 Thank you everyone, and welcome to the December 5th, 2022 meeting of the Town of Arlington Redevelopment Board. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Rachel Zembery. I'm the chair of the board. For those of you joining us this evening, I'd like to note that this meeting is being recorded by ACMI. So, I'd like to introduce the other members of the board, starting with Steve Revillac. Hello, Steve Revillac. Alison Tentacolas. Yes. Jean Benson. Present tonight. Ken Lau. Hi, you're here. We also have together with us a director of the Department of Planning and Community Development, Claire Ricker, and Kelly Lynam of the assistant director. Great. So, let's go ahead and move right into our first item on our agenda, which is docket number 3728, an open public hearing for 99 Massachusetts Avenue. This is an application for a mixed use development. So, it is the addition of a one residential unit to an existing office building within the B2 neighborhood business district. And so, what we'll do this evening is I will ask Claire on behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development to identify anything that she'd like to highlight from the memo that the department has written. And then we'll ask you to give a presentation of up to 10 minutes. The board will then ask you any questions. We have any members of the public who would like to offer any feedback. We'll give them that opportunity. Then the board will come back and deliberate on next steps, whether that is to make a decision this evening or potentially to request any additional items for a future date. Okay, great. So, I'll turn it over to Claire. Thank you. So, this is a project which is going to be a change in use from commercial to mixed use. As Rachel pointed out, conversion of the unfinished attic space to a two bedroom apartment, there will be additional signage that has been proposed for the front of the facade. This is a no net loss of commercial space. The commercial space will remain and be renovated. Indeed, it looks like they are planning to construct some additional ADA access to the commercial space. And as the board requested, the applicant has provided additional locations for bicycle parking as well as the lead checklist. Kelly, I don't know if you have anything to add at this point or if you want to wait. I have something to add. Is that an architectural significant property? Is the property that actually is on the inventory is 99 ANAS on, which stands behind this building. It's not. Thank you, Jean. Jean and I have a discussion. So, it's actually the building in front of it. This office building is not on the inventory. So, it is not separate to the historical condition. Great. Thank you for the clarification, Kelly. And thank you, Claire, for the additional information. So, at this point, I'd like to turn it over to our applicants if you could introduce yourselves. And then we'd love to hear you present the project. Here with the number that represents the owner. Our proposal is to add another story to this structure, which was built about 1969. Commercial building, all masonry bar joys, very robust structure. And the proposal is 1220 square feet, which includes the stair hall that's continued from the front stair. It would be a single egress space, so it will be a sprinkler building. It checks all the box for life safety that way. The building currently has a few permits out for tenant space. The second floor and the basement are tenant fitouts. And then also some building improvements that are underway are the accessible ramp and the replacement of the windows. So, we're seeking the change of use to construct the dwelling unit on top. I don't think we're not seeking any other relief other than the change of use special permit. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So, at this point, I'd like to turn it over to the members of the board for any questions that you might have the applicant of the applicant. And we'll start with Ken. General, I'm supportive of these mixed use projects, but I do have a couple of questions for you. This is basically a four-story building now, right? We're at the residence on the fourth floor. Is there an exception for that, for not having an elevator? No. You don't need an elevator to go to the fourth floor? No. I will refer back to ISD to confirm that. I always thought that with residential, once you go through the fourth story, an elevator is required. Three stories are fine, but on the fourth story, you require an elevator. And that's one of the reasons why we've been pushing for four stories is to have elevators so it would be more appropriate for aging in place and give it more diversity for people who live in, you know, elderly and such, having elevated buildings. Okay, with that said, I'll just table that for now, and I'll rely on you and also the government department to say, does this meet the code or not? You did mention one thing that helped me out was this is a fully sprinkled building. Yes. So one means to be addressed from the unit is fine because you are within the 75 feet, the child distance within the unit, right? That's very compact building. It looks that way, but it didn't say anything about sprinklers until you just said it right now. That was all the physical stuff. I want to talk a little bit more about the aesthetics of it. Right now, it looks like you put a shoebox on top of this building, and it doesn't look balanced to me. And when I look at this, there's a building that was done in the early 70s. I think this was one of Bob Vila's first projects he did in the back bay. You know, those brick row houses right along Beacon Street. There are three or four townhouses with just two floors stuck right on top of them with big boxes right on top of them. I don't know what I'm talking about. This is not as bad as that. But it linkings to that a little bit. I'm just wondering if you can maybe look at this a little differently and maybe integrate this a little bit more. Like right now, the top floor is really portionally larger than the rest. You know, you're Jewish in the top, middle, base type. When you remove that roof line, are you going to have to remove the cornice or not? Well, we replaced the cornice, but it's in the same position. Yeah, I was wondering is there a way of maybe raising the cornice a little bit more or making the cornice line bigger, such that right now that top floor looks too pronounced. And if you can just somehow just raise it up higher or make it taller, if the cornices at the top of the railing get rid of the cost of the railing, I would make the proportions so much nicer. And yes, you did come back with some drawings, some renderings later. Just to call it front elevation of the front elevation there. Because at first I didn't know what that was and I said, okay, it's probably metal, I'll give them the benefits, gray metal. It'll look like a copper or something like that. That might be appropriate with the brick and everything else. But I didn't know until you gave me that sketch. Along the front, where you have all the windows there, that looks nice. It gives a lightness and an airiness to it. But then when you turn around and go around to the side, the side elevation, you quickly lose that. And you just have vertical windows there. Is there any way of adding maybe more windows around the front, the taller windows where the living room area is, where the two verticals are, and you just add two more windows so it looks like it's more light and airy. Because right now it looks too massive up there right now. You're responding to the use behind the windows, which is a bedroom. Yeah, I think that. All those extra windows in a master bedroom would be really nice. You're probably going to get a pretty good view. Investment world worth it, I'm assuming. But somehow you've got to get that clunkiness out of the top. And I just feel like it's a little too heavy for me right now. I'll let my rest of my board members opine on what they think. And also, do you have any mechanical equipment that goes on top of there? Or are you replacing any that was on top of that little witch's walk with it? Each of the floors now are served separately, with separate through wall units or mini splits. So it'll be really mechanical for that unit. And we do have a slight parapet above the stair and over the roof that would help disguise the mechanical for that unit. No, you find that. So how are the lower floors heated and air-conditioned? They basically have packaged units in the spaces. Mini splits, you say? Yeah. And so where's the condenser? They're on the back and side of the building right here. On the ground, right? Yeah. In the parking lot. Yep. Okay, so those will remain. Okay. So another suggestion is that maybe you can lower the parapet on the roof just to give, you know, to minimize the scale of that a little bit. Yeah. And just put the condenser that you're going to put up there on the ground floor with the rest of those condensers on the back. Yeah. And then that'll give away some, that'll take some of the height, some of the clunkiness that you have on top there, because you said you have a slight parapet, right? Yeah. So that might help, too, you know? And then... There's an existing deck of the attic, and the top of the current parapet is 24 inches off the floor. That's a 42 inch rail. So that's kind of made up of the rebalance of the, you know, the parapet plus to get to 42. I'm trying to... No, I'm just... I'm not trying to design... I'm just trying to give you like a sense of scale where that floor plate is relative to the top of the parapet. I'm assuming it's the second dash line you got up there, right? Yes. We showed the setback. Yes. That's the floor, right? Yeah. Yeah, okay. Took a pretty good guess. Yeah. So, I think I have that. That's it for now. Okay. Great. Thank you, Ken. Jean. Thanks. I agree with my colleague that putting an apartment on top is a worthwhile thing to do. I do have a number of questions, though. So let me start with the lead terrace side. I walked by today, and you've already put the ramp in, but it's not completed at the bottom because there's a step up into the door to go, and so it can't be handicapped accessible. I'm wondering where the drainage from the handicap ramp is going to go because it looked like, to me like, there might have been a dry well there, but that's going to have to be covered so it's even with the door, so can we start with that? They did, but they have to redo because we cannot have that step. So they are breaking it, lowering it down, and what we thought, and we were discussing with the inspectors to have maybe a metal grill on top so everything goes under that and create maybe a pump system that can pump water outside. Or into a dry well, or not do a dry well, which is... A small dry well under this slab because we don't have a lot of room on the sides. Right, you don't have any room on that side. Okay, yeah, it did look like something needed to be done completely. We have to redo that part and maybe like a metal grill on top so if his nose goes under the grill. So the pitch is probably wrong at this point too, I would think. Yeah. Yeah, okay. I was trying to look at your diagrams and determine the depth of your step back on the lead terrace side and the step back on the mass avenue side. Can you put those up? Let me