 Excuse me, I'll call to order the January 27th, 2020, meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. I think some good folks at ACMI for recording us and writing us and making the deal of the people who can't be here this evening. First on our agenda is continued public hearing for Special Permanent Docket 3602, an application by James F. Dorie for the 1211 Mass Ad Realty Trust. As I said before we opened the meeting, there is a sign-up sheet. There is a sign-up sheet in the back of the room if you wish to speak during the public comment portion. Please sign up back there. I expect that there will be a lot of people wishing to make comments, ask questions this evening and that'll keep things moving a little faster as we get through the evening. We do a lot of business to discuss tonight and I do want to make sure that everyone has a chance to say their piece and be heard on this. So with that, I will open the continued hearing. We have the proponent, his architect, and there's a journey here this evening so if you three could come up, introduce yourselves and we'll hand it over to the walkers through. What's changed since July? And I'll hand it over to them right now. Be heard. Where do you want us to stay? Where are we going? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Mary Lynn Stanley O'Connor. I represent the proponent on this project with me is Mr. Darity and Gregory McIntosh, the architect. First, I want to thank the board and the members and the planning department for all of their review and assistance over the past several months on this project. I thought it made sense for the architect to review the changes for the public and for the board. If that's acceptable. Hello, I'm Gregory McIntosh, I'm the architect, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the updates to the project. With that, we can get right into it. How many of you have the most stock now? I think three. Please just move a little bit closer. Just move a little bit closer. Our first slide was the existing condition site plan, noting the vehicles that are all in front and the facilities that are in place now with the surrounding planting. This is the updated survey to draw in with the new building superimposed into it. One of the most noteworthy changes are the difference in the curb cuts that are there now. There are two curb cuts that are on site now, and we propose on basically maintaining the same amount, slightly shifting it to get vehicles off of Mass Ave and onto the site itself for a drop off for both the restaurant and the hotel portion. There are some other changes, the building has been set back. We have relocated the trash containment area that is enclosed toward the back of the site based off the previous discussions that we've had with the organization. Based off of previous comments, we have updated the clouding of the building to be more indigenous to the area and the types of buildings that are there now. We've gone to a brick and a cast stone with a sedimentitious panel system for the projecting bays in the building, noticing that the upper floor is set back and then with a more residential feel to the cloud board back there. Based off of the previous discussions, do you mind holding this for a second? There was a request to view the types of clouding that were occurring on the project. The lowest level is when to have a limestone field type of cast stone which is similar to this right here which you may want to point until it came this way. And that is this product that you see in the shadow down here. The type of brick being used on the project is this material here. It's kind of a cut brick. It's pretty regular shaped. You can plan on going with a very light door to help lighting it up and to keep it like it's a very consistent type of product. That'll accent with the lighter shades, not quite totally white, but a lighter shade all the way with a little hue to it. And then there's a very light gray for the clouding on the rear to kind of make it neutral. The building is set back. We've articulated the railings and integrated some of the other features right in there. We've cut this other portion of the building on the upper floor back as well. Notice the biker acts that are in front right down here. Also a very important feature of this is we have softened and lowered the retaining feature. The retaining wall feature right here making the space a lot more inviting. This is a little bit more of a bird's-eye view of the stand. Again, the bicycles are stored right here. It's like one of the two bicycle storage areas. The curb cuts are here driving through there. It's a nice gathering area with a good feel there with using landscaping to isolate the heating area. It's important to note that all the paving that you see here in the walking surfaces is going to be pervious paving. This will allow for a lot of water to just drain right through it and not create a runoff issue in the community. This is an image, an actual photograph with the building superimposed into it to see the context of how the building fits in. It does not appear to be dominating it in any way based off of the surrounding existing to the main construction and looking at the other buildings that are obviously sounding great but are obviously a lot higher than that. Excuse me, could you turn that a bit so we can see it? Thank you. Kind of be everyone to see it too and try to figure out a good way to do this. You have confidence, right? I do. We also need to see the drawings. I can see. You want to know if you need me to move around to have you do it. This next image is from the opposite end of the road. There's an apartment building right up here. This is obviously a brick building and that's tying in with it and that's the scale I'm asking about and it's at least in keeping if not this is actually going to be lower in the ground than that of a facility that's right up the road. So the context of it is trying to be as important as this is absolutely possible. This is the planting plan. The area that you see in the light green shaded is the zone of the pervious paving. We also have the buffer space back in here with a rain garden in that area. The trash removal area is right here. It will be fully closed. We have bicycle parking in here and within the limits of the building as well. There's an indoor storage facility. And moving along the indoor bicycle storage facility is right here and it's within keeping of the elevator and easy access for the people to use. So then that zone of the building it was previously on the opposite side but it's a lot more user-friendly to have over here and it's actually increased in size as well giving it far more capacity. This being the hotel portion lobby this being the restaurant portion. The upper floors contain approximately 22 hotel rooms. This would be over two floors with upper story set back but there are slightly more extended stay versions that are a little bit larger than the rooms below to accommodate people that might be there for a longer than a day or so. The building facade again there's the cast stone here. There's the entrance to the hotel. By the way the hotel entrance does have a covered portico share going around that kind of driveway with a flat skylight ceiling in it. So that people can see through it I mean it's natural light through it but also it's not taking up any important presence on the building facade. This upper portion of the building has been set back. This is the rear elevation of the building. We plan on maintaining and accentuating as much of the buffer as humanly possible of existing to remain large growth trees back there. It takes up about that much longer. The access onto this area here that slope is approximately it's under a 1 in 20 slope which is somewhat standard for a ramp in a parking garage building. The visual cladding materials again as you reach the corner going down Clark Street and the retaining wall has been reduced in size using landscaping as the buffer there. The brick is again tied into some of the other surrounding buildings on Massachusetts Avenue. And then we have a whole area of solar studies shade studies. It starts off with the existing conditions that are there now and it's important to note that we have confirmed these documents produced to factor in contour in the gradient. So that's not a flat image. I can produce a sketch-up model that shows that for anyone that would care to look at it. But if you'll notice the impact that the existing foliage has in 90% of the cases is greater than any of the buildings whether it be new or existing. You can see this is the proposed building. The growth is there that will be remaining is still there. There are approximately two buildings in the area that have solar rays on the roots. None of which will be affected by any shadows cast on this building. You can see the foliage lining right here guys. It's having a greater effect on the building and obviously nighttime is where it is. So that is in a nutshell where we are with the updates to the plants based off of the comments from the previous time. If you have any questions we'll be happy to understand them. Thanks. So we're moving into board questions. We did get an e-mail from a resident earlier this week and because they've involved technical questions for you, I asked the department to prepare answers to that. So I'm going to turn it over to Erin if you can handle the microphone. Sure, we'll walk through that. If you have questions in the name, you can go to the board chair and you'll hear the leaderships to be going about the water response. From Mr. Seltzer on Friday the force on city posted a later date but I passed it out to the ARD members and they also received it through a forward after-mortem. So just a couple of things to respond and I'll try and be quick. The proposal has been and will continue to be evaluated as a mixed structure that is compliant with the zoning by-law. In some cases, strictly residential apartments have been suggested to apply to this proposal but they're not applicable because the mixed-use structure is not being evaluated as a principally residential structure. So in response to some of the assertions a detailed site plan that includes topographical information and across the property would be very helpful for the ARB and the staff to evaluate this project that has been requested in the past and has yet been provided by the applicant. So to get into some of the items that were noted by Mr. Seltzer in terms of the computation of the gross floor area related to the bonus provisions in section 536 the total lot area is 14,030 square feet. 536 outlines the bonus provisions and requires that a district have an FAR of 1.2 or greater and that non-residential uses do not have a minimum lot rate requirement. The project meets both of these requirements having a 1.5 FAR and being a non-residential mixed-use structure it can access the bonus provisions. However, I also calculated the FAR. The FAR that I calculated is also greater than 1.67 that was requested in the initial submittal of the applicant. So as has been previously requested by the applicant I think a clear accounting of the FAR and the open space which is the bonus provision that he has indicated that he would like to take advantage of is desired in order to fully assess this proposal. Moving on to elevations as I noted the detailed site plan would help illuminate the topographic condition of this site. This has been requested without a clear understanding of the topographic condition of the property the A.R.B. and the staff cannot assess the driveway slope or liaison with our town colleagues and assessing the slope for any grading that may be necessary on the property. It should be noted that the zoning bylaw sets forth the driveway slope requirement for single family two family duplex and three family percent but does not set forth the driveway slope for other types of proposals. Similarly for the Mass Ave elevation understanding the topographic condition of the property would help the A.R.B. and assess the elevation in particular any grading necessary or where the foundation would be visible. Further building heights defined in the zoning bylaw is the vertical distance of the highest point of the roof above the average grade of the curb line above the property. It is unclear whether the architect has this required information in order to accurately measure the building height. Again understanding the topography of the site would assist in making this determination. Regarding the Clark Street Setback section 538 of the zoning bylaw does state a corner lot shall have the minimum street yards with depths which shall be the same as the required yard depths for the joining lots. But further in section 536 the zoning bylaw allows in cases subject to section 3.4 environmental design review the A.R.B. in evaluating the proposal may grant a special permit to adjust the required setbacks set forth elsewhere in this bylaw to account for specific conditions you need to the proposal so that is something that you all can make a determination on. On the upper story setback the applicant has presented in the past that he recognizes the proposal does not meet the strict interpretation of section 5 317 which requires a setback of 7.5 feet beginning at the third story if the structure is more than three stories which this one is. The applicant has suggested that since the building is setback at the first floor then projects out of the second and third and steps back again at the fourth floor may be consistent with the goal of this provision and the A.R.B. can make a determination on whether that is accurate but this does not adjust the applicability of the stepback to the Clark Street elevation which is going to join the street to the property. For usable open space section 5 321 D requires that for mixed uses and any permitted residential use not specifically identified in the tables in section 552 those are the density and dimensional tables for the business districts the minimum open space requirements which are computed from the residential floor area shall be 10% landscape and 20% usable in the B1, B2, B2A B3 and B4 districts and 15% usable in the B5 district as there is no residential floor area in this mixed use structure there is not a usable open space requirement and then finally regarding the uses of the B2 district the use is a mixed use structure which is allowed in the B2 and B4 districts mixed use unlocks less than 20,000 square feet which is the case here can be a maximum of 4 stores involved in districts so that is our response to the email that you received if you have further questions or if others have questions about it I'm happy to answer them thank you so thank you Erin thank you Don for bringing those matters to our attention and I'll let you speak during public hearing so I'm going to start with Kim just go down the line here questions from under the board before we turn it into public thank you Don for your questions you submitted earlier I also took a look at the zoning issues here and I agree that we do need some graphics to understand slope and building height and as far as the clock speed setback I think I'm fine with that setback because it's a corner lot and behind it is another building right behind it which is also a corner lot and both buildings do not it's a corner lot the setback is the front elevation of both sides so the building behind it is also a setback of both sides so if you look at taking the average of what's adjacent to it that's what your setback is there's an exception but I think we're fine with that but I prefer if you just did that calculation and asked that when you submit the site plan that you do include a building that's adjacent it's just not the site plan and the property line itself but all the buildings around it so we can see and understand a little better and have a little less confusion there sure as far as the understory setback I also agreed with you guys saying that the setback is zero on the front yard the front yard setback if you bring it up three stories then bring it back that's seven and a half feet that is your envelope you have to stay away from and I believe you guys do because the building is already setback already just because it's setback you don't have to setback anymore because you've already met the setback requirements for above that's my understanding okay and then I'll move off some of this other stuff here I want to thank you for doing the two renderings that we had asked for before showing the context with the surrounding buildings I think that gives us a much better understanding of how this building fits with adjacent neighbors and I'm especially like the one that's coming down from Lexington heading toward into Arlington that side elevation in that corner is really an important corner because of that bend in a row in fact you're elevated