 Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the October 2nd The October sec excuse me. I'd like to call the October 2nd meeting of the town of Arlington Redevelopment Board to order. My name is Rachel Zembery. I'm the chair. I Am not in control of the mic I'd like the other members of the board to please introduce themselves Steve Revolak Jin-Lao Eugene Benson And we also have with us this evening the director of the Department of Planning and Community Development Claire Ricker So let's go ahead to our first agenda item, which is the review of meeting minutes The first set of meeting minutes that we have are the November 11th, 2023 meeting minutes And I will see if there are any additions or corrections for the board starting with Steve No changes madam chair. Thank you. Ken Jean no changes and I have no changes either. Is there a motion to approve the September 11th 2023 meeting minutes as Submitted so motion second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes, Ken. Yes, Jean Yes, and I may yes as well those meeting minutes have been approved We'll now move to the September 18th 2023 meeting minutes Again any additions or corrections starting with Steve nothing here madam chair kin none for me gene No changes and I have none either. Is there a motion to approve the September 18th meeting minutes as submitted? So motion second. We'll take a vote starting with Steve. Yes, Ken. Yes, Jean. Yes, and I may yes as well Those have been approved That closes agenda item number one We'll now move to agenda item number two the third night of the hearing for the war and articles for fall 2023 special town meeting This evening is reserved for the deliberation of the board and a vote on whether to recommend action or no action on the articles which are before us as per the agenda We will mark move first to the to article 12 the MBTA communities overlay district And I will hand it over to Claire to run through the The revisions that have been incorporated Into the document that's documents that have been posted and the additional study items that were prepared by util great Thank you The the department of planning and community development the MBTA Communities working group in util our consultant are returning tonight with the information requested by the board at their meeting on September the 11th What you will see tonight are nine different scenarios and two alternatives for the district Most of which are related to maximum height and parking requirements are though Although there are three alternatives that would change the overall shape of the district two of which are alternatives for Arlington Heights and To an east Arlington that were proposed for study by this board on 9 11 So I'm going to run through the various scenarios and then look at and discuss The decision points for this for this board this evening Alternative one stretches from east Arlington to the Lexington town line This alternative avoids the future zoning study area for an Arlington Heights business district Alternative one and alternative to avoid all commercial and industrial parcels and limit the depth of the neighborhood multi-family district to approximately a hundred and fifty feet from the main thoroughfares on Massab and Broadway and East Arlington Allowing for a one to two parcel Transitional height area of four stories into the R1 and R2 districts While Arlington Heights in order to maintain the future zoning study area for the business district the overall depth of the neighborhood multi-family district from the center line of Massab is 350 feet the model outputs for alternative one are the district area is approximately a hundred and nine acres with a capacity for 7,268 units at a density of 67 dwelling units per acre with a parking maximum of one space per unit Alternative to in East Arlington is the same as alternative one however in Arlington Heights, we don't zone to the town line rather we extend the neighborhood multi-family district to the north of Massab And we include Grove Street and the Forest Clark Pierce Street area This is a more granular and zoomed in look The model outputs for alternative two are slightly different from alternative one with a district area of a hundred and fifteen About a hundred and fifteen acres at a capacity of seven thousand three hundred ninety one units and a density of 65 units Dwelling units per acre again with a parking maximum of one space per unit Here is a comparison of those two alternatives for compliance with the MBTA communities October 2nd this evening scenario For discussion and deliberation again at the meeting on 9-11 this board asked the Department of Planning and Community Development And the working group to go back and model the following alternatives as on the slide Model the neighborhood multi-family zone with a three-story height maximum instead of four Model a minimum parking requirement of one space per unit instead of a parking maximum requirement of one space per unit Model a zone that eliminates the proposed overlay east of Orvis Road directly on Massab But retains the neighborhood multi-family area to maintain Contiguity model a zone that eliminated all proposed overlay parcels east of Orvis Road along Massab including the neighborhood multi-family area Scenario one Three stories in the neighborhood multi-family District the simply changes the height maximum from four to three stories in the overlay area And we end up with a district area again of a hundred and fifteen acres with a capacity for six thousand three hundred and thirty units at a density of roughly fifty five units per acre The next scenario is three stories across the neighborhood multi-family zone with one Parking space one minimum parking space per unit So we stay at three stories and we add the minimum of one space per unit We model the district again at a hundred and fifteen acres with a capacity of Three thousand three hundred and fifty one units at a density of roughly twenty nine units an acre In this scenario We are modeling four stories with the one space parking minimum with four stories across the neighborhood multi-family And a parking minimum of one space per unit again the district area is a hundred and fifteen acres with a capacity of 3939 units at a density of roughly thirty four units per acre All right scenario 3a To remove all the parcels on Mass Ave east of Orvis Road while keeping neighborhood multi-family With a maximum height of four stories By removing the parcels along Mass Ave east of Orvis Road in anticipation of a future ARB zoning study and leaving enough of the neighborhood multi-family zone to maintain Contiguity we model a district acre about a hundred and thirty oh excuse me a hundred and thirteen Acres with a capacity of seven thousand one hundred and thirty seven units at a density of roughly sixty four units per acre This scenario models moving from four stories to three in the neighborhood multi-family zone with removing the parcels from Mass Ave east of Orvis by removing these parcels we end up oh To maintain contiguity and requiring a maximum height of three stories instead of four We model a district area of one hundred and thirteen acres at a capacity of Six thousand and twelve units and a density of roughly fifty four units an acre scenario three We move from four stories to three in the neighborhood multi-family Remove Mass Ave parcels and add one space one parking space per unit minimum By removing the parcels along Mass Ave east of Orvis Road in anticipation of a future ARB zoning study and leaving enough of the Neighborhood multi-family zone to maintain contiguity and requiring a maximum height of three stories instead of four and Requiring a minimum of one parking space per unit We model a district of roughly a hundred and thirteen acres at a capacity of three thousand one hundred eighty four units And a density of twenty eight and a half units per acre Scenario B is to remove all parcels proposed east of Orvis Road All right, we remove all parcels east of Orvis Road The height maximum stays at four stories in the neighborhood multi-family area by removing these parcels Along Mass Ave east of Orvis Road in anticipation of a future ARB zoning study we model this district total At roughly a hundred and four acres with a capacity of six thousand five hundred and seventy units at sixty four point one units per acre density Scenario 3b2 remove all parcels east of Orvis Road with a height maximum moves from four stories to three stories By removing the parcels along Mass Ave east of Orvis Road In anticipation of a future ARB zoning study We model a district area of a hundred and four acres with a capacity of five thousand five hundred and ninety four units at fifty four four point six units per acre Scenario 3b3 remove all parcels east of Orvis Road height maximum is at three stories instead of four with one parking space per unit minimum the district area totals one hundred and four acres with 2,966 unit capacity and a density of 29 units per acre Historic properties here is a map of historic properties in the zone that are currently many most of which which are currently Clustered across Mass Ave from the high school But are necessary to include as a matter of contiguity as the parcels that front Mass Ave in this area are commercially zoned This chart tells us how many historic properties are in the zone and their level of distinction remember that some are identified in at three different levels national register state macros inventory and local inventory This chart tells us how many properties are in the zone and their level of distinction Remember that historic properties will continue to be subject to design review demolition delay and that MBT communities overlay does not include Historic districts so for our compliance check and we can leave this slide up for reference It's basically a summary of everything I just went over district size capacity and district density Decision points for this evening Three or four stories in the neighborhood multi family or vis road Eliminate some or all parcels to the east in preparation for future study Alternative one which zones neighborhood multifamily to the Lexington town line along Paul revere road alternative to Which flips that neighborhood multifamily to the north of Mass Ave along Grove Street and Forest Clark and Pierce area also for consideration tonight our parking requirements and Inclusion or disinclusion of historic properties Thank you. Thank you Sure, I'm happy to leave that slide up for discussion Thank you Claire. You're welcome Jean if you could at this point run through the Alterations that you were able to make to the draft amendment that would be helpful and then we'll open it up for the board discussion Yeah, as a result of our last Sean would you just one second Sean would you please be able to? Raise the volume on the microphones Thank you Thank you as a result of our previous meeting I made I did amendments to The warrant article 12 main motion. I'll just go through them briefly. I added four definitions a definition of As of right development, which I pretty much took directly from the MBTA communities guidance definition of multifamily housing Which I took pretty much directly from the MBTA communities guidance a definition of overlay district Which is an amalgam of a few different definitions in various places That is consistent with what's proposed for the MBTA Overlay district and a definition of site plan review, which is a combination of the definition in The compliance guidance plus the additional Discussion in the compliance guidance about site plan review I removed the definition of executive office of living in whatever it's called these days as unnecessary In the district regulations part I Did some rewording the one substantive change I added is at the end of 5.9.1 B the sentence that says I'm sorry 5.9.1 C which says if a proposed development is Located on a parcel or parcels only partially within the MBMF or MNF Overlay districts the provisions of the existing underlining zoning shall apply so for example if there was a parcel in the neighborhood district and Somebody added two other parcels to it so went all the way down the street The question is should it then be subject to the overlay district or should it be subject to the underlying district? We can change that I figured I needed to put something in for the discussion And I thought the better way to look at it was it should Be subject to the underlying zoning not the overlay district and There were some other wording changes. I made point five point nine point one, but no substantive change In five point nine point three I Rewrote and made some editorial changes to site plan review, but no substantive changes. I didn't make any changes to the development standards other than some slight rewording in the Bonuses area I did not make any changes either And I rewrote the affordable housing section completely To do what I thought the board intended to do or the working group intended to do which would be Have the requirements the same as Currently exist in the bylaw with the proviso that until they are approved by Eohlc the Eohlc standard applies which is required by the guidance. I didn't change the part in the bonuses about the Bonuses for more units. I just clarified what the percentages were so those are the changes to The previous version to this version Great. Thank you, Jean So we have a number of items that we had identified that we need to Run through this evening to ensure that we come to consensus from the from the board on the the open items from the September 11th hearing and so I'd like to start by Jean having you run through The items that you would like to put on the table for discussion this evening I'll run through each of the board members, and then we will Take those one by one actually printed So we will read this out to ensure that This is part of the record Jean you your intent is to read through this correct purpose. Thank you Okay, I have so many that I thought it made sense to print them out so everybody could see them with me so Article 12 the three issues that Rachel and I had discussed previously We're reducing the neighborhood district maximum height to three stories Applying the current off-street parking requirements a section 6.1 to the MBT MBTA overlay rather than the proposed no minimum one max and the other proposed changes and Jean just before you go that includes the Potential for parking reduction Okay, great, and so we could reduce them with the transportation demand management plan for 6.1 point five and Excluding massive from Orvis to L. Lifebrook Park way from the overlay as is One of the scenarios which were discussed Here are the other suggestions Adding a street trees requirement, which we said would be in this but isn't currently in it I think the easiest way to do that is to make it subject to the zoning bylaw or section 6.3, which we intend to Ask the town meeting to amend Include residences adding the solar roof requirements. I think only for the Massachusetts Avenue and Broadway multi-family district make those subject to the zoning bylaw section 6.4 We need to do something with signs because the sign bylaw applies to either business districts or Residential districts and the way this overlay is written. It's neither a business district nor a Residential district so we therefore have to apply the sign bylaw and my suggestion is for the neighborhood multi-family district to apply the residential sign district requirements for residential in the Massachusetts and Broadway multi-family district to apply the residential slash business sign district and for those Buildings that use the bonus to create mixed use. They would get the business sign district requirements Next which we discussed a few weeks ago is changing what's currently site certifiable to sites gold or better certified or other standard the ARB may adopt in its rules and regulations David Morgan in his memo Suggested gold certifiable But I think some of us think certifiable is too loose to work with and not enough to get an extra floor To the purpose statements adding one other purpose to encourage environmental and climate protection sensitive development I remove some Duplicate requirements. I would remove some duplicate requirements and those that don't seem to make a lot of sense For example in 5.9 0.5 e 5 sorry Before it talks about height with bonuses cannot exceed four stories in the NMF district But there are no bonuses in the MMS district. So it really doesn't make sense to keep keep that in there Another change is if you look at five point nine point four Ten It's almost exactly the same as the chart in twelve and the bonuses So I would get rid of it except to move the sentence that says Minimum required front setback areas shall be available for uses such as trees landscaping benches tables chairs play areas or similar features to A note on the district chart Next adding some additional requirements for ground floor first level to qualify For no front yard setback and extra stories height. Some of you may have seen the letter We got late today from the chamber of commerce Suggesting that 68 percent is too low a percentage 60% yes, thank you and they didn't suggest a percentage and I don't know what it could be the other ones I would suggest in order to get the front yard no front yard setback and extra stories to hide is no Resonances on the first floor and the other is it must be retail restaurant Not because I don't see why we would give away a setback for offices for example So when you think about how we want to activate the streetscape and the pedestrians They're for retail there for restaurant. Maybe for some service businesses, but not for office So I think we need to do something about that I think I think we need to rethink what to do with a parcel Partially in the mbmf and partially in the nmf right now it says when it's in both the mbmf applies but you can think of a scenario where There's a parcel in let's say on mass app and they combine it for a few parcels going down the side street and Under this they could then build six-story buildings Going down the side street and I don't think that was the intention so I would flip this around and say if it's partially in the mbmf and Partially in the nmf the nmf rather than the mbmf applies Then there are some wording changes so for example in the in the chart of for height Front setback real setback or it setback we need to add minimum to the Setback numbers because right now it does it's not clear if they're max Minimum or whatever we should probably put the word yard in and then there was a Suggestion we got from one of the comments that said For the side setbacks maybe what we want to do instead is Say one side minimum five feet and two sides minimum 20 feet to give a little bit more flexibility for that on stepbacks, which is now in 5.9.4 D7 I would remove that and just do a Subject to the setbacks that now exist We're going to make some changes to those But I think it doesn't make any sense to me to have different setbacks for those within and outside The overlays since the buildings might be right next to each other on massive or Broadway 5.9.4 D5 this Which is the traffic visibility across street corners It right now it does not apply in the MB It does not apply at all if you read the details because it's in residential districts And there are no residential districts in the overlay if you rely on the overlay So I would rewrite it instead to say traffic visibility across street corners applies in the nmf districts Rather than how it's written For Then in 5.9.3. I just we just need to capitalize the word section and add 5.9 I forgot to do that when I rewrote that part the height buffer area um So right now We don't technically need this here because the height buffer area does not apply to anything in the overlay district because the height buffer area only applies when you look at the tables and there are two Different heights, but there are no two different heights in the tables in the overlay district So it doesn't apply. However, I think it should apply I think it should apply until we decide what we want to do with the height buffer area and go to town meeting and see if they agree Because it does serve a purpose. I think all of us think it needs to be amended But I don't want to do away with it at all What else do I have That's it. That's a lot, but that's what I have great. Thank you Jean Before we go further, I would just like for some some clarification from Claire and perhaps the working group Jean made a couple of references to the fact that the business and residential districts And are Replaced by this overlay district