Waterfront Commission 11/14/24

e

thank everyone for uh being patient with our delay this evening so I'd like to call to order the meeting for the Waterfront commission design Review Committee November 14th first item on the uh agenda tonight is to uh vote on the minutes from our previous meeting of August 8th um I'd like to ask for a motion of approval unless there's any questions anyone like to make a motion to approve the minute from the last

meeting motion to approve second second okay great um all in favor say I all opposed eyes have it next item of business is uh the continuation of the public hearing and vote on recommendation to the Waterfront Commission District on the metacomet property llc's application for its proposed development located at 500 Veterans Memorial Parkway does the applicant have a presentation all right thank

you good evening members of the design Review Committee uh as you know my name is Josh berlinsky with the firm of Daryl Everett I represent the applicant metacomet Development LLC um I believe this is our our fifth or sixth appearance before the this design Review Committee um in furtherance of the metacomet for the development um which we propose to site upon the site of the former metacomet golf course uh

this evening um we would like to ask for this committee to make its recommendation to Waterfront um for approval of the project as just a as you may recall um earlier this summer The commit this committee issued its recommendation for phase one of the project which was the golf course um in the late summer they issued their recommendation for phase 1A which is the maintenance shed located in the southern

quadrant and this evening um we believe we've satisfied the remaining deliverables as it relates to design review perview and we're going to bring this committee up to speed on all the outstanding deliverables including some recent developments over the last few days and uh at the conclusion of which we'll obviously take questions uh the team is here for for a brief presentation as well and and then we'll

we'll see this recommendation uh just to be clear to members of the public um both watching and and hearing attendance uh it is not our intent and we will not be asking for Waterfront approval at the November meeting um we have a few other procedural steps we need to take following the recommendation of design review excuse me um we need the recommend of the planning board as to

the consistency of The Proposal with the comprehensive plan for the city of East Providence we have not yet received that we also need the um approval of the hearing panel as to the three variances which we had requested at the onset of this application process dealing with signage parking and fenestration so um and we are aware and and fully cognizant of the fact that we have further

procedural Hoops to jump through in order to before we we seek the full approval from Waterfront um this is just a necessary and and crucial step in that process and once again we thank everyone for their patience we think this process has been um both informative and and efficient and has resulted in a in a more refined and better product and uh I'm I'm hopeful that this committee

deals similarly um I what I'll do now is I think I'll turn over to John S who is going to and he and Matt mura from bowler engineering are going to um just revisit the project in general since it's been a number of months since we've seen it um and kind of go over the the iterations and the changes that have been made in response to comments and concerns raised by this committee uh

following the conclusion of that very brief presentation um Keith Curran from bowler is here and he is going to speak about the the final steps of the storm water design which was an essential part of the project and which there's been an ongoing dialogue with with par and then finally Mr Bannon is here from Crossman engineering as you know he's our traffic consultant and um there has been an

ongoing and and final dialogue with par as to the traffic study as well and he is going to bring this committee up to speed uh as well we have some additional reports that that I'll review with the committee um to just summarize where we are and what remains outstanding before we seek final approval of water so uh with your permission I'll I'll turn over to Mr Sally to begin his presentation Matt mura will be in

presentation you'll get to hear John too don't worry um thanks for having us in again tonight uh as Josh mentioned we we just want to barely uh fairly briefly go through where we've been through this process uh to kind of summarize some of the the highlights and if you wouldn't mind just clicking through the slides for me as I asked I ask you to uh just land on theing page one more go so Josh

just mentioned the phasing uh obviously the golf course is complete phase 1A is the uh the maintenance uh that we've discussed already so phases two and three uh we've been continuing to focus on if you click to the next slide this shows the plan as it now currently sits through the through the process we've had here and uh through working with PE reviewers and yourselves uh and I'll just quickly highlight some

of the aspects that have been modified through the process here if you click the next slide generally speaking we've provided additional information on on lighting types and location uh specialty paving materials plant lists uh locations for Ev stations Spike racks uh and potential solar locations as well if you click to the next slide we put some Focus On This Town Center aspect of the

project uh and took some great feedback through the workshop process and through this process to enhance that design to make it more pedestrian oriented uh in public facing incorporating small shop retail and amenity spaces uh we also made some modifications to the pathway in the 100 foot buffer along uh Veterans Memorial uh both widening the path to accommodate bike travel uh and also cleaning up some

