EP City Planning Commission 12/9/24

uh good evening ladies and gentlemen oh great it is now just a moment or two after 7 o'clock I'll call the December 9th 2024 East Providence planning board meeting please rise for a pledge of allegiance I pledge allegiance the flag the United States of America

rep I'll recognize for the record that Mr crook is present Mr Miller is pres Rockwell is pres Mr gagman is pres recognize uh item three on the agenda is the approval of time minutes minutes of the a 19th 24 August 26 2024 nember 9th 2024 October 15 2024 November 20th meeting allate order for me any questions comments uh yeah Mr chairman whoa I'm a little bit loud here um with regard

to uh two of the reports here we go go uh October 15th I'm listed as being present and I was not we can strike my name and I did also have comments with regard to the most recent set um here we go is this it yes on November 20th um there were several extensive discussions um this is in the middle of the page where it starts with Joe Bell um of 82 Plymouth

Road um and the record States um he him saying further the N nursing home is an abandoned non-conform form in use I think we need to modify that and state that it is in his opinion an abandoned nonconforming use since that was the subject of the discussion and also related to the same paragraph last sentence um he informed the board that uh he insisted the property insisted that the property is not

taken I but rather abandoned that was also part of the same discussion um also uh Mr dorsy in the next paragraph um I think we should point out for the record uh that he did re we butut the assumption that the building had been abandoned um in as much as he was the receiver and that was something else that was on the record and last lastly um I think we should acknowledge that um Vice chair Christopher

Grant um re recommended that to the greatest degree possible the recommendations of attorney step cypo be added to the provisions um and and I seconded that motion and in fact it was done was not that meeting right interpretation we have anybody

else any issue making no no

I I don't even need a mic so moved all to incorporate um yeah Mr Crook's um directions as stated s seconded i the next item on the agenda new business is item a 350 Taunton Avenue it's a request for preliminary plan approval extension for property located at 330 350 354 taon Avenue that's at map 306 block one 12.1 13 and 14 the owner is one neighborhood Builders e Mr chairman on December 11th uh

2023 board approved a preliminary plan submission for this application at 350 taunt nav combine three subject properties into one parcel and develop a 144 unit uh apartment development um at the time of preliminary plan approval in 2023 um the regulations allowed a a one-year initial vesting for preliminary plan approvals um since the state law changed since since then um it's now two years but

they are vested into this one-year approval so therefore they're requesting a u one-year extension of their preliminary plan application and they have already submitted materials for final plan approval to our department which will be before you uh probably in January um so our department recommends that the planning board Grant the extension request for a period extend in one year

that will extend the vesting to December 9th 2025 and uh the applicants attorney Ken mcgonagal is here if there's any questions mcal anything you want to add Mr chair um not much considering I don't uh I as um Mr burn said our um development team is is working closely with Dominic and he and we hope to be very uh well I think we're very close to a certificate of completion for final plan we're not

there yet but we're getting there and um Michelle blue is with me tonight this is her project at one neighborhood and we're going uh forward well so we hope you'll consider giving us the extension thank you any questions or comments from board members uh just a question for our director um is there anything pending from our standpoint that we need to do to help them get this through just um you know getting

together their state approvals is the main thing um that they're getting together for this final plan application normally final plan applications don't come before you but it was a condition of your preliminary plan approval right I would just say that this is a very important project for the city and um anything that we can do to make sure that this moves smoothly I think we should Endeavor um I'll I'll move for

the acceptance of the extension second motion by Mr seconded by Mr Miller to approve the requested one year extension of the vesting of the preliminary PL all those in favor please say I I guys have it thank you next item on the agenda item B1 and B2 uh Jeffrey matus seeks permission to subdivide property located at 25 Orange Street further recognized as map 302 lock four parcel one via a minor

subdivision in accordance with the unified development plan review procedural process necessitating dimensional relief for having a deficient overall lot depth lot area and maximum building lot coverage there's also a minor subdivision preliminary plan to subdivide parcel one into two single family residential dwellings in accordance with article 8 entitled minor Land Development projects minor

subdivisions the Land Development and subdivision reg Council evening members of the board attorney Jake Deo appearing on behalf of the applicant this evening Jeffrey M father matus um we're presenting a preliminary p uh plan submission as the said for a minor subdivision of 25 ore Street proposal is to subdivide an existing 9600 foot lot into 4800 foot lots for development purposes of two single

family homes uh this property is located in R4 Zone the low density residential use so the proposed use is in conformance with that um due to the Lots existing Dimensions we do have to request a couple variances tonight for lot area we have a proposed or excuse me required lot area of 5,000 square feet we're proposing 4,800 square feet uh variance of 4% uh flot depth we have 80 feet where

required 100 feet is required Varian is for 20 feet the building coverage we're proposing 25.5% where maximum of 25% is required very minimal half a percentage point there uh the variances are Justified due to the unique characteristics of the lot's original 80 uh foot depth which is beyond the applicants control uh the variances again are minimal and align with the existing neighborhood uh where

similar size lots are common the proposed subdivision maintains adequate lot coverage or excuse me lot width and Frontage conforms to the other zoning requirements and supports the comprehensive plan goals of promoting single family homes in low density residential areas uh the slight increase in building coverage that half a percentage point that I mentioned is reasonable and consistent with the

neighbors or the neighboring properties so overall you know we feel as though and I believe staff is under the impression that the relief requested uh represents the least deviation necessary for reasonable use of the property without uh negatively impacting Community the surrounding areas as part of the application we're also uh requesting waivers for sideworks uh excuse me sidewalks and granite

curbing uh the just the justic the justification for that is we're not within that half mile from a school uh there's low pedestrian and vehicular traffic there uh and uh we don't believe it will compr uh compromise Public Safety um it's consistent with the comprehensive plan supports low density residential development maintains residential character of the neighborhood and promotes orderly

development in line with Community goals um there's adequate access there the environmental impact is none at all if not it'll be improved by the drainage improvements manage runoffs um and the subdivision supports consistent responsible residential growth um in summary the requested variances and waivers are minimal Justified and consistent with the neighborhood and comprehensive plan uh

the proposed subdivision resolves the property's existing constraints and supports a development of two single family homes uh I have with me the applicant tonight if we do have any specific questions if the board has any questions we'd be happy to answer them yeah questions from board members of the applicants Council or the applicant at this point I'm going to give the opport

public an opportunity to be heard at the end it's our practice to do that on why don't we hear the staff report at this point ke sure so we um we reviewed the application sent it to different departments their comments received comments from the city engineer who had uh requested additional details regarding storm water and the zoning officer who um verified the variances that were being requested

um as the applicant stated the there are the sidewalk uh waiver and curbing waiver is being requested here um it does fit within the guidelines of um waivers spelled out in the sub division regulations not being within 100 half a mile of a public pool um not being in reasonable proximity to major public or private facilities um not being located in an area with high vehicular traffic volumes

where there be a likelihood of significant danger to um this is a unified development review application which this board is a bit new to since the change in state law um the variances requested are for lot area lot depth and lot coverage um and the specific measurements are spelled out in the plan and in the report um we reviewed the um consistency with the comprehensive plan um looking

at all elements of that and our conclusion was that uh it's consistent with the existing land use patterns in the area and is consistent with the land use element of the comprehensive plan um and also that the subdivision we found met the purposes of the subdivision regulations and the required findings there

um making any motions here um the board would have to Grant the variances first before the subdivision application um with the the variances in the dimensional relief requested it's are Department's opinion that it the relief will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan um the neighborhood around the

proposed subdivision is zone for single family and currently contains many single family homes along with multiple duplexes provide that partitioner demonstrates a hardship to the board's satisfaction the department doesn't object to the requested Rel um and the same with the subdivision application itself um there are one two three or recommended motions in the staff report um first to enter certain

documents into the record the second would be a motion to approve requested dimensional Vari es third to Grant the requested subdivision waivers and the fourth to Grant additional preliminary subdivision

alter the general character of the sounding area or impair the intent of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan um I I presume that you're basically talking about the lot sizes throughout the neighborhood um and and I visited the site and saw what your what Your folks saw saw as well um but I'm wondering to what degree of analysis you went through to come to that conclusion I mean did you measure lot

sizes yeah we did look at lot sizes in the surrounding area um AG n There's a summary of that here we're within 200 feet of the parcel um there multiple Parcels that don't meet the minimum lot area of the R4 Zone including a two family dwelling on 3200 ft AB buding the parcel yeah single family dwelling on a 3200 ft parcel new family dwelling on a 6,400 foot parcel new family on a 3,775 foot

parcel um so the proposed single family dwellings of 4,800 each didn't seem unusually small for that area and related to the same issue um I I don't see any compunction on our part to be granting um this development it's really it sounds to me like it's a matter of choice right I mean it is with the variance it is a matter choice of whether you feel that there's hardship well there's one variance now

right for the 80 ft um but now in approving this we're adding a second one well there's three being requested in general right yeah lot area lot depth and more than allowed building coverage and when I say three it's really in a sense six because it's those things for both of the right thank

you any other questions from board members we'll give you the last word there I would just but I'm going to give the public an opportunity to see if anybody else question then Mr Deo I will give you the uh sir you had something you wanted to say there'll be one for each parcel yeah I believe it's we have 18 feet that correct 18 we should be able to get two space is

there there's a there's a garage and then you have the drive you have the driveway we'll probably have one car in the garage there's a garage yes it's in uh conformance with zoning

requirements I don't have a copy of the plan with me I should but I we have an extra if we have an extra one okay looks like we have 15.5 ft on the house to the left on the corner lot and in between 8.5 feet side yard is 8T as as needed we have 8.5 ft so we have an additional half a foot it's right there but it it meets it meets the zoning

requirement 8 and 1/2 ft as as eight is required and then on the other the other parcel we have 12T on each

side

well no I I completely understand your concerns um you know we're proposing that we'll have two SP parking parking spaces one in the garage one in the driveway if there's you know families that need to park on the street and let somebody else pull in before they you know when somebody else gets home I think that's just a reasonable accommodation that most people have to have to deal with

U just we're going to do one person at a time please

all just to clarify are you saying that the police have put have been putting barricades up bar

right well you're adding a different you're adding a different an additional home so obviously that's one or two more

