 Hello. Give my intro back here. So, um, welcome to the planning board meeting of February 24, 2021, based on the governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Uh, GL chapter 38 section 20 and signed Thursday, March 12, 2020. This playing board is being held virtually using the zoom platform. My name is Jack jumpsick and as a chair of the Amherst planning board, I am calling this meeting to order at 635pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available via Amherst media live stream minutes of being taken as normal. We're members that will take roll call when I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and then we can place yourself back on mute. Rhea Chow. Here. Long. Here. Andrew McDougal. Like Marshall. Janet McGowan. Johanna Newman here and myself, Jack. Here. So we have full attendance. Board members if technical difficulties arise, we may need to pause temporarily to correct the problem and then continue the meeting. If you do have technical issues, please let Pam know discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed in the minutes will know if this occurred. Please, please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. So see your raised hand and call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment item and other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If you wish to make a comment during a public comment period, you must join the meeting via the zoom teleconferencing link link is shown on the slide and can be entered into a search using that link. The link is also listed on the meeting agenda posted on the town website via the calendar listing for this meeting, or you can go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. Please indicate. You wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is listed. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make comment by pressing star nine on your telephone we call upon please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished. We will now express our views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair if a pleading if a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their lot of time their persistent patient will be disconnected from the meeting. So, first item. Our minutes. Yes, you should have the set of minutes for February 3. Okay. Again, my, my, I've had some computer issues here just so I did a reboot reboot here and it took longer than I thought. And I'm bringing those up. I thought anyway. Oh my gosh. I cannot bring that packet up. I think I can check. I have the agenda. I'm not sure what not sure why that that's I've never had an issue opening the Adobe before. So I apologize for that. And do you have the minutes as part of your slideshow. Yeah, I'm trying to pull them up right this second and I'm not sure why. I could see everybody at least that that's a good. That's a good one there. Here we go. Can you see them. Can you see the agenda. So here's the minutes. Okay. Good. So, um, Ask the board if they have any comments on these. Or any motions. Check has seen Mr. Marshall raised his hand. All right, Doug. Motion to approve the February 3 minutes. Thank you. Is there a second. Yeah. I'll second. Oh, great. Okay. Any discussion on the board. I seen on. All right, we'll do a roll call. Maria. Andrew. Approve. Tom. Janet. And you, Hannah. Approve. And myself approve. Thank you. I also approve. Did I skip you? I'm sorry, Doug. You didn't need my vote check. Yeah. Alrighty. So, um, That's it for minutes. Correct. That is correct. I nearly finished another set this afternoon, but didn't quite get there. All right. It's okay. It is. So we will open up to the public comment. I see one hand up. Susanna. Hello, Susanna. Hello there. Hi, can you hear me? You can. How are you? I'm fine. I just had a look at the picture main street website for North Hampton, which is about their downtown planning process. And I was really impressed by it. I hope. It's, it's a great job of presenting masses of factual information. And, um, In a very non-technical, um, accessible way. It answers frequently and ask questions. It provides space for citizens to make their own comments and share their own visions for downtown in kind of free text. And it promises to be updated regularly as their planning process moves forward. Displaying alternatives and seeking further citizen input. So I hope you'll all, um, take a look at it and see what we might be able to do here in Amherst about our own planning process. Thank you. Susanna, can you say again what the name of that was? It's from picture main street. And I'm sorry, I don't have the URL here, but I think if you go to North Hampton, you'll probably find it right there at the, you know, the city of North Hampton, you'll find it. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Susanna. I know that North Hampton is going through the same sort of, um, Issues that, that we are as, right, you know, as a town. And I have taken note of that. And I. I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. And Pam, if you can find that link. It'd be great to forward to, to Chris so she can provide it to the board. Any other public comments? I see none. So we can get into item three zoning priorities. Introduction to propose changes to the BL. District adjacent to the, uh, BG general business zoning district. A lot more dwelling units to be developed in the limited business district. And we have a presentation. I assume by Nate. Yes. And Janet, thanks for pictures and Doug the sections. And we did have, um, you know, there has been some comments. We're not going to. Doug, you send some and there has been some others. Yeah. Yeah. The, um, Just letting everyone know this was a previewed, you know, an abbreviated version. Uh, this week to the, I think that to the town council and the community resource committee. So. If you've seen this, um, You know, it may be redundant for some people, but we're. I'll go through it and then we can have questions. So. Right. This, uh, you know, staff was asked to look into. The. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the development. And the BL zone and. You know, originally there was a discussion about. You know, um, footnotes or, you know, how to, how to do that. And, um, You know, what we're looking at is the two BL zones, you know, to remove the footnotes and basically have, you know, almost no dimensional standards or very flexible dimensional standards and staff decided that that would actually increase density too much. There'd be a lack of control if, you know, footnote B or other footnotes were removed. And so, you know, what we're looking at is something a little different. Before we jump into that, the purpose of the BL zoning district, it's limited business zoning district. It's really a transitional area from, you know, core commercial or retail areas to the residential neighborhoods. You know, many communities have this type of zone, whether they call it a limited business or a transitional zone, but they usually have, you know, this transitional zoning that allows for moderate density, a mix of uses, you know, a combination of commercial retail and residential. However, in the town's limited business, the BL zone, the dimensional standards, specifically building and lock coverage and the additional lot area per unit. So if you would like to add additional residential units, it has a requirement of, you know, a certain amount of square feet and it's a lot for the size of the properties. And so it really limits residential development. And, you know, this has been brought to the attention of staff in the town periodically and it's something now that we're examining. And so the goals of updating the BL zones, you know, would be to allow development and redevelopment with the opportunity for more residential units, whether that's in apartments or mixed use buildings. And at the same time, you know, incorporate some design guidelines, you know, some affordability and streetscape standards. And so, you know, when we say design guidelines, it would be specific to the limited business zoning districts. It's not a set of necessarily design standards that would apply in all of downtown. Maybe they could, but we're really focusing on just this BL area. And, you know, and for affordability, we're looking at updating the inclusionary zoning by-law. And so those were the goals, you know, so more residential development or the opportunity for residential development in addition to commercial and then, you know, those standards. And so to achieve those goals, you know, we looked at an overlay zone in the limited business district in those two areas on Triangle Street and North Pleasant Street. And the overlay would actually take the place of the current zoning. So sometimes an overlay district is voluntary over the, say, the base zoning, but this would actually be a zone that becomes what would be the base zone. So those, you know, what, when we put it on in the presentation, you'll see it really becomes the base zone. Another strategy would be to change how apartments are permitted. So right now they're by special permit and we could make those by site plan review in this overlay area. Again, adopt, and this is something that would be as part of the BL change, but then could apply to any mixed use building would be to adopt mixed use building standards. And a few years ago, there were some proposals that went to town meeting that didn't get approved, but they were close to it. And I think that, you know, a number of towns now are trying to determine how to, you know, regulate mixed use buildings in terms of residential space and non-residential space and also what the facades look like. So there's, you know, it's both the mix of uses in the building and then some design standards in terms of how it looks along the street. And then lastly, change the inclusionary zoning by-law to apply to all projects excluding the subdivision of land and we're still keeping the threshold of 10 or more residential units. Most communities have, you know, 10 units. Cambridge has a complicated by-law, but they do, you know, capture if it's six or more units depending on the development. So typically the threshold for inclusionary zoning is 10 or more units. You know, in Amherst right now, the inclusionary zoning by-law only applies if it's a special permit or a certain dimensional standards are asked to be waived. So, you know, for instance, mixed use buildings in the downtown, if they comply with the dimensional standards, you know, they're not, they don't trigger the inclusionary zoning by-law right now. And so as I mentioned, this overlay zone in the DL district would have its own set of dimensional standards and you know, have, you know, its own building height, building and lock coverage and setbacks. And in this area, we're not allowing any, you know, footnotes or waivers. So, you know, if we say the height's three floors, which we're saying that, you know, that could be subject to change, but whatever the building height would be, you could build up to it, but you couldn't build higher than it. So you couldn't ask for a waiver to increase the height. Same with a lot in building coverage or the setbacks. They would be, you know, they'd be set in the by-law and there would be no waiving them through a special permit or through, you know, a request. And then there's also some design standards that would be packaged into the overlay. So treatments of building facades, public open space. And so, you know, I think what we've seen downtown is that the property lines don't often parallel the street right of way or the, you know, the curb line. And so you may have pinch points where the property line and the road are actually pretty close together. And if a building is allowed to build right to the setback, you know, I think One East Pleasant is an example where it gets pretty close to the actual, you know, the roadway and, you know, we can have setbacks and then actually require public open space. So, you know, that's one feature here. A few, this is within the municipal parking district. So parking isn't required, but again, we could, we're recommending some parking standards and some, you know, standards for mechanical equipment. And here's a look at the BL overlay. And so, as I mentioned, it would be mandatory and it applies to the first 100 feet along from the, you know, setback from the property line. So, you know, on Triangle Street, you take the property lines of those properties and you go back a hundred feet. And that's what's shown in the black outline. And on North Pleasant Street, it's the same thing, a hundred feet back from the street. And the idea here is, you know, creating a corridor where we're trying to incentivize redevelopment and allow, again, that moderate density. And then in the BL zones behind the overlay, you know, the current standards and lock coverages would apply. And we're also, you know, suggesting here that the floors would be reduced to two floors right now. So that there's a step down and floor height. So there's a, you know, taller buildings along the street and then behind that you'd be limited to two floors. So the idea really is to try to create a streetscape, you know, incentivize a streetscape redevelopment. And, you know, someone, you know, developers could do that now. I think the idea with this overlay is with the new dimensional standards and some of the new, you know, the lock coverages and those things there, it would add to, it would help a developer increase what they could build there. And so on North Pleasant Street, you know, we've come up with it, you know, its own set of setbacks, front yard setbacks, side setbacks and rear yard setbacks. And, you know, it's somewhat unfortunate in that the streetscape along North Pleasant Street is different than Triangle Street where the property line is already about 20 feet back from the curb. On Triangle Street, the property line is actually, you know, almost in the road and the town has an easement. So that sidewalk that's on Triangle Street, on the North side of Triangle Street is actually on private property. And so the idea with these setbacks is to create a space along the properties where you'd have public open space. So you'd have areas for plazas, for wider sidewalks, for outdoor dining, for landscaping. And so on North Pleasant Street, the idea is that there's a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 20 feet. And so the building would be within those, you know, those 15 feet. The building front facade would be within those 15 feet differential. And then on other streets, it's 10 and 25 feet. So on like Halleck or McClellan, they have a wider minimum. So buildings would not be so close to the street. And the dotted lines in the image here show the minimum and the maximum. So that's showing where, you know, and then, you know, that's overlaid on the existing building. So, you know, there's an opportunity to bring buildings closer to the street, but still be set back enough that you could have these sidewalks in public open space. Again, the height would be, you know, a minimum of two floors and a maximum of three floors. There are some comments about the maximum height, but for now, this is what we're, you know, suggesting and then we're open to comments. The idea is assuming a 15 foot first floor for commercial use and then 12 feet for the upper floors. So it's a generous floor height. And again, we're not indicating any waivers here. I guess the big one within the overlay area is there's no building or lock coverage and no additional lot area requirements. So that, you know, currently there's 4,000 square feet per additional residential unit. And we're saying now within this overlay zone, you know, there aren't any of these requirements. And the setbacks, the side setbacks are also, you know, we're saying that with an overlay, there's really no minimum and possibly no maximum. So, you know, there's flexibility to build out within the properties along in this overlay area. Triangle Street has something similar. The setbacks are different again, so that we could have this space in front of the buildings to allow sidewalks and public open space. And so if we, you know, right now, if the zoning allowed a zero setback, the buildings could be put really right on the street. And the pedestrian streetscape could be greatly diminished. And so, you know, I've looked at a number of communities. Some will have setbacks like we have here and some will just say we're required a 20 foot space, a 20 foot wide space in front of a building. There's probably different ways to say it. They probably mean the same thing in terms of, you know, what we're asking for. What's important here is there's a minimum and a maximum front setback. And some of that will then go, you know, would be reiterated in the building design standards. So if we're saying there's a minimum setback, you know, we're then later requiring buildings to be built up to the minimum. And then again, there can't be any setback further than the maximum of 20 feet here or 35 feet on Triangle Street. And you can see on the dotted lines that, you know, it's similar to what's there now. But again, the idea is to try to create a streetscape but not so close to the street that it becomes a canyon effect. So when, you know, discussions of the 40 hour happening, there were some concerns about bringing buildings too close to the street and having, you know, taller buildings and then a narrow street. And so that's why we have recommended three floors and then these generous setbacks to allow for, you know, public open space in front of the buildings. And I'll just keep going through the, my presentation. If I, if there's someone really wants to raise the hand, I guess, Pam, if you see anything. So in terms of building facades, here's the dimensions of existing. Nate, Nate, I have a question. So the things that we looked at so far, are they all kind of conforming with the current BL? No, so, you know, in terms of the floor height, you know, we're, it's similar, but you know, with the 15 foot first floor and the 12 foot upper floors, it becomes a different, you know, number by foot. So 39 feet is different than what's in the bylaw. And, you know, within the overlay, if there's no building or lock coverage or additional lot area, that's different than BL now. It's quite a bit different. And same with the setbacks. And so the setbacks, the way, you know, these are, would be the way the set, there's no, the setbacks aren't, you know, these standards here aren't the same. So, you know, essentially these setbacks are tailored to Triangle Street. So a minimum of 20 along Triangle Street and a maximum of 35, that's not at all what's in the bylaw. And the goal of that would be to have this space on the property along Triangle Street, where you could have a sidewalk or public