Okay. The meeting of the Somerville Planning Board for June 25th, 2025 will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one published to the Courier News, two posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall,
three posted to the municipal website, and four given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
Andrea Dair is excused. Chris Addex is excused. Art Akens here. Larry Cleveland here. Jason Kraca here. John Manilio here. Barry Van Horn here. Mayor Gallagher here. Council member of Room is excused. Chairperson Wernner here.
Please stand for the pledge. To the flag of the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh, I need an approval.
Motion for approval on minutes from June 11th. So moved. Second. Art Aens. Yes. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Jason Kraka. Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Barry Van Horn. Yes. Chairperson Warner. Yes.
All right. We have no res, right? Yes. All right. Uh, so we have What about me? Did you forget him? Yeah. Did you Did you actually say that out loud? Uh, not not into the mic. not into the
microphone. Nobody knows. Nobody will. Nobody will remember that. Yes. On the partial that I was here for. Apologies. So, just just one correction on that then. Um the mayor's list is absent on the Thank you. on the minutes.
And Granit was spelled wrong too. and Dowy. Okay. So, next we have um Avalon Somerville Station Urban Renewal uh with before us for uh a couple of updates and changes that they'd like to make. I'm
going to turn it over to Cara, our county, our council. Okay. So, I All right. I think we a lot of you will remember um we've sometimes entertained amendments to conditions of approval. Um
and we have a procedure for how we do that. Um the individuals that voted on the prior resolution that contained the conditions have to first of all review and make a finding as to whether the amendment to the condition would have changed their vote on the initial
resolution and application. and then if the answer is in the affirmative that it would not the request for amendment to the condition can continue for a vote without notice. So that's what we're basically looking at tonight. Um you have in front of you some plans that
were uh presented uh by Avalon and there are a number of uh elevations. the top portion show in red circles um the current view and then the bottom shows uh what has uh essentially been deleted. So the top is what they're
asking for approval of and the the bottom is uh essentially what was previous uh the top is what they're asking for approval of yes the circles and the bottom is what was originally proposed. So the red circles it's is what's new and that's the amendment. The
condition that we're looking to change is condition C on page seven of the resolution, which states that the development and construction associated with the phase 2 application shall be the same as represented to the board on all submitted plans, plats, drawings,
and renderings and in accordance with any amendments as required by the resolution in the redevelopment agreement. So essentially, you have to take a look at what's now proposed by way of the the red circles. I'm sorry. Okay. So, the red circles are
what's being removed. So, the top is what was approved and the bottom bottom is what was approved and the top is what's proposed. Okay. That's not what he said because the red circles on the bottom are what are being my circle on the top. Oh, okay. Sorry. On ours, it's
the opposite, which is why we're saying that. All right. So, the red circles are being removed. Yes. Okay. And what is without the red circles is what is proposed. That is the change. Um, so we need to take a look at that and if everybody could, you know, take a a look
and and make a determination in your mind as to whether or not that change would have affected your vote on the original application. So the the people that are eligible to vote would be um
sad is not here. Uh Mr. Addex, Kraa, Van Horn, Gallagher, Warner, Vroom, Cleveland, and Manilio. So, uh, first once everybody's done, we need a motion and a second for a vote as to whether or not this proposed
amendment to the condition allowing for these changes would have in any way affected your uh, vote to approve the original resolution and the original application for phase 2. So, I I will move for that vote everything you just
said. I'll second I'll second that. Okay. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Jason Kraka. Yes. John Manilio. So I don't I don't think I was here when that was voted on. I have you here as
voting. Yeah. The final. I don't think he was here. I was at the first hearing but not the second hearing on this one. So you were at prelim. Okay. That's not what I have here. But that's all right. You can abstain or not. Well, if I'm eligible that I have
no issues with it. Okay. Yes. Okay. Van Horn. Yes. Chairperson Wernner. Yes. Okay. So, that was the vote as to whether or not these changes would have affected your original vote on the application. Now, that the answer to that is uh yes, you you agree that these
amendments would not have affected your vote. Now, we need a vote to approve the actual amendments to the site plans and amend that condition C on page seven of the application to incorporate them as revised plans. Before we go that far, on
example three, just on page three. Yep. They have just Let's make sure we're looking up. Mine is the northeast view. Yes, that's the same one. Okay. Yes. Well, one approved the lower one for our plan. It just seems like they took out all the
No, approved is the approved is the one with the circles. Nope. Damn. Oh, yes. It's already approved. Okay. Yes, the approved ones. It seems that when you look at the other one, they missed several spots where they did intend to
change things. It seems mostly like a darkened area underneath windows. You could see them all all the circles. You see the dark you see the the circles and then you you look at the new proposal. The dark bands are not there. But no and
that's okay. But it on just for example on this plan right here. They're gone. No circle here. No dark baner. I'm just saying if this is what it's supposed to be, we should just accept the newest. Can I see what?
