meeting. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, four to zero. That passes. Good luck.

Thank you very much for your time, everyone.

All right, next item on the agenda is going to be item number six, which is 27 through 35 Chandler Street and 47 through 53 Irving Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Sam Alfronte. I'm a professional engineer in the Commonwealth. I'm here on behalf of Soli Engineering. Our office is at 2300 Crown Colony Drive in Quincy, Massachusetts. I'm representing the applicant, which is GoVenture Capital Group. Their address is at 1 Mercantile in Worcester. So the project before you here for definitive site plan review is an existing vacant three parcels just under 0.4 acres on the corner of Chandler and Irving Street. The application proposes a 67,000 square foot gross floor area, 74 unit multifamily development. There are no proposed parking spaces on the lot, and we do have proposed access as a covered walkway to the adjoining parking garage to the northeast, which is owned by the current owner of this parcel as well. We have proposed, like I mentioned, a covered walkway that will provide connection through a courtyard, which is about 2,000 square feet to the rear of the development. And we have both external, internal bike parking. We have a bike room. On the first level, this project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals a few weeks ago for a front setback variance, which was unanimously approved. Now, the front setback and the siting of this building provides a continuation of the streetscape that exists, and that's... really high level. We have a reduction in impervious surfaces, so there's a reduction of peak flow. We're tying into the Chandler Street utilities, and we have received some conditions of recommendations through staff that we would like to discuss a few of them with you all, but for the most part, there was a handful that we're in agreement with. There's just a few architectural ones that we would like to discuss.

We can let maybe staff go through their portion and then we'll get to those. Does that work?

Sure. Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. So in front of you is a site plan application, definitive site plan application for a project that involves a property that was a former historic laundry, which was demolished in 2025, as well as a single story commercial building, which was demolished as well. So the site, if you went by, is sort of the remnants of the construction debris from those prior demolitions. So what the applicant's seeking to do is construct a five-story, 67,000 square foot, multi-family high-rise with 74 dwelling units along with some common areas. This is in the BG6 and the CCOD, so the downtown districts. There's no parking requirements in this district. You heard the applicant talk about how they plan to handle that with the adjacent commonly owned property. So we're looking for information in the form of a TDM plan to just kind of formalize that and put that on record as a condition of approval. We have some requests too related to that Interconnection if you will to the adjacent parking garage that's proposed in order to facilitate Easements to make sure that we have documentation about the rights for that Wanted to have a little bit more understanding and hopefully the applicant can just clarify exactly how that that is envisioned to work, if that would be restricted to residents only and specifically, or folks who are in the parking garage, members of the public using the parking garage could end up kind of out into the courtyard area or how that would work. So we're looking for a little clarity on that, but otherwise feel that that has been appropriately conditioned it sounds like the applicant has some comments i know we had the chance to talk to them earlier about a few of those but some that maybe remain unresolved just kind of highlighting some of the the themes of the comments and conditions that we do have we did ask that they incorporate some more prominent building identification if we go to the Chandler Street elevation. They've got interesting masonry and generally a very attractive architectural design for the building with a lot of permanent masonry materials. And so you can see kind of the more prominent entrance there where they have an awning. So looking for them to enhance that a little bit further with the numbers or signage for the building. Also, given the context and the location, this is about a block away from our local historic district and Crown Hill. And it's also adjacent to two structures that are located on the National Register of Historic Places. Our preservation planner had comments related to the types of windows and the panes. So specifically we're looking for something with a different scheme. So looking for a 12 over 12 or six over six. So we have that conditioned. We've also asked for some glazing within the trash room. There's a roll-up door that you see sort of southwest on the plan here. that is for the trash room and where typically the board is asked to incorporate additional glazing into those. So we've incorporated that as a condition. I think that's perhaps a condition the applicant wants to discuss. We've also noted if we go back to the floor plan, there's a door in the trash room that just egresses out onto the north side of the property, which actually only is about a foot wide there. So it would end up on the neighboring property. So we've asked them to either shift that or provide evidence of an easement as a condition and incorporate if that door faces Irving Street, incorporate some glazing within that door as well, even if it too ends up being frosted, given the kind of facilities in the room that it's proposed to connect to. We've asked for a direct interconnection for a bike room that's located in the rear So top right corner of the first floor to make that easier for folks who might be a community via bike. So if you come in, the only way to access that bike room is either to go on the main entrance and go all the way down the hall, or if you're going from outside to go in through the kind of gated courtyard. So just to limit the number of doors that you have to open as a cyclist to encourage folks to be using that mode of transportation. So we've asked for a direct entry from the bike room from the courtyard. We have also asked that all doors and gates be in swing. So again, that the doors not swinging out onto the sidewalk into a pedestrian or passerby. just given the location of the building. The building does essentially extend the street wall in this area, which is great. It does require technically a five foot setback because it incorporates ground floor residential. That applicant did obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to enable that recently. So that means we do have ground floor units right up kind of to the sidewalk edge. So we can probably expect folks to have their shades closed. So we had asked the applicant to look at any potential to adjust the location of the bike room or the location of some of those common elements to pull those closer to the street to help increase activation. We understand that because of the building layout and design, the applicant isn't able to do that. So just to highlight that that was something that we've discussed with them. We do have a number of other conditions that I don't necessarily feel that I need to highlight. Many of our typical standard conditions, including pedestrian diversion facilities for construction management plan, given the urban context of the location. Um, I think one comment that we have, and this is not a condition, if we go to the elevations, they are less prominent for sure, but wanted to ask the applicant to just discuss the rationale for the southeastern and northern elevations, which are solid brick. They don't have any window openings, likely for energy efficiency purposes, but these do face residential structures on either side, so had a comment or a question about if there was any potential to incorporate additional glazing or architectural elements in these. It's not a condition. Certainly I think that the building's been tastefully designed, but just looking at any potential opportunities. So we felt the need to comment on that related to the context. And... beyond that i think i have covered the majority of the comments the only remaining one that i wanted to mention was just the along the eastern side there is a again a walkway that's connecting from chandler back into the courtyard that area is lit and it's well lit and we had a question just related to the photometric plan and if the modeling reflected the installation of the fence that's in that location which would help reduce light levels but there's a little bit of spillover into the windows of the adjacent residential structure so just wanted to confirm if if perhaps that wasn't included and that would probably bring the light levels down in any event they're less than one foot candle but still higher than we like to see at our adjacent residential property line there's no light however on the the northern side so it's really just in that one location that we had a comment um The location here is within one of our transformative growth areas, which is a mixed-use vision here. Obviously, the property is fully residential, but certainly the area could benefit from some additional infill. So exciting to see our project being put forward. Happy to answer any questions or talk about any of the conditions further. I know the applicant wants to discuss, so thank you.

Yeah, it's probably a good time to do that now. So do you want to highlight the topics you'd like to cover?

Yeah, we spoke with the architect, and I had a conversation with staff this afternoon. The window matrix, we're open and accepting of including that condition. That's not an issue for us. The glazing along the trash room roll-up door, I had a conversation with staff. The northerly door that was added exiting the trash room, There was a condition that that be relocated to the Irving Street facade, which we're open to. We were hopeful that if that man door were to be frosted glazing, we could omit the roll-up door being of glazing. And that was something that I discussed with staff this afternoon. They left the condition as written, but... deferred it to the planning board on that. We thought that was a compromise that we added that glazing for the man door, but the roll-up door be maintained as proposed, which is a solid roll-up door.

