 So we'll now call the April 27th meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board to order. This meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board is being conducted remotely for the governor's extension of the remote meeting provisions from the executive order of March 12, 2020, due to the COVID-19 virus. For this meeting, the ARB 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. Recordingly, 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 reporting. We'll now take roll call to ensure that everyone from the board is here and can hear me. We'll start with Kim. President. Gene Benson. President. Melissa Tentacolas. Chair. Steve Revlak. Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening. I am Rachel Zemberi, the chair of the board. I'll also introduce Jennifer Wraith, the director of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Here. And Kelly Weimah, the assistant director. Apologize for the technical difficulties. No problem. Thank you for getting us all in tonight. All right. At this time, we have one agenda item and that is the continued public hearing for docket number 3690 at 34 Dudley Street. And it looks like Bob and Essie, the attorney for the applicant and the applicant are here with us this evening. Bob will go ahead and hand it over to you before you kick off. I will just note that we have a hard stop this evening at 745 because we have a town meeting in the town that will be commencing at 8 o'clock and we have a few members who need to jump to that. So if you could take us through the revisions, anything that you'd like to top line, in addition to what new materials were posted, that would be great. And then after that, I'll hand it over to Jenny and Kelly for any update that the department would like to make, and then we'll move to discussion from the board. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you. I'm going to be very brief. I do have our team with us this evening, and the team will consist of the first speaker will be Eric Gerard, the civil engineer after Eric, a traffic engineer, Matthew Keasley, the architect, Jane Bryan, Jesse Morgan for operational testimony and available for questions. Pete Williams and I would be available as well. I just want to say, and I would be very brief, that we have made some very substantial changes to our proposal following the last hearing. We've tried to address a lot of the comments made by the members of the ARB. I believe we have, but we are going to have even more changes that we are going to present this evening to the members of the ARB as well for some of the items that perhaps were not addressed. So what I'd like to do, in light of the fact that I know we're up against a hard stop for town meeting, I'd like to get into the guts of the matter, and the guts of the matter is not going to be presented by me, but rather by members of the team, that I want to keep in mind and have the members of the ARB keep in mind, we're talking about an industrial zone, not a residential zone and not a business zone, but an industrial zone. Eric, you want to jump in, please? Thank you. Great. Thank you. I think Jesse was going to hop in to start us off with some of the operational stuff, but I don't know, Jenny, if you could pull up the PowerPoint presentation, we can start going through with that. So this is just our header page here showing the updated site plan with the mini render ends. You can move on to the next. Keep it going. And then these are just the initial project, the project updates that we have included that we're going to be talking a little bit more in detail. So this just kind of identifies kind of upfront, this is what we did. We tried to hit all the main points that were brought up, and we feel like this project that we're coming back with now is really enhanced. It really hit the points, and I really hope you're happy with the revisions that were made. So yeah, we can move on to the next page. So I'll let Jesse kind of talk through some of these operational pieces to start. Good evening, everybody. I'm Jesse Morgan. I'm an SVP with Premier Storage Investors offices at 530 Court Drive in Fist, Tennessee. As Eric said before we get into the site plan, I just wanted to address some of the public questions we've received over the past month regarding our company history or the security plan and how we intend to restrict the use of trucks larger than the largest U-Haul. Premier Storage Investors was formally founded in 2013. In that time we've acquired 55 cell storage facilities for either existing or for development. And we still own 29 of those facilities. Of all the properties we sold, every single one still remains a cell storage facility today. Regarding security, we shared a security plan with the board, which was posted on the site. Just for further detail, all those doors are locked. It can only be accessed by our customers. We each have a unique access code. Each customer has a different code. So we know who's going in the property and when they're going and when they're leaving. Furthermore, as you can see, there's a significant number of cameras that monitor all the activity on the site over 24 hours. And then also we received some questions regarding our trash enclosure and the use of the dumpster. That dumpster is not for customer use at all. It is only for the use of our manager. It is locked and enclosed and it is visible from a security camera. If customers are using the trash enclosure, they are in violation of their lease agreement or subject determination and we do know when it happens. Customers are required to take all their belongings off the site. And then the last item is regarding the truck traffic. Need to correct something from our conversation last month. We mistakenly said 24 feet when in fact, the largest you all is actually 26 feet. So we will be restricting box trucks with a larger than 26 feet, which is the largest you all and won't allow anything else on the site. We accomplish this via both verbal and electronic communication on our website to all customers. And then also on the site plan, Eric charade has noted a sign that he's placed on the front of the building notifying anyone entering the site that no box trucks greater than 26 feet are allowed. As such, any customer that violates that restriction similar to using the dumpster, they are in violation of their lease agreement and subject determination. Once again, all those customers are visible on camera, which monitors the activity on the site 24 seven. So just wanted to cover all that. Thank you all for your time and then turn it back over to Eric so he can get into the meeting potatoes at the site. Thanks, Jesse. Yeah, we can move to the next. Next one. All right. So the major site improvements that we've made since last, the last meeting that we've had to, to achieve the increase in parking spaces, we had to do some building modifications and primarily reducing that first floor area as you can see to, to fit additional spaces. So the overall buildings where footage drop by about 20, 2800 square feet. And in doing so, we're able to also reduce impacts closer to Milbrook. As you can see on the, on the top side of the building that