This is a currently approved. All right. So that's mine is different. There's a circle. But then if you look at this plan, this is not circled, but it's certainly not here. So I'm just making sure that we should not just rely on the circle. Basically taking all the black
bands out. Whatever those were, they're all coming out everywhere because they're over here and they're not here. See what I'm saying? See these little black bands? They took him out. I'm just saying this is fine, but if this is a statement of
record, it should be we're going to, you know, hold the circle. I think it's just not Yeah, I think it's just not, right? Well, this what I'm saying. But but basically, we should go by the So, in essence, what what you're saying is the the elevations labeled as proposed is
what would be the amendments to the condition as opposed to the circle? Yes. Yes. And that that seems like that's that's accurate. Is there a reason for the change? I'm just wondering. Um, I do not know. We do have the applicant's architect here if
you want to ask uh answer ask him a question. Well, I mean, we're going through this. You might as well ask why. Yeah, I think they're they're really cosmetic. It's there's no significant. It's dimminimous. It's it's not I guess the Yeah, the question of the uh footage or the square footage of the Yeah. windows of the apartments, right? No,
it's it's it's cosmetic. They're cosmetic. Fine. Yeah. But I agree with Larry. Is is there a reason for the change? Can we just get your uh name and uh firm for the record and elsewhere? And on the mic, please. Arthur Michaels. Michaels and Walter Architects. Okay. If you
could just raise your right hand. Just read the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Uh after reviewing the design and going through it, uh we thought some of the places were getting a little muddy and over overd design, a little busy. Yes.
Yeah. Simplify it up and clean it up, you know, particularly with some of the dormers in there where there were several that bunched together and so on and we just felt it was a cleaner look and it was an improvement. I agree. Yeah, I agree too.
So I I'll make a motion to approve the new prepare. Should should we open it up to the public first? It's not a public hearing and if you want to but is not a public hearing. So I'll make that motion to approve the new proposed plan um as noted on the drawings. Okay. So the motion is to
amend condition number two to incorporate the proposed elevations noted on the plan submitted as exhibits at EX1, 2, 3, and 4
as the plans that were approved by the board. So moved. Second. Larry Cleveland, yes. Jason Kraca, yes. John Manilio, yes. Barry Van Horn, yes. Mayor Gallagher. Yes. Chairperson Warner. Yes.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Pending business discussion items. Uh the decks. Mike, I know that you gave us a new the ordinance and I know that there were
a couple adjustments asked by council, so we're going to also include those. Yes. I had discussed this with Cara and Cara came up with some clever notes to address the council's concerns with the improvement coverage. Um, all right. So,
Mike just sprung this on me, so he says it's clever, but I just want to make sure it's accurate. So, everybody let me know. Um, if we're taking a look at it, uh, we've got the following are exemptions from the calculations of improvement coverage. A is the first 100 square feet of a deck as defined above.