up high and coming down to it so I like to fact you guys address that corner by trying to dress it up a little bit my concern is I'm jumping on a little bit but on this elevation you have brick and air cap stone below and the rest is just cement board at the last meeting we suggested that that band you have at the podium level could be thicker just to make it look more balanced because right now if you look at the columns and you look at that band you have going across there and what's above it it looks like it's quite balanced if you thicken that and also give you an advantage of having to sit within a sign band there to be a little more comfortable I actually did increase it but maybe I could use a little more I added six inches to it I think you get to be a little more bolder and I like Rachel also going to the base that white band you got it right across the column there it looks almost the same size as the columns how about raising it up to the base for the projections I'm going to not quite architect to let you comment on the fact that it looks a little clumsy the other comment I had was I like the fact that you took the trash and put it away back and away from public streets that's very nice, thank you when you do this topo if you can also include a building section it would help a lot understanding what the height of the rear parking lot is and the sidewalk in front along that side so it tells you how high the building is how low the building is taking down and what the grading is because right now I'm assuming the cyclone in the back everything is draining toward your landscape buffer area no? it's slowing back toward the building it's going to slow toward the middle of the parking lot where we will be engaging in contact system and that's something I need to review with the civil engineer there will be all surface water roof drainage that's something we would like to have a better understanding of just so that it's not being pushed off the sides not being pushed off to the next neighbor's yard and right now we don't have any indication where that's going I thought it was just sloping naturally toward your green back there sloping doesn't work without that way right sort of leave like that for now and give everybody else a chance to comment and I might come back to throw out the comments well thank you for listening to so many of the board's comments from the last time we were together I appreciate it I do like the look of the building significantly more now I appreciate that you have moved the the drop-off area out of the public way and onto the property that addresses a number of concerns that I had also appreciate moving the bike parking into a much more prominent location which will incentivize people to use it more as well as improving the interior bike parking I I did understand in reviewing the latest documents that the on-site parking would be entirely handled by Valais and I think that does make sense when you're dealing with a pretty constrained area I do have some concern that the fact that people can't self-park on property may make it more likely that they will see to park in the surrounding neighborhood rather than use the valais service and I'm not sure how to avoid that if you're using the valais service other than making sure to encourage hotel gas strongly to make use of the valais service with respect to the restaurant patrons I think they're just going to end up parking wherever they wherever they park I'm disappointed that we still don't have a detail traffic analysis that looks at how this this new use will affect the operation of Massav and the adjoining intersections it's a high traffic very complex intersection and particularly during peak times I'd like to have a much better understanding of how movement in and out of the hotel property will affect the operation of the intersections I also on a different topic do have some concern about how the upper story step back is being handled I understand the argument that you're making and I'm willing to consider it but at the same time I'm not sure that we really have the flexibility to think about the building envelope the way you're you're describing it to us rather than strictly adhering to the to the step back department as it's laid out in the bottom there's probably some flexibility about medical floor to a limited degree I do want to point out that we did increase the one dramatic in our park street about from the previous submission I appreciate it we've taken a lot of stuff together in a direction that I think there was some expectation to there's an opportunity to do a little bit more potentially but it would take some re-evaluation of the layout could I just point to one observation you I believe in September just through the building at 117 Broadway which is identical in terms of setbacks just for information purposes it could be a project to look at I have a copy of the plan here if you'd like it that's okay we can look at that just trying to be helpful I appreciate it the other thing I would like to see and this is perhaps more a question for the staff I do have concern about making sure that we have a supportable justification for the fact that this project straddles two zoning districts with different requirements and to the extent that we would be permitting a use that on its own is permitted in one zone but not in the other I want to make sure that we're on firm ground that that the district that allows that use controls here or barring that that the fact that both districts allow mixed use truly controls despite the fact that one of the uses on its own would not be permitted in one of the zones and I don't feel like we have documented that sufficiently at this point so I can ask I think Doug has addressed that in various emails for the course of time but I can ask him to put together something more formal I think those were my major comments at this point Thanks and thanks for the presentation tonight and the changes made and thank you to folks who emailed us with concerns about the project ahead of time so we had a chance and the staff had a chance to look at them I basically agree with what was said up to this point with a couple of exceptions but let me go to some other places first do you have the memo that Jennifer wrote on January 21 have they gotten that I think so I basically agree with her critiques and what's missing so I won't go into those in detail I do have a couple other concerns about traffic and parking it's not clear to me whether the restaurant patrons will be able to park in back of the building in the parking lot or not what is the answer to that under the mixed use bylaw there are peace proposing 28 spaces 56 are required by the two uses you have the ability to reduce it down to 25% the reality is the restaurant people will probably not park I mean I think it makes sense they not because if we're going to reduce the amount of parking it needs to be for the people who are using it as lodging and not people who are using it for the restaurant so I think we would want something specifically indicating that the restaurant patrons would not be using the parking lot I guess to elaborate on that and back to David's point as well the valet is free so in other words you come up there as a guest you don't really have an option we're going to pocket a car a hotel in Porta Square for example they've cited 40% of their patrons come via rideshare this is not even getting into other modes as well Mary has further information to elaborate our intent is for the parking to be solely for the lodging guest as you say just on the spaces we provided but if you run the 50 out of either 70 or 80% which was part of the debate when we were last here of what that number would be the spaces we have assuming all of those percentages came in other words 70% or 80% of the patrons came all of them would be coming via vehicle we're providing that works out to those members of those members now in addition we're in the driver in between because it's going to be 100% valet there's additional space for 7 to 14 vehicles if you then out those then you'd have sufficient parking for everyone staying there assuming everybody came in their car then they all had one vehicle where's the extra 7 to 14 spaces if you stack parking if you stack parking got it I'm not saying some of the members were on it they remember I had represented the hotel in East Arlington we had presented a stacked parking plan that was approved provided with this valet and use I can tell you that in the hotel in East Arlington there's 120 units hotel rooms I happen to stay there 3 months a couple of years ago during peak season there were no more than 8 or 10 cars in that garage with the advent of ride-sharing Uber it's amazing to me that most of the people are coming via that type of transportation okay so we could give you that commitment I guess was a long way of getting to your question I think that would be very helpful that's not a problem and another question is where are the employees staff going to be parking clearly not in that lot not on the lot we are going to see if sunrise up the heights which they have agreement I think as you know we have access there and we are still working on a situation with people in that area I have people expressed interest in it I have someone who is going to commit to the bus which if I could digress for a moment the other part that is kind of like those both ways if people come by bus which we believe that to be a big attraction this whole parking issue is a non-issue and if you come via vehicles or rideshare and those things then you don't have a bus so one other thing that came about was buses seem to get plural at the last meeting I just wanted to show you the hotel couldn't handle more than a bus so from that standpoint where we are looking to take care of those people as we know the town of Allington has two locations we have already looked at one of the employees one being at the skating rink which is right down Rider street and the other is up at the Autism in addition as I said we are talking to some private people and parking as well so we don't feel that the employee issue will be a major inconvenience we have a traffic demand study as well where we have other methods that we have agreed to do including MBTA reimbursements and things like that in that plan as well so we are clearly trying to address it as best we can what's the maximum number of staff who will be at the hotel and restaurant so the hotel basically you are going to have two full time people basically 24-7 so you are going to have two people working at the hotel if you figure out how that would go on a full time equivalency if you I am sure you have all run those type of numbers the restaurant itself probably realistically you are talking about anywhere from 6 to 10 people and that would probably only be on your Friday Saturday maybe Thursday night type thing except the hotel is going to have people cleaning the room so it has to be more than two people there again that's what I am saying at any given time you are basically going to have a valet okay and then you are going to have the hotel concierge manager if you will again it's a 50 unit hotel we are talking about so maybe you are talking about 3 when you have the house cleaners come in if you want to throw another one 4 but I guess the point I am trying to make is there is not going to be a puffer of employees there is not as if it is an office building or some type or something like that the bus was my next question because we had spoken last time about potentially having tours using the place so I think we would want to know what arrangements have been made I have something again I can tell you that I have an agreement with someone that we are going to be memorializing and it's in the area so we will see that absolutely yeah what you have done with the sidewalk as opposed to the bump in seems very good it's hard for me to tell how wide is the sidewalk going to be on that arc it's the sidewalk around the arc going into the hotel from the street sidewalk yeah the arc it's 5 feet it's 5 feet wide there can be some variation and will the tour bus be able to fit in there under the it is compliant with the DOT standards that means the tour bus will indeed fit under it I had a question about the shadows and the two houses with solar arrays I understand that the shadows won't hit one of the houses with the solar arrays but it will affect the other house with the solar array there will be one at early afternoon shadow will affect 18 pier street solar panels that you are speaking of are actually facing east that's what I was asking the building is west of it so that shadow won't hit those panels and one of the 24 arc streets will be on the limit of it so the shadows will hit the building not the solar array ok I just want to echo David's thought about the step backs one story higher than it appears a bylaw requires and I will go take a look at 117 Broadway I'm not familiar with it we discuss this with the staff but I looked through the bylaws for something that gives us the authority to wave or vary where the step back goes and I can't find it there are lots of places in the bylaws that give the redevelopment board the authority to change height change dimension, set backs but I can't find one place that gives us the authority to change the step back from the third floor to the fourth floor I understand your rationale and it certainly makes sense but it has to be done in my opinion consistent with the bylaw and I'll talk to the staff about that some more because at the moment I can't find it and without finding it I don't think I could agree but again I will talk to staff I'll go take a look at 117 Broadway but I don't see it fitting in with the bylaw thank you I appreciate the changes that you've made and the responsiveness to the feedback that we gave you at the last meeting I had a couple of questions the first being on the site plan on the new courtyard to the right of the entrance what is that intended to be used for I think it's a pervious paving to the right of the front entrance it's actually it's about 500 feet and that is where the public space we're proposing for the bonus area is based on the bonus area calls for basically 10 to 1 ratio there the area is close to the like 500 feet the larger than that it's almost 700 that's what I thought we're proposing to even though we can't benefit by it we can only cap that 10% for that our intent was to do an easement on a much larger spot because if you think about it what is really 200 square feet if you're going to have a reading saying or a presentation of the select tones there's no argument so it will be programmed in some way which is why you found that the pervious paving is opposed to a landscape and to that point we're not opposed other than for the reason you just stated we're not opposed to making that entire green area you see there it can be grasped this is easy it's just to the point you made if it's usable let's turn this around this elevation here I had a question for you I'm just looking at that and I'm struggling a little bit and I think Kim started to bring this up with the balance in the building on the front of the side and I think all the moves that you've made so far are a positive step one of the challenges I'm having is the scale of the projections on the second floor which then form the parapet of the balcony that you have on the fourth floor I think that the scale you have on the rear of the building makes a lot more sense architecturally and one of the challenges too is that you have that field of brick on the Clark Street side really you see it kind of slivers on the front of the building and it doesn't really the proportion of this projection on the front with the parapet included as part of the the Fever cement board cladding seems a bit out of scale so I would just ask perhaps you look at perhaps there's a brick beam that runs across and those and perhaps that becomes the parapet of this extending above it just feels the scale is feels a little out of proportion we can certainly look at that we can also look at just the in our islands across the front sure I think it's the scale which is again part of the issue that Ken was speaking about and I think that that will help as well with the variation of the material the motive behind the parapet was a little buffer and more privacy to that upper level but there are a lot of ways to do it sure absolutely that's certainly worth taking a look at your suggestion and that way it would be a little bit more keeping with the Clark Street side and then turn around the corner and you see it because to your point you do see both at the same time we could certainly take a look at that and carry this to a little bit more I also noticed on that scene on the Clark Street elevation that we still have the lubers on the side of those the lubers