 Welcome folks to the August 17th meeting of the Ireland and Redevelopment Board. We are recording this for ACMI. We're holding this meeting via Zoom. Still continuing with Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of open meeting law, general law chapter 38, section 20. We'll accept public comments during the public comment period for our usual rules and regulations. Our guidelines allow for three minutes. We'll be timing those this evening. I do expect a lot of comment. I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to be heard this evening. So I'm just going to make sure we have all of our board members here present this evening. So I will call your names and if you could just indicate that you're here. Quick, yay, be appreciated. So Gene Benson. Present. David Watson. Present. Ken Lau. Here. And Rachel Zimbari. Great. Thank you all for being here and from town, we have Jenny Rates. Here. Jenny, are you the only one from staff on? I don't see anyone else. Oh, and Erin Zorko. I'm here too. Sorry, sorry, Erin. You were way down the list. All right. I'll move in to continued public hearing for DACA 3602, 1207, 1211. Mass Ave. So I will see Mary O'Codder and Jim Doherty are here. So I will give the floor to Mary. Mary, go ahead, walk us through what is new and what's transpired since the last hearing. All right, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, before I begin, I want to thank all of you. It's been over a year and you've put a lot of work into this. I want to thank Jenny and the people in her office as well. You've received several submissions since the last meeting on July 6th. Which included two letters from me dated August 10th and August 12th, which I would suggest that I confirmed with Ms. Rae addressed all of the issues that were raised by the board and by Ms. Rae's office. You also received an email from me dated August 13th in response to the issues raised by the commissions against. Mary, your connection froze up for a minute and appears to still be frozen. Mary, try stopping your video. Jim, would you want to jump in if Mary's unable to join us? I think if Mary goes out and then comes back in, I think that might be what she's doing. It might work. Looks like she's gone entirely for the time being. Is it Jim? It is. Thank you, Mr. Go ahead, Jim. I just spoke to Mary. She realizes she got knocked off. And so therefore she said she is going to dial it. Okay. So we should expect a momentarily. All right. Yeah, with me, this is her calling back. Okay. Thanks, Jim. She had, she just called me back and she needed the dial in number, which I just provided her. So hopefully she'll be with us in a moment. All right. We'll give her another minute if she's not able to get on the next two or three minutes, we'll come back around to that. Take everything administrative items. Yep. And if you want, I can attempt to give you an update to keep it going to Mary steps back in the interim. Perhaps the board could introduce themselves to those who don't normally attend. Jim's raising his hand. Jim is. Yeah. Go ahead, Jim. Did you want to chime in? You're the applicant. You can speak. I apologize. I apologize. And I'm sure on behalf of Mary, I apologize. That was her for some reason. She's having technology difficulty because she got cut off on the phone. I've just given her the phone number again. She got it completely this time. So hopefully we should hear from her. To you, Mr. Chair, I fully understand if you want to try to keep the ball moving in whatever manner you see fit is fine. If you want me to give you a brief update, I will. I will not wait into Mary's memorandums. I think she should speak to those or feel free to move the meeting forward any way you feel fit. I don't think because this is a public meeting, a public hearing rather. I'm not sure we have enough of much of a choice here since this is a published legally advertised hearing. So what we'll do is just put a pause to wait for Mary to come back on. I think Gordon Jamison made a good point. I am will ask all the board members to introduce themselves one more time for the people in the cheap seats. I'm Andrew Bonnell and I'll just go down the list. Jean, do you want to say hello? I'm Eugene Benson. Thank you. Ken. My name is Ken Lau and David. I'm David Watson and Rachel and Rachel Zimbary. Thank you for roster of the A.R.B. Amber is unfortunately public meetings, public hearings being what they are. We don't have much of a choice. Like I said, I'd like to put pause on this for the time being. Hopefully Mary figures out her technological issue quickly. She's unable to approach that need be. Appreciate everyone's patience, not ideal. Hey, Andrew, can we just do some of the minutes or or anything else that we have administratively? Yeah, I was thinking we could do the meeting minutes in a couple of minutes here. Why don't we move on to that, actually? So we'll table talk at 36.02 for the time being until the applicant attorney can get back online. We can't begin the next public hearing until 7.30 at the earliest. So yes, I will move on to meeting minutes. So let's scroll down to where we are on that. Paul, as I have 700 pages here. OK, we will go through the meeting minutes for Monday, July 6. If any board members here have comments on those. Jean, go ahead. First page, third line from the bottom where it says Mr. Benson, the economic viability. There's a verb missing. I actually don't remember saying that at all. So I'm not sure what the verb should be there. And if it said said, it doesn't make any sense. So I'm not sure what that sentence should be. So I'd suggest just striking that sentence. And then on page three, in the very last paragraph, the first sentence should read Mr. Benson would like the traffic study to include a right turn and no left turn only option. So the word no has to be inserted before the word left. Then in the second sentence, that is not what I said. And what I said was that the board could alter the setback requirements on Clark Street, but not the setbacks. So that last sentence needs to be amended to make that change. If you're if you're not participating in the meeting, please put yourself on mute so that we don't have any background noise or private conversations on. So those are the only changes I have on the minutes. OK, any other board members have changes on those? And I would move we adopt the minutes of July 6, 2020, with the changes so indicated. Second. All right. All in favor. Jean. Yes. David. Yes. Ken. Yes. And Rachel. Yes. Right. I vote yes. That's that. Thank you all. All right. Jim, are you there? Jim Doherty. Yes, I'm here, Mr. Jim. Mary on the Mary on the line now. I think we have somebody dialed in. It's showing someone is dialed in. I don't recognize the phone number, though. OK, whoever's dialed in is muted. Ask them to unmute. They can also do it themselves. But it sounds like that might not be Mary. No. OK. If we need Mary's cell phone number. I'm sorry. That is Mary's cell phone number. Oh, thank you, Ken. Could you, Ken, could you just introduce yourself since you're trying again on the record? Sorry, Ken. Ken Ingwer, I'm Mary. Mary's law partner. Thank you. Mary, if that is you, I think if you dial star nine, you can unmute yourself. I'm not able to do it right now. But that person has their hand raised. Can you unmute them? I tried. I did ask to unmute, but I'm not able to get them to come into to unmute themselves. So you've you told her how to do it. Star nine. Ken, can you assist her or Jim? I'm sending her an email as we speak. I'll try calling her home phone. It might. Andrew, you sure it's star nine. It might be star six. I'm not sure. I think you're right. Star six. Try star six. Mary, try star six. Jim, she could go on email on her phone and click the zoom and it will take a rake to us without her computer. That's a good suggestion. I appreciate it. I'm going to send that to her. Yeah, because that's how I had to do it a week ago. My computer died. Thank you. Okay. I'm talking to Mary now. She's going to try star six. No. Jim, is she going to try the phone email? Her internet died. She's going to try a couple of other things. She's still working on it right now. Yes, she won't need internet for the for the phone. She can just, it's a call, I think. Well, it goes over the year. You're correct. Right. Yep. So that should be an issue. It's probably under me. I said that. Okay. Hello. Again, if you're not, if you're not a participant, if you're not either a board member or the applicant or his representative, please mute your line. Andrew, I am here on to Carolyn Simmons's email. Okay. Thank you, Mary. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened. It happened. I apologize. Technology is wonderful. All right, we hang on for one, just one second, Mary. So we'll reopen docket number 3602-1707-1211 Mass App Continue Public Hearing. Go ahead, Mary. Thank you. Thank you. I'm throwing a little out of breath. I ran off the street. So as I said, I have provided you with a lengthy letter dated August 10th and August 12th, as well as an email dated August 13th. I think where I got cut off is I was talking about the bonus FAR and the public access space. Those plans remain unchanged. It's 675 square feet of public access space. The issue for Mr. Darity, and I think some of the neighbors, is the duration of the use of the public access space and the amount of times per week. If it's the position of the board, that this is space that is to be used from dawn until dusk every day of the week. Mr. Darity is not interested in the additional bonus FAR. There are a number of reasons as to why I put them in the letter. If that is the case, and I think the board does have the ability to limit the use of the public access space, and he would want it limited to the 40-year mixed-use restriction, if the board is unwilling to do that, then he will forego the additional bonus space. And you have in your revised plan set, I think it's plan 7.871, which takes out the additional bonus space. There are financial consequences with respect to that on to the town, including the loss of real estate taxes and the loss of hotel tax. The step back is no longer an issue on Clark Street. It's 7 and 1 half feet in from Clark. It's 7 and 1 half feet in from Mass Ave. The park is set back as the board well knows from its decision regarding 882 Mass Ave, as well as other decisions. The board has the ability to find conditions unique to the proposal to alter the step back. You have that authority. And I would suggest to you that I have given you in the letter on behalf of Mr. Daugherty a number of reasons as to why you have that ability. Going to 5.3.8A, I want to draw a distinction. I've spoken with the building inspector, and I've spoken with Ms. Rae. When it's a corner lot, the step back shall be the same as the required front yard depths for the adjoining lot. Not the adjoining district, the adjoining lot. The adjoining lot here has a 7.9 front yard setback. Now, you've also asked for a number of things such as the truck turning radius, the trees that are there, the trees that'll be removed, proposed plant things, landscape and open space calculations, elevations, delivery protocols, traffic impact data, and revised plans. They've all been provided to you. You may recall at your last meeting that the planning department was going to do its own shadow study. The results of that shadow study confirm the results that Lincoln architect came to by way of its shadow study. By letter date at August 12th, I responded to tax memorandum. I will not go to get into it in detail, except I will point out a few things. The site civil engineer is on the line, Rick Salvo, and the architect, Greg McIntosh, are also on the line. The site civil engineer can confirm, and we have provided you with a plan that shows that you can tandem park 10 additional cars. So you have 24 spaces in the garage and 10 additional spaces for 34 total. That is a significant amount given your ability to produce parking to 12% of that which is required under the bylaw. The other point that I want to make is this use is a use that calls for staggered people checking in and checking out. You have people checking in and checking out at off hours. This isn't during peak traffic hours that this would occur. Now, TAC mentions the issue of where are the restaurateurs, the patrons coming to the restaurant going to park. Well, I would suggest to you that when town meeting passed the mixed-use bylaw and gave the redevelopment board the ability to reduce parking, that the town meeting recognize that these people are going to park on our streets. We don't have garages in town, so that isn't an option. The board recognized this fact when they granted the special permit for 13, 14 Mass Ave, the prospective pub in the old Baylatch 5 and 10, and 1386 Massachusetts Avenue, the recreational marijuana shop. Now, in order to find to reject this special permit because of traffic congestion or pedestrian safety, you have to look at the language of the bylaw. It says that the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion. It doesn't say that it won't cause some traffic congestion, but I would say to you that the traffic reports that we provided, including the supplemental reports, indicate that there will not be traffic congestion. But there is no objective evidence to establish that there will be undue traffic congestion. But on the issue of pedestrian safety, it says that it must unduly impair pedestrian safety. That means that it has to impair pedestrian safety to an unwarranted degree. I would suggest you that the objective evidence establishes that neither of those can be established. With respect to the Commission Against Disabilities Memorandum, it is totally inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings to send this, to postpone this hearing, and send it to the commission. We don't even have detailed plans. 90% plans don't come to later on in this proceeding. In any event, it is the building inspector's determination that is what rules here. It is his determination as to whether it complies with the architectural access barrier regulations. So that is, I would suggest, a red herring. The other issues that I would suggest as well is that the commission is just plain wrong. When I looked at the AAB regulations, and this is exclusively valley lot, you do not need handicap spaces in a valley lot. And I would suggest to you that it would be unprecedented for you to postpone this vote and send it to the commission. That isn't within the scope of what this board does. It would, in fact, I would suggest you be an abuse of authority. The other thing that you must look at is that this project I would suggest to you comports the findings of the master plan that this board commission. The master plan makes use development. As Arlington, along Massab, Arlington's primary commercial corridor, it also finds that increased density rate of building height and massing would benefit Massab. And Arlington's growth management priorities must be Massachusetts Avenue. Here you have a developer. During unprecedented times, we're here to spend multi-millions of dollars to build in Arlington and to build something that I would suggest to you is needed. I've taught somewhat in my letters about the hotel trade from Lexington. Don't we want to tap in to that trade for the businesses in Arlington? You have the ability. Attorney Heim has given you a detailed memo. You have the flexibility. And the EDR process is intended to encourage and ensure creativity, innovation, and orderly expansion of the tax base. You must be reasonable. And I would suggest to you you need to be equitable and fair and keeping with other decisions that this board has made. If you have specific questions for the site civil or the architect, they're prepared to answer any of the questions that you do have. Thank you. Thanks, Mary. Turn to the board for questions. We'll start with Rachel. Thank you, Andrew. And I just want to start by thanking Mr. Doherty and so Conor and the entire team for working so closely with the board and in response to all of the public comments through the period that we've been reviewing this. You have been very responsive. And I think that the project has gone a long way to addressing a lot of the items that we've all brought forth. So thank you very much. I also appreciated the items that you brought forth in your response letter to the Traffic Advisory Group as well. I agree that adding a sidewalk on the right side of the pull-in circle is something that I would ask that you include. So I appreciate that you agree with that. I also agree with your assessment in terms of the intersections that are nearby that the commission had requested that we perhaps ask you to contribute towards. I think that is an existing issue that I would not put onus on this group to address. I do have a couple of questions for you with regard to the specifications of the finishes of the building. I didn't see you listed the finishes themselves, but I didn't see any actual color or final specifications to be able to accurately review those. And the three types of renderings all show slightly different colorations. So I can't weigh in on that, but that's certainly something that we could review at a later date and ensure that those are approved separately. But I would like those to be reviewed. Jenny, I'm not sure if that package is something that you have received that you'd be able to share with the board. I do have those materials at my office. And I can make an arrangement for anybody to see it, or it could be typically that is something that would be in the sort of general condition type one, where we would have all final specifications materials per approval by the board. Fantastic. But I do have them in my office. The applicant provided them. That was a while back. Great. I also agree that the ADA concerns that have been brought up specifically for the interior of the building are not under the jurisdiction of this board and are not something that we should weigh in on. Those are under the jurisdiction of the building department. So I agree with that assessment. I have a couple other comments, but I will hold those until my other colleagues have spoken. Thank you, Rachel. Ken, I'll call on you next. Well, I also like to thank you guys for working with us and understanding our questions. I appreciate the inclusion of the elevations and sections to this layer submittal. It gives us a better understanding of how this sits within the neighborhood now. Let me go over a few things. I do agree with what Rachel said. The handicapped units and such is not in our preview and the building inspector will take care of that at the building permit process. I do have one small concern. It has to do with at the corner where you have a planter. I know, Jenny, can you get to that site plan where it shows the handicapped ramps from the curb, curb cuts? If you just zoom up to the corner. Is this the right one? Anyone's fine. Just zoom up to the corner of Clark and Mass Ave. Can you get really close into that? Further down, no, toward Mass Ave. One minute. Perfect, right there. See that planting bed right there? I'm just wondering if you would be able to chamfer that planting bed such that it gives a little more space for the ramp, for the turning of that ramp. There's a telephone pole there right now at that corner. And I just think it's going to be a little too crowded for the ramp, the point of the planting bed to get a comfortable space for someone to be able to get by in a wheelchair. Can I have the architect address that and see what he thinks about that suggestion? That's Greg McIntosh. Greg McIntosh is on the line. I am on the line. It just took me a while to unmute. I'm sorry folks. Kim, I don't really have a problem with what you're suggesting. It's a deviation that, I mean, it's a minor adjustment that could be made. I would only ask it to get placed into the conditions. Yeah, I just thought about the vote tonight, but what you're saying from a technical standpoint, I think makes quite a bit of sense. Okay. I also, I'm glad you guys were on agreement with the shadow study. I guess the biggest question I have right now is, this will pertain to Jim. You submitted an alternate with a roof garden and a unit set back on the top floor. Can you go into that a little bit more? Is that something you're willing to do or what was that submitted for? Am I unmuted? Thanks, Kim, and thank you for your comments. And it was a pleasure to get all your input through this process and particularly Rachel as well and Jenny and Erin. Be dead honest with you. The bottom line is this. We've spent a tremendous amount of money. We've made a tremendous amount of changes to this project, many of which we think attribute well to the board members and the staff. You know, have made this a better project. The end of the day comes down to economics. I have personally, you know, concerns about it not being the 50 units, not an ultimatum. I didn't raise this and I don't wanna respond that way, but I'm just being dead honest. I think all of you, I think everyone quite frankly, whether you like me or agree with me or disagree or don't like me, will realize that I try to be upfront and honest and not hurt people's feelings. The only way, what we did was very simple. That brought us back to what we're entitled to net of the 10% for the bonus area. So if the bonus area goes, we don't wanna get into changing the whole site. We think the site as it sits is the only way you're gonna do something like this there, and therefore, we only took that additional space and we just put it on the fourth floor and said, what can we do up there without a amount of space? And basically, the best thing you're gonna do is come out of there with a couple of very large, sweet type of units. So that's