open space in front of a building. So current BL standards, you know, a developer could do this, but if they build to the maximum, right, if they push the building to where they want to in terms of the setback or other things, they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't be required to do this. And so the idea with these setbacks are, you're actually requiring now a developer to have this, you know, these setbacks, these open spaces in front of a building. So, you know, someone could voluntarily do that, but the setbacks don't necessarily require it or make it, you know, apparent. So are there any conforming lots in the BL at this time? Well, I think that's, so I've, you know, I think, you know, on Triangle Street, these lots are large. So they're conforming. I think the idea would be, you know, right now, if you look at what the buildings are underneath in this overlay, they would actually be pretty close to being conforming even with the overlay. So we're not, you know, we're not trying to make a new non-conformity. Is that what you're asking? Well, I just know that the BLs is, you know, it's lacking in certain areas, maybe in the Triangle Street area, it's better, but I'm wondering about, you know, closer to downtown there. Right. This is probably more problematic. You know, I think, you know, it looks like some of the properties would be close to, you know, not meeting the setbacks, but, you know, they would be grandfather, you know, I think most of them, the idea was to try to, you know, at least have the minimum and maximum be within the range that, you know, the streetscape is now, the facades are in now. We have two other hands. Chris Brestrup has her hand up and Janet McGowan. Okay, Chris, sorry to interrupt, Nate, but. I just wanted to note that the main dimensional requirement that we're trying to deal with is the dimensional requirement for lot area per dwelling unit. And currently there's a requirement of 20,000 square feet for the first unit, which is almost a half an acre. And then I think it's 4,000 square feet for each additional unit, but Nate could probably correct me. So that's the main thing that we're trying to deal with here. But we're also trying to make sure that development is focused on the fronts of the properties because we heard during the discussion about chapter 40R, there was a lot of concern from people in the neighborhoods about having tall buildings or large masses close to their homes, which were in the RG district. So we were trying to respond to that and have the development that's closer to people's homes in the RG be of a lower scale and focus the higher scale development on the street. So those are the things that we're trying to do. The other dimensional requirements, I don't know if we're changing them too much, but Nate would be able to respond to that. Right, no, yeah, thanks Chris. I think that was a good point that Jack writes. So right now on these properties within this overlay, within this 100 feet, if within the overlay we're saying there's no lot area for that, so that initial 20,000 doesn't apply and the 4,000 doesn't apply. And so the potential here then is you can get a lot more residential units even on three floors than you could now. So when 236 North Pleasant Street came in and the Hallock Street up here on the corner, because of the additional lot area requirement, they really couldn't make many residential units. And so even if we're saying that this is an area of moderate density or transitional mixed use buildings, you really can't even get a mixed use building with residential units because of those lot area requirements. And so what we're saying in this overlay now, there aren't those minimums, those 20,000 and 4,000. So you could, you know, you can get more units and that's the incentive to try to keep buildings up on the front of the street. Good, Janet. Thank you, Nate. So if there's not a minimum square footage per unit, how many units can be, it sounds like you could fit as much as many units in a building. There's obviously a limit physically because at some point you can't fit them, but have you done the numbers and the calculations on how many units that could be if it was a 300 square foot apartment of 500, 1,000? And then when you did that kind of calculation, did you think about like moderate density in terms of residential density? Right, no, we haven't taken it to that step. There's a concept later on in the presentation and the idea would be that if a building, if you have a double loaded corridor, most buildings might only be 60 to 70 feet deep and those are apartments on both sides of the hallway. And if you have two floors of that, we did some rough calculations if you have a certain size building, but we're not prescribing, if someone wants to do smaller units, we don't regulate that anyways now. So we're not saying you have to have a mix of one, two, and three bedrooms. And so the idea would be that with the design standards and then the buildings have to be within the overlay. So outside the overlay, the dimensional standards start applying. So if someone wants a bigger building, the lock coverages would start kicking in in the areas outside the overlay on a property. But within that, ostensibly within three floors, what could someone do, right? Maybe if they have a building that is a hundred feet, 80 feet wide and 60 feet deep, that could be, if that's 10 or 12 units of floor, then that becomes about a 40 unit building. I mean, we're saying that there's a maximum floor height. We haven't done the math to know, how does that break down? What does someone do within that footprint of a building? Okay, I would love to see the math for different sized units going fairly small because that's what Spring Street turned out to be. The other thing is knowing, when you look at this map, it looks like separate lots, but we know that the same owner owns a lot of the lots. And when we, I think when Maria and Doug did sort of a build out scenario, assuming that the owner would consolidate lots, the size of the building, the footprint was really large. And so I'd like to see that too because it sort of, it was bigger than East Pleasant Street. And I think that would sort of took us back the last time. So that kind of taking into account the property ownership, not just the lots, I think I'd like to see next time. I do completely appreciate the inclusionary zoning expansion. And I applaud that. And I also appreciate the effort to protect people living next to, the BL that they're not being so subjected to like large bulky buildings and lots of people and stuff like that. So I'd like to like think about the, but I do want to think about the phrase moderate density in terms of size of building and number of people and things like that also. So I think that's probably our next level of analysis or next week or something, but. Sure. And are we ready to move on? Are we okay? Yes. Sounds good. Thank you. All right. And then so for the design standards, I think Janet to some of your questions about what happens when owners consolidate lots. So what we're hoping here with some of the building facade standards would be, right now we're saying a maximum of 50% of a facade could be built out at the minimum setback. And so, if you have 100 feet frontage, we're saying 50 feet of that could be, is at the minimum, but no more than that. And maybe that, this minimum or maximum or maximum could change. As we see here, these are buildings taken on South Pleasant Street. Most of those are flat facades. You know, what many communities start doing is, so these next few standards really try to have some articulation of the facade so that you just don't have a blank wall that is 100 feet long. And so even if you do allow a building to be built out along the frontage of a property along the minimum setback, we're proposing here that, you don't have a blank facade that's more than 12 feet long. So you can't just have an expanse of concrete or brick or, you know, achieving without anything there. You know, one another, you know, idea would be to have that, you know, every 35 feet you have to have a change in a plane. And, you know, what we're seeing here on the buildings here, you know, every so often they have, you know, whether it's a six inch or a foot, they have some articulation, whether it's a colonnade or some stepback of the facade. And so we're, you know, we could have this type of standard built into the overlay so that you don't have just a flat facade. You know, even if it's one building, you know, you can say after 35, we're saying after 35 feet, you have to have a change in plane. And we can get a little bit more prescriptive with this or there's comments about what, you know, do we, what else do we do with that? But that's what we're saying now. And, you know, I think what that does is it helps break up the mass of the building. And they're also saying that, you know, we're saying that if you're changing it less than one feet, less than a foot, it doesn't, it's not considered stepping back in terms of the stepback. So, you know, you can't say, oh, well, I made a small change in plane. I'm no longer at the minimum setback and then just continue the building along the front edge. So there's ways to try to get a building to step back along the front and have some articulation. And, you know, the idea here really is to have a pedestrian scale and, you know, allow this public open space. So the 4DR also had, you know, along the top of the first floor having a sign band and they had some illustrative graphics which we haven't included yet here. You know, it was interesting, a number of violas that I read didn't really have graphic standards. They just had kind of simple language, you know, like on the top of the first floor on the facade, they'll have a, you know, you need to have a two foot wide side, you know, sign band or something. You know, I think the graphic standards are helpful and we could incorporate those, but then they don't, you know, they don't capture every possible style or variable. And so we're not trying to say you have to redesign the buildings to look like they are here. But, you know, there are characteristics here that we could, we'd wanna repeat if the BL was redeveloped, especially along the front facade. And then the public open space is something that's new. And so, you know, what this graphic is showing here is that, you know, from the street back to the maximum setback, there would be required public open space. So in the green area, you know, we're saying that developers would need to provide, you know, blockways, plazas, corner plazas, outdoor dining areas or landscaped areas. And currently we're suggesting that, you know, 10% of the building footprint, including, you know, overhanging upper floors would then have to be provided as public open space on the frontage of the property. So if you have a 6,000 square foot building, you'd have 600 square feet of public open space that would need to be required. And, you know, and then again, the public open space can't be driveways or parking areas or other required, you know, outside areas like loading areas or service areas. You know, as I thought more about this, someone right now could maximize the landscape area and not have the plazas. And so, you know, the more I look at this, and I'm sure everyone has other comments too, but my thought is, could we limit the landscaped areas within this public open space we don't necessarily want, you know, so much landscaping that there isn't really room for pedestrians or other things. But the idea with this public open space standard is to try to encourage, you know, pedestrian level streetscape and places where people want to congregate and be outside. So not just, you know, a five foot wide sidewalk against a four story building, but maybe, you know, a 15 to 20 foot wide space that has different amenities and things happening. And then for parking and mechanical, again, the things that are bylaw, I don't know if they say I'm so, they might say this, but it's interesting, like, you know, if we want parking in the back of the building, you know, we could just say this. So that's what this is saying now, that, you know, parking shouldn't face the primary streets or relocated, you know, too close to the side streets even. So it's just, you know, just put it behind the buildings or a minimum of 30 feet from the public way. And again, you know, you know, consolidate parking across property lines. So the safe space and curb cuts, let's, you know, aggregate parking behind buildings and across property lines. And it's something that the planning board allows and, you know, it is allowed in zoning, but I'm not sure if it says it so, you know, in this way. And so again, are there other parking standards that we could incorporate into the BL area, even though it's in the municipal parking district, you know, if parking is provided, you know, how can we minimize the disruption to the streetscape or having, you know, many curb cuts or driveways. And mechanical, again, just having them set back on the tops of buildings so they're not visible or you're screening them. And, you know, really trying to locate them on the sides or backs of buildings where they won't be, you know, highly visible or disruptive to the pedestrian experience. And then here's just a development scenario. It's a really preliminary concept. But, you know, if this property has a hundred feet of frontage and you can build up, you know, 50 feet along the front, you know, the building facade, then the front facade is, well, you know, most of it could be on that five foot setback and then the rest of it has to step back between five and 20 feet. There's a maximum of three floors. And so here it's a 6,100 square foot building. They need 610 square feet of public open space out front, which they can provide within that green area. And for instance, if they want to then put an addition on or have a bigger building that extends beyond the overlay, you know, the one in purple would be limited to two floors. And then they have to comply with the other dimensional standards of the BL area. So, you know, lot area, building coverage and other things. So it's not as if they could then put a massive building outside the overlay because those lot coverages would apply and the building coverages would apply in that area. Hey, Nate, can you just establish what the southern most property and the northern most property is so people get a perspective on this? Sure, so this is Coal's Lane. So this, you know, this is Bruger's Bagel's here. So, you know, the church is just south of here. And then, you know, here's Hallock Street. So here's the, you know, realignment park right here is out on the street where the, you know, the cow. Yeah. And so, you know, where this was this property, you know, we're not, the idea too, I guess Janet said it would be to investigate further what, you know, what exactly a building concept would look like. I think some of it was to hear comments tonight. And, you know, like I said, we heard some from the CRC as well. And then refine what we're proposing and then actually, you know, develop more concrete concepts. But so this is just to give you an idea of what, you know, what would happen, what could happen on this property. I think Chris has a con, would like to chime in here. I just wanted to note that that purple area behind the building would most likely be commercial space or office space because the likelihood is that there's not enough additional lot area to have dwelling units back there. So I just wanted to make note of that. Thank you. Andrew has a comment as well. Thanks, Jack. Yeah. I sort of have a quick question. Seeing this line in these particular parcels too, is if we're building more density in the first hundred feet is kind of a likely scenario without knowing the math here, but it's like a likely scenario. The first front, like the right half of this, the eastern half of this would be building and the western half would all be parking, parking field. We adding more parking demands by building the density such that it's like, it'll be half concrete, half structure with 10% open space. There's no requirement to building parking. Right. So it's all right. So just I wanted to make clear on that because earlier, I thought maybe that we were going to treat the parking overly district differently. That's not going to be the case. No, I think what I was saying is if we write in parking standards in here, it's just to say, okay, let's not have every property have a driveway, curb cut. Let's see if we can find a way to minimize some of those disruptions. But I think your comment to me was right, are we creating a scenario where if a developer or property owner is building a bigger building and they want parking, are they just going to pave over the back half of the property to accommodate the new use? And so, and then only with only 10% open space. So I think that's a good comment. What are we, essentially we're kind of down zoning in the back area and trying to incentivize and add the idea to add more residential units up along the street. So I would someone want to add parking because if they have more residential units and they think the tenants want that, would they add more parking? So it's a good question. Yeah, and that along just finishing up that thought, too, would be that a butters would now face parking lots in the lighting and all the extra kind of noise that comes from that. So yeah, thanks. Chris, did you have a comment or? My comment has been accommodated. Thank you very much. All right. Very good. Thank you. You see, Nate, thank you. Mr. Marshall has raised his hand, Nate. Oh, Doug, yes. Well, my first question is whether Nate is at the end of his presentation or not because I was going to hold off and saying anything until he was done. Yeah, I'm all set, Doug. OK. All right. So my OK, so I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. First of all, am I correct that a rooftop mechanical unit would not be counted in the height of the building? Or is that really the the EVE height? Right. OK. And then I guess I'm wondering whether, as we think about this, we would really want to mandate that these be mixed use buildings, that we really want retail at the first floor. And then that leads me to the second question. Do I understand that the 50% calculation you're talking about as being the maximum at the minimum setback, is that the area of the entire front facade? So yeah. Or is it 50% of the footprint can be at that edge? Right. So the front facade, right. So the building could 50% could be built out along that minimum. Right. So I could do a building, let's say, that was two stories tall. And the ground floor could be entirely at the minimum setback. Right. And then the second floor could be one foot back. You're saying that the