Vehicles they they they purchased it it's too it's to residential I mean two uh substandard lots of record that they own and they should be able to get the beneficial use of those lots which is to build a single family home in performance with their best efforts with the the city to develop it reasonably I think that's what the applicant is trying to do and I don't think what we're asking for is

sir are you implying that there's no no use of the property right now it's got an occupied home on it there's there is a use of the property right now

right I'm just going to have you and yeah I'm going to need to swear everybody into uh I don't think we had sworn when you uh tesi earlier stand up raise your it's the testimony you've provided the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so hope you go and what was your name and your address for the record thank you where to the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth okay name and

address for the record all

for e

e e

is there anybody else in the public wish to be heard ma'am I sure this woman had her hand up first swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you go what's your name and address please Gideon

sh

here

there anything you want to add with regard to the actual issue that's before the board

tonight sir Solly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God take that as a

yes go ahead Mr Reed the floor is yours go ahead Mr Reid the floor is yours

that

what up Sear n

know

I

all of us

20 de ex me

excuse me if you can use the microphone please

it you're a lawyer else

hey have

it's it's here

city and state inol we don't thank you Mr I I I'd like to ask you local residents a question or two um do I understand right from what you're saying uh you would like to see this house renovated and repaired you don't want to see it fixed at all

so you want to see

it was

attorne the sighting is down on one side of the holding I guess it was a little clumsy okay okay fine but you do understand if we rejected this application we can't compel the developer to you know rebuild the house to your specifications

thank you any other questions or comments from board members if not Mr Deo I told you I give you the last word that's it I'm sorry the board has any questions for myself or the be happy to answer them all right any uh uh discussion or further questions from any board members not we ready to move to uh some votes okay hearing none uh the first motion I'll entertain is with respect to

the admission of the documents requested by the planning department into the record that would be the planning department staff recommendation with attachments dated November 6 2024 the October 11th 2024 memorandum from Mr scabber the October 24th 2024 memorandum from Mr P there motion to accept those documents the record so moved second by Mr Miller seconded by Miss Lopes all those in

favor please say I opposed guys have it uh what is your pleasure ladies and gentlemen with regard to the uh requested dimensional variance Mr chairman I'm not going to vote for it I will vote

now and just to remind board members that regardless a favorable motion or unfavorable motion regard to the requested dimensional relief the actual rational in light of the uh four criteria that are all set forth and detail and the stat need to be

addressed um are you saying that acceptance of the documents is a de facto approval no what I'm saying is that if you going to make an affirmative motion to reject the applicant's request for dimensional relief you have to say why they haven't met dire h stand identified in the St I think they hit the elements i i would support a motion to Grant the requested dimensional relief you feel

differently and you make a motion you may prevail on that motion not either way the substance of the have to articulate I say yes sir call now um my my point of view is quite simple and direct uh we are looking at a situation in which the property right now has one variance and we are increasing the number of variances to six um for no real I as I can see other benefit

did you want to be heard Mr Deo no it looked like you had something I I just think that there is a significant benefit I mean as you said there's a a property there that's dilapidated and as residents have said you know should have been condemned it was condemned is in terrible shape this gives them the opportunity to get in there and put something get some housing in a much needed environment where you know single

family homes are are needed in this state to get a good developer in there who's willing to work neighbors and they made some concessions some comments about putting up you know privacy fences I think those are would I'm sure he would if that if that was something that you know we discussed I'm sure he'd be happy to um and and get the which is which is sure Ma I'm gonna

ask I'm gonna ask the comments to be directed through the chair please in order to have as orderly meeting as possible uh we need to direct our discussion to are you making a motion Mr crook or you or just sorry that was my rationale um for voting to uh disapprove of this application formal motion to disapprove deny the request for yes right is there a second to that

motion once going twice hearing none the motion will fail for a want of there an alternative motion

an alternative motion would be to include the fence that they would like and that could be added as a as one of the conditions to the subdivision approval on page um Mr Deigo does your client have any issue with that no it does not another one by the way could be the zoning officials um note that was addressed earlier that I don't see on the plan which is that uh he asked for

he asked that the plan should contain notation that no further building improvements to include any accessory uh structur such as a shed shall be permitted and that's so that you know because they're at the maximum building coverage so any future buyers don't get the property and then are surprised that they can't build the shed there because of that that would be put in the deed

um would the subdivision approval which yeah it would be in the subdivision approval the notice of decision right the other thing is talked about this before about um the sidewalk not the sidewalks the CBS so that that's a separate that's a separate issue which we can debate would have to come after the request for uh Rel uh ised or rejected if it's rejected if it's granted uh you move on to of the

refle bbing then a request for consideration in that order you absolutely can make a motion yeah and I'll just I'll just articulate my my thoughts on the thing I'm going I I think that the relief they're asking for is is nimous uh it's it's absolutely small amount of of zoning relief that's been requested this is undoubtedly going to be an improvement to the current situation um it is perfectly consistent

with the size of the Lots in the area um and it is uh in my opinion an overall Improvement to to the area to the extent that the applicant is not subjecting to the request for inclusion of the privacy fence I'm also supportive of that as well so I think it hits all four of the required necessary for granting variances Mr chairman also including the prohibition on the accessory structures that's a recommendation of

the zoning official and that as well and i' have no problem as a condition of subdivision approval I would approve that and just to be clear all of this appears to be the the result of the way this this was platted in the I've already given it an opportunity for the public to speak we're we're moving on now so now is there a motion on the floor I can't affirmatively move I would like to

make a motion that we approve um domes variances but adding a fence for the neighbor privacy as a condition of as a and the basic the basic thing that the four elements necessary for theal relief of yes including the hardship yes so I I would amend that and make sure that we record no accessory structures yeah I just want to um wouldn't that be a condition of subdivision approval yeah I would think so I guess

it could be either one but it does really but I recommend too for the privacy fence you're adding some Lang 5 foot tall privacy fence they'll be added along the property lines with neighbors is it okay to include both of those elements as conditions of approval both of the request dimensional relief and of the request I think so I think that would doubly cover it there so that motion was

second a motion by Miss Rockwell seconded by M Miller to Grant the request conventional Varian all those in favor with the two additional requirements we talked about the no additional accessory structures uh and the inclusion of the 5 foot privacy fence that was discussed here all those in favor of that motion please signify by saying I I I guys have it the next issue is the request to Grant the subdivision waivers

request for waver with respect to both sidewalk and granite curbing requirements uh I don't know that I've heard any opposition to the staff's recommendation that the uh three ele ments required by the regulations are met that the subdivision is not located within a half mile of a public or private school it's not located in reasonable proximity to a major public or private facility uh and it's not located within

an area with high vehicular traffic volumes where there would be a signant danger do you have any you want to be heard specifically Mr Deo on that on that issue no I I you know I staff's recommendation and I agree comments or questions from board members on that issue on the request for waiver I would just um add to that that it also uh complies with the nature of the neighborhood okay is there a motion with

respect to that request no moved did motion by Mr crook seconded by Miss Rockwell with regard to the waiver of sidewalk and curbing requirements all those in favor please say I I guys have it uh and by the way uh Keith just as a housekeeping matter before we vote on the subdivision request um the staff had recommended that the dimensional relief be expressly subject to certain conditions of approval

including that any and all necessary permits uh for the relief be obtained uh that the failure to obtain the requisite permits within six months would result in expiration of the approval that the approval is subject to strict compliance to the submitted site plan and that all conditions of approval of the preliminary they'll also apply as conditions of granting the requested dimensional R that's right those are

should have mentioned those those are St standard conditions gr ditional Rel do you want an affirmative vote from the board articulating those um you know that might be that might be helpful if it wasn't included before so to the extent that it was not expressed before some motion by Mr Miller seconded by m Rockwell all those in favor please say I iOS have it the last motion we'll

entertain is with respect to the request for conditional approval of the subdivision subject obviously to the conditions that are set for and also to include by the way the prohibition on access structures fcy motion by m Rockwell seconded by Mr Miller all those in favor please say I iOS nice thank you very much for your participation good luck

next item on the agenda is items C1 C2 and C3 Michael R and I I mean no offense by this if I say the name incorrectly J Lin kavako take permission to subdivide property located at 11-19 Welden Avenue six Short Street further recogniz as map 206 block 13 parcel 5 Via a minor subdivision in accordance with the unified development plan procedural process resulting in relief from lot area lot depth side

front yard and rear yard setbacks as well as exceeding the maximum building and impervious lot cover and failing to meet the off street parking requirements we also have a request to subdivide property uh the same parcels a minor subdivision in accordance with the unified development plan review procedural process resulting in the need for a special use permit to use the existing three family dwelling an R six

zoning District lastly we have a request for minor subdivision preliminary plan approval subdivide parcel five into two Parcels each containing one residential structure in accordance with article 8 titled minor Land Development projects and minor subdivisions of of the Land Development subdivision reg sir Deo either you like the view from where you're standing or you're you're a

frequent flyer it's not too bad I don't mind it at all you representing the applicant on this as well I am yesos Michael and Jen who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon excuse me this evening um we were scheduled for last month's meeting um we're here tonight I'm here tonight on their behalf we're presenting as you said a preliminary plan submission minor subdivision on wman Street excuse me

welman Avenue and short Street uh the property currently contains two separate residential structures as you were saying three family residents as well as a single family residence uh the goal really is to subdivide this to create two distinct Parcels so each home is located on its own lot um this will correct the non-conformity of having two principal dwelling structures on on one lot um

there are some variances that we will need there's there's quite a bit but what I'd like everyone to keep in mind is this is already existing there's there's no additional work being done the only additional work that is being done is to address uh some of the concerns that the city has with drainage some driveways um so we can there's there's list of variances here front yard setbacks um for parcel a which is the

property on Welden the the frontage on Welden Avenue has 7 7 ft uh 7.5 ft and 7.8 ft where 15 ft is required parcel B has 1 foot fired again that's those are the existing uh uh improvements we have a rear yard setback for parcel a of 8.9 ft where 25 ft is required lock coverage 25 feet or excuse me 25% is maximum we have 37% for parcel a 29% for parcel B the parking is

limited well parcel a has two spaces where four required and parcel B is zero spaces where it's required um the lot area for Lot B or excuse me parcel B is 2,127 square ft where 5,000 is required and the lot depth is 66.4 n ft where 100t is required uh like I said the these variances are necessary because of the exist placement of the structures which were built before current zoning

requirements uh the subdivision respects the character of the neighborhood or similar non-conforming setbacks and parking constraints are common it simply introduces a lot line without changing the built environment or increasing the building footprint at all uh the three the three family dwelling is a pre-existing use which is consistent with surrounding multif Family Properties no new units or uses are

being proposed or added uh the proposal maintains the current land use pattern and addresses the hardship caused by historical conditions without negatively impacting the neighborhood uh the special use permit we are requesting a special use permit to allow the continued use of the three family dwelling on parcel a again this use is pre-existing and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood which

includes other multi family uh properties subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan plan which designates this area as mixed use this designation supports both single family and multif family dwellings uh and if the subdivision maintains the residential character of the neighborhood and it resolves a long-standing non-conformity multiple structures on one um uh the proposed subdivision meets

the requirements of section 54 the subdivision regulations there's adequate access old properties have Frontage on public streets welding in short stre uh there's no significant environmental impact there's a a slight Improvement in the inclusion of the the dry Wells um the subdivision promotes orderly growth by legally separating the two existing lots for homes encouraging Investments and owner