see. There, please, if you can find that one. That's one. Yeah, so it looked to me like the 7.5 feet goes way beyond the edge of the building and goes up to the edge of... My interpretation is it's from the property line. No, it's the building line. It's always been the building line as long as we've interpreted. That's where I differ from you. We've always argued about that. Yes, it has been interpreted differently by members of the board. Well, I guess it will continue to be interpreted differently by members of the board because the whole point of the step back is to have a step back from a blank wall going up. And this doesn't really do that when you can have the step back from the side property line instead. So I'm just saying how I have interpreted and will continue to interpret this. And on the front is the 7.5 feet to the front of the building line. Or does it extend out? It's also the property line and not the building line. In this project it's applied consistently from the property line. Parking in back. I couldn't determine when I went and took a look from Lee Terrace where the property for this building ended and where the property for 99A begins but when I walked back today there were seven cars in the parking lot. So can you explain where the property line is between the two? The existing condition there are approximately six plus car widths to the property line and I believe the next space straddles the property line to 99A. So there may have been a relationship at one time I'm not clear on but the whole thing was paved and parked. So you don't know where the property line is? Well I mean we do know on paper and we haven't adjusted it in the field. The building was acquired maybe 18 months ago. Did you have a survey done? Both the meets and bounds so you must know where the back property line is and I would need to understand where that is and I'll get to a minute why I think that's important but if you're going to have tenants parking there I don't want them slapping over onto somebody else's property and I couldn't tell there are like white lines on the lot but it didn't indicate It's basically paid from building to building. It's paid from building to building. Yeah. So I think that would be helpful to know. The location of the proposed bicycle parking if you can pull that up in the parking lot. Yeah it wasn't clear to me by looking at this whether the cars whether this could be usable if the cars had to park right next to it. So my understanding of where the property line is and figuring out where the parking spaces are is very important to determine if there's enough room between the two tandem spaces closest to the building and where you're proposing bicycle storage lockers. The survey shows the rear property line and this diagram shows the cars shifted to the rear property line the three tandem spaces and then there's four feet between the bicycle locker and the first space. Those are not the way the lines are on the property now. No this is a proposed scene. I understand. Because the parking will have to be modified to date the bicycle parking is without a doubt. Okay. And how wide are each one of those spaces now? Do you know? These are the Arlington standard. Okay it would be helpful to come back with something that shows us how much each of those are. Okay. Then the other bicycle parking in front so you've proposed to put it on that little grassy strip with the tree not taking out the tree obviously. No the tree is in the center. Right in the center. Is that town land? Will you need the town approval? Yes we would need to seek approval for that. Is it possible to put so when you redid the right side ramp you ended up with this area over here. Is it possible to put the bike parking steps going down from the street? Oh they will on that side? To that access point. So people won't have to walk around that? Exactly. And we just don't did it yet because there is a water line there and we have to redo the water line so now it's wintertime. We'll have to wait. You have some distance I didn't measure how much between the front of the building and the sidewalk. Is it possible to put the bicycle parking there? It's possible. It would nibble away at the very meager landscaping we have. And the bicycle spaces are two feet by six feet and that strip is maybe I don't know if it even approaches 48. I was just wondering because the town doesn't want you to put that there. Your option is in front or to put it in back next to the bicycle lockers so I think it would be helpful to figure out what that's going to be. This would be our first choice because then the racks are visible to the users. Whereas we would have to solve it with signage. The rule is if you put it in back you'd have to have a sign that says bicycle parking in back. So as long as there's an understanding that you could have both the bicycle locker and the short-term bicycle parking in back. Okay, thanks. I noticed that one of the mini-split units, one of the condensers is mounted on the back of the building at about the second-story height so they're all not on the ground. Do you know where you're going to mount the one for the apartment on the ground or on the wall and back? Well my sense is we're going to be reworking that mass after this meeting. So if we can, we would keep it close to the unit. Doesn't necessarily have to be on the roof but it could be hidden on either the balcony or some other space near the unit. Otherwise, I don't think hanging it three stories in the air is practical so they would have to go to the ground. Yeah, I mean my concern about the ground is you're going to have the bicycle locker. You may have the other bicycle there. I'm not sure you have room for those and you don't want a car to go and hit one of those so I think that's something to be worked out. On your lead checklist, let me see. I guess just a couple of items. For the unit on the fourth floor, how is hot water going to be created for it? I mean we haven't worked out all those details just yet. That's why there are a number of items that are in the maybe column because once Brun and I really dig into this and start selecting all the systems then we'll answer that. I would suspect it would be on demand. It's a very compact unit. The laundry kitchen and bathrooms are very close proximity so I would do maybe a tankless on demand unit. Or you could not have to worry about bringing gas to the fourth floor and use an induction stove and air source heat pump hot water. I think it's worth it while you are considering that as opposed to bringing gas. It might save you money, better for the environment so I think it's worth thinking about that. You also mentioned wiring for an electric charger for a car. I think it might be better to actually have a level 2 charger if you can fit one into the parking lot. I think you should consider that. Gene, you made a charger or plug? Well, a level 2 charger so you plug your car in. Okay, so it's not a plug. It's actually a charger. Right. I guess the other thing that's not here. When I went this afternoon at about 2 o'clock the sun was across the street on Massachusetts Avenue and about at least half of the front facade of the building behind was in shadow because of this building. So, and it's going to be a little bit taller, not a lot taller but a little bit taller if you don't bring in the step back to 7 feet from the building line I think you'll be increasing the shadowing on the building so what I'd really like to see is a shadow study showing the shadows now and showing what the shadows will be with this new arrangement and just like to point out to my colleagues that under the environmental design review standards we may require modification and massing to reduce the effects of shadows on a budding property and in our zero or one or two districts so I think the one back is not our two but some of the other buildings are so I think the shadow study will be very important so that we can make an informed determination about that. Last about getting to what Ms. Lau is talking about what material is going to be used on the fourth cladding on the fourth? Metal standing seam, standing seam metal so either a painted aluminum or if budget allows could be a lead coated copper. And what will the windows be? The aluminum clad windows. I'll hear what my colleagues have to say I'm not overly enthusiastic about the design but I'll hear what my colleagues have to say about that and that's it, thank you so much. Thank you, Melissa. Yeah, so could you remind me of the current tenants? We have the Centenna team office on the second floor. I'm sorry could you speak a little bit louder we have some folks are having trouble hearing. We have an office on the second floor the Centenna property team and the basement is in construction so we don't have anybody there yet and on the first floor I believe we have a computer. There's three tenants on the first floor, full floor above grade and they've been long-term tenants there's a massage, there's like a therapy, not a massage but therapy, some kind of therapy. A computer, I don't know what they all do it's a very quiet building and you don't really see I'm curious in terms of the commercial that's there if they're planning to stay or are they staying through the construction or are the leases coming due what should we expect in terms of the commercial side? I mean they've weathered it so far and their life is going to get a little easier construction will be two stories away from them I mean I'm referring to the tenants on the first floor the three existing tenants because there's no tenant on the basement and I don't think there was one that purchased the building and the second floor was also empty and we renovated the second floor it's already done, the office is there oh that's why you said that well overall I support the idea of this building becoming a mixed use and having the residential kind of replace the attic level so in terms of design I guess I kind of will defer to my colleagues on some of their ideas and recommendations but I was just curious in terms of the windows in the front are they designed to be collapsible so it looks like in the design and they're rendering that they're collapsible the front ones they are double hung, they've been replaced with double hung which the rendering is an attempt to catch up to where Brune is at with the windows okay so these will not open if they're double hung that's a very different look than this so I think we need to see that so there's been a change to was there once were they collapsible because it looks, in the rendering it looks like they kind of see which windows up top are double hung yep since these were double hung windows are you referring to the windows? I'm sorry maybe I'm not being very clear these windows here oh yeah so to the far left is a door and then yes folding folding sorry now you kept saying collapsible no no no no thank you I meant the brick portion of the building the windows have been in motion as we've been developing this oh I see so those have changed okay so folding would probably be the better word for it instead of cold only those two and then the rest are fixed panels but the folding then it's open air so but in that there's a balcony in front of us right I understand okay I think that's you know in terms of you know creating more open space and