of the pedestrian connection in eliminating the uh the roundabout that we discussed that was in the uh pedestrian pathway making it a more clear path of travel for next slide we looked carefully at the uh the buffering to the rear of the the grocery store uh provided an augmented burm and screening uh to help buffer the view to the Loading area uh we think we've come up with an effective design with the

help of the commission here um next slide please uh we also looked at the alignment of that entry drive to try to make it a little more curbal linear and and Par like entry uh you see some renderings of of the proposed views uh up and down that that entry there we think that's a nice enhancement to the plan and glad to include that next slide we also relooked at some of the

buffering and provided for some additional landscape Islands within the parking area of the grocery provides more buffering to the East West Boulevard connector we also looked at uh stepping the massing of the garages uh from from sort of one single monolithic building into a series of of garage structures that break up the massing and uh we we looked at the intersection uh at the the

fourway uh connection to the more residential entries of the site and made that feel more like an entry to the residential that you were crossing into rather than a continuous Road uh leading right through that residential we did that through use of landscape uh specialty Paving uh and way finding area we also realigned uh the residential buildings in this Zone here here to create uh some space for

additional streetscape along the north south connection um so that that was an enhancement that came out of this process and then sort of an alignment and connection at the pocket park that we providing along uh lion a to make a more direct connection up the Pierce Park and Jones Pond and then we we discussed additional understory planting along the buffer uh at the for Street edge of the

maintenance um employee parking area there's few spaces there for employees we're providing additional landscape in that zone and then we we opened the golf course uh which I think a lot of people have probably seen uh but we we were able to get that uh concluded this summer open for business and open to the public which we're obviously very excited about uh with that I'm going to

turn it over to John S and just kind of run through some of the actual thanks a lot thank you Matt good evening uh John Sy with ph zero design in a similar way that that Matt just shared some of the highlights you know some of the outcome of the the good production productive discussion that we've had with you all on the site design side of things I want to hit some of the highlights on the

architectural or Building Concept side of things um I think we had a lot of good uh you know quality discussion and some of the feedback that we received from you all that we were able to incorporate into the project I think Josh mentioned at the outset really did uh you know enhance the product overall that that we're delivering with this development so we've been happy to work through that process so some of the

themes that that we discussed uh one certainly that a lot of these buildings that we're proposing on this development are seen from multiple different sides so we really have to pay attention mention to the 360 degree design of a lot of these buildings especially in this town hall or this town center area of the developments that's something that we remain focused on and will remain focused on as we get deeper into

more detailed design um but some of the things we we understood from you all we need to pay attention to where you know the mechanical electrical Plumbing HVAC equipment is being located how are we screening that from view um so we came up with some strategies uh one is Illustrated on this slide up here which is is the uh the roof well that we incorporated into the the mixed use

building that that you see here on the slide which is the building to reminder it's the golf operations and and food hall building that sort of anchors that that town center area uh so we developed the strategy of that roof well to help con seal the the mechanical equipment um we took similar strategies on the other retail and restaurant buildings in the Town Center area and also looked at the

the larger multif family residential buildings for that that rooftop equipment would be screen um and that information was developed into roof roof plans that were incorporated into the updated design set been submitted as we've gone along the process slide thank you another series of comments that we received had to do with some of the larger multif family buildings having a roof line that was a bit too static um

so we back to the drawing board a bit on those and and developed an approach that you see on on the screen here that gave a little bit more variety a little bit more relief to those roof lines on the larger buildings and again we incorporated that the documents have now been submitted slide please we took a look at solar strategies for the buildings throughout the the project um some areas were more promising than

others but we do plan to implement strategies where they make sense economically next slide please and also a comment on the uh the garage buildings that helps screen some of the residential parking from that Boulevard as Matt mentioned we broke that building up from one long building into a series of smaller buildings took some great feedback from you all to even simplify those buildings bring

the scale up and down make them more pedestrian appropriate and again just enhancing the overall design so in addition to some of these more aesthetic a little bit more visual updates to the architecture that we've made we've also been working behind the scenes with our engineering teams uh we made preliminary selections for all the HVAC equipment for all the buildings across the site that information was fed

into the noise study that's been provided we also work with the uh fire protection engineer to develop fire flows to all the buildings for sprinkling of the buildings and that information was put into the hydro analysis that was done for the the site so good robust engineering you know that's been behind these pretty pictures that we've been sharing with you as we move through the process proc but in