used to be a little bit more angled and chamfered. And now we get a lot more green space back there as well. So that was a benefit that came out of it. And I'll get into some of the stormwater improvements that that allowed us to do as well. We are increasing the parking by 12 spaces to get to that 23 required that is allowed to be reduced to the 25%. For the total building area. Additionally, we have the new updated enhanced pedestrian amenities along the front. We moved some of the park, the bicycle parking spaces to the front as requested. While also keeping the bicycle parking in the rear. And the employee spaces within the building as well. The ADA space was moved closer to the front entrance. As previously noted, this will allow better access with those new parking spaces that we were able to add. It allowed that to shift as well. Other improvements related to stormwater management. We looked at the NOA plus storms, which significantly increased those rainfall rates that was requested and probably where the mass stormwater standards are heading in the, in the near future. So we were able to achieve the same parameters that we were looking at. The other stormwater management improvement was along the westerly boundary. So on the right side of this plan that you're looking at, we had a series of area drains and pipes that was directly discharged out to the rear of the property towards Millbrook. We are now proposing to collect that in a swale, which will then discharge into another rain garden in the, in the back of the property there, which will retain treat prior to an allowing it to naturally flow overland, which it is currently doing today. So that was a, another improvement in doing so. We were also able to save two clusters of trees back there that we originally thought we were going to be eliminating the top most trees on the backside there. Other, other site for landscape improvements where the planting beds align that westerly edge. There was a concern about potential parking over there. So we did, we staggered them to allow for additional plantings to visually impede anyone from trying to do that, as well as adding a fence along the entire rare property line, similar to the fence that's out there today, there'll be a new fence. We'll be planting on one side of it on Millbrook. And then as we get to the rear of the building, swap those plantings onto the site side. So visually for the butters looking back, they'll, they'll see the screen on that side as well. So those were primarily the major site improvements that we wanted to highlight that we did, did make. I mean, I'd like to hand it over to Matt now to run through the, the traffic discussion as well. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Eric. Again, my name is Matt Keely. I'm a traffic engineer with VHB. I know we were tight on time last time. So I just want to reemphasize a couple of things from last meeting and just clarify a couple of things from questions we received. So first, our traffic memo that we provided. Show a comparison of it trip generation data for the existing use versus the proposed use. That comparison show that the proposed use will generate substantially less traffic than the existing use. We also provided some supplemental data from empirical accounts that we, that we had done at other similar sites. As part of that discussion, there was a question about what month we counted those sites. And that other months of the year might be higher than what we presented in the memo. I just wanted to clarify that those sites, were provided as an additional comparison just to give some additional context. The seasonality of the empirical data has no impact on the conclusion of the study. Our conclusion was based solely on the ITE data. One additional point I wanted to make is related to parking. We showed last time that based on our available data that we had more than adequate parking on the previous plan. As Eric went through, we have since increased that parking significantly. And what that does is it ensures that the proposed use will not need to use any on street parking. Whereas the existing use relied heavily on on street parking and related. And cause some congestion in the area. So those were really the main points I wanted to make. I wanted to make a comparison of the previous site. And I'll pass it over to Jen. Are you there? Hello. Is that better? Can you hear me? And. Yes, we can hear you. Fantastic. Thank you. I hope you can see me as well. If you could go to the next slide. I think we've got four elevations. We'll start with that one. That's fine. I just wanted to. Recognize obviously. This is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, and much more brick than we had shown originally. So, we've increased the amount of masonry on all sides of the building and used that aqueous material as a way to add articulation to the building. If you look over the next slide, Jenny, I think we've got three or four elevations on the back that might help describe. So, you'll see we have added additional glazing on the sides of the buildings. We've added some articulation particularly in the one area that we wanted that originally was a white ethos panel, added some color, some glazing and articulation on that side. The rear, completely different. Obviously, Eric mentioned that we did shorten the footprint and have added some screen panels. These are very similar to some that were presented previously and panels that I think are even existing currently within the town. So, we've added three of those. They're about 18 feet wide by 42 feet tall. And currently, we're showing kind of a tree pattern just to kind of match what folks would see looking through the trees from the Milberg side. From the front of the building, we have added glazing at the front of the building where the sales office is. We have reduced the signage, pulled that down to the front to try to help from a wayfinding standpoint show where the office is. And additionally, just decrease the signage overall. We've removed signs that were on the building originally. I did want to say something particularly to the solar. We have made a commitment to do solar. And I know there was a comment that we just didn't show that on the roof plan. We're in the middle of kind of determine exactly how much area we need to provide. We know there's a 50%. But we're moving toward an option just to make sure that we get the solar in place. So that's the reason you don't see that. We just didn't want to present something that ultimately we wouldn't be able to provide. So the commitment is there. We just want to make sure that we've got the consultant in place to help us make sure we show it correctly. Just on a real quick note, one of the comments specifically was to the leaders, the roof leaders that we have showing long wind elevation, with the redesign and kind of the added articulation, the vertical glazing that we've added on a number of elevations. In our opinion, leaving the leaders in the color that we have really did more to enhance articulation of the building. And so that's just one of the comments we did look at kind of recoloring those and trying to minimize those visually. But from