my understanding from reading this is that it doesn't replace it But they are soup. These are superimposed over it and the business and residential Requirements still remain so some of the items that you were just referring to is needing to add Back add back in my understanding would would still apply because they are still in the underlying zoning am I Misinterpreting what you're saying Jean. That's not how I read Okay, the way I read it was this overlay district goes over the residential and business and you have a choice of either complying with the rules of the underlying Residential or zoning district or complying with the rules of the overlay. That's what this said initially So when I made some minor wording changes, I did not change the substance So it still says you apply you can comply with either So that means that if you choose to comply with the overlay, you don't comply with anything that's specifically for the residential and business so for example a lot of Five point a lot of five point three point one I think says in any district so those apply to any district so if you look at The zoning bylaw Before before we go too deep Can I ask the members of the working group is was that the intent or was the intent that? The underlying zoning applies unless altered by the overlay The my recollection madam chair was that the underlying it was a pick one or the other So where the overlay is silent? We need to make sure that the overlay is not silent on any of these items So I can say so there are some parts of The bylaw currently that apply to everything so for example five point two point one Says all districts This is how it works, but then there are other parts that only apply to residential other parts that only apply Understood well If I maybe I was too simple in my answer so in I think in members of the working group if I'll look at you Was that the you know in the case of where the overlay had one set of rules in the And the underlying district had a different set of rules dimensional tables for example, then it would be picking one or the other But you know it would be if you are it would be the overlay district again if you are Correcting to create multi-family house correct, but for example if four things that you know four things that are not There were things like signage for example things like signage Yeah, we would not need to specifically or trees and because again this does not replace the existing zone It is superimposed correct over top of it. So that was the intent That's not well that might have been the intent, but that's not how it reads We should talk about that that I'm going to put that on the list because I read that that I'm reading that it reads That way right now and let's say that that's the way it reads. Let's use signs in as an example The underlying district in all of these is residential So if you put a six-story multi-use I don't think you want to use the residential sign rules understood. So Yes, I agree Steve and probably Rachel that the intent of The working group was that This It's just simply makes it as a right and not as a special permit to build these projects and So it just made it easier to build more residential if this Overlay is silent Example signage and whatever then underlying Rules still apply and that's we never was there to enforce or change signage or Egress or anything like that. It's just made more convenient in encouraged housing That way there You know, we got into this other affordable stuff and this other stuff There's a byproduct of what people wanted in town But the underlying thing when we first started was to make it easier to develop housing in This community and that's and that's how I interpreted So, you know, I think I'm saying the same thing We just yeah, I mean where we try I think in terms of drafting the goal was to be very specific about what did not apply Most most of the things in development standards that you say did not apply With one or two exceptions are the ones that apply regardless of the districts. It's in so it Remains I don't think it's ambiguous, but apparently it is ambiguous as to whether the underlying applies Unless it's changed by this or whether if you're choose the overlay you don't deal with the underlying at all And and it does present some other problems because there are some things that we want to apply such as I'd say Street trees Solar things like that that aren't necessarily in those districts But only happen or parking where we can change it when it's subject to environmental design review so So I think it comes pretty complicated to figure out what to do if the underlying applies unless it's modified by The overlay it's a lot easier if you say if it's in the overlay the underlying doesn't apply and then we just add in The things that we want to apply I I see somebody shaking his head. Yeah So That's not how I was reading and that's not how I've been looking at this And I think it's pretty clear in that it when it in section 5.9.1 be Where it talks about it not replacing the underlying districts, but in superimposing that these Items Again where it's silent We need to apply the standards that are currently in the bylaws We we can run through and see how many of those Well, we can certainly put something in 5.9.1 to clarify. I think I think we need to Confused and we absolutely need to do that. Right. Okay, right. Um, so that's Jean's list But what we put in is saying that the underlying Regulations stay unless it is changed that's what we need to talk about. So I'm just making all the different things Yes, you're right. That's what we need to That's what we'll need to discuss this evening. Um, so Ken, did you have other items on your list? I Did talk I want to talk about one thing which is that how we turn the corner on this on the setbacks not necessarily the No, sorry how we turn the corner on this on the step backs not the setbacks Okay, all right, and something we have talked about before so I like to put down on the on the table to talk about How that when you setbacks or stepbacks step Step step backs step backs. Yep So when you turn the corner, you might have a stick story building and if you turn the corner into a more residential street It would step back to me to blend in more with Yep on side streets I like to put down on and then a couple of things that I like to talk about with Jean But you want a table that they'll go over some of that because yes, we'll go through each one of these point-by-point Okay, that's all I want to add Jean had a pretty good list here. Great. Thank you Steve Any other points that you'd like to put on the table? Yes for bonuses Subsection e1 We an earlier version of this I believe Set the It said that the a lot set of allowed commercial uses for ground floor commercial would be b2 and I'm not seeing any I'm not seeing that mentioned in this revision. So I think we have to say which Commercial uses are allowed on the ground floor Which is sort of what I said Okay, yeah, that's similar to what Jean was suggesting that we should be explicit as to preferred commercial uses Right. Yeah, because if Steve if you look at it it says business uses and that was the exact language in the previous Version which I felt was too loosey-goosey. Yeah, I was I was thinking I There was an earlier revision that was I think it was uses allowed in b2 But you know we can we can go we can come back to that In e2, I believe there's a word missing So it's the second to last line second additional may be added. I think the word story should be after additional, right? I'm sorry, which E2 E2 correct and in section f This is going to hinge upon parking But I think f1 and f4 it doesn't make sense to have those it should be one or the other and not both and we'll have to iron that out and That is everything else. I believe has been mentioned so I'll I'll wrap up there great So we talked about parking reductions Question I had under purposes with whether B and D were the same Intent and we should combine those together B&E B&D B&D under 5.9 point 2 on the list and You talked about 6.4 in the zoning by-law ensuring that the solar by-law applies and I have some suggested wording for adding more teeth to the Green Development The science bone. Yeah, the bonus Okay, great. All right Any others before we start running through these? All right, let's start with the top of the list and I think we're going to go from large Concepts down to more details, which is great sense Hopefully a great place to start. So let's start with reducing the neighborhood multifamily Requirements max height from four to three stories that was put on the table by Jean I'm personally in favor of reducing the height from architecturally in terms of the context of the existing communities and What I what I think Again, what what we've been hearing from the public but Steven can interested in your thoughts You first again. Thank you I think when we we had talked about this a lot in our working group and We said that The majority of the neighborhoods are two and a half stories right now so introducing a Maximum height of three stories is not enough of an incentive to Increase the housing so I think having the fourth story is what makes the difference otherwise This will be to become a non-starter saying if someone's gonna buy a Property that already has two and a half stories. They're just gonna renovate it the cost of adding that half half story is not enough to Develop it into a full increased number of units. They're just gonna renovate it. They're not gonna add units and So we I think we settled on four stories as a requirement and if you do if you do look at there some areas There are four story buildings adjacent to in the neighborhoods, I'm not saying a lot because the zoning over the over the last few years has actually Discouraged that and we're trying to change it. That's what we're doing here now And so I think it can be done And not I'm not saying let's put a six-story building there But a four-story to two and a half story buildings is I think is is reasonable That's that's what the working group felt. Okay, Steve Yeah, I've I went back and forth on this one for a for a while. I've been thinking about this one a lot Originally my thought was you know, it would be nice to have more buildings with elevators And I see that now that's it's a little more complicated than we originally assumed and there are a whole bunch of factors in play I Get my personal feeling is that although I like the idea of four-story buildings I think there would be more people who would feel comfortable with this if it were three and In terms of Recalling my days on the zoning board of appeals There are a lot I think the utility of going there is utility and give in giving people the option to go from a two and a half to a Three There's you know, we certainly have enough dorm or requests and you know, they do what they can short of a third story and Yeah, I'm okay. I'm okay with a three-story in the neighborhood multi-family Thanks, Steve Can I I certainly hear what you're saying? I think my feeling is That there is to Steve's point in terms of the adaption of a two and a half story to a three-story building and making giving that an incentive to renovate into from a two family into a three or you know, potentially four family but most likely a three family is part of the intent of this is to have multi-family at many different scales and three family certainly seems to fit into the Existing fabric of many of those neighborhoods very very seamlessly That's where I'm coming from. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Steven Rachel I'll just add a couple of points the compliance guideline itself Says that the district should encourage a development of multi-family housing projects of a scale density and aesthetic that are Compatible with existing surrounding uses and and you know, I walked some of the Streets not all of them but quite a few of the streets that just go off mess have and Broadway to see what they look like and what's there and and you know, mostly it's two two and a half and three-story buildings and I think The three-story which if if the overlay district Doesn't replace everything else really allows three and a half story Just the way to allows two and a half story You get something that's in line with you know, the scale Density aesthetic that's there already. I'll point out that There was some discussion a while ago about whether four-story would be Much preferable because it requires an elevator and I did a lot of research and my research turned up That the rules for elevators are the same for three-story buildings as four-story buildings Which basically is if you can have all the accessible pieces, you know Apartment Entrance things like that on the accessible ground floor. You don't need an elevator Realistically as buildings get taller people are going to want to put in elevators because you know people don't want to look walk up a lot of stairs but The rules are the same for three and four-story buildings as far as elevators. So I think that For the reasons you stated and also for many many many of the comments We've gotten about this and the consideration of The changes in elevation not any Starling so Arlington so much as as the center in west of the center I just think three is a much better place to be than four so in terms of coming to To a Consensus on on this Can it looks like you know three three of us are our leaning towards towards three is that something that you can Get behind At this point in time. I want to ask does this affect the one-story bonus for affordable? so You're saying three stories with the standard and then there's that's the maximum how you can go the bonus Is the bonus isn't available in the neighborhood district? I'm just I'm just asking right now because we're reducing it from four to three so Only in the neighborhood district. I realize that but now we're saying I'm asking if we were to do a more affordable units With the four-story come back Would you guys we get behind that? I'm just trying to get a compromise here But there's no four-story building. There's no bonus. No, Jean I said If I would say if I ever get behind reducing it to three stories on an input committees, okay Can we introduce then a bonus for having a More affordable units by adding the fourth story in that neighborhood in an input business Just like we've done elsewhere and would you guys get behind that? I'm just trying to reach a compromise here because I really think Introducing not reducing down three stories. You're not going to increase you're not going to induce or encourage that much more growth and if it's not about encouraging growth then I Think you got the mark right there. That's why I'm trying to say so I personally think that again from what we've seen in terms of Properties that are in a two-family district that are not two-family when they are available for redevelopment The the new owner taking the opportunity to add the additional unit that I I feel confident based on that history that We will see additional units and number of number of units created by Allowing for multi-family and three stories in this district Okay, that's my point of view Jean. I agree And I agree as well I'm probably gonna get behind this. Okay, that's okay. That's my okay Okay, so the right now we are looking towards reducing the max height to three stories The apply the current off-street parking requirements of six point one including parking reductions as six point one One point five instead of parking Maximums So that was put forth by Jean kin. Do you want to respond to that one? Essentially, this is just changing a maximum to a to a minimum that we've seen Jean Yes, and I'm applying the other requirements of parking. So, you know in site plan review They could ask for reduction based on a transportation demand management plan Which is currently allowable for multi-family in addition to business districts But now you're going back to Almost like a special permit then right because it wasn't the whole thing was to eliminate that extra stress so it would encourage someone to openly develop something more more housing as opposed to I Don't know now. I have to it's still it's still as of right Development if they want the same way they can get bonuses for afford more affordability and for you know first floor commercial They can get less parking if they put in a transportation demand management plan that is Appropriate so it does it it remains as of right development. It just gives them choices about what they want to do I'm not sure. I just see that we're pushing for environmental and we're pushing solar or pushing trees. We want to Help the environment and then we turn around say no, we need more cars parking here. We want them more traffic I guess to see that both of these things are contradictory To the two things and I rather not I Rather go all in And say hey, we do care about the environment and we're gonna minimize the amount of parking So there'd be less cars on the road People say there's too many traffic now on it. So I'm having more cars on the road You get that but if you're saying the maximum you get I think you know, I mean I think this is That's what I'm thinking if a developer or help or someone's buying a piece of property says, okay If we have no parking, we're not going to sell units. They're not going to build the units They're just gonna they're only going to build it if it makes sense physical sense So if we have if they need one one space parking per unit, then they'll build that one space But if they don't I think we should give them the ability to say hey, you know We're for the environment towns for the right. Let's not build it and it's near a MBTA bus stop or whatever and we're doing all this green stuff. Let's Let's do it. That's how I saw it and that's how I believe help the working group saw it okay, and I'm just expressing that's what we that's our that was our opinion. Okay, and it is my opinion right now, too This is another another one where I spent a lot of time going back and forth with myself As far as policy goes we cater a lot to sing a lot convincing vehicles We encourage them a lot and it's one of the most unsustainable practices we partake in as a society So I think the My recollection of the sort of where the working group was is that we would prefer people not build Any more parking than absolutely necessary and That's you know where the minimum of zero and the maximum of one came came came out from with in terms of Going with a a minimum of one and allowing for TDM reductions I mean that is consistent with the rest of the bylaw it fits in we kind of have a process for that I think we might want to provide more Residential specific TDM options a number of them are you know very much geared toward mixed use But you know we should you know I'd like to see TDM that you know Doesn't leave the applicant asking well, what's the third thing that I can do You know I could I don't love the idea, but I could go along with it I could I would also be happy with you know reducing the reducing the minimum to a half so I Agree with you Steve. I've gone back and forth on on this one a number of times in terms of the requirement We one of the things that I think is important to keep in mind is that we have not identified that there's any requirement for the Parking to be specifically deeded or leased with the the property so with the minimum as of One I mean what we've seen come in front of us is typically No more than one and often for a reduction. So I think naturally Where we're seeing that occur so by introducing a more Progressive to your point can Policy with regard to supporting a lot of the climate friendly Climate friendly policies that we have in town that Accepting a I could probably go along with it with accepting the more I think about it. I could probably go along with accepting the Parking one spot parking maximum Knowing that again, it's not deeded or associated with any one unit and There will be units that don't need parking and some that may need more than than one and that That is not unlike the situations that we are Regularly reviewing today when it comes to the mixed-use properties that come in front of us So that's I've been really thinking about this one and evolving trying to evolve my thinking on this one Well, well one other option to just toss it out if we were to kind of keep the existing You know one space per dwelling minimum of one space per dwelling You just basically keep existing what we what we have and then just go back and revisit parking generally I Think that is also a Decent path forward at spring time. Yeah, it's spring time meeting. So I'll mention