occupancy um in summary subdivision will correct a non-conforming condition uh it ensures consistency with the comprehensive plan and subdivision regulations uh and the requested variances are and special use permit are minimal and justified by the existing property layout Curr that I I I don't know whether this is better directed to you or to the planning department not but I I think I

understand what's going on there but do you have any color to offer in terms of how the situation came to be in the first place that a single that two two properties are are existing on a single lot I think the the use was just was constructed before the zoning ordinance for even in the font so when the zoning ordinance went into effect it was already existing and therefore it continued such sort of

actually you know no work as I understand it contemplated well the the single family dwelling was in some was in rough shapee um so they've done some significant work to improve the property not changing the footprint no no all um and so then short of the dimensional relief that's being requested and short of actually altering the is there no other there's no other way to cure this problem there there's

no other way to cure this problem and by doing what we're doing it will fortunately give people an opportunity for owner occupancy that single family home as of right now it's a difficult property to finance with how it's structured and would be considered commercial uh because of the three units and the in the accessory use of that single family home by separating them selling that single family home

independently we're going to get somebody owner to occupy that property that owns that property and same thing with the three family it opens up a lot of financing possibilities for potential uh or potential owner occupy situation where myself you imagine title hopefully we can E Yeah report looked at these issues here and as attorney too this is another unified development review application

um it's the first of this board seen the special use permit application um normally normally if a development uh if someone came with a subdivision idea that had this many variances and a house on a 2,000 something square foot lot um you know it probably wouldn't be something we'd support but in this case it is dealing with the issue of the two houses on one lot one of them being a

few family um so you know I think it has been the practice of Department to recommend in these cases that variance is be granted that can lead to the um lead to the result of separating the two Parcels out from each other we found this to be consistent with the comprehensive plan um especially since nothing new is going to be developed here or expanded upon we found it to be consistent with

the subdivision regulations general purposes and required findings

and the specific dimensional release needed is uh needed on page starting on page six of the report um there's also the special use permit that would be required which is for um basically it's for uh as a zoning official put it intensification of the three family by reducing its spot size um it's the opinion of the department that the requested relief won't alter the general character of the surrounding

area or impair the intent of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan since a three family dwelling and single family dwelling exists today and no new housing units are proposed uh the neighborhood does contain pre-existing non-conforming multif family homes and single family homes provided the petitioner demonstrates a hardship to the board Bo satisfaction parment doesn't object to

the um and is recommended motions in the report on page eight first one is the motion to enter documents into the record um motion to approve the requested variances we should probably have a separate motion although it's not listed that way for the approval of the special use permit that's requested which would make the fourth one the motion to Grant conditional preliminary subdivision

approval um the dimension relief does have those same three um perfunctory stipulations on page 11 and the subdivision approval motion we're recommending the five conditions on page 11 which paraphrase is that um all comments from the city engineering department shall be addressed prior to final plan approval and outstanding property taxes or Municipal fees are paid tital block of the preliminary plan

revised to update Revis to indicate final plan status final plans are based upon preliminary plans and that the proposal shall meet all applicable city state and federal regulations and requirements so Keith just um for housekeeping servic is the requested uh motion of planning boards regard to the special youth to authorize issuance to issue special youth permit to allow uh use of the existing fre family dwelling in

R6 um it is to um yeah it's basically to uh approve the uh special use permit for alteration of non-conforming uses and um on page 10 of the report it talks about the two criteria that are listed in the zoning regulations um for the for the board to consider that's the non-conform use though right the allow the allow use of the in the RX Zone right

yeah first item would be with regard to Doc

that more or less correct yes Mr chairman I just have a point to clear up the record um it's come to our attention the application is for 11-9 Welden Avenue um believe the tax assessor has this listed as 11 Welden um it does not comprise 19 Welden that is the address of anter just to clarify the address on the application it's not 11-19 it might be 11-15 I'm not sure where's the error is

it in the application I believe we got it right off the application said 11-9 the abutter who lives at 19 Welden is here any any issue with that Mr Deo Mr V yes it looks like when they prepared the survey they just listed that as the the address I don't know if it makes sense to just reference the parcel numbers the actual I think we can probably Grant an oral request modif yeah yeah so we'll we'll

we'll modify the application to um include the address of 11 Welden Avenue and six Short Street which is identified as map 206 block 13 parcel 5 the tax assessor datab any objection from any I I just have a question of the logistics of this um aren't we in doing this also establishing a second address is two two addresses now number 11 and number whatever uh number 19 is an existing

address one of the abutters they did have it right okay no it's a six short that's how they'll be listed okay fine okay thanks making

clear vote to that effect so yeah do we need a motion to correct the address on record I don't believe we do I just I promised the abutter that we would take care of that tonight on the record I don't think question was raised whether we need to Ren notice it I don't believe that's necessary because everyone who needs to be aware of the meeting has been notified all the

about okay any questions from board members of either the planning department or the app know I know we have at least one other were to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth help you name and address for the record pleas

J

we can take a look at the believe it would be two spots per unit if I'm not mistaken we have two spots there shown on the plan so that would make four

spots you guys you know the answer I think it's just two spots required per unit let

yeah I mean the uh specific relief requested was um parcel one is is failing to meet the four off street parking spaces required firstent to section 19- 284 because they only have two

chairman um so I'm Dominic I work in the planning department um I had reviewed this exact question with our zoning officer at pental and he had confirmed um the calculation with off street parking spaces for a three family it's uh I forget the exact calculation off the top of my head but I assumed it was 6'2 so I looked at this um but it's actually Four I think it's based on um

um within a three family it's two and then plus um like some fraction of a space for the three families and then you get into different parking calculations for separate multi family or for a single family home but in this case our zoning officer reviewed the application and confirmed um the zoning relief requested was accurate it has how many two does that answer your question

man' e

what

e

e

e e

yes

I just have a question you me little you like the house

is that the letter the November 10th 2024 letter uh okay and you're asking that that be included in the planning Department's record all right is there more than one copy or is it just this one I'm going to pass it around then so m e

so I understand all those points except that if if if nothing happen nothing is going to change

anyway

e for

PE

want

know

up

you

you

it's

any

you

thank you very much any uh board members have any questions or comments not Mr too I'll give you the last word else uh I'm I'm sensitive to the concerns that were raised by the budding neighbor but uh to me this this appears to be the uh of short of actually reconfiguring the buildings themselves district for quite some time um this appears to me to be the most reasonable way of Sting obvious problem on

single there's not nothing that's going to be wor that's current okay

I said I disagree with um our chairman on this I feel that the person that bought that bought that knowing that there were two buildings on that one and it is nonconforming it was probably some family thing that was done years ago but you bought that property knowing that the buildings were there you basically want to subdivide it so you can I feel like that probably that building doesn't belong

there it's 2,000 square feet where are we going to avoid the need for dimensional relief we require theing owner to one of them that doesn't seem okay but he brought that knowing that was a situation he didn't go to City Hall and check it I mean I have people that have done that they go and check to make sure that they can get that they don't buy it and then

go I don't know that's just the way I feel I'm not gonna I'm not yeah I I don't Frank Le you where we would have the legal basis to to one of the properties down no I'm not saying we we could reject the application right but but I can't see where we'd have that authorization the application nonform right yeah we're trying to rationalize the map so to speak exactly

I I I would um I want to direct a question to the planning department I think probably specifically Dominic uh in your email of the uh September 18th um I you know you had had an extensive discussion uh with Mrs M misss Diaz um and um and I did by the way find your arguments very compelling um but let's look at this specific proposal as a real proposal um tearing down the

garage it's a two-car garage if I remember right from driving by it do you pick up an extra or two more parking spaces by doing that I don't see how I don't see how it h would happen but you know you spent more time out on the site than I obviously have

um I think when dealing with these knock conformances once you start to redesign that parcel um I don't think engineering wise you could get an additional conforming parking space right because a conforming parking space you'd want it to be 9 by 18 ft and then if it's third spot you can't I don't think you can t uh like stack them in such a way so I I don't see tearing down the two um I two

existing parking spaces would have added to the off street parking on that particular parcel yeah thank you that's what I was

wondering ordinarily the answer would be no once included the public since you're the only person here concerned about this I'm G to make an exception go ahead

spe

okay I me I I I feel like I'm missing something that's why they're here we do if we reject the the request for uh the variances the only way the owner of these two buildings and bring them into compartment by by radically transforming the actual that's that's not that's not what this board should be in the business of doing so I I well but that does nothing to help you you're you're in no worse position

after this is approved versus being in the position you're in right now take your word on that one I don't

I understand where I'm sitting these two parel buildings and corre preexists these building dat it's historical anomaly uh but uh to me this seems like

the but like I'm only one vote on this on this board so um are there any other questions or comments from board members this appli not we'll go linearly through the uh motions Deo you said you had nothing further okay um so in the interest of proceeding as expeditiously with our agenda chance uh the first motion I'll entertain is with regard to the planning Department's request that uh docum be

entered into the record F recommendation with attachments December 3rd of 2024 Mr scabber memorandum dated 26 the memorandum from mral dated October 21st the email from the water department superintendent Jim Marvel dated September 19th the email from the Fire Marshall Captain Carr dated 2024 and then lastly the memorandum cided tonight by the abing neighbor I'm going to mispronounce the

name the author of this memorandum Hisham saikali this has been passed around and made available to board members included in the record as well ex Mr chair I want to add um DS's comments also that we uh in the staff report Jed I'll make that Amendment October 31st yep and I'll move to accept second motion by Mr crook seconded by Mr Miller to accept all of those identified documents into the record uh all those

in favor of the motion please signify by saying I I oos guys have it the second motion I'll entertain is with regard to whether or not we Grant the requested dimensional variances uh we will treat that as a separate vote from the request for FAL use permit and as all these requests Pro a motion Pro or con be couched

isic which part do we want on the record uh just item one all of them if you're going to either way if you move affirmatively or negatively with regard to the request for Relief the rationale needs to be just I'm asking if you want me to read it on to the record I think you can just incorporate it into your motion what what do you find you know do you do

you all right I I move we accept um the motion to approve the requested dimensional variances has itemized on page 9 of 11 um with the rationals that the hardship which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and not due to a physical or economic disability of the AC applicant

accepting those physical disabilities addressed in R RI GL 45- 24-30 uh 16 section 16 and two such hardship is not the the result of any prior action action of the applicant and item three the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or imp impair the intent or purpose of this chapter or the city comprehensive plan upon which this

chapter is based and for in granting a dimensional variance that hardship will not be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted shall be amount to more than a mere inconvenience meaning that relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed to be devoted the fact that a use may be more

profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds for Relief um just want to add to that this um would also have the three standard dimensional relief conditions that are on page page correct and just I'll just I'll make that note for the record Mr crook I assume your motion would also require that petitioner all necessary permits necessary to exercise

the relief granted he fails to ex obtain those requisite permits within six months uh expiration uh approval will expire the approval will be subject to strict compliance to the submitted site plan and all conditions of approval of the preliminary plan application are also will also apply as conditions of granting the request yep so stated and so moved second motion by Mr crook seconded by Mr

