 Good evening everybody. I'd like to call the October 25th, 2021 meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board meeting to order. This open meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12 2020. Due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. This meeting is convening via Zoom as posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating via video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. So we will begin by taking a roll call to confirm that all members of the board are present and can hear me. Starting with Kim Lau. Yes, I'm here. Gene Benson present. Steve Revillac. Good evening Madam Chair. Melissa Tintakolas. I believe is not able to join us this evening. And I am Rachel Zemberry chair of the redevelopment board. And I believe that we have two members of the Department of Planning and Community Development with us. Director Jennifer Rait. Here. And Kelly Linema. Here. Great. Do we have any member other members of the department joining us this evening. They do not. Okay, great. Thank you so much. So with that, we will move to the first item on our agenda, which is the public hearings. And the first item is the continued public hearing for docket number three, 665 for 645 Massachusetts Avenue. And I understand that the applicant has requested that their application be withdrawn without prejudice. So, Kelly, do you have anything else that you would like to add before we take a motion to for the board to withdraw their to accept their withdrawn application. I do not have anything to add Rachel. And the request for the application to be withdrawn without prejudice is also found in the packet. I can bring it up if needed. One, I go through the board and see if there are any questions as to the withdrawal and I'll start with Jean. Yes, I'd like attorney and messy to discuss why he's withdrawing it instead of continuing to put in continuing and then put in an alternative proposal. Great. I'll actually take all questions from the board. Mr. and I see before I turn to you if that's okay. Do you have any questions for attorney and Se. My question is always similar to jeans. I just want to see if they're planning to resubmit a different plan or they withdrawing period. Okay, great. And then Steve I know that you were not here for the original application so I'm actually just going to take questions from kin and and Jean if that's okay with you. All right. Mr. and I see if you could respond to those two questions. No, we are we are, in fact, going to resubmit. We're not going to write off into the sunset. I have just been engaged. And quite frankly, when I came in on an ARB case, I want to come in at ground level, and I want to be in at the outset, so that I can be involved at every stage. I have been talking with the chase team, the architect as well as the chase members as well. I've been talking with the land owner, the individual who owns the property as well. And our intent is to refile. Once we have a further further discussions about the plan that we want to submit. We've gone through all of the considerations that have to be looked at by the members of the ARB with respect to acting on the application under environmental design review. I'm just not sure it's something that had been done before, but I have done it with them. And for that reason, I have suggested to them that we withdraw without prejudice, and simply refile. Thank you. I'll go back to Jean. Did you have any further questions? I don't. But if I might say, I'm not happy with approving the withdrawal without prejudice, because I think it just basically slows down the process if they were to file for another location. For something that's not like what they filed before at the same location. That would be different, but I can't see approving this just so Mr. NSC, Attorney NSC can start from scratch because he's very savvy and doesn't need to do that. They can just file again. So I would support something that allows a withdrawal with prejudice that they couldn't file for two years for a similar project at the same site, or I wouldn't vote to allow them to withdraw. Thank you so that I understand your request. Are you looking for a subsequently, substantively different proposal at the same site, or a different site are the two. No, we're talking about the same site. But I need to look at it anew. Okay. Again, I was not involved from day one. So I want to look at it freshly with fresh eyes and reapply. The question is, will it be a subjectively different proposal than what we have in front of us today. Maybe. Okay, I don't know that yet. I'm still in the talking stages with a client at this point. So until I have those discussions, I won't be able to tell you definitively what it's going to look like. But again, I've done this many times before. And there's never been an objection to a withdrawal without prejudice. So quite frankly, I'm surprised that there is at this point. Kim, any further questions or comments? Yeah, I do have one question. Since he's withdrawing and reapplying, does that then allow Steve to get into the voting mix, Jenny. Yes, Steve would then be able to vote. Okay. I have no other questions. Let's see. So, Jenny, I'm just going to confirm on process here. So Melissa is not here, who was our fourth when we were initially hearing this. I would assume that we need a majority, which would be three to accept this withdrawal without prejudice. I just want to make sure that I'm correct in that assumption. I would say that you are correct in that assumption. I think what you could do is you could continue it to next Monday night. November 1. And wait anew for Melissa to be able to join the meeting. She won't be here this evening so we can't postpone something. So relatively, the applicant is allowed to withdraw their application. They are allowed to do that. So if they are withdrawing, we can accept their withdrawn application. It is not a repetitive petition in any way because we haven't made a decision on the application. So if they withdraw, they withdraw. So we had to accept the withdrawal and just make it clear that it is not without prejudice, perhaps. I guess it's maybe the part that Jean is commenting on, but I'll allow Jean to speak for himself. But I think that that that is another pathway for this evening. Alternatively, you could continue it to next Monday night and wait for the four of you to be able to deliberate together. So Jean, your thoughts on withdrawal versus withdrawal without prejudice. I mean, that's obviously thinking withdrawal without our voting on it, they have a right to do that. If we're going to vote on it. I would want it to be with prejudice that they can't put in a similar proposal for a bank at the same location for a couple of years. In those circumstances, Rachel, I'd be requesting that the matter be continued until November 1. Great. Thank you. Any questions from the Gord Jean or kin on continuing the, the request for withdrawal without prejudice until November 1. I'm fine with that. Okay. Great. Is there a motion to continue the request for withdrawal without prejudice or docket number 3665 to November 1. So moved. Second. I'll go ahead and second that. Let's see. Let's take a vote. Jean. Yes. Ken. Yes. I'm a yes as well. So we will see you again on November 1. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we'll move now to public hearing or docket number 3673, which is the continued public hearing for 455 to 457 Massachusetts Avenue. Thanks for this docket. We have revised materials which have been submitted for this meeting. And the applicant will be provided up to 15 minutes for an update on the materials. Attorney NSC will you be speaking for, for this hearing and who all do you have with you tonight. Yes, we have the entire team with us this evening. We have the architecture. We have the military. We have the architecture fee. We have the architect. We have a civil engineer as well. And it was our intent we had submitted. We had responded. I think hopefully to. Most of the questions posed at the last hearing by the members of the board. And we did that in writing. If she could, so that we have those responses for the board members. We have the, we have John Murphy here as well we have the architect who's prepared to speak to any of the architectural issues that have been changed as far as the the plans are concerned. But if you start with the layout, okay, some of the questions that were as follows, we visit the layout of different sections of the plan. And we have indicated that the plan a five will remain a shared light one bed unit due to its location a 12 had a 12 has been reconfigured to push the living area to the corner, a 11 has been altered slightly as a consequence. Now that was in response, I believe, to some comments that were made by kin, but can may have other comments on that as well. Do you want to address that at this point can or shall I just go on with the other responses. You tell me. Let's keep on going. I'm fine. All right. We were asked to revisit the location of the windows on the alley units the offset windows, and we've responded that all windows in the new structure over the parking have been reconsidered to avoid undesirable alignment. I wonder if there are any comments about that response from any members of the board. I think what I'd like to do is just run through what the, what the responses are and then. Okay. And I think, you know, again, if there are any some of these are pretty clear as you've identified here and some of them you've identified require further study or are in progress so perhaps if you could spend a little more time on those that would be helpful. Right. Thank you. Would you like me to read each of the responses Rachel. I think we all have them. I think there's any additional detail that's not reflected in here that you think would be pertinent that would be very helpful. Bob, I'll jump in real quick. This is okay. Yeah, yeah. So we, we, and just to summarize I think we worked to the planning department we cover almost, I would say 98 99% of the questions I think some of the biggest questions came with signage which we did provide at the end of our package what we kind of talked about in the template and as of course as signed by law has changed and grow. Obviously we comply with that we updated renderings to the rear of the property which I'm sure is going to be something people would like to jump to so maybe go there. I mean, everyone here is, I'm guessing seen all these comments so I think maybe just turning it back over to the members of the board, potentially starting with the rear of the building and some of the bigger design related questions might be the most important way to go about this and other things come up. You know some of these are black and white answers so I don't think we need to go through all of them but maybe it makes most sense to turn it back over to to the board. Thank you I appreciate it and I appreciate the thorough response as well this was very helpful, at least for myself as I was reviewing this so thank you for submitting it in in this format and for working so closely with the discussion. I'll turn it over to Jean first for any questions that that you might have regarding the revised plans and response. Yeah, thank you this was very helpful. All the responses are very helpful. I do have a number of questions. Let me start with the trees. So if you can pull up Jenny, the new schematic. And there's one that shows a rendering of the back of the building that also shows the alleyway next next one, I think. Yes, thank you. So I, you know, I appreciate that staff and the applicant went out and looked and serve that. They can fit trees and but if you look at this here. This is not the alleyway but it's another area. And I just wondered if this was the area where you determine that trees would not work, or was the area that very narrow alleyway between because I was thinking of this area for some trees. And if you notice right next to the sidewalk, there's a planting strip where it looked like there could be a tree or two. So I just wondered if you could address that. Sure. I'm going to let Aaron jump in because the Allen and major has a landscape architect and they worked through this I will say to answer your first part question yes this is the area. I was talking about. We did look at it but Aaron do you want to jump in and explain why we kept it as is. Sure. Yeah, we, we kept the upper value row, because it's it's more for