It's located in the bottom left corner. I was going to say, we're looking at the elevation now. You're talking about the bottom left. Yep. And so the man door that you're referring to is around the corner from the bottom left?

It is. So on that bottom image, which is Irving Street looking at the building, the man door is around that left side. So we'd be relocating that to basically the corner just to the left of that black roll-up door. okay and your request is to leave the door uh opaque if that's the case with the man door as fraud as glazing yeah um i can't speak for my colleagues but that does seem pretty reasonable to me uh okay um and then the the other one we would request that um board consider is the direct entry into the bike room while we understand staff's comment and logistically it makes sense to minimize the doors you have to go through with a bike the site's really tight with the covered walkway and the exterior external bike racks there's just not a whole lot of room to to fit that on the external on the courtyard side of it we also feel as if that bring it internal allows people entering the building through Chandler Street, which is the prominent entrance, to access that without going through the courtyard. Because otherwise they would have to go around the building externally through the courtyard and then enter via the courtyard.

Is it a single set of doors to get out into the courtyard? I know you've got to go the door out of the bike room itself, but then you're in the hallway. It's a double door into the courtyard. Okay, but not like an airlock situation where you have to go through two sets of doors. Oh, thank you.

No, so it's in that vestibule. Yeah.

Okay. I'm sure we can discuss that when we get to board discussion. Speaking for myself, I also wouldn't have a problem with that. I think it's – as a cyclist, I find it much harder to go through two sets of doors in a row than come out into the vestibule and then go through a set of doors. Okay.

And then the only other one that I would like to discuss, which we're open to, but I just thought it was worth mentioning. So we had conversations – during the the irt meeting with the fire department regarding access to the courtyard um we'll have it was omitted on the plans and and we're very open to this condition but there is going to be gated access at the covered walkway to the parking garage to prevent just anyone from entering the courtyard from the parking garage so that was a catch from the staff that we will have that gated with either key code or fob access through for residents

Okay, so it's not shown on the plan, but staff wanted it shown on the plan?

It was a condition that they recommended, yep.

Understood.

Otherwise, though, we're open to accepting all of them, and no questions or comments.

Okay, thank you. Michelle, is that anything you want to add to that?

Nope. It sounds like, I mean, ultimately, depending on the discussion, the applicant's looking to strike F and then looking to strike D but is willing to change E to include instead of half light glazing, full glazing for the door on Irving, if I understood that correctly.

Yeah, relocating it onto Irving. Yep.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Comments from DPW on this?

This is Leslie for DPW. My only comment in addition to the one that we already submit is that they will, this is not a condition for the planning board approver, but it's a condition for the permit. I just want to let know the applicant that there's an additional bonding that is going to be required. And the approximate, it would be approximately 21,000. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight?

Come on up. Good evening, everyone. My name is Darnell Dunn. I work with the Chamber of Commerce. And we just wanted to speak in support of this project for many of the reasons that were mentioned by staff. 74 units creating housing in a strategic development area with a lot of curb appeal with the building as well by a developer who's demonstrated commitment to Worcester, has done other projects in Worcester and is based here. So just wanted to voice our support. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else in the room tonight? Come on up.

Hello, my name is Emma Morrison. I'm a Worcester resident, and I just also wanted to say that I support this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in the room? Seeing none. Anybody online?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. Not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, we can move to board discussion. Mr. King?

Just in general, the great design project, happy to support it. No concerns with the items discussed. Okay, thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am in support of this, and I am amenable to the applicant's response to staff comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey? Yeah, I'm supportive as well and agree with the conditions that we talked about being okay with the bike and also with the door.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Rosende. Nothing further to add, thank you. Okay, I would echo my colleague's comments. This is right now sort of a hole in the ground after we demolished the laundry and I'll be really excited to see a project go in there. going to be very attractive. I think we're ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve new business item number six, subject to the conditions as written and discussed during the meeting.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes four to zero. Good luck.

Thank you all very much.

Next item on the agenda will be number 7, 287 Providence Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan extension of time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Stephen Madaus of MIREC. Here on behalf of Park Silver Development LLC, the applicant, requesting an extension of time of two years as allowed under Article 5, section 3.F of the zoning ordinance for site plan approval. We're requesting an extension of two years for the definitive site plan approval issued by this board on January 10th of last year for the development of a hotel on the property located at 277, also known as 287 Providence Street.

Okay, thank you. Staff, do we have any concerns with an extension?

No concerns there, Mr. Chair. The applicant's applied for a building permit. They've just yet to obtain it, and so that's why the extension's necessary. So they're actively moving forward and making progress towards proceeding with construction, as far as I understand. So two-year extension is what they're seeking this evening.

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone from the public want to comment on this? No one's in the room. Is anyone online?

No members of the public online with their hand raised.

Okay. Board members, if you have any comment, feel free to speak now. Otherwise, we will move to a motion.

I make a motion to approve item number seven, the extension of time. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero. Motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next up, item number 8, 9, Dalton Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Attorney Todd Broder from Fletcher Tilton here on behalf of the applicant Cozy Corner LLC. Sitting up here with me is Chris Keenan from Quinn Engineering, who's the civil engineer on the project. And our client, Amanda Fulco, has joined us online, I believe. We're speaking to you tonight about a proposal to construct five units of residential housing on Dalton Street. Formerly a single-family home on the property was demolished, and this will be a ground-up rebuild. Reuse of the entire site There are some visuals for you, but I'll kind of just jump right in this is a multifamily low-rise structure five units The owners unit would be on the left side of the building first and second floor two rental units on the right side of the building one up one down and then two units over a garage towards the rear of the property As you see some of the visuals, it is a fairly long site, fairly deep site, if you will, with a reasonable amount of frontage. The thought was to use that depth and construct the building sort of into the lot. It provides for a pretty nice yard area on the side of the property, under which is some of the stormwater elements for the site. I do have a couple of notes on the staff comment letter that I'd like to discuss with you at at the appropriate time, but we're generally in agreement with the concepts, and there weren't a ton of items in there anyway. This has gone through zoning board of appeals process. We've received the special permit for the use, special permit to reduce the parking from 10 spaces to nine, and for some slight dimensional relief on the driveway arrangements. So this has been through IRT, Zoning Board of Appeals, and I think there's an obligation to go to conservation as well. And because I'll forget, I'll just mention there are a couple waivers that staff noted we should ask for, so we will do so. I will always forget that one because it's not that prominent. So on the recommendations, I don't know if you want to take staff comment now or later. Sure.

Yeah, why don't we have staff go through their comments, and then we can discuss the ones that you'd like.