I thought we could add a B as a deck constructed over an existing imperous area. So basically the mindset being you already have let's say 50 square feet of impervious. If you put a deck on top of that, you're not counting it twice and there's no need to imply apply the
exemptions either because it's impervious over impervious. Okay. And then the my understanding for the second piece would be later on. So after the A and B, we just add kind of like a separate paragraph that says um
impervious coverage shall not be permitted to be constructed under a deck without being calculated. So for instance, you have a second floor deck and then okay, that would be the two changes. concern with council was somewhere down the road if you would pave underneath the deck. Let's say you
had a six a twotory deck and you say I need storage space and you paved it that would defeat the purpose of having the slots correct in the infiltration. So down the road it just clarifies that if you pave it down the road that the exemptions is yeah you have to calculate
in your Can you just read the language again? I want to hear it. Imper for the second part. Yeah. Impervious coverage shall not be permitted to be constructed under a deck without being calculated towards impervious. Okay, I think that's clear enough that if it's already there, you can put the deck over it, but you
cannot now construct it under the deck. And that's why I wanted two separate sections. One that talks about putting a deck over existing and one that talks about putting impervious under I would suggest putting that one first. Okay, I would switch them just just for clarity sake. So, it says if you you can't put
impervious under the deck. However, if you already have impervious, you can't calculate it. You shouldn't calculate it twice, right? All right. I'll move that. Yeah, I think it's just a little clearer. Yep. I'll I'll move it to under the definition of improvement coverage. I'll play around with it that way, but
as long as you're okay with the language, I'll play around where it is. Just a secondary question. Can you put in a mathematical example that people will understand? other than that one that's there something a little tougher because I got
phone calls and people were upset they were college educated and I'm not so but I understood it but they didn't get it so I want to make sure that they understand what it means by the first 100 feet are exempt so do you see that that calculation there doesn't work you're saying it seems to be in the last
time confusion oh so we need something better okay tougher a little more like look you have a deck that's You're putting in a deck that's 150 square feet. So the improve All right. So let's talk through this. The improvement coverage calculation of a 150 foot deck
shall be 25 square ft. Meaning 100 square feet is exempt. 25 square feet is remaining which is 50% of the remaining 50 square feet. So maybe maybe just break that down a little bit. Yeah, we could break that down a little
more. And you know what? Maybe we do it maybe we do it a line item. Yeah, ex as opposed to a written we'll do it like a math equation. Yes, something like that. I think that may be a little easier. Yep, I got it. No problem. Okay. And this way it's always in there. So it's always No, I like those. I think that
makes exams Yeah. Examples and calculations make uh good good. It's good. No. All right. I could do that, too. No problem. All right. Are we going to have it come back next meeting or do you think we The
council has introduced it. Uh they they have. So we're the council shot it back here for final comments with their comments. Correct. So they've already made the changes essentially by So now we Yeah. So now these these comments will come back up to council for uh
public hearing and adoption. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. We'll take Yeah, they're going to fix it. They're going to fix it and send it up. They'll send it to uh to uh the administrator and uh that'll be on our next agenda for public hearing and adoption. Right. When when is your
meeting, mayor? Uh, it's not this Monday because it's the 30th. So, it's a by week. So, it's uh the following, which would be I'll do it by the end of this week. Don't worry about it. I just want to make sure. Seventh. Yeah. Seventh. Okay.