second floor even not. No, we're saying the building, we're saying the front facade. So not just the first floor. So you're saying like then have like an overhanging or? No, I'm really saying how are you calculating the 50%? Is that a plan calculation? Or is it an elevation 50% of the area of the entire facade? So I could meet 50% by doing the first floor is my 50% and the second floor is setback. Right, right. I'm not clear on that. And I guess it's related to my concern that we're going to end up with kind of a jagged street edge with that kind of approach. If it's based on the footprint of the building. And I'd almost be more in favor of mandating a uniform setback and mandating that where the front of the building needs to be. And then one question about consolidation across lot lines of parking. I understand that's easy to do if it's the same owner. But I guess I wondered whether you have any or anybody in the staff has experience with that really being feasible when there are multiple owners. It feels like it could be a kind of complicated thing to do. I mean, it's obviously easy to do with access easements and such. But how likely is that to happen? I wouldn't want to build a building that relies on somebody else for access to the back of it. Right, I think I can start from your comment about parking. Yeah, Northampton actually has kind of gone this way where if a developer wants to provide parking, they have to figure it out. So they may need to then talk to the neighbors and have agreements about shared parking. And so the bylaw does allow shared parking. We're not requiring shared parking. We're just saying that if an owner is developing, in terms of those standards, we're really encouraging that they minimize having driveways come out to the front. But if you can access them from an adjacent property to do that. So it wasn't a requirement. But I think that private properties could negotiate something like this a lot. We're not asking the town to become the enforcement mechanism. However, there was the downtown parking working group a few years ago. And there was an idea of having private parking be monitored by public enforcement. And there's ways to do that and to make then have the shared parking be the enforcement then becomes on the town. Again, there has to be some details and nuances there. But then a private developer isn't worried about how are they monitoring the parking or managing it in a way if it's between different property owners. I understand what you're saying about the setback, Doug, because previously these buildings are all pretty uniform. And so even when in a lot of communities with 40R districts in the downtown, they actually, the most they allow, most of them only allow 75% to 80% built out along the frontage, say at the minimum setback on a property. But I understand what you're saying. Could we actually be a little bit more prescriptive or clear about how we want a building facade to be developed along the street? Well, I think partly it's the fact that you've chosen these photos to illustrate your text. But I don't think the regulations you're drafting allow that result in this kind of development. So if your intent is this, we probably ought to make this part of the BG because this is a BG condition. It's not currently a BL condition. Well, this was illustrating kind of the articulation of the facade. And at three floors, what a taller first floor would look like. And so I do want to hear what you're saying about the setback. And I guess we're not mandating mixed use buildings or apartments where they would be incentivized in the overlay because there's no longer those lot area requirements. And so the use chart, if someone would still like to build just an office building, they could do that. Or if they want to build just retailer commercial space on the first floor, they could do that. So the overlay is not one mandate, mixed use buildings or apartments only. It's just that those would be incentivized because you can provide more units now in the overlay than you can now because of a lot of your requirements. We're not prescribing just those uses. OK. I guess then the last thing, I noticed that one of these photos is a four-story building. And I guess I question whether all of this zone ought to be limited to three stories. One of the reasons I did those sections was to sort of look at the relationship between the width of the area between buildings. And probably starting at, I think it was Halleck, it seemed like maybe north of Halleck Street, we could go higher just because it widens out. And we're starting to get into the Kendrick Park frontage that really can accommodate a much higher development. Thanks, yeah. The CRC meeting was suggested that maybe in the overlates four floors. And then if we are keeping the two floors in the back, then really we are really incentivizing development along the street with four floors. So I think that's an interesting idea. For downzoning one area, should we allow a little bit more moderate density along the street? And so there is a thought that three floors might not really be tall enough either. Yeah, I think to really be able to distribute the cost of an elevator and the kind of vertical circulation you need to have, at least a couple of floors would make a difference. Sharon, I think I'm sharing the sections, Doug, that you sent around. I think if everyone could see those just if they're visible. Yeah, it looked like particularly as you go north along Kendrick, the height of the five-story building is not really too imposing on the size of that open space. No more questions. Thank you. Doug, thank you. Those are great. You always bring a lot to the table. Thanks. So we have Tom and then Janet. Yeah, Haney, thank you for the presentation. It was super informative and really helpful. And I think I don't really have too many comments. But one is kind of following up on Doug's. I had a couple of questions about the consistency of the facade and its juxtaposition of moving forward and backward. I agree with Doug that building a consistent front line would be an ideal strategy here, which leads to my second question, which is what is the level of incentive here to build above one or two stories? Because if you look down north pleasant now, it's pretty easy to put a box, a colonial box with a gable roof and two stories right along the street there that will provide nothing of what we're looking at in terms of the visual aesthetic that you're saying. How do we build an urban street front? And how is there a minimum height that we can build? I guess what I'm asking is how do we encourage or are we fully encouraging the development of a streetscape? Or are we just lifting certain regulations that may not incentivize people to actually produce the aesthetic you're looking for? Because I think I agree in terms of let's build this kind of density along the facade. And that street front experience you're showing me is compelling. But there are two and three story buildings there now that they're just houses. And you can build those in some pretty simple ways. I'm looking down north pleasant. Janet provided some images. I was going to just, sorry to scroll so fast, but here's Triangle Street. There are just one story. So yeah, it is interesting. Without getting overly prescriptive or mandating certain design standards or setbacks or things, how can we assure that we'd get the streetscape we want? And I'd say right now we don't get it. We don't get it. So what we've seen with some of the newer buildings, whether or not we like the height or the architecture, they're pretty close to the street. So here's some of the BL areas. Yeah, that's what I'm referring to, like the share and the building to the right of that. Those are pretty straightforward dwelling or office spaces that don't really match the kind of streetscape that we're looking for. So anyway, I was just curious, like how do we bring that to fruition? Right, we wouldn't prohibit something like this. The idea then, if it was in the overlay though, they would have the minimum setback and the maximum and then the open space requirement, but they could still build this colonial looking building. So we're not saying that it has to be a brick building or certain window sizes or having a cornice or all these little roofline treatments or anything. So it's not getting that level of detail. I think there's still a discussion about what would be appropriate design standards that would apply town-wide and more than just the BL. So the thought would be in the overlay if we're encouraging bigger buildings, at least to try to break up the facade with the setbacks. I do understand what you're saying about the uniform setback, but then also those facade treatments about having some change in plane, some breakup of a massive facade. So we could look into a few more guidelines. Before, Jana, I just wanted to note, Nate, you mentioned the 40R study. I thought that their introduction to the form-based concept was significant. And I wonder if you could speak to that or maybe Chris, because I think that kind of is integrating with some of the things that you're proposing here. Right, yeah, so if there's a 40R webpage now under planning department and the planning projects, but I think the town have looked at it a number of years ago too, is having a form-based code where it's really trying to regulate from building front to building front across the street. So it's really that public area, what's visible. And in a true form-based code, the uses are secondary and it's really about the aesthetic. They have this, the transect of high density to residential and different standards for different areas of uses and density. I think when we were doing the 40R study, I think there was concern that even the design standards that the consultants had provided weren't quite matching what people would want to see in Amherst. And I think it's also difficult to have form-based code that then can actually get the design you want. So even with graphic standards, saying that you have to have this type of recessed entry in a higher first floor and a signed band and maybe prescribing glazing requirements, you still could get a developer who creates something that isn't what you expect in terms of materiality or roofline details. And so, I think it's something that we're still exploring, how prescriptive and how detailed you need to be in a form-based code to get something that you want. If people want brick buildings, you'd have to almost say that and you have to mandate it in a way that you can't have any unforeseen development. I mean, we're not, even the local historic districts in town though, don't go to that level of detail. We're not anywhere in town prescribing materiality or sizes of windows or treatment on the size of fascia boards or corner boards. And some true form-based code might actually have that detail in graphic style. So that it's really clear. This is what we want. We want wide corner boards. We want overhangs. We want cornice detail. We want some relief along the roofline. And if that's what we want, we could consider that. We didn't take it that far in this study yet. Thank you. Janet, please. So, Nate, could you run through the north pleasant pictures? You just keep scrolling down. Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. So here's Kendrick Park. So here's, this is still looking north. Keep going. Yeah, I think of that as a silverscape building. Yes, I do too. Yeah, so can you go back to the beginning of north pleasant then? Yeah, am I going, so I'm. I think it's, yeah. So let's go. You started, I think, I try to break them up. I think. It's there, right? Yeah. Yeah. So when I looked at this BL proposal, remember us, we sort of like broke off, I think at the planning board zoning subcommittee idea was, well, what do we want to see in the BL and let's zone to that? And so I wasn't thinking that what we wanted to see in the BL were the pictures that you were showing of the part. And so my question is, what's wrong with the ragged edge? And so, are we trying to build an urban streetscape close to the property line in the BL? And basically all these buildings that we're looking at almost all probably are old enough to be considered historic buildings. They've had mixed use. So I don't really understand what's wrong with the ragged edge. I find it actually one of the most appealing parts of Amherst is that we're a collection of these kinds of buildings. And if you go to the picture, I think at the beginning of the downtown character section I had with the church, with the build up behind it that Amherst College did. So I was kind of, I thought about when I thought about like, what do I want to see in the BL is like, I'd like to see these buildings preserved and the density built around them or behind them in a way that matches that that fits. And it doesn't have to, here it is. So this picture here of the old fiber art center and old church is owned by Amherst College. It did a beautiful restoration and then they built a kind of modern looking orange thing. It's not a great picture of that. And that to me keeps the look of Amherst, the character of Amherst, and yet you move ahead and you increase density. And so I just, I think if we, maybe this is an issue to take to the public is like, do you want to see more of that or do you want to keep the buildings that I kind of like can find sort of funky and expand the size of those buildings but keeping them in the style or something that's very compatible. So I'm a little, I think I'm coming at it from a different point of view. I do think that if we're gonna change the zoning, the BL, I think it's a good idea to address all the issues in the BL. And so, parking is an issue in the BL. Like we have no parking requirement and yet we might be increasing the density that the number of people living in it without addressing that. I'd like to see some sort of flexibility protecting small businesses or small commercial spaces, definitely protecting the historic look of downtown. And the master plan identified the downtown, the historic buildings as a priority area as our historic preservation plan does too. So the question isn't like, I don't want to see density. It's like, I'm happy to see density but in addition to protecting facades and looks. And I like the inconsistent look of Amherst. I think I'd be sort of, so I think maybe on the board, some people are thinking, yeah, we all should be like pulled up against the edge. And I'm thinking, I like the fact that the Harlow, the Harlow building has a different front and facade that you can sit down in front of hanging and buy some succulents or have a bagel or not bagel, sorry. I like that look. And so I'd like to keep that look as you increase density and heights and things like that. So I think we can get there, but I'm not sure this is quite it. But I do, and I wonder if we can sort of fix all the problems in the BL or call it a transitional zone and just figure out what we want to see there and then zone from that. So I'd like to say that we, I failed to mention this because my, my computer reboot, but we're gonna take a break, around eight could be 815, five minute break, just so people know that, that they can kind of have that to look forward to. So Maria. Oh, okay. Thank you, Nate. That was really great. I really appreciated the fact that you treated those two BL parcels very differently because when Doug and I did a study where like these are two different monsters, two different animals. So all those sort of fine comb setbacks you did for both seem very appropriate. I kind of agree with the sentiment about, you know, we're down zoning one half, we're not really increasing too much on the foot of the street face, the street facade. So that may be going to four or making some of the minimums a little tighter just so that you can get that sort of more, more of an addressing of like the human scale, the street scape, so that you can kind of define that a little better instead of leaving it so loosey-goosey. So like when I look at the minimums of five and 10, I wonder what was this North Pleasant? I just wonder if, just go ahead and make it consistent. Oh, sorry. That's on other streets. Okay, so North Pleasant you have it at five. For Triangle, you have it at five for North, for East Pleasant and then 20 for Triangle. I just wonder if, yeah, we're trying to control it a little more if there's a way to do it where, it's tricky. I'm kind of torn between giving up a lot of frontage to landscaping versus incentivizing more housing to be built downtown by someone who comes in and develops because you only have that hundred feet and then you're taken away five to 20 feet. So you're left with 80 and that's just enough to get like a double-loaded quarter as far as apartments or condos or whatever up above. I am a little torn about also just how the BL is still in the back half or whatever size parts, it's still in the back and it just, it's a really, it's like a real complex math problem. But I mean, I suppose they can figure it out. It's just, yeah, are we taking away too much by, I guess leaving that BL or not saying but maybe the back half doesn't have to follow the sort of minimum additional lot areas or, yeah, I just, I haven't really seen the numbers on like, you know, what the number of units you can get because I looked back at like had drawings of, you know, what we thought we could get per floor if we were to change the setbacks and whatnot. And it's not a lot. And if you only have three floors, like for example, that one you made an example of, I was only able to get six units per floor. So assuming the first floor doesn't have any, you're looking at only four per floor because that back half is still in the BL. So then that's only eight units. So I guess I just, maybe the next layer is just taking some of these parcels and seeing how many units can come out of it because I just wanna make sure we're not, I mean, it's great. It's a great move where we're finally getting housing where, you know, it should be in the place that's already got a lot of density in buildings and amenities that are walkable distance. I just wanna make sure we are sort of easing it up enough that a developer could see it or a property owner could see it, you know, working out where the numbers are gonna make it viable for them to build. So I'm happy to help with that too, Nate. If you want our PDFs of, you know, the sort of unit layouts and just to see for each parcel, you know, how many units per floor you can get, I think Doug and I got pretty far with that in a lot of different scenarios, whether it was per parcel or one owner consolidated a lot of parcels. I know that'd be great to share. Okay. Yeah. And then I think the only last thing is form-based zoning, I love the idea. It's just, I think these are too small to put that