8/13/2024 EP Waterfront Commission

uh for the meeting tonight um like to thank everyone for uh coming and uh changing their schedule to ensure we had a quorum tonight for the meeting which normally is on Thursday but this week we have it on Tuesday so thank you everyone for making the effort to uh to make sure we have a quorum so uh with that said uh in August we normally have a report uh on the kettle Point Tiff Revenue I think

some of the older members might remember how we get this annual assessment that shows the uh per performance of the U how the Tiff bonds and the revenues are being uh measured at Kettle Point um that report was delivered late last week so wasn't in time to uh have for the tonight's agenda so we'll have that in September uh but the report does show a continued strong performance of the uh

of the area where the revenues are more than sufficient to support uh the public Improvement there so but we'll have more details next week um so with that said uh the first item of business is uh the vote on the approval of minutes from uh June 27 2024 have a second um any discussion uh all those in favor okay motion passes thank you um second item on the agenda is new business it's the continuation of a

public hearing and medic comment property llc's application for its proposed development located at 500 vet Memorial Parkway um we all know the lot and map number so tonight I believe it's just a continuation of information provided by the applicant on some updates on some new studies that were completed that that will be uh provided to the commission and to the members um there will be uh from what I understand no

votes tonight taking uh but again it's a continuation of public hearing so we'll hear from the applicant on the various matters that they'll present there will be questions from the commission members and again there will be um like to also note that Mr oconnell is here for the record as well um and then we'll uh you know have public comment and the question op question and answer period

on those items so um but with that said i' turn it over to the applicant uh to uh for their presentation for tonight and just to remind members uh if they are speaking just to use the red P push the button so they make sure this the mic's on or folks on TV won't hear it thank you Mr Fazoli uh again for the record my name is Josh berlinsky I'm with the firm of Dar everit representing

the applicant metacomet Development LLC um as you explained we are simply here to continue our our pering process we have a few updates uh for you this evening and members of the public the the first update is going to be provided by Todd P of forward planning as the commission may recall as part of our initial submission we presented a fiscal impact assessment prepared by Mr P um the city the commission sent out for

peer review to rkg Associates and we then sent that peer review to Mr P for a consideration and um potential revisions or updates to his report which which he has prepared and and he has come here from uh Philadelphia to discuss with the commission so I'll just refer to him and we can start talking you through it

thank you and so what I'd like to do is take you through kind of a condensed version of the presentation that I gave earlier back in February on the fiscal impact oh I'm sorry um Todd P I'm with uh forward planning and actually can roll through next slide and the next one Todd poool with forward planning on managing principle uh we are land use economists and we perform uh economic

and real estate analysis for public and private seor Northeast and um was retained uh to perform at both a market analysis and fiscal impact analysis on the econic development project next just give me a a understanding of um are experience at least in this uh area of Providence the Providence metro area we've worked in this area for the last several years going actually back about 10 years or so so we're familiar

with the area generally um and that gave us a good basis performing this study my background I've been in this field for um a little over 32 years uh and I have a VA omics science and Masters in public administration um and I've worked in the public sector for about 12 years before going into Consulting work a number of firms and performed Economic Development projects uh in a variety of places around the

world so um as I mentioned back in February there are certain uh methods and and uh data that goes into performing at fisal impact analysis screen are some of the key um inputs that go into performing such an analysis multipliers which I'll talk about in a second multipliers budget information which is really the municipal budget we need to have the most current budget and actually in this

latest revision uh we updated our uh budget figures to 2024 and 2023 which we've done the first duration of the study the tax rates obviously the project information uh and then we also do what's referred to as a performa analysis it's what a developer does to understand what the persective financial returns might be if they were to devel the project going to be financially viable to what extent and of course uh

we also have to understand population data existing population in the city as well as the population that would result as completed not going to spend a lot of time here this is kind of looking under the hood but as I mentioned multipliers residential multipliers from necessary to estimate how many residents would result as a function of the number of housing units being d um multipliers really come from Census