Okay. Thank you. Um All right. Uh zoning. Let's go to zoning first. You have our reports here. Do you want to Yeah, it's discussed at the last meeting. You have a PDF and a hard copy of all the annual reports from
2006 for up until 2024. The idea being that as we look at master plans, land use ordinances, this might be helpful to look at what's going on over the last 18
years that the board of adjustment has seen. So it's just for future you have that we discussed it. Yeah. We discussed the annual report from 2024 at the last meeting and I said that I can certainly follow up. Uh the environmental commission was given a similar document
and I thought it was helpful for their uses. Yeah. So and I I know that we had talked about it at the last meeting. These are these reports are really good to look at especially as we start looking at maybe possibly wanting to reszone or looking at the zoning in certain areas issues like debts, things
like that. what we see in some in the from these reports should also help. Hey, we have a trend. We we're constantly getting a denial or whatever it is, whatever's causing um some trouble for some residents to do some work that we don't want trouble for anymore, we don't want complications for
anymore, then this these reports give us that um opportunity to really address that from our perspective and get it changed. Okay. Thank you. Uh final affordable housing update. Uh it's passed. Well, we passed it at
our last meeting. Uh the burough council had a uh uh a good discussion, some spirited discussion and some clarifications and uh passed it unanimously. Uh well, I shouldn't say that we passed it. We supported it unanimously. Uh it has now been filed
with uh with DCA and uh we're in good shape. Yeah. Yeah. So good work all very good work that uh it's it's a significant milestone and uh and it's something that uh we all worked
very hard at to craft something that was purely Somerville. It wasn't a cookie cutter. It was for Somerville for the betterment of Somerville. So good work. You were the first of all my boards to get yours all done. So for what that Yeah. They're all scrambling right now. Yeah. Ever. Absolutely. This has been hell week special meetings. So yep y
yep. Good. Good work. Is this the part where we say thanks Colin? Yeah. Thanks, Mike. Mike. Mike. Colin. We had a whole crew of people. There was There was a lot of people around the table and everybody had a hand in this and that
was it was very good. All right. Um the improvement coverage subcommittee, did you guys I know we had brought it up last time maybe looking at um ensuring that we weren't missing anything that would be issues. Did you have a chance to I know I think you
wanted to pull some stuff from Burough Hall. Uh yeah, we haven't had a sense, but we're still looking into it. All right. Uh any updates, Mike, for redevelopment plans, master plan, or zoning right now? Uh just that I think the council will be
making a recommendation. I'm sure the mayor can talk on this looking at the West Main Street to uh to address the granitates. I think the the concept went over well, so it looks like that's coming. Yeah. So we had the concept uh review of the granite building and it
was met with overwhelming uh support from the burough council. Uh so we talked about the you know some of the next steps and uh we're in discussions now on whether it should be a recommendation from the planning board up to council to take a look at the west
uh main street redevelopment area or vice versa. Um, so we're kind of walking through that now and having a good discussion on on the most appropriate matter. Um, I think the legal process is it just comes from council right to the planning board as a a recommendation
that the planning board look at it. Um, my recollection is in the past we've done it um the other way where the council would make the recommendation to sorry the planning board would make the recommendation to council council would look at it and then say okay yeah we agree and we think that you should take
a look at it. So, I guess it's a it might be splitting hairs a little bit. Um, but I I sometimes think that's appropriate. Uh, it gives uh transparency to the process. That's my take on it.
I'm staring right at you. Spoke with redevelopment council. Yeah. And their recommendation was that the governing body request the planning board to do so. Okay. If the council says that, then we'll we'll follow that. All
right. So, we should be getting that soon then. Probably the next meeting, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's drafted and being sent in. Yeah. And just for everybody's, you know, transparency for also, we have behind the scenes Colin's been working on an overall timeline so
that we can kind of see, you know, because this is not the only redevelopment plan. We know that we want to look at everything. Um, so we're we will also have some kind of a timeline to keep us because there's going to be kind of it's unfortunately we're not in a position where you can say, "Okay, we're gonna do this one and then when this is all done, we're going to go to
the next one." We have a lot of hats up in the air and a lot of things that we, you know, we don't want to miss within our redevelopment plans. Uh, so and the master plan is going to be is already have you already you've already started sending that out to the committees, correct? The hasn't gone out yet. Hopefully later this week by Friday.