accessibility I think I like that a lot I'm wondering a little bit about the signage for that building at the top there it seems to me unless it's just the number of the building it seems a little placed in an unusual area because that's their balcony also so you'd be looking up at that yeah it's intended to be a building sign it's either the address or if they choose to name the building we don't have that text at the moment but I wanted to bring that to your attention rather than you know come back again and maybe we will settle on the text in time yeah that might be helpful to give us a sense of what that would be like if it's a long name versus you know three numbers so and then the bike parking I better understand it as well so that's I think that's fine with me and in terms of this unit I know you know we talked about it with the master plan like augmenting the residential unit is it for rent or is it for condo ownership or it would be for rent for rent unit okay those are all my questions right now great thank you Melissa Steve good evening somewhere in the application materials I recall reading that you'd plan to put in some new storm water management could you describe briefly what that is what I envision is as we rework the parking area we'd have to do structures under the parking there's really no other options dry wells is that so one of which sort of springing off of that I understand the building is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to landscaped open space but you're adding gross floor area which will come along with a landscaped open space requirement given that you've got to do work on the floor or on the parking area anyway I was wondering if you would consider depaving portion of it so you'd need like a hundred so you'd need a hundred twelve square feet a parking space assuming eight and a half by eighteen is a hundred fifty three square feet would you be amenable to going down to five parking spaces we would have to grant a parking reduction and talk about that but that I think is a fairly straightforward set of requirements anyway your thoughts well I think obviously everyone loves convenience of more parking but I think if it brought us closer to being able to do the project we certainly would consider it okay and another another question in the for mixed use in this district there's a dual height limit so in order to grant a special permit for a building at the upper height limit we have to make a finding that properties in the adjacent R0, R1, R2 and open space district will not be adversely affected due to existing user topographic conditions now for my perspective speaking for myself here it's really we're really talking the difference between what the three and a half story and the fourth story but I was wondering if you know how would you how you would make that case so that the going up the conversion from three and a half to four stories will not adversely affect properties in the adjacent R01 and R2 districts can I interrupt for a second Steve I think it's not in the mixed use district because it's B2 you might want to take a look okay I'll give me one second I'm just going to look at 5 3 19 oh there aren't any R2, R1 properties of budding it oh yeah it's a budded by R3 and B2 alright well then that's the answer to the question and Steve B2 no mixed use oh oh interesting okay my scratch that last question my bad I apologize for the deer in the headlights okay no no no it was uh no no thank you for I thank you for the correction I much appreciated um lastly with our next to last regarding the sign um would you consider putting it above the doorway my concern the reason I suggest this is I've written by I do a lot of bicycle community I've written by this building more times that I could possibly remember it wasn't until looking at this permit application that I realized it had a a hip roof and you can't see that from the bicycle lane so I'm not sure you'd be able to see a building sign and I think going down a little bit lower would we absolutely would consider a canopy sign okay and finally um I just agree with some of the earlier comments it would be nice to I think if the the upper story blended more with the rest of the building they look a little maybe a little too distinct I think thank you so I just have um a couple of comments I actually like the distinctness of the two buildings but I completely agree with my colleague there about playing with the um depth of the cornice so that there is more of a transition between the two buildings so that something you could look at that would be great I'm having a really hard time with this hexagon window I don't know if there's any appetite at all for um swapping that out but again if you're going with which I like this very modern juxtaposition with this very traditional brick facade is real hard I'm having a real hard time aesthetically so I would just ask you to consider it it's a client client architect disconnect just something I wanted to put out there it looks like you're also modifying the entry portal to have some of the aesthetic features of the sorry Claire if you go to the first floor right here so right now we have kind of a traditional cased wood cased opening and it looks like you're bringing some of is it the standing seam that you're bringing into that area? There was some discussion of maybe flanking the door with channel glass but this is showing a standing seam so that the material is repeated What would be interesting to me also is if you played if you do that I would ask that you play with the depth and again the scale of that that canopy that's above that and whether or not that has any relationship or not with the projection I don't know if it's you know brise-a-lay or you know if it's a flat projection at the top between the transom window and the fixed panel windows if that is something with some sort of an articulation in between it or again if that's a flat panel but it would be good for us to understand a little bit more of what that is and to see if there is any relationship with that and you know again if you're going to be looking at the scale of the porno between the brick building and the modern addition above I'd also think about maybe increasing the depth of that that projection above the entry which might then also make a nice base for your sign if that's something you choose to do I think that might be a nice knot to tie those things together which I think people are looking to see a little bit but I do like actually the modern the difference in architecture I think you know why mimic what's already there when you're clearly adding something new and different and the I think that was all I had to add at this time so any other questions from the board before we open it up for public comment sorry I just missed one thing about the bicycle locker you'll clearly need to be locked and you'll need to have separate locks for the residents as opposed to the commercial because the residents need to have the I'm trying to think where this one this one is installed nearby it's two bikes per locker two lockers four spaces in total the residents requires the one and a half which means two so they'll each have their own locking mechanism and I would encourage the owner to go with the phone app lock rather than a key or a combination lock so it's more flexible to manage okay that was it great I just want to follow up on the line I talked about reducing the mass up top was the stair tower block you have there doesn't need to go up to the roof up there so we can maybe reduce that down and help change the proportions or that maybe that's not the tall tower you want but we bring it down a little bit and then the mass of the building would be that and then that would be a little lower it would help the mass and the shadow study and so forth when I talked about adding the lights on the side road there you said there was a bedroom I got a little confused I was only meant at the living area so if you look at that side elevation there the two windows there without the corners above it is the bedroom I'm just asking to add more lights where the three are that's the living room you mean just in general or because they are that they are that stacked with the large window at normal height and then a transom so there's three of those through the space well I'm not trying to tell you what to do I always ask you to look at see how well that's all solid glass all the way across if you turn the corner around just those three lights that have the transom above it make that all solid glass all around you still leave the two windows in the back the way it is but it just gives that whole penthouse kind of look to that unit up there you're suggesting horizontally increasing the number of lights but that's my opinion and my other board member she kind of likes the way it looks there because the separation and it carries the lines through I understand that too but it's your project I think there's two ways of looking at it the whole thing is we want to make this look more cohesive with the project and if I can bring it down some more I'd be much appreciative that's the main point how you go it won't make a decision it won't affect my decision if you add windows there you don't add windows that's your certainly your choice Any other questions? So at this time we'd like to open this up for public comment any member of the public wishing to speak on the stock it please raise your hand you could introduce yourself first if you could come up to the front so that the microphone could pick you up Fantastic if you wouldn't mind please introduce yourself first, last name, and address My name is Jamie Stilling I'm 58 Oxford student I actually like the project it's really nice I'm a little the step back the fourth story can you explain the requirement and how it doesn't meet it exactly? Is that your only question or do you have other items I do They're adding a single residential unit there's limited upside to the product this seems like an awful lot of process to go through for a single residential unit frankly unnecessary and most of the discussion seems to be about aesthetics and personal choices that seems like it could be accomplished with an email to them outside of this process where the rest of us don't listen they don't have to sit here for as long and things that frankly seem unnecessary like the heating and hot water systems there's nothing in the bylaw that says what they can and can't do with their heating systems that's all I have other than the step back what was the step back requirement? we'll get that to that in a second are you? so one of the charges of this board is to make sure that we look at the way that the buildings work with the context and that is exactly what we're doing right now so what's not a discussion addressing why that's very important for this board this is not a discussion this is important for this board to address as well as the other items which are addressed in the elite checklist and again all part of the environmental design review criteria with regard to step backs is the amount of space that is required for a building to be pulled back from again it's not defined in the bylaw some members of the board identify that as the face of the building some of the lease line but to at the fourth story that's required to basically ensure