they're on the front now they're on the sides of each one again it's not something that I love seeing again as you're driving down Mass Ave and this is the corner of the view that you're going to have so I just asked the faculty to take a look at that as well that is actually I'm sure you're aware that this is dependent on an engineered solution what I'm looking at now is probably a worst case scenario when the actual VTAC unit gets selected the lubers size will be at that point we'll find everywhere we can to minimize it but it's not a problem in the future I think in order for us to get to an approbable elevation we want to to try and find what a solution is that will work for the building as well a range of significantly smaller than what we see right now what would probably entail is just a preliminary specification on the VTAC unit that at that point we could lead us to a lubers object and as we look at the rear elevation that's facing the the residents behind looking at if we could look at the band of windows that's running along the floor I believe it's along the quarter those and again I think that I mentioned this in our last review too that they don't really feel like that they have any proportional relationship to to the to the cadence of of rhythm you have going on below so I I'd ask that I'm assuming that those are in the quarter it's basically a floor plan driving condition based off of where the entrances to the rooms are what you're saying is true and they can be moved to the left or to the right in order to make it more appealing on the exterior that's certainly not a significant issue the main purpose of those windows is just to provide general national light to corridor it would have been really nice to have it as you walk out of the room to see it but in the hierarchy of the importance of things we can certainly move them around to make the exterior quote more appealing in that type of regard if you wish I might even pair them it doesn't really have anything to do and if we're trying to marry this is more singular architectural style I'd ask that we take a look at that and again I think most of my colleagues have addressed parking and some of the other some of the other items where are you in plan proposing right now the main entrance to your restaurant is that on the front facade or on the corner of Clark Street where the hotel is right here versus right here hotel restaurant entrance it's important to note that these here are by folding openings that you can converse in and out of and the hotel has the exact amount so that they can enjoy the outdoor area just as much I think that's a nice feature my comment was more going to be on the signage you have a restaurant sign on the Clark Street sign more or less sign there and you know I think that as you look at this in the rendering that you have coming down that corner you know it makes sense to think about the signage for the restaurant within the you've seen the sign band here and the L was actually obscured by the treat that's an existing term I just don't know that it makes sense to sign the restaurant on Clark Street specifically since you don't want people driving down Clark Street and that parking area is not going to be anything we can do to keep people who are visiting from flooding that neighborhood would be a step in the right direction probably for the residents so I would just ask if you take a look at the signage to remain on Mass Ave and if there was anything that was going to be on the corner I would think that it would be a more prominent sign for the hotel property itself okay thank you Gene's question about the neighbors solar rays reminded me I think I had maybe been the one who asked for the shadow studies to show both the existing condition and the proposed condition so I very much appreciate that you provided that I also appreciate that you mentioned that those shadow studies do take the topography into account because I will say I was surprised and I guess pleasantly surprised by how little impact on the shadows on the neighboring structures of this project would have this has nothing to do with actually approval process I just have a quick question on the name of the hotel I just noticed I don't know maybe I'm bringing I don't know but it's a beautiful place in New York I used to stay there all the time okay because I just see that there would be some sort of confusion I didn't notice it earlier and just looking at a less than hotel it's clearly an argument just a question we've had a lot of comments few even from people very close to me who have made a similar observation to be honest with you in many respects for a lot of those they're really more of almost a placeholder Millbrook to have it I loved it I happened to spend a lot of time in Millbrook literally when I was a child but you know it may not come that way so we were really trying to create placeholders to get a buy in on where locations of the signage would be that would be a skill which you weren't blown in your observations I'm not sure we can reject a name we can't reject a special name no I don't know it's got a nice ring to it too but there's too many monologues everything in town so I like the comments of my colleagues and I get too deep into the weeds here I do appreciate the work that you've done I think you can probably appreciate that there's a bit more to go before we're satisfied both on your end and on our staff to get us there so thank you let's keep this moving I am going to open it up to public comment but I do want you to consider when you might be able to come back as we go through this process I prefer not to have a six month wait for the next year that's important we keep this going so I am going to open it up the floor for public comment now I have a short list that I'm going to work through some people came in late they probably didn't sign up it's alright I'll get to you once I'm through the list I'll make that announcement again I am going to try to stick to a strict time limit in our bylaws just because I think that there probably is a lot of people who would like to speak I ask you to stick to the facts this evening stick to what's in front of you speculation, rejection doesn't help anyone if there are questions you have it's certainly welcome but I think we're all in the idea that we'd like to keep this civil keep the process moving along I know there's a lot of discussion about some things that are out there and ask those questions I've indicated to Mr. Dory we'll not be taking a vote on this particular project this evening but we will and this has been communicated to members of the board before we will be taking the vote on the special permit waiver we'll get into that after public comment if the public doesn't have questions about that if we ask and we can answer those the fee being waived is only a special permit it's approximately a $2,600 fee we'll discuss that separately after we're through it with public comment so with that it's open and first on the list Barbara Thornton do you want to speak to the hotelor just a little so the next thing on the list is Animal Royale for the sake of convenience I know it's not the easiest thing to come up for the sake of everyone else hearing I guess come on up I'll hand you the microphone state your name and address the board will take everything under advisement at this time I have four if it's a question I can easily respond to by the applicant who will do so I am a lawyer I live at 12th pier street behind the hotel site I have a lot of questions I'll try to keep into three minutes and I'm sure others will cover I did want to clarify the B2 zoning issue which has been brought up the B2 describes currently allowed uses in the zoning which a hotel is not allowed in a B2 and it also tries to address developments that will maintain the character of the neighborhood which this hotel I don't believe does the neighborhood is one in two story businesses in the B2 surrounding neighborhoods and one in two family residential areas a four story hotel is not allowed in that character as far as I'm concerned the second question was about the liquor store that's now been approved at the Nicholas site right across Park street just a question about traffic and other issues that new use it's been a vacant use for four or five years but with these two new developments happening conveniently in our neighborhood I just wanted to want to think about multiple implications that could be for parking traffic so forth with a liquor store right next to a hotel I would like to see if they could do an elevation from the back side the view from pier street especially for the two or three houses that are immediately behind the hotel the way I look at the drawings it almost looks like six stories from looking at from the pier street side you've got the lower level of the parking the first floor three stories of the hotels and then there's the mechanical unit on the roof so combined I know some of you address that issue about height and you're going to look at that in the site plan and so forth but an elevation looking from the back side would be helpful to give some perspective to how the neighborhood is going to be trying to absorb this building I'm concerned about trees there's I think you said that the trees would not be cut down behind the DAB building is that correct there are a couple of very large trees we haven't evaluated the one behind the DAB the we believe is looks like that one there it's in the parking lot I believe the other one is down on my property so we won't be cutting down this one is on the neighbor's property so but this one is on their property and that's three okay maybe I can come back later we'll also take comments by email and others by Carol O'Neill do you wish to speak I can't speak but I will I'm Carol O'Neill I live about 11 a.m. every morning I pull out of my driveway I can't go left to Appleton because of the school traffic so I go left, I take a left-hand block of the street I take a left-hand pier when you go o'clock at 7 or 8 o'clock you take out that lia coming from the sun it's hard to see the cars coming up and down it's also hard to see the cars coming from Lowell Street it's a very bad point at that time plus the clock street is in terrible shape in who tends to be responsible so I came to that that's me can I just can I just mention something go ahead I don't want to go back and forth I think those are all important concerns we're in a listening phase right now Steve Revillac two weeks ago I was in here when your work was having a joint meeting during the public comment phase I remember a number of people coming up and mentioning Arlington's commercial tax base how small it was, specifically 5.6% and if I understood and interpreted their remarks correctly I kind of got the feeling that they would they kind of wanted to have a bigger commercial tax base in Arlington and this is a purely commercial development which would stand to increase our tax base there are reasons why our commercial tax base is so small mainly because we don't we don't make it easy to develop here we don't have a habit of welcoming commercial projects like this with open arms I think this one is pretty nice I really like the way it looks on the street renderings I've granted there are some details to work for or through but I would like to see it move forward finally I'd like to just point out just in terms of thinking through different scenarios RB districts allow single and two family homes by right so if this for some reason the hotel project were not to work out I think it's completely conceivable for these lots to become single hand with your due points this has happened before I've also there's also on the other hand an excuse building there are other kinds of excuse buildings that can be good I'm sure Mr. Doherty has a plan to meet but what I want to make is nice commercial projects like this don't come our way very often and there's not necessarily one waiting line behind it thanks Michael Sandler Good evening I live at 18 Peer Street I'd also like to echo Anne's request for nominations from Mr. Doherty the fact that it would feel like a six-story building directly behind us I think needs to be addressed visually I think that would be quite quite visceral this is a neighborhood it really is when I went to the building department to get a permit from my house and I said that I live on Peer Street I was still, oh the Cutthru Street and I said well actually I've been to the traffic study it is absolutely a Cutthru that's how people with white masks have from Forest Street, they take a right onto Peer Street, then they duck out on Clark it's very busy, there is high traffic in the morning there are lots of kids in the neighborhood my own children and those students at Audison and if we know anything about middle school students they're not the most aware of the young people of where they are I've walked around construction so that is a strong concern to me I'm curious about how pickups for laundry and trash would affect those of us in the neighborhood it seems to me that trucks would need to back up the entire length of the building in order to access trash pickup which would be quite a disturbance in having worked in the restaurant business for many years I'm aware of those hours for drop-offs and pickups that would not lead character to a neighborhood one bit in regards to the traffic or excuse me the parking situation I think it's naive at best to say that our neighborhood would not turn into a parking lot I used to live in East Arlington actually close to the close to the hotel and there were constantly cars that weren't parked so that I could not access my driveway it was a constant fight between me and the business neighbors that I had and when people park on Pierce Street, if they parked it's not that wide a street that people aren't parked on either side of the street it leads a single lane that street curves, it's impossible to see when cars are flying down during commuting times it's dangerous as it sits I can only imagine what it would be like with a giant construction project taking place with the number of people who are already utilizing that road as a cutthrift I have strong concerns about the safety and I think a traffic study is long overdue and I don't think it would necessarily benefit those looking to push this forward to have that to have that information it's already challenging thank you Don Selzer can you use your charts to demonstrate things to the audience sure thank you Mr. Chairman Don Selzer Herding Street speaking of care tonight on behalf of the Arlington residents for a responsible redevelopment we have reviewed these plans in detail and we'd like to share our findings with the Board and the audience here and Erin, thank you very much for having going over my comments and providing your analysis and I'm going to defer responding to them this evening instead I'd just like to use my time to explain to the public here what some of the technical points were that we were discussing earlier the first one is this is obviously a corner lot and what the bylaws say is that on the side street, on Clark that the setback of the building has to be the same as whatever is required in the adjoining zone beyond it and it's R2 and that requires a 20 foot setback from the property one and obviously there's zero setback on this building that's a question the next thing that comes up is this idea of upper story setback what the bylaws say is that on a building of this height once you get to the third floor or 30 feet, whichever is less you have to have a setback a stepback of seven and a half feet or more an argument has been made that since the lower level is stepback you don't have to do it at the third to four as the bylaws say I think that will be something that the board is going to debate in the future one thing I would like to note is that inspectional services and the bylaws, the way they define the front of the building is by the nearest structure so those columns that you see right here along the face actually define the front of the building and the area under the overhang the next issue is the bylaws require a certain amount of what's called usable open space and it has dimensional values associated with it and as far as I can tell there's nothing in the application that addresses the usable open space and nothing in this drawing here would qualify under what the bylaws say so I don't need to address the issue about whether pervious brick patios could constitute landscaped open space the next big issue and this is really a big one is there's a limitation on how big a building you can put in any size spot this is a 14,000 square foot plot it has what's called a floor area that usually can build a 21,000 square foot building the applicant is asking for relief from it and one thing I find a little disturbing about the new plans is that