much energy into, you know, it's just these sort of 100 foot strips of these two zones. So I mean, it makes more sense for like a big area, but yeah, it would resolve a lot, but I think it's just a lot of energy for very little payback if we were gonna like dive into form-based zoning for these two areas. But maybe like, yeah, if we find a 40R somewhere else in Amherst, that would be worthwhile to do form-based zoning, but overall, I mean, I think this is great. You're finally freeing to be yellow. So I'm really excited about it. I just want to, I think, yeah, next steps could be just seeing how many units. So I'll try to organize my drawings so they're eligible to another human than myself. But yeah, thanks for the presentation. It was really informative. Thank you, Maria. Janet. So two projects in Northampton on their main drag on Route 9, one of them was, I think it's a Valley CDC project that has a very huge old Victorian that they stripped down to the bones and it's filled with affordable housing. And then they added on in the back more affordable housing. And then the old, is it the old Northampton hotel? That's now a bunch of condominiums. And I'm wondering like, that's kind of what I was sort of envisioning for the BL, would this zoning prevent that? Like if you were on Triangle Street and you wanted to use, I think what we were calling parcel V or and you wanted to do is like different condominiums or apartment houses and walkways in between and some parking, would you be prevented from doing that by this overlay plus leaving the old zoning on? Cause I'd like to see more flexibility that it could become, you know, like Triangle Street, you know, leads in from a lovely, very small residential neighborhood kind of up to Kendrick place, which is kind of a big stone. And so I think it'd be nice to increase the amount of apartment housing there or condos or something, but in a way that is kind of matches cottage street and what's coming out from East Pleasant Street. And so I would think, I'd like to see this zoning loosened up so you could increase housing density, but have it sort of fit into the neighborhood more. But I'm wondering, could you build those projects if you were limited to the hundred foot strip, but you still had to conform to the BL and back? Like I wonder if you're cutting your options down a little bit. Do you know the projects I'm talking about? Anyone? I do. I was just saying, sorry, just taking notes. I mean, I don't think the current zoning would allow you to do that because of a lot coverage and additional lot area per unit. And so, you know, I think, you know, I guess my thought would be, you know, for instance on Triangle Street, if we like go back to, I was just gonna, you know, I think the, I think there's, if this is Triangle Street, I think the, you know, it's the cost benefit for a developer owner, you know, what's the cost of tearing down or changing the existing use to only get, you know, if you're matching the density or the form on cottage street, you may not, there may not be enough units to make it worth, worth the cost to tear down everything and try to get, you know, eight units on the property. If you were, you're gonna increase the density, it's the transitional zone, right? You know, cottage street is low density, lower density, then you're coming to the transitional zone. So I'm not particularly happy with the existing zoning. I'm just sort of saying, can you get to a more flexible thing, like maybe reducing the, you know, 1,000 square, you know, to 2,500 square feet? Like, do you know what I mean? That's what I would, that's the fix I was sort of expecting. Yeah, I mean, we, right, I think, you know, I think Maria alluded to it that, you know, this, the BL on triangle street is so different because of its size and the property sizes compared to the BL on North Pleasant and even in the BL on South Prospect. And so, you know, I think that's where, you know, that's why there's different setbacks on these two areas. And, you know, I think getting your question is, you know, staff can discuss it, you know, how uniform is the zoning, you know, does this BL have to be something different than the other BL? Because really, if you wanna apply the zoning consistently, right, between all the BLs in town, if you have the same standards in one area, it may not work in the other. And so, I think because these properties are so big on triangle street that, you know, I'm not, you know, I think, I think, well, you know, someone could come in and develop a nice Nixie's building up front or apartments up front in 100 feet. And then what they're allowed in the back, because it's so big, they still might be able to get a few units. But, you know, I haven't done the math to know, does it work? Or, you know, what kind of flexibility is there? Yeah, I think I'm being really unclear because I was thinking, I'm trying to say is, if you wanted to use the whole lot that, you know, and not be forced to pull everything in the front, like if you just changed the zoning in the BL to reduce the lot requirement for every additional unit, would that give a developer more flexibility to put condos in? Like the condos that you see on North Prospect Street, you know, like, you know, but some people could walk in, they could have some interior space to be in. I mean, there's no like space for any, you know, like there's no recreational space for anybody living under this, but someone might want to build just a more dense series of apartment houses or townhouses that kind of gets you between Cottage Street to the, or the BG. Right. I mean, that's what I thought was going to be happening more. And I just wonder, you know, if you just fix the BG and I could see how in different parts of town, it would be different. Janet, some clarification, recreational space for the BL? That's a requirement for a special permit or a site plan review permit that would, there'd be some recreational, you know, like some green space for, you know, housing. With apartments, right, with apartments. Yeah, I'm just thinking how heavily the town is invested in Kendrick Park and the green space there. I'm just thinking if it's like, you know, when you look at a condominium community, it's usually not just all, you know, so there's, you know, we've required that there's spaces for people to sort of sit and put a grill up and things like that. You know, I think a developer, that's a really attractive place in town. It could be a really attractive kind of community. You know, okay. All right. So we're getting close to where we would want to break, but we have Johanna and then Tom, I think had a hand up. But let's go to Johanna, please. Thanks, Jack. I'll keep it brief. Nate, thanks so much. This was really great. I also, I think these two spaces are really different in part because of the, you know, the current streetscape at Triangle Street right now does come so close to the street that I think having the wider setback on the North side makes a ton of sense. I spent some time at that intersection just the other day and was imagining what, you know, when we were considering the 40R, what it would feel like if there were taller buildings on the other side. And I think having the wider setback there was really smart and thoughtful. I do, I also think that we could consider four stories as the cap for both kind of revamped BL zones. And then one of the, I guess, questions I had is in the 40R proposal that a bunch of us kind of spent time on in the fall, it was, it also didn't mandate parking, which I think is right. We shouldn't be doing that, but it did encourage underground parking. And I wonder if that's something that you thought about including here at all. If the developer wants to do it, sure. But yeah, no, I think, right. And we just had some ideas, you know, like I said, in terms of how to organize the parking and have the design better. You know, we hadn't fully addressed it because of the municipal parking district. And so, you know, Janet mentioned, you know, could we address all the issues? And it's interesting that, you know, if we wanna have, say, increased residential opportunity in the BL, all of a sudden, you know, it becomes a spider web of things. So then parking gets involved and open space. And, you know, I don't even wanna talk about signs, but, you know, right. And so we weren't looking at, you know, right. It's how much do you control within the BL and how much becomes other parts of the zoning by-law. And so that's where the overlay was a tool because you can write in the standards within the overlay itself as opposed to changing the rest of the zoning by-law. So, you know, if we wanna have different parking standards in this area, we can. And, you know, maybe that's something we need to consider. But, you know, we're not saying we're gonna change the parking standards in the zoning by-law. We'd like to then apply changes specifically to the areas we're trying to incentivize, you know, redevelopment or more residential units. So, yeah, it's funny. I reread the 40R2 and I saw the underground parking and I was like, well, I think, you know, the template in the state does mention underground parking. So I feel like the consultants left it in there. Maybe they thought it's a viable option. I don't know for sure, but. Thank you. Thank you. Tom, Tom Long, please. Yeah, I just have one last comment. Just to follow up on, I think what Janet's saying and I can't say I completely agree, but I totally understand the perspective in terms of where your discussion about the Amherst College building and the church, kind of this thing that's nestled behind that keeps this frontage, but does something that adds density behind. I'm thinking about the building behind Judy's, for instance, that has more density behind the sort of smaller street front. So if we do wanna keep that more small scale urban front, the zoning that you're providing for that hundred feet is gonna limit that because behind that, you can't actually go up high. Which again, earlier, you know, I think both Andrew and I think Janet were also saying it's good. Let's think about those people behind, but at the same time, it doesn't allow us this opportunity to preserve something that we like in front and then do something bigger add density behind. So there's no incentive to do that, either no opportunity to do that. So I'm just wondering Janet, is that kind of the reference you're getting at as an opportunity and is that something that we might wanna consider as a trade off? Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. It's just, you know, I don't, I understand the existing BL zoning is awkward and limiting, but you know, I think what you're losing is your historic streetscape and you're not, all the incentives are to pull it forward and put it right on the street. When what's on the street is pretty appealing to a lot of people, I have to tell you something funny. So I'm taking these pictures and I'm taking the picture in front of share coffee and this is woman. And I said, do you mind being my picture? And she said, no. So I took a picture with her there and she said, what are you doing? And I explained it to her and I said, well, you know, the proposal is to change the zoning that would really encourage this building would be torn down and it would be like a three-story kind of brick building and she was aghast. And so, and then she went into a long tirade against One East Pleasant Street and Kendrick Place which I often get from people. And I think that these are the parts of Amherst that people really like, that it's the sense of place that we have. It makes us different from other places. And so the question to me is, how do you keep that and increase density? And that I think is an interesting challenge but I don't think we tearing down the hair by how Harlow building are encouraging developers to do that. The master plan doesn't tell us to do it. It tells us that this is, the downtown Amherst is our historic gym and we should be protecting it. So how do we do both? And I think we can, but I think we need flexibility in the zoning where you're not pushing all the incentives towards the tear down or the front street. And that, so that is my point. It was like, how do we get what we want or have the flexibility to get there? And I do think that there's some conflict in terms of what we're talking about. If we add the density behind in that zone, this is a transitional zone. So we're going to be adding more density and potentially height against those neighborhoods which is also we're going to get some pushback on that too, right? So we put all the density behind, people are going to have concerns about that. So I do think there needs to be some trade-off that happens if that is something that we think. Yeah, and I don't think, I don't think you'd want to put a three-story building right on the property line next to a two-story or even a three-story Victorian. That's why you have setbacks in different areas. So I mean, when you put those lot, those properties together, it's a pretty big lot. It can be kind of creative with it. Yeah, I mean, I think, there is the opportunity now for someone to build three stories in the BL. I think the idea is that there isn't the demand for office or commercial space. And so developers aren't doing that because they just, they can't fill that space with commercial and retail. And so the hope is that if we reduce those lot areas for residential, then maybe we can get both, more residents downtown and businesses. I think it is a balance between preserving the historic and developing or redeveloping. And I don't have, there could be ways to do it. I do think that some of those buildings at some point, the developer or the owner is gonna say, okay, they need so much in work, so much capital improvement. What's the benefit of keeping them or restoring them? And what's the benefit of tearing down and building new? And so they have that opportunity now. I've been in some of those buildings and, I think that they, I agree. It's a nice aspect of downtown. It's a residential feel of downtown, but when you go into those buildings, some of those, they're not accessible. Some of the, the heating vents from one unit are actually, there's one dock that goes to another, the electrical services are split between units. And I think from a practical standpoint, it works now. But if ever someone needs to really clean it up, it's a big project. And so- But lots of places that you can preserve facades or replicate them in the new building, you kind of keep that look. You know what, Nate, I have to ask you, so I'm looking at the slide, which is in the BG with a ton of little buildings, that's zoned to five stories. Like what's, you know- Right, so I think, right. So right now, yeah, I mean, so my thought is right that the owners, what's there works for them. So they, again, they haven't, right, there hasn't been a desire to tear down because what they have works. So, you know, right, they could go come in here and do a mixed use building, they could tear this down, so they haven't. So, but I think the thought is at least in the BL right now, the purpose was to have both a mix of residential and commercial. And right now you can't really have any residential because the lot area of 20,000 and 4,000 is really restrictive. So, I mean, it is interesting, is there other ways to do it besides the overlay? Possibly there's probably other mechanisms or ways. And so that's something staff can discuss. But I agree, there is a conflict of, you know, I think we do want to have a streetscape and not push density in the back. You know, I don't want to see parking in front of a building. I'd like to have, you know, wider sidewalks, you know, the transportation plan, you know, said 12 to 20 foot sidewalks in downtown areas and have landscaping, have benches. And in some of those areas, it's already accommodated on North Pleasant. But I think, you know, I agree. I'm not saying we should keep the old facade of the building, but it'd be nice not to have everything torn down and then have just these, you know, something that's new and doesn't resemble what, you know, what people want. So, you know, I think that would call for, you know, I think more detailed design standards, you know, or, you know, more prescription there because, you know, even now in zoning, we're not, we don't tell a developer what to do with the front facade of a building or, you know, we can't put a delay on it. There is a, you know, demolition review. So I think, you know, if we do like those, these roof lines and everything, then we have to get a little bit more, you know, we have to be clearer in the zoning of what we actually want if it's redeveloped. I mean, I agree that. So we're like at a perfect time where we're gonna take a five minute break and the board can proceed with some discussion then we can open up to the attendees, get some public input. So, say, you know, 806 or such, we can come back. Does that sound good, Pam? Yes, I have a little sign we can share. All right, thanks. See you at 806. Hi, Jack. Hi, Pam. Let's see, it's 806. So I'm gonna stop this screen share and see if everybody's here. I only see the two of us. Here's Chris. Hi, Chris. I'm muted. Hi. I was getting extra clothes. It's cold in here. Chris, do you feel like you have the night off? Thanks to Nate. I do. This is great. I'm listening to Nate and then I'm gonna listen to Maureen and listen to all of you discuss and have to sit here and take notes. This is fun. One more sip of water. My daughter found my glasses, by the way. I had lost my glasses and I was wearing my husband's glasses at the beginning of the meeting. But she found them on the floor. Must be reading glasses, huh? Destroyed. They are reading glasses. I just don't go to the eye doctor, so I don't need glasses. No, I always had to wear glasses for driving and when I got my license renewed a couple of years ago, somehow I passed the test. So I don't have that restriction anymore. I probably shouldn't have said that. Which are you, Pam? Well, Nate, I don't know how old you are, but when I turned 40, my doctor's like, you're going to see the eye doctor. I'm like, okay, whatever. Does this look better? Yep, okay, I get it. All right, my eyes are... You know, I had an appointment scheduled last year. You know, it was postponed. I never rescheduled, so I need to do that. All right, our eye doctors, are they open now? Can you get an exam? I got one yesterday. I went in, first time in several years. Yeah, just yesterday. New prescription for me, Kelly. Oh boy, new glasses. Yes, you can't wait. I'm still getting over the fact that Tom's, like, older than 40. I know. I just turned 45 last week. Oh, happy birthday. I'm back, but I'm going to keep eating my pizza, so... Oh, pleasant morning. I'm Harold. Jack. Great. So, what do we need to do? Well, you