a couple of things MAPC Did a report Metro Boston perfect fit parking initiative February 2017 and they did a survey in Five communities Arlington one and in Arlington. They looked at six apartment buildings and parking lots and what they found was there was an excess of spaces compared to the number of Cars and partially as a result of that We recommended and town meeting reduced The parking number to where it is now Which is a minimum of one and if you look at the chart which I have From that report. It says the average parking it says the average parking demand per unit in Arlington is 1.04 so just over one space per car and they also Did some data searching is the average number of vehicles per household now? This is 2017 so keep that in mind, but in owner occupied 1.7 vehicles per household Renters one vehicle per household. That's all consistent with Keeping it at one. I'll just add a couple of other things They did a recent report in a lot of the Metro West communities not Arlington and they came up with One space per unit seems to be the appropriate number now that included a lot of places that allow On-street overnight parking which we do not so I think Compounding the need to have at least one space I'd say one is the appropriate number per unit is there is no overnight parking I will just add that you know, there's now a pilot going on piloting it. Why is the pilot going on? Because people want to have overnight parking because they don't have enough parking and we got At least one very compelling letter email from a couple and they both need to drive to work And they live in an apartment and they drive in the opposite direction and they're having a hard time With two cars and I think if if we want to Make sure that The units that get built are available to everyone That also includes people who need cars whether they're older people who need cars People with disabilities who need cars or people who work places where They just can't hop on the bus Or hop on a bike and get to work Very often. I think we've been working with The one space per unit. We've I agree with Steve completely. We should write in some more Transportation demand management plan ideas for residential property. We have you know talked about and allowed Separating the units from the rental so people would have to pay more those sort of things So I would keep it at one not You know minimum of one. That's what you're saying maximum of one. Oh minimum of one. I'm sorry a minimum of one and Allow us through site plan review to reduce that if they want to have it reduced They don't have to have it reduced and then we'll put in some transportation demand management pieces for that Are you sorry just a question for Jean? Are you suggesting that we? So we will need that would need to be another item that is added to this section or Proposed change to the bylaw if we do want to add in more transportation demand options or Per you know, we'd have to work through those this evening one option one or option two We would need to We could Decide to look at parking as a as a whole in either spring town meeting or depending on the time and availability for the studies that are needed Look at that either in fall or in in spring of 2025 I'd suggest saving it and amending Parking in general or at least amending the transportation demand management in general in the spring rather than trying to figure out how to do that tonight I agree one of the next day or two. Mm-hmm. I'm gonna strongly disagree with that just because Parking is the number one issue when it comes to developing multi-family housing. It takes up the most amount of square footage on it on on On the ground floor it affects retail affects Just the housing in general so by putting in another burden on developing housing You're you're essentially saying you're not encouraging housing by putting this thing on here. Okay, I Feel strongly that if one is the requirement then they're gonna build one if If they're not if it's if it's not required then they they're not gonna build it and and so we're following the What we're trying to do is encourage housing. We're not trying to Stagnant it and control it. We're trying to encourage it and I don't want To add all those extra rules and regulations or we'll look at this later We're here to increase The ability to put more housing on because that's what it's in crisis now now if we if we said, okay, let's you know I think we just delaying it kicking the can down the road. So I rather not delay it I rather put it on there. I'm willing to compromise a little bit and say let's say Half what Steve said earlier and I mean this is all about compromise. I will I will go that way a Minimum of half And see where that goes because they're gonna they're gonna build what they need to sell the units They're not gonna say just because we said half. They're just gonna say, okay. Well, we'll just build that way That's my counter Steve Well as as I agree that we shouldn't try to amend TDM tonight I Like I like I said, I'm I'm happy to go either with I'm okay with going With a minimum of one Or one half. I think the advantage of one is if some of these Builders want to come in and do less we get a transportation to man. That's that is true And I think that's a really valuable thing to get from them and to have them implement and we lose that If we go with a lesser number or zero Can I offer another suggestion? Thanks perhaps if we remain with the Minimum of one can we pair that with? Item for rather than saying developments under this section may provide developments under this section are encouraged to Explore providing fewer parking spaces under the provisions of section 6.1.5. So that's f4 Yeah, and go after this So we really we we push them, you know through the wording of we we maintain the existing Requirement of minimum of one space, but pair it with developments are encouraged to Explore providing fewer parking spaces under the provisions of 6.1.5 and if Jean or Steve you have a better wording. I'm trying to You know what you're saying and I'm trying to Ensure that there is a way that we For 6.1.5 is transportation management plan, right? I think I think we'd say encouraged to That's geared for you. She's not geared for all residential. There's not enough. Let me pull that up. Okay now 6.1.5 includes shared parking Which is peak demand? off-site parking Transportation demand At least three of these charge parking so charging for parking on-site is is one stipend for workers preferential Perhaps we add I'm going to propose a section D which is to Ensure that the spaces We've often asked them to ensure that the Parking is not associated with specific units again, whether that's deeded or Associated with the lease We could put in we could amend this section to include D or add that here to the overlay To allow for them to meet the transportation demand You know as one of the options to give them another option here I think every I think every more options is good It's just that most of the options there are meant for makeshift something shared is one that's shared between commercial and residential Understood You know charging yet. Okay, so you charge more money That you know, but that's the less decrease the number I think I think that The wording Developments under the section are encouraged to provide fewer parking spaces than required by section 6.1 Makes sense. I think if we start saying You know putting other requirements on it here it sort of raises the issue about whether we're going beyond What's in the underlying bylaw and raises some problem? So I like the idea of encouraged and revisiting the entire parking thing including Beefing up the transportation demand management in the spring, right because we do have nine Options C9 under 6.1.5, which is other means acceptable To the acceptable or to the applicable permacranny authority Well, you guys have the boat right now, so I'm just gonna move on. I don't think we're gonna get to a mutual agreement here just because I Do feel strongly that you know, we're We're trying to put in capture and put regulations on something that we're saying we're not doing regulations for and I just Think this is just one extra burden that as it is as I come in So, oh, well, these guys want to encourage housing, but now they got all these other rules that we just changed one rules to another set of rules and It's not like Here's what you can do and have at it is I don't know. I'm sorry. That's just how I feel. Okay. I think I'd like to respect your feelings, too. Okay. I'm gonna leave it at that Okay so that I am clear between Steve and and Jean What we would look to amend this To look like which would be applying the current off-street parking requirements of 6.1 Including and combining under F one and four So we'd have we'd have to fix it Yeah, so yeah So that We edit that to include that Developments under this section are encouraged to provide fewer parking spaces under the provisions. Yeah of section And Madam chair because I don't think we've mentioned it specifically The last sentence of F1 states for no business for business. This is no off-street parking is required for the non-residential space I would like to keep that Yes, okay. Good say that I'm sorry. I didn't hear that so I Am advocating that we retain the last section the last sentence in F1 that eliminates a Off-street parking requirement for non-residential spaces Which typically applies when the business is under 3,000 Square feet right, so I'm I'm in agreement with Limiting it to 3,000 or we doing no matter what no matter what the business uses I would I would agree Steve with that Suggested to keep that in me too Jean, are you okay with keeping that one in? Sure, okay. All right that covers parking the next is the It's Orvis Yes, we can go to that one next. Sorry. There was another one that I was going to take for that But what that's okay. Let's do Orvis and we'll come to the other one next so excluding mass av the Parcels that touch mass av from Orvis to a life Brooke Parkway You talked about why don't you do this take this one sure so in this Proposal again much like Arlington Heights. We've spoken as a board about reviewing the the the East Arlington Business district to create some more continuity. We're currently there is discontinuity in the zoning and one of the things that we discussed was Identifying what we thought much like we did in the Heights what we thought the boundaries of that space that we would look like Look at would be and from Orvis Street to ill life Brooke appeared to be the Majority of the the business district in East Arlington my feeling is that Rezoning those parcels Potentially twice in two years is a is a burden to the the folks who own those parcels and I'd prefer to do so at once and When we look at this After the you know, we've committed to doing that after we do the Arlington Heights business district overlay That we that we incorporate that at that time. I'm appreciative of Moving again the Neighborhood parcels had been removed by the working group. I think in order to spread out the the impact across multiple parts of town, so I appreciate the study that included Reintroducing those when the parcels along Mass Ave were eliminated in this study. So that's really the impetus for this particular Request, I Have no problems with this So of the two options available My preference would be scenario 3b We pull those up. Yeah scenario 3a While it is a I think it is a fine proposal. I don't know if I'm not sure I Would at least like to want to talk about having a provision to allow for deeper business districts And here it's Option a basically just removes everything fronting Which means that we're We in a in some in a number of places were left with narrow parcels with no ability to aggregate behind so where as B gives us I think more flexibility to approach this in the future so 3b would be my my preference Gene My preference is 3a 3 which retains parcels just off Mass Ave In the east I hear what you're saying Steve, but I think This is the area that's closest, you know, it's on the 77 bus line And if they ever put in the so-called better bus project, there'll be another bus going down that part of Mass Ave To L life Parkway, and so I think keeping those in is consistent with walkable neighborhoods and I just think it's a better way to do it I think it spreads out The district more appropriately More appropriately across town. Sorry, I mean my thought was that looking at the business districts at a later point in time Wouldn't also preclude You know changing the shape of the MBTA communities district at a later point in time as well So I think it's I think it's still possible to do I think you could do both without You know necessarily having to commit to to one specific Shape of the NMF in that area right now. Yeah, I mean I think it's possible that we can You know suggest superimposing an overlay on Mass Ave after we're done with The rezoning or we may not need to depending how we do the rezoning, but I Don't know. I guess I just think it's a mistake to remove all the parcels east of Orvis from the neighborhood parcels the neighborhood parcels Do you have a preference between 3a and 3b the neighborhood parcels being removed versus retained my first initial Look at that was our supporting 3b moving all of it Just because if you can make tweaks and changes is look at it holistically if we if we just leave chunks here and there You can essentially handcuff yourself in making Whatever you want in the long mass app and we agree that we can look at that And this look at it There's a hole, but if we look at it now with this kind of zigzaggy thing there It's you handcuffing ourselves in the future to make what do we want to make changes to? We still meet criteria By eliminating all of that so I don't think the intent is still there. We're still trying to provide Encourage housing it's just that we just doing it in a smart way as opposed to saying let's have it here It's because we want to I read look at it in a holistic way and say That's the way we should look at it Sorry for Randall. No, thank you. I will point out that There is a similar condition in the heights where we have bordering the Boundaries of the business district the Neighborhood district I think that that is slightly different because of the grade Change in that area, but I do want to recognize that There is a similar condition in in that section of Arlington along last have That that we would be treating differently. I'd like to address that later when it comes up Yes, and I I think that would probably be a good the next one that we should Because I don't think we had that one when she ran through his list. So I'll address that one next but And it's not just Paul Revere. It's actually the areas to the east of Park out directly behind the business district where there is a similar condition to what we're looking at here In the east the gene Gene Continuing the discussion around the parcels the neighborhood district parcels Any response to What what kin and and Steve just suggested in terms of their reasoning for wanting to remove all of the neighborhood parcels at This time in in the east I Would have to think about that because I did not envision we are going to start zoning businesses off mess Ev into the residential neighborhoods and I Didn't envision that we would think about when we talked about rezoning the east part of mess Ev that we would think about Extending the business districts into the residential neighborhoods. I feel like if we can get some more height on the buildings in along mess Evan Broadway and more Business things we really don't need to go Into the residential districts to add more Businesses and we do now and and you know if you're going to do anywhere You'd probably do it on Lake Street and Lake Street already has businesses extending down a little bit off mess Ev So You know if we want to encourage more housing development I'd prefer to keep the residential units in in the overlay in East Arlington So the for me the concern was mostly about the narrowness of a number of the parcels of fronting mass av in East Arlington Yeah, they are now you can you could of course get a do you have the at least the potential for a You know a higher value commercial building if you can go a little deeper So could I suggest that that is only? evident in a couple of parcels Knowing that we need to agree on moving a plan forward tonight Would we be able to identify those which we might want to remove and deepen the parcels in other areas This evening, I think that for this small Please can Like your suggestion. Let's look at the heights and look at both of these In tandem, so let's table this Yes, that's fine. Let's do that. We'll talk about East Arlington here along that's happening also the heights along that's up And then we can look at it in both ways. Let's do that at the same time. Okay, great So let's now look at the two options that were presented for the heights and Ken Did you want to speak to these? I know that you had Been discussing this as part of the working group I Think that I think we were talking about Scenery one and two a 2a right I Think Intucing three or three or four stories on Along that area there where there's quite a lot of better elevation There were I would say the ground floor is almost a story and half higher in some areas To almost a story that it just makes it an unequal Way of laying out the project and I think that just Makes it a non-starter. I mean if you want to Have some sort of business down there You're gonna have to chip away at that Granted if not, you're gonna have to then Just put residential there and that's extremely difficult to do residential right on top of a Big rock essentially that's along that side there So I saying I was thinking that we should find all the areas that would be more more It would be easier to put this housing in and I think the group found Something on the other side of Mass Ave. I think that was good So That's that's just it just The locations for that just doesn't make sense. That's all great Can can I ask you one question before we go to the others for comment does? the so the majority of these In option an alternative one the majority of these sites in the heights extension area are in the neighborhood multifamily district Does the reduction down to a maximum of three stories change your concerns at all in that area? No, okay, just wanted to ask a question just to make sure even possible to drive away up there Yeah, so understood Steve In terms of the two maps I Don't have particularly strong feelings. I could go either way Gene Yeah, I looked at both areas I I I don't have strong feelings except that if you go down pole reviewer wrote there are houses there now, so I Don't see how they couldn't be converted to three-story Buildings, yeah, or that's my only question So I I too walked the topography of both of these areas and my concern like kins is that It's it's challenging for many of these that are Single family at this point to deal with the the grade because of the again the driveway, etc Once you start adding multifamily in this particular area Without the I believe that some of them have on-street parking waivers currently, but without that as a Official town Policy this becomes a challenging area to kins point to actually create multifamily Housing housing within so at this time to me it looks like the topography Is extremely challenging in this area to achieve the goal of the MBTA communities and I think alternative to has the you know one one nice part about it is it does get close to the bikeway and You know that is that is one of that is a transportation resource in in Arlington So do we are we? Seeing a consensus towards Can you are in favor of alternative to yes Steve yeah, I think I've been settling on alternative to I'd prefer alternative to Gene I'd be fine with others or two is fine. I just wonder whether If it's up is it actually up against the bikeway if it is do we need to have some Special rules for the buildings that are up against the bikeway Can you give me an example? I don't know. That's what I'm asking Yes Sorry, I'm saying what what's do we have special? I'm not sure we don't there's there's a special permit requirement Yes, there are not other than it is a special currently a special permit requirement that would eliminate that for these parcels if they Are included as part of the MBTA communities over late. I'm fine with that. I am as well same here, okay Okay, all right, so alternative to will be the recommendation Back to Orvis back to Orvis So again, I think just looking at what we looked at there in the in the heights one of the things I actually