nowhere do the plans actually indicate what the floor area is for each floor of the hotel we have gone through the numbers and we have found that the gross floor area is actually 26,000 square feet almost 5,000 square feet more than what is allowed and furthermore the bylaw says that this relief that they're asking for under something called bonus provisions in section 5.3.6 I believe it only applies if the lot is more than 20,000 square feet and the lot is only 14,000 stop in those three minutes I would like to finish your point I'm going to turn the tie up there's problems with elevations quickly this shows a level this action drops off by 4 feet from this end to this end this affects building height measurements the other question is the applicant said that this driveway slope here is only a 5% grade that just doesn't add up the way I see it is this is about 20 feet from the driveway ramp it seems to fall off by at least 4 feet that's a 20% grade which is simply a dangerous grade to be backing up out of coming up also and thank you for your time Chris Loretty is next thank you before I start I'd like to put this for a comment thank you I'd like to point out first thing I'd like to point out is that in the revised application there's a key document missing and that is the table the applicant supposed to supply that was the dimensional data for the project in relation to what's required it was incomplete in the initial application in July it was completely missing in the latest application I suggest the reason for that is it often doesn't meet requirements to speed it or the statement that this is not a residential development in any way I suggest you take a look at the table of use regulations in this zoning district motels are listed under residential that suggests to me that the motel portion is indeed residential and therefore the use of the open space requirements are triggered as for this bonus provision that does not apply to lots 100,000 square feet does not apply to the B2 zoning district under section 5.3.6C and moreover the land that they're suggesting would be and he's been granted to the town and it's not clear exactly where that is does not count towards landscaped open space it doesn't appear to me that this area could be considered landscaped open space either that's a patio presumably for the use of the restaurant and my definition of landscaped open space is trees shrugged and covers grass so it clearly isn't this project clearly doesn't need the landscaped open space requirement either and I'd also like to touch on the point that previous speakers have brought up about motels not being allowed in the B2 zoning district because one of the things I'd like to introduce as part of my testimony is a unified transcript of the 2016 time meeting session at which mixed use was approved and it was approved based on the description given by the redevelopment board including its chair Mr. Vanell and a number of the board at the time Mr. Kayer and Mr. Kayer said and I quote speaking of the head of inspectional services like a burn he says you know we work with most town council on the word and that's before you and only the uses that are permitted in a particular district are the ones that can happen in a mixed use in that district to me that cannot be any clearer and I appreciate Mr. Watson suggesting that you go to town council to get clarity on this but I would think having three attorneys on the board to be able to do that yourself and if you do want to go outside I really recommend you go to an outside council outside of the town to get an objective read on this. Town council works for the Selectman this is the Selectman's project and I suggest a lot of the problems with it is because the Selectman are pressuring you to approve a project that clearly doesn't comply with his own bylaw you need an objective opinion for whether that case particularly as it relates to this use question because I think it's very likely that should you approve this it's going to be appealed and you need someone to be able to give you an honest opinion not someone who's going to be able to put a opinion now please no applause I will allow I want this to be entered into the record thank you I will accept that I will post it with the meeting materials thank you Mr. Eileen Park we just need to speak about small three minutes parking once again is a very big issue I live at 25 pier street and I totally agree with all my neighbors I do like to see the rear elevation because from my house it will totally look like 6 or 7 story high so that will be something to consider and as my other neighbor said it is cut through street and I take my daughter to school in the morning cars are driving really fast the other day I almost got hit by Mustang going like at least 50 miles an hour cut through street and we also have neighborhood kids walking there playing there riding bicycle with that traffic and then all the dock loading on the clock street is going to block the street and all the car will still be going through that street so I don't like pleasant to look at that's great coming from the mass avenue from East Arlington to Lexington that's great but you have to think about the safety of the neighborhood because from as is from Forest Street and Clark Street it is really hard to make it to mass avenue when there is an incoming traffic so the fact that we actually have this project with nice rendering without no traffic studies to go over it before you even check the neighborhood safety issue first this is a little bit I think it's like something's out of order so further discussion is great but I think we need to get the public hearing on the traffic studies first and also it is very crucial that they need to maybe possibly do a survey with the neighbors because living in Pierce Street, Clark Street and we're dealing with this issue every single day everybody can tell you there is an issue so I think it's like almost pointless like going through yeah it looks nice on the side it looks nice from the front it doesn't really make sense because you also have like middle school kids like 12 o'clock in the afternoon you have crazy teenagers out the street without really looking at the traffic and on top of that this issue with the construction going on is going to be a hell for pollution so I think before even considering going into further discussing what the design looks like and you know is it good for the building codes and whatever like they need to take care of the safety of the neighborhood first and then going forward I'm at 37 Pierce Street just a couple of houses down from the neighbors we've talked previously so I have similar concerns but it's actually I don't think it's as big of an issue to me the traffic cut through is not really the development's problem it's more of the town problem if it's already a concern it shouldn't be on these guys to be a concern about it already being a cut through so that is not something that I'm too concerned about because it's already an issue so it should be a town issue not the specific development issue and as far as parking goes especially for the restaurant portion it's public street parking it's not pleasant when people park in front of your house but it's public parking so people are allowed to park so you know it's unpleasant but it's public parking there's people parking in front of my house that aren't me anyway that's what the public parking is for if we don't want public street parking that should be a town issue that is not the development issue so while I understand that my kids are the ones that ride their bikes in the street it's riding bikes in the street it's not safe anyway you do it because it's fun right now but then you still have to be able to get off the street so as long as there's adequate parking overnight for the hotel guests because there's obviously no legal parking overnight in Arlington the restaurant parking is already street parking all over Arlington street parking is allowed in the town so that's my comment as far as the other parking goes thank you Nelspry I'm not into neighborhood so I don't know about parking and traffic I have an academy street right across the street from here I would absolutely love to have this hotel people in Arlington Heights don't want it I think it would be great but maybe if it was more interesting the design we have something that we can actually be proud of it looks a little bit like the boxes that are being put up everywhere throughout the in this whole they all look the same I think because of all the zoning restrictions that are so detailed but somehow still similar throughout towns throughout the really Massachusetts for sure so the buildings all look the same but I think something a little bit that we could be proud of might be nice maybe something that had an eco dimension too net zero solar panels on top there are people complaining about the trees being cut down how about green walls you know it's never going to it's been done a lot like in Milan there's a building which where the walls are all green it doesn't have to be another boring building that the neighborhood character would have you I mean if you guys don't want it can it be in Arlington Center? something really amazing and maybe maybe all the usual opposition would be diminished if there was something that was actually given to the neighborhood I mean to the people who are just giving another expensive restaurant and you know more traffic what about a kids play center what about something that could actually be a contribution for the people that are living there maybe I remember there was this bike repair like self bike repair thing at the Cambridge library for example you know there's probably many different ideas but maybe the opposition would be less if there was some sort of a little bit more of a give and take and not just another somewhat unaffordable restaurant and more cars coming in so ideas for both sides thank you Carl Wagner thank you I'm Carl Wagner 30 Edge Hill Road the last speaker mentioned give and take for the neighborhood and it strikes me that is very important in the changes that we make to the town we have to think about how the folks that live around these buildings will cope with it because they looked into their neighborhoods because they expected it to be a certain way and if it changes it should change positively and likewise for us as a town neighborhood of all the 40,000 people that live here things should be positive so I applaud the board and the select board and the applicants for going and putting up a commercial because people have probably heard recently that when we have a press for density that's residential density it hurts us all because our taxes all go up a commercial development should not hurt our taxes it should help our taxes to go down so that's really good unfortunately there's a problem I see here that others have mentioned you can see it in the pictures or you can see it later online in the pictures the parking situation is not appropriate for this view so the size 50 rooms no parking essentially maybe a bit in the back and you can see in the pictures this is a very large building in a neighborhood that was designed for much smaller buildings and people have said this only isn't even allowing the building by the 2016 ARB discussion so that concerns me another thing that concerns me is the way that this is being justified even though it is not legal by the bylaw on mixed use buildings the town meeting said we should have this I think if these kind of buildings go through town meetings should re-evaluate the law that makes even the legal version of what this building wants to be so that we don't get this anymore so if this goes through like the building next to stop and shop and like a couple others I've seen this says we got to change our laws to make things better the last comment I have is I understand that normally about $100 is going to be asked for as a non payment to the town by the applicant I would hope that I've heard that the applicant has up to $100,000 of fees that they're not going to have to pay I would hope the applicant will willingly give to the town that money instead of allow the town to not charge them that money and I would hope the ARB will not approve the project unless the town officials get the fees that a building like this would normally give to us the businesses and the residents of Arlington thank you thank you any other members of the public that wish to speak that was the last name on my list the front here I'm Damon Anderson I live at 12 upland road west which is in Morningside but I work on Lowell Street and I ride my bike to work I walk to work and walk home from work and the intersection that I try to avoid at all costs is Downing Square and so when I drive to work on Lowell Street I will get off of Mass Ave onto Lowell Street and when I'm leaving work I will come down come up Lowell Street and then take a left onto Mass Ave and that is a very difficult intersection to take a left onto because when you look to the right at oncoming traffic from the heights that's like a 270 degree turn like that trying to see traffic so I would ask and I don't know if it's for you of anything that folks are responsible for here but I'd ask that a light goes in all this additional traffic with this hotel and then the other thing I noticed this might just be because these drawings aren't terribly realized at this stage but I walk the sidewalk quite a lot and I think that if this part of the sidewalk here where you've got this curb cut is just black asphalt to match the street it's going to be very confusing for people to realize that they're supposed to cross here that this is still part of the sidewalk so I would ask that that be color that matches the sidewalk so that that's clear because I'm familiar with some hotels that have this kind of ink would you call that that? that's a curb cut we can surely make it that that would be most confusing for people and those are the only two observations right now thank you I'll just try to show again, this is Joanne thank you Joanne Preston at 42 Mystic Lake Drive and I'd like to talk about something that hasn't been really addressed which is the issue of the trees and I apologize not to get my letter to you earlier when I decided I had to make a site visit and go out and look at the site itself and it really doesn't look like this because this in dangers there's two large street trees by paving over a large portion of the tree strip which is the land that's owned by the people of Arlington it doesn't belong to the developer and the it's much too close it doesn't look like in this picture but if you go out and look at the site you know there is supposed to be 5 feet 5 feet here and what will happen is there isn't enough room for the root beds and that's really extremely important as you know the select board has said we are committed to climate resiliency the best way to remove carbon atmospheric carbon is through trees street trees are routinely important for that so I think the tree warden should be involved after it's all built and the trees are dying he should be consulted now and that the actual amount of space has to be calculated right here secondly which has also been mentioned is the 50% great service is supposed to count for a large part of the 200 square feet required landscape open space I mean bricks are not landscape open space and that certainly should be addressed again finally I looked at several of the plans and sometimes the trees are there and sometimes they're not and I think we heard that one of them is going to be cut down in that area that the tree amendment to the tree protection law addressed at the last town meeting the small plants whatever they are can't see in the back there that are replacing it will not have the effect of removing all of the carbon emissions from the trucks, the cars the buses and all the pollution which will just shift down to the neighborhood so I think that before this becomes so advanced that these should be important considerations thank you I'm Tara Bradley, 28 Clark Street so I'm not really sure how to feel about this project I was very excited about it went into this really excited wanted to see kind of something different in that space and just a quick question I did a quick Zillow search Mr. Doverby have you own this property since 2012 I don't own the property oh you don't own the property I'm the trustee of them ah ok sorry so you don't have any control over it at this time I said I'm the trustee trust owns the property ok I guess I'm trying to figure out so do the people who own the businesses I guess I guess who is their landlord who is the trust so I guess my questions about concerns was I'm excited to see something new going into the space because it's quite an eyesore right now and then I'm realizing that it seems like the same person who's owned