said you're going to take public comment for 10 minutes on the previous topic. Do you... You can do that or not? Well, I think we still have planning board comments. Oh, still planning board comments on the topic of foot and... That's good. Yeah. We take public comment and then continue talking, kind of like a zoning subcommittee meeting would do. Would that be okay? Well, I don't think everyone has spoke yet on the board. So, let's get through everyone and then public comment. Mr. Marshall has his hand raised. Yeah, so, Doug, please. Well, I have already spoken, but thanks for the opportunity to talk one more time. I had one question for Nate, which was the zero foot side setback requirement. You know, if people decided to build right out to the property line and then consolidate parking, or I guess I just wondered whether you've talked to the fire department and whether they'd have any concerns about access to the required frontage of the building if you have zero setback requirements. And then the other thing I was going to say, kind of in response to Janet's comments and the photos about of the small buildings that sort of dot the northern end of downtown, is that I feel like Halleck Street or the southern end of Kendrick Park is really a threshold location where the sort of double loaded North Pleasant Street with the buildings facing each other changes to the Kendrick Park. You know, it widens out and at that moment, you know, you could really say that I kind of feel like the main commercial downtown when people think of downtown kind of ends at that point, even though there's a little bit of commercial stuff on the east side, north of there, it's so small and spread out that you don't have the kind of semi-urban feel of the 19th century New England downtown that's sort of our historical remnant. And so I feel like maybe we ought to think about some, you know, changing the treatment of the urban landscape and having a zoning change at that point, you know, north of there, we think of Kendrick Park as one kind of cohesive room, so to speak, and how do we wanna build up the edges of it? And then south of that, that you might basically try to preserve the New England downtown. And whether that means, you know, more restrictive zoning to prevent the kind of big development that people have found objectionable with one East Pleasant or Kendrick Park, you just say, we're not gonna let that go south of Halleck Street. And I think there's some merit to that in that that landscape that goes all the way up to the common is really kind of the setting for Amherst College. And it's a small-scale historical college. And then, you know, as you go farther north, you're getting more into UMass land, which is a modern, large-scale, much more, you know, higher buildings and bigger population. And maybe, you know, Kendrick Park is the place where you start to make that change from the historic district to the modern university. That's all. Thank you, Doug. I have to, I agree with your comments. And also I feel like the use of the term historic in some of the areas of the BL that aren't designated as, you know, it's not designated as a historic district. So I'm reluctant to have that term thrown around within certain areas of the BL that are not designated as a story because that just seems wrong, in my opinion. But certainly the look... We could have a long conversation about whether parts of the historic districts we have are really historic also. Well, of course, we'll have a subcommittee on that one. So, Maria. You'll sign me up for that subcommittee. I agree with what Doug just said. I also, in addition to that, I think Triangle Street is also sort of this corridor that sort of is like a segway, getting whatever you want to call it, like gateway to UMass as well. So I think creating, because we don't have it, we haven't been to see it, but as a planner, you can kind of imagine, you know, like Doug called it rooms, like Kendrick places a room, Triangle Street is like, in a way, circulation, you know, to this threshold where at the end of Kendrick Park becomes UMass. And so, yeah, if we just to find, define, sorry, my pizza, define some edges better. I think that downtown could really make a lot more sense and a lot more activities can find their places because there's more sort of edges and places that are created. Right now it's kind of leaks out into, you know, the edges aren't there. And I would love to see, you know, something a little more commercial on the first floor and residential, the second floor, right up against Kendrick Place because on people could spill out into the park, you know, and it just, yeah, it's just begging for something a little more defined. And I think, yeah, Doug, your section's really clearly show that as well, just showing how the scale of Kendrick Place really feels like it could use a little more definition on the edges. And because of that sort of proportion, it's just a little off balance. But yeah, thanks for those sections Doug. I thought those were really easy. Yes, I agree. But Doug, you know, you really showed the space as you proceed, you know, from South to North, once you hit that point, you know, near Kendrick Park, there's an expanse that, yeah, you appreciate from that work. So thank you, Doug, for doing that. Janet, you have your hand up. So I'm glad we're having this conversation because I think, you know, we need to figure out what we want there and then how to get there. But I don't think it's debatable whether a building that's 100 or 150 years old is historic. I mean, they're, and so, you know, one of the reasons I keep on like sending out excerpts of the master plan is, you know, because we're supposed to be following it. And, you know, the key directions are to maintain Amherst existing community character. I think we have to agree that the Amherst downtown is not an urban landscape. And, you know, it does have some higher buildings, maybe a small center, but, you know, the preservation of Amherst community character will require a variety of approaches, including protecting and promoting adaptive reuse of historic buildings and landscapes, focusing development in already developed areas, creating design standards that ensure that new development is in accord with existing neighborhood character. You know, new infill and redevelopment in historic downtowns, village centers and established neighborhoods will have to abide by rigorous and sensitive design and density controls intended to preserve and enhance existing character. This doesn't mean that no one else can move in there and that we can't have small apartments and we can't expand density, but we're working in a context that's already there. And so, you know, I think if you take down these buildings, one after another, I think, you know, you're destroying downtown character. I don't know, I just, I mean, maybe this is, does anyone else have any concern for preserving any historic buildings downtown? I mean, downtown is sort of slated to be a historic district in the master plan and the historic preservation plan, where it's chock-a-block full of really beautiful buildings. But they're not all, like you might look at the post office and say, well, that's iconic, but small buildings are iconic too. I mean, it's part of the fabric and the landscape. Not to say that the building can't get taller, the facade can't be saved or replicated. You know, this is what happens in historic districts all the time. I mean, you look at Nantucket and you're like, they really, they saved something that was really amazing, you know. Janet, which section of the master plan for you and your friend, Toby? Well, one of them was the key, from the key direction to the community. And another one is an excerpt from the land use policy map. But, you know, it's, you know, the guide, new housing growth as to minimize impacts on Amherst open space and small town rural counter character, increased density of residential units in specified areas when strict design and planning guidelines are met. You know, so that's our job is to implement this plan and not to tear down these buildings. It just, you know, I don't know. I mean, you know, when we were talking during the 40R about like tier two urban things, I just, you know, I've lived in cities, this isn't a city. You know, I've lived next to a building that's built to my property line. It's kind of a pin in the ass, you know, it's sort of like, but you're in a city and so you accept these things. Are we gonna follow the master plan and protect the community character in historic buildings or is that just not a core value? And then our design and changes have to protect that and enhance it. Yeah, I'm just looking at this. You know, we have to encourage the vitality in the downtown village centers. There's a lot of competing interests within the master plan, no doubt. I don't think they compete. I think you could do both at the same time, but you can't abandon one for the other. Yeah, but the town has as essential needs with regard to the downtown, it's everybody's downtown. So if we're gonna quote the master plan, I just wanted to know what we're pulling from because there are a lot of kind of, you know, missions, you know, therein, but I'm sorry, I lost the hands here for. I have to say that, you know, staff was looking at, you know, the question was how to work on the residential component and the BL. And so, you know, I think, you know, through the discussion, I'm hearing that, you know, we're almost going back to, you know, are we defining downtown again in the whole downtown forums? Because, you know, you know, at what point do we step back and say, okay, well, what are, you know, is it, are we just gonna keep ourselves to trying to work on increasing residential opportunities in the BL or are we now opening up a bigger project saying, okay, are we defining what's downtown? You know, is it like Doug said, you know, is there a section that is more the commercial area, the more modern area? I mean, we, you know, we, if we wanna do that, you know, that would just, you know, that would be something a little different than we're doing now, right? So if we wanna start redefining what's downtown, what is the commercial area, what are the transitional zones? That's not something we were doing as a part, as part of looking at what's, how do we increase or change the residential development opportunities in BL? So I mean, I think, so I, you know, I think, you know, there's a great conversation. I was thinking that, you know, taking all my notes, I'm like, okay, well, where are we, you know, where are we going? Are we, we wanna take a step back and say, okay, what, what are the, you know, areas of downtown? Or do we just keep saying, okay, how can we improve the BL, you know, that we're looking at? So. Thanks, Nate. Tom. Yeah, I said a couple of quick comments. I mean, I think if you talk to most historic preservationists, not everything that's old is historic and not everything that's old is good. And I think, you know, at some level, we have to make some judgments about what preservation is and means. And so maybe consulting some people, bringing them on to actually have a conversation with us about that might be really valuable. And then the second comment is something when I was interviewing for this position, I had some comments about the master plan and its use of the word character. And that is a dog whistle. And that we wanna be careful about how we utilize the word preserving character can become an exclusive practice. And I just want us to be cautious about how we use that and when we use that and something that we should probably address in the master plan as we go forward. Thank you. Andrew, oh, excuse me. Yeah, Andrew. Yeah, not a ton to add. Tom actually covered on a lot of it. I think the article that Maria sent out really captured some of those comments you just articulated Tom in terms of when zoning works and when it doesn't in terms of providing opportunities across income levels and just promoting diversity. So anyhow, I think that was a great comment. I think in general, I really like the work that you put together here, Nate. I like the creative idea of the hunger for buffer. I think all of the ideas that you've shared seem consistent with a lot of things we're trying to accomplish for solving the BL in terms of getting some of that residential density in. So that's all I have to add. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, also, Tom, I forgot to thank you and good comments there. So Chris, you had your hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to say a couple of things. One is that I consider the historic center of downtown to be the area that surrounds the North Common and the South Common where there's the Grace Church and the Town Hall and the beautiful buildings along Main Street and along South Pleasant Street. And once you get down to pretty much where the fire station is and beyond that, I don't see a lot that's there that really is worth sort of putting in a jar and saving it forever. I think that the St. Bridges Church is beautiful. I think the old post office is beautiful, but a lot of those old wooden buildings are really in bad shape. And if we save some of them, that's fine, but I don't think we need to save that whole streetscape. And I also agree that the area beyond say, oh, probably beyond where one East Pleasant is or including one East Pleasant all the way up to Triangle Street, I think that could be all developed as new. And that's kind of the gateway to UMass. And so I feel like we have to be judicious about what we say we wanna save because it's going to become like, I don't know, it's gonna become sort of a hollow expression if we say we wanna save everything. And I really feel like there are certain things that we definitely wanna save and other things that I think we could probably not care too much about. And we also need to remember that we have an entire historic district, a local historic district that was carefully delineated. And it includes a lot of properties. I think it's over 200 properties in the Lincoln Sunset area and beyond that Page Street, Best in Street, up to Fearing Street, et cetera. Nate could probably give a better delineation of this, but I think that those buildings, people really did a lot of research and they convinced town meeting to create a local historic district there. And the buildings along North Pleasant Street, while some of them are charming, I don't think all of them are necessarily worth saving. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. We have Doug, please. Yeah, I kind of wanted to apologize to Nate for maybe getting us off topic with my comments. The main reason I mentioned that and kind of wandered into that conversation was, I thought when we're talking about the allowable height in the BL, that I think there's an argument to keep it lower south of Halleck Street and that there is an argument to make it a little bit higher north of Halleck Street, where, you know, so that you're starting to address the size of the big room around Kendrick Park. No problem. I mean, it is, you know, even Maureen's doing footnote M and it's interesting hearing the conversations there too. It's like, you know, if you take one piece in isolation, you might be able to address it, but then it has implications for other parts of zoning or town. And so, you know, all these comments make me think that, yeah, I mean, I think looking at what are the residential areas of budding BL again and thinking, you know, what is the impact of everything? So, no, all good comments. Thank you. We have, I thought, yeah, Johanna. Thanks. I just have one more thing to say with this, which is, you know, it's 2021. The buildings and the zoning that we conceive of now will lead to buildings that are gonna be here in 2050 and 2100. And given what we know about what's happening with global climate change, we absolutely need to be thinking about the challenges that the world is gonna be facing. And we know that we need to move away from individual car usage and that we need to kind of just be more efficient with the footprint that humanity leaves behind. So, I really appreciate the move towards density. I think it's required. I think Amherst has been incredibly forward-looking with setting aside open spaces and, you know, when you factor that issue in, which I think needs to, you know, just like the Biden administration is kind of putting that as an overlay for all their operations, I feel similar urgency around it for our work. And I think it's highly relevant and it's important that we keep it in mind. And I think, you know, these proposals of greater density and concentrating development in the areas where there's public transit and where it's walkable and ideally bikeable, you know, we just have to do that. It's an imperative. So that's all I have to say. Thanks, Johanna. Yeah, I could, I can quote, you know, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission data that shows that Amherst has the highest percentage of conservation and, you know, natural resource area of any town in the Pioneer Valley. So we got that going for us, which is, which is fantastic. I just wanted to say one thing to your comments. Made me think of, you know, reading some articles about defining, you know, building standards, mixed use buildings or design standards. You know, more recently, you know, in the planning magazines are saying, you know, zoning can be more adaptable and flexible. So, you know, although we haven't changed zoning too frequently downtown, I mean, the thought would be if we, if we try this, right, if we change the BL and in a year, we don't like what we're seeing, hopefully we can change it again, right? So it's not something that we set in stone and we just leave for 50 years. You know, more recently, there's been articles about mixed use building standards. You know, a few years ago, communities were really strict about the square footage requirements for commercial retail. And now they're saying, well, that was limiting because they were too prescriptive. And so now they're having to go back and change it. And that's not a bad thing. But as long as they're adaptable and, you know, they're willing to change and be flexible. So, you know, my thought is here, we have a good discussion, we have some things going on, but if, you know, two years from now, we aren't getting what, you know, we're not seeing the results. We don't like what we're seeing. We can, you know, I'd like to think we could change it. So, you know, because, you know, maybe people won't take up the development and get the density we want, or maybe they're not providing, you know, maybe they are still providing parking when we want more foot traffic or public transit. And so then how do we encourage that? How do we encourage, you know, more bike sharing