Yeah. Have it out. Yeah. Well, one of the things we want to do is actually bring the uh the the chair, vice chair of the different constituencies in and have a discussion with them and uh uh expectations uh deliverables uh so that everybody has an understanding of what
we're looking for and giving them that timeline as well of when we're looking for it back so that we can start to parse it out to the different uh so we're not tackling all of it all at once and then bringing each constituency in one at a time. recreation, historic, environmental. This way they're tackling
their subject matter uh and then making their recommendations, redlined recommendations uh to to the planning board. Okay, good. Yeah. Um all right. Uh EV charging stations,
did you have a chance you put a draft ordinance of some hearing everything? I know we tasked Mike in the last meeting to say hearing a lot of our thoughts in the general areas, breaking it up, come up with something, taking again what we heard from us in various different ways
and um putting it together and giving us something that we can actually look at, read through, make comments on, agree with, disagree, but at least it's something now that we can actually physically look at. If you want to Yeah. Go over it. Um you have the uh EV ordinance. on the books is there. The
red type is what the changes were and it was essentially as the chairwoman said broken up into four categories so that the it would be more each category the planning board could uh drill down to one being homeowners new new housing the
UCCC requiring the receptacle to be in the in the uh garage. So you'll see language there saying try to put the receptacle close to the garage to encourage charging outside the structure and encourage that the driveway is
sufficient that you can have a car a few feet something away from the structure. Uh just a difference of abundance of caution I think it is. So that's one scenario. The other scenario is a freestanding deck and you have that incorporated some comments and
recommendations from the fire marshall and uh the board of engineers on fire hydrants and 20 foot and perimeter. So you'll see those. I should say that the the uh the red on all four scenarios is
essentially what the uh the board of adjustment not the board of adjustment the board uh the board of engineers and the fire marshall had recommended. So I incorporated their comments into this. So and just to clarify too so everybody's following it on page eight
um actually I think it's starts eight right? Yes. So starts on eight with the three different the four different choices. First being that park surface number three surface parking lot installation uh private garage the single to you know
the town home and either a single uh residency or um town home. The next one would be a single-use parking structures. That's that's that standalone that Mike's talking about. And then the last was um mixed use structures meaning decks with residential, commercial or anything
above it. And on page two, it just added a little flexibility saying public health is paramount. So on page two, you'll see item five. It just says install basically make ready parking locations to protect the public and the public public
property at large. Just a blanket statement that it that was not covered in the original one. So you have the four scenarios. Uh the ones I think that we spend a lot of time with the board was was the decks. So, the decks are
broken down into two decks, freestanding and decks that are decks that are mis mixed juice developments, being they're attached to retail, residential, they're not standalone uh parking structures. So, and then you'll see the language
there a little out of the box. There are materials out there in different industries that can handle the heat. There are uh they're not readily been you done on um on decks but they have been done for kils, smelting,
foundaries, aerospace. There are ceramic tiles and things that can be done. Uh it's just not something that's been done in the past because uh we've frankly never dealt with heats and 4,000 degrees on vehicles before. So this is all
cutting edge. So you see some language here just out of the box speaking and says this it's it's going to be flexible. We don't know what the future is but the thinking is to protect the structure the concrete structure so that if you you know the unfortunate happens
that there is a fire that we don't lose the structure. The idea is a lot of these applications in decks, if you had a EV or a hybrid car fire, every scenario I've seen, the deck is damaged. You lose either partial or the whole
deck until it's fixed. So that's in Somerville's position, that's a huge structure that would adversely impact the whole community being where do you park? How do you so uh I think that some creative thinking might be in line for trying to protect the structure. Should
the board and the council say yes, you got to allow EV charging in these structures? Some some abundance of caution on Yeah. 5
says pipe shall be located. Does that imply that they'll have sprinkler heads at that spot or is that another issue? It's another issue. Should that be included? The fire marshal. Yeah, the fire marshall wanted a minimum but not a maximum. I had broached this is there a maximum 100
feet 200 feet and he says I'd like to be that silent on that so that we can work that out in the field and the case by case for the sprinkler heads for the sprinkler heads no for the stamp for the stand to Larry's point maybe we should also add in there about the sprinkler
system well where where should it be having a pipe that goes by is nice or the requirements that we require of that sprinkler system so the sprinkler system instead of the stand pipe is what they hook up to to get more water Yeah. So, the sprinker is separate from the standpipe. We have a high volume. Yeah.