Data um that is um based on in this particular case new apartments and townhouse units that have been built uh in Rhode Island over the last six years or so we're using aeran Community survey data uh we've built a an algorithm that is able to pull this data in based on the type of housing units rental in particular um we're able to make an estimate of how many residents as well as public school

age children would be generated by development of this type this is in the report as well this is just a a quick summary of the um Appropriations from your 2024 budget we use this uh or these numbers to arrive at estimated per capita service cost that is to say that um for every new person that would move into this project uh we estimate a municipal service cost of about

$655 and if you look at the for we kind walk through how we get there effectively what we do is we take total Appropriations in this case about 191 million for 2024 and then we strip out things such as um salaries and benefits that service and other metrics um just getting at those numbers that are likely to change when somebody moves in to the extent that you need to hire new Personnel we estimate that

offer we take out those metrics because oftentimes when a new person moves into your city those uh figures don't change in other words the next person who moves in Providence you're not hiring a police officer firefighter you're not Hing administrative we make sure that when we're doing this analysis that it is logical and I would also like to say that this also extends to your school

district the same uh philosophy and Method applies so if you've got in your particular case um you know the East Providence School District which has a relatively flat enrollment grow rate barely 1% over the last five years um the next child who shows up is not going to cost you likely that student is likely to cost no more than or $5,000 the assumption that walking into a classroom BS there's

already we do these analyses for a variety of municipalities in States we've also had discussions with many superintendent about this approach and

never I forgot to T animations in it um so what I want to do quickly just walk you through kind of the breakout of this project uh there are 604 proposed multif family rental units that are not age restricted these represent Studios to three-bedroom units and um based on the multipliers associated with each one of those units and understanding that each unit a studio a one a two a three bedroom has a different

multiplier you might imagine a studio is not likely to have more than one person living in it um bedroom units based on those multipliers and the number of units and how break out we're estimating a total um OCC total occupants of 854 uh 70 of whom would be public school age students and I want to emphasize public school age students this is to say that again based on Census Data these are uh 70 students we would

eject to be enrolled in the public school system there you will probably have school children that will be going to parochial school or some other private school but based on um you know multipliers and estimates that have been developed for this type of analysis we're uh estimating 70 Public School in this produ you'll have 160 um age restricted units that is to say that unless

you years of age um you will not be able to to move into these particular units these are two and three bedroom units and based on multipliers we estimate a total there will be 80 Assisted Living units and assisted living units for all intents and purposes minute multi family in the main that services offer the purposes of doing this type of analis Assisted Living unit is not all that

disting um 121 total occupants is estimated uh the project will also have 24 bedrooms and based on multipliers this particular product we estimate 37 total occs will be public and finally three bedroom duplexes of 227

a relativ

sharp once you two to three number then on the commercial side this project will have comination restaurant

PR based on 153,000 feeted on that profession Ed we've estimated

um so kind of a a recap 938 residents with non age restricted and living facil restricted all residents children total of residents and

So based on looking at current budget based on looking at tax rate having perform analysis that we need toy in this process speak to your assessor the way assessing pretty standard usually valued on um so using that approach and then taking that estimated assessment we tax revenues and you have here on the screen milon we've also come up with an estimated Municipal service cost of approximately

4 to say the estimated revenues minus the estimated service cost just under $5 million um I will note um that did not perform District typically I they could notd District this is the

first had I been able to I would have been able to show you what that impact be it will say this um based on 83 children fisal net fiscal impact of almost $5 million there is more than sufficient Revenue rep has pretty good

capacity oh thank you Mr uh thank you again uh just so so the public knows I believe this report was sent to staff this afternoon so this is the first time um we're seeing it so uh it's not we'll make it available to the public as soon as we can upload it on the website so I just wanted people understand the timeline of the context so um couple of questions um I think the report you

indicated you took into account also some other large multif family developments happening in the in the city one I'm W Trail one I Newport Avenue um got another one but for some reason um I I don't know if and I think the AR the report noted East Point development that's being proposed was that part of your analysis for this report we may have missed that one