that there is a break in the vertical articulation of a facade we're not going to do a discussion that we'd be happy to we're not going to interrupt their hearing for that but we'd be more than happy to answer questions for you James after the hearing alright any other public comment please if you could introduce yourself again first last name and address thank you Madam Chairman Chris Loretty I'm actually a bit perplexed by the applicants saying the only relief they were seeking is for the special permit itself if you look at the minimum frontage for this law for use as excuse it's 50 feet they only have 40 they are not meeting the usable open space requirement or at least they're not showing that they are in any of these material they submitted I'm not sure that they're not but they're saying they're not and they're also saying they're not meeting the landscape open space requirement and they need to meet with both of those and I would turn your attention to another B2 property that's at 199 Broadway that's when the town observed its owning by law the building inspector required the usable open space and the landscape open space to be met and it was and I think we need to do that again I did not see that the correspondence from Mr. Selser so I'd like to mention a couple things from that in the case you didn't receive it I'm happy to give you a copy just a couple things the well in the up story setback I think you need to clarify the language in the zoning by law so there's no disagreement about what that means in terms of the height buffer zone I believe it's dependent on the distance the residential properties are from the development not whether they abut it or not but the issue here is the town screwed up when they did the recodification and they claimed that they were not making any substantive changes to the bylaw if you look at the bylaw immediately before the recodification this indeed was a property that qualified for the height buffer treatment and they did this thing with the 20,000 square feet that was never in the bylaw prior to the recodification that's something else that needs to be looked at again and I believe correct it frankly you could probably meet the use of the open space requirement on the roof and that would comply with the bylaw in this case if the roof is less than 10 feet high assuming it meets the 25 foot minimum dimension and I would suggest you require that and I would suggest you also require the landscape open space on the ground level so I think that's about it we also mentioned some issues related to handicapped accessibility in particular great thank you very much anyone else can you speak this evening so at this point we will close the public comment and turn it back over to the board it sounds to me like there are several items which we would like the applicant to address and then come back in front of us before we're able to make a decision on this I wanted to see if there was any further discussion before I run through the list that I was keeping here please Steve regarding the upper story stat backs yes on the least terrace side speaking about the lead terrace side specifically the section that requires upper story stat backs 5.3.17 exempts alleys and we don't define alley in our bylaw and we defer to a dictionary definition staff was nice enough was gracious enough to dig it up for me and so the definitions from Webster's unabridged dictionary are a passage as through a continuous row of houses permitting access from the street to backyards, garages etc definition number two is a narrow back street and a walk is in a garden enclosed with hedges or shrubbery now given that this I measured the width of lead terrace this weekend and it's 13 feet 4 inches wide at the mouth of Mass Ave which is far narrower than our subdivision control laws will allow a street to be I also walk the distance of lead terrace and it feels like an alley so I I question whether they need to step back on that side at all I think it's abutting an alley either in favor of Steve's interpretation or with a different point of view yeah I don't think it's an alley because there are houses in back you can only access those houses I also walk down the terrace you can only access those houses by going down and it's not just behind a row of houses you know the traditional alley is going to be you know between backyards something like that and I think the intention was to make it streets where step backs are required we're going to discuss later whether the step back rules really make any sense but they're in the bylaws right now so I don't believe it would qualify as a street because the town designates it as street narrow and short as it may be I'm not here to debate this is an alley or street that's really unfair to the client here I just wanted to say you heard a bunch of our comments and I'm willing to motion to extend this for another hearing and why don't I run through then a list of items did you have something else before we do so I'm not going to be able to vote for this because of the step backs I just want to be clear so if anyone else here agrees with me then we shouldn't send them away to do a lot of other work if it's unnecessary now I want to talk about the one other time I remember when we dealt with step backs and only I think three members of the board were on at that time and it was the building I've forgotten the number on the SF it was the one that's being built across in the high school almost across almost across from the high school and my recollection of the decision then was not that the step backs were from the public right of way but the step backs were from the edge of the building and I voted no because I didn't think they met the step back requirements but they got their permit anyhow but my recollection of the discussion was that there were two reasons why the other four people voted in favor one was they pulled the entire building back more than seven feet which they didn't have to do so that they basically made up the step back by pulling the entire building back and then one of the members of the board who's no longer on the board also didn't want to require the step backs because it would have reduced the number of units and reduced the number of affordable units by one so that's my understanding of why this board without me approved that without a front step back and no side step back at all because they didn't pull it back at all from the side and I went and looked at the building the other day and there are no step backs so that's the same thing that we're saying here in that it was the lot line where the step back no that's not what the rationale was the rationale like last time was if you pull it back then we're okay with it I would have to disagree with you there Jean okay because I was at that meeting then what's the rationale for the side street where there was no because that was not the primary street it was supposed to be on every street facing side and we had a discussion about that and that's the decision that was made at that time and again we're not going to debate that particular case I'm just saying that's why I voted no then understood so this particular the same logic would apply here in that the proposed step back is from the lot line not the building which again is what you understand made in that particular hearing are there others who agree with Jean and I think he makes a good point so if there are others that believe that the step back should be from the building face and not from the lot line we should let them know because then they will need to decide whether or not they would like to pull that back and continue the project or not because so if there is anyone who agrees with that interpretation we should identify that with a pre-existing non-conforming lots so that they don't have to create ones where none are available could I spend just in a business district in a scenario like that would can you just speak up so we can get them in a scenario like that with a pre-existing non-conforming if a payment in lieu of was established would they have to pay I think that's to be determined I think what we looked at as far as payment in lieu of is Summerville has a pretty good model for it or it is if you have the open space requirement results in less than 8,000 square foot of open space they don't want usable or landscape it's just open space it's almost like it's not meaningful enough to force you to provide it so maybe instead of that you could provide 4,000 square feet of open space and then they have a calculation to determine the remaining the payment in lieu of and so that would be the payment would just say well if you can't provide a plaza here on this account then you can do a payment instead and that payment would then which would work whatever and the other thing is that they have more flexibility in where open space could be gained actually a lot of communities have more flexibility in where open space could be gained and that you can include it in balconies you can include it in in roofs that are higher than which you're suggesting here and you can it's included in a whole range of other options instead of just where we are for anything else on the on the REARD setback I agree with a couple of provisos you're suggesting using the Somerville model but I sort of think some of the numbers are too high if they're like a 3R3 or more residential district so I think we might want to think about not having the same distance as our numbers go up the other and getting rid of the reduced height buffer and instead adopt a variable rear yard is fine my only concern with that and we're going to see it in a couple weeks in a slightly different way is if somebody has solar roof and I don't want us to end up with something that allows somebody to block someone else's solar without some way to deal with that and so that's my only concern about getting rid of the reduced height buffer area and replacing it with a variable feet instead is what to do with solar so I probably have a slightly different point of view on that because my point of view is that just because you happen to install solar does not give you air rights to all of the adjoining properties it could if we give them I'm saying I don't think it should I'm just saying it could that has solar on it I think we talked I think we talked about the last type of gain and I made a point of saying hey you cannot preclude someone else's rights just because you put solar there because it could be a tool to stop development anywhere around there because if you put one panel there or two panels there and say hey you're blocking my solar people don't do that they don't put up a solar panel at the last minute to stop a development they've either spent a lot of money to put up solar and they expect a return on their investment and if we and right now right now the bylaw because of the reduced height buffer area at least for people in R1 and R2 they have some level of protection and I don't feel comfortable about taking away that level of protection for somebody who's invested in a solar system unless they're paid off by the person building the other building. But Jean how people can disagree? I just want to say why if you're going to put a solar panel in you're going to have to look at it where you placed it it is that going to cause some future