the, for the pedestrians that would be walking through there in the tenants we felt it would be a better screening wall. And now I did reach out to our landscape architect, and she provided a couple options. So a couple different options for trees there would be. She said you could do honey locust trees at 20 foot spacing, there would be about three trees on that strip. You wouldn't have much screening if we went that route. And also, another option would be, you could add a fetish state variety like green polar oak. And that would be slightly more screening because you can put those at 10 foot spacing. Now, with the spacing requirement she's saying I just don't think we'd have much of a buffer provided for the tenants so that's why we kept it as is, we're flexible to what the board would like to see there but that was just why we kept it. Okay, that's a good helpful explanation. So you have the line there that has the arbitrary tease, but how about the area right by the sidewalk, not if yeah sort of next to yeah so and on the other side of the driveway entrance that too. Couldn't you put a tree or two over there where you don't really need the are provided for screening and it looks to me like there's enough distance between the building and that planting strip to put in at least one and maybe two trees. Potentially one I think it's a little close to have two larger trees there side by side but potentially we could put one at the corner, but you do see we have the bike rack there as well. Right. So it might be getting tight for a larger tree. Right but there's the there's the walkway on one side of the bike. On one side of the bike rack and on the other side, there look to be two bushes of some sort. Now on the other side of the little walkway if you go yes that's so can they be replaced with a tree. Potentially yes, I'd like to again I have to run that by the landscape architect because I know you need a certain amount of with. I'd like to see I think it's between three to five feet at least. Okay, if you check out that out with her I would appreciate that. Yep, I can do that. If we can move on to the roof. I think it might give a plan, a page number in a plan. There is a plan. Thank you. If it helps finish page 91 of the package. And it's a I'm doing it. I have to do this individually piece by piece. Sorry. Thank you. Please go ahead and talk. I'm sorry. It was on the same. It was on the same sheet that we had up before. Yes, it's about three or four pages before that page. It's just take it's just taking time for me to move the document. Thank you. Okay, so you feel free to talk. So I appreciate that you're going to make the roof solar ready. My concern about looking at this diagram was the placement of the utilities on the roof, the air source heat pumps, etc. potentially wouldn't allow you to have a significant amount of solar on the roof. So I just wondered if we could make sure that wherever the heat pumps are located, that they'll be located in a place where you can have maybe 50% roof coverage with solar. Is that what is that what you define as significant use for. That one as well. These particular type of units are not difficult to relocate. Essentially just run extended refrigerant line and they sit on railroad ties. So if solar was to be added those, those could be moved around as needed. Okay, so probably when the, when the initial construction is done, they should, you shouldn't have to move them later, they should be put in a place where you don't have to move them to install solar. So, I mean I'm fine with your explanation. So we probably, at least for me, I'd like to see that as one of the conditions. Okay. One of the issues that came up last time that I don't think was addressed was the unloading area, loading dock. He's, where is that going to be on the property. We don't have Jenny. Do you think you can maybe step in here since we met on site about this. Certainly Rachel is that all right. Absolutely yep I know that there was a description in the document so Jenny if you could go through that. Absolutely so so yes we did meet on site this is not something that the applicant had any intention of putting on site. What we were investigating was how we could address it on the street. And we did investigate a possibility which would need much further review by the police department and then approval by the select board if anything was to be changed. I think that we would probably do that in relation to the parklet because they're basically adjacent to one another. It would not be something that would be on site on, you know, as part of any parking layout, you wouldn't see, we weren't. We have not directed the applicant to find a loading space on their property essentially, they don't currently have one and they don't use. They don't load and unload in that fashion. There's also not any loading spaces on that street right now at all or behind it. Including while we were out there investigating there were trucks, you know backing up and going in and, you know, to and from various locations to deliver all sorts of items so I think that it's a broader an issue that is broader than this just this particular development that we will address but we won't be able to address in a way that relates to this particular application alone. Okay, that's fine. The next question has to do with parking. I noticed that you're still working on the TDM plan, which, which is fine. My concern is how the spaces are going to be allocated between the residential and the commercial tenants and what's your thinking on that at the moment. We're directed to show in our renderings and explain how they were going to be only dedicated for the residential units which I think in the rendering of the rear there's a their signage right on the building. Okay, so I think, if, if I think you asked for a reduction in parking spaces to 16 spaces if I remember correctly. And I think also that the spaces required for the residential are 15, which means you could have one commercial space, if I've added that up correctly, but I think the proposal is that with planning community development on the TDM that they would approve, but the TDM I think would need to be for the commercial tenants and then I would find that acceptable under those circumstances and I just want the only other thing I wondered you talked about not needing a chase where the Papa Genos was because there's another long term tenant coming in. Can you tell us what that tenant is? It is a tenant from upstairs made pro. Okay. Great. Thank you. I have no other questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ken. Any questions for the applicants? Well, I'll start off with saying thank you for addressing some of those concerns I had from previous meeting. That's very nice. Thank you. Can you go to the elevations or the rendering? Jennifer, if you can please. I'm a journalist and also your trim work. I would like to know what is that material and what's it made of. It's just shown as a big white band right now. And I'd like to know what you guys are thinking of. Yeah, so there's a couple of things. One way or the other and I'll end up painted to match on the other trim. So that would be a Zach or in some cases we've used the fist molding. So that it's something we're going to have to coordinate with the contractor later. And also at this time we still have not met with historic to get their feedback. So that is that is subject to their specifications. Okay, I would recommend staying away from PVC. Just because I just don't like the way it looks on on big long surfaces because they expand so much and contract so much the leave all these little splinters at the joints. I think this long as you can get a 16 foot and then you know get all these little joints all over the place that expand and contract with the weather. That's the only thing I would tell you to stay away from okay. The other material you have here shown is this baton board. To be blunt it looks like a big barn to me okay. And I prefer if you went over different material. It doesn't look like it blends in with the neighborhood there at all. Would you guys would you guys be interested in considering a different material there. Do you have something that you would recommend. Well, the stay within the area that I would probably go some sort of cement panel and not go with a born baton and go with maybe a little bit of reveals or something I go different pattern, but stay with, but still, you know you still stay with something but don't go as that looks like the pattern you have looks like a barn, but just change to a cement panel with reveals in it, and I'll give us some character and some a little depth Richard can get a little more into that I think she probably has some ideas to herself. I looked at that alleyway there thank you for doing that rendering for the alleyway there. I'd like to add into that that alleyway that is that. I wonder people put something this thing that can't be used for storage or mechanical equipment so like later on, we're not going to see mechanical units hung off the side from the commercial space like heat pump condenser or some sort of any any kind of stuff on there it has to put on the roof. So the alleyway there so it looks clean. There's a rendering of that Jenny, if you can get to that on this package here. And I will add real quick that they're that what you're describing exists right now it's already a part of the plan to move it. I don't want it to come back. I know I know what your intent is, but this is forever and I know you're going to put something in there is going to look nice I appreciate it, but I just don't want to put it in here part of the approval process saying this is not going to this is not going to be turned back into an alleyway I just don't, you know, it's approved it's not coming back 10. Okay. But I would add for add for fire safety to we're not going to be able to put you can see two people right now there's not going to be any room on the walkway for safety purposes to put anything on the ground know what we want to but no. I appreciate the fact that is, you know, it's that why, if it was any wider, I can see people putting things there, just like you know, if you ever look in the back corner of shopping centers, it's just why enough for two people walk by. And store stuff back there. And this this is very comfortable for two people to walk and I think it's nice. I'm assuming this walkway is very similar to the other side that you didn't show. It's made out of the exact same referring to the ground. Yeah, you know, the finish and the scale and the portion of the space there that's it's very similar. So far, there's, there's no brick wall and that's probably a wall of trees or bushes that you show there. It's pretty much exactly the same in our plan is to probably have some form of electric heat under there in order to deal with snow removal which is a question that has come up before. Okay. But it looks exactly the same on the other side. But you know, I think it's going to be. See that cornice between the first and second floor. What's that going to be made of. The same thing, probably hardy panel in this case. Okay. Yeah, I would stay away from the plastic trim. Okay. I appreciate your units. I think they look a lot nicer. Moving the windows around and having, you know, windows toward the corners and having more windows, actually elevation so it doesn't look like a blank wall, and then having more light there. You might be able to squeak out a walk in closet above the stairs in that one corner unit. This is not subject to approval. It's just a common I'm just as courtesy saying that to you. Right now when you come in that stairway in the Chinese restaurant there. The first hallway that you show me is the two story space. If you just floor over that you should really get a closet up there for that unit above. Actually, I have to check the headroom on that but that is an excellent idea. I'll make another bit. I think that that's all I have for now. Rachel. Thank you. Steve, any questions. Just a few. Jenny, could you move to sheet a 901 or actually a 902. I think it's just one back from where you are. It's the Medford Street, one of the renderings that shows Medford Street. Yeah, so the windows on the second floor are they essentially centered over each of the commercial units. Yes, that's correct. And we're showing that in the elevation. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And just just as a general comment, you know, I noticed some I appreciated the attention to symmetry with the window placement, you know, on the other portions of the rear of the building. So, you know, that was nice. Regarding the path in the alleyway which is sheet a 903. The total span is 10 and a half or the total width is 10 and a half feet wide. Is that correct? That's correct. Touch over 10 feet. Okay. And how wide is the path itself? Aaron, can you answer that one? Looks like maybe six ish feet. Yeah, sure. I'm just pulling up the layout sheet. It is. Yeah, six ish feet. You get a little bit more towards the street, but along the building, it's going to be six feet. Okay. All right. Just curious. On the civil plans, the third sheet, which details the dumpster enclosure. Yes. There's a ballard in the middle of that and I was wondering what the purpose of that ballard was. That ball is to protect. So that ball will hold the actual metal dumpster in place and will protect from when it gets picked, when it's picked up to destroying and pushing it into the rear of the enclosure. No, so it's a backstop basically. Yes. All right. And finally, what, in terms of bedroom count, are the, were these all one bedroom? No, there was, there's at least one studio. We're calling the other one in the corner of the A5 unit. We're calling that a one bedroom because it does have a bedroom with the door. Bedroom doesn't have a window. So it's a shared light bedroom. Okay. It's, you know, large enough by any other means that we consider it to be a one bedroom. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Steve, I did have a couple of questions before we open this up for a public comment. My first question is more of a comment and I think I'll build on what can had started speaking about with regard to the board and batten firework cement. I'm at the second floor and I think what Ken and I are both reacting to less than favorably there is that what it seems to be doing is not effectively trying to bridge between a historic structure below and potentially a more modern structure above. And I think what I would prefer to see is a decision in the cladding as to whether or not this wants to be a more modern addition on top of an historic building or to see more of those historic period details appear within the addition itself. And I think at Ken's point, if we are going to see something that's either, you know, clad board or a panel with with reveals and detailing much like, you know, that's imitating an air is craft or some other stone material. And I want to see for the windows it looks like for the residential windows you have a flat panel trim around each of the windows. I'd want to see some sort of profile, or again, some sort of detailing that identifies that you are trying to keep this within the period of the historic nature of the first floor here, or I'd like to see something more, more modern, you know, whether it's a metal panel treatment on the upper story and really differentiate it. But right now it's kind of just nowhere in between somewhere in between doesn't really have a have a decision one way or the other. So, if I guess the question for the architect is the intent to to blend more in terms of the historic nature of the building, or is it to be a more modern addition and clearly identify where the historic portion of the building is in the new. And this is a question I'm sure you're going to get from the historic commission who also needs to review this besides so I think it's important that we talk through it. That's fair. I think to answer that we didn't want to mimic the structure as a as an historic structure. And at the same time, I don't think we wanted it to stand out to harshly given its current context. So I think our aim was right down the middle. I think we if we're going to have to take a side there I think that's a discussion I'm going to have to have with john and the owner. Fair enough. And the, I'd echo kins concerns about the cornice material and staying away from from PVC. I also had a question about the window material, I didn't see that called out is that a vinyl quad metal quad would what are the what is the window material. I believe at this time we have them called out as vinyl. Again, meet with historic and whatever they choose for the front is likely going to be on the rest of the building. So that may end up being fiberglass or something similar. This time, it is intended to be vinyl. Okay, yeah, I think that they're, they're definitely going to weigh in on that. I also had a question about the materials at the new storefront facade, which is, I believe in the bottom left hand corner there. Was that called out as fiber cement or is there more detail as to what the storefront material is in that particular area. So the new construction was intended to be fiber cement board and baton similar to what's on the story above. Right, so I would definitely recommend that you relook at that area. I definitely not a favor of the board and baton fiber cement at the at the storefront. Again, I would recommend whether it's a metal panel and more of a storefront framing system. It should, it should marry into the structure below and I think that that's a really foreign element to to add into that particular area. And Peter I would just add to I mean, members of the board we. This was all the same as the previous meeting. So, you had no materials called out at the previous meeting. So we had said we wanted clarification at the at this meeting with regarding all of your materials we'd also asked for samples which we don't have. I don't believe that's true I believe those materials were called out in the finish key on the top of the elevations in the last meeting. It was called out during the meeting that we did not have the materials, regardless, it's not acceptable as it as it is to me. I just didn't know that it was so negative in that last meeting as well. Let's see the last item I have here and again I'm sure that historic is going to bring this up to you as well I believe that the fence material is called out as vinyl to mimic rod iron and I would. I would recommend that again rather than going with a vinyl let's try and limit the, the plastic elements that we have in this building and actually go with a rod iron if that's what it is intended to be. My colleagues covered everything else before I open this up to the public for comment, I will see if I'm sorry I had one more element. It was actually regarding the signage plan. So, Jenny, if you could go to that sheet with, I think there's one example of a signage features. Well, Jenny is pulling that up. What I'd actually like to see is a signage plan for for the building that shows that articulates what the allowable signage would be for both elevate for the full elevation of both sides of the of the building so that when your tenants either turn over or replace existing signage that it's clearly shown what what is approved for the building in total, as opposed to one particular element because this clearly doesn't. This is is for one particular facade but we have a corner. There are other areas where I think we need to review the signage because I would like within this approval it to be clear that the signage when changed needs to be upgraded to the current signage bylaws and the building and elevation that we can include as an exhibit would would would do that without having your tenants need to come back for a special permit for each of their third signage applications. So, Ken, I wanted to get your and Steve your, your sense on that as well. I think it's important that we articulate what will be approved in the future on this building with regard to signage. Rachel, when we, if we do that okay. I know that some signs generally saying if I'll take it, I'll give you an example you know the leader sign right the corner there. Yes, that doesn't really mean anything I think it's just oversized and everything else. Yes, but if someone was to take over that space and they were to get, wouldn't that be grandfathered in and they can go ahead and reuse that sign and just just change the letters and the sign would still be the same would that be allowed. What I'm suggesting is that that I don't think that, again, if we're approving a major renovation of this structure that I would prefer that all the tenants be required to, to upgrade their signage currently to meet the current signage bylaws with an improvement that is being made in this building in lieu of that. I'm suggesting that when the signage is changed that pre existing non conforming conditions are not going to be approved and that we have a signage plan included within this package that the tenants need to adhere to that are in compliance with our current signage bylaws. The problem with that Rachel is that if each of the retailers have gone for a special permit with respect to their particular space, then they may have to be treated individually with respect to non conformity. I don't think that we can say in a blanket way that we're going to take away all of the non conforming rights that existing tenants have because some of them. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we would make them, we would require them to change their signage today, but in the, in the future, that they would be required to adhere to the existing the current signage bylaw. But my point is, if something or existing tenants when they, when they change their signage. But my point is that if something is non conforming it's non conforming. And there's no statute of limitations with respect to that non conformity. If in fact, a retailer entered into and negotiated a lease. That's a contract they have with my client, and they have certain rights that flow from that relationship. And I'm just not sure you can do this in a blanket way. I think that you can certainly come up with a concept in terms of what you might want to do in terms of signage for the overall building, but whether you can have that applicable to each and every retail unit. I think that's problematic, but I'll leave that to others. Can I say something? Please. I'm in agreement with the idea that it would be great if all the signs were consistent with the sign bylaw, but they're not. And they were, you know, apparently approved or went in without the current sign bylaw. So I agree that they are, you know, allowed to continue as non conforming signs. I am not clear whether let's say one of the tenants were to leave if a new tenant would be able to come in and say well that sign was twice the size of what's allowed but because it was there I can do a sign that's twice the size. I don't think that they could put up a new non conforming sign that's different. But I think that maybe the best thing to do would be to just put a special term it permit condition in as says something along the lines of when any tenant leaves that the sign must come down. And then any new sign must be consistent with what is then the sign bylaw that I think that I'll be interested to what attorney and SES to say about that but I think that's a way to both protect the non conforming uses of the existing tenants. To say that the new tenants don't inherit the sign of the old tenant. What do you think attorney and SES. Well traditionally the way the building inspector over the years building inspectors have interpreted non conformity is that if a new tenant comes into space. The new tenant is not going to do something markedly different than what the old tenant did. In many cases, that new tenant may not even need a special permit. They could piggyback on to the prior non conformity. Right. But this what what I'm wondering since this time bylaws just a little bit over a year old, and it was rewritten to try to make it better is the ability of the landlord, the building order to require the old tenant to remove the sign when the old tenant vacates. Therefore, there's nothing there. And once the sign is removed. That's the end of the non conforming use. Then when the new tenant comes in, they're subject to the current rules. Now I'm not sure that's why I asked your opinion, but I think that's a way to get to what Rachel was interested. I'll actually ask Jenny to weigh in my understanding is that the majority of the signs were actually administratively approved and not approved by special permit. Is that correct? Right. None of these signs were approved under an environmental design review special permit, they were all approved administratively so with that