facility yeah the the reason I bring it up because I I think as a commission we kind of need to think about the aggregate impact of all the development happening in the city from R side to run and what potentially that had could have on Municipal services so uh there's 396 units uh permitted for East Point which is actually under construction right now so that will obviously have an impact on

you know city services uh the waste water I believe is serviced by um Nance Bay commission up there runford so but you know obviously police fire water that's something that we will take a look at and I think the arcade brought that out and then the only other question I has I know unfortunately if we get you a school budget which I think we can probably get a hold of one

because I think they're voting on a uh at least their proposed budget to the mayor the mayor has to submit his budget to the the council I think in August so we'll have a school budget that maybe we can provide you and as again uh one additional student won't generate thousands of dollars of increased cost to the city but 83 possibly could but when you overlay that with the enrollment Trends which you have

mentioned are declin uh we could sort of that so said it's unusual for unless a school district

is School District weing yeah that's that's that's really a function of the still lower fertility rate you know worldwide just you know overall people are having children the lack of housing you know prevents the formation of households and you know so you just people aren't having kid SW well into the 30s now whereas maybe in you know years ago it's in the 20s so so but uh again we'll probably uh as a

commission have an opportunity to review the report more depth you know Ray you can put on the website and distribute it to the commission members and uh you know we might have some followup questions but I don't I don't think it requires you to come back at all we can probably just email you questions and maybe have a discussion on that way so and again we'll upload that as soon as we can this afterno tomorrow

morning thank you other question from the commission members well we allow the public to ask questions after presentation thank you very much um the second presentation is from Deborah Cox who is with the public archaological laboratory Inc she her firm is responsible for the archaeologic assessment final survey I'll let Deb speak for few minutes that's uh good evening I was here a

couple of months ago before we did any field work and went over what we were going to do I'm happy to tell you that we completed our field work recently and we are finalizing our report it's right now it's going to review at the office but this is just to give you a preliminary view of what we have I think I explained when I was here last time that we are really concerned about the

top of the ground from the ground surface down to below that it is unlikely that there would be any remains any po material so as we suspected the majority of the area the top three feet has been impacted by of sure many of you are golfers so you know you need irrigation systems and me change slightly to are um we did find a small area of relatively undisturbed soil that's probably 5%

um I can tell you definitively did not did not find any humaning know that was a concern some people we did find historic material this trash that had been strewn about Broken Glass broken pottery Broken Window pan some structural remains and we ALS also did find Native American material projectile points or Arrow points call them stone tools and what we called shipping debris which is

Stone that remains after Stone has been mana and maintained so when we finalize the report we're going to submitted for the RH Island historical preservation permitted us to do the project and that will probably that will be within the week they will have 30 days to they will and discuss what needs to happen so any question um maybe could uh give the Commission in the public U some

background of who part participated in the work that you did oh yes um well besides the public archaeology lab B I think there was anywhere between we also had two representatives from the narag tribe with us every day so they the naraga tribe will also be receiving a copy of and the scope of the work that was performed is on the Upland foring the property not currently the portion

that's used as golf no no it's not the it's the Upland it's just the up and you said that the uh percent of area that was uh found any type of archaeological items was 5% yes it was less than 5% of that total area I mean we found historic debris you know scattered throughout anywhere from plastic bottles to ceramics that may date from but the Native American artifacts it was really confined to an area that was

relatively and the travel of this goes to the state white Who start for comment and then it goes to public when when did it become public I guess well the locational information on archaological sites is conf but the report itself um taking that location theor preservation and that will we submitted this week at some point we will submit it to them this week I may have a 30-day review

period Cox is is saying as that after here from today historic and I don't want to say there a ruling re their comments on it then there's a discussion subject to their privacy as to what else get released so so that's obviously up to the state there's a determination as to what's um considered confidential and then we understand the city and the Public's you know I'm going interest in