Oh, we did. Okay. Yeah. And and Mike, just to that note, um, back to 3C. I think we want that to say a minimum of 100 feet, not within 100 feet for the hydrant. I don't think you want the hydrant right next to the Yes. actual fire. I'll check, but
Robert Glenn was saying no, he wants on the surface parking lot. He wants he doesn't want that. Apparently they they only have 500 100 feet of 5 inch hose. So maybe we should say he was saying on that scenario he wanted it 100 feet maximum. Okay. Because of the the hose.
I just didn't know if we wanted a minimum away so that Yes. I you can't hook up a hose standing right next to the actual fire. I assume. Yeah. You don't want the hydrant in front of the Right. I I was more comfortable with min maximums, but I was told don't go the
maximum. And you're right, Jason. You're saying clarify with 100 ft. What is it a minute of max? What what are we exactly saying with 100 ft? I agree. So, so for the decks, I I thought what we finally came up with for Avalon was a very good
um standard, minimum standard. And is that reflected in here? All of those items that we used for Avalon in their deck? No. Page page nine. I think six. That's for the decks that have nothing above it, right? Is the standard. Yes. That's the standard for the decks that
have standalone decks without mixed use above it is what this is. Well, I I would I'm not adverse to taking those that we standardized over here and reflecting that in the standalone decks as well. It is in the standalone. It's not in the
not where residential's above. Right. There you go. Okay. Yeah. So, that set the standard. Avalon set the standard for standalone decks but not resial. Got it. Okay. But so let's talk about that for a little bit. Avalon is in a
mixeduse structure. It's incorporated in the same building. So I would say that actually falls within parking facilities located within a mixeduse. It does. And that says prohibited. Yep. So that's where I'm confused. So, I
thought we were saying if you're going to have a parking within a mixeduse structure, you just can't have the residential immediately above the parking. That's what we did for Avalon, but that's not what people were saying, what the board was relaying that they wanted moving forward. Got it. Okay. Yeah.
moving forward because we didn't have an ordinance in place, we we said we the the the board the board's leaning towards taking the position of no EV parking at all underneath a residential structure. Okay. But to his point,
taking what we adapted over there and now applying that to the standalone decks. We did do that. Understood. And just so everybody's clear, the for the single use deck, it says that the parking is on the par the surface cover. Therefore, there's no
sprinklers cited there because it's out in the open. And to put sprinklers, you would have to have this crazy contraption. Yeah. Over the spaces. So that's why there was discussion about high volume sprinklers, but that was not in the surface deck because of the
location. being uh specified. Yeah, just so everybody knows that it's a surface parking deck upper floor. It's open to the air. So yeah, it's open air. How do you do it, guys? I mean, that's where the bottom line was. Mike, can you clarify something for me? So if we're going F one, the paragraph F1 on page
seven. I just want to understand what each one of those four categories are. So shall fall into one of the four scenarios. Surface parking lots. So that's three on page eight. Yeah, that's easy. single use parking structures. That's
five on page eight. Yes. Private parking garage associated with things is four. Parking structures included in mixeduse buildings blah blah blah blah blah. So three and four is actually four on page eight. Three. Yeah. Page eight. You have
six allows nothing. Right. Okay. Six is what's prohibited the mixed juice decks and this is prohibiting that. Uh three is the surface parking lots and that tells you perimeter uh locations to driveways, streets.
Um sorry. So maybe we say the location of permitted and make ready spaces fall into one of four scenarios and that's the four you have there because the fifth one which essentially is six on page n
you got three four five you have four you have four scenarios the numbers are yeah but what I'm facil structures is not one of your four scenarios right it is it Yeah, in mixed use buildings. So that's number six.
