Welcome everyone to the January 23rd meeting of the Arlington redevelopment board. My name is Rachel Zenberry. I'm the chair of the board. Tonight we are meeting via zoom. We appreciate everyone's flexibility with the emergency change of location due to the inclement weather and the closure of town public meeting locations, just so that everyone is aware we are being recorded by ACMI. Before we get started, what I'd like to do first is take a roll call for the members of the board to confirm that they are present and can hear me. Starting with Kim Lau. Yep, I'm here. Jean Benson. Present. Steve Revlak. Good evening, Madam chair. And Melissa Tantakis will not be joining us this evening. We have two staff members with the department of planning and community development here with us this evening. Director Claire Ricker. And assistant director Kelly line of us. Hi Kelly. So just two items of note before we get started, please note that we will please note to not unmute yourself. Unless you are directed to do so during public comment, or as if you are the applicant for one of our hearings this evening. Please also be aware that you are not permitted to share any material in your background of your, of your, your head, head shot here on zoom. All material must be shared by the meeting host. And with that, we will move into our first order of business, which is the organizational meeting. And before we do so, I'll turn it over to Claire, who has an update for us on our board. Board members. Sure, thank you. I know this is old hat to some of you folks, but I, as long as I've been here, we've been meeting in person. So thanks everyone for being so flexible and bearing with me this this afternoon. It's, it's unfortunately my responsibility to announce it. Melissa Tentaculous will not be continuing as a member of the ARB. She has communicated to me and I certainly understand that the responsibilities of her, her job obviously working for the town of Burlington have just become too great for her to continue on the board and so we're sad to see her go. I was particularly impressed by her sticking to her values and her, her guns as, as it were, and in helping to bring Tatte to, to town and she's certainly a voice that will be tough to replace but we will, we will be seeking a new member. The, the opening has been on the town website for a little bit now it's been up for about a week, but we'd be very interested in hearing, you know, from anyone who would be interested in the seat. So that said, I think, you know, we wanted to move into some other business related to terms, lengths of terms exploration, as well as the election of the chair and vice chair. Thank you. Thank you Claire. And did you, let's see, let's go ahead and conduct the business of the election of the chair and vice chair to start and then we'll move into the term exploration dates that works for you Claire. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. So, the first order of business is to elect a chair. Is there a nomination for chair of the redevelopment board. Can I nominate Rachel? Thank you, Ken. Second, the nomination. Thank you, Jean. Is there any other nomination. Okay. So, I appreciate that and I accept the nomination is there. We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote in that case. Starting with. Ken. Yes. Jean. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So thank you all. I appreciate that. And I look forward to continuing to serve the town and the board for the next year. Is there a nomination for vice chair of the board? I would nominate Ken Lau vice chair. Ken, would you like to accept? Thank you. Yes, I would. Great. Is there a second? I will second madam chair. Thank you, Steve. We'll take a roll call vote for Ken Lau continuing as vice chair of the redevelopment board. Starting with Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. Ken. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Congratulations, Ken. Thank you. And at this point, I'd like to turn it back over to Claire. Well, thank you. And it seems we've had some issues from the last last two weeks. I'm not sure if we ever have any questions. The questions that you have made to us are current. Uh, term expiration dates and some of the overlap that we're about to experience. Thank you. So this was, uh, brought to my attention. I'm by the board member, um, Jean Benson that it seems that at some point we have. one member expiring the following year and then two members expiring the year after that over the course of three years. It looks like we made it, I have records back to 2009. We made it about two years under that framework until we in 2014 had three members expiring in one year and then the next two years, one member would have their term expire. So I think part of this discussion is how can we get these terms to line up? So we're back where, or close to where we were about a decade ago where we have two expirations or three expirations and then two or three expirations in a following year so that we can maintain some continuity on the board. So where we are right now this evening is we have spoke with the town manager, the town manager is aware of the vacancy on the board as well as Mr. Benson's desire to re-up for another term. So thank you, Jean, for your volunteerism here. So Jean will now expire 2026. We have a vacant chair that is due to, a vacant seat that is due to expire also in 2026, January 31st. The just elected or re-elected chair, Zimbari will expire on June 30th, 2023. And an additional term would bring that seat to 2026 as well. And this is where we start to get up a little bit off track because the governor's appointee, Mr. Revolak was, it looks like he was appointed in 2023, I think September, excuse me, was earlier than that. I was appointed in 2021. 2021, right. So you ended up in the same expiration year as these other three members. So now we have four and then Mr. Lau will expire in March of 2024. So I'm not sure what suggestions we have here. Steve, we could renew you for two years in September, which would put Benson, vacant and Zimbari expiring in 2026. Should you all up for another term? Ken would be then expiring, that seat would be expiring in 2027. And then Steve, we would, or the governor's seat would re up in 2025. Now, I don't know how this works. It seems like it's very difficult to sort of deal with the governor's office on this. But again, I'm open to any suggestions or ways we can kind of get this more codified and back to where we were when we started. Claire, I don't think we have to start with three year terms. I think that probably caused the problem at some point in the past. So for example, I didn't pay attention to when everybody's term was expiring, but if somebody is appointed to replace Melissa, maybe they get a one or two year term. So we don't have everybody expiring in 2026. And that was Kelly's suggestion earlier this evening when we were discussing this and sort of semi-tearing our hair out. I think that may be the best solution. Then we would have that seat through, have her seat go through 2025. No, I'd be happy to, so that we can get back on track for my seat to be a one or two year term, to when it turns over in June, whether it's me or somebody else, who winds up continuing. So that's totally fine with me. All right, great. So I think what I will do right now, Jean, like I said, I've spoken with the manager here. I think we're waiting on a letter of reappointment. We have the vacant seat. We can change the term on that one and then just move forward from there with everybody else's three year term. Okay, great. So Claire, perhaps if we can, as a follow-up, just put a memo together with what the proposed new term turnover will look like, just so that everybody can ensure that we're all aligned on that for our next meeting. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, Jean, for bringing that to everyone's attention as well. Okay. We need to get used to meeting again. Okay, so great. So that closes agenda item number one. And our second item is the public hearing for docket number 3650 190 and 192 to 200 Massachusetts Avenue. So this is reopening a public hearing that we had previously heard with a much different proposal probably about a year ago now. And we have the applicant with us here this evening. The first order of business would be to ensure that the applicant understands that there will be four members instead of five members of the board hearing the case if we move forward with this, with the hearing. If we move forward with this this evening, I do not know when the fifth member of the board will be appointed. I would assume that we are probably a month and a half. Claire, would you agree out from that by the time we get through the application period, the interview process and then the appointment process? That's correct. I think we wanna move quickly, but we also wanna make sure we're getting the right person. So yeah. Great. So that would be the first order of business. And if we have the representative, and I apologize again, I can't see because we're on Zoom who the representative from the applicant is if you could identify yourself, I think that would be the first order of business before we get into the hearing. Once we get into the hearing, if we decide to move forward this evening and not continue with this, we'll turn it over to the Department of Planning and Community Development for a brief introduction, then we'll turn it back over to the applicant for a short less than 10 minute presentation. We will then turn it over to the board. So who here, Ken? If I can say one thing. Please. There's gonna be four of us. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Kelly, because this is multifamily, we don't need a super majority vote all we need is a majority vote. So three votes would do it. Just so they understand what the- Correct. That's an important clarification. Thank you, Ken. Yes, there are three. You would need three members of the board to roll favorably on your application. One of vote is called rather than four in this particular case. So as I mentioned, who is representing the applicants this evening? John Murphy is here. Hi, John. I'm at real estate strategies. Hi, how are you? Good, how are you? Good, and we also have attorney Inesis here as well, but yes, we are fine with that. So we'd like to proceed. Perfect. Well, let's go ahead and move forward then. Thank you for confirming. So I'd like to at this point turn it over to Director Ricker for an introduction to the department's memo regarding the project. Fantastic, thank you. So this project proposes to construct a mixed use building on Mass Ave, which would have retail and 30 residential units with five affordable units at 70% of AMI, 190 to 192 and 200 Mass Ave in the B3 business district. The building is proposed to be about four stories, including just under 5,000 square feet of commercial space, which could be divided into two units. I think final square footages is to be determined. Parking will be provided 23 spaces in at ground level and in a subterranean garage area as well as 43 bicycle spaces. So thank you, John, if you'd like to take it away. All right. I will actually bring attorney Inesis to go ahead. All right, can you hear me, Rachel? I can, thank you. Good, all right. So yes, we are here on this particular property, which was the subject of an application about a year ago. And the application did not go anywhere. One of the major reasons for that was that we could not satisfy the FAR, but there were other reasons as well. We're now coming in with a totally different proposal. That proposal was looking for 37 some odd units. We're here, as Claire has indicated, asking for 30 units. We believe that this particular application and this proposal in this area conforms and in fact enhances what is set forth in the master plan. The master plan basically, I think, is aimed toward trying to revitalize and make alive some of the areas in town that basically have not been alive for many, many years. Now, we're not introducing a foreign proposal into this neighborhood. You have the Capital Theater Block across Lake Street, which is a mixed-use building, albeit it was constructed in 1928, but it's a mixed-use building. You have the Summit Apartment House diagonally across the street and what we're proposing is a mixed-use building. Now, one of the items that is really important, I think, for the members of the board is, we have bent over backwards to come up with a commercial component that we hope will satisfy the members of the ARB. By that I mean, we have 2,700 some odd square feet of space ready to be devoted to a restaurant use with wide windows. There'd be an inviting aspect to the streetscape with respect to where the restaurant would be located. The other space, commercial space, would be 1,600 some odd and that could be retail space. Again, conforming to what's already in the neighborhood. Now, keep in mind that this property has lain fallow for a long time. It's not been rented. And by the way, the restaurant use is a follow-up, historically, to prior restaurant uses on a portion of the property. I'm gonna let, by the way, we have with us, we have an architect, we have David Boski from David Boski architecture who's prepared to talk about the proposal or respond to questions you may have. We have a civil engineer, Brian Jones from Allen and Major who's prepared to talk about the project as well. One point I wanna make to the members of the ARB is we did a traffic study a year ago and the traffic study was based upon more residential units. We now have less residential units, but that traffic study even then indicated that there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood with respect to traffic. With that, John, why don't you talk about what you can with respect to the building itself? Sure, thank you, Bob. I will, you touched on a lot of important details. I'll focus on a couple of things and I'll just want to see if David Boski wants to add anything before we turn it back over to the board. One thing to note, if anyone is wondering the mix of units, I don't think it was touched upon, but of the 30, we have two studios, 23 one bedrooms and five two bedrooms. And as it was mentioned, five affordable units. When we look at this property, we're obviously surrounded by three streets. The building pretty much is the property line. So I think one of the areas where we really want to revisit was the relationship with the street. So what we did do is shrink the footprint of the building compared to what's there currently. We created more space on Mass Ave, like Bob said, to be more inviting to have that relationship with the street. And in a prior iteration, we had some commercial space, but what I really liked what we did with this version is our commercial space touches all three streets that surround the property. So no matter how you're walking around the property, you can have multiple entrances, we have multiple opportunities for signage for businesses and just an overall better relationship, I think. We also believe that this overall design which I'm sure we'll get into does relate a little better to the neighborhood than what we have been here with before. And back to the commercial space, the shape of it which was we spent a lot of time on. Right now, the building, the commercial spaces, those spaces are very deep. And commercial tenants, they want frontage. They don't want dead space towards the back of their units that they technically have to pay for when they'd rather have the front. So that's why we really tried to wrap this all around with the entrance to the apartments and in between the two of them. And also with that more space on the sidewalk. So with that, I will turn it over to David Barski. If you have anything, David, if you don't, I think we can turn it back over to the board for questions and comments. I'm ready for any questions. Just one more point, we are in a B3 zone. And of course, this use is allowed in a B3 zone with a special permit. So we're not trying to do something here that would not be permissible with respect to the zoning by-law. The B3 zone is inviting us to come forth with this proposal. And that's exactly what we're doing. Go ahead. I think we're all set, thank you. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the thorough package that was submitted and the updated renderings that we received and the introduction along with the history of where we were previously on this project. So thank you both for the introduction. At this time, what I'd like to do is turn it over to my colleagues for questions and comments as per our typical flow this evening. For those who have not joined us before, we will take questions and preliminary comments from the board members. We'll then open this up for a public comment. We'll close public comment and return back to the board for discussion before discussing whether or not there are items that the applicant would need to return back to the board with or whether or not we'd be able to take a vote this evening. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Kim Lau to start us off. Thank you, Rachel. Well, as the previous project, I think this is a good improvement on that. But I'm going to ask for a few more documents that's not completed in this package here. One is, I would like a light study that we could do here at the back of the building along that alleyway there and how you plan to use lights along the sidewalk to illuminate the sidewalk to give it a little more life along the city edge. And then the ramp and the parking spaces back there. That's important how you look at how light falls around there. So if you can include that, it'd be much appreciative. If you can elaborate on your elevations a little bit more, what I mean by that is I want to see contextually how this building lines up with the building adjacent to it along Mass Ave and along the two side streets. So just to see how you keep the rhythm along that edge there. This is a real downtown area. This is the core of Arlington, I think. And it's important that we get that. So with that is information that I think you can add to us that I would need before I can decide on this project. A few things that I would like to make suggestions on and make some changes. I appreciate the fact that you pulled the building back, create a little courtyard in the front at the intersection on Mass Ave and what's that side street called now? Lake Street. Lake Street. But you put this arch right at that courtyard it's humongous arch. It looks like an elephant trunk or something. I don't know what it is, but I'm requesting that maybe you could take that away. So it'd be less imposing on the courtyard there. It'd be nicer. And just having the face of the building pulled back a little more would help a lot with the shadow studies with how it encroaches on the corner. I think you did an excellent job of pulling the building back and creating a little courtyard there but then that arch doesn't do any justice to it. Clear, if you show it on the renderings that you really shows up on the renderings they did that how it comes out. The one in the middle here and then if you look down on the courtyard here on the lower picture here that could be a nice little courtyard space where you can sit down and have chairs and have coffee and interact of the lower floor of the retail space or the restaurant space with the sidewalk, but you got that big pile after there. So I'm kind of requesting that you look at that maybe get rid of that. I'm looking at these brick parapets that stick above on the upper floor. There are, I don't know, like five feet up above the roofline on the floor. If you were just to bring that down the building won't look as massive as so, I don't know. It seems like it wants to bust out of that corner there. If you just lower that down and maybe have it stick up maybe a four or so because you don't have a patio or something, you have nothing. In fact, you increase the view for people on the fourth floor outward. You don't look at the back of the parapet. I think it's a win-win. If you lower that down, you're paying for less building. So if you can just lower that down, it would be nicer. And what kind of material are you guys using for this kind of brownish, is this some sort of metal panel or something like that? That's for the architect I'm asking. Are you referring to the grays? I'm referring to the corners on the first floor. They sort of bunt out a little bit. That would be a bent metal, ideally, a pre-finished, like in a luke-a-bond type metal. Okay. Yeah, when you're getting down close to where you're really able to see the materials of the building, we're talking about granite base and the commercial left grays, storefront. And of course, the brick will be a familiar feature. And then above that, we're talking about, Ephesus is our first step here, sort of the evolution of Ephesus at this point is such that we're talking about a finish that looks a lot more like a precast. It's a smoother, not dimpled, further sort of developed generation of that building system. And we'll be happy to submit whatever we're planning on doing to submit actual samples to you guys so that you can see exactly what we're proposing well before. All right, that's a good spot right there, Claire. See your side elevation? You have two sets of doors on an elevation, the south elevation. The door to the right, to me, it looks like the residential door into a unit. That's correct. That is not, it's the entry into the retail space. No, the doors with the trellis that you see, that's the entry into the residence. Sorry. If we're talking about the same thing. No, I thought this was a side elevation, you're correct. Okay, yeah, and to your point about lighting, very important, we've put a lot of thought into that. We'll be very happy to give you some very accurate light studies and fixture cuts and all the rest of it. And your point to the therapists, at one point I hadn't in mind the idea that the space behind those extended height therapists would in fact be like a patio kind of private space, but I think that the nature of the corner is such that that's not necessarily conducive and we sort of thought about backtracking to make it so that those would have generous openings but that you would not actually step out of the unit. And so the idea of lowering those things would work well, great idea. And the archway has always been a kind of, should we put it in there, shouldn't we put it in there? When we first presented it, I think informally to some members, I didn't even show it and then I said that I didn't show them so we decided to throw it in there, but certainly it's up for grabs a lot of ways. Well, if you want my vote, I would get rid of it. Yeah, we sort of thrown it out there to see whether it sticks or not, I guess, you know, but I mean, it's more than that, obviously. I think it is a fairly bold urban gesture with the clock and so whether or not and how that all settled can certainly go many ways. Look at it so many times. Yes, it's definitely a bold move for better or for worse. On these pylasters, the brick comes right down to the ground. Would you be interested in imposing some sort of a granite base to it like similar to what you had on that pylaster, just to bring it down to a little bit more down to human scale? I'm looking at two things. One is the human scale when you walk around the building on the street and how you see it. And that's why I asked, what are the metal finish-up there? Do you have any canopies or any, how? It projects out, it will project out, I believe, momentarily, I think we were anticipating about like 12 inches or something like that. So we'll definitely have some mass to your point about the granite. I mean, what we're showing in this elevation, maybe we could go to the rendering, the contextual rendering sort of a little more. Yeah, so you can kind of see the idea that I messed around with whether or not the pylasters should go right to the ground or have the base. And I felt like from a kind of visual structural point of view, they seemed better planted right down to the ground. There would be a reveal, but it wouldn't be the same thing as what's happening along the storefront, which it certainly could be. I'm not really hung up on that. I think there's definitely some more development to go on here. I think the idea of what you're looking at is sort of give you the general direction and again, to your point of contextual, I'd be happy to, we did measure the adjacent buildings and in particular the building with a theater which I've always been fond of long before I ever thought it would work on this corner. And so I'd absolutely kind of want to be conscious, no contextual, but not, well, there's that doubt. This is a, I see this as a modern building. That's fine. Would you, would there be also like maybe possibly of doors being opened up into that plaza from the retail space? I think, yeah, anticipating that that entire storefront open up and be a cafe that spills out onto that setback would be in line with what we would hope. Okay. Yeah, certainly, yeah, those kinds of things that we could definitely be more explicit about that. I would love for you to show more about that in your next presentation. I'm gonna get a little tentacle now. The ground floor, the basement floor where you have your garage, it's enclosed. So you're gonna have air intake and air exhaust. Oh yeah, all of that will be handled by MEP. I realize that, but I'm interested in where you put the louvers for the air intake and the louvers for the garage exhaust. That's how it's gonna meet the public. So I'll let you think about that and indicate where that's gonna be on the elevations of the building. For sure.   So you have a very handsome building here right now. You just gotta add those louvers in there and see where it goes. Yeah, no, and there's ways of mitigating sound and whatnot, very effective. Well, I've been interested to hear about that. I'd be interested to hear about that. Yep.  You have it in a corner there. Can you pull it away from the outside of the building and more center? Oh, absolutely.  And you're right, absolutely. I would pull it away from the perimeter of what we would typically do. You put it between the stairwell and the elevator. This will develop much more, much more specifically. I would appreciate it if you showed that on your next. Okay, yeah, absolutely. Presentation there. I think I covered enough for now, Rachel. I have a look. Sure, we can move on. And I'll just note that just with what Ken mentioned, but regarding to pulling the mechanical equipment away, we need that in terms of the height and make sure that we show that in the rendering so that we can know whether or not we're gonna need to require any screening for that equipment as well. Definitely. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Let's move on to Jean Vincent next, please. Thank you. I'll start by saying, I think there's much to like about this proposal. And I have many questions and many concerns. So let me get into them. Let me start with what the gross floor area of this building is and what the FAR of the building is. And this is not helpful when the application in different places has different numbers for the gross floor area and for the FAR. Let's look at the slide that's here. In the left-hand column, it has proposed FAR of 2.77. The next column over, it has a proposed FAR of 2.9. So we have a discrepancy right there. Note that it shows a proposed gross floor area of 32,366 square feet. However, if we go to the first page of the application, I don't know if you can put that on the screen. Next page, I'm sorry. Next page, that's it. It shows a floor area ratio of 3.5 and it shows a gross square feet of 39,238. So we don't have any information. And the narrative, by the way, that accompanies this has yet a different set of numbers. So I have no way to know by any of this which is the correct gross floor area, which is the correct FAR and whether the FAR meets the requirements of the zoning bylaw or not. And also you haven't given us any calculation so we can look at how you calculated the gross floor area. So you're gonna have, in my opinion, you're gonna have to come back with something that has a consistent number for gross floor area, consistent number for FAR and a calculation on how you came up with a gross floor area and a calculation on how you came up with the FAR. In addition, one of the things that you'll have to do to determine what that is, is determine whether the basement meets the definition of basement under the zoning bylaw for an FAR and we can only look at that if you give us ceiling heights and dimensions and there's a place in the zoning bylaw, Attorney Nessie, that very clearly indicates how to do that analysis to determine whether the basement is part of the gross floor area or not. We'll do that, Mr. Benson. Thank you. So we need to see that. Take a look at 2.22 of the zoning bylaw and there's a little diagram there that'll help you with that. I'll also point out, if you go back to the previous page, which was a 0, 0, 0, 1, the sheet that was up there before. Thank you. I hate to sort of, no, previous one, the one you would just add before. Yes, thank you.  Grade level one and you need to check me on this is not 47, 72, it's 42, 72. Fourth floor is not 58, 22, it's 64, 69. So please take a look at these numbers also and see if you got them right. But I feel like I can't make any decision about this project when your numbers are incorrect or your math is incorrect and they're all over the place. As to what is the, whether the FAR for this building is a max of three or a max of 2.8, I think is a discussion I'll have with my colleagues after we have all of the questions and answers from the applicant. Fourth story, step back. I'm moving on to my next topic. Can you tell me the building, the side of the building that's on Lake Street, is that pulled back or is it right up to the property line? No, the entire, thank you for all that by the way.  It's a moving target right till the last minute and clearly we kind of like didn't catch it on the way out the door, my apologies for that. Absolutely. What you're seeing here, the dimensions are from the building face and then the building face itself, the distance ranges from two feet all the way to 14 feet. If you go to the grade level plan, you can see building not set back, there you go. So the red line, of course, being the property line. And yeah, for all kinds of reasons, the building is contained. So on the Lake Street side, how much is it set back from the property line? Seven foot six at the top and two feet there, you can see the facade of the face of the building. That's actually from Edge of Curb. It's seven tenths of a foot from the right of way. It's seven feet from the face of Curb. So it's only seven. It's less than a foot. It's less than a foot. Correct. Okay. And what about on Chandler Street? How far is that from the property line? Chandler is six tenths at the closest point to the property line.  