general we're just you know extremely excited to see the project move forward really excited for this town center area it's going to be a vibrant Active Space for not only the residents of the property but also a welcoming uh you know zone of activity for for everyone in these Providence to to come and en so again thank you all for your your time tonight and throughout the process hand it over now to to discuss

review comments thank you

um so through this process there been some com com so we rep to those comments I came to Wasing a water Capacity Analysis by demand so in that report they on how um that we'll be able to handle those domestic demands Dems they propos future um plan extension and up L app also for two we have to some offsite intersection

of existing line on the site that uh we went through that so it the idea that go downway and we have shown in calculations that the development with all these uses actually that handle the flow that would be coming from development both phas one phase two and phase three I should say um the other thing was we've gone back and forth with car who has reviewed storm water a few times uh I responded

to the initial letter um back on November 4th they provided uh updated com comments uh just actually yesterday start today there's only three minor comments left um to address which we can handle so all the main issues have been addressed and so forth we can address those that's all I had PA

speak good evening Paul Bon with Crossman engineering um I'm just going to go through the chronology of the traffic peer reviews that were completed um we had submitted our report back initial report back in uh late December of last year um is and then the city retain are to do a PE review of that report since that time they've submitted letters to the city on May 15th from our original report October 16th from our

report revision and then just today um for our our final responses the initial uh May 15th review was of the uh December report as part of that we revised our initial report report and submitted that in September with that report we had submitted uh initial um responses that included 17 responses of the initial comment the October 16th review letter uh was substantial informance with what we had

done with the revised report so we only had to respond to four comments of the of the 20 comment rest all the other uh the November 14th letter which we got today uh confirmed that we had formally addressed all their comments so at this point would complete with peer review no further responses required with far at the state level we received a March 18th letter from the Department

reviewing that same December report uh we and work responding to those comments June 21st we received conceptual approval of that preliminary physical alteration permit that'll allow us to move forward with the design permitting that proposal um to summarize where we are with with the city that the city plan Department had prepared a memo with both both storm order and traffic the outstanding

traffic comments were specific to the October 16 uh par review of those there were eight comments that they plan Department referen only three of those required formal responses at depar for the for this latest approval most of them uh a lot of the eight were over Laing and there were several issues that uh we need to look at going forward one included uh supplemental studies as the

project built out uh We've agreed in previous hearings that uh we complete supplemental studies as determined by by the city the two other items one is a final design item of the state had concerns with it's the driveway access on vet Parkway and lefts uh are agreed that farm Transportation with treatments and will work towards that end and keep the city up to the final one was uh an additional Crossing at

the trail head or ampi area Parkway we had that was one of the the final comments from Far um you responded to our concerns on that and with this most recent letter they've agree to our concerns and approach to that treatment uh uh area with

the does anyone on the commission have questions on any of the three presentations we just heard I didn't understand is there now a crossing at the amphitheater or no let propose we raised concerns relative to the speed and geometry of the roadway in that area and we made recommendations to because the Topography of the road in the amphitheater there's natural screening and right now there's there's

trees and the fence there so our goal would be to enhance that screening and do some some form of you know create a non-attractive um area that you know people see and would want to go to so through landscaping and fencing or wall Ty you would treat that area to avoid people you en encourage them to go up to the roundabout yes through through wayfinding signage uh also that we would work with Department any other

comments M

binsky thank you um there's another deliverable which just came in uh which I'm going to speak about and then uh I think Mr Bor just might have some some thoughts on this as well as I think that both this committee and Waterfront uh requested and and in response to concerns raised by the public uh we asked the fire department to uh weigh in on the hydro analysis as we called it

which was the sprinkler capacity and the water capacity as well as the um Public Safety impact study because as many of you recall that study utilized um numbers and and figures that uh the fire department had in fact provided so yesterday we we received Chief car's response um which I believe was sent directly to Mr Fazoli and we'll make sure it's posted um to the website uh tomorrow if it's not already there but

but briefly I just want to summarize his findings and and and just in full disclosure as to what's going on so as it relates to the public safety impact study conclusions uh Chief carry with the assistance of his Department um ran through a series of projections based on calls for service at comparable developments both uh assisted living senior living and Market residential and

his conclusion is that there would be um more calls for service uh once the development is fully built out than the public safety impact study um predicted uh I believe the public safety impact study predicted upwards of um High 400 and the fire department predicts everything's built out and a and again extrapolating through current trip generation in calls for service um in excess of