this and and we'll do everything we can to to be as transparent as possible subject to the confidential obligations that that to both the um historic as well as the Nance to triy to S with in constant contact so we're trying to honor that that obligation at the same time satisfy the The public's need to know but but um as Deborah said once we uh once it's submitted this week and the

state and the prbe have had their opportunity to comments see where we are on that we intend to bring Deborah back um for a further update and refine her presentation with some some more details and and hopefully some conclusions along those lines this this one last general question uh what constitutes uh what type of property constitutes this type of analysis being done and there's been

work done in other parts of the City Excavation taking place actually along the Parkway by do there City doing work at B Point what what triggers this type of review oh it's an interesting question so first this obviously a voluntary submission on behalf of private property we're aware that members of the public and I believe members of of City staff as well um perhaps send corresponds to crmc

inquiring about the arch iCal sensitivity of the site to which crmc responded that that it's potentially significant and we recommend investigation so um upon receipt of that documentation I think the city might have received a letter about a year before we knew about it but we received a copy about it short in uh after and and we engaged pal for purposes of conducting an analysis so they did the

initial assessment which was really based on a visual inspection in which um part of our application and they identified I think four areas of study which we discussed it was where there were the excavation lands and then um you know due to its proximity to waterways and and DEP from going to the criteria as to its location we're obviously aware of that in the surrounding vicinity there's been some

findings as well so we're aware of that there's there's a heightened sensitivity to this um I mean sensitivity not in the legal sense but practically like you know people want to make sure that everything's being done properly with the due respect that the process deserves so Deb can speak us to what this the particular statutory regulatory triggers are but but simply because there was enough there was sufficient

consensus amongst the public and members of the city that this deserved looking into you know uh the applicant took it upon himself to begin that process knowing for well that that there had to be some closure on that issue and Deb if you want to speak to the precise statutory or regulatory triggers well I was just going to mention that we did look at the ride. um rot has a cultural resource unit May determine what

projects that they want of State look at thank you any other question from the commission members yes just one question um were you personally there for the for the survey to look at the findings of what was found or was it just other people that did that I was not there it was Umi staff and the principal okay I'm just curious overse no I understand that's fine that's fine uh my

question is uh the Arrow Head you talked about the projectile point was it a loose arrow head all by itself or was there an arrow was it part of an arrow too all by itself by itself that's what I want to know thank wa probably 2,000 years old okay any other questions from the commission thank you for your presentation and we look forward to the update conclude tonight I thought um you

know at the last month's meeting uh I introduced this concept of like the ongoing deliverables just so we could keep track so I updated it so can you put that word doc onen go over please here we are

yeah okay um maybe you could read from it uh read from it okay work on that actually Mr Ley is going to read for that from that for us actually okay so so I'll here so we had um seven categories that we identified the first was archaeological um which was the description was the commission needs to riew the analysis submitted F following with survey of the property survey was completed June 15 uh we provided an

update today and we will have a further update um once we hear from State historic and the Naran tribe that have um contributed to that discourse so so Deb will be back and then we'll have a further update um architectural plans um in uh June we submitted updated renderings for the residential buildings that showed the last comments and CR critic critiques that we' received from DRC um those were competed delivered

June we don't believe there's any further comments or requests me in that regard so we believe from a design standpoint we're complete um we previously submitted renderings for the phase 1A structure as well and as some of you may know at last Thursday's me of design review they recommended approval of that um of that phase uh as we established it then goes to planning our recommendation is to consistency with

the comprehensive Plan before full commun uh landscaping and Engineering uh We've updated Landscaping plans for the design review comments we completed and delivered those on June 13th we don't believe there are any further requirements or or additions to be made to that plan set um the hydro analysis confirming utility Capac capacity the analysis was complete um at the time we created this last month in June we said

it was being reviewed from the C by the city following which we will seek affirmative sign off from the city engineering department in DPW uh as Paul Pisano mentioned last Thursday Hydro analysis was completed by power engineering last week um I believe I submitted it to the city today as you asked for it and uh and we will be working with DPW and the water department to obtain their their