Thank you. Sure. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. This is before you because it triggers site plan approval because there are five units within the building, three that are sort of situated more towards the front and access from the front of the building, which does give sort of the appearance of two family with two doors in the front. And then there's an additional two units towards the back that are accessed from a rear access. Don't have extensive comments on this. Glad to talk through whichever ones the applicant wishes to discuss. Just to go through some of our conditions of approval. The applicant does propose a sidewalk along the length of the frontage. DPW has requested that be made of concrete with granite curbing. We're also asking that, we had initially requested a revision to the photometric plan that they had submitted. They were comfortable striking that condition one eye. We had noted there wasn't, on the photometric plan, it didn't show illumination between that sidewalk I just mentioned and the points of conflict with any vehicle coming out of the driveway. but the applicant pointed out there is actually a street lamp right there on that corner that should provide adequate illumination, so we are not actually concerned with that revision to the photometric plan. Otherwise, I think the conditions of approval are fairly annotational, and I am, yeah, glad to discuss any that the board is interested in.

sure so let's discuss those now okay thank you um so on on you know page two of the memo where the staff conditions are prior to release of the decision issuance of building permits so 1a talks about reconciliation of the civil and the architectural plans with respect to a couple of items and we can certainly do that this ties into b and c so i'm just kind of to be a little more illustrative than exact. I think the issue with And one of the issues I would point out is it doesn't show trees on the site plan. That was just so that we could show the elements of the site plan better. It wasn't meant to disregard the obligation to provide trees. So that's carried through in one of the other comments. On B and C, which are really more detailed architectural comments, we did discuss these at the zoning board meeting, and they were items that were on the staff review memo at that time. And it was some time ago, but I believe the discussion around those was those were sort of requests, and we talked through why we didn't feel that those were appropriate. particularly the detail on the rear elevation. There are a couple of jogs in the roof line already. This was another detail proposed or requested which we suggested that we were not in favor of adding. And then the awning above the slider, to be quite honest, I'm not even really sure what that was relating to, but I think we did discuss that and came to the same conclusion that we thought it was a little bit of an extra ask, if you will. So that's items B and C, which we would ask to be stricken from the conditions. On item F, which is provide details of the proposed plantings, there is a small landscape table within the detail sheets. I think it's sheet five, sheet three, which does show nine trees and the species that would be planted. And I think on the plan set in the earlier detail sheets or earlier site plan sheets it does show so show excuse me shrubs but doesn't specify we can certainly do that not intending to do anything other than plant the recommended species of course but i think i just wanted to make sure everybody knew we did provide those details for plantings on item g this came up uh The request is to have concrete for the driveway treatment. I think this came up because the applicant proposed a section of concrete on the driveway towards the rear because there's a dumpster, and it was felt that pavement might not hold up well, so perhaps concrete in that area would be a better material just for overall usability and so that it would have some longevity. That that transformed into, well, why don't you do the whole driveway in concrete, which is not what we want to do. And I understand nobody wants a patchwork on the driveway, but the portion of the driveway is in the rear. I don't believe it's going to be visible from the public way. It's certainly, it's a long driveway if you've seen the plan. So the intention is not to create a huge area of mixing match of materials, but we would like to stick with the concrete as shown on the original site plan and use pavement for the rest of the driveway. So that's item G, which would need some modification if folks were amenable. And then Steven did mention the photometric plan. We showed that there's a street pole with a street light right there at the driveway entrance. I agree with that change to the conditions. And that was it.

Having briefly discussed this item with staff earlier, I do believe, and I don't mean to speak for you, Steve, but... The concrete walk is, I think they were looking for you to clarify one way or another. We were all a little surprised. Nobody expects a full concrete driveway. So no issue there. And I think it's also understood that the streetlight kind of solves the foot candle problem. What I'm not positive on is whether they want you to revise the plan to reflect that or if we're okay with it as it is. Mr. Carey, you might want to comment on that.

Apologies. Can you clarify which condition you're referring to?

One I I think is what we're talking about.

Yeah, that is fine to strike one I. If I could respond on items B and C, well really A, B and C. Those were how the conditions appear in the, zoning board decision that was filed with the clerk. So, I mean, you know, we could strike them here. They would still need to be reflected on plans submitted for prior to release of a building permit for the zoning board decision. So, I mean, if the applicant feels that those were added in error to the ZBA decision and that was a Scrivener's error, we can discuss that. But again, they are already in the ZBA's decision and typically our practice is to carry those over to the planning board site plan approvals.

I'm looking at those now. They do appear in the ZBA decision. I know we discussed those, but we can perhaps address separately.

Okay. So what I think I'm understanding is BNC, you guys are going to take administratively, let's say, and GNI were comfortable striking. Is that accurate?

G and I, I think, again, we're definitely comfortable striking. Can you clarify, you are going to leave B and C in?

I think that's what I understood. Is that what I understood?

We were looking to remove them, but I think the point was that they do appear in the ZBA decision, which is, I guess, counter to what I told you before. That was my understanding of the discussion, but what ended up in the decision.

Through the chair, too, you know, Ultimately, their requirement of the zoning board decision, they have to be addressed and it'll have to be reconciled. So for sake of, in the event that there were to be an error for some reason, if you'd prefer to strike them, they're still going to be obligated to do that unless for whatever reason that was an error in the zoning board decision, which I don't necessarily think it was, but in the event that it was, then we're not perpetuating that in two locations. So if that's a concern, then maybe that's the best course of handling that.

Given that said, that if there are, they're gonna apply whether we put them in our decision or not. And if they're not correct, we're just gonna make more problems. I think we should strike them. So I think we're in agreement on what the conditions are. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Seeing none in the room, anyone online?

I'm not seeing any members of the public online.

Okay, Mr. King, any comments from you?

No. Seems to make sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

No comment either. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Mr. Rosende? No comments. Thank you. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion, and it's B, C, G, and I that we're removing.

right i make a motion to approve item number eight nine dalton street with g b c g and i being removed second on the motion mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well four to zero motion passes thank you very much good luck

Next up, item number nine, Three Man Street, will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. Here this evening in connection with the definitive frontage subdivision plan for Three Man Street. We did secure approval from the zoning board for the... division of this property into two lots. It's a pretty sizable lot, 140 feet of frontage, almost 19,000 square feet. The lot configuration is 59.2 for a proposed two-family lot to be house to be built and then 80.2 feet of frontage for the existing multifamily. There's plenty of parking on the property area for parking and also two curb cuts. I believe staff is recommending an additional street tree to be planted consistent with the subdivision rules and regulations. which I have no objection to. And the other condition, aside from that, I would ask for waivers of all the subdivision rules and regulations except those pertaining to A&R plans. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. Thank you. Comments from staff?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. As I've noted, this is a definitive frontage subdivision plan, effectively an A&R plan, except that they did receive relief from the zoning board to have less than the required frontage. This is to essentially allow for the existing multifamily to remain on its own lot and for a second lot, lot two, to have a two-family home on it. Lot two, the two-family home, is going to have a new address of 1 Mann Street. We have that as a condition of approval. And then as the applicant noted, we are asking for a tree planting just south of the driveway which obviously is not shown on the plan here, the driveway, but we would want to see the existing and proposed tree planting in the front yard south of the driveway to make sure the subdivision plan is in accordance with planting requirements. And that's all I've got.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Comments from DPW?

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Anyone from the public on this item tonight? No one's in the room. Anyone online?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Sorry, I'm having some computer trouble with viewing the online participants. There is no one with their hand raised.

Okay. Board members, Mr. King? No comment. Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

No comment. Thanks.

Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Mr. Rosende? No comments. Thank you. I also have no comments. I believe we are ready for a motion, but we do need to close the public hearing.

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero. Hearing is closed. All right.

Make a motion to approve new business item number nine, subject to the staff conditions as written and discussed.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Gelera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, 4-0. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Good luck. Next up, item number 10, 12 New Bond Street, 0 Ararat Street, 0 and 14 Indian Hill Road, aka Lot 2C Street. This will be a public meeting for a preliminary site plan. You're just in time, or maybe you were out there, but.