Miller to Grant the requested dimensional relief all those in favor please say I I opposed noting M Rockwell's opposition um the next uh motion I'll entertain is with regard to the request for issuance of a special use permit um to allow uh use of the existing three family dwelling in an R6 zoning District Motion in that regard um just wanted to say I think this for this is for the permit portion

correct so do we also have to include um the fact that the address does not include 19 let's see 19 Welden yeah I think we can make that a condition of approval that the um no reference would is that a motion to approve the special use permit so second motion by Mr Miller seconded by Miss Lopes um subject to obviously the condition that that the application will be treated as amended to drop the reference

to 19 welon all those in favor of the motion please say I hi oos as Rockwell opposed and then lastly is there a motion to Grant conditional preliminary subdivision approval subject to the conditions requested by the planning department identified on page 11 second by Mr Miller seconded by Miss Lopes all those in favor please say I I iOS M Rockwell opposed thank you very much good luck with the project thank you

thank you for coming in ma'am I appreciate your your participation have a nice evening thank you thank you next item on the agenda is a uh item D it's a request for a recommendation to the Waterfront special development District commission regarding comprehensive plan consistency for metacomet property llc's application for a proposed mixed use to development located on 500 Veterans Memorial Parkway

accessors map 107 block 15 lot one and map 107 block 15 Lot 1 through 10 and I will just note for the record that uh this afternoon prior to today's hearing we received by email a memorandum to the Waterfront commission uh hearing panel and the planning board from the design Review Committee data December 9th 2024 uh we also received a uh a memorandum I guess I'll describe it as uh regarding the historic significance

of the Veterans Memorial Parkway uh submitted by keep metacomet green uh dated December of 2024 uh both of those have been received and uh members of the planning board have had an opportunity to Council to the applicant thank you Mr chairman my name is Josh berlinsky I'm attorney with the firm of darl ett represent the applicant metacom at property LLC um briefly uh as members of this board may recall we were

here in April um to initiate this process uh that meeting the board properly in retrospect asked that we do a little bit more work as it relates to um the refinement of the engineering architectural and traffic product uh we are entering our 10th month of Permitting this project before design review and the Waterfront commission uh we're we're very pleased with the progress thus far we think it's been a

productive process for both the public the commissions and the applicant alike and we thought um in response to a request that was actually made at the April meeting which I'm sure everybody remembers like it was yesterday we have a brief presentation of the project because we hadn't really made one to the planning board before so I have four Consultants that are going to speak in

uh as bre brief as their remarks would otherwise allow uh just to explain the status of the project point out some elements of it and then we're available to answer any questions you might have I have John S who's our architect from phase zero design Matt murva who's from our engineering firm bowler engineering Paul banon who's our traffic consultant from Crossman engineering and then we

have our planning consultant Ashley s from Weston and Samson conclude tonight's presentation so I Matt or John first Matt so Matt Mur from bowler will begin the presentation where are each of these Witnesses good evening raise your right hand you swear the the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name to

the record Matt murva bowler thank you working on a couple slides

here perfect thank you if you wouldn't mind just advancing them when when I ask that's great thanks a lot uh so I'm just going to handle number one here the the site design review summary uh just to sort of recap where we've been over the past 10 plus months uh since we've started the process here uh if you could click ahead um to the next slide oh back one this just breaks down

the site into the phases that we uh intend to build out on phase one uh is the golf course that's actually already operational uh as of this past summer uh so that is a fun ing uh N9 Hole Golf Course open to the public Phase 1 a is the maintenance facility that needs to be relocated from up in the yellow area uh to allow for the development of phase two and then phase three

subsequently uh so if you click to the next slide this shows the overall development plan as it sits today uh Josh mentioned the the process we've been through so far uh we submitted detailed drawings this is just sort of a summary illustrative plan uh but but really we've got you know updated grading drainage utilities landscape lighting uh layout of materials that have all been put

together to uh describe in further detail what you see up on the screen here but there have been some design modifications throughout the process that have been uh brought about by comments uh from the boards we've been in front of uh from the DPW from the p reviewers so I'm just going to run through some of the modifications quickly if you click to the next slide we start to highlight where some of

these changes have have happened through the process uh so generally speaking as I mentioned we've provided greater detail on the the types of lighting uh specialty pavement materials we provided detailed plant lists locations for Ev stations for electric vehicles uh locations for bike rack po for future Solar Development on the site on some of the roofs into the next one if you

would I think that2 okay one more ahead there you go that's it so one of the one of the key features of the the site plan is really this town center concept that's evolved uh since we first started presenting the project this would uh consist of specialty retail in a pedestrian oriented uh environment open to the public uh terminating on Green Space at an outdoor seating area um and then Cafe

tables uh benches seating areas for food trucks uh so that's in the the area you see in red there and one of the architect's renderings is in uh the view in the lower right corner there so we think that's really going to be kind of the heart of the development uh if you click to the next slide we also looked at uh some pathway improvements we're accommodating bike travel along this 100 foot sort of

parklike Frontage that we'll have along Veterans Memorial Parkway uh so we've widened out the paths to allow for multi-use travel there uh and cleaned up some of the pedestrian Connections in that zone next slide we also worked hard to create a buffer to the back of the grocery uh use on site so there's some grade change that we're taking advantage of but we're also going to build up a burm uh and and an

additional fencing and Landscape that will will hide the loading area from view on um on liab there next slide please we also uh had some great discussions with design review committee about creating kind of a more curve linear entrance to that grocery anchored retail area uh so that's that's the slide you see here that the alignment is changed and we've provided some rendering for what that looks like as

well uh next slide we've also provided additional green buffer along our Boulevard uh to to enhance that pedestrian experience uh next slide please we've broken up the massing of some of the low-scale garages that border the residential area on the property uh and John C we'll get into more detail on that in this architectural discussion uh next slide if you would uh We've we've provided some enhanced

treatment for the what we're really describing as the residential entry to the property so once you come down the boulevard either from Veterans Memorial or from lionav you get to a place where you're really entering the residential zones providing for some signage and spe specialy Paving there to make that distinction very clear uh next slide please we also reconfigured some of the buildings in

this location uh to provide additional streetcape along the entry Drive uh and respond to some storm water uh questions that we've gotten during peer review that have all been uh incorporated into the overall updated package next slide uh provided some updates to the pocket park that will be along uh the entrance to Pierce Park and Jones Pond uh to to Greater delineate The Pedestrian access

there and connections down into this property uh next slide and then provided some additional understory planting along Fort Street to help buffer that uh proposed Maintenance building from some uh employee parking spaces that were providing there we quick to the next slide we actually zoom in on that area and if provide us some additional landscape and bming in that zone uh next slide if you

would and then uh as I mentioned the golf course uh was approved and developed uh and opened this past summer so that really sort of kicked off the uh the development here and we're excited about uh inviting the public onto the property uh for the for the first rounds this summer um next slide just to run through quickly uh we have been through an extensive peer review process with par engineering who

reviewed all of our uh detailed design drawings our storm water calculations uh they provided a letter back to us uh we've worked back and forth with them uh through a pretty collaborative process and and we're at a point now where they've responded to our comment responses so we've had responses to the responses there are a few maybe two or three small items to button up which we don't have any issue with doing

uh and we'll be updating plans accordingly uh and can make that a condition of any kind of approval moving forward here but there was no no showstoppers in there and everything was um was acceptable on our end there uh so I've just got updated plans in the next couple of slides but I'm not going to run through them all they're just um just click right through here uh we're showing the updated layout grading

drainage uh and utility plans which which have all responded to those peer review uh questions and comments uh and there are you know detailed sheets that that break the site into uh smaller portions where we're zoomed in and you can see a lot more detail than you obviously see on this uh with that I'll conclude and turn it over to John Sy was going to just run through the AR thank

you mat here's your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do state your name please my name is John S I'm with phas zero design We're The Architects for the project um so I just want to start start my remarks with a little bit of of background I know we've as uh as Josh mentioned we've been you know

talking through the permitting for 10 months or so now so for us we're we're sort of deep in the the details of it um and I want to give you a little bit of the flavor of the conversations that we have today have had today with the the design Review Committee and Waterfront commission um but to to back up a little bit from an architectural perspective I would say that the the sort of

overarching planning Concepts that we used to help guide the design for the the project have remained consistent um from the outset and I think some of those big planning Concepts just to give you give you all a sense of those um one of them was to make sure that we were appropriately zoning the site in terms of what uses go where relative to the surrounding communities for the development um SE have seen in the the

site plans that that Matt ran through all of the uh commercial and Retail components of the devel velopment have been located on the North uh West portion of the property near neighbors that are more commercial in nature all of the residential components to the development have been located more to the West uh in relationship to the the residential neighbors around the the property um another overarching planning

concept was that we wanted to uh maintain the character of Veterans Memorial Parkway that was a key consideration in all of our our planning and sighting of of buildings on the the development um so we m maintain the 100t buffer along Veterans Memorial Parkway that was uh suggested in the design guidelines from the the Waterfront commission and in addition to that we cited smallscale uh retail buildings on

the the parkway side of the development in such a way that they screen the the parking from the um Parkway itself if you could actually Advance one slide we could see a graphic um so Matt had mentioned the the Town Center which this is an aerial view of that town Center and that that was this sort of third overarching um planning concept that that we used uh really to develop This