approval of that hopefully in time for next the work has been complete now we're just going to seek the city's feedback uh to make sure that all is copesthetic and everything um then uh we also are looking for the uh sign off oh and then um with regard to storm water designning calculations we are completing those plans as well and we actually expect to have those ready uh within the next two weeks we're

going to submit those to the city for their review because there have been some ongoing engineering concerns that have been raised specifically by power review and we're going to submit those to the city and and Par in the next uh 10 to 14 days at the at the latest and again we are we are cautiously optimistic that we'll have consensus in Buy in by the September meetings as well

to the storm water um then similarly in the same vein sign off in the fire department um the fire department uh issued some comments I believe back in April um both from a public safety standpoint and from a water Hydro analysis we'll be working with them confirm their approval of the of the water Hydro St for study for sprinkler system capacity and we'll also be seeking their their sign off in general

of the project which were were again we we believe that's attainable by meeting once they've had an opportunity to adust those those plans um fiscal analysis at the review in June was that the peer review from arcade in May um the response was being prepared Mr P has submitted his his update um were comping that uh results stands on its own I I will just say for the record that for those of you that may

recall the rkg analysis it largely um proved out the fiscal conclusions that Mr P came to in his initial uh report it did ask for further clarifications as to um any adjustments as a result of affordable housing and to which Mr P did um incorporate into this version for for the commissions so so we're confident that that the analysis we true and that even with the further revisions and

updates as a result of the latest fiscal budget that was submitted by the city that um project the project is obviously a significant net positive impact for the city from a financial standpoint uh the noise study that was uh number five um back in June we uh that David Consulting received the truck traffic movements and the corresponding data as well as the mechanical systems for purpos of incorporating analysis we

submitted that updated noise study uh last week um at and we discussed its findings at last week's DRC meeting um you know we're obviously welcome to further comments from the city but the conclusions as I as I prepared a brief summary and read them last week are that the HVAC um disruption is minimal and that uh the impacts from uh uh noise attributable to increase traffic from the development all fell well below

whether it be the Federal Highway Administration state of island or other comparable Federal standards for um increases of tributal proposed developments for residential standards and then finally um for traffic off-site improvements uh we had four elements there there was the letter from do with the authorization to proceed with the physical alteration permit there we go um we did receive and present that

letter in June um the power engineering peer rreview approvals as everybody knows we received comments from um van from par with regard to the vaness study as well as what we refer to is the Crossman supplement um our Traffic Engineers blew me off and did not submit those today like they said they would they have been dealt with accordingly and I expect those submitted in short order and uh we will have those posted

on the website um as soon as we received them um then we uh are going to take the um both the response to the peer reviews as well as the supplemental traffic product that we intended to submit which which we will have some by the way um we will be sending that to par as well as the city Department specifically DPW um to make sure that uh in planning ex to

make sure that they are on board with the recommendations and conclusions of the updated traffic work that's being performed so so we understand that that's a a significant lift in front of us and and we're anxious to resume that proess and then um and then the last part of it is is we said that we would make a good faith effort to obtain a similar letter from Scenic roadways as

we obtained from dot um our preliminary Outreach along those lines just so the committee knows is that Scenic roadways will not issue that letter on the grounds that the do staff that would have the staff that would have issued that letter is the staff that issued it on behalf of do as we've decide as we've explained to this cic roadways is is almost like adjunct or adjacent to dot so they were relying upon the same

staff so we're we're not closing the book on it yet but um the the initial uh explanation was that the same people would be issuing the letter on behalf of Scenic roadways that issued on behalf of dot we're continue to work through that please will they reference the scenic roadways within the recommendation letter that they're preparing for DOT say that again please so if they're the

same people they're writing a letter yes so see if they can make a recommendation on as part of that letter that's what that's what we're asking if they could perhaps amend the letter to say Sen roadways as well so that's it so there it's um dot is nothing but reasonable in general as you know so uh you know it's it's just a matter of how much they they can't help enough so uh we'll we'll be