liked is that there are a couple of districts that are deeper and I I really do feel that it's appropriate for that in This particular section in East Arlington I Was actually surprised when I received the map that they are as shallow as as they are in the neighborhood districts that were added in To the east of of Orvis so Interested in what people think about looking at deepening those those parcels particularly where there is a shallow parcel that is Is adjacent to Mass Ave. I think the north side of Mass Ave After Orvis is has some deep sites. I think the South side is is a deep site challenged if we're to look at that and I don't want to use that I agree with Steve that you know That is a consideration, but I rather look at it. I go back to the original Comments in this look at this take a look at this as a whole and instead of just looking at it and getting a piecemeal in for now I think we made a commitment that we're gonna look at East Arlington along Mass Ave Yes, we're gonna make a look at Mass Ave along the heights. Yes, and let's do that in the spring We're gonna see the whole thing and and that's fine because I don't think including that in and jamming it in with The Mass Ave is just one extra thing that you know, it could be on you know Like a consequence that came out of something that we didn't know about. Let's let's just Take a little time to look at that area there. That's all Okay, Jean is it possible to just eliminate the parcels behind the shallow Parcels on this on this have and keep the others in because if you look let's say between Orvis and Lake There's just one shallow parcel and then they're not too shallow until you get to between Edgerton and Melrose and then there are a couple parcels Along Milton and then the rest of the way down. So maybe the way to do it is to Be a little more discerning about which ones stay in and which ones leave I don't know if we can do that and still have a contiguous district that I think that's the challenge with moving them around is maintaining contiguity unless so my understanding and Claire perhaps you can answer this for us is The Is the rough rule of thumb that was used that you went 150 feet in East Arlington and 350 feet in in the heights correct Okay, so could I suggest that we go to back to 250 feet? deep in East Arlington East of Orvis Road To maintain the continuity. So basically giving us a wide tape essentially taking what's What's proposed what's scenario 3a and just moving it Basically north of Mass Ave and south of Mass Ave. Yes, I think that's fine I'm uncomfortable Making a decision like tonight on When we looked at this originally we did spend some time looking at this and I don't want to just decide That big of a swath change Tonight here like this. I Rather Take some time look at this and study a little bit more. That's my opinion Gene did we give notice to 250 feet deep on both sides We gave notice there's a 300 foot buffer required for notification So those folks would have been noticed as part of the buffer accommodation so if if we do what Rachel suggested and extend The zone 250 feet on each side of Mass Ave in East Arlington and remove Some of the parcels that are on shallow would we have given enough notice? So those property owners were notified of the November excuse me at the September 11th meeting. I think I would have to go back and spot check to make sure But I do think the board can be relatively comfortable with yes, they've been noticed well, I think considering that they were once on the map and then they were taken off when The the zone was moved with the wider zone was moved west I'm comfortable putting them back on because my understanding was they were removed not because they were inappropriate But just to move things around a bit so balance balance the two sides Yeah, so I'm comfortable with what Rachel suggested and then removing the parcels that are are behind The shallow lots So we that's what that is. That's what I'm suggesting So we would need to be specific as to Which of these parcels? We would want to remove If we if we did want to remove any at this time or rather Simply by extending this allows us to ensure that If any changes are made in the future that we still have a contiguous Neighborhood zone my preference would be to to be basically redrawed take redrawed along the 250 foot line and Maintain our contiguity at that distance from the street Yeah, and Steve are you saying then to keep the current parcels with the extension or to remove some No to move them. So if if the if like Between winter and Cleveland for example Yeah, or for I was thinking more along the lines of if you took the area felt between say Melrose and Fairmont Those are probably the the southern edge of that line of parcels is probably a hundred feet off the road Or a hundred fifty feet. I'm suggesting move that back to 250 feet so it wouldn't be effect adding Yeah, basically move take what's there and shift it away from the road on both sides of my side Wouldn't be my preference, but I could live with that. Well, it wouldn't be my preference, but I could live with it, too It's not my preference and I don't want to live with it I Really do think that the it should be deeper in in this area I Don't disagree with you there, but I used to want to Rush because we want to get this out tonight. It's not I'm not suggesting I don't feel like it's rushed because I feel like I've seen enough Sorry, I want to make sure I'm speaking I feel like I've seen enough iterations of this and this was a concern that Jean and I raised several times Was that this area it was not deep deep enough, you know relative to the way that we're exploring this in other Areas, so I'm I'm perfectly comfortable extending this to 250 feet east of Orvis off of the center line of mass and again my I make the expectation is that we would look at the business districts Yes, and you know perhaps doing infill with multi-family districts at the same time, you know taking it, you know as one Do it as one whole Okay, so What it sounds like we're Centering around is accepting option scenario 3a With the caveat of extending the neighborhood districts to 250 feet The neighborhood district zone to 250 feet from the centerline of Mass Ave from East of east of Orvis to the alway Parkway or at least to the streets here, which are correct. Thank you very much. Is that too fair? I need to pull that up there. I'm not thank you And I still need some clarity. Are we keeping the current parcels? In that zone, or are we removing them all or some of them? Believe we're likely removing them and adding different ones in their place. All right So all of these are going to disappear and be replaced I'm not in alignment with that. Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand Sorry, let me just take notes If you do you want to keep discussing or no, okay, just so we're accepting Okay Can I ask? Okay, so there's There'll probably be two things so far that I'm not in agreement with mm-hmm So are we gonna vote on these individually or vote on the whole thing as one? To pass or not pass That's a great question because I don't want just to fail because of the two things that I have feelings for so I've been taking in More or less informal votes by asking for for people's opinions I am more than happy to take a formal vote once we go through all of these on each one of these items Or if there are specific ones that we want to for record ensure that we have individual votes for and then pass the overall We need to pet we need to take a singular vote on this warrant article at the end of the day so we can Continue if the board feels comfortable we can continue in the way that we have been working through this and again This is a public working session The Where we informally identify? What we are What we are planning on Accepting as the amended version of this to move forward into town meeting or we can take we can identify which we would like to take a Formal vote for record on knowing that at the end of the day we need to vote on a singular warrant article to provide favorable action or to Vote action or no action on Okay, so would you prefer to take a formal vote on several of these for record leading up to the vote of action? No, we do this all okay at the end Okay, so going back to the the depth of this district so we This would be extending from Orvis Road to a Fairmont on the south side of Mass Ave in Henderson Street on the northern side of Mass Ave to 250 feet from the center line Okay residential only properties right residential zone properties Okay, and I apologize. I don't have the map pulled up while I'm typing. It's Henderson and Fairmont Henderson Street and Fairmont Street Thank you. That's in the reason it stops there is because of floodplain Thank you Okay the next item is Wait, wait, I need clarity on Are we removing the current parcels? Are we just adding more depth to the current parcels? My my preference is to just add more depth. Well, that's my preference too. Oh, okay Mine is not Wait, well actually no adding more depth that means so If if I'm Interpreting what you're saying correctly that means we're not really addressing the shallow parcel phenomenon Again, if there are specific parcels that You would like us we need to then be specific about which which parcels Well, I think overall the district is too to narrow in this area again. My my request was to Well, if I would my preference or it I'll throw it throw an alternative about please so so widen to 250 feet on either side of Mass Ave And remove everything between Everything less than a hundred fifty feet from Mass Ave So think of drawing a thick band and then hollowing out the middle Where'd a hundred fifty feet come from Steve? That is my opening offer I'm trying to think of a parcel That we would consider deep enough and What? Well, I would like to leave a hundred feet on either side of Mass Ave 150 a hundred fifth at least a hundred feet of parcel depth For future business district expansion. All right, that makes more sense to me than a hundred fifty feet Okay, then let's then I will I will I will change my offer to a hundred hundred feet from the center line It's too arbitrary. I think we should leave it as as it is now and I Personally, I I I think we need to Extend extend the name I I would not be comfortable setting an arbitrary number. I know that 250 feet is what we originally started with looking at for the depth of this district For some reason that I don't understand it was narrowed I think it's too shallow now to provide any real continuity and I'd prefer to see What we have now for the neighborhood districts deep into 250 Okay, I'll agree with that My preference would still be to go with three with the other option and clear everything off of Orvis or I wouldn't come back to it But if madam chair if you and mr. Benson agree, I'll I'll I'll go along with it Can nope Fair enough So you're now just a clarification 250 feet some of the parcels may be part in and part out Are they therefore in or out of the district? What have we done up to this? What was the working group? Sorry to press my point again, but that's where we took time and looked at things. I understand, but this was requested to be looked at and it was missed and so I Don't feel comfortable moving forward with with this until we address it so perhaps we identify that we go one parcel deeper on Each of the on each of the both north and south of That would be fine It's just it's too shallow. Mm-hmm Can can somebody explain? I think that may be fine But it would be helpful if somebody who is on the working group Steve or Ken can explain What led to the shrinking of the depth and how this was determined to be the proposal So the this was in basically the feeling of the working group at the time was that it was too heavy in East Arlington because there were districts along two corridors Mass Ave and Broadway and With the heights because of the way the business districts come out There are a lot of areas where you know, you don't have anything on the the business you have business commercial parcels on the north side and You base we basically had a skinnier strip on the south so So so now that we if we remove the mass of parcels That changes the scale and we would therefore need to add back. That's a fair way to look at it That's how I'm looking at it. Yes I'm fine with that. So one more parcel deep. So I would propose to extend the neighborhood district by one additional parcel Let's be very clear on this between Between Lake Street and Fairmont Right Lake Street Fairmont and Henderson on the south side, right and Windsor and Henderson on the north side Which one are you suggesting when Windsor winter winter? I'm sorry and Henderson on the north side winter and Henderson on the north side, right? May I suggest a few specific parcels for removal? Please? Okay, so I'm let me let me just update that So north side Jean, can you just read off the streets for me? It was for a north side from winter to Henderson and On the south side from Lake to Fairmont What about those two blocks between Orville and winter that what happens there? They have deep parcels No, yes. Yes, Jean. They have deep parcels, but what are we doing there? We just saying leave it alone or we leaving it as a neighborhood Community and leaving the the front side open because that's business. I just want to know what we're doing there as Proposed in the current map Okay And that would be the same between Orville and Lake Street. That would be as opposed. Yes. Yes So current map as in 3a Yes Okay, so so start I'm going to work from East sorry from west to east left to right starting on the north side of Mass Ave Remove you know widen the row between Winter Street and Cleveland and also between Cleveland and Marathon So you're adding additional parcels to the neighborhood community. I'm suggesting removing parcels from the neighborhood Actually may may go up to the map and point that might be easier Sure Just one parcel deep. Yeah, basically I don't feel like we have enough detail shown on this map to see the parcel size To be able to make that call of removing them Gene what are your thoughts? Yeah, I agree. I'd prefer to to keep them in again without it without the information Unless unless somebody from the working group has the underlying Lot configuration here Yeah, look at scenario 3b Perfect, thank you shows the parcels So I don't have both printed out in front of me here 3b what's the other one you want? 3b and 3a side-by-side I got chicken patches all over it. Yeah, that's fine Okay, so you were suggesting So you were suggesting which parcels So start with winter we'll start with the between winter in Cleveland. Yes So there's kind of behind the commercial section there. There's that big L shape one I think we're gonna leave that one in leave that one. Yeah, but we can go back one more along Cleveland Street We could also go back one more between Cleveland and Marathon and at the corner of Windsor and Mass Ave one more deep there between when Windsor or yet, so the corner of yet. I see what you're saying. Yep And So, let me take a look at Amsterdam. Yep Go go one in on the corner on the northeast corner of Amsterdam. Yep Jumping back and forth between these and then so let's go around Milton Street So there's two small. Yep. Those two those two little ones. Yep. Let's go over Between Varnum and Magnolia I think that can stay at so that one can I think that can stay as it as is. Yeah, and then Thorndike there's that, you know, you've got two little ones on the corner there The southeast corner of Thorndike and Mass Ave You want to look at that? Okay, you're good. I think that's all fine if anybody that's acceptable to me. Yeah, if anybody can actually Commit it to paper or something. I Will read that out. I will read that out when we Make the motion Update my notes Okay So the next item on our agenda or on our list was confirm that we are aligned on zoning when looking At parcels in and out of the overlay district Jean. This was one that you added this was section 5.9.1 see where we wanted Jean wanted to confirm that the Board was aligned with the text that he added for if a proposed development is located on a parcel or parcels only partially within The Mass Ave and Broadway multi-family district or the multi-family neighborhood Districts the provisions for the existing underlying zoning shall apply and not that of the overlay districts Because that was that was missing from this and I I agree and I could see a situation where that happened and Things would creep down some of the side streets. I understand that Jean, but when you now you now you you change the Area which you're You're allowed to do as of right I would propose that If a new parcel straddles two different parcels one MBTA MBTA Overlay and one that it does not straddle that then each parcel that's on each and its respective Area would have to follow that area's Regulations because the way you're saying is now the area that was an MBTA area is now Because you're combining lots you're making it More restrictive because now you have to go through special permit you get to all those stuff so you you're actually decreasing the number of of Lots or areas that do that. No, I think I think you're misunderstanding what I'm doing I'm not changing something so for parcel is in the mass Broadway multifamily district it complies with those rules, but how about a parcel that's Partially within that district The parcels all in that district then somebody buys In combines the properties the adjacent property and combines properties So you had a parcel that was in the district in the overlay and you had a parcel that was not in the overlay They've now combined them. The question is which of the rules apply. I think the rule that should apply is The underlying rule or else somebody could buy three or four parcels combine them and all of a sudden you'd have you know a tall building Way into the neighborhood, which was not the intention. I would agree with you there but If I were look at the other way if I had one parcel that was not in the overlay one parcel Was in the overlay now you're saying if I combine those two pieces of property because it makes a bigger lot Then that bigger lot has to has to fall not with the MBTA communities has to fall within The original underlining underlining right that so that means you're carving into that portion that was MBTA now no longer becomes that because you combine the lots only if you combine the lots You don't have to combine the lots you could do it the other way. This was silent it didn't say and I decided we needed to know which way we were going to go and One of the comments that I read from someone. I don't remember who it was said, you know These things are going to proliferate. That's not the word that the person use Proliferate all the way down and I agree of you But what if we just said that the Lot that was on MBTA stays with that and that portion of that project Can fall within the height requirements and everything else that goes with the MBTA But the lot that was not cannot assume that those rights They have to stay with the underlying rot lots. So it doesn't continue down the street but what was existing before maintains the The rights of the MBTA how would that work? So you you own a parcel in the overlay You buy the parcel next door, which is not in the overlay You combine them you want to put something on both parcels So one is two and a half stories high and the other one is four stories One building you have to get a special permit for half the building. No, you follow the what's required for Yeah, you could get a special permit if you want to make all the way across the same way and we have the chance to review it but let's say on that parcel that was not in the overlay and As a right is two and a half stories and it's just a house So and then once you step on to the overlay they can go to a Three-story or four-story where we decide okay, and now so now it could be a row of townhouses In those two combined lots because you got rid of the side yaw setbacks and makes it more efficient The portion that was existing in MBTA would get the benefit of MBTA And the portion that was not has to be found on the lay requirements unless they go for a special permit And that's all I'm saying is maintaining the rights of the MBTA instead of just If you combine lots now you're encroaching on the other side You're doing the direct opposite of what you're saying trying to prevent which is marching down the road You're just marching down the road with the non MBTA requirements If you combine lots think I'm gonna agree with mr. Lau So how would you reword this because I? I'm