Malden Center and untapped potential

Hmm... I should try and attend this meeting. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, lensma, it is good to see a group fighting for the good of Malden. I have a hard time understanding how in a city of only 50,000 that we have elected officials that have all the wrong priorities. I don't understand how Mayor Howard can say he regret that he didn't focus enough on the town center and push to see that we build buildings that will never allow the town center to be a town center.
 
Great, Ant. Hope to meet you there. There may be an informational meeting,too. If so, I will post the info here, as well.
 
Malden Patch - February 10, 2011
Disagreement, Accord Over Malden Center Zoning, Development
Residents and officials weighed the pros and cons of residential development in Malden Center at Wednesday night's public hearing.

By Roberto Scalese
Scores of residents filled the City Council Chamber Wednesday night as the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee met to discuss new zoning for Malden Center. No decision was made at the meeting, both proponents and opponents were heard during the three-hour session.

The proposed Residential Incentive Overlay B (RIO-B) would allow developers to construct multi-family residential units on property currently zoned for commercial use. A proposed set of apartment buildings at the Mal?s supermarket site would need the new overlay to proceed.

Chris Maietta, Vice President of Business Development for developer Combined Properties said the company is ready to come forward with the project should the overlay be approved.

?If, in fact, the RIO is put in place, we are prepared to go forward with the project,? said Maietta.

Three parcels in Malden Center are covered by an existing RIO, which allows for 12-story buildings and requires at least 1.5 parking spots per unit in each building.


What?s in the new overlay?

The new overlay proposal includes several restrictions, including:

* A six-story height limit
* Projects would go through site plan review rather than the special permit process
* Parking requirements would change based on proximity to an MBTA subway station. Projects within 1,000 feet of the T would require 1 on-site parking space per unit. Between 1,000 and 2,000 feet from a T station, 1.25 spaces per unit are required. Any further than that, 1.5 spaces per unit are needed
* Offsite parking is allowed for up to 30 percent of the parking needed for a project
* The offsite lot or garage must be within 400 feet of the development
* Space for a car-share program, like Zip Car, is required in addition to the parking required
* Bicycle parking must also be provided
* Stucco facades are prohibited in the zone
* Nearby traffic intersections must meet specific level of service requirements
* Intersections are graded from A to F. RIO-B-adjacent intersections must not fall below a grade of D
* French, or false, balconies are allowed. No full balconies are allowed
* The top of the buildings may not house commercial antennas or towers
* Rooftop equipment must be enclosed or hidden
* Projects must improve abutting infrastructure
* Developers must join Malden in joint marketing efforts to attract commercial use downtown
* Multiple buildings are allowed on lots two acres or larger
* City Planner Michelle Romero said her department would recommend any development in an RIO-B lot also include commercial space on the first floor of any development. Several people spoke for and against this change.


Voices for and against the project

Several speakers sounded their support for the plan, although many offered caveats and conditions for support.

City Councilor Jim Nestor said the project would be a boon to the fortunes of Malden Center.

?This proposal is an integral part of the revitalization of downtown,? he said.

Malden Redevelopment Authority Project Manager Deborah Burke read a letter signed by Mayor Richard Howard and Authority Director Steve Wishoski offering support, provided some conditions were met. These include a full traffic study of the area and an assessment of the residential housing market around the center.

The letter also expressed concern that converting too many lots in Malden Center from commercial to residential use would hurt the economic viability of the two city-owned garages.

Nearly a dozen residents stood in opposition to certain aspects of the zone and the Mal?s site proposal, though none came out totally against either.

Patrick Mayfield outlined several points of concern about the project, saying the inclusion of retail space would go a long way toward reactivating Exchange Street as a pedestrian-friendly destination.

?Just because you can?t put a Barnes and Noble in the area doesn?t mean you couldn?t put a coffee shop in the first floor of a building,? he said. ?Exchange Street is so lacking in retail that I feel some retail would be warranted in this area.?

Paul Tetta, another resident and member of CARDMalden, said small retail is essential, along with more residents, in the area.

?I?m tired of going to Melrose to go to Starbucks. I?m tired of going to Arlington to see a show,? said Tetta.


Some Common Ground between the sides

The lengthy meeting gave residents and stakeholders a share their thoughts abut the overlay with the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee. Throughout the night, there were several points where both supporters and opponents of the overlay agreed.

Both sides agreed they?d like to remove the Bank of America building (at the corner of Commercial and Exchange Street) and 350 Main Street from the boundaries of the overlay zone. Several speakers said they were worried a developer would knock down the Bank of America building and build upwards of 600 residential units on the lot.

Nestor asked the Planning Board to remove the two parcels from the zone. Several supporters and opponents alike echoed that thought.

dzcMa.jpg
 
"
* Parking requirements would change based on proximity to an MBTA subway station. Projects within 1,000 feet of the T would require 1 on-site parking space per unit. Between 1,000 and 2,000 feet from a T station, 1.25 spaces per unit are required. Any further than that, 1.5 spaces per unit are needed"

Dumb. dumb. dumb. dumb. dumbshitdummy dumb crap hell stupid ninnny dumb.

Projects within 1,000 feet of the T should have no parking requirements whatsoever. Doesn't mean no parking, but let the builder figure it out.
 
"
* Parking requirements would change based on proximity to an MBTA subway station. Projects within 1,000 feet of the T would require 1 on-site parking space per unit. Between 1,000 and 2,000 feet from a T station, 1.25 spaces per unit are required. Any further than that, 1.5 spaces per unit are needed"

Dumb. dumb. dumb. dumb. dumbshitdummy dumb crap hell stupid ninnny dumb.