the only reason we provided it. Again, I think you know, I've gone to all the hearings as many as possible for all of these projects with the intent of understanding the desires of the board and watch mixed use evolve. And I watched what the hearing on Lachlan and I saw how that project was able with a little compromise at the end. So I didn't want to provide nothing, but I certainly that is not something that I would easily gravitate to. But if that's the way, and I think that's why Mary started off the meeting by bringing up that bonus space, if the bonus space goes, then we would be looking at something like that, which I don't think is unsightly or anything. I think it has more to do with the real ability to do what the by-law intended to give open space, true open space that can be used. But I don't wanna take up the hearing. I know we started late and I apologize for that. So to answer your question, that's how I feel about that. All right, would you be willing to maybe compromise a little bit and right now you only show two large units up there, right? What you had there before was eight or six large units. Eight. So what if we maybe cut down two units and have a roof guard and not that corner there? I kind of like that roof guard up there. It gives it a space for whoever's staying at a hotel to go up there and sit and have coffee and experience something there as opposed to sitting down on the street. It just gives another option, you know? And I think the massing of the building looks a little nicer that way too. I don't know what we think, Rachel, but I kind of like that a little better. But I understand economics and I don't wanna push it back where the economics don't work anymore. But I was wondering, is there enough lead way where you may be able to say, okay, we may step back to units and put enough of a roof guard on the edge there that gives you something like that. So are you talking again, staying within the statutory by right FAR or are you referring to some element of bonus area? I would, I'm not contentioned. I have no issues with the bonus area, okay? Just let you know right now. And I'm okay with the bonus area as is. I just want, say, if you would mind stepping back a little bit and just maybe give up two units on the upper floor to have a roof guard up there to give it a little more of a setback so that also gives a space up top where you'll enjoy. I guess I would say this. So right now under the 50 unit plan, the plan that includes the bonus area in that front right hand corner of that fourth floor area, we have an area, I believe it's probably somewhere around 20 by 20, maybe 15 by 20 somewhere in that range that would do something on a much smaller scale for people down in the rooms to be able to go up and utilize some type of deck area up there. To your point, I would be willing to compromise, but I'll be honest with you, we'd really have to get into, you know, peel that onion back a little because keeping in mind that, I mean, I'm giving up essentially the site that I'm buying is 4,600 square feet. I'm giving up just in terms of kind of the easement space, almost 700 square feet or 4,600 square feet that I'm purchasing. So that's the only reason I'm looking for that, but Ken, certainly I think our intentions through this process have been to try to listen to you people, work with you people, and it would definitely be something we would consider. I guess what we, you know, if the bonus area gets shot down, I'm certainly open to that and seeing how that would come out, you know, based on what you and your colleagues want to kind of ultimately come up with, but I think it would, you know, be good to be able to come out of this meeting tonight with the vote before I could really commit with to doing much, much more. So maybe that would have- If I could jump in, Ken, the issue is with respect to the bonus area for Mr. Darity is not so much the 675 square feet as the duration and the hours of use, the restrictions. So that's where the concern is. And that's why he gave you that alternative plan. If the board is not willing to look at this, if the board's position is the public access easement is forever other than just the 40 years and is from dawn until dusk, seven days a week, Mr. Darity is not interested in the bonus in the public access area and the bonus FAR, is that correct, Jim? That's a correct statement. That, it's a correct statement. Yes, I understand that, Mary. And I'm in agreement with Jim. I'm okay with what he's, he's making a request of not having it from dawn to dusk. No one wants that in the property or the neighbors. I don't think that's what is something that's wanted, okay? So I'm okay with that. I'm just trying to decouple that a little bit saying, let's say, I never had an issue with that, but let's go with, if we can take that open space right up on the roof, which is on, if you're on Mass Ave, on the right-hand side and push it over to the left-hand side and maybe cut down, you know, a couple of units, now you got a bigger open space up there like a real nice roof garden that could be really used. And I'm not asking you to reduce your units that much where it's not profitable anymore. That's what I was, that was my question, just to say, what is the break mark? You know, the break point where, you know, I want to encourage development like this, but I don't want to say, could owns us on the way, you can't, but I think it's nice if we can do that. That's my question. So, so I think I heard exactly what you said and I agree with Mary. And I guess what I'm saying to you is if the wisdom or the desire of the board is to not, if we can't come to an agreement on the terms we proposed for the bonus area, therefore leading to the approval of the proposal that we've spent almost a year on, then I guess the next phase similar to last week or whenever it was a couple of weeks ago relating to Mass Ave, then their discussion moves to an alternative plan. And at that point, Ken, I'd be more than happy to have the conversation, but I have to tell you going in realistically, I would probably to Mary's point rather just full tent to be blunt about it on bonus discussion and let's just move right on to what I'm entitled with for 1.5. And I will deal with that and I'll have to deal with the realities of the new normal because I know under the old normal, it was a 50 minimum criteria that really got people's interest to do something like this. There's a lot of lot of upside in this for everyone, the town, the residents, the net value to the town and there was an interest. So we get to that point, I would have it, but I think you could respect the fact that I don't wanna sit here and trade off anything right now that we spent a lot of time and a lot of aggravation and a tremendous amount of money putting this together and not to underestimate the time that you people have put in and other people have put into this. So I'm not ruling it out. You always have been through this process and I've watched you in other meetings well before I even contemplated this and I'm not being disingenuous. You personally have always impressed me as a guy that came up with the idea and that's not to slight any other member of your board or anybody in that department, but so I appreciate your thinking outside the box and I guess a little later, I hope not to with all due respect be having that discussion, but if we have to, there's probably, this entire board is one that I would embrace having it with at least any help. All right, thanks Jim. I don't wanna get tied down into this back and forth. So Kim, is your question satisfied? Can we move on from here? Yes, please. Okay, anything else from your end? I can come back, I'll let the board also say what they wanna say too. Okay, I'll go to Jean next. Thank you, yes. And thank you for all the work that you've done on this. I also appreciate all the comments we got from the public along the way. I think they were very helpful. Also, I have a few questions and I'm gonna come back to the public open space because I had some questions about the public open space but let me get to my other questions first. Where is the parking going to be for the staff of the hotel and restaurant? We gave you letters several meetings ago for the spaces that we missed it already contracted with it's 11 total spaces. And so that's still going to happen? Yes. Okay, thank you. The, what is the length? I couldn't quite find that in the material you provided. What's the length of the truck that would be able to get in and out of the rear parking area without causing any problem in getting in and out? I defer that to the architect, Mr. McIntosh. Who defers it to the civil engineer, Mr. Richelhoff. I expected that was coming my way. For the rookie officer with engineering alliance that truck's 38 feet. How did you come up with that amount? It's a standard AASHTO truck that comes right out of the auto turn software for analyzing various churning movements of different types of vehicles. And is it not likely that anything longer than that will ever be going back there? That dumpster is going to probably get, going to get serviced by either a front loading or a real loaded standard trash truck. You know, and I don't foresee it ever needing, I mean that dumpster is not going to be a very big dumpster. I don't see it ever needing a vehicle bigger than that. Okay, thanks. We talked a while ago about LEED certification and your initial submission didn't have much. What level of LEED are you up to and would commit to for the building at this point? Greg, we did file the LEED documents. Greg, could you answer that? We have engineered the building to this point to meet all the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code and the International Energy Conservation Code. That is a very high standard. And that is the standard that we're setting it to at this point. Well, our regulations, the bylaws, I mean, talk about LEED. So I'm just wondering what LEED level you're intending to meet with the building. Go ahead, Jim. The LEED level, as I think you have, you heard in your last meeting as well, I think came in at silver. Okay. These things are flexible because as they pointed out, and as I think we all know, until you get remotely close to 90% plans, none of this stuff's realistic. The majority of all these issues, that's where everything gets hashed out and finalized in that respect. So I would say just as they alluded to last week, at the last hearing on 8.82, and I think your comment was, I appreciate that and I would encourage you to try to get more. And I don't forget, Gene, what you said back in last July, and I think your comment was similar. And I think any prudent person today from a financial, a PR or any other aspect is going to try to do all of that and do it to the best ability that's economically feasible. And that's what we're committing to as well. And keep in mind, Ellington has always been on the leading edge of that in terms of the stretch code. And as I believe you probably know and supported, we have the advanced stretch code and we certainly have to live by that in Ellington as well. So we hear you on that and I think ours is gonna be very similar to the other comments that you got from other applicants. Okay, thank you. I should have said, I basically agree with what Rachel and Ken said about the TAC report and the other things that they mentioned. I have a question about the sidewalk. This is what I don't understand. If I'm at the street now, I can just walk on that sidewalk, but in the material you submitted this time, you mentioned that if you were to rebuild the sidewalk on the east side of the building, it would need some steps and there aren't any steps there now. So can you explain to me what's gonna happen to the sidewalk that requires steps? And can you show me on one of the drawings how somebody in a wheelchair or using a walker would walk up and down MESF past the building? I think Rick's elbow. Yeah, I can take that. Do I have the ability to share my screen or? Do you want me to put up the grading plan again? If you could, it would be great. Thank you. Okay. Is that good? Yeah, if you could sort of slide it to the left a little bit would be great. So the sidewalk, I guess just for a point of clarification, are you talking referring to the public sidewalk or the sidewalk that services the establishment on the private property? The public sidewalk. So the public sidewalk will remain as is, no steps, 2% cross slope and we'll meet the grades that currently exist at. So where are the steps happen then? So if you look, if you were on sort of the left-hand side of the plan and you were coming onto the site where it says propose cement concrete walk as you rotate along the curve driveway, you see where that is? Oh, she's moving away. Back up the front, if you were coming up Massachusetts Avenue and you were accessing the site, you would access it up that sidewalk where it says propose cement concrete walk. That's an ADA accessible sidewalk. There was a request to put a sidewalk also on the opposite side of the driveway heading back down to the sidewalk on Arlington Street. If there is a sidewalk established there that would not be handicapped accessible. That would have to have steps in it because Massachusetts Avenue basically slopes down as you head from left to right. So it'd be too steep to be an ADA accessible sidewalk. What point would it not be ADA accessible? I'm having a hard time understanding. I'm not talking about the public sidewalk. The public sidewalk will always be ADA accessible from the front door along the curved driveway down to the public sidewalk on the right-hand side. If we added a sidewalk there, that's the one that would not be ADA accessible. So you would always have ADA access with the sidewalk that we have designed on the left-hand side. So someone on a wheelchair or a walker getting from Clark Street and heading down to Arlington Center, passing the building, how would they go? Will you have curb cuts at the four places where they would need curb cuts to be able to roll down the sidewalk? No, they would roll straight down the sidewalk just as they do today. That sidewalk's about 11 feet wide. There would be a small apron right at the curtain rig. Look at that detail there. There's a small apron to get up to the sidewalk grade. In urban situations, this is the ideal design for driveways rather than having dips at all the driveways where if you're on a wheelchair, you're constantly going up and down. We are ramping up to the sidewalk so we will maintain the integrity of the profile of the sidewalks if someone on a wheelchair would just go straight down the sidewalk just like they do today. Okay, that's fine. I now understand that makes perfect sense. The drawings, some of the other drawings don't show that. So I appreciate understanding that. So let me move on to the public space. I guess I don't understand. Well, let me start with, what hours and days of use would you find acceptable if Dawn-to-Dusk seven days a week is not acceptable? I'll turn that to Mr. Daugherty. You're muted. I apologize, Jane. If I can digress back to your prior question to Rick, which he handled very nicely, the only reason, Jean, on that public sidewalk, we showed the four pads site, the four pads on there, was that was something TAC had requested. So we showed those. But if you were to drive by the sunrise up Arlington Heights tonight, next time you're in the area, you will see how it smoothed into his point. That's how you want it. In terms of this, I don't have, and I apologize, that particular package in front of me, so I'm gonna let Mary respond. But what we specifically didn't want to do, Jean, is we didn't want to create specific times or specific days. And I believe our proposal says at a minimum, two days a week and the times will be arranged. And we may have put on like maybe eight to six or on the weekend, eight to seven or vice versa, because there's a hotel upstairs. And if you come in for business and you have a big meeting tomorrow, obviously you're not gonna want a lot of outside noise potentially. So that's what we put in for hours. And I won't get in, I'll let you discuss it, but you saw the other things that we suggested that would help facilitate using whatever time periods it would be used for, to use it in a very professional, meaningful and hopefully desirable way that people will want to use all of those time potential time slots. So who would be managing the site with the hotel, with the restaurant, with the town? How would that work in your concept? Well, so in my concept, right, is, and again, I'm not being critical of the bylaw, we're trying to utilize it, okay? But everything's not codified if you will. So essentially I looked at it and I said, okay, 210 square feet, I get 2,100 square feet. It's such a great deal, right? And it is, okay? It's a good concept, someone's people have thought through. So then I thought about 210 square feet. We started drawing it off. And I'm like, I called Mr. McIntosh and I said, Greg, this is insane. I said, it's almost insulting to put something, a 10 by 20 area, think about it. Where are people gonna sit? This is pre COVID, that we're talking this way. So I said to myself, look it, how much area once Mr. Salvo got involved and started doing the grading and pulling together some of the information in the last couple of meetings. And I looked at the area and I said, we're gonna have it over there. Why bother? Let's give them 675. Let's potentially put a, a true deal together here where the restaurant or hotel is gonna provide the utilities, whether that's a speaker hookup, whether it's, you know, electric to, so somebody can have some type of screen show to go along with their presentation or all kinds of things like that, the lighting under those overhangs out front. So I started thinking more and more. We have an area in the basement, which is for utilities and storage as well. I said, well, geez, what are they, to your point? What are they gonna do? Send the rec department up with chairs twice a week, set them up. Where's the time I'm gonna get money to set it up? I mean, let's face it. This is a win for everybody involved and it has to be. You're an attorney, you don't need to tell me. The best deal is when everybody walks away, you know, like they left a little something there. Well, these people here, you know, they should be able to store the chairs in the basement. Maybe, maybe a podium if, if, you know, the town's gonna have a little podium they'd like to put up there or something like that. You have personnel on site there. They can wheel it around for the couple of days a week. They take it and they put it back. I'm not committing to them purchasing it, but I think all of these things ultimately are gonna be incorporated into your decision and it's not gonna be an option for them. It's, it's like, listen, this is part of the deal. And, you know, I think as everybody knows today, most businesses look to do things in a creative way. I see it as a real opportunity. I don't think giving out a bunch of bottled waters probably with their hotel name on it or something like that is gonna break the bank for them. I think potentially a restaurant who's gonna lay out some hors d'oeuvres. Not, not again. I don't want everybody on the, on the video thinking that everybody's coming there for a light dinner. But I'm just thinking that's my vision of what would take place. And I would not be opposed to reducing a good amount of those points as Mary's done a great job at in the agreement we put together, particularly about the storage, particularly about the utilities. So that's, that's kind of what I envision. So if it's two days a week, a few hours on each of those days, who's gonna be using the space the rest of the time? It would go with the facility. Mary, can you, can you jump in and just correct those because it's more than what I think I'm... Nobody would necessarily be using it, Gene, perhaps people waiting to go into the restaurant, if there was a way there would be some seating out there, but no one would be particularly using it for any presentations or shows or anything like that. To your question of who would be scheduling, I think what you meant is who would be responsible for scheduling the times and who would use it. It would not be political, it would be cultural type things or presentations. I don't know what the board has done if they've had this situation occur yet and would it be the ARB that people would have to schedule it with or would it be the town manager's office? I suppose that can all be ironed out. Mary, do you have, do you have that in front of you readily a handy with the hours and do you recall the hours in the days? No, we just suggested two days a week with defined hours. We can discuss what the board, if we can come to an agreement on it. I think, Gene, well, I'll just say this, my intention, and I think as Mary's alluding to, my language was something to the effect at a minimum of two days a week, during, we'll just call it 8 a.m. in the morning to one night, you know, it was either week nights or weekend nights, and I forget which were which, it was till like seven in six maybe. So it wasn't a few hours, it was a clear window where there could be a length of period if they wanted to have something earlier in the day or later in the day. And I agree with Mary in terms of her comments with one exception is I don't really see people spending much time there from the restaurant because we have the patio on the other side for them. But I certainly, to your point, Mary, does no doubt about it, those front doors of that hotel would be open in non-use time so that guests of the hotel could step out on the patio if they so desired as well. But it would not be a smoking designated area or anything like that that would, you