our opinion, this helped with the articulation of the building. That's why you see those continue to be in the brown kind of bronze color that you see. So that's all I have. I'll turn that back over to whoever's next. Thank you. I think that pretty much is what we'd like to say, I believe, Jesse and Eric. And if that is the case, then I think we're here to entertain any questions that the members of the board may have for us. Great. Thank you so much. And I just want to add my thanks for how responsive you all were to the comments of the board. I appreciate all of the changes that were incorporated and the clarifications that you provided to the questions that were posed. Very helpful to see such a thorough package. I'll now turn it over to Jenny Ray to see if there's anything that she would like to add from the perspective of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Thank you, Rachel. And I concur with you that I think that the applicant was relatively responsive to a lot of the comments that were provided by the board and others in the prior hearing. And I think that the applicant has also addressed some of the outstanding issues that we might see either in a forthcoming continued hearing or in another round of materials or something that could potentially be addressed through the decision. The memo notes sort of some of those outstanding areas, one of them was the solar, which was discussed already. I don't think I will say anything further about that. We also made a couple of other observations. But I think overall everything that had been requested was predominantly addressed. I think one area where I still have questions is around the stormwater. And that might be something that the board is interested in discussing. I know that the applicant has filed with the Conservation Commission and is still under review. So there might be some further discussions that engage the Conservation Commission as part of the resolution of that particular issue. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, Rachel, and other members of the board. Thank you. Thank you so much, Jenny. So at this point, what I'd like to do is open this up to the board for any questions. We will try and take public comment this evening if we have time. And so what I'd like to please request the board do is focus on the new materials that were provided. Any topics that we discussed and addressed in our last meeting, I'd like to not revisit this evening if at all possible so that we can really focus on the revised materials. So we'll start with Ken. Thank you, Rachel. I'd also like to thank you guys for addressing a lot of the issues that we had brought up at the last meeting. I personally do not have any issues with exterior gutters as far as being on site. I think they do break up the scale a little bit. But the way you have it right now, I wish you could look at it a little bit more and somehow use those vertical lines to be more integrated with your EFIS design. Right now, it looks just like you have your EFIS design with a couple of main leaders running over the design. If you sort of integrate those two, so they're a little harmoniously, it'd be better. That's just a request, one request I have right now. I appreciate the fact you continue the fence along the back to block the lighting from the parking cars to go into the playing field. That's a good, that's a very good thing. And in fact, you added bushes along the west side yard to prohibit cars from parking on the grass. I think that would have been a turn into a very ugly mess. The thing you did with the signage is great. You've located all the sign, we do some of the signage. I still have an issue with your monument sign. I don't think it's appropriate here. Most monument signs are meant for more rural areas or along highways where you're looking for more speed and looking for signage. This right here, you're not going that fast. This is a very tight street and you'll be coming down, you'll know where the building is. You don't have to, you're not relying on the monument sign to locate the building or such. So I would like you guys to reconsider again, eliminating the monument sign along the front. I noticed your renderings don't show it. It looks good that way. I appreciate that. But your site plans still show the monument sign and you show the details for it. Thanks for adding the bike rack inside. And that's all I have right now. I'm supportive of this project. I think with a few minor tweaks, we're there. And I appreciate the changes you've done as far as breaking down the scale and elevations, adding windows and so forth. Thank you Ken. Gene. Yes, thank you. I also appreciate the changes you've made. I have a few questions. I appreciate your commitment to putting solar on the roof. I think that's the right thing to do. And I look forward to learning what it is and how it will operate so that we can approve this permit with that known. Can you tell me what material the fencing will be? It's shown as sort of a brown fence. What material will it be? Yeah, it's a wooden stockade fence. Okay, thanks. For you mentioned that there's a lease agreement between your customers and you for use of the space. Do you anticipate putting the truck size limitation into the lease agreement? Yes, it can very easily be implemented. Yeah, I think it would be good to have both the truck size and the lease agreement. And also that there won't be any parking for your customers on Dudley Street that they'll need to use the parking lot. I think those two additions to the lease would be helpful. And I'm wondering, and this was in Ms. Rait's memo why the sign at the office is illuminated. What's the need for that as opposed to a non-illuminated sign? Hey, look. Eric? Yeah, I guess Jesse, would you wanna take the signage or Jan? I'm happy to speak to that, Eric. I mean, candidly, the one thing you want the customer to know whenever they see your building number one, the number one thing is, is what is this? Number two is, is where do I go to use it? And the more you can call attention to the area where the office is, which I think signage does at least for me and whether it's going to a retail outlet or to the office of a self storage facility. It's just more recognition of where the customer goes to use your product. Yeah, and I'm not opposed to the sign, I'm just wondering the necessity to illuminate. Well, I think if you probably told me, I wanna approve this project if it's illuminated and I will if it's not, the necessity is, I wouldn't say necessity, I think it's just a better project for us, a better project for the customer, a more, you know, a clearer, I mean, it does, you know, in the wintertime, you know, it gets dark at four o'clock. So, you know, people coming to you from four to six o'clock in the evening, I think it's a help. Won't they be able to see in sort of the glass area and won't the office itself have lights on? It will be illuminated, yes, sir. Yeah, and the reason I ask this is because our bylaw would not allow the illumination unless we find that it's in the public interest to allow it. And I'm just not sure it's in the public interest, but I'll see what my colleagues on the board have to say