blockage in the future because if you put it somewhere on your land that someday somewhere if your neighbor builds something higher and it blocks it then you're in the wrong just as if the guy just block it intentionally or your neighbor plants a tree right and there's no there's no there's no bylaw that prohibits somebody from planting a fast-growing tree that eventually have a canopy that no blocks their solar. So I think again there's I'm just explaining what Mike just one other thing I want to mention to support getting rid of the residential height buffer in the Arlington housing plan 2022 page 67 it says and likewise the residential height buffer which requires low height limits for land within a certain distance of low density residential area should be considered considering that apartment and business districts are scattered throughout the town. So I think we can cite the housing production plan as part of the rationale for getting rid of the height buffers. And that again is on page 67 of the housing production plan. Okay. That's it on those two. Melissa any comments on the first two? I guess I'm I'm actually leaning towards the payment in lieu and then for the rear yard setback as the recommendation you know these to consider I think I don't see the drawback with the variable the one that summer bill uses the variable rear yard setback I mean if you could explain what maybe like something might be adverse and under that yeah okay mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm mm-hmm to five stories that it's variable. It goes from 10 feet. Okay. So maybe a further analysis. That's what I would recommend to look at. Great. Thank you, Melissa. Steve. Thank you. Regarding open space and business districts, I think I pretty much agree with the memo, eliminating the requirement for usable open space in commercial areas, making landscape based on lot area and removing the restriction that open space be no more than 10 foot above the lowest occupied floor. I think those would make our lives a lot easier. As far as the rear setbacks in the business districts, or stepbacks in the business districts, because our business parcel, our B district parcels, are just about all sandwiched up against residential districts. I think it makes sense to eliminate the dual height system, because there's just not enough room in there for it doesn't make sense. So I'd be in favor of removing the height buffer district, and as a bit of trivia, the height buffers, which were introduced in the 70s, when we allowed much taller buildings. Over a period of years, the heights, maximum heights went down, but the height buffers stayed the same. So we got internally consistent over a period of time. But yeah, I'm in favor of doing that. I like removing them. I like the outline of Somerville's approach, where it's, you know, you kind of get it based on height. I think that's a good way to go. Thank you, Steve. Jen? Any other comments? Well, I like the fact that we having this discussion on the stuff and not just coming up to a stand and say, do you want to prove this in the past? Well, let's say, I like this, okay? And I'd like to add one more is, will the public get a chance at this? Absolutely. So this is, again, crafting the main motion. There will be a full public hearing process, where we will go through each article in depth. So once we have the text of the actual, so this is for creating the main motion, right? This would be the opposite. Sorry. The more articles. The more articles. Then the main motion will create. That's right. Here's kind of what we're thinking. Okay. And then, yeah, the, so after tonight's discussion, I would anticipate that we would run those by attorney five, and then we could start to put together a package for public engagement for pulling some discussions, and maybe discussing some alternatives kind of based on the various foreign articles that we may want to get some community feedback on. So it'll be January, February, March, and April. Great. I generally agree with everything you've said so far. The only thing that I'm on a fence by right now is the payment. I don't have one feelings about that. I may say, let's, I would maybe go to taking that out. Just, I'm just worried that we might have these brown out areas here that, because people don't afford it. And I would say it's just part of doing business. So we'll just, we'll pay into the pool, let them put their open space somewhere else, but we'll do what we want. And, you know, you don't get the diversity. You don't have to spread as much. That's the only thing I think could be a, I don't know. So that's why I'm on the fence about that one there. And as far as the rear setback, yeah, I wholly hardly agree with that. Just about eliminating that. That's all I want to say for now. Great. I'm sorry. I forgot one comment I wanted to make at the beginning of this. And this is with regard, I mean, obviously the usable open space is one thing. With regard to the landscaping, would the board consider vertical landscaping elements along with horizontal elements to meet the requirement? Now, we can certainly, you know, work up some kind of exception or something like that. And I'm just thinking, you know, a small parcel, you know, what about a green wall potentially on one side? I understand that could be really pricey as well, but it does allow for, you know, more use of the parcel up to the line, potentially. I like that idea. It's just a thought. I do as well. Yeah, yeah. I would support that. I think this sounds very interesting. Resounding yes. Good. Great. And I think once we, we'll get into number three in a second, but once we get into, after we crack the warrant article language, I think we'll want to talk about what kinds of visuals we'll want to create for this because I think some of these will definitely run that. Okay, great. So let's move on to, I think number three, we were just chatting about. Here we go. So this was specifically around where we do and do not require them, but we will add to this also, from what point we require them. Right. Please. Step back. Not step back. Yes. Yes. The language just changed. So some communities say from the property line, some people, some communities like us don't specify and then other communities specify that the step back is from the floor to floor structure. So that would be something where it could be where the board is inclined to say the step back is only from the principle of the side of the structure, but it's from the facade that may be more clear and also a little bit more conducive to the personal type of stuff. Can I have some more questions? Are there others who leave it undefined like we do, which gives the board the option then of giving, of being able to look at both, potentially meeting the intent? I mean another way, like Watertown has the flexibility where the step back requirement is an option in the design standards. It's not in the zoning. So that would be where it's part of the design standard projects, some of these things could potentially be removed from the zoning but then part of overall consideration of the overall design or aesthetic of a workforce board. Great, thank you. Cambridge is clear. Cambridge is from the property line. Okay. So let's chat through this one. Ken, any thoughts on number three? No, I think I'm gonna clarity on this and have a good debate on where this is from and eliminating it in certain areas. So you're in agreement with requiring them only on the principle facade. Correct. Because some of those areas are at the corners, and some areas I think you want to have the option to continue that rhythm and not be interrupted by this little v-shape that every time there's a little small street that comes by. You may want to create that edge. Not the valley and falls where it's dark but you know what I'm saying is where the buildings sort of flow through streets. Not, I don't know. Melissa's gonna say more elegant than I am. No, I just, I wanted to understand. Ken, so you support it from the facade of the first floor, is that right? Setbacks? No, I'm beyond that. No, I'm supporting it from the property lines, the setbacks, okay? Stepbacks, stepbacks, stepbacks. Yes, what I'm talking about is where you take that and apply it to both on a corner lot. And where we have a major street going through and a minor street going through, that's considered a corner lot. Right. Now then if you have this rhythm going down to a major street and you got these little fins going off here, we have these little setbacks, setbacks. Stepbacks, we'll get you there. Stepbacks, okay? We might not want that and we might want to continue that rhythm going across there, going across because that is the district we're developing. I was quite sure I have quite say it correctly about inflecting these canons of dark streets here. Great. I thought that's what you were meant to do. You can. Jean, did you have any comments on number three? Yes, I do. First, I don't have a real strong feeling about whether the stepback should be from the building facade or the property line, but I'm not sure the property line is right because what about if they have to have a setback from the property line, then is the stepback from the setback or is the stepback from the property line? Now, not everyone, right? Not every one of them has a setback. Some of them don't, but some of them will. And you need to tell me, is the stepback from the setback or is the stepback from the property line? I don't think it's like, who's on first? I think Jean, we just have to go back to the intent of what we're trying to do here. I mean, if we're trying to create a lively street here and we're saying there is no setback on the property line, and then we say, but if it goes up beyond a certain point, then there's a stepback from the property line, fine. But if we have something else that says, okay, it's a stepback from the majority of the wall, then we make that adjustment and make it consistent. So it's consistently understood. Yeah, I think it should be consistently understood too. I'm just asking, for those of you who think it shouldn't be from the building facade, but it should be from the property line or from the setback if, let's say the building requires a 10-foot setback from the, you understand that, right? Yeah, I do understand, outside of the B1, the only properties that require a setback are single-family, two-family, duplex, three-family, townhouse, apartment buildings, mixed-use and other permitted commercial uses do not require a setback. So I think it's a matter of understanding like having a zero front yard setback versus a 20-front yard setback for apartments, you're already somehow incentivizing commercial use in which case the front yard setback is predominantly going to be beside a setback for apartments, right? Nobody's gonna give up on 20 feet. Okay, so nobody cares. All right, so what's interesting in reading the housing production, the housing plan about this that was approved earlier this year, this is also on page 67. In addition to limiting overall building height, the bylaw requires a building setback 7.5 feet at the fourth story for buildings greater than three stories. While this is appropriate for smaller streets, it could be unnecessary impediment to development on larger street whose widths can comfortably accommodate greater