know, quite frankly, I would say that if they shouldn't even smoke when the town sanctioned groups can go there personally, but that's a personal opinion. Well, I'll let, see if any of my colleagues on the board want to talk about this issue because I'm not quite sure how to make this work. David, go ahead, Gene. Yes, go right ahead, David. So I understand you don't want completely uncontrolled access to the public use space, and that's entirely reasonable. I think, though, if it's public use, then it's open to the public. If someone just wants to sit there and not do anything disruptive, just be there at whatever time it is that should be okay. I think in terms of having anything organized that might be disruptive or noisy or anything that involves a group or a bunch of people, that should definitely be scheduled. And I don't know who should handle that. You know, I think it should be handled by the town. But I feel like there's a compromise there because if there's gonna be any event-type activity, it would have to be scheduled, but otherwise it's just basically a seating area. I don't disagree with that, Jim. Do you disagree with that? I disagree with it. And David, from our perspective, we're very happy to take responsibility for the things that I had mentioned earlier in response to Gene and certainly more than happy to have it stated as a condition. So if you will, and hopefully we never have to take it out of the abstract, that's the stick. If for some reason it's not abided by, I would think it would default the special permit as any other violation would as well. And I would hope that that is something that, as well as any other one would never come up anyhow. But I agree with you and I agree with Mary. I think there is a compromise to be found there for sure. David, did you have anything else? I didn't, if Gene had anything else, I would interrupt him. I'll pass on to David. Okay, well, let me see. I don't wanna repeat anything my colleagues have said and I do agree with their comments. I had a couple of questions and maybe there are things the civil engineer could talk about, but I wanted to talk about the slopes and the slopes of the curve driveway and understand that a little better. And I also wanted to understand whether there are any sight line issues for vehicles exiting the driveway onto Clark Street. Can we put the site plan back up? The same one from before, the grading plan. Yeah, same one would be great. Take that one first. So if you could zoom out all the way. Excuse me. So relative to, I'm gonna take the last question first and that was relative to sight lines. And I think that this is pretty self-explanatory. The fact that we have an 11-foot sidewalk along this property and then a building whose first floor is set back 23.8, almost 24 feet, the building really doesn't interfere whatsoever with the sight lines of anyone on either end of this driveway pulling into our other site nor the Clark Street driveway. You can imagine a vehicle is all the way out at the curb line and you can, I think the picture's worth a thousand words here. The building doesn't get in the way anywhere whatsoever for sight lines, for vehicles coming up Clark Street or anywhere on Mass Ave. So are those just good? Yeah, on the Clark Street driveway are, on either side of it, are those retaining walls? Clark Street driveway. So on the right-hand side, if you're turning off of Clark Street into the site, there's retained wall there. So we can get, let's get into the grading. Can we go to the next plan that was in the set after this one would be the C3 plan, not the C2 plan. Sorry. You're gonna have to be a little more specific. This is the way the applicant, I think the application materials are in parts. There are section one, two, and three. Is this in the last section? Yeah, no, it'd be the second one. Second one. C drawing in this set somewhere. Sorry, it just takes time. It's a big document. Okay, just look out there. I feel the same way. There aren't any C drawings in here. Yes. When you were looking at a whole list of documents to click on. It was the sixth one down, I noticed from the top. I think the final one more right there, I think that's a C2, I believe. That's all right, I'm looking for C3. Oh, I apologize. Hey, Jenny, I think it's 10 sheets in from the beginning of their submittal. It's way in the beginning, 10 sheets back. I don't, I'm not in the PDF version of the document. I think that's what you're talking about. So I don't know where this is. Keep on going. Okay. Next drawing. All right, we're close. One more drawing down and you're there. There we go, that's the one. There we go. All right. Perfect. If you could zoom in, let's take the Clark Street driveway first. If you could zoom in on the Clark Street driveway. This is the Clark Street driveway. Yes. There's the Clark Street driveway. Okay, all right. Do you want me to stay here? Yeah, you're perfect. Exactly where you are. That's great. So along, along Clark Street, you could see there's a retaining wall along the right hand side if you were to pull in from Clark Street. That retaining wall at right at the, right at the property line where elevation 94 and the top of that wall is elevation 99. It's about a five foot high wall. Vehicle pulling out would be on the other side where that sidewalk is about eight feet there. So there's plenty of room to be able to get to see past that wall and see clearly see the Clark Street Mass Ave intersection as well as North down Clark Street. So that, that if you scroll down to the bottom of the sheet, what I did was I cut a section along that profile along the centerline in that driveway so keep on coming down to the bottom and over to the left a little bit. So the dash line that you see is the current existing grade. The bold line that you see is the proposed driveway grade. We've got a 9% grade. As you can see at the top of that, at the top of that grade where the property line is, we've got another eight feet of sidewalk there, which is plenty of room for a car to pull up beyond that property line and beyond the wall to be able to see North and South up and down Clark Street. The 9% grade as a very reasonable grade, this is a one-to-one drawing. If you were to pull this drawing out and superimpose that slope onto the ground, that's the exact slope that you're gonna see is gonna be constructed for that driveway. Put it in perspective for you. A wheelchair ramp is an 8.33% grade. So someone in a wheelchair can push themselves up an 8.3% grade. A 9% grade is a very easy grade for an automobile to traverse. If we, are there any more questions? Does that answer your question about the Clark Street driveway? Okay. David. Sorry, I was muted. No, no problem. So if we move on to the Mass Ave driveway, you can see we've got about a 3.8% grade. So we're leaving a grade that's about 99.5 in the street on Mass Ave and we're raising up in grade to 100.34 over 3.8%. On the downhill side of that, because Mass Ave, as you go from west to east, is going down in grade, you can see it. At the utility pole on the left-hand side, it's 99.53. If you look at the utility pole on the right-hand side of the driveway, we're at 95.94. So we're about four feet lower. That's the driveway, that's the side of the driveway that does get a little bit steeper on the interior only because it has to meet the back edge of sidewalk is across the sidewalk, we can't have a steep grade. We have to maintain our 2% grade. And actually, we're proposing 1.5%. So when it gets reconstructed, we'll definitely be within the 2% that's required by ADA. So that slope exists for a very short distance until we hit the back of sidewalk and then it flattens right out to 2%. So in any case, when the sidewalk interact, when the driveway interacts with the sidewalk at the bottom, we've got an 11-foot area that's 1.5%. So it'll be essentially flat. And again, anyone that knows that's pulled out under this section of Mass Ave, there's spike distance at least in this stretch is not an issue. Okay. Can I ask a question about the Clark Street driveway, David, if you don't mind? Sure. One of the comments that the public made was that the cars exiting the Clark Street driveway would not be able to see pedestrians walking down the street. They would be able to see cars on Clark Street, but not pedestrians. Can you address that? Yeah, I apologize. Can we easily get back to that drawing? So let's stay down here. And you can see where that 9% grade is. Anywhere along that 9% grade, it's not a significant of enough drop that it would obscure a person. Heck, it wouldn't even obscure an object that would be six to eight inches high. Rick, we're talking about the Clark Street driveway, not this. Okay. No, I understand it. Your concern is, the reason why I was looking down below is I was looking at the profile, but if you scroll up like you're doing, that's fine. Maybe I can explain it easier. The concern is a vehicle that's down in the driveway that's, and if you look at, if you're on the exit side of the driveway, you're at elevation 92, for instance, if you're about three quarters of the way out of the driveway, the sidewalk right up there is 93.29. It's, there's plenty of visibility there. Not an issue. Somebody on a... You could see an object six inches high off the ground there, let alone a person on a bike or pedestrian. Well, that's it. If it's somebody on a scooter or roller blades on the sidewalk, will they be seen? Yes, if somebody's cat is walking by, it will be seen. Before they get to the driveway, long before they get to the driveway. Okay. Yes. Okay. That's, thank you. And it's not a very steep slope at all. Okay. That was it. Thank you, David. Thank you, Rick. Can I interrupt one quick second? Or are you still on the subject? On the public sidewalk, you have these tactile detectors that goes perpendicular to the sidewalk. Why are they there? I don't get it. It was like, we were responding to a comment. Typically, we do not put detectable warning panels at driveways, usually there at streets. I think it was a comment and maybe Mary can remind me who made the comment but there was a request. It was from the Transportation Advisory Committee. Yeah. And, you know, I mean, like I said, we typically don't put them at these types of driveways. I don't have a problem with it because, you know, as many indicators that you can give to a handicapped person going by there that there's an intersection here. I don't think it hurts and that's why I didn't have a problem doing it. But we typically don't put them in these types of scenarios. But typically when you have those tactile warning strips, it tells you that there's a change in grade coming. There's no change in grade. The grade is just continuing with its slope. There's no dramatically. There is no change in grade. You're right. It doesn't design these sidewalks to all ramp up but it also it does more than that though. It tells you that tells somebody that there's an intersection coming as well as a potential change of grade. Typically the tactile warning strips, if you think about it, if you are on the sidewalk heading down the ramp, you're already heading down the ramp before you hit the detectable warning panel. The detectable warning panel tells you that there's an intersection. It tells you you're on the street. Yeah. So when I see that and I feel that, that means I'm on the street. Like I said, we responded to a comment. I, it's the boy doesn't want them. I'm happy to remove them. It doesn't matter either way to us. I'm not a traffic guy. I'm just going by experience. Yep, I'm with you. I understand why they included them. So I'm okay with it. Yeah, I don't think it hurts. Yeah. So the only other, I wanted to talk about one traffic issue and then a parking issue. And the traffic issue, I appreciate the efforts you all have made to address the comments from the TAC. I just wanted to point out that I strongly disagree with the response regarding bicyclists and pedestrian safety at the Appleton intersection. And perhaps the quote that attorney O'Connor put in her response was taken out of context. But I actually think that the safety issues at that intersection are almost entirely about bicyclists and pedestrian safety. Which intersection was that you were referring to? The Appleton intersection in the traffic study. I think David, the transportation expert pointed out that TAC and the town are addressing that intersection. So that's already, okay. So I don't know what they expect my client to do. He didn't create the problem in not exacerbating the problem. And I'm not expecting him to do anything, but I think that that comment was entirely off base. And yeah. Did I just chime in? I think I know the comment you're referring to. It had to do with, there's been all kinds of suggestions in the media and other places. And at this meeting by non-board members about what may have contributed to it. And I wanna be upfront right here, right now to let people know two things. How I feel about bicyclists and people with disabilities. You're looking at a guy who freshman year of college, his son calls him and decides to tell him that he's driving a bicycle 6,000 miles across country to raise money for children. Well, all people with disabilities and visit with them every other night. And I went to see him often, see him Francisco and I met him other place along the route. My wife, myself, we were petrified. And unfortunately, someone on a different route got seriously hit by an 18 wheeler in Texas and didn't make the ride and almost lost his life. So I will agree with you 100% that that could be taken out of context. I can assure you Mrs. Wendt that when Stanley meant nothing by it, I certainly did. And I would apologize to you and anyone else who took it out of context. So I will tell you, I have firsthand experience with the kid who went across country and raised a lot of money along with his organization for that. But I appreciate your comments and there are no negative dispersions. We hope quite frankly that people from the bike path as well as people passing by that route will potentially become clients of the restaurant and hopefully the hotel as well. So please accept my apologies for any anticipated or implied reaction to that. Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll move on. With respect to the parking, since we are looking at a parking reduction and even with the valet control of the parking lot, I know one of the concerns of the neighborhood is if say the valet lot is full, where will hotel guests who show up at that point with cars park? And I'm wondering whether there's a way that we can address that issue in terms of a condition that we could put on so that guests would not be coming to the property with cars in excess of the parking capacity. If I can chime in here, I think one condition that I'd like to see, this isn't something that is to be hammered out tonight, but as part of our, we'll be part of an approval that we gave is that the applicant submits a plan for exactly that contingency and it's approved by the department for the assistance of final occupancy permit, et cetera. Yeah, I mean, that makes sense. I have no issue with the restaurant parking because we're handling that the way we do with many other restaurants along Mass App, but with the hotel property with such limited parking and concern from the neighbors about hotel guests, perhaps avoiding the valet parking and parking in the neighborhood, I'd like to find a way to address that. That's a requirement that will be issued. That will be a condition of any special permit that's issued and the exact plan will be worked out by the applicant department who's done that in the past. Okay. The only other thing I wanted to mention is I did very much appreciate you dealing with the upper story step back issue and that's a non-issue at this point, I think. And I hadn't heard Kim's suggestion before he made it tonight about perhaps creating a rooftop garden, a smaller rooftop garden. And I kind of like that idea both because I like the idea of adding more green space to the property but I also like it because it would slightly reduce the massing of the building, which of course is another concern that we've heard from the neighbors. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. We are running very late. I wanna turn this over to the members of the public. I have some things to say but they're more appropriate for after that. My share of concerns and the thanks of some of my colleagues here, but unless any of the other four members of the board or Jenny have anything additional to say, we'll open it up for public comment. Go ahead, Jenny. I just wanted to say that I have been drafting so that it's easier whenever we get to this point. I have a draft of general and special conditions for us to look at together to guide that portion of the conversation again whenever we get there. A little bit easier, which included a lot of the things that we've just talked about. So I hope that that's useful at some point when you're ready. Okay. Andrew, can I have one more thing? Go ahead, Ken. I noticed, I drive through that area all the time. I noticed the last two to three weeks, maybe more, there's a new study going on Appleton and Mass Ave where they have placed cones along the viator strip there. So if you're heading on Mass Ave, heading out to Lexington, there's no left-hand turn. There's actually a science has no entry in there heading up Appleton and every night there's a police car there making sure that happens. So I think the town is trying to address that intersection right now. I don't know what they're doing but I like what they're doing. That really makes the flow a lot better. I think they just gotta make that traffic signal like work but that's a separate matter. I just want to bring it up saying that that's being addressed by the town. And if I could just add to what David and Ken said about the top floor, I like Ken's idea too for the reasons he stated and the reasons David stated but in addition, it would help them to get at least closer to meeting the far and the gross floor area requirements because even with the 10% they're off a little bit. I don't know if doing what Ken suggested would get them there but it would get them close at least. Okay. All right, so we'll move into public comment. Again, we're gonna keep this to three minutes. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want to be heard this evening. Jenny, I will call people by name as they raise their hand. Please use the Zoom app to raise your hand. I don't always see everyone that has a hand up especially when Jenny's sharing a screen. I'll do my best to do that. And then Jenny, you'll have to let people know or unmute people that have the usual control I have on the screen. This evening, but we'll begin with Ann LaRoyer. Ann, go ahead. Get on mute yourself and begin. Who's supposed to speak? This is Ann. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead Ann. Okay. Ann LaRoyer, 12 Pierce Street. Thank you for this hearing. It seems that things are heading toward being approved for this hotel project in spite of many still unresolved concerns. I'm hoping that in the long run this project will be successful and will end up being a good neighbor for our part of Arlington. I also hope it will increase tourism and economic development as envisioned. And I hope it'll bring in the kinds of tax receipts that the performance are talking about. However, I also hope that you can understand and sympathize with our neighborhood's real skepticism and concerns for both short-term and longer-term impacts and potential unintended consequences for this project especially regarding traffic, parking and public safety. Others can argue and have argued more knowledgeably than I can about some of the questionable zoning and legal decisions that have been exposed during this review process. I just wanna speak specifically for the neighborhood and for many other residential areas around town that are adjacent to small-scale, previously at least, small-scale neighborhood business districts like this one and other places like this where large-scale, oversized developments are likely to occur. I'm gonna be sympathizing with those neighbors as well. The 40 or 50 families in this immediate residential neighborhood of Clark, Pierce or Block Streets will be the most directly affected by this development. It's going to drastically change the character of our neighborhood and many of us feel that our concerns have not been listened to or taken seriously. The planning department staff and ARB members seem to have spent many hours meeting with the applicant and his legal and design team to fine-tune this development but very little effort has been spent to reach out to the neighbors. We can see that some of the minor tweaks have been made to the site plan and the design elements but the imposing overall dimensions of this project have changed very little during the review process. It also seems that the reports and comments from the town's own Transportation Advisory Commission and Disability Commission have been dismissed as has been discussed. Some of those things have been taken into account but essentially they were put aside. I'm hoping that we can all learn from this rather disturbing experience to be more sensitive to neighbors' concerns, to reach out and engage residents in the planning process from the beginning and try to accommodate and mitigate specific problems and concerns as they arise. We can take a lesson from Julia Mayrak and her team who did just that for their proposed housing development at 1165 Massette. They contacted us residents in this very same neighborhood and invited us to a Zoom meeting to present their project and solicit feedback before they presented it publicly to the select board. We appreciated that effort and we hope that this can be viewed as a good precedent for future projects that will come before the redevelopment board. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Anne. Darcy Devney, please state your name and address as you come on, please. Thank you for doing that, Anne. Appreciate your comments. Hello, my name is Darcy. My name is Darcy Devney. I live on Thorn Dyke Street in East Arlington. I'm a long-term Arlington resident and a member of the Arlington Disability Commission. As Tak and Mr. Seltzer noted, the project's submission is lacking and or unclear when it comes to accessibility of various kinds, both legally and morally required. Yes, the developer's lawyer is correct that valet parking does allow properties to be accepted from some of the HP space requirements. However, note that people with certain disabilities have modified cars or vans where the operations and hardware would be completely unfamiliar to valets. For example, because of leg problems, the pedals may be located in unfamiliar places or even swapped. The gas pedal is where the brakes should be. Since you and I both know that a 50-room hotel must provide a minimum of three accessible rooms, one of which must have a roll-in shower, why aren't those currently in the plans? The diagrams actually dry out the furniture in each room but not bother to have any ADA rooms. So I'm not sure what the timing is there. Another example, those ramps on the intersection with Clark Street, I just noticed, seem to be oriented incorrectly since it's supposed to guide the pedestrian with disabilities directly across the crosswalk. Supposed to sort of point you. The Arlington Disability Commission offered to meet with you and share not just ADA standards but also observations from our lived experience, which you're not obviously not familiar with. I wanna make sure that people understand that the access aisle at your front entrance, why it must be 20 by five or bigger and level less than 2% grade. It's because, if you've ever seen this happen, the ramp unfolds from the side of the van so it has to be a space big enough and level enough for ramp to safely unfold and stay flat and parallel to the ground and has to actually reach the ground so that the wheelchair could roll off. Or the standard elevator size doesn't necessarily fit a power wheelchair and a guide dog together. Institute for Human-Centered Design recently finished a thorough evaluation complete with photos of ADA deficiencies of 27 public buildings in Arlington. And the Disability Commission was frankly appalled to learn that 12 public school facilities renovated or completely newly rebuilt in the last decade and therefore subject to the same 2010 ADA standards had numerous failures in restrooms, parking spaces, drinking fountains, doors, door open, et cetera, including the Gibbs School, which was renovated in 2018 and needs more than $25,000 of renovations. Problems range from small, relatively easy and cheap to fix issues to best practices to more expensive mistakes that never should have been made. For example, the measurements for where an accessible toilet should be placed are simple. They're easy to understand and they're easy to implement, but didn't happen. So we'll be sending the information about the Lexington Hotel Project to the building inspector, but I urge you not to delay dealing with disability access issues until building inspection and occupancy permit time because tearing up the entire entrance to the hotel, regrading, et cetera, that won't be cheap and it won't be easy. Further, we ask that you be mindful not to scapegoat people with disabilities as the reason for a delayed permit process and occupancy certificate or change order fees. Your architects and subsequent builders and contractors are all supposed to be responsible for legally mandated access to your building. The ADA standards have not been properly followed to date. Unfortunately, does not fill one with confidence that you can and will do the right thing. And the earlier we work on those issues, the better. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to go over because I think it's an important issue and one of the conditions I think we'll put in place is that those ADA items be dealt with prior to the issuance of the building permit moving forward. Don Seltzer, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don Seltzer, Irving Street. The board has my detailed comments of several serious deficiencies. I hope that you have found time to read them. I'll just briefly summarize a few. The building is simply too big for the size lot. It exceeds the zoning code by several thousand square feet. It does not qualify for the 10% bonus, exception that the applicant seeks. And as G noted that even if it did qualify for the bonus, it would still be over the maximum allowable floor area. The building is also too tall. The portion that is in the B2 district is limited to three stories and 40 feet. So what is a few feet in an extra story matter? It probably matters a lot to the residents of Pierce and Clark Street. Behind me is a section of the Trump border wall. How would you like that moving over your backyard? Now imagine a second section stacked on top. That is what the neighbors on Pierce Street would see. Height really does matter. The front circular driveway is a design disaster because the architects did not realize early on the lot is not flat, that it falls off by four feet from west to east. This redesign of the steep front driveway is actually impassable to ordinary passenger sedans. They will bottom out while trying to get over the hump at the crest. And most troubling is it completely ignores state law on accessible drop-off and loading zones. And contrary to what was stated earlier, it is required for valet parking to have a accessible passenger drop-off and loading zone. I was gonna say something about the ADA requirements but Darcy has covered that pretty well. On the room tax revenue estimates that were given, these are highly inflated. They suggest an average room rate of more than $500 per night and 100% occupancy rate for 365 days a year for the next 40 years. Consider that. Finally, there is the matter that our zoning bylaw simply does not allow a hotel in the B2 section of the property. That was the clear promise of this board when it presented the mixed-use bylaw to town meeting in 2016. I'll leave you with the words of the chairman at that time. You won't see any major developments going into a B2 district. Any use that comes into a neighborhood has to comply with what is already permitted in that district. And it also has to be within the character of the neighborhood. Those words were given four years ago. I would think they would be true today. Thank you. I see Ivana. Please state your name and address, Ivana. You can go ahead, Ivana. Just state your name and address. We can't hear you. I can see you, but I can't hear you. We'll come back to you once you've had a chance to figure that out. Go to Michael Sandler. Michael Sandler, 18 Pierce Street. For the first 90 minutes of this meeting, I heard the word neighbors or neighborhood, a grand total of three times until Mr. Watson spoke. We have been ignored here. We are going to be the ones most directly affected by this monolith looming over our neighborhood and changing the look and feel of this neighborhood. Yes, that would make this, this dear neighborhood unsafe, congested and unattractive. This is not a boutique hotel. These are small rooms. It's unclear who the intended hotel guests would be, but there's not much room inside these small spaces. As Mr. Seltzer has referred to several times, it's not clear if what you're doing is within the bounds of our town's laws. I've seen a lot of these laws moved around and so many exceptions to them. We have bylaws for a reason. And I know that we as a butters have rights. And I'm curious if members of the board have driven by and looked at the site and have traveled down Clark Street to Pierce Street and envisioned what this development would actually look like. This development is brazenly disrespectful to those of us who live here and have set down roots here and have invested in our homes and our families. Thank you. Thank you. James Fleming, go ahead. Is it working? You can hear you, yep. Awesome, thanks. James Fleming, 1226 Mass Ave. I think this will look pretty good. Right now it's kind of an eyesore of the current site. This is just a bunch of parked cars. I think this would be, at the very least improvement, I don't know anything about the galleys and I don't particularly care as long as it can be done legally. I don't think there's anything wrong with this design the way it is as far as aesthetics go. Thank you. Thank you. Ivana, I'll go back to you. Name and address please. Hi, are you able to hear it now? Yes. Okay, great. I'm at 34th Pier Street, directed butter to the proposed hotel. Just want to say as a mom in the neighborhood and the butter, I am concerned. Firstly as a mother, the current proposal will certainly create traffic congestion in the neighboring streets since the parking lot for the employees, hotel patrons and delivery trucks is just too tight. Just for background, this is a very young neighborhood with 10 plus children in the area. The kids and families are out there, spontaneous gatherings every day. We chat on the front steps, hit the ride bikes, play, we meet the neighborhood dogs and walkers and all the families will certainly have to up their game in terms of vigilance due to the increased traffic on the streets. Additionally, I have the feeling that there's been some very purely profit maximizing the design decisions that do not sell me on the idea that this is the boutique hotel that will fit in the character of the neighborhood. And then secondly, as in a butter, I just like to underline Don Seltzer's statements earlier. You know, my husband just finished a deck, building a deck in the past five months right outside. And we'd certainly like to continue having a reasonable amount of open space and site that was assumed and given the zoning area of the proposed site. Thank you for the board for the consideration that you've provided and just wanted to raise these main concerns. Thank you. Carl Wagner. Oh, thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Carl Wagner, 30 Edge Hill Road, Arlington. Thank you to the board for the continued review of this project and to the public who has spoken so far on it. I'd echo most of the critical comments I heard. I think it's very important to remember that as far as I know, the applicant doesn't even own the property that would complete this yet. I believe he was also the only bidder in a strange transaction from my perspective anyway to eventually obtain the property. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the ARB has a moral and a legal requirement to follow the bylaws of Arlington and can offer some slight variances or relief it's been called. But this property goes well beyond the limit of what the ARB should or can provide to the property owner. I'm concerned that I've seen pictures showing that the developer himself has properties with trash and things like dumpsters or strange containers on it and old cars. I'm not seeing that this is a Hyatt property or a Marriott property. And I've been told also that what the original plan was for was a boutique hotel, a few rooms, a BNB type thing. This is far too large. The traffic and parking are serious issues. There's a handicap issue we've heard about. It just goes on and on and we're bargaining. I hear the ARB even trying to bargain with the developers if the developer tells Arlington what its laws are and the developer tells the ARB how it is responsible to the people and the voters via the select men and women. I would ask you strongly to say, yes, commercial and retail business are great for Arlington and go forward with that. Go forward with a hotel or a BNB on this place. But absolutely not what's been produced so far to you. It's just, it's a mockery of our laws. It's illegal and immoral in my opinion. And the poor people who live around this should vote all of the folks who put people in power that say yes to this out. The select board really need to stand up and say the ARB should not be voting yes for products and properties that go against the basic property that people bought into, the basic things that the neighbors bought into. So I ask you in the ARB to say no to this tonight because of its many deficiencies in standing up for the people, the residents and the taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you. Aaron Holman. Oh, Kest, can you hear me clearly? Yes. Thank you. My name is Aaron Holman, 12 Whitmer Street. I urge the ARB to reject this project for the many reasons that opponents have already given. This is the wrong use in the wrong place out with the virus the wrong time and it is in the wrong zoning district. The length is too sloped. There is not enough parking and it's trying to cram in too many rooms and too much in general on too little land. It's the non-conforming use. Mrs. O'Connor earlier said that you have to give this project what you gave other projects. Notice the demand that was in her tone. The ARB is abusing the EDR process and setting a series of terribly unwise precedents in allowing excess after excess beyond what zoning allows and you're seeing the inevitable result which is that developers come in and excite and use those other decisions as precedent and insist that they deserve the same. That's not what planning and redevelopment is about nor should it be. In pursuit of redevelopment, the ARB has given the prop proponent a pass on issue after issue. Density, area, height, parking, disability access among them. Concentrating on the details while ignoring the big picture which is just that it's too big. So as far in this hearing, all the people except maybe one that you have heard comment are opposed to this or favor it only with major reservations. I'm looking for an ARB. That will set standards with which developers will generally comply. Developers currently ask for many, many exceptions and the ARB generally grants them. That's not the way it should be. Instead, developers should study the zoning and propose projects that generally comport with zoning. Exceptions, the kind you've been making so much be rare and very site specific. Instead of comment, there's simply a matter of negotiation. Developers will come in, ask for the moon and you give them part of it. You can put lipstick, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Again, I urge you to reject this project. Thank you. Thank you. Gordon Jamison. Go ahead, Mr. Jamison. So this is the first time I've attended an ARB meeting. I will admit. And I found it very interesting. I found the discussion by, obviously the proponents were arguing in favor and the members of the board, I thought asked insightful questions. I particularly liked Mr. Lau's idea of a roof garden in addition to the other more substantive issues that are in technical issues that the board is much more vastly qualified to address than I am. The way I look at Mass Ave and Broadway is that in the long-term, I believe a lot of our zoning allows for a more massive development along that corridor, along the lines of what one might see in the center of Brookline. And what I remarked in going out to dinner there a number of years ago was when you have that sort of corridor and you walk past it towards where the butters discussed, suddenly it's much quieter because the buildings actually acts as a buffer to the noise along the main thoroughfare. So, and we do need development because if you don't want development, then you really gotta love overrides. I didn't hear anybody of the opponents saying that they love overrides tonight. So, I'm generally in favor of development like this in town. I'll leave the details to the board and the developers and the other people who've commented negatively, but I only raised my hand because I wanted to have more than one other person say they are in favor of this type of development in town. Thank you, goodnight. Thank you. Joanne Preston, I see you waving your hand. So, I'll let you go next. DA requirements and the welfare of neighbors. I think what's been left out is a consideration of the Audison Middle School, which is about two blocks away. One of the reason is, of course, there are no students there since mid-March. So, there are two things that I wanted to bring up. One, there was some allusion to a traffic study and of course, TAC also made a study. However, the 900 students and over 200 faculty and staff have not been there since mid-March. So, I wonder when these studies are done. And I think it's very important to take it into consideration. For instance, I really don't believe that people will be coming and going randomly at random hours in the hotel. If it's for tourists, they're going to be leaving in the morning to go out and tour. So, that's just when 900 students and 200 staff and faculty are coming to the Audison School. As a mother who sat in a long line of traffic for a number of years, I can tell you it's very congested. I think that should be part of a consideration. The second part, oh, and the safety of the students and student cyclists who are coming also have to be taken into consideration. The second is, I'm not actually impressed with the arguments that there's suitable visibility of trucks and valet drivers leaving entering Clark Street from the parking lot. Now, of these 900 students, some, 30, 50, make their way across Mass Ave and go down these side streets. On their way to the bike path, Summer Street, the down in school area where they may live and the bicycle path. I just don't understand with a wall that's five and a half to six and a half feet high with greenery on top. Allows for sufficient visibility for trucks coming out and going up to the intersection. For instance, I was thinking of a 14-year-old riding his or her bicycle, coming down Clark Street, would they have enough time to stop as the truck pulls out into the street? I think that's a very important consideration and I'm sorry I brought up the Audison School early on in the process, but somehow I haven't heard it being brought up again, partly because the students, 900 of them and the 200 faculty and staff are not there, but they will be certainly by the spring. So I have one other thing to say is I appreciate that the developers, investors, and lawyers are getting frustrated at the amount of time, but I think they have to appreciate that whatever goes up there, we will have to live with for about 50 years. So if the design is wrong, the design is dangerous, that we really need to put in enough time to review it. Thank you. Lastly, we have, or at least for the moment lastly, we have Steve Rebelak, Steve, go ahead. Hello, Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, my name is Steve Rebelak and I live at 111 Sunnyside Avenue. I would like to comment on this proposal from the perspective of a bicycle commuter who rides up and down Mass Ave. So, you know, pandemic's notwithstanding. My typical commute, I get on Mass Ave at Broadway Plaza, I head west until Lexington Center. At the end of the day, I turn around and come back. I do this five days a week, 12 months a year. And as a cyclist who rides through this area twice a day, I feel completely fine with the proposed hotel and what I anticipate to be its impacts on traffic. So yes, I acknowledge that the intersection of Appleton Street, Appleton Place, and Mass Ave is a dangerous intersection. It is dangerous due to westbound automotive traffic making left turns across Mass Ave onto Appleton Street or Appleton Place. These were the conditions that caused the cyclist's fatality a few months ago. These are also the same conditions where I was hit by a truck, you know, some years back. But, you know, traffic to and from the hotel will not be turning up and down Appleton Street, from, you know, Mass Ave onto Appleton Street. The traffic will just be going back and forth straight, which as a cyclist, I feel rather comfortable with. Thank you. Thank you. All right, are there other people who would like to participate? I think I've gotten everyone, unless I see anyone's hand raised, we'll presume that everyone has spoken. Paul, Paul Rea would like to speak. Paul Rea, go ahead, Mr. Rea. Damon, address please. You're gonna need to unmute yourself, Mr. Rea. Can you hear me now? Yes, Scott. Okay, I'm Dr. Paul Rea. I live at 44 Columbia Road in New Orleans, like Tom Rassett. I'd like to point out that even though valet parking is allowed, it does require that there be van spaces in front of the building. For those van users who are using hand controls because valets cannot utilize a hand-controlled van. I don't see any of that in the plan. I'd like to also say that the rooms themselves, we haven't seen the entire specs, but the rooms themselves are so small as to probably not allow a standard wheelchair. And we really wanna be able to see the specs for the rooms themselves before anything is voted on this evening. I think it's an important thing that we have a say representing those in Arlington with disabilities of all sorts to make sure that it's ADA compliant across the board. And let me point out that Arlington is an age-friendly community. Arlington has committed to the World Health Organization that we're gonna look at everything in terms of how elders are gonna benefit from buildings or from anything in our town. And I haven't heard anything that tells me that elders are gonna be able to really benefit from this building. I would say please hold off on voting acceptance for a building permit until we've had an opportunity to take a look at this and give our input and our life experiences to the architects and the planners and the owners to make the building better. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? And then I'll bring it back to the board for discussion. All right, seeing none, I am closing public comment. On this, I think we've heard from everyone who wishes to be heard on this issue, both this evening in writing and during our other hearings, but bring it back to the board. Before I do so, I want to address a couple of things that have come up. And the idea that the ARB is not being responsive to issues of disability. I want it to be clear that this will be a condition of any special permit that's granted. And just because a special permit is granted does not mean a building permit is granted. We are allowing the exterior, more or less, the building to move forward, the layout of the project. The other details that are in there, as far as accessible rooms, hallways, et cetera, are the purview of the building department and are to be enforced as the project comes to its final, final stages. This is one step in the process and it's certainly a large step. It is a big step, but it is not the last step. And there are other points of review that have specific control over whether rooms are accessible and can specifically require that that be done. One of the conditions that I would suggest as part of an apartment here is that those are specifically adhered to, but the minimums that are, at least the minimums, are met. And I don't think any of the other members of the board would disagree with me on those points. As to the parking issue and the issue of a van spot out front, I turn that over to the applicant to see whether that was a possibility. And Mary or Jim, you can enter that question. Andrew, could you just explain a little more exactly what your, the ADA is no problem in the conditions. The parking, I wasn't quite following everything you mentioned on that. Yeah, it seems as if there is, I just want to make sure that all the parking requirements that we're approving meet all of the ADA standards, including anything from the van spot with hand controls that Dr. Ray mentioned in his comment. Anything related to this property as it relates to onsite or those sidewalk pads we talked about will comply with ADA requirements. And to echo what you said, not only that, but other comments that had been made about other things that I don't think have the merit these subjects do will also be complied with all. So before, as you mentioned, not only ADA, but a building permit or anything else will be done. I think we like that. The reality is a building permit couldn't issue and a certificate of park you could see couldn't issue unless it was in compliance. That's my knowledge, but I wanted you to hear you say it. Thank you, Mary. Just to reiterate that. So I'll bring it back to the board. And again, I have a few comments about this project as we've gone on. We've been over this for more than a year at this point. And I think it's a better project than when it started. Some of the things that needs to be addressed are issues of the building department, really enforcement issues. You know, Mr. Daugherty and Sergio Connor were, if this is approved, we're relying on you to be good neighbors and the neighbors are relying on you to be good neighbors. And to do what you said so that traffic issues don't spill over into highly residential neighborhoods where kids are playing in the street, where a tour bus doesn't take a wrong turn down Clark and Pierce Street and get stuck or block emergency vehicles. It's very important that there'd be a good delineation between what really are two neighborhoods, I think, and where we consider the neighborhood character. We look at the neighborhood that's a long mass out, which is a commercial stretch from Brattle Square all the way up through the Heinz District. And despite the puzzling zoning map, this product doesn't necessarily seem out of character for me a long mass out. But you will have to abide by the terms of the special permit, the general and the special conditions and be a good neighbor to the people that live behind you and earn their trust. I think we've heard that that's an important concern that they have now, which we can address in writing, but just for your own economic viability. I think Gordon Jamison's point about Brookline was worth heeding where you have vibrant commercial corridors and the second you walk around the corner there. You never know, but there's a commercial building on the front of the street that all of those residences thrive, that people are frequently outside enjoying their neighborhoods without concern of traffic, trash, noise, et cetera. Jim, I know you're a longtime resident of Arlington. I trust that you can do this. I think you're hearing things that have been said that I'm saying to you. Sort of presumes if this gets approved, but I felt that it needed to be said here. So I'll move on to the other members of the board to ask questions and to apply it to where we stand this evening, but I want to make that clear following the public input that's been given tonight. So I'll go in the same order I went earlier and begin with Rachel. So to my mind, I think the big issue that we still need to talk about is the building height relative, the number of stories and the use of that fourth story relative to the shared space and whether or not, I think, and again, I'd want to go back to the applicant. What I've heard was that we as a board need to choose one of the two options that was put forth rather than that at this point, he would rather give up the additional rooms rather than come to a compromise such as what Ken had suggested. I think I'd want that to be clarified so that we can then as a board make an appropriate decision because from what I've heard, that seems to be the item where we most need to weigh in on as we make our decision this evening. Jeff. That seems like something that is important to all of us so we can focus on that. Go ahead, Mary, if you want to respond to Rachel. My understanding is that the board is going to have to make a determination. My correction, that's between the two alternatives. Well, it is true and Rachel, I don't want to get into semantics because I think we're probably pretty close to the same page but the bottom line is, no, my desire would not be to go to the second version that we provided just the rendering of the fourth floor. My desire is to stick with the proposal we've all worked on very hard. I just want to clarify without digressing, everybody needs to kind of put this in perspective. By right, that lot is entitled to 21,045 square feet of gross floor area. The revised plan is below that, so it meets that. The submitted plan is only, I'm not saying only as it's dismissive but I just want to put it in perspective because there's been a lot of comments made about we're looking for all types of relief and it's being way misstated. We're requesting that the area be increased on that site by 2100 square feet and what that brings us to is the proposal we have submitted and in exchange for that, we're talking about that public space. So, well paying attention to all the discussion tonight, I also went and looked at one of the plans we have here. I think a good compromise going to Ken's point in your question here is that we have proposed a roof garden in both scenarios. Under the 50 unit scenario, I have proposed one that is approximately 12 feet by 20 feet and I heard, I think it was your comment, Rachel, early about the massing and if I am incorrect, I apologize, whoever did make the comment. Well, what I think may be a good compromise is we would take the, there's a unit on the fourth floor there that is a very small unit, we would take it from the clock street side and we would put it to the opposite end of the building on the right-hand side of that fourth floor. Therefore, moving that 200 and some odd square foot area we are proposing for a rooftop deck there as in at the opposite end and one, it would reduce the massing. If that was a concern, again, as you're coming west to east on Mass Ave. So, essentially you would move from, we'll call it the seven and a half foot step back to probably almost 18 foot step back, figure in a room is somewhere around 12 feet. So, 18, 19 feet back and that would give a much larger area as well for a rooftop garden spot and I'm very comfortable doing that as well if we can put the agreement together on the open space. I really appreciate that flexibility. I think that again, I don't wanna speak for Ken but I think that that addresses what was attractive about what was proposed there. Jenny, is it possible for you to bring that up just so that we can all look at it and make sure that we're all seeing and hearing the same thing? This plan? It's actually the one, the originally proposed plan because, Jim, I think what you were saying was that you would move that unit that was furthest towards Clark Street to where you currently have the open space, the bonus area? Yeah, actually, Jenny, one of the easiest if, and it's up to you, Rachel, the one I was gonna propose, it's E-1-1, it's right at the beginning, it's actually the electrical lighting plan that basically shows the room layouts out there and it shows how currently on the right-hand side is an area that we had for the roof garden. I'll see that kind of smaller room on the right-hand side, on the left-hand side at Clark Street. So essentially, you would see dots go away. Yep, there you go. So right now, if you see on the front right corner, it's noted as open area. Yes. Okay, so you got it exactly. And you can, I'm sorry, you're gonna pick up a little more with a second floor, a third floor is underneath there that goes out a little. So I think it would give a much larger view to that roof garden. Right, I feel very comfortable with that proposal and I would support that. I like that proposal as well. And I think what we do is agree to it as a principle and have it worked out as a condition to be determined prior to the issuance of building permit and then final to get the bucket and say, and I think it can be done as a memorandum of understanding that agreement rather than any event, Mary, but you can opine on that as well if you'd like. I didn't hear the last pat, Andrew, I'm sorry. Sorry, I said, I think I want to be clear that working out the agreement, as Jim put it, is not something that needs to be done this evening as far as the term conditions are put in place. There's an understanding that it will be worked out before the final permits and certificate they're issued, but that there will be a goal to work out a memorandum of understanding as to the use of that public space. Yes, I think that's a fair statement. I think that's preferable to an easement. That's fine with us. Okay. If I could interject, I don't think I'm gonna agree with this and I wanna talk procedurally for a second before I talk about the substance. I've got about 15 or so special permit conditions that I'd like to be in whatever we do tonight. And maybe a procedural way to do it is to go down the issues one by one and vote on them and then we'll know which ones are conditions and not and then vote on the whole package. Otherwise, I don't know how to do all of them. Maybe there's a better way. I am struggling with the usefulness of the public space. I can't figure out how it's gonna work well. I can't figure out who's gonna be in charge of it. I don't like the idea that it's only gonna be a couple of days a week and a few hours a day. I don't think that's a trade-off, an acceptable trade-off for what they would be getting in exchange and if we do that, they still are a little bit over the numbers even if we give them the 10%. I much prefer the option they presented today where there's no public space and they have just a few larger rooms on top which theoretically they can rent out for more money each night and it reduces the massing and the impact on the neighborhood. And if I have to weigh, as I'm trying to do, the advantages of that public space against the advantages of having a very slightly smaller building but that meets the gross floor area and far as of right, I'm leaning really strongly in favor of the smaller area on the fourth floor, the larger roof deck and meeting the far and the gross floor area as of right. So I understand where Rachel and Andrew are coming from and if I didn't have that other option I would probably be or both of you are but I prefer the other option that they presented to us that Jim would not prefer but he probably is gonna live with if that's what we do. Well, let's discuss this now. I think we have three opinions known. Ken, where do you follow this? I don't totally agree with Gene. I think my original assessment was there's eight units. I think, right? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There's eight units on the first on the fourth floor and I think if we take two of the units away and relocate the open space, that was my original thought and I think that would bring the massing down enough and if the square footage is work and it makes Gene's argument work and then we're in agreement. I'm not sure by deleting those two units is enough but I'm just saying all I'm asking for is that one small unit and one more unit so that it gives enough of a step back. I think I like Rachel's idea about having in a corner and so forth like that but I think having 48 units as opposed to 50 units is what I had suggested earlier on. And you know. I certainly think that's better than the 50 units. And I had to ask Jim to see if that works out mathematically, economically and so forth like that and you know, I don't know. All right, Jim, I see you wanting to chime in, go ahead. I just have to clarify and this is no slight to either one of the previous two gentlemen who spoke but as long as things continue to be repeated people think they're true. I have to make it abundantly clear. Both scenarios, just because one individual wants to say they don't, they're over and I'm not referring to the two prior speakers but whatever the two prior speakers information has been is 100% incorrect. The proposal for the 50 units meets the criteria of gross floor area of the by right 1.5 as well as the 2100 square feet, assuming this board elects to grant the easement that we're offering. Now, if the board doesn't and this can is where you and I got a little bogged down earlier is let's just do simple math you're suggesting which you're talking about is knocking off two units. Well, for the sake of argument, we'll call it about 700 square feet. So you are suggesting that rather than the 2100 square feet we get 1400 square feet. I guess my question really back to you is in order to do, which is fine. Again, I have real strong concerns because we've talked to the people that operate these and they operate high-end boutique towels two of which are important square. What, so if we're looking for 1400 square feet, the only way we get that is through exercising that bonus area. What then would you be looking for there because if it's 140 square feet, I mean, we'll do it but we simply cannot do all of my vision so I don't have to bore you guys with and everybody here with what my vision is trying to put a first-class operation together of the public space. I'm not trying to be difficult and we certainly would like to have 48 because it's easy to try to convince someone that has told you five times, if you don't have 50 we probably wouldn't be interested in it. Numerous response that way. So at that point, I'd almost rather convince them rather than saying a kick of the 50, by the way, I'm gonna come back with 48 but you're still gonna not have, you're giving up your whole front area there of 675 square feet and by the way, you have to do all these things to make it happen there. It doesn't make sense. Very quickly in terms of why it would be extremely successful are the reasons that other people from the public mentioned Ms. O'Connor mentioned and I have mentioned which is first-class, we get the shrub milk. I went there from believe it or not, everybody here at the Pimento School in third grade for a field trip, we went there we learned about the picture frames and everything. You ask any kid today, probably in the entire school system, you'll be lucky if I'm 10% of them that know about that gem, in particularly history. We wanna get them out of there. We wanna give them a profile on MassAven, audience where people can get that knowledge. We wanna get Mr. Duffy and other people from the historical society out there to do a first-class operation. So again, if you have an idea of what you envision by dropping those two units you would be looking for from the public space. It would give me a better idea of giving you an exact response to your proposal. Public space, I would say just tone it down to whatever makes sense financially. I don't know the numbers. You're saying you wanna provide 680 square feet of public space at 50 units. What I'm saying is if you provide 48 units and you can only provide 200 square feet of public space two days a week, I'm okay with that. That's me speaking. I'm not speaking for us at a board now, okay? Okay, I'm just saying because it brings the mass of the building down enough it adds roof gardening up top and I'm willing to talk about the trade with the public space because I really don't think it's gonna be used that much. It's gonna be used when it's used, it's gonna be used but it's not gonna be every single day and activities can be happening there. I just don't see that happening. I don't see everybody's getting in line trying to reserve a space for that thing there. It's a nice amenity. It's nice to have but it's gonna happen maybe once or twice a week at most and I'm okay with that. But having the ability to say we're gonna have access to seven days a week and everybody's gonna use it. I think that's just not putting realism into this and I'd rather trade that realism into the massing of the building. So I would say then probably if I could, Andrew. Go ahead. I would say that this is what Andrew was bringing up. I believe this is where Gene and you started gravitating to the same issue. I think that's doable. I think Mr. Chairman that we would be if we cannot get the four votes for the 50 units then I think Ken's suggestion in your coupled with yours which do it in a memorandum and that will be contingent upon the conditions then I think that's the second best option clearly. From this being a success story for the town as well as economically feasible. I mean, I could live with that too although I would like to know that we're gonna get the public open space for more than two days a week. I think we don't have to decide what that is right now but it has to be, I don't know how many days, five days a week and something like that or else if it's only two days a week, I don't see it being used. I see it as maybe there are gonna be some benches that are always available there and then people through some reservation system can reserve to have other events there and maybe the events are scheduled just a couple days a week but otherwise I think it has to be available as public open space. I think Jean, if I can, what you're saying is that it can be structured for two events a week but that it has to be available for the public if I wanna come down Mass Ave and sit on a bench outside there I would have that ability to sit in that space. Correct. Yeah, that I think was David's point earlier this evening is that people are gonna be turned away for non-organized events but that organized large scale events can be limited to two days a week and I think that's something we can all we can be all be on board with. I'm gonna be agreeable to that. Jim, are you agreeable to that? The devils are in the details. I can tell you that again, if it's gonna be something and I know this wasn't Jean's comment but a seven day a week type thing that's gonna be disruptive people are gonna be there loitering we all talk about this with the best intentions but when you say public and open all the time it's tough to put that genie in the bottom we don't wanna have to be involved in police stating here. Again, open to the concept we would have to agree on the two things the time of the use and then the amount of that reduced area to support the 1400. I'm happy, I'm agreeable to it in many respects I just can't, I thought we had it with Jean but he's extended that a little more which is fine from his negotiation standpoint but I think we just have to ultimately bring it there. So if you wanna vote it that way we can't vote it for 50 with the same type of understanding we'll try to get together. I'm fine, the second best thing is 48. If we get it, I think we should work on finalizing that memorandum in short order to make sure we're on the same page as not to waste a lot of more time and effort on that. So I think to put that as a condition is fine. Jenny stated earlier that she has a list of conditions. We'll bring it back out to that that are already drafted. Jenny, would you share your screen with those? We can walk through those as a board and then if there's anything additional to add in there I think that would be helpful to get us move us forward a bit. So the first handful are the general conditions that come as part of any special permit or some modifications to each of them. It's a little bit different than the way we write the general conditions. This one has some one addition to it. For example, the last sentence. So I'll let you read. If I can, I don't understand probably we should probably just read them aloud. Let's do that. Okay, and Mary, if you or anybody, I'll just read. The final design sign exterior materials, landscaping, screening, bicycle racks and exterior lighting plans shall be subject to the approval of the Arlington Redevelopment Board at the time when further operators