Yes. Okay, yeah. Jean, was that your question or were you talking about the fourth floor? No, I'm talking about the ground floor. Okay, thank you. And on Lake Street, I know it's pulled back at one part, but the part where is the retail tenant number B, letter B, how much is that pulled back from the property line, if at all? That is seven tenths. Again, that's the pilaster. The door itself is inset. Okay, seven tenths. Yeah, the pilasters are decorative. The face of the building with the granite and the store itself or that's where, you know, the building. So the face of the building with granite, how far is that from the property line? Well, it varies, but you're talking about two feet to the granite without the pile. Is the smallest amount and then it varies from there. You know, obviously in the rear, we have a five foot six, believe it or not. And then, so it's minimal where the building addresses the street as the existing building is actually on the line. Okay. The reason I ask is because the rule in the bylaw is that the fourth story step back has to be 7.5. Right, which it is. And explain to me why it is. Okay, can you wanna go to that floor? Okay, so you have five foot six step back from that building facade and then another two feet, you know, at grade. At no point is the building face. That five foot six dimension is from the building face, not the property. Okay, I should tell you my colleagues and I don't agree about what the 7.5 feet is. My colleagues believe it's from the property line and I believe it's from the face of the building. So I just wanna let you know that my colleagues and I don't have an agreement about that. We hope to clear it up when we propose some bylaw changes for the next town meeting, but we have a disagreement about that right now. So you have about a 5.5 foot step back from the building wall. Correct. Okay, thank you. Oh, yeah. Let me go to solar on the roof. Can you show that one please? So you probably know that we now have a zoning bylaw requires that at least 50% of the roof be solar. So I think that when you give us another depiction of the roof, you take a look at the bylaw and make this consistent and provide us the other information that's required. And clearly you don't want the condensers right next to them because you don't want the condensers to be shading the solar rays. Let's go to parking next. So we got a letter or an email from a resident saying that the ceiling height in the garage is insufficient. Can you tell us what the ceiling heights are in the garage as it goes through? What we would typically do would be to have seven foot clear from the lowest point, and we would anticipate 30 inches of structure, 24 inch maximum depth beam, and then another five and a half inches for the glass. Yes, it would be helpful when you give us some more dimensional drawings to be able to show. Yeah, we'll give you a second. The ceiling height, yeah, the ceiling height in the basement parking area. It would also be helpful if you were to give us the dimensions of the parking spaces. Okay, I believe that there's one point. Some of them show and some of them don't. Maybe I missed it. Yeah, I mean, there's standard size so we typically would do one. Yeah, I see that there, but I didn't see a designation which is compact. Right, right. I couldn't tell which was which. And so I think that would be helpful. Let's go to the next page with the tandem parking. Can you explain how in a 30 unit residential building there can be successful tandem parking like this? How do residents know who else has the car and who's gonna move the car? I can see that in like, the two family building, but I had a hard time seeing how this would work in a 30 unit building where somebody's car is gonna be blocking in somebody else's car. So tell me how that's gonna work. Well, the idea behind that was that they would be, we have five two-bedroom units and more often than not, you might get more than one car for those two-bedroom units that'd be designated for four out of the five two-bedroom units. So the two-bedroom units would get two spaces in some of the one-bedroom and the studios would get no parking. Theoretically, but each year as people move in and out, parking is always kind of a moving target. Some units may have cars one year, some may not the other year. It's really hard to have it down perfectly. Okay, go to the bicycle parking. Can you explain to me how many, so this shows 32 bicycle storage spaces here inside. Are there any other interior bicycle storage spaces? Can I, let me adjust that if I may. We were looking at taking the utility space to the left of those bicycles and transferring that requirement onto grade level, taking away a bit of the central part of the retail and extending the bikes out. And now those bike racks are in groups of eight, four, four. So we would end up with very, very nicely, we determined that 48 spaces would fit very nicely in that. If you took it all the way from wall to wall. So that's a little something that's happened since we grew this. You know, we're looking at obviously a number of. Yeah, it'd be nice if you could show us that because right now under your present proposal, it requires for the residences. 45. Long term, three short term, if I've gotten my map right. And for the retail one long term and three short term. So we could, I think, allow the retail to switch from long term to short term, but you're going to have to, in my opinion, have at least 45 long term spaces for residences. Well, we found 48. Okay, well, that's great. If the next iteration, we'll show how that works. That would be terrific. Yeah. Another question I've got is, do you, how much of these parking spaces do you anticipate would be for commercial? And how many would you anticipate to be for residential? John? Yeah, I mean, as of right now, they would all be resident for residential parking. Okay, so we would have to, and we do have the authority to waive the requirements for the commercial. Okay, it's helpful to know that. Thank you. We got some comments about the entrance ramp slope. I don't know if you had a chance to look at those comments. People said it was a pretty deep slope at about 13%. Do you want to comment on that at all? We're very comfortable having done a number of garages. Because we have a good front.  David, I'm sorry. I know it's tough on Zoom. Your audio keeps cutting out if there's any way. Oh my gosh. We missed about half of what you just said. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Is this okay, better? That's better, thank you. Okay. Yeah, so, there's quite a few moving parts there in terms of when we finally get, assuming we get to that point when by the time we have steel drawings and all those things, all those slope things are gonna get hashed out a little bit more. What we know is that what I've drawn works and we've worked with those slopes before and we have the 24 foot clearance and more than that on the other side. So we feel that for what it's worth that we have enough a wiggle room there to make it work. And like I said, once you get the point where designing the structure, there's things we can do to modulate exactly what the slope is, where it starts, how much clearance there is, moving certain beams around. We need to make the thing fun. I'm not asking you to do that with the next iteration, but if you happen to get to it, it would be helpful to see. Yeah, no, we'll totally give you a section, no problem. Okay. The rear yard setback, 7.5. So this involves a little math and it looks like if I did the math correctly and I actually checked one of the comments we got, the rear yard setback should be 30 feet. So we have the authority to alter the setbacks. I'd like Attorney Nessie to come back next time and tell me if he thinks 30 is the number that we're gonna need to vary or not. I will. Because, I mean, we can do it, but I'd like to know what the number would be if we weren't gonna do it so we could understand that. I understand. And can we show one of the diagrams that shows the side on Chandler Street with the parking? I think, getting there. I think, Kelly, I'm not sure if you're driving the last page that has the various, that one. Well, that'll do. If you look at the center, top one, you can see, you know, those are the tandem cars parked. I guess a couple of questions. Do you anticipate that will be lit day and night? Yes and no. I think you would get that. That's not an answer. I think it should be. I think there should be a nominal amount of light in there that it's like, you know, and also, you know, we were projecting the idea of sconces along the streetscape on all three sides. And I imagine those to be, you know, we since actually found a fixture that we wanted to propose to you guys that would actually be embedded in the brick, but that it would allow for someone to feel safe walking all the way around this building, including the rear. And at that point, the idea, because it's a budding residential, those would be low lights that would shine only down, but would give the people, and then there would also be an opaque, we sort of imagine a soft buffer of vegetation, but probably also an opaque fence up to a certain, probably six foot height so that you don't get any glare. I hate glare in a window in a residential situation, so we wanna make sure that it doesn't do that, but at the same time allows enough light where you need it. Yeah, I mean, that's what I was getting at, you know, that they're not the light and glare coming out of there in the evening. And I'll hear my colleagues have to say about this, but I was thinking screening there. So yeah. Yeah, no, I think it could even use a knee wall, maybe even a little bit more looking at it. No, I think need some attention for sure. All right, so yeah, that's enough about that one. I noticed that there's a transformer that's in the rear setback. Can you do anything about that? It seems sort of, you know, you have the rear setback and there's a transformer sticking right in it. Put a screen around it. I don't know that I'd be happy in having it in the setback, but think about it and hear it my colleagues have to say about that. Yeah, these things are such a challenge because nothing can go above that. So just think if there's another place to put it other than the setback, I don't know, but. Then we got another comment asking about trash storage and removal. If the trash is going to be stored in the basement and garage, how's that going to get removed? They will roll it out typically. There's several ways that they could do that, but I think we anticipated rolling trash containers. Who would be doing that? The Trash Service Company. Okay, so if we were to approve this, that would be a condition obviously we'd want to see. Yeah. Okay. That's very typical. Sure. I just want to reiterate a couple of comments or requests that my colleague, Mr. Lau, made. It would be good to see image of the building with the buildings behind it. You know, a lot of these buildings just, you know, the images don't give us a feeling about what it's like with the buildings that are right behind it. So it would be very helpful. To see that also. And to follow up on another comment, I think at Endurance, if there is going to be a restaurant in one of the two commercial spaces, the one that faces Lake Street, it would be helpful I think to have a way in over there too. Yeah. So those are my questions up to this point. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jean. Just to confirm your preferences for the entrance to the restaurant off of Mass Ave in that recessed frontage, as opposed to off of Lake Street, correct? Well, I wouldn't say I'm not going to approve this if the entrance is on Lake Street. I just think it would be nice to have an entrance. It would be a mid-divority, yeah. I think, again, we would anticipate that storefront, Matt, being completely open to that pattern. Okay. We'd be happy to articulate that. So we're on the same page. That's terrific. Okay. And then the only thing I would say that is if you put the entrance there, you take away some room for seating because people are going to be walking. No, I wouldn't put the entry there. I'm not suggesting that you put the entry there. The entry could be off, it could be one day over more to the corner perhaps, but that entire storefront open right up is absolutely. Yeah, I mean, it would be nice to do that. I'm not, I think some of my other colleagues might not like the entrance on Lake Street, but it's right across from sort of those buildings, the entrance to the ice cream place on the Capitol building. So it's not completely inappropriate. So I'll hear what my colleagues have to say about that. But that's it, thank you. Thank you, Jean. I'm moving on to Steve. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess most of my, well, my first question, regarding parking, I was wondering if the applicants would consider unbundling parking from rent as a transportation demand management measure or as a parking demand management measure? Yeah, we would be fine doing that. Okay. Yeah, and I noticed that the plan submitted had a total of 32 bicycle parking spaces and I was planning to really encourage you to provide more. And I possibly make some suggestions, but based on Mr. Barsky's earlier comments, it sounds like you were able to find space to fit 48. I would just ask that you show that on the next iteration of plans. Now, I appreciated the, you know, seeing the venting shown for the commercial space on Lake Street. And I, you know, the plan showed going up from the first of the second to the third to the fourth floor. It doesn't appear on the roof sheet. Now, I understand it's just schematic, but if you could include that detail in the next iteration, because it looks like it kind of comes up in the middle of the solar, or may come up in the middle of the solar panels. Regarding bicycle racks. So for the exterior ones, for the short term spaces, sheet AV1 shows a wave style rack, but sheet C502 shows an inverted U. And I was wondering which of those do you are planning to use? The one on the lower left hand corner was the one that I matched simplest had the best capacity for the space. I'm actually referring to the ones in the plaza. So it looks like the bottom. The lower left, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I didn't- I'm totally open if you guys have a better or a bird model that do the jobs. Yeah, so the wave racks tend to provide one point of contact to a bicycle and the inverted U's are provided to, so they make for more stable racks. And you could still get roughly the same number in a given linear distance. So yeah, I'd encourage you to look at inverted U or pull and hoop. Let's see, next question. So, staying on with this sheet, which of these renderings shows the view of the building that someone would see traveling north on Shandler Street? I'm not sure that one does, but I could be wrong and I'm just like to get your feed. No, we'll give you one. I know we're really, really covered it. I guess we just kind of focused from looking from the intersection. No, no, I understand the importance of focusing on the intersection, but there's a neighborhood behind you that they're going to come north on that street and I'd like to understand what they'll see. Absolutely, and we will give you a good full text to even a bird's eye view of what we've done before too, so the one with Shandler Street has a massive disability to be adjacent, massive. No, that would be very much appreciated. A few comments from based on some letters or emails that the board have received. In the course of doing construction, do you plan on doing any pile driving? I would say no. We were planning on using the existing basement wall and then underpinning and pouring new foundation up against that wall, so we really don't have to go very deep. There would be footings at the basement level, there'll be some excavation, but no, I don't see any need for real in depth person. Okay. So the short answer would be not anticipate. Okay, good, and my last question, were you planning or had you anticipated on petitioning the select board to change the one-way designation on Shandler Street? No, we were not. Okay, so from your expectation, Shandler Street will remain the one-way street it currently is. Correct. Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, I have no further questions. Thank you, Steve. So I just have a few more. Most of my questions have been answered through your discussion with my colleagues. If you could, Kelly, go to that page, the first floor plan that shows the tandem parking. Just to further discuss the challenges that I think we're going to have with approving the tandem parking spaces, just in terms of their usability, I would much rather, quite frankly, give more relief on the parking and see that first row of tandem parking that is behind the retail space, given back to the retail space to create a deeper retail space there and perhaps even the possibility to create two instead of one retail space, two spaces instead of one retail space there. Actually, in my experience, most retailers prefer a deeper space and I think that this is going to be a challenging space to let with the amount of storefront frontage. So if it's possible to look at eliminating that first run of tandem parking spaces and incorporate that into the retail space, I'd appreciate you looking at that. I'd also, I heard with regard to the retail space that one of the things you were looking at in terms of increasing the bike parking was taking away the utility space in the basement and locating that on the first floor by taking away retail space someplace. Quite frankly, again, I'd rather give up some of the bike parking to keep the amount of retail space that you have here.  It's very important. Given the fact that we have an overall decrease, significant decrease in retail space with this new development to maximize what we are able to maintain. I do like the sign band articulation on the retail space. I think that compared to some of the previous iterations with the last proposal, this really does have a nice separation between the commercial space and the residential space above. What I'd like you to take a look at is the coloration and the articulation of the non brick facade in the residential portion. It's very heavy. It's a lot of gray on gray on gray. And I'd love to see whether again, it's through push and pull or the changing of material. And again, whether it's a sheen or whether it's a coloration for us to have more variation within that facade. And again, less heaviness in the areas between the brick frames as you will. The other thing that I think might help that. And again, especially as you're looking to you'd mentioned David that you were looking to perhaps bring the parapet at the brick. Those brick frames that you have down, you might want to look at the way that you are articulating that cornice and whether again, that's handled differently at the brick facade versus the ethos facade. And it seems like that is an opportunity again to bring a little bit more dimension into those non brick areas. By again, looking at the corners, the height, the profile. It might help a little bit again with the flatness that I'm feeling in some of those areas. And again, I like the building overall. I'm just trying to pull away some of the heaviness that we're starting to feel. Great stuff. Okay, great. Let's see, what else do I have? Just a question for the brick. Are you looking at a true brick or thin brick? No, no thin brick. Okay. All right. That's why I've got those big, fat eyelashes that's great because I wanted to feel. I just wanted to ask the question just to. Yeah, no, I know, but I've been there. Okay, great. And then the other item I wanted to point out, again, as you're just looking at the overall articulation, the canopy that you have over the entrance to the residential area. I like the canopy. I'm just wondering again, whether that particular form factor, when you look at the very modern facade that you have through the rest of the building. And again, with taking out that curved element that comes up and over the sidewalk, if that really is the right form for that canopy. So if you could take another look at that as well, I think that again, pulling some of those more modern lines that you have been pulling in might be something worth taking a look at. Wendy, great. And I believe that is everything that I have. My colleagues covered everything else on my list here. So with that, I will. Sorry? Could I just say one quick thing? Just to explain, I take your point on the parking, just to explain where we're coming from. Just based upon other properties and the demand that we believe there's still parking, we even have weightless other properties. I mean, if it up to us, we would want one space per unit in a very perfect world just because we feel it is harder to, the less parking you have, believe it or not, it's still harder to rent those units. So we were just trying to get a little creative with tandem spaces. The only way they do work is if it's either couples, partners, two bedrooms, and to go to 30 units and then get rid of four of them. Now we're well under 20. That's just where we're coming from is based upon seeing weightless at other properties. Sure. And I understand that I'm concerned again with the practicality of that and the opportunity again, I think to look at the opportunity, to give that away for something that may or may not be used when there is a significant amount of retail space that could be recaptured. It's something that I'd like you to take a look at for our next meeting. So I'll just turn it back over to my colleagues for any final questions before, we will have time obviously for discussion after public comment, but if there are any other questions, Jean? Yeah, just a couple and your discussion, Rachel, had me think of them. So one of the questions is, what's gonna be in the step back areas around the building? Is that gonna be planted with greenery? Is that gonna be just open to nothing? What's gonna be in that 5.5 feet all the way around? Are you referring to the corner? Well, on the top floor where the thing, there where it's pulled back 5.5 feet, what's going to be in that 5.5 feet all around? At the moment it was surrounded by a parapet and rubber roof, you would not see the roof. I just wondered whether you could take a look and see whether green roof on there would be an appropriate thing to do. That would be lovely. So not room to do it and it's all open and spray. So why don't you take a look and see if that's something you would do? And as to Rachel's concern about the tenant parking, which I also have to and I also like her idea about increasing the commercial, many of your units are very small. I mean, you could combine a few units and not need as many parking spaces. I'm not telling you to do that. I'm just saying that's something you could think about. That's it. Great, thank you, Jean. Anything else before we move to public comment and... Rachel? Sorry, I'm having trouble seeing everyone on the screen. Go ahead, Ken. Yeah, can we go back to the basement plan? I forgot one of my notes there. One novel doubt. Thank you, Kelly. See where the handicap band space is and walkway space. I think you need to flip that and have the elevator, the vestibular door go into the lobby there. Otherwise, there's no way of getting to the second stairway from the garage because you're not gonna squeeze through a parking garage. But if the walkway's on the other side and you move the elevator lobby door into the lobby or that space back there, it's not named anything right now. You would have then two means of egress into those stairs. Can you take a look at that, David? Absolutely, yep. And then if we go back up to the top floor, the fourth floor, the corner unit right there, unit 402 right at that corner there, you have the bedroom right at the corner, the outside corner there. If you can somehow look at flipping that unit so that the living room and dining room is at the outside corner like you have on all the other floors, I think that corner is a very pivotal corner through the whole project because and you want that to be lit up most of the time. If that's a bedroom, then now it's a dark corner. And I think it'd be better having a lit corner or facades along this building here if you can do that. Yeah, I agree. Okay, those are the two things that I missed. Thank you. Yeah, beautiful. Great, thank you, Ken. Steve, did you have anything before we move to public comment? Okay, so at this time, what I'd like to do is open this hearing up to public comments. So if you would like to address the board and the applicants, please indicate so by using the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen in Zoom. I will take hands as they're raised. Everyone will have up to three minutes for your comments. And we ask before you speak to please introduce yourself with your first, last name and address. And we will begin with Kelly Doherty. Hi, Rachel, can you hear me? I can, thank you. I always like to check that before I get into my three minutes. Well, first I'd like to thank those of you and thank all of you. You've actually done a very nice job of evaluating everything. Just so you understand where I'm located, it's 12 Chandler Street, which is basically opposite from the parking garage entrance on the other side of the street. So I'm one of your closest neighbors. And I'm not a NIMBY. I am very supportive of redevelopment, mixed use and affordable housing. My key concerns with this particular project though, tie mostly to the traffic and the parking. So Rachel, I wanna thank you for your comments about that tandem parking on Chandler because it again, changes the nature of our views to even more parking areas. And one of the things that I had commented on the last submittal was that I didn't think that the loading and unloading issues had been addressed adequately, particularly since the bus station stop moved from in front of the capital to now be in front of this building, which is great, but the problem is, is that all those former businesses were doing all their unloading on Mass Ave. And on the occasions when they unloaded on Chandler, they had that little parking area there, which is that nook that's gonna go away and become the parking garage entrance. So I would like both the board and the proponent to really carefully look at the loading and unloading issues because just looking at the new residential addition, not even counting the commercial, we wanna see commercial and we're used to commercial and we're just, we wanna be sensitive to where all these trucks are gonna be. So excuse me, if you're assuming 30 residents coming and going, that's 60 trucks if they move every three years, if this is rental rather than condo. And super conservative, that's about two trucks per month in my basic calculation. That's not counting any of the commercial, that's just residents moving. And you can imagine on some summer weekends, that could be four trucks. So Rachel, to your point, maybe a portion of that tandem parking could be looked at as an additional unloading or loading area. I don't know, we still want it to be quiet. We don't want super lighting in those areas. So I'd have to look at that more myself but just thinking outside the box. My preference would be if there's a way to dedicate an area en masse app for that. Clearly that's something the board will have to look at. One of my other concerns, and I may exceed my three minutes, but I'm trying, is that garage door, is there actually a door or is it just an open garage? Because one of the things we're concerned about is garage door sirens going off.  So we're just wondering whether that's the case, if there's some form of mitigation you guys could look at what the issue is for that. It's a concern for sure. The other question is someone... Sorry, I'm so sorry.  Real quick, the ceiling height in the basement, I just had a concern as to how those trash trucks are gonna get in there and move around without blocking the residents and doing a whole lot of backup sirens, trying to get themselves back out again. So that's another thing we'd like them to look at. Great, thank you. You made some excellent points and I'll let everybody know that what I'd like to do, I will be collecting items to follow up with the applicant on, following all of public comments. So thank you very much. Can we submit more written comments? Absolutely, anyone at any time can submit any comments, questions to the board and we'd be happy to pass them on to the applicant. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, next I would like to invite Judith Halperin to speak. Hi, thank you. I'm Judy Halperin, I live at 15 Chandler. So right across from Kelly and have a lot of probably similar concerns to her about the noise, the traffic. And I guess I feel that there's ways in which the drawings is kind of without the context end up feeling misleading. And some of the comments about the traffic flow not being necessarily a problem when from what I remember and maybe I'm wrong that there are fewer parking spots in the original submission than in this one. So that would suggest that there's gonna be more traffic. This is a street where a lot of school children are walking up and down to get to the elementary school further down Chandler. So I have concerns about that too. You know, so I do like modern design but it really feels like stunningly out of character on that corner. The Capitol Theater is so classic and we'd be losing the Bank of Assad which was also kind of felt like a real addition to this area. So that's what I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next I would like to invite Don Seltzer. Am I unmuted now?  We can hear you. Okay, thank you. Good evening. It's nice with Don Seltzer Irving Street. It's nice to see all of your faces in a long time. I hope that you've had a chance to read my correspondence and your consideration. Over the years I've learned that when a key parameter is missing from an application it's worth closer look. And when an entire set of dimensions are lacking there's likely an interesting story behind it. As I have written, it appears that there is inadequate ceiling height on the lower level for vehicles and for bikes. In fact, the bike storage area headroom looks to be sufficient only for tricycles and the steep vehicle ramp is dangerous and it violates good design principles that relate to transition zones and zones. And the state laws on accessibility are being violated by this design. I detailed this in my correspondence. Spondans would be happy to clarify any questions you might have or be challenged if you disagree with what I've stated. Thank you. Thank you. Next I'd like to invite Elaine to speak. Hi, Elaine Maynard. I'm at 13 Chandler Street. Judith Halpern and I are condom mates and our property will abut the back of this proposed project. So I think a couple of things that I feel important to just iterate from somebody who is as close to this project as is possible and which I think the board has already mentioned but I think it's important for me to mention as a property owner. I generally, and this was with the last project as well, we really do need the conceptual drawings and how those conceptual drawings are for what that looks like for the residents behind. And particularly for myself and my condom mate as well as our condom mates, in the next couple of houses, this is really an acute and important concern. And I would actually say that I think I would appreciate a full and robust conversation about what the rear of this building is and is not. And I think it's something that can't be covered in 10 minutes or it's a real kind of back and forth and discussion so we understand it. I clearly have noise concerns. I have traffic concerns. I have line of sight concerns. I have shadow concerns. They may or may not be valid but in lack of information it's very difficult and it's very difficult to visualize that but it's also very important for those of us who live here and live closest to this. There's always I feel just in closing in over emphasis on Lake Street and Mass Ave. Every time we do this, I hear Lake Street Mass Ave, Lake Street Mass Ave, but I have here very little tangible information to address the residents who abut this and what their quality of life would be. So would appreciate it and look forward to a deeper conversation if the project goes ahead. Thank you so much. Next, I'd like to invite Chris Loretty to speak. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? Yes. Thanks, Chris Loretty, 56 Adams Street and former member of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. First, I would like to thank Mr. Seltzer for the detailed zoning analysis he provided to the board. I'm gonna recommend him to the town manager and recommend that he be hired as a consultant for future EDR special permits as I don't see town staff providing such necessary analysis to the board. But I came on tonight because I speak in opposition to the numerous zoning violations in this proposal. As Mr. Seltzer explained, they include inadequate yard set backs, excessive floor area in relation to the lot size, excuse me, insufficient, usable and landscaped open space. And in addition, tandem parking is not allowed for this kind of development. The zoning bylaw provides the ARB no authority whatsoever to provide relief from the open space requirements. Consistent with Chapter 48, Section 9, Section 5.3.6 of the bylaw does provide a floor area ratio bonus in some circumstances, but none of them apply in this case. The zoning bylaw, Section 5.3.16 allows the ARB to adjust set backs under some conditions. But if the ARB is reducing the setback from what is otherwise required, then it is granting a variance. As I previously explained to the board, the ARB does not have the authority to grant variances. I believe Attorney Nessie is the source of town councils misunderstanding on that point. I would like him to explain how the ARB can allow zoning bylaw violations in light of the mass Supreme Judicial Court decision in Anthony Colabufalo, versus the Board of Appeals of the City of Newton, which clearly states that only a Board of Appeals can grant variances.  We call Attorney John Eastman's claim that the vice president could overturn the vote of the Electoral College. And I would also remind you of the excessive deference your board, the Select Board, and other town officials gave to the legal interpretation of Wellington's former building commissioner. I'd ask you to consider what happened to him and that you not make the same mistake with town council. You are an independent attorney who advised to the ARB on its authority to grant dimensional relief. Thank you. No relevance to why we're before the ARB. Attorney Nessie, I agree that many of those comments were erroneous. However, he is entitled to make a statement and we have heard them. They are on record. We do not agree with all of them and we will move forward. Thank you. Next, I'd like to invite Steve Moore to speak please. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Steve Moore, Piedmont Street. I wanna say, I think this is a significant improvement over the last version of what was proposed on the loop with all the time we're going in. So I have to just want to register that clearly a lot of work has been done there. A question though, the trees in front of the property and on Chandler Street, those trees are gonna be installed by the proponent as soon that I... I apologize, I had done myself. If you could just ask the questions, I'm gonna take those down and we're finished. I will ask them of the applicants. So thank you. All right, thanks. That's the first question is, I assume they're going to be planted by the proponents. Second, I would like to suggest that an irrigation system or at least irrigation mitigation, some sort of provision for irrigation be installed for those trees since this is a particularly high stress area for trees to get established and grow across the street. There's been a number of trees that have been planted and died along Mass Ave, previously. Irrigation is significant help and maybe a little bit of protection for the trunks of those trees as well. And that's pretty much it. I just want to applaud the fact that trees have been included in the design. I would support any green space, so green roof is suggested. I think it was by Mr. Benson. I think it would perhaps make the edging a little less harsh on the thing more. But that's it. Thanks, Matthew. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak this evening? Okay, seeing no one, we will close public comments and turn this back to the board. So there are just a couple of items that I would like to address with the applicant. And this I believe can be done as part of the next round of presentation. So to further, I had on my list to provide a narrative related to the trash removal process. And I would also like to add to that. I think that there was an excellent comment made about the process for loading and unloading for your commercial tenants as well as removing trucks for your residents. The question about the garage door, whether it's an open or closed door is something that I believe we should address as well as well as any audible warning signals. So we'd need to hear a little bit more about how that is being addressed. I would also encourage you if you have not already to set up a time to meet with your butters ahead of the next meeting. I think that that's an important part of any process, especially for a building of this size. And if you could, I believe that I saw in the application that the trees were being planted by the proponent attorney in SE, if you could address that question, I think that that's an easy one to answer. Yes, we are planting trees. John, we are planting trees, correct? Yeah, we would plant the trees and most likely the whole sidewalk gets redone in that process, it's usually pretty standard. Great, thank you very much. All right, so I will turn it back to the members of the board. I have, why don't I start off by listing the items that I have that were identified to be addressed by the applicant before they come back for a continued hearing. And we'll then have a discussion around any of these points that either require further discussion or anything that I may have missed if that works for the board members. Okay. So I'll start at the top here. We'd like a site lighting plan, including details and foot candles, especially addressing the back of the building and the ramp and the parking area. We'd like to see more information on the elevations, including context with the adjacent buildings and also looking up and down along Chandler Street. We'd like to see the arch removed that is arched over the pedestrian walkway on Mass Ave. We'd like to see, you mentioned that you were going to be looking at the pilaster height since there is not at the brick where the frame occurs, given that there is no longer a balcony at that location. You mentioned that you'd be able to submit samples of the building materials on the exterior that you are looking at. Again, hopefully our next meeting, we will be in person and we'd love to be able to see those in person, even if it's a representative of the direction that you're going. We'd like for you to take a look at whether or not you add a granite base at the brick piers. You had indicated that you would be adjusting the drawings to show a storefront opening up to the courtyard from the restaurant.  We'd like you to pull the mechanical equipment away from the perimeter of the building and show that in your elevation so that we understand whether or not any screening will be required. We would like for you to update the gross floor area and the FAR to show consistent numbers and calculations for how you arrived at both of those. We need to see the ceiling heights of the basement and a section of the building, particularly at the parking ramp would be appreciated. We need to show for you to show the percentage of the roof that you were just dedicating to solar. As I mentioned with regard to the section, we'll need to see the garage ceiling heights and also the parking space dimensions. You will need to submit a transportation demand management plan along with the request for a reduction in parking. You will also need to confirm the rear setback calculation so that you can be specific about the requested relief that you're seeking. We'd like for you to include screening for the parking that is on the street level on Chandler Street. We'd like for you to take a look at the location of the transformer that's currently in the setback area. We'd like for you to confirm and writing the trash removal process as well as the loading and unloading of the commercial trucks and moving trucks for the residents. We would like for you to indicate in the transportation demand management plan unbundling of the parking from rent. We'd like for you to take a look at potentially including a green roof at the step back. We'd like you to take a look at the building coloration with regard to the heaviness of the great facade as well as looking at the cornice detail for added dimension and articulation. We'd like for you to take a look at the retail space specifically with potentially removing one row of tandem parking and giving that back to commercial space and also the trade-off of the utility space like parking and retail. We'd like for you to re-look at the canopy design at the entrance to the residential space. There's a suggestion to flip the van access clear area with the parking space for better clear access to the stairs. And we would like for you to reach out to the butters and identify a time to speak with them in greater detail about the project. So I'll turn it back to the board members. Is there anything that you had on your list that I missed? We'll start with Ken. Can I add one more thing? The alleyway there, is that the buffer in the alleyway between the project and the residential? Is there a fence there, like a stockade fence or a vinyl fence or is it just all plantings? And then I couldn't make it out on your site plan shows this line dot thing, is that a fence or is that? I don't know what that is, but you guys plan to put a fence there? I can ask it. There is a fence. John can answer that. I'm sorry, I can't tell, I'm seeing who was that that answered that question. We'll give you further articulation, but how we... Okay, so that was dated with just, okay. So that will look for confirmation for a fence between the abutter and the property. Every setback. Anything else, Ken? Nope. Okay, we'll go to Jean. Nothing else. I think we need to have a discussion about a couple of the issues, but nothing else for the project proponents. Great, and Steve. Nothing else to the request of the proponents, but public comment reminded me that I meant to thank them for their inclusion of native tree species. Great, thank you, Steve. So Jean, I'll turn it over to you for items that you'd like to propose for discussion. Yeah, one thing that I think we should discuss, although I don't know if we can reach a resolution tonight, is what is the appropriate maximum FAR for this property? So that's one. Second is, I don't think we have the authority to reduce the number of interior bicycle parking places for residential units. So I think their choice as I see it is to either have 45 long-term inside bicycle units or have fewer apartment units. So I guess those are the... And third, maybe we should have a discussion about whether we would accept the tandem parking. Great, Ken, would you like to weigh in? Well, I like the fact that you're gonna get rid of the tandem parking for retail. That's parking, to be clear, parking space number 20, 21, 22, and 23. That's the ones that parallel, right? Right along the back of the retail space. I like that. I like the approach. I think tandem parking can work if it's a minimal portion of the total parking count. They're pushing it there with four. I've probably been happy to have two sets. And maybe if they want to, maybe we have 16 and 17. The retail space. So it's space number 16, 17, 20, and 21. I still have two parking spaces, but then you have the whole side all retail and nothing faces on the street. I was gonna ask that later on as our discussion. What do you guys think about that? But you'd be me to the punch and said, let's take out the tandem space all together. I'm okay with the reach. I'm okay with some tandem. I think Gene's correct about the bicycle parking. We can't give him relief on the, to minimize it, but can they find all the places to put it? You know, I'm not sure. There are, there's bicycle parking up front and that can count toward the 45. You saying that is that correct? No, it can count. It can count toward the parking required for the commercial, but not for the residential. Okay. At least that's why I read the, the bylaw. We can ask them to see if they can find all the places to put, put it. You know, I'm not sure. We can ask them to see if they can find all the places for it, but. I think it's fair to ask them to study a way to achieve it again without significantly impacting the proposed commercial space. Correct. And it may help once they get that section. There's that hatched area that is. I believe that's overhead for the ramp. But maybe we can carve in maybe five, six feet. To make the retail space a little, a little bit bigger. And then you take away a little bit more in the back off where the stairs are to put, to put the bicycle parking up there too. I'm not sure. I think it's worth it from the look at. Great. Steve. Any thoughts on the bike parking relief or tandem parking? Yeah. I mean, I had some reservations about the tandem parking as well.  It would be at least 34 feet length. And they would be able to, and would should be, you know, long enough to, to fit close, at least close to the required number of spaces. But the challenge with that, you know, seems to be, would be repurposing the, you know, the parking, the bicycle parking area downstairs as automobile parking, you know, there's, you know, have enough width, but there's not, you know, it's, it's not isolated to just that one north wall in the basement. Yeah, I agree that I would like to see the applicants work on it. I'm don't quite understand Mr. Benson's question about FAR. This is a lot with less than 20,000 square feet. And I'd like to understand why the FAR would not be the maximum allowed FAR would not be three. It's because I read that is not the lot under 20,000 square feet, but the building under 20,000. And if you look, that page, it doesn't say, but if you look at a previous page, which I'm trying to get on my screen now unsuccessfully. Sorry, my computer froze, unfortunately. Yeah. I think it's pretty clear to me at least that those numbers refer to the size of the building and not the size of the lot. So the building is greater than 20,000 square feet. And therefore the FAR is 2.8. So I take read them as a lot size. And the reason I interpret them that way is the first dimensional table in 552 a, which under B three, there's a category, which has mixed use less than or equal to 20,000 square feet and mixed use greater than 20,000 square feet. But in the column for minimum lot area, there's no minimum lot area for mixed use less than or equal to 20,000 square feet. And there is a greater than 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for mixed use greater than 20,000 square feet. Well, if you take a look at. The minimum lot area minimum lot area per unit minimum lot area frontage chart. You'll see that at one point it says any other permitted use on a lot greater than 40,000 square feet. And then it says what the minimum lot area was on a lot less than that only makes sense. If those numbers apply to the building size and not to the lot size, because if they apply to the lot size, then you'd have something that says on a lot. Equal or less than 40,000 square feet and then the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet. So it would be completely repetitive. So the only way that makes sense to me. Is if it's the building size and not the lot size. So are you ready for. I should say that I don't think in the, almost six years I've been on this board. I don't think this issue has ever come up. As to whether this is. Building square footage or a lot square footage. So I acknowledge that I have no history one way or the other. I don't think it's a good idea. I would agree with Steve on this one. To me it seems pretty clear that it's, that it's three. I think, I think I'll do a little research. That's fine. Yeah. I'm not seeing it. The way that I'm reading it is, is any, anything other than, than three. Ken. Okay. Okay. I see it. I see it. I read that same way too. But can we ask town council? Let's, let's ask Kelly actually, I think you could person to start with. We've always interpreted it as a lot of size and I'm happy to look back into older versions of the by-law to see if there's any clarification. Great. I haven't had time to do that. That would be helpful. Sure. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion. Kelly. Just the two other things to add and I'll follow up with the applicant on the notes that you detailed before, but I also noted that just some details about the preferred type of bike racks for the exterior. Thank you. By parking and then providing a rendering. As if you were traveling going north on Chandler street. Yes. I think I, I think I did mention that when traveling on Chandler street, I think that we need to be aware of the, I think the specificity of the bike rack for the exterior are contextual. Yes, but we will definitely add in the preferred types of bike rack. Okay. Let's see attorney and I see, did you have any questions for the board on any of the items that we identified for further study? No, I do not. I do know this. I know that you have been very, very focused on this. And the questions from the audience have been focused as well. I think that, maybe have John chime in. There's how much time we need to combat Rachel because we have a lot to do. We have some math to do. We have other issues we have to address as well. And one of the things that we have to keep in mind is the fact that the economics have to work. If we're eliminating. Parking query. Does that affect the marketability of any one or more of the projects that we have? Does how does that impact us economically to do the, the project? So that having been said. Can I ask John? Absolutely. Yep. Because that'll, that's actually the next question is. What's the, what's the date when you would like to return? Yeah. How much time do you think we need realistically to put our, you know, Do what we need to do to come back. John and David. Hello. Sorry. What is the meeting schedule again? Is it every one is the next two, two times or three times you guys meet. So we're meeting on the six. The, I believe it's the 27th. Sorry. Yep. The sixth of March. And the 20th of March. Actually, I believe we have each evening in March, but we start getting into. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For town meeting in March. We can't do this. We just. We'll work. I was maybe looking at February 27th. Did you say that that was. Yes, that is a, that is a. A date. Claire, do we have anything else? Not at this time. Okay. So that would be an open date. Yeah. And then just to be clear too, I think that we need to take an account. You need all the materials. What was that again? The protocol of that. 10 days or a few, 10 days before the meeting, correct? Or a week. We would be them the Monday before, so the week. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think that would work for us. Okay. So Kelly, I took pretty copious notes, but I don't think that's going to work. Okay. Well, you'd be sending out a list of what we've discussed. And what we need to do. That was a yes. She can't hear me. Nope. She did. Kelly confirmed that was a thumbs up. Yes. Yes. Sorry. Okay. So that being said, is there a motion from the board to continue this hearing? Okay. Okay. Okay. Let me pull up my other screen so I can get the hearing number. Is there a motion to continue docket number three, six, five, zero to February 27th. So motioned. I'll second. Great. We'll take a roll call vote starting with Kim. Yes. Jean. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So we will see you back on the 27th. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Review all of these items with us this evening. Thank you. And thank you to everyone who chimed in. As well during public comments. Much appreciated. Thank you. Okay. So that now closes agenda item. Number two. We will move to agenda item number three, which is the continued public hearing for docket number three, seven, two, eight, 99 Massachusetts Avenue. And as I understand that applicant has requested a comment. Any other information? No, really, no real new information. The applicant wishes to come back on the sixth. Kelly, I don't know if you've heard anything different. I just think they're looking for some more time. Great. Any questions or comments from the board? We'll start with Kim. No. Jean. No. Steve. No questions. Okay. So is there a motion to continue public. The public hearing for docket number three, seven, two, eight. To March six. So moved. Second. We'll take a vote starting with Kim. Yes. Yes. Steve. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. All right. So we will see them back on. Sorry, I have to get to my other screen to March. See them back on March six. Okay. That closes agenda item number three. So we'll now move to agenda item number four, which is a board discussion. On the zoning warrant articles for 2023 town meeting filing. We'll discuss and then vote. On the articles and the wording that we would like to submit. There will be an opportunity for public comment on these items during the hearing stage, which will begin. We'll be beginning those in March. So this discussion on these items will be within the, within the board. So. I will turn it over to Claire to discuss the memo that was put together. Sure. Thank you. So this is a great memo that Kelly actually worked. Pretty hard on and got us this, this. With input from Doug Heim, we sat down with him as well to go over some of our initial drafts. And so Kelly, if you don't mind, it would be great if you could walk us through some of these. These are essentially all of the warrant items we discussed in our previous meetings put together in language we think is acceptable. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point for submission as a warrant article. So in the, on the hearing on December 5, we presented a memo to the board outlining, aligning some of the details regarding our discussion at the retreat and other meetings, just regarding some of the zoning amendments that the board was looking to do. And when we dug into those in order to create the warrant, to draft the warrant articles. So we have a lot of different categories. The first is regarding how to incentivize greater commercial. Incentive as commercial redevelopment and incentivize greater and better use of our commercial areas. And so those are the first, the first six amendments here, which is regarding open space in business districts and. Adjusting the rear guard setbacks in business districts, the step back requirement in business districts, the second set of articles regarding the, the second set of articles regarding the, the, the, the verification about whether we're talking about setbacks from the property line or from the building facade. Adjusting, potentially adjusting the reduced height buffer area and a corner lot requirements and then establishing a height minimum in the business districts. The second set of articles regarding. Improving the bylaw, both for readability and. The second set of articles regarding. The second set of articles regarding. The second set of articles regarding the Arlington Heights. Business district. So we had discussed adopting some of the recommendations of the Arlington Heights neighborhood action plan. By consolidate, which, which concluded that there were very few substantive differences between the B2, B2, a B3 and before zoning districts. As they were used applied in the Arlington Heights. Neighborhood. And so these two amendments would. The third set of amendments. And so they would be adopted by the Arlington Heights. Business district into one Arlington Heights. Business district. And then it would also require a map change, which is pretty substantial. So that kind of the last page of the memo details the, the, the properties that would be affected by that. This, the third set of amendments really regards to just kind of fine tuning the amendments that were adopted by town meeting in 2021 in the Arlington Heights neighborhood action plan. And so that's one of the, some of those industrial district uses. So again, all of this is really going to come down to future discussion and outreach. The second is regarding industrial district development standards. That was amended today. So sorry for the oversight. But this is regarding clarifying. The, the storm design or the design storm that should be used. For when determining if a proposal is eligible. So we're going to be clarifying the level of storm that will be retained and treated. Instead of just saying retaining and treating a hundred percent. It's a hundred percent of what storm. We want to be very specific about that. And so we have some recommendations from concom on how to apply that. Then because the solar bylaw was recently approved by the attorney general, there's an amendment to kind of make corresponding changes in the industrial district. And then adjusting. Adjusting the air be purview over the industrial district is to make sure that because the air be has worked to create some of these development design standards and development standards for the industrial districts. Just doing a slight expansion of the air bees jurisdiction to cover all of the industrial parcels instead of just those that are abiding the minimum bikeway or our mixed use or greater than 10,000 square feet. The way that we just one other comment, and then I'll just leave it open to any questions or any adjustments. The way that we arrived at these was basically looking at every potential section of the bylaw that could be adjusted. And making sure that we included that in this warrant article and these various warrant articles. This doesn't mean that all of these sections will eventually be adjusted, but because there is going to be public engagement and public comment as part of this, this is not the main motion of any warrant article. This is just kind of indicating the types of things that the board wants to look at in order to. Encourage appropriate development in the commercial districts. Encourage redevelopment and appropriate development in the Arlington Heights business district and then really fine tune and clarify some of those industrial district standards. So happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Thank you Kelly and thank you Claire. I appreciate you both putting the time into drafting this. I do have questions about three items that I think we had included in the. In the discussion back in December when we started talking about warrant articles. And this, they may just be so administrative that they're not in this list. So we did have one that was, and I'm just going back to that memo. Let me give you the date of that one. That memo from December 1st. We had several administrative corrections. That was number eight there. It was section five point through. Point 21 D there was. Something that reference section zero instead of the actual section. And then we had a. Adjustment to gross floor area and floor area ratio calculations. And that we were working with the. With ISD. On, and then there was a section on building inspector enforcement. And were those items that we are moving forward still in terms of warrant articles that just don't appear on this list. No, so the first and the last, the first was a scrivener's error and according to Doug, I'm not going to be corrected. Okay, great. We don't need that. I'm not going to be correct. I'm not, I'm not going to be correct. I'm not going to be correct. I'm not going to be correct. I'm not going to be correct. That's a simple error. Yes. Okay. The second Doug. That we add a footnote. To the bylaw. Yep. And so that has been added. Okay. And that basically indicates that although it is part of the bylaw, it is not. Inforcible. And then it links to the attorney general letter. And it explains that in that letter, the attorney general explains that the, it's not enforceable because you cannot withhold. It's not enforceable. It's not enforceable. It's not enforceable. It's not enforceable. It's not enforceable for lack of. For not following tone or local bylaws. And so that. It's basically links to that. Right. If the board wanted to kind of go back and actually amend that section of the bylaw to reduce, to eliminate it. We would, we would have to bring that back to town meeting, but. We can also accomplish that with a footnote. If we don't want to bring that back. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go back to the floor area. Just because of the, just basically staff bandwidth and maybe being out for a few weeks, we just didn't have a chance to coordinate that with the inspectional services. Okay. However, if the board wants to, I'm happy to draft. A quick more article of just regarding that specific section. And maybe there was section, section two regarding definitions. To refer to those. If we want to keep it on the table for future discussion. Great. Thank you, Kelly. I appreciate the clarification there. So I'm going to turn this over. I think what might be the easiest thing to do is for us to go. One by one. In the memo and see if there's any discussion. From the board. On any of the proposed. Warrant articles. Excuse me, why pull that up. And then we will circle back at the end for anything that we may have missed. So the first one is related to the open space and business districts. Is there any. Discussion on this, the wording of this particular warrant article. We'll start with Jean. Yes, thanks. Is I have a question and then some comments on the wording. Is this the one where we're going to detach. Open space from the size of the building. Correct. So I'm not clear why it says increase the requirements for landscaped open space. And reduce requirements for usable open space. Why wouldn't we just say to modify the requirements. For landscape open space and usable open space. So as we sort of figure out exactly what the wording is, we're not boxed in by which ones were going to increase. We're not boxed in by which ones were going to reduce. But it could just simply say. Instead of to increase the requirements. Could you say. To modify the requirements for landscaped open space and usable open space. Turning high and recommended that we be specific and how we were intending to do this. You know, if the board would prefer to be a little bit more generic. That's also fine. But we're not going to be able to. Increasing the requirements for landscaped open space and reducing for usable when we. Detach. Open space from the size of the building. We have to figure out how those things relate. So that's a lot. So I can't. I can't say that this is where it's going to end up, which is why I'd like it to say modify. Okay. And what I'm doing right now is I'm just addressing these and track changes. And then once you go through every one of them, I'll just click one through so you can see that these changes are made. Is that. All right. Thank you. That was my comment on the first. Great. Thank you. And I had the same comments as, as Jean. I did not think that we necessarily were agreed upon increasing landscaped open space. So that was, I think that the suggestion change was great. Can any comments on this one? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I actually had the head comments that were very similar to yours and Mr. Bensons. Wonderful. All right. So the next one is the rear yard setbacks in business districts. Any comments and we'll start with Jean. Jean, I'm just going to start with you for all of them. I think it's better wording. Not to say from mixed use and any other permitted use, but to say from the business district. And you have requirement and requirements in the same sentence. By the way, there's a double word there. So requirements for any other use in the business district. So I would get rid of. Mixed use. And the word permitted. So it just be requirements for any. Other use for any use in the business district. Okay. So one thing is that mixed use is the specific type that's called out in the table and any other permitted use is another use that's called out and I just didn't know any other permitted use. I believe is commercial. And so I didn't know if we also wanted to, if we just say, establish the criteria for. Any use in the business districts and then the main motion would just stick to those two. Okay. Okay. Okay. So. Any other requirements for. Any. Any use. Any use. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Good. Steve. Nothing here. All right. Thank you. All right. Our next one is a step back requirements in business districts. Jean. Okay. I have a couple of things here. One is. I looked up principle facade. And we don't have a definition of that. And it's used one or two other times. In the bylaw. So I think if we do this, we don't need to adjust this, but we just might want to. Put in a definition of principle facade when we come up with them. The main motion. I'm. I didn't know we were going to do this. So it would come in at a higher story. Is that what we agreed upon? We didn't necessarily agree upon it, but that was your suggestion. That's actually your suggestion. So I just want to. My, my, my suggestion. If that was my suggestion. I guess it was, but I don't remember that. My suggestion was looking at the housing production plan. That. The. Step back, not beyond the principle facade, because the housing production plan says, look, massive is pretty wide. You don't really need on a five story building. A step back. But you do need them on the side streets. Because the side streets are a lot narrower. So what I said, I don't know if anybody agrees with me on that, but I thought we didn't need. A step back on the principle facade. We needed step backs if. They were on side streets. Anyhow, I just point that out because. This wouldn't allow what the housing production plan had. Suggested, which I actually think is a better idea. And. Yeah, I didn't know we're going to do an exemption for smaller parcels. So again, this is just kind of a placeholder. It was a suggestion that other members of the board made was to consider an exemption for smaller parcels. So if we keep it in here, that would still be a potential. Right. But we could, would you suggest maybe apply only to one facade of a building? I think, I think that's fair because I think we need to have a bigger discussion about this because I mean, I would actually argue that massive is where it. Belongs. So I think we need to have a much. We do, we do. A much broader discussion. I'm not sure we can say one facade because look at the building we just looked at, which actually had, you know, a facade on Lake street facade on mess at facade on Chandler. So I think the goal here is to give us flexibility, though, Jean, to be able to waive it for one. So I think we need to be able to do that. I think we need to be able to do that. We need to be able to do that together. If we feel that architecturally and contextually, it's not required. Perhaps it's to specify the facade of the applicable facade of a building or something like that. Yeah. I think that that's probably getting to it. Yeah. It sounds a lot better. I don't think we're a total agreement. No, we're not. Not yet. Me, me and Gina, not in agreement as far as. I mean, I agree with the principles of facade. I don't think we're a total agreement. We're not, we're not a total agreement. We're not a total agreement. We're not reducing that setback. But the side, the side. I'm not, we're not, I'm not on board on that quite yet. I understand. Just for the continuation of the rhythm of the street. Also, can we say allow for an exemption rather than provide. Provide sounds like it's mandatory. Allow is. Provide. Provide sounds like it gives us some flexibility. Yeah. And I would agree. I think that through the discussion that we're going to have, we'll be able to identify again, whether it's. Specificity or whether it's an allowance for. Addressing each individual project and being able to provide that. That space to, to be able to make the right decision for the, for the project. We'll come to that. Steve, any thoughts on this one? Nope. Kelly, are you good with. Morning changes here. Okay. Great. All right. So the next is reduced height buffer area. Jean. I just. I just don't know why we need the two between 25 and 50 feet. Cause that locks us in. To certain numbers. Can we just leave that out? Yep. Okay. Good thumbs up, Steve. Okay. Let's see the next one is corner lot requirements. Jean. You know, I was wondering whether this needed to be here at all since we have the authority. To. Wave. Those. However. If we did this, then this would apply. To buildings that aren't subject to environmental design review. And is that the intention? My under, my recollection was that it was to make it more explicit than implicit. Okay. Okay. Let's leave it in there. Yep. Ken. No, I think. The more definite things are. It would promote development.  With us, they say, well, they may grant it. We're not granted. So I'm not. I agree with it. Steve. I have a couple of wording suggestions. Or at least a small wording suggestion. Where it says. Reduce the requirement. I'd suggest amend the requirement. With the corner lots. I think the idea makes a lot of sense when all of the. Lots are in the same zoning district. And they have similar uses. So in like an R1 or an R2 where, you know, it's all, it's all 20 or 25 feet. And it's all single or two family homes.  That's, that's fine. But with the business districts that allow a greater number of the uses and have. A, and have different setbacks for different uses. It, that, that requirement doesn't apply so neatly. So I'd like, you know, I, you know, maybe we can consider putting some constraints on that. So that. Well, yeah, if they are the one, the same district, then it's fine. But with the business districts that allow a greater number of uses and have a. A, and have different setbacks for different uses. So that's fine. I think that's fine. Well, yeah, if they are the one, the same district, then it applies, but if they're different districts, then maybe, then maybe it doesn't. So are you suggesting then that we need to remove. The specificity around business districts. From. This warrant article that gives us the latitude. To write this in a more. In the future. So for, I don't think we need to remove the part that says about business districts, but, you know, we could, you know, for business. Now you could do it either way. Okay. You know, if. I, you know, the. Yeah, I see what you mean. I would not mind removing the, the, the part about business districts in that case. So it will be. I think a little easier to work with. Kelly, do you see any challenge with. I mean, I think the, the main thing was just. But it seemed to me like the board was very clear about wanting to like. Be focused on the business districts for the suite of articles, which is why I kept the language very specific because I think the other challenges. When you get into town reading, if it doesn't specify business districts, you know, you know, when you start to get into an argument about residential. And I think that's just a very different discussion. So it's worth considering. Whether we should be more specific about business districts. Madam chair. Please. I take, I take Kelly's point. I think it's, it's fine to say business districts and I think that what I. We're sort of, I was going, you could. Accomplish that with language. It's a saying that this does not apply to a business district. I think that's fine to say. Because that is, all of the different parcels are our, our non-business districts for something along those lines. As we get into crafting the main motion. Okay. I would leave this as it is and save that for the main motion. Great. Okay. So. So just keep it as reduce the requirement for corner lots and all of the business districts. Steve, are you okay with that? Great. Great. So the next item is height minimums in business districts. Jean. I think it should say height and story minimums in business districts. And, and after the word in the second line minimum height, it should say requirement for a minimum height and number of stories. We're in story minimums. And after the words minimum height and number of stories. Okay. Thumbs up. There's, I don't know if it's necessary. I know in earlier discussions about this, we talked about exemptions for smaller parcels. You know, where it might not have been possible to get more than one story because of various other regulations. Some language in the corner lot requirement. No, the site this the step back requirements, the third ones. So if you were to say, you know, after minimum height and all business districts add something like, and to provide exemptions for smaller parcels for certain building subject to environmental design review with certain exceptions. So if we were to be using just taking the language that was used in the third one, then I think we have the flexibility to, you know, incorporate something like that. Okay, so wait, so we would also amend section. Is there another, sorry, is there another second. My suggestion on Steve suggestion is after the word districts, put a comma and say with exceptions. We can do all the rest. We can define those in the main motion. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anything else on this one. All right, let's move to Earlington Heights business district gene. The first, the zoning by law amendment will go to the map amendment second. I can just clarify real quick. Just because this one's a little bit more complicated. It doesn't, it did not appear that there were any changes needed to the definitions or to section three. The parking requirements in all section section six are all use based. They're not district based so we didn't need to amend that. There would be some amendments to necessary to section six. I think regarding signs. So we would need to create a new sign type which is why that's included here. And section five would have the most substantive provisions, but mainly to the tables. Yeah, my only question is why section three was in here, because I couldn't find how section three needed to be. Oh, did I leave it in here. Oh my goodness. It does not need to be in here. Five and six makes sense. All right. Six I thought was only signs. Yeah. Oh wait, no, no, you know what section three has to be in there. Why, because it doesn't because I'm wrong. It's section four. Never mind. It doesn't have to be in. Thank you. Anything else gene. No, that was it. Can. Good. Steve. Fine. Great. Let's see. So the next is the zoning map amendment for the Wellington Heights business district gene. I guess my only question is, does this need to put in, well, I have two questions. One is, does this need to actually list every one of the, and I don't know the answer. Every one of the parcels or do we save that for the main motion. Doug is Doug is looking into that for us. We. So the map may be sufficient because we just want to make sure that we're delineating the barriers of the district. Because, you know, we could just like spill over into other areas and this is what's defined in the plan. So on the very, what is it on page four of the document. As to whether the parcel IDs or the street addresses need to be include Doug's going to get me that final information before the warrant articles do. Yeah, I, that was my question. I assume we would need it for the main motion. Yes, whether we need it for this. I guess my other question. I took a look at, at the parcels. And so Arlington Heights has lots of residential parcels mixed in with the business parcels and none of those are listed here. And I sort of wonder why all of the residential parcels that were mixed in are excluded. I didn't look if any, the fives of there will be fives, but any other, but it looked like none of the residential parcels. So as I was going down the zoning map, you know, I saw there's a residential parcel, but it's not listed here. There's a residential parcel. So I'm just wondering why. There's no residential parcels that are in the Arlington Heights mess area. The plan was basically the plan didn't evaluation of the four business districts that are within that kind of that delimited area. And it was really looking at the similarities between those business districts and how those districts were used. To evaluate whether or not the residential parcels should change. So, I kind of kept like those are three parcels along Mass Ave. Is that kind of what you're talking about and then the R2 on the south side. I didn't include those here just because they weren't included in the plan. Again, it's like, I don't know if you want to be a little bit more expansive than the plan or if you want to start with this and see where it goes. I wasn't involved in the Arlington Heights process, but I think Rachel or can one of them was so I'd be interested in whether whoever was involved thinks the residential should be included so it's more comprehensive, let's say. I was not involved in the development of the plan I to have concerns like Jean does about the discontinuity of the Arlington Heights business district that we're looking to unify in a way and I do know that that was one of the items identified in as a challenge. The implementation plan was dealing with the discontinuity of the three small, but one large and then the two small sections and trying to link between the the three. And imagine that the re zoning in terms of the zoning map of the residential existing residential parcels. Maybe harder to understand and to move through potentially at town meeting. So, we, I think would need to have a discussion around. And I think we had started this discussion back in December around what is the breadth of this space so I wasn't expecting that we would have to have the map as part of the this initial filing. And if we do have to do that. I'm really torn because I would like to see this as one continuous business district, but at the same time I think it's important to move this forward and if we think that it is more likely to move forward in its current form by just looking at the business districts. I think we had a discussion tonight if we are absolutely required to put a map forth. If, if, if Doug comes back and says a map isn't necessary. We just need to say between X streets and Y streets and X streets and, you know, a streets and B streets. Right now it specifies the parcels zoned B to B to a B three and before. So, if we were allowed to be more flexible and then. If, if through public outreach and engagement it was determined no don't touch our districts. We could then amend it in the, you know, in the final math that submitted the town meeting do that I mean would that be your preference to be a little bit more open at this point. That would be my preference but I'm interested to hear what other people have to say about that. And maybe Ken, I know that she had directed that question to you as well from your involvement in the heights. Well I was not part of this. I, I agree with you. I have no, I don't understand this map right now the way it is. I prefer it. I prefer if it