the space has owned it for a period of time and what I'm wondering now is what kind of care is going to be taking care of this property if it's owned by the same person or trust or organization that lets a van sit there with flat tires for a year and a dumpster full of God knows what there really it seems like there must be certain rules or stipulations in a contract or lease that the organization has with the tenants that they could use to enforce some kind of cleanliness standards or if not laws themselves so I guess what I'm trying to say is that I urge the board to kind of consider how well this organization has taken care of the property in the past and what kind of neighbor they've been in the past and I'm not sure exactly the logistics of what agency Mr. Doherty will have coming onto this but if this is the way it's been taking care of in the past what is it going to be like what kind of corners are going to be cut going forward with this Yes ma'am. Hi I'm Marina Darla I live at Six Clark Street right across the street from the proposed property in addition to the concerns voiced by my neighbors I probably missed two questions one till what time is the proposed restaurant close to the open and what kind of restaurant there is a mind so there is a difference between small family own place versus you know a party place so I would want to know what the board has in mind for it and till what hour we're expecting to see lights and music whatever it is Question number one Question number two I'm sure it was addressed and you missed it how long is the construction expected to take I want to know for how many months, years, whatever I'm expected to live in a construction site because I'm like literally 60 from the property Thank you Jim do you want to answer those questions Sure Congratulations on your recent purchase as well No I'm happy with it So in terms of the restaurant itself it's going to be an upscale restaurant that's type of restaurant we haven't identified nor committed to a particular tender at this point and the hours ultimately will be set by the board of select moon when a with license is issued for the restaurant but we don't we're not looking to run a nightclub so we're not looking to to run something late into the evening that will be like any other upscale restaurant that exists in the town of Ollyton currently Construction Here construction started with that Well it depends on the permitting obviously because when you get through permitting it's a seasonal thing but you know if everything goes well and we get at the right time of year it would be within a year and as it relates to construction the outside will be done first and from that standpoint the overall impact of that diminishes greatly within a matter of months so once the envelope is tied in we anticipate when we hit the ground would be approval Thank you The green shirt sir then you with the hat My name is John Hoffman and I live on Ruebley Street up in the Heights so I have no I empathize with the people who live near this project however I'm excited to have something that I can walk to fight to have my family come and stay at the Heights has suffered I feel sorry for all the little businesses that have gone that have failed because there's not enough foot traffic so anything that generates foot traffic in our neighborhood 5 Walk Street for the last 20 some odd years a couple of things road remediation because I know there's a road problem in that general area especially by the broken how that will be addressed also is the permit being voted on tonight? to start this ok I'm just wondering because it really needs to be the traffic study to really understand what's going on with the craziness of that intersection earlier in the morning and also to come to some thoughts on what's already been parked in the back of that building for the last 5 to 6 years with closed containers, vehicles with flat tires and a lot of junk back there already I don't know who's responsible for that is it the people that run this trust and if so will they continue to have that type of attitude with just parked in trash without regard to the neighbors you can see this has been an ongoing issue for 5 to 6 years anyway with a pile of trash you can drive by and look at it vehicles broken down just sitting there whether they're taking up space or what the issue was with that that's all thank you thank you very else wishes to speak to the hotel you'll have additional opportunities to speak to this I'm sure if you have further comments or concerns please forward them to the entire board planning director via email if you send it well enough in advance typically by the time our agenda is posted it will be made public by the time it's coming this evening I will see that staff puts that up as soon as possible for reference including Mr. Seltzer's email that was referenced earlier this evening so I'm going to bring it back to the board I think we've heard a number of things that we would like the applicant to come back with I have a list but I'm sure that will be added to we're looking at at least from the applicant we need a detailed site plan including a topographic analysis I think we need an employee parking transportation and management plan including that offsite parking agreement you mentioned Mr. Dory there's been a couple of different discussions of that I think that would be helpful to understand where traffic cars will go and I think we need the traffic study to account for those intersections and certainly we understand as our gentleman said that this is a town problem an existing town problem that certainly you can't come and fix but we need to understand if any impact will be if that's that people are taking movers and let us speak to see that right from someone qualified to do so to the folks who are frustrated by existing traffic conditions certainly we are not an enforcement agency but I understand your concerns and I share your concerns and I would encourage you to contact whatever department in town you feel is appropriate to address those where there's the building department for public safety I know other neighborhoods in town that have had some success with beating up police enforcement for a brief period of time to give people around the river hold over once myself so so I would encourage you to do that and air your concerns because traffic is an issue we all face in town but let's try to address it I'll speak with you after the fact so are there any other items we wish Jean go ahead just a couple one occurred to me when one of the folks who spoke talked about walking not around that little curve but across I wonder if you should have crosswalk and I'm just wondering whether you should have crosswalk and handicap curb cuts so if people don't want to go along the curve they can go through too so that's one and the second has to do with part of the site that's now the auto graveyard I don't know exactly what to call it precision tire was that ever a gas station do you know I think maybe in the 50s yeah I'm really concerned that there needs to be a site assessment for pollution there was can you supply the can you supply the staff can you just supply the staff with that report because I'd just like to take a look at it and make sure that they're not going to do a construction where there could be some contamination there's nothing on the site there was one on the DAB as well but that didn't rise to the same level go ahead Rachel I'll speak wildly I think that the other thing that we heard and talked about Erin as well was that we need a detailed zoning assessment in terms of the way that you're meeting all of the different requirements thank you when do you think you'd like to come back Mary these guys I think we should get back to them oh they need to continue we need to continue to a date sir when are you meeting in March it is sorry my calendar went dark March 2nd in March 16 but March is typically also when we hold the war article public hearings so those are the two dates that we have scheduled March 16 okay so we'll continue to March so before we do that you can be on the special permit fees I asked Erin to sorry is there a question okay so we'll continue that eventually this evening to March 16 but we as a board do need to deal with this issue of the special permit fee that was put in the RFP it's been clarified a number of times the fee that's being the fee that's been requested to be waived is a special permit application thing the amount is approximately $2,600 the actual amount is in our meeting materials the applicant has paid a 50% fee covering a portion of the property so he's already paid into that the way of the special permit was something that was suggested by the select board during the RFP process to encourage buyers at the site so I'm happy to open that up to a board discussion on that which is going to be for long until we're done it's part of the purchase and sale and it is part of the purchase and sale agreement can I ask you a question I believe that part of the poll we said at our first hearing when Jenny was present there was mention of a 50% reduction in the special permit fees is that what we're voting on or is it the full waiver so we're voting on a 50% reduction 50% has already been paid by the applicant I understand that the proposed fee waiver was part of the agreement for purchasing the property I I have a problem with the lack of process that led to that particularly that the select board made that agreement without consulting this board and that's without getting even getting to the question whether or not we actually can reduce the special permit fee so I'm I'm not happy about the lack of process that occurred here and I can't support reducing the fee I just want to be a little more we're only voting on the special permit fee that's right and only for half of the project that's right we're not voting on building permits or any other pieces of just the special permit fee just and only the special permit fee and that special permit was made as part of purchasing sales part of the RFP and part of the PNS I'd like to say a couple of things about this and I think I'm in a different place than David was on it except it would have been I think better to have a better process about this but that's happened already and as I read what the RFP I'll read it to the group I'm sorry it says the town this is from the Board of Selectment and the town manager the town through its Board of Selectment and Town Manager is seeking proposals for purchase and future use of the parcel that's the DAV part the part that the town owned with highly advantageous bidders accepting a 40 year deed restriction to require mixed use development of the property consistent with recent revisions to the Arlington zoning bylaws and defined as quote a combination of two or more distinct land uses such as commercial lodging, research, cultural artistic creative production artisanal fabrication residential single multi-story structure in other words mixed use and it says such advantageous bidders shall receive waivers of building and special permit fees in additional consideration so if the town put out for the RFP and I'm not saying we would have agreed or not agreed if we were consulted but what the town put out for the RFP was if you bidder agreed to a 40 year deed restriction for mixed use in exchange we will waive the building and special permit fee for the part of the project that's on the DAV the town site because the town owns the property the town has more ability to do than it would if it were privately owned property so it was a quid pro quo and this developer came forward and basically said I'll do the 40 year deed restriction and in exchange I'll get the 2000 whatever special permit fee back we asked the town council whether we in the select board had the authority to do that and his response was yes that we in the select board did have the responsibility to do that and my feeling as a member of the redevelopment board is that if the town council gives us his legal opinion that we have the ability to do something we have to take that as correct so based upon this put out by the Board of Select and the response from the developer the purchase and sale agreement and that there is an exchange of value taking place here whether I would have done this or not at the time is irrelevant it's what is the situation now and I think the situation now is that we should approve it I also will concur and agree to hear what you just said thank you and I agree I think I would take a motion to approve the 50% special permit fee waiver so motion all in favor aye thank you alright so now I'm taking a motion to continue this docket 12-7-12-11 pass to March 16th 2020 location to be determined so motion second all in favor aye alright so you work with staff to get those materials anything else you need I'm assuming that most of you are going to leave before we open the next public hearing so I'm going to take a 5 minute recess allow that to take place please remember in 5 minutes we'll continue to pick up pass 930 thank you so I will reopen the meeting here thanks everyone for your patience thanks to the APOPCA folks for sticking around we do appreciate it so I'm going to reopen EDR continue public hearing special permit number 3610 filed by APOPCA 1386 Mass Ave gentlemen welcome back thank you for providing all your additional materials would you walk us through what's new and what questions you're answering thank you thank you again Phil Silverman on behalf of APOPCA Tony Cappagetti is the civil engineer of the company CEO still needs a microphone so couple of things we wanted to staff was kind enough to sort of lay out for us the different things we wanted to cover with you and so we're just going to take them one by one and go through them first there was a concern on signage where our prior plans showed how we were going to do the signage and we've taken the advice is it in there we don't have that one do you have it in the package yeah what you can see is on the window and the board requests that we move it to there's a sign band along there and so we've moved it along that sign band and it is a batlet laser cut sign which I think was also suggested and we agreed to go with that so that's what it is is there any other questions about that or have we covered that well you still left the logo on all the windows we did we did is that problematic is that part of the signage that count is signage I think so so does that add up with the sign we have above the score footage I think my understanding is 25% of the window area so I think if you look at those you can sort of see that it's not it's probably not even 10% we understand what he said I double checked it thank you thank you sorry I do have a question just about the backlighting so you're showing is it a green light behind it or a white light or is that a painted sign right no it's just going to be it'll just be a regular you know dim white light they showed it in green rendering of the drawing just to get it to scan out for you guys that whole sign is only about three it's just over three feet by three and a half feet that area that it can fit in above the door is rather small okay so there's there's no green powder coating it's just the stainless steel with the white light okay second item you were looking for a drop off in the pickup ride share space on the site Tony one thank you Tony Gaffer-Cady, the Indian Engineering 63 out of Salem Street Wakefield for record we did add a temporary drop off space it's labeled as a temporary stand spot the science is standing for ride share pickup and drop off on it and the idea is that the vehicle would get off the mass add out of the the accessible way park here drop someone off and then be able to exit without feeding someone the traffic this would basically impact these two spots here but because there's a lot of standing and not a parking spot the vehicle can move pretty quickly in case there's interference in those spaces but the board was looking for some place with minimal interference and I didn't want to impede the actual exit way I just think from a safety standpoint I haven't tried to stop anything exit way that would be problematic rather than just minimally impeding these two parking spaces for a temporary situation in the ride share and many ride share drop offs may drop off in the area and walk for the same as well it is a vital number for the area and the distance between the ride share space and the back of our parking space 15 feet you could probably do it in three turns but if there was a house driveway 15 feet the bonnet adequate to the back of the garage for this you want 20 horsepower to be your clear face in your zoning ordinance so that's what we're going to do I have a question on the ride share I appreciate the concept for the ride share drop off and pick up I guess my concern about it is if people