struggling to see how you would Have your foot in both in both spaces. I I actually agree with Jean and that I We need to pick a lane here and either decide that one governs or or the other I'm really struggling with how how a site plan review versus a special permit process coexist and We are drawing a line down the middle of a building To identify that half of it meets one set of rules in the other half meets the other well there's well in terms of You know applying a special permit or applying site plan review to a partial to a partial product project This is something the Zoning Board of Appeals does all the time you have someone who's rebuilding something, but They want to do go out a little move, you know go go forward a little bit with a porch So you have a special permit hearing which is focused on just the porch and only the porch understood Much like we do for signs and other exactly Go ahead The portion of the building that is not in MBT communities if it still falls within its regular it's an underlying Zoning you don't need a special permit So so so you would build up depending on the I mean there's a lot of if then yeah But it's the same everything else with we're doing here So if we had a project that's that they want to combine properties the portion of the Property that was on MBTA would have it's all all its rights and a portion of the property that does not have it does not so let's say So one half of it Has to maintain its underlying zoning things So it achieves what jeans trying to say you don't buy property to combine and carry that all the way down the street It stops where we had stopped But but it doesn't go the other way where just because you combine properties now you have now you have to fall within the older scheme so you can have Town homes three four story three four family units Then when you step over the MBTA it goes down to two and that's me you have some Town homes are a whole other But that's what that's what will you ask me? How would you build one problem one one building that would fit that was straddle both properties, and I just gave you an example That's all yes. Yes is another but I'm just as an example Steve Well in terms of wording, I'll here's an idea So 591 C so the last Sort of the ending of it starting with the word the okay the provisions of the under The provisions of the existing underlying zoning shall apply to parcels outside the overlay district so if if Can and you as a partnership Have combined these two parcels. They're now one parcel They're not two parcels anymore, so you can't say one parcel is in and one parcel Okay, fair fair point, but but the rules are saying that that it would still when you combine the parcels The original zoning of each parcel still carries forth on the MBTA overlay So so that's all I'm saying because otherwise You're decreasing what you already established as the square footage if your point is to decrease it then let's decrease it Let's not use this as a I don't I don't I don't think anyone's looking to decrease it. It's it's again to deal with the with over And I agree with it. Let's not do over and let them watch down the street, right? That's not the issue here right and again, I I I don't think Jean is at all looking for ways to decrease right So so There are a whole bunch of requirements that will exist in the underlying district that will not exist in The overlay district not only whether you need a special permit or not the height the number of units the Dimensional requirements for various sorts of things. I just think it's it's gonna be crazy to try to take whether they're two or three townhomes or or a Six-unit multi-building and figure out what to do with part of it in what had been a parcel in The overlay district and part of it that had been a parcel that was not in the overlay district and Two sets of rules Two different pop procedures to follow. It's just makes it a lot worse For the developer the developer be better off Not combining the parcels building one building on one and one building on the other or figuring out whether It wants to go with the underlying zoning and do it rather than oh, I've got to go for a special permit for this part of the building and For site plan review for this part I have one set of dimensional rules for one part of the building another set of The other part of the building it just seems to me It's a way to make a lot of trouble. I Would actually agree. I think again. We're trying to simplify and make things easier to develop and I If you're interested in Creating a project where you combine parcels creatively in that way Treating them as separate projects seems to be the appropriate Way to approach that. I appreciate I point taken about Simplification so it sounds like three of us are in agreement on this one. Okay The next is around adding street tree requirements subject to Zoning bylaw 6.3. Yes, the other there's another part which can will disagree with me again. I predict. I'm okay. I missed that. I apologize No, that's okay. It's the first part of that sentence. So right now the rules are if you're part in the MBMF and part in The NMF the provision of the MBMF can apply Okay, so let's take Let's take one of these parcels that Is on mass F so it's in the MBMF and then there are six parcels down the side street Or five whatever the number turns out to be that's in the NMF You combine them all because you've bought up those parcels You now have a large parcel part in the MBMF part in the neighborhood multifamily district if you apply the rules of the MN FF You can build a six-story building that is not only on mass F But goes five or six parcels down one of the side streets and you can put commercial on The ground floor in the resident in what otherwise would be a residential district Was that the intention of the working group to allow that or was it just well if there just happens to be a parcel? Right around the corner. It makes sense to I believe we were considering the case where it was you know something Along you know on that with frontage on mass F and a parcel behind it Yeah, but not but not necessarily a whole string. Yeah, so this this is a problem with how it's written unless you want to say one parcel Deep off mass F or Broadway Was a what is I think a way to ameliorate the potential problem? so perhaps we could if I could make a suggestion the provisions of the MB MF district shall apply For a Maximum of one parcel depth. Yeah, yeah Into the NMF. Yep That's good Ken In the spirit organ of Compromise yes, okay Okay, thanks. Thank you moving on Adding the street tree requirements subject to ZBL 6.3 so if if We're going to bring a street tree Amendment to town meeting the street tree amendment if town meeting approves it would Say they're in residential districts, too. Then all we would have to do here is add something To the regulations that say The all of these are subject to section 6.3 No, yeah, I believe that's it that was the that was the end that was the intent again Then the intent of the MBT community Zoni overlay was was too Like easy to build housing so there there are bonuses that are added to encourage Fertile housing Site changes Solar whatever so I think we in the spirit of it I think since we're already covering street trees is part of something we want to put as a zoning ordinance That would just go and stand on his own, but not tie this in with The MBT communities because we're not giving it a bonus. We're making it a requirement We are making it a requirement as part of the MBT communities and we were asked to do that and is that part is that legal? for a challenge because now you're making something that's a requirement and The issue was not to make it okay. I'm not saying I'm not for street trees I'm just saying does this stand the test it stands the test if we amend Town meeting amends the street tree bylaw to right now the street tree bylaw only applies to certain commercial buildings our Proposal is to have it apply To residential as well residential as well so then if we make it a requirement here It's it's a parallel requirement. It's not a problem Dan. Can we make it make it saying that if If the town passes that this order When it's then this would come part of it. Otherwise if the town does not pass it. This is not a requirement as part of MBTA Again, I think this goes back to the question of Are all of the items from the underlying zoning requirements unless otherwise amended or? State or Addressed in in this here, and I see Sanjay raising his hand Yes, there's a microphone right over and a chair right over by Claire So in terms of Sanjay, sorry just introduce yourself for the record. Thank you chair of the MTA communities working group I think this question of the what applies from underlying zoning versus what I think what the Working group was going for and and the intention was that you know where there are Things that are specific to the underlying zone Those don't apply to the overlay right where there are things that apply to zoning in general Those do apply unless specifically noted. So if they're you know if the underlying zone is I'm gonna pick our Four or our five right things that are specific to our five Don't apply right if there are things that apply to all residential zones Right, then those would apply Or all zone or all sorry excuse me excuse me all zones excuse me all zones. Yes. Yes. Yes No, you're interpreting it the way I have interpreted it correct, which is this is not a business zone This is not a residential zone So the business zoning requirements the residential zoning requirements then apply But the part of the zoning by law that applies to all zones. Yes apply to it. So you and I agree So then we wouldn't need to add anything in Jean if town meeting passes No, no we article go can I just finish my thought okay article 10 Because the way that we currently have it written in article 10 is that it should be administered It is subject to be administered by section 3.3 special permits 3.4 environmental design review in section 9.x Which is what this will be Which would Then allow this to apply To both residential as well as no because not unfortunately not the way I wrote it We'd have to amend it because what it says we could amend it when we get to that one Right in the business and residential districts can we change it to all districts? When we get to when we get to article 10, I will have some wording proposed some wording changes to propose Because the article is written as all developments not specific to the article 10 the way it's written is Require a street to be planted for every 25 street feet of street frontage for all developments We have some latitude We have a different street tree requirement in the industrial zone Already but that is an exception to this so we would have to but it's already an exception in the industrial No, but if we say in all districts Then we have a contradiction in the bylaw Then perhaps we write all districts except the industrial district to do that Okay, and that would allow us to not have to add it to this one and we will take care of editing that when we get to article 10 With that I have to think about which one's better. Okay. Yeah other thoughts. Nope. I'm happy with that Okay, thank you Sanjay. Okay, so we will review altering wording 10 to include the overlay district Yeah, I guess we could say just just to please let's finish the thought out. Yep Just to think this through for a second. We could say in the business residential and MBTA overlay districts We could be as specific as we want to get yes, we could do that. Yes Multifamily housing overlay districts. Okay. Yes, so not in this article We'll do that in article 10. Okay. Yep the next item is solar roof requirements for the Massachusetts and Broadway multi-family district Gene your thoughts on where to add this. Yes, so let me pull up the Solar bylaw for a second So right now section 6.4 right right now the solar energy system only across requires Is for project requiring environmental design review correct My and those projects as we know are generally projects Along massive and Broadway that require a special permit. My thought is that we should apply it Only in the M in the mass and Broadway multi-family district Not in the neighborhood district because there we're dealing with a lot of free family homes and we're not we haven't imposed that requirement There so I would just impose it on the two streets where we Where we have it now for EDR review, you know, the alternative Well, we can't do that because it's too late So So, Gene are you suggesting that we add for example a section 13 or fold it into the development standards either that I'll put a separate section Yeah, one or the other We might put it in the development. I feel like it belongs in the development standards or Steve. What are your thoughts? No, that's fine. Okay They're almost now is in a MBTA overlay or separate ordinance Much like in section 5.9.4 development standards We reference other sections that apply and do not apply to identify that section 6.4 the solar energy systems requirements Required in the mass av and Broadway multi-family district that would be a line item Under the development standards. Yeah, so it'll be oh so we're no longer 6.4 6.4 stays in you know, that is in the zoning bylaw. We're referencing here that For example 6 point unfortunately because of the way 6.4 is written it requires So we could do it one of two ways. We could either say a project requiring environmental design review per 3.4.2 or Solar bylaw Right so that that is one way to do so right there's two ways we could either do that But you're right. We don't have that that one currently in or again. We add Before number 12 or somewhere in there somewhere in here we add The Or section 6.4.1 applies to All projects in the Mbmf I don't know. I just I just seems like we're getting away from the spirit of this overlay and We're burdening it with all these other criterias when clearly it says that We're giving it Relief from all these other extra burns and If you want to do all the things you get a bonus for it, but I don't see a bonus for this This is seems like you have to do this or you don't get it That's exactly right because the town has identified that for these large Developments that a this solar bylaw is is important to the town So leave it as a town zoning is the underlaying and that still applies and just take it off at MBTA requirement It it doesn't because it the way that that is written is it requires environmental design reviews. So we need to Like these other things make the provision that it also applies for this process, which is site plan review Because they're not coming in front of environmental design review. So it's a requirement for site plan review only It is it is a requirement for the multi-family business Excuse me the Massachusetts in Broadway multi-family district Within this process Which again is not specified in that particular section because it is specific to environmental design review But again because it's only the Mass Ave in Broadway. These are the larger projects again that are aligned with the requirements I'm all for yep this program. I just not sure how we do it this now and I and I and I mean I It would Ideally we would handle this in the same way we handle trees Yes except except we don't have a solar bylaw going to town meeting So we can handle it this way because this is how You've done it with affordable housing you could have amended the affordable housing part of The zoning bylaw to include this district, but you didn't and there's nothing wrong with not having done it either way I think is perfectly acceptable instead what what the working group decided to do was to say the affordable housing requirements apply to These similarly we say the solar bylaw requirements apply in the You know MBMF district so Claire I have a question for you before we discuss this further much like we have amended multiple sections section 2 definitions and section 5 District regulations Because of the way that the warrant article is written relative to Amending the zoning bylaw To adopt the MBT community overlay district or take any action relative there, too We're defining site plan review as part of the MBT communities overlay district would it be reasonable to assume that the Scope of this warrant article would also allow us to amend section 6.4 to include Site plan review and exists in addition to environmental design review Yes, it would be correct to assume that I Would want to get a ruling from the moderator Because if he says the other way then we're sunk and I don't think we need to do it I think it's just as acceptable To put it into this new section 5.9 the my concern about I Understand where you're going madam chair. My concern is that might put us into the two-thirds Curitory I mean, I'm fine with putting it into development standards. I'm just trying to find a way that's clean To to do this so I'm fine with adding another section saying that 6.4 is applicable in the MBMF district signs signs so Since Sanjay and I agree about what the intention was in this and if you look at the sign bylaws for each one of the signs they say what the rules are for Residential residential slash business business districts, but there's no rule for the overlay district And we don't want to put this in the residential district because some of them may be Multi-use some of them might be tall apartment buildings on Mass Ave. And Broadway And if you look at those the higher our district numbers have different sign rules than the lower our district numbers So my thought about how to do this is similar to what I'm proposing for the solar bylaw Which is to say It's subject to the sign bylaw and in the NMF It subject to the requirements of the residential sign district in the MBMF for residential buildings It's subject to the residential slash business sign district and for mixed use in the MBMF It's subject to the business sign district because that most correctly corresponds to how we deal with those things now That makes sense to me Kim I'll be fine with that for now. Yeah, I'm also fine with the madam chair. Okay, can you so that I can Put that in for record so that I can read it out. Can you is that written on thank you Let's get the outcome back to the next one She while I'm typing this out Jean if you want to go to the duplicate requirements, okay So if you look at So if you look at five nine four ten says the minimum front set back is 15 feet except in the MBMF District where the ground floor facade facing public way blah blah blah blah is zero But then if you look at the next page It tells you it's 15 feet in the chart and in the bonus right below that it tells you that There's no Front yard set back it's reduced to zero. So you have the exact same Information in the chart in 12 and in bonuses as you have in 10 So my suggestion would be to delete ten from nine point five point nine point four d ten except Take the sentence that says minimum required front setback area shall be available for uses such as trees landscaping Benches tables chairs play areas public art or similar features and move it to a note under The chart on the next page, which is really where it belongs I think The only thing is you can't say public art Because it's not technically public art. It's art. It's not the public art So we would have to remove the word public, but we could otherwise take it and move it To an explanation of what we expect in the foot setback. So that that's how I think we get rid of that too Oh gene the intent Was the Have a 15-yard setback along Mass Ave and Broadway, right not changing that and then if you did a mix use Project along Mass Ave and Broadway the lower floors Or you delete that setback. I'm not changing that. I'm just saying that here's twice in here I just want to get rid of one of the two times. It says it Okay. Yeah, so you're I just want to make sure that I'm writing this properly. We're Eliminating the first sentence and we're moving the second sentence to the chart in 12 Well the second and the third sentence the parking space is Moving thank you Rachel. Yes. Can we go back to site certifiable? Yes, absolutely. I have those highlighted to go back to a while I was taking notes. I just Couldn't do both of those at the same time. Thank you Sorry, I'm trying to let you finish. I wish we had a Somebody to take notes for me here Okay, I have to read this all back to us at the end I'm going to highlight that one and that one. Okay, let's go back to the sites Certifiable so can I take this one Jean? Please do. Okay My feeling is that for an additional floor Certifiable is not a high enough standard I've seen the lead Certifiable