building heights. The town should consider raising the setback to the fifth story rather than the fourth or eliminating it entirely for parcels along dense streets with large right of ways. In other words, what they're suggesting is no stepback on Mass Ave, for example, but if you're in the corner of Mass Ave and Small Street, you would have the stepback on the Small Street side where it's more important than a large, so they're suggesting the exact opposite. So if I had to come down on any of this right now, I'm comfortable with having the stepback be from the property line, right, for I like their idea of put it on the fifth floor rather than the fourth floor, but I also like the idea of not having it on the main thoroughfare of Mass Ave because you have a wide thoroughfare, but having it on the side streets where you don't have as much width where it's more important to have it. So that's their suggestion, which I liked, but I do it from the property line. So that's where I came down on that. And that's also on page 67. Well, to Jean's point, I guess, with regard to, it's a housing production plan, right, reference. Thank you. I don't know if I'm 100% in agreement with that and doing the stepback at the fifth floor and then not looking at it on Mass Ave, is that where it says on there? Yeah, oh, in the large quarters. I mean, I think, I like the staff recommendation. So the stepback from the principle facade, I think it makes sense. Steve. So I don't have strong feelings on basing the measurement on property line versus setback. I think property line is fine. I would like us to, I would like to see stepbacks that apply on one side of a building and noting that there is a table in the memo showing numerous parcels that have two frontages and some with even three. Oh, okay, okay. So I do also like the idea of having an exemption for smaller parcels. Out of curiosity, I took the non-condoed business parcels, the ones that were the assessor's records will give you a lot area. Among those, our median business district lot sizes is a little over 6,300 square feet. So these are small. And I think we really need to allow for that. I agree, thank you very much. That was a good addition. Any other comments on three? Well, just follow up with Steve said. Melissa, to answer your earlier question about majority of the facade, I think with the smaller lots there, if we don't set it from the proper line, it's a hindrance on getting the upper floors in just because it makes it too small because there's not that much room to go that further back because the properties are so small. You know, these parcels along Mass Ave are little dots of little parcels. So I think we have to take advantage of it being properly aligned and giving it the maximum. And I think Jean is also hearing it right, where allowing to go up one more floor is the catalyst to encourage that development as opposed to, because I think we need a little bit more because it's not happening now. I mean, if you look at all the empty store funds and all the stuff and look where we are compared to some of the other cities and towns, we're kind of been left behind. That's just another page of the talk. Okay. I agree you can. All right. Let's move to number four, height minimums in the business district. This is in response to the board's discussion around prohibiting the development of new single story structures, so to say. Right, so the board has discussed and certainly the staff has discussed the maximum height requirements in the business districts and has certainly in our research and in the conversation here determined that they're just not achievable given the other dimensional restrictions. And so staff is recommending here that rather than establishing height maximum, we actually establish a minimum building height in the business districts of 25 feet, which is first floor commercial and then a smaller or could be potentially a smaller 30% or more second floor on development in the district. For any comments on this one? I agree with the, I agree with staff, 25 feet, two stories and a process for exemptions where it's in the public interest or just not possible. Okay. Melissa? Same. Not same. Have a gene. I agree about, I agree about the need for an exemption, but I also want another exemption. I want the second story to be at least the first story, dimension and give us the authority to waive the other dimensional requirements if necessary so that that can be done because I think that's a better way for us to go. Thank you, but I'm sorry, I'm not... So what they're suggesting here is... So it's a story and... At least 30% of, I want the second story to be at least the first story dimension. Okay. And we could waive open space and setbacks and other things if necessary to allow that to happen. Got it. So I would flip that around on that part of it. Otherwise, I agree. It's too bad we couldn't come up with three stories, but... Good idea. So I can't share my feelings. No, I can't. No, it's okay. Yeah, I can't stop, so I... But I think I just am... I am concerned that we would create a situation where we're acquiring something that can't happen. That's why I think this is fine. And until... Yep. ...weavers are either revamped or waived or combined to know that I would be comfortable with it. Yep, yep. Yeah. Can we waive the two-story one or is it... It says we can waive it if it's impossible, something like that. But what if someone wants to put a church somewhere? That's a one-story building. We're not on one. So we don't... That's an industry. We keep saying it. And again, if there's a direct benefit to the community to have a one-story structure, that's under the wave. Like a gym, a library. Libraries better be more than one-story. No, if it's a big cavity, one big library room. I mean, we don't have to debate all the... I know, but I'm just thinking that we're gonna... Are we gonna pollute some... No, because we... We're giving them an exemption. Okay. Process. You can do a 25-foot story, Ken. It's okay. All right, no comment. Okay. Okay. Moving on to number five, the Arlington Heights Business District. It's probably a little more discussion on this one. So this basically takes the recommendations from the Neighborhood Action Plan that was recently done while 2019. That feels recent. Which would consolidate the... I think there's four or five business district into one Arlington Heights business district. And I believe the board was discussing looking at this almost as a pilot situation or a pilot recommendation that should then further consolidate other business uses and other business districts in Arlington. And we'd be specific to the area under... I think it was the map. There's a... Great. Yeah. Just the person's not anything else. Right. Great. Great. We'll start with Ken. Any thoughts on this one? I've been looking at this for a while. Sure, I live there. Yeah. One of the drawbacks, the Heights is the sidewalks and the parking. It's so tight that it doesn't encourage lively active streets and businesses and that kind of stuff. I was wondering if we can encourage if we were to say, we can't get the street in the parking and sidewalk any wider. But if we said, if you would give public access onto the property, like an arcade or some sort of a loger or something that would increase sidewalk space in return for height. So you're creating more public amenities where it's much wider. Because right now you can't walk side by side alone. And look there too. No. There are trees there, there's something. I think the sidewalk needs to be wider. And that's one of the drawbacks that has there. I'm not sure what we can do about it, but I used to think a way of looking at it. One, I looked at maybe eliminating some of the parking there, but then what do you do with the parking then? Where's their parking for retail? There isn't anything. So you can't get rid of that. And there's barely a bike lane right there right now. It's shared sort of. So there's too much going on there right now, you know? So as well. Am I in the right spot? Hmm? Again there, again there. Well, that's technically part of it. It's not to the foot of Hills. We're Milbroke, Mara. This is for the wrong house. So if you keep going to the west. Keep going west. There you go. Again there. That's it. Okay. Oh yeah. That's the heart of it, yeah. So, I don't know, I mean. It's creative. That's a creative suggestion. I'll write that one down. Okay. So my only concern is those parcels are so shallow. Some of them are, some aren't. And I think that's where you can. I'm not saying. Give it an option. Yes. I don't think you have to have it consistent all the way down, but yeah. I think if you have it in certain areas, then that becomes a little nodes of livelihood, you know, or activities. Okay. Okay. This is, Jean. Like, you know, outside Dells they have those picnic tables in the summertime because the streets are a little wider there. But of course, may I say I have an up a little bit. They're not. So I agree. I don't know if there's anything that can make that happen, but it's worth taking a look at it. I like the concept and most of the staff recommendations. I think we have to remember to incorporate some of the other things we were just talking about. Like the rear yard things and the step backs and things like that. I only have two questions on the landscaped open space. Why only up to 25% on balconies and rooftops? Why not 50% for example? I'm just wondering. So what, what, what, if you hadn't eliminated it, what would it have said? Right. It was 25% and what are you going to suggest? Okay, so we're going to, okay, so we're going to get rid of that thing on the other side of that. Okay. Unusable open space. If we're eliminating for multifamily and mixed use, why are we, would we keep it for commercial? The very last box in that chart. Okay. I don't, I don't know. I don't have it for commercial. Take a look. Take a look at that. Yeah, if, if we require it, I say we should get rid of it. But yeah, those are my only comments. I think it's good to do this. And will we just call it like the Arlington Heights Business District without a number? That's great. I support this Arlington Heights Business District in aggregating these for the area. I just had a question separate than anything we've really talked about. But in terms of, because of the, probably the open space, it comes to mind about like pervious material for asphalt. Do we have that anywhere? Is that something that could be looked at if we're doing this new zoning district? I saw it in mostly a Brookline that they were requiring it in some of their commercial. Mm-hmm. Pervious surface. It kind of ties into the overall question about open space. It does. Is there a great space that hasn't actually worked before this? Well, that's what I was thinking. Cause generally speaking, that's part of why you're trying to create these usable or open space in general, right? And so I was thinking with the previous project, you know, that six parking lots opening it up, you know, one parking space. Okay, that's an idea. But if we can encourage a redevelopment like that to use kind of a pervious asphalt, which I think that's what I've seen. Pervious concrete. Pervious, mm-hmm. That would be cool. Maybe just put it, make it a requirement for the entire Arlington Arts Business District. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. No, as a requirement in this new business district. I'd look to you guys to see what you thought would be best and have the most impact really. Steve? Um, I'm very much in favor of most of what's in there, but I would agree with Kelly in that, I think it would be nice to keep the open space requirements consistent with item one that we discussed earlier. I seem to remember something in the regs for the industrial districts about perviousness in parking spaces. I don't know if that would be useful, but it might be something to look at. The only comments are, I think we pulled the recommendations in terms of uses directly from the plant. I think we need to take a look at that because there are definitely a few that I, there's some residential surface parking and some other things that I think I want us to take a look at. Um, and then Ken and I both were looking at the map and it looks like there is a bite taken out of our business district. I'm assuming that that's for residential, that they're currently residential, so. It's that. See? Is this residential? All right, see. Then that's for all of us. Just a little bite here. Yeah, I'm assuming that's all residential. It's a bad overbite, you know how you got it. So, you know this time. Or is that an underbite? I don't know. I mean, this just gets to our continued problem on MSF and by not including, by not including those, I think we're continuing a nonconformity that none of us want to see continued. So, there's no prohibition to those uses which are, would become nonconforming by right existing. It might be more challenging in terms of approvals, the approvals process to include those, but I think it would be a shame to not include them because it's the same Swiss cheese issue that we have all up and down MSF. So, I think I would be interested in talking about the pros and cons about including those or not. Both sides. This would require a map change no matter what. Exactly. I think, yeah, as part of the overall study, we could look at one of the other proposals to, right? Change. Rachel, may I ask where the overbite was? Underbite. It's right here. Oh, okay, yeah, yeah. So, for those of us who are joining via ACMI on page, what's listed as page four is in the appendices, the Arlington Heights Visioning and Planning document. It is the area of Mass Ave that intersects with Daniel Street that is currently not included in the business districts. Especially along Mass Ave. Right, that's specifically along Mass Ave, yes. Okay, so that's the only comment that I had. All right, let's move to number six, which is the industrial uses clarifications. Some of these are just administrative items some of them are more needy discussions, I think. Right, so these are, there's nothing new here, these are all items that have been discussed by the board certainly since in a few months that I've been here. One is some clarifications in the industrial district including limiting the construction of more self-storage facilities by partnering it with either one more principal use or excluding it from an approved use. There's other uses that have been requested to be included but are not necessarily currently allowed including dog daycare, certain types of restaurants including fast food. We think that that may be impactful on a brewery or another that type of business going in the industrial district as well as how the new solar bylaw may apply in the industrial district and if we want to extend the residential uses in the industrial district further than artists live work. Recommendation, I think that's the background there. Okay, great, we'll start with Ken. Well, I want to talk a little bit about the brewery is a separate little thing right now. Everybody thinks that we should, you know, encourage Michael breweries and so forth in there. And I had a talk with the owners of the Michael brewery that actually walked from our. The Tango space. Yes, and the reason they had, the only reason, the major reason they had it was because of the requirement that we have to say you have to eat food here and you can't, it just can't be a plain open bar. And that will be a hindrance. If we keep on talking all, we should be a great space for a Michael brewery. Well, not everything's clear for that. So it's a broader picture. And then we've got to talk to the select board about that when we have our joint meetings to say, A, we either want it or we don't want it. But if you do want it, let's welcome them with both arms, not just one hand tied behind our back because it's going to happen again. They're going to walk down the line and they can say, Hey, you know, you don't buy food. You don't drink. That doesn't work. And they say, okay, we're going to go to, was it malted method, method across the river. All right. So we can talk to the select board. And I believe Kelly that my gosh, I can picture her economic development. Allie, that Allie was having been working on this. Excellent. Again, when she left, I don't know where that stands, but we can certainly pick that up with, I don't know, yes. You could have been to a joint. Our new economic development coordinator will start on the 19th. So bring it up with that person. He has. And then the self storage. We say we're not going to eliminate it all together. No more, or we're going to put a cap on it, or what we have existing, or we're going to allow one more. That's for discussion. Okay. No more. I don't want to. We have two no more people. Melissa and I are happy to. Here's the issue, right? You have one, by being that prescriptive in the bylaw, I don't think that that sets a great precedent for the way that we use the bylaw. I think that personally, I think we're far too prescriptive in terms of the uses. And in fact, when we build the industrial use district, it was all about creating a creative mix of uses. And we're seeing that because we were so prescriptive, there are creative uses that we're not able to accommodate. I think if we look at this instead as much like we're looking on Mass Ave, we think that maximizing the development and the height potential of these buildings is what we want to accomplish and that the mix of the use of these, perhaps we are actually being overly prescriptive with is how I would personally like to look at this as opposed to saying today we have enough. Well, that one doesn't get built for whatever reason. They haven't built permits. Exactly. So that one doesn't get built. We just put in the bylaws that there's no more, but there actually is capacity and a potential use. So we could put no more than two self-service, self-storage facilities. I just think that's so prescriptive. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think what we've got to say is it just happens to put it under a special permit. And then we can review it and determine if there's more room or if there's not more room. But I totally agree with you. And we can't just say, no, we're going to eliminate ourselves to a lot of things. Sorry, Steve, anyone else? I was going to say it. I apologize up front if I ruffle some feathers, but I'm really proud about permitting that self-storage facility. If it gets built, it will be the second largest commercial building in the entire town. The largest incidentally has an address on Acorn Park Drive. It's in Cambridge. This, it was the biggest commercial development since CVS put a pharmacy by the high school, which I know it is not the most glamorous use, but we are where we are as a result of a lot of history. And to some extent, I think we're going to, we're dealing with a hand that we've been dealt. That's my two cents. Thank you, Steve. I think from my perspective and the work I've done through economic development, I mean, I think we have to give more consideration to the quality of the commercial building. Again, those are determined if we had the assessor here based on the value and the quality of the building. And I would venture to say that based on what I've seen, self-storage tends to be the lowest of the commercial value properties. So I don't see, and then I think the intention for this district was to create jobs, bring creativity, bring vitality to this industrial area. That's why we talked about live work. We talked about creative uses. And I think we need to use the zoning to guide us in that direction and not see it as like overly prescriptive but guide us in the actual area that we want to see the type of redevelopment. And I think going forward with self-storage, yes, it is a use that is helpful for people, but I don't see it meeting any of the other goals identified for that district. Yeah, I agree with Melissa, I would limit it to two. So one doesn't get built, one more can still show up. So where I voted for the one, I thought it was appropriate. And I think if it's a special permit option, we're gonna be stuck voting for more of them. So I would limit it to two. With this, we're going to have to talk about how we move forward with this one because we clearly have a significant divide on the board on the board. So. And if that, based on self-storage, I think it's based off of the amount of limitations we want to do and regulations. Correct, exactly. I don't want to focus on just that. I agree. Because that isn't that. And so I think we take a broader approach and say we're divided on the broader approach. Agreed. Let's talk more about the table if and now, keep on going, is that okay? Yes, we have, so if you have other comments unrelated to that, I think we should chat through those because I agree, I think we're gonna need to continue talking about this one because again, you're right, it's a question about how prescriptive or not we want to be in the uses. Right, and so the other thing, we just had the discussion about a minimum of two stories in the business district. We need to think about what's the appropriate level for the industrial district and edit. I'm not sure what it would be, but maybe there's a nerd here who can look at the size of the lots and try to figure out what that would be. But I think that would be helpful to do that in the industrial district. You know, we tried to get more than artists work space residents in the industrial district and we didn't succeed at town meeting. We didn't actually bring that to town meeting. Well, I... There might have been a four. The board did not bring that. Well, we can have a separate discussion about my perception of what happened there. But when people thought that was what the bylaw would do, a lot of people at town meeting got very upset and then some people said, oh, that you're misinterpreting it. Let us modify what it is. So it's clearly just artist work. I was very intrigued by that. I did the presentation and I recorded it before town meeting and it was a discussion. It was specific to me. I watched the discussion. Anyhow, anyhow. But the words came out of my mouth into the recording as artist work. Okay, okay. So anyhow, I think we should consider... I think we should consider it, but for me it's not a real priority for the other things that I think we need to do. Great. In the industrial district because it will be sort of a lightning rod for a lot of things. So if we had to prioritize than the industrial district items, there was a lot of head nodding around adding minimum heights in the way that we are looking