are arriving via ride share and they requested a ride share to this address what is going to prevent the ride share driver who is not familiar with this location from just stopping the middle of mass app and let their passenger out again it would be more of a courtesy issue there's really no way to police that however the cannabis industry is very web driven there's a lot of sites a lot that's heavily done but the leafy site we can actually put your ordinance in the leafy and have it ready to pick up I don't think there would be an issue putting that on the website but the ride share drop offs must be in the designated space behind the building I'd be more concerned about the pick ups yeah I think making it clear on the website that that's preferable would at least be helpful so even without the location when you want to actually put maps of for our temporary shuttle everywhere to go how is all going to work we're going to do the same thing here we'll have areas for neighbors to not park here shaded on the website and we would also have ride share as to come into here again we can't necessarily release it but we can encourage and if we see any customers coming in not utilizing this space we'll form them the first time second time it's a little harder and then we won't necessarily allow them back I did see in your submittal an example a frame sidewalk sign yes and I don't know if anyone had any other comments with respect to that but it did occur to me that yet yet another thing you might need to add to a sign like that would be directing people to the ride share drop off pick up so that as the drivers arrive they see where they're supposed to go generally we have a lot of technical we do have a lot of we talk about it numerous times I think between that as long as everything is legible I don't want to make it like there's already quite a few there's also the ability to actually put a signage on the building so there's that ability to fix something like that to the actual building at the entrance of the parking lot so I think if it seems like there's a problem then I think come back to the planning department to discuss what additional signage may be necessary to address that absolutely and one of the things you'll see is a draft of the MOU as you can see there's a lot of different areas we can pull just with the APV but with the actual counter officials to make sure that if anything is not going perfectly smooth we can address it sorry just with regard to the ride share there's no place for someone to actually wait though right there so you'd have them wait at the corner and then when they're riding comes up they that's correct and again one of the reasons why I believe the temporary standing would work is because of a lot of time we'll be out there on a regular basis and if someone is just standing there waiting they'll ask them to move along and come back great next issue there was an inquiry regarding the type of application that there would be on the windows we did provide an exhibit it's a translucent film that goes on the windows and that's what we were showing it sort of simulates frosted glass that would be the idea and again I think we did show small symbols the office symbols on those as well it has to be something that's where you cannot be able to see inside the building that's important to the CCC um there's also a question about the trim detail that's also on the same exhibit I think it's a sort of a walnut color is what we're talking about already now is as a rich standard we finished now with tenacity existing you know now also there were questions regarding the floor plan we wanted to see the separation between the entry area and the rest of the building um I do have a I think you've seen the entry vestibule there's also bicycle storage inside for employees and also gender neutral bathrooms which was also requested I have one question that while you show that separates the vestibule and the display area is that a solid wall or solid door solid wall or solid door you actually have to be busted to that okay so it's not a window where you peek inside and see what you're doing it's just into a dark not dark you're into a vestibule that all you see is forward and a counter and that's it and only when you get busted you can see what's inside correct you can see what's indicating on the drawing as the coiling door is that a counter where someone would walk up and check in and then they get and then they get buzzed in through the side door into the show right so similar to a doctor's okay next tell me we had bicycle parking previously you had requested if there was a way yeah I think we had four thank you the last site plan had four bicycle spaces there were two of your frame spaces a few frame I guess bicycle racks and that was indicated to be incredible in the town's bicycle guidance parking guidance document they provided a six foot by two foot space which is what was specified we were able to we're proposing pervious in that area we can add a third one to get a total of six bicycle spaces outside of the customers and a lot of it is a bicycle area in the town that comes through here so additional spaces tell me why don't you hit the next one which is the storm water going back and forth with the applicants for the construction team first came in there was an indication that a rain garden would be incredible and there was some indication that the storm water was bypassing some of the onsite bases we looked at the site more and we're going to do a full depth reconstruction of the parking lot which will allow us to change some of the grades and because of that we can break the watershed instead of where it breaks in the middle a little bit over some of the parking lot to a rain garden the issue we could do the rain garden before is because of the piping we talked about the slot ring this way and once you pipe it over you're down three four feet in the ground which is not ideal doing it this way we're going to set the pair of flush and then put a a curve behind it and then drop it down about 18 inches where the water will pool and then once there's over tops it will be directed to the existing catch basins we'll take those catch basins we'll clean them and we're going to retrofit them with gas traps but this is kind of more in line with what was originally contemplated using the rain garden be very similar to as you're walking to the back of the building here there's a couple of perforates with the depressed landscape area that's essentially the rain garden there all over we'll look at some tall grasses just to improve the catcher's sentiment in the rain garden does it cross the sidewalk? no there's no sidewalk in this area we'll move all the sidewalk from this point on okay so it would sheet across the parking lot and then there's a level curve flush and then the grass would drop off it would pool in there until it reached the capacity and then it would continue down the middle line so there's no walkway there? there's no walkway the next comment we touched on a little bit was the a-grain sign so this is for for neighbors that will put them out to kind of preserve some of the run-street parking as well as some of the private blocks and basically it's there's no parking no on-site consumption and the notice that if you're caught you could be prosecuted and most likely be caught in the facility and that's something that the Maryland facilities have that you'll be able to do pretty easily if you're prosecuted activated when you go in they're scanning an ID so it goes into their database and you can say oh no and it goes both ways if you're violated at the Lynn facility sorry, we've given them from the bottom they're very unsafe so it does limit their options it gives a good policing tool for customers the last item on the civil side of things was the access to the or the traffic issues and looking at the network network line that we did a study out there it was June 2019 there were nine operating facilities in the state for recreation we're approaching 40 now in each opening it is better than the last I think Devin's learned a lot however, looking at the better trip generation numbers do you look at it about 124 trip ends in the peak hour on a Saturday which is 62 vehicles the parking lot has 12 spaces so to make the parking lot work you've got to turn customers over 5 times an hour every 12 minutes to make the numbers work based on our number of point of sales it's about every 6 minutes and during the opening phase they actually track transaction times and then we do about 4 minutes so it is physically possible to get that number of customers through and it gets back to as I was saying the web-driven kind of app-oriented consumers that go to these shops the menu is posted every day they look at the menu, you can add them to your cart you can kind of do a premortar and then you go in and it's yeah, I'm a quarter step before it okay, here you go, starting to build hey, you're in mouth they really kind of master that sort of thing compared to the disasters that happened last year when they first opened the facilities so those lines aren't happening and again I wasn't in your last meeting but we did a quick level of service analysis based on the point of capacity ratio we had about an additional 1% in the peak hour the spot was peak hour long because it was out there and it's a level of service seed which is a condition of a level of service seed not great but still acceptable by past 30 students then I think the last couple of points there was a request that we conduct a tour for the Allenton Police Department which we did I think back on January 9 which went very well and they were able to see how this works which kind of leads me into the last thing that you were concerning one of the summary of the memory and understanding that we're working on with the police department we provided a summary the basic concept is we sort of schedule a number of meetings prior to opening a certain amount of time prior couple of months, couple of weeks day before and then after opening a few days after the next week the next month regarding what's going on and then the other piece of it is sort of what I would call an escalation of measures to the extent that you get high demand times you know people know for example that on April 20th is a very high demand time somebody's aware of that so and there are other times and my sense is that as you begin operating you'll figure out what are those high demand times and so we'll obviously be doing things in terms of staffing to deal with that but from the perspective of the town what we wanted to do was have sort of an understanding of the police that we're working on that if we know something's coming up the first time we see this we will do some extra work on our website we may go so far as to discourage certain times on the website that might be a way to handle it and there are a series of escalating measures all the way up to you have to make a reservation that's not the one that we prefer but if we understand that we're working with the police and they determine jeez this is not a great situation can we go to that we understand that that may be necessary but again it's sort of an escalating formula that we have that we're working on it's not finished yet we sent it over to Mr. Heim so that he could take a little edit and work on it but you know I'm hoping that we'll have that done within the next week to 10 days so that's where we are on that any other questions or no thank you for I need your response I wasn't clear in reading the traffic study which now includes Brookline that you actually use the Brookline things for anything other than just putting them in the traffic study to have a comparison so can you talk about that a little bit so and I apologize if I misunderstood the question the question as it was posed or at least the way I read it was how would we be able to handle the amount of customers again looking at the traffic and if you gave me 5 minutes I could probably do the math out and much know that we're not over I mean you're 20.8 to 21.7 using the existing numbers you have to 32% put the volume to the passenger ratio so that's like another 320 vehicles in the peak hour so that's not going to happen with the I thought the question was less about traffic and more about can the facility handle the influx of cars and parking lot and to end bodies without killing people outside the building for an extended period but again you're looking at a 320 car difference in a peak hour situation and the difference between the meta study and what we use is 44 bends or 22 vehicles so we're far from that threshold that would put us into a different level of service and a two way highway the way I came up with the 320 vehicles the passenger ratio of the two lane road with no passing is 3200 vehicles passenger cars per hour so that would be 320 to add another 10% so help me out here I just want to understand on table 2 trip generation Saturday daily Salomon Brookline average of 0 to 8 for 1,000 square feet is 793.8 and it's like 2,000 square feet that's for the day however when you look at level of service for a roadway it's during the peak hour generally when you go to work again that would be the same for the facility the peak hour that's your largest influx anything other hour would be less than that and again those are trip ends just to remind everyone each vehicle has two trip ends one can provide to the facility so you divide that in half to get the number of actual passenger cars so will your MOU with the Arlington Police Department have a provision in it about the opening day or opening week and how that's going to go well yeah I mean because of the fact that we I think can all anticipate that the opening day is going to be you know some of larger than what you might normally see I think you'll see at least some of those preliminary measures you know the lower level measures going to affect where we have the website to suggest times that would be best for people and such again we haven't finalized it yet you know I've tried to summarize it for you but there's no question that opening day the opening day and the opening first week at a minimum I think are going to be times that we'll be looking to that just that in the MOU you'll also see that what we're proposing with the Arlington VD is up to at least a month of there providing a detail service yeah I just want to make sure that during the opening day, week, month whatever it is that there'll be coordination with Arlington Police and they'll be there if the numbers aren't so great maybe not so good for you but better for traffic and the other way around if the numbers are really good then at least you'll do something and the police can help and I would also like to add that with our LPD one of the things I had suggested was they should speak to LPD to see how we coordinated with them and what LPD thought they had already done it and they said that we got a glowing recommendation from LPD for how we coordinated with them because it is a partnership we want to make sure that we're able to service the people of the town as well as stay good we're equal to them so it's a lot of work that we do on our end to make sure that we're coordinated not honestly not just with that but more of health all of you any other questions? any members of the public wish to speak? to the apotheca going twice public comment is hereby closed on this is there anything else that we want to talk about in the morning here? I feel fairly comfortable that this application provided us what we asked for the patient with us I can see that you've gone to the trouble of presenting yourself as a good neighbor I hope that that's going to keep on I am sure we'll stop that I appreciate the fact that you've been responsive to our concerns everything from safety and security to the conditions that I think we can go through Jenny if you could through those I think what I do is we approve in the memo that was provided to the board there are there was sort of a summary of where we're at today and then slight revisions to our general conditions I don't think anything really more than just talking about the waste removal which is item number five because there are specific rules about waste removal for marijuana waste specifically I didn't want that to be conflated with regular trash pickup but it's not necessarily aware of those rules and regulations but we wanted to capture that as a priority and the condition it actually wasn't in there original the approval so that was one, the second one in the general conditions that we updated was just a slight change to number six to make it clear that the drainage and surface water removal plan has been reviewed and approved by the town engineer after the discussion you had this evening which to amend that one as well further but that was one that was slightly amended and then