checklists that come in front of us and they are barely checking a box They typically have no understanding of what it is. They are actually filling out And for us to allow for additional floors I feel like they actually need to be doing something to make the projects more sustainable I also question whether sites is the right standard. I Work in the green building space and I rarely if ever see any sites Certifiable or sites standards, you know in terms of the the rating system come in front of me so my suggestion would be to reword this To perhaps use lead gold certified or equivalent level of alternative Alternate green building standard as reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development or the Redevelopment Board so give them an option to use passive house well sites if they want to but set a standard that is More regularly seen And adopted within the green building community and set a certified rather than certifiable Standard so to achieve the additional story so lead gold certified certified or equivalent level of Alternate it alternative or alternate excuse me green building standard as reviewed and approved By the Department of Planning and Community Development and or the redevelopment board so it would be through the Towns environmental planner or through the review process for site plan review I like that my suggestion would be approved by the redevelopment board because then We could have either Claire or David Morgan or wherever go to us and explain why and So it's an appropriate one to use in this situation and then we could make the call I'm okay with that, but I agree. I think that I would want to involve the experts in our in our town Planning department in that process Very can one of your thoughts on that one thinking If there are two or three other standards would we want to adopt them in our rules and regulations rather than If sorry if there are other standards or do we want to adopt them in our rules and regulations rather than a You know a case-by-case basis. That's a that's a great question. My my feeling is that There are the standards continue to evolve which I think is is great. Yeah, and I Our rules and regulations to your point are easier to Easier to revise and adopt a minute. Thank you adopt and amend and but I think this approach would be similar to what we just adopted with regard to the The water stormwater treatment where we identified a standard or Alternative path as opposed to naming all of the alternatives. So in my mind, it's consistent with what town meeting approved. Yep, previously. I Think I agree of you that certifiable is Is not Correct to get of extra floor bonus and The buildings won't get any taller they're just gonna have to choose Do they want to go over green building or Buildings with affordable units in it To or mix use or mix use right to get that bonus. Yes And so if that's if that's a choice they have I think I'm okay with that Yes, it wouldn't change the fact that they have a choice of compliance paths for the bonus because then they're not going to just Build on it. It's not going to be, you know, I get to here get to here here. Correct. It's not cumulative It's yep, or that's that was the intent of the Working group that all these bonuses were not cumulative and they can choose do we want to say lead gold certified or better? Or at least lead gold certified. We can say minimum lead lead gold certified. This is a gold or better, right? I'm kind of changing the whole thing If we say that it's minimum lead gold certified or equivalent level of okay Alternative green building standard That is a question That just came up in my mind under bonuses. Are we explicit? Where are we explicit that these are not cumulative? I just want to make sure we had something there for she'll not exceed six stories. Okay. Thank you As long as you're there. I just wanted to double-check As long as you're on that power. Yes Sanjay, did you want to make a clarification? I think they are not cumulative past six stories Yes, so you could do one story of affordable and one story of Well, whatever you've just decided on So that is cumulative But not yes on six correct. Okay. Great. Thank you Appreciate that clarification because I did not state that properly before. Thank you Sanjay As long as you're looking that sentence Yes, we should delete and four stories 46 feet in the NMF because there are no bonuses in the NMF So we don't need We don't need that part of that sentence We haven't gotten there yet. No, no, but as long as we're on this. No, but you just you guys brought it down to three stories We've never got the discussion about bonuses on on that To add on the floor, okay, so you're assuming that three fours is the maximum, right? And we haven't talked about that yet. So I didn't have that on my list, but I will add it can to talk about Okay, so I will add in discuss bonuses for NMF, okay So we'll come back to that one the next one I had was adding to the purpose statement and Encourage environmental and environmental and climate protection sensitive development any concerns with that in a section 5.9.2 I looked at it and there was nothing about environment or climate and yet this has Solar it has trees it has legal certified or similar So I thought it would be nice to put in that one of the purposes are not to require but to encourage Environmental and climate protection sensitive development a lot of these are no concerns madam chair kin No, all right. The next is About front yard setbacks and extra stories Relative to the multifamily Should we restrict this is where we were going to discuss restaurant and retail Or serve defining the types of businesses that we would accept in the first floor of these Well, excuse me require in the first floor of these multifamily or these mixed-use buildings Perhaps restrict residences on the first floor in mixed-use buildings and whether or not 60% Was a high enough? Requirement for the business use so open it up to Ken Well as you well, we do know residents on the first floor And the mixed-use building that automatically makes that building an elevator building because you know You no longer can put a handicap unit on the first floor and say that this meets ADA So if we if we exclude Residents on the first floor now you now you include elevators in the building no matter what size So when we do say that then that that comes back to elevated buildings again, well, we said that elevators Are not a code requirement. It's just an industry standard for floor stories enough Could I suggest that perhaps we identify no residences on the first floor for? buildings over four stories and This is they take the bonus and and this is only for mixed-use buildings, right? Correct This is only to get the bonus you can't get the bonus for commercial on the ground floor if you have a residential unit on the ground that's you were already only talking about buildings over four stories This is only related to this well at least for right So if you're going to get the bonus You can't have a residence on the ground floor because we're trying to reserve as much of the grounds floor as possible for Some sort of commercial yet to be defined space So I don't we don't want to somebody to put a residence on the ground floor Unless they're just going to do like a three or four-story building without the bonuses then they can do it Okay Okay, so we're aligned with no residence again. This is for the mixed sheet for the extra stories for mixed-use No residences on the first floor question around restricting The business uses See if you would mention that there was originally some language Yes, the working group was looking at for this. So yes Allowing that mixed-use in the Mass Ave. Broadway multi-family district would allow Commercial uses Would allow commerce the commercial uses allowed in the v2 district Go to the table of uses. I don't think I ever saw a draft with that in it So we'll need to take a look at what that is. No, there's never in the draft Okay, so that's that includes offices Allowed by special permit or allowed by right Well, they're all I mean, I would imagine This is this is one detail that was not laid it lit Not nailed down, but I think b2 allowed by right So that would be things like smaller rest restaurants under 3,000 square feet fast food under 1,500 square feet under 3,000 square feet of retail Under 1,000 square feet of manufacturing And so on And it doesn't include it does include offices Yes, it does, but Steve what happens if it's a restaurant greater than 3,000 square feet But that's where it's yeah, that's a challenge that would that would be it would basically mean you're not going to put it there Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me In fact a lot of the things in b2. I think that are as of right Are not things where we would Necessarily say oh, yeah, there's no need for a setback because of those I'm looking for Things where The advantage of pulling it up to the street and not having the setback is sort of the pedestrian experience So that's clearly going to be you know things like retail stores, right and restaurants and Maybe some service businesses. I'm not sure but if it's just an office There's no reason an office can't be set back 15 feet if it's a bank I think a bank can be set back 15 feet, you know, so I'm not quite sure Where to draw the line other than Retail and restaurants. I know which side of the line retail and restaurants go on in my view of this I don't know what else goes on that side of the line Business services was one that you yeah, how would we define business in the in the Table of uses that's defined as copy centers print shops Banks. Yes, the banks. I don't think hair laundry dry cleaning Veterinarian animal care I'm actually fine with having those come up all the way to the street Shen here It's it I would agree. It adds to the pop on the street life there, you know having it Pulled back. It just it just now you're holding back businesses because It's real. I think it's really a trade between Having some green space in front of a building and the advantage of pulling buildings up to the sidewalk You know pedestrians Having Being right there and I can see it for retail stores. I can see it for restaurants I can't I can't see it for offices. I can't see it for banks Particularly, but if you all think banks fit in there, I Think business services do and banks are part of that category So we could say Restaurant I'm going to be consistent with the way that they're defined eating and drinking establishments retail and Business services, okay, I mean the other use That we should consider and again It would be a benefit to We have daycare uses That have that are important to the residents of these buildings in which we know we're underserved of in Arlington, I have to see what category those fall under but that's something we should discuss as well I'm fine with the categories that you proposed and I do agree with with daycare family child care That's under accessory uses say that again accessory. I know family child care is that's this that's the Homecare correct Claire do you Know based on the footnoted is home home care. Yeah Well, I can find where where it is, but do we agree that that's one that we should allow? Yes as well Jean sure Okay, they should allow all businesses, but Let's keep I'm not sure we're gonna be able to finish everything today We don't really have a choice Unfortunately So eating and drinking eating and drinking business services child care We include offices right retail. No We're excluding offices. Yes They can have it on the first floor. They just don't get the 15 feet or the bonus Yeah, I think you just adding more Criteria to not scourging having any more stuff there. I mean Well, yes, this is if we want to Encourage business and housing. Let's encourage it when you put all this burden on it You don't get it and if you want to do more green space then let's talk about green space and and have that a separate discussion But you put the green space burden on This right here. It's I think it's unfair if you want to green space put it in the parking lot Put an order of car parks and and make it a Where it's like 10 feet wide it's part of the sidewalk process put it I mean, but you keep on adding things to the sting here the way I look at this is right now the rule is 15 foot setback unless you meet certain requirements and The question is which of those certain requirements Allow you to not allow you to Not have to do the 15 foot setback. So the 15 foot setback is the baseline. It's already there. So we're talking about which ones Can you have on the ground floor that are? Appropriate enough to pull up to the sidewalk and we've come up with a lot of them What's the reason to have offices at the sidewalk level as opposed to walking 15 feet and going into the office? This is a sort of a chan gentle question What would we do if someone came in for site plan review and had Retail on the first floor office space in the second and then three floors of residential They can do that. They can do that. Okay, good. This is only on the ground floor Well, let's say we had residents and we had a retail there. Okay, and we gave them an exception of no setback applied 10 years down a line that retail store goes out of business Now they're only locked in to do retail. They can't put an office in there They can do retail eating and drinking establishments business service. I know the list you gave me But now now you're limiting to what they can do. They may be empty store funds now. We're we're doing that and I Don't know what difference to make if one or two businesses Don't have a green space. So you you're just putting More burden on this. That's all I'm saying. Okay, and yeah, maybe I'm in the minority here Okay, but we'll just keep on adding extra burden on the stuff here that is totally against What we're trying to do here and make it easier for someone to develop more housing So if you want to do this, you could it just seems I don't know I just seemed that I feel like maybe I'm in a minority here, but we're we're doing that and And we're you know, we're taking less as of right stuff and putting in. Oh, well They have to come by our review. They have to come by this review They can build a four-story high apartment building Right when this pass is Fine if they want to build up another story or two by putting Commercial on the ground floor They have to understand what type of commercial is allowed and what type is not allowed I'm in agreement with that For the bonus on here The next was the yard and minimum chart Jean these are just minor minor things we need to say minimum Where it has Front set back side rear set back it should probably say front yard set back side yard set back Rear yard set back minimum and the the interesting thing is we got one comment that said What you might want to do for the side set back and it's allowed somewhere in the in the zone is say Maximum of 20 feet a minimum of five feet, but at least 20 right So I wondered if we wanted to go with that instead of the 20 feet Decide 10 feet that's here now the that gives a little more flexibility To where it goes on the lot But you still have a total of 20 feet and you still have to have a minimum of five I Could go either way. I just was interested in what other folks thought about it So I had that I had that on my list of things to Talk about tonight, but Mr. Benson did too. So I let his version take precedence. Okay. I agree with it I believe the member of the public who made that suggestion was motivated by the fact by the belief that it would Reduce the amount of tandem parking required because you could do side-by-side In a 15-foot yard. I'm I would I would like to see us put that provision in Can you restate that one more time so that I can type that properly one side minimum five feet two sides minimum 20 feet Well, you can write it the other way two sides a minimum 20 feet one side minimum five And we do that total total and it would do that would just be the side setbacks And we refer to this as a corner lot or just a painy lot any lot and it would just be in the NMF As opposed to the street and it just gives a little more flexibility About where you're going to place the building on the line Well, you're saying two sides a minimum of 20 feet, right? Well, right now. It's 10 feet on a side. Yes So what the proposal is? Minimum of 20 feet total Minimum of five on either side so you could have so two sides has a total 20 Okay, when I do 15 and 5 or 10 and 10 fine when I read this it didn't I didn't understand it that way Okay, I just read it as two side minimums of 20 feet. No, there's no total in there. No, but that's because we have to write it Okay Okay All right, Jean the next one was a capitalization. I think any scriveners. Yeah, I can draw all okay with any scriveners Updates that yes, Jean has a little fine Move on plenty more to cover. Okay step backs step back. So this proposes upper story step backs required on all street frontages Step back 7.5 feet from the property line starting on the fifth floor. We have proposed fourth floor fourth floor and we have proposed on the principal frontage Only and we have allowed Cumulative step backs so by the time you get to the fourth floor You've stepped back the seven and a half feet so you could do them on the second floor You could do them part of the second part of the third part of the fourth my feeling about this is that we should Delete this from the development standards and instead put in that it must comply with the step back standards in five point three point seventeen so we have a consistent step back standards Across town That's that's my suggestion for that rather than have a slightly different one I think that makes sense to me so in a corner lot You pick you pick the primary or it would be on Mass Ave What we wrote and we'll get to this what we wrote in our proposal to amend the step back requirements is if you're on Mass Ave or Broadway, there's a presumption that the principal facade is Mass Ave or Broadway But when they come to us ARB They can say oh, no that really doesn't work. It's really the side streets and we can say yes or no That works fine when they come to us. Yeah, but this is not coming to us Site plan review every one of these is coming. Yeah, but a site plan review. Okay, maybe my interpretation isn't correct Cycling reviews is recommendation. It doesn't really carry any weight of it's binding Claire correct me if I'm wrong site plan review is binding They are we does not enforce it. So I plan review is binding. It's binding So what we say the site plan review is binding. So if we say that getting to change this and they change this It's binding. Yes, I didn't believe that was the interpretation. We had at the working group. I Thought it was just a recommendation and they it was not binding It's binding unless it goes beyond what we're allowed to do under the zoning bylaw Okay, it's that aside Okay, so if they chose one side as a primary and they do a setback a Step back. Sorry a step back. So the other side does not require a step back. They could just be flush Right, they can they can Include one, but it is not required If the amendment to town meeting passes currently it is required Since we're on the topic of Corners, yes, this is a little bit of it jumping back to bonuses in section e1 One of the conditions for Ground floor commercial is that 80% of the frontage be occupied by business uses? Yes on a corner lot Would that be is that principal facade only or both facades? Principal facade principal would you agree? That's how we've been enforcing that currently, okay? We haven't discussed yet whether 60% is the right number though. We have not Do you have something to? Do you have an alternate to propose Jean as a six 60%? No, just that we we have discussed whether 60% is the right number and then we got the letter today from the Chamber of Commerce Suggesting 60% was not enough Madam chair, I was wondering if Mr. Latel had any insight Please thank you. I Think you can adjust it But our thinking was that it works on both Big parcels and smaller parcels if you had a 10,000 square foot building That's 6,000 square foot of retail. That's a lot There's very few establishments that can even fill that If you have a smaller parcel, let's say your footprint is 3,000 square feet right or 2,000 square feet It would still give you 1200 but you need space for two means of egress elevators lobbies package room mechanical I Still think within the 60% on big projects You're getting a lot and on smaller projects. You're still it's still realizing. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it I also want to add in that Bicycle parking on the ground floor is also important and you know if we trying to enforce or encourage bicycle Having it stuffed down the basement or somewhere else is not the way to go Right, right. So I think we want to have ample room on the ground floor. I'm not taken away from the Beecho, but I think I'm comfortable with 60% Okay I'm also comfortable with 60% all right. All right. Let's leave it there. Let's move on next is See we were just starting to talk about section e1 Steve was that We just finished that one. We just finished that one. Yes. Thank you Section 5.9 point 4d5 traffic traffic visibility across street corners So this has to do with Sanjay and my interpretation of The draft of the bylaw as opposed to everyone else. So if you look at 5.3 point 12 a Which I'll have to find Thank you in more way than one But I'm pop what number we are 5.9.4d5 traffic visibility on street corners does not apply Gene had a question about this Do I have to move on will you find out? No, so here's what it says Across street corners between the property lines of intersecting streets in a line Joining points on the property lines 20 feet distant from their point of intersection or in the case around the corner the point of intersection Or of their tansits no building or structure in any our district May be erected and no blah blah blah blah. Well, these are not our districts. This is the overlay district So where the way this is written now for this is I Does not apply in the MBF district. Well, it doesn't apply in in either of the districts now Because they're not residential districts. So I think what you meant to say but maybe I'm presuming too much is The traffic visibility across street corners applies in the NMF overlay district Right because you just wanted to apply to that district and not the MBMF district So I would just flip around what this says To meet what I think was your intention So you would say you would suggest that gene that traffic visibility across street corners 5.9.4d5 in the MMF district MMF only in the N right and I don't believe so gene I don't we I think when we talked about that we did not say in the surrounding neighborhood districts and we just said that because It is a multi-use. It's not a residential house. It's not our one or hard or somebody that are zero. This is Multi-use and we didn't and so we may talk about that and you may want to change that but that's not what we talked about But that's what it says right here in your section. It says it does it does not apply in the MBMF district Implying that applies in the neighborhood We didn't talk about that that's what I'm telling you. It looks like Sanjay has a clarification I would say this wasn't a big point of discussion in the working group I'm not sure how much we talked about but my understanding of the intention there is what gene is saying that the You know the the visibility would apply in the neighborhood Right because that's where we continue to have the setback right the the corner visibility makes sense It does not make sense to have it apply in the business districts because we don't have it to find the business districts And so the same was true for Mn Whatever Massav Because the commercial the possibility of commercial So that makes sense. Thank you So what I said was what the intention was Yes, it was not a MBMF to NB. Yes, and MF. Yes Steve any applies and then saying that it applies in the end neighborhood multi-family district is fine with me Okay, no, nothing. Okay The next one is Gene 5.9.4d8 This is the this says the height buffer area shall not apply So we have a height buffer area It only applies Under the rules where you look at the chart and the chart has two heights We don't have a chart in the overlay district with two heights So technically We don't need this in here because it doesn't apply. I think it should apply though. I Think it should apply Because we could end up with a six-story high building backing on You know a one-story high or a two-story high building with very little space 20-25 feet between them and we intend to Change the height buffer, but either this time I don't think we can do with this town meeting We'll get to that. So I would prefer to keep to instead say the height buffer area does apply to Six-story buildings In the overlay district so the so it would if if written out in conventional To height form it would be six and five or five and six if yeah, and that's fine So you're saying it only applies to six-story buildings. Well Steve suggested five and six well no So the the height buffer would apply to the sixth floor, but not the fifth floor sixth floor. Yeah So essentially six-story building. Yeah Now I know that could be a little bit of a disincentive for somebody to build the sixth floor, and I'm concerned about that but for me the overriding thing is We have this height buffer in the regs in the bylaw already That affects a lot of the buildings along Mass Avenue and Broadway or theoretically could Once they get above four stories because that's usually the code of four story or six story And I would prefer that we figure out what to do with the height buffer Regulate bylaw rather than Jerry rig something here. That's my feeling anyhow, and I think can this Also addresses. I know you wanted to circle back to the way that buildings Address excuse me. Let me speak into the mic. I know that you wanted to address the way that buildings Interact with a residential parcel behind them. So this would be one vehicle for for doing that So six story so six story building it applies for six-story building adjacent to a residential building a residential zone Which that's in essence what the yeah essentially that doesn't happen because We only allow six story buildings on primary quarters here and adjacent neighborhoods are But that's now of what four stories now or or three stories. I don't know what stories So it would never have this thing will never happen. No it could happen on Mass Ave There are some that do not have So that's what I'm saying this this then if is if there is a residential house on Mass Ave this one this one look at all of these that don't have any neighborhood parcel behind them Well, those are on Broadway and those are no longer six-story buildings Here here here here. That's just in East Arlington So in effect for question for mr. Benson, you would be keeping the buffer Areas that are in the bylaw so 200 foot until we fix them Yeah, 200 foot northerly 100 foot southerly and 150 feet on the other two sides You have a suggestion The problem before your suggestion and we'll get to this later the problem I have with going from 200 to something else is we don't have any. How do you get to something else? Yeah, we can we can talk about that. We'll get to whatever article that is. Yes, right? Okay, the next was the underlying district versus the Already talked about that the overlay district Can you wanted to talk about how we turn the corner on step backs Yep, what would you like to? discuss there Well on the corner lot Two sides are considered fronts one's primary one secondary and then the other two the other two sides of our property are considered side Side side yard setbacks there on a corner lot. There are no rear lot rear setback. So when you Turn up turn the corner from primary to it to a secondary Front yard and then that goes along It the setback on that side at the end of that road is only five feet and it's let's say if it's residential I mean sorry if it's commercial and it happens to be retail or whatever that fits in your category there There's a zero lot setback there. So that comes out all the way to to the front there and then it's a five-yard setback Yeah setback and then there might be a residential house or a two-family house or three-family house on the next property over So that's where the reduced height buffer applies That's where my question is right now because if that's the case and then it's then you're gonna if it's a hundred feet down now that Pushes that building way up the other side and now you're pretty far away We need to fix the reduced height buffer. Yes, but That's limiting what we're trying to do here on MBTA. I completely understand So what regarding regarding corner lots the definition for The bylaw our bylaw granted does not make this easy to understand the definition for lot line rear You know goes on to say that in the case of a corner lot The owner shall have the option of choosing which of the two lot lines that are not front lot lines is to be considered a rear lot line so I read it as You have two fronts you get to pick what the rear is and you and then the rest of the side now It's a little messier when you have three fronts in that case you have the rear is the side and you're there is no rear But I think that That's what it says yes, I thought I interpreted differently if I did then that's Yeah, well, we just table that All right section e2 there was the Where was the word additional Steve that needed to be added So the it was actually after the word addition story the second additional one additional story yes, I'm sorry It may just be that I'm tired where where does it show me where this needs to go in story. Thank you very much Okay, it's the second additional. I was looking at the first. Thank you I had story after second additional and See f1 and f4 we already addressed Just to confirm how it came out so since we settled on a minimum parking of one space and TDM I think we keep four Yeah, I think f4 is the one that we keep but in F1 the last sentence for business use is no off-street parking is required for the non-residential space I think we keep that part two and then we can strike the first two lines of f1 And we're editing that to say developments under this section are encouraged to provide fewer parking spaces Then what is required under the provisions of section one point six point six point one point five no six point one One point five is the parking reduction We need both because one is the minimum and one is the reduction. We need four and one You just need to say six point one We didn't talk about that No, no, no, no, I when I said get removing the first two lines is f1 not removing F2 is perfectly fine. We should keep that Well, we talked about it Okay, so six so we're removing the first two lines of one we're replacing those with the requirement to follow 6.1 mm-hmm and adding to it the Number four so basically condensing one and four into a single that's fine Okay, and then kin wanted to add in discussing bonuses for the neighborhood multi-family We're doing that, right It's not in here currently It's unless I missed it's not hasn't been in there the bonuses have only been on Broadway and So there's no bonus in In Broadway right now. No, there is bonus on Broadway and mess if there's no bonus in the neighborhood multi-family district Okay. Yep. Yeah, correct I'm sorry. Okay. We're good All right, so that brings us any anything else on Article 12 Nothing here. No So we're gonna go and I don't mind approving it in a whole But there's certain section that I'm gonna object to I understand and we'll leave it at that understand okay, so what I will do is run through the list of Changes that I have written down here if I miss any please Please let me know I will can Identify those which you do not agree with if that works for you. Yes And again Raise your hand or let me know if I miss one or if I mischaracterize one. Okay. Thank you So the modifications So I'm going to phrase this in the form of a motion so that I don't have to restate this yet again Is there a motion to? recommend favorable action on article 12 every TA communities overlay district with the following amendments reduce the nmf max height to three stories knowing that kin is not Yeah Descends on this one three stories and 36 feet. Thank you 36 feet or 35. What is what is it the current regs are 35 35? Thank you Apply current off-street parking requirements of 6.1 including reductions per 6.15 with kin in Kin as dissenting We also Discussed although this will not be in the Well, I'll not put that in motion We will combine F1 and 4 into a single item under off-street parking Under height options we are going to accept Alternate to as proposed for the Arlington Heights section of the map Or something that wasn't it? I think there were only two options Please correct me if I'm wrong you could be right Believe it. We had either labeled alternative one and alternative two Sorry got it all sheets. That's okay. I'm sorry Claire. You said there was a two in a 2a. No, I'm sorry Just to just to okay, so we're good on alternative to correct. Okay We are modifying we are accepting alternative 3a for Mass av scenario three scenario. Thank you 3a to exclude parcels on Mass av from or or this to a life Brooke Parkway with the exception with the additional Modification of Including one additional parcel in the NMF district on the north side from winter to Henderson and on the south side from Lake to Fairmont And I'm ejecting that Okay, and with the removal of Here with the removal of three four five six seven eight Eight small parcels identified on the map exhibit. Thank you. I've got you know on the whole thing. Okay, okay Let's see. So the next item is We are accepting jeans Recommendation for Modifications to section five point nine point one C with regard to how to deal with projects in and out of the overlay district and adding For the that was for the second sentence right in the first sentence. We are adding For a maximum of one parcel depth into the NMF. Yep And can you are not in agreement on that one either correct? No, I was I changed my mind when you said that one parcel Okay, it's allowed to go one parcel. Okay, great The next item we are doing is We are not going to be adding the street trees that's going we're going to be addressing that in article 10 And and yeah, we can come back if we can come back and amend this vote if we need to the next item is we are adding Section 6.4 to apply to the MBMF for the solar roof requirements And can you are in support or not in support of that one? I'm not in support of that one Okay, just because it's the same as the trees Solar roof requirement in the MBMF. Yes, that's what I have Thank you for signs. We are adding requirements for the NMF to comply with the residential sign district as per section 6.4 no six point Six point two. Thank you. And and then I gave you which one yes Go on each district. Thank you residential and then the MBMF residential is the residential slash business sign districts the MBMF Mixed use is the business sign district Okay thumbs up for the we're modifying the bonus relative to green building requirements To read that a minimum of lead gold certified or equivalent level of alternate green building standard as reviewed and approved by the redevelopment board is the Bonus requirement related to green building standards We are adding the to the purpose statement 5.9.2 to add to encourage environmental and climate protection sensitive development in section 5.9 point 4.10 We are removing the first sentence and moving the second and third sentences to the district chart in number 12 We are also removing the word public from the descriptor of art we are adding the provision in the next use bonus provision that For the additional two floors no residences shall be included on the first floor and that the Business uses shall be eating and drinking establishments business services child care and retail Noting that can is in descent on this one. Yes Thank you for the yard and minimums chart on 5.9 point 4 D 12 We are adding minimum the word minimum to front side and the rear setbacks And did you want to add yard? Yeah yard and add the word yard We are also updating the Side yard setbacks for the NMF to indicate that where there is one side yard the minimum is 5 feet And With the two side or excuse me for the NMF the total is 20 20 feet for the side setbacks With a minimum of five feet on on one side Or one side minimum of five feet two sides minimum 20 feet total. Yes. Yes, correct We're adding some Scriveners notes with regard to capitalization in sections 5.9 and 5.93 We are adding the requirement to comply with step back standards in 5.3 point 1 7 We are Correcting 5.9 point 4d 5 traffic visibility to indicate that it applies to the NMF district not the MBMF district applies only to that only in the NMF district. Yes correct In section 5.9 point 4d 8 We are identifying that the height buffer area shall apply to the sixth floor And can you are not in agreement with that one correct? No, I'm okay. You're okay with that one. Yep, okay And in section e2 we are adding story after the additional for after the second word additional Did I miss anything? I think you've covered it I'm just asking Claire a question. Yeah, of course. We'll hold and then I will ask for Someone to make the motion Okay So do I hear? Someone to make that motion for Favorable action with the previously stated amendments for article 12. I'll so move Third second second. We'll take a vote starting with Jean Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well Sweet pre-development board has recommended favorable action with stated amendments for article 12 Okay, nine more to go Let's head over to article 3 By the way, thank you all. I know that that was a lot to get through. I appreciate Everybody working so hard To get through all of these this evening. So thank you Rachel. Thank you. I apologize for my stubbornness You know, it's it's important that we feel like we can all express our Opinions freely and honestly and respect each other's point of views. So I appreciate you bringing those up Okay, excuse me one second while I pull this up Want me to go through these that would be great Article 3 was the exact same as last time it just Corrects a reference Should we vote on these individually? Yes, we're going to vote on them individually Can any questions on article 3? No Steve no questions. Is there a motion to recommend favorable action for article 3 so moved Second take a vote starting with Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well We have recommended favorable action of a vote of 4 to 0 for article 3 Next is article 4 All right, so when we last saw article 4 there was a scrivener's error and the wrong warrant article Wording was there. So we thought we couldn't do anything. This has the correct warrant article wording That was presented I didn't make any change in the reduced height buffer area So that wording is the same as it carried over from last year some time my feeling about it is that Because the article wording says will vote to update To define finding it's not within the scope to change the height distances here and I don't know How we would determine what a better height distance is without some discussion and and looking at what the options are So that would be my first thing. I don't think it's within the scope to change the height and We haven't had a discussion about how to change the height And my second is I Don't see how the new wording is particularly better than the old wording. I'd prefer to Do no action and go back to town meeting with a complete package that includes New wording if we want any and lower heights. So that's where I am on this Steve yeah, in terms of In terms of heights or in terms of the actual buffer areas The best suggestion I could do is note that you know, the heights were maximum heights were larger when this was written And just simply scale the triangle down I agree that it would be worthwhile to actually spend time looking at it So I I'm I'm inclined not to want to do too much do anything with it this year Yeah, same here great, and I agree. I think we we did take a look at this We had not yet come to consensus We had several different options that we were considering and I think that I'm taking a little bit more time to review those together would be helpful. So is there a Motion to recommend no action on article four so moved Second take a vote starting with Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well Let's move to article five article five if you look at the definitions. The only thing I changed was the Underline wording that starts with the word accept To make it clear that the change only applied in the business Districts because that's what we had talked about doing and was in the warrant The other Let me see if there's anything else That I changed You scratched out section D. Well, I'd scratch out section D before section D was Necessary because I wrote I slightly rewrote section C So it says in all districts accept the business districts are calculated on gross floor area for Business districts see the