650 so uh which is fine and we accept those findings I were really not in a position to um about his methodology I spoke with Chief KY um about his findings last night upon receipt of the report and and you know the point that he wanted to convey is that uh this is obviously just projections and we'll see how it uh how it plays out over time did make note of a corresponding cost

adjustment in terms of Municipal Services as a result of that heightened call for service generation and again you'll see this from the letter uh if that if it hasn't already been posted and chief Cary estimates that once the development is fully built out um that the additional cost for service could run up to $2.7 million uh which consists of $25 million in Personnel cost and uh

$200,000 in Associated infrastructure and that is um and the $2.5 million per Chief carry is um five firefighters that and the um $200,000 associate infrastructure or whatever the accommodations those firefighters might require um we accept those conclusions as well and as you may recall from the fiscal impact analysis that was submitted um back when we we first started this application process and

then it was Revisited and subject to peer review over the summer the project is gener R is projected to generate an excess of $4.9 million of Revenue in taxes a year so as I confirmed the chief car and as I told him I would relay to this committee this evening that um taking his uh extrapolation and his projections as to what the additional costs are to the city um and there is uh

more than enough Revenue to accommodate that cost and um we welcome we are appreciate the fire department p the time to make that analysis and that projection and um again it it jibes very well with our fiscal impact statement which shows that there's there's sufficient revenues well in exess to service both um fire and rescue as well as any other Municipal adjustments that might be required um or might come into

play as a result of this development so U thank you to the chief for that we appreciate his cander and saying that he thought that the public safety impact study was a tad conservative and and we we're going to wait and see how this plays out um along those lines one of the things that we've discussed is uh after phase two which as you may recall is the primarily is the entirety of the

commercial component plus um a portion of the residential is that we are going to run an updated Public Safety impact utilizing actual calls for service um as well as adjusted Personnel costs to make sure that we're on track with the chief's projections and that the cost for the future build out um are still captured within the projected revenue of the project uh we're talking obviously

as you all know by now about a 10-year build um we are sensitive to cost escalation and and uh maybe it's lower maybe it's higher but we want to make sure that it's nothing that the city can't afford and that this project doesn't pay for and then some in terms of the stress upon Municipal services so I I want again this this letter will be available on the website um we

appreciate the the approach and and the analysis that went into it and we're we're comfortable and confident that the project financially can support that obligation um the the second element of the of the chief's report was with regard to what we're call in the hydro analysis which dealt with the sprinkler and water capacity and um the fire department confirmed sufficient capacity

um to S to sprinkle all the residential buildings and the developments and also um added as a requirement to the fire department's buying of the project or approval however you want to phrase it that the entirety of the water infrastructure be installed um at the onset of the phase two development we had had previous conversations with um Public Works and and Engineering with the city of East Providence as to

phasing that um and and maybe doing simply a li a Taps off of lions for the phase two and then sequencing phase phase three um we agree we understand the city had concerns about this approach as well we agree to install the entirety of that infrastructure um to the fire departments and and departments uh Public Works satisfaction as part of that phase two buildout infrastructure so um the what that will look like

exactly there are a couple different permutations of that and that's what further engineering and and exchanges with the appropriate City departments will will entail but but conceptually um my client has confirmed that that we agree with that that condition and and if it's you know Public Safety takes precedence um if that's what it takes to fire department to get comfortable with

this project um as well as the public works and and the appropriate corresponding City departments to to get comfortable with the project so be it like we're we are more than willing to accommodate that request so Dan I don't know if you wanted to speak a little further to that requirement no I just think you know for the record we have been in constant contact with Marshall with Josh Paul Pano in discussions and

we did have some some concerns with um just having that connection our Mayan Avenue um so it is good to hear that they are willing to include that as part of the phase two um I think not only for the fire department but also for um water quality it's going to make a big Improvement particularly on phase two so um I and I think it makes sense you're providing excuse me two sources of water

to this site which is exactly what uh the fire department and the water department uh would want ultimately I know if there any other questions move on um so going to conclude briefly tonight by um one of the prior meetings I think in June um we generated this list of open items that it was coming upon us to deliver before we sought um Waterfront approval and there were numerous elements so I'm going to go over the