in mind, I think that Rachel's original suggestion, which is to put in a special condition. That simply says, at such time as when a tenant turn turns over, and there is a new tenant with a need for a new signage, that it should comply with whatever template signage you want to put together, you know, sort of, here's where it should be located. Here's the rough dimensions for the Medford Street side, and the mass outside and then also the corner unit, which is where leader bank is right now. That at such time, the tenant can refer to those design standards, if you will, which are now, which would be in compliance with our current signed by law, which was put in place in 2019. And if they chose not to, they would then have to come to the redevelopment board for a special permit, which is what we do in other situations, by the way. Also, there is no situation where a sign just goes in. All of the signs are subject to an internal review with inspectional services and my department for either a temporary sign or a permanent sign. So it's either one of those two pathways, or if you don't like the advice that either one of those departments are providing, then you go to the redevelopment board to request either a larger signage more signage. There's a lot of other situations, obviously this board is familiar with. But what we're asking for is a special permit condition that simply provides a reference point for future tenants. It is not saying to remove all the signage right now and put in something new, but rather when there's turnover to be able to refer to sort of a design guide that would be approved by this board, so that you can use it for future tenants. Is that accurate Rachel. Okay, and I believe that is within keeping and what is allowed, certainly under the purview of this board, and would also be, you know, it would not penalize any current current tenants, which is I think very important. And I also believe last meeting we said we I think we actually brought that up as an idea that we could actually do that so we're obviously more than okay with that. I would say it doesn't require any sign to come down for the, or the building order to do anything right now, other than to have this template available. I could just add one more thing Rachel recently. I think just what what is being said though is what's also in our memo, which is we still are lacking that sort of just this, the what I'm showing on the screen right now might be the template that you wish to use for Medford Street I'm not sure what you know I think you need to be very clear this is the future Medford Street signage Massive, you know sort of put the sign package together if you will. We can do that I mean something to keep in mind to you take Medford Street. It's hard to do a blanket design say someone comes in and they combine two spaces for three spaces and all of a sudden, you might have a longer I mean, you know, there's a lot of things that can, that can change with this we have it kind of set up as, which we showed on the rendering of the mass outside kind of our perfect world design would be a rectangular type. You know, it's not too thick and complies with the with the length that is shown in our rendering similar to how Grace's nails look, maybe a little bit smaller than that which is shown per scale. And if a tenant has a longer space, I mean the Medford side is a very good example of if restaurants left and someone new came in and said I want to combine these two or three spaces they probably have, you know, then it would be one big space so it would be a longer design then what's showing here. I'd also like to require that would then require the redevelopment board special permit review though so that would be a different category anyway, because it was like you guys are involved. Right to jump in and point out though we're currently showing applies to both Mass Ave and Medford and every space except for the leader bank space in both cases the shell building has this brick colonnade were aligning to the Cornus on top and dropping down three feet and that is the dimension of your aligning. That that can be applied to every existing space on Medford and Mass Ave with the exception of leader bank. And in this case, just the way the facade has been done on leader bank we have no idea what's under that skin. So it'd be very difficult for us to draw that one. Yeah, so I guess a couple of thoughts. One is, I had raised the idea that when a tenant vacates the owner takes down the sign if the tenant hasn't taken it. One thing to think about. And the second is under our rules. If somebody comes in for a sign permit. And it's consistent with the bylaw they don't come to us it's just administratively approved by the department so it's not really that difficult for a new tenant. Even if they don't have all of this detail to be able to get a sign approved without coming to the board as long as the signs consistent with the sign bylaw so I'm not sure how much detail is actually necessary other than just putting in a special permit condition about removing the old sign and you know something about informing the new tenants that they must meet the current sign bylaw just something like that. I hear your point, although I see the range of difficulties that tenants seem to have with interpreting and understanding the existing signage bylaw and I think to the architect's point. Having an exhibit such as this to me as a benefit that the landlord is able to provide the tenants in terms of clear direction and a consistent intent. And again they can always come in front of us to your point Jean if they wish to deviate from from with the billing intent. I'm fine with that too. Okay, great. Can I add one more thing here please. I know we're talking about both the signs but what about the awnings I mean is that saying that they're gone or they don't they don't exist or I mean that's so integral with the signage. Do we keep them we're not allowing them or we want them we want them same shape, or can they be different so they can show up. I don't know I think we'll bring a whole can of worms here on just this one little thing here I think it's important because definitely when I look at the, that this corner of the leader bank sign just sort of jumps out at you I think yellow ones are not that bad. You know, it just shows kind of urban growth over time. And it has this kind of marity. Right. And that's okay or it being all similar with this is all one project that's okay too. Right. Do you have that do you have the elevation that shows my third street because I believe that the awnings are all below the signage, correct, or am I not the right on the signage I believe they in this case are the signage. It's that picture. Yeah, some of them are bad. Can I respond to can please. So if you if you flip back to the signage that we were suggesting there we have it called out as it would be either an infill panel or a three foot projecting awning of the same dimension would be up to the tenant is what we were suggesting but in this case they would be all uniform and dimension. Okay. Madame chair. Yes, one, one thing I'd, our bylaw has a section that covers non conforming uses and structures. Although I've read it a number of times I've never sort of gone through it with the, you know, in an attempt to in, you know, try to apply those rules to science specifically. I mean, I personally would like to at least do that exercise myself before making a requirement of the applicant. You know, I recognize that when a business turns over I, you know, to the extent that an existing sign constitutes a non conforming use. I would expect that when a, you know, a space turns over the, you know, the new business is probably going to want a new sign and I think that problem just may fix itself and end up fixing itself. I would be okay with having like defining an area, you're like picking an area of the facade and saying that this is the sign band. But I would like to, to, you know, have, I'd like, I'd hope that we could allow some variety in the types of signs that are that the individual business owners put up. One of the things I really like about the Medford Street facade is the fact that all the signage signs are different and you can, you really get the sense that it's, it is a group of small businesses. Anyway, those were my thoughts. Great. Thanks, David. And I do agree with you. I think that what I appreciate about this exhibit is that there's no requirement with regard to the material, the, you know, the typeface any of any of those particular items even quite frankly the shape it has to fit within that that square. So rectangle rather so I agree with you. Any other questions or comments from the board before we turn this over for public comment. Jean. Yeah, I do have one which I forgot to ask before on the alleyway we got one comment that said the alleyway would be so shaded that these plants would have forgotten what it was exactly not have enough sun. Are you able to comment on that. Did you see that. Can you comment on it. Aaron, I don't know if there's anything, any color you can provide around that I mean obviously we can't control the sun but I would imagine that when they design for this type of landscaping that it doesn't need sun 24 seven but Aaron can you speak to that. Yeah, I mean she would have selected certain plants to be situated there with the proper shade. I mean those those will have some shade there because you're in the alleyway portion so I but you know I any questions regarding the plants I really would need to defer to our landscape architect. Which which we could have Iran, if we need to talk through the planting schematic. I guess, I mean I don't know the answer I just if you need to come back one more time. If you need to have the landscape architect here at least for me anyhow. I think you just need to report that you know she's chosen hex type of plants because they'll be able to do well in this incredibly shaded location. We can definitely provide that. That's not a problem. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Jean. That's it. So at this time, I'd like to open this public hearing up for public comment. Any member of the public wishing to comment or ask a question of the applicant please use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. I will call on you in the order the hands are raised. Please note that you will have up to three minutes to speak. And I would request that you identify yourself by first last name and address. And the first speaker we will have this evening is identified by Gary. Hi there. Let's see. Let me put my video on. There we are. Hi there. So I've got a Gary Goldsmith 91 Beverly Road. I've just got a brief question and that is I noticed that you're talking about using electric heating under the sidewalk which I think is a really good idea. Because of snow. However, it's a relatively narrow walkway and it's it's in the, it's shaded so it will be cool. So my question is, is there a plan for where the melt water from the snow is going to go. So it doesn't pool and create an ice problem either on the walkway or on the street adjacent to it. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Gary. And I'll turn that over to the applicant. John, I'm not sure if you or Peter would like to answer that question. Aaron, can you just jump in and explain how the drainage works back there again. Yeah, sure no problem. Both both walkways on either side are designed as pervious pavers so any snow melt or rain water is designed to drain right through the paver system and there's a stone course beneath that was designed to hold in infiltrate up to 100 year storm on either side. Jenny if you could actually go to do you have our drainage plan. Let me let me pull that up. Okay, great. We also have, in addition to the to the paver systems we have underground infiltration system, and that system was designed to infiltrate all the existing roof runoff. So, we have greatly reduced the runoff coming from the existing site. And, and you won't see any ponding from the proposed development. Excellent since the 100 year storms now seem to be decade year storms. Right. Yeah, we designed because the existing site had all the roof leaders coming off the building, jumping onto the parking and it would sheet flow. We, we assumed it's going to sheet flow back to park place. So in order to deal with that we had to put all the existing roof leaders into an underground system and design that to infiltrate 100 year storm with no overflow because there's no way to overflow it so it's it has to go all it's all going underground. Thank you. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next speaker will be Don Seltzer. Thank you madam chair Don Seltzer Irving street. I would like to comment on just one narrow aspect of this plan, literally narrow, the proposed rear alleyway. At present this space is used as a loading and service area for the businesses in the building. It's about 18 feet wide right now and is cluttered with pallets, small dumpsters chairs for workers on their break, and just general trash lying around. The proposed plans make the space only half as wide and assigns three different uses for it. In addition to the servicing and delivery area. It's to be a pedestrian walkway, and it's also intended to satisfy a large portion of the landscaped area requirement. I have sent the board a detailed analysis of the solar exposure of this land state scaping strip. I request that this correspondence be posted with other documentation for this project. What this analysis shows is that during the growing season, these plantings will receive only about 35 minutes of sunlight each day. And during most of the winter, they will receive zero minutes of sunlight for months. What shows for this trip are not suitable for this environment and few decorative plants are. The question of snow removal has come up, and it suggested that electric heating and the infiltration system will be able to deal with it. Maybe can deal with 100 year storms during the summer, but I don't know what's going to happen when the ground freezes. The only scenario is that each business owner will shovel the back of their store or restaurant and will simply dump the snow onto the landscape strip. And with no winter sun to melt the piled up snow. It's not likely that these plantings will survive their first winter. The narrow pedestrian walkway will also compete for space with the businesses that use that same strip for their deliveries, and they leave pallets and other items outside their doors. This walkway may not meet ADA standards for un-destructive with. It's simply trying to do too much with too narrow an alleyway, and it will result in none of the three uses being done properly. It will really fail for all three of them. I think it should be reconsidered. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak this evening with regard to the stock it. Jenny. I want to note that Mr. Seltzer's correspondence is posted to the agenda under correspondence received. Thank you. I didn't say, I'm sorry, I didn't see it there this afternoon. Perhaps it's been posted since. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure that everybody listening knew that it was posted to correspondence received. Thank you. Seeing no more hands raised, we will close public comment on socket number 3673. And I will turn this back over to the board to discuss next steps. So we had a couple of items that were identified that need to be addressed some. And I think what we need to decide if whether some or all of these could be done. administratively such that we could move for approval or whether or not we would need to see this applicant back again for an additional hearing. And I'll just run through those that I have on my list. And then perhaps if the members of the board could identify if I missed any and their thoughts on any that they'd like to have addressed. Any other meeting or whether or not, or their thoughts on the administrative approval. I have the note about the looking at a tree to replace the planting area with the shrub across the the sidewalk from the bicycle parking. Is that correct the correct placement Jean. I have a note as as Jenny pointed out in her. Her notes for for this evening that the applicant is still working with the town to identify potential loading designation on Medford street or in conjunction with the next steps on the parklet. We have a TDM plan, which the applicant has identified they are still working with the department to solidify and to Jean's point, we are clarifying that that is for commercial tenants. We have the note from kin that PVC is it cannot be used for the cornice or for any long stretches of trim work. We have the request to explore a different material where the fiber cement panels with the board and baton are used both at the storefront as well as the upper story. And I think that the signage discussion we boiled down to a wording that could be added into special conditions, as opposed to additional exhibits. I will turn it now over to the board for any comments to that. And to discuss next steps and I'll start with Ken. Well, I'm very supportive of this project I think it's a good project. Based on our mix shoes that we were trying to push along massive. I don't know. I'm on the fence right now I want to I want to approve this as is with with maybe administrative but the elevations right now. The only, the only biggest issue I have is still the elevations and they're looking with the board and baton everything else I think can be handled administratively. And I don't know how you would. Do you feel about how we go about adjusting that or even Jennifer do you feel like you can handle that administratively or not. I'm not sure. If you have a question for Jenny I can turn it over to Jenny for her perspective. Yeah, what are your feelings and if we said okay, you go ahead and approve the elevations. So it's so it's not like the one baton. I'm okay if you're okay that to prove the project as is with with the, you know, all the notes we've stated, but if you're not, then I don't know what kind of on the fence have them come back just to show those elevations again. I think it's a good question. I think that I would suggest that there is administrative items that have just been outlined are all typical items that do sometimes come back for administrative approval before they proceed. And sometimes there's even back and forth after things are in progress. And then additional amendments might be needed to, for example, for materials. I think that it would be fine to specify what you don't want to see in materials. But in, you know, in in fairness to the full process the Arlington Historical Commission will need to approve the final, the final final, you know, both the, you know, any, you know, final design elements. So I would say about windows and will also probably have a say that or certainly opinions about, you know, the types of materials that are being proposed that want to see more details about that. So I would say that that that would be acceptable. I think a final planting plan is something I typically do review and a couple of things relate to a final planting plan. Same thing for the signage suggestions. The TDM plan is actually very that's similar to what happened with 882 Massif. That decision was made without a final TDM plan, which was then something that we would review administratively after the fact. So I think that all of these things could be handled administratively, whether or not you're comfortable proceeding tonight is a different question. You know, and that's something that's something separate, but certainly we can handle these things administratively. Rachel after hearing what Jenny said, I think I'm comfortable because it also has to go through historic. So I'm comfortable approving it with these with the following comments so I'm okay. Great. Thank you, Ken. Jean. You're on Eugene. I think that being good items. I know I did. I'm sorry. Yeah, I, I, I'm in agreement to all add the one item that you didn't add, Rachel, which was the planting along the alleyway, and whether they could put in plants that would survive on an amount of sun, which is part of the planting plan. Yeah, so I'm satisfied with approving it with all of the administrative referrals needed later. I'll point out that we're waving or not waving we're adjusting quite a number of requirements which are allowed to do that will all need to appear in the special permit a lot of them listed in the initial memo from the department. On this. For the side of the building. What it looks like. I would sort of just encourage Jenny to feel free to talk to Ken and Rachel, when we get another proposal from Ken because I would defer it at both of you to make sure you're comfortable with it because you were the two who raised the issue and had some suggestions on how to deal with it. Great. Thank you, Jean. Steve. I have one or two questions. And a lot of this basically they involve the historical commission review. So I'm really not I'm not familiar with their that boards review process. And I guess first I'd like to understand, you know, the scope of what they will be looking at, like for example, would the historical commission have the ability to say, you know, we really want you to do such and such on the second story of the street facade. Great question. I will turn that over to Jenny to confirm the scope of the historic commission review. I think the historical commission in this case because it's a significant property enlisted as one and it's also within an historic district could review any number of different things related to the property, which includes anything on the exterior elements, windows, other material, you know, any materials being used, any changes to a facade, they'll want to review and see those. And then of course signage they actually always review signage including for this property when it changes not just by the department but when it's under historical commission jurisdiction, we also have them review it. The Arlington Historical Commission is also with us tonight I would be happy to further defer to her for any additional points on this but they tend to have a, you know, a fairly expansive point perspective in terms of looking at all of the historical elements that are in keeping with both the district. And if there's an individual listing that of the architectural or significant elements of that particular property. It's also a little bit different because we've got things that are changing with existing facades and existing materials but also in addition. So I think they'll take all of this under consideration when they're reviewing. Yeah. I think, you know, the other question, and it's not really directed to our question comment concern. The historical commission were to recommend facade changes say on the on the second floor for Medford Street. I would hope that, you know, the, you know, the same, at least theme material color, you know, general composition would be carried around where, you know, basically that the change be made uniformly. I assume the historical commission could require that if they were, if they so desired, but, you know, what my only concern is that I would hope that we just not end up in a, in a, in a position where one part of the one side of the building would look one way and the other side looks completely different. That that's basically it. Thank you Steve. I think that's a good comment and I know that that'll be reflected in our notes, which I believe since Joanne is Robinson is here that the historic commission will also be in receipt of our notes from this evening. So I'm not sure where we discussed this project as well. Any other comments from the board before we craft a motion to approve with some of the special conditions that we just identified and I'm happy to run through those as we crafted a motion. I think we have to add some of the things we'll, we do what you said earlier. Yep, we do. And I need to pull that list up. Jenny, do you have that readily available. I'm looking forward in my docket right here. I'm just, I'm going to pull up the word version one. Great, thank you. Jenny, I appreciate that. So we would be looking to looking for a motion to identify the board's findings. Oops, relative to items one through four under section four. In Jenny's memo. Jean, whether any other items with regard to sorry, you're on mute again. I can't think of any offhand except number four should say subject to administrative approval of the transportation demand management. Okay. I don't recall if there are any. So subject to the approvals or excuse me to the findings in section four. And the conditions spelled out in section five with the addition and be the special conditions with the following special conditions added and perhaps Jenny if you could please as we go through them so that the applicants review the