Sorry about that. So again, my name is Andrew Steiner. I am a project manager with Boehler. Here this evening on behalf of the applicant, New Garden Park and their preliminary site plan submission. I'm joined this evening by Julie Holstrom with the WBDC. As you may remember, we've been in front of you before for this site specifically. Most recently, I think it was back in, it was October of last year for the reconstruction of C Street and that definitive subdivision submission. That was ultimately approved. Applicant is working on kind of finalizing those drawings and anticipates kind of starting construction ultimately probably later this year, but prior to kind of running through the preliminary plan that's in front of everyone, just wanted to kind of set the stage relative to why we're here. Because ultimately, the purpose of this plan is to really try to establish a kind of a zoning framework for a future end user to ultimately come in and develop these plans, or further enhance them, I'd say. Because again, there's been a lot of thought that's gone into these. It's kind of been designed for a speculative advanced manufacturing. but ultimately the WBDC doesn't intend to construct these. That would ultimately be, an end user would ultimately come forward, further advance the plans as part of a definitive filing, and then ultimately construct the project. So just in terms of the existing conditions, which you can see up on the screen, the site is comprised of four parcels. which is 12 New Bond Street, 0 Ararat Street, 0 and 14 Indian Hill Road. In total, it's just over about 29 acres of land. Again, the site's been historically part of the larger St. Gobain campus, which spans over about 100 acres and has been in operation since the 1900s. And again, the site's historically had manufacturing uses on it. As part of the proposed plan, I know there's an overall site plan. You can see that now. There's three buildings, which are denoted as A, B, and C. The A building is closest to Ararat Street. It's the smallest of the ones that are shown. It's roughly 59,800 square feet of building with 76 constructed parking spaces. B falls in the middle. It's 147,500. square foot building with 149 parking spaces and the last one being the biggest building closest to New Bond Street in the most recent approval of the Restaurant Depot project. That is 210,000 square feet with 233 parking spaces. As shown, you can kind of see it on this plan, and we have more detailed site plans. There's some kind of gray boxes on the bottom, which denote kind of like a land banked parking. Really, the purposes of those is to show that, kind of provide flexibility for, again, that end user to come in and modify this plan to fit their ultimate parking needs, because, again, the site's historically been fully developed, and then those areas have ultimately been disturbed. From a stormwater perspective, the site generally drains to the top of the page, which is actually the west. There's some resource areas up there which ultimately flow to Weasel Brook, which crosses New Bond Street. Sorry, that took me too long to come up with. Crosses New Bond Street by the former admin building and the Abby Kelly Charter School. In terms of the stormwater regulations, the site actually is constituted as a redevelopment, as that it reduces the amount of impervious area that's historically been there by roughly 2,500 square feet. That results in obviously an improvement in the stormwater runoff leaving the site, but also the water quality and recharge associated with the stormwater. On top of that and kind of see it on this plan in the loading areas which are the kind of the dark gray boxes, there's additionally proposed underground storm water management systems which will provide a level of treatment which is over what's on site today. Utilities in general would be served, the three buildings would have all new utility connections which would ultimately be served by the new connections called Sven Poulsen here, formerly C Street. It's ultimately subject to change those locations depending on a final site plan, or final definitive plan, but again those connections would be made in accordance with the city standards as part of that definitive filing. As part of the memo, we provided just a general exhibit for a dedication area just to kind of show placement and kind of the general location. That would ultimately have to be further refined as part of a future filing, but the calculations for stormwater and just in general impervious coverage in general accounts for that. the project would still be constituted as a redevelopment even with the development of that future dedication area. So we've received some comments and we've kind of gone through, been coordinating with staff on this. It's because again, it's a bit of a unique submission being a preliminary plan. We did receive some comments from the Worcester DPW Water Department which ultimately requested approval of this plan, contingent upon us setting up a meeting. That meeting's already, we've already started that coordination. But there's really, again, so that's kind of the project at a high level. I'm happy to go into any additional detail or answer any questions that you might have. But again, I think there was some kind of conditions outlined in the staff memo which we want to speak to more pending any questions from the board. And at a minimum, I think we'd be looking to have some wording changes, but we're hopeful that some of these would ultimately be able to be stricken from the recommendations, given that these would have to be part of a definitive filing anyway in the future.

Okay, thank you. I'll just note for members of the public and my colleagues who may not have seen one of these before. So this is a preliminary site plan. We've seen a number of site plans already tonight. Typically that's a filing where an applicant comes before the board and explains a number of things related to traffic and stormwater, connections to infrastructure, things like that to the board. And the board weighs in on those and the public has the opportunity to comment. Sometimes projects do that in a preliminary way, often because they're big and complicated projects, to get initial feedback before they spend a bunch of money developing their plans with their engineering firms further, only to come before us and have us say, no, you can't do that, and have to change a bunch of things. This one's a little unique in that I think you guys are really early. I hear what you're saying about The applicant is basically saying, hey, we'd like to remove some language in basically the staff memo that has the conditions of approval, which are not really an approval in this case. It's just feedback that the applicant may wish to consider as they're developing their definitive site plan. I think that's a, you know, we can certainly talk about it. I hope we don't talk about it for too long, just because as you've noted, whatever happens in the hopefully ultimately very successful development of this area, there's going to be a definitive site plan where all those things are going to get either discussed if they're relevant or not, if they're not. So I just would preface staff's comments and to my colleagues with those items.