working with them to um see if we can do something on those lines but I think that's that's where we end up it says this also applies to Scenic roadways as well or something like that that's our that's our goal so that's our update uh we continue to make progress um we're hopeful that um the majority of the outstanding submissions will be in over the next three to four weeks and that we

know there's a September 19th meeting of um Waterfront that we're we're interestly awaiting as well as the corresponding meeting of DRC that month which we'll look forward to presenting and uh thank you again for your patience and cooperation thus far um any questions for the the commission members and the items presented tonight um okay so I know that there was a DRC meeting last week on the phase 1A

but that's not uh subject to tonight's discussion right we can't really act on we we discussed um you know we we understand the sequence start it DRC we go to planning um whenever we go to planning and we'll get their recommendation for consistency of phas one it a plan at which point we'll we'll come back to for water that right so that'll come back to the water offering commission at another time absolutely

not tonight uh and and we'll let everyone know in advance uh what the schedule is along those lines just checking my availability other the night we can continue on so uh yeah go right ahead so the um there's a couple references here of um reports being submitted back to the city so when those reports are submitted back to the city can you make sure that we're aware of those so that I we can follow up with

them to make sure we get reports back in timely fashion be able to review before the next absolutely um so so how it works and I'm happy to work with um Ry and and Dominic as to the best way of distribution so uh till now and these have just been reports that have been the subject of these discussions we've just submitted for purposes of posting on the website but we'll make sure we'll

get a distribution together for everyone so they can see that so they can be both uploaded to the website and distributed to members of the commission as soon as possible I mean they're important because they're the Professionals in that aspect sure our committee we don't do it on a daily basis we'd like to be able to review it before the meeting be able to talk intelligent and also um in

terms of of traffic uh those will be we'll send you those uh report simultaneous with the submission to par so so you'll be able to interact so members of planning or DPW or this commission as it is will be able to interact with them in real time know that that they'll have seen at the same time thank you um so we'll we'll work with Ray to make sure whatever reports

are sent today and late last week in relation to phase 1A will be uploaded as soon as possible and made available to the public and to the commission members so at that time if members of the public would come and speak

thank you Mr chairman uh members of the commission uh all very interesting information we look forward to studying it further and uh making comments at some future time I want to follow up on a question I have uh regarding the um term Amplified as it refers to music um on the metacomet site the design guidelines for the metacomet subdistrict on page four under Green Space within the development number three public

greens and or gathering spaces are encouraged to create a sense of community as with as with outdoor dining non-amplified music is permitted and encouraged Amplified programs may be permitted by the commission on a caseby casee basis outdoor music or programs are prohibited between 10 p.m. and 10: a.m. with that in mind I want I did ask in a July 11th email to attorney goens copied chairman foli and executive

director Ley for an understanding of what is meant by Amplified music I Googled it it seems that it should have been pretty uh clear but um it's either electrified Amplified instruments or electrified amplified speaker system sys um one or the other or both and I just wondered what that term exactly means in the design guidelines can I interject before that answer for the record there will be no Amplified music

of any sort on the property ABS in a permit for a special occasion that the description is an Amphitheater is a visual amenity we do not propose Amplified music there are no speakers there are no microphones if we have them it will be on a special what case-by case basis Pur purum to a Perman to be issued I I swear by all that's holy if we had known that the phrase Amphitheater would have been so loaded

we would have called it a a dolly Walker it is it is um simply a visual setting for people to sit and enjoy the outdoors we do not intend for anything other than the non um Amplified uh music and and entertainment venues that you said so so we agree with the most literal interpretation of that and and there was no need to Val I don't mean to preclude Amy please answer but but we don't

propose any um Nuance or finessing around that we agree that non-amplified music is permitted Amplified music on a permit by permit case by Cas so for for that for that purposes non-amplified instruments are speakers both correct I I guess I'm not an attorney but I think from a land use point of view uh Amplified either means that there speakers that amplifies to music music or the instruments are Amplified