was all continuous. And that's what I thought we're trying to do but this is just replicating what's happening now is patchwork stuff. Right. So, so I'm sort of leaving the other way and saying, let's seriously talk about this and either it is continuous or it stops here and those other years go back to something else. I just don't see it as what we're trying to do here. I'm against it. I guess, I guess that's the word to say. Ken, you're suggesting that we, we get rid of the discontinuity include the residential. Again, if we don't have to have the map we can continue the discussion and if the public comment we, I think what you identified as a valid, you know, potential solution that we just focus on the larger, the largest of the districts that could be one potential outcome that comes out of the public comment. Yeah, I think if we just process, if we get rid of the map. Let's just keep, let's keep on going and we'll work it out. But if we have to have the map, then I would just do the big, the big chunk. Okay, you would not include the residential and try and get the larger and then. Yes, reduce back if that's where public comment because we can always. Limit what we do we can't expand beyond correct. Correct. Yes, right. I do one big chunk and it's okay based on discussions and involvement or anything else. We cut back some stuff, but it just makes. I don't know. It was news. It was new to me. I just it was hard to understand why it was like that. Well, I agree with Mr. allow that it is, you know, the, the, the map in the memo is a little choppy, but it's, it's certainly no worse than what the reality on the ground is. I like the idea of having a more continue of having continuity between the areas. My one point of concern is that that, you know, conversion from R to B hasn't. I'm not aware that that's been a conversation. But I'm comfortable with starting with a larger area and, you know, if public comment indicates that it would be preferable to pull back a little bit then maybe we pull then pull back a little bit. So do we have consensus. There I think on this one we really need to hear back from. Yeah. Yeah. What I have changed it to for discussion with Doug is to see if the town will vote to rezone the parcels between X and Y streets and and B streets and Arlington Heights, as represented by the, the proposed map if necessary if that's not going to be the map from their current zoning districts to the age B district. So it's, it's eliminating any reference to the be district or any, not including any specific our district. The one thing I do think is that we're probably not including the districts. Right, why not. Okay. I think, I think we have to do two things though don't we have to number one we have to rezone the parcels to Arlington Heights, and we have to come up with what is that zone. Right. So that's going to be one warrant article, and the second warrant article has to be the zoning map amendments to go along with it. I guess the question more is, what do we need to do for the warrant article do we need to list every parcel, or we would just say, you know, between X Street and Y Street on mess at. That's what I'm waiting for clarification from Doug on. And if we have to list every parcel I'm not clear what our consensus is our consensus to include the residential or not conclude the residential. So we include for now, and then based on what we, based on what we input from all the other residents that we can always come, come back right but we can't, we can't expand it. Right. So I agree. Just include for now. Until you know they say no and it was okay. And then we focus on the largest district. We have that discussion we have that discussion. Yeah, correct. Steve are you in agreement with that approach. Yes. Okay. Clear. Yes. For what it's worth. I agree that this needs to be a continuous district. And if there are concerns about allowable residential. We're not going to be able to work out in better defining the district. But the reason we even decided to bring this up and to do it was because we were so concerned about these, you know, patchwork items in our, in our zoning map and our zoning code. And so to, you know, even to talk about this and say, well, what are we going to start to cut out and what are we going to start to keyhole, I feel like we're already sort of undermining ourselves. But there's an opportunity for us to do this as a continuous district in a way that makes sense. Obviously that that is something I would, I think it's probably the best move. Great. Thank you. Appreciate the perspective. Okay. So our next item is industrial district uses. And this one we had a lot of discussion around so I'll just give my feedback on this one. I do not think that we were in agreement at all around which uses. We were not in agreement about restricting self storage use and we were not in agreement about animal daycare specifically, we were, we were in agreement that we needed to look at the uses. And in some cases include less specificity around exclusions in order to, you know, the goal of this entire re-codification of the industrial zoning area was to encourage more creative and broader use cases. And we've done the same thing that we always do here and hemmed ourselves. So if there is a way that we can write this one so that we, it is broad enough that we specifically call out restricting self storage and allow, you know, allowing specifically animal daycare and fast food. There may be other things we decide we want to start allowing we just, we're not in agreement yet on what those are. That's my two cents. So Gina, keep it over to you now. I agree. I think the other thing is just to say we may not be ready to do this one yet. You know, we just may not have enough had enough discussion and may not be ready even when we need the motion for town meeting. So maybe we don't do this one this time at all. What are your thoughts. I'm okay with that. I think there's so much disagreement right now this one. Our energies is best spent on. On the others. Unless people feel like this is important. I think this is this will survive another year. See, I have a Kelly question for Kelly, but I'll ask you for your input. Well, yeah, I, I agree. I think we should. You know, gel more about or come to more of a consensus around the general direction. I'm okay with putting this off for until a later town meeting. So my only question is for Claire and Kelly. This came up because we know that there are certain businesses who are looking to locate in the industrial district and are running into these. Again, this over specification around exclusions in in the area are do you what is your sense from an economic development standpoint on how vital this is for us to tackle this year versus waiting a year. I mean, I would love to have more options. I think rather than fewer, it certainly makes my job in the development coordinators job. Easier but you know they they should be the right uses they should be, you know, I had never even occurred to me that you could co located self storage with something else and then, you know, have those different uses potentially working together. I think we could probably put some more thought into it there's some that I think are kind of no brainers I think a dog daycare makes a lot of sense in an industrial district. But I don't see us, you know, if we put this off for for a year I don't see it causing such havoc or being such a problem that we wouldn't be able to cite someone. I also don't imagine that we're losing out on potential tax revenue for like making this decision right now instead of deciding for a special time meeting in the fall or, you know, right. Sure. Yeah, we don't have a shortage of zoning amendments so. Absolutely certainly do not. Great so are we in consensus that we will strike this from this time meeting. Okay, great. That's enough. And the next is the solar bylaw in industrial districts gene. No, I think you skipped over the. Did I miss one. That's right I absolutely did the industrial district development standards. Yeah, so a few changes I'd suggest. I haven't seen what the concom is doing and I'm not sure design storm criteria is the right way to do this. And for those of you don't know, I used to like, had the state organization for concom so I have some feelings about that. So I'm not sure that's the right way but I would make these suggestions that we say to establish to design storm or other criteria. That must be met or water retention treatment, because that's what it's about so after word met for storm water retention and treatment. And then the word exemption should be exception. Thank you. Okay. Those all sound good to me, can. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Fine by me. Gene. Next is the solar bylaw and industrial districts amendment. That's fine we'll just have to work on the main motion. Yep. Okay. Thumbs up, Steve. Thumbs up. Okay. And the last is ARB jurisdiction over industrial district gene. Good to me. Okay, Kim. Thumbs up, Steve. I just, I have a couple of questions. So, under EDR, we are given jurisdiction over. Any project that has any non residential project with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or more, regardless of which district it's in. I see that, you know, with some of the, some of the parcels in the industrial district, they're small. And I could see where, you know, they put the nature of the parcel poses a redevelopment challenge and the flexibility offered by EDR might be useful. I do have reservations about imposing like a higher, a fairly high standard of review on what could potentially be smaller projects. So as part of this as we create the main motion, that is, I believe in the way that this is worded, what we can identify, much, much like in Steve other districts and for certain uses, you know, there is a threshold for, for EDR. Okay, so it would be giving us like it were we currently have jurisdiction for special permit uses on Mass Ave and Broadway. In the industrial district, it might be special permit, you know, the following special permit uses or special permit uses meeting such and such a criteria. Go ahead, G. I thought what this would do would be if you look at, at where we have jurisdiction. The first one is construction or reconstruction on the site, abutting any of the following. Like Mass Ave, Pleasant Street, Mystic Medford, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that we would just add, and in the industrial districts. So then it would just be like anything else that would have to have some of the other criteria. That's what I was thinking anyhow. But Gene, Steve was referring to something like, like the bike trail right now anything to touch the bike trail. We're reviewing. Should we set some sort of limit threshold that you have to get over before we do, even though it touches stuff, something that I'm just trying to make it, make it easier so it's so not, not easy. I agree. I agree. I agree completely. And I wanted to give all of those, you know, four unit buildings touching the bike trail back to the I should probably add that in is, is a zoning amendment. I definitely want to give those back to a small ZBA to the ZBA they should get those back. industrial for. Like, I'm fine with that. The potential effect. But I think this what this would allow I think what Steve is talking about this, you know the wording of the you on mute Steve. Okay. There's yeah I think there's what I what I would sort of been thinking would would would be would be possible under this wording. I will agree with Gene. All right. So I think that's it. Is there anything else that we need to add to this or anything you'd like to revisit. Let me just show you on the screen real quick we can run through it. I just, I know we talked about potentially putting the footnote in for the thing that the AG's office said no, but it should never have been put in the bylaw in the first place. You know, and I think it just doesn't look right that the AG's office said you can't do this, and we put it in the bylaw, and then put in a footnote that it's here but the AG says you can't do it. I would prefer to keep this footnote in, but to go to town meeting and have it taken out and say the AG's office said we couldn't do it. That's my preference anyhow. Other thoughts on that. I'm on the fence is either way it's it's a no brainer. I mean, who's going to oppose this. It's good. You can't do it because it's the law. But I mean I agree with Gene's point it shouldn't be spelled out if it's incorrect. Just from us. See, just for my clarification, this was the section of the bylaw that the Attorney General rejected because it would have interfered with the or changed the crime altered the criteria for the issuance of a building permit. Correct. This is the article that we have that the redevelopment board opposed that was then passed by Tom meeting and then rejected by the Attorney General. I think we should take remove the I'm I would really favor removing the unenforceable provision. So this would be here at the under building inspector enforcement. To see if the tunnel vote to amend the zoning bylaw to update section 3.1 be building inspector enforcement to to remove to remove a section that the Attorney General rejected. Very specific I like that. Don't get around the bush. He's rejected the right word, I think it is, but whatever the right word. So I think the thing is that they didn't write rejected, you know, sometimes they kind of dance around. Right. They did dance around it. Well, you can't. What that said cannot, what maybe say that the said cannot be enforced with deemed unenforceable by the Attorney General. There we go. I'm not even in the attorney attorney general deemed deemed unenforceable. Any action. So, open space and business districts to modify the requirements for landscape and usable open space. This one just to establish the criteria for such requirements for any use in the business district. So we're going to go back to the requirements and we'll have to add a definition for the principle facade but that's in the main motion. To adjust the upper story building stuff step back to begin at a higher story, we might not do that but that's just leading it in in case that becomes part of it. Specify the applicable facade of the building for which the step back is required. Allow for an exemption. Exception, not exemption right or except no exemption for smaller parcels. Can you make it facade, so by the applicable facade. Yep. Okay. We just reduced to between 25 to 50 feet depending on orientation. And then to add a requirement to amend the requirement for corner lots and all business district. The next one height and story minimums. And then to add a requirement for minimum height and number of stories and all business districts with exceptions. By the way, do we need to do the same thing for the industrial districts just curious. To establish a height minimum in the industrial district. It could be potentially more challenging because we're talking about artists housing with residential is limited to only artists residents or artists housing in the industrial district so if you put us two story minimum. You could potentially, there might be unintended consequences of that. Okay, let's. It's not really something we've discussed. Maybe that's my greater concern. Okay. I'm going to go back to business. I took out the section three, because it's nine. And then this is a review with Doug tomorrow to just make sure we're very clear. And as broad as we can be on this. I want to say between X and Y streets and a and B streets on Massachusetts Avenue. Yeah. Yeah. I think we can also extend. It does extend up and down park. All right, so you don't want to do that then. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So you can a little bit on. Yeah. Right. Okay. Take that out. Okay. Sorry. I'll flip it around here. I'll make sure