Town Center is the heart of the the development not only is a you know great amenity for folks who might live on the site but also a great Community Gathering space for for folks who live in the neighborhoods around the the development um but in this image you can see Veterans Memorial Parkway along the left side of the screen there as I mentioned small scale retail sort of almost residential in scale on that side

of the property um we zoned the site again with all of the larger buildings more toward the center of the site and these small buildings around the periphery again trying to place the most appropriate uses in in the right location on the property and I think these overarching themes and I'm giving you this background I think they were all well received by the design Review Committee of the Waterfront commission

and most of the conversations that we had with them then were were more focused on details and I think you know from uh the points that that Matt walked through on the site design a lot of it was more detail oriented I think the same was true in terms of the comments uh that we received and and adapted to on the architectural side um next slide please so to give a little flavor of

what some of those architectural comments were from the design Review Committee one was that on some of the larger multifam buildings um some of the roof lines were a little bit static so we did some work uh in response to some of those comments to develop a little bit more um Variety in terms of the roof lines on the larger multif family buildings so this this rendering was an

example of the enhanced design of of one of those buildings next slide please another series of discussions we had with the the design Review Committee had to do with um the fact that a lot of the buildings in the Town Center area in particular will be viewed from all different directions all sides so we needed to really come up with a 360 design to these buildings um there's no

real backside to many of them so dealing with um things like how to screen rooftop uh mechanical equipment where to properly locate meters and things like that was a consideration um so in this particular slide on the building which is right in that town center area which will house the uh the golf operations um we made a an adjustment to the roof line to allow roof well to conceal the

rooftop equipment on on this particular building as well as others next slide please this is an overhead view of one of the multif family buildings similarly we're looking at ways of screening rooftop equipment on all of these buildings and as Matt mentioned we uh through the design uh review process uh did uh look at additional options for how to locate solar on the rooftops of of some of these buildings next slide

please um and one other point that that Matt had mentioned was some comments we received on the parking garage element which you see in the the foreground to the left here this is the the Central Boulevard that runs through the site the grocery store would be over to your right here in terms of this area um got some great comments from the design Review Committee about how to really simplify the the parking garage

buildings um but make them a better product in the end next slide please so again this aerial view of the the Town Center um so I think you know the the process that we've been through to date has been great there's been a lot of productive conversation um again very detail oriented detail focused we've been happy to make some uh modifications where were appropriate through those discussions and we think it's made a

better product from the architectural perspective so again thank you all for your time this evening happy to answer any questions if you have any about the buildings this evening um at this point I will turn it over to Paul Bannon to give a summary of the off-site Improvement you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do

for the for the record I'm Paul Bannon a traffic Transportation engineer with Crossman engineering uh Crossman was retained uh to uh review the traffic element of the project uh on a planning level basis and also as part of the state permitting process for the off-site improvements I'm very familiar with the parkway having worked on development projects over the last two decades so I'm very familiar with uh the

area and the roadway characteristics and operations the in addition to that background we also reviewed the city of East Providence comprehensive plans uh the transportation element the Waterfront commission uh special development District plan the medic comic District design guidelines and the veter Memorial Parkway stewardship plan to obtain an understanding of these documents and their recommendations for the

parkway as a result of this review to meet the goals of the city um the Waterfront and the Waterfront commission and other state level review agencies um we developed an alternative that included a roundabout design at uh lonab we're not introducing a new access on the parkway we're not introducing a new uh controlled access to a private development project the consideration of uh the

roundabout extends back 15 years when the um village on the waterfront was being considered that would have provided a an extension of Waterfront drive from takwon down to lionav as a souly Terminus that would provide a waterfront roadway linkage between lionav and Henderson this concept was further advanced in the comprehensive Plan update uh where the comp plan call for a contact sensitive

roundabout traffic cing safe pedestrian access and efficient vehicular circulation to the Waterfront at this location the Waterfront Pro Waterfront Village of Waterfront project was not constructed um and also the resulting roundabout was if we fast forward to today what we would be doing is part of our recommendation we'd be just relocating existing access that's on the parkway to the property and building two

driveways on Lion app you the project as proposed give the city and state an opportunity to enhance the section of the parkway um it which is unlike either section to both the North and South uh that's that are the contributing factors for the scenic highway along the property Frontage within the project area of the offsite improvements the parkway is a straight level high-speed roadway unlike those

areas to the North and South that include the Fort Hill section Overlook and the santum woods uh next slide please as you see in this photo this is the area of squantum woods what you think about when you talk about the parkway seen character um the project area that we're looking at for upgrade is devoid of these features next slide please this is our Frontage looking South to lionav this is

the view in the condition of the parkway as it relates to the area that we want to to enhance our intent and goal is to construct the infrastructure improvements that were proposed 15 years ago uh this will also give us the opportunity to enhance the Parkway and provide the features that exists today to both the North and South as you had just seen and most importantly we would be constructing cohesive con contact

sensitive Parkway design consistent with the historic nature of the Parkway and link to the high Scenic Highway areas that we just showed you to the to the South and to the north we've retained um as part of our design team a landscape architect that is very familiar with the parkway he worked on the uh stewardship plan the scenic roadways board and will assist in the design of the elements for those improvements the

design of of the of the intersection improvements on the parkway 15 years ago proposed two-lane um roundabout design based on the volumes that were uh occurring during that period volumes toay consistent with that U number so we've Advanced that again two-lane roundabout design next slide please and I know this is hard to to read but I'll just briefly go through it um starting at the the Northern end of the

plan uh north of The Office Park we're proposing to uh install left turn lane into the office Park to make that a safer condition than what presently exist where they have to turn from the high-speed travel Lane heading south to the roundabout about we widen um to have a two-lane approach there'll be two lanes coming around the roundabout and two lanes down to our driveway where will then um be reduced

to a single Lane similar to existing condition the driveway proposed at our site that will um be stop controlled right turn only those Vehicles looking to go south we'll have to access lionav and take a left of the roundabout which is a safe condition so these improvements um do not introduce a signal control a roundabout control at a private development it's proposed at a location

that it previously been considered uh and approved as part of the another project 15 years ago we're also providing and coordinating excuse me uh a an additional approach to The Village on the water fund property uh which is has new owners and we're working with them to um on that design and their needs uh for the future as part of our effort we met with in coordinated with the Department of

Transportation they reviewed our report our plans and if uh we received a preliminary letter uh agreeing concept with our Des design to allow us to go to uh final design and permit we've also had that reviewed with the uh City's pay review consultant and he has um they have reviewed and again uh have approved our our plan and and our report so we're ready to move forward with the final design excuse me

the final design effort uh and uh that includes a formal physical alteration per with review by the SC rways board also that'll go to the next

good evening everyone oh please raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do you and state your name Ashley sweet uh I am a project manager with Weston and Samson and put together a report for this project uh concerning consistency with zoning the comprehensive plan and the waterfront guidelines just give the presentation

just a moment thank you next slide so very briefly G to go over the project I will try to do that really quickly and not Touch Too Much upon what everyone else has covered um and then again briefly go over zoning ordinance consistency comprehensive plan consistency uh the relief that's requested a little bit about neighborhood contexts and then findings and conclusions which is all covered um

in the written report that was submitted

slide uh so again we're talking here about the about 140 Acres total um planned as a mixed use development on the former metacomet golf course which does include 6.9 Acres of open space that will be dedicated to the city and a nine-hole of course that is currently active on the site um it there will be a total of uh 890 residential units these will include 845 multif family rentals 22

duplexes and 24 tow houses in the residential portion of the site 10% of the units which is about 89 units will be designated as affordable uh the total development for the commercial portion of the site is approximately 153,000 Square ft of commercial space including that town center that you've heard about with a grocery store and neighborhood scale Reta next slide a couple of highlights that we

wanted to bring to your attention in terms of recreation and open space this provides about 9.6 Acres of open space that will be donated to the city um a renovated 43 acre 9-hole golf course which is presently in operation and the entire project will have a combination of pedestrian prominade with outdoor Amphitheater uh connections to the East Bay Bike Path and an internal shared Pathways uh this will be a phased

development phase one is the golf course which has occurred already phase two uh will be the Golf Course Maintenance facilities phase three will be a portion of the commercial and the residential units and then phase four will be completion of those residential units um certainly environmental and traffic considerations are of high importance the site is being designed with 100 foot

landscape buffer along Veterans Memorial Parkway with with the roundabouts that you just heard um at Veterans Memorial Parkway and lion Avenue to manage the traffic flow uh and there will be over 700 trees planted on the site to enhance the landscape and the Aesthetics of the development um the economic impact is something that we feel is important and want wanted to mention and that it will

generate approximately 5.3 million annually in taxes it will produce about 3600 construction jobs and about 630 permanent jobs in its first year of operation next slide so to speak a little bit about zoning ordinance consistency the project does require three variances one is a monument sign variance this is to install a monument sign at the entrance that's currently a prohibited type of

sign uh but the applicant intends to work with the city to make sure that it is in keeping with the character there is a a monument style sign in the development just to the north um and the applicant as I said intends to keep that visual character um we want to preserve the visual buffer um really avoiding the need to move buildings closer to the street the requirement is that you have

that signage on the building themselves but in order to do that we'd have to build pull those buildings very close to Veterans Memorial Parkway in order for anyone to see any of the signage we feel that the design is better served and the public and the city is better served if we're allowed to keep those buildings away from the parkway keep the natural character of the parkway keep the green

spaces along the Parkway and use a monument sign to indicate the businesses that are actually inside the development instead of bringing the development to the parkway to to be able to put those signs on the building as uh is currently required in your regulations we're also asking for a parking variance the requirement is one and a half spaces per a residential unit excuse me the requirement is two spaces

we're asking for one and a half parking spaces per residential unit uh more than half of this of the units are studio and one bedroom likely to be occupied by single individuals uh we are asking for that parking variance for that reason and it gives us the ability to keep more green space on the site um the total parking shortfall is minimal it's only about 12 spaces with that variance the other variance

that we're asking for is a fenestration percentage variance the current regulations require that there's 25% fenestration on certain side and rear elevations of the buildings and on side and rear walls we're needing that space for programmatic elements like kitchen storage and utilities which does not allow for fenestration of those sides um all primary Frontage you know um public facing sides

of the building will meet or exceed the fenestration requirements um you know maintaining that aesthetic feel it is just these side and back of the buildings that we need to be able to have those those blank spaces for programmatic issues next slide I also wanted to speak to you about the comprehensive plan consistency um starting on page 10 of that report is uh a detailed analysis of your

comprehensive plan its current goals policies and actions and how this project aligns with those specific goals policies and actions um in this presentation I'm giving you a general eneral overview um but I en encourage you to take a look at that there's also a table in there that gives specific references to specific goals policies and actions in the plan and how this project is consistent with them um

overall this the plan speaks in general terms about ensuring a quality of development it talks about providing for a range of Housing and service businesses that incorporate open space and Recreation into developments um so that every is available to the residents of those developments and we feel that this project really meets those goals um having an open space component a recreation component a housing and a

commercial component all contained within one project um again also promoting a mix of uses which is spoken often to in the comprehensive plan um the plan also speaks about maintaining enhancing open space and Recreation opportunities this project is providing providing nearly 10 acres of donated land to the city for public open space and also renovates a 9-hole golf course and makes that Golf Course accessible

and open to the public um the the plan also speaks about Scenic quality um and as we just discussed we're looking to set these building back buildings back from the roadway make sure that the smaller buildings are oriented closest to the Parkway and adjacent residential uses with the highest intensity use is in the center of the site so that from the outside four four corners um you see

the least impact and it preserves the scenic quality of the Parkway and the general area next slide on the land use chapter uh the text in The Document Speaks to a positive economic impact and diversification of your tax base as mentioned this project will generate 5.3 million in taxes annually and will create significant job opportunities uh the plan speaks about infill and Redevelopment this takes a