status of them and and discuss them and just bring it up to speed and again uh this checklist will form the basis of why we believe we've satisfied Our obligation so the first is the archaeological and I do want to speak about that because I'm I'm sure it's on people's mind so um as I think members of the public and and this committee might know and that there is ongoing

uh work being done at the property to confirm whether or not any portion of the site is archaeologically significant so uh there was a phase one survey done the summer which um was inconclusive in that regard so as a result of which as Deb Cox from pal spoke uh the recommendation was made to do what's called a phase two which is more intensive process and the and the purpose of this determination

purpose of this investigation rather is to determine whether or not um any portion of the site is is of archaeological significance so I I just want to recap briefly um what Miss Cox said at the at past meetings which is that there was no evidence of human remains found uh during the phase one survey she explained how soil consistency is actually uh determinative of whether or not remain to be on site

that soil did not disclose any such findings there have been two weeks worth of more uh invasive testing of the site and there is still no evidence of human remains that conclusion remains intact the ongoing work uh we can all see where that portion of the work is taking place right now it's on it's parallel of Veterans Memorial Parkway I just want to remind members of this committee and

that there is a 100 foot undeveloped buffer along um Veterans Memorial Parkway which was a condition of the zone change so we are determining whether or not that portion of the site is of archaeological significance simply for connotation but again there's no proposed development contemplated um at that portion of the site anyway there are other portions of the site in which additional testing is going to be

conducted um there that testing is scheduled to commence in a couple a few days as I as we assured the full Waterfront and I relate to design review um Deborah Cox will appear upon the conclusion of all the testing she will produce a written summary of what took place in the findings um we are cautiously optimistic is that we are on the right path and that the archaeological is going to

confirm findings that um the majority of the site is not of archaeological significance and the portions that are um are going to be subject to review I'm going to explain what that means in one second I also wanted to point out for the design review committee's benefit that at the request of the naraga tribe We performed additional phase one surveying um outside the initial identified areas and that surveying

confirmed Pal's initial identification of the key areas meaning that there was not sufficient artifact or product or findings to expand the footprint so rather the areas that pal had identified tentatively in this in the winter and then again in the summer Remain the areas that we're focused upon so um so we are we are continuing to work work through those and obviously um we need to abide by whatever state historic

recommends along those lines I just want to provide a little bit of context as to how how that process takes place procedurally um we need a crmc approval as I believe this committee knows uh an element of crmc's permit is federal uh that as sent it triggers uh section 106 and as part of that uh Federal designation they need to obtain a recommendation from the state historic commission um that this site complies or

uh that there's any recommendations or there's any actions that need to be taken in turn the state historic commission is required to interface with the um recognized tribal historic uh preservation office which in this case is the nanit tribal historic preservation office and I can assure members of this committee that um representatives of that office have been present at each and every um testing and

surveying took place this summer as well as the subsequent testing that's going on right now so that work is is ongoing but so the goal of archaeological surveys as I said is to determine if a significant site is present um if one is found State historic May recommend um as any number of actions but as it's private property um the options are are limited because there's a certain right to build but

there are conditions to approval it can be every anything from um marking a certain location uh as important as significant to a salvage excavation um depending on the the nature of the finding again uh the whole trajectory changes that there's human remains but again no indication of human Reigns to date the tenative conclusion remains in place um the presence of an archaeological site is is um unlikely if

not uh to prohibit development of any type on private property having said that uh what I wanted to convey to this committee and what will be conveying to full Waterfront when we go before them for the approval is that whatever that recommendation is of State historic my client is prepared to comply again the most extreme uh requirement would be a salvage uh excavation uh we will adhere to that requirement

and work with the Naran at historic tribal preservation office to ensure that's done in an orderly and respectful manner um we we don't know whether or not that's going to be the case uh we have further testing to do but but the archaeological is what it is uh we're confident that the project is in a position to proceed without and and again we won't go to full Waterfront for their approval without uh the report

from Deborah Cox to the committee to the commission rather that as to what the program is and what the plan is there and what the tentative recommendations would be so so I just wanted to explain where we are at the archaeological we do believe it's our opinion that it's far enough along um to at least get the recommendation from this from this committee so that's a long-winded explanation on where we are from an