Through the chair, Michelle Smith, and the city's planning division, you've highlighted in detail what the preliminary site plan process is. It's one that we don't see all the time, but the board has seen before, as you stated, for more complicated or larger sites or multi-lot sites that are being kind of thought through the development scheme. So an example, the Table Talk site, the board had seen basically a redevelopment plan sort of showing the different phasing and sites as part of that. So similar here, so the applicant is seeking the board's consideration and feedback related to the potential construction of these three manufacturing, potentially manufacturing buildings. Each would be located on their own lot. The end lots have frontage at the moment, and the middle lot, as shown here, none of which exist. They're all one lot today. would not have frontage until the C Street subdivision, whatever its future name comes to fruition as that particular subdivision, the layout of that street, once that's final, there'll be frontage legally. But until that time today, there is not. So we have notes in here about requiring the submission of the A&R and creating the frontage as part of that, as you might expect. But basically, this is about... 417,000 square feet of potential square footage for advanced manufacturing, ideally, and or other potential tenants or owners in this location. As part of the larger Green Tech Park redevelopment, the board heard at their last meeting discussion for another lot that's within the same area where there was a restaurant depot facility that was approved. Not dissimilar from that, there are a number of parking spaces that are proposed here. So in the sort of max build out as it's contemplated with the potential land banked parking, which is essentially the future expansion, typically not something we condition or do. You either build it or you don't. You design it in a way and we approve that and you build that. is typically how we handle that. So it's been designed with the potential for that. They've calculated from a stormwater perspective management of all that impervious surface in the calculations that they've provided as part of this larger project. So a lot of our comments relate to sort of refining that and again the point of these comments being directive in the sense of what the purpose of the plan is so specifically you know the the board has the option to approve the preliminary plan it can approve it with modifications that are requested or suggested or it can basically just specify these are issues you know an adverse potential issues that need resolution essentially not approving it in that sense and saying these are things we want you to resolve before the next iteration with the definitive ultimately the preliminary doesn't allow anybody to build anything requires a definitive approval prior to any construction. So we have a lot of content in here. Most of this is intended to be educational for both the applicant owner and the potential future developers of these lots in terms of the typical expectations and requests that staff and the board make for these types of projects. So more as a communication item to help highlight and assist with those future owner's tenants as they develop their plans and progress those plans into something that would be submitted for a definitive trying to highlight the provisions of the code or the requirements that the board typically imposes that maybe aren't codified in the code or maybe in weird places that aren't easy to find. So the intent of staff comments is to try to help facilitate that and make it easier to digest for a successful application, hopefully. And so one thing that I do want to call attention to, the property folks are familiar with, obviously the former St. Cobain and prior to that Norton Company manufacturing campus as part of the larger redevelopment of the site. There's a memorandum of agreement with the Historic Commission as well as MHC based on the loss of those buildings. And so there is a requirement for a dedication area, which would be proposed essentially as part of one of these slots, presumably. And so we are looking for specifics on ownership maintenance, how that would work, who's going to be responsible, ensuring that that isn't something that the city becomes responsible for. Wanting to understand that. So as part of a definitive submission, we've called attention that we'd be looking for those specifics to better understand that and wanting to make sure that that area was included, for example, in things like stormwater report and calculations and that the report is reflective of that because it could change some of the standards and specifications or the way that those forms need to be filled out. So we have that listed out in our comments. Ultimately, as we stated with our discussion about Restaurant Depot, it's a lot of parking. Obviously, the end user will sort of dictate the needs and demands of what is operationally happening and what's necessary, whether these are fleet vehicle parking spaces or if they're customer parking spaces in some way in addition to employee spaces, if it's more tractor-trailer, if it's more automobile, standard personal automobile. So again a lot of our feedback is is general and broad and thinking of the potential future uses so we have comments not conditions relating to Encouraging them to think about potential electrification for fleet vehicles You know if there is some need for charging of fleet vehicles to make sure that there is appropriate infrastructure installed or planned for in that regard the building code requires a certain amount those don't have to be online and And then there's the reality of how an operation might work if you look at something like an Amazon, right, where they all have all the electrical vehicles. electric vehicles, you'll see all the chargers, right? So just thinking all the different end users that may have these types of needs and making sure that we've kind of planned for that. So that's included in our comments. Normal items like white roof or solar on buildings, ensuring that we have an understanding and orientation of the buildings as convenient as possible for all types of users and considering folks that are coming not just via automobile or truck, depending on the use, but that there might be employees that are taking public transit or walking or biking to work that are working here and wanting to make sure that there are convenient routes for them that are provided from the surrounding street network into the facilities that they're located in. So while I could go through all of those things, I want to call attention to a few because I know we've had recent discussions on these. And I think possibly some of these are items that the applicant would like to discuss, although I don't know for sure. So I'll ultimately turn it back over to them to clarify that. But specifically, we have called out as conditions, if you will, for the revised plans. requesting that they reflect covered exterior bicycle parking and or interior bicycle parking which is always our preference just for use of employees so that's one c one f we have a request to incorporate compact spaces where appropriate for up to 25 so that's the allowed by right understanding that not every use is going to have a need or for that quantity of the overall supply but perhaps of you know at least the employee count, 25% can be provided in Compact to help reduce, again, impervious surface. We have pulled from our lengthy discussion about this at the prior meeting around rooftop mechanicals, basically asking for those to be set back and not visible from the street, and if they are visible from the surrounding street network, with the exception of the highway, so 190, that they be screened to minimize the appearance. So we do have that carried forward from the prior discussion. I know the chair wasn't here, but there was lengthy discussion around that for the Restaurant Depot site. There are a few locations where we're looking for additional trees based on the plan that's provided where it wouldn't comply with the requirements of the ordinance, so carrying forward the requirements that we have for planting of trees. And... Requirement for the photometric plan to be adjusted reflecting the final layout Putting together the putting some specifications on what we typically are looking for in a lighting plan Which is usually at least a one foot candle of light in areas where there's potential for pedestrian vehicle conflicts And generally speaking avoiding excess light over ten foot candles You know certainly exceptions can be made in areas that maybe are exterior loading and require that type of accommodation but generally speaking that's what we're looking for and 3,000 kelvins for lighting, 25 foot high max in a context like this, whether it's a light pole or a wall pack. So again, some of the things that end up being discussion points at subsequent planning board meetings, trying to kind of be clear about that up front as an expectation. So all of that is essentially in line with what the board discussed and approved for the Restaurant Depot site. We have, again, the dedication area, cross easements. A lot of the sites that you see here have interlinkage, which may or may not be proposed. But if it is proposed, wanting to make sure they're appropriate. easement areas demarcated and clarification about who would be responsible for Maintaining those facilities, I mentioned updates to stormwater report, calling again attention to specific questions requiring test pit data of which soil characterization we don't have. The frontage, as I mentioned, in the A&R, and also you'll recall that there were discontinuances of prior streets within the larger campus, including Story Street. So there's a former private street right-of-way. that sort of bisects this parcel, and so wanting to ensure that where that overlaps with any of the proposed buildings, they have gone through the process to extinguish or provide evidence satisfactory to our law department that any of those rights of others have been extinguished, which most likely don't exist, but wanting to have that documentation to avoid any issues there for zoning compliance or otherwise. So those I think are sort of the main pieces that I wanted to highlight. I'm more than happy to discuss any comments, questions, et cetera, but the applicant will ultimately, in addition to a definitive site plan from this board, require a notice of intent from the Conservation Commission for any of the work given the location within the city stormwater protection zone, but also given the location for some of the work within 100 feet, I believe, of wetland nearby. So again, happy to answer questions. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Any additional comments on this from DPW?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comment at this moment. Thank you.

okay thank you um so what conditions uh would you guys like to discuss so i i think we want to i guess further just to make sure that we have a clear understanding if all of these recommendations are adopted this evening we now have preliminary site plan approval and we have a end user that comes back in for a definitive site plan approval, is this preliminary site plan approval going to have to be used as, you know, the Bible for them to say, well, we need to meet this, we need to do that. Or, again, because we do not know who these end users are. We're essentially trying to for what we're trying to do here rather than kind of laying everything out. We're trying to make it a little bit easier for the next end user to put the specifics to it. So I guess before we kind of start going through and crossing things out, we just want to make sure that we have a clear understanding of When we get a preliminary site plan approval with these conditions, what does that mean for the definitive application when it comes down the road?

Oh, I think I can answer that question. Our goals are probably aligned, and when I say are, I mean yours as the applicant, us as the board, and staff as the folks who do the lion's share of the work. What a preliminary site, plan approval does for you is list the things we might care about. Particularly in this context where, as I noted, we're almost earlier than we would even normally see it because you don't know who the tenant is yet or the owner or however this is going to work. And so they're going to come here and maybe they're a high-tech manufacturing use, maybe they're more of a similar to restaurant depot, like a, I don't know what those are called, but logistics use. The considerations are gonna be different, but these are the types of things we are going to ask about and consider, you know, without picking any one particular topic, but like how adequate are the pedestrian facilities given what type of use it is? There's always going to be that given what type of use it is component to it. It's not a preliminary subdivision. I certainly hope this wouldn't be the case, but if they never read it, they would just be less informed entering the process of a subdivision.