currently underutilized land revitalizes it provides a component of open space retail and much needed housing within the community uh the plan speaks about the promoting flexible zoning this utilizes the Waterfront development District zoning to implement a diverse mix of uses on a single site uh the plan also speaks numerous times to providing mixed use and encouraging mixed use

development uh this project provides a self- sustaining Community with a mix of residential commercial recreation and overall enhances uh the economic benefit to the community and provides a community center in a small downtown space for area residents next Slide the economic development chapter again also of course speaks to diversifying the tax base this project is intended to generate significant tax

revenue uh creation of job opportunities as previously mentioned it will create approximately 3,640 construction jobs during construction and 630 permanent jobs in its first year of operation uh the plan speaks about promoting new development that respects neighborhoods this is a mixed use com combining those commercial residential and recreational features again it has been designed in such a way that the

more intense uses are Central to the site and the less intense uses are on the edges of the site that are adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods as well as uh the parkway itself uh the plan also speaks about facilitating development and Redevelopment of underutilized property um this is an underutilized property it retains a portion of the site as a golf course makes that Golf Course open to

the public which it previously was not and really maximizes the benefit of the land through the Redevelopment of mixed uses next slide uh the recreation conservation and Open Space chapter talks about increasing recreational opportunities this project took a previously private golf course uh turned it into a renovated nine-hole public course and will donate 10 acres of land uh for

open space for the community um it'll protect and preserve as I said that Golf Course previously private now public um it will make connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian amenities through the connections to the East Bay Bike Path as well as create a system of internal shared paths within the property that will connect to other areas in the neighborhood and it really enhances an expands open space

opportunities by maintaining Scenic views um maintaining natural areas adjacent to the project site really again as I said putting the more intense fuses towards the center and protecting the outer edges so that they blend with the existing neighborhood next slide a little bit about that neighborhood context to the Northeast we have medium density residential homes this the current view will be be

preserved with this open space designation along Fort Street maintaining that neighborhood character uh to the South West that's the adjacent to the Veterans Memorial Parkway and the Cove uh again the project as designed will preserve those existing conditions there's no new development near the cove and the entrance at the Parkway is designed to manage traffic flow to the east of the site there is residential

homes and small non-residential uses uh which will experience a minimal change the renovated n hole golf golf course will be retained where it is and um really keeps those current views for those neighbors that are adjacent to that and to the West there is a an office park with 15 single story buildings which is compatible to the the um projects that's being proposed on the adjacent site it adds commercial

amenities that benefit those adjacent office uses and separated by Lion Avenue uh improving convenience without the disruption to those areas next slide overall in a review of your comprehensive plan we find that the project is appropriate in compatible scale of development to the surrounding area but the traffic and infrastructure improvements are appropriate and in keeping with your comprehensive plan uh

the project achieves several of your open space goals it enhances Recreation opportunities that are identified in the plan it does provide for a mix of uses which is supported and called for in your comprehensive plan it capitalizes on a Redevelopment opportunity which is something that is also again called for in the comprehensive plan uh it provides for a positive tax base it establishes

over 600 permanent jobs at a variety of pay scales and it provides needed market rate and affordable housing for the community and the surrounding ing area next slide so overall conclusions is that we find that the project is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to having those three variances that we reviewed approved it is consistent with the goals policies and actions found in your 2010

2015 comprehensive plan which are outlined starting on page 10 of that report and it is also consistent with the Waterfront special development District we submitted a very similar report to that committee um that outlined the consistency with their planned documents as well and that concludes my presentation I'm happy to answer any

questions Mr chairman that concludes our presentation this evening um I I didn't mention this at the outset but as I I think you referenced at the beginning um we were fortunate enough to receive the uh DRC recommendation at their meeting last month uh there were I believe 10 conditions attached to that recommendation which are part of the record which I believe you have in your

possession um we've submitted and worked through a number of peerreview studies during the course of the Waterfront commission desire Review Committee approval process as well um and we've worked in close collaboration with the planning department um Department of Public Works water department and engineering department for the city of East Providence as the project and the design has progressed in order to make

sure that each of these departments are on board and aware of the development the repercussions um and the interaction and the Integrity of um merging with Municipal systems to the extent necessary so uh we're happen we've got everyone here we're happy to answer any other questions or comments you might have but thank you very much for the time appreciate it thank you Mr balinsky

so just as a refresher here the planning board's role in the development review process is that to offer an advisory recommendation to the design Review Committee and the Waterfront commission as to whether the developments consistent with the purposes and intent of the city's 2010 compl plan as well as a subdivision and Land Development regular um so at the April meeting obviously the board board um order to

um table this bring additional outstanding materials to the board without prejudice um so as was discussed you know some of the things that they focused on was um the uh traffic study um archaeological survey fiscal impact study utility capacity issues um and other outstanding issues related to the state agencies like like do um and the applicants have gone over some of the progress that they've made in that time

um So based upon the um additional feedback professional review responses from peer review professionals City staff um we planning continues to support a prior conclusion that the development is generally consistent with the goals and objectives described in detail within the Department's April 5th 2024 consistency review memor random and Views the additional data and feedback as an important confirmation

that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plans goals and objectives um and we concur with um miss sweet summary of uh the consistency with the comprehensive plan um you we we find it to be consistent with the nine purposes of the subdivision and Land Development review regulations that's tasked of uh the board here um we also point out in our memo just the some of the legislative actions

that have been already taken to resolve potential comprehensive plan in consistency issues um like the city council's rezone of the property uh their Amendment of the comprehensive plan to accommodate the property and and the future land use plan resoning that occurred to uh rezone this from open space to um to be in the metacomet subd district of the Waterfront District um so yeah our our recommendation here

is that the planning board offer an advisory opinion to the Waterfront commission that the development as proposed is consistent with the purposes and intent of the city's 201 2015 comprehensive plan and further that the development is consistent with Section 1-2 general purposes of the subdivision and Land Development review regulation thank you Keith questions comments hi Mr chairman thank you

um uh Mr plan Mr planning director Mr PES uh on page three consistent with the 201025 comprehensive plan um with a little bit of luck this plan will have or this project will have started under one comprehensive plan and finished under another one um what is the legal formation with regard to that well we did verify with the city solicitor that in the water fund commissions uh Council

that you know they've applied under the current comprehensive plan so that adopting a new comprehensive plan won't you know affect this application you know what we should be going by is the 20 but the application going forward would obviously once the new plan is in place follow that plan rather than the prior plan well I mean I mean in other words you're not grandfathering the the plan under an old

plan the project under an old plan well the Waterfront commission would really Grant one approval which would be under the 2010 plan so so it would be so as so as written so so no element of the new plan would pertain to the plans and the development of this project no I don't think it would I mean you mentioned I guess to an extent it would be grandfathered into the old plan

you know I I assume that if they back in another if they're approved and they come back in another year or two with some new uh you know no new ch change to the plan that was their plan that was unforeseen it would be going by the new comprehensive plan and it would go under the new plan I see okay um on page four um we've gone over some of these issues before and uh I'm wondering

whether we've really nailed it yet um you indicate and this is for item the first item on the page and we're talking about the use of integrated Pest Management um in supporting this use planning strongly recommends that the developer utilize low impact best management practices in maintaining in maintaining the golf course um can't we stipulate that requirement I mean we're just recommending

it you know if it's something that's environmentally sensitive and we're concerned about about it shouldn't we make that an outright requirement instead of a recommendation well I mean the planning board's whole motion would be a recommendation so you know if if someone's going to require it it would be the Waterfront commission I suppose you could recommend that vote to uh recommend approval

here well I mean and isn't it also a matter of compliance with with the master plan because that's what we're really dealing with here does this application to date at this moment comply with the 201025 master plan so if we're saying that in that regard um stronger language would be required that would be our prerogative yeah you could improve you could uh include that in your recommendation course the golf course is

already up running but um let's go to the next item let me see I I I I noticed something actually is I was just driving over the site today and um it was it was a dead low tide and I wonder because you know I was not you know born in East Providence like and many of you had the Good Fortune to be um I I've got to think that over the

years there's been a there's been a substantial amount of siltation off of the slopes into the pond or into the Cove um I I mean does people do people recognize that is that right um is it something then that being the case is something we we want to control or we want to have controlled otherwise you know we lose that we lose that resource that ecological resource right I think that's where the

storm water management efforts come into play here with the work they've done the peer review that's been that's going into that um the B review that'll be necessary uh for the storm water element of the of the development and and so related to the D M work uh there was something else that struck me about it uh I've looked at all of these reports with regard to hydrology and um I know that the golf

course was in operation for um over 100 years um and only I think in the last 10 to 12 years were more environmentally sensitive management te techniques put in place um so we're talking about a history of pesticides and insecticides and and I wondered has anybody stopped and thought maybe we should be taking some core samples to find out if the if lokad Pond is um an environmentally sound

environment I mean we were talking about the overall ecological values right and protection of wildlife um I haven't seen anybody look at that yeah I'm not sure if that's been done or if that's been part of the applicant's um work with this could you address that oh um we're subject to crmc jurisdiction as it relates to the proximity to the water including the C so as part of we've

sought a preliminary determination crmc and as to the nature uh the extent of their jurisdiction and once that's confirmed we have to supply certain information as to um any engineering or or improvements that take place within the crmc buffer so if crmc who has jurisdiction over that Cove uh deems it necessary to take samples or to do that um they'll insist upon that as part of their as part of their permit their

asent um I do note that the storm Water Analysis which he uh referenced previously does discharged to some extent to the cove and there is a treatment method that has both been promulgated by our um engineers and signed off by par in the peer review so the treatment is yeah I read that yeah so the treatment has been dealt with and if serum C deems it necessary to any further testing analysis from the co

they'll include that condition as part of their set but they haven't requested it up today no sir that's interesting um as long as I as long as we're talking over these issues um the discuss question with regard to whether we have the traffic circle or we had a stoplight I um I I see in the planning Department's report um you're taking the position that you want to avoid that if it all possible even though there's