about that. And the only other question I have is something that came up last time, but it's not changed, Rachel, so I don't know if you'd like me to raise it or not. If it's something that was raised, that was in their list and wasn't addressed, then please go ahead. No, it was something I thought about after the meeting, the last meeting. Okay, if we could save that for the discussion, perhaps, so that we can get through public comment, that would be great. Thank you, Gene. So that's it, thank you. Thank you, Gene. Melissa. Thanks, Rachel. Well, as you guys know, in terms of the use, I've been kind of struggling with it. I'm disappointed. In terms of this project, I think it aligns better in a different location, I think based on the master plan and what we've sought out for this district, I don't see it fitting into the neighborhood or the intention of the character of this neighborhood. And so I just wanna remain on record, saying that, going forward. So it's harder for me to make aesthetic adjustments to this project when I feel like the use is, it doesn't meet the special permit criteria, in my opinion. So would like to pass or would you like to... I just wanna kill one record saying that now. Thanks, Rachel. Okay, thank you. Steve. Yes, one comment and two questions. So the rendering of the front showed an S, a wave-shaped bicycle rack. I would ask the proponents to consider inverted U-Racks instead. They tend to be a little more stable. Second question, I was wondering if it would be possible to view a site plan showing the parking area. I'd like to see how a moving truck would enter, you know, navigate into the loading dock and then leave afterwards. So I will ask the applicant, is that a currently a diagram that you have in the package that Jenny, you can point Jenny to to pull up. Yeah, it's the layout materials plan that we can talk off of C3.01. We'd probably be the best plan to see that. Great, thank you. Yep, so on this plan, we have the 24-foot drive aisle coming in for the two-way drive aisle. And then there is adequate space around the columns to be able to maneuver a truck and back into the loading spaces. And similarly, be able to maneuver and turn out as well. So we did look at that. It is adequate with the turning radii for a 26-foot box truck. Okay, all right. Thank you very much. And finally, in order to, could a member of your team remind me which transportation demand management elements you plan to implement for this project? Jesse, or do you want me to jump in, Jesse? The three we're leading to doing is the preferential parking for carpooling. The covered bicycle parking, bicycle spaces are covered as well as the employee spaces that are inside. And then we will provide a stipend to employees that do not have motor vehicles of their own so they can travel to and from their place for work. Okay, and last one follow-up question, if I may, Madam Chair. Would it be possible to see where, which of those parking spaces are the preferential ones? Yeah, we'll go back to that same plan. So we have right next to the ADA, the accessible space, there's that SP1. So that was called out as the, on the signage chart as the carpool, preferential carpool spot. All right, thank you. I have no further questions, Madam Chair. Great, thank you, Steve. Let's see, so the only item that I have that I wanted to bring up, I think I'm still struggling with the rain leaders on the exterior of the building. I think that they really fight with the current way that it's articulated, and I'm speaking specifically to view one here. So I prefer integrated leaders. If you do keep them on the exterior, I agree with Ken and that I'd like them to be more integrated with an articulation, whether it's a color change and some sort of a vertical element that appears in the ethos coloration on this side of the building. That truly is meant to be a continued articulation. I would just ask that you look at that facade and that facade may then actually influence the opposite facade as well, which does have some vertical articulation in the side, which this side does not. And that's my only request in addition to what my colleagues have identified. So I'll just run through to see if there are any other questions before I open this up for public comments and then we'll circle back for an additional discussion regarding next steps from the board. So I'll just run through quickly to see if there are any additional questions starting with Ken. Ken, you're on mute. Sorry about that, I'll wait for the discussions. Okay, great, thanks, Jean. Yeah, no additional questions at this time. Great, Melissa. No additional questions. Steve? No additional questions. Okay, great. So at this time, I'll go ahead and open this meeting up for a public comment. Any member of the public wishing to speak or ask any questions regarding this project, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. Once I call on you, you will have up to three minutes to speak and I'll ask that you introduce yourself by your first, last name and address. So we'll give people a minute or a couple, a minute to see if there's any hands raised. All right, seeing none. Madam Chair. Sorry, they just went up. I want to raise my hand, but I don't seem to be able to do so. Oh, here it is, I'm sorry. Okay, great, thank you, I have you in the queue. Thank you. Absolutely. So we will start with Don Seltzer. I'm sorry, and before Don, I haven't started your time yet. Before you start, I just want to let everybody know that I will be closing public comment at 730. We'll need to reconvene for board discussion. So in the case that more people speak, then it's time allotted. I just wanted to, and I'm set up front. Go ahead, Don. Thank you, Madam Chair. Don Seltzer, Irving Street. Let me begin by saying that several members of the Disability Commission are appreciative of the redesign of the parking area to relocate the ADA parking space to the front of the building next to the office entrance. I want to, I have a few questions to be asked of the applicants regarding other issues of accessibility. Perhaps they can speak on how they have addressed the code requirements for a path of egress from low points in the building, particularly the maximum length and how they have brought it to necessary safe areas of refuge with communication. On the issue of truck size, could they clarify what is meant by a 26 foot truck? There is confusion here because if I went to U-Haul, a rider and asked for a 26 foot truck, they would rent me one that had an actual total length of over 30 feet. The 26 feet is a measure of just the cargo area. I would also welcome a little more discussion on the lines of what Steve Revolac asked for about the new parking layout and the spacing of the support columns. It appears that the clearance between the columns is only sufficient for a vehicle no larger than a Ford Explorer. A 26 foot rental truck has an outside wheel turning radius of about 40 feet, which is far in excess of the column spacing. It's not clear to me how such a truck can go in and out of the loading dock without hitting one of the columns. Finally, there is the issue that I addressed in my letter to the board. If Arlington is