I would suggest that most of this stuff, if not all of it, is already going to be in a definitive application that they put in. So I guess when we were looking at this, no... offense intended there's some redundancies here that we're saying like we know that this is this is just that the start of the picture and when we have that end user identified the the color of the picture is going to be filled in after that so that's what we're so that's what we're trying to make sure that we have a clear understanding of um and really trying to also set the expectations for the end users that are coming in here so that they don't look at a sheet of paper and say oh my goodness these are all of the items that we need to do they're going to look at the definitive application and see what they need to provide to the city anyways

That's true. But there's, hopefully, if they look at this, it's a lot clearer than just starting from scratch because there are the rules and regulations and then there's how the city might choose to interpret them or which rules and regulations they care the most about. And I think that's well codified in a preliminary, and I keep saying subdivision, I'm sorry.

I was doing the same thing earlier.

You're in the same boat. It should be codified here. So I think that's the intent. And like I said, if there are specific things that you're like, I don't think this makes sense, by all means, let's talk about it. I just think... Hopefully we don't talk about it too much because who knows what's going to happen.

Sure.

Yeah.

No, absolutely. So, I mean, Andrew, please step in if you.

I think just in terms of that, I mean, again, I know this is, the intent is to kind of outline the framework as we've all been discussing. There's just, again, some, I think at a high level, some wording changes that we would recommend. Mainly, again, kind of like on the first paragraph as you're looking right above the, one where it says, you know, the plan shall require. And again, you kind of list out, everything's listed out below that, where it's really like, we don't know what those future plans are going to be. So again, we'd recommend kind of a wording change where the plan shall explore the following modifications as part of a definitive, see, I did it too, as part of a definitive submission by a future end user.

I think I see your point, which is that it might be clear that this was a preliminary approval if it, in this case, because of the sort of extremely extra preliminary nature of this, if we were, if we modified that first clause slightly, I guess just how detailed about this are we going to get? Are there many more of these in this document that you'd like to change or?

I don't think so. There's just a couple others. Just quickly to rattle off, I would request that item O be removed. There are no active RTNs on the site, so I don't think that that is a relevant item to be located on here, so that should be removed. There's a couple of others, Q and R. I would ask that perhaps we put in some language saying that that information would be submitted prior to construction. Because again, we can't provide phasing or sequencing of plans without knowing what's going to be built there. And then items five, six, and seven, as Ms. Smith referenced, those items have been completed. So I don't know that those necessarily need to be included in there. I mean, they're obviously certainly no harm in being there, but those items have been, those have been addressed, I believe.

I'm not sure I'm looking at the same document, Michelle. Am I looking at the old? Do we maybe change the numbering?

In my understanding, five referring to the survey. Correct. And then six with respect to the extinguishing. I don't believe we have that. I may be amiss, but I don't believe we have that. The survey, I think we have a digital version, but I don't think we have one that's sealed.

Okay.

And then for the... I think, again, that we were still looking for explanation for that related to, because of the future reconfiguration of the adjacent right-of-way. So these are all, again, informational items, I think, with the intent of clarifying that's information that staff and the board would want to understand in the future. So I guess, ultimately, my recommendation would be to leave them These are the comments that we put forward as sort of clarifications for the purpose and understanding that staff have. There is a preliminary plan submitted. It's staff's responsibility to review it and advise you on what you would need were you to proceed with this. I understand that the intention isn't necessarily to do that, but we also don't want to end up in a situation where someone submits a definitive and then says, well, it wasn't in the preliminary comments. So the rationale for the approach is that that is Basically, the process is effectively supposed to perpetuate these are the things that we can expect and we need for the submission. Obviously, that may change. We're open to adjusting the sort of front end language, I think, to clarify that. That's no problem at all. But I think the whole point of the review to just strike all of these items would mean i don't believe we have that information we can remove o um related to the release tracking numbers i would just say if there's no ref if there are none you don't need to do anything the way that it's that it's worded if there's a concern about the language because it's advertising something that like isn't actually there i think that's fine but for the other items i don't i don't believe we do have those um and again i might be mistaken but i think ultimately we would want that as part of the definitive it's not a typical thing that would be required of most applications, because those are unique site circumstances and nuances, I think. I think it behooves the board to include them. But ultimately, it's the board's discretion. You can decide how you want to handle this. But I would say fundamentally, if there's something that comes in different than this, you could basically throw this out the window because we're going to review it based on all the standards anyways. So then the question is like, why are we here? So I think the point was we reviewed it. These are the comments that we're advising on based on what's in front of here. if if the board doesn't feel that any of that's appropriate or disagrees with those comments and wouldn't want to see those things i think the idea is to try to express you know points of conflict so for example you know the lengthy conversations we had about lighting and signage or screening rather at the prior meeting that the idea is if there's a going to be something like that that's a potential sticking point it should be discussed here so it's not a surprise later so again the intent of these conditions were to try to to facilitate anything like that coming forward. So I think if you modify the language on the front end, it's just a language for recommendation. So you can just say if the board votes to approve this, your recommendation is that the definitive submission include the following. That's basically your recommendation.

Yeah, I would say includes consideration of the following. because that probably gets us to the point of these are things you might have to think about, but if all the streets and the subdivisions and everything is all done already, obviously some of these points would no longer apply in that case. So I'd be okay with that. Do you guys have other specific things that you want to discuss?

I think there was just item 14, which again kind of references that the plan shall be in compliance with the Worcester zoning ordinance, which obviously that's the goal. I would just request language be added maybe to the end of that, except for waivers have been requested and granted by the board by kind of a future applicant. Again, just trying to add flexibility for someone to come in in the future, should they need some relief in some way.

I mean, it's not, I would tell you two things. It's non-binding because as we've just discussed, but also the zoning ordinance makes provisions for modifications of the zoning ordinance. So I don't really think you'd be in conflict. There'd be like a way to be in conflict with this and also get a building permit. But I don't mind changing it if you like. Okay. Okay. Does that cover your concerns? I think we're all set. Thank you.

Yeah, those are the items.

Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Are you guys all here in parking?

I'm sorry? Yeah.

Oh, okay. That makes sense. I was like, these folks are all waiting. I'm like, what? Anyone online wishing to speak on this?

Apologies, this is Steve Carey in the Planning Division.

There's no one online. Just staff and the board.

Understood. Board members, Mr. King, do you mind going first?

In general on this one, happy to support it. Definitely early, but yeah, no issues with making the proposed changes. And then when everything comes back as definitive site plan, we'll re-review it for the conditions then. Thank you.

you mr king mr delera yes i thank you i agree with mr king um i'm okay with it at this point and so i have no further comment thank you okay mr uh to me yeah no no real problems with this just look forward to it as it develops uh mr rezende uh no comments thank you thank you um

Yeah, I also have no real comments. I think this is an important project for the city. And I look forward to what I'm sure will be more conversations. This is the next in a series of many we've had already. So keep up the work. We'll see you back here soon. That said, I think we're ready for a recommendation. And Mr. King, just a reminder, we want to say something to the effect of we're going to approve this, but with modifications to the introductory language consistent with our conversation.

Great. I make a motion to approve the preliminary site plan subject to the items that discuss where the definitive submission shall include the consideration of the comments as mentioned and the changes to item number 14 as discussed.

And striking O, I believe.

And striking O.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero. That motion passes. Good luck. Thank you.