Yeah, number six. But if we look at the paragraph F, where is it there? So it says a structure containing EVs make ready parking spaces. So it says right above that uh parking structures included in mixed use buildings. Parking
structures third line starts on the second goes to the third structures included in mixed buildings. Got it. Okay. And other such as So the residential associated with single family I mean basically you have surface parking lots
one private parking deck garages that's two family two the single used parking three and the mixed use decks four those are the four scenarios you have the general comments on two is applicable to all scenarios uh I was trying to use as
much as the existing ordinance as possible so under two installation requirements for all four scenarios. So those are the general requirements for all four. Obviously three one of the four is prohibited but
on this writing. So then you go into and then three is the is goes through the surface installation requirements. Four is the private garages. And with the private garages we're just basically saying trying to get the car charging away from the structure. That's all
we're trying to accomplish because the governs on the receptacle and it is what it is. Uh the single use parking structures is what you were talking about is three that's the parking on the the upper floor of the parking structure
along the perimeter and that's the stand pipe and some kind of ceramic tile or something coating somehow protect the structure. Uh I don't think you can get the TE's or these most of these decks are pre-manufactured. They come Lego
set, right? TE's. I don't think you can do some exotic coating in the TE's. I don't think that's practical. I think the only thing you can do is put something on top of concrete to protect it like you do in a kil. If you're doing a kil or found, that's what you do. You
put an additional coating. Additional coating. So D basically just is a catchall saying guys try to protect the structure public property. Just something there's ways of doing this. This is, you know, they've had the the
space shuttle in 1980 had ceramic piles to resist the technology is not new. It's been around forever. It's just not been applied here. So, and you could argue it's a financial impact, but I don't know how if you have a fire, an EV
fire, you don't want to lose. Yeah. I think I think it's a best efforts not to lose. It's about the investment in my opinion. And it's about, you know, the public safety, but it's about the investment because the first and foremost is public safety. We're offering a public safe way. And then the other side of it for them is we we're
also trying to make your deck survive because we want the public to get through that. And what the fire marshall is telling me that a lot of times you don't catch this soon enough and you can't fight. You have to No, you have to wait. You can't get in there. Therefore,
if it's going to burn for, let's say, hours, best efforts, in my opinion, protect the structure. If you can't put it out because of the heat, whatever, you can't do it. It's not safe. You have to evacuate and let it do its thing. And then the next question is, well, can we
save the structure? My opinion. So, that's the that's the paragraph there. Okay. Any comments? Yeah, I have a couple questions about the um the mixeduse. Um so, I don't know. Do we have to put something in there regarding what the mixed us is? Because when I think mixeduse, I think two uses in a
building. So, what about if it's just an apartment building or just commercial? Maybe. Can you reiterate what you have in that first paragraph, Mike? Yeah, it's Yeah, just for clarity. Yeah, a little clarity of what mixed use. I know the parking is an accessory use, but um and then the other question for mixeduse.
Now, if you have a deck that's on the property but not under or or above the use, is that okay? So, it's adjacent. It's adjacent. So, that would fall into standalone. Standalone the mixed use I know what at least I was envisioning is
something has to be yeah maybe we rephrase and stop call that's where I think or located within another use John I mean it's nothing above it defined it's defined in here in the red structures containing the make parking spaces and other uses such as
residential retail etc above it I think we need to be clear on cl I can we can that's a good point. Yeah. You want that beefed up to clarify exactly what a mixeduse building because I I to his point I could see a developer saying well it's adjacent to my property so now
is it still mixed use so I I think we do want to clarify that and if it is a if it is adjoined to a building but not below the building do we have different parameters do we then treat it so that we have to pull the EV charging away from the adjacency of that building.