going to make real progress towards its net zero action plan, it will be necessary for development to be mindful of its impact on neighboring properties. The proposed height and the minimal setbacks of this proposal will seriously encroach upon the solar exposure of a dozen adjacent properties. Criteria K of the environmental design review gives this board the authority to address these concerns. And I'll stop here in case the applicant wishes to respond to my questions regarding path of egress and the ability of trucks to enter and leave the loading base while avoiding the columns. Thank you. Thank you. We're actually not going to cover interior path of egress. That's under the jurisdiction of the building department, not under the ARB with regard to the 26 foot truck. I believe that is a standard designation within the industry. And with regard to the clearance between the columns, we could certainly return back to the applicant after all of the public discussion has been completed to see if there is any clarification that the board would like regarding the training radius. So I'll now move to the next public comment. And I think the next speaker is Anne LaRoyer. Thank you. Anne LaRoyer on Pierce Street and most of the chair of the Open Space Committee. And I'm kind of speaking on that basis. I think in general, we're a little concerned about the size and massing of this particular building so close to Millbrook and Wellington Park that, and it's especially because it's on a hill way above the brook and the park that it just, it's gonna feel like a huge building up there. And it's gonna change the contour of that area quite a lot, I think. I understand you've, you know, saving a few more trees and putting in fencing and landscaping and that's all to the good, but it's just a general concern about the size and massing of the building in that particular location next to the brook and the park. Another thing that was concerned about is the panels that are on the backside. And I don't understand that on the picture that was shown, it looked like they were reflective panels. Maybe that's not correct, but we were just very concerned that if they were reflective that that would, you know, really cause some problems on the park side. So maybe somebody can explain what the material or something of that is if it's not, not gonna be reflective. And also in terms of the stormwater and the rain gardens and things like that, I know that you're gonna have to go to the concom for review and we'll, you know, look to their guidance on some of those more technical issues that are also of concern just in terms of the open space and landscaping and feeling of the whole environment. It's obviously it's industrial zone and this size of building is allowed. I understand, but it's not ideal from our perspective. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll hold your question regarding the information on the specific material for the panels for the end of public comment and we will pose that to the applicant. Thank you. The next speaker will be Thomas Fallow. Good evening. I here share, I represent the Santini so the owners of 26 Dudley Street. I share a lot of the same concerns that were referenced by Mr. Selzer with respect to the turning radius of the trucks and how the parking will impact that. I think they need to be specific as he indicated that 26 foot truck can mean different things to different people and if it's a 30 foot truck, I think we need empirical information to be supplied by the developer that show that these trucks can safely turn in and out of those loading dots that would impact either columns or cars who may be parked in the spaces that are on the opposite side of the lane and also the question of whether a truck of that size can safely turn in and out of the site onto Dudley Street if there are parking on both sides of Dudley Street as they oftentimes it is. I have a couple of other questions with respect to it. I asked the question as to whether there is any fill involved in the rear portion of the site and I haven't looked through the package of the new packages materials but I'd asked the applicant to specifically comment on whether in fact fill is necessary at the rear portion of the site and if so, we're in and how much that's a question that seems unanswered. I also, with respect to the stormwater, it looks like they're still talking about discharging into Millbrook and based upon your own bylaw, it's just specifically that if the building is the size of this building, it needs to retain and treat stormwater on the site. It may be treating it but it's obviously not retaining it if it's discharging into Millbrook. So I think that has to be studied and be brought into compliance with the requirement that they not only treated but also retain and not discharged into Millbrook. Shadowing is another issue I was concerned about that has also been touched on so I won't get into that. And lastly, I also raised a technical question of the proposing to do work on town on land and I guess my question is, doesn't the town and whatever department or board is as jurisdiction over the land they're working on need to be unhappy and here as well. I mean, they have no license agreement or no right to go on to town land and do work on town land without the permission and the involvement of whatever board of commission under whose jurisdiction the land is and I assume it's maybe parks and recreation, I have no idea. But one way or another, I think that question needs to be answered because this is the proposing to do work on land that they don't own and under which they have no right to enter is actually I understand it. So those are my questions for today. I'm glad it was gonna be a continued hearing because we obviously need to go through this and get the answers to some of the questions that have been proposed tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Although I wanna clarify that this board has not determined whether the hearing will be continued or voted on this evening, that will be part of our next discussion. Thank you. Okay, so with that, I will turn two questions back to the, a few of those questions back to the applicant and then we'll get into the board discussion. So I believe that the team from BHB had addressed some of the question with regarding the truck turning radius. So if you could perhaps provide just another update on that and a little bit more clarification and then some additional information on the, once that is complete, we'll move to the information on the panels on the rear of the building. So attorney Nessie, I'll ask you to work straight between your team, please. All right, I will pick the people who have to respond. Eric, could you respond on the truck turning issue? Sounds good. Yeah, so we ran the turns to make sure that they could maneuver in there. That's the last thing the applicant wants is to not have the trucks be able to get in or out. We ran them also assuming, eight foot off of the opposing curb for a parked vehicle to be able to get in or out of the parking lot, of the curb cut. With that being said, you're correct on the 26 foot box truck. The actual length is about 34 and a half feet. As