so uh from what I understand there's no plans to do either one at the uh development at the current time but if if if one is considered there would be have to be a permit process that would have to go through so Amy I don't know if you have anything to add to what Amplified music means yeah so to the extent that this is an issue and if there's ever an issue of interpretation

in any term in any source of law whether it's a regulation an ordinance statute if the term isn't defined in the source of law a dictionary definition would so Amplified I if if I were asked by someone with enforcement Authority what does Amplified mean I would do the same thing you did in look at a dictionary I as I mentioned I noticed two different definitions and I just wondered what the wording in the design

guidelines means about Amplified and this discussion came up as you know because earlier in July there was a an application for permit before the city council for a live band that was going to be a charitable event um I wondered where it was and I wondered if it was Amplified or not and there was no indication at least on the docket what it was so for further reference I was just interested and concerned more

interested than anything else in what was meant by those words so if if I go to a dictionary whatever I find there is going to be what what you have designated as Amplified is is that what I hear I believe that's the case that that Amplified at least in my terms is that is either speakers amplifying the music acoustic instruments that's being Amplified the actual those to cover and

then all the instruments themselves are sound is Amplified through some sort of sound system I guess like I guess it would be nonacoustic music so okay so both those situations are covered again but that would have to be subject I mean again uh anybody within the water Waterfront under the design guidelines would have to come in for a permit and they certainly could request a permit for Amplified

music and in this case a permit wasn't required or requested because apparently it wasn't Amplified right well I know that the request went to the city council I don't believe it ever went to the Water Commission I'm not even know what had happened at the council level they approved it which was fine thank

you good evening Mr chairman members of the commission Dan Bodwin speaking just quickly on two matters one is the noise study uh is there going to be a noise peerreview study or is that is that it what's been produced um we haven't discussed that to be honest with you I think that's something I don't think we've ever had a noise peer review study though but I guess that's still something we can consider okay I I have

several questions about it I could not go over tonight but I can submit them in writing and maybe you could put them into your consideration that it would be excellent we could certainly provide those uh questions also to the applicant to get the response so at the next meeting we could probably have a more productive conversation okay and just one comment about the noise study while it does meet all these federal

guidelines and all it does say that the traffic noise increase on the residential streets will be noticeable and very noticeable so you know traffic will go up four times it's going to be the noise difference there even though it might hit federal guidelines the second thing I I uh on the um the scenic L uh Highway board I didn't quite understand the discussion that you were saying that you wanted to get a letter

from them um my understanding is the scenic board it is it's a separate public body with its own rulle its own regulations its own public meeting requirements I don't quite understand how you can get a letter for them without going to the board I think you mentioned going to the staff I I didn't quite get it I just want a clarification as what was what was trying to be accomplished here the question was

raised you know at one of the public meetings in in the recent past that the scenic board was going to be reviewing the recommendations from rud Island do from what I understand is from Mr binsky is that the people from the r do do are the same people that are on the historic board so no that's not that's not true the historic board has its own the body Highway let he'll explain it again

that's the way I interpret it scenic highway is its own board it's appointed I Believe by the governor the it works in conjunction with DOT the cic does not have his own staff it relies upon the staff of the RH Island Department of Transportation so as part of the DRC requirements we procured a letter from dot that indicated a preliminary approval of the design that we proposed for the traffic

and the offsite improvements um that we submitted for uh the record in June at that meeting a member of design review asked whether or not it was possible to obtain a similar letter from Scenic RADS we said we look into it we are looking into it okay thank you I I just I would wouldn't think it's possible to do that because the scenic roadway have has a public input process that they go

through before they make any decision so I think you'd have to go back and take just take a good look at the rules regulations they have hearings on proposed yeah yeah before any letters are issued in terms of the staff though do they do they have staff on their for their board well you have Dem on it they have staff you have this historic preservation commission they have staff so you have different bodies on that