there are four additional or four special conditions which are unique to this particular application the first one is I think the one where there's the most continued need to make sure that we maintain this relationship and also address any issues as they should they arise and be able to also sort of a back and forth communications across multiple entities including of course the power that through the MOU that would be that has been drafted at this point in time and that would be finalized and would be responsible of course to your decision I don't know that I heard anything further specifically that should be in the MOU that's been discussed this evening but maybe there's something more specific that you would like to add to that but it is being drafted at this time the second item is just making it clear that we wish for this applicant to ensure that they will be responsible for the cost of any additional points details I think that's particularly important especially in these peak times that may occur in the beginning may occur on special holidays you know maybe whatever there might be that's happening I don't think that we can judge exactly when that peak demand will occur because this is a new facility in a new location in a different town and so that's something where we want to make sure that they're paying for the coverage of those please details and the third one is really the queuing which I think is really critical is to make sure that there's not any queuing which would be out of the public way but to make sure that's clearly stated in this decision that we do not wish to see any queuing in the public way and then the last one is really a more thorough vetting of that transportation demand management plan we have a little bit of a sense of it but I think further details would be needed we've heard I think a little bit about the employee parking and that there's an opportunity for a shared agreement with a a neighbor potentially in Arlington Heights but I think that needs to be further vetted as part of the TDM plan I guess the only other one that I might add for this conversation would be something about an additional sign related to or signage related to directing potential customers towards rideshare that was the only other new thing but that could also just be a component of item number one under your general conditions related to signage designs I think the idea that they have a traffic traffic there is better than signage I don't want to go overboard with signage I was only interested in looking at a sign if there was a problem that couldn't otherwise be solved and that they would come back and consult with your office if that were done well that feels like something that again can go into vet and OU so I think that that's something more of that back and forth coordination and management of queuing, management of demand management of vehicles and people that's kind of all part of the safety and security of course one thing we had previously discussed and I think the applicant had agreed to do this as part of their annual report to include details on what has happened with respect to traffic and parking over the course of the year and how things have changed over the course of the year in the TDM or their annual because I also are required to do a community meeting which one I think in the annual report to the community to the community yes, alright so in there we had said that we would include some statistics on how customers were arriving right well actually I think that's part of the TDM as well there's a required reporting okay well however how would we want to phrase that as long as we're getting that well I would just say and to duly report it in the annual report to the town because the TDM plan I thought was more focused on employees but we also wanted to the extent that they could collectively get information on how customers were getting to the to the location I'll just add a fifth one it feels safer at this point and one thing we talked about last time for the traffic demand manager and plan is something that specifically says that employees will not be parking in the lot so it doesn't have to be year but just we want to see that traffic demand that was an additional 1,000 so to accept general and special conditions move to approve number 3610 the conditions for general and special is out on the five director second all in favor thank you congratulations thank you very much thanks for your patience thanks for moving here for microphone we might get the mic so first of all I'll say there are a number of handouts up here that I made copies of things or should people meet anything sorry maybe we could get these around 47 people so in your packet we have a list of the proposed orange articles that we actually submit as part of our orange submission process really everything but one is something that you reviewed in prior weeks so I will just walk through the ones that I'm going to walk through all of them but I'll go back to the one that's new so we can talk about that a little bit more so the first one is to correct the two year period to a three year sorry two year period to a three year period which is indeed affordable housing environments currently that's just not in compliance with state law it's 48 updates that we wanted to capture did not get that the second article in this package is to have a definition for apartment conversion which as noted here is described the third item is do you want comments as we go along why don't I go through and then I want to go back to the one that is new there's not a couple of wording changes on a couple of numbers let me go through the packet first you need to hold to move these so that we can go file them because they're doing it on a Friday yes so if you don't want to that's also your option if you want to move them to town meeting I need to be able to move the articles by Friday which is the deadline January 31st of course if you decide not to that's also your choice so these are mostly ones that we've talked about the next one is as a new one this actually came from Rachel who suggested that we create some language to address issues of parking reductions in the B3 and B5 districts and it is it would be an allowance for the board to further reduce the requirement you're currently allowed to reduce down to 25% and if you decided to go further than that in the case of a property made located in B3 and B5 you would be able to do so with some requirements including the ones that you typically utilize like TDM, shared parking offsite parking, etc all the allowances that are available from 1 to 5 in order to do so the reason that these two districts were chosen is because they are our major business districts have a lot of B3 and B5 in them of course as you know they're quite colorful in terms of business districts so in other words Arlington Heights Arlington Center East Arlington have multiple business districts for example Arlington Heights has more than 5 in the coverage of the area a very small vicinity but they are predominantly covered by B3 or B5 those technically should have allowances for higher densities and other things that can happen there which are important for business development and economic development and parking can be a barrier in order to achieve those goals the most recent application of the board that relates to this particular article is the PULP being proposed for 1314 1314 Mass App seemed like it was 1386 1314 Mass App which as we know after you improve that special permit needed to go to the zone of work appeals and actually we'll be doing so tomorrow night to be to request and hopefully be granted a zoning variance in relationship to required parking would need to be zero in that particular case in order to be able to proceed to even move forward with their licensing process and opening process etc so that is a big barrier to business opening in a neighborhood where many of the people in that community have expressed a desire for that particular use so I think that this is one way that there's a proposal to address it we want it to be responsive to the board member who raised us and directed an article to be responsive to that the next article that is in this packet is simply administrative corrections there are four of them here noted I don't think I'm going to go through them all if that's okay these are minor changes and the next article we can come back to all of these if you want me to go into greater detail the next article is an amendment to the first to clarify this this as well as definitions in section 2 just to be clear folks sitting in the audience yes folks who may be a refresher we're just ordering this language this vote tonight is certainly something to change as we go through the public hearing process this is simply the language that will be put in the warrant Jenny said it's required to begin in January 31st Friday we may reserve the right to change these articles or some full languages out there where ultimately take no action this is just a vote to move this to a town to our next step in the process and then we'll be having further discussions and have more public input correct and you could choose to file a warrant article and decide to not pursue it any further as well filing the article doesn't even mean that it leads to the development of a motion or a vote or a recommendation it could just be an automatic no action because you choose not to go to town the next one in this package is so many by law amendment to the tables one of them is noted below 5.6.2 and then on the last page there is an amendment proposed here to establish that there are prohibited abuses which is not currently called out in our by law questions as we go on through doing work please I actually forgot she was here so for example we're only going to be voting in the article language and not the amendment it doesn't have to be at that level right now we need to file a warrant just the warrant so the only one at that level well there are two no there was just one that I had a concern about and that's and I'm in favor of this but I'd like the wording change and that's the one about reducing the parking requirement because it says reducing the parking requirement to zero it feels like you have to go to zero I think it needs to say something like to as low as zero or something like that and then so other than that I had no problem with the wording of the articles although I can send you something with some wording suggestions for what the by law change would actually look like but that's otherwise I think they're all fine comment in my language in the proposed amendment if you turn to the next page in D it says applicants may propose a reduction lower than 25% of that required and then to zero you know so it's a very specific I would rewrite that whole sentence in general because I don't think it's the applicant requesting what I think you have to give plus the ability to do it so I think it has to be it has to be rewarded but we don't have to do that today in both cases it doesn't necessarily have to be to zero but it makes it appear to be opportunity well the preamble event section actually gives the board the authority to do these things well I'll send you one so let's talk about the vote part for the actual within the structure when we do the meeting but is this language okay for other board members as low as so the language agreed to reduce the parking requirement low as zero in the I don't know probably to be starting just for the purposes of for the purposes of finally I think we want to keep it as broad as that was all in terms of the warrant articles that I had there were other warrant articles that were provided in terms do you want me to talk about those can we move these first I mean I you need to vote to decide if you want to move to be able to what's the exact wording what's the exact wording we need for that to approve the warrant articles so moved second it's just a warrant alright there'll be an opportunity for public comment on those specific articles that we move through the process there will be public hearings there will be an entire process of advertisement as I said this is not this is the beginning there's a lot to be discussed so these were the ones that came of course from that will be filed and inserted by the board to make it very clear and then we are aware of a number of citizen petitions one of them was actually provided to us by John Warden and I took everybody to get back with that John Warden or Patricia Warden one's about Patricia and maybe one's by John I don't know but so that is one and other articles are proposed by Barbara Thornton you've asked Barbara and Steve to return this evening to talk more about their proposed articles I'm not for sure and then is there anything else in that packet? no so maybe there are other articles that folks would like to discuss but these were the ones that we are aware of and of course the warrant article deadline is Friday so I think it's safe to say that at a meeting in February we will discuss this again I can't promise that it will be Monday February 3rd so we don't have to do anything with this no this is just for your information at this point in time okay so consideration and forward and Barbara we'd like to come up and walk us through your stand here come with the crew use the microphone you've got all my hands can you just clarify what the judgment is I'm sorry what the judgment is are we on? we are on the discussion of town meeting amendments foreign articles 404 number 3 that's correct now I asked because the documents posted on the crew and the other articles that the gentleman is referencing are actually as part of the correspondence received and if there's any other new information that will be provided and submitted as correspondence to the sport we will do it we thank Barbara for her note thank you very much last time I was here you asked me to come back and answer some questions and before I answered your questions I thought because it's very late so I'd like to go quickly through telling you again just a quick review of the three proposals that are that I'm bringing to you today I feel like I need to hold this with my teeth and still talk just complicated I haven't got my glasses on can you hold that okay so the first the first one is accessory dwelling units the second one is affordable housing on non-conforming parcels and the third one is a design competition that's my shorthand for referring to these to be brief the first one accessory dwelling units is an article to propose the adoption of accessory dwelling units it is not the same as the one that was heard by town meeting last year I started out making it very general with a purpose to clarify the intent and then to take from there's over 100 municipalities in Massachusetts that have accessory dwelling units legislation on their books and I was going to take I took pieces of that and pulled together the detail of what a build might look like or what a warrant might look like I met with Doug Heim he said no this is not the way you should do it so we spent about an hour I spent about an hour with Doug Heim and then you had asked me to spend some time with the building inspector I spent about an hour with the building inspector and I thought as long as I'm on a roll the building inspector said I hope you're going to talk to the fire team so I spent about an hour with the fire team I've also spent time on the phone with people who are at the state level working with building codes and have a lot of phone calls in that they take longer than town people do to return calls so I'm still waiting for their calls back in some cases where I haven't had a chance to get back to them and close the loop but what I've done is I've put together a very short article and hope that you all understand the purpose but just in case you don't there's really three parts to make available reasonable price housing opportunities for people who need housing of a type or price not currently available to them and offer homeowners with larger homes in available space who are over housed that have limited incomes particularly those who have incomes that have been hit hard by increases in property tax an opportunity to monetize that space in order to continue to live in their homes and create a space in their homes to care for elderly or disabled family members or others or perhaps to be cared for in return as they age so those are the sort of motivations behind this the format of this is the short proposal following the guidelines that Doug Hyme gave me referencing specific born articles that I think need to be changed I'm not born an article I'm sorry zoning bylaws that need to be changed so you'll see four zoning bylaws referenced here you may have different feelings about what needs to be changed and that's it for the accessory development then a long piece of notes that's