far as the sign goes, we didn't wanna say restrict trucks over 34 and a half feet since the normal everyday language is the standard 26 foot box truck. So we can certainly work on that sign of what we'd wanna show for it to limit the actual truck that's going in there and how that size wants to be shown on that. So we can certainly do that as well. But we thought that was the most appropriate sign because it would be more familiar to most users and tied back to their lease agreements, as Jesse had mentioned. Great, thank you. That's very helpful. An attorney and I see the panels, a little more information on the panels on the back of the building. Jan, you wanna address that issue? Yes, I can. Those are not reflective panels. It is a plastic mesh. So it's actually partially open. There's a small grid of pattern on the plastic, but it is not reflective at all. And the image that we're showing, like I said, happens to be of some trees, but it would not be reflective in any manner at all. And I'm assuming that that is something that, you know, one of the things we have not requested yet, but I would like to receive and it's something that could be done through administrative review following any approval or perhaps at a future hearing is a sample of some of that material. So I wanted to just confirm that that's something that you would be amenable to. I see. You can certainly do that, Rachel. Yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you. There was also a question around Phil, whether there is any Phil required as part of the site work at the rear of the site. Eric? Yep. Yeah, sorry. I thought we had kind of addressed that last hearing, but yeah, we are filling slightly up on that back edge by about, it's probably, you know, it ranges between a foot to 18 inches along that backside. Our finished floor elevations, elevation 79, which is pretty comparable to the existing building out there in certain locations. So that back edge of the property, we are grading up slightly for the parking area, but it's not a substantial fill amount. Great. Thank you for the clarification. All right, so at this time, I'd like to turn the discussion back to the board and I'll start with Ken. Yeah, there's just two things I think I would like. I think I would like to request a continuous of this so we can get a couple of issues resolved to make everybody more comfortable. I'm not trying to stall the project at all. I'm the supporter of this project. If VHB can just overlay a truck turning radius on the CAD drawings, you guys probably have done that already just dash it out, showing a 26 foot box truck doing a three point turn at the loading dock and at the entrance where you turn in off Dudley Street that would just solve everybody's issues of can a truck enter or can a truck manoeuvre around inside there and it would just put that out of the bed because once you put that overlay in it is what it is. It's one of those computer overlays you guys that you must have, right? He had nodding, yes. Yeah, I've done that in the past. And then also if you guys take another look at that Eastern elevation with the rain leaders, either they could somehow maybe recess the leaders into the wall of it, so it's still outside. I know your desire to have all the rain leaders outside for water protection. It makes a lot of sense and I agree with you there or somehow integrate that in with the design of the patterns and the reveals and the colors you have. So it right now looks like just three lines drawn straight across the building. And if you can do something about that. And also with the mesh screen in the back, I think Rachel's correct. And if you guys can submit something else to look at as far as what design pattern you wanna use there. I applaud you for putting that mesh screen there. It's good and it's gonna address a lot of the issues back there. Is that gonna be backlit at all? Do you know? The intention is not to provide any backlighting moment at all. No, sir. Okay, fair enough. And I'm assuming there's more than, it's not gonna be a couple inches. You'd be like a foot away or something like that. Yeah, it's just enough to get it off of the envelope of the building. So I think they vary depending on what your exterior material is. So I believe it's anywhere from six to eight, six to eight inches all the face of the building. And it's much more for just attachment to the building. But it's not too far off the face of the building. I think in Cambridge where they had put it too tight, it became a bird nesting sanctuary. If you're just right there and they get back there. So you have to pull it off enough where it doesn't come back. Great, that's something certainly better. The manufacturer is well versed in that now, I'm sure. Yes, and we'll rely on them for their expertise on that. Yes, sir. Yup. That's about it for now, Rachel. Great, thank you Ken. Gene, and I believe you had a topic you wished your attorney to as well. I agree with everything Mr. Lau said. I think we need to get some more information and have another hearing. Also because I'd like to know more about the solar array that's going to be on the roof and to see some graphics of what it will actually look like. So I think that's important. The issue that I wanted to raise and Mr. Lau raised it last time and I didn't really understand it until I read some of the materials after what you thought about it was that the building is a, I think it's a 10 by 10 grid system. And I believe that the applicant said that because of that, the building probably couldn't be used for anything else. So if the self storage ever went away the building would probably have to be demolished to be used for anything else. And that sort of bothers me a little bit. And I'm just wondering if it bothers anyone else on the board that we would be approving a building that doesn't have any other use usually when you have an industrial building and the use ends it can be repurposed for something else and doesn't necessarily have to come down. So I just wonder if people are concerned about that if they're not, I understand that. But if they are, then it would be redesigning the building to a bigger grid space. But I'm just a little concerned and wanna hear what my colleagues on the board have to say about that. I'll also just mention that I've gone to Arlington self storage the other facility in the area to see if there are spaces available in the art. So I think that at least as far as immediate need goes it's not as if the other one in the area has had storage facilities available during the few times that I've looked between now and the previous hearing. And then I guess the other thing some of the ways to deal with the stormwater I think ultimately will be the responsibility of the conservation commission whose charge includes protection of no brook and the area around no brook. So they'll make their decision after we do it. Thank you, Jean. I'll go to Melissa next and we'll circle back to the question about the 10 foot base spacing. Melissa. Thank you, apologize for my video situation but I don't have further questions at this point. Rachel, are we waiting to discuss any of Jean's comments, is that how I understand it? Nope, if