replacement of the shrubbery across from the rear bicycle parking with one tree of appropriate size. I believe that these conditions, the conditions already address loading. Is that correct Jenny we don't need to add that is a separate special condition. No, no, and I'm not sure I would phrase this kid special condition in this way. I would I would I would suggest is that well first book the loading to answer that question for sorry, the loading I don't think would have would be a special condition. It's a separate review process. It would not just be for this building it would be for other businesses on metford street as well. And I'm, I would be reluctant to make that a condition of this permit. Sure, because it's out of their control. Okay. What I would suggest in terms of the other special conditions would be that I'm just going to type. I'm just going to type part of me for a moment. I will obviously create more detail around each one of these that I just want to make sure that I'm capturing them for right now. I'm not going to type them all out this exact second, but. Jenny, what's that. Sorry. Can you add elevations please. So, this is what it says in our general conditions all the time. Which is the final design sign exterior material, etc. Is, etc. that essentially it's it's handled administratively, unless I see that's a substantial deviation from what we've discussed or what was approved to go back to the redevelopment board. I was going to add one more special condition though, which would state. I guess, sorry. I'm jumping around here with this is this acceptable to you this is our typical general condition. I just want to add in. Maybe like a sense or two of don'ts. Like, that's, that's what I was going to suggest for the special condition but for this this is what I typically. I'm okay with that. You still want them to have the vinyl siding. Sorry, Jane. Yeah, I'll wait till you're done. You know, the vinyl cornices. The pvc. Yeah. Yeah, and, and the born baton design. And then the plastic, the plastic railings on the parapet. I think aluminum will be fine. It doesn't have to be cast iron. Well you're okay with that. I just don't want to see the plastic. Okay, I just cast iron and and aluminum was a big difference there. I understand. Let's see. We also had a note about no mechanical equipment can be mounted on the wall in the alleyway. I know that they indicated that there wasn't a lot of room to be there but that has a way of creeping its way back in. So I think it's important to add in as a special condition. Thank you. Yes, that's great. And then we also have the special condition of any change in tenancy requires that the tenants conform with the landlords signage plan. And the currently enforced town signage bylaws any deviation from those to request to do or any request to deviate from those from those requirements will require a submission for EDR. Right. I'm sorry, Jean, I forgot you had to hand up. That's okay. I think there are some other findings we have to make. One is to adjust the setbacks. Another is the open space. I think that's that's number two. Oh, I'm sorry we did. So it's not here. Can you, do you have something perhaps to insert here? I think just the proposed open space is acceptable. And then the dry vial dimensions are slightly smaller so we have to find that the dry vial dimensions are acceptable. And let me see what else I have here. Let me see what you have. I am. I don't have I just can't jump around right now and to anybody. I'm sorry, the is the driveway aisle. Okay. Yeah, it's from 22 to 20. I think I think that's it. I'll adjust the language in all of these to be the same. Sorry. I'm just typing right now. Okay. And I will do the same for the special conditions. So you'll, you'll receive this. When I send around for signatures. Thank you, Jenny. Is there anything else? What did I just get the two? Is that a gene? I think so. Yeah. And I put usable and landscaped open space by the way. Okay. Okay. Anything further? So that I can. I'm good. Nothing further from me. Great gene. This looks good. I'm just realizing after all that talk about the Erelington historical commission. I need to make sure. Absolutely. So Richard, is it okay if I just say some motion? Yeah, well, yeah, is there a motion to approve the. The, the, the docket with the findings and special conditions as edited by Jenny. Do we have the roof plan in there? I didn't notice if the roof plan was in there. And it be designed. So at least 50% of the roof is available for solar. If we, I didn't see that in there. It's in their plans. So that would be, well, except that their plans just say solar, but the tentative placement of the utilities on the roof wouldn't really allow that. And they could adjust that. You lost me to June because on the existing portion, would they put the second building on top of it? Those are exhaust from the. Right. But they are the restaurants. Right. You can't put any. Which any, which any put there is fine. Okay. Okay. I'm okay with that. I'm just saying. That's that. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. Cover set. Correct. Yeah. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah. Thank you. Great. So can I believe that you had. Motion to approve. The docket with the findings and special conditions. As edited by the board. Yes. For a second. And with the administrative approvals. So I think that was good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the support of the board. And further review by the historic commission. I will. I will second it. With an addition. Great. Thank you. Jean. Thank you. So we will take a roll call vote. Starting with Ken. Yes. Gene. Yes. Steve. Yes. I am the yes as well. Congratulations. And thank you for. Your time and your responses. very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. And this is Cynthia Pashuto and the rest of the Pashuto family. I'm sorry, we're interrupting. We just want to thank our team. They've really helped us out. And the board, of course, we're trying to make an objective improvement to the center and kind of bring a little bit of life back. So thank you so much. Thank you. We're all looking forward to the next steps in this project. So thank you again. Alright, so that closes docket number 3673. And we will now move to the third item in our public hearings, which is the continuation of docket number 3348, the reopening of the special permit at 833 Mass Avenue. And I believe you're just having a lot, a lot of time with us here tonight. Yes. Yeah, Attorney Nessie, if you wanted to give us an update as to where you are, I believe that you had some late breaking plans that you wanted to share with us this evening. So I'll turn it over to you. Thank you very much. And Monty French is with us. He's the architect and Jeff Noyes is with us and Phil Randall, the contractor is with us as well. And we did submit two concept plans, virtually at the last minute, and I apologize for that, Jenny. I did the best I could, but I got them in as quickly as I could. And we're not, Jane, I want you to know that we're not stuck with just those two concept plans. I know you asked us to look at going out the back last time. And we have done that. And I think Monty may have some comments about that as well. With respect to what there may be some issues with regard to doing that as to how it gets accomplished. But in any event, we have two concept plans. One of them is residential only. That's concept number one. And that would be essentially maintaining the existing building and the placement of that building on the site. We would recapture as we've indicated in our narrative, the side porch on the ground floor as living area. And we'd wind up with a total of five residential units. The other plan is a plan that you've seen in some guys before, maybe as long as a year ago, not your fault, but our fault. And that is a plan that where we and that's concept number two, where we propose to move the the sighting of the building up close to the mass have to have it similar to the CVS sighting and other sightings along mass have. I know that had been discussed approximately a year ago. And there was some sentiment at that time for that to happen before everything broke down. And again, not because of your fault that because of our fault. Essentially, what we were tried to do if we moved the sighting of the building up close to the mass have is to retain the facade portion of the building as much as we could. I know that there's been a lot of discussion between folks in the town. And I'm going to have a lot more discussion next on November 2 with the historical commission about the building as well. But if we did this, that would give us a total of seven residential units. And we all would also have some commercial space. Now, I know a year ago, there was some feeling that it would be kind of nice if we could have a mixed use situation as far as the site is concerned. Concept number two would give us a mixed use site. We'd have commercial space. We'd have some office space and not a frivolous amount of office space, a thousand three and 13 square feet on the first floor with another residential unit on the first floor. There'd be a total of seven residential units. Now, I just need to you to understand that as I'm sure you do, I'm trying to make something happen here. I've been dealt a hand that I'm dealing with. And I have to deal with historical. I have to deal with you folks as well. I was asked at the last historical committee meeting by Joanne Robinson, well, Mr. and SC, do you have a plan? And I said, no, I don't have a plan because I need to first present a plan to the ARB to try to get a feeling for them as to where as to the direction I ought to be going with respect to a plan. Once I have some direction, which is what I need, I can then come back to you, Mr. Robinson on the Historical Commission and present a plan to you. So the reason we're here this evening, and I've got Monty here as well. He can talk about and I'll want you Monty to talk about both concepts. I also want you to address Jean Benson's comments last time with respect to the possibility of going out the back. You know that 10 parking spaces were allocated in the 2009 ARB decision to go out the back. You know that the back decision said that there was ample room to go out the back as well. I'd want your opinion and your comments with respect to that. Monty, why don't you jump in now and talk about both concepts and also talk about whatever else you might have, including the possibility of going out the back. Thank you, Bob. Yes, if we could start with the concept one, the concept that retains the existing building. There you go. Thank you. So this is just simply showing the existing building on the site. I know that you guys have seen this several times, but just kind of going back through things after several conversations with you all and Bob and Jeff and trying to look at how we can make this work. Our thoughts in our office are that because the building is set so far back and presents a small challenge being above the sidewalk grade and things like that, that we felt like it could be a good option to look at this as all residential. It being so far back potentially was not a good fit for commercial use. And also we looked at it in the perspective of the center stairwell and how we can divide this up. So a left and right unit as we work our way up the building and then another unit at the top is how it's essentially divided. So that was kind of our thinking behind this, that it would become more of a quiet, just a renovation of the house, given that it sets so far back. And kind of, I think that there's already been some sort of agreement in place about having to replace the siding in the windows. And this would kind of just, I guess, move right along with the notion that we're going to have to replace those things so that we would keep going with the renovation and renovate the house in total with these five units in mind. So then kind of also expanding on Mr. Benz's comments from the last meeting, I think I've missed a couple meetings, but I know you're talking about Bob and adding to the rear, you know, and I think part of my understanding in the past was that there was some sort of agreement with CVS and that was potentially, you know, I haven't seen it, but I guess it's been explained to me that we can add to the rear. And if that's the case, you can see that there's the potential for that. And I