Thanks so much.

All right. Next up is item number 12, which is a public hearing for a zoning ordinance amendment related to minimum parking requirements.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. For the record, Mark Borenstein, the petitioner and proud property owner. The petition is pretty simple. I'm seeking to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for single, two, three, and multi-family dwellings. We require way too much parking in the city of Worcester, as I'm sure the board would agree with. I cannot tell you how many projects I've represented where we've had to seek zoning relief for parking. And so from my perspective, this petition would codify what we're already doing, which is looking at actual parking demand, ITE demands, which are probably less than actually this petition, But to quote DTM, I think their position, and I would agree, is this petition represents a modest measured step toward better aligning residential parking supply with actual demand while reducing the unintended consequences associated with the current two space requirement. So I think it's fairly straightforward. I would just want to acknowledge some of the staff comments regarding some of the perceived inconsistencies with the CCOD, recognizing that the CCOD does require a similar number of parking spaces, some more for Shrewsbury Street and guest parking spaces. Similar to DTM's comment, I would recommend that either the planning board or some other division of the city seek a reconciliation of that to the extent that the city council ordains this zoning amendment. So happy to answer any questions that the board may have with respect to my personal petition.

All right, thank you. And Ms. Smith, maybe we could just start by saying our role as planning board, this is a petition that you've made to the city council They have referred it to us to hold a hearing. We're going to make a recommendation that they may or may not, you know, it's non-binding. They just have asked us our opinion. And likely it goes back to them, back to a subcommittee, and back to them to continue to move forward. Is that accurate?

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

All right. Do you have comments on this?

I do. So again, Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. So for the board, the first page of the staff memo that's provided shows you in red with a red line the changes that are actually proposed to the text through the petition. and then just reminds you of the role, which is, again, that recommendation. So you heard the petition specifically includes reducing basically the standard base, as I'll refer to it, parking requirements citywide with the exception of certain overlay districts, the way that those overlay districts interface with the underlying base parking requirements. So they would be reducing that from what is today two parking spaces for single, two, three, and multifamily dwellings down to one parking space for those same subset of uses. Obviously, that is a subset of the various uses that we have, a subset of the residential use categories that we have parking for. But obviously, we have parking requirements for many other uses, all of which also have problems. So in terms of the staff comments that are provided, we've provided you with a summary of all the different plans and reports that we have that highlight the need to modernize parking and indicate that parking is too high. that includes, I'm not gonna belabor them, but hazard mitigation plan, housing production plan, what's there now next, citywide long range plan, mobility action plan, Worcester Regional Research Bureau public parking brief from 2024 as well as the Green Worcester plan. So all of those have suggestions in one way or another and acknowledgement of the reality of the disconnect between the parking demands that we actually have here in the city and what our zoning ordinance in fact codifies and requires. So just as example, this is slightly outdated census data, but from ACS data and five-year estimates from 2022, just based on the timeline of when these plans were developed, about 58% of households, rental, and ownership have one or fewer vehicles. And then again, specifically, almost just shy of 25% of renter-occupied units do not have any vehicle at all. Yet we are requiring two parking spaces for every single one of these units regardless of the number of bedrooms that it has. I think there's broad consensus across planning documents, across constituents that the requirements that we have are too high and no one is here to debate that. You heard DTM did provide comments relative to the petition as well, and we're seeing trends all over the nation and in the region of eliminating parking requirements. The board will recall that our office introduced now almost a year ago an informational communication about parking, which recently was discussed by the city council back in June and referred back to the full council in July. at which point they have asked the administration to develop a proposal for an overhaul of the parking requirements for the zoning ordinance, which our office is working on, which would holistically look at all uses, not just residential uses, but other uses where we see folks coming in for variances, including reusing storefronts and other things where folks end up in a parking pickle, for lack of a better way to describe it, and end up coming in and obtaining zoning relief. So we are working on that holistically, which would include reevaluating the overlay districts, as well as, again, these other use categories as part of that proposal. We do anticipate submitting a draft amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance by the end of the year, but there have been some other fun changes to the state law that we are currently working on reconciling. But that is something that we are working on and expect to reduce. As part of the discussion on that informational communication, this board, this Economic Development Committee of the City Council, and many members of the public also weighed in about their desires, many of which were for full elimination, but also many of which were reserved and had concerns about the need for nuance in proposals and recognizing that not every neighborhood is, in fact, the same. Obviously, that speaks to sort of the history of our community and using overlay districts to help handle parking and parking demands. Specifically, we have used them to reduce parking requirements. So specifically, the commercial corridor overlay district, which came out of other prior relic districts known as different things in different eras, that district is intended to create flexibility with respect to parking and, in fact, reduce those requirements. So this particular proposal, the way that it's been petitioned with the language that it's included, would not affect those overlay districts. So what would inevitably happen were this to proceed and move forward, the new base parking requirement for these subset of residential units, single, two, three, and multifamily, would go from two to one. And then what we have on the books for the overlay district is not affected. And then the requirements in the overlay district now are actually more, they require more parking than what the base requirement would be. So for example, in the Shrewsbury Street sub area of the commercial corridor overlay, which is kind of our higher, more parking-oriented, flexible parking for the best way to attempt to describe that. CCOD generally basically is saying you need to have only 50% or up to 75% of what the typical base requirements are. the proposal would leave that particular area essentially requiring almost 60% more parking than the base requirements. So there isn't sort of a synchronization in that sense of moving this forward without addressing that kind of putting the CCOD in a sense at conflict with itself and what it's attempting to accomplish. It's no longer accomplishing that because these other requirements have been changed. That's something that we intend to address fully with our proposal, but just want to indicate that this request does have some cascading effects to other areas of the regulations which aren't being addressed through this proposal and make sure that that is understood by the board and acknowledged in discussion where the board to move this forward in whatever manner it sees fit. So that is one piece that I wanted to highlight. The other piece that I think is important to highlight is that we do have other incentives that are built in with the zoning code related to parking, specifically for inclusionary zoning. And these are automatic incentives that are tied to projects that are called eligible developments, which basically means someone's opting to provide affordable units that we require, not doing a payment in lieu, they're actually building the units in their project, And they are meeting a certain minimum percentage of those units at or below 60% AMI, which is a 5% requirement. So if they're providing those units, this is to incentivize folks to actually build the housing, they are eligible for these reductions. And it comes in a layered form with a little bit of complicated math. We have a lovely calculator that people get to use to figure it out so it simplifies it. But essentially it relates to how many affordable units. So the more affordable units, you know, the greater the discount up to a certain point. So essentially that reduces the base parking requirements potentially up to half. So it would have that. So today that brings it down to basically one space per unit. With this proposal, it would automatically change that, so it would come down to half a space per unit. And again, that would be citywide, with the exception of the overlay districts, just based on the way that the language works in the zoning ordinance, because we refer to percentages rather than numbers. be able to bring that down through that. That's not always by right. Many ways it is, typically at least 25% of that is, and often a bit more. But the planning board sees all of those approvals where they don't meet that and they're looking to reduce that through inclusionary zoning special permits to reduce parking, which you see lots of. We don't have any on this evening, but usually we do. So even that, again, indicating that one space per unit is really not... what the market is demanding where we're seeing that relief. So anyhow, so while this would affect the areas where we allow residential uses, so all the residential zoning districts and business zoning districts, manufacturing zoning districts would not be affected because we don't allow residential uses in those areas. except through one of the overlay districts. And then again, the overlay districts would not be affected. And I want to call attention to the BG6, the downtown district. We don't require any parking. We will still continue to not require any parking for this to move forward. That's unchanged. It's within one of those overlay districts. However, it has no requirements for that. So it would stay the way that it is. And I also want to clarify too, when we're talking about this, you know, these are the parking minimums that we require that are off street parking. So you can't count spaces that are on the street nearby, right? These are on private property. that are counting towards zoning compliance. The zoning compliance and market demand are two very different things, and just because a project does not require something from a zoning perspective does not mean that parking is not provided. In fact, we see in many areas within our one district that has no parking requirements, the BG6, We see many projects that propose still parking at a ratio of 0.5 or 0.75 per unit because they have a market demand for that. Those units, depending on the project, has a market demand. And so they're not going to build a project that won't work for their tenants because they need tenants to make that financially solvent. So I want to be clear, too, that changing the zoning requirements doesn't mean that what people provide will change other than any of those surplus and excess requirements, those parking spaces that maybe aren't being used. or the parking spaces that aren't being used, and then when people find out, oh, I can have a second car for free, it's actually promoting the use of the automobile. That effect is not really what we're talking about. We're talking about the zoning requirements, the bare minimums of what someone must provide. This also would not affect any of the maximums. Those would stay the same because those are only imposed within the CCOD, again, an area that this change would have no effect on. So I think ultimately we can all agree that reduction of parking is good, something that the city wants. The council, this board, community members have indicated they want to see more nuance, and we expect in the city's proposal that there'll be a bit more nuance and that we would address, again, all the use categories comprehensively, the overlay districts as well, and put something forward within the next year. before the end of the year, however many months are left. We're now in August. So that is what I want to be clear on. And just the one concern that we want to reiterate and express is that through this particular change without addressing the overlay district, the overlay district is really not performing the function that it's intending to serve. And then there's sort of a further cascading effect. We're not necessarily just reducing it to one, because of the way inclusionary zoning is sort of automatically tied to that. So I just want to be clear and make sure that that is understood as the complexity of the code. And I'm happy to answer questions. I did want to highlight, too, for sake of interest, just analyzing the base parking requirements with a little bit of research into prior zoning ordinances. Back in 1963, we actually only required one parking space per dwelling unit. We still didn't require any parking in the downtown, but we had one parking space per dwelling unit for all residential dwellings. Then come 1980, We changed that and started requiring two spaces for single-family dwellings, but we only required one and a half spaces for two-family and multi-family projects. By 1991, we had moved to a two parking space per unit count, and we've been there since with, again, modifications through overlay districts and some of these incentives, including inclusionary zoning since that time. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. I guess without further ado, you folks have waited through our whole meeting. Why don't you tell us what you think?