arch uh architectural plans um we had previously received I think a tentative approval of what we had submitted from from Mr Sy in that regard and Incorporated uh certain comments from Glenn and Sarah um and and we also received the recommendation from phase 1A back in August uh landscaping and Engineering um updated Landscaping plans had been previously revised per DRC comments we are completed and delivered

those in June the hydro analysis confirming utility capacity the analysis was complete it was reviewed by the city and we received the affirmative sign off conceptually as to installing the entirety of the water infrastructure um from DPW and we also received comments from the fire department um as it relates to storm water as Keith mentioned um there had been a ongoing exchange with power engineering since

last month we received power's latest comments yesterday which have gone from a list of 36 to three we consider those ministerial we will obviously adhere to those recommendations and get part of the information um we also required we also sought sign up from the fire department we got their comments to the Public Safety impact assessment and we also received their sign off on the hydro

analysis subject to Our obligation to install the entirety of that uh with regard to the fiscal analysis um we submitted that back in the spring uh we had it revised following comments we received from the public and full Waterfront um it would underwent peer review and uh and its findings were confirmed um the noise study uh we submitted an initial noise study in the spring we had it updated um

as John mentioned uh this summer uh we received a few comments from the commission and members of the public which our consultant then answered um we we believe that the noise study component has been satisfied for the commission's satisfaction um and and we understand that there's certain elements of that that that we are prepared to address going forward including most notably that again upon

completion of phase two we want to we volunteered to provide an updated noise study um with before commencing phase three to make sure that all the projections and the noise calculations are true out or within the constraints of that of that projection to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and that we are not building anything or imposing upon the surrounding neighborhoods um constraints or issues

or uh obstacles that were not contemplated and if they were and the diagnosis was incorrect then then we obviously are are prepared to address them but we want to do that by in sequence in order to make sure that that our projections stay intact um then the traffic and offsite improvements uh as um Mr Bannon indicated we receiv received that initial sign up from do june 2024 the power engineering peer

review they signed off on both um on the the vanesse study from 2023 as well as the Crossman supplement and its corresponding disclos uh deliverables um today we received pars correspondence in which they agreed with the the entirety of Mr bannon's comments and proposals as it relates to traffic and offsite improvements um we appreciate all the effort that par put into getting this

done within the the time constraints um that have been laid out before them and then the last deliverable was that make a good faith effort to see whether or not we could obtain a letter from Scenic roadways consistent to the one we got from dot um Scenic roadways the Quasi board meets in public open meetings it can only act upon submitted applications we don't have an approved project within

which to submit an application but we are unable to obtain the corresponding letter from from Scenic roadways um I do want to uh highlight for the this committee as well as members of the public that once the application does go before Scenic roadways that is a public meeting there is an opportunity to comment and participate in that process and and we look forward to eventually

getting there and letting that that play out um so again our opinion is that we have satisfied these criteria to the extent that um they are applicable to design review or they have designed components to it um you know I want to thank all the the experts and and members of the committee for their for their insight and their their questioning it it made us better and it made the project better um and and we

believe we've satisfied the obligation to a favorable recommendation uh as I said at the beginning of of night um this is just another step in the process we have to go before planning for the comprehensive plan recommendation hearing panel and full Waterfront and and we are not seeking um Waterfront approval next week we know we have a full few obstacles and we need to complete the the archaeological um so

that Deborah Cox from pal can deliver her final so um the last thing I'll say is I know that uh there was a recommendation and a memo from the planning department that I assume that Keith will speak of um but other than that I I think thank you for the time and thank you for the effort and we're obviously here to answer any questions you might have thank you um while this is fresh in

our mind um thank you for the detailed review of the open items I know over the last I think we started this in March um we've had several long detailed meetings where we went through each and every individual line item of the recommendations and discuss them and as we move through the process a lot of them dropped off the list because we felt the uh the items were satisfactory

in their responses so the the items that are in front of us here are reflective of at least of my notes the items that we we still had to talk about and I appreciate you you know updating this and giving us an update on each of those um we have the opportunity now to to as a committee discuss these items because basically all the other items that are on the the um the requirements have have

been satisfactorily submitted in my opinion and i' like to get the opinion of the rest of the committee to to see if there are other items that are not on this list that we feel the applicant hasn't been able to satisfy I don't quite understand the process of where or if we have responsibility the assigned we have no responsibility to signage other than the variance like we we can't