think that that could be another thing that's explored with this concept. You can see here, these are the plans or just kind of diagrams, but they give general square footage of basically one bed and studio units that I think are kind of doing well in the in the area right now. And I think probably, we could easily supplement by adding to the rear. But you can see that we're trying to keep the stairwell and keep the kind of all the original character of the house on the exterior, there's no real additions in these schemes, we can explore a scheme that would add to the rear and supplement that if we need to look at potentially bit larger units and more units. So that's, that's kind of where that came from. And then moving on to concept number two. So concept number two, as Bob mentioned, this is really just a quick diagram. I don't hopefully nobody's really focused in on details here. But the intention was to kind of, you know, I think that there's been a few conversations about, you know, if we had to replicate the house or build a new structure that we would replicate the character of the original house. And that would be the intention here. And I think that that would take a, you know, much deeper critical analysis of the house for us to properly implement that. But this is the idea that we would move it here to allow us to expand even more and provide potentially more units than even what we've shown. Some of the units are quite large and 1200 square feet, maybe we can have a few smaller units, but it does allow a little more diversity in terms of the types of units we have. And again, it does offer the commercial space on the ground floor. In the previous schemes where it was more water, I think we showed three floors of commercial at the front. But given today's climate for commercial space and the need for housing, we thought that this would be a potential good use of this and also just the nature of the house. You know, I think if we had a three story commercial space, it would involve an elevator and things like that. But this kind of speaks to some of the planning board and issues with commercial space. But then also does address housing needs. And again, you know, we could properly divide it up a little bit different and get potentially two or three more units into this building, just but that's the general idea is to replicate the house and its character and expand and build new. So that's the concept. So again, thank you, Monty for that. So again, I need to and we need direction. I mean, I can't go back before historical on November 2nd and not has something to say about what the thinking on the part of the members of the ARB might be in terms of what they might like to see on the site. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the history of the property and the like. And even in that decision in 2009, there was a comment by the ARB, notwithstanding the fact that the property was on the significant list, that it wasn't significant. And so I mean, I'm dealing with all of that at this point, in terms of trying to make something happen. And something is going to happen. Jeff noise has come to the realization. And I will say this very clearly. And Jeff can object to what I'm going to say if he wants to. But Jeff noise has come to the realization that time is up. And this project has to has to move forward. Right now, he spent $35,000 to get rid of the asbestos on the exterior of the building. He spent $8,000 with respect to preparing the electrical work within the building. It's not turned on yet. Not because of anything we have done or the town has done, but because the electric company hasn't turned it on yet. So he's spending money at this point. So he's paying a price for the fact that things have not gone the way they should have gone for a period of time. But again, all that being said, I'm here for direction. So I'd like to open it up to the members of the board and try to get some of that direction if I could. Great. Thank you. Start with Jean. Yeah, thank you, Bob and Monty for these two concepts. Let me start with, I guess, my major concern and then get to the two concepts. My major concern that is if you're subject to the demolition delay, which will end up being, I guess, one or two years, the town is then stuck with this boarded up building for what I think is an unacceptably long period of time. So that's sort of my background on it. Clearly, we can't comment officially on these because they haven't gone in an application. But I'll tell you what I think in general. I think in general, if the Historic Commission would say if you do either or both of these, either one, you don't you can go ahead and you don't need the demolition delay. Then I think these are both good possibilities from my perspective. What I specifically like about concept two, which I felt I couldn't have approved in your initial concept to us a couple of years ago, your initial concept to us a couple of years ago required the residents to walk through the CVS parking lot and come in the back. So this doesn't do that. So I think that's a major improvement. I don't at this point, I can say I have a strong feeling one way or the other between these two. But if you can get the Historic Commission to say one or both of these, you don't have to do the demolition delay. Then I think you're dealing with us and we'll have to look at are there zoning issues? Do we have to do any waivers? Do you need variances? I wondered about the first one, we're over the setback, but we can deal with that all at another time. Gene, I agree with everything you say and that's so unusual. We should celebrate. Yeah, not withstanding everything that has happened over the last year or two. I think it's in the best interest of the town to get this done. Okay, it's sitting there at this point. It's not an attractive site. It can be an attractive site, whether concept one or concept two, we would prefer concept two, because it comes up with a mixed use concept for the site, which I think would be something that might be favored by the master plan. It gives additional units. But again, my task is going to be with historical, okay? I don't want to see, and if Joanne Robinson is listening, I do not want to see a demolition delay. So Joanne, I'm going to need to present something to you, hopefully, that will pass muster with the commission, so that we do not wind up with a demolition delay. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Gene. Any other questions or comments? No, I appreciate seeing these and I like the direction that seems to be headed at the moment. I'm interested in seeing what the historical commission will do. Great. Thank you, Gene. Ken? Thank you, Rachel. When you say commercial, I know it's still speculative, but is something, is it going to be an office or it's going to be an open concept kind of office where it's like someplace like the Wonder Bar, where it has like a bunch of startup offices and like a micro brewery of startup companies or something like that. So I'm going to ask you a question. Yeah, I think the original idea that we kicked around some time ago was that similar to what we work for kind of an incubator space of sorts. Okay. I'm very supportive of that. And then also, since there are greater than five units, I'm assuming there's going to be at least one affordable unit there? Would have to be. Okay. I'm very supportive of that. So here's my personal direction to you, Bob, okay? Yep. Go scheme one if there's a demolition delay. If there's no demolition delay, go scheme two. Can I be any clearer? Okay. That's my opinion. Thank you, Ken. Steve. Concepts. I have a, I think I have a clear preference for number two. You know, at seven units, it would require, it would trigger inclusionary zoning. The second concept has a greater value. You know, whereas the first one is just studio in one bedroom. And finally, I like the idea of pulling the building forward. I think that a, to me, at least a 39 foot setback on Mass Ave in a, in a business district is just too much. And I would much rather see the building come forward and hug the sidewalk. That's it. Great. Thank you, Steve. And again, since this is not a hearing on these two particular schemes, we won't be voting this evening. But as we are all giving you our individual feedback, I will agree 100% with the simplicity that can answered you. And I will leave it at that. Before I get to a question or before we, we talk at the board about the special permit that we currently have open as opposed to the one that will need to be opened when whichever of these schemes moves forward after the next meeting with the historic committee, are there any other comments before we open this up for, for public comment from the board? Okay. That being said, I will open this up for any member of the public who wishes to comment on this open special permit. Please use the raise hand function. I will call on you in the order in which hands are raised. Please note that you will have up to three minutes to. Address this docket and please identify yourself by your first last name and address. And the first speaker this evening will be, I believe that's Patricia warden. Actually, it's a. You are, we can hear you, John. Oh, very good. Yeah, it's excellent. But she pushes the buttons for me because I don't know how to do it. John Worden, Jason street. Well, obviously, I like the, the first concept that retains the historic building and puts it to a new use. Well, which it's actually it's had since way back in, I think, 19 for you and Dr. Edward died. Sometime like that. Long time ago. And it has had different uses in there. And I think this, this takes a perfectly good building. That basically has a good bones to slight the abuses to which it's been subjected for the past. I think that's a good point. That basically has a good bones to slight the abuses to which it's been subjected for the past 10, 12 years. And. And this retains the building provides a five units. And makes use of the investments that have been made to preserve it and put it back away. It should have been kept. And. And, you know, that having a little setback on mass, particularly adjacent to the very important building of the Baptist church. You know, it says a little bit about an older island and it used to exist before we had so much on toward development. And you look at, you look at our neighbors in Lexington once you get beyond the east very east part of it. And you see what, what an avenue like this can, can, can be. And we can, we, we most of all, we've lost most of that. But, but, but we, we can, we can keep a little bit of it. And it's, I applaud them for bringing forward the first plan as I favored the previous plans that retain the building. I think it's important to retain this building. We don't have a lot of our old buildings around. It's very important because of the difficulties we're going to another pandemic. The last time we had one over 100 years ago, the man who owned and lived in this building was in charge of trying to help people who are suffering from the, from the Spanish flu. And they didn't have all the things. They didn't have the vaccines and all the good stuff we have now. And so that's kind of a mark in our place in our history that I don't think we should lose. I think that's a good point. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker on this topic will be Don Seltzer. Thank you, Don Seltzer Irving street. I think that concept one is probably pretty close to what the ARB and the owner at the time had vision for the property back in 2009. I think that that's a good point. And that's good point. Thank you for sharing the original hearings for the special permit. I also want to point out that with concept two, I don't see any way that you're going to meet the requirements for usable open space. You're going to have to just waive that requirement entirely if you want concept to. Thank you. Okay, with that we will close public comments. And let's see again we're not going to vote on any of the particular plans that were presented with us this evening I think that there has been some clear sentiment identified that Version two is preferred if the waiver is granted for the demolition delay by the Historical Commission but if not that Option one would would be preferred so that again something moves forward. So I think that we will be able to move forward cautiously on this site. What I would present to the board is that I think that what we think this applicant would be to come back to us with a plan with a plan and request a hearing for with a new proposal. And so that closing this open special permit, which we, which is really belongs to the, to the CVS. At this time, I would propose would would make some sense, and that we ask the applicant to come back to us. Once they have direction from the Historic Commission with a proposal that moves forward with the appropriate scheme given given some of the guidance we've given tonight. I wanted to get some feeling from the board as to whether or not you're comfortable with closing the current special permit that we have left open to spur forward some movement on this property and I'll start with can for your sentiments. Yes, I'm fine with that. Thank you, Rachel. Okay, Jean. I have a different thought about that. I mean, and the reason I have this different thought is that we're not for our reopening the special permit. I'm not sure we would have gotten this amount of movement, if any movement at all. I would prefer to keep it open. Maybe schedule the next hearing in two months. If in two months. The applicant can come back with a new application then we can close the current permit. I'd prefer to keep it open until we get an application for a new permit for concept one or concept two or a concept yet to be determined. I appreciate that sentiment. My question, my thoughts on that are that I, even if once a scheme is identified, I think it's going to take the applicant longer than, you know, they meet this coming month with historic. They identify whether or not they will waive the demolition delay for one of these two schemes it's chosen, I think it's going to take longer than that amount of time for them to come back with the application for, for a special permit so to your point, I wonder if we perhaps keep it open another month to have the applicant come back following the hearing the rolling from the historic commission and identify to your point what we've been looking for is a timeline right. So, what is the timeline then which has been chosen what is your timeline for the application, and then perhaps close it at that time with that be. Okay, so it's okay for me to answer. Attorney Nessie whether a month is an appropriate time for that. Well, I guess, let's say one thing before. Please. I think if you're looking for a stick gene, we can always reopen it. So, why don't we just close it right now, and let the process go through. If the process doesn't go through, we just reopen it that's our that's our prerogative. That's true to I think it's just easier to keep it open and to just set the other date now and that's why I'm curious as to what would be from Attorney Nessie's perspective, a time when he can come back and report on. You know, what the historical commission did or was going to do, and when they can come in with a proposal. So we should may just be open one more time. So attorney Nessie would you be able to comment on your thoughts on on timing given what we just identified as our. I certainly am going to need time to come back with a plan that we can talk about from the point of view of having a full blown hearing. The, I don't see any reason why it could not be closed out. There is no statute of limitations on the part of the ARB saying to my client okay we're going to reopen it again at this point. You give me one less thing to worry about and to think about at that point. I've got enough on my plate dealing with this right now. With the ARB, I've got the historical commission, and I'd like to try to make that happen, if I could, and quite frankly, it would make my life easier. If this, if this, the CVS hearing was in fact closed out, you're not giving away anything. You're not giving away the store. You're simply shutting it down. You can reopen it again. If you have to, I would prefer that. I would prefer to the members of the board as to what they want me to do. Essentially, in this particular situation, I'm at your mercy. Okay, because of the history of this. So, you tell me what you want me to do. Jean, I have a question for you. Would following the hearing with the historical commission, if attorney and Se was to provide a memo with the outline of the findings of that commission and the intent of the, his client in terms of moving forward and, you know, at that point with the timeline for an application for a special permit of its own right for this project because at some point they need to, you know, open a special permit to do whatever they're going to do on that site, whether it's team one or scheme two. Would that be an appropriate ask as a, as the next step if we closed the permit, would you be satisfied with that. Well, I prefer it the other way but if you and can and Steve would prefer to close this out and just as an attorney and asked you to do that I can look at that. Okay. Thank you. Steve, what are your thoughts. Well, I think the big question is what form of direction the historical commission decides to give. I think that'll really set the tone for what happens next. I do like the idea of, I am in agreement with Jean that I, you know, I would like to at least have a sense of a timeline. Once, you know, the historical historical commission has weighed in. I think it proposed that we keep the special permit open for one additional month. They, the, I believe that the next meeting is November 2. If I'm not mistaken Jenny for the historical commission. And our second. Yes. Great. And our meeting. We have a meeting next week, which obviously is the day before the historical commission needs. And our meeting after that is. What is that November 15. Attorney Nessie would November 15 give you enough time to react to the historical commission. And come back to us with again, not a plan. Obviously there is a whole separate special permit that would need to be applied for, before we actually review any, any plans in detail, but a, a schedule of, of next steps and a direction, so I would prefer to move that to the, the first week and the first meeting in December. Jeffrey you're on board here. What's your what are your thoughts. You're the owner. Yeah, no, we're, we are on board with trying to get something done. We've been trying to do this all along. All right. The demolition application has one last signature which will be acquired tomorrow. We're not talking about the demo app right now. Okay. We're not talking about coming back before the ARB, following the meeting with the historical commission for the purpose of giving them a reaction. And it's being suggested that we come back on November 15. Does that give us enough time for you Monte and I to talk about it after historical tells us what their point of view is to get our thoughts together and come back to the ARB on November 15. That's the only issue right now. Again, maybe it makes more sense to give a little more time. It seems like all of this has been taking more time. Maybe it's just fair just to put it in now. What's the next hearing joining after November 15. It's December 6 December 6. Can we have December 6. Okay, so. Are you okay with that. Yes, I mean, we're not really producing anything. It's really kind of re presenting and discussions and things. I want to discuss it with you. Okay. All right. And again, to be clear, we won't be reviewing in detail any, any plans because those need to be presented in a separate special permit application. But at this point, I would see if there is a motion to continue the special permit one more meeting to December 6. And at which time the applicant or the, the team, the ownership team will identify for us, the, the plan for going forward following the historical commission meeting on November 2nd. Yes. Agreed. Okay. Emotion. So move. A second. Can or Steve. I will second. We'll take a vote for approval. Gene. Yes. Can. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I am a yes as well. All right. So this will be continued until December 6. We will see you back. At that time. Thank you all. So with that, that closes our public hearings for this evening. And we'll now move on to agenda item number two, which is the meeting minutes. I believe we have one set of meeting minutes from. September 27th, 2021. And as Jenny pulls those up, I will start with Jean to see if you have any corrections for addition. I do. And I, I'm looking at my copy and not at the screen. So. Let me get back to my copy. One second. Okay. On the first page. Third paragraph. Where it says Mr Murphy said the former Papa genos. We reconfigured and should say. That the rear of the former Papa geno space. Then then the two paragraphs later where it says the chair asked about the existing tenant structure. And Mr Murphy said all the current tenants would be staying. And the existing commercial space is not changing. I don't think he said that. I think he said. Most of the current tenants would be staying. And, but also some of the existing commercial space is changing. I'm not sure where that came from. But it's not exactly. What he had said. Well, he might have said all the existing current tenants would be staying, but not all the existing commercial space is not changing. Because they're obviously making some changes to the commercial space. So maybe just say and some of the commercial space is changing. I'm ready to go to the next page. Next page. First paragraph on the top. After the sentence that says ends with uncovered bike parking. There should be another sentence that says the applicant. Had not provided a TDM plan. Go on. Continue. Yeah. Go ahead and realized I was muted. And let me get back to my copy of the minutes. On page four. Where the, it's like the third paragraph down, which says Mr. Benson reviewed. And the second line says for its use, which precludes expansion. It's not what it was use, which. Allow for expanding the building in the rear. I'm sorry, I have to switch back and forth here. Then the next paragraph down. The second sentence that said Mr. Benson said he would like to have a conversation with this rate. To discuss what the board's options are, including potentially amending the special permit. And that sentence should continue to say and to continue rather than close the hearing. Those are my suggested edits. Great. Thank you, Jean. Kim, any. Adjustments. You're in mute. Sorry. Nope, you're good. Okay. Fabulous. Thumbs up. Will do. Do you any, uh, any corrections or additions? Uh, yes. On, uh, in the first paragraph of page three. Yes, that's a paragraph. Uh, so three lines from the end. There is a sentence that reads Mr. Revolac said the lack of usable open spaces representative of other B three parcels in town. And we will run in. And yet before will it should say we will run into this issue again. Um, I'd like to add us two sentences after. Um, You know, after again. Um, the first is. For this project. He believes. That the creation. Of usable open space. Would require. Semi or. Uh, actually would require. Removal of part removing. Part of the historic building on Medford street. Comma. Eliminating a portion of the building. Frontage on mass. Av. Eliminating most or all of the off street parking. On the rear of the parcel. None of these options seems particularly feasible. That's it. You did say those things too. Well, I, I wanted to include the reason, the thought process. That's all. Thank you. All right. And I don't have any further additions. So do we have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from. Uh, September 27, 2021. As amended. So. Second. Roll call vote. Gene. Yes. Ken. Yes. Steve. Yes. I am a yes as well. I'm meeting. Minutes are approved. As amended. Uh, let's see that concludes agenda item number two. And, uh, moves us to agenda item number three, which is open forum. Uh, so any, uh, members of the public who are still with us this evening, who wish to speak. Uh, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. Give another couple of seconds. All right. Seeing no speakers. I will close, uh, open forum. And I believe that that concludes our agenda this evening. So we will, uh, take a motion to adjourn. Madam chair. Oh, please. Go ahead. Uh, I motion that this meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board be adjourned. Second. Great. Thank you. Take a roll call vote. Ken. Yes. Gene. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a guest as well. Thank you everyone for joining us this evening and we will see you next week. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night.