you wanna weigh in on the 10 foot base spacing this would be the time to do so. Well, I was thinking in terms of it being built for any other kind of use. I mean, I'm kind of perplexed, Jean. What you like typically these buildings are built kind of sole purpose and we're getting what's being presented. I'm kind of curious on what you're thinking is with the flexibility. I guess I'm asking Jean back if what is his expectation with the flexibility and how this is built? Yeah, just what came up last time I believe the applicant said, they built it this way and it really can't be repurposed for anything because of all the columns. So it wouldn't be able to be used. And I'm just raising the question for the board members of whether we should be concerned that we'd be approving a building that couldn't be repurposed. So let's say if in some number of years they don't want to use it as a self-storage building anymore they abandon it and then it sits there unused and can't be used for anything else until somebody else tears it down. So that was my understanding from the last meeting. And that's what I just want to raise to the board members. Thanks for the clarification, Jean. Melissa, any other questions or comments? Yeah, well, I mean, it does bother me but I don't think that is unique to this building. I think that's a trend that we're seeing a lot with some of these sole purpose buildings. So does it bother me? No, I think you guys know what the bigger issue that bothers me. Right. But thank you. Thank you, Melissa. Steve, any additional questions? Comments or continuation? Just a few and I'll try to be quick. Regarding the transportation demand management plan, I'd ask the applicants to consider instead of preferential carpool space, a shower for the employees. I think that's a much nicer amenity or in perhaps more usable. But that to me is, I'm just asking them to consider it. It's not a deal breaker to me. Like Mr. Lau, I would like to see a, I also like to see a turning diagram for a 26 foot box truck. And regarding Mr. Benson's question, I'm not concerned that they're building, that this building is constructed special purpose for storage. I think the applicants are prepared to make an investment and I would hope plan to keep it going for a long time. I do have just one final question. With regards to the stormwater management system, what size of a storm will the current, will the system be able to retain completely on site based on the NOAA-14 plus rainfall estimates? Eric, from PHB, I see that you unmuted to answer that. I'd have to confirm on the tables, but our overall design intent was to make sure that to reduce the future 10-year storm to be less than the existing two. And that was based on initial discussions with the town engineer on the intent of kind of what the regulations were trying to get at with the stormwater management parameters. Yes, thank you. And I did notice that, for both of the points on Dudley Street and towards the rear of the property, there was a significant reduction in flow to as compared to current conditions. So I just wanted to commend you for that. Nothing further, Madam Chair. Great, thank you, Steve. And then, Ken, I will go to you to see if you have any comment regarding Gene's question to the board and then I'll wait after that. Yeah, Gene, I think when I first asked that question was it a 30 by 30 base spacing? Because that would lead to the ability to do all the structures within that. But I see no problem right now with a purpose-built building. I just asked, was there flexibility? I don't think we should be basing an approval on a building that's flexible enough for future something. I think we're approving what's appropriate for this building that's going here right now. And yes, 10 by 10 is very difficult to do anything else but storage. But I think with a 10 by 10, I think you can get, if you get creative, you can do housing there easily. Anything else, Ken? No. Okay, Gene, I'll just answer the same way. I mean, it's interesting. My office is currently in a building that was built for cold storage. So I have very, very unique phones and other items. So I think that you can get very creative with trying to repurpose really unique structural considerations within a building. So I'm personally okay with it to answer your question. So I appreciate the discussion and everybody laying it on. Thank you. Great, thank you. Let's see, so at this time, I know that Ken was very specific that he felt that we should continue the hearing. I have a list of, let's see here, of eight items that have been requested by the board. Most of them seem like there are items that could be addressed without a significant amount of additional time, but I'll run through these and see if we can align with it a time for a continued hearing at which time we hopefully will be able to address all of these questions and be able to vote on the proposal. So Attorney Nessie, I'm gonna run through these for you. So the first one I have is to look at integrating the vertical lines of the gutter with the facade design. If not recessing them and ensuring that that facade then speaks to the opposite facade of the building. The second one I have is to reconsider elimination of the monument sign. The third I have is eliminate the illumination of the office sign. The fourth is to change the specification for the bike rack to an inverted U rack. Steve, that is correct, okay? Number five is to provide a plan, a site plan showing the truck turning radius for the largest allowable truck, which is the 26-foot box truck. And again, I think we will leave that to you to figure out the verbiage that's not something that I think we're necessarily gonna regulate in the signage knowing that especially we've also discussed you adding that to a lease agreement. Number six to provide either a material sample or more information on the mesh screen material in the rear of the building. Number seven is to provide additional information on the solar array on the roof. We have right now is some verbal remarks. We don't have anything written on that at this time. And the last item I have is to for your transportation demand management plan to consider a shower for employees instead of the preferential parking for carpools given the number of employees that you indicated would be on site at any time. I agree with that request. I think that that would be more meaningful as an alternative solution for your employees. I will go back to the board and see if I missed anything. Ken. Can I, you mentioned gutter. I think you meant down-leader, right? Yes, I apologize. Yes, the rain leaders, thank you. And then also, what's the other one you mentioned? The monument sign? No, no, you got that one hundred percent. The truck turning radius is a diagram. Nope, maybe it's not that, I don't know. There's one other thing that I just wanted to clarify a little bit more. I see Jenny has her hand up. Maybe she has the same question. Okay. Okay, Jenny. Not related to this. Okay. Go ahead. I don't recall right now. Okay, all right. Kelly. I think you would ask for more details on what the actual design that would be printed on the panels would be. Oh, yes, the image on the