comment on the name but we can comment on signage and they're applying for a variance that's one of the um one of the variances that would be uh part of the um there's three variances one is signage uh one's parking ratio and the other one is the penetration uh percentage so signage would be an item that um come back to they have to there's there was a um goes to the hearing panel sorry thank

you is there any other ones okay thank you that was actually that was going to be the same question I was going to have with regards to the what was mentioned before meeing to go in front of the hearing panel that signed being one of them so that was that was a question that I had thank you um like to take this opportunity to open the uh open the meeting up to the public does anyone

have any comments on up just state your name and for the record yeah we know you are but thank you Mr chairman members of the committee uh Dan Bodwin is my name I live at Kettle Point East Providence um I heard something about the traffic tonight that was reinforcing where the traffic studies will be done as the development happens and I think that's a very positive thing and now I heard something

about the same with with noise and I think that's a very positive step that the developer has agreed to take um my question is is it's kind of narrow but then it also gets the jurisdiction um it gets to the city council zoning approval they had a condition there condition number seven that says the property owner will integrate past throughout the development constructed and maintained at their expense

providing for connectivity between the property and the abing neighborhood and these paths include exp pedestrian paths to both the parkway for access to the bike path as well as Pier field as shown on the plans as submitted and I'm sorry as shown on the plan as approved by the city so there's one jurisdictional question have the pasts been approved by the city what is the city is it the

Waterfront commission is it the zoning officer since this is a zoning provision the paths that are attached to the zoning ordinance that was approved are very much different from whatever pass we've seen up here um so that's just a question who gets to approve the pass in accordance with the zoning ordinance um the specific concern is that the Fourth Street neighborhood was supposed

to have pedestrian connectivity into the project it's good idea right but the plans that I've seen don't show that unless I'm missing something it looks like they have the emergency access but there's no provision for The Pedestrian access so the neighborhood can come into the project as opposed to having to walk around or go over to the city-owned property at the corner so that's a

question should there be um a a more refined defined pedestrian access coming from the Fourth Street neighborhood and then the other one is a jurisdictional question who gets to approve the plans because they're different from what is attached to the city council zoning amendment is there any other comments okay um applicant okay I'd like to close the uh public meeting yeah close the public meeting right

now correct that public comment portion of the meeting so based on our recent findings tonight and um upon uh interaction with our legal counsel um I'm going to hand out a motion that was prepared by legal council with input from the applicant uh for our committee members to review and

discuss so the motion that was prepared by legal council and um with input put from the applicant outlines conditions for recommendation to the Waterfront commission there are 10 items on here um I'm going to read them into the record for um so that we can have them as part of the meeting minutes we' like to discuss them as a committee here and then we'll make a decision on whether we're going to act

on on an approval or recommendation for approval at this tonight at tonight's meeting so the uh motion reads motion to recommend approval to the Waterfront commission for the metacomet Redevelopment project with findings that the project is in conformance with the reviewing criteria set forth in section 19477 of the East Providence zoning ordinance and the purpose of article 9 Waterfront special development District

DRC I'm sorry districts DRC has considered the application along with the public comments as well as the applicants testimony and supporting material submitted to the DRC throughout the course of public hearings recommended conditions of approval are as follows planning board recommendation on consistency with the comprehensive plan hearing panel approval of three required variances for Monument signage

on Veterans Memorial Parkway parking ratios and penetration pen penetration percent percentage updated noise traffic Public Safety studies upon the earlier I'm sorry updated noise traffic and Public Safety impact studies upon the earlier to occur of the completion of phase two or the com commencement of phase three didn't read very well sorry that proposed roundabout contained a pedestrian

walkway allowing for access to East Bay Bike Path contingent upon approvals from All State agencies that a construction management plan be developed by the applicant submitted prior to commencement of construction of phase two the the applicant shall hold an informational meeting with members of the public to discuss the proposed construction management plan following its submittal to the

city that the applicant comply with the directives of the Rhode Island Historic preservation and herit Commission in connection with in response to the arche archaeological inspections conducted at the property all interior roadway construction and utility infrastructure located both inside and outside project boundaries will be subject to the approval of East Providence Department

of Public Works water department and engineering department as applicable the applicant shall utilize condominium homeowners association agreements satisfactory to the commission and that will be that will include but will not be limited to the following maintenance of landscape streets storm water basins and utilities trash removal public a access in open space the applicant will

identify pre-qualification services and ongoing certification needed for the project uh for the provided onsite 10% affordable housing the the applicant will receive final approval and necessary permit Ascent from the state agencies including Rhode Island Department of Transportation the scenic roadway commission and the council resource management and sorry the coastal Resource Management