Projects within 1,000 feet of the T should have no parking requirements whatsoever. Doesn't mean no parking, but let the builder figure it out.

Should be caps, no minimums. 1 per unit MAX! :mad:
 
NIMBY said:
But...but..but, then people will park their cars on the street and there won't be any easy parking for meeeeeeeeee!!!!

:roll:
 
February 27, 2011

To the Planning Board and City Council Ordinance Committee,

We would like to express conditional support for the proposed RIO-B and Jackson St. apartment complex. The conditions we support are in accordance with the letter submitted to the planning board by Mayor Howard and Stephen Wishoski, Executive Director of the Malden Redevelopment Authority and are as follows:

1) Exclusion of the sites at 350 Main St. and 200 Exchange St. from the RIO-B. As stated in the above mentioned letter, ?As proposed, [including these two parcels] the RIO-B could result in the creation of up to approximately 1,000 additional residential rental units. This is greater than the housing volume called for in all four of the sites incentivized under the first RIO.?

2) Inclusion of ground floor retail. As stated in the above mentioned letter, ?based on input from Malden citizens during both the Visioning and Master Planning process, [that] residential properties in the RIO-B should contain some retail on the ground floor along the Exchange St. corridor to enhance and complement the other retail activity currently along that roadway.? We would like transparency regarding how the proposed and existing (160 Pleasant St.) retail spaces would be marketed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Lensma

Member,
Citizens Association for Responsible Development of Malden
(also signed by several other members of CARD but I don't want to publish their names without permission)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does 1) indicate you are are asking for fewer housing units than what is proposed?
 
Hey Lensma, you need to make the wording of #2 stronger: "some retail on the ground floor along the Exchange St. corridor to enhance and complement the other retail activity currently along that roadway" can be easily manipulated to mean something like a dim little space for retail, like that little retail space on the bottom Pleasant St. Apartments.

That little space with tiny windows next to a door to the parking garage. Any idiot looking to open shop will look at that and see that there's no way the location can work seeing that it looks so obscure and invisible.

Or perhaps it take the work "complement the other retail activity" with the blocks that is dominated by the side of the ugly city hall/police station, two useless office buildings with an abandoned DMV location carved in, a drive through for banks, and a blank wall.

----

For number 2, I will reserve judgment. I know this place is very anti-car and I can definitely understand the destruction that the catering of cars did historically with tearing down huge blocks for parking lots. But, I'm not sure what does 1.25/1.5 parking spots mean exactly. Knocking down buildings, making sure there's enough parking spots inside the building, something else? Like it or not, but most people like cars and building an new condo/apartments means a lot of them have a car to store, even if they use the orange line. Though, I do agree, I say let the builder calculate and decide how much parking is needed to support the building.

----

Last thing I want to bring, with the Mayor's race. Since Malden is a city of 50,000, that is large, but not unruly large that a local from outside the council can't run. Okay, there's a good chance that it is a naive statement. But I do know that many carries a strong discontent for the current people in government seeing the crappy downtown after years of trying to fix it and the trash bag thing. Though many are grateful for Mayor Howard's accomplishments with schools and parks, the recent events does cancel out some of that appreciation. This means there's a sentiment that an outsider can gain a strong sway over the established players who been around for a good number of years.

Is anyone of us Maldonians have any thoughts of joining the political fray rather than just being one the current activist groups (IE Malden taxpayers for Accountability fighting to repeal the trash bag ordinance or CARD pushing for the vision of Downtown).

Note: If you are wondering why I am not thinking of what it takes to become a dark horse candidate, it is because I'm still a kid and almost completely naive of how Maldonian government works. Part of why I'm writing this is to understand how Maldonian government works. I'm not even sure I can qualify residency being on campus most of the past 4 years. Still, noticing the rise of these activist groups, the discontent of the current councilors and mayor, and the size of the city (which make it quite less intimidating in relative to something like Boston that demands someone of experience to manage a city of such size): my logic says this might be a good time for an outsider can step in the ring and have a reasonable platform to push from.

Of course, I can see the standard reasons. A public life under constant scrutiny, constant challenges to the city, and the relative easiness to be an activist focusing on one issue is very understandable. Also, there's a real possibility that even in the event of a successful campaign, we might find the reality that they were trying their best after all. Still, we complain of who keep voting such people into power that keep thinking that another office building or condo is the solution to Malden Square's ailment. Yet, our options are two people who been on the council for years and neither I heard that they carry a long history of being super different. I can understand that reasoning of the distance of things like presidential elections where many says both options sucks. It's not like anyone can easily run for that and say we can do better. But Malden is much smaller and fathomable that one can step in without taking a lifetime of intermediate steps or decades of wide prominence.
 
Statler, not nec'ly fewer units; just not making those 2 parcels available for a land grab (which is what may have been the intent...)

Ant, what are you saying? Are you going to run?

Regarding the language, I was just quoting from the letter written by the Mayor and Wishoski to the planning board. We happened to agree with those two points. Personally, I was pushing for rooftop parking or some other kind of arrangement. I think Malden has become a slave to parking lots and garages which is ridiculous considering the T is right there. I could rant about this forever...but I must go to sleep soon. Thanks for your interest--don't give up!

Also, there is a meeting Thursday 4/14 @7pm re: improvements to Pleasant st/downtown with the DOT at City Hall. Could be interesting...
 

Back
Top