Sure. I'm Kevin . I live on Pleasant Street in Worcester. So I was going to make comments about parking requirements for restaurants, too, and other things. Apparently that's all pending, so it's not really within the scope of here. A lot of us forget that all of the giant stock of parking isn't going to just go away because suddenly we reduce the minimums. Honestly, I expect you, with your limited powers here, are just going to make an advisement that this goes through, and then it's up to the council, who has very... very different opinions oftentimes. So I just like to emphasize here that there's a lot of different aspects to this. There's what we require, and then there's the reality of what's happening. And because we have choked up so far on this, we're drowning in parking across the city. And honestly, it just eats into your time as well, as you have to keep telling people that no, this time they also don't need the parking. Again, this time you can ignore the parking requirement. I just hope that we can reduce all of that headache. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Francesco Bavona, District 5. I just wanted to express my enthusiastic support for any measure to reduce the onerous parking requirements in the city. And my hope that this is not the end of the conversation and what I heard tonight Indicates to me that there will be more coming. Hopefully I Honestly would hope that one day Worcester joins the over a hundred cities since 2017 that have eliminated their parking minimum requirements entirely and Life has gone on fine for them and Yes, anything to reduce the, frankly, completely excessive amount of parking that we have in the city would be great. So, thank you. Thank you.

I'm a Morrison Worcester resident, and I, too, want to voice my support for this petition and also just reducing minimum parking requirements in general. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone online wishing to speak on this item?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Not seeing anyone with their hand raised online. Okay.

I think we can move on to board members. Mr. King, would you like to go first?

Sure. In general, happy to support the reduction of the parking requirements on this one, understood the intricacies that will be involved between the CCOD and the standard conditions, but happy to favorably recommend this to City Council for review.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, so essentially this change would simplify the existing practice of what developers have been asking for and generally receiving through waivers from the city's regulatory boards. So I support the intention of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dallara. Mr. Toomey? Yeah, I intend to support this. Thank you. Mr. Rosende?

I too would support this.

Yeah. Thank you. I would as well, to your comment about eliminating parking entirely, if that's what this petition said, I would support that too. I would say to the City Council in our recommendation, our request that we say in our recommendation, that oftentimes municipal progress moves very slowly. And it seems like for a long time consensus has been building in the community of urban planning and I don't know, citizenry of cities that this has been too much and we need to pull back the pendulum. I would hope we could move quicker than is typical on this. on this process. And that probably means on the council level, they should devote more resources than they currently have or request the city manager to vote more resources so that we could expedite this. That would be my comment. But Mr. King, I think we're ready for a motion.

Make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero hearings closed. i'd make a motion to favorably recommend item number 12 to the city council second uh mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well uh four to zero that motion passes thank you good luck mark um moving on to other business subdivisions c street uh definitive subdivision plan the request to set a form of surety

Through the chair, you heard this earlier this evening, a project along the street, but essentially you have a request in front of you to set the form of charity for this project. So they're looking to do a restrictive covenant and then they'll proceed with finalizing plans and easements for recording and be able to create that as a route. We have a suggested vote, I believe, on the slides.

Okay.

Just hasn't switched on the slides yet on my end.

It's coming. Sorry, Steve Caring, the Planning Division, trying to multitask.

I believe, if it's not going to work, that we just requested that the form set the form of surety for the C Street subdivision as a covenant, restrictive covenant.

I would make that motion.

I second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 4-0, that passes.

A&Rs? Yeah, Steve Carey in the Planning Division with some technical difficulties. Give me one second. All right, we've already endorsed 14C. So the first one and 14A and B are not properly before the board. 14D is up for endorsement. This is for Chequesset Road taking a parcel and making it into four lots, which have frontage on both Pocono and Chequescent Road. These are private streets, but they are in adequate condition to provide frontage to these lots. The intention, it seems like, is to create duplexes, two duplexes, one facing Chequescent, one facing Pocono Road. Each would need to have 35 feet of frontage within the RL7 zoning district, which they do have. 14E, this is essentially a lot line adjustment after foundation has been poured for a, also for a duplex single family semi-detached. Both lots do have 35 feet of frontage. It's a little weirdly labeled on the northern, the lot that's 59, but it does have 35 feet of frontage. and then the rest are actually not properly before the board either. So the only ones up for endorsement now is 14D and 14E.

Move to endorse ANR's 14D and E. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, four to zero. That passes. In communications, there is a draft priority habitat map of rare species. Fun reading if you're so inclined to. I don't believe we need to discuss further unless anybody has anything on that. No board policies and procedures. Minutes are tabled to the next meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.