board and all of which have staff and have to make a comment about the effect of this on a scenic highway so it's not just ryot but you get input which is good from a lot of different state agencies as well as the public as part of the process the parkway uh is overseen by both do and DM what what's that the parkway is overseen by both em and do yes and sometimes there's some

confusion as to who does what but you're right thank you thank you as we've established previously just along those lines we can't go to Scenic roadways nor can we go to dot for that matter till we have an approved project to present so that was the issue we were able to get the initial Buy in from dot but we can't present before Scenic without an approved project because you don't you only receive one approval from

water fund so um so we've got a chicken in the egg situation we're doing the best we can to get that and and we'll update the DRC thank you that was my Miss okay anybody else from the public uh would like to comment or have a question on the material that was covered tonight I we're nature coin I just have a question for nagging in my brain I'm just curious

why you only go three feet because you know when you bury people go deeper than three feet so I've been curious from the beginning so I oh that's absolutely true but um wave shafts and burial mounds are evident right away as soon as you take off so so we can see those features going to an historic Cemetery where everyone is is buried in Jack

thank you anything else you'd like to present or discuss tonight uh September 18th 19 September 19th we're letting you off easy tonight we so we would enjoy the rest of your summer uh so in the meantime we'll be updating the website getting information to the public and the staff and also the commission members um but yeah the the and then the 19th likely will have some discussion on phase 1A assuming planning

board does whatever Poss phase 1A definitely traffic um and uh hopefully utility sign off Al together we'll definitely do storm water we'll definitely do traffic and possibly phase 1A we'll you know remains to be seen but we'll we'll make it we'll announce it well in advance so everybody us and um we'll also be uh speaking about some of the overall we revisiting D design guidelines as well we have we have some

big things in storage when be a will treat for all this so um so so that's it but but yeah we're going to try to bring a lot of the stuff forward and and have some conclusions but uh thank you again for your your patience and cooperation it's really been a a productive process thus far and thanks so much for your time okay thank you uh we'll uh uh do we

take a vote to continue this until September 19th so can I take a vote uh we continue the public hearing until September 19th a motion all those in favor a motion passes we'll see everyone on September 19th uh next item on the agenda is a staff report

there was a meeting of the DRC to look at the phase 1A report or request and it was unan unanimously approved that that at that meeting to request um the planning board and the Waterfront commission to issue a letter that says that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan I have to write that letter I was waiting for one piece of information today I got it I will write that and it'll be sent to everybody by

email and the next time you know it's on the it'll go to the planning board and the Waterfront commission itself has already recommended that at the last meeting of the Waterfront Comm was just following up with the drc's recomend there was a a live St a Live Nation concert venue pre-application workshop on August 1st where some plans Draft plans and Technical discussions were initiated and that was continued

through date I think they wanted to do it on August 15 I'm not sure that because I've not been noticed and there's like 20 people at that meeting so they're probably fin to assemble everybody to put them in the room to continue the application nothing's been public it's not public yet so they just gave us gave everybody some ideas about what they're considering and it will continue the Rhode Island ready

permitting process for n Dex the road has been submitted by John Savage and Bobby syes of fire engineering we are in the process of negotiating memorandum of understanding there are a couple of things that need to be worked out Amy and Dill and I on a conference on that phone shortly and send them a memor memorandum of understanding that agree to and they probably will and they'll take over the

permitting process to some degree uh fourth quarter Grant requests for $50,000 to Rhode Island commerce was approved it was in the budget it was approved in the budget last week it was finally approved and it's now available so I have to just that's available for us to draw on for the year now I am able to WR the refquest for next fiscal year we're going for an increase we talked about it and it's

going to be any place from 75 state will for our operating expenses that's it any questions R great um just the this an FYI believe the city planning board is having a meeting next week to have a hearing on comprehensive plan so I think it's Tuesday night might want to check the City calendar so yeah I think they're having a separate one on the comprehensive plan next yeah tonight I think it just the

planning board and some subdivisions on Moran Avenue so but just as a public Public Announcement so uh with that said can we have a motion to adjourn all second all those in favor