a format I've used for all three of these there's the actual final born article that I'm suggesting and then there's in this case pages of notes and I can talk more in detail about what I learned maybe from the other conversations moving on to the next one for the housing on nonconforming parcels this was an idea that was not mine but I thought it was a great idea there are parcels the standard parcel requirement is 6,000 square feet to build a residential unit and Arlington this would reduce that on a condition and I'd love Mr. Benson's term this is a quid pro quo for getting more affordable housing in Arlington it is essentially saying we will let you build on that site that is too small to officially build on under today's bylaws what we will require you to do is to make whatever you build on that site affordable housing and it stipulates some of the conditions for how that will be done third is the design competition I think that somebody said earlier today that we don't attract enough different kinds of developers and different kinds of developer ideas here I think it was one of the first conversations that I would like to tell this is to try and get Arlington on the landscape of really good developers and creative architects who can come in and say we understand you have an affordable housing problem we deal with we build affordable housing we are reasonable we are transparent in our procedures we want to build for a middle income population with a range of incomes and Duckine had me change this from an article to a resolution so it should officially come across as a resolution any asking anything on the last group, this was called resolution yeah are we asking for funding to support a competition I don't know what to ask is there anybody who can do a competition just put it up the resolution would be you would have to do something very specific I'll tell you what you would have to do what I think you would have to do I think you would have to say yeah we're going to do this we're going to advertise we're going to get some money to advertise but mainly what you're going to have to agree on is what you're going to want what the terms is like writing a proposal for the request for proposals you're going to have to write the terms for the request for proposals so you're going to get a proposal I'm suggesting that it be 50 to 200 residential units per project that it be 25 units of a percent units affordable according to regional standards building to lead or net zero requirements 75 to 100 so that kind of thing the money should come from the town but they don't if they don't give the money this is a resolution it's just saying town meeting voted that this is a good idea go forth and make it happen make it so let me be able to declare enough so are we asking the town viewers a possible land so that someone can do this competition or is it a just piece of land that someone wants to do I don't see how a developer or contractor or an architect who wants to invest time and money in doing something like that and not have to become a bit it references the Broadway corridor and it was required the planning department and the ARB in the town to say this is a parcel and it could be a parcel you know a block for very few number of units or it could be a parcel of a few blocks of more units and we are going to set aside the normal standards for zoning if you do this in this, if you provide these conditions, if you meet this this FAR, if you meet these building standards, if you meet these affordability requirements and these design conditions show us what you've got and we're going to give you we're going to wave we're going to create an island of no current zoning we're going to have special zoning for that and so the conditions it's fine from there it's sort of another grid for a lot we have to go back to town for you we have to go back to town for you yes what you're suggesting is what passes a PUD where it's something where there is there's an area set aside where the government, the city or the town is encouraging that kind of development in that area I was advised by Doug Pine not to call it a PUD okay it's this is a resolution that the town begin working on this process which doesn't mean that you need to get the money right away or that the town meeting is voting for the money the town meeting is voting, would be voting to ask the appropriate town officials to get together and reach some decision about how big a parcel, under what conditions what is the grid pro pro I think this is probably more of a long-term project yeah it might happen this April and then it might come back in the following what would happen if you simplify it this goes to town meeting and it's a direction by town meeting to the appropriate board so say go ahead and figure this out figure out how to do this come back in a year with zoning proposals locations, criteria recommendations for how this works show us what you have, show us your work in a year or two I was thinking six months we're bound by town meeting time it might have to be, it might be six months it's a special town meeting it might have to be a year but what what could come of this is kind of an interesting thought and exercise but I don't want to get into the details but we need to tonight, I think we all want to think about it a little bit more but big picture conceptually it's worth exploring further as to what might come of it in fact, that it's a resolution means that it's essentially nonline and it ties somewhere committee so to speak but town meeting has said go do this figure this issue out it could be a good way to somewhere down the line and the kind of projects that are not currently available because of block size and other restrictions and it also is a marketing tool for you to attract developers that are more inclined to do, that are more mission driven developers who are, and architects who are used to working together to create good projects with a public interest perspective Any questions? I have a more of a question of concern about allowing affordable housing on nonconforming lots I wondered if you talked to the town council about whether that's consistent with the state zoning yes and he said yes I've got some place in here, I've got my nose we spent more time when we talked about the ADU and then he gave me specific language or directions for that and I sent him this last week but he's as you might imagine up to his eyeballs so he hasn't written that but there wasn't anything that I found that he objected to with these states we'll talk about it more it is being it would be clarified as part of this process he hasn't gotten to that particular step we're not voting on I know I just wondered if she had that conversation I think that's a good conversation Mr. Chairman Barbara and I actually cooperated a bit on one of these articles and I wonder if I would be allowed to make some comments on them at this time briefly that's a yes it's the Ford and Powsley on non-conforming parcels I actually wrote some of the language that we use here I think it's a starting of a good idea but I'm a little shocked at how it's been changed and I don't know if Barbara understands the implications first change is permitted in all zoning districts allowing residential use the version that we're working on limited it to R0 R1 and R2 by saying all districts allowing residential use that opens it up to just about every zoning district in town and in the industry because you can build on commercial lots the other thing that I object to very strongly is that when it was first presented three weeks ago it was only to be on those slots which have never been developed and are nonconforming not lots that have been developed and perhaps up to a while since then or something it was only to be on those small parcels of previously undeveloped land and any support I had for this goes away if those two things are made in there why don't you two have that discussion I'm fine with that I'm fine with this recommendation I didn't realize that there is an issue I'll make a change No, no chatting man we had very cordial conversations with that I appreciate that so let's move on Okay, we'll have you back Any other questions assuming that Steve So the article I submitted was basically based on the memo I sent to the board discussing the there are perhaps better terms than open states usable open states and landscaped open states as they appear in our zoning law so we have the terms open states appear in two different ways and they're used in two different contexts one is how they refer to the open space district the other is to open states as the dimensional requirement for yards the actual language of the article that I proposed if I can try to wing it off the top of my head was to see if the town will vote to amend the zoning bylaw of the town of Arlington by reading the terms open space open space landscaped and open space usable as appearing in section two definitions or take any other action there too so basically just what I want to do is I've seen a lot of a lot of people have misconceptions about what open states as a yard regulation means and some of them came up tonight so I would like to see if we can find better words to fit the definitions the article did not make any specific recommendations I do have some references but I wanted to leave room for the board to put the terms are used not only in the definitions but throughout and I'm just afraid that if you weren't the article limits it just to the definitions it may be too narrow well it's re-naming the terms I know re-naming the fine terms but I do think if you change the definition if you change the term you have to change it everywhere I think I see where Gene's going with this I agree with where you're going with this just to changing the definitions I think you might want to make sure that all those definitions throughout those the entire zone by large are appropriate to match the definition we'll be focused there's I had reviewed the town life language with Count Gownsville and explained my impact was that we not change the definitions themselves the terms that are defined and he was okay with he was okay with that but we'll see I guess we'll see whether or not I've made the classic amateur's error I mean I appreciate that you're trying to bring some clarity to something that we've repeatedly seen confusing people right I just think we need to be very careful to do that in a way that doesn't have any unintended consequences really okay thank you I'm going to table the discussion on that the Select Board did take it up and they provided a couple of amendments and they voted on it so they have already discussed it and talked about it I can share that with you however at the next meeting let's do that next Monday night especially if they have comments since we'll be here next Monday night so I'll take them on Monday night February 3rd and but the next meeting is open so if there are any members of the public that wish to speak no action is going to be taken but we don't have to stool or anything thank you Mr Chairman just a couple of comments I didn't realize that you were looking for citizen articles in that last agenda item I'll tell you there are people that are coming just I just want to clarify we weren't looking for them John Warden submitted to my office a document that I've circulated to this board and this board specifically asked Ms. Thornton and Mr. Rebelack to return this evening which they did there were no other articles talked about for the last agenda item they did at their last meeting but there was not some sort of open call provided broadly necessarily but they asked them both at the last meeting to provide further elaboration so I'm just clarifying that's the reason for that particular as I said you'll be submitting more zoning articles I won't go into that just like a couple of comments on what they presented particularly this one on the other side you already have a state law called 40B it has a mechanism to do exactly what they're proposing I can't imagine I mean to do that at the top level you can already do it at the state law that requires a new ZBA approval that's exactly what they're proposing that is Mr. Rebelack's article if I understood him right he is opening up the possibility of changing the definition usable in that state property space in any way possible based on the language of the law I'm just talking about putting forward I think that's extremely dangerous and we have used by meeting others with that indeed is the language as he just described it and finally to this accessory development unit article I realize it may not be exactly the same as what was proposed in the last year but sure sounds an awful lot like it and I'm presuming at this point it was just an anti-citizens article I think previously your board said it would only be I'm guessing the fact is that should be the case the only way that the AADU article can come back is if it is indeed substantively different the only way that that orange article can come back is if it is indeed substantively different than the one that was voted on at the last town meeting because that one did fail as a result of it's vote at town meeting and so the only way that one you would need to support it to bring it back but two the only way to support that is that it's substantively different so we would of course if it is filed we would need to review that and ensure that it is indeed substantively different than what was filed and voted on previously because of the stay that occurs at town meeting Mr. Chairman I think that's not quite correct if your board supports it you can comment on that to make dinner we'll talk about that in a few minutes let's move on thank you Mr. Lurie yes I'd like to request that I know you have a lot to do but that the agenda may be clearer because I know a number of people who would have liked to come to the beginning discussion of articles, ADUs the contest and so forth they would really feel strongly and they would have come I had no idea whether the agenda would be brought up tonight for that Ms. Wardman would be asked to come and give more explanation and they would like to be here so I would like to make that request thank you if you're concerned about this term overhouse it says here these are often all these people that overhouse to call us we have no data to show that is this about Ms. Thornton's article that's not a board article for right now so you can ask Ms. Thornton the board's not proposing that so we can't take any action on it if it moves forward no no no that's fine I'm just telling you the appropriate discussion I have is with Barbara I do appreciate your input is there any work on it open discussion and you are let's move on instead of arguing thank you and I'm telling you I understand your concern have that conversation with Ms. Thornton before she presents her article but we have to have private conversations it's not an ARV article it's a citizen supported article concerned about the language that's being proposed in there should be brought up with Ms. Thornton before she submits that warrant article on Friday Joanne you asked me four weeks ago when I sent it to you we can't tell her what to do but you can have a conversation with her and have that clarified what was the purpose of her speaking tonight she came to us several weeks ago said here's what I'm thinking about I said come back and let us know your progress on the 27th that's all that's happened it's a citizen it's a citizen supported article I'm sorry the purpose was for her to have a discussion with you but not with us yes it's her article if not an ARV article it's a Barbara Thornton article if you have a question as to the clarification of her article take it up with her I know you've worked with her on other things I'm happy to offer you the time to speak but we're getting into the weeds here about what's appropriate and what is not what you have as a question for Ms. Thornton not for the ARV there'll be public discussions on this if it moves forward so people can present and some but we can't discuss them until they're done so you're asking the question I'm telling you how to get the answer that you want Joanne I'm happy to talk to you about it you're being obtuse and let's move on does anyone else have a question you can have a conversation Ms. Thornton I'm sure should be happy to answer the question I can't answer that question for you thank you does anyone else have a question comment sir yes Mr. Leroy again it's um related to this warrant article on missing parking I understand it was prompted by this pub on tonight did your board already grant a special permit before the variance it's conditional on the variance my experience is it's been the other way the variance person okay take up the ZDA anyone else so even now I'll take a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all in favor