panels. Sorry, you're a hundred percent correct, Kelly. Thank you. So it's the material and image. Image, the image is key. Correct. Thank you, Ken. Sorry about that, Kelly. About my old age. I'm sorry. Anything else, Ken, before I move to Jenny? Yeah, okay. Jenny. Since now I know you asked for an image, do you mean as a sample or you want to see that on a plan? I think we'd like to see, you know, specific, you know, is that the specific image? What's on the rendering that is being proposed? And if not, what is being proposed? And we'd also like to see a sample of the actual material. Okay, I had that. The other thing is that I think would be important to see is the limit of their construction work in relationship to the parcel boundaries, including their parcel, but in relationship to the town parcels, because I'm actually, I am not sure about that. And the abutting property is actually under the jurisdiction of Parks and Recreation. There is a process that they would go through in order to be able to access their parcel by getting permission through Parks and Recreation as also part of the NOI process. I'm sure that that will also come up with the Conservation Commission. But I just, I think that we do need to see in the site plan how the parcel relates to the other parcels and where the limit of work is. Great, thank you. I have that one now on our list. Any questions? Is there any an essay on that request? No. Okay. Great. Let's see, I'll go to Jean now. Anything that we missed or wanted to be clarified? No, I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Great, thanks, Melissa. No, nothing to add. Great, thank you, Steve. Nothing further. All right. So at this time, before we take a motion to continue the public hearing, Attorney and SEN team, if we could look out at some future dates. So we do have a meeting on May 16th. Just going to look. That is most likely also going to be a town meeting evening. So we would need to start it. It would be another 630 to 745, 750 meeting. Is that enough time for you? Can we have Jesse and Eric? Can we have our material together by then? I would very much like to have that as our next meeting date if we can. Eric, Jesse? Yeah, I mean, at least the stuff, I think it's more going to be, I guess, Jan, I'd like to check in with you on the architectural pieces. And then if we need to get a sample of the screen, if that's, you know. Jan, can you chime in as well, Jan? Yes, the image information we've asked for certainly can be done by that time. I'll reach out first thing in the morning to the sign manufacturer and see how quickly, but I would say that we could meet that date, even if we have expedite materials, but I would say that let's not let that keep us from meeting on 16th. I'll make sure we get that material. Great, thanks. And just to that topic, if the material sample isn't available but we're able to review everything else, I feel like that's something that we could certainly always follow up as a condition or again, a follow up to the actual hearing through administrative links. Okay, that's great. Thank you for that. Why don't we go with that date then, gentlemen? Day 16, agreed? Good. Yes, sir. Great, and Jenny, if you could just confirm the date that they would need to submit materials for you. I would say we would want it the Wednesday before. That'll be May 11th. Yes. Okay, I see some head nodding. Okay. And then do you want to talk about the 23rd separately? I think separately. Yes, we'll do that following this meeting. So with that list, so attorney Ness, did you have any questions on the, believe there were? I do not. Nine items, okay, great. Discuss that among our team, yes. Great, thank you so much. Thank you. All right, so is there a motion to continue the public hearing for docket number 3690 to Monday, May 16th at 6.30 p.m.? So a motion. I second the motion. Great, we'll take a roll call vote, starting with Ken. Yes. Dean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm the yes as well. Thank you so much. And we will see you back here on the 16th. Thank you. Thank you all. Great, thank you. And so before we adjourn, I just wanted to talk schedule quickly. So I actually have a conflict. We have another meeting scheduled on the 23rd. And I have a conflict that evening. Jenny, do we currently have anything else scheduled that evening? Nothing else was scheduled that evening. Okay, great. So I wanted to see if there was any concern with the board for eliminating that meeting on the 23rd. I'll just run through and see, Jean. The only concern I have is that I will be missing the meeting on June 6th. Okay. Is the next meeting after that. Oh, may I, Rachel? Please go ahead. So, I mean, this is important because the only reason you need your June 6th meeting is if you have, if we have any applications filed basically by in two weeks from now, correct? Kelly, in terms of legal notice. So, and I do not anticipate any new special permit applications coming in. So we, that might be another meeting that you potentially do not need. You know, again, depending upon the outcome of the meeting on the 16th. Okay. So then you have one more meeting in June. So what we could do, is there a date Jenny by which we need to cancel the meeting on the 23rd? Or can we keep it on the calendar and make that call on this, you know, either next, we have two meetings next week, as well as the 16th where we could make that call, as long as there's no need to cancel it earlier. You can have every Monday in May, if you want. No, the, except for Memorial Day, please. The 23rd, you can, yeah, you can decide on the 16th, but you could also decide on the Thursday before, which is typically by the date, the time by which we post an agenda. So, if there was some reason to keep a meeting, we can keep it, and then if we need to cancel, we can do that as well. Great, thank you. And that one, I'm gonna be traveling. It's a possibility for me to time them remotely. I'll just not be in state. So why don't we hold that for now? And if we need it, we'll figure out how to make that one work logistically. And if we don't, we'll cancel it in the future. Can I bring up one more question? Please. We didn't schedule anything past June, have we scheduled up until May or something, all right? And that's it. I think we scheduled, no, we actually scheduled the rest of the year. So we're through December. Oh, we are. Nothing in July, I believe. There's an off month. Yeah, there's two in June. There's the six in the 20th. I'll look it up. I'm sorry. I thought I couldn't find anything scheduled and I was trying to schedule a vacation, but that's okay. Okay. If you need, so they should all be in the calendar. Yeah. I'll look it up. I don't need to hold the rest of people up. Great, thank you. So we are right on time to 7.45 now. Thank you everyone for staying on agenda. I really appreciate it as there are a motion to adjourn to the meeting. So motion. I'll second that motion too. All right. I'll take a vote starting with Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. Melissa. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm yes as well. Thank you so much. Thank you everybody. Thanks. Bye bye. Bye bye. Thank you. Thanks.