at for the B district, the amendments that are clarifications that are required, which is a contingent on the attorney general approvals and the stormwater retention piece, which we know from our hearings need to be clarified. The residential piece, we could decide to table given everything else we're doing, but we will need further discussion at a future date on how prescriptive we would like to make these pieces. Yeah, so I mean, let me just say something about the stormwater piece, because remember this is, you can build larger if you retain the stormwater on site. So the question is not what's a reasonable amount, but what's a reasonable amount to be retained and treated on site for a site of that size? So I think there's not a one size fits all. And my thought was that each one would have to be reviewed to make a determination of what's the reasonable amount as opposed to say 25 year storm event is fine for everybody. So I think that would be a, which one is one I think we would want to discuss with DPW. Okay. Yeah. The one benefit to having a requirement, even if it refers to another town by law or refers to something else is that when someone's designing a space, they know what they have to design a site to. I would hate for somebody to come to the board and then to be able to redesign those stormwater pieces. Well, let's see what they come up with. On the correction to section 3.1B. I just wonder. Oh, sorry, the one on the board. No, no. Yeah, I just wondered whether you could talk to Doug and maybe it can just be lopped off because it should never have been there in the first place when the AG said you can't do it. So maybe it should never have been put in. No, it should never have been put in. Right. And so maybe we don't have to go back to town meeting to take it out. So just ask Doug, you know, if it never had to be there, maybe it should just be deleted without going back to town. It was a reason why we all did no action on this one because we all knew it was not. It was added though, wasn't it? It was a floor substitute motion. And the substitute motion claims that planning was in favor. Right. It's really amazing. Yes. Okay, so that's 3.1B. That's seven. Eight is administrative corrections, which we've all talked about. And nine, looks like you are still working with the, with my Champa on the reservoir area. The one other question I had, and it's kind of buried on page eight, but it's regarding additional changes that were made to the industrial zoning district and the development standards that have been put into plan. Whether this board should have jurisdiction over my industrial district persons entirely, I don't know if this board only has jurisdiction over those persons if they, about the man and my child. That's, it's kind of buried at the bottom there, but it's. I was just going to ask about that. Yeah, I think we should. I mean, how do it work? I mean, most of the parcels, most of the parcels do a but, but not all of them. Not all of them, yeah. Yeah, it's crazy that only, yeah. I would trade those for the ones like on Belknap where we get to do just because they touched the buy path. 100%. Yeah, I think. Let's have a. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right, right. I mean, we shouldn't do those, but we should do these. So I think if we add these, maybe we can get rid of. Yeah, get rid of those. Did the town of Arlington ever establish an industrial corporation with the redevelopment authority? No, we'll research that. Okay. No, thank you. At least not my time here. I don't know. Yeah. The three day time, so we'll go look in. But this town's been around a few years longer than. I know a lot longer. All right. Anything else on the recommendations? Good job. Yeah. Good job. Really good job. Kelly, what and Claire, what do you need from us then in terms of crafting the warrant articles for review with Doug Hine? So the warrant articles themselves recommend that we come up with something. Review it again. Yeah. We bring it back to this board meeting before we get it actually filed. Great. So that would probably be at our children. January 9th or the 23rd. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. And then also, I know that you had mentioned this industrial districts in New solo by a lot. And we have particular comments about that language. Just to. Okay. I'll send it. Yeah. Maybe we'll wait and see this month. That should tell us if it's okay. Yes. Oh, no. All right. I think it's probably something that I haven't seen before. So it's not something that can just say yes or no. They did delete some more. All right. Let's pause on that conversation and move to agenda item number three, which is our open forum. So James, if you have anything you'd like to share, we invite you to introduce yourself first, last day in an address and you will have up to three minutes. There was something on one of the recommendations. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. The number one, there is a bullet. If you want to actually look at it. Oh. That's way easier because it is bullet number one and two. So the first bullet says that any commercial users would have a 10% landscape open space. The second one is for mixed use and multi-family residential, it would be a 15% requirement. My understanding is that mixed use can be two commercial uses as well. And if that's the case, as I understand it, it would be a 15% disinternate to be for multi-fixed uses with residential components to them here. And then I guess my thought is with adding one residential unit automatically bump you up to 15%, would it be a sliding scale of some sort? If the building owner in their infinite system decides that 10 years down the road, they need to change one commercial unit to residential but they can't create any more open space. Are they totally screwed? Did they just not have that flexibility? Anything's like that. Yeah, I think that was that. On the uses thing, I don't know if any of you follow the Earrington list on Facebook. I'm not taking it. It's fascinating because whenever some new business pops up, like there's some donut place going up and another pacer shop and on the one hand people are very excited because they're delicious and if we die by pastry there's no reason to weep for us. But on the other hand you people saying oh there's too many pastry shops. Like what we really need is this or this or this. And I can see both sides of it but also the reason they're coming here is because they see that there's people who want to buy what they're selling. That's because they see butternut and they think they were really successful. There's obviously a market for whatever these pastes are. Let's go do more of those things. So like the residents, the people who sighed whether there's enough of something. If someone new comes in and no one goes to service them either there's, it's because they're bad which is always possible. Or there really were too many of them already. They kind of, we found out this, we leased to live in Earrington Heights and the pizza shop opened across from us. They lasted six months and then they were gone. The pizza wasn't good but also there are five pizza shops in the area. So like it depends. And I think that if you're too prescriptive on the one hand you can crowd up things where there really is demand for those things. But on the other hand, there also has to be genuine demand for the thing you want. So I'm kind of at Steve on this. Like if there's demand for really high value industrial uses or whatever it is that we want, we just need to get out of the way and they'll do it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. You brought up a good point with regard to the multi-family component which is something we can take a look at. And yeah, I think it's also an interesting point about demand, market demand, because no pastry shop is the same, right? They are different niches within the market. And the business models are totally different. That's what I mean. So I think I'm excited to have the new economic development coordinator joined because that is part of their job as well is to help new business, potential businesses also identify the potential with it. And Butternut is opening in Belmont Center. You just found the street from K-Broad. Wow. Amazing. Yes. It's a great, great point, James. Thank you. Nice. All right. At this point, we will close Open Forum and I will open a new business. Do you see if there are any items? I'll start with Claire or Kelly. Any items of new business? You already heard about the new economic. No items of new business. We've hired a new economic development coordinator who will start on the 19th. We've also made an offer to a new CDBG officer that she has accepted. So we're working through the paperwork on that. Our new CDBG officer will be our former office manager. Mary Miesenski took the job, agreed to do it. So hopefully we'll get her paperwork squared away. And that'll be, that's a great transition. I'm so excited that she was interested in that. So we'll be hiring a new office manager and then I need a transportation planner if anybody knows one. So that's all I have for updates. Great. Thank you so much. Any other new business from any of the board, please? Jean? This is not new, but it's not recent either. Inspectional services isn't doing a good job in enforcing the sign by-law. And I know I spoke to Jenny about that a number of years ago and she had, I think, at least one conversation with them. And at that time, they were very short staffed in the list and you want them to do is work on signs when they're more important things. But at some point, it would be really helpful if some agreement could be made that at least occasionally, they would go up and down Mass Ave and do something about signs. I could just speak to that really briefly. I do know that Mike Champa was working very closely with Allie Carter before she left and they had crafted several notices to non-conforming signage owners. So I think that's a great call-out, especially with the new economic development coordinator started to restart some of those efforts because I do know that he met with, for example, the Arlington Heights Action Plan implementation, the committee with the longest name. And... At a short sign. Yes, was very interested in that being something that they were very concerned about. So good call-out and we should make sure that that's passed on to Mike. Good. Yeah. Thank you. Steve. Not so much new business, but a question. At some time, could we meet the new economic development coordinator and maybe the Chamber of Commerce? Absolutely. You talked about that. I don't think we could hold him back, to be honest. He's very excited to get going. I think we had talked about inviting Beckwock to a future meeting, so that might be, I don't know, what do we have on our, yeah, maybe one of the January meetings that might be too short notice for our meeting in two weeks, but let's plan on January 9th. I'll make a note. Are you back then? I will be back. Maybe when she's back. Okay. Maybe the 23rd. Okay, so let's do the 23rd, sure. Just want the full team. Anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn? So motion. One second. Take a vote. Steve. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Gene. Yes. Ken. Yes. And the yes as well. He's adjourned. Thank you.