are identified. We typically have this sort of condition but this is a little bit different because there's still an operator to come on the scene. Any substantial or material deviation during construction from the approved plans and specs is subject to the written approval of the board. The residential properties adjacent to the property will not be adversely affected and no modification to the proposed massing of the building will be required. Can we stop there? I don't know what that last sentence means because if someone could argue that the allowance of the special permit adversely affects them. I think that that's a very nebulous and no modification to the proposed will be required. I don't know what that means honestly, Jenny. I mean, clearly there are conditions that the developer has to comply with respect to noise and hours of operation and things like that. I just think that's a problem in that sentence. Okay, Mary, I think what we wanna say is the residential properties adjacent to the property will not be adversely affected by any changes to the approved plans and no modifications proposed, no changes to modifications to the proposed massing of the building. You lost me now. You know what I'm saying, right Jenny? Basically what you're trying to say there is that there will be no further modifications beyond what's approved today and what's also included in these conditions. But not for the public hearing, yes, absolutely. Yes, so I think that's the intent there. I think that was the intent, yes. Thank you, Rachel. Rachel, we need to revise that a little bit. Yes. Do you want the language that Rachel just said there will be, can you repeat that? All right. There will be no further, there will be no, or at the time of the final design submission. So basically this is all saying that when the operator is selected and they submit the final plans that will be submitted to the building, when the final design is complete and you're about to submit designs, we'll be able to look at it one more time, review the materials, et cetera. And that will not contain any modifications to the massing. That would affect the neighbors. Right, or other elements that would affect the neighbor, the residential neighbors. At the time of the final design submission, there will be no changes to the submission. There will be no changes that will adversely affect. Yes. The residential properties adjacent, the adjacent residential properties. Know how you're typing and everybody's watching you. Totally. I have the same thing when I speak. I think you can delete the questions. Well, I would keep in no changes or modifications. No changes, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. So that's the first general condition. The second, third. Mary, are you okay with that? Oh, sorry, Mary. Can you just bring it down, Jenny? Yep. Okay, what you're trying to say there is that there is going to be no changes to the approved plans. Yes. All right. I'm confused now, because shouldn't it be no changes or modifications to the proposed massing of the building will be permitted rather than required? Good. Oh, right, yeah. Sorry. There's always a lower intergroup. So the, if I move on, second, basically, you know, the substantial and material deviation during construction is subject to written approval by the board. That's standard. Board maintains continuing jurisdiction over the permit. We can reopen the hearing. Of course, you know this. Snow removal is all parts of the site as well as abutting sidewalks responsibility of the owner and shall be accomplished in accordance with town bylaws. Trash pickup, which is per the required, per bylaws and per the required hours. Then this is different. The owner shall provide a statement from the town engineer that all proposed utility services have adequate capacity to serve the development. The owner shall provide evidence that a final plan for drainage and surface water removal has been reviewed and approved by the town engineer. Upon installation of landscaping materials and other site improvements, the owner shall remain responsible for such materials and improvements and shall replace and repair as necessary to remain in compliance with the approved site plan. And then the issuance of the building permit and providing contacts, which is required for any development. Okay. Now there's a special conditions if I can move on. Yes. The rear parking lot shall be operated by a valet service only. The hotel spaces shall be available only for overnight guests, for a hotel, wait, only for hotel overnight guests, okay. Rear parking will not be used for or by restaurant patrons, hotel or restaurant staff, or persons other than the hotel's overnight guests via valet. Signage to that effect shall be conspicuously posted in the rear parking area. This shall be required of any future hotel and restaurant operators. This is all per past conversations. Correct. Okay. The owner shall install a sign that prohibits right turns onto Clark Street from the rear parking lot. Future operators of the hotel and restaurant must enforce this policy with the valet operators. A complete transportation demand management plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for review and approval, including furnishing the department with any final lease or other such agreements for parking off-site. The TDM shall finalize all available off-street parking for employees and tour buses as well as identify ways the restaurant and hotel operators will incentivize employees to utilize other modes of transportation besides a personal vehicle. The owner is responsible for repairing the sidewalk between Massachusetts Avenue and the project driveway along the site frontage of Clark Street. The owner is also responsible for installing ADA compliant curb ramps and detectable warning panels, which I think we've kept at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Clark Street and at the project's driveway on Massachusetts Avenue. The design and construction of which shall be reviewed and approved by the engineering department. That before you go any further, Jenny, that is only the curb that abuts the property. Yes. Okay. I wanna be clear about that. You mean project driveway on Massachusetts Avenue? I mean it's- The sidewalk on the Clark Street is- On the Clark Street. It's only the hotel side of the Clark Street, not the- Not the- Nicholas Pizza side. What? Isn't it a bar or a- It's only a store. It's only a store. Yes. Adjacent to the property is what I've had. Okay. Okay. The owner is- This is in relationship to the- A lot of the conversation we've been hearing. The owner is responsible for executing a memorandum of understanding MOU with the select board to run concurrent with the 40-year mixed-use restriction to ensure that public access is afforded on the site for not less than two days per week in exchange for an increase in the FAR. The owner shall work with the Department of Planning and Community Development to identify a reasonable scheduling plan to be included in the MOU. So for that one, Jenny, what we had discussed was that public access is afforded seven days per week, but there can be events there up to two days a week or two days a week. Scheduled events. Scheduled events two days a week. Jim, are you okay with that? I guess, again, I'm fine with putting it in the conditions. I'll defer to Mary in terms of that, obviously, she's comfortable with the language about drafting a memorandum of understanding that addresses the concerns we've all discussed. I wanna be clear. What Jean is saying is that if three women come down the street on a day that there's nothing scheduled to be held in that area and they wanna sit on the bench there for an hour and a half that they can do that, that they will not be told that they need to leave. That's what he's talking about for the unscheduled time. So that's an example we can all agree on. So let's give a different example. Let's say the three women decide that every single day they're going to come down and they're gonna sit there from seven in the morning to nine at night and shall we say they're not well groomed or well dressed 90% of the time. Is that what we're suggesting can happen seven days a week from eight a.m. to seven o'clock at night? No, probably not. May I suggest that we would identify a reasonable scheduling and signage plan and the signage would address any issues relative to the owner's ability to enforce length of time people are sitting or other perhaps issues they would like to address. That's fine. Yeah, that makes sense. And it should probably be daylight hours also. Yeah, that's a good point, sorry. Can we also add in that we know political displays allowed? Well, that was, okay, sorry, go ahead. What's the matter, Jean? I don't know if we can do that. I don't think that that's something we would be able to do. First amendment. I disagree. I think you are talking about the public access, not the property owner rights. So if you're talking about- I'm talking about public access. Correct, it would be similar to any PAC or any other town property. You can't have political signs there. Yeah, you can't have political meetings on- This feels like a detail that would happen in the MOU itself. May I just go back to a point Jean was making? Did you want from dawn to dusk? Was there a timeframe here that you were starting to hint at? I was saying daylight hours. During daylight hours? Does that work for everybody? Public access during daylight hours is important, et cetera. I mean, clearly one of the things you would want, and we would want in the MOU that people there are not being disruptive, not causing a public disturbance, something like that. That can go in the MOU. That would go in the MOU. Yeah, I'm sure as the MOU is discussed and Jim is represented by more than competent council, that any reservation of rights would be included there. I'm left holding the bag for any and everyone who may want to sit on the front lawn of this hotel. Shall I move on to the next one? Yes, yes. The owner shall limit deliveries to the site between 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. and shall require that the delivery vehicles accessing the site can utilize the front or rear driveways for loading and unloading, thereby preventing the need for loading and unloading on Massachusetts Avenue or Clark Street. The owner shall ensure full compliance with the architectural access board and Americans with disabilities requirements for all program and building components and all outdoor areas, including parking. I'd like to add a sentence to that and that the owner meet with representatives of the town's disability committee or commission, what's average it's called to discuss ADA issues. Well, I have to tell you, I think that's kind of the cart before the horse, Jean. I think that the building inspector should first review the plans and then the commission can review them and if they have issues, we will meet with them at that point, but to just go and have a general discussion, I don't think that that's productive. Well, I think it would be helpful to have a discussion with them somewhere along the line. Well, I don't disagree, but I don't think at this point, I mean, the board has never made that a requirement of any other applicant. And I think that that's treating Mr. Daugherty differently. The building inspector is ultimately, even if the commission tells Mr. Daugherty to do something, the building inspector can say, no, that is not how it's to be done. So I think we should put the cart first, the horse before, you know, and get this, the building inspector to look at this in the first instance, and then we'd be more than happy to sit down with the commission and go over it at that point, don't you agree, Jean? I don't know how this has been presented to the board because they have never spoken to me about it. I made my comments clear about what me and my family think about disabled people and people with disabilities. And quite frankly, I'm insulted that someone has attempted to somehow indicate to that committee that we are doing something less than would be appropriate. And... Do you agree, though, with... I agree, and I don't need any condition, but I'm happy to have it, to speak not only to the council on disability, anyone else in the town who is interested in contributing to a positive discussion for a more positive outcome. So I have no qualms with that. If you want to have the meeting after, you know, you submit something to Inspectional Services, that's fine with me. I didn't indicate in which order it would happen. That's fine. That's fine. Okay. So there'll be a meeting after submission to the building inspector. I'm confused about the timing, I admit. Sorry, this is a little... The building inspector is the enforcement officer who enforces the Architectural Access Board, ADA, et cetera. So what is the purpose of the meeting? May I... I'm just trying to understand what... And then that helps me to understand the order of it. Rachel, were you gonna say something? I was just gonna say the same thing. I don't know that requiring a meeting with the commission as part of the special conditions, given that there is an enforcement body, you know, the commission has provided their comments and I think following up on those, we need to ensure that the building inspector is the one who's empowered to... That we entrust that he's going to do what that department is required to do, which is to enforce the ADA requirements and the Architectural Access Board. I agree with Rachel. I think we should just give it with the building commissioner. I think Jim's already said he's willing to meet with the other committees, but we should not make it part of the requirements. He's already stated he's willing to meet with the other committees to just hear what they say and he's open to listen. So let's leave it at that. I think the building inspector knows what his job is and what to do. And... Okay, I'll whisper. I think the owner has made a commitment to go above and beyond what is normally required. I can be satisfied with that condition it is without requiring that meeting. That's fine. I'll withdraw that request. Okay. The required, this might be different. The required building setback for the building in relation to Clark Street is reduced to 5.7 feet. Further, the residents facing Pure Street at the corner of Clark Street and Pure Street has a side yard on Clark Street of only a few feet in depth. In addition, the building position will provide adequate sight lines at that corner. I think what we left out there is the reason for reducing the setback is because, you know what I mean, Jenny? The unique proposal. Yes, it's... And so after is reduced to 5.7 feet due to the uniqueness of this... Based on specific conditions unique to the proposal. Based... Based on specific conditions unique to the proposal. There are no residences on the same block and side of Clark Street that face Clark Street. Sorry, I'm... There are no residences on the same block and side of Clark Street that face Clark Street, period. And then the rate... And then that's okay, further. Well, the last line I think is, in addition, the building position will provide adequate sight lines at that corner. I think it says, it should say, in addition, the building, the plans show that the building position. Yeah. Yes, correct. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. I was going to suggest that the same Mary up in the first paragraph, in the first sentence after Clark Street is reduced to 5.7 base, because that fluctuates. So that 5.7 is either Jenny, as measured to the rear left corner of the building or use the same language Mary just proposed, which is as shown on the plans, whatever. As shown on the plans is the best. No, I don't want it to be as shown on the plans. I want it to be... Yeah, the plans are already part of this, the final decision anyway. So I'm not sure that I'm trying to understand how that... Yeah, and you're right. You can't alter the plans anyway. So I think that's fine, Jim. Language. So I don't know that we need to put that in here because everything is based upon the final plans that are being approved for this. It's 5.7 towards the back corner. It's great. You're right, you go towards Mass Ave. That's what you told us. Correct. Yeah. The first floor, rear corner, left corner is 5.7. Are we okay with this language, board members? The last item is the owner shall provide a sidewalk on the east side of the semi-circle driveway to the main hotel entrance on Massachusetts Avenue. This was, I think, a sidewalk connection. That is the one that Jean had asked about on the right side of the front driveway on the east side and that it will be installed. It will not be ADA accessible. And Mary committed to that in one of her letters. Yeah, Jim committed. That was one of the improvements, Jim. Right, I just wanted to clarify that it's where it was going. Okay. All right, that was the last one. I think, let me just say this. I think, Jimmy, what you're referring to in aid is the post. Is that what you're concerned about? Correct. All right, because you may recall the plans show that the post on Clark Street is 1.8 feet from the lot line, but the building is 5.7 feet. Correct. All right, that's the distinction he's making. What's the post? The building posts, you've seen them on the plans. Oh, okay. So I think he wants to ensure that that's not any confusion. So. So I'm trying to understand where that, how that fits into this first sentence, Rachel, did you want to? No, I'm thinking about a way to word that, that refers to the mass of the building. That's why I had suggested if you're going to reference a number. Reference the plan, yeah. Right, reference the plan, or reference that that 5.7 is from the property line to the back left corner of the foundation. Well, we just say that it's been reduced, and again, not include the specific dimension because that's specific to the plan. I think that would be correct. That's actually what I was going to suggest. I think that is what becomes confusing is this piece and then how it's measured seems to be it. Yeah, let's take that measurement out. Just is reduced based on specific conditions. Is, can we, is that something? Can anybody, does anybody not like that? I guess that's okay. I mean, you know. I mean, he's got to do the construction totally in accordance with the plans that you're going to approve. So that is the last item. Can I add one more, Jennifer? Go ahead, Ken. There we're going to chamfer the planting bed at the corner massive and Clark to allow the sidewalk to be widened at that corner where the telephone, where the power pole is in the handicap ramp is. It's a minor thing, but just want to give a little more space there. So you can actually make that corner. So it's a deep grace size of planting bed. No, chamfer, chamfer. I'm sorry. Oops. Chamfer the corner of the planting bed. Sorry, you're going to have to spell for me. I'm not sure I know what you're saying. C-H-A-M-F-E-R. Sorry, C is in Charlie. Yeah. Can for the planting bed. Instead of M is in Nancy, it's M is in Mary before the F. Oh, sorry. It's okay. Thank you, Rachel. I couldn't spell leader. Right into my plan. Fine. My spell check wanted it to be Darfur. Chamfer the planting bed. At the corner of Mass Ave and Clark Street to generate, to create additional space. On the sidewalk at the corner. On the sidewalk. Oh, okay. Is this seeming like what you were trying to get at? Also, if you don't have to add. Create additional space for the handicapped ramp. Is that what you want to say? The ramp is fine. The ramp fits in there. Just when you turn that corner. I want space. Between the power pole and the corner of the planting. It's not enough space for a handicapped person to turn. You want to give them a little more space. Added this. Okay. I'd like, oops, sorry. I'm sorry. I just want to read how I amended that. Create additional space for accessibility and maneuvering around plantings and utilities. Okay. Gene? I thought David was going to say something. Oh, I was going to ask whether we wanted to add a condition to not sure how to word this to somehow limit the operator from accepting reservations for guests with cars in excess of the available parking or do we cover that already somewhere? We had to come up with a plan if there was going to be. We're going to come up with a plan for you. Is that the TDM plan? No. That's the offsite parking plan. So if the valet gets full, they have an agreement with other parking areas too. Okay. Oh, for guest valet parking as well? For overflow guest valet parking. Yes. Okay. I didn't understand. We have that identified clearly. And not in, it says for, this is what it says actually is number three. So. We should just add a line about including the TDM plan. She'll finalize all available offsite parking for employees, tour buses, comma, and overflow guest valet parking. Is that me, David? Yeah. I mean, I think as long as they've got a way to deal with it, that satisfies me. I mean, my intention is to prevent guests from parking on the street because the valet parking's full. So I guess that would address it. Jean, did you have another thought? My thought is it would say something like the hotel shall not accommodate any guests arriving by car that would result in exceeding the capacity of the rear parking lot. Well, can I say this that we'll come up with a plan and the plan may be that. That we will tell prospective guests, the parking is full and you cannot utilize a car. I don't think you should foreclose the options of what we may find in the interim for other alternatives. I would be reluctant to say that they can't, that they can't do that. I think I'm gonna agree with Mary and Jim here. There are other alternatives that, otherwise they're end up with empty