11,000 uh trips per day coming out of the site yeah I think some of the guide guidelines out there um some of the references you know speak more clearly about not having a traffic control signal on the parkway okay so now let me ask to understand this clearly is that the planning Department's position is it the developer's position or is it both of your positions can I take for crack at that yes please sure so your

comprehensive plan and your District plan um strongly discouraged signalization along veter Memorial Parkway so we've Incorporated our design element to address that concern by incorporating a roundabout which is also the preferred traffic mitigation me method um recommended by do as in connection with their review of our proposal and that's why I was wondering about it because um the master plan also talks

our Public Safety yep and if you could throw a picture up of the uh of your design I think we should really take a close look at the area around the traffic circle okay can we put that up um yeah I won't try to talk about it uh okay well you know what it is we know where the traffic circle is sure right you you guys have put in the location of the crosswalks

for the bike path correct right and I believe all total you have four lanes now um portions yeah two lanes correct right and it's unsignaled it's correct hold on about the four lanes Paul is that correct you want yeah I just don't want to misspeak so it is UN signal that I can confirm

each approach to the roundabout is two lanes and it's separated by a median divider what we call a splitter Island right so so in other words somebody who's who's walking their bike or God forbid trying to bike across that area um is doing so substantial personal risk no it's a standard design it's a standard design right um but if you had a traffic light at your other intersection right um you'd obviously

have a safer environment and you also have the bike path as well and I presume you'd like to see foot traffic off the bike path and that's how we've designed the site uh right with connectivity to the bike path through the roundabout it's it's a standard design it'll be approved um in you said it it was a historic design correct but okay the design of a pedestrian Crossing and a roundabout

roundabout is a slows speeed facility it's a yield control um and designed for speeds of 15 to 20 miles an hour full pedestrian visibility uh will have um supplemental signage potentially high visibility signage for pedestrians to prast buttons uh for flashers when they're present all right and and as a traffic engineer um 11,000 trips a day um a good portion of those um coming through the main

thoroughfare uh you're talking about foot traffic and you're talking about bicycle traffic and you you know you're talking about slower speeds yes but you're not talking about any safety safety control the safety controls would be at The Pedestrian Crossing uh with flashing maybe uh rapid uh rectangular flashing beacons that are pedestrian activated so when someone's in the crosswalk crossing

the road there'll be but nothing to slow or stop traffic slow traffic yes they're going 15 to 20 miles an hour they're not going 45 like they do today I see um I I mean I understand the point that there's a historic precedent with regard to the whole um Waterfront and I'm thinking that we're really moving into a different dimension here right we're talking about a significant development along the

Waterfront um and as much as the city and do wants to avoid putting in Signal traffic as a matter of public safety I think we may be crossing a Rubicon here now that being the case that being the possibility let's put it that way that being the possibility once the planning department and the Waterfront commission has signed off on this phase of development and the final phase of development if it later becomes

evident and it could be a tragedy somebody gets run over right or more than one person gets run over and there's a huge public outcry for signalization uh does marshall have any financial responsibility toward the cost of improving the traffic conditions yes we're we're responsible for the upgrade in the cost associated with you are you are responsible for the upgrade right even though there's no upgrade planned

at this point there's a major upgrade to the park well what I'm saying any any if there was a if there was a subsequent up upgrade that essentially meant putting in a traffic signal would that be your responsibility well T we Crossman engineering uh work with the state on a regular basis as part of our we're consultants for the State traffic commission so we review requests for crosswalks for enhanced crosswalks for

signalization on a daily basis for the State traffic commission so these issues come up Statewide at the request of local communities so if there's ever in the future a uh a condition that would warrant consideration it would be studied um through that process and would have to go before the state traffic commission for any installations of of a uh a signal the I think the language in the comp plan in the

stewardship plan allow for signalization under those types of circum IR ances for safety and um of the motoring public and pedestrians so if it's a matter of that issue uh cons signalization can be considered at this point at this point we don't feel it's well that's good in of itself but I'm but what I'm asking is who pays it depends on perhaps I'm asking the wrong person well it it depends on

when this could be 20 years down the road right so at that point it would be a requ reest from the from the city to look into potential safety enhancements for pedestrians and the state would look into that and included in one of their projects thank you we good for now any other questions from any other members of the board uh if not any members of the public wish to be heard

come on up Miss

you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name and address for the record Andy seal 125 South Rose Street East Providence East Providence 02914 thank you for your time I'll try to be brief June of 2020 this application became came before the planning board you were the first public agency in the city of East

Providence to consider an application today four and a half years later you're the last city of East Providence public agency to consider this application overall the quality of life which is a very important consideration in the comprehensive plan has been diminished or will be diminished by this development going from a peaceful open space even though it wasn't accessible it was there the only sounds were the

sounds of wildlife the only noise was the stars above now there will be 60 plus acres of development specifically talking about the Veterans Memorial Parkway and I must say that I I'm representing keep metac comic Green um specifically Rel to the Veterans Memorial Parkway we feel that the roundabout and widening of the roadway is not consistent with the comprehensive plan the 20105 comprehensive plan mentions the um

Parkway it says that Waterfront District development projects will be executed with full regard to reserving this roadways unique attributes the East Providence Waterfront special development District plan is incorporated into the comprehensive plan and thus becomes part of the comprehensive plan it says on pages 34 and 35 a critical component of preserving and enhancing the scenic quality of the parkway is to

retain its existing right of way width in its entirety as undeveloped in green open space there shall be no subdivision or development of the right of way and the existing unpaved portion of the right of of the parkway shall remain green and open space Redevelopment along the parkway should be proportional to the existing roadway functioning and capacity herb cut should be limited in

size and location and signage should be limited in size and scale development must be of the scale that would not trigger the warrants for traffic signalization roadway widening would also detract from the character and Scenic properties of the Parkway and should be discouraged in increased truck traffic would adversely affect the neighborhoods of joining the parkway this exact language is embedded

in the Waterfront District design guidelines specific to the metac comic subdistrict the kettle point subdistrict and the Veterans Memorial Parkway subdistrict in addition to Parkway alter alterations the developer intends to erect a large Monument sign at the main entrance from the parkway that is not limited in size and scale I think it was mentioned that there is a monument sign to the north of the

Medicom property but you'll see in in the memorandum that we included in the record you'll see the pictures of the signage on the parkway now the squantum association P point and the medical facility at 450 veterans Marley Parkway that those the that is the only signage on the parkway it's not Monument signage it's it's modest it's included in the Stone World work and this this type of signage a

monument signage violates the language and spirit of any number of protective measures regarding protection of the parkway's unique character this would be the first and only Standalone sign of the parkway to list retail tenants permitting the developer to erect a sign of this type would set a precedent for future developers to demand a similar variants owners of the current sites along the

Parkway pettle Point University Orthopedics the squantum association and the medical facility at 450 veterans mer Parkway would be justified in asking for the same consideration on zoning consistency I note that the East Providence City Council in approving the amendment to the 2003 plan that incorporated the medicomat site into the Waterfront District the members of these Provident city council purposefully included

language to protect the Parkway by limiting the scale of development to the traffic capacity of the parkway there's been talk this evening and other occasions about the village on the waterfront project which included a roundabout widening of the road two lanes four lanes but we also note that that Village of the Waterfront project fell apart to me that's the end of that's the end of the pertinence of the village on

the waterfront I've been here many times as I said you are the last defense of the comprehensive plan you are the last defense of the quality of life of the community the last defense against vast out of scale development of the metacomet property I thank you for your time have a good evening any other members of the public wish to be heard

you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I I do the andreid and your address please for the record oh Oneil I also represent uh Kei met comic Green and I just want to make sure that you all remember that the parkway is considered as it as if it was on the national register of historic places and that should be brought up every single

time that we're here why it's not is a there was a fluke someplace or somebody knew that all this stuff was going to happen and they put it aside especially when kmg tried to um reenact that bid to to to get it officially on the register but keep in mind that it is thought of as on the register and it should be treated as if it was and I do have a question um

if if can this project be done without um attacking the the uh Veterans Memorial Parkway I'm going to ask Marshalls can you do this project without um doing anything to the parkway anybody Josh

I think my response to that is that the the application 10 months old it's it's got a design plan Incorporated to it that that we stand behind that has been approved conceptually by Dot and your peerreview consultant and and that's the plan where we're going with is that um the real briefly and then I'll I'll turn it back over to Heather is that uh you know your the special district plan from

2003 that was previously referenced um called for the inclusion of a roundabout on ven's Memorial Parkway the um property owner on the opposite metac comment on the other side of the parkway um at some point is going to come for an application at this point and they can't access the property without a roundabout I I don't say this just to make it seem as Al an inevitable but as a practical

reality um roundabout is was the preferred method as identified by this city upwards of 15 years ago not by virtue of the veterans of The Village on the waterfront project but as contemplated in the special district plan of 2003 um the the capacity of the project uh in turn resulted in our our configuration of the offsite improvements on Veterans Memorial Parkway uh we you know we stand by our

our planning Consultants um report and testimony that that infrastructure that Improvement is in fact consistent with the comprehensive plan um you saw the pictures that Mr Bannon said about how the the squantum woods element versus what we're talking about here with the the wire fence and and we think that we're going to enhance the aesthetic of that um intersection as well by virtue

of the installation of the roundabout and the The Greenery and the landscaping that's required as a condition of that installation so excuse me so what I would say is that um is that the project and as it's as it's been progressed for for upwards of a year now incorporates that that element and so um I I don't want to speculate one way the other like that's that's the application that we're

here before you to discuss and that's the one we stand behind thank you my point was directly related to the comprehensive plan because it does say in the comprehensive plan that as as Candi said that the traffic will be limited to the development will be limited to the traffic on the park ride we have rules just like the the other instances before we have rules if you brought this you brought this property

you knew what was there and now you want to take some state land pay for it to fix your development which doesn't meet the comprehensive plan it really doesn't it it just for that instance so I I would like everybody to think about that this is a a a historic historic roadway um if you've read if you read the post this week AMG had a letter in it detailing

how the land was um it was taken given taken by eminent domain and bought and there is not a um property map available after they B after the proper was done land was bought and sold little bits all in lots and there is not a property map outlining where all the things on all the land excuse me all the land on the Parkway in the area is who owns what

there is not a map don't you think we should be finding out before we go and and wreck a historic Parkway I think so please keep that in mind and if anybody knows of one and if I'm wrong absolutely I will admit it but so far we have not found one thank you very much anybody else sure

do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do your name and address for the record please Daniel Bodwin 48 Kettle Point Avenue East Providence members of the committee Mr chairman thank you for this opportunity I was here back in uh I think it was March or April your last meeting and I just at that point uh

mention that I'm a retired city planner that I practiced for about 40 years um so I reviewed this I'm also a member of keep metac comic Green I know at the last meeting I think the planning board correctly asked the developer to come back with a lot more studies that you couldn't make a decision based on the material that you had well I think the developer has done that in most cases

come back with enormous amount of studies that have been reviewed by a lot of different people and that's terrific however there's one area that I think needs further study in order for this planning board to make a decision and that's the plans for the Veterans Memorial Parkway way I'll emphasize some of the points that candy and hather brought up one is that it's clear in the comprehensive plan that projects are

supposed to be constructed in line with the existing infrastructure with the existing traffic capacity that's in there now this one cannot say that it can comply with that but it leans back on the roundabout and says well that's always been in the plan hasn't always been in the plan for metac Comet that's one thing but the other two I think call for this board to say maybe we can approve the development itself but we