note if you look at the note at the end of B5 you would delete the word and in the second line after the word space That was an error and that's the note. So those are the changes Since we saw it last time Any discussion Steve? Yes, I have one Request in one concern. Okay, so as far as a request go We for context I would suggest Including the definition of open space You know in addition to the ones for a landscape and usable My reasoning is that and I'm saying this is a town meeting member. I don't Don't I don't Believe I feel like town meeting doesn't quite have its head around open space as Defined in our bylaw and we saw some of that in the comments where you know people would assume it would meant Public space or it meant green space and it's a defined term in the bylaw. It means something completely different So yeah, my first suggestion is to include the definition of open space or context my second my one concern my concern is that the The topic of balconies and rooftops is especially Not well understood by town meeting and I was wondering how members of the board felt about Leaving the definitions as they are and just making the dimensional changes Ken, I don't know. That's a you got me there. I did not know that that was gonna come up I do agree of you. We need to do better explaining what we mean by open space or what open space means that what we mean at the last meeting people who are thinking that That open space allowed cars to park in the backyard and so forth like that and I don't believe that's the case They think it was made fairly clear by the building commissioner that they Park in the car in the backyard has different regulations. It's under the driveways There's only ordinance not this so I think making it Much much clearer is the way to go and if we can't do that For this article here. It's gonna end up with what happened at the last meeting. So My question is if can we get something to better to find this or otherwise? Let's Table it for the next meeting Because it'll be we'll be bringing up the same stuff again and I think the result will be the same Jean I think it's a good idea to add the definition of open space Here, I mean, we're not gonna amend it But just to add it to give some more context. I I don't understand what you're proposing Steve if we take the accept Pieces out of the definitions. Where would you put them to have the same effect? So in other words, I'm proposing that we not change that part so and I I I know you I don't agree with the 10 no more than 10 feet above any limited or any, you know, the lowest occupied story for residential use but My concern is I've seen town meeting get Kind of caught up on that or it's been a point of You know, it's been it's been a point of surprise Where you know you where they'll see this and they'll say we why are we allowing it on? Why are we allowing open space on balconies? Well, it's been in the bylaw for the last 50 years They but this is not something that's well understood So if we took those out the only thing that this would do is change how you calculate The dimensional requirements in the business districts to be based on lot area. Yeah, so I believe that so section D which is marked as strikeout would stay struck out and Yes, we would be changing the way that right the the dimensional is calculated So we keep D struck out we we'd amend C and then we'd add the note at the end of the Um That's been a huge challenge for us though dealing with this 10 foot I mean to me that's that's the most important part of this entire thing that we're doing in some ways Well, there is I'm raising it as a point of concern. I understand, you know, I'm it's not something that were I would not oppose the definition changes that are suggested I agree it's a it's a it's something that Well, let me just preface it by saying quite a number of the comments that I got and I think all of us got on MBTA communities either said directly or implied that they thought that open space was not open space owned by the owner of the property but Public open space. So, you know, if I have a 15 Yard setback on my front yard It's public space according to what quite a number of people said and so they're concerned about the setbacks or Well, I won't have access to that space anymore, so I know that's a problem and I know it's difficult and I know this has come up before I just sort of feel like And I know this this will require two-thirds vote to pass town meeting I feel like we can make a good case about why this makes a lot of sense and maybe we can even find for the for the Display about this pictures of a couple of those buildings you can see in Europe that have Greenery all over the front coming off the balconies, you know, because people look at those and say wow That's great. Or, you know, look at like the biophilic Cities website and it's full a lot of that. So I agree with you Steve, but I Guess I just feel like How long are we going to be gun shy about this? Okay. No, that's her. I think we need to have the conversation Yeah, as long as although it's not readily apparent from the draft amendment, you know But when we do the final report, I hope that it clearly shows that, you know, the text about Rooftops and balconies is in the bylaw Because it's it's there But it's already there. Yes, there's already there Yeah, I mean if people read this they would they would see that but yeah, I think that the other thing to Ensure that it is highlighted is that the percentage of landscaped open space is increasing in the table In terms of what is proposed For open space Yes, it is and For some not for some for them for the mixed-use properties, right? Which makes a lot of sense because that is actual green space as opposed to usable open space Which has no requirement that it be planted or have any type of Yeah, any type of greenery whatsoever. So I think it's a net positive specifically in the mixed-use In the mixed-use properties It could be a paved tennis court It could be yes, that's what the bylaw says Okay, are there any other Changes or discussion on this item? I think I think Steve highlighted how Important it will be for us to get this right as we present it to town meeting so I can share that I This weekend put together a list of potential graphics that I thought would be helpful and in in this one specifically I think illustrating how Unfortunately with usable open space tied to the building square footage how that Increases as the building height increases as opposed to being tied to the lot line actually reduces the percentage of commercial space that we can have on the you know less than 4% of you know space that's devoted to business districts in the town And that again by increasing the landscape open space. We're actually we can visually show that we are increasing the amount of Space devoted to that is specifically identified to be devoted to green space As opposed to usable open space which has no explicit requirement for that So if you are in agreement that those illustrations are helpful, that's what I I'd suggest it Okay, is there a motion to To Is there a motion for favor to vote for favorable action for article 5? With adding the definition of open space. Thank you with the amendment of adding the definition of open space. I Will so move there a second second We'll take a vote starting with Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well We won't vote favorable action on article 5 4 to 0 Okay article 6 Rear yard setbacks I didn't make any change from the last time We saw it it just changes it from from a formula to an amount depending on what's behind it Ken any thoughts No comments Steve nothing here many windows open. I apologize right and so again because we need to put this into the board report here. This is really around the the simplification and the the application of The setback excuse me based on we find my notes here The distance of off of the parcel behind a lot rather than the length of the parallel wall Well, the right both the distance and the height of the building correct. Yeah, so yes It's much saner. Yes before exactly more predictable and to Ken's point Understandable and and Again predictable in terms of the I would also add contact sensitive contact sensitive. Yes, that's exactly the right phrase Great. Is there a motion to For to vote favorable action for to recommend favorable action for Article 6 so moved. Is there a second second take a vote starting with Ken Ken yes, Gene. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well We'll recommend favorable action Article 6 article 7 7 all right, so I Did make a change in this when we had the discussion last time Ken wanted to keep The setback on the fifth floor Steve and Rachel and I thought it should be on the first floor on the fourth floor. Excuse me So I moved it to the fourth floor and That's the only change That I made in this so it now says in for building an excess of three stories in height This step back Provides on the fourth floor rest of the same principal facade presumed can be changed by us I Added what Steve suggested step back requirements should not apply to buildings in the industrial zones and That's it great any discussion starting with kin I'm gonna know for this Do you want to talk about I still believe that? Setback should be on the fifth floor not the fourth floor Okay, Steve Nothing further here nothing here And I am also in support of this one We'll take is there a motion to recommend favorable action for article 7 so moved or seconds second We'll take a vote starting with Jean. Yes Ken no Steve yes, and I'm a yes as one so we will recommend favorable action with a vote of three to one I Think it's important in the report that It's made clear that the no vote wanted a higher Yeah, Claire won't just need to make sure we know that in there. We don't have to say it was kin, but Which is yeah, typically we just identify the right All right article 8 no changes from the last time we saw it And this is height and story minimums Steve so I recall seeing an earlier version where there were dimensional tables involved in it looks like we're just Putting in a paragraph rather. Yeah after going through the dimensional tables. I said to myself This is crazy. We just need to put this in in this particular section I think that's a that's a nice way to do it Just wanted to make sure there was nothing missing no nothing missing that that disappeared the previous Yeah, great kin I'm supportive of this I Amal I think that it's important that we Again are driving home the fact that in again the less than 4% of land that is owned for business that we're incentivizing a more intensive and Valuable land use on these properties Yeah, I am Chad I was good to I am also supportive and yeah, this to me This is you know the the motivation behind of this and several of the other articles is to encourage higher value redevelopment that produces More tax revenue for the town and hopefully ideally would lead to fewer overrides or smaller overrides Thank You Steve. Is there a motion To recommend favorable action for article 8 so moved there a second second Take a vote starting with Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes I'm a yes as well. We are Recommending favorable action with a vote of 4 to 0 And article 9 There was no change since the last time You saw this as we pointed out last time we have the authority under a section of the bylaw to modify or wave the The front yard the corn a lot depths and so this just Makes it easier for somebody who's coming in to understand how this works Thank You Steve in a comment. Yes. I think it's a it is a an accurate way of Way of codifying the board's interpretation of Section 5.3 point 16 Great, thank you. Ken. No, I think this ties in with the previous article But Jason height some different buildings great Great. Is there a recommendation? Is there a motion to recommend favorable action for article 9 so moved? Is there a second second take a vote starting with Jean? Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well We'll recommend favorable action as a vote of 4 to 0 Next is street trees Street trees. All right, the one difference is we're going to add something so we'll say in the business residential and Multi-family housing overlay district in the business district residential district and multi-family housing overlay district And then the rest will be the same and that was will be the only change from the last time You saw it except at some point. I added the word Arlington in front of the word redevelopment board Great. Thank you, Jean. Ken any commentary nope not here Steve Yes, I Recall the intent of this. Oh, I mean to encourage Street trees any time there was redevelopment and here we're limited limiting it to things under review of ARB in the ZBA so that takes a big chunk of the town out of the picture All right, so I I want to answer that but there was something else I meant to do and I didn't if you look at administration It should say section We can't say section 9x because we don't know if that's going to get passed And so I think we should say and site plan review So even if it doesn't get passed we still have it in here So I would change that to site plan review. Well, here's the thing my understanding was and based on Conversations we had from Arlington Green Streets that we were going to make in a requirement for street trees the same way we did previously for Commercial buildings, but right now there's a whole there are some Ways that you don't need to put a street tree like if the street trees are already there if The utility lines are in the way Etc etc. So when it was just the redevelopment board doing it for Site plan for EDR We could we could do that But under this there are going to be times where it's in front of the ZBA Times when it's in front of us and times when it might be in front of neither of us Let's say it's just a regular Single-family house going up somewhere so the way we attempted to deal with this is if it's in front of the ZBA for Some reason and it could be then they will determine whether they're going to Do one of the Allow some of the changes if it's That's you know where there's no other suitable thing if it's if it's just a single-family home that's not subject to ARB or ZBA then the The planning department Administratively can make that decision. So so my concern is in the applicability section. Okay, so we're I'm reading In the business and residential districts and the multifamily overlay district right new construction Additions over 50% of the existing footprint or redevelopment subject to review by the Arlington redevelopment board or zoning report Okay, okay Yeah, I'm I'm just as it could to toss an idea out and please let me know what you think I'm wondering how my colleagues would fear feel about striking The words subject to review by the Arlington redevelopment board or zoning board of appeals So that you know it would apply to new construction additions over 50% of the existing footprint or Redevelopment that makes perfect sense to me point blank Yeah, the first the first time I read the first time I read this it it took well I'll just say it took several times for the for that extra order creed in or Yeah, I think like it was it would have Excluded things that we're just going to inspectional services for a planal building permit. Yeah, that makes sense I'm just working through whether there's any scenarios. I'm not immediately thinking of where we could encourage Additional tree planting, but that Fair I mean if you pull permit to build a you do your bathroom. I don't make planting a tree Okay, that makes sense. So we will Strike in six point three point two or subject to review By the Arlington redevelopment board of the zoning board of appeals and then in six point three point three will strike and section Nine dot X and say and site plan review. I meant to do that and for God Because we don't know section nine is gonna pass Yes, I have that one in there to gene. Okay. Yeah site plan review instead of nine point X Right. Yeah. Okay. Is there a motion to recommend favorable action with the proposed amendments? so moved Is there a second? Modified amendment, right? We wouldn't have to say modified or Yes, as modified as modified. Yes No, sorry We'll take a vote starting with gene. Yes, Ken. Yes Steve yes, and I'm a yes as well It's getting very late for me. Oh my gosh Not only you favorable action was recommended on street trees article 11 residential in the business districts gene. Take it away Um, I didn't make any changes from the last time you saw it if you saw an earlier draft Then might have been tables and tables and tables, but after thinking about it I realized we only needed to change the use table To make this happen So that's all we've done and then the district in purpose and the reason I changed the purpose district in purpose Is because the purpose is changing Thank You gene kin any questions or comments We're on Residential uses in the business districts Okay, no Steve No questions or comments And I am also in favor of this article Is there a motion to Recommend favorable action on article 11 so moved There's a second a second We'll take a vote starting with gene. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve. Yes, and I'm a yes as well We will recommend favorable action for article 11. All right in the absence of any other articles Exos is Agenda item number two will now go to agenda item number three, which is to review our meeting schedule Claire, I will hand it over to you Great, thank you. Currently we are scheduled to meet on October the 10th to approve the ARB report As I'm sure amended and edited by members of this board We also are currently scheduled to meet on October the 16th Although the chair will not be in attendance at that meeting The question is is whether or not the board Would like to meet on Monday October 23rd, which would be prior to town meeting We've done this in the past where we've met in the conference room for about an hour before Town meeting and then adjourned to town meeting if that is something the board wishes to do on the 23rd we can Schedule I can certainly schedule Some items for an agenda if the board does not wish to meet on that day that is perfectly fine, too Okay, I like to keep the meeting on October 23rd Just scheduled so that if we need to do some talking points prior to town meeting We have the ability to do so and make any, you know Little last last minute two weeks just There's a precursor for the meeting I'll actually just add to that before I go to my colleagues. Now that you've brought that up one of the things if there are Amendments for example that are proposed for articles. We have not yet heard we have often found it helpful to be able to have a discussion and thoughtfully weigh in on support or Reservations we might have about some of the proposed amendments So I I would agree with with Ken and thinking about it in that terms It it makes some sense to keep it on in case we need it great sounds good Steve any thoughts on that now I agree that it's useful to have a meeting scheduled before town meeting to tie up loose ends and Talk about things that need discussion I agree. Okay. If we can be in that little Roman annex All right any other questions on Agenda item number three, which is the meeting schedule Ready for number four. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? So motion Just say something yes before we adjourn. I know they're only like maybe two people here or three four people here from the Working group. I just want to say that I think you guys did terrific work I really appreciate all the time and effort and and the report which was just wonderful I know we made Some changes to what you recommended, but I know you understood that that was part of this iterative process that we're going through so You know, I just wanted to say thanks to and to YouTube The whole the whole department. Yeah, yeah for all the work and also to the members of the public We received a lot of outreach. It was all read every single word every one. We really appreciate it all Before we may take a motion to adjourn I would like to offer to do another Sort of like build-out analysis similar to what You know what I provide what once we once we have a new compliance model Yes, if that would be useful for reporting and it's I could turn that around fairly quickly quickly once once I have the spreadsheets Okay, well then I my offer stands. Okay. Thank you. Any other items before we adjourn? All right, there a motion to adjourn so motion second. We'll take a vote starting with Jean. Yes, Ken. Yes, Steve Yes, and I'm a yes as well. Thank you all this meeting is adjourned