Yeah. So, it would be on the opposite side of where the building is. They can't have them. Even if it's at the top of the deck, it can't be against the building. Yeah. So, we could either say a minimum separation from other structures or what the mayor is saying is if it's
abuing another structure to clarify where those EV chargers are. Yes. This is two ways of handling it. Does the board want a minimum separation to a different structure or Yes. Yeah. I think I think I think it falls under the same parameters as the the surface
parking. Yeah. To some degree. Maybe use the same parameter, right? Don't we have separation of 20 ft from a different structure on the same site? I'd have to rely on the fire official. How how far do those Right. Gotcha. All right. So, uh, beef up mixed juice
clearly define that more. Yeah. And to address John's question of yes, you can have multiple structures on the site, have a minimum separation from the freestanding deck to the other structures. And that's going to be we'll get some feedback or I'll get some feedback from the fire marshall and the
board of engineers on that. Yeah. Well, is it from the deck or from the charger to the building? Like if the deck is connected because it probably You can have the deck connected, right? It can be abudded next to it. Yeah. That's where we're going to say we're
going to push it against on the other side. The charger is going to have a setback, right? That's where you have the setback for the chargers. You're saying the deck can be abuing a different structure. However, if it's a budding or adjacent to another
structure, I think like let's look at the um the one downtown um Jack's the one that abuts that inside of that right separated. Yeah, the county deck a butts. Okay. The county deck. So
with that once you have that where it's abutdded against a building. It's not that it's not allowed. You just have to have that separation or whatever the fire official a separation from the chargers to make ready from the abing. Yes. Yeah. I think
it has to be the opposite side but accessible to FD. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's you can get to the top. It's going to be accessible. It's just a matter of you don't want it on top of the abued building. If if we had an application that comes
through that wants to change six. That's the one that's like the they would have to come in for a variance. Yeah. It would be a C variance. But it's it's with with us or That would be a C variance. So it would
come to us. There's no D. It's here. Card. I just see this being a flood of things that are going to say, "Yeah, I want it in my space. I want it underneath and I'm put extra pipes in."
And that'll be a variance issue. Yep. It's not allowed. Yeah. I mean, we can't not allow them to come in with a variance like Well, no. That's why I was just making sure that this is And that can be resolved if we have to. Yeah. If you had if you had an applicant saying, I'm going to do a mixed juice. I'm going
to put resial, but I have this this technique that's going to protect the structure. It's going to handle 5,000 degrees. The board can certainly hear that grant the relief or not. Right. Right. I had to think
first. Yes. I can't comply, you know, whatever they got. But it can't I mean and technically it can't be the reason is cost to be honest with you because that can't that doesn't that's not an you know a reason to give a
variance. So to your point, yeah, very come and then it falls on them to prove to us, right, that it'll work and that public safety is still taken into consideration. I think anybody can say, "Well, we need
it because we need it because If you if it's prohibited then can you get your mic down? I'm sorry. If it's prohibited then the question becomes how does what they're proposing address the life safety issues of the structure that falls on them to prove residents or the
public at large. So we're we get off the issue of what if it's going to happen. We address the issue if it happens how is this protecting the structure and the public. It moves the ball away from it's not going to happen. the percentages are 0.0000.
We get stuck on that. It becomes an issue. How are you going to prevent this scenario to protect the burrow, the structure, the downtown, whatever it is, so that if this this incident occurs that it's not
devastating to the downtown, to the developer, to the residents, to the public, to for years to come because you can't fix a debt quickly. No. As we all know, on item six again. Should we reiterate what mixed use structure? Yeah, we asked
Mike to do he's going to do that. Thank you. Just so that when I'm gonna clarify all that. Thank you. Exactly what it means and then we're going to beef up the free the surface the singleuse parking structure. We're going to add language that yes, you can adjoin a
structure to it. And you know back to the example we can give an example but then we're going to I'll reach out to the board of engineers and the fire marshall to see okay in that scenario you have to have the make ready parking spaces some distance from the adjacent
part the party wall for lack of a better word. Yeah. John did you have anything else anyway? Barry anything anybody else? Nope. All right. Thank you, Mike. I will make the changes. I work with Carara and um next
board hearing. You want to see the revisions pack to try to we'll get closure on this. See a final draft by then. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting and I'll get the changes. I'll get with Car engineers, the fire marshall. We'll make these changes, get it out to the board hopefully a week
before and uh try to address. Perfect. Thank you, Mike. I know that was a tall order. Oh, just breaking it down. It's just chopping it up that we discussed. It's just putting a pen to paper. Sometimes it's it's helpful, right? Yep. Thank you.
All right. We have no ARB approvals. I have no other comments. I'm going to open the meeting to the public for any comments or questions. Hearing none, close public session. And do I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved.
Second. All in favor? I. All opposed?