or multimodal development? And I'm not sure what we're proposing here. You can, you could get it, but a developer may not need to do that. So, yeah, so I just, it was interesting. The American Planning Association had an article out recently that has just said about, you know, adaptive zoning. It was really about making sure, you know, let's change it. Let's be flexible if we need to. And I think that's something that towns don't do a lot. Thank you, Nate. All right, Janet. So we do have some buildings downtown that many people aren't happy with. And there hasn't been any effort in the BG to address that. I wonder, so I do, and I'm very cognizant that zoning changes last forever and they take forever to change. So I wonder if they're having like, there's the design review board, you know, cover things in the BG, you know, anything built there might be helpful. I think it is sustainable to keep, to do adaptive reuse of historic buildings. And, you know, I, so I don't, you know, that's in the, it's in the mass sustainability principle. So I'm not, I, you know, so I just think it's, I find it odd in 2021 to be arguing for protecting, you know, the historic character of a 350 year old town. I don't, I don't know. I feel sort of a little kind of a bit of a loss. I don't think we're competing density versus maintaining the best parts of Amherst or the good parts of Amherst. I think that will, that will draw people to Amherst. I know it draws people to Amherst, those little shops and the sweetness of Amherst. It's part of its community character. It's a tourist attraction. It's what people like about Amherst. It's why people move here. It's what college students like about it. You know, I don't know if we had to draw everything up to the, you know, create an urban edge along North Pleasant Street. You know, so I don't know if I'm missing something. I don't, I'm not anti-increasing density. I just think we need to kind of fit it in in a nicer way. Maybe the design review board is something to prevent the next one East Pleasant Street. And that's actually why I started out asking, like how big could these buildings go? You know, because we know that a few property owners had a lot of lots. Let's open this up to public comment. And I see Pam, Hilda, Susanna, let's start with Pam. Hey, you have three minutes please. Hi Pam. Hello, this has been a good conversation. I would like to advocate. I've heard several mentions of the mixed use billing standards and inclusionary zoning. I would like to ask, I would like to challenge you to put that on the plate next because I think the reality is that mixed use buildings are what will be developed no matter what, just because right now they have the opportunity to make the smallest size units and therefore maximize the number of units that can be built. So we clearly are gonna have some of that coming down the pike. And I think that's very important to get a handle on. A question several times people asked, you know, what are the numbers of dwelling units that you think might be allowed through some of these overlays? And then actually just appreciating the creativity of thinking up this zone. I would in answer to Nate's question of you mean we have to go back and sort of look at this again. And I would say, yes, I think you need to go back and look at it again, because again, each of these little sub districts is different than a neighbor. And I think I've heard a couple of times we kind of need to keep in mind what it is we're trying to achieve. I don't think we're just trying to achieve, you know, some housing in the BL or a footnote M or a footnote A. All of these things work together and they all have ramifications. So yes, I think we definitely need to so think of them in concert. The building, the buildings that we're talking about when I look at these strips of development and particularly the one in the very large parcel on Triangle Street, I'm struck by the fact that we are still using the images from town center or our little bit of commercial strip in the town center and Main Street. I think what we're talking about as a transition zone between a cottage street and the RG, you know, tucked right up against the downtown area, I think we're looking again for that transitional. It can be housing transition. It doesn't have to be commercial looking transition. Rather than the hundred foot strip, it feels like what you're trying to do is create, I would like to see a neighborhood there. I would, it can be dense. You can create some presence on the street. But by golly, make it a livable, workable neighborhood rather than a strip of apartment buildings which have no character, no contribution to the neighborhood or to a community setting. There is nothing in an apartment that makes somebody want to get out and engage with the neighbors. So I really think we need to keep in mind what we want and that is density, but density with a residential character that is exactly what you are trying to create. Great, thank you. Nobody's buying a part of office buildings these days. Nobody's buying much retail. What you are selling is residential. And so you want to make this great. Well, thank you. Thank you. So we have, it looks like five more. So that's like half hour that's gonna take us into past nine, maybe nine, 10, just so people know that we're looking at, we're looking at putting ODEM that we're gonna get more later in the evening. And hopefully that break helped us to go a little bit longer than normal. So Hilda, please. Hello, Hilda. Hi. I know you guys are very ego-involved on this but this latest plan sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall and it's not sticking, it's coming off. And the first thing I'll say very quickly that I just checked the website and yes, indeed, there is a downtown commercial historic district which was founded in 1991. I don't know the exact boundaries but part of this area is a national historic district. It was left out of the local historic district for political reasons. Now, the other thing is between some of these buildings, they're built on the side of a hill to the property just to the south of the beauty power is a big drop off. So those parking lots could not be combined and it tends to go down the street down the hill. All right, so the other thing I wanted to talk about is shadows. You've got 39 feet high. I don't know what that means if a building has a peaked roof, it's probably gonna go up to about 42 feet high. We already have problems now on Triangle Street, a good part of the winter, Triangle Street is in shadow when the sun is low. You put 12 buildings on the other side of Kendrick Park. You're gonna not only shadow, when the sun's low on the east, you're gonna shadow everybody in the local historic district and when the sun sets in the west, you're gonna shadow Kendrick Park all day long, okay? Nobody's thinking about that. And then the other big issue is we've lost so many local businesses to the carrot shops when they went and now the whole Summelin building, which were small buildings have been emptied out because we're gonna put more high-rise there. The only businesses left downtown that people can go to that's not an Asian restaurant or a bar is the little buildings with Henian's Bakery on the bagel shop and all flowers. And you'd hear them down, where are these people gonna go? Where are they gonna be able to afford rent in Amherst? And then so you build more housing downtown, what are these people gonna do? There's nothing else to do except to go drink or eat. So there's no real reason to bring anybody downtown. There's no grocery stores. There's no stores to go shopping in if these, so you go have a cafe here and a cafe there, but a couple of the cafes that get torn down so you can put your more ugliness on that side of the street. Even though you may not like these historic buildings, they are in a historic district. And I just think this plan should be scrapped. You wanna get rid of the whole issue of the 4,000 feet, just let people build a building that fits on the lot and whatever fits in that building, fits in the building and just get rid of the 4,000 feet. But right now it's attractive, that's when the trees are in bloom and you have spring time and you got flowers there, that's a very pretty part of town and people might wanna go to the New Kendrick Park, but you get rid of all those trees by having 39 foot buildings there. Who wants to go downtown? It's just nothing. I mean, I go down and have my hair, but if you're dead on that building, where's my hairdresser gonna go? That's planning. Thank you. My timer is going crazy here. Next we have Susanna. All right. Hi Susanna. Hello. Well, I have to say I'm an advocate for the old buildings downtown and I have a question of clarification and then a request. Nate, would the proposed overlay district still be governed by historic commission review and planning design review? Yeah, the demolition review and other regulations would still apply. Okay, you didn't say that in your presentation. And my request would be, and maybe this is for Maria, is that if you're producing some visuals, what would really help me would be to have side-by-side diagrams of what we have now in that section on East Pleasant and what could be the maximum build-out under your proposed zoning plans, sections, the whole thing from the street with a sidewalk compare the two because it would be a lot easier for those of us who are not planners to visualize if that could be done. Thank you. Maria, do you wanna respond to that by any chance? I think the planning department is doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Doug and I did some plan studies showing number of units per parcel but, and then Doug did those sections. So we'll try to communicate with Nate and see if he wants anything from us, but we're not being as proactive as we were. So unfortunately, but the planning department. Thank you. Elizabeth. Hi, Elizabeth. Hi, thank you. Yes, this is Elizabeth Birling at 36 Cottage Street. And I just wanted to say that I certainly agree and I live right next to it that the BL on Triangle Street is really poorly used space. And I'm glad to see it being discussed. However, I have to agree with Pam Rooney that it would be really nice to see it developed into a neighborhood. And the thing that I wanna, I have a question which is based on the, what I've heard I don't see how or I don't see why that space couldn't just be built into one giant apartment building which I don't think would constitute a neighborhood nor would it constitute a transition to the neighborhood that both Pam and I live in. And this also brings me to the question of what really kind of resident you're trying to address with building in this area? What kind of resident are you trying to attract? I'd like to note that right now there's a sign out in front of Kendrick Place saying apartments available of all types. So I'm not sure what's going on there but certainly I don't wanna see more of those apartments built if the apartments that are already there are empty. And this issue of how many units is that going to be? I also appreciate, really appreciate the idea of alternative transportation. However, I've noted in a previous letter that Triangle Street is completely unbikable. And it would be great if that was, if that were dealt with before anything is built up against the street or even back from the street on Triangle Street. And although it would be lovely if we all didn't need to have cars but I think that anyone with a family is going to need a car and live in Amherst regardless of what they can walk to any senior citizen that lives in Amherst is going to need a car. And so we really do have to deal with parking. And my final comment is that we're building this wonderful park in Kendrick Park. And but at the same time we have, we're gradually eliminating all of the amenities, all of the reasons for anybody to be in that park. There's no, there'll be no stores in the neighborhood to go to. I'm not sure other than going to the park what are people going to do? Walk along the frontage of One East Pleasant or walk along the frontage of apartment buildings. Again, I think there needs to be more planning as far as just the whole picture of what we want this to look like as far as retail and walkability and who we actually want to have live here. Thank you. Very good. Chris, I don't know if you want to speak to that because when we have the people then there's a logical flow of stores that are people that want to develop businesses because they're people downtown. One thing I can say is that we don't have control over what kind of retail or commercial entities want to rent space. For instance, like we can't go out and recruit a coffee shop or a recruited dress store or a flower shop or anything like that, we can provide the space and we can zone it properly. But then it's up to them to come and decide that they want to rent the space and offer the service. So we don't have control over that. We have control over how big the buildings are gonna be. We have control over what they can be used for but it's sort of like we can open the door but then we can't force people to come in. So I guess that's what I can say about the uses. There's really no control that the town has over the uses. We hope that the spaces that we build will be enticing for people who want to set up businesses but that's kind of what we can offer. Thank you. Janet Keller. Hi, Janet. Hi there. I would like... Janet. I can't hear you. And I'm basing my experience on about 40 years that I've had of working with a neighborhood where I still have a house in Providence. And it's been an engine for economic development. And I hope you will look at places like that and I will mention just one, which is Eagle Square. And it had 11 historic mills and the developer wanted to replace it with a $7 million strip mall. And we worked, the community and the elected officials and the appointed officials all worked together and ultimately saved four of those buildings of which one has 40 living units. And it was going to be a $7 million strip mall. It was a $41 million adaptive reuse. Of four of the 11 mills. It's been a great success. A price rate market located there and has become one of the most successful in the region. And the city got a lot more tax revenue over since that has been built over the years from a much bigger, more expensive, more inviting adaptive reuse. And we've got some examples here in Amherst 75 Pleasant Street is a wonderful example. And I'll have some pictures and discussion of that that I'll send to you. I implore you not to throw away this important opportunity to make this a real place that people want to come and not to turn it into a bunch of blank brick blobs up on the edge of the sidewalk. Leave room for there to be outdoor dining. Leave room for there to be real life. And that's my pitch. I had to, I almost didn't come to this meeting and then so I didn't really prepare anything but I implore you to think about what history can do for the town's bottom line. Thanks. Thank you, Janet. Dorothy Pan, please. Councillor Pan. Hi, Dorothy. Hi, how are you? Very well. I agree with a lot of things that are said but I'm gonna come at this slightly differently. I definitely want to preserve what is beautiful and historic but I'm looking at these proposals with an open mind and I'm looking at the question of who we want to live downtown. And I am suggesting that we really do wanna have some families and young families. You've got a park there. So wouldn't you wanna have some children right around it? And today we had to go to Worcesters for my husband to get his COVID shot. I saw some incredible new affordable housing that was built out of wood, colorful wood with different angles and arches and front porches and it was so inviting. It's a revitalization process. I've gotta get the name. I did take one picture but I got caught in traffic. So you can build something really wonderful in family houses that fits with the neighborhood and I'm saying wood as opposed to brick because I wanna speak about the car. I came here as a grandmother and I'm still a grandmother. So what did I have I've been doing for 10 years? I've been driving children around two at a time can't do it on a bike even with a basket or a double seat. And this is something, we talk about Amherst cultural revitalization. Nobody's ever mentioned in all the meetings I've been we have the most incredible bunch of creative activities for children in this town. So where do I go? Oh, have I driven over the years? Hampshire gymnastics, Amherst Montessori, Hitchcock Nature Center, the Eric Carle, that's all South Amherst. Pineapple dance, Amherst ballet and then for circus we went to East Hampton. Certainly I came up here even before I lived here I was driving up to Amherst to take the babies into the mill river pool for swimming lessons. Guitar at Miss Letitia's piano at the Unitarian Church, Amherst leisure activities, multi-arts, things held in churches up in the north than the schools, computer at Amherst College, computer at Holyoke Community College, all over town. If you are an active mother or grandmother you have to have a car. So I'm saying please include parking. If you're gonna build residences please include some parking. A lot of ideas have been discussed today of ways to make it so that it's not too jarring for other people and a lot of excellent objections have been brought up too but you have to do it. Otherwise you're just pushing it into the Lincoln Sunset Historic neighborhood which is already has quite a bit of a problem and once we're back to real life again we'll have a bigger problem. And Chris I do appreciate your strong position on the neighborhood. It is a gem of a neighborhood and I think we really need to not kind of slide it to realize what an important part it plays in Amherst and how it can hook to and connect to with a downtown which I do hope will still have the little shops I go to which does include here by Harlow, Hinyan Bakery and Bagels. I mean, I go there, that's where I go, okay? So please, I know it's a real problem. Find some way to keep our little shops and to bring back some more of our little shops. So thank you for all your good work. I tune in to see where we go every week. It's an adventure. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. I think I like my life just flashed in front of my life with all the things that you stated. My goodness, oh my God, yeah, it's amazing. Thank you so much. Ira. Hello, Ira. Hi, how are you? Very well, thank you. Thank you. So I just wanna build on a couple of things. Chris, I appreciate that you said that you hope downtown would be enticing. And I'm a big fan of hoping, I really am. But also I would say go beyond hope to hire another economic development director. Somebody that would actively be enticing. Somebody who would go out and try to lure businesses from elsewhere, get tandem bagel which is expanding to open one here or whatever restaurants you like. I did this just as a retailer in Long Island and I brought several people into my town. I think the town needs to advertise. This is what we want. Let's do an ad for bring your business here, consider living here, make a model. I keep harping on the three story building which is like the nicest thing I see downtown mixed living above retail. Not above commercial. I don't know what it means now to say commercial. Does that mean the mass mutual data center that nobody ever seems to be in? I don't want that to be the first floor of downtown. And then as far as residential goes, it's the first time I heard of making a neighborhood out of that big area in Triangle Street. And that's really exciting. I think that we could put out a request for proposals of like here's this opportunity for the right builder who can come in and build an intentional community an elder co-housing or whatever the imagination could do that would fit into that zoning that would bring people downtown and really be the right buffer more than just apartment buildings which would not be a buffer. So I think the town has more homework to do aside from just saying here's what's allowed and what's not allowed saying here's what we want. Here's what we would encourage. Here's what we would invite you to build. And I agree with a lot of the people that said that there's less and less reason to go downtown. And I think if we just fill it up with residential which does seem to be the easy sell it's hard to attract interesting retail and hospitality. It's much easier to just build a lot of apartment buildings and fill it up with really the easiest fish for the fish are students. Nothing wrong with students but we want diversity in all ways. And I also just want to put in a plug that character of the neighborhood is not a racist dog whistle less woke and more mature attitude towards what character of the neighborhood means would be great. So thank you so much. I have a question for Ira. What was the comment with regard to mass mutual and can replace? I'm hearing a change from first floor should be retail and hospitality and service businesses to first floor should be commercial which seems to expand the definition to allow a mysterious data center that nobody seems to come and go from the people that work there. I don't see them going into local restaurants. That's not what should be on the first floor of downtown Amherst. Okay. My personal experiences. I have a neighbor that works there. I think they bring a lot of that's a big attraction. I mean, Chris, I mean. I disagree. I've walked by there a million times. I don't see anything happening there at all. I have a neighbor that moved to Amherst to work a mass mutual in Kendrick place. That's one person. Not to get into a debate with you about it. It would be a more interesting downtown if it was stores, restaurants, boutiques, interesting businesses, not somewhere that could be anywhere. In my opinion. Chris, can you help me here? Well, I just wanted to read off the list of uses that are allowed in a mixed use building besides residential retail, business, institutional, government, public service, consumer service, office or similar principal uses and lawful accessory uses. So there's a wide variety of things that are allowed in mixed use buildings. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. I'm not saying disallow it. I'm saying entice more interesting things. Thank you. Okay. Hilda has spoken before you have something additional. Something different. Hi, Hilda. I just wanted to add one thing that the people have been saying that the green and this is to answer Johanna that the greenest building is the one that's already built. Don't forget when you tear a building down, you got to put the stuff somewhere. You're shaking your head. I don't like the look of it. But anyway, the greenest building is the one that's already there. And then the second thing I want to say is that the little businesses that I'm talking about are like the old music shop where I used to buy strings for my kids via land or where I would go to a lane and buy my wall and Molly little antique shop there that's gone. They cannot afford the rents in the new buildings. But if you look at what they charge, my son charges the same rent for brand new three bedroom apartment that they get for studios or most new bed. So how is a little business going to be able to afford the rents that they have to charge on the new buildings that comply with all the building codes, which make things, especially in Amherst with the extended whatever it's called building out of house for more efficiency. How are these little buildings going to, businesses going to be able to afford to be in a new building, but they can afford to be in an old building that probably doesn't have a mortgage anymore. And you've got to think about these things. People live here, they have a job, there's no workforce housing, that's a good thing. But maybe people can have a store and live above it. And I noticed that I don't know what the story is, but I don't see any signs of life on Cole's road there. There are no businesses. The store that used to be the old beauty parlor in North Amherst and some of those little strip mall there, that building has been empty since the beauty parlor left. Yeah, we had a, it was empty for about a year and a half while the pharmacy rehab, the space on the pharmacy didn't last and the store has been, why, why are we not able to bring stores to a neighborhood or why couldn't Atkins with all the traffic of close by calls from old every single day, going back and forth to UMass, why can't they keep a grocery business going there? I don't understand it, but I do know that the rents in most new buildings are very high. I had to interrupt just for a minute. We've talked about this one particular topic for two and a half hours and we have one more topic to go. And I think we really need to move on. So I wonder if Hilda could send me comments in an email and I'd be happy to hear them. I finished. I mean, I've just said that. Thank you. And on that topic, I would just like to say that the, you know, an existing old building is the most sustainable is a little bit of a fallacy. I know maybe Johanna could speak to that, but as that old building continues over decades, the energy efficiency just, the carbon footprint is this, it becomes quite high. So there are advantages to improving, you know, site properties with more efficient buildings. I mean, I think Johanna may be able to help me with that, but just that's just my gut. Johanna. Yeah, I mean, I can chime in. It really depends on the building. So there are some old buildings that work and there are some old buildings that are total energy hogs and that, you know, weren't being replaced and I don't know, just not much more to it. All right, I just wanted to speak to that. Thank you. So. Mr. Marshall has a hand raised. Yes, please. Yeah, I just wanted to echo what Chris said and ask that we move on to the next topic. I don't feel like we have to respond to every public comment. Okay. I see no other board members with questions. So most certainly let's move on to the discussion on removing footnote, footnote M, section six, table three, zoning bylaw, additional lot area per dwelling unit for townhouses and apartments in the RG zoning district. Chris. We have Maureen Pollock, a planner in the planning department who's going to present information about footnote M. Great, thank you. Great. Hi everyone, it's me again, Maureen Pollock. So let's just get right into it. Let me open my presentation. So let's see here. So picking up where we left off from last time, I had mentioned that in preparation of tonight's meeting, I would provide the planning board and the public, the net change of number of units allowed for parcels that are maintaining the existing use with and without footnote M. So previous in our study, we kind of just looked at parcels without accounting for what's actually there. So now we'll take a closer look at, of what are the existing uses on these parcels and how many more units could be added with footnote M and without. And also I'll walk you through a few concept designs, a few examples for lots in our study that could maintain the existing use and add more units and so we'll walk you through that as well. So I wanted this to, I believe I might have showed a similar slide last time, but I just wanted to remind everyone of, this map shows the lot size and acres of our study area. And again, our study area is 343 parcels. And over here on the legend, where you see the parentheses, it will say how many parcels are actually within those thresholds. So there's a hundred and 22 parcels that are between zero and a half an acre, 178 parcels that are between a half acre and one acre, 31 parcels that are between one and one and a half acres. And then the list suddenly declines greatly. So the majority of parcels in the study area are between a half an acre and one acre. And so this map is showing, and I'll explain it, is showing the net change of number of units allowed with foot and no M, considering the actual in reality existing uses. And the way I was able to do this took a little elbow grease, which was that I needed to figure out what are the existing uses. And as we had said last week, we don't have a sort of one shop database for this, at least currently. And so what I did was I went through the rental permit registrations and I, and that lists the units. And there's only so many, I think there's 76 units, 76 parcels within the RG, RG zone that has been registered through the rental permit process, saying too much. Anyways, so I got the data from rental permits and also I manually looked up some other parcels by looking at the property card or site plan review or special permit or what have you. And that was how I determined what the actual existing uses are by lot. And so you can see over here on the legend that predominantly there are single family homes within our study that I was able to find out the existing uses and just to say I was able to find 176 parcels for the uses. So our study is sort of getting smaller. So anyways, so there are lots that have predominantly single family homes and another item to mention in this slide is that because we're looking at, this map is looking at what could be added on the parcel with foot no M, you would need at least 20,000 square feet to accommodate that. So anything that's less than 20,000 square feet in lot size is not considered in this map. And so I'm just gonna, for the sake of time, I'm just gonna focus on the existing uses that have single family homes. They're sort of green with little dots, little column. And so with foot no M, if you turn your attention to the parcels along Lincoln Ave, you can see that these single family homes can add some additional lots ranging from nine additional lots, five additional lots, sorry, nine additional units, five additional units, three additional units, four. And when we go to the next slide, you can see that now it's actually opening up even more opportunities. And also it's including more lot sizes. And so with the removal of foot no M to accommodate at least three units, you need at least 17,000 square feet opposed to when you had foot no M, you needed at least 20,000 square feet. So now there's more opportunities for adding infill. And so there's actually 96 parcels that are single family homes that have at least 17,000 square feet. And these numbers that are appearing above the parcels themselves is indicating how many additional units you could add to that parcel. And so you can see sort of the increases throughout the study. And so taking that same data, I then created a chart because that might be a little more user friendly. You can see that this vertical axis is the number of lots and the horizontal axis is the number of units allowed per lot, either with foot no M, which is represented in blue or without foot no M, which is represented in a sort of orangey red. And here on the right side, vertical axis, that's showing the percent change. And so when you compare the blue to the orange or with foot no M or without foot no M, you can see that there's an increase from 37 lots that can have three units to now 42 lots that can now have three units. And you can see the comparables of there's more 27 units or 27 additional parcels that can have four units. This looks like a flush for lots with five units. This actually went down and this went up. And you can, so it is based on what in reality, what are the lot sizes? But you can see that these first lots that could have three units or four units, you can see that there is an increase. And you can see sort of smaller increases as this list goes on. And that is largely because as we know, the majority of parcels within our study are smaller lots for single family homes and two family homes or a better way of saying it, they're half acres to one acre parcels. And so now to the examples. And so we, at last week's planning board meeting, we had agreed upon that we would focus on parcels along Lincoln Ave, between Amity and Faring Street and parcels along Gray and High Street. And well, what's the purpose of providing examples, which we hope will help determine whether FOTNO M should be removed or not and factors to consider and determining whether these developments, these concept drawings are even feasible. And so sort of questions that we could be asking ourselves as we go through these examples is, let's see here, is does the development meet the dimensional regulations for the increase of density with or without FOTNO M, such as parking requirements and building and law coverages and setbacks. And so we'll first focus on Lincoln Ave. And so, we're just gonna focus on within the red is the focus area. I was able to add some more. So for right now, we don't need to pay attention to that. And so again, you can see the majority of parcels along this segment of Lincoln street, Lincoln Ave rather, are parcels that currently have a single family home. And it looks like there's like two that have two parcels that have three units on their property. And I believe this has probably like nine or nine units. But again, predominantly it's a neighborhood full of single family homes. And as we had discussed earlier, this is looking at or this slide is showing you of how many more units could be provided within this focus area, looking at the existing use and looking at FOTNO M and the lot size obviously. And so here you can see that nine additional units could be provided on this lot, five units could be provided in addition to the single family home. And you can go through that yourself and look at the differences. One thing to note is where you see these X's is that in order to have a three unit building on a parcel with FOTNO M, you need to have at least 17,000 square feet. So I remove those lots that are less than 17,000 square feet. And you can see there's a good amount of them that are very small parcels. And so just for our intention or for our exercise, those parcels just are not part of our study because they're not applicable. And then the X, the black X represents lots that are between 17,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet. And so with FOTNO M, they can't provide additional units on their parcel. However, with when you remove FOTNO M, those parcels are now have the opportunity to provide more units because FOTNO M has been removed in that additional lot area would be 2,500 square feet opposed to the 4,000 square feet with FOTNO M. And so now you can see that there is more opportunities, the number of units increases as you go back and forth. And on average, I would say maybe there's an additional, maybe three or four units added on these parcels if FOTNO M is removed. Marie, can you kind of flip back just a couple of times just so we can kind of get a visual? No, absolutely. So this is with FOTNO M, without, with M, without. I feel like I'm doing an eye test with M. Thank you. With that, okay, cool. And, and I'm sure Pam, if she hasn't already put these slides on the website, I'm sure she'll put them on the website tomorrow on the planning board web page. And so here is our first example. It's a parcel along Lincoln Ave. There, and it's, you know, obviously aligned in this yellow here. And there, the existing use is a single family home. The parcel is a little over one acre. It's 54, 52,000 square feet. With FOTNO M, you could add 10 additional units there. If FOTNO M was removed, 16 additional units could be added. Again, solely just looking at the lot size and the existing use. And so here's our, that example taking this parcel, the single family home, and then this garage. This is the concept drawing for a development that removes FOTNO M. And so the existing house would remain and it would be converted into four units. The garage would remain and continue to have two spaces parked inside. And here with the blue hatching would be an extension of the existing house, which would accommodate 12 additional units. And let's see here, but let me back up. So 34 parking spaces would be required. And however, 23 spaces were provided because the lot area was maxed out. So the lot area requirement in the RG is at 40%. And with this proposal as laid out here is at that maximum of 40%. And so, this person, this theoretical person would kind of go through this process of they would have to go through the ZBA for, well, A for the use for the apartment building, but B for, they would also have to ask for a reduction of the parking spaces required because they again, they needed to have 34 spaces but they were only able to provide 23 spaces because they just didn't meet the law coverage. And the zoning by law does not allow a modification of the maximum law coverage in the RG. And so you can see sort of that limitation here. And it's pretty tight here. So in the next example- May I just interrupt for a minute? Sure. Could I do that? So this is Chris. I just wanted to say that, so the conclusion of this example is that it doesn't really make sense to remove footnote M for this particular lot because you can't fit as many units as you would normally be able to fit by removing footnote M. So I think that's the conclusion. Is that the conclusion Maureen? I think so. Yeah, I mean, it's very tight. They can't provide enough parking. This doesn't even show where the trash and recycle bins would be located. Maybe that needs to be screened. It's not showing if there's bike racks. Those little details and light fixtures, those little details are actually gonna add up to more law coverage, which they're already exceeding. And so for this app, Threatical Applicant, they're gonna perhaps