rooms. There's nobody parking right now, you know that. So you can't park the street overnight. Right. And we're not allowing them to park on Clark Street. So I don't know where would they park. That's the point. We might make an agreement with some other larger lots and park them offsite. Yeah, agree with you. I think there are a lot of offsite options that they could look at. I don't wanna... This is just requiring that those offsite options be articulated in the TDM. Yeah. That I'm okay. Well, if this means that anybody who arrives with a car when the lot is full, they have to take the car somewhere else and not park it on the street, then that's okay. Yeah, I mean, that's the responsibility of the valet to take that car to whatever alternate site. So the applicant or the operator has worked out. Okay. David, are you okay with that? I think so. I mean, it creates a mechanism for dealing with the problem. I guess there's no way we can guarantee that no guests will ever try to park on the street, but this creates a mechanism for handling overflow. Yeah, I'd like to suggest one. I asked this a couple of times, but it was never done. And that is the driveway, the little semicircular driveway in Mass Ave. I think there should be no left turns coming out of it. I think it should only be right turns coming out of it. Or else it's gonna be crossing two lines of traffic and going right toward Appleton. I don't know that I agree with that restriction, given the volume of traffic and the ability for people coming out of almost any other business on that section of the street to be able to make a left turn. I would agree with Rachel, Jean. I just don't think there'll be that much traffic coming out of there. I mean, if you pull in there and you're gonna stay there, you're gonna leave the car there, they're gonna badly it. So it's gonna go right. The only time I can see is when you're leaving. And I don't see that being rush hour traffic. Okay. I don't know. If it seems like a problem, we can always revisit it later. I mean, my concern would be if someone can only turn right and they need to reverse direction, how are they gonna do that? They may go down Clark through the neighborhood and come back down on, what's the next street East? To come back to Mass Ave? Well, they may take a left onto Appleton Place and try to return. Well, yeah, there are any number. All of the options are bad, I think, for reversing direction. All right, so I'll withdraw that. I'll suggest another one. I think the buses, when they leave there, should not be able to make a right onto Clark Street and don't go down Clark Street. Because if they can go either way, if they can either make a left or right out of... I think that's already in that, that it's prohibited to have a right turn onto Clark Street from the rear parking lot. That's from the rear parking lot. I'd like to suggest and the buses can't do it from the Mass Ave driveway. Are we talking with four buses? The tour buses. Yeah, that won't happen, but I'm not opposed. If you want to reduce that to writing, I have no problem with that. As long as what we're saying is that they will not be going down clock into the neighborhood, I have no problem. Yeah, I think we should say that. Not going to happen. Tour buses shall not be allowed to turn onto Clark Street. Perfect. OK. You might need an operator to ensure. Yeah, the owner shall ensure that tour buses will not be allowed to turn onto Clark Street. And travel through the neighborhood. In order to travel through. OK. So there was one other item in the response. To the TAC report about the repair of the sidewalk and curb between Mass Ave and the project along the site frontage of Clark Street. OK, so I think we should put that in as a special condition as well. Can you can you read it or create? I'll just read it verbatim from just for me to type it. The repair of the sidewalk. Wait, hold on a second before you go any further. I think it's out of here elsewhere. I don't remember seeing it. Yes, you you've covered that, I think, in your first year, the first year, second one. Yeah, I thought it was up here. Because you and Mary were going back and forth in terms of getting the clarity that it was going to do the entire sidewalk on Clark and Mass Ave, but we were not doing the other side of Mass Ave. That's right here. The owner is responsible for repairing the sidewalk. OK, all right. I thought there was something else. The curb, not the actual. Got it. Thank you. OK, so this is this is covering it, right? Yep. OK. Sorry, it was starting to sound familiar. Is is the other condition that was agreed to for confirming the driveway slopes for compliance with the ADA? Is that adequately covered by the ADA condition? I said all, you know, the program and building components and all outdoor areas, including parking. Yeah, I think that's fine. Do we want to say do we want to say something about the trucks using the. Rear the rear parking lot shall not exceed 18 feet in length, because that was what we asked them for. What was the maximum? How would the garbage trucks work down, Jean? Well, well, that's what the garbage trucks are less because we specify specifically asked them, what's the maximum length of truck that could use that driveway and then turn safely onto Clark Street? And he said thirty eight feet. If you have a minute, thirty eight, thirty eight feet, Jean, I think you you mentioned 18 in your initial car. No, no, thirty eight, thirty eight. So I could just say service service trucks using the rear parking area shall not exceed thirty eight feet in length. That's fine, Jean. I thought you said 18 the first time. If I did, that was my mistake. It's getting too late for me. So it just says service trucks using the rear. Where are you? Which which number are we on? I'm sorry. You could do a new number in special conditions. Yeah, just it feels like it ties to one of these other ones. So I'm just wondering if it's an add-on. If it's not, then I'll happily create another. That's fine. I'm not sure. OK, there was something in there that talk they could use the front and the rear. I just forget where it was. Was the hours of delivery and stuff, too. Yeah, that's that's what I was getting at. Oh, number five, number five. This one, that's about right. But that's about just about trash. This is any service truck. That's right here. Let me race to the site between eight thirty and two p.m. and shall require that the delivery vehicles accessing the site can utilize the front or rear driveways for loading and unloading. They're bright. OK. So we should set a sentence that says service trucks using the rear parking area. So not a service trucks using the rear parking area shall not exceed thirty eight feet in length. And you include service trucks to mean trash removal, correct? Yeah, OK. Well, we could be more specific and say trash removal and delivery trucks accessing the rear parking area. If you say service and trash removal. Yeah, that's what I was just thinking. And I'd say accessing not using. Right. So what's not in here, I think, is the reduction from 50 to 48 units. That would go in the in the early part, the sort of upfront overall decision. So I would make that clear. OK, great. Yeah, the number of beds. OK. There's there have been other changes as well. So that that's basically the edit to the the overall memo. And I will absolutely make sure to do. So just to be clear, we're reducing the number of units to 48 and shifting the outdoor space on the roof to the Clark Street side. Actually, corner. Yes. OK. I just wanted to make sure I understood. And the public access space will be reduced as well. Correct. What will it be reduced to, Jim? I didn't think it was going to be reduced. That's why I'm asking what was going to be reduced. I apologize. Your question, public access space. It's going to be a public access space. Right. Per the discussion we had with Ken, it would come down because we're dropping, I estimated about 700 square feet between the loss of the two units there. So if it's 600 square feet, then it would be the corresponding drop. In other words, the 210 that I was required to do for the twenty one hundred square feet, we agreed was going to contract based on the reduction in the area. So what's it going to be? What's the square footage of the space going to be then? I don't. I don't. What I'm saying is I don't have the map if it or if it's like 700 square feet. Then now that is substantially smaller than the twenty one hundred square feet. I think I think, Jenny, you probably just need to work that out with them before the decision goes out. It's going to be some number between two ten and six seventy five. Yes, that's very good. And it's going to be closer to six seventy five and two ten. No, I don't think so. I do not just so just so it's it's clear. OK, the six seventy five did not have anything to do. Right, right. You give some extra space. A tremendous amount for four hundred and sixty five square feet extra. Right. So what I'm suggesting is just the opposite. We're not we're not doing these to have a second vote later, because we're not in agreement. We're taking a lot of time here, so let's be honest with each other. It is going to be much closer to the two hundred than the six hundred. Absolutely. And we are not going to be able to do and you can play the tape later. I'm not backtracking. I've been consistent. And this is why Ken and I spent a lot of time on this twice. We're not going to be able to do all the hosting, Jean, that you and I spoke about up front. And I agree with you. That's what we said. Correct. I think reducing the mass and having a garden up there was well worth the trade off of that space there. Right. We just you, Jim, you just need to give or Jim or Mary, Jenny, what the number is going to be. OK, no problem. We'll do. Oh, right now. No, no, no, no, no. It was a while, so I thought that's you were waiting on us. No, we just all trying to stay awake. Is that anything else? I don't have anything else. I do not. Jim, anything else? No, I'm fine. Very appreciative of all your time. Andrew, Jean, did that cover everything that was on the list you said you had? I think so. Some of the things are subsumed into, like, number one of the general conditions. I had some stuff about lighting, but that's in one of these. So. Yeah. I put that in the exterior. I just put that as part of this exterior lighting. Right. It covers a lot. Right. One had a couple of the others in it. Andrew, you there? I'm here. It sounds like we're all in agreement here. So close the public hearing on this matter at docket number 3602 and we may move to a vote. Was there any other comments? You will so motioned as all the conditions we spoke of that we agree to. Second. OK, we'll run down the list. Ken. I. Rachel. I. David. I. Jean. Yes. And I vote yes. Thank you all for your hard work on this. Thank you all very much. We appreciate it. And Mary, thank you for the long work you've all put in. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to stay on if you're going to discuss eleven sixty five hour mass of if you have any questions. OK, but I'm going to have another public hearing that we need to handle. Sure. But then we'll move to that item. So all right. So 30 docket 3602 is closed. And we are moving on to thank you. Well, thank you. Jenny, can you give me the number? I seem to have closed out of my my file here by accident to move move desks. It's thirty six thirty one. I have it. All right. So moving on to docket number thirty six thirty one four seventy three mass app. This is a special permit review and application related to a citrone at four seventy three mass app by go to who I apologize. I probably put your name completely. Perfect. You got me guys. Yes. Yes. Go ahead. How are you? Good. Thanks. Thanks for your patience. Thank you. Thank you. It's been about three hours, but that's fine. You know, we've been right here with you. But I just found out there's a new hotel going into town. That's great. I didn't know about that. Anyway, my name is go to Hula. I run a citrone and when I first opened it, we just put a big banner up there with the biggest name and so everybody to see which has basically faded over the years. And for the last four years, every time I drive, I look at the side and I'm like, you know what? I need to change this. It was orange when it started. It's white now. So I definitely want to change this and listen. Just sitting at home all this time for the last like four or five months and looking at the walls and painting and this and think about like improving and giving us a new look. So, you know, we painted inside of the floors and everything. And I think this is the last thing that I want to do is, you know, that curb appeal. I'm going to get a nice little sign out there. I did not need a permit when I did this. And what I'm going for is like much smaller actually. So I don't know what, you know, why I needed to do this. But anyway, we'll go through the process. So what we're doing is we're basically going with a half sign and like a little awning at the bottom of it, you know, the bottom line is I just wanted to look nice and a little elegant. I don't think these drawings that you're seeing here does perfect justice because the materials that I've chosen, you know, it looks like way, way more elegant, you know, something that I saw in Oaxaca and Mexico when I was there. And it looks so pretty and so authentic. The bottom line is I wanted to look good, you know, I want the center to look good. Looks pretty dead these days. And this brings some life back over here, you know. So I didn't know about this special permit that I need. So when was the local guy, Falcon signs, give the business a local guy. And he told me that, hey listen, you know, we need to do this special thing. And here we are, you know. So I really want to change this faded banner that we have up there and go with something a little more like backlit, a little more subtle, a little more elegant. But also keeping in theme with Mexico, you know, the little swirls on the sides and everything, you know. So that's the plan, guys. Let me know what can we do. The whole project is basically on hold right now. This depends on your approval, I think. If you guys say, okay, we can go ahead and make that new sign. But basically overall, it's going to be much smaller. I think when we first opened, we just went with the biggest thing and, you know, and that's what happened. The colors are a little off here. You know, don't take this color for, it's exact kind of value. It's a little off. I don't think these drawings are the perfect thing, but that's a general idea. So for this, yeah. All right, so we'll take, we'll turn to the board for questions and comments. I'll start with Rachel. Go ahead. You're here with me all the time tonight, Andrew. So I appreciate that you're changing up this sign. You're right. I think it is just about the largest sign in Arlington Center. Right, right. Which we didn't need a permit for. I don't know why. Now I'm going down. I understand what we've been trying to make sure that the signage is of the highest quality. And I appreciate again that you're looking at doing something high quality and improving what you have there and the investment that you're making in your business. So thank you. I think that my, so I went and I took a look at the building facade a bit today. So the current proposal is actually larger than what's allowed in the current signage bylaws, which is a maximum of 40 square feet. But what's interesting, and again, I couldn't tell because the entire signage panel, the signage band is covered by the awning that's currently there, is really what the condition is behind there. So I couldn't tell there's kind of a gray band. And Jenny, I'm not sure if you can pull the photo up of the existing conditions. There's kind of a gray band that runs across. And I couldn't tell if that was actually the signed band. But if you look at your neighbor to the left of what we're looking at right here, it looks like on their facade, there's just kind of a, either a stucco or a stone facade. So I'm not sure what condition it is behind there. You know, I'm inclined to require that the sign be the 40 square feet, which would mean because it's a sign pan that you would need to pull the entire thing in from the edges, but I quite frankly think that that would not be as aesthetically appealing as what you have here given the awning below. So I'm a little bit conflicted, so I'd like to hear the opinion of my colleagues. Can I explain that quickly? Sure. Why are we doing that? So what's happening is if you look at the building itself, right? There's some really messed up concrete that's kind of like peeling off, and it's an older building, you know? So what we need to do is we just kind of need to like put a background to cover that concrete. If we leave any edges on the side, it's that concrete will show, you know? And if you bring the sign in a little bit, I'm talking about the edges, it becomes even more prominent that concrete, you know? That was my assumption, yeah. So what we're trying to do is just cover that concrete with the background, but make the letters smaller. So, you know, the elegance is in that lettering, which is the focus, you know? No one's gonna see what the background is. The background kind of like, you know, it's in the darkness, you know, there's no lights on it. The lights will be behind the letters. So the focus will be on the letters, which is much, much smaller if you're in proportion to that sign, you know? So when you talk about the actual square footage, you know, we have to go with the edges. But if you bring those edges smaller, I mean, closer, that horrible concrete shows up, and you know, that concrete becomes even more prominent, you know? So we just, that back thing is just to cover it, but the lettering is much smaller. So the focus is on the lettering. And then of course, a little awning in the front, you know, for the sun, because we get hit by the sun all the time, you know? And that's all. And we put those little twirls in the end, just to like give it some kind of, you know, some kind of a little look, you know? But that's about it, you know? Bottom line is we want, you know, we have a restaurant, you know? The curb appeal is like probably the most important thing for us, you know? We want it to look nice and not bad, you know? So if it looks bad, promise me, I'll just take the whole thing down, you know? So that's what that whole thing is, you know? What about moving the curls in tight to the letter? To kind of... Right. The visual impact of the sign even more without uncovering the ugly concrete underneath. Yeah, you know what, David, that's a pretty good idea. We can bring those twirls in, you know? But the reason why we went with this is that's the logo of the restaurant. Any way you look at it, you know, on paper or on the internet, you know? That was the logo. But if you want us to bring the twirls in, you can bring it in closer to the lettering, you know? But the background, ladies and gentlemen, you know? If you can allow me to do that, I just want to cover that concrete at the back, you know? It just doesn't look good, you know? But let's leave the focus on the lettering, you know? Because that's what people are going to see. So we're not going to do, we're not going to go over the goose, you know, those goose neck lights. These are going to be backlit letters. So you'll be removing the existing goose neck lighting then? Yeah, yeah, the goose neck, you know, that'll go, you know? So if you can imagine that, you know, the goose neck lighting kind of brightens the whole thing in the front. So that'll go away. And the focus will be on just the lettering which is like much narrower compared to, compared to the left one, you know, the before one, which is like humongous, you know? So I don't even know who designed that like nine years ago, honestly. Can I just interrupt for a minute? I just want to keep this going, okay? And it's, I'm going to groom your ratio. That's a big-ass sign you got there, okay? And I like to see what's behind that thing there to understand better what we're hiding, okay? Because I believe the top portion of that sign is hiding a lead-coated copper disc that's been patinaed for a while. I'm not sure what kind of shape it's in. Right. So I would like to say, if you want us to approve something today, I'm going to say no. But if you want to wait until the next meeting, I have no problem going out there and looking at it and see what the background is. Okay, that's fine. You can do that. But when you come here- Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's all down. Let us speak first and then you can come back, okay? Sure, go ahead. I'm talking with all the board members. I'm not talking to you right now, okay? Oh, okay, okay. I agree with Ken completely. Okay, I agree with Ken as well. I think that's a good point. I'm looking at the site on Google Street View and there may be some benefit to showing this building, which is really a pretty interesting looking building that caught attention drawn to it now. And it seems to me the only way we can approve the larger sign is if it's in the public interest and we won't know if it is until we see what it's behind it and what it would look like. So I agree with Ken. Okay. And Ken volunteered to go out and look at it too. I was very excited. Yeah. Oh, jeez, I thought you were going to go- Mr. Ken, what I was trying to say is when you come here and if you look at our neighbor signs with Punjab, right, they've got that same building background which they've covered like all the way across. Okay. And the reason why they've put that background all the way across, which is like twice of us is because of that, you know, that ugly building behind. Okay, let us take a look at it and see what's truly what behind it here, because I really think, I see that all the time. I'm, you know, I gave my haircut down in the square there and that is one big sign you got there, okay? But this one is big, but the one, the new one that you go won't be that big. Well, the awning is still the same. I consider the whole awning the same. The awning will be half the size, like half of what we have right now. So the top part is like a metal background and then like the whole thing is like seven feet. So the top part is about just where the letter goes is about two and a half feet, I think. And then the awning is only four feet coming down. So right now we have seven feet top to down. So the awning will be only half of that because the top part of that will be just backlit letters with, you know. Okay, I am totally confused now, okay? Because when I thought you're new after photograph, okay? That you have there is just the same awning frame. No, no, no, it's not, no, it's not. So you're saying that the light orange or that yellowish is actually a sign that's backlit? Yes. If that's a box that's backlit? It's a box, yeah. And then below that box, then that's your awning. It's a three feet, three and a half feet awning, yeah. That's all. I think if your sign guy included a section of that, that would have helped a lot much. Because when I look at that right now, I don't see that. I just see this, you just put a new cover over your frame. No, no, no, no, that's not how it's going. That's not how it's going. I can't tell. Right, right. Maybe the drawing's a little, you know, it's confusing for me too. But what we're doing is like a three and a half feet box on top, right, with the backlit letters. And then at the end of that box at the bottom, there's like another three and a half feet awning. So it's basically the awning is only three and a half feet. It's not as big as this is crazy. So what's the square footage of the box? Oh, the box is probably like 25, I think. 