Council sorry that was a lot of reading right there um did we have comments from the committee regarding these these items and do we feel that anything is missing is it clear on item four that the roundabout is the one that's on the not the roundabout that's in we can uh adjust that so that the proposed roundabout on veteran Veterans Memorial Parkway help me sure absolutely

we talked about the um the water infrastructure being in place um all at Phase to you think that's adequately covered in number five the construction management plan or do we need to call that out I also think it's covered in number seven and seven talks about all interior roadway construction and utility infrastructure located both inside and outside of the project boundaries subject to approval by the

city of East Province Department of Public Work water do you do you feel that picks that up so we can add some additional language in one of them if if you felt more

comfortable sure we can include them under the list of the agencies we're going to add the fire department to the list of agencies in number seven

in in number five in po if I missed it submitt it to the city is that specific department or how is that going to work or is that the city is that the list of the agencies they are number seven who the management plan would be submitted to so I would imagine would be to the building department and the building department would um would be involved with the administration in observation

of that construction plan so we can add that to East Providence um s city building department and I think this was already asked before but I have to ask again specific to number two or anything else here if if some of these don't go forward especially with number two for the variances does that have to come back to this committee to design review or how would that work I believe we

depending on what comes out of the hearing panel we'll have to see what those recommendations are so and if it is a redesign element then it's going to need to come back through US understand um yep since it's my first time through this process so be with me and and number eight I think it it states they are satisfact to the commission um I think it's self-explanatory but that's the

Waterfront commission correct is that okay we definitely add Waterfront commission there I think it would also make sense to probably include um we are being specific with departments for number five the fire department as well building and fire department definitely with the construction management plan they they should be involved as it affects their uh calls et within this construction site we have any other

comments I would say just only other comment would be on number seven regarding utility infrastructure I'm not sure if the client wants to I don't think it makes sense to be specific with all utilities but I think we're all under the impression that it would be underground and and above ground utilities including electric uh fixtures that would meet you know uh City street light standards and whatnot okay let's

add underground and above ground

utilities we have any other additional comments okay so i' definitely like to thank everyone for the several months of meetings that we had here I think as Mr berinsky mentioned the uh project is better for it I believe that we um we've done our best to accommodate the public comments as as well as the applicant comments and I think that the uh the overall impression of of this process

was a good one it took a while um so what I'd like to do is call for a motion to close the longest DRC meeting in the history of DRC meetings um and uh I'd like to entertain a motion from someone on the committee to close the public meeting motion to close the public meeting second all in favor say I I'm sorry I all in favor say I I eyes have it I'm sorry all

against I hav it so now um I'd like to ask for a motion from the committee uh reflective of our previous discussion and the edits made to the the written motion that's in Mr ley's hands right here so I'd like to just go through the comments that we discussed um item four we're going to add on Veterans Memorial Parkway after roundabout on number five we're going to add building department and fire

department at the end of City's building department and fire department number seven seven we're going to add above ground in underground utilities and then at the end of seven we're also going to include the fire department after engineering department in that item number eight we're going to denote the Waterfront Commission on the second line that completes the edits that I wrote down during the meeting did I miss

any of them well they're in there but I we didn't change them yeah there's second one we I'm just noting that yep I'm just noting the changes we made to this written statement and that's you know so basically want to entertain a motion based on the edited version of the document that's in in front of all you here and I just reviewed those edits so um i' like to ask for a motion

from a Committee Member um for the edited uh motion that's in front of you motion for the edited to approve approve motion to approve it's edited uh motion motion yeah it's this Motion in there too many times but it yeah motion to approve is the is the beginning of the statement so um we have a motion to approve from Dan second second from CH all in favor say I I all against motion

passes uh last item for tonight is um to um call for an adjournment so I have a motion for adjournment motion for adjournment second second all right all in favor say I I all against eyes have it thank you very much for coming out this evening and for helping us through this process we still have the Waterfront commission to go so there's still some more work to do we

hope we can uh we can still get comments and work through this process as a team thank you have a good night