even need to reduce the unit count or make the units themselves smaller. And yeah, so as Chris said, perhaps this 1.2 acre lot is not going to be feasible for the removal of footnote M. It just doesn't work for them. I also popped my mind that I meant to point out before we got into these examples. For the purposes of our study, we're gonna assume that these units were all 800 square feet each. So there could be two bedroom apartments that are 800 square feet. I just wanna put that out there. I know because there could be so many different variables. We figured that could be just sort of a safe unit size. But yeah, so again, yeah, I think Chris, you're right. I think this is just not feasible for a lot that's about a acre or in this case, 1.2 acre lot. So moving on to unit two, a very similar size lot. This is 1.1 acres or 50,000 square feet. There's also a single family home here. In this scenario, they could add nine additional units with footnote M. If footnote M was removed, they could add 15 lots. This is the existing single family home and it looks like there's some sort of barn or garage in the back. And so here in our scenario with footnote M, so we're actually gonna show you an example with footnote M here. This example shows that the existing house would remain and actually it would be converted into an additional unit. So it would be two units in this structure here. And there would be eight units provided in this new building along here. And there would be 20 parking spaces provided here. And unfortunately, 22 parking spaces are required. So this too would have to go through, they would have to ask for a parking waiver for the two parking spaces that they needed. In this concept, the garage or barn was removed. They do meet the, this example and the previous example, meets the with requirement for the driveway and maneuverability of exiting the parking and exiting the property itself. And both these examples and all the examples meet all the setbacks, something else to point out. And so although this example doesn't meet there, they're just shy of the parking requirement just of two spaces. They do meet the lock coverage which the requirement again is at 40%, this is at 33%. And it should be noted that again, although this is actually not showing any walkways or light fixtures or like dumpsters or things of that nature fencing, those sorts of things. So that could, that would theoretically increase this lot area a little bit more, but they probably would be below that maximum. In example two, this is an example showing residential development with footnote and removed. So the main house would be there. It would become a two family, it would become two units in the main house here. And there would be the remaining of units here, which I believe, so that would be a total of 14 units here. There are 32 parking spaces provided which they meet the parking requirement. They would be required 32 spaces. They meet the building coverage, but they exceed the lock coverage by 0.8%. And again, this is not looking at walkways, fencing, light fixtures, stuff of that nature, which are very small additions to things to add to the lock coverage, but they are exceeded it. So this scenario also doesn't work. So what works? Does anything work? Example three, let's see here. This is another single family home. The lot size is slightly smaller. It's 0.78 acres or 34,000 square feet. Those two previous examples were in the range of like 50,000 square feet, or one acre, 1.1 acres. Here you could add five additional units with footnote M or nine additional units without footnote M. And here this scenario is with footnote M. There's six units in total here. The existing house would actually turn into a triplex or a three unit building. And this back, let's see here, I just wanna verify. So this existing barn or garage would remain and it would actually turn into two units. And then it looks like there would be one unit added here. So that would be a total of six units here. They meet the parking requirement, which would be 12 spaces. And they meet all the building and log coverage and they meet it, but that's with footnote M, but they meet it. So that's great for them to theoretical them. And this is, let's see here, this is without footnote M. There would be 10 units that could be allowed here, and which is shown here. So three units would be in the existing house. Two units would be in the existing barn or garage. And then the remaining units would be represented in these blue hatch boxes. And so in this scenario, they actually don't meet the parking requirement, shy of two parking spaces. And they meet the building coverage, but again, they don't meet the log coverage. So that's unfortunate for them. And so as Chris pointed out, these scenarios, we're realizing that the log coverage is really kind of making these developments not feasible with the removal of footnote M. And even with footnote M, it sort of, it meets it, but they really couldn't add much other to their properties after the development is completed. And so now we're gonna switch over to gray and high street. And this map is showing you the existing uses again, the majority of properties. This is gray street and this is high street. And parts of it, we only looked at part of these streets. And the majority of these properties currently have single family homes. And there's 15 lots with single family homes, seven lots with two family homes and three lots with three units, and then nothing else. So, and again, the blue X represents lots that are less than 17,000 square feet because those lots could only accommodate a single family home or a duplex, they can't accommodate anything more. And then the X represents lots that are between 17,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet, which again, with footnote M, they wouldn't be able to provide more units. And so, and this next slide shows that the lots that were between 17,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet now can actually add another unit or two. And so I can go back and forth here. And so, the increase here, you see a lot of twos with the footnote M, two, when I say that are listed above the parcel, that's the net increase, that's what these numbers represent that are shown above the parcel itself. And without footnote M, you can see these ones that I'm sort of hovering over, you're now beginning to see where they were twos or now threes or fours. So you can see a subtle increase of units that would be allowed here. This is currently existing two family home, they could add six units here without footnote M, they could bump that up to 11 units, again, just based on lot size. And so, here is example four, this parcel is along High Street, there's a single family home, it's about a half an acre or 24,000 square feet with footnote M, they could add three additional units, if footnote M was removed, they could add five units. And so, this example is showing a development with footnote M removed, I'll go back for one more time, that's just so you can remember where the existing house and barn or garages. And so, here that the main house would remain and actually would be converted into a two-unit building. And the building would be extended with an addition that would accommodate four units. And so, that would be a total of six units. The requirement is 12 parking spaces, which they meet, they have 12 spaces. It looks like they even have two ADA spaces, very considerate. And let's see here, the law coverage, the maximum law coverage is required at 40% and the proposed law coverage for this development is just at 39%. So, they meet the requirement, but that's, they couldn't do quite possibly anything else, which would, that would increase the law coverage for this property. So, again, this doesn't seem like that it would be feasible for developing this 24,500 square foot parcel. And our last example, also along High Street, there's a single family home with a supplemental apartment. The parcel is 0.6 acres or 26,000, we'll say, square feet, four units could be added with foot no-a-m and six units could be added without foot no-a-m. And this is, we picked this because it's unlike the others that are sort of rectangular and could have your typical lot size or shape. This is a long and narrow lot and has frontage both on High Street and North Whitney Street. Because there are some near, there are some narrow lots, we've noticed, especially that are in our study area. So we wanted to account for those as a concept plan. And so here you can see that the existing structure would remain and there would be, they would keep just two units here and not provide any other units, and they would have a additional townhouse with four units located on the Easterly side of the parcel. They would have, let's see here, four parking spaces here and eight parking spaces along here. So eight and four is 12. So they meet the parking requirement. And again, the maximum lot coverage in the RG is 40%. Here, they're, they meet it, they're at 35%. So they could add a very minimal amount of sort of features that would increase the lot coverage, but they would only have 5%. To make those increases if they so choose. So next steps. So what does this all mean? I wanted to, it does seem that with foot no M, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide, it doesn't provide a lot of opportunities even with foot no M removed, given the parking requirements and the lot coverage requirements, which is at 40%. And so, you know, I have sort of my thoughts, but I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts, but so I guess take it away. Anyone? Maureen, I have a question just right off the bat. What do you think about the parking requirements? Well, so, yes. So for residential uses, two parking spaces are required per unit. And, you know, the ZBA and in the planning board have, you know, a, you know, have approved parking waivers. You know, I've seen that, you know, the ZBA, for instance, has, you know, applicants have made the argument that, you know, these are only one, one bedroom apartments. Therefore they just need one car per unit. Or I've seen arguments that, you know, this, this residential uses is on the bus route. It's in walking distance to downtown. And so that's another, you know, argument for people requesting for parking waivers. You know, it's, I think it's a valid argument, especially if it's in the downtown for some sort of parking waiver. I guess, you know, it, I think site, everything is site specific and neighborhood specific. So, you know, if it's really close to downtown, that makes sense. If it's not downtown, that makes sort of stretches the sort of stretches the argument. But I don't know if Christian Rob had any thoughts on that. Yeah, Chris. So I wanted to say that I think there are reasons to remove footnote M for lots that are potentially around one acre or less than an acre. I think that you do gain an advantage even if you can't get the maximum number of units on the, on the lot because of lot coverage issues or parking requirements. I think you can still do some modest infill that would make it worthwhile to remove footnote M for properties that are under one acre. Over that, I think it's really not useful because you run into too many issues with regard to lot coverage. So I just wanted to make that statement. We're not abandoning this idea. We still think it has merit for smaller lots and maybe Rob has something to add to that. Or maybe not. So he's good. Okay. Doug. Yeah, I was, I guess. I guess I kind of agreed with Chris that. You know, first of all, you might want to think about, you know, if I owned one of these lots and I'm running into a problem with the parking and the lot coverage. First, I would be thinking about whether I could get a variance or a waiver on the number of spaces. But I also might be thinking about reducing the size of the units. You know, if you're, if your. Examples are based on an 800 square foot. So, you know, depending on the size of the unit. You know, maybe I'd be starting to think about one bedrooms or a studio. Instead, you know, depending on how the rental. Balance is between fewer larger units and more smaller units. And then, you know, pretty much the entire RG is probably within a 10 minute walk of the bus line. So, you know, if you could live there with one car. At least in my opinion. So I, I, I think the, the footnote M. I guess the other thing is maybe I'm, my perception is skewed because more, a couple of Marines. Examples were over one acre. But I might think about putting the upper limit on the size of the waiver of footnote M. I think that would be enough rather than just one acre. Okay. Hey, we're at like 945. You know, three plus hours into this. And I know I'm wondering if we would have a continuation. Of this discussion, but, you know, we definitely. No one here from the planning board, but I'm just, I'm thinking because of the public discussion was a half hour. That there might be a continuation of. Of this, of this topic, but Chris. I wanted to mention that next week we have another meeting on the third. And we have review of the Pomeranian lane intersection. And we have review of the housing policy and then we have an A&R plan. So there aren't any really big things on the agenda for that night. I mean, I'm not sure if you could continue this discussion on Wednesday of next week if you wanted to. So you're thinking that with regard to next week, the zoning priorities probably will not. Be, you know, A priority. Well, I'm saying other things on our docket. They could be added to the list of the three things. Pomeran lane. What was the second thing I said, housing policy. And then you could have this as well. So it's up to you the next opportunity. If you wanted to meet on. Would that be the 10th of March? You can meet on the 10th of March. We did promise to have something to the CRC by the 9th of March. So. It would be good if you could talk about this next week. Okay. Well, I guess we'll, we'll keep pushing. With that. So, Maria. I'm happy to send my questions directly to Marine. And then just. Go to bed. Because I have really specific questions. I could just as easily email. Yeah. And then we'll continue next week. Like everyone said, like Chris was saying. My brain's fried. I can't speak anymore. But I'll leave my. I'll email you. Yeah. And then we'll continue next week. Like everyone said, well, like Chris was saying. But I'll leave my. I'll email you. Yeah. Sounds great. Very good. And Jenna. I have a question for Marine for next week, because I would like to go to bed too. One thing I'd love to see is on the maps of your two study areas. Like with footnote M and without footnote M. The total number of units that can be built, not just the, the increase. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I actually, I do have that information. Oh, good. Cause that I, I would love to do is sit just comparing those two study areas. Like just not, you know, like, you know, maybe this is a lot of a bang for not much buck or too much buck for not much bang or what? I don't know how that image works. I'm too tired. But if we're really talking about how many units more are we talking about under each scenario? So if there was like. You know, I mean, you could build 75 and without you could build 82, then I'm wonder, you know, like, I just wonder, like, is that an, you know, like, you know, whatever. So I just, so if you could do like totals and then show it on the map and just numbers, and then I still would love a 3d build that. I know that's really hard to do or slow to do, but you know, give an example of what, you know, 12, you know, 13 units, what's on, I don't know. You know, whatever, just like two examples of what it would look like in 3d, like a, you know, 0.75 acres and 1.2 acres or whatever, you know, like compare those before and after. That'd be great. I don't know if you can do that in a week, but the first one I think you could do. I can. And we'd like to pull a rabbit out of that. I mean, I can't imagine how much work you guys are doing with all these things, but I do appreciate it. Absolutely. So I don't see any other hands up. It looks like, you know, we'll have a continuation of this. I thought that was awesome. Maureen, you really have to respond to all of our sort of concerns. I would like Andrew, I know you had some. You know, oh, Maureen, yes. Oh, I just wanted. Janet had sent an email. To Chris about existing developments in the RG. And I think, am I making this up? Someone sent it. No, that's right. Janet sent an email about existing developments in the RG. What we didn't know is whether they came prior to. Footnote and being imposed or, or after. So we can show that next week or. Yeah. Yeah. We can show that next week, but I did actually do some research and there's two, two of them that I still don't, I can't figure out when they were approved, but the majority of the developments that you've listed, they were, they've existed since way before the footnote M was adopted. And, but we can get into that. I'm glad I was, I was actually thinking of people looking at it to see like, is it pretty? You know, how does it. Yeah. Yeah. And then a lot of those examples wouldn't be allowed with footnote M or without footnote M. That would be interesting. It is. Yep. Thank you. Yep. But no, I just wanted to, I know Andrew was, was, has a lot of interesting comments with the GIS perspective of this. And just wondered if you had any comments with regard to what marine. Where's marine at this point? I would, I would just say like, I love the work. I have a couple also like kind of technical type questions, which I'll probably just flip to you as well, Marine, but certainly nothing that couldn't, couldn't be picked up next week. All right. Thank you. Okay. So I would say, since we're going to pick this up next week, I don't think the public comment is really going to be beneficial at this point in time. And so. I'd like to move on to item C. Update on others only priorities and work plan. Chris. I don't have anything to say about that right now. Okay. Business new business. Well, you, you mentioned already. New business coming up, but. We have a lot of new business coming up. Yeah. You don't have to go into it tonight. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Report to the chair. I have none. Press. Just want to thank the planning department staff again for all the hard work and also for Rob. He's putting in a lot of hours on this too. So thank you. And thank you, Rob. Thanks to the planning board for. Reading about it and I'm trying to understand it. Very good. All right. We'll, we'll see each other next Wednesday. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Good night. And good week. Thanks, Jack. Thanks. Thank you. Bye-bye. Good night. Bye. I got to stop. Hi. Hi. He went to stop recording.