66 square feet. It's in Jenny's memo. Oh, yeah, it's 66 because it's three feet by 22 feet. It's still too big. Yeah, right. It has to come down to 40. Or else you're way out of compliance. But that's why you're going to look at it. OK. Thanks, Jean. Let's continue this. And Ken, you can go pick up dinner and take a look at it sometime this week. And I don't want to. OK, I'll look at it. OK, that's fine. Please come by. I think the other thing too, you know, Ken will take a look at it. I took a look at it a little bit again. I'll take another closer look. But if you can have your signage, Guy also cut a section through the sign so that we know what the, you know, again, what the construction of the box is, that would be really helpful. OK, I don't know what he's doing to the box. So I think it's something that would be helpful for us to know the depth of the box. You know, is it is it truly a box? You know, or how is he knocking the letters? Those types of things. It's a I think front to back the box. I think about three inches, maybe like two inches. Just to have the two heads like right to sit. I mean, you know what to do, right? Yeah, in fact, I think I see them on tonight so they can they can interpret what we're asking. So I'm going to motion to continue. Second. It's to September 14th. Sorry. Continue continues to September 14th. Second. OK. Ken. Hi. Jean. Yes. Rachel. Yes. David. Yes. I vote yes. All right. So that hearing is continued to September 14th. We'll see you then. OK. Thanks very much. Have a good night. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. All right. So we're going to move on to the MIRAC property and I'm going to turn it over to Jenny to walk us through what we're looking at here and what we're being asked to do as far as providing comments. One minute. Let me just a lot of things here. All right. So so what you are what this is actually open. You don't have to do this. The select board provides a comment letter to mass housing, which is something that they're asked to do by mass housing when an applicant files a comprehensive permit for a project eligibility letter. And as part of that process, they ask the local community for comments or support or both. So that's what the select board was discussing this evening as well. I've learned that they've planned to continue that conversation so they didn't finalize anything just yet. But they've also asked if other boards or commissions would want to weigh in. So I figured I would ask this board if you wanted to weigh in and provide any sort of very preliminary comments on what you have looked at that was filed with this agenda. Or if you also happen to tune into when the applicant made a presentation of the select board earlier the summer last month, actually, about the mechanics of the application and their proposal. So the question is really, it's kind of on the table. We didn't really talk about it a lot at the last meeting. But if you want to make comments, we can make those comments in a letter. And we'll submit it with the town's overall comments to mass housing. And they could cover any number of things. It could be very basic. Like we are interested in learning more as this proposal develops. We are very interested in greater affordability. We are sort of picking things. But it could be also some concerns that you might have that you just want to express in writing. You're not required to do this. It's not an application that will come to this board at any point in time for review because it is a ZBA permit. So this is really just up to you. I think David and then Jean. So is there, I'm not familiar with the project except very broadly. Is there any commercial component to it? There's no commercial component. No, it's all housing. The only commercial that's on that site is Workbar, which is existing. Right. And that's not part of the project. So I guess thinking about the economic analysis of the industrial zones that we've been doing, I would say I'm deeply disappointed to lose more property where commercial development could happen. I agree with that. That was the exact point I was going to make. I think our goal of expanding housing affordability is important. But I think that this concerns me as too much of a removal of existing commercial space where some valuable commercial use could go in without a lot of effort. I would agree with you. This is just a lack of balanced development that we're doing here right now. I know we don't have any say in it, but this is 40B housing. And I think we need it. I applaud having more affordable housing, but we're losing the space here. And I was wondering, why can't we attract some commercial people in there? Is it because of the lack of transportation, the lack of parking, or the difficulty of getting stuff permitted? We should all ask ourselves that as we go through this and say, hey, what happened? We lost the space. We lost this opportunity. Could I, Andrew, if you mind, I represent the MIRAC. Mary O'Connor, I represent the MIRAC family in Spalding and Sly in connection with this development. The MIRACs have owned this property for nearly 100 years. And recently, they've put over $2 million into redoing work bar. I'm sure you've all seen that project. They will ultimately own this 40B when it is completed. They will buy out the joint venture. They did look at highest and best use of developing this area. And the highest and best use was this type of development. There's an incredible amount of infrastructure that needs to be done. The building needs to be rebuilt. It's going to be a very costly project to build. And they did do an analysis of that. I understand the board's concerns, but they did spend the money to debut somewhat as a mixed use because they'll have work bar on that site as well, along with the housing. So it's kind of a living and working environment that they're proposing. Mary, this has come from me. I am not blaming the MIRAC folks. I'm just stating the fact that what this community is happening right now, and what we're trying to do and move forward with development in the city, in this town, sorry, I'm getting a little tired from being so late. And the missed opportunity we had that we didn't take advantage of or we didn't enable the landowner to do more with it than just plain affordable housing, which is not bad either, but I don't know. Certainly. Yeah, I would echo that. I don't think it's a bad project. I just, I think it's a shame to lose more commercial space in town, but. Yeah, I think it would be a good project for somewhere else in town. I'm just with my colleagues and disappointed that it would be in the industrial zone as opposed to other places. I'm wondering what's the possibility of having that building also be mixed use in some sort of way or have live work spaces, something like that, so we don't lose all of the commercial aspect of that building. That was a question, Mary. I can't respond to that, you know, I think that my client and the joint venture partners, Balding and Sly, looked at it and it was an economic decision. And you all know that the MyRacks have a considerable amount of commercial property in this town and they have been very good stewards. They keep their properties up and they have been very philanthropic and generous to this town. So they take their role in this town very seriously and they are probably one of the biggest commercial property owners in town. Yeah, I don't have any doubt about that. I know they've been very good. I know that all of what you say is true and I don't think any of our problem is with them. It certainly isn't mine. It's just circumstances being what they are. And I think the board, this board and its subcommittees ought to continue on with economic analysis, analyses of the larger industrial and commercial zones that remain to be sure that they're being used to their highest and best value. And the outreach is done to property owners and other developers to make sure that we don't continue to lose that tiny sliver of tax base that exists. If I could just add to that, in the letter and the proposal that we were given, it made mention to amenity spaces for the new housing development and to echo what my colleague said, it would just be great to see that looked at that amenity space as potential commercial property that could serve not only the new housing that's being created, but the community at large, given especially that work bar is already there and attracting so many people to the site already from the town. I'll pass those comments along Rachel. Thank you. Thanks. Anything else on this agenda item? So just for the sake of the board and I'm gonna draft a comment letter which I can circulate and share and you can just provide me with comments individually so that I can finalize it or this is due on September 7th, by the way. So the or would be that we choose another meeting date between now and then to finalize something. It is getting late just respectfully but also we still have one more agenda item, technically. So I'm sure there are other things that we could include in this letter as well. So you might want to have the benefit of looking at something a little bit more thoroughly when you have a fresh mind. Alternatively, I can just take everything that you stated which is primarily about your, it certainly helps to achieve a goal of expanding affordable housing. It's needed a new plot it but the primary concerns of this board relate to the commercial space. And if there's any way to either incorporate that or focus on the public amenity spaces as being an opportunity that that would be the request of the board. I mean, I think given the amount of information we have at this time that might be one way of approaching this and then you'll be happy to weigh in at other points during the process. So what would you desire which path? Is there another meeting between now and September 7th? No, not for this board, no. So you'd have to schedule another meeting. And this letter just goes to mass housing, right? A copy to the select board. It's just to the, it's just to the select board actually. The select board is, it's collecting the comments and it'll go with their letter. So the conservation commission already created a letter which will go in the same package. Yeah, so I think we should do something along the lines that you just mentioned, which is basically what we all just said. Yeah, okay. I know there is at least one person who wishes to say something but I thought we could maybe finalize this first before we get there. Well, do we also want to say anything about transportation issues and in particular making sure that they're encouraging biking, walking and transit because I did look at the niche engineering traffic analysis that, well, I was a little confused by it because it indicated that over the next five years there'll be significant negative impacts at some of the intersections there but then said it wouldn't be because of this project. So, so, I mean, that's also a way of saying this, things are gonna get worse and this project is gonna pile onto that potentially. So I don't know if we wanted to just flag the transportation issues at all. Well, won't we have more opportunity to comment when we get to see more of the project than this? So I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate time. I'm sure there will be another point to weigh in during the actual hearing process, like similar to what is happening with the Thorn Dyke Place development. So yes, the board and other boards and commissions are likely afforded that same opportunity in departments as well for town. So I'm happy to just make that clear that that's a priority of this board for it to be that it should be paid attention to. I'm not sure what I'm specifically, what you're specifically requesting, David, but could it just be a statement about, you know, generally speaking, we want to ensure that it encourages a range of transportation options for now. Yeah, unless we wanna go so far to say that we are concerned about potential transportation impacts of a project that size at that location. We would ask them to, there's a lot of continuation of these issues. So I'm not sure that they won't be thinking about that in relationship to lots of other things that are happening. There's also the connection to the bikeway, which is important. Absolutely. There's many things that I could enumerate here, but I wanna try to just hear what your ideas are. I don't have any specific ideas other than the connection to the bikeway and a general concern about exacerbating traffic issues that are already projected to get worse in that area, according to their own engineering studies. So, you know, I think, as you said, when it gets to the design phase, we'd have more opportunity to make more specific comments when we have an idea of what they're proposing. Right. And I'm kind of thinking along the lines of the more detailed comments on the other 40B project. Yeah, and we'll have, there will be another, you know, the same sort of added third-party review of plans and the same, so we'll have additional information to review as well. There is a traffic report that was posted as well that I shared, but I think, you know, more detail is needed. Okay, Jenny. Yes. Once we get this, if this 40B happens in Arlington, is there a three-year or four-year moratorium for another one? No. Or we still make the criteria? No. You keep it happening? The town could go back to the 1.5%, but not under, not as a, not in relationship to the number of 40Bs. I see. So we're still at Jeopardy for other industrial zone areas for this happening. I mean, I suppose for any place technically because it's not about particular area of town. Okay, I'm just wondering, you know. Yeah. Okay. I think that, I think the conversation about commercial is something that's important to capture and that seemed to be the primary concern for all of you. Yes. So I will, I'll draft something. And Andrew, I'll, I'll hand it back to you and I'll send it around. Sorry, I didn't finish that. All right. That's it, Mr. Holman. I'll allow you to make your point during open forum since you're moving into that. Go right ahead. You can speak first. You need to unmute yourself. Can you hear me? Okay. Aram Holman, 12 Whitmore Street. I wanted to respond to your discussion. Just now, three points. I'll try to be very quick. I moved to Barlington. The weekend I moved to Barlington was the weekend that Myrack announced the legacy project publicly. I have heard the, we can't find commercial we need to do housing before. So I heard it a little over 20 years ago. I think you can count on the Myrack's as well as being good stewards to do what is most profitable. Count on that. Second, regarding the question about 40B, no, there is nothing to prevent another developer from immediately applying to build another 40B project on somewhere on that same site. You might call this the camel sticking its nose in the tent where the camel is more housing development, gobbling up the tent of industrial area. You are absolutely right to be worried about it. And if you are concerned about the planning future of Arlington, yes, you should be very concerned about that. In terms of your letter that you have the option of drafting to mass housing, I think that should be an expression of concern that you should include, I hope you will include it. Thank you. Thank you. Don Seltzer, go ahead. I thought Steve Rebelak had his hand up first if you wanted to speak first. It doesn't matter to me. I called on you first. Okay, thank you. I just have a quick question. Earlier this evening, you deferred a number of decisions and issues to the building inspector. Could you be specific as to who you mean by that? It's the Inspectional Services Department. Yeah, but by building inspector, could you be specific as to the individual? Ask your question. The reason I asked that. I have a question in the office. I don't know. What? Ask your question. Okay, my point is this. Early in this process, the head of Inspectional Services recused himself from some of the decisions because of his personal connection to the developer. Is he going to be playing an active role in deciding on these? Yeah, I was going to ask him. If he's recused himself, if he's recused himself, he's going to have to ask him and he's not in this meeting. That's a matter of real concern. Take it up with him. Okay, thank you. Can I do that question for you? Ken, Jenny? Nope. Can or the assistant can? Ask and answer. Steve, go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Steve Rebel at 111 Sundayside Avenue. I just, after hearing your discussion, I just want to make a few brief remarks about commercial space. The first thing I'd like to point out that is, is that of Arlington's zoned acreage, approximately five, slightly over 5.6% is zoned business or industrial. So in this is, this is a small portion of town where commercial uses are allowed. Now, I, so as, if you consider the zoning map as a matter of policy, you know, as, or the zoning map is a policy statement. We are not a job center. We're not a job center. We're not a job center. We're not a job center. We're not a job center. That's, that's what the map says. You know, there is a very small sliver of town where one can own a business. We're not a job center. It's basically to provide for amenities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I'll note that if one were to completely eliminate. Commercial zoning, you know, all commercial uses from town, which I mean, well, it'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. It'll never happen. But that would be a residential tax increase of about 6%. And I should note that this is less than the debt exclusion. We just passed for the overall, you know, for the, for the new high school. So I mean. Our commercial tax base is effectively rounding error. I understand and appreciate the desire to have a larger market value for commercial development. We can't have an increase of $1 in square feet. So that either means putting more intensive. Development on the existing sites. Or finding ways to take. Sites where commercial development is not allowed. And allowing it. I mean, there's, there's a, there's a whole bunch of ways you could approach this or pockets. tenant in Cambridge and in Somerville where there's just like, you know, a couple little businesses tucked away in the middle of a residential neighborhood. That's one way to go. But, you know, if one is, if the board is, would really like to, you know, increase is interested in seeing more business, more commercial development. We have to, I just suggest that we need to accommodate the land for that. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else wish to speak this evening? No? All right. Good night. Thank you. Oh yeah, me. I do want to see you, Andrew. I do want to say on behalf of me and the board, we really like to appreciate your time that you spent on the board and, you know, and I think sometime after this pandemic, we would love to take you off for a drink. We can have a socially distanced cocktail at some point in the future. I will, I will miss those of you on the board. I will miss you, Jenny and Erin, and thank you for all your hard work. I'll reach out to each of you individually when I am not so tired. It's a pleasure to serve with all of you and everybody else that's been a part of the board over my tenure. I had remarks prepared, but I don't want to. So it's bittersweet. I will miss you all. It's been fun and good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Somebody make a motion. Second. Who made the motion? I made the motion. David made the motion. Ken seconded. All right, Rachel. Yes. David. Yes. Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. All right. And I wrote yes. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Bye. Bye.