cannot approve what's happening on the Vets Parkway until we have a more detailed plan there's several Provisions in the comprehensive plan and the Waterfront District plan that emphasize the importance of the historic nature importance of vew card and importance of the scenic nature and yes there's been a lot of words a lot of discussion about how that's going to take place but there

has been no plans no study as to what that might look like or how it may affect the historic nature of that Parkway the only comment that I've seen from a historic body has come from the East Providence historic district commission when they submitted something to the uh submitted a letter to the city council um and in it they said they have concerns about the proposed roadway widening and the rotary construction

stating that they are inconsistent with the measures that put in place for the road that's the only historic comment that I know I mean all these other Studies have been done there's been no historic comment on this very historic feature that is eligible for the national register so you can't tell you've got to have a lot of faith in a lot of people that say that that that will be an enhancement to the historic

nature without seeing a plan the other thing about a plan and Candy mentioned these is that there are specific Provisions that have to be met under the comprehensive plan that it it will retain existing RightWay in its entirety as undeveloped and green open space that there'll be no subdivision or development of the rideway and the unpaved portion of the RightWay shall remain Green in open space and then the

roadway widening would also detract from the character and SE inequalities and should be discouraged now what we've seen is a lot of lines on a plan but we don't really know what that's going to look like on the ground how is that going to affect the ride of way of the Veterans Parkway so I would conclude by just stating I would like to see the planning board say okay the

whole plan we get it there's a whole bunch of studies it's good plan but the vet Parkway we need more information in order to make that decision that is in compliance with the comprehensive plan thank you I have a statement here for the record that I can give to someone who do I give that to we be happy to take it here you go thank you goodwi I have a question for you

um considering your you know long years as a uh city planner yourself I I'm wondering if maybe you can clarify something in the report that uh ke metac comic Green just submitted I actually just got it this morning actually wasn't even this morning it was this afternoon um and and in all fairness um I'm perhaps as severe with this report as I've been with some of the things that I see um coming from the developer um

now on page seven at the report I'll just read the section I'm sorry this is the keep metac comic Green Report Green report let's I haven't seen it but go ahead it's general statement um a 1991 initiative to nominate the parkway to the National register of historical historic places was stall when the state despite wide public support reportedly did not submit the application to the National Park

Service um I I've heard conjecture as to why the state didn't go forward with it um but the fact remains that the state didn't so as we keep talking about uh the parkway as a historic place that's not what happened well the fact is it's still eligible for the national register there has to be some resources put together in order to make the application and I think whatever reason I don't know why

that has not been put together but it's still eligible for the national register is still referred to in the comprehensive plan your comprehensive plan that is eligible for the national register so it doesn't really diminish the historic importance of it because it hasn't taken that step I don't know why it hasn't taken that step other than resources well well sir my house is basically right where old Crescent Park

was I I think the flying fish was in my backyard I I'm not going to be able to go in right I could certainly put in an application to get my street in the National Historical register but that doesn't mean it's going to happen well there are certain bodies that including this who says it's it's eligible for the national register the stewardship plan that was referred to here also says that um so there are

different public agencies that have stated that it's eligible for National register I think maybe one thing this party could recommend is let's make that happen because it's time you know let's get the resources together and make it happen because throughout your comprehensive plan there's probably like eight different sections that designate this as a historic resource that needs to be protected there's a whole map

historic resources in your comprehensive plan about what are the important historic resources in this city and the vet Parkway is is one of maybe I don't know 10 you know it's considered there's no question that it's considered historic resource plus all the background I mean the it's it's all in there for the plan going back to like 1910 I mean this is tremendous uh a tremendous effort that put this project

together with the Olstead brothers and it's just I don't know if you're questioning whether we should downgrade it and consider it not a historic resource is that your question well I think this was the point that I was making to the planning department uh we're at a juncture now where all of these things are past history and you know the toothpaste is out of the tube you don't get it put the

toothpaste back right well wait you know this whole project was approved with the understanding that it was not going to dramatically change bets if it did if if it's if it's going to radically change the Vets then you know there there's some issues with the way this this whole thing has been talked about well I think that I think the operative word is dramatic right what might be dramatic to

you might not be dramatic to him right and might be not even dramatic enough to candy right I mean that's that's not an objective you know point of view right that's conjecture it's opinion so that's what we have to live with okay but thank you I just was wanted to get a clarification on that thank you thank

you yeah ordinarily no but I'll I'll give you I'll give you I did it for someone else earlier tonight I'll do it again this doesn't go away history does not go away that that that roadway is historic metropolit and park um commission how can you just even sit there and say it's passed it's not there could be many reasons why it was stopped one of them could be somebody found out

would much rather develop all of that land and got rid of it and and put it aside or my I am thinking that they needed a survey they needed a survey of the land and it wasn't done when all those when that excess land was sold nobody nobody did an exact map so I think it was too much work and that's what happened Mr bki I will give you the last

word if if well make sure that there's nobody else in the public that wants to be heard that hasn't had a chance anybody else going once going twice very very last word um Veterans Memorial Parkway is subject to this to the jurisdiction excuse me of dot um I don't no recall if any members of this planning board were uh there where when Kettle Point first came before this commission for a recommendation the

comprehensive plan um I'm so sorry as you may recall there was some significant work done to veterans Memorial Parkway uh in connection with the kettle Point development um that required dot approval it required Scenic roadway I think that um I I was one of the attorneys on that application it was considered a major Improvement to vets um I'm not meaning to compare it to the uh proposal for this project other than

to say that there are state agencies that have jurisdiction over this and if they don't believe that the roundabout is appropriate or if they don't believe that it's not engineered correctly and if Scenic roadways doesn't believe that it complies with the requirements of the scenic roadway approval um and they in turn deny it then then we obviously have a problem right and and our project

isn't compatible and then we have to come back to Waterfront and come back to planning and redesign everything so there is a a state agency with several regulatory processes in place that are going to refine the design that require full engineering package on in terms of Dot and it's going to require submitted landscape design in terms of Scenic roadway and and we intend to and look

forward to the opportunity at hearing presenting those are public hearings um before the state and and quasi agency at um Dot and Scenic roadway and and we willingly uh submit to their jurisdiction in order to come up with a design that is hopefully acceptable to those bodies and and that obviously works with the development it goes without saying and and I believe we have that approval and design review if not

we'll stipulate it certainly when we seek final approv at Waterfront that that this approval is contingent upon the state approving the the corresponding design elements that are subject to this jurisdiction and if they don't then then we have an obligation to come back and either re-engineer or redesign or or come back with another iteration in the project that that does satisfy those mandates

from the state but but what's necessary for us to get to that point is for the design Review Committee to make its recommendation which we received fortunately for this planning board to make its recommendation as to consistency with the comprehensive plan which hopefully we're fortunate enough to receive and then ultimately a waterfront commission approval and that which point then we take the project to

the state and we begin the process there um we we look forward to that opportunity and and we're aware of those concerns I I don't think we take this lightly the the nature of the of the Redevelopment um we're confident that that with the right personnel which we think we've employed we we'll get there um but but the Waterfront uh commission and design review they've raised the same concerns that you have in terms of

the propriety of the design and and we have to trust the experts in the processes in place to and those stewards to make sure that it's it's done properly and I just want to say that this is just the beginning of that process in terms of what that ultimate configuration will look like thank you very much and I appreciate your time thank you um okay before we get to

the merits of the U of the request that is actually pending before the planning board uh can I get a motion to accept the staff's memorandum with its reporting attachments the uh December 9th 2024 memorandum from the Waterfront commission I'm sorry from the design Review Committee to the Waterfront commission the hearing panel and the planning board um the he met a comment green

memorandum and the statement from Mr I'm gonna I'm gonna say your name I hope not please take no offense by this was it bodn okay uh I get a motion doc another record motion by Mr Miller seconded by Mr gagman all those in favor please say I iOS guys have it um so the the request that's before us is for an advisory opinion to the Waterfront commission that the development as proposed is

consistent with the purposes and intent of the city's comprehensive plan and section 1-2 of the general purposes of the subdivision and Land Development regul I've been on this board a long time I was certainly here in 2020 and I've been here throughout the life cycle of this development I just fundamentally disagree with the representation that was made tonight that this development will diminish the

quality of life uh for those that live in East Providence I just don't believe that to be true I never have from the beginning I thought this was a good development thought it was a good use of otherwise private underutilized land I continue to believe that I think this has been uh these guys have done everything we've asked them to do at every step of the proceedings uh this

has been and continues to be in my mind responsible development um and I'm supporting it and I think I I do believe and I believe back in April when this was last before us uh that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the subdivision uh and Land Development review regulations I supported delaying at that time uh to obtain some additional uh information they've provided that

information um to my satisfaction so I I I support it happy to hear any other comments or discussion from board members Mr chairman uh the last time this came up to vote oh well no before that U when it came in for the initial preliminary phase uh I expressed my opposition to it um not because of some of the positions taken by the me members of keep metac comic Green uh they certainly have their

right to their opinions um my feelings about it were that the planning department and the city was in the position to strike a better deal than they accepted uh but I think one of the rules in life is um you play with the team you've got not the team you want uh so I going to vote for this to go forward Mr chair I would just kind of like to um express my opinions about

what we heard tonight on the impact on vs Parkway as well as my opinion on what we're being asked to do tonight um again it it's my personal opinion um that the incorporation of widening vets Parkway is ugly and the addition of a rotary I do not find to be appealing um and I think that we see examples in this city where um widening the roads is like the

first thing that we jump to um which be gets more traffic which then people will often complain about and which does make um you know safety issues and Hazards um but what we're being asked tonight is if um this project as presented to us um is compliant with the city's 2010 to 2015 conferenc plan and I I believe it is um everything that we had planned or that comprehensive plan at that time

this is meeting and this is incorporating and ultimately as everyone said tonight it is ryot's decision um it's a state road and I'll ultimately Ry dot had approved before the inclusion of of a rotary City had studied this um so I will be supporting um motion tonight if there's no further discussion motion would be in order Mr chair I'd like to make a uh advisory recommendation to the DRC and the

commission um that the development is consistent with the purposes and intent of the city's 2010 to 2015 comprehensive plan and subdivision and Land Development re regulation motion by Mr Miller seconded by Mr crook all those in favor please say I I oppos hearing none uh the motion passes thank you and continued good luck uh we have one more item on our agenda tonight uh that is uh approval of

the 2025 planning board meeting calendar uh is there a we have a copy of that uh understanding that these dates are all subject to change is there a motion to accept it such as it is so moved motion by Mr Miller seconded by Mr crook all those in favor please say I I opposed the eyes have it uh and I'll just make an announcement that the next scheduled planning board meeting is January 13

2025 Keith is there a staff report or you think we can forego that for 2024 um nothing to report at 1010